Thursday, August 31, 2017

An anti-quantum crackpot article in Quanta Magazine

The Quanta Magazine hasn't been hijacked by anti-quantum zealots for some time but this hiatus was compensated yesterday when
Quantum Theory Rebuilt From Simple Physical Principles
written by Philip Ball was released. Well, yes, even though crackpots generally find this simple point hard to understand, quantum theory is built on simple physical principles – they are known as the universal postulates of quantum mechanics.




It goes on:
Scientists have been using quantum theory for almost a century now, but embarrassingly they still don’t know what it means. An informal poll taken at a 2011 conference on Quantum Physics and the Nature of Reality showed that there’s still no consensus...
Scientists who are up to their job have known what quantum mechanics means since 1925 or 1926. The fact that there's no "consensus" doesn't imply that scientists don't know what quantum mechanics means. The non-existence of consensus follows from the fact that the stupid people have been asked what they think about a theory that dramatically surpasses their intellectual abilities. How could they agree? They can't agree because they can't understand because they are stupid.

Science has nothing to do with "consensus".




Also:
Some physicists just shrug and say we have to live with the fact that quantum mechanics is weird. So particles can be in two places at once, or communicate instantaneously over vast distances?
Quantum mechanics is not weird. Particles can never be at two places at once – two positions are mutually exclusive (the position eigenstates are orthogonal which follows from the Hermiticity of the position operator), and physical systems never interact instantaneously over vast distances which follows from the relativistic causality and locality. So every single statement above is just wrong.
But some researchers want to dig deeper.
On the contrary, they want to dig shallower. Their skulls only contain feces and they would love to transform physics to their image so that it would be also composed of nothing else than feces. But that's not possible. Physics has actually gotten deeper in 1925 and the previous, shallower, classical framework of physics was ruled out. The falsification of hypotheses is irreversible so the shallower picture can never return. Get used to it, idiots.
"I think it might help us move towards a theory of quantum gravity," said Lucien Hardy...
One can only find something about quantum gravity if he studies quantum gravity. Lucien Hardy has never really done any such research which is a simple reason why he hasn't ever found anything interesting about quantum gravity. He's just talking about nonsense. Quantum mechanics can obviously be done in non-gravitating systems – with no references to gravity – so thinking about its general foundations can't be enough to learn something about quantum gravity.
The Flimsy Foundations of Quantum Mechanics
Right. You haven't said how much you hate quantum mechanics for several seconds so here we go again.
...driver who, lost in rural Ireland, asks a passer-by how to get to Dublin. “I wouldn’t start from here,” comes the reply.
Not very funny and not relevant at all.
"I think quantum theory as we know it will not stand" – A crackpot
Again, you haven't written how much you, crackpots, hate quantum mechanics, for two seconds. So here we go again.
But this so-called rule for calculating probabilities was really just an intuitive guess by the German physicist Max Born. So was Schrödinger’s equation itself.
Oh, really? It's interesting that both men have earned a Nobel prize in physics for these "just tiny intuitive pieces of junk" and they're really among the most important Nobel prize discoveries ever. These are among the most fundamental and most reliable and accurate discoveries of science ever – it's your brain that is a pile of feces instead.
Neither was supported by rigorous derivation.
You can't really ever "derive" the deepest axioms from something deeper. If something deeper existed, they wouldn't be the deepest axioms.
Quantum mechanics seems largely built of arbitrary rules like this, some of them — such as the mathematical properties of operators that correspond to observable properties of the system — rather arcane.
Again, the axioms of quantum mechanics look arbitrary and arcane to you because you're a bunch of stupid animals.
It’s a complex framework, but it’s also an ad hoc patchwork, lacking any obvious physical interpretation or justification.
You have only written 87 hostile lies against modern physics so far, way too little, right?
Compare this with the ground rules, or axioms, of Einstein’s theory of special relativity, ...
If you're not an idiot and you compare them, you will conclude that the axioms of quantum mechanics are deeper, more revolutionary, and more universally valid than those of relativity.
“Quantum theory can be seen as a generalized probability theory, an abstract thing that can be studied detached from its application to physics,” Chiribella said.
What a novel discovery. Why didn't you learn these basic facts from any textbook published around 1930?
“We can look for probabilistic theories that are similar to quantum theory but differ in specific aspects,” said...
You can look but you won't ever find anything interesting – just like you and similar anti-quantum zealots haven't found anything interesting in the previous 90 years.
In this view, the world isn’t bound by rules — or at least, not by quantum rules.
There are no laws of Nature and everyone is high, everyone is a hippie. Sure.

It's just amazing how this anti-scientific garbage is being pumped into the readers all the time. A lie that is repeated 100 times becomes the truth according to these šitty people. The repetitiveness of this text is just incredible. The quote about "a lie repeated 100 times" looks like a hyperbole but in this article, it seems like an accurate estimate. The statement that the writer hates quantum mechanics is really repeated about 100 times.

No comments:

Post a Comment