Quantum Creationism -- Is It Science Or Is It Religion?

[James R]

That is a misdirection. Mathematical symbols were invented by humans, but the mathematical nature of reality is being revealed via naturally occurring mathematical functions.

Errors in this:

• No mathematical function is "naturally occurring". Mathematical functions are found only where human beings are found, because human beings are the ones who write down the functions.
• Nature does not reveal mathematical functions. Humans do.

We can accept that there is an abstract "logical method" by which the universe operates because we can find mathematical expressions at every level of size or complexity.

I challenge you to find one "mathematical expression" anywhere in "nature", not counting the ones deliberately written down by human beings.

Can you produce even one example of such a thing?

Humans did not invent mathematics. Humans symbolized mathematics. And if mathematics are done properly the universe will respond in a reciprocal manner.

Is the universe a conscious being, according to you? Is the universe your god?

How does "the universe" respond to humans doing mathematics, exactly?

Will the universe strike me down if I don't do mathematics properly? Let's try it: 2 + 2 = 5. No effect yet.

Very simple organisms follow mathematical "guidance" in the self-formation of the most efficient growth patterns that allow for maximum energy conservation.

You're confusing the description of things using mathematics with the idea of mathematics causing things. Mathematics doesn't cause things to form, or to grow or to make patterns. Mathematics is conceptual.

The term "self-formation" doesn't exist in English.

No organism has "maximum energy conservation". All organisms take in "food" and produce waste products, including heat.

Natural selection does the rest.

Natural selection is not mathematics.

Nature functions in a manner we can understand and copy, using mathematics.

What you should be saying is that we can describe how nature functions using mathematical models. But that's a very different idea that the pet idea you're obsessed with.

Ask Peter Higgs, he made a prediction based on mathematics that was applicable at quantum level.

In other words, Higgs had a physical model formulated using mathematics that predicted what might be seen in certain observations of the natural world.

Let me give you an analogy. Imagine you have a map of London. Never having been there, you look at the map and you see that it predicts that Buckingham Palace ought to be located at a particular junction of certain streets in the city. One day, you visit London, and - lo and behold! - you find Buckingham Palace right where the map told you to expect it.

Would you be astounded by this and claim that "London is a self-forming mathematical function" that is caused by your map? If you did, you'd be making a major category error - literally confusing the map for the territory, or vice versa.

Ask daisies why their petal count is what we have named the Fibonacci Sequence.

Dasies don't know anything about the Fibonacci sequence.

Ask Lemurs if they know how to differentiate between "more and less".

??

Nature was using exponential functions (expansion) at the very beginning of time (a symbolic incremental measurement of duration), long before man his entrance.

No. There are no "exponential functions" to be found in nature. No mathematical functions at all, in fact - other than the ones people have written down.

If mathematics WORK at this fundamental level then there is no reason to doubt the mathematical properties (functions) that reality itself rests on.

That's like saying that you would trust your map of London to be 100% accurate, based on it showing the correct location of Buckingham Palace. But suppose the Empire State building is also shown on your map of London. Would you have any reason to doubt the magical properties of your map, then?

Mathematics and Cosmology

Relevance of this cut-and-paste: zero.

 

[Write4U]

Math is used to explain the functioning of the universe. It's a good - but sometimes imperfect - tool. The universe is not composed of math.

Then how can we predict the outcome of physical events if not via mathematics?
Let me ask you. Is there any known natural process that does not employ mathematical rules?

"The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" is a 1960 article by the physicistEugene Wigner.[1][2] In the paper, Wigner observes that a physical theory's mathematical structure often points the way to further advances in that theory and even to empirical predictions.

more... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences

Lemurs have neural networks that they have evolved to help them survive. You can use math to describe them. But lemur brains are not made of math.

Lemur brains can do math (count), even if they are not aware of it.

 

[Write4U]

Write4U:

Again, you have ignored many specific questions I asked you. Why do you do that?

Here's what you missed:

• Where is this "outside of the universe", of which you speak? Is the outside detectable? Does the outside have any effects on the inside? What evidence is there?
• What does it mean for spacetime to be "folded"? What is this "fabric" you refer to?
• What's a "fractal unfolding"? Can I do a fractal unfolding of a bed sheet, say? What would that look like, and how would it differ from a regular unfolding?

