Am I under- or overstating what QM/QT "is"?

Darat

Lackey
Staff member
Darat
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
126,178
Location
South East, UK
Am I under- or overstating what QM "is"?

In a recent post I just said this to someone regarding their philosophy and their claim that it involves QM.

Interesting you mention QM; you are aware that QM is a mathematical theory? It is not a theory of words, when you read about QM is someone attempting to translate the mathematics of QM to a English it is not QM. If you have indeed incorporated QM into your philosophy then you would be able to show the mathematics? If it is not in the form of mathematics all you have incorporated are English analogies not QM.

I’ve said similar things in the past and it suddenly dawned on me that it could be me that has got the wrong end of the stick with my declarations of “IT IS MATHEMATICS!”. However as far as I understood QM/QT is a mathematical theory; in other words it’s all about numbers and equations. In just the same way that Newton’s laws are maths. So if I wanted to say “QM supports my theory” what I would need to show how it supports my theory using maths.

Am I right or wrong, or is it some indeterminate mixture of the two possibilities ;) ?
 
Your understating it. QM/QT is about accepting the consequences of the math. The aren't always easy to accept, thus understand...
 
Is it a mathematical theory?

There is a vast body of experimental work supporting the predictions of QM, particularly QED.

The electronics industry might be seen as a vindication of QM.

The genetics of kin-selection is also expressible in mathematics. I suspect any quantifiable subject is. Does this mean it's "mathematical" or merely that it can be expressed in mathematical terms?

I think you may be putting the cart before the horse.

I agree though, that when someone claims QM support for any notion, whether rational or irrational, I am more tolerant of their claims if they show some understanding of QM.

Too many folk use it as an uncheckable get out; as in pre internet days, British liars would say proof of their claim was available in America. Nobody says that now, because it's too easy to challenge.
 
It is a physical theory with an exact mathematical representation. It is not just "math", but you are right to ask for the mathematical expression of any claim that QM supports a "philosophy". Lacking a rigourous mathematical underpinning, such talk is merely idle speculation about possible similarities to QM behaviour. If it does have a QM basis, then show the math...
 
Darat said:

I’ve said similar things in the past and it suddenly dawned on me that it could be me that has got the wrong end of the stick with my declarations of “IT IS MATHEMATICS!”. However as far as I understood QM/QT is a mathematical theory; in other words it’s all about numbers and equations. In just the same way that Newton’s laws are maths. So if I wanted to say “QM supports my theory” what I would need to show how it supports my theory using maths.
Click to expand...

Interesting spin on an old question.

At one level, you (as you yourself recognize) incorrect in your statement that QM is mathematics. It's not mathematics, it's physics; the theories of QM make very specific testable predictions that can be confirmed (or disconfirmed, except that hasn't yet happened) in the real, physical, world.

The question is one of expressiveness, really. The predictions of QM are extremely precise, and the only language we have capable of that level of precision is mathematical. If you're not working with the mathematics, then you're not "really" working with QM, but with an approximation of QM -- and the predictions your approximation supports are probably not all correct.

Another way of putting it : a description of QM in words is no more accurate than is a recipe for cookies ("biscuits," to the British) that says "take some flour, butter, and sugar; mix them; put them in a hot place for a while." How much flour? How hot? How long a while? Recipes use numbers for the same reason QM uses equations -- to add precision. Yes, you can get good cookies using the "recipe" above, but you can also follow the recipe exactly and end up with something inedible.

If you follow the real recipe, you'll probably get something pretty tasty. If you follow the inexact, word-based, fake recipe, it's anyone's guess what you'll end up with. It's very similar for QM.
 
I always say "Show me the math." Then we can move on to another subject, since they ain't gonna show me no math.

~~ Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
I always say "Show me the math." Then we can move on to another subject, since they ain't gonna show me no math.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

*Imagines Paul typing on his computer, shouting it repeatedly in a Jerry McGuire impresson.*
 
Maybe this is a stupid comment... but I always thought that things like QM and String Theory, etc., started out as concepts, often verbally discussed with other scientists personally trusted as "sounding boards". Then there is an attempt to see if the ideas can be mathematically modeled... then, if this is successful, the model is tested for consistency and accuracy in multiple ways. (Including whether the predictions of the model can be observed - or not.)

I realize this is a simplistic view of the process, but is it basically sound? Or does the math come first?
 
I suspect it's a chicken and egg question. *

No new theory has no existing foundation.

No 21st century physicist or mathematician starts fresh.

* Before someone points this out, eggs predate chickens by at least 100 million years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom