Thread: plz point me to disagreements beteendifferentphysicsbranches

in other thread theres a discussion about superluminical speed and apparently quantum entanglenment is instant, superluminical

so i kind of see a disagreement beteen the quantic and relativistic approach

could you plz point me to disagreements between the different branches of physics plz?

Apparently quantum physics and macro physics disagree about gravity, in the sense that nobody has ever been able to create a unified field theory that successfully predicts both behaviors.

Originally Posted by luxtpm

in other thread theres a discussion about superluminical speed and apparently quantum entanglenment is instant, superluminical

so i kind of see a disagreement beteen the quantic and relativistic approach

could you plz point me to disagreements between the different branches of physics plz?

first take a peak at something from WIKI..

Entanglement is one of the properties of quantum mechanics that caused Einstein and others to dislike the theory. In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen formulated the EPR paradox, a quantum-mechanical thought experiment with a highly counterintuitive and apparently nonlocal outcome, in response to Niels Bohr's advocacy of the belief that quantum mechanics as a theory was complete.[1] Einstein famously derided entanglement as "spukhafte Fernwirkung"[2] or "spooky action at a distance". It was his belief that future mathematicians would discover that quantum entanglement entailed nothing more or less than an error in their calculations. As he once wrote: "I find the idea quite intolerable that an electron exposed to radiation should choose of its own free will, not only its moment to jump off, but also its direction. In that case, I would rather be a cobbler, or even an employee in a gaming house, than a physicist

the point is; NO WHERE IN QM does it or can it address a known property between mass; the entanglement of mass within a system.

The reason is, the "energy" itself is not observed as cause to why it is entangled.

But at Bell, they know that splitting a photon is what entangled points in time/space (2 points of "mass" .......if you really think about it).

Gravity itself, (to me) is that entangling 'caused' between mass by electromagnetic energy.

ie.... mass is just energy (E=mc2; fission...what is the product? light;em)

from micro (cellular exchanges) to the macro (dark energy/gravity); note the energy (em) as the base of the causality (the energy upon the mass, is associated)
creating the potential difference.

this underlying issue is the 'missing link' to physics.

identify the 'spooky action at a distance' as the entanglement of mass by em, and the math falls into places noting the axiom that "all mass exposed to the exchange in time, are entangled" (hence how to describe schroedinger's puppy dog) (and notice all who read this will be entangled to the exchange?)

keep your feet on the ground and identify what YOU can experience within a causal constraint and the rest is easy

"energy" entangles mass; its basics when noting that energy is em itself

Originally Posted by luxtpm

in other thread theres a discussion about superluminical speed and apparently quantum entanglenment is instant, superluminical

so i kind of see a disagreement beteen the quantic and relativistic approach

could you plz point me to disagreements between the different branches of physics plz?

Three is no disagreement be caue of entanglement.

Special relativity prohibits any massive body from traveling at or faster than the speed of light in a vacuum If you also insist on causality then it also prohibits the transmission of information at speeds faster than light.

The effect of entanglement is to enforce a correlation between experiments that can be performed at distant locations and that happens apparently instantly. But there is no means by which that effect can transmit a signal that actually carries information. So there is no violation of special relativity.

There is an incompatibility between quantum theory and general relativity. It is simply that quantum theories are stochastic while general relativity is deterministic. That is, quantum theories do not predict definite outcomes, but only probabilities. General relativity predicts definite outcomes.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by luxtpm

in other thread theres a discussion about superluminical speed and apparently quantum entanglenment is instant, superluminical

so i kind of see a disagreement beteen the quantic and relativistic approach

could you plz point me to disagreements between the different branches of physics plz?

Three is no disagreement be caue of entanglement.

hey doc,

don't believe the disagreement is BECAUSE of entanglement

it is that the property of entanglement (an observed phenomenon) exists and neither can describe it.

pretty basic

Special relativity prohibits any massive body from traveling at or faster than the speed of light in a vacuum

and that is why LAWS are often repealed (math don't prohit anything); the parameters within the math cannot define the EXISTING property.

seems that is a much better way of assisting our next generation! (tell them the truth; the math is flawed)

There is an incompatibility between quantum theory and general relativity. It is simply that quantum theories are stochastic while general relativity is deterministic.

stochastic is 'guessing'

and GR don't know what gravity is (virial had to create dark matter/energy, to fix the problems that were noted from the predictions and the evidence (hubble; mass curve)

That is, quantum theories do not predict definite outcomes, but only probabilities. General relativity predicts definite outcomes.

nice guestimation!

fact; neither are correct!

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by luxtpm

in other thread theres a discussion about superluminical speed and apparently quantum entanglenment is instant, superluminical

so i kind of see a disagreement beteen the quantic and relativistic approach

could you plz point me to disagreements between the different branches of physics plz?

Three is no disagreement be caue of entanglement.

hey doc,

don't believe the disagreement is BECAUSE of entanglement

it is that the property of entanglement (an observed phenomenon) exists and neither can describe it.

pretty basic

Special relativity prohibits any massive body from traveling at or faster than the speed of light in a vacuum

and that is why LAWS are often repealed (math don't prohit anything); the parameters within the math cannot define the EXISTING property.

seems that is a much better way of assisting our next generation! (tell them the truth; the math is flawed)

There is an incompatibility between quantum theory and general relativity. It is simply that quantum theories are stochastic while general relativity is deterministic.

stochastic is 'guessing'

and GR don't know what gravity is (virial had to create dark matter/energy, to fix the problems that were noted from the predictions and the evidence (hubble; mass curve)

That is, quantum theories do not predict definite outcomes, but only probabilities. General relativity predicts definite outcomes.

nice guestimation!

fact; neither are correct!

gibberish

Originally Posted by DrRocket

gibberish

now any can see why many of the kids seeking a quality education have such a tough time

Many of the previous generation cannot be fair with reality.

Each item posted is about as honest and straight up TRUTH in answers.

And what do you respond with?

"gibberish"

If any wish to see another clear reality behind this; describe what 'heat' is upon mass and find just how off the current model is.

There is no property called 'heat' as it is just an effect observed from em upon mass.

And to observe this and how to identify the 'energy upon the mass' look into Lavoisier (caloric).

The concept is used in most all food items but the analogy of 'energy upon mass' is completely lost within the Bohring model of physics.

(ie..... many physicist get bent at me on this subject but then i point out how Bohr described the "quantum jump" (photon causing electrons to jump shells) and it just shuts them up)

does any body know how do you get two entangled atoms?

there are almost infinite atoms, how comes two in particular become entangled?

Originally Posted by luxtpm

does any body know how do you get two entangled atoms?

In labs experiments, they split a photon with a BBC crystal (ie.. 1300nm wavelength into two 650's)

there are almost infinite atoms, how comes two in particular become entangled?

try this idea; if you have a classroom of kids and teach them all the word 'fire' and what it means. Then the next time you yell, "fire"; they should all react about the same.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

hey doc,

don't believe the disagreement is BECAUSE of entanglement

This quote is a statement? "You don't believe etc.."
Or is it an admonition "Don't believe etc...."
Or perhaps a 'fill in the missing phrase competition'. "The Luton Girls Choir don't believe etc..."

But on to matters of more substance.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

it is that the property of entanglement (an observed phenomenon) exists and neither can describe it.

pretty basic

[]

It is the case that entanglement is not only described by quantum theory, but was predicted by quantum theory. And that fact is, to use your words, pretty basic.

This makes your first point wrong and supports Dr. Rocket's rather terse assertion that you were posting gibberish.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

and that is why LAWS are often repealed (math don't prohit anything); the parameters within the math cannot define the EXISTING property.

Totally incoherent 'sentence', adding to the weight of evidence that you were posting gibberish.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

seems that is a much better way of assisting our next generation! (tell them the truth; the math is flawed)

The math is not flawed in any way, shape or form. If you contend that it is then point to the specific equation, or mathematical process that is flawed. You seem to think the flaws are clear and should even be self evident, so you will have no difficulty in pointing them out.

The theory described by the math is incomplete. We all know this. It is the focus of the work of many theoreticians and experimenters to resolve this. It is the subject of countless research papers and theses; it is popularised in documentaries and science books. It is hardly the case that 'the next generation' is not being told the truth. If anything they are half buried in a mountain of truth.

So, your point here, though it opened with gibberish, simply ended on nonsense. Prove me wrong by pointing out, specifically, where the math is flawed and I shall not only apologise, but make a $100 contribution to a charity of your choice.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

stochastic is 'guessing'

Really? Even putting guessing in quotes scarcely allows you off the hook. That is a dishonest statement if ever there were one. Either you know it to be dishonest, or you are truly ignorant of some basic scientific concepts. Either way the statement is de facto gibberish.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

That is, quantum theories do not predict definite outcomes, but only probabilities. General relativity predicts definite outcomes.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

nice guestimation!

fact; neither are correct!

Twist words as you will, all that achieves is to portray you as a fool or a liar. Neither is complete. Both are correct in as much as they give accurate, valid predictions in nearly all circumstances. It is the very small, but important number of instances when they do not do so that marks them as incomplete.

And no one is disputing that.

So, in the final assessment, but at much greater length than Dr. Rocket, we reach the same conclusion.......gibberish.

It is posts like yours that threaten the education of 'kids seeking a quality education', since some of them may be attracted to your 'up the establishment' attitude. If you were serious about that concer, for their education, you might want to start out by getting one yourself.

Originally Posted by luxtpm

does any body know how do you get two entangled atoms?

there are almost infinite atoms, how comes two in particular become entangled?

I'll give you a simple example. Take a hydrogen molecule. It consists of two hydrogen atom each with an electron that they "share" with the other atom to fill out its shell. In order to do this, the two electrons must have the opposite spin.

But each electron's spin is indeterminate(it is undecided as to its spin). If we separate the two hydrogen atoms, they remain entangled. (the spin of either atom's electron is still tied to the spin of the other atom's.)

