There's no such thing as objectivity (so I may as well be religious).

[miguel]

Regarding your "earth is small in relation, so the laws of physics don't apply": that's nonsense. Subatomic particles don't follow Newton's laws of motion, but they still follow the laws of physics.

So, because the Earth is small relative to the universe, and because particles are small relative to us, and they're not affected by physics (which is just ridiculous anyway), one can extrapolate that to the Earth not being subject to the laws of physics? By that logic, any arbitrary planet or star would also be removed from physical laws, because they are all tiny compared to the universe.

Khris and Atelier,
the notion that quantum mechanics is solely in the realm of the nano world is being debated as we speak.
I am no expert and I based my comments on what I watch on TV and read in specific sites. I'm no academic then, just (badly?) informed.
What I found out was that Newtonian Laws are actually a private case of Quantum Mechanics and even at subatomic level Newton Laws can describe (in some cases) the behaviour of particles. But what is accepted this days is that generally all is quantum, not the other way.
This goes to show that, yes, as I write, more and more scientists are assigning quantum mechanics to things like it was considered heretical a few years ago.
Things like photosynthesis (!), where scientist observe that plants, while building the molecules they need using the energy from the sun, its particles appear in more than one place (superposition). Doesn't sound important? Well, plants do it in warm, wet and damp places (!).
More amazing is the way birds use quantum mechanics to navigate. The "entangled" effect applies here, bird eyes molecules are entangled to molecules at the destination point, meaning that both molecules always know where one is. Apparently birds also communicate this information among them.
Even the way we smell is being discussed right now. Here, the "tunnelling" quantum effect is being tested and studied right now.
I do not mean to impose any truth here, I just researched a bit and found out some pretty cool stuff regarding quantum mechanics. It seams that every day scientists are discovering new fantastic stuff about it. Things that may be shaping what is commonly accepted in a very different way.

This said, does it sound that nonsense what I wrote about bigger scale quantum mechanics?
If so, I do apologise for being ridiculous. I don't assume that I know things, I try to find out about it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superposition: A particle exists in a number of possible states or locations simultaneously - strictly, an electron might be in the tip of your finger and in the furthest corner of the Universe at the same time. It is only when we observe the particle that it 'chooses' one particular state

Entanglement: Two particles can become entangled so that their properties depend on each other - no matter how far apart they get. A measurement of one seems to affect the measurement of the other instantaneously - an idea even Einstein called "spooky"

Tunnelling: A particle can break through an energy barrier, seeming to disappear on one side of it and reappear on the other. Lots of modern electronics and imaging depends on this effect

[Khris]

Yes, it's still nonsense.
The Newtonian laws are an approximation that is extremely close to reality for "big" objects (like a cannonball). In a microscopic scale, they don't hold up any longer. But going bigger is no problem. Saying that they aren't a good approximation because the earth is microscopic relative to the universe doesn't make sense. You have only changed your viewpoint, your "zoom level" if you will, why would a cannonball not still behave extremely close to what Newtonian laws predict? The universe didn't change.

You are falling for the "quantum stuff means, anything is possible" canard. And entanglement doesn't mean both molecules "know" where the other one is. Quantum physics isn't magic.

Yes, we will discover lots of cool stuff in the future, and we will rewrite parts of current theories. But we won't upend everything we know about the universe.

Btw, the birds don't use magic quantum connections to navigate, they still use earth's magnetic field. Their compass is just much more precise due to them being able to maintain entanglement for slightly longer than what we currently can do in a lab. Still way below one second though. And they sure as hell don't have a particle in their eye that's entangled with another at their destination.

[miguel]

No it's not nonsense.
And the next time you put magic in my words think twice because I didn't. You're just being irritating.
You have a grudge on me and that is becoming childish, to not mention radical.
Scientists just made an experiment where an object visible to the human eye can be at 2 different places at the same time.
Quantum mechanics are developing faster than your ignorance.
Quantum mechanics do depend on your point of view.

Entanglement in quantum mechanics specifically allow molecules to precisely know where the other one is. It's not magic, no.

Btw, the birds don't use magic quantum connections to navigate

again, you're the one thinking quantum mechanics is magic, you keep saying it.
And, excuse me but you say that birds aren't using quantum mechanics to navigate but then you say they maintain entanglement longer? Make up your mind.

And they sure as hell don't have a particle in their eye that's entangled with another at their destination.

Yes they do. It has been studied.

Just google for it my charming friend.

[Khris]

Jesus Christ. The only way I'm "holding a grudge" is that I'll plainly call it nonsense when you talk nonsense. I'm not aiming to be irritating or spiteful.

1) The notion that the laws of physics don't apply to earth because the universe is large is nonsense. If it isn't, state your sources.

2) You don't understand quantum mechanics and I don't understand quantum mechanics. But it's just about some curious and counterintuitive properties of small particles, it does NOT mean we're on the cusp of discovering a entirely new reality. That's what you seem to think though, and I decided to label that as magic thinking, to make my point better. Can we get over it now?

3) Please point to an article that says that a particle in the bird's eye is entangled to one at the destination. I read this article, containing this quote:

When a photon enters the eye, it hits cryptochrome, giving a boost of energy to electrons that exist in a state of quantum entanglement.

