Imaginary solid world

[Buket]

Energy photons and electrons make up imaginary 3d solid world according to quantum mechanics. Is this true?

[swansont]

Energy photons and electrons make up imaginary 3d solid world according to quantum mechanics. Is this true?

 

 

Not as far as I know. Quantum mechanics decidedly does not say there is a 3d solid world. QM also does not have "energy photons" in it. It has photons, which possess energy. But if you meant "energy, photons and electrons", then you should be aware that energy is a property of photons and electrons (and many more things), and not any sort of substance that would comprise any object.

[Strange]

Energy photons and electrons make up imaginary 3d solid world according to quantum mechanics. Is this true?

 

 

There is nothing imaginary about it. As you would know if you have ever stubbed your toe.

 

And there is more to it than electrons and photons. There are also protons and neutrons which, with electrons, make up solid matter. Plus there are several other particles such as neutrinos, etc.

[Buket]

Is this statement of that scientist is more like pseudoscience? What do you think?

[swansont]

Is this statement of that scientist is more like pseudoscience? What do you think?

Who is "that scientist" and what did they actually say? You gave no indication that you were quoting someone.

[Sensei]

By "solid world", do you mean "matter in solid state of matter".. ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid

 

Solid state matter has very slowly moving particles in lattice.

[Buket]

Who is "that scientist" and what did they actually say? You gave no indication that you were quoting someone.

I don't know his name but a scientist appearing in a documentary called 'quantum apocalypse'.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Buket

[swansont]

I don't know his name but a scientist appearing in a documentary called 'quantum apocalypse'.

That was the name of a sci-fi movie.

 

There's also a youtube video apparently about human consciousness. No reason to think quotes from scientists were used in context, or that you properly relayed it.

[Strange]

That was the name of a sci-fi movie.

 

 

Form the description on Wikipedia, that sounds unbelievably bad. I don't know if it fits in the "so bad it is good" category ...

[rpenner]

The quote is not from any scientist, but from the late author Robert Anton Wilson. He had a Ph.D. from an unaccredited school in psychology, not physics. He died in 2006. The video was posted circa 2010. The context was removed in the middle of the first sentence as is fairly common in bafflegab.

 

 

[01:18]

Robert Anton Wilson: ... out of millions and millions of blobs of energy and light, photons and electrons ... they make up this imaginary three-dimensional solid world, which does not exist at all according to Relativity or Quantum Mechanics.

Edited June 25, 2016 by rpenner

[Buket]

The quote is not from any scientist, but from the late author Robert Anton Wilson. He had a Ph.D. from an unaccredited school in psychology, not physics. He died in 2006. The video was posted circa 2010. The context was removed in the middle of the first sentence as is fairly common in bafflegab.

 

 

 

 

[01:18]

Robert Anton Wilson: ... out of millions and millions of blobs of energy and light, photons and electrons ... they make up this imaginary three-dimensional solid world, which does not exist at all according to Relativity or Quantum Mechanics.

 

The quote is not from any scientist, but from the late author Robert Anton Wilson. He had a Ph.D. from an unaccredited school in psychology, not physics. He died in 2006. The video was posted circa 2010. The context was removed in the middle of the first sentence as is fairly common in bafflegab.

 

 

 

 

 

[01:18]

Robert Anton Wilson: ... out of millions and millions of blobs of energy and light, photons and electrons ... they make up this imaginary three-dimensional solid world, which does not exist at all according to Relativity or Quantum Mechanics.

So you are saying this guy talks nonsense ?

[swansont]

So you are saying this guy talks nonsense ?

 

 

Pretty much, yes.

[solitaire]

I think this quote comes from the fact an atom is mostly empty space, so in a solid object there is a huge amount of "empty space" on a quantum level.

[Buket]

So the world exists according to quantum mechanics ?

[Strange]

So the world exists according to quantum mechanics ?

 

As quantum mechanics is a theory describing the world, yes.

[Sensei]

So the world exists according to quantum mechanics ?

 

Quantum mechanics is more about "probability of finding particle in given position/volume +- some tolerance"..

f.e. probability to find electron in atom.

Quantum physics is how particles behave after emitting photons, absorbing photons, decaying atoms, decaying unstable particles, fusion, fission etc. etc.

These things happens all the time, around you, especially in day, when primary cosmic rays (from the Sun), and secondary cosmic rays, are getting through Earth's atmosphere..

You can even see them, in devices like Cloud Chamber.

 

If somebody would write simulator of the Universe, you wouldn't be able to find difference between them. Only if it has errors.

If you would be able to find difference, you would have to first know how the real Universe is behaving (how could you know it, in the first place, If all the memories from before birth are gone.. ?),

If you would know "how the real Universe is behaving" and "how this Universe is behaving", you would know, you're just part of simulation (or not).

 

Computer graphic designers often make a contents: there is few pictures showed, and people have to tell which is CG gfx, man/computer made, and which is photo. How do you recognize difference?

Because of differences from natural environment. CG gfx is too clean, too nice, little detail. So suppose so, "the best CG artist" is making gfx which is not clean, dirty, with details.

(I have participated a few such contents, and the real CG gfx artists were better recognizing CG from photo than me, even though I have quite good experience in this )

How do you recognize difference.. ?

Edited June 28, 2016 by Sensei

[Buket]

I think this guy says that solid world as we know it does not exist and we are quantum fluctuations

[Strange]

I refute it thus:

57. Refutation of Bishop Berkeley
After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus."
Boswell: Life

http://www.samueljohnson.com/refutati.html

[rpenner]

I think this guy says that solid world as we know it does not exist and we are quantum fluctuations

It is irrelevant to a fact-based discussion what you think.

1) There is not enough context from that clip to know what he is saying. He qualified the ambiguous word "world" with two adjectives so you don't know which thing or concept he is saying does not exist on the basis of that quote.

2) The speaker was not a scientist in the specific field under discussion, so his opinion is at best a second-hand interpretation of the ideas of others and at worst nonsense. This particular author had a history of filling books with nonsense -- he was a novelist who made a hit with the absurd.

3) The most likely interpretation consistent with science is that he is saying that "solid" or "continuous" matter is an illusion because atoms are much larger than their constituent parts therefore are mostly space devoid of matter. A pop physics source like this might even go as far to say atoms are mostly "empty space" but that is not the view of quantum field theory, which lets us calculate ab initio how resistant such atoms are to crushing, for example. So atoms are not mysterious to science, but so well understood by quantum field theory that we can calculate how chemicals react, not based on centuries of rules of thumb, but via calculation of the behavior of electrons.

4) We are not ephemeral quantum fluctuations. Planck's constant places a limit on how long quantum fluctuations last. Since Planck's constant is at the indispensable core of all quantum theories, it appears wherever you got this idea was a source devoid of the least bit of interest in teaching the science of quantum physics. Thus you have had bad teachers miseducate you.

[derek w]

I think this guy says that solid world as we know it does not exist and we are quantum fluctuations

there is an article in new scientist :-

"It's confirmed : Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations"

[Enthalpy]

Hi rpenner, nice to see you here!

[Buket]

Does that Wilson man talk about the solid state of the objects?

[Strange]

Did you miss this post: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/95954-imaginary-solid-world/#entry929323

there is an article in new scientist :-

"It's confirmed : Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations"

 

As is often the case with The Daily Mail, I mean New Scientist (*) the headline may say that but the article says nothing of the sort.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations/