Notices
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 401 to 499 of 499
Like Tree29Likes

Thread: How to debunk new age Quantum physics crankery

  1. #401  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,832
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    In my aether model EM radiation is primarily waves of a physical aether. Depending upon the matter being radiated and the frequency of the radiation, atomic electrons will contact and absorb a photon equivalence of wave energy enabling its escape from the atom resulting in the atoms ionization. Like static electricity, this ionized state is soon reversed by the atom capturing free electrons in its surrounding. So this electron emission process could result in being a continuous flow of energetic electrons for a long period of time. The threshold frequency is a definition which is the minimum energy/ frequency of EM radiation needed to produce so-called photo electrons. In my model the threshold is the minimum frequency of EM radiation needed for a particular material, to enable electron absorption resulting in electrons being "kicked out" of that particular atom or material.
    All gobbledygook to me, FN. You seem to be making it up on the fly. You claimed earlier that the microscopic world acts just like the macroscopic world, and that your theory is superior because it fits that claim. Well, in the macroscopic world, if I intensify the amplitude of an excitation, I get a bigger response.

    In the FN aetheric world, then, a sufficiently bright light (meaning bigger amplitude aetheric vibrations) should be able to knock electrons free. Why doesn't this happen in real life? Why is it that the frequency matters, not the amplitude?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #402  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Strange,

    Density? Viscosity? Specific heat? Composition?
    (concerning properties of the aether)

    Since my estimates are solely based upon its perceived behavior, most properties of the hypothetical aether I have no way of determining; something like trying to determine the exact characteristics of hypothetical dark matter; it is simply speculative.

    As to density, I consider the aether to be very roughly millions to billions of parts of space to one part of substance. In my model it is comprised of spring-like strings of fundamental particles, the largest being in the millions or billions in count, and the shortest being one simple particle. I look at the aether like a gas whereby it bounces around a lot maintaining its pressure which I previously estimated here. It has no temperature in the normal sense of the word since it cannot radiate energy, but it can transfer or conduct energy of motion via direct contact. It also could not be classified as to its viscosity but would have a small adhesion characteristic. Other than the known particles within it, it would consist of strings of just one type of particle. In that respect all matter and reality would consist of just this same one type of particle, maybe millions to billions in a spinning loop making up just one single proton, for instance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #403  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Since my estimates are solely based upon its perceived behavior, most properties or the hypothetical aether I have no way of determining; something like trying to determine the exact characteristics of hypothetical dark matter, it is simply speculative.
    Sounds like we know a lot more about dark matter than you do about your aether...
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #404  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I think Einstein argued that this effect could be mathematically explained by individual particles (photons) comprising the EM radiation, but maybe otherwise unexplainable.
    Indeed he did. He got some sort of prize for it, as well.

    My explanation is that our ability to detect atomic electron absorption is only when such absorption is enough to kick an electron from the atom enabling its detection.
    I assume you mean "photon absorption"?

    OK. I could accept that there is some sort of threshold; a minimum energy required to knock an electron free. But if you increase the intensity of the incident light, why don't you get electrons knocked out with gradually increasing energy? Increase the incident energy by 1% and, as long as it was over the threshold, you should get an electron which is 1% faster . Increase it by 10% and the electron should have 10% more energy.

    Oddly, we don't see that. Why is that? It is almost as if the light energy came in little, what could we call them, "packets"?

    Also, contrary to your model, the energy of the emitted electrons (and therefore the energy of these "packets" of light) is independent of the material. It depends purely on the wavelength of the light. How do you explain that?

    Simple experimental data, known for over well one hundred years, appears to contradict you.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #405  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,832
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    As to density, I consider the aether to be very roughly millions to billions of parts of space to one part of substance.
    Please show us a calculation that allows such an attenuated aether nonetheless to support light's speed. Remember: One of the problems acknowledged at the very birth of aether theory was that aether had to be simultaneously nearly infinitely stiff, yet essentially insubstantial (otherwise ordinary matter would have difficulty traversing it). Having either property alone isn't hard, but possessing both at the same time is a head-scratcher, to say the least.

    I look forward to your calculation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #406  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    tk421,

    In the FN aetheric world, then, a sufficiently bright light (meaning bigger amplitude aetheric vibrations) should be able to knock electrons free. Why doesn't this happen in real life? Why is it that the frequency matters, not the amplitude?
    The wave consists of energy of motion per volume, along with its EM wave characteristics. You could then say that amplitude is the quantity of radiation and frequency is the density of radiation. In high frequency waves there accordingly would be more potential to create photons per given volume. Radiation can be additive and subtractive concerning its wave influence. Electrons are more easily influenced (gain and loose energy) by shorter wave lengths of high-energy/frequency. A great multitude of long wave lengths, may not provide enough concentrated energy to be absorbed by an electron. So I think it is simply the concentration of the energy at a single electron/point, concerning high frequencies.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 3rd, 2012 at 07:10 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #407  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I think Einstein argued that this effect could be mathematically explained by individual particles (photons) comprising the EM radiation, but maybe otherwise unexplainable.
    Indeed he did. He got some sort of prize for it, as well.
    (my quote)
    My explanation is that our ability to detect atomic electron absorption is only when such absorption is enough to kick an electron from the atom enabling its detection.
    I assume you mean "photon absorption"?
    An electron's absorption of wave energy, equivalent to photon absorption in the standard model.

    OK. I could accept that there is some sort of threshold; a minimum energy required to knock an electron free. But if you increase the intensity of the incident light, why don't you get electrons knocked out with gradually increasing energy? Increase the incident energy by 1% and, as long as it was over the threshold, you should get an electron which is 1% faster . Increase it by 10% and the electron should have 10% more energy.

    The idea is that it takes a certain energy for the electron to escape the atom or reach a higher orbit, but unless it has enough energy additional to go to the next orbit again or leave the atom, it will lose any excess energy immediately to its surrounding vortex.
    Oddly, we don't see that. Why is that? It is almost as if the light energy came in little, what could we call them, "packets"?
    Simple experimental data, known for over well one hundred years, appears to contradict you.
    Each electron shell of the atom accordingly requires a certain amount of energy of motion for the electron to stay in that orbit. If it "falls" to a lower level it accordingly will lose energy in the process via the emission of a photon. If it gains enough energy it can move to the next higher orbit/shell or escape, any excess energy would be absorbed by the vortex. Each level of electron shells has its own unique energy level requirement for an electron to maintain its position within the atom.

    Also, contrary to your model, the energy of the emitted electrons (and therefore the energy of these "packets" of light) is independent of the material. It depends purely on the wavelength of the light. How do you explain that?
    The wavelength of the light is the basis for the electron's energy absorption, higher wavelengths higher energy absorption.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 3rd, 2012 at 07:26 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #408  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    The wave consists of energy of motion per volume, along with its EM wave characteristics. You could then say that amplitude is the quantity of radiation and frequency is the density of radiation. In high frequency waves there accordingly would be more potential to create photons per given volume. Radiation can be additive and subtractive concerning its wave influence. Electrons are more easily influenced (gain and loose energy) by shorter wave lengths of high-energy/frequency.
    This is meaningless waffle. Electrons are given more kinetic energy by frequency than energy? Really? We know from the simple mathematical description of waves that amplitude is proportional to energy, not frequency. When you turn up the volume (energy) on your stereo, does the pitch change? No.

    You have to continually keep coming up with these vague unquantifiable descriptions to try and keep your model afloat.

    But one simple model provides a precise quantitative description of the black body spectrum (how does your aether explain that?), the photoelectric effect, and many other thins that are difficult or impossible to explain classically.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #409  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    The wavelength of the light is the basis for the electron energy absorbed. Higher wavelengths higher energy absorption.
    Why doesn't the energy (amplitude) of the light affect the energy of the electron? Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #410  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    The wavelength of the light is the basis for the electron energy absorbed. Higher wavelengths higher energy absorption.
    Why doesn't the energy (amplitude) of the light affect the energy of the electron? Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd?
    Yes, maybe, but I think it can be explained by the higher point energy concentrations within higher frequency radiation within smaller volumes.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 3rd, 2012 at 08:37 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #411  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Strange,

    ......many other things that are difficult or impossible to explain classically.
    You are correct in that many of my explanations are far from classical. My point is not that my explanations are necessarily classical or even necessarily valid, my point is that my answers should seem logical, and if I make a mistake in any of my explanations that you might point out, that I could quickly find another alternative logical aether explanation to take its place. This leads to the statement that I think everything in the quantum world can be explained logically with the inclusion of a logical sounding, and mathematical aether theory of some kind.

    But one simple model provides a precise quantitative description of the black body spectrum (how does your aether explain that?.......
    The black body spectrum of background radiation veers too much into cosmology which is generally a very different subject, unless you have a different meaning to your question. I should only give a brief answer since my model is a Theory-Of-Everything and one subject easily transitions into another.


    Black body defined (physics):

    A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence. A black body in thermal equilibrium (that is, at a constant temperature) emits electromagnetic radiation called black-body radiation. The radiation is emitted according to Planck's law, meaning that it has a spectrum that is determined by the temperature alone (see figure at right), not by the body's shape or composition.
    Black body - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The cosmic microwave background is considered blackbody radiation. In my own model it is the temperature of space concerning galactic and intergalactic matter therein, unrelated to a Big Bang scenario. I do not go into quantitative detail as you suggest. The equilibrium temperature is accordingly created by galactic stellar radiation and maintained at a relatively constant temperature via its material's re-radiation and by its surrounding aether that helps maintain the temperature equilibrium by a hypothetical aether temperature conduction process.

    Since this is generally unrelated to this thread topic let us not go into this subject in any greater detail unless you wish me to start another thread on cosmology to further explain the details of my own cosmological model.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 3rd, 2012 at 08:12 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #412  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,832
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    The wavelength of the light is the basis for the electron energy absorbed. Higher wavelengths higher energy absorption.
    Why doesn't the energy (amplitude) of the light affect the energy of the electron? Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd?
    Yes, maybe, but I think it can be explained by the higher point energy concentrations with higher frequencies.
    No it can't, even within your ad hoc framework. In the real photoelectric effect, an infinitesimal change in frequency will cause a change from "no emission" to "emission." In your description, the "energy concentration" increases with frequency, but the total energy will also increase with intensity. So, in your formulation, I could compensate for a tiny reduction in frequency by a suitably large increase in intensity, and accordingly (yes, I chose that word intentionally) cause electrons to be dislodged. But that's not what happens. In the real photoelectric effect, if the wavelength is too great, even by a tiny amount, there's no intensity that will dislodge electrons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #413  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    The wavelength of the light is the basis for the electron energy absorbed. Higher wavelengths higher energy absorption.
    Why doesn't the energy (amplitude) of the light affect the energy of the electron? Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd?
    Yes, maybe, but I think it can be explained by the higher point energy concentrations with higher frequencies.
    No it can't, even within your ad hoc framework. In the real photoelectric effect, an infinitesimal change in frequency will cause a change from "no emission" to "emission." In your description, the "energy concentration" increases with frequency, but the total energy will also increase with intensity. So, in your formulation, I could compensate for a tiny reduction in frequency by a suitably large increase in intensity, and accordingly (yes, I chose that word intentionally) cause electrons to be dislodged. But that's not what happens. In the real photoelectric effect, if the wavelength is too great, even by a tiny amount, there's no intensity that will dislodge electrons.
    ....So, in your formulation, I could compensate for a tiny reduction in frequency by a suitably large increase in intensity ....
    I did not say that. We are only talking about how individual electrons react. Although one can stuff a great amount of radiation into a small volume (intensity), at atomic scales only a sufficiently high frequency/energy at one point can motivate an electron based upon experiment. In this way my model would not seem to be different from the standard model.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 3rd, 2012 at 08:36 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #414  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,832
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I did not say that. We are only talking about how individual electrons reacts. Although one can stuff a great amount of radiation into a small volume (intensity), at atomic scales only a sufficiently high frequency/energy at one point can motivate an electron. In this way my model would not seem to be different from the standard model.
    No, you actually said it, even though you did not use those words. You wave your hands so much in a desperate attempt to reconcile the built-in contradictions in your "theory" that it's a wonder that a tornado doesn't spontaneously form over your head.

    So let me recap, and you pay attention this time: You have said -- and AlexG properly called you on it -- that there's no difference between the macroscopic and microscopic realm.

    I pointed out -- correctly -- that in the macroscopic realm, you get a bigger response if you push harder.

    So out comes the photoelectric effect example. You push harder (with a brighter light), but it doesn't matter if the wavelength is too great. So here's an example where the microscopic realm behaves quite differently from the macroscopic.

    To resolve the unresolvable, you merely declare by fiat that your model matches reality. But you have not shown that assertion to be true. Indeed, your lack of an actual theory prevents you from doing so. Accordingly, you have no basis for the declaration. Indeed, given the statements you have made, I was able to construct the logical chain above which leads to a conclusion that is at odds with experiment.

    That's a reductio ad absurdum proof that one or more of your postulates is wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #415  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I did not say that. We are only talking about how individual electrons reacts. Although one can stuff a great amount of radiation into a small volume (intensity), at atomic scales only a sufficiently high frequency/energy at one point can motivate an electron. In this way my model would not seem to be different from the standard model.
    No, you actually said it, even though you did not use those words. You wave your hands so much in a desperate attempt to reconcile the built-in contradictions in your "theory" that it's a wonder that a tornado doesn't spontaneously form over your head.
    Spontaneous tornados? that would be cool
    So let me recap, and you pay attention this time: You have said -- and AlexG properly called you on it -- that there's no difference between the macroscopic and microscopic realm.
    I pointed out -- correctly -- that in the macroscopic realm, you get a bigger response if you push harder.
    Now I see your point. Yes, you are correct, of course. There are differences between the macro and micro world exemplified by electron and proton behaviors being quite different from bowling balls, with almost countless other examples, but with an understanding of their behavior in the quantum realm when included within an aether model, I think there would be no mystery to their behavior or generally anything in the quantum world.

    So out comes the photoelectric effect example. You push harder (with a brighter light), but it doesn't matter if the wavelength is too great. So here's an example where the microscopic realm behaves quite differently from the macroscopic.
    Yes, not the same but logically explainable.

    To resolve the unresolvable, you merely declare by fiat that your model matches reality. But you have not shown that assertion to be true. Indeed, your lack of an actual theory prevents you from doing so. Accordingly, you have no basis for the declaration. Indeed, given the statements you have made, I was able to construct the logical chain above which leads to a conclusion that is at odds with experiment.
    Yes, we are discussing points of differences, and there certainly are differences between the two worlds as all realize, but I contend that the understandings of the micro-world are not necessarily difficult to understand, and I believe are logical from the perspective of an aether model.

    That's a reductio ad absurdum proof that one or more of your postulates is wrong.
    If you say so
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 3rd, 2012 at 09:21 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #416  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    As to density, I consider the aether to be very roughly millions to billions of parts of space to one part of substance.
    Please show us a calculation that allows such an attenuated aether nonetheless to support light's speed. Remember: One of the problems acknowledged at the very birth of aether theory was that aether had to be simultaneously nearly infinitely stiff, yet essentially insubstantial (otherwise ordinary matter would have difficulty traversing it). Having either property alone isn't hard, but possessing both at the same time is a head-scratcher, to say the least.

    I look forward to your calculation.
    Although there accordingly would be much vacant space within the aether, maybe half of this space would be within the aether particulates themselves rather than outside of them. Think of the space within a field of infinitesimal bouncing coiled springs, maybe a similar ratio of space within molecules of an ocean of water.

    I tried to copy from my website but the drawing takes up too much band width. The drawing is at the Pan Theory, page 20. It looks like a whole bunch of springs close together. As I said before they bounce around a lot and their density determines the speed of light. In my own model the speed of light is not constant but varies with aether density. On the Earth surface this speed should be about 20 miles per hour difference between the speed of light traveling upward, as apposed to the faster speed of light traveling downward. This is an aspect of my own model which does not directly relate to the subject of this thread.

    Accordingly aether particulates can be millions of billions of times smaller than a proton or electron so in this way its behavior is more like a generally frictionless fluid. But its particulates are "tight enough" together that wave energies can flow readily through it without interruption. Other than its pressure density upon itself and upon matter, already provided, and the equational spring-like configuration of its entities, I propose no other numerically supported hypothesis of aether characteristics.

    I concur that head scratching has been involved with my own related considerations
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 3rd, 2012 at 11:51 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #417  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,832
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Accordingly aether particulates can be millions of billions of times smaller than a proton or electron so in this way its behavior is more like a generally frictionless fluid. But its particulates are "tight enough" together that wave energies can flow readily through it without interruption. Other than its pressure density upon itself and upon matter, already provided, and the equational spring-like configuration of its entities, I propose no other numerically supported hypothesis of aether characteristics.

    I concur that head scratching has been involved with my own related considerations
    You haven't bothered to calculate the mechanical constants of relevance for your aether. Accordingly, you don't have a scientific justification to invoke it, since you can't say anything about whether it could have the properties that you arbitrarily and aspirationally ascribe to it.

    Accordingly, we can fairly dismiss it at this point as a fantasy, fully equivalent in substance to "I want it to be this way, so I'm just going to say that it is this way. You'll just have to take my word for it, 'cause I got nothin' else."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #418  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    when the gravitational constant equation is normalized by eliminating the (m/kg)2 factor needed for the gravity formulation, then by multiplied it by 2 1/2 , which normalizes the linear directional vector needed for gravity constant into a radial vector force, one then gets the radial force equation above, accordingly relating to the field radial force of an omnipresent aether. I did not wish the subject to diverge much from this quantum theory topic which I think still has much discussion possibilities.
    Huh ?!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #419  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I think everything in the quantum world can be explained logically with the inclusion of a logical sounding, and mathematical aether theory of some kind.
    If so, why has no one managed to do it. It certainly doesn't seem to be for want of trying.

    The black body spectrum of background radiation veers too much into cosmology
    It has absolutely nothing to do with cosmology. It is a problem in classical physics.


    Black body defined (physics)
    Why do you keep doing this? Just to pad out your posts? We all know what a black body is. And why classical physics cannot explain the spectrum.

    The cosmic microwave background is considered blackbody radiation.
    It has absolutely nothing to do with cosmology as THE DEFINITION YOU POSTED made clear.

    So now you have defined a black body. How does you aether theory explain the black body spectrum?

    Since this is generally unrelated to this thread topic let us not go into this subject in any greater detail unless you wish me to start another thread on cosmology to further explain the details of my own cosmological model.
    No. I want you stop talking about cosmology and explain how your aether theory explains the black body spectrum.

    ETA:
    As you apparently don't have a clue (who'd have guessed) search for: "ultraviolet catastrophe" (not that I expect anything other than some vague waffle about the aether magically solving this problem, but no quantitative explanation of how exactly it does that.)
    Last edited by Strange; November 4th, 2012 at 06:40 AM.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #420  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    when the gravitational constant equation is normalized by eliminating the (m/kg)2 factor needed for the gravity formulation, then by multiplied it by 2 1/2 , which normalizes the linear directional vector needed for gravity constant into a radial vector force, one then gets the radial force equation above, accordingly relating to the field radial force of an omnipresent aether. I did not wish the subject to diverge much from this quantum theory topic which I think still has much discussion possibilities.
    Huh ?!
    When one multiplies two masses together in the Newtonian gravity formula one gets kg2 in the numerator. When one divides the product by the square of the distance between the two masses one gets meters squared in the denominator. The result will be the force of gravity which can be expressed in Newtons which is N = kg m/ s2 . The G constant factor has to have m3, kg-1, s-2 as its units, to have the answer of the equation come out in the proper force units. To express the G factor into an initial force one eliminates the units that do not apply to force ("normalize it"). So one needs to eliminate m2 / kg2 for the G factor to express the quantity as a force vector.

