Skeptic » eSkeptic » August 5, 2015

The Skeptics Society & Skeptic magazine



Blake Smith
New Facts Concerning Goddard Squadron Photo

Blake Smith revisits the mystery of the "Goddard’s Squadron Ghost" in light of new evidence. This post continues Blake’s exploration of the “Goddard’s Squadron Ghost” photo. Read his first post on the topic, “Should Goddard’s Squadron Drop Dead Fred?” (published February 2, 2015).

Read the Insight


Natalia Reagan
Squatchin’ Time!
SKEPTICALITY EPISODE 257

In this episode of Skepticality, Derek continues his series of special content he recorded while attending The Amazing Meeting 13. Just after she gave her talk on stage, Derek sat down with Natalia Reagan: anthropologist, writer, actress, and comedienne. Using her specialized knowledge in primatology, she was one of the judges on the television show, “10 Million Dollar Bigfoot Bounty.” Find out a bit more about how Natalia decided to leverage her advanced science degree and experience into a form of skeptical outreach which has been seen by millions.

Skepticality (the Official Podcast App of Skeptic Magazine) is available on the App Store
Skepticality (the Official Podcast App of Skeptic Magazine) is available at Amazon for Android
Skepticality (the Official Podcast App of Skeptic Magazine) is available on Windows Store


NEW SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN COLUMN ON MICHAELSHERMER.COM
The Meaning of Life in a Formula: Can Science Help Us Overcome the Terror of Existence?

Harvard University paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, who died in 2002, was a tough-minded skeptic who did not suffer fools gladly when it came to pseudoscience and superstition. Gould was a secular Jew who did not believe in God, but he had a soft spot for religion, expressed most famously in his principle of NOMA—nonoverlapping magisteria. The magisterium (domain of authority) of science “covers the empirical realm: what is the universe made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory),” he wrote in his 1999 book Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. “The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value.”

In part, Gould’s motivations were personal (he told me on many occasions how much respect he had for religion and for his many religious friends and colleagues). But in his book, he claimed that “NOMA represents a principled position on moral and intellectual grounds, not a merely diplomatic solution.” For NOMA to work, however, Gould insisted that just as “religion can no longer dictate the nature of factual conclusions residing properly within the magisterium of science, then scientists cannot claim higher insight into moral truth from any superior knowledge of the world’s empirical constitution.” …

Continue Reading the column

FOLLOW MICHAEL SHERMER ON
TwitterFacebookInsightThe Moral Arc Blog


About this week’s eSkeptic

Modern-day mystics have at their disposal a vast and ever-growing arsenal of scientific vocabulary, and employ it liberally in arguing for such practices as quantum healing and energy medicine, variants of which have in recent decades grown into billion dollar industries, supported by millions of consumers. Surely that many people can’t be wrong, can they? In this week’s eSkeptic, Jérémie Harris examines some of the vocabulary often invoked by mystics in the quantum healing community, and contrasts their usage of that vocabulary with current scientific definitions. This article appeared Skeptic magazine 20.1 in 2015.
Order the back issue.

Jérémie Harris is a Ph.D. student in quantum photonics under the Canada Excellence Research Chair in quantum nonlinear optics, at the Max Planck – University of Ottawa Centre for Extreme and Quantum Photonics. He holds a Master’s degree in biological physics from the University of Toronto. His work addresses foundational questions and paradoxes in quantum mechanics, and the creation of exotic structured matter waves.

Quantum Cure-All or Quackery?
Can Superpositions of Quantum Consciousness Unlock Your Brain’s Hidden Nonlocal Potentiality?

by Jérémie Harris

They were once called snake oil salesmen. Today, proponents of mystical healing and alternative medicine offer remedies for a plethora of diseases and conditions, promising pain relief, lifelong health, and even in some cases the prospect of life after death to anyone “open-minded” enough to pay for non-standard treatment. Modern-day mystics have at their disposal a vast and ever-growing arsenal of scientific vocabulary, and employ it liberally in arguing for such practices as quantum healing and energy medicine, variants of which have in recent decades grown into billion dollar industries, supported by millions of consumers. Surely that many people can’t be wrong, can they?

In what follows, we will look at a sample of quantum mechanical vocabulary often invoked by mystics, and contrast the correct scientific meaning of the terms with their usage in the quantum healing community. Quantum Superposition

In a report on her lecture at the European Quantum Energy Medicine Conference in 2008, Mae-Wan Ho, director of the Institute of Science in Society, wrote: “The quantum wave function that describes the coherent organism is a superposition of all possibilities. It implies that the future is entirely open, and the potentials infinite. That’s just what a healthy person should feel like.”1 This may sound like an impressive claim, but what exactly is meant by “superposition of all possibilities”?

Among the more counterintuitive features of quantum theory is its prediction that particles—and sometimes groups of them—can exist in multiple states at once. Hence, while we humans seldom find ourselves both asleep and awake simultaneously, the same cannot be said of the microscopic entities that comprise the quantum world. For instance, it is possible for a subatomic particle, such as an electron, to be bound to two or more different atoms at once; indeed, this arrangement is precisely what is involved in the formation of typical chemical bonds.

As well, electrons and many other subatomic entities may in some contexts be thought of as small rotating spheres. The direction of their rotation is referred to as their “spin”. An electron, for example, may spin clockwise or counterclockwise, in which case it is respectively referred to as occupying the “spin up” or “spin down” states. Remarkably, the electron may also spin in both directions simultaneously. Loosely speaking, one might think of such an electron as possessing some clockwise spin character, and some counterclockwise spin character.

To understand this apparent impossibility, it may be useful to draw a concrete analogy. Imagine that we can represent quantum states by colors, white corresponding to the spin up state, and black to the spin down state. An electron might be described by the color white, the color black, or any combination thereof—some shade of grey. This shade may be more black than white, or vice-versa, or an exact 50/50 mix of the two colors. A particle or physical system that exists in multiple quantum states simultaneously—like the“grey electron” in our analogy—is said to represent a quantum superposition of these states.

With this in mind, let’s return to Mae-Wan Ho’s use of the term “superposition” and to her conclusion that the “potentials” are infinite and the future “entirely open”, due to the existence of a superposition of states. The term “potential”—ubiquitous physics shorthand for “potential energy”—simply refers to energy stored in a physical system, like the elastic energy of a compressed spring. In quantum theory, the wavefunction (a mathematical object that describes a physical system) is determined by the potential energy, and not the other way around, as Ho seems to imply. Finally, Ho makes no attempt to explain the purported connection between the psychological state of a healthy person, and the “infinite” nature of the “quantum potential”. Instead, she flatly states this connection as fact, without elaboration or evidence.

Observer Effect

How is the observer effect discussed among quantum mystics? As with much of their jargon, it is difficult to find a consistent usage. That said, the following quotation—an excerpt from Deepak Chopra’s 2010 Huffington Post article entitled “Which is Real, the Moon or God?”—is a fairly representative example:2 “The observer is non-local consciousness, and that consciousness collapses its own possibility waves into a measurable event.” What does this mean? In our everyday experience, we are used to the idea that the measurement of any physical quantity invariably gives just one result. When we step on a scale and read the dial, we obtain a single number: a weight. Likewise, if we were to measure the direction in which a spinning top rotates, we would obtain a single result: clockwise or counterclockwise. Curiously, this remains true at the quantum level—even measurements carried out on quantum superpositions yield only one outcome. If we measure the spin of an electron that is initially rotating both clockwise and counterclockwise simultaneously, we always obtain one of two results: spin up or spin down.

To return to our earlier color analogy, this means that a grey electron, despite being part white and part black, will be found to be either white or black upon measurement. It is as if the electron, having originally spun in two directions at once, is forced to “choose” one direction over the other for the purpose of the measurement. In some sense, it is polarized from its initial grey state to a pure black or white state. And, it turns out, the darker the electron’s initial shade of grey, the more likely it is to yield the “black” result upon measurement.

Some therefore suggest that the measurement process itself leads to the destruction—or collapse— of superpositions, and their replacement by a single quantum state. In our analogy, this would correspond to replacing a grey electron with a black or white one.3 This apparent connection between the measurement process and the collapse of quantum superpositions is sometimes referred to as the observer effect. In essence, it is said, the observer can induce a physical system to collapse into a single state simply by measuring it.