I should not have to answer questions that are common knowledge.
1."there" is no outside the universe. But there is a timeless, dimensionless condition that permits the expanding universe, in whatever way that expansion is expressed.
2. The terms are named "enfolded" as unexpressed potentials, and "unfolded" as manifest physical pattern.
3. The fractal patterns that created all the geometrical properties of the universe.

Fractal

Mandelbrot set at the cardioid left boundary

The Mandelbrot set: its boundary is a fractal curve with Hausdorff dimension 2

Mandelbrot set with 12 encirclements

Zooming into the boundary of the Mandelbrot set

In mathematics, a fractal is a geometric shape containing detailed structure at arbitrarily small scales, usually having a fractal dimension strictly exceeding the topological dimension. Many fractals appear similar at various scales, as illustrated in successive magnifications of the Mandelbrot set.[1][2][3][4]

This exhibition of similar patterns at increasingly smaller scales is called self-similarity, also known as expanding symmetry or unfolding symmetry; if this replication is exactly the same at every scale, as in the Menger sponge, the shape is called affine self-similar.[5] Fractal geometry lies within the mathematical branch of measure theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

What I asked you was: "Is the field due to the pilot waves directly detectable?"

Yes, the double slit experiment clearly shows the interference patterns of the pilot wave the photon rides on.

Here is your Pilot wave interference pattern as it passes through the double slits.

Bohmian Conditional Wave Functions (and the status of the quantum state) Travis Norsen Physics Dept., Smith College, Northampton, MA 01063, USA E-mail: tnorsen@smith.edu Abstract.

The de Broglie - Bohm pilot-wave theory – uniquely among realistic candidate quantum theories – allows a straightforward and simple definition of the wave function of a subsystem of some larger system (such as the entire universe). Such sub-system wave functions are called “Conditional Wave Functions” (CWFs). Here we explain this concept and indicate the CWF’s role in the Bohmian explanation of the usual quantum formalism, and then develop (and motivate) the more speculative idea that something like single-particle wave functions could replace the (ontologically problematical) universal wave function in some future, empirically adequate, pilot-wave-type theory.

You claim to understand Bohm's theory, so I thought you might be able to answer a straightforward, direct question about it. But apparently you can't even do that.

And you can answer straightforward questions on this subject authoritatively?
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/701/1/012003/pdf

Here, you claim that "particles are physical objects with a value". What does "with a value" mean? What kind of value are you talking about? In what sense does a particle "have a value"?

If the pattern is describable in relational terms it has "value". Complex patterns often are describable by their emergent properties above and beyond the sum of the constituent parts.

Question to you: What do you think is the property that sets different particles from each other?

Not convention. This is one of the possible interpretations of quantum mechanics. There are others.

Well, you are arguing from that perspective aren't you? Else why should you have objection to Bohmian Mechanics? (a real contender!)

Causal? I doubt it. Theoretically, it's a possibility, but an unlikely one if you ask me.
What are you talking about when you say "result before cause"? What result came before the thing that caused it?
And how could a wave function collapse cause an observation?

So, you would entertain the possibility of reversing the equation and consider the quantum event being an event independent from but causal to observation.

Penrose's hypothesis about quantum mechanics is nothing like Bohm's.
This is Bohm, not Penrose. Are these pilot waves detectable?
I'm sorry. The mathematics of both of what is exactly the same?
Penrose's hypothesis is very different from Bohm's. The mathematics is not the same.

Judge for yourself.

 

[Write4U]

What's quantum creationism? Can you please explain the main tenets of that hypothesis for me, if this is your pet theory.

Are you assigning a new obsession to the list?
I believe the general concept has been defined. I have been accused of hijacking another thread, for no declared valid reason.

I asked you: what is the "biblical triune". You used that term. I assume it means something to you. So what is it?
If your answer is "a common denominator triangulation" then I have more questions:

• What's being triangulated?
• Why did you use the adjective "biblical"?

Because religions are partially based on observation and apparently the concept of a triune (triangular pattern)

Where does the bible come into this?

• When there is a "common denominator", typically two things (often numbers) are being compared. What are you comparing in your "biblical triune"?

• I gave you an example as compared to mathematics.