    In pushing gravity aether model the force of the aether in an open field is pushing in all directions upon itself and upon matter, a kind of atmospheric pressure. If the radial force vector were uniformly X in all directions inward, what would be the linear force vector combined in just one direction. It would be the radial vector divided by the square root of 2, a conversion from a radial vector to a single directional vector, which I called "normalizing."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #421  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Accordingly aether particulates can be millions of billions of times smaller than a proton or electron so in this way its behavior is more like a generally frictionless fluid. But its particulates are "tight enough" together that wave energies can flow readily through it without interruption. Other than its pressure density upon itself and upon matter, already provided, and the equational spring-like configuration of its entities, I propose no other numerically supported hypothesis of aether characteristics.

    I concur that head scratching has been involved with my own related considerations
    You haven't bothered to calculate the mechanical constants of relevance for your aether. Accordingly, you don't have a scientific justification to invoke it, since you can't say anything about whether it could have the properties that you arbitrarily and aspirationally ascribe to it.
    Accordingly, we can fairly dismiss it at this point as a fantasy, fully equivalent in substance to "I want it to be this way, so I'm just going to say that it is this way. You'll just have to take my word for it, 'cause I got nothin' else."
    You are correct. If some aspect of it seems unreasonable/ illogical then anyone could point it out. Without the math there is no way to quantitatively test an exact model since for the purpose of this thread I'm trying to present a generic model without getting into further detail at this point. Generally speaking my own model is generic in that I could go in many different directions with some of the details and related math. It's similar to the proposal of dark matter, there is no math to it other than various alternative speculations that could include math, but certainly no consensus math to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #422  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    It's similar to the proposal of dark matter, there is no math to it
    Remind me, is that ignorance or dishonesty? I forget.

    The only reason that dark matter is proposed is because of mathematics. This also allows various detailed properties to be defined.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #423  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    If some aspect of it seems unreasonable/ illogical then anyone could point it out.
    So, this claim that the universe must make sense and be logical to "an average person"; is that any average person? Or just average people called Forrest Noble. Because, to me, your ideas are incoherent, self-contradictory and lacking in logic. Therefore, by your own fundamental principle of how the universe works, they must be wrong. No?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #424  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I think everything in the quantum world can be explained logically with the inclusion of a logical sounding, and mathematical aether theory of some kind.
    If so, why has no one managed to do it. It certainly doesn't seem to be for want of trying.
    I think the reason few have proposed such ideas recently is because such ideas are presently unpopular and critics might call the proposal an "aether proposal" (which it would be)

    It has absolutely nothing to do with cosmology as THE DEFINITION YOU POSTED made clear.

    So now you have defined a black body. How does you aether theory explain the black body spectrum?

    ETA:
    As you apparently don't have a clue (who'd have guessed) search for: "ultraviolet catastrophe" (not that I expect anything other than some vague waffle about the aether magically solving this problem, but no quantitative explanation of how exactly it does that.)
    yeah, I expect I didn't properly understand your question being unrelated to cosmology. Upon reading about "ultraviolet catastrophe" I think I now better understand your question. My aether model is not necessarily contrary to Planck's proposals.

    Planck postulated:
    that electromagnetic energy did not follow the classical description, but could only be emitted in discrete packets of energy proportional to the frequency, as given by Planck's law. This has the effect of reducing the number of possible excited modes with a given frequency .......... and thus the average energy at those frequencies. The radiated power eventually goes to zero at infinite frequencies, and the total predicted power is finite
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe

    I would have no argument with this because it is now observed fact. The energy of the wave determines the energy of the photon created. Since atomic electrons exist in shells of discrete energy levels, the wave and photon radiation they produce would also be based upon the electron's energy which is discrete.

    One can look at electron shells being at generally discrete distances from the atomic nucleus which would require a discrete energy to sustain its existence within that shell, and distance from the nucleus. In an aether model there are physical waves moving outward as the nucleus spins. The distances between the troughs of the waves would accordingly be the shells where electrons would be found. The distances between these troughs would be discrete/ of a specific distance, therefore the energy to maintain the distance discrete.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 4th, 2012 at 02:12 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #425  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Sigh. It has nothing to do with "electron shells". It cannot be explained classically. I'm not going to waste any time attempting to bring you up to speed with basic physics.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #426  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post

    When one multiplies two masses together in the Newtonian gravity formula one gets kg2 in the numerator. When one divides the product by the square of the distance between the two masses one gets meters squared in the denominator. The result will be the force of gravity which can be expressed in Newtons which is N = kg m/ s2 . The G constant factor has to have m3, kg-1, s-2 as its units, to have the answer of the equation come out in the proper force units. To express the G factor into an initial force one eliminates the units that do not apply to force ("normalize it"). So one needs to eliminate m2 / kg2 for the G factor to express the quantity as a force vector.

    In pushing gravity aether model the force of the aether in an open field is pushing in all directions upon itself and upon matter, a kind of atmospheric pressure. If the radial force vector were uniformly X in all directions inward, what would be the linear force vector combined in just one direction. It would be the radial vector divided by the square root of 2, a conversion from a radial vector to a single directional vector, which I called "normalizing."
    So all of this is based on Newtonian gravity and the inverse square law, which we know is only approximately correct, and even that only for weak fields ? We already have a much better model, GR.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #427  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    If some aspect of it seems unreasonable/ illogical then anyone could point it out.
    So, this claim that the universe must make sense and be logical to "an average person"; is that any average person?
    Yes, I believe any person of average intelligence.

    Because, to me, your ideas are incoherent, self-contradictory and lacking in logic. Therefore, by your own fundamental principle of how the universe works, they must be wrong. No?
    My guess is because you have not spent enough time considering the possibilities of the ideas, but certainly my explanations of them may be far from complete or perfect. I think just to ask questions can answer some of your questions and reveal where my explanations may be inadequate, self contradictory, illogical, or lacking in some way. If inadequate, I would try to expand or otherwise improve the answer, or propose alternative possibilities within the scope of the same aether proposal.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 5th, 2012 at 11:36 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #428  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post

    When one multiplies two masses together in the Newtonian gravity formula one gets kg2 in the numerator. When one divides the product by the square of the distance between the two masses one gets meters squared in the denominator. The result will be the force of gravity which can be expressed in Newtons which is N = kg m/ s2 . The G constant factor has to have m3, kg-1, s-2 as its units, to have the answer of the equation come out in the proper force units. To express the G factor into an initial force one eliminates the units that do not apply to force ("normalize it"). So one needs to eliminate m2 / kg2 for the G factor to express the quantity as a force vector.

    In pushing gravity aether model the force of the aether in an open field is pushing in all directions upon itself and upon matter, a kind of atmospheric pressure. If the radial force vector were uniformly X in all directions inward, what would be the linear force vector combined in just one direction. It would be the radial vector divided by the square root of 2, a conversion from a radial vector to a single directional vector, which I called "normalizing."
    So all of this is based on Newtonian gravity and the inverse square law, which we know is only approximately correct, and even that only for weak fields ? We already have a much better model, GR.
    You are correct; for this reason the "approximately equal to" sign is used in the formula instead of the equal sign.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #429  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    but certainly my explanations of them may be far from complete or perfect
    They're not just 'far from complete'. They're wrong.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #430  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    My guess is because you have not spent enough time considering the possibilities of the ideas, but certainly my explanations of them may be far from complete or perfect.
    I see. So if someone thinks a theory is "illogical" it may just be because they haven't understood it yet. So we have a choice. Is it:

    a) I (and others) fail to see the "logic" in your vague waffle that shows a scary lack of knowledge of basic physics; or

    b) You fail to see the logic in precisely defined and well-tested theories that have been refined and tested over decades or even centuries.

    I'll let the audience decide.

    I think just to ask questions can answer some of your questions and reveal where my explanations may be inadequate, self contradictory, or illogical If inadequate I would try to improve on them.
    I have spent years asking questions to try and get a coherent explanation of your ideas (and, yes, I have tried reading your book. It made Dan Brown look talented).

    I, and others, have frequently pointed out the internal contradictions, lack of evidential support, your ignorance of basic physics, and so on. You dismiss all this with an airy wave of the hand: "I haven't worked out the details", "Its just an idea" and so on. So there is nothing to take seriously. Everyone else can see that. You are just fooling yourself.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #431  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    I see. So if someone thinks a theory is "illogical" it may just be because they haven't understood it yet. So we have a choice. Is it:

    a) I (and others) fail to see the "logic" in your vague waffle that shows a scary lack of knowledge of basic physics; or

    b) You fail to see the logic in precisely defined and well-tested theories that have been refined and tested over decades or even centuries.

    I'll let the audience decide.
    I think I have answered many questions with logical aether theory answers. If you think any answers are "lacking" point them out if you are interested in "better answers." I cannot guess which answers you don't like by disparagement without specifics.

    (my quote)
    I think just to ask questions can answer some of your questions and reveal where my explanations may be inadequate, self contradictory, or illogical If inadequate I would try to improve on them.
    I have spent years asking questions to try and get a coherent explanation of your ideas (and, yes, I have tried reading your book. It made Dan Brown look talented).
    Now I had to look up Dan Brown Why, you don't like his writing? you think his fiction is ridiculous? both?

    I, and others, have frequently pointed out the internal contradictions, lack of evidential support, your ignorance of basic physics, and so on. You dismiss all this with an airy wave of the hand: "I haven't worked out the details", "Its just an idea" and so on. So there is nothing to take seriously. Everyone else can see that. You are just fooling yourself.
    Oh, common now; you accentuate what you perceive to be the negative.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #432  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    but certainly my explanations of them may be far from complete or perfect
    They're not just 'far from complete'. They're wrong.
    We are not talking right or wrong in this thread, we are talking about logical or illogical. The point of this thread is that some or many mainstream explanations of the quantum world seem to be lacking in logic, often making no sense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #433  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I think I have answered many questions with logical aether theory answers. If you think any answers are "lacking" point them out if you are interested in "better answers." I cannot guess which answers you don't like by disparagement without specifics.
    We have been round that loop endlessly. You insist you have answered a question, everyone else says your response is not an answer. You think your theory makes sense, no one else does. And so it goes on.

