Bilocation

  • 1 Replies
  • 437 Views
*

FlatAssembler

  • 469
  • Not a FE-er
Bilocation
« on: January 02, 2017, 02:19:49 AM »
So, recently, I've read an article (not in English, though) about how bilocation, an alleged mystical ability of a person to be at two places at the same time, can be explained using quantum physics. Their main argument is that photons interfering with themselves in the double-slit experiment (because the interference pattern emerges even when we let only one photon at a time) can only be explained by there being a bilocation of photons, and so that the same can happen with human beings. I happen to know a bit about quantum physics, and I think that's not true. Here are my reasons for it:
1. Photons are indeed waves (being both wave and a particle) and the same happens with water waves in the double-slit experiment, right? If so, why don't people talk about the bilocation of water-waves?
2. There are macroscopical particles that also produce interference pattern in a double-slit experiment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrodynamic_quantum_analogs#Single_and_double_slit_diffraction
And, obviously, nobody in their right mind would say that those particles were in two places at the same time, when we see they weren't. I am not saying that pilot-wave theory is correct, it doesn't pass the Occam's Razor, I am just saying that quantum physics doesn't say that a particle can be at two places at the same time.
3. Even if small particles can do bilocation, they do it in situations which are not at all analogous to the supposed bilocations of people. They do it only when they aren't in interaction with other particles, even a simple observation stops them from doing so, and supposedly bilocated people are usually observed and have complex interactions with things.
I should say once again that I am not a scientist, and I don't do anything related to quantum physics. However, I don't accept arguments from authority here, because I don't think it's hard to find a mad scientist who believes in bilocation, just like it's not hard to find a scientist who believes in other pseudoscientific concepts. If you think I am wrong, show me the actual arguments.
So, how can we make people less prone to pseudosciences like those? People certainly aren't willing to learn enough quantum physics to be able to differentiate actual quantum physics from pseudoscience. People could just look up on English Wikipedia to see the critics of a pseudoscientific concept, but most of the people I know don't speak English enough to understand it. So, what do you think?
Fan of Stephen Wolfram.
This is my parody of the conspiracy theorists:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71184.0

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Bilocation
« Reply #1 on: January 02, 2017, 02:34:36 PM »
Personally I'm a fan of pilot wave theory, it makes more intuitive sense than the copenhagen interpretation and it has been pretty well simulated using small pellets bouncing on liquids. And thus, I agree that bilocation seems like bull. In the best and most unlikely situation, you won't notice a thing since as soon as you interact with your surroundings, this includes feeling or seeing, your whole body's position will be determined and the bilocation broken. In the most likely case half the bodys position (give or take) would be determined at one position, the other half would be determined at the other position. Which wouldn't end well for that person.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!