h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>"In his book he instructs his own followers to abandon any long-held beliefs which are demonstrated by science, including QM, to be false. Who else would go that far?"

Many people would. Of course, some may interpret 'demonstrated by science to be false' rather more narrowly and conservatively than others. Some chuck a whole idea, some just shift it to keep it from actual conflict, or vagueify or redefine it to pretend there never really was a conflict as such.

Lucky, it's interesting you have time to keep banging on about the mystical aspects of quantum mechanics, but don't have the time to actually read a couple paragraphs describing what quantum mechanics actually is.

I find that to be mystical and spooky.

Potholer, I think that the mystical aspect of QM is exactly what makes it so fascinating. I sincerely hope I'm not "banging on" as you put it. Like Richard Feynman it's all a mystery to me. I've got some books on QM, believe it or not, but I don't pretend to understand them. In fact I've put them in my 2nd hand box for the local charity effort.

I'm not in any way religious by the way. I'm in the dark like the rest of humanity.

Arnie, I meant.

"you don't...read what quantum mechanics actually is"

The book I've rooted out to check the validity of the Dalai Lama's ideas is The Cosmic Code - Quantum Physics as the Language of Nature by Heinz R. Pagels a Professor of Theoretical Physics at Rockefller University and Chief Executive Officer of the New York Academy of Sciences. It's a 1986 reprint so probably not bang up to date but will suffice. I will highlight a few points.

Quarks, leptons and gluons are quantum objects and are at the 'rock bottom' of the material world - everything we know of can be made out of them.

Subatomic particles do not obey the laws of classical physics like tennis balls. The obey wierd laws of motion given by quantum theory. They are all crazy in the same way.

There isn't anything to material reality except the transformation and organization of field quanta - that is all there is.

The intensity of the electromafnetic field at a point in space gives us the odds for finding a photon there.

God rolls the dice everytime a quantum interaction takes place.

To sum up:
The essential material reality is a set of fields.
The fields obey principles of special relativity and quantum theory.
The intensity of a field at a particular point gives the probability for finding its quanta.
The fields interact.
There isn't anything else.

And so I come back to my starting point. Whatever way you care to dress it up in the final analysis the Dalai Lama and the QM scientists are saying basically the same thing.

>>"I think that the mystical aspect of QM is exactly what makes it so fascinating."

What mystical aspect?
There are rigidly defined areas of uncertainty, and other areas where probability rules (what will particle X decay into, when will nucleus Y undergo spontaneous fission, etc).

Any *mysticism* is an emotional human import, which as ever is skulking in the shadows of ignorance, though in this case, pretty mathematically definable ignorance.

>>"...
The fields interact.
There isn't anything else."

At that level of analysis, there isn't anything else, but it would be a ****ing dull universe if there weren't anything more interesting emergent at higher levels of interaction.
At the more interesting higher levels of analysis of reality, the fine details of QM are relatively unimportant much of the time, and it really doesn't make sense to talk about there being nothing but fields, the same way it would be daft to go to listen to a symphony and come away saying "It was rubbish - just loads of air molecules banging around!".
It would be entirely missing the point of having various levels of detail at which to consider reality. That is, it would be missing the point of science.

Additionally, the 'fields' idea does run the risk of being interpreted as if the universe is in such a state of perpetual seething flux that it's a wonder anything could stay stable for a millisecond.
In practice of course, fields or no, much of reality seems remarkably stable over unimaginably long timescales. Atoms may just be made of fields, but they also do a pretty good job of looking like indestructible solid entities.

Potholer:
"What mystical aspect?"
Well, I find it a fascinating idea that you can create a whole universe out of a vacuum for instance. That's quite mystical until you dig into it and discover that the top professors say, "Yeah, that's probably how it all happened."
It's an even better trick than producing a rabbit out of a hat. Maybe 'mystical' isn't quite the right word. 'Magical' would be better.

"an emotional human import"
but as I understand it, having now refreshed up on QM a little, we are nothing but a bunch of quarks and leptons and any 'emotional human import' can therefore only be an electro-magnetic reaction in a field.

"atoms"
I think I just read that everything will degenerate over 10²' years or so.

As I understand it there was a vacuum which got to thinking I want to be. Leptons and quarks became nucleii and then atoms and so here we are, or more correctly are not - since there is nothing.

