What do you think ?

[pacha]

Hi people i only joined a little while ago so thought i would start a post. Nice to meet you all.

Just wondered if anyone knew who made this statement,

"I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as fraud"

And whats your opinion.???

[wooo_oops]

Hi Pacha, welcome.

Carl Jung said it.

I don't really have an opinion on that statement... I just think things which can't be explained need more investigation and research.;)

[pacha]

Im an open minded skeptic but it makes me wonder whats going on in this world.
I read an article about the the zero point field which says that we are connected to everything and after seeing that statement it kinda got me thinking and i wanted to get another view from you guy`s.

[bindeweede]

Im an open minded skeptic but it makes me wonder whats going on in this world.
I read an article about the the zero point field which says that we are connected to everything and after seeing that statement it kinda got me thinking and i wanted to get another view from you guy`s.

Hello. Do you have a link to the article? I confess I do not know what the "zero point field" is. Other people here will be better informed.

Ah, right - just did a search. It's that "quantum" word again.........

http://www.metatones.com/?source=Google

Bollocks???????

Total pain in the aura.

A lot of "vibratory" stuff - ?????

But then I came across this...
http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

so I might have made a dreadful misjudgement. I apologise if I have.

[Mongrel]

Quantum means it doesn't affect anything larger than sub molecular masses (hugely simplistic).

"Tapping into the Zero point field for health and maximizing our human potential" - Woo!

You're first impressions were good BW O0

[bindeweede]

Quantum means it doesn't affect anything larger than sub molecular masses (hugely simplistic).

"Tapping into the Zero point field for health and maximizing our human potential" - Woo!

You're first impressions were good BW O0

Oh, "non-existent spirit energy", am I at last beginning to get a little bit right????

[Mongrel]

If they use the "Quantum" word an there's no maths it's a fairly good bet they're speaking bollocks ;)

[bindeweede]

If they use the "Quantum" word an there's no maths it's a fairly good bet they're speaking bollocks ;)
There is a famous quote about anyone who thinks they understand quantum physics, not actually understanding it. ?

Well, all I can say is, I don't understand telephones.:'(

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Time to trot out Jamie Whyte:

It is a rare foray into gobbledygook that does not begin with a tribute to quantum physics.

[Mongrel]

Time to trot out Jamie Whyte:

It is a rare foray into gobbledygook that does not begin with a tribute to quantum physics.

Heh ;D

[Lord Muck oGentry]

There is a famous quote about anyone who thinks they understand quantum physics, not actually understanding it. ?

Well, all I can say is, I don't understand telephones.:'(

Some good stuff here:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr

BTW, what are these telephones of which you speak?

[bindeweede]

Some good stuff here:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr

BTW, what are these telephones of which you speak?

Oh dear. Well, apparently, they are like electricalish message-pigeons, but, sorry mate, I just don't think you would understand. Know what I mean.......?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Oh dear. Well, apparently, they are like electricalish message-pigeons...

Ahh, the electric pixies. Tush, man! Why didn't you say so?

[bindeweede]

Ahh, the electric pixies. Tush, man! Why didn't you say so?
Simple. You just would not have understood. Innit.

Ah is so cool.

[Admin]

Just wondered if anyone knew who made this statement,

"I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as fraud"

And whats your opinion.???

My opinion is that it's not a very smart statement.

In fact, it looks like a strawman argument (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html) used to misrepresent the position of anyone who disagrees with the proponent's position.

[Admin]

Im an open minded skeptic

As opposed to what?

If you're a skeptic (someone who uses the method of skepticism (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=what_is_skepticism.php)), it's best to avoid using terms like 'open-minded skeptic' as it's the sort of term that includes redundancy (you can't be a skeptic without being open-minded) and is used by believers who want to label skeptics as 'pseudo-skeptics'.

It also makes them look rather silly and desperate as they try to hijack the term 'skeptic' to give legitimacy to their unjustified beliefs.


I read an article about the the zero point field which says that we are connected to everything and after seeing that statement it kinda got me thinking and i wanted to get another view from you guy`s.

Did it define what the 'zero-point field' actually is?

Did it explain how we are connected to everything by the zero-point field?

If not, and I strongly suspect not, then it is a meaningless statement that doesn't account for or explain a single thing.

Always watch out for science-sounding statements and flowery language that sounds as if it's saying something meaningful but is in fact complete gobbledygook.