    It's pointless. You are blind to the deficiencies of your theory and blind to your inability to answer questions about. No amount of further questions or explanations are going to change that.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #434  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    but certainly my explanations of them may be far from complete or perfect
    They're not just 'far from complete'. They're wrong.
    We are not talking right or wrong in this thread, we are talking about logical or illogical. The point of this thread is that some or many mainstream explanations of the quantum world seem to be lacking in logic, often making no sense.
    Not caring about what's correct or incorrect certainly explains a lot about you. As long as something fits your conception of 'logic' it's good, right or wrong.

    So you've basically said that if you don't understand it, it's invalid.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #435  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I think I have answered many questions with logical aether theory answers. If you think any answers are "lacking" point them out if you are interested in "better answers." I cannot guess which answers you don't like by disparagement without specifics.
    We have been round that loop endlessly. You insist you have answered a question, everyone else says your response is not an answer. You think your theory makes sense, no one else does. And so it goes on.

    It's pointless. You are blind to the deficiencies of your theory and blind to your inability to answer questions about. No amount of further questions or explanations are going to change that.

    Strange,

    If you are interested you need to explain where you think an explanation does not make sense, the particulars. Just to say that it doesn't make sense is not a valid criticism. I've had a number of persons educated in physics and the quantum world, read my book. I have answered any and all of their criticisms with what I consider logic. All have agreed that it is logic, but that much of it is presently unprovable. Some have never persisted in their editing comments, maybe because some have considered the subject unexplainable by anyone logically. But if particulars of criticisms are not discussed, I could never know what or why a person does not understand particular explanations.

    I use all understandable criticisms to improve the online version of my book, which will always be a work in progress.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #436  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    but certainly my explanations of them may be far from complete or perfect
    They're not just 'far from complete'. They're wrong.
    We are not talking right or wrong in this thread, we are talking about logical or illogical. The point of this thread is that some or many mainstream explanations of the quantum world seem to be lacking in logic, often making no sense at all.
    Not caring about what's correct or incorrect certainly explains a lot about you. As long as something fits your conception of 'logic' it's good, right or wrong.

    So you've basically said that if you don't understand it, it's invalid.
    Much might be considered speculation, granted. The point is whether it seems logical to you, and if not why not? The point is whether it can be readily shown to be false, or disproved. Whereby in mainstream quantum theory, I think, few have striven over its history, to make logical sense of it.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 7th, 2012 at 01:58 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #437  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    If you are interested you need to explain where you think an explanation does not make sense, the particulars.
    Hello! Done that. Hundreds of times. You cannot see that it doesn't make sense no matter how detailed and specific the criticism is. You just come back with more generic waffle.

    There is NO POINT me pointing out yet more specific examples of things that make no sense. Because YOU CAN'T SEE IT.

    You are unable to provide useful answers but you cannot see that. However often it is pointed out to you.

    And it isn't just me: on The Other Forum, I could tell that many other people were getting equally frustrated. A typical dialog would go:

    Questioner: "Forrest can you explain in detail how ... works?"

    Forrest: "waffle waffle" (like all the answers we have seen here)

    Q: "That doesn't really answer the question because <insert detailed analysis of the problems with the answer, a breakdown of the question, how the response fails to answer the question and an example of the sort of answer expected>. Do you want to try again."

    F: "waffle waffle waffle waffle"

    Q: "That still doesn't really answer the question or address the points raised because <insert another detailed analysis of the problems with this answer, a further breakdown of the question, how the new response fails to answer the question, etc >. "

    F: "waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle"

    Q: goes off to as it is more fun

    Repeat until thread closed.


    I have answered any and all of their criticisms with what I consider logic.
    And there's your problem. What you consider to be "logic" is just your subjective opinion. It is not logic in any normal sense of the word.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #438  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    The point is whether it seems logical to you, and if not what parts specifically.
    Irrelevant.

    The point is whether it can be readily shown to be false, or disproved.
    All of your ideas can be readily shown to be false, or disproved. You just refuse to accept the reality of that.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #439  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Strange,

    So you've basically said that if you don't understand it, it's invalid.
    No, I didn't "basically" say that. What I "basically" said was If one thinks some scientific explanation of reality seems to be illogical, that that person should try to find or develop a better perspective to consider the possible logic of the explanation, or to otherwise consider the possibility that the mainstream explanation and/or interpretation could simply be wrong.

    All of your ideas can be readily shown to be false, or disproved.....
    Specifically what concerning any of my explanations above? I could also say that all of your criticisms have been without merit but that would mean nothing without particulars, just as your blanket statement is merit-less without specific examples.

    You agreed that the Copenhagen interpretation also does not seem valid/ logical to you. The only question then seems to be how much non-sense might be a part of quantum theory?

    I also stated that I think the quantum world can be better explained via aether theory of some kind. I think quantum tunneling was a good example. Quantum theory asserts that both photons and electrons can tunnel through a barrier with no explanation concerning the mechanics of how this could happen, ONLY the assertion that it is true. On the other hand I explained how quantum tunneling could happen via an aether model. Much of quantum theory is like this. Quantum Theory asserts what is happening without being able to explain how or why it happens. Almost all would agree that the quantum world, based upon mainstream explanations, seems very mysterious or unbelievable. And many in science believe that some explanations and/or interpretations of it must be wrong.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 8th, 2012 at 05:53 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #440  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    No, I didn't "basically" say that. What I "basically" said was If one thinks some scientific explanation of reality seems to be illogical, that that person should try to find or develop a better perspective to consider the possible logic of the explanation, or to otherwise consider that the mainstream explanation and/or interpretation could simply be wrong
    You're saying that if you don't understand the explanation, it must be wrong.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #441  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    No, I didn't "basically" say that. What I "basically" said was If one thinks some scientific explanation of reality seems to be illogical, that that person should try to find or develop a better perspective to consider the possible logic of the explanation, or to otherwise consider that the mainstream explanation and/or interpretation could simply be wrong
    You're saying that if you don't understand the explanation, it must be wrong.
    Again, I'm not saying anything like that. I am suggesting for everyone that if they think a mainstream science explanation does not seem logical, that they should not simply accept that the explanation must be correct but beyond their understanding. They should try to understand the explanation better, but if not possible to consider the possibility that the explanation may be wrong.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 7th, 2012 at 11:32 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #442  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    They should try to understand the explanation better, but if not possible to consider the possibility that the explanation may be wrong.
    But again, you are linking the scientific value of a theory to the ability of students to understand it. That is a logical fallacy.
    Imagine a classroom full of students, partaking in a course about quantum mechanics. A very rough guess-timate would tell us that probably at least half of them will not understand the material presented on their first attempt; amongst the other half there will be perhaps 20% ( I'm being optimistic ! ) who completely get it all, and the rest of them will get some parts, but not others.
    Now tell me - if you are among the 50% who didn't get it, does that mean that QM is wrong ? Will the nuclear power plant down the road cease to function ?

    That's all we are trying to tell you - the scientific truth of any theory is not connected to whether people understand it or not. A hard to understand model is not wrong by default, and neither is a simple, straightforward model always right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #443  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Markus Hanke,

    But again, you are linking the scientific value of a theory to the ability of students to understand it. That is a logical fallacy.
    I think that any valid theory can be expressed in an understandable way so that students can understand the fundamentals of it based upon logic. I think the reason why such a theory may not be understandable would be because there is less than a perfect understanding of it, and/or the theory may not be based upon adequate logic to enable its comprehension by the majority of students. True, this is just my opinion but this opinion does not necessarily involve a logical fallacy.

    Now tell me - if you are among the 50% who didn't get it, does that mean that QM is wrong ?
    No, but I would expect that something could be wrong with the explanations or the theory itself. In the case of QM I firmly believe the answer is that both explanations and theory have serious logical and theoretical problems with them respectively. If there is a physical aether of any kind such as dark matter, for instance, I would expect much of theory would need to be revised.

    ......the scientific truth of any theory is not connected to whether people understand it or not. A hard to understand model is not wrong by default, and neither is a simple, straightforward model always right.
    The essence of truth might be found within both a logical or illogical theory or model, but I think the odds favor the general validity of a logical theory backed by observations rather than an illogical theory supposedly supported by observations. I believe that based upon all the assertions of quantum theory, that much that has been proposed to be valid by quantum theory, is simply wrong. I prime example might be aspects of the Copenhagen Hagen interpretation.

    The lack of logic concerning quantum theory was the general idea of most of the criticisms herein: that much of quantum theory is verbally nonsensical at best, and bluntly that many assertions and theory of it may be simply wrong.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 9th, 2012 at 05:09 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #444  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    based upon logic
    What you mean by that is 'what I can understand'.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #445  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    The lack of logic concerning quantum theory was the general idea of most of the criticisms herein
    What lack of logic ? There is no lack of logic in quantum theory at all. Just look at post 395 - I can derive the basics of QM with just a few simple, straightforward deductive steps. There is nothing illogical in there, it really all revolves around the simple and well known fact that the total energy of a system is the sum of all its components, and that this holds for all possible states of any system. Everything else just follows from there mathematically.
    Can you explain where exactly that is not logical ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #446  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    The lack of logic concerning quantum theory was the general idea of most of the criticisms herein
    What lack of logic ? There is no lack of logic in quantum theory at all. Just look at post 395 - I can derive the basics of QM with just a few simple, straightforward deductive steps. There is nothing illogical in there, it really all revolves around the simple and well known fact that the total energy of a system is the sum of all its components, and that this holds for all possible states of any system. Everything else just follows from there mathematically.
    Can you explain where exactly that is not logical ?
    What lack of logic?
    We seem to be continuously stumbling on semantics.

