A popular philosophical "documentary"

[Jim A. 0]

I've been wanting to know how other people on this forum reacted to the "documentary" film "What the Bleep do We Know?", which came out several years ago.

I finally saw it after two people recommended it to me. I found the film appalling. There may have been one thing said in it that I thought was true, but I can't remember what. Practically the entire film does nothing but give the viewer a philosophical excuse to give up any pursuit of certainty about anything in life. The film says that quantum mechanics is true. Well, if causality does not exist on the subatomic level, then it can "not-exist" anywhere else, too. Notice the glee that interviewed "scientists" exhibit whenever they say anything like "there are many realities" or "multiple universes". This amounts to A being non-A at the same time and in the same respect.

One researcher in the film also says that the same atomic particle can be photographed on, say, the West Coast and on the East Coast at the same time; its the same particle!! But did anybody in the movie show us such a photograph?

[Carlos 0]

The film says that quantum mechanics is true.

The core mathematical structure of QM, meaning the part that can make incredibly accurate predictions, is correct. It's the interpretations of the math that are up in the air, and for that there are no easy answers, if there are any sensible answers at all at this point. Scientists use QM pragmatically; we don't know what the hell it means, we just know it works for what we want to do, which is describe the natural world.

Some of the arcane theoretical physicists propose crazy ideas about multiple universes or things like that, but I doubt many scientists really truly take it seriously. It mostly makes for fluffy documentaries that sell well by exploiting public-misunderstanding of QM, like this film does.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

The film says that quantum mechanics is true.

The core mathematical structure of QM, meaning the part that can make incredibly accurate predictions, is correct. It's the interpretations of the math that are up in the air, and for that there are no easy answers, if there are any sensible answers at all at this point. Scientists use QM pragmatically; we don't know what the hell it means, we just know it works for what we want to do, which is describe the natural world.

Some of the arcane theoretical physicists propose crazy ideas about multiple universes or things like that, but I doubt many scientists really truly take it seriously. It mostly makes for fluffy documentaries that sell well by exploiting public-misunderstanding of QM, like this film does.

Interpretations are baggage. The math IS the theory.

[Carlos 0]

The film says that quantum mechanics is true.

The core mathematical structure of QM, meaning the part that can make incredibly accurate predictions, is correct. It's the interpretations of the math that are up in the air, and for that there are no easy answers, if there are any sensible answers at all at this point. Scientists use QM pragmatically; we don't know what the hell it means, we just know it works for what we want to do, which is describe the natural world.

Some of the arcane theoretical physicists propose crazy ideas about multiple universes or things like that, but I doubt many scientists really truly take it seriously. It mostly makes for fluffy documentaries that sell well by exploiting public-misunderstanding of QM, like this film does.

Interpretations are baggage. The math IS the theory.

But reality is more than just numbers without physical context. What does the wavefunction really mean? How is it that quantum systems can tunnel through barriers? I was at a conference recently where they theoretical evidence from quantum chemistry calculations that a certain molecule could "tunnel" from one structural motif to another, and this is the particular reason that synthetic chemists have never been able to make a certain isomer of this molecule; even at absolute zero the structure will tunnel eventually from a higher-energy structure to a lower-energy structure, even if it has to pass through a very high energy transition-state by "tunneling". What does that mean conceptually? How can a quantum system jump through classically energy-forbidden barriers?? I don't think there are answers for that.

[Carlos 0]

Blah edit. I typed that too fast. Should read as follows:

I was at a conference recently where they SHOWED theoretical evidence from quantum chemistry calculations...

[ewv 0]

Interpretations are baggage. The math IS the theory.

It most certainly is not. The symbols in the equations refer to elements of reality that have been conceptualized and quantified, and the equations refer to relations between them that hold in principle. Equations do not pop up out of a vacuum waiting to be "interpreted". If you have no concept of what is being quantified, what the relations mean, and how they were obtained and verified, you know nothing. You have only meaningless equations with no cognitive content. You might as well be solving meaningless puzzles manipulating meaningless symbols. Abstract conceptual knowledge is not "baggage". Scientific theory cannot exist without concepts and principles and the hierarchy of knowledge on which they are based.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Interpretations are baggage. The math IS the theory.

It most certainly is not. The symbols in the equations refer to elements of reality that have been conceptualized and quantified, and the equations refer to relations between them that hold in principle. Equations do not pop up out of a vacuum waiting to be "interpreted". If you have no concept of what is being quantified, what the relations mean, and how they were obtained and verified, you know nothing. You have only meaningless equations with no cognitive content. You might as well be solving meaningless puzzles manipulating meaningless symbols. Abstract conceptual knowledge is not "baggage". Scientific theory cannot exist without concepts and principles and the hierarchy of knowledge on which they are based.

There are physicists (you know, the guys who actually -do- physics and don't philosophize too much about it) who disagree.

The position is known in the trade as "shut up and calculate".

Here is a snip from the Wiki Article you might find amusing.

The Ensemble interpretation is similar; it offers an interpretation of the wave function, but not for single particles. The consistent histories interpretation advertises itself as "Copenhagen done right". Although the Copenhagen interpretation is often confused with the idea that consciousness causes collapse, it defines an "observer" merely as that which collapses the wave function.^[22]Quantum information theories are more recent, and have attracted growing support.^[28][29]

If the wave function is regarded as ontologically real, and collapse is entirely rejected, a many worlds theory results. If wave function collapse is regarded as ontologically real as well, an objective collapse theory is obtained. For an atemporal interpretation that “makes no attempt to give a ‘local’ account on the level of determinate particles”,^[30] the conjugate wavefunction, ("advanced" or time-reversed) of the relativistic version of the wavefunction, and the so-called "retarded" or time-forward version^[31] are both regarded as real and the transactional interpretation results.^[30] Dropping the principle that the wave function is a complete description results in a hidden variable theory.

Many physicists have subscribed to the instrumentalist interpretation of quantum mechanics, a position often equated with eschewing all interpretation. It is summarized by the sentence "Shut up and calculate!". While this slogan is sometimes attributed to Paul Dirac^[32] or Richard Feynman, it is in fact due to David Mermin.^[33]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of the major interpretations of quantum theory lead to the same mathematical model. If the interpretations were all that important why do they all lead to the same thing?

[Carlos 0]

All of the major interpretations of quantum theory lead to the same mathematical model. If the interpretations were all that important why do they all lead to the same thing?

In this case the math in question precedes these interpretations. A system is specified, leading to a Hamiltonian. The Hamiltonian is treated as an operator, and eigenfunctions of the operator are found. These eigenfunctions allow you to calculate exact probabilities related to measurements of the system in question. The interpretation of what these eigenfunctions actually are physically follows, not precedes this.

[ewv 0]

There are physicists (you know, the guys who actually -do- physics and don't philosophize too much about it) who disagree.

The position is known in the trade as "shut up and calculate".

Serious physicists do "philosophize about it", mostly in terms of physics if not philosophy. They want to understand what they are doing: not reduce themselves to the equivalent of a human abacus who has been told by an anti-conceptual asparagus addict to shut up and stop thinking. But hardly any spend most of their time on what they regard as fruitless attempts at difficult problems of new, fundamental understanding when they can make practical progress "calculating" and experimenting using what they do understand.

Here is a snip from the Wiki Article you might find amusing...

All of the major interpretations of quantum theory lead to the same mathematical model. If the interpretations were all that important why do they all lead to the same thing?

Those "interpretations" are mostly less than "amusing", and don't "lead" to the same thing. Much of it is irrational speculation subsequent to the history of the experimental and theoretical discoveries.

There is much that is not understood about quantum mechanics, as is the case in any difficult, abstract frontier of scientific research. That doesn't mean that theories in physics are nothing but "the equations" and it doesn't mean that bizarre floating abstractions can be turned into a substitute for conceptual understanding in the name of competing "interpretations".

[ewv 0]

All of the major interpretations of quantum theory lead to the same mathematical model. If the interpretations were all that important why do they all lead to the same thing?

In this case the math in question precedes these interpretations. A system is specified, leading to a Hamiltonian. The Hamiltonian is treated as an operator, and eigenfunctions of the operator are found. These eigenfunctions allow you to calculate exact probabilities related to measurements of the system in question. The interpretation of what these eigenfunctions actually are physically follows, not precedes this.

This doesn't mean that nothing is understood prior to the discovery of the equations. There was a good deal of conceptual motivation in terms of physical concepts and experiments during the development of both the Heisenberg and Schrodinger approaches (some of which was found to be wrong, like Schrodinger's idea of what the wave function represented), before the two approaches were found to be mathematically equivalent. The basic concepts and the equations developed simultaneously and that history is still available as a means to understand the physics instead of being handed equations and directions for using them almost as "axioms" to be accepted out of the blue. The best way to understand that is to read the history of the early development and the scientific biographies of the major participants describing how they thought about what they were doing and why, and what the various problems, debates and controversies were. The difficulties encountered in quantum mechanics and the differences in approach required from classical physics necessarily led to explicit philosophical ideas and theories during the early development, especially by Bohr, Heisenberg, Einstein and a few others, which were widely discussed and debated, and you can see how earlier philosophical trends influenced it, often not for the good.

[Carlos 0]

This doesn't mean that nothing is understood prior to the discovery of the equations. There was a good deal of conceptual motivation in terms of physical concepts and experiments during the development of both the Heisenberg and Schrodinger approaches (some of which was found to be wrong, like Schrodinger's idea of what the wave function represented), before the two approaches were found to be mathematically equivalent. The basic concepts and the equations developed simultaneously and that history is still available as a means to understand the physics instead of being handed equations and directions for using them almost as "axioms" to be accepted out of the blue. The best way to understand that is to read the history of the early development and the scientific biographies of the major participants describing how they thought about what they were doing and why, and what the various problems, debates and controversies were. The difficulties encountered in quantum mechanics and the differences in approach required from classical physics necessarily led to explicit philosophical ideas and theories during the early development, especially by Bohr, Heisenberg, Einstein and a few others, which were widely discussed and debated, and you can see how earlier philosophical trends influenced it, often not for the good.

Yes, I agree with this. I was referring to the interpretations of the act of measurement in QM ("the wavefunction collapses"), as none of these interpretations precedes the development of QM.

You're right that the best way to understand it is to go back to the beginning and "watch" through the history of its founders how it came about. I want to do that more in the future when I have the free time for it!

[ewv 0]

You're right that the best way to understand it is to go back to the beginning and "watch" through the history of its founders how it came about. I want to do that more in the future when I have the free time for it!

'Free time' is a contradiction in terms. I went through the same thing in graduate school, knowingly putting off delving into things that I knew I had to better understand but which were not officially part of my work because there was literally too much else to do and it was ontinuously coming in, along with other distractions.

But in the kind of career you have staked out for yourself you will always be investigating and learning new things at the fasted pace possible with no 'free time' to go back to other subjects or more background even in what you are working with at the time. Having a supposedly well-defined job with theoretical limits on the time required to spend on it, along with the requirements of improving and maintaining daily life along with other interventions, will not give you the time to do it. There are no limits on what you will be doing the best you can at any point in time. You have to plan for other work and set priorities to make sure you get in at least some of what you know is important but not immediately required, and you can start that now.

One thing you can do right now on behalf of your future is to accumulate books and references before the prices go up even more, and so you can at least browse through them and read portions to see what is in the various sources for when you can get back to it in some more systematic order.

[Paul's Here 0]

The film says that quantum mechanics is true.

The core mathematical structure of QM, meaning the part that can make incredibly accurate predictions, is correct. It's the interpretations of the math that are up in the air, and for that there are no easy answers, if there are any sensible answers at all at this point. Scientists use QM pragmatically; we don't know what the hell it means, we just know it works for what we want to do, which is describe the natural world.

Some of the arcane theoretical physicists propose crazy ideas about multiple universes or things like that, but I doubt many scientists really truly take it seriously. It mostly makes for fluffy documentaries that sell well by exploiting public-misunderstanding of QM, like this film does.

Interpretations are baggage. The math IS the theory.

Once again, ruveyn's rationalism rears its head.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Interpretations are baggage. The math IS the theory.

Once again, ruveyn's rationalism rears its head.

Umpteen interpretations all produce substantially the same mathematical result. Have you ever wondered why? If the math is the constant, it is the most likely to be true. And all the interpretations (the ones that have passed professional muster) produce the same predictions. How about that!

So what difference do the interpretations make? None that matter. A scientific theory is judged on how good its predictions are.

[ewv 0]

Interpretations are baggage. The math IS the theory.

Once again, ruveyn's rationalism rears its head.

Umpteen interpretations all produce substantially the same mathematical result. Have you ever wondered why? If the math is the constant, it is the most likely to be true. And all the interpretations (the ones that have passed professional muster) produce the same predictions. How about that!

So what difference do the interpretations make? None that matter. A scientific theory is judged on how good its predictions are.

You didn't read the response and discussion above, did you? Or maybe its the asparagus as a way of life, again -- they say that embracing it tends to lead to obnoxious, unresponsive rote repetition. Your "umpteen interpretations" followed "the math" and a lot more. They didn't "produce it" as "a constant". The unconcern by human abacuses for explanation and understanding in science is their problem, a problem that can't be hidden by wrapping it up as "prediction".

[Paul's Here 0]

Interpretations are baggage. The math IS the theory.

Once again, ruveyn's rationalism rears its head.

Umpteen interpretations all produce substantially the same mathematical result. Have you ever wondered why? -----------

Wow. Now that makes sense. Interpretations [of what] produce [how] a result [what]. This reminds me of the rationalism of the church leaders who all debate the meaning of various teachings of Jesus but none of them question the result of the process: faith in the supernatural.

[ewv 0]

Wow. Now that makes sense. Interpretations [of what] produce [how] a result [what]...

There you go again trying to "interpret" his sentence. Next you'll be claiming you have consciousness. Be a good little asparagus head and "Shut up and calculate"!

[Carlos 0]

'Free time' is a contradiction in terms.

That would be funny if it weren't true!

I went through the same thing in graduate school, knowingly putting off delving into things that I knew I had to better understand but which were not officially part of my work because there was literally too much else to do and it was ontinuously coming in, along with other distractions.

Do you think this is part of a problem with modern science/math instruction? It seems like so much material must be covered in so much detail so fast that often one can't avoid slipping into blind memorization in some places, because actually understanding all of it would be impossible given the time constraint.

How did you deal with this? (I guess you answered that below)

But in the kind of career you have staked out for yourself you will always be investigating and learning new things at the fasted pace possible with no 'free time' to go back to other subjects or more background even in what you are working with at the time. Having a supposedly well-defined job with theoretical limits on the time required to spend on it, along with the requirements of improving and maintaining daily life along with other interventions, will not give you the time to do it. There are no limits on what you will be doing the best you can at any point in time. You have to plan for other work and set priorities to make sure you get in at least some of what you know is important but not immediately required, and you can start that now.

I do try this some, such as going back and reviewing older material as often as possible, trying to make sure that I can connect the new abstract ideas I'm learning to something concrete and fundamental.

One thing you can do right now on behalf of your future is to accumulate books and references before the prices go up even more, and so you can at least browse through them and read portions to see what is in the various sources for when you can get back to it in some more systematic order.

I try to find good, older books when I can. Dirac's "The Principles of Quantum Mechanics" is a very nice book that I read every now and then. There's actually substantially more text than math in the book, because he spends so much time elaborating the meaning of experiments and how the math and peculiar properties of QM necessarily had to emerge from it.