Junk Science Alert!

The Chronicle of Higher Education ^ | 1/31/03 | ROBERT L. PARK

[Physicist]

Well, what in the heck are all these QM nonlocal experiments claiming? Please explain it to me.

It's a correlation. Correlation is not causality.

QM predicts the correlation without postulating any sort of signal from one measurement event to another. That shows you that, mathematically, there need not be any causal influence from one to the other.

But that being said, the long-range correlations are an observed experimental fact. It's up to you whether you want to reject QM on the grounds that it predicts long-range correlations. But please be aware that any correct theory must also (quantitatively) make the same prediction, because the correlations really are there in nature.

[chilepepper]

If one follows this recipe, then GALILEO's idea of a heliocentric solar system would not be accepted.

The problem is that the American Academy of Science and most scientific organizations would follow the established 'party-line'.

Most revolutionary breakthroughs in science must cut through this inertia, a difficult and grueling undertaking...

[RightWhale]

There is something that can be transmitted faster than light. I think it is called phase state, but I will see if I can find the article.

[kidd]

Let's try this on Global Warming:

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media - yes, frequently

2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work - yes, often "big oil" is blamed

3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection - yes, we've been told it'll be 30 years before we can determine if the oceans are rising or not, plus other examples

4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal - yes, "sure was a hot day yesterday...must be global warming"

5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries - no.

6. The discoverer has worked in isolation - no.

7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation - yes

Global warming gets 5 out of 7. Sounds like junk science to me.

[Elric@Melnibone]

One notorious example is the claim made in 1989 by two chemists from the University of Utah, B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, that they had discovered cold fusion

He needs a better example...although it got lost in all the initial furor about the Pons/Fleishmann experiment, there has been quite a bit of further work on this subject in the past decade or so (or so I read in a variety of magazines).

Although there is still debate about whether this is fusion or not, there have been quite a few, repeatable, experiments which result in more energy coming out of the experiment than was put in.

Might be a chemical reaction of some kind, might be something else. But, clearly, something is happening.

[js1138]

Similar things happen with entangles states in QM. It's more complicated as the measurements are not as simply described as looking at a card.

The measurments are statistical, which prevents information transfer. At least that's what's being claimed.

[Physicist]

For example, one might put either the Spade Ace or Heart Queen in a sealed mayonaise jar and place it on the steps of Funk and Wagnalls; the other card would be placed in sealed envelope and given to Price Waterhouse to place in a NASA launched space probe. If the mayonaise is later opened and has the Ace, one can be sure the probe has the Queen. One knows something about things far away, but there has been no information transmission.

Actually, the ace and queen would be examples of local hidden variables. We would expect such correlations to respect Bell's Inequality, whereas quantum correlations do not. There really is no classical analog.

I wrote a layman's explanation of what Bell's Inequality is, and why its violation is so puzzling, but it's not as clear as I would like it to be.

[mikegi]

Point one pretty much contradicts point two. QM was accepted in a matter of years, despite it's weirdness.

That's totally revisionist history. QM definitely wasn't accepted quickly.

As for point four, classic quackery.

I was agreeing with the original post. Claims of car companies buying up inventions to suppress them is a sign of quackery.

[Physicist]

QM definitely wasn't accepted quickly.

It certainly was. It was developed almost entirely between 1925 and 1927. In 1929, de Broglie was awarded the Nobel Prize. In 1932, Heisenberg received it. In 1933, Schrödinger and Dirac received it. By that time, only Einstein and a handful of others had a problem with it.

[longshadow]

6. The discoverer has worked in isolation. The image of a lone genius who struggles in secrecy in an attic laboratory and ends up making a revolutionary breakthrough is a staple of Hollywood's science-fiction films, but it is hard to find examples in real life. [emphasis added]

Hmmmmm, I seem to remember somebody talking about laboring in isolation in their attic la-BOR-atory, with his mascot, "Plato" the Platy, on an anti-gravity machine.........

[Diddley]

If you want a hard and fast rule to determine whether a new theory is junk science or not, see if that theory requires or predicts instantaneous-action-at-a-distance (IAAAD). If it does, then the theory is completely junk science. QM predicts IAAAD . . .

I’m not sure where to look for a resource on this. Could you point me to some reference on it?
Thanks

[TXnMA]

Absolutely magnificent parallels!

Good FReepin' job!!!

[Right Wing Professor]

Ask a QM proponent about the size and shape of a "photon"

So, Mike, what color is an electron?

[aruanan]

and would violate the most fundamental laws of nature.

As opposed to the least fundamental laws? Of course, the scientists of his day said the same of Edison when he claimed he would build a generator that was more than 90% efficient. They claimed that an efficiency greater than 50% was a violation of the laws of nature.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I would completely disagree with you on this one.

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media - Climate change data has been published in the scientific literature for decades. Only a small amount of this goes to the media. Score 1/2. Running score 1/2.

2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work - No, the GW people only claim that they're being ignored, mostly by the Republicans. Score 0. Running score 1/2.

3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection - No. The effects are large increases in average temperature. Score 0. Running score 1/2.

4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal -No. Temperature measurements (and range of polar bear migrations) and such are given as evidence. (In fact, most protests against GW are anecdotal.) Score 0. Running score 1/2.

5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries - no. However the claim has been around since the 1870s. Score 0. Running score 1/2.

6. The discoverer has worked in isolation - no. Score 0. Running score 1/2.

7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation - no. GW makes no claim of new laws. The physics are well understood. Score 0. Running score 1/2.

Total score 1/2 due to media attention. GW is certainly not junk science. It may or may not be correct and the effects may or may not be as often claimed, but it cannot be dismissed as junk science.

Failure to address GW scientifically has put the conservatives at a disadvantage. For example, the Koyoto treaty did nothing to alleviate GW and its consequences. Conservatives were handicapped by not having a credible scientific response and thus had to make economic arguments.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Exactly. QM agrees with experiment. Local hidden variables don't. It's the job of the mathematician (or a physicist wearing his mathematics hat) to develop the proper formalism.

[Sloth]

This thread inspired me to reproduce a perpetual motion machine I invented when I was in 6th grade:

---

---

Think I can get some investors? :)

[longshadow]

It's the job of the mathematician (or a physicist wearing his mathematics hat) to develop the proper formalism.[emphasis added]

Finally, the truth comes out as to who does the heavy lifting.

;-)

[longshadow]

Think I can get some investors? :)

Not as long as your diagram shows "N" repelling "S" and "S" attracting "S"..........

;-)

[js1138]

Failure to address GW scientifically has put the conservatives at a disadvantage.

True. It has always seemed politically counterproductive to argue reflexively against environmentalism. Attacks against environmental wacos should be sound and based on science. There have been politicians in recent memory who argued environmentalism wasn't necessary because end times were near. Sheesh. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.