    Scientific Logic: 1) the science of the formal principles of reasoning which can involve deductive, abductive, and inductive reasoning.

    Mathematical Logic: 2) is a branch of mathematics that involves axiomatic principles and a system of mathematical proofs as its objects of study.

    These are the meanings/definitions of the word "logic" that I am referring to. I have asserted that Quantum Theory lacks in Scientific Logic. Since it is a mathematical system it must necessarily have mathematical Logic. Because a system, discipline, or theory adheres to mathematical logic does not necessarily mean that the verbal aspects of it necessarily meets the criteria of Scientific Logic, and visa versa.

    ------------------------------------

    Below are just a few of the more "ridiculous" examples concerning failures of logic in Quantum Theory that I have pointed out in this thread:

    This thread points out the "illogical" beliefs and statements that have been presented as facts by the principles of Quantum Mechanics.

    -- Measurement determines reality. If particles have not been measured they have no definite state. This is the assertion, what is the evidence?

    -- Everything not forbidden is mandatory. A quantum particle moving from point A to point B will take absolutely every possible path from A to B at the same time. What is the evidence?

    -- The Lack of Causality Principle: Things can accordingly happen in the quantum world without cause. My statement: Just because one cannot determine the cause does not mean that there isn't any.

    Above is a listing of three of the more well-known contraversial and confounding principles and interpretations of Quantum Theory.

    (your statement)
    Nothing ever happens without cause, in QM or elsewhere.
    Below is the actual assertion of Quantum Mechanics:

    Orthodox Quantum Theory does away with the notion of causality and denies the existence of an underlying quantum realm.
    This is the exact opposite of your statement.

    Quantum Causality

    (your statement)
    You are misunderstanding this. A particle does not take all possible paths at the same time ( as mentioned before ), it takes only one path. The issue is that, until a measurement has been performed on the system, it is not possible to determine which path is/was taken........
    This is exactly what I believe just like your other quote above -- why? because your statements are logical. But below is the "illogical" QM interpretation and statement:

    A quantum particle moving from point A to point B will take absolutely every possible path from A to B at the same time.
    http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2...lements-of-qu/

    What is the evidence to support this QM statement? or what is the reasoning for this interpretation?

    In any of the Everett-based interpretations of quantum mechanics, such a Bryce DeWitt's many-worlds or Gell-Mann's many-histories interpretations, the principle has a more literal meaning: that every possibility at every interaction which is not forbidden by such a conservation law will actually happen in some branch of the wavefunction.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarian_principle

    Yes, there have been some logical interpretations by theorists in quantum mechanics, but they seem to be in the minority.

    I personally do not think it is possible that there could not be a background field/ aether of some kind such as dark matter, a Higgs field, etc. , based upon related evidence. With an unknown, unconsidered background field involved I don't think quantum mechanics could come up with logical proposals because of the unknown variables involved. This is the reason why I don't think QM and Quantum theory, in its present form, could ever be scientifically logical until any/all existing background fields are properly considered/ included.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 11th, 2012 at 10:50 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #447 don't underestimate conciousness 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2
    Consciousness does not have an effect on reality
    How can you say conciousness doesn't haven't an effect on reality?&amp;nbsp; Every single thought you have has a physical effect on your body, is that not reality?&amp;nbsp; Is saying conciousness doesn't have an effect on reality science?&amp;nbsp; Can you prove our thoughts and intentions don't have any effect whatsoever?&amp;nbsp; It is scientific fact that subtle electromagnetic fields around all organisms are effected by different emotions and thoughts.&amp;nbsp; This effect can be photographed and is called "Kirlean Photography".&amp;nbsp; Another technique expanding on this idea is called corona discharge photography (CDP)&amp;nbsp; mind over matter is real, ever heard of women lifting up cars if their child is in danger?&amp;nbsp;
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #448  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by antidogma11 View Post
    Consciousness does not have an effect on reality
    How can you say conciousness doesn't haven't an effect on reality?&nbsp; Every single thought you have has a physical effect on your body, is that not reality?&nbsp; Is saying conciousness doesn't have an effect on reality science?&nbsp; Can you prove our thoughts and intentions don't have any effect whatsoever?&nbsp; It is scientific fact that subtle electromagnetic fields around all organisms are effected by different emotions and thoughts.&nbsp; This effect can be photographed and is called "Kirlean Photography".&nbsp; Another technique expanding on this idea is called corona discharge photography (CDP)&nbsp; mind over matter is real, ever heard of women lifting up cars if their child is in danger?&nbsp;
    Consciousness does not have an effect on reality
    Don't think the statement above was one of my quotes in this thread but I've certainly said some things like it my friend.

    Our consciousness is certainly indispensable in the successful performance of our own lives as well as our conscious decisions effecting the lives of our families, loved ones, and those we encounter. But as to this thread I would suggest that our observation of reality has generally no effect upon it.

    In quantum theory, on the other hand, the observation of the smallest particles with instruments can effect the particle because photons interact with that particle during its observation which can effect its location and/or momentum. That's what this thread has been all about.

    Now I'll address your comments:

    It is scientific fact that subtle electromagnetic fields around all organisms are effected by different emotions and thoughts.
    It is scientific fact that animals including humans give off heat. That's the only thing scientifically accepted that we know of that can effect our surroundings without any physical actions. I cannot prove that our thoughts, intentions do not effect our surroundings based upon telepathy. But there is no credible evidence, that I have ever heard of, that such an influence exists. There are a great many people who believe in such things but in my opinion, nothing scientific exists to support such beliefs.

    This thread has been devoted to quantum theory and related crankery, including the volumes of related pseudo-science that has always been a big part of quantum theory -- which in my opinion also relates to much of mainstream beliefs.

    If you would like to start a new thread on your own preferred subject please do so and inform me by PM, or I could do it for you if you prefer, just let me know.

    best regards, Forrest
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 11th, 2012 at 10:41 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #449  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by antidogma11 View Post
    How can you say conciousness doesn't haven't an effect on reality
    Because it doesn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by antidogma11 View Post
    Every single thought you have has a physical effect on your body, is that not reality?
    This is a thread about quantum physics and whether consciousness has any bearing on the results of experiments in quantum physics. It does not. It is not a conscious entity knowing which path a photon took in a dual slit experiment that decides whether there is an interference pattern or not, it is whether the "which path" information exists in the universe, regardless of whether a conscious entity knows that information.

    Quote Originally Posted by antidogma11 View Post
    Is saying conciousness doesn't have an effect on reality science?
    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by antidogma11 View Post
    Can you prove our thoughts and intentions don't have any effect whatsoever?
    That is not science. The scientific method is to find any proof that it does have an effect. We have found no such proof. "Prove me wrong" is the call of the pseudo-scientist!

    Quote Originally Posted by antidogma11 View Post
    It is scientific fact that subtle electromagnetic fields around all organisms are effected by different emotions and thoughts. This effect can be photographed and is called "Kirlean Photography". Another technique expanding on this idea is called corona discharge photography (CDP) mind over matter is real, ever heard of women lifting up cars if their child is in danger?
    Sorry, but that is all pseudo-scientific claptrap. We have no scientific proof that Kirlean photographs show subtle electromagnetic fields around all organisms are affected by different emotions or thoughts. In fact, most of the claims made for Kirlean photography have been shown to be false. You know the famous "torn leaf" experiment? They should have cleaned the sensor plate before they took the second photo. When they did clean it, and then took a Kirlean photograph, it showed nothing of the shape of the leaf before it was torn.

    Kirlian photography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    As for the woman lifting the car, anyone can do this if there is enough adrenaline in their system. Drugs like PCP show how people can find more strength if certain "safeguards" in their brains are turned off. Again, this has nothing to do with consciousness affecting reality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #450  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    What do the The Higgs boson, Bolzmann Brains, Monkey typing , present Quantum Theory, and some other standard models have in common?

    Answer: They won't be around theoretically within 20 years or less -- at least in my opinion.

    There is a universe of difference between those trying to develop simpler understandings of reality and others that honestly believe that reality seems so complicated that they have resorted to seemingly irrational beliefs. Many people would probably consider such physicists as being seriously deluded individuals something like those individuals within a religious cult, based upon their beliefs. This is also what I think.

    ....how do you explain the bizarre fact that, for about five years now, some of the world’s most prominent physicists have been describing a scenario—which they seem to truly believe may be real—in which, instead of the Biblical angels, space is permeated by disembodied brains? These compact, conscious observers, called “Boltzmann brains,” cruise the vastness of intergalactic space, and beyond it, to the infinite “multiverse” that some scientists believe exists outside the reaches of the universe we observe through our telescopes and satellites. Their consciousness makes the Boltzmann brains recreate our reality......
    The Higgs, Boltzmann Brains, and Monkeys Typing Hamlet | The Crux | Discover Magazine

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/sc...anted=all&_r=0

    How can any educated sane person believe in such things? The answer seems simple, because they have been educated to believe that such things are not only possible, but probable, and even necessary to explain reality, I believe generally based upon the "illogical" teachings of Quantum Theory and mechanics for over eight decades now.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 13th, 2012 at 05:42 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #451  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    There is a universe of difference between those trying to develop simpler understandings of reality and others that honestly believe that reality seems so complicated that they have resorted to seemingly irrational beliefs.
    By the same argument you could say that brain surgery is too complicated, because the vast majority of the human populace will never understand how it is done, let alone be able to successfully perform such an operation. Likewise, the vast majority of people aren't able to construct a computer in their living rooms.
    Will brain surgery be around in 20 years ?
    Will computers be around in 20 years ?

    What do you think, people ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #452  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    There is a universe of difference between those trying to develop simpler understandings of reality and others that honestly believe that reality seems so complicated that they have resorted to seemingly irrational beliefs.
    By the same argument you could say that brain surgery is too complicated, because the vast majority of the human populace will never understand how it is done, let alone be able to successfully perform such an operation. Likewise, the vast majority of people aren't able to construct a computer in their living rooms.
    Will brain surgery be around in 20 years ?
    Will computers be around in 20 years ?