One of the electrons migrates a few nanometers away, where it feels a slightly different magnetic field than its partner. Depending on how the magnetic field alters the electron's spin, different chemical reactions are produced. In theory, the products of many such reactions across a bird's eye could create a picture of Earth's magnetic field as a varying pattern of light and dark.

You made it sound like the bird travels along the entanglement connection, and I called that "magic". I should have said "bullshit".

[miguel]

1) The possibility of it to happen is not nonsense, how I cannot explain it well may outcome in nonsense sentences.
   I'm quoting "nature" (international weekly journal of science) following the experiment where they managed to submit a visible object in two different places at the same time using quantum mechanics:

According to quantum theory, particles act as waves rather than point masses on very small scales. This has dozens of bizarre consequences:
it is impossible to know a particle's exact position and velocity through space, yet it is possible for the same particle to be doing two contradictory things simultaneously. Through a phenomenon known as 'superposition' a particle can be moving and stationary at the same time â€" at least until an outside force acts on it. Then it instantly chooses one of the two contradictory positions.
There is no obvious reason why the rules of quantum mechanics shouldn't apply to large objects. Erwin Schrödinger, one of the fathers of quantum mechanics, was so disturbed by the possibility of quantum weirdness on the large scale that he proposed his famous 'Schrödinger's cat' thought experiment.

2) Quantum mechanics is not just some curious property of small particles, in fact, leading scientists lean on every thing being quantum mechanics and notions like Newton laws to be part of it.
   So, if I'm basing my comments on scientific findings why do you keep calling it "magic" thinking? It doesn't make your point better, in fact it contradicts all you've been writing in this thread.
   I have the feeling that if me, or Monkey, or another person you don't quite like would come up and say that programming is cool you'd be writing essays on why it's not.
   I'll get over it if you stop that "magic" crap.

3) I've found a lot of articles on the subject and the ones that do mention the fact are a bit "general" for me to use as "proof". Meaning they are based on other sites that are also based and so on. So, I guess you're right on this one. But that doesn't mean I'll tolerate your insults. If you want to keep debating with me you have to stop the "crap","magic" and "bullshit" that's always in your so hygienic mouth.
I mean it, Khris. This isn't the rumpus room and no way I'll tolerate your constant lack of education.

[Khris]

I guess you mean "lack of manners", not "lack of education".

You misunderstood the bird thing and thought it is much more mysterious and inexplicable than it is. I called it magical thinking, referring to the fact that religious types like Deepak Chopra try and use lots of scientific sounding big words (of which "quantum" is currently their favorite) to try and justify their superstitions, because I saw (and still see) you going down that road, too.

To me it seems like your entire point here is that quantum mechanics is somehow separate from materialism, and that science itself will at some point "find god" in there.
Please correct me if that isn't what you're trying to say, because everything I say to you is based on that assumption.

And if you want me to stop calling what you say "bullshit", why are you insinuating stupid bullshit like this:

I have the feeling that if me, or Monkey, or another person you don't quite like would come up and say that programming is cool you'd be writing essays on why it's not.

Writing dumb stuff like that makes it look like you are incapable of reasoned discussion.

[miguel]

You assume and assume and assume but just don't listen.
At least you know you don't have manners.
Anyway, I will not get down to your level.
Have a nice Sunday.

[Khris]

If all you do is throw out random stuff about nothing and quantum theory, I have to try and interpret it somehow.

Make a concise point and I will listen.
If I misunderstood, clarify.
Tell us what you believe and why.

But don't say "Quantum mechanics are developing faster than your ignorance" and then get all sulky when I react appropriately.

[miguel]

Not sulky, Khris,
just explaining that ignorance is a adjective that can be taken lightly, while bullshit gets on my nerves. To most people as well, I guess.
You have been considering all I say/write as "magic bullshit" and that's not cool, man.
I've tried my best to explain what I mean and most of the time taking God out of the equation so that we could have a conversation.

All that I'm saying is that quantum mechanics are quickly leaving the nano world and new breakthroughs come up every day.
I am truly sorry to have called you ignorant, honestly, you don't deserve that, but I'm telling you man, it's not what you say but how you say it.
You make me pass as somebody I'm not and your language makes my blood boil.

Sometimes to get an idea pass one must take one step back.
I thought I was doing that: discussing science instead of religion, allowing the debate to be more open minded.
You come with 2 rocks in your hands and that's just not cool.

I'm trying to convince you that people can be religious without being dogmatic, because in the end I value your opinion.

[Khris]

The only thing I actually called "bullshit" (apart from your paragraph about monkey and coding) was the thing about birds traveling along "entanglement lines". And this wasn't even really something you said, you were just paraphrasing something you had read. AND I only did so after you had told me to google it, which means that your stated something that was demonstrably false without linking to a proper source and then told ME to google it on top. I thought at this point that calling it "bullshit" is more than justified. I don't use the word lightly, and I don't call other people's informed(!) opinion(!) bullshit on a whim.

And again, when I said "magic", I was referring to the fact that quantum mechanics is the current favorite go-to fake explanation for anything paranormal.
Just because scientists are discovering cool stuff everyday doesn't mean that suddenly anything is possible.

To give an analogy: when humans discovered radiation, which was a pretty radical and world-altering property of some elements, we didn't turn superhuman or could read minds. We can use it to look inside the body without opening it, but that's pretty much it.
I'm not saying that quantum stuff will turn out as disappointing, I'm just saying that it's a bit early to declare materialism dead.