Quantum Catastrophe: Pseudoscience in the Popular Media

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by CptBork, Jun 8, 2008.

  1. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    Growing up as a child, I was always under the impression that scientists were seen as freaks of nature by the collective majority. Their ideas were nerdy and useless (after all, you don't need scientists to make your TV work, that's what magic's for!), they were socially inept and hazardous around the opposite sex, and in general they were arrogant, closed-minded and completely out of touch with the real world. Oh yeah, and they were ugly.

    Thus, in the recent past few years, I have been left in a state of shock and disbelief to see that one of the nerdiest, most out-of-touch theories we have, Quantum Physics, has become the toast of the general public, enjoying the same esteemed status as Gucci purses and Rolex watches. How delightful it was indeed to see the world finally appreciating both the genius and the indispensability of such a beautiful theory! But it was to my utter dismay when I noticed, upon closer inspection, that it seemed as if scientists and popular public figures were talking about two completely different theories!

    The one theory, presented by scientists, talks about a statistical interpretation of reality. Uncertainty of position and momentum reigns supreme at the quantum level, and a myriad of equally valid possibilities exist in the future, with probabilities being the only way we have to differentiate between them. The other theory, presented by such expert scientific stalwarts as Oprah Winfrey and Deepak Chopra, talks about how our minds are consciously connected with the entire universe, and how every far-fetched fantasy we've ever had since childhood is in fact perfectly valid and true, and can be readily obtained if only you just shell out enough dough for the right self-help books.

    It would be entirely laughable hearing so many of my layman friends share the latter misguided, uninformed, ignorant view of the quantum world, if it weren't so widespread as to be more widely believed than the former. They even dare to have heated debates with me on the subject, regardless of the fact they've never even heard of a Stern-Gerlach device. Not only do they disregard any arguments I make supporting the mainstream scientific view, including both the fundamental mathematics and experimentation, but they tell me I'm pompous and closed-minded for not accepting their factless retorts at face value.

    I find it all over the place these days- I have a close friend who's a recovering drug addict, and populist quantum nonsense was liberally sprinkled throughout her recovery regimen. Multitudes of religious figures from virtually all the major world religions are using "quantum physics" to justify whatever it was they were preaching before they even heard of the theory. Movies and books abound making millions of dollars preaching the everyday miracles quantum physics could supposedly bring us (aside from the much-neglected yet painfully obvious technological benefits), as if it were the snake oil of the 21st century.

    I'm not interested in making this a thread about arguing the merits of one view or the other- in this forum, the answer is plainly obvious and not worthy of debate by anyone who has a proper background in the subject (including, at minimum, the ability to solve Schrodinger's equation). I am rather interested in hearing from other physicists and physicists in training on their experiences with this phenomenon, and how they personally deal with it when it rears its ugly head.

    I'd also like to point out, in order of actual ranking, the results of an amazon.com search I recently performed under the title "quantum", as this may appall a great number of you, and was the original inspiration for this post:

    1. "Quantum Wellness: A Practical and Spiritual Guide to Health and Happiness" by Kathy Freston
    2. "Quantum: A Guide for the Perplexed" by Jim Al-Khalili
    3. "The Quantum World: Quantum Physics for Everyone" by Kenneth W. Ford and Diane Goldstein
    4. "Quantum Physics: A Beginner's Guide" by Alastair I. M. Rae
    5. "Perfect Weight" by Kathy Freston
    6. "Quantum Success: The Astounding Science of Wealth and Happiness" by Sandra Anne Taylor
    7. "5 Steps to a Quantum Life: How to Use the Astounding Secrets of Quantum Physics to Create the Life You Want" by Natalie Reid
    8. "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (2nd Edition)" by David J. Griffiths
    9. "What the Bleep!? - Down the Rabbit Hole (QUANTUM Three-Disc Special Edition)" by Marlee Matlin, Elaine Hendrix, John Ross Bowie, and Robert Bailey Jr.
    10. "Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness" by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner
    11. "Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics" by Nick Herbert
    12. "Quantum Leap - The Complete First Season" by Chris Ruppenthal, John Cullum, Paul Brown (III), and Bob Hulme

    The next few entries are products with the name "Quantum" attached to them, which I think is harmless since it's just trying to convey the idea that these products contain advanced technology (ok, not necessarily harmless, but not misinforming). There's also some more DVD sets from a show called "Quantum Leap", as in entry 12. Then next comes this doozy:

    18. "Quantum Astrology: Science, Spirit and Our Place in the Cycles of History" by Rick Levine

    I personally think all the original fathers of Quantum Mechanics, to a man (including David Bohm), would be horrified by the abundance of blatantly pseudoscientific topics in the list above. How would you like it if you had a physics theory built on sound evidence and experimentation, talking about nothing nearly so complicated as a human cell let alone a mind, and soon after found it being used to treat people for drug rehab on the one hand and to justify LSD tripping on the other? How would you feel if you found out this cancerous mutation of your theory is raking in millions of dollars, perhaps soon billions, every single year? They say the internet heralds a new era of mass information and education, yet I think it's clear in some areas, such as this one, it is instead heralding an era of assinine delusionment. What say you? Should we keep trying to fight the tide, or should we just join in and start raking in the millions off these innocent fools?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    The nerdy scientist is a myth. Even Einstein had some social abilities. His nerdiness is a bit exaggerated.