If now measure the spin of the electron of one atom, it settles into a decided state (it randomly decides which spin it has.) this means that the other atom's electron immediately settles on the opposite spin.

But there is no way to use this to carry information from one point to another faster than c.

and why not it cant carry info?

is it because to measure the spin you have to reverse it?

or maybe if i understood better

when you measure a spin what you are actually doing is tossing a coin in which you can obtain two posible spins

so you know the spin it will have after the toss but you actually wont be able to know what spin it had prior to the toss

is this correct?

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Bishadi

hey doc,

don't believe the disagreement is BECAUSE of entanglement

This quote is a statement? "You don't believe etc.."
Or is it an admonition "Don't believe etc...."
Or perhaps a 'fill in the missing phrase competition'. "The Luton Girls Choir don't believe etc..."

But on to matters of more substance.

JG,
Qm and Rel have FAR more differences than just entanglement. I was being nice.

The youngster was pointing out just the ONE

It is the case that entanglement is not only described by quantum theory, but was predicted by quantum theory. And that fact is, to use your words, pretty basic.

Ok first victim.......................

prove that from the "Copenhagen Meetings" otherwise SHUT UP. Mods, i will expect this enforced...........

entanglement was NOT PREDICTED by QM and this SG made a clear false claim.

FACT!

"Bishadi"......."and that is why LAWS are often repealed (math don't prohit anything); the parameters within the math cannot define the EXISTING property."

Totally incoherent 'sentence', adding to the weight of evidence that you were posting gibberish.

another stupid comment

laws in MATH, DO NOT run the show; evidence does.

deal with it!

"Bishadi".........."seems that is a much better way of assisting our next generation! (tell them the truth; the math is flawed)"

The math is not flawed in any way, shape or form.

another rant from a fool who is becoming labeled as an idiot

someone throw him a rope; (see what happens when 'walking the planck')

The theory described by the math is incomplete. We all know this.

so let's get this right................ "The math is not flawed in any way, shape or form."

AH............ so that is your problem, you think 'the math' is the adding and subtracting....(OK, ya got me)...... but am not quite so obtuse; i say plancks constant (1901 pub) is a joke and so from there forth, most all the physics (math) of qm, chemistry and the whole paradigm of science is flawed.

a macro analogy was incorporated in the micro scale; a huge ooooops!

"Bishadi"...... stochastic is 'guessing''

Really? Even putting guessing in quotes scarcely allows you off the hook. That is a dishonest statement if ever there were one. Either you know it to be dishonest, or you are truly ignorant of some basic scientific concepts. Either way the statement is de facto gibberish.

i 'guess' you dont' know the etymology

•Stochastic (from the Greek "Στόχος" for "aim" or "guess") means random.

"Bishadi" nice guestimation!

fact; neither are correct!'""""


Twist words as you will, all that achieves is to portray you as a fool or a liar.

watch it, as i can get real nasty

Neither is complete.

so neither are correct ; deal with it

Both are correct in as much as they give accurate, valid predictions in nearly all circumstances. It is the very small, but important number of instances when they do not do so that marks them as incomplete.

see what i mean about the idiots of science.

within today's model, the math is soooooo far off, that physicist now sell that over 78% of everything in the universe is dark energy/matter.

that means 78% of existence is supposedly so for lost it needs to be put right back up the black hole and wiped before flushing

and on the other side; eddingtons experiment?!!?..... of the light bending around the moon from the eclipse; supposedly sharing einstein's space bending.

well if the light is going through and around the corona; i call it a mirageeeeee

that was from Bugs, himself............it's a mirageeeee!

I may come back to some of your individual points later. In the meantime I will say this: if you have knowingly been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome you could at least make an effort to be write coherently. I won't argue that you should do so in order to be polite, since politeness lies outside your frame of reference. I argue that you should make this effort so that your ideas, valuable to you, are clearly communicated.

Your writing is like the floor of a teenager's room: unpleasant to look at; difficult to understand and generally unrewarding.

Originally Posted by luxtpm

and why not it cant carry info?

...

when you measure a spin what you are actually doing is tossing a coin in which you can obtain two posible spins

so you know the spin it will have after the toss but you actually wont be able to know what spin it had prior to the toss

is this correct?

Roughly yeah.

Imagine you have two entangled coins. (This is just for visualization. You can't actually entangle coins.) They can be entangled in any number of ways, under a few specific restrictions, but you'll know how exactly they're entangled to begin with.

Let's assume they're entangled such that whenever you flip one, the other will follow the same sequence. (Someone correct me if this is not a good analogy for entanglement.) Now, this works no matter where you take the coins, or how far apart they are. Imagine you've moved them one light-year apart. That is, anything traveling at the speed of light will take one year to go from one coin to the other. Now, you want to use these coins to send someone a message. In this case, let's just assume you want to tell someone the answer to a yes-no question. Heads for yes; tails for no. Can you think of any way to do that without using a light-speed signal in the process?