Blogs on quantum physics philosophy, update

Posted in Philosophy, Philosophy of Science, quantum physics theory, Science by e1saman on October 10, 2010

New addition to the list of blogs that are realted to quantum physics philosophy;

The Event Horizon

After Bohr, physics is no more the study of the essence of things, but of the relationships among them

George’s Home Blog

George Putnam

Posts and news on science

Interesting posts

Beyond God and atheism: Why I am a ‘possibilian’

But good science is always open-minded, and the history of science is one of surprises and overturnings. Science is nothing but careful thinking, and careful thinking encourages an appreciation of the complexity of the world. The complexity encourages us to maintain several possibilities at once. In a single lifetime, we may have no way to remove the ambiguities from these possibilities.



Scientists isolate, hold, photograph individual Rubidium 85 atom

( — In a major physics breakthrough, University of Otago scientists have developed a technique to consistently isolate and capture a fast-moving neutral atom – and have also seen and photographed this atom for the first time.

Random numbers created out of nothing

Now Christian Gabriel’s team at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Light in Erlangen, Germany, has built a prototype that draws on a vacuum’s random quantum fluctuations. These impart random noise to laser beams in the device, which converts it into numbers.

Sound can leap across a vacuum after all

Now a theoretical analysis by Mika Prunnila and Johanna Meltaus, both of the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland in Espoo, suggests that sound may be able to leap across a vacuum separating two objects made of piezoelectric crystals. These crystals generate an electric field when squeezed or stretched by sound waves or other forces, and deform in an electric field.


Study shows real partners are no match for ideal mate

Our ideal image of the perfect partner differs greatly from our real-life partner, according to new research from the University of Sheffield and the University of Montpellier in France. The research found that our actual partners are of a different height, weight and body mass index than those we would ideally choose.

Unlocking the secret of beauty: Scientists discover the complexities of attractive female bodies

Scientists in Australia and Hong Kong have conducted a comprehensive study to discover how different body measurements correspond with ratings of female attractiveness. The study, published in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology, found that across cultural divides young, tall and long armed women were considered the most attractive.

Can the weirdness of quantum mechanics make you well, or make you wealthy?

quantum mechanics

quantum mechanics

I was doing a search on twitter about quantum mechanics and in the results I saw a lot of tweets about products that use quantum mechanics to change your life! Apparently some people believe that quantum mechanics can make you wealthier and healthier.  Can someone really use a physics theory (which is very hard to understand) in order to change his life? If you really don’t have an answer on that you can start your quest for an answer by reading the following post in Cosmic Log;

How to spot quantum quackery

This is an interview with Lawrence Krauss the writer of “The Physics of Start Trek”.

People want to believe that they can easily change everything without effort, but physics is all about understanding limitations;

The quantum world does pervade everything around us, but as Richard Feynman liked to say, “Scientific creativity is imagination in a straitjacket.” Not everything is possible. That’s what makes the world so interesting.

Maybe we don’t know everything about Science and quantum mechanics, but that is also the beauty of it; we are working hard in order to understand more, and to create more.

With quantum mechanics, there’s a notion that observers affect the things that they’re observing. That’s not always true, but it’s often true. That’s one of the very strange properties of quantum mechanics. Therefore people get the notion that there’s no objective reality, and that you can literally impact on the external world just by doing things internally. That’s not the case. If you want to affect something in the external world, you have to do something to it. You can’t just hope for the best. You can’t bring good things to you by thinking about them.

Knowledge has its scope and limitations, we have to understand that;

Quantum mechanics is often quoted as the explanation for many things, because it’s so weird that people latch onto it as a hope, to explain everything that they would like to believe about the universe.

Magic is linked to the belief that everything is possible with little or no effort; that is not the case with Science

There are lots of things in quantum mechanics that sound like magic. But sounding like magic and being magic are two different things.

Is quantum mechanics a new fashion?

Often, people who are trying to sell whatever it is they’re trying to sell try to justify it on the basis of science. Everyone knows quantum mechanics is weird, so why not use that to justify it? … I don’t know how many times I’ve heard people say, “Oh, I love quantum mechanics because I’m really into meditation, or I love the spiritual benefits that it brings me.” But quantum mechanics, for better or worse, doesn’t bring any more spiritual benefits than gravity does.

Philosophy of … thinking

Posted in Philosophy, Philosophy of Science, realism, Science by e1saman on September 22, 2010

philosophy of scienceI tried to read the following post on philosophy of science, and I think I am confused; What do you understand of the following paragraph?

Can we think about non existent objects?

But isn’t denying that we can think about non-existent objects self refuting? What have we been talking about this whole time if not whether or not there are any of this kind of thought! So denying that there are any just shows that we have been thinking about non-existent objects all along! The very thoughts about non-existent objects that we have been discussing. But this is too quick. This is again just another example of an existentially quantified statement. ‘There are no thoughts about non-existent objects’ is really just saying that thoughts about non-existent objects don’t exist but that does not thereby mean that I am thinking about some non-existent objects! And this is for just the same reason as above; there are no objects which can be correctly described as the ones that I am thinking about.

My poor understanding is that if we cannot even make thoughts about something non-existent, then we have to accept that non-existence itself is non-existent… But maybe logic does not apply this way here!

Maybe it’s poor tactic but I like to answer to questions with other questions, and in this case I would like to ask what does it really mean if we can think of non-existent objects?

Someone would say that imagining of non-existent objects has helped mathematics a lot. But someone else would say that mathematics is just a description  of the way our mind works¹, nothing to do with reality. In this context then imagining of non-existing object can lead to some (not new but)  hidden ways of thinking, or in some hidden memories of something existed in the past.

Finally behind the initial question maybe there is a strong realistic point of view.

I suppose we do not want to involve the idealist here because then we will open a looooong thread!


¹ A description of the ‘laws’ that govern the way that we perceive the world.