Both of what speak of a fundamental triangulation? [/quote] Both religious and secular mental concepts of creation and existence.
Science doesn't speak of a fundamental triangulation. Neither does the bible, as far as I am aware. [/quote]

3 dimensional space, triangulation as a fractal function, biblical triune, The simplest 2 dimensional pattern possible?

Can I take it that the question mark you often add at the end of your answers is supposed to indicate that you are just making up this shit as you go along?

No, I just posited as a probing statement.

Superfluous to what?

To any objective concept of reality and how it manifests.

Earlier, you asserted that your nonsense about quantum mechanics was related to "quantum creationism", which would make it a religious idea, wouldn't it? I think you need to decide whether your religion has a god or not and, if it does, who or what that god is.

Hoooo, hold your horses. Why do you associate Creation with a living God when scripture is so wrong about everything else. Scripture is not science. It strives to be a teacher of human morality, an effort it has failed miserably . Yours is an example of Abrahamic thinking.
The word God is not in my scientific library. The concept of an Intelligent Designer is a product of human hubris.

Nobody is buying your schtick that you're a deeper thinker, Write4U. All your writings indicate that you're among the most superficial of our members. You can apparently use google search, and you know how to cut and paste things from one web page to another, but that's about as far as your "thinking" extends.

(sighs)
Are you claiming that what I do and post is not research into the subjects?

 

[billvon]

Then how can we predict the outcome of physical events if not via mathematics?

?? I can predict the outcome of what happens if I throw a glass bottle against a stone wall. I don't need to use math.

Math is simply one tool we use out of many.

Let me ask you. Is there any known natural process that does not employ mathematical rules?

None employ mathematical rules. They can be DESCRIBED with mathematical rules.

Go back to 1900 and you would have seen everyone using Newtonian mechanics to explain astrophysics. And it was fairly correct 90% of the time. But some relativistic effects were not correctly explained. What was the explanation for that discrepancy?
-Astrophysics is incorrect since it does not follow mathematical rules
-We did not yet have the right mathematical tools to describe what was happening.

You seem to be laboring under a misconception that if we observe a physical process that does not adhere to the math we are using, the process is incorrect. You have that exactly backwards. If that happens, we realize the math is wrong - and we work on understanding why. The physical process is the ground truth. Math is simply the (imperfect) method we use do describe.

Lemur brains can do math (count), even if they are not aware of it.

Of course. And bacteria can tell time. That does not mean that math (or clocks) drive the world, and determine everything that happens. It merely means that those tools are often used by organisms.

 

[Write4U]

Even though others have already done this, I want to add my 2 cents on the latest nonsense.
Errors in this:

• A toroid is not a mathematical function.
• No mathematical functions are self-organising. Look around you. You are surrounded by patterns.
• Toroids are not a principle.
• A mathematical function is not a principle.
• No principles are self-organising.
• Toroids are not found "all throughout" the universe. Typical overreach.

• Read my posts and quoted passages from scientists!

Relevance of this cut-and-paste: zero.

Not as an example of a recurring toroidal pattern formation.

And, one post later a "mathematical function" has magically turned into a "pattern".
Errors in this:

• No patterns are self-organising. See Chaos Theory
• No pattern is everywhere you look.
• Mathematical functions are not patterns.
• Patterns are not mathematical functions.
• Patterns are not principles.
• etc.

• Read my posts and quoted passages from scientists!

Another error

So you think Chaos theory is nonsense?

Amount by which this cut-and-paste supports any claim made by Write4U: zero.

Read my posts and quoted passages from scientists!

Error in this:

• Write4U has no "alternative theories".

• You have no theories at all.

Relevance of this cut-and-paste: zero.

Relevance of your rant: zero
Exactly which passages in my post warrant these negative remarks?
You are making a lot of hollow noises but quote not a single actual correction based one of my verbatim posits.

You are a lazy thinker.
You think you are critiquing, but in reality you are just being hypocritical.

 

[Write4U]

W4U said; Let me ask you. Is there any known natural process that does not employ mathematical rules?

None employ mathematical rules. They can be DESCRIBED with mathematical rules.

To what degree of accuracy?
Why do we use mathematics to make things work in reality? Higgs just hit a lucky jackpot?

Again let me ask, if I can describe something with mathematics that thing does not have mathematical properties?

What exactly is it that you have against generic mathematics as a logical natural operant.

"shrugs "

 

[Write4U]

Errors in this:
No mathematical function is "naturally occurring". Mathematical functions are found only where human beings are found, because human beings are the ones who write down the functions.

Wrong!

]Nature does not reveal mathematical functions. Humans do.

Wrong!

I challenge you to find one "mathematical expression" anywhere in "nature", not counting the ones deliberately written down by human beings.

That ridiculous question is not worthy of an answer.

Can you produce even one example of such a thing?

One observed mathematical expression is found in the Fibonacci Sequence of plants. This sequence was a result of natural selection, selecting for maximum efficiency in growth and energy harvesting. Nature invented the Fibonacci Sequence, not humans. We discovered it!

Is the universe a conscious being, according to you? Is the universe your god?

There you go again with Intelligent Design. You have what is called an Abrahamic mindset.

How does "the universe" respond to humans doing mathematics, exactly?

You are kidding?

Will the universe strike me down if I don't do mathematics properly? Let's try it: 2 + 2 = 5. No effect yet.

Please. And you accuse me of shallow thinking?

You're confusing the description of things using mathematics with the idea of mathematics causing things. Mathematics doesn't cause things to form, or to grow or to make patterns. Mathematics is conceptual.

That is a wrong assumption on your part. Mathematics are the "guiding principles" by which physical values (patterns) interact.

The term "self-formation" doesn't exist in English.

self-formation, noun

: the act or process of forming or developing oneself or itself
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-formation#

No organism has "maximum energy conservation". All organisms take in "food" and produce waste products, including heat.

Read some biology and you'll find that you are wrong. Plants actively solve problems, via cell memory.

Natural selection is not mathematics.

It is a subtractive process, no?

What you should be saying is that we can describe how nature functions using mathematical models. But that's a very different idea that the pet idea you're obsessed with.

Describing natural mathematical models is not describing the mathematics of nature?

In other words, Higgs had a physical model formulated using mathematics that predicted what might be seen in certain observations of the natural world.

Yes, and when he challenged spacetime with a mathematical model to produce the boson, universal mathematics granted his request, because he had the maths right. I believe that is called proof?

Let me give you an analogy. Imagine you have a map of London. Never having been there, you look at the map and you see that it predicts that Buckingham Palace ought to be located at a particular junction of certain streets in the city. One day, you visit London, and - lo and behold! - you find Buckingham Palace right where the map told you to expect it.

Yes the map accurately indicates the geographical location.

Would you be astounded by this and claim that "London is a self-forming mathematical function" that is caused by your map?

What are you talking about? How was that map drawn to begin with? Before London was built?

If you did, you'd be making a major category error - literally confusing the map for the territory, or vice versa.

yes that would be in error. But what does that have to do with any of my posts? I don't commit that error.

Dasies don't know anything about the Fibonacci sequence.

They don't need to. Nature selected plants with that configuration for vertical strength, most efficient distribution of petals for maximum solar exposure. That is why the Fibonacci Sequence can be found everywhere on earth and throughout the universe.

??

Lemurs don't count like humans. They can recognize the difference between "more" and "less".
Very mathematical in essence.

No. There are no "exponential functions" to be found in nature. No mathematical functions at all, in fact - other than the ones people have written down.

You do know that the exponential function is explained with a human model of procreation?

That's like saying that you would trust your map of London to be 100% accurate, based on it showing the correct location of Buckingham Palace. But suppose the Empire State building is also shown on your map of London. Would you have any reason to doubt the magical properties of your map, then?

Relevance of this cut-and-paste: zero.[/QUOTE] It is very much relevant .
Here it is again; Mathematics and Cosmology

The origins of the study of cosmology
The history of cosmology has two important threads: the history of the geometry of space as it evolved both in the mathematics and physics communities, and the history of astronomy, broadly interpreted.

 

[billvon]

To what degree of accuracy?

To various degrees of accuracy. The Rutherford model of the atom was sort of accurate; the Bohr model is more accurate. Neither are atoms. They are just representations of atoms.

Why do we use mathematics to make things work in reality?

Because they are useful tools to predict what will happen with a physical system.

Higgs just hit a lucky jackpot?

No. And the fact that you are asking that question indicates you have no idea what the Higgs boson is.