    For example: Neils Bohr is considered one of the giants of 20th century physics and is usually put in the same class as Einstein.

    He was about six feet tall (maybe a bit taller), handsome, popular, and athletic. His wife & children adored him. I think he had a mistress or two. He was certainly considered handsome and charming by most females. He was close to being a world class skier & soccer player. I think he was excellent at tennis & ping pong (not sure of this). He was known to have excellent reflexes. He was popular at Alpine apres ski socializing far from Copenhagen where he lived & ran an institute for physics.

    I am sure that there are other examples like Bohr, although probably none as exceptional.

    The dumb jock is another myth. Due to our current culture, many great athletes are allowed to avoid being educated, which might make them seem dumb rather than ignorant. Actually, most good athletes are smarter than the average person. There is a corelation between a good central nervous system, a good brain, and athletic ability. Better than average hand to eye coordination requires a pretty good brain.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    I think my rant was a bit too long-winded, because my general complaint wasn't really about the stereotypes at all, I'm mostly just concerned with the new-age invasion of such a well-established scientific theory. I respect the "jocks" for what they do, and I'm sure if they decided to be scientists instead and put their heads down, most of them would have no trouble at all. Keep playing sports, staying in top shape and keeping everyone entertained guys, we need it! And it doesn't hurt that these are mostly good folks who also form the vanguard of our society's police and armed forces.

    My rant is with regards to the fact that as the general public finally starts to appreciate the beauty of modern science, they are being led completely astray and convinced to believe in tales more fantastic than Peter Pan. It's embarassing that most people actually believe this is what we study, though I guess the general public doesn't seem think it should be so embarassing like I do.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,257
  8. KALSTER Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    123
    The same thing has been going on for some time in other disciplines as well; Young Earth Creationism being one of the most exasperating. I’d say, if you think about it, that one of the problems is the absence of effective popularizing of science in modern society across all demographics and age groups. It happens almost more often than not that the first time a layman comes into contact with an established theory it is when proper scientists have to either publically defend themselves from attacks by pseudoscientists with various motives or quench wildfires spread by an overzealous media. But when the science starts to get complicated and counterintuitive there is little or no chance of convincing or teaching the willfully ignorant. Will it get worse before it gets better?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. fadingCaptain are you a robot? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,762
    The idea that consciousness creates and controls our reality is a bogus interpretation of quantum physics. I first saw this put forth in "What the bleep" and now it is all over, including the "The secret". Wherever there is ignorance, there will be someone there to exploit it. And the only way to fight ignorance is with education.
     
  10. shalayka Cows are special too. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    201
    OK, you have obviously not read this book. If you had, it wouldn't be on your s*** list.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    I think you have made some very valid points, and i like the tone of your post, but i only agree partly. Here, where you said,

    ''I personally think all the original fathers of Quantum Mechanics, to a man (including David Bohm), would be horrified by the abundance of blatantly pseudoscientific topics in the list above.''

    Is complete neglect of what we actually reflect on from quantum mechanics. We often generalize the words ''quantum mechanics,'' and to most non-scientists, and even sceintists, that it is a whole subject.

    We firstly, do not know what quantum mechanics really is all about, and what it is generally saying. Hence the exploration into new sceintific endeavours, like, Ekpyrotic Theory, or even String Theory as a whole.

    If you want to complain about psuedoscience, string theory actually touches on it. String theory is such a bold, and mathematically complex theory, the chances of it originally being right was slim, and it still got all the attention, and even after all that attention, we still haven't really drawn any more ''momentous'' conclusions from the studies. What ever happened to the notion that physics should be kept as simple as possible, but no more?

    Since we do not know what quantum mechanics is all about, from those who have heard of an electron, to those more advanced to A Stern and Gerlach machine, we are fluctuating between advanced, extremea and wierd theories. They are most welcome, in my eyes, if they narrow the paths for the ultimatate grail of science: The Grand Unification Theory.
     
  12. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Quite so Capt. "What the bleep" was the stupidest movie I've ever seen, and a lame excuse for popularizing science.
     
  13. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Well, yes. There is a line drawn.
     
  14. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Isn't your favourite source of physics information, Dr Wolf, a major person in 'What the Bleep' ?
     
  15. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Yes.

