Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Science

phantom power

(25,966 posts)

11. Hard for me to believe a scientist would display such a misunderstanding of science.

Reply to Bill USA (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 11:01 AM

Feb 2013

Oh noez, there is no consensus on topics at the frontiers of our undersanding...

wow, really? who knew?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

42 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why quantum mechanics is an “embarrassment” to science [View all] Bill USA Feb 2013 OP

Same as it ever was: MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #1

Actually, it was quantum field theory. longship Feb 2013 #2

I thought it was quantum electro-dynamics. nt Bonobo Feb 2013 #17

QED is a Quantum Field Theory. longship Feb 2013 #18

I favor the "Many Worlds" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics myself. Fantastic Anarchist Feb 2013 #3

So does Murray Gell-Mann, Lionel Mandrake Feb 2013 #19

Check out the Zero Worlds theory: napoleon_in_rags Feb 2013 #28

Thanks, I'll check it out. Fantastic Anarchist Feb 2013 #30

Fuck the Copenhagen Interpretation mindwalker_i Feb 2013 #4

to be fair to Einstein Great Cthulhu Feb 2013 #6

From the article I linked mindwalker_i Feb 2013 #7

Delayed choice tama Feb 2013 #9

Agreed. The wave-function isn't the system itself. DetlefK Feb 2013 #10

You are mistaken. Lionel Mandrake Feb 2013 #20

That's what a lot of people think mindwalker_i Feb 2013 #21

Okay, let me rephrase that. Lionel Mandrake Feb 2013 #22

Ok, that's better :) mindwalker_i Feb 2013 #23

"Einstein didn't buy quantum mechanics, and he was wrong." Lionel Mandrake Feb 2013 #24

That seems like a very conservative view mindwalker_i Feb 2013 #25

That seems like a very conservative view GDNordley Jun 2014 #39

Sir! Welcome to DU mindwalker_i Jun 2014 #40

There's some remarkable stuff sleeping behind the "no information sent faster than light" business. napoleon_in_rags Feb 2013 #29

Now that's interesting mindwalker_i Feb 2013 #31

Go for it! And post on DU. napoleon_in_rags Feb 2013 #32

Dr. Cramer addressed the no-information theorems mindwalker_i Feb 2013 #33

Are you talking about John G Cramer? napoleon_in_rags Feb 2013 #34

Yup, that's him mindwalker_i Feb 2013 #35

UW is doing some amazing work. napoleon_in_rags Feb 2013 #36

Thanks for the link! mindwalker_i Feb 2013 #38

Saying that science is "embarrassed" by not having a consensus on QM stopbush Feb 2013 #5

Exactly TM99 Feb 2013 #8

Hard for me to believe a scientist would display such a misunderstanding of science. phantom power Feb 2013 #11

and another thing phantom power Feb 2013 #12

Message auto-removed Great Cthulhu Feb 2013 #13

I feel totally sure it can all be properly modeled as a quantum graph automata phantom power Feb 2013 #14

That is a damn good point. Cosmologists with their constants that they have to dimbear Feb 2013 #15

I have really enjoyed reading everyone's comments to OP - All were very interesting. (but that's Bill USA Feb 2013 #16

This message was self-deleted by its author Duppers Jun 2014 #41

Let's face it, technical people are uncomfortable with uncertainty. eom. leveymg Feb 2013 #26

Can you imagine a teapartier reading this thread? pangaia Feb 2013 #27

Yeah, yeah. Another fluffy interview with an important scientist... DreamGypsy Feb 2013 #37

Great post! Duppers Jun 2014 #42