I do like orchestra concerts by the way and all that air being blown and vibrated does make a lovely sound. In fact I go to see the Vienna Philharmonic quite often and have been privileged to see them conducted by such greats as Sir Simon Rattle and Ricardo Muti.

Obviously there is more to life than quarks and leptons and gluons but since this is the SEx page I thought I could explore the loose connection between Zen Buddhism and Quantum Mechanics.
Because everything is going to take 10²' years to destroy itself I see that I'm going to be around for a long time to come. It's therefore beneficial to get my thoughts and ideas in order if only to know what I'm likely to encounter or how I will manifest myself after my so-called death.

hmmm, firstly the big bang did not come from a vacuum. A vacuum needs space/time in order for there to be nothing in that space. Before the big bang there was no space time, so no vacuum. Equally, I'm not aware of any theory which posits a self aware vacuum as a possibility.

Secondly, "The fields obey principles of special relativity and quantum theory." - as I understand it they can't do both. Arnie (or potholer!) may well correct me here but my understanding is that QM is not compatible with SR so it can't obey both. Remember QM and SR are models and neither is totally 'accurate' in all situations.

>>"but as I understand it, having now refreshed up on QM a little, we are nothing but a bunch of quarks and leptons and any 'emotional human import' can therefore only be an electro-magnetic reaction in a field."

Whether deliberately or not, you're continually missing the point about useful levels of detail to analyse things on if you want to take a scientific approach.
A human emotional reaction is a human emotional reaction. Saying it's *only* an EM phenomenon actually discards all the things that make it remotely interesting.
If you're interested in thinking about emotions, QM is a dumb level of analysis to use, *unless* you have some personal mystical axe to grind that has nothing to do with science, and you think your agenda can be pursued by conjuring some mysticism out of randomness.

>>"Obviously there is more to life than quarks and leptons and gluons but since this is the SEx page I thought I could explore the loose connection between Zen Buddhism and Quantum Mechanics."

You're not exploring anything. One is vaguely defined enough to allow you to state some kind of connection to the other, but that's about it.

Ictoan, I'm only quoting the expert in my post 65, and it's all only educated speculation since we can't go back beyond 1/1,000,000 sec. after the BIG Bang.
Re "Secondly" - that's a direct quote from same source.

I assumed since the guy was a professor of theoretical physics at a respect University he knew what he was talking about. I'll stick with him. Only because he bears out all my "theories"!

Everybody to his own "expert", eh?

Potholer,
So what are we then? My "expert" proves with maths that I don't pretend to understand that it's all just energy fields. Well that'll do me. I'm quite happy with that. I'll let the professor do the calculations since he's the expert and I'll take his conclusions at face value. That's what we pay these guys for isn't it? So we don't have to get bogged down in the detail ourselves.
In the real world I can accept that a rocket engine works but I don't need to know about the coolant system, the propellant and such details.

"You're not exploring..."
Come off it, Potholer! I'm just like you are when you go down a new cave to explore it. I have a map but I might come across an unexpected side turning.

The maths *is* the quantum mechanics. What is communicated to you in English is an impoverished, superficial description oweing as much to the nature of the language as to the nature of reality.

"I assumed since the guy was a professor of theoretical physics at a respect University he knew what he was talking about."
Ah, argument from authority. Nope, doesn't hold water.
I'm sure you've heard the old adage about 'assume' ?
If he said quarks wear party hats and race around on harleys would you believe him?

Fact is there was nothing before the big bang, there couldn't be at least not as we would know it. Some theories do go before the big bang (although that is an incorrect term too since time did not exist) but they're on the outer fringes and unlikely to be proven anytime soon.

I shall have to get a copy fo the book, but if he really doe say this then it's a fairly major mistake for someone who had his knowledge to make. Or maybe he just used the words in a way you have misunderstood.

But hey, I can play the quotes game to:
"There was emptiness more profound than the void between the stars, for which there was no here and there and before and after, and yet out of that void the entire plenum of existence sprang forth. "
Heinz R. Pagels

So no vacuums there then, intelligent or otherwise.

