126Views19Replies

Author Options:

What the BLEEP do we know? Answered

How many have viewed the movie or read any of the books enititled: What the BLEEP Do We Know?

[http://https:www.whatthebleep.com What the BLEEP link]

I just viewed the shorter version of "Down the Rabbit Hole", and would like to have some opinion on whether it is worth my while to veiw the extended (6 DVD) version of it?

Discussions

New Age/Cult gobbeldygook, I know, Ramtha told me.

There is quite a "discussion" on quantum physics in parts of it however.....those are what I found "relevant".

Yes, but do you want to get your science from a cult fronted by a middle aged soccer mom who "channels" a 35,000 year old Atlantean?

Salon says it even better

No, but some of them were scientists in the movie. Besides, it is not really fair to fault the actress, for the content of the movie. I have seen her in many different movies already. She really is deaf. The science came from the scientists involved (at the end there was the disclaimer that not all participants agreed with each other over aspect illustrated in the movie.

I'm not faulting the actress,and yes I'm familiar with Marlee Matlins body of work. However, I will leave it to you to look at the reputations of some of the "Scientists", and at least one of the scientists stated that his segment was cut and edited to completely misrepresent his position.

You wrote, "I'm not faulting the actress,and yes I'm familiar with Marlee Matlins body of work." Right. Good and proper actors do whatever work they're hired to do.

I recently saw a wonderful exchange with Michael Caine, which went something like this (paraphrased from memory), "Have you seen Jaws 4?" "No, but I've seen the house it bought me. It's very nice." You can call it pandering, but I call it the right attitude for a professional actor.

In any event, the real complaint I have with this production (besides it's utter bastardization of good science), is that the producers misled professional scientists, who are not professional actors, into making satements which were then mangled to support the movie's premise.

Ok, well just so you know, I wasn't defending the metaphysical / mystical side of the movie.....it is probably good to have read a few books on the subject of Quantum physics before seeing the movie, so one can sift out the sand and dirt from the facts. :-)

Hi, Goodhart. The "quantum physics" is just borrowing jargon and terminology and misapplying it, without understanding (okay, without giving a f***ing s**t about) the underlying mathematics or physics. As TUA summarized, "New Age gobbeldygook", dressed up using scientific-sounding words.

. I haven't seen that particular one, but most of the ones I've seen/read were a mixture of real science and TUA's "New Age/Cult gobbeldygook." Judging by the web site, this is more of the same. I think you have sense enough to distinguish between the two. I found all of them interesting, although not necessarily informative. . Worth your while? Probably. If nothing else, it should make a good read. . Worth the money? Probably not - unless you are getting it at the library. . . PS: I gave up trying to understand Quantum Physics - it's all just magic to me. I can understand how observing disturbs the observee, but the business about things not really being there until they are observed is too much for me. If a tree falls in the forest ...

Well, it isn't so much that it "isn't there" until observed, but (obviously) it is unknown if it is there, so without the ability to say for sure, and the fact that there can only be a "probability" that it IS there, we come up with, "it isn't there for sure until observed.

As you say. What you're describing here is what we call in the literature a "hidden variables" theory. The quantum system is described by some precise, deterministic parameters, and our "probability" observations are just due to not known what those "hidden" parameters are. Rather than me (an experimentalist, not a theorist) try to explain this off the cuff, let me instead suggest you look up "Bell's Theorem" on Wikipedia. I know that sounds like a cop-out, but I also know my limitations :-)

Tis ok, I don't consider that a cop-out. I have already read: Schrodinger's Machines -by Gerard Milburn, and am in the process of re-reading Hacking Matter by Wil McCarthy.

I will put your suggestion on the list to read as I get time. Thank you.

You wrote:
>> I gave up trying to understand Quantum Physics - it's all just magic to me. I
>> can understand how observing disturbs the observee, but the business about
>> things not really being there until they are observed is too much for me

It's not that things aren't there, it's more that quantities which can have several possible values (if you haven't measured them yet) do have all those possibilities.

That is, when you work through the equations of motion for a quantum system, you start with a coherent combination (a linear sum with coefficients) of the possible states of that system, and you have to keep track of that combination as the system evolves. When you make a measurement, the probabilites that you'll see each of the possible states is given by the coefficients of the sum.

The weirdness comes in when you realize that those coefficients aren't real numbers (i.e., probabilieis), but are complex values with both an amplitude and a phase. As with an AC electrical circuit, or waves, the complex coefficients lead to interference between the constituent states.

. Yeah. Just like I said - it's magic. LOL
. Guess I need to check out Bell's Theorem. Whoa! That's gonna take a while to get through. I saw Alice and Bob. Where are Carol and Ted?

Yes, I also noted the "metaphysical spiritualism" injected along the way in the short movie I watched.....the "6 DVD" Down the Rabbit Hole, version, is an investment in time though, which is why I brought this up......I might be able to get it at the Video store.....but at what price I am not sure.

I haven't seen them myself, but a number of people whose opinions I respect have seen it, and say they are riddled with basic errors.

It does "promote" the "mystique" as it were, which I was greatly distressed to see in the short version (singe DVD) originally released to the public.