Look at this: Pseudoscience (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=pseudoscience.php) - particularly the paragraph "Verbose language and prose".

Pseudoscientific statements and ideas all have the feature that they are not testable or verifiable in any way. This is the antithesis of science.

So, if the zero-point field says we are connected everything then it must be testable and verifiable in some way - because if it's not then how can anyone know this?

Always look for evidence to back up claims. If it's not there then the claim is very likely to be false.

[Muttley]

Ah is so cool.

You'd better put a jumper on, mate. You'll catch your death. ;)

[pacha]

Come to think of it, i dont think it had any facts to go by, just a stab in the dark.

Thank`s for that i guess we will see what the future may hold and maybe we will all be a little shocked.

As for the open minded skeptic then i get your point but i would never say never, i guess.

[Mojo]

Jung said that quite a while ago: he died in 1961. The stupidity that is currently fashionable seems to be that of regarding anything that anyone cannot explain as true.

[Allo Allo]

So, if the zero-point field says we are connected everything then it must be testable and verifiable in some way - because if it's not then how can anyone know this?

Well, quantum science tell us it knows - so we accept it I suppose.

How can we know the quantum world has no affect on the real world? Or is the area of quantum physics just scientific fantasyland?

Just been doing a bit of wondering while I am drawing diagrams of atoms (that no one has ever seen) for my science course. I wondered because quite a bit of the particulate nature of matter is - well - guesswork - I just wondered if a unicorn in my diagrams would suffice instead!

[bobdezon]

117ununhexium ← Unicornium → ununoctium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ununoctium)At (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astatine)
↑
Uni
↓
(Uhs)

[Admin]

Just been doing a bit of wondering while I am drawing diagrams of atoms (that no one has ever seen) for my science course. I wondered because quite a bit of the particulate nature of matter is - well - guesswork - I just wondered if a unicorn in my diagrams would suffice instead!

Hello AA :smiley: - don't seem to have seen you for a while!

There is a reason why quantum effects don't scale up but I can't remember it off the top of my head. Perhaps a physicist (Cuddles?) could explain it better then me anyway. Something to do with de Broglie's wave functions meaning that the wave-particle duality reduces with increasing mass or something....

What model are you using for atoms? Lewis diagrams?

There are a lot of things in science that cannot be described exactly or with total precision. So what we do is use models. These are theoretical constructs which are used to explain, describe, or predict things about the thing that is being modelled.

The Lewis diagram, which considers the nucleus as a 'blob' and electrons as 'dots' orbiting it, was developed early on. It is not an accurate description of an atom but it is useful in some circumstances at it is simple and useful for demonstrating something like how Sodium and Chlorine form an ionic bond by the outer electron of Chlorine being taken up by the gap in the Sodium atom's outer shell.

Models are not just arbitrary however, they are built up through theory, observation, and experimentation.

Molecular Orbital Theory is also a model of how atoms are. This theory is much more advanced than Lewis's theory and can be used to predict the outcome of chemical reactions that have never even taken place!

The point is that not everything can be measured or known with 100% accuracy but the use of models is a good way of, well, modelling complex or unmeasurable systems.

It's not arbitrary or made up (hence your unicorn won't make it I'm afraid :sad:) but is a very useful method.

The need to use models for many aspects of scientific inquiry is also something of a nail in the coffin for the "arrogant scientists think they know everything" argument. Scientists know they don't know everything.

[Allo Allo]

Hello AA :smiley: - don't seem to have seen you for a while!

I'm here today - and gone tomorrow - back into the scientific soup I am swimming through!


The need to use models for many aspects of scientific inquiry is also something of a nail in the coffin for the "arrogant scientists think they know everything" argument. Scientists know they don't know everything.

Well, I have been surprised at how honestly ignorance is admitted in science....an eye opener...and something I admire. I'm having a wonderful time - struggling a bit with the Math.

I came along to see what you guys were up to and was surprised to see the old Amivo/Amway thread still going! And delighted there was no psychic Sarah in sight! Shoosh! :eek3:

[Cuddles]

So, if the zero-point field says we are connected everything then it must be testable and verifiable in some way - because if it's not then how can anyone know this?

There is no such thing the zero point field. Zero point energy is not a field, it is the lowest possible energy state a given system can be in, which is almost always non-zero, hence zero point rather than just zero. A simple analogy would be gravitational energy. When we are standing on the Earth's surface, our energy is clearly not zero, since if the surface was taken away we would fall towards the centre. However, to all intents and purposes this is impossible, so our gravitational energy is at it's zero point - as low as it can get, but still not actually zero. The term "zero point field" simply refers to the zero point of a field rather than a system of particles.