As for QM and SR maybe he was just simplifying things, but in SR time is a dimension (4 dimensional space, spacetime continuum and so forth) but in QM it is not. So fundamentally they both describe time as two different things. Hence the incompatibility. (still waiting for someone in the know to comment here one way or the other).

Again, Pagel may just have been simplifying for the audience since the difference is in the equations and they are rather complicated for most of us!

>>"So what are we then? My "expert" proves with maths that I don't pretend to understand that it's all just energy fields."

We're *people*. If you think there's something special about people, you won't find any insight into that something in a quantum physics book, just as if you think there's something special about a cathedral, you won't find it in a block of limestone or a trowelful of mortar.

>>"That's what we pay these guys for isn't it? So we don't have to get bogged down in the detail ourselves."

Your expert only suggests that at one level of reality, one explanation may be the most meaningful. That's it.
When looking at the quantum level, the concept of 'humanity' is entirely meaningless. It's not a property of anything at that scale, not even in a fractional sense. A water molecule in my brain is no more human than one in my tapwater or one in my urine.

>>"In the real world I can accept that a rocket engine works but I don't need to know about the coolant system, the propellant and such details."

*That* it works is evident from observation. If one is no more interested than that, one isn't really being scientific.
If one wants to understand *more* about the rocket, one would indeed study the various subsystems, the physics and chemistry underlying them, etc, but one would also have to realise that one isn't really talking about a rocket any more. Possibly one is analysing a rocket motor, then a turbopump or combustion chamber, then the nature of combustion, etc, and at that point, there isn't any 'rocketness' there, since rocket 'or even 'part of rocket' is a meaningful concept only at certain scales of complexity.
One may be learning deeper and more general things for the sake of knowing how a rocket works, but that's only a motivation. If one was trying to understand how to make a better incinerator, one might end up studying the same small processes, but one wouldn't just look up from one's chemistry and say 'Hang on! Where did that bit of rocketness come from?."

The whole "maybe reality is just an illusion?" crowd may think they're doing science, but really it's just philosophy lacking either the insight or the confidence to admit the fact.

Ictoan,it's general relativity and quantum mechanics that haven't been reconciled.


Lucky, you're expert is probably an expert, but the book you're reading is ***21*** years out of date. THis isn't philosophy, this is science, and things have progressed *extremely* far in those intervening 21 years. 21 years is a *HUGE* amount of time scientifically.

The model your expert describes, the Standard Model, is almost certainly wrong. They've already discovered problems with it. It does predict a lot of things correctly, but there are problems. It's not the final answer (not that there ever is in science).

Pagels isn't saying that the universe definitely came out of a vacuum. It's just his pet theory. He agrees with the opinion of his colleagues up to the point immediately following the Big Bang. And then he extrapolates backwards using the "rules of physics as we know them".
I've not heard a better theory to fit the facts of how you can get something (or more correctly - nothing) from nothing, if before the Big Bang there was nothing - as he suggests. But if anybody has a better theory of what was before everything I would like to know it.

Quarks wear party hats? Well I reckon a bloke who writes a 324 page book about quantum physics must have some knowledge of the subject - if only to fill the pages. If there was any reference to "party hats" I missed it although I did read something in it about Tweedledum and Tweedledee. So maybe it's tea-party hats they wear!

Arnie,
Thank you for clarifying the situation. I will try and get a more up to date book. But anyway it feels good to be only 21 years behind the times! Cheers!

see? I knew he'd be along to correct me before too long Cheers arnie.

Ictoan, it was only a minor point.

Lucky, I'm not saying you grasp the level of physics that was cutting edge 21 years ago. I think you've made a complete mess of it.

You really need to sit down and actually try to understand quantum mechanics. It's really quite pointless otherwise. Basically, suffice to say anyone who knows quantum has stated that you've mangled it and have got it wrong. We've tried to explain why. There's nothing more we can do. If you insist on living in your fantasy world, and hijacking the words used to describe quantum mechanics, so be it.

You mean all that stuff about baryons, pyons and mesons as well.
That's a real difficult challenge Arnie! Especially as I'm now being led to believe that there's no such thing as (universal) time.
I reckon I'll start with a read of The Reality Marketplace chapter. It's all about different universes. No wonder Albrecht Dürer's picture of Melancolia is prominently featured!
Cheers again, Arnie! I'm going to pour one out before I make a start.