Okay, I’m only going to say this one time (though I may repeat myself and/or be redundant):

Quantum Physics has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to say about ANYTHING OTHER THAN QUANTUM PHYSICS

And even then, what it “says” is often hotly debated.

Quantum Physics provides no insight into:

• human psychology
• religious philosophy
• new age theory
• getting what you want
• Bea Arthur

Remember, that Quantum Physics was developed when the physical laws that we see every day, right in front of our non-Quantum faces, weren’t working when examining of sub-atomic “particles” (while particles is not the most accurate word, let me assure you that VIBRATIONS is completely not accurate).

SUGGESTION #1:

If you are not a physicist and you’re talking about any of those topics, or anything else that IS NOT QUANTUM PHYSICS, please remember and remind your listener that you are using your ideas about Quantum Physics AS A METAPHOR.

For example: QP does NOT say that “we are all connected.”

If you want to be a bit more accurate, try this: In Quantum Physics, there is a highly unusual experiment that shows, again under highly unusual experimental conditions, the likes of which which we’ve never seen in nature and can barely sustain using millions of dollars of precisely tuned scientific equipment, that certain particles, which we create using even more expensive and complicated scientific instruments and which we don’t see isolated in nature, exhibit peculiar and currently inexplicable (so inexplicable that when/if we *do* find an explanation, it may undermine the theories of Quantum Physics) connections over an infinite amount of time and space (though we’ve only actually tested this phenomenon over finite amounts of time and space)… poetically speaking, if those infinitesimally small particles exhibit that kind of connection, don’t you love the vague and not-inherently-logical leap to suggest that we do, too!?

Similarly, our observing something does NOT change the composition of the thing.

Most people pull this one out of their hats by saying, an electron is either a particle or a wave, depending on how you look at it.

Excuse me while I apply standard physics to map the trajectory of my projectile vomiting.

An electron is not a particle OR a wave… when examined in a particular way, we see particle-characteristics. Examined another way, we see wave characteristics. This, in an of itself, is pretty wacky. And, perhaps, we’ll find another way to examine electrons and see it exhibiting yet another type of “behavior” (or “behaviour” if it’s observed in the UK). Frankly, we have no frickin’ clue what an electron “is” or even if “is” is the right word (proving that Bill Clinton was also inappropriately bringing in Quantum Theory when discussing a sexual relationship whose pushing and shoving was, clearly, Newtonian).

Also, that, mathematically, a sub-atomic particle COULD BE SAID TO exist everywhere in the universe, that does not mean “we are all one.”

The probability that any SINGLE particle is anywhere other than exactly where it is (and don’t get me started on how we can’t really know where that is), is so close to ZERO that it may as well be ZERO. And that’s for a SINGLE PARTICLE (I was hoping that the initial capitalization would make that point, but again, as I said before, I may be redundant). Add together enough particles to make, say, a basketball, or a Lexus, or JUST TWO PARTICLES… and, trust me, whatever you’re looking at, sitting on, driving, wearing or eating will not suddenly disappear only to be found on the other side of the galaxy.

Oh, and for those who say that our observation creates the universe we experience, let me just ask two stupid questions:

1) And so, after we all die, the universe will cease as well? (let me answer: Uh, yeah, right)

2) Well who is aware of, and therefore created, the observer?

Anyway, let’s continue…

SUGGESTION #2:

If you are not a physicist and you’re talking about any of those topics, or anything else that IS NOT QUANTUM PHYSICS, please remember and remind your listener that you are using your ideas about Quantum Physics to demonstrate that your cranium might be mislocated somewhere in your anal orifice.

I’ll let the physicists argue that they don’t have a case of rectocephaly, but let’s talk about physicists for a moment…

Remember the guys in high school or college who majored in physics? (I know there were girls who did, too, but if you were a female physics major you will soon understand why I’m leaving you out of this example.)

Think back for just a moment (or go back in time because, remember Quantum Physics can’t see why time only moves forward) to those physics guys… what names did you call them then?

Nerds, geeks, dweebs… shall I continue? (And do I need to reiterate and repeat my point?)

Do you honestly think that a PhD or Nobel Prize in physics magically confers superior insight into metaphysics and the human condition upon people who couldn’t get a date for the prom and were unable to dress without the help of GrrrAnimals?

Now, clearly, I don’t believe that all physicists are unable to grasp emotions and philosophy and, instead, have to be home at 6 for Wopner. But, look, just because someone is smart, doesn’t mean they aren’t stupid!

That is, we’re ALL prone to making silly leaps in logic, believing in magic, landing on AN answer without knowing it’s the WRONG answer, and confusing something that “feels true” with something that IS.

Let’s turn this upside down for a second… when Einstein (who once said, “Even *I* am no Einstein”) came up with the theory of relativity, many physicists thought he was a bonehead and wrote him off with, “Yeah, right. Like an assistant patent clerk can solve a problem that has perplexed us real physicists for decades.”

If they were so wrong about him, then why do we think they’re so right about how we “create reality” with our thinking?

I can’t help but end this rant by paraphrasing the really cool, incredibly witty, quirky sketch artist, bongo player, safe cracker and Nobel Laureate in Physics, Richard Feynman, “Anyone who thinks they understand Quantum Physics doesn’t understand Quantum Physics.” And let me add, “And if they tell you ‘Quantum Physicists say…’ then they’ve clearly never been to a physics conference, where there are often more opinions than there are attendees.”

Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to get into my wormhole so I can go back in time fix the rift I made last time where I accidentally caused my grandparents to not meet in that coffee shop, resulting in the non-birth of my father and, therefore, me and… hey, if you’re reading this, I guess it worked!

Even though I stopped buying self-help and spiritual books a long time ago, there seems to be no escape. Even non-spiritual and non-self-help books can’t seem to avoid repeating New Age nonsense.

This morning I was reading a book about stretching for athletes. Pretty not-New Age-y, don’t you think? But, over and over, time and time again, repeatedly and redundantly, for page after page (have I made my point?), it kept harping on this idea:

Commit to doing the stretches every day for 21 days, because science has proven that it takes 21 days to make a new habit.

Grab almost any self-help book and you’ll hear the same mantra. I mean, it has to be true: “science has proven” it! And, it sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?

Well, even though it sounds reasonable, that doesn’t mean it IS.

If it sounds reasonable enough, though, you’ll take it at face value and ignore the decades of personal experience you have where you may have done something new every day for 21 days… and haven’t done it since. I promise that the only thing you will have gotten after three weeks of doing what you think will be a new habit, is the ability to make 21 X’s on your calendar.

Some would argue, “Oh, but once you stopped for 21 days, then you made a NEW habit of not doing it!”

Good try. But, first, if it’s a habit it’s a habit! It shouldn’t even be possible to stop! Second, there’s no way you made the same decision and commitment to STOP that you did to begin. “Okay, now that I’ve developed this habit of eating only foods that begin with the letter “P”, walking on my hands and quacking like a duck for 1.2 miles per day, and no longer trying to give pedicures to people on the subway… I now COMMIT to reverting to my mildly brain-damaged ways for the next 21 days!”

Oh, and back to that “science has proven” nonsense. Science hasn’t proven this and, in fact, I’ll make a bet:

If someone can give me a respected, published scientific study (that can’t be effortlessly debunked because of bad or no control groups, too small a sample size, or other obviously stupid study design) that demonstrates the proof of the 21-day habit building technology, I’ll give you $100!

By the way, I know my money is completely safe in the same way that I knew it was safe when I made this bet about the “goal-setting study.”

You’ve probably heard it (I heard it from hundreds of teachers): We know that writing down your goals makes them happen thanks to a “study” of the 1953 Yale graduating class where, 20 years later, 3% of the class was more successful than the other 97% COMBINED… and the only difference between the two groups is that the successful ones wrote down their goals.

When I heard this “quoted” for the umpteenth time, I first just thought about it intelligently: Writing down goals was the ONLY DIFFERENCE? Yeah, right. Can you find me a group of more than, oh, THREE, where you can find only ONE DIFFERENCE between the people? And if you can, it ain’t “This one wrote down that he wanted to be the CEO of a major company and have his third heart attack by 45.”

I also did the math… literally calculated the ways this could be true or not true… suffice it to say, the odds were just as good that the 1953 graduating class contained the son of the Sultan of Somewhere who, the day he matriculated, was already worth more than what the rest of the class would be worth combined, forever.

One of the teachers who quoted the “goal setting study” was someone that I knew had an encyclopedic memory for things like this, so I asked him where he saw the study. He said, “Hmmm… I can’t remember.”

That was the last straw. I knew it wasn’t true and I made a bet that nobody could show me the study. Nobody has. And, even better, Fast Company magazine debunked the whole thing.

After you start questioning some of these “truisms,” you can start to hear the ring of nonsense, like hearing a bad note in a song. There’s a semi-indefinable flavor to the premise that sends up a red flag of BULLS&*T.

I’ll let you debunk some of these popular “studies” (oh, I’ll chime in, no doubt )

WARNING: For some of you, prepare to have your toes stepped on.

• Fish are raised in a tank with a clear divider in the middle of the tank. Remove the divider and the fish never swim to the other side.
• Fruit flies are raised in a jar with a clear plastic lid. Remove the lid and, as if they were fish, they never jump/fly higher than where the lid was.
• Put a frog in warm water and slowly heat the water. The frog will not jump out… and you’ll have dinner prepared at the end of the experiment.
• Take a glass of water from, oh, the Los Angeles harbor. Make some ice crystals of it, showing how horribly contaminated it is. Tape a piece of paper with the word LOVE written on it and, after some time, check out ONE ice crystal from the glass… and it has magically become BEAUTIFUL!
• Professional basketball players who spent 20 days, for 20 minutes a day, VISUALIZING making free throws improved as much (or more!) than those who actually practiced for that same amount of time.
• Quantum Physicists have PROVEN that you create reality by observing it (I’ll give you a hint here: the word “create” is used indiscriminately and inaccurately as a synonym for “observe one aspect of “… and, by the way, who “created” the observer?!)
• Those same QP’s have PROVEN that we’re all connected and we’re all one. (I can’t help myself here; I’ve got to prime the pump: The “connected” idea is a bastardization of “strange action at a distance,” which is only observable under highly unusual conditions where, unlike reality, the things that are connected never interact with anything else. And the “we’re all one” is a confused version of the idea that an electron is, mathematically, just a probability wave that extends to infinity… but the probability that it’s HERE and not in the 3rd stall of the men’s room of the rest stop off Exit 12 of the Jersey Turnpike is, essentially ZERO… and multiply that once you add more than one electron until, really, things are where they are and nowhere else. Or maybe I got my “proofs” backwards… trust me, it doesn’t matter!)

Got any others?