Science Proves Creation

[Bungle_Bear]

I cannot go with you on this one. Fundamental English language principle: you cannot qualify an absolute. Unfortunately, celebrities, the great unwashed and even BBC journalists routinely commit the offence.
In short, the word is not being used that way, it is being misused that way. In a decade or so such misuse will be wholly acceptable and we will have lost the valuable clarity that proper usage delivers.

Language is dynamic. Word usage changes over time. This may not be nice (a word that originally meant "silly" or "foolish") and may sound silly (a word that originally meant "blessed"or "worthy") but that's just a simple (a word that originally meant "blameless" or "ignorant") fact of life, and your hurt feelings are irrelevant. Sorry to say this, but you're fighting a losing battle in this instance. Unique is coming to mean "unusual", hence the frequently used "very unique".

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Very unique means the only one of it's kind. Care to try again?

I don't need to try again. Your ignorance does not trump reality.

What else does it mean then? Your previous example failed.

My example works extremely well. Unique is coming to mean "unusual".

You haven't made the case of a different meaning for "Unique" yet.

As I said, your ignorance does not trump reality. Perhaps you should educate yourself rather than arguing a point you know little about.

When you're ready, please let us know what word we should now use for "a single example".

 

[Kylie]

No it doesn't. We're getting off to a bad start/

Yes it does.

"The smaller an object, the less strictly it is governed by the laws of classical physics and the more it is subject to quantum effects. The tiny hydrogen atom is a quantum object—sometimes behaving like a particle, sometimes more like a wave. Deuterium, twice as heavy as hydrogen, is less subject to quantum effects. The consequence is that D2O is less destabilized than H2O when squeezed between two hydrophobic surfaces and the hydrogen bonds between water molecules get broken."

“This is very impressive work that shows how quantum nuclear effects in water become substantial on the nanoscale,” explains Professor Mischa Bonn, director of the Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research. ​

Also, the source the article cites is, "Nuclear Quantum Effects in Hydrophobic Nanoconfinement," with that word QUANTUM in there.

Nonsense. You can find my rebuttal beginning at the 9 minute mark:

I saw nothing there which indicated that quantum mechanics works on the macroscopic scale. Perhaps you could give me a direct quote?

And did you make that video?

That's what QM does. Newtonian Physics is flawed. That's why we now study reality through QM.

If you had bothered to read what I wrote, you'd see how I explained that Newtonian physics was replaced by general relativity which gives accurate results.

If you disagree and say that QM is the best explanation for the macroscopic world, please explain how QM describes the trajectory of a cannonball.

Why do you seem to be contradicting yourself?

Because you either didn't read my post or you didn't understand it, that's why.

Science calls for reproducible results. Again, a law isn't a law if it only holds true sometimes.

I never said that Newtonian physics was true sometimes and wrong sometimes. I said NP gave results that were close to being correct but off a little bit. If you had bothered to read my post you would have understood this.

I stopped reading after this.

That's probably why you got the completely wrong idea about what I said.

How about you actually read my post, try to understand it, then come back and try again?

 

[HARK!]

Yes it does.

It seems that you really didn't watch the video; either that or you really weren't paying attention.

Anyway, here's your challenge. The $1M dollars is off the table; because too many kooks showed up to claim meet the challenge; but you still might have a shot at a Nobel Prize!

Quantum Randi Challenge
Sascha Vongehr
(Submitted on 23 Jul 2012 (v1), last revised 24 Dec 2012 (this version, v3))
Observed violations of Bell type inequalities exclude all relativistic micro causal ("local"), counterfactual definite ("real") hidden variable models of nature. This further relativization of our concept of reality triggers a growing pseudoscientific resistance against quantum mechanics (QM). I define Didactic Randi Challenges (DRC) via five characteristics. These are challenges which, according to the laws of nature, are impossible to meet. They effectively refute pseudoscientific claims according to which the challenge could easily be met. DRC work by being known to exist while never having been overcome, despite the large rewards which would follow from meeting the challenge. Pseudoscience exploits well meaning engagement in argument to create the appearance of an expert dispute (sowing doubt). DRC decline to discuss "until the challenge is met", without solidifying the perception of establishment conspiracy. This requires transparency, thus DRC are efficient didactic tools. The Quantum Randi Challenge (QRC) is a DRC designed to reject hidden variable models by simply teaching QM; there is no bet or interaction with challengers. The QRC is a computer game that anybody can modify. The present version includes a simulation of true QM behavior that violates Bell 99% of the time, hidden variables that violate the Bell and CHSH inequality with 50% probability, and ones which violate Bell 85% of the time when missing 13% anti-correlation. The DRC challenge is to modify the hidden variables so that the predicted QM behavior arises, including anti-correlation. If such were possible, the presented programs would make it trivial to meet the challenge. This fact and the whole QRC can be taught to a wide audience via the presented heuristics. Demanding anti-correlation is argued to be superior to employing CHSH.

Quantum Randi Challenge

 

[Kylie]

It seems that you really didn't watch the video; either that or you really weren't paying attention.

Anyway, here's your challenge. The $1M dollars is off the table; because too many kooks showed up to claim meet the challenge; but you still might have a shot at a Nobel Prize!

Quantum Randi Challenge
Sascha Vongehr
(Submitted on 23 Jul 2012 (v1), last revised 24 Dec 2012 (this version, v3))
Observed violations of Bell type inequalities exclude all relativistic micro causal ("local"), counterfactual definite ("real") hidden variable models of nature. This further relativization of our concept of reality triggers a growing pseudoscientific resistance against quantum mechanics (QM). I define Didactic Randi Challenges (DRC) via five characteristics. These are challenges which, according to the laws of nature, are impossible to meet. They effectively refute pseudoscientific claims according to which the challenge could easily be met. DRC work by being known to exist while never having been overcome, despite the large rewards which would follow from meeting the challenge. Pseudoscience exploits well meaning engagement in argument to create the appearance of an expert dispute (sowing doubt). DRC decline to discuss "until the challenge is met", without solidifying the perception of establishment conspiracy. This requires transparency, thus DRC are efficient didactic tools. The Quantum Randi Challenge (QRC) is a DRC designed to reject hidden variable models by simply teaching QM; there is no bet or interaction with challengers. The QRC is a computer game that anybody can modify. The present version includes a simulation of true QM behavior that violates Bell 99% of the time, hidden variables that violate the Bell and CHSH inequality with 50% probability, and ones which violate Bell 85% of the time when missing 13% anti-correlation. The DRC challenge is to modify the hidden variables so that the predicted QM behavior arises, including anti-correlation. If such were possible, the presented programs would make it trivial to meet the challenge. This fact and the whole QRC can be taught to a wide audience via the presented heuristics. Demanding anti-correlation is argued to be superior to employing CHSH.

Quantum Randi Challenge

Ah, I see you are resorting to argument by technobabble.

 

[HARK!]

QM only operates at these small scales. It does not work on the scale of our everyday lives.

2007 APS March Meeting
Volume 52, Number 1
Monday–Friday, March 5–9, 2007; Denver, Colorado

Session B33: Focus Session: Quantum Foundations I
11:15 AM–2:15 PM, Monday, March 5, 2007
Colorado Convention Center Room: 403

Sponsoring Unit: GQI
Chair: Carlton Caves, University of New Mexico

Abstract ID: BAPS.2007.MAR.B33.5

Abstract: B33.00005 : Macrorealism Emerging from Quantum Physics
12:27 PM–12:39 PM

Preview Abstract Abstract

Authors:
Caslav Brukner
(Faculty of Physics, University of Vienna, Boltzmanngasse 5, 1090 Vienna, Austria)

Johannes Kofler
(Institute of Quantum Optics and Quantum Information, Boltzmanngasse 3, 1090 Vienna, Austria)


I will give a novel theoretical approach to macroscopic realism and classical physics within quantum theory. While conceptually different from the decoherence program, it is not at variance with it. It puts the stress on the required precision of our measurement apparatuses such that quantum effects can still be observed. In the first part of the talk I will show that for unrestricted measurement accuracy a violation of macrorealism (i.e., a violation of the Leggett-Garg inequalities) is possible for arbitrary large systems. In the second part, I will show that, given the restriction of coarse-grained measurement resolution, not only macrorealism becomes valid but even the classical Newtonian laws emerge out of the quantum laws. Thus, even if an object were sufficiently isolated from its environment to avoid decoherence and fully obeys the laws of quantum physics, it will appear to behave classically under coarse-grained measurements. In the final part of the talk I will argue that since larger and larger systems require better and better measurement precision to see quantum effects -- and infinite precision cannot be reached in a world with finite resources --, there could be a fundamental limit on the dimensionality of the object above which its quantum features cannot be observed.