Of course, he is sort of correct - everything is connected to everything else. All the fundamental forces have infinite range, so everything must be affected by everything else, within the observable universe at least (since nothing can travel faster than light, nothing outside the observable universe can affect us). However, this has nothing to do with zero point anything, and very little to do with anything else, since the vast majority of things are much too far away to have any observable effect, let alone a significant one. Presumably, once something is more than a certain distance away, any force caused by it will be smaller than the uncertainty on a particle's properties and is therefore irrelevant.


There is a reason why quantum effects don't scale up but I can't remember it off the top of my head. Perhaps a physicist (Cuddles?) could explain it better then me anyway. Something to do with de Broglie's wave functions meaning that the wave-particle duality reduces with increasing mass or something....

The de Broglie hypothesis (I'm not sure why it's still called a hypothesis rather than a theory, probably more tradition than anything else) states that every particle has wavelike properties, with an effective wavelength inversely proportional to its momentum. This means that the more massive and faster an object is, the shorter its wavelength. Wave effects generally only occur on the scale of the wavelength. For example, radio waves have wavelengths of metres, or bigger, and are therefore diffracted around buildings, hills and so on, allowing a signal without line of sight, while visible light, with much shorter wavelengths, usually only travels in straight lines.

When it comes to particles, wavelengths are on the order of nanometres and lower, so it is possible to build gratings with gaps of a similar size and observe diffraction. However, since the wavelength decreases as mass (and velocity) increase, when you have collections of more than a few particles, the wavelength becomes much shorter and the wave effects are no longer observable. For macroscopic objects, like humans, the de Broglie wavelength will be much smaller than the Planck length and effects aren't even observable theoretically since it is impossible for anything small enough to exist.

Like most things, the effects do not actually drop to zero, they just become extremely small. For example, while we don't tend to notice relativistic time dilation in our daily lives, a very small effect is present. Wave-particle duality is the same. When you walk through a doorway, you are actually diffracted a small amount, although for the effect to be noticeable above thermal noise you would need to either squeeze through a doorway less than 10-35m wide or walk so slowly that it would take you billions of times longer than the universe has existed. Personally, I still think it's a good excuse for why I keep walking into doors.


Just been doing a bit of wondering while I am drawing diagrams of atoms (that no one has ever seen) for my science course. I wondered because quite a bit of the particulate nature of matter is - well - guesswork - I just wondered if a unicorn in my diagrams would suffice instead!

When you say diagrams of atoms, do you mean diagrams of the electron shells around the nucleus or of the structure of the nucleus itself?

[MRT]

I suspect by 'zero point energy', paranormal believers are really taking about vacuum energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy). This is to do with virtual particles constantly coming in and out of existence. This can be felt at macroscopic scales through the Casimir Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect) which is incredibly weak. I understand there is no credible way currently known to extract useful amounts of energy from vacuum energy (though maybe someone will work out a way to do so one day).

[Cuddles]

I suspect by 'zero point energy', paranormal believers are really taking about vacuum energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy). This is to do with virtual particles constantly coming in and out of existence. This can be felt at macroscopic scales through the Casimir Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect) which is incredibly weak.

Yes. I think the confusion comes from certain attempts to find a theory of everything which postulate a single field throughout spacetime which gives rise to the different forces, in a similar way to how string theory says that all different particles are identical strings, but vibrating in different ways. The zero point of this field would be what gives rise to vacuum energy, and so leads people who don't understand to think they are the same thing.

Vacuum energy could be the zero point of one particular field, but it is not the same thing, in the same way that "gravity" refers to one particular force, but is not a synonym for "force". It's also worth bearing in mind that there is no actual evidence to support this. Like most attempts to unify the forces, the work is currently entirely theoretical.


I understand there is no credible way currently known to extract useful amounts of energy from vacuum energy (though maybe someone will work out a way to do so one day).

The main problem is that vacuum energy works just like any other energy. You can get energy out by causing two plates to be attracted to each other, but in order to get any more work out, you have to pull them apart again, which uses just as much energy. Vacuum energy is unlikely to ever be an energy source for exactly the same reason gravity isn't an energy source. It could potentially be a store, but is very unlikely to ever be a source.