[naphand]

Also, you (bdk3clash) appear to assume that anyone who supports the ideas of advocates of the "new physics" must, by definition support all "new-age" concepts such as "faith healing" and "UFO abductions". Is that really the limits of your thinking? Is this not just another "you're with us or against us" statement? Looks that way to me.

Could it not be that the implications of Quantum Mechanics, and complex problems with such issues as biodynamics and consciousness, are so profound that it has lead many physicisist and mathematicians to question the reductionist approach. Could that be possible. Is there room in physics to suggest a role for consciousness, without having to buy into the whole "new-age" thing. Of course. But people such as bdk3clash and other supporters of so-called rationalism are so intent on debunking alternative theories that they lump them all in the same basket. Scicop will not budge even slightly on any issue that even hints at any "new-age" concept or role for consciousness in determining physical reality. They talk of "common sense" but then deny that consciousness has any part to play. Could they be any stupider?

The article "Quantum Quackery" from Scicops website you recommend is truly a superficial view of quantum mechanics. Let's look at one or two examples:

Since no convincing, reproducible evidence for psychic phenomena has been found, despite 150 years of effort, this is a flimsy basis indeed for quantum consciousness.

That depends on what you call "psychic phenomena". Presumably Mr. Randi and his cohorts dismiss the work of Princeton Engineering Anomalies Reach labs to be not "resproducible", despite the high statistical significance and reproduciblity of their results. Perhaps they never bothered to look, or perhaps they consider the studies do not fall into their definition of "psychic". The single biggest effort in this field over the last 50 years, has been the tireless work of the rationalists to ridicule and disbar any scientist who dares to publish research that supports alternatives to their reductionist view. And why do "psychic powers" need to be invoked for a theory of quantum consciousness? They don't, but Scicop would have you believe that this is necessary.

Despite wave-particle duality, the particle picture is maintained in most quantum mechanical applications. Atoms, nuclei, electrons, and quarks are all regarded as particles at some level. At the same time, classical "waves" such as those of light and sound are replaced by localized photons and phonons, respectively, when quantum effects must be considered.

So Scicop are dismissing the wave/particle paradox that presents so many difficulties in understanding Quantum Mechanics? by suggesting that the particle picture is maintained in most applications. What exactly is this supposed to mean? Can they quantify "most" for us? They try to sidestep a particularly thorny problem by saying it can be ignored in "most" cases. Well in most cases (as, indeed they mentions later) as far as non-scientists are concerned, classical physics is all we need. Therefore Quantum Mechanics is not relevant. Is it possible to imagine any more crass and fundamentally dismissive argument than this!! It is a fact, particles/waves is the wrong concept; some other understanding of the nature of matter is required involving non-locality and discrete properties. This is a tough nut to crack. That many calculations can be made just considering particle-like properties is just a reference to simplifying calculations, or that this particular property is prevalent under certain conditions, not that the particle/wave duality is just a mirage we can safely ignore "most" of the time. This is stupid science at its worst.

They also take time to talk about the "collapse of the the wave function". A process that refers to the probability associated with any Quantum Process becoming "fixed" as a single property, on observation/materialisation. The probability function is a concept fundamental to Quantum Mechanics. The problem is, how does a probability (described by the wave function) collapse to a discrete value? The mathematics of this process, and the physics of it, have not yet been evaluated. Scicop talk of it, but do not describe its significance or the problems that remain to be resolved with it. Superficial.

Mathematical constructs can be as magical as any other figment of the human imagination-like the Starship Enterprise or a Roadrunner cartoon.

Complete nonsense. Mathematical constructs, by definition, must follow logical processes and number theory. They are constructs. Cartoons and the starship enterprise can break the known laws of physics at the whim of the author. Presumably Scicop believe that mathematicians are no more trustworthy in their conclusions that Gene Roddenberry? The fact is that many abstract and bizarre mathematical formulae, derived entirely independently of physics, have found a use (in fact have been necessary) in Quantum Mechanics. The extraordinary success of number theory is describing the properties and geometry of the universe, is itself a subject of interest - because if numbers really are just the "product of human imagination" it must suggest that "human imagination" (or thought) is in some way tied in with the structure of the universe in a conscious and extremely precise way; something Scicop is opposed to and refuses to acknowledge on any level.

Modern physics, including quantum mechanics, remains completely materialistic and reductionistic while being consistent with all scientific observations.

Can the team at Scicop think of any other possible scenario for accepted theories of physics. This is nothing more than a statement of the known and obvious. Quantum Mechanics is, of course, derived from scientific observations. The implications and conclusions of Quantum Physics, however, are subject to discussion and opinion. Some (Paul Davies included) would no doubt say that Quantum Mechanics is the science of the "non-material" and is "holistic" by nature. But then again, what else would you expect Scicop to say?

No superluminal motion or signalling has ever been observed, in agreement with the limit set by the theory of relativity.

The Quantum field, by definition, exists beyond the Planck scale. This means a region where time and space NO LONGER EXIST. Superluminal information transfer does not need to be invoked at all, with an understanding of what this means. The quantum field (or more accurately the "unified field") underlies everything, and operates immediately in all parts of the universe, no space/time restrictions apply. It is worth describing another example to theirs for an explaination of nonlocality. In the example Scicop use, they provide an alternative explanation for the phenomenon of non-locality (or "Quantum Leaps") but fail to discuss other observed properties that display this phenomenon. The best and most discussed example is experiments conducted whereby spin-paired electrons (or photons) are separated by a distance over which a time-lag could be accurately measured. The reversal of spin of one of the spin-paired particles results in an instantaneous reversal of its spin-pair partner. There is no time lag. The information is transmitted without delay. This is explainable in two ways: superluminal transfer of information, or non-locality. Both of which Scicop deny. This property is so well observed that modern coding systems are being developed based on this property, that cannot be cracked (no details on this at present... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]). That Scicop attempt to deny this widely observed property in their "overview" shows a fundamental lack of appreciation of the nature of quantum events; the theory itself predicts non-locality and experiments have been conducted which confirm this property.

If you want nonsense and bad science, I recommend Scicop's website.