How does this understanding square with Deepak Chopra’s claim that “the observer is nonlocal consciousness, and that consciousness collapses its own possibility waves into a measurable event”? That an observer might constitute a “non-local consciousness” is at best an ambiguous claim, and at worst reflects a profound misunderstanding of the observer effect. As we have seen, the true definition of the observer effect makes no reference to the nature of the observing entity. It need not necessarily be a conscious person; it can be an unconscious machine.4 The role that might be played by “non-locality” with respect to consciousness in this case is also unclear. This expression seems to simply have been misused—a remarkable achievement given the frequency with which it appears in Chopra’s writing.

Non-Locality

Noah McKay, quantum healer and author of Wellness at Warp Speed, invokes the concept of nonlocality in a medical context, as follows: “Non-local, invisible, energetic interactions with the body include everything from ECG [electrocardiograms], CT [X-ray computed tomography] and MRI [magnetic resonance imaging] scans to Qi-Gong, prayer, and psychic healing.”5

It may be somewhat surprising to learn that the MRI and CT scans to which many of us have been subjected operate by “non-local…energetic interactions with the body.” Indeed it should, because it is not true. So what is locality?

Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity tell us a lot about our universe. Among the myriad of fascinating and counter-intuitive features of relativity theory is the fact that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, including the very forces of nature. As a consequence, two objects sufficiently far away from each other have no way of interacting—and cannot feel one another’s presence— until enough time has passed for light from one object to reach the other.

The sun, for example, is about 93 million miles away from Earth. Since light travels at around 11 million miles per minute, this means that it takes the sun’s rays about eight minutes to reach us. As a result, according to relativity theory, it takes a full eight minutes for us to feel any effect that the sun may have on our planet—including its gravity. So, if the sun were to disappear now, it would take eight minutes for the sky to blacken around us. Our planet would even continue in its regular orbit for eight minutes, before being ultimately flung out into the cosmic darkness.

The sun therefore has a near-immediate impact only on its local surroundings: the further an object is from the sun, the longer it takes for it to be influenced by the state of solar affairs. We therefore refer to relativity as a local theory, since it does not allow objects separated by a significant distance to interact instantaneously. What, then, does it mean for an effect to be non-local?

In short, any effect that propagates instantaneously, and which is therefore not limited by the speed of light, is said to be non-local. Now returning to McKay’s statement, it is worth noting that ECGs, CT scans, and MRI all operate by measuring electromagnetic fields, whose effects propagate no faster than the speed of light. There is nothing nonlocal about these phenomena. It is also not clear what McKay means by the “non-locality” of “Qi- Gong, prayer, and psychic healing,” as the concept would appear to have no relevance whatsoever to meditation or related practices.

Quantum Entanglement

Fred Garcia, founder and Medical Director of Quantum Medical Associates, a Los Angeles-based alternative medicine clinic, gives his account of the discovery of quantum entanglement—and its purported healthcare implications—in the following excerpt from his clinic’s webpage:6 “The quantum entanglement of body, mind & spirit was proven almost 100 years ago by Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrodinzer [sic], Werner Heisenberg, Neils Boar [sic] & Wolfgang Pauli.”

As a point of historical fact, quantum entanglement was first discussed by Einstein, Podolski and Rosen in 1935, and not by Einstein, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Bohr and Pauli as Garcia claims. But what is quantum entanglement? Quantum entanglement simply describes a correlation between two or more particles, or groups of particles. Recall our spinning electrons: it is possible for two electrons to be spin-correlated in such a way as to make the total spin of the pair zero. In this case, to use our color analogy, if the electrons’ spins are measured, one electron will be white (spin-up), and the other black (spin-down). This pair of electrons would appear grey overall, since it is composed of one white and one black electron. When measured, one electron of the pair will be found to be black and the other white. As a result, if we find electron 1 to be black, we know electron 2 to be white, and vice-versa. But we cannot know which electron is which until we actually make a spin measurement. For this reason, the individual electrons themselves remain grey until measured.

The result is that a measurement of one electron’s spin will force both to collapse out of their grey superposition into opposite—black and white— states. By measuring the spin state of one electron, we have effectively measured its partner simultaneously. Notice that in so doing we collapsed the second electron out of its initial grey state without ever having interacted with it directly—electron 2 is collapsed because of a measurement executed on electron 1. Electrons whose spins are correlated in this way are said to be entangled.

This collapse effect must also be instantaneous; the moment we measure one electron’s spin, its partner immediately collapses out of its grey state, and assumes an opposite spin direction. These electrons might, in principle, be separated by a great distance at the time of the measurement, so the measurement of our electron’s spin must have a non-local effect on its partner. It is precisely this phenomenon that was so famously described by Albert Einstein as “spooky action-at-a-distance.” But this has nothing whatsoever to do with Garcia’s notions of “mind and spirit.” Entanglement simply represents correlations that can be observed between physical systems.

In addition, before entanglement could be “proven” between the body, mind and spirit, one would first need to demonstrate the existence of the mind and spirit. If this feat were ever to be accomplished, you would not likely be reading about it for the first time on a relatively obscure quantum healing website.

Complementarity

In a 2013 Huffington Post article entitled, “Can Reality Set Us Free? The Puzzle of Complementarity,” Deepak Chopra asserts: “Among many other things, complementarity tells a physicist why two particles separated by vast distances in space manage to act instantaneously together, as if they were next to each other, communicating with each other. By implication this seemingly technical term also applies to two neurons talking to each other far apart in the human brain, and indeed to all biological systems.”7

Let’s define complementarity to see if this makes sense. Imagine that you are shown a photograph of a baseball just released from a pitcher’s hand. You are asked to determine where the ball will be one second after the picture was taken. What would you need to know about the baseball to answer correctly? In our day-to-day classical world, we need to know two things about an object in order to predict its future trajectory: the position of the object at some earlier time (in this example, at the time the photograph was taken) and the object’s speed—or, more appropriately, its momentum—at that same earlier time. Position and momentum together can be used to provide a complete description of a classical object’s trajectory through space. It is in this sense that they may be thought of as complementary quantities.

However, when we enter the sub-microscopic scale of the quantum world, a funny thing happens: we find that notions of particle “position” and “momentum” quickly become murky and difficult to define. As it turns out, it is impossible to know with certainty the position or momentum of a sub-atomic particle. Further complicating matters, the higher the degree of precision with which we measure a particle’s position, the lower our certainty will be about its momentum. Consequently, the more we know about the particle’s momentum, the less we can know about its position. This trade-off is sometimes referred to as the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics.

Skeptic magazine 20.1 (cover)

This article appeared Skeptic magazine 20.1 in 2015.
Order the back issue.

So the principle of complementarity comes down to this: in order to get a complete understanding of the state of a physical system, it is necessary to have complete information about a pair of complementary properties, such as position and momentum. However, the uncertainty principle prevents us from measuring complementary properties simultaneously at the sub-atomic level, so we must be content with a limited state of knowledge with respect to any physical system we may wish to study.

We are now in a position to see that Chopra’s description of complementarity has little, if anything, to do with its actual meaning. Chopra appears to have confused two of quantum mechanics’ foundational concepts: the principle of complementarity and the notion of quantum entanglement. He goes on to suggest that this principle must somehow apply to neurons, brains, and biological organisms. This assertion constitutes a remarkable leap in logic, particularly given that quantum entanglement has never been demonstrated between biological systems.

The Quantum Cure

The rise of quantum mysticism has exploited a fatal flaw in human reasoning, which may be partly to blame for our species’ broader superstitious bent. Unfortunately, we all too often assume that ideas which lie beyond our immediate intellectual reach must somehow be mutually supportive, or connected in some way. No real progress is made when we choose to explain one mystery by another. END

References
  1. Ho, Mae-Wan. 2008. “Quantum Coherent Liquid Crystalline Organism.The Institute of Science in Society. 1 Oct. Web. 1 July 2014.
  2. Chopra, Deepak. 2010. “Which Is Real, the Moon or God?” HuffingtonPost.com, 22 March.
  3. This is the perspective adopted by proponents of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, but remains a matter of heated debate among physicists today. As a result, the observer effect remains highly controversial, and has led many to advocate for alternative formulations of quantum mechanics, many of which have gained significant traction. The Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is one such perspective.
  4. The exact definition of the “observer” is unclear and inconsistent to this day, even among adherents to the popular Copenhagen Interpretation. Different interpretational perspectives (eg. Decoherence, Many Worlds and Bohmian quantum mechanics) explain the apparent “collapse” of quantum superpositions without appealing to the existence of observers at all.
  5. McKay, Noah. 2014. Dr. Noah’s Wellness Seminars.
  6. Garcia, Fred. 2013. “Quantum Medicine.New Age Medicine. Quantum Medical Associates, 1 Jan. 2013.
  7. Chopra, Deepak. 2013. “Can Reality Set Us Free? The Puzzle of Complementarity.” HuffingtonPost.com, 29 April.
18 Comments »

18 Comments

  1. John Hodge says:

    “No real progress is made when we choose to explain one mystery by another.”
    The Schrödinger equation predicts outcome of experiments. It works. Why is a mystery? Many worlds, complementarity, Bohm, etc. are all another mystery trying to explain why the equation works.
    The central issue is to explain the double slit experiment. None of those mysteries do that. I suggest Single Photon diffraction and interference does that.

    • BOB PEASE says:

      Thanks
      See my comment below

      RJP

    • John Długosz says:

      The abstract makes me suspicious that this is not a real scientific paper. A quick Google search:

      from http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/06/18/six-new-vanity-presses-one-with-an-unbelievable-name/

      > This site is an “institutional repository” for people who ought to be institutionalized. They accept anything, so this makes for very interesting reading; some very wacky ideas are presented here.

      Certainly, it’s a given that interference operates on single particles. That’s the standard model of physics, which is spectacularly correct in its ability to make predictions and provide useful technology.

  2. BOB PEASE says:

    Deepchuck Chopstick is a master of Lewis Carroll style semantic Tomfoolery.
    His sincerity is not in question.

    The scary part of all of this is that
    “New Age” Mindset has gained widespread acceptance among Pseudo-Liberals
    who regard a Scientific World view a “Close (sic) Minded”

    Dr. Sidethink Hp.D

  3. Linda says:

    You say:
    “The sun therefore has a near-immediate impact only on its local surroundings: the further an object is from the sun, the longer it takes for it to be influenced by the state of solar affairs. We therefore refer to relativity as a local theory, since it does not allow objects separated by a significant distance to interact instantaneously.”

    Actually, I read that the observational influence manifests even when two objects are theoretically many light years apart. Physical proximity or great distances don’t seem to be a factor in this phenomenon. Very weird.

  4. Linda says:

    Here’s an explanation from Sean Carroll:

    Imagine we have a situation with two electrons, each in a separate atom, with different energy levels in each atom. Quantum mechanics tells us that it’s possible for the system to be in the following kind of state: each electron is either in energy level 1 or energy level 2, and we don’t know which one (more carefully, they are in a superposition), but we do know that they are in different energy levels. So if we measure the first electron and find it in level 1, we know for sure that the other electron is in level 2, and vice-versa. This is true even if the two electrons are a jillion miles away from each other.

  5. Sam says:

    Amazing article…. we need more of these!

    Thank you

  6. DanielWainfleet says:

    Deepak Chopra has been told face-to-face by quantum physicists on numerous occasions that he does not understand quantum theory, misuses its terms, producing a mixture of falsehoods and gibberish. One of them offered to let him enroll in a course on it that he taught. Naturally Chopra didn’t. He knows he is never wrong.

  7. Richard H says:

    Good article.

    Chopra is just another “spiritual” guru that Oprah–woefully impressionable–unleashed on an impressionable world. Like others, he uses scientific jargon to dress up his “other worldly” claims to draw in the reality-naive (which is most of the world’s population).

    To make a finer point:

    The author writes: In addition, before entanglement could be “proven” between the body, mind and spirit, one would first need to demonstrate the existence of the mind and spirit.

    Jeremie, am I correct here?:
    I think the author means the existence of the mind and spirit as NON-physical entities, of which there could be no such thing. What we call the “mind” exists physically as patterns of neuronal activity generated by the brain. A non-physical “spirit” entity could not exist at all, since an immaterial “anything” would equate to “nothing” and “nothing” equates to non-existent. The term “spiritual” corresponds to a feeling/emotion (again, physical patterns of neuronal activity generated by the brain).

    The idea of a dualism–the existence of both a physical and a non-physical realm–is a fundamental misunderstanding of reality that has been ingrained over centuries of cultural and religious traditions so that people accept it as a given without pausing to muster any critical thought about it.

  8. John Hodge says:

    Richard:
    RE: “spirit”, “nothing” and reducing the mysticism
    Perhaps “immaterial” means matter. Then the position relationship could constitute “spirit” such as the relative position of the Sun and Earth. Similarly, the relation of nerve cells could constitute mind. Relationships are not exactly “nothing” but relationships are not matter. So, what is “gravity” – a question since Newton. Certainly, gravity is not matter, but it is not nothing either. Relativity initially thought of it as the divergence of “gravitational ether”. If the “gravitational ether” is not matter, is it something in our universe. If so it would explain many things and could unite the worlds of Cosmology and Quantum mechanics.

    Linda:
    Speed of gravity
    Relativity wants the speed of gravity to be the speed of light (speed of effects). The experiments that purport to measure this speed are questionable (they depend on light and gravitational effects on light). Others claim the speed of gravity is many times the speed of light. Some experiments claim the direction of sunlight is 8 minutes slower than the effect of gravity of the Sun on Earth. Newton suggested the interference effect was of a faster moving wave influencing light particles. I like this view.

    Particles must have been close and in the same environment at one time to be entangled.

    • John Długosz says:

      re “Some experiments claim the direction of sunlight is 8 minutes slower than the effect of gravity of the Sun on Earth.”

      If by “some experiments” you mean the fact that the Earth stays in orbit, and orbits in general reduce to Newton’s Laws of Gravity when you don’t get too close or super intense: the conic section is the solution for the force pointing *directly* between the masses, as if instantaneous. If the Earth were pulled to where the sun _appeared_, the orbit would not work.

      Electricity has a similar effect, apparently extrapolating the motion of uniformly moving straight lines. Gravity handles curves because (ask any grad student) it’s “spin two”.

      The best way to understand it in lay terms is to think about the spacetime warping drawing, where the ball moves in a straight line riding the banked curve caused by the sun’s mass.

      Any changes to the shape propagate at the speed of light; e.g. if the Sub suddenly vanished, the flattening would take 8 minutes to reach us. But the Earth follows the curve which is independent of the Earth’s motion.

  9. Richard H says:

    John,

    Each person can of course define stuff according to their wishes or interpretations, but that has no necessary bearing on accuracy or reality. Relationships such as positions among objects are certainly not nothing, as you say; they are *physical* characteristics of a physical system. Gravity, like space-time, is a physical characteristic of the physical universe.

    We should all be wary of equating abstractions (e.g., relationship, gravity) with non-physical. The words “relationship” and “gravity” and their meanings/concepts exist physically in brain areas that store and generate words and their perceived meanings/concepts.

    My overall point is that everything that exists in our universe is physical. Otherwise, it could not exist in the first place. It could very well be that some aspects of physical reality might be forever beyond human ken.

    Of course, it’s very difficult for people to overcome the ingrained belief in dualism because their most cherished beliefs depend on it.

    • Roy Niles says:

      Describe the physical nature of a meaning, or of the thought that conveys the meaning, or of the strategy that waits to cause a physical system to react to the meaning of a thought. People like Chopra are basically illogical users of their “thinking” apparatus, but then so are those who assume everything is physical without understanding that the definition of physical itself is one that separates the body from the mind – assuming that the body has a mind of course. Or assuming that some bodies have minds and some don’t. Or possibly assuming that, possibly correctly, every physical contraption or construction was mindfully arranged or has mindfully put and held itself together. Illogically assuming that this had to be the mind of a god, assuming that gods have been constructing themselves on behalf of the rest of us forever, and that’s why they’ve never needed logic.

  10. John Hodge says:

    Roy
    Science is firmly based in describing what we can find useful. To be useful, the models have to predict outcomes of experiments. We cannot create a universe, so our abilities and science are limited. The effort has to be to expand the limits. Trying to do this at the level of mysticism is not helpful to science. Speculation with some possibility to be advanced to a hypothesis (test) is helpful.
    What is logical or illogical is open for debate. Personally, I dislike these terms for people claim all kinds of weird stuff (including God) are “logical”. Rather, I suggest the reference should be to what is observed in our size realm (0.1 mm to 1 km – the Newtonian realm). So Quantum mechanics models are all illogical and mystical (many worlds, Copenhagen, etc.). But the equation works (predicts useful things). The challenge is to find a Newtonian type model that works in the quantum realm. Or, explain the diffraction of light with Newtonian type of model.
    Therefore, all the metaphysics about mind and freewill is currently so far beyond our science to be mystical (of little value in speculating)

  11. John Długosz says:

    Re “This collapse effect must also be instantaneous; the moment we measure one electron’s spin, its partner immediately collapses out of its grey state, and assumes an opposite spin direction. ”

    That is not right. It is timeless, not instantaneous. *which* observer came first? Depending on the reference frame, A is first and thus B must “instantly” reflect A; but in another equally valid reference frame, B was first, and thus A must “instantly” change to match the collapse of B.