    But that does not mean i agree with him on eveything he says. I would say my work is more like the outlook Goswami has on quantum mechanics, with philosophical and quantum mechanical influences by Dr Wolf.

    What of it?
     
  16. temur man of no words Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,330
    It depends on what you mean by "ability to solve", and what particular system your Schrodinger's equation is describing; I don't think it is easy to solve Schrodinger's equation for e.g. methane molecule, without crude approximations.
     
  17. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    Well I don't mean to be snobby and exclusivist about it, what I really mean to get across is that there are too many people writing about quantum physics who couldn't even calculate the time it takes a ball to fall 100 feet. I think there's a limit where we can all agree that someone is totally unqualified to write popular books making assertions about quantum physics. But if anyone disagrees, let's discuss it.
     
  18. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
  19. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    That's why a lot of scientists criticize String Theory as being more about philosophy than actual physics. However, I don't think it can be classified as pseudoscience, since it's not attempting to go against anything we already know, and the math does give a nice unifying picture of QM and GR. I was originally planning to go into theoretical physics and hopefully study String Theory in detail as part of my Master's, but now after more reflection, I'm really glad I ended up going into the experimental end of things so I'll get to help test theories instead.
     
  20. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Well, it does go against common-sense, in a sense. I don't understand string theory, and not many do. Not even most who claim they do. And for those who do understand it, are limited by its contents of having so many different versions... and then there is the superfluous math, as elegant as it may be.

    I don't like it when physicists call string theory a philosophic science. It really doesn;t predict any philosophy at all, never mind predict experimental means. IT AT BEST, i believe, remains as a mathematical discipline, and no more.

    I think you should keep your options open as well. Not only do you have the correct frame of reasoning behind ''scientific methods,'' but i think you would be an excellent physicist in the field. As for string theory, i would never advise it, mainly because it will most probably be dead within the next 10 years, if we don't find experimental means... but perhaps that is what you meant? It's quite a risk...
     
  21. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    What do you mean by understanding? The math is perfectly clear, and that's really what matters most, no understanding of what underlies that math is necessary. The math, and how that math corresponds to physical reality and (hopefully) testable predictions. It can be classified as philosophy on the grounds that it attempts to give a fundamental description of what it is the fundamental building blocks of our universe do and how they interact. I believe it can be called physics on the grounds that it's built on accepted theories of physics, it doesn't (yet) contradict itself and it has the potential to be tested, even if we don't have the energies to do this yet. Would String Theory win in a competition if Occam's razor were applied? Maybe not, yet I haven't heard of any self-consistent alternative theories that describe anywhere near as much stuff in the physical world.

    String theory could die off in the next few years and be relegated to the lowest sub-basements of physics departments around the world, or it could survive and flourish. In my personal opinion, it's but one of many different viable theories, and I'll be helping to put many different theories to the test. My own personal upcoming work will most likely be involved with testing concepts like supersymmetry, trying to detect sparticles, and so on. Also, I have a number of friends in the field who would argue that you're wrong in asserting that String Theory is untestable, they're getting quite excited at the moment actually. This is one of the questions one must ask- which theories should we develop, and how much time should we spend developing them in the hopes of eventually getting down to something we can test.

    If you're trying to compare String Theory with what's generally classified here as pseudoscience, I think nearly all physicists, whether opponents of String Theory or not, will disagree with you. String Theory doesn't make any fantastic claims about miracles we could observe with our own eyes or predict anything different from how we see the world on a daily basis. It yields quantum mechanics and general relativity as low energy approximations, and unites them to give self-consistent descriptions of physics in the high energy regime. Can any of the theories relegated to the pseudoscience section give the precise equations of quantum physics and general relativity as low energy approximations? I very much doubt it.
     
  22. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Well, i said i touched on it. I never said it delved into it. I did say,afterall, in ultimatum, it was a mathematical discipline at best.
     
  23. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    CptBork: Sorry I was distracted by the Nerdy Scientist mythology, which is one of my pet peeves.

    I generally agree with the views in your initial & subsequent posts to this thread.

    It is bad enough that so many believe in various types of nonsense. It is worse when when the quackpots & snake oil salespersons use scientific sounding double talk to make their crazy ideas sound valid.

    BTW: Have you noticed very subtle variations on your complaint? For example ads with statements similar to the following.
    • Our shampoo (or other product) will cleanse * beautify your hair (maker you thinner, whatever). It {b]. . . . .[/b] and it contains 436,
    The number implies some magical scientific ingredient with special properties.

    Prior to Quantum Theory, it was more difficult to make nonsesne seem to have scientific validity. There were too many people who hadd some undertanding of classical physics, and you could find quotes from experts in Relativity theory who would poo-poo climas rlating to relativity.

    Quantum theory is so counbter intuitive even to the experets that it is difficult to find any quotes refuting bogus claims.
     

Share This Page