Reply to article by: Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com>
Date written: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:14:36 +1030
MsgID:<sqe0309gktotof8s9lbjf51j9vfddme3jk@4ax.com>

I was enjoying it, and mainly agreeing with it, until this mentally
jarring claim stopped me in my tracks:

At this point in time, there is no difference between Alchemy and Quantum
Mechanics. Many modern day sciences started off as fringe sciences (alchemy led

That assertion couldn't be further from the truth if you gave it to
Dubya, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld to re-write!

Quantum Mechanics, in particluar Quantum Electrodynamics is by a long
way the most successful scientific theory to date!

Define success.

Accuracy of predictions.

You don't really believe that, as you prove later on in this post...

By the way, science defines success of a theory as the ability to predict new
and never before seen phenomenon.

Alchemy is not very successful.

Alchemy led to the developement of chemistry so it was very successful.

It made no successful predictions.
I'd call that a dismal success rate.
Having a smart child doesn't make it smart itself.

No one said Alchemy was smart or made accurate predictions, just simply that
without it, chemistry would not exist. Chemistry was the greatest acheivement of
Alchemy.

The vast sweep of its precise explanations, and its successful
predictions swamp any other theory for volume and accuracy.

Quantum Mechanics still cannot explain the dual-slit experiment -- one of the
key quantum experiments upon which all quantum mechanical theories reside.

Where did you get that idea?

From actual research into the matter.

The only theory that DOES 'explain' it is Quantum Electrodynamics.
And it does so thoroughly, to an exceptional accuracy that has
withstood the most exacting tests.

It has never *explained* it, it only has *described* it. Can QM demonstrate for
us whether wavefunction is physically real of not? No. Can QM tell us where a
photon disappers to when it goes down both paths of a dual-slit path? No. Can QM
tell us what a photon is, if it is neither a wave, nor a particle, nor both a
particle and a wave yet is both? No. Can QM tell us if wavefunctions are real or
not? No. Can QM tell us that if wavefunctions collapse, what are they collapsing
from? No.

The predictions of (QED) have been shown to be accurate to an
astounding level.
It does not make sense to even compare it with alchemy, let alone
claim that they are effectively the same thing!

Take a look at how physicists typically explain the dual-slit experiment, for
example, the ever-popular Copenhagen interpretation: "an unobserved quantum
entity exists in a 'coherent superposition' of all possible 'states' permitted
by it's 'wave function', but as an observer attempts to make a measurement
capable of distinguishing between those states, the wave function 'collapses'
and the quantum entity is forced into a single state". Nobody has ever seen a
wave function and by definition they cannot be seen to exist because they
"collapse", therefore the only way to know that a wavefunction exists, it to
pretend it does by blind faith. Superpositions, collapsing wavefunctions,

Quantum Electrodynamics does not rely on the interpretations you
mention.

Since QED is a subset of Quantum Mechanics, and scientists cannot yet determine
if wavefunctions are real or not real, it is impossible for QED to explain what
it describes without interpretation...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics

I don't hold them to be true.
For me, this is a straw man.

Obviously you don't know what you are talking about then...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

nonlocality, and other Quantum Mechanical (metaphysical) constructs don't
actually exist anywher except on paper.

The same could be said of magnetic fields.
The equations describing them exists only on paper.

But very very much unlike QED wavefunctions, magnetic fields don't magically
"collapse" and disappear when you try to observe them.

If you were intellectually honest, you would therefore state
catergorically that there is no difference between magnets, gravity
and alchemy?

If you were properly educated in the matter, you would see there is no
comparison between magnetic fields and wavefunctions.

We use QED formulae, even they only exist on paper, because they WORK.

Blind faith works better but it isn't real.

The results those formulae come up with correspond to reality to an
astounding degree.
No-one really understands why, no-one pretends to, just as no-one
really understands magnetic fields or gravity.

Einstein's theory of general relativity corresponds to reality to an "astounding
degree" too but that doesn't mean it tell us anything at all about what gravity
is made of or what specifically causes things to contract at near-relativistic
speeeds.

The original proposition was " there is no difference between Alchemy
and Quantum Mechanics"
You have yet to address that dichotomy.
Perhaps you meant "The theory of...".

I will address that issue again, so this time pay attention...

Alchemy relied on all kinds of make believe constructs, like the Philosopher's
Stone in order to work. Likewise, QM has replaced the Philosopher's Stone with
imaginary contructs like always unobservable magically collapsing wavefunctions
and Hilbert Spaces.

But the predictions and practice of Quantum Mechanics, in particular
QED, has led to some spectacular successes that Alchemy only dreamed
of.
For example: LEDs, Lasers, Optical tweezers, Holograms, Hall Effect
devices, SQUIDs, optical standards, and many more.
You will no doubt be able to add to the list.

Now you are contradicting the defintion you gave earlier. You are describing the
success of engineering (to take a scientific idea and make techonology from it)
not the ability of QM to predict new and never before seen things.

Very much like Alchemy.

Traditional alchemy never came up with a single successful prediction.

Even if it did, would that make it right?

Any useful knowledge that it did arrive at was by accident.

We only know that by hindsight, not by foresight.

It is not at all like Alchemy, except in a pedantically abstruse and
useless philosophical manner.

You have been corrected.

Do you understand Quantum Mechanics?

More than you will ever know.

I'll take that as an smug and deliberately insulting way of saying:
'yes'.
Where and when did you study Quantum Electrodynamics?
What qualifications did you get for your studies?

Prove me wrong and you will prove I don't understand QM. I have been proving you
are wrong. So far you are losing.

The Sage

=============================================================
My Home Page :                http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"My friend plans to make a fortune with his invention. It's a
big metal box with a slot on one side and a sign that says
'How gullible are you? To find out, insert $50.'" -- COMEDY
COMES CLEAN, by Bill Jones
=============================================================