Passages like this absolutely convince me that, while physicists can certainly tell you they are familiar with certain observable phenomenon, the reality is that they don't have clue about the realities of the phenomena they observe:
Alpha particles are two protons and two neutrons emitted
by some heavy nuclei, such as uranium-238. Usually these
are bound inside the heavy nucleus and would need lots of
energy to break the bonds keeping them in place. But,
because an alpha particle inside a nucleus has a very
well-defined velocity, its position is not so well-
defined. That means there is a small, but non-zero, chance
that the particle could, at some point, find itself
outside the nucleus, even though it technically does not
have enough energy to escape. When this happens – a
process metaphorically known as "quantum tunneling"
because the escaping particle has to somehow dig its way
through an energy barrier that it cannot leap over – the
alpha particle escapes and we see radioactivity.
They're just making things up and declaring it science.
The temperatures at the core of the sun are not high
enough for the protons to have enough energy to overcome
their mutual electric repulsion. But, thanks to the
uncertainty principle, they can tunnel their way through
the energy barrier.
Magic! We know it must happen, so let's make up an idea to explain it, and worry about its plausibility and accuracy later.
These "virtual particles" appear in pairs – an electron
and its antimatter pair, the positron, say – for a short
while and then annihilate each other. This is well within
the laws of quantum physics, as long as the particles only
exist fleetingly and disappear when their time is up.
Uncertainty, then, is nothing to worry about in quantum
physics and, in fact, we wouldn't be here if this
principle didn't exist.
Translation: Due to the premise that we are terrestrial beings bound to this planet, who can never know a true vacuum, and regardless of our efforts to shield our experiments, are at the mercy of randomly occurring cosmic rays, let's just repurpose the word "vacuum" to suit our needs, rather than chase an unattainable set of conditions.
I don't know a lot of Quantum Physics, but I do know more than most people (not hard) and I'm having a hard time reconciling what you say with what I know. To help me get some context, can you tell me your own background in QM?
How much of the math do you really know, and how much are you relying on "common sense" and popular descriptions?
The reason I ask is that these passages you quote are pretty much exactly in accord with QM as I know it, and QM as I know it is used to predict lots of stuff very accurately. As a result, QM as I know it seems to be useful. Your condemnation of it seems misplaced, so I'd be interested to know more about where it (your condemnation) comes from.
2 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 11.9 ms ] threadHow much of the math do you really know, and how much are you relying on "common sense" and popular descriptions?
The reason I ask is that these passages you quote are pretty much exactly in accord with QM as I know it, and QM as I know it is used to predict lots of stuff very accurately. As a result, QM as I know it seems to be useful. Your condemnation of it seems misplaced, so I'd be interested to know more about where it (your condemnation) comes from.