APS -2007 APS March Meeting - Event - Macrorealism Emerging from Quantum Physics

 

[Ophiolite]

While I understand your point, and I even agree with you to quite a large degree (the phrase "very unique" really bugs me - is there such a thing as only a little bit unique? I don't think so!), the fact is that English does change over time. Decimate once meant to reduce by one tenth, now it means to destroy the majority. Gay once used to mean happy, but now if you say you're gay people will think you mean something else. The word "unique" is going through a similar change.

I welcome change in language that enhances the value of language; changes that sharpen the quality of communication. "Very unique" is not one of those changes.

Language is dynamic. Word usage changes over time. This may not be nice (a word that originally meant "silly" or "foolish") and may sound silly (a word that originally meant "blessed"or "worthy") but that's just a simple (a word that originally meant "blameless" or "ignorant") fact of life, and your hurt feelings are irrelevant. Sorry to say this, but you're fighting a losing battle in this instance. Unique is coming to mean "unusual", hence the frequently used "very unique".

My feelings are not hurt Bungle Bear. But my ire is raised when I see supposedly educated persons contributing to the diminution of language and trying to excuse their cavalier attitude on the basis that all change is good.

 

[Kylie]

2007 APS March Meeting
Volume 52, Number 1
Monday–Friday, March 5–9, 2007; Denver, Colorado

Session B33: Focus Session: Quantum Foundations I
11:15 AM–2:15 PM, Monday, March 5, 2007
Colorado Convention Center Room: 403

Sponsoring Unit: GQI
Chair: Carlton Caves, University of New Mexico

Abstract ID: BAPS.2007.MAR.B33.5

Abstract: B33.00005 : Macrorealism Emerging from Quantum Physics
12:27 PM–12:39 PM

Preview Abstract Abstract

Authors:
Caslav Brukner
(Faculty of Physics, University of Vienna, Boltzmanngasse 5, 1090 Vienna, Austria)

Johannes Kofler
(Institute of Quantum Optics and Quantum Information, Boltzmanngasse 3, 1090 Vienna, Austria)


I will give a novel theoretical approach to macroscopic realism and classical physics within quantum theory. While conceptually different from the decoherence program, it is not at variance with it. It puts the stress on the required precision of our measurement apparatuses such that quantum effects can still be observed. In the first part of the talk I will show that for unrestricted measurement accuracy a violation of macrorealism (i.e., a violation of the Leggett-Garg inequalities) is possible for arbitrary large systems. In the second part, I will show that, given the restriction of coarse-grained measurement resolution, not only macrorealism becomes valid but even the classical Newtonian laws emerge out of the quantum laws. Thus, even if an object were sufficiently isolated from its environment to avoid decoherence and fully obeys the laws of quantum physics, it will appear to behave classically under coarse-grained measurements. In the final part of the talk I will argue that since larger and larger systems require better and better measurement precision to see quantum effects -- and infinite precision cannot be reached in a world with finite resources --, there could be a fundamental limit on the dimensionality of the object above which its quantum features cannot be observed.

APS -2007 APS March Meeting - Event - Macrorealism Emerging from Quantum Physics

Again, argument from technobabble.

Also, this is from 2007. Has there been any further development in the 13 years since then?

 

[Kylie]

I welcome change in language that enhances the value of language; changes that sharpen the quality of communication. "Very unique" is not one of those changes.

One could make that argument about most changes that English has gone through, I expect.

 

[HARK!]

Again, argument from technobabble.

I'm sorry. You led me to believe that you understood science.

I'll break it down into terms that you can understand: Your assertion is incorrect.

 

[Kylie]

I'm sorry. You led me to believe that you understood science.

I'll break it down into terms that you can understand: Your assertion is incorrect.

Are you telling me that you understand QM? Please, tell me what qualifications you have.

 

[HARK!]

Are you telling me that you understand QM?

Apparently I understand more that you; as I understand the Abstract which I presented.

Please, tell me what qualifications you have.

No thank you. I'm apprehensive about revealing my private information in online forums.

I will say this:

I have a long history in Science and Engineering; and Newtonian Physics (as I've mentioned before) has fallen short throughout my years of work. I've studied QM in an informal setting; and it helps to provide answers as to why Newtonian Physics falls short.

 

[Kylie]

Apparently I understand more that you; as I understand the Abstract which I presented.



No thank you. I'm apprehensive about revealing my private information in online forums.

I will say this:

I have a long history in Science and Engineering; and Newtonian Physics (as I've mentioned before) has fallen short throughout my years of work. I've studied QM in an informal setting; and it helps to provide answers as to why Newtonian Physics falls short.

So you have no scientific qualifications as far as you are willing to admit, so forgive me if I consider your claims that you can understand the abstract to be unlikely. Did you even read the actual paper itself, or just the abstract?

And I've already told you that Newtonian physics has been superceded by general relativity. Are you in the habit of ignoring refutations to your claims?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

My feelings are not hurt Bungle Bear. But my ire is raised when I see supposedly educated persons contributing to the diminution of language and trying to excuse their cavalier attitude on the basis that all change is good.

While I share your umbrage at the apparent poor use of English, we need to accept that we are only able to feel that annoyance because we live during a time where a change is being made. We should celebrate being alive and speaking a living, dynamic language. After all, in 50 years time the change in meaning will likely be complete and nobody will see any reason to be offended.

As a matter of interest, are you also offended by the use of "they" as a single pronoun? That change has been going on much longer and most people don't even think of it as an oddity now. Example:

Me: My friend can fit a whole grapefruit in his mouth.
You: How do they do that?

 

[Ken-1122]

It seems to me that its meaning is drifting towards, "Being unlike other things."

So "very unique" means "very unlike other things," and "a bit unique" means "a bit unlike other things." Its meaning is moving away from the binary definition it once had and is moving towards more of a spectrum, where it can be referred to in degrees.

But that's just my opinion. I don't claim to be an expert on the way English changes over time.

Okay; so you are saying it USED to mean only one of a kind, but now it can also mean rare. Is this what you are saying? If so, I've always used it to mean as I explained it, and I looked up several dictionary definitions and below is the only one I found that seems to support your view; it lists 5 ways the word is used, and only the 5th example says "not typical; unusual" which seems to support your claim

Definition of unique | Dictionary.com

 

[Ken-1122]

My example works extremely well. Unique is coming to mean "unusual".

As you can see from the below definition, of the 5 examples listed only the 5th is listed as meaning "not typical; unusual" the other 4 are basically as I described the term

Definition of unique | Dictionary.com

In other words, the term "unusual" did not change from meaning only one of a type to unusual, the term continues to mean as I said "existing as only one" but the term has been expanded to also include "unusual".

 

[Kylie]

Okay; so you are saying it USED to mean only one of a kind, but now it can also mean rare. Is this what you are saying? If so, I've always used it to mean as I explained it, and I looked up several dictionary definitions and below is the only one I found that seems to support your view; it lists 5 ways the word is used, and only the 5th example says "not typical; unusual" which seems to support your claim

Definition of unique | Dictionary.com

So you agree there is support.

I know it's used that way only colloquially, but it's still used that way.

 

[Kylie]

As you can see from the below definition, of the 5 examples listed only the 5th is listed as meaning "not typical; unusual" the other 4 are basically as I described the term

Definition of unique | Dictionary.com

In other words, the term "unusual" did not change from meaning only one of a type to unusual, the term continues to mean as I said "existing as only one" but the term has been expanded to also include "unusual".

I believe I said essentially this in post 218.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

As you can see from the below definition, of the 5 examples listed only the 5th is listed as meaning "not typical; unusual" the other 4 are basically as I described the term

Definition of unique | Dictionary.com

In other words, the term "unusual" did not change from meaning only one of a type to unusual, the term continues to mean as I said "existing as only one" but the term has been expanded to also include "unusual".

No, your argument thus far has been that words cannot change meaning and can only have a single meaning. That is the basis of your quibble over "universe" meaning anything other than "everything that exists". I have provided another example of a word undergoing change and expansion of meaning, which you now have supported for yourself, and you don't like it. That's not a failing on my part, the problem is entirely yours.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, your argument is that words cannot change meaning and can only have a single meaning.

I never said that. I said the term "Universe" has a single meaning.