Again let me ask, if I can describe something with mathematics that thing does not have mathematical properties?

It has properties that can be described with mathematics. If, someday, we discard mathematics in favor of operant heuristics (or choose your own replacement) the physical process that those heuristics describe will not change one bit, even though we no longer use math to describe them.

This is a pretty simple concept. It's bizarre that you can't understand it.

 

[foghorn]

In one way models are only ‘pictures.’
The artist can follow the same function of mixing pigments and oils to find the colour he requires.
Yet, a perfect picture of a tree on a canvas is not a real tree.
Function, mix yellow and blue to get green, add some oil, that’s for the leaves. Are leaves on trees just green paint?
From old experiment, the artist knew by mixing yellow and blue he would get green, that then makes a rule or law for the artist.
He followed the rule / law and then the function of mixing. So leaves on real trees must be made of green paint??

 

[Write4U]

To various degrees of accuracy. The Rutherford model of the atom was sort of accurate; the Bohr model is more accurate. Neither are atoms. They are just representations of atoms.

Right, and atoms have physical properties (values) that have been codified.

Because they are useful tools to predict what will happen with a physical system.

And how is that possible without mathematics?

No. And the fact that you are asking that question indicates you have no idea what the Higgs boson is.

I know that a boson cannot exist in this reality. That's why it instantly decays after manifestation.

It has properties that can be described with mathematics. If, someday, we discard mathematics in favor of operant heuristics (or choose your own replacement) the physical process that those heuristics describe will not change one bit, even though we no longer use math to describe them.

And why would we adopt a new language that has no words for describing the physical process, when we have mathematics that do?

This is a pretty simple concept. It's bizarre that you can't understand it.

Yes it is pretty simple.
It is used by other tool making animals who experiment by trial and error. Are they doing science?
You think Higgs used heuristics to arrive at his algorithm for teasing a boson from the Higgs field?

There is no replacement for mathematics when the universe deals in physical relational and interactive values that can be codified and symbolized.

 

[Write4U]

In one way models are only ‘pictures.’
The artist can follow the same function of mixing pigments and oils to find the colour he requires.
Yet, a perfect picture of a tree on a canvas is not a real tree.
Function, mix yellow and blue to get green, add some oil, that’s for the leaves. Are leaves on trees just green paint?
From old experiment, the artist knew by mixing yellow and blue he would get green, that then makes a rule or law for the artist.
He followed the rule / law and then the function of mixing. So leaves on real trees must be made of green paint??

I think that paint-by-the-numbers is a much more efficient way to paint a tree. No need for heuristic trial and error.

But making a painting or a map is not dealing with reality. It is representing reality.
It has nothing to do with physics. And make no mistake, painting a picture and drawing maps are mathematical processes.

There is no process that does not involve some form of mathematical function. Ask any cosmologist. They will tell you that mathematics are discovered properties of spacetime and dynamical processes.

Doing reality requires mathematical interactive values.
Instead of painting a tree, let's plant a tree seed in a pot and make it grow. What do the preparations for that require? What does the seed require to sprout and grow? How big must the pot be, how much light is sufficient, how much water is sufficient, how much soil is sufficient? These preparations require mathematical amounts of resources to simulate a natural environment that is most effective for success.
OTOH, too much water will spoil the seed and it will die.

The qualities and quantities for robust growth require mathematics or you will have a dead seed and no tree. This is apparent in nature. When the quantities and qualities of the resources are not sufficient, trees and entire forests die.

Nature uses generic mathematics when natural values interact and produce results.
In order to imitate nature, humans have given these generic values names and symbolic numbers. it is true that nature does not know the symbol 2.
But if you bring if a seed falls from a tree and another seed falls from a tree, there will be 2 seeds on the ground and the probability for potential new growth has just doubled.

When we do mathematics we are COPYING natural values and interactive functions.

 

[exchemist]

I know that a boson cannot exist in this reality. That's why it instantly decays after manifestation.

Photons are bosons. So are ⁴He atoms.

 

[Write4U]

Photons are bosons. So are ⁴He atoms.

Thank you. Is 4HE not a stable boson that doesn't decay instantly?

How long does it take for Higgs boson to decay?

