Quantum Mechanics != Magic

i9 explains why that word "does not mean what you think it means."

That seems like a great reply to how Deepak Chopra and others like him use the term "quantum".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-T556S3XJro

Maybe I'm reading the wrong science fiction, but I never took the word "quantum" seriously in film/television/books. Having studied quantum mechanics makes me feel as though it would be very hard to incorporate it into a story without merely referencing it off-hand. It's rather unhelpful for clarifying something unless you're trying to clarify the subject of quantum mechanics.

On the flipside, people's misunderstandings about science have made for a lot of entertainment: look up media based on what people thought would happen if we broke the sound barrier then look up the movie Event Horizon which posits the same thing except for faster-than-light travel.

Look, you can let it grind your gears that someone used "quantum" as a scapegoat for technobabble or you can enjoy it regardless. If it bothers you so much, stop consuming the media that improperly uses the word quantum. There are a lot of different styles of science fiction out there and some of them are well-known for their scientific accuracy. There are also some science fiction styles that fly in the face of "science" intentionally for a whole host of reasons: to tell a story, to mock people who get hung up on the use of the word quantum improperly, and sometimes out of pure ignorance. Yes, some people do it ignorantly.

You see, Jamie the article goes somewhat farther beyond the first six paragraphs.
I frankly don't mind science fiction writers abuse the weasel-word quantum so much. In fact, I'd say that the quantum torpedo in particular isn't all that unspecific as the author portrays it. Or let's just say that a nuclear warhead isn't any more specific as a label. After all, what nuclei are those exactly and does the energy release occur through fission or fusion?

And yet, the article goes on to attack very specific ideas, like psychic powers justification through [strike]electricity[/strike] quantum what-ever-ness, or - and that idea I've seen repeated here quite a few times - that the universe really is whatever we wish it to be through the power of the mind (replace mind with prayer and you'll see another dangerous attitude still present in some first world countries in 2014).
And of course, and at this point I agree with the author most, the constant undertone "we-love-science-but"-people will display, where not knowing everything seems to mean not knowing anything, which they assume opens the doors for any of their chiropteral excrement insane ideas, is highly troublesome and needs be adressed. Then of course there are also people who by that same reasoning will imply that not knowing anything is as good as not knowing everything so instead of going out and learning something they might as well spread their quantum bollocks instead, of which they think that it is on a level playing field with real science.
And while I'm at it, ignorance is not an excuse. Its much less a virtue but much rather a flaw that needs to be fought and overcome, and that responsibility is at least as much, and I would assert even more on the knowing as on the ignorant. This is why we have schools and why it is not up to the children to choose to visit them. If education is a right, it is also a privilege and those who can provide it are morally obliged to provide it with or against the recipients' will.
Now the article isn't in itself educational. Rather it is pushing people to question their Deepaks next door and tries to inspire their curiosity such that they go out and educate themselves. I think its pretty mild for it, but it isn't about science fiction. It is there to help people to not be duped by charlatans using mysterious new words.

Gisteron wrote: You see, Jamie the article goes somewhat farther beyond the first six paragraphs.
I frankly don't mind science fiction writers abuse the weasel-word quantum so much. In fact, I'd say that the quantum torpedo in particular isn't all that unspecific as the author portrays it. Or let's just say that a nuclear warhead isn't any more specific as a label. After all, what nuclei are those exactly and does the energy release occur through fission or fusion?

And yet, the article goes on to attack very specific ideas, like psychic powers justification through [strike]electricity[/strike] quantum what-ever-ness, or - and that idea I've seen repeated here quite a few times - that the universe really is whatever we wish it to be through the power of the mind (replace mind with prayer and you'll see another dangerous attitude still present in some first world countries in 2014).
And of course, and at this point I agree with the author most, the constant undertone "we-love-science-but"-people will display, where not knowing everything seems to mean not knowing anything, which they assume opens the doors for any of their chiropteral excrement insane ideas, is highly troublesome and needs be adressed. Then of course there are also people who by that same reasoning will imply that not knowing anything is as good as not knowing everything so instead of going out and learning something they might as well spread their quantum bollocks instead, of which they think that it is on a level playing field with real science.
And while I'm at it, ignorance is not an excuse. Its much less a virtue but much rather a flaw that needs to be fought and overcome, and that responsibility is at least as much, and I would assert even more on the knowing as on the ignorant. This is why we have schools and why it is not up to the children to choose to visit them. If education is a right, it is also a privilege and those who can provide it are morally obliged to provide it with or against the recipients' will.
Now the article isn't in itself educational. Rather it is pushing people to question their Deepaks next door and tries to inspire their curiosity such that they go out and educate themselves. I think its pretty mild for it, but it isn't about science fiction. It is there to help people to not be duped by charlatans using mysterious new words.

Gosh darn it all to heck, I hit "thank you" when I meant to hit quote.

I'm not sure why you bothered to point all this out to me. I read the article, I stated my opinion about a specific part of the article. Did I say anything that suggested to you that I had not read the article? I intentionally did not comment on the latter half of the article because I don't have much to say on it.

If you must know, I think people who use "quantum mechanics" to try to justify Will to Power rhetoric like some sort of Nietzschean Paradise annoy the heck out of me because it demonstrates a fundamental reduction of the theory of quantum mechanics to a few parlor tricks and bunch of nonsensical jargon. It's like the difference between talking to Mae Jemison about being a doctor in space and talking to Robert Picardo about being doctor in space. I also have a huge problem with people who say that the world is what you make it because it screams to me ignorance of the socio-historical factors that make up our social training which an individual can be completely unaware of until it is pointed out by someone of a different social training (or someone of the same social training who is already aware).

Well, then I'm glad we are in agreement. I had a feeling you read the rest of the article, but for you or for others on a public forum to read, I don't think my post was a waste. The only word about your post I adressed specifically was "ignorance" as a cause of people abusing the buzz word quantum, and I had my comment on that, where, again, I don't think I said anything that better remain uncalled. For the most part though it was a comment and an expansion more than a criticism on your post. If my thoughts are in agreement with yours, there is no worthwhile debate to be had but my post is perfectly fine in its place since there is more than the two of us who would read it. No hard feelings
Also, you don't have to worry about that thanks you gave me. Its fine, really. In fact, you can have one of mine, too

(yes, I am making fun of that superfluous function, proteus. deal with it )

Gisteron wrote: Well, then I'm glad we are in agreement. I had a feeling you read the rest of the article, but for you or for others on a public forum to read, I don't think my post was a waste.

Okay, I guess I read it too quickly because I interpreted it as a challenge, as if to suggest I hadn't read the article. Oh well, glad there's no argument here. We'd lose.