Prof. Brian Cox takes on Deepak Chopra; Chopra out of his depth in both physics and language

[muriel_volestrangler]

(I don't know how much Brian Cox (physics prof. at Manchester University, not the Scottish actor) has been seen on American TV, but he's the rough British equivalent of Neil deGrasse Tyson, as the current scientist most likely to turn up and explain something. Also involved is another British physicist, Jon Butterworth)

Deepak Chopra ?@DeepakChopra
Would welcome specific criticism of this article/perspective written 2 years ago http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/god-particle_b_1674717.html … @jonmbutterworth @ProfBrianCox

Jon Butterworth ?@jonmbutterworth 21h
@DeepakChopra Read it on plane just now. Starts w reasonable tho slightly snarky account of LHC, Higgs, & limits of physical knowledge
...
Then claims QM is unphysical or metaphysical (not sure which), rather than just how the universe behaves at small scales
...
(I disagree with that, though there are interesting open questions.)
...
Then via a huge non-sequitur to some undefined “consciousness field” & eventually a pantheist comfort blanket which...
... I don’t object to if it makes you happy, but which has nothing to do with physics & in my opinion simply...
... begs all the questions it purports to answer. Anyhow cheers for reading/RTing mine. Jon

Brian Cox ?@ProfBrianCox 21h
@jonmbutterworth @DeepakChopra Pantheist Comfort Blanket is a superb album, though, I have to admit. ELP at their bombastic best.

Jon Butterworth ?@jonmbutterworth 21h
@ProfBrianCox @DeepakChopra agree. Though it's the live version of "Hoedown" at the end that makes it all worthwhile.
...
Deepak Chopra ?@DeepakChopra 7h
Is the universe a quantum computer & our minds the programmers?

&index=138&list=PLq-kPe9czrIgnMHr3xgHfOBFrl-ma5wCK … @jonmbutterworth @ProfBrianCox #CosmicConsciousness
...
Deepak Chopra ?@DeepakChopra 5h
A mind independent reality is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. Its a belief system @jonmbutterworth @ProfBrianCox @stuartcantrill
...
Deepak Chopra ?@DeepakChopra 5h
Scientific"truth" is based on choice of experiment&measurement a particular model of reality @jonmbutterworth @ProfBrianCox @stuartcantrill
...
Brian Cox ?@ProfBrianCox 4h
At the risk of undermining your business model, @deepakchopra, you are spraying words around like shit at a wall, hoping something sticks.
https://twitter.com/ProfBrianCox/status/486483823925166080
https://twitter.com/DeepakChopra/status/485708181835120640

As the keyboardist on a UK #1 hit single, Cox is well qualified to make ELP jokes. I think he takes Chopra as seriously as he should be, ie not at all. Chopra doesn't take kindly to the 'business model' remark.

[Warpy]

1. I think I'm in love

That's exactly what Chopra does in the full understanding that is fans can't tell the difference between diarrhea and molten gold.

[DetlefK]

2. His Huffpost-article is weird and shows misconceptions.

Quote:
"If the observer makes the difference between a wave and a particle, and if the universe displays itself to us as matter (which is all particles)..."

Perhaps Chopra should go back to reading first-semester physics-textbooks. "Wave" and "particle" are points of views that depend on HOW the observer interprets reality, not WHETHER the observer interprets reality. "Particle" is the classical mechanic along the lines of Newton and Bohr. "Wave" is the quantum-mechanics along the lines of Schrödinger and Heisenberg. Classical mechanics and quantum-mechanics are mathematically connected by the so-called "correspondence-principle": If you play with the natural constants of your theory, the theory smoothly turns into another theory. For example, in classical mechanics light-speed is infinite (it really is not) and Planck's quantum is zero (it really is not, it's just really small). It is entirely possible to describe a classical system, e.g. a rolling ball, with quantum-mechanics. We don't do that because quantum-mechanics would inject way too many details into the description and it would be a mathematical nightmare, way too complicated for everyday problems.

And maybe Chopra should read an introduction to quantum-mechanics. If a photon hits an atom, that atom is the oberserver. There is no need for consciousness. And the collapse of the wave-function is no observation: It's a statistical method to compare "before" and "after".

[Chemisse]

3. The Chopra quote shows just the kind of gobbly-speak

(take some concepts from physics, jumble the words up and spout them out again) that so impresses people without a good understanding of science.

It's infuriating to watch people being taken in by that.

[HuckleB]

9. +1,000,000 ... 000

[mr blur]

4. Ah, Mr. Woo!

[Chathamization]

5. Brian Cox has been caught peddling falsehoods about quantum mechanics himself. N/T

[frogmarch]

6. What are they?

Got links?

[Chathamization]

7. Here are some:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/02/23/everything-is-connected/#.U-Q3TIBdVS4

Some more discussion here:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18527/does-the-pauli-exclusion-principle-instantaneously-affect-distant-electrons?rq=1

[frogmarch]

8. Thanks! nt