1.6 x 10-22 seconds"
The Higgs boson is peculiar in many respects. Like most other elementary particles, it is unstable and lives only for an extremely short time, 1.6 x 10-22 seconds, according to the established theory of particle physics (the standard model). https://cms.cern/news/life-higgs-boson#

In any case, Higgs had to rely on copying natural forces in order to make the boson appear.
He copied natural forces by programming the Cern collider with specific amounts of physical stimulus and because his mathematics were correct the boson was produced.
This is scientific proof that nature functions in a mathematical manner, even if it doesn't know it.

 

[foghorn]

Doing reality requires mathematical interactive values.
Instead of painting a tree, let's plant a tree seed in a pot and make it grow. What do the preparations for that require? What does the seed require to sprout and grow? How big must the pot be, how much light is sufficient, how much water is sufficient, how much soil is sufficient? These preparations require mathematical amounts of resources to simulate a natural environment that is most effective for success.
These qualities and quantities for robust growth require mathematics or you will have a dead seed and no tree.

Modelling with mathematics is not new, but it does not prove Nature is mathematics. The tree on the canvas is not the real tree.

 

[exchemist]

Thank you. Is 4HE not a stable boson that doesn't decay instantly?

Most of the helium in the universe is ⁴He. It is among the most stable isotopes of any element in the Periodic Table. As for photons, they don't decay either, of course.

There is nothing intrinsically unstable about bosons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson

 

[Write4U]

There is nothing intrinsically unstable about bosons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson

There is about the Higgs boson. It cannot exist independently. That's why there are no observable Higgs bosons. There are none. They don't belong in this explicated dimension. They are virtual values, but do respond to specific (mathematical) physical conditions.

OTOH here is a picture of a triangular quantum fractal.

Physicists wrangled electrons into a quantum fractal
Electrons within the structure behave as if they live in a fractional number of dimensions

ELECTRONS GO FRACTAL A fractal called a Sierpinski triangle (right) has been fashioned in the quantum realm (left), shown in an image indicating the density of electrons on the surface of copper.
S.N. KEMPKES ET AL/NATURE PHYSICS

Physicists have created an oddity known as a quantum fractal, a structure that could reveal new and strange types of electron behaviors.

Fractals are patterns that repeat themselves on different length scales: Zoom in and the structure looks the same as it does from afar. They’re common in the natural world. For instance, a cauliflower stalk looks like a miniature version of the full head. A lightning stroke splits into many branches, each of which has the same forked structure as the whole bolt.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/physicists-wrangled-electrons-quantum-fractal

 

[Write4U]

Modelling with mathematics is not new, but it does not prove Nature is mathematics. The tree on the canvas is not the real tree.

Really? Did you read my post?
Why are you even comparing a 2D painting with a 3D tree? What kind of bizarre comparison is that?
A tree is a mathematical object. All trees on earth are more or less based on the same mathematical growth pattern that evolved over time into the familiar shapes we see.

Compare trees and ask what makes them look alike so that we can immediately identify a tree as a tree? It's the mathematical pattern that tells us it is a tree and tells the artists how to paint a tree.

 

[Write4U]

?? I can predict the outcome of what happens if I throw a glass bottle against a stone wall. I don't need to use math.

Can you really? Ever looked at the christening of a new ship, where a woman tries to break a bottle against the bow but has several tries before she smashes it hard enough to break the bottle? Is that the heuristic method you suggest?

 

[billvon]

Right, and atoms have physical properties (values) that have been codified.

Correct! They are, of course, approximations.

And how is that possible without mathematics?

You could use a larger scale model in which all forces have been scaled similarly. We can't do that right now. But it would be a much better predictive model than our current approximations.

And why would we adopt a new language that has no words for describing the physical process, when we have mathematics that do?

?? I didn't say we should. I merely said that it was possible, and at that point would not need the math,

There is no replacement for mathematics when the universe deals in physical relational and interactive values that can be codified and symbolized.

I agree it is currently our best tool that we have to understand and model them. However, and again, the universe is not just math, any more than the Mona Lisa is just iron oxide and cobalt.

Ever looked at the christening of a new ship, where a woman tries to break a bottle against the bow but has several tries before she smashes it hard enough to break the bottle?

Yes. That is not me throwing a glass bottle against a stone wall; it is a woman throwing a glass bottle at the curved metal hull of a ship. So your comparison is rejected.