    In reality, the correlation between the two observations does not occur at any specific time. It just “is”, both sides matching in a consistent manner.

    • John Hodge says:

      “Instantaneous” is not required. Nonlocal means faster than light. Some have suggested gravitational effects are faster than light. The Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics (TIQM) reduces to the Schrödinger equation. TIQM reverse time wave could be just a wave traveling much faster than light. Newton suggested a wave traveling faster than the photons could cause diffraction by overtaking (faster than light) the photons.
      The recent issue of Physics Today (“The new wave of pilot-wave theory”, v. 68, n. 8, Aug 15) has an article about the “walking drop” observations that show a physical drop (mm size) exhibiting quantum effect such as tracing diffraction paths and exhibiting tunneling. The waves in the fluid travel much faster than the drop. A drop could induce action on another drop much faster than the drops velocity would allow.

  12. Ingrid Oliphant says:

    Thank you so much for this! As someone who does this wacky non-medical healing thing, I’m always astounded by the manner science is twisted into a mishmash of spiritualized, metaphysical mumbo-jumbo, pseudo-scientific, sales pitch. In what appears to be a kind of desperation to prove the reality of what we really don’t freaking know, it all becomes nothing more than a marketing scheme to suck people into ‘proof’.

    Many thanks! I look forward to learning more.

  13. Gayle Vanderhoef says:

    In this week s eSkeptic, Pat Linse examines the surprising origins of cow tipping. This article was originally published in Skeptic magazine 20.

Patreon: a new way to support the things skeptic creates

Get eSkeptic

Science in your inbox every Wednesday!

eSkeptic delivers great articles, videos, podcasts, reviews, event announcements, and more to your inbox once a week.

Sign me up!

Donate to Skeptic

Please support the work of the Skeptics Society. Make the world a more rational place and help us defend the role of science in society.

Detecting Baloney

Baloney Detection Kit Sandwich (Infographic) by Deanna and Skylar (High Tech High Media Arts, San Diego, CA)

The Baloney Detection Kit Sandwich (Infographic)

For a class project, a pair of 11th grade physics students created the infographic shown below, inspired by Michael Shermer’s Baloney Detection Kit: a 16-page booklet designed to hone your critical thinking skills.

FREE Video Series

Science Based Medicine vs. Alternative Medicine

Science Based Medicine vs. Alternative Medicine

Understanding the difference could save your life! In this superb 10-part video lecture series, Harriet Hall, M.D., contrasts science-based medicine with so-called “complementary and alternative” methods. The lectures each range from 32 to 45 minutes.

FREE PDF Download

Top 10 Myths of Terrorism

Is Terrorism an Existential Threat?

This free booklet reveals 10 myths that explain why terrorism is not a threat to our way of life or our survival.

FREE PDF Download

The Top 10 Weirdest Things

The Top Ten Strangest Beliefs

Michael Shermer has compiled a list of the top 10 strangest beliefs that he has encountered in his quarter century as a professional skeptic.

FREE PDF Download

Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future (paperback cover)

Who believes them? Why? How can you tell if they’re true?

What is a conspiracy theory, why do people believe in them, and why do they tend to proliferate? Why does belief in one conspiracy correlate to belief in others? What are the triggers of belief, and how does group identity factor into it? How can one tell the difference between a true conspiracy and a false one?

FREE PDF Download

The Science Behind Why People See Ghosts

The Science Behind Why People See Ghosts

Do you know someone who has had a mind altering experience? If so, you know how compelling they can be. They are one of the foundations of widespread belief in the paranormal. But as skeptics are well aware, accepting them as reality can be dangerous…

FREE PDF Download

Top 10 Myths About Evolution

Top 10 Myths About Evolution (and how we know it really happened)

If humans came from apes, why aren’t apes evolving into humans? Find out in this pamphlet!

FREE PDF Download

Learn to be a Psychic in 10 Easy Lessons

Learn to do Psychic “Cold Reading” in 10
Easy Lessons

Psychic readings and fortunetelling are an ancient art — a combination of acting and psychological manipulation.

Copyright © 1992–2017. All rights reserved. The Skeptics Society | P.O. Box 338 | Altadena, CA, 91001 | 1-626-794-3119. Privacy Policy.