    What do you think, people ?
    Brain surgery requires precise manual skills, detailed knowledge of the brain, the body, the field of medicine, and experience. Everything about it is logical.

    Of course all of reality can be considered complex in that there are almost infinite details to it, but I believe that each and every detail of reality could be understood once we have knowledge of it. What I think won't be around in 20 years are the many theories today that require "magic" for them to be functional. Quantum Theory is a prime example of a theory full of non-sense, along with many other mainstream theories and crazy ideas as presented in my link above such as Bolzmann Brains, etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #453  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Brain surgery requires precise manual skills, detailed knowledge of the brain, the body, the field of medicine, and experience. Everything about it is logical.
    Same with QM - it requires precise mathematical skills, detailed knowledge of classical mechanics, energy relationships, symmetries and groups, and the experience to be able to put it all together. Everything about it is logical.
    And just like brain surgery, the vast majority of people isn't able to fully grasp it. Does that make it any less true ? The answer is of course no. People's ability to understand it, or their failure to find it logic, has no relationship to physical reality. The human intellect is not an absolute frame of reference against which physical reality can be measured or evaluated; to say "we don't find it logical, therefore it must be false" is not just a nonsensical fallacy, but also rather arrogant.

    But be all of this as it may - there is one fact which will remain once all is said and done : that quantum mechanics give the correct results.

    many theories today that require "magic" for them to be functional
    Like aether. And push gravity. And countless others.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #454  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    (double post)
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 13th, 2012 at 05:41 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #455  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    By the same argument you could say that brain surgery is too complicated....
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    QT fails logically. Brain surgery requires precise manual skills, detailed knowledge of the brain, the body, the field of medicine, and experience. Everything about it instead is logical. .............
    After making ones best effort to understand a theory that seems totally illogical like quantum theory has seemed to many educated people that have studied it, then one would generally have several choices: 1) To think to oneself that I still don't know enough about it so I'll forestall my judgement of it for some future time 2) Continue learning about it while simply saying when asked, that many tenets of it seem illogical 3) Even though it does not seem logical to you, take the "experts" word for it that it really is true or logical 4) Consider the possibility of it being true while continuing to reserve final judgement until more conclusive evidence presents itself 5) Become a general theorist, and after many years of related study make your own decisions of what is good theory and what is not 6) Read and study as much as you can, make whatever criticisms of theory you wish to make for whatever reasons, and damn the torpedoes, with conceivably many other possible variations and choices. As for myself, I became a theorist.

    ......not just a nonsensical fallacy, but also rather arrogant
    Silent arrogance may be a good thing if it helps you do great things, Newton and Einstein come to mind. Overt arrogance is usually a misguided social behavior. Arrogance about the abilities of humanity, I think is generally a good thing as long as it does not involve putting down one faction of it

    ....Same with QM - it requires precise mathematical skills, detailed knowledge of classical mechanics, energy relationships, symmetries and groups, and the experience to be able to put it all together.
    In this I totally agree with you. It takes a lot of smarts and ability to be a practitioner of Quantum Mechanics. I expect a master's degree would be the minimum and a PhD level maybe for most of them.

    Everything about it (QT) is logical.
    (parenthesis added)

    In this statement I totally disagree with you for the many reasons already explained including that QT does not appear to adhere to the principles of scientific logic, not requiring a formal reasoning sequence of the scietific method. Mathematical logic can be given to any wrong mathematical theory. I studied mathematical logic and if you have too, maybe you realize this fact also. String theory has mathematical logic, for instance, which is no reflection at all upon whether it has any merit at all concerning theory.

    Scientific Logic defined: the science of the formal principles of reasoning which can involve deductive, abductive, and inductive reasoning.
    Scientific Method defined: the application of logic and objectivity to the understanding of phenomena.

    Both "scientific logic" and the "scientific method" seem to be closely related. Theories that were not developed based upon scientific logic may not be able to apply the scientific method for their conclusions since they necessary must develop their own rules and proposed justifications like Quantum Theory has done.

    And just like brain surgery, the vast majority of people isn't able to fully grasp it.
    I think more people could understand brain surgery since understanding is only a part of it.

    Does that make it any less true ? The answer is of course no. People's ability to understand it, or their failure to find it logic, has no relationship to physical reality.
    The average persons ability to understand it is based upon their education level in that particular subject. I think the inability to logically explain something is a strong indication that either the subject or explanation of it, is lacking in logic -- something like the Bolzmann-Brain consideration "folly."

    The human intellect is not an absolute frame of reference against which physical reality can be measured or evaluated; to say "we don't find it logical, therefore it must be false.
    It's more like I find it logically deficient therefore I think it may be the wrong theory

    (my quote)
    ...many theories today that require "magic" for them to be functional
    Like aether. And push gravity. And countless others.
    In my opinion, there is no more or less evidence for an aether than there is evidence for the expansion of space, also, there is no more or less evidence for pushing vectors in space than there is for space curving.

    I think Bolzmann Brains and Quantum Theory are in the same class of logic, or lack thereof.

    ...that quantum mechanics give the correct results.
    Yes, the mathematical system, or any parts thereof, obviously should not be replaced unless something provably better by its predictions, can take its place. This principle should apply for any presently functional mathematical theory.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 13th, 2012 at 11:37 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #456  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Silent arrogance may be a good thing if it helps you do great things, Newton and Einstein come to mind.
    That's not quite how I meant it. I was referring to the philosophy in general that humanity is the measure of all things in the universe, a kind of a reference frame against which the universe is to be evaluated. That belief is arrogant.

    I expect a master's degree would be the minimum and a PhD level maybe for most of them.
    I have neither, yet I have a reasonable understanding of the principles of QM.
    Besides, QM is an undergraduate course in most university physics programs. It certainly does not require an MSc or a PhD to understand.

    The average persons ability to understand it is based upon their education level in that particular subject.
    Correct - that is why it cannot be used to evaluate its physical validity.

    I think Bolzmann Brains and Quantum Theory are in the same class of logic, or lack thereof.
    Why do you keep bringing "Boltzmann Brains" into this ? That concept is a lot more philosophy than it is physics, and certainly not required for quantum mechanics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #457  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Markus Hanke,

    That's not quite how I meant it. I was referring to the philosophy in general that humanity is the measure of all things in the universe, a kind of a reference frame against which the universe is to be evaluated. That belief is arrogant.
    Yeah, the philosophy and "science" of Boltzmann Brains is misguided, which would be putting it mildly But I do believe that if something makes no sense to an individual, and if that individual knows his own intelligence is at a good level, then I don't think he should accept the validity of something that he has studied but the subject appears to make no sense and seems to fail in logic. For me Quantum Theory must be necessarily wrong because of what I perceive to be its many absurdities. I think these absurdities are the result of QT trying to explain reality without an aether, which if an aether exists it seems obvious why Quantum Theory must be wrong in its explanations of reality and why so many seeming absurdities must exist among its tenets.

    In my view with the evidence I think exists, a background particulate aether of some kind is certain, a hundred dollars against a doughnut, certain.

    (regarding understanding Quantum Mechanics)
    It certainly does not require an MSc or a PhD to understand.
    I think it depends upon at what level of understanding we are talking about. Richard Feynman's famous quote was: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." ".....science is a culture of doubt."

    Talk:Richard Feynman - Wikiquote

    Why do you keep bringing "Boltzmann Brains" into this ? That concept is a lot more philosophy than it is physics, and certainly not required for quantum mechanics.
    Yes, it is more philosophy than science in my opinion too, but so I think are a number of the principles of Quantum Mechanics. The idea of Boltzmann Brains appears to be related to the "Observer effect" and the Quantum Mind Body Problem in Quantum Mechanics.

    Quantum Mind Body Problem:

    Parallels between quantum mechanics and mind/body dualism were first drawn by the founders of quantum mechanics including Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Niels Bohr,and Eugene Wigner The reason is that quantum mechanics requires interpretation before it describes the experience of an observer. While particles and fields are described by a wavefunction, the results of observations are described by classical information which tells you the result.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind–body_problem

    Shroedinger later withdrew his support for mind-body "dualism" as it relates to Quantum Mechanics when a new interpretation of this relationship was created by other founders, which was unacceptable to him. After the general consensus interpretations of Quantum Mechanics were gererally formalized early in 1950, Shroedinger soon-thereafter withdrew his support for the validity of Quantum Mechanics in its entirety. Shroedinger's famous quote was:

    Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum physics held today (1950s), I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody.

    I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it.
    Why would somebody who was one of the founders of Quantum Mechanics think that the whole validity of the foundation of Quantum theory and logic was wrong? I think the reason for his opposition to its most "basic views" was because of the "absurdity" of many of the verbal interpretations of it (hence Shrodinger's cat), not because of the statistics of it or equations like his own, which were formulated based upon data from a long history of observations. The numbers resulting from QM math, however, can often be meaningless without interpretation of the numerical results verbally. These interpretations are what Shroedinger objected to. These tenets (interpretations) of theory are why Shroedinger, Einstein, De Broglie and many others since then have considered Quantum Mechanics and theory meta-physical, or a Pseudo-science.

    http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physic...chrodinger.htm

    Additional assertions of Quantum Mechanics concerning the Observer Problem (problem of observation).

    It can be predicted using quantum mechanics, absent a collapse postulate, that an observer observing a quantum superposition will turn into a superposition of different observers seeing different things. Just like Schrödinger's cat, the observer will have a wavefunction which describes all the possible outcomes. Still, in actual experience, an observer never feels a superposition, but always feels that one of the outcomes has occurred with certainty. This apparent conflict between a wavefunction description and classical experience is called the problem of observation.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind–body_problem
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 16th, 2012 at 09:12 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #458  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Note that the wiki article talks about the concept that "consciousness causes collapse", and says "Recently, it has been argued that the results of delayed choice quantum eraser experiments effectively preclude this interpretation."

    Which was why I introduced that experiment on the first page of this thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #459  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Note that the wiki article talks about the concept that "consciousness causes collapse", and says "Recently, it has been argued that the results of delayed choice quantum eraser experiments effectively preclude this interpretation."

    Which was why I introduced that experiment on the first page of this thread.
    Thanks Speedy,

    As you remember, I disagree with the conventional interpretation of the delayed-choice quantum-eraser experiment, i.e. that it is a mystery, believing instead that the experiment is logically explainable if light consists of just waves of aether, and that photons accordingly do not pre-exist or accompany waves but instead are created by the "photon detectors" themselves via electrons within a detector or electrons within a piece of paper.

    I don't think the concept of a wavefunction has any real meaning to it either. I think it's just that EM waves/radiation can be mathematically described by a function/ equation(s) of variables -- and for theoretical reasons they choose to call the wave itself a wavefunction. Never-the-less anything that keeps sane people from believing that "consciousness causes collapse" of a wave or wavefunction accordingly, I view as a good thing. Let sanity and logic prevail in science, I say
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 16th, 2012 at 08:57 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #460  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I disagree with the conventional interpretation of the delayed-choice quantum-eraser experiment, i.e. that it is a mystery
    How is that experiment a mystery ??
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #461  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I disagree with the conventional interpretation of the delayed-choice quantum-eraser experiment, i.e. that it is a mystery
    How is that experiment a mystery ??
    According to conventional interpretations of QM/ QT by those analyzing the the results of the experiment, none seem to be able to explain the results of this experiment via conventional logic (hence a "mystery"). This would not be a surprise to most of these scientists since many other QM assertions cannot be explained logically and therefore coud also be defined as mysterious.

    define mystery: "Something that is difficult or impossible to understand or explain."

    http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=...w=1025&bih=467

    define astonishing: "causing great surprise or amazement"

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/astonishing

    .......what makes this experiment possibly astonishing is that unlike in the classic double-slit experiment, the choice of whether to preserve or erase the which-path information of the idler need not be made until after the position of the signal photon has already been measured by D0. There is never any which-path information determined directly for the photons that are detected at D0, yet detection of which-path information by D3 or D4 means that no interference pattern is observed in the corresponding subset of signal photons at D0.

    The results from Kim, et al. have shown that whether the idler photon is detected at a detector that preserves its which-path information (D3 or D4) or a detector that erases its which-path information (D1 or D2), determines whether interference is seen at D0, even though the idler photon is not observed until after the signal photon arrives at D0 due to the shorter optical path for the latter.
    Some have interpreted this result to mean that the delayed choice to observe or not observe the path of the idler photon will change the outcome of an event in the past. /However, an interference pattern may only be observed after the idlers have been detected (i.e., at D1 or D2).
    (underline bold added)

    The only attempt at "logic" that I have read concerning interpreting the results of this experiment, is that the result of a "the delayed choice........ will change the outcome of the event in the past."

    These results do not violate Quantum Mechanics since QM is not required to explain the "how" or "why" of anything in the quantum world. QM simply states that if one knows which of the two slits/ paths a photon has gone through there will be no interference pattern observable.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed...quantum_eraser
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 16th, 2012 at 04:15 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #462  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    According to interpretations of QM/ QT the results of the experiment cannot be explained via conventional logic (hence a "mystery").
    Can you explain to me why you think this experiment can not be explained by "conventional logic" ( whatever that actually is ) ? It's a simple a straightforward backwards correlation - each specific outcome in the present is correlated to a specific cause in the past, and when the measurement is performed exactly one specific path of the system is selected. How is that a mystery, or in any way contrary to "conventional logic" ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #463  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    According to interpretations of QM/ QT the results of the experiment cannot be explained via conventional logic (hence a "mystery").
    Can you explain to me why you think this experiment can not be explained by "conventional logic"? It's a simple a straightforward backwards correlation - each specific outcome in the present is correlated to a specific cause in the past, and when the measurement is performed exactly one specific path of the system is selected. How is that a mystery, or in any way contrary to "conventional logic" ?
    Yes, I think it can be explained by conventional logic, but my claim is that it cannot be explained by conventional logic using a QM interpretation of the results. Yes, I believe I can explain it logically, as I explained it earlier in this thread. You think logically so you are automatically excluded from such an explanation

    Find any online explanation/ interpretation of this experiment delayed-choice quantum-eraser that you think is logical and interpreted in accord with Quantum Mechanics, and provide the link so that the statements can be analyzed in accord with conventional logic. My contention is that no conventional QM interpretation or explanation will/ can employ totally normal logic in explaining the results of this experiment. I'm providing a whole list of related links and if you don't like any of them maybe you can find a different logical explanation of it. If you cannot find anyone else's explanation of it then explain the logic of the experiment yourself via whatever "logic" you think appropriate, QM or not. Remember there are two facets to this experiment, one is the delayed choice aspect, and the other the so called quantum eraser part.

    Good luck

    double slit experiment - Variation of delayed choice quantum eraser - Physics
    Interpretations of quantum mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser
    Delayed-Choice Experiments: Scientific American
    Wheeler's delayed choice experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Delayed choice quantum eraser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 16th, 2012 at 09:19 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #464  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    My contention is that no conventional QM interpretation or explanation will/ can employ totally normal logic in explaining the results of this experiment.
    Actually the very first of the links you yourself have provided does just that.

    then explain the logic of the experiment yourself via whatever "logic" you think appropriate, QM or not. Remember there are two facets to this experiment, one is the delayed choice aspect, and the other the so called quantum eraser part.
    These two aspects aren't distinct, but facets of the same thing. If I was to explain this experiment, I would strip everything down to the bare bones; we have exactly three basic constituents to this setup :

    1. The source
    2. The detectors
    3. Everything in between

    All of these are correlated - what correlation means is simply that not all outcomes are equally likely. Some outcomes are fairly likely, other outcomes are not, and yet other outcomes have a probability of zero, i.e. they cannot occur. It is also important to remember that correlation is NOT the same as causality.

    So what happens in this experiment ? Again back to the bare bones - a source sends photons on their merry ways. These photons travel through the apparatus; there are all sorts of fancy things in there, prisms and splitters and mirrors and coincidence counters and who knows what. You may be surprised by this but - the details of the apparatus do not matter. All that matters is that photons travel from the source through the apparatus to the detector, and the detector(s) will show us something. The important thing is that what we see on the detectors is correlated to the source in certain ways. Consider a trivial example - the fact that the detector shows us something is directly correlated to the fact that the source has emitted photons. That is just common sense. In the same way, if we have more than one detector for the same system then these detectors are all correlated, and what we see depends on what happens at the source, but also on the other detectors. So does detecting a photon at the screen cause the emission of same photon in the past ? No ! It simply tells us which path the system has taken, and due to the correlation to the source it thus tells us what happened at the emitter. There is no "influencing the past" or "communicating into the future" going on.

    To make this short - we know what happens at the source. We see what happens at the detector. We do not know what happens in between ( because no measurements are performed there ), all we know is how the detector and the source are correlated. And that correlation is well defined - if we know the outcome and the correlation we can immediately tell what happened at the source. That is not retro-causality, but a simple correlation relationship.

    I completely fail to see how all of this is in any way mysterious or unexplainable ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #465  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Thanks Markus,

    I completely fail to see how all of this is in any way mysterious or unexplainable?
    The "mystery" of the experiment, the "astonishing part of it" according to conventional QM interpretations, is that if you know which path of the two originating paths that a photon travels through there will be no interference pattern at any detectors, but if you don't know which path the photon traveled through then there will be an interference pattern recorded at two detectors.

    Here is the setup again:




    First, a photon is generated and passes through a double slit apparatus (vertical black line in the upper left hand corner of the diagram).

    The photon goes through one (or both) of the two slits, whose paths are shown as red or light blue lines, indicating which slit the photon came through (red indicates slit A, light blue indicates slit B).

    So far, the experiment is like a conventional two-slit experiment. However, after the slits a beta barium borate crystal (labeled as BBO) causes spontaneous parametric down conversion (SPDC), converting the photon (from either slit) into two identical entangled photons with 1/2 the frequency of the original photon. These photons are caused to diverge and follow two paths by the Glan-Thompson Prism.

    One of these photons, referred to as the "signal" photon (look at the red and light-blue lines going upwards from the Glan-Thompson prism), continues to the target detector called D0. The positions where these "signal" photons detected by D0 occur can later be examined to discover if collectively those positions form an interference pattern.

    The other entangled photon, referred to as the "idler" photon (look at the red and light-blue lines going downwards from the Glan-Thompson prism), is deflected by a prism that sends it along divergent paths depending on whether it came from slit A or slit B. Somewhat beyond the path split, beam splitters (green blocks) are encountered that each have a 50% chance of allowing the idler to pass through and a 50% chance of causing it to be reflected. The gray blocks in the diagram are mirrors. Because of the way the beam splitters are arranged, the idler can be detected by detectors labeled D1, D2, D3 and D4. Note that:

    -- If it is recorded at detector D3, then it can only have come from slit B.
    -- If it is recorded at detector D4 it can only have come from slit A.
    -- If the idler is detected at detector D1 or D2, it might have come from either slit (A or B).

    Thus, which detector receives the idler photon either reveals information, or specifically does not reveal information, about the path of the signal photon with which it is entangled.

    -- If the idler is detected at either D1 or D2, the which-path information has been "erased", so there is no way of knowing whether it (and its entangled signal photon) came from slit A or slit B.
    -- If the idler is detected at D3 or D4, it is known that it (and its entangled signal photon) came from slit B or slit A, respectively.

    By using a coincidence counter, the experimenters were able to isolate the entangled signal from the overwhelming photo-noise of the laboratory - recording only events where both signal and idler photons were detected.

    When the experimenters looked only at the signal photons whose entangled idlers were detected at D1 or D2, they found an interference pattern. However, when they looked at the signal photons whose entangled idlers were detected at D3 or similarly at D4, they found no interference.

    This result is similar to that of the double-slit experiment, since interference is observed when it is not known which slit the photon went through, while no interference is observed when the path is known.
    ----------------------------

    .... what makes this experiment possibly astonishing is that, unlike in the classic double-slit experiment, the choice of whether to preserve or erase the which-path information of the idler need not be made until after the position of the signal photon has already been measured by D0.

    There is never any which-path information determined directly for the photons that are detected at D0, yet detection of which-path information by D3 or D4 means that no interference pattern is observed in the corresponding subset of signal photons at D0.

    The results .... have shown that whether the idler photon is detected at a detector that preserves its which-path information (D3 or D4) or a detector that erases its which-path information (D1 or D2) determines whether interference is seen at D0, even though the idler photon is not observed until after the signal photon arrives at D0 due to the shorter optical path for the latter.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed...quantum_eraser

    Again, Quantum Mechanics simply states that one cannot know which path a photon travels through without that knowledge/ information destroying the interference pattern in the detector. In the delayed choice experiment the first detector (first recorded) will accordingly "know beforehand" what the second detector will record before it happens because the path is always longer to the second detectors. Simply if you know which path, there will be no interference pattern observed in either of the two recording detectors.

    The "which-path" knowledge destroying the interference pattern, is true for all double slit experiments but this particular experiment adds the "delayed-choice" and "quantum-eraser" aspects to it which additionally confounds the outcome according to Quantum Mechanics interpretations and explanations of the experiment and results. The normal QM interpretation of the double slit experiment is simply that the same photon passes through both slits and interferes with itself on the other side of the slits before it singly contacts the detector screen.

    On the other hand according to my own light wave explanation of this experiment, already explained on this thread, there seems to be no problem explaining the results without any quandaries involved. No which-path determination, lack of information, timing, or quandary of interference patterns involved.

    I found another alternative explanation of this experiment that proposes to explain logically the delayed-choice quantum-eraser aspects of this experiment within the constraints permitted by Quantum Mechanics and logic.

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0303/0303036.pdf
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 17th, 2012 at 02:33 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #466  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    The "mystery" of the experiment, the "astonishing part of it" according to conventional QM interpretations, is that if you know which path of the two originating paths that a photon travels through there will be no interference pattern at any detectors, but if you don't know which path the photon traveled through then there will be an interference pattern recorded at two detectors.
    Yes, that is obviously so since the detectors and the emitter are correlated to each other. That's exactly what I was trying to explain to you. Why is that a mystery ?

    Again, Quantum Mechanics simply states that one cannot know which path a photon travels through without that knowledge/ information destroying the interference pattern in the detector.
    Obviously, because in order to know which path was taken you have to perform a measurement, which changes the correlation relationships.

    The normal QM interpretation of the double slit experiment is simply that the same photon passes through both slits and interferes with itself on the other side of the slits before it singly contacts the detector screen.
    That depends on how you measure the outcome. The above is true only for a screen - replace the screen with two detectors capable of only detecting a single photon from a single slit, and the interference pattern disappears.
    Sorry, but none of this is in any way mysterious - it is really just common sense.

    I seldom pass judgement on arXiv papers, but in this case it would seem to me that the author himself really hasn't understood the principles involved very well. He keeps talking about "effects preceeding causes", which is clearly not the case in this experiment. Once again - backwards correlation is NOT retro-causality ! I would have presumed that authors publishing on arXiv are aware of this important distinction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #467  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Try this one:

    [1007.3977] Demystifying the Delayed Choice Experiments

    The (well-known) point stated in the introduction was to distinguish correlation from causation. The lesson we draw here is that this very correlation between distant measurements does not feel their relative time ordering: it does not distinguish between future and past. This implies backwards correlation but still precludes backwards causation or any other tension with relativity, effectively demystifying the delayed choice experiments.
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #468  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Try this one:

    [1007.3977] Demystifying the Delayed Choice Experiments

    The (well-known) point stated in the introduction was to distinguish correlation from causation. The lesson we draw here is that this very correlation between distant measurements does not feel their relative time ordering: it does not distinguish between future and past. This implies backwards correlation but still precludes backwards causation or any other tension with relativity, effectively demystifying the delayed choice experiments.
    Yes, that's precisely my point, even though I am finding it hard to get it across.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #469  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    It is hard to believe that after a week away, this same discussion is going on. But as Forrest is unable to understand ... well, anything much ... maybe that isn't too surprising,.

    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I think that any valid theory can be expressed in an understandable way so that students can understand the fundamentals of it based upon logic.
    Why would anyone think that was a reasonable assumption?

    I might claim that any valid theory can only be understood by someone with an IQ of 179.23 and 3 PhDs in physics, math and neurophysiology. At least some sort of case could be made for that claim.

    I think the reason why such a theory may not be understandable would be because there is less than a perfect understanding of it, and/or the theory may not be based upon adequate logic to enable its comprehension by the majority of students.
    Or, perhaps, because the person attempting to understand it just isn't bright enough, doesn't have the required background in maths and physics, and is incapable of logical thought. This person might then try to defend their limitations by pushing the blame on to others.

    True, this is just my opinion but this opinion does not necessarily involve a logical fallacy.
    Of course it involves a logical fallacy. "Begging the Question" for a start.

    If there is a physical aether of any kind such as dark matter, for instance, I would expect much of theory would need to be revised.
    No doubt, if there were any evidence for any sort of aether, then all sorts of theories would need to be revised. Same for any other new discoveries. However, it is a logical fallacy to assume something and then use that (unsupported) assumption as the basis for proving something wrong. That is juts religious dogma, not science. And certainly not logic.

    I think the odds favor the general validity of a logical theory backed by observations rather than an illogical theory supposedly supported by observations.
    Great. So we all agree that QM is a valid theory then.

    I believe that based upon all the assertions of quantum theory, that much that has been proposed to be valid by quantum theory, is simply wrong. I prime example might be aspects of the Copenhagen Hagen interpretation.
    The Copenhagen interpretation is an attempt to explain, non-scientifically, to people like you who lack the necessary background. If you don't like it, choose another. Many Worlds? No? Never mind.

    IT IS IRRELEVANT.

    You don't seem to understand (really? what a surprise) that this is an INTERPRETATION. It is NOT the theory.

    If the Copenhagen Interpretation is wrong or illogical then what does this say about the theory? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

    How can you not see this? Is this wilful ignorance? Or are you really not able to understand the difference?

    It is like looking at the illustration on the cover of a great work of fiction and saying, "this book must be rubbish: look at the picture on the front".


    The lack of logic concerning quantum theory was the general idea of most of the criticisms herein: that much of quantum theory is verbally nonsensical at best, and bluntly that many assertions and theory of it may be simply wrong.
    One again: There is no "verbal logic" in quantum physics. There are detailed mathematical models that very accurately predict what happens in reality. How can that be "simply wrong". It works.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #470  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    but my claim is that it cannot be explained by conventional logic using a QM interpretation of the results.
    To paraphrase Galileo, "and yet, it can."

    All of the experiments you attempt to criticise are developed in order to test QM. They use the theory to predict what should happen and then measure what actually happens. Obviously, these physicists would be absolutely effing delighted to find the experimental results did NOT match the theory (can you work out why?). Sadly, they continue to confirm the logic of QM.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #471  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    The "mystery" of the experiment, the "astonishing part of it" according to conventional QM interpretations, is that if you know which path of the two originating paths that a photon travels through there will be no interference pattern at any detectors, but if you don't know which path the photon traveled through then there will be an interference pattern recorded at two detectors.
    Yes, that is obviously so since the detectors and the emitter are correlated to each other. That's exactly what I was trying to explain to you. Why is that a mystery ?

    Again, Quantum Mechanics simply states that one cannot know which path a photon travels through without that knowledge/ information destroying the interference pattern in the detector.
    Obviously, because in order to know which path was taken you have to perform a measurement, which changes the correlation relationships.

    The normal QM interpretation of the double slit experiment is simply that the same photon passes through both slits and interferes with itself on the other side of the slits before it singly contacts the detector screen.
    That depends on how you measure the outcome. The above is true only for a screen - replace the screen with two detectors capable of only detecting a single photon from a single slit, and the interference pattern disappears.
    Sorry, but none of this is in any way mysterious - it is really just common sense.

    I seldom pass judgement on arXiv papers, but in this case it would seem to me that the author himself really hasn't understood the principles involved very well. He keeps talking about "effects preceding causes", which is clearly not the case in this experiment. Once again - backwards correlation is NOT retro-causality ! I would have presumed that authors publishing on arXiv are aware of this important distinction.

    Correlation defined: Having a mutual relationship or connection in which a qualitative or quantitative change in one thing affects or depends on another. A qualitative or qualitative correspondence between two comparable entities.

    The point of the delayed-choice and other double slit experiments is to explain: why is there only an interference pattern when one cannot know which path/ slit the photon followed? To say the detectors are correlated has no meaning in the context of this experiment in that it does not answer this question. And the answer that the detectors are somehow correlated with each other is without meaning in my opinion. They are independent detectors and the quantum mechanics explanation is that the detectors are correlated only because a logical explanation cannot be made within the tenets of QM, unless you believe that the photon goes through both slits, interferes with itself, and then combines to be singly detected.

    The main point of this entire thread is that some aspects of quantum mechanics cannot be explained logically. To the contrary, some of it seems ridiculous. Now the only question seems to be how much of it is ridiculous. And my contentions have been that nearly all of it must necessarily be illogical and counter-intuitive if in fact an unknown interactive background field exists.

    Speedfreaks link also shows that some think that the delayed-choice quantum-eraser aspect of this experiment can be logically explained away, which is a good thing, but it does not explain away the outcome of the double slit experiments in general.

    These are the details of Speadfreak's link:

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.3977.pdf
    backwards correlation is NOT retro-causality
    I don't know why you put this in bold. I pointed out that some believe in backwards causality, certainly not me. As for me, if an explanation of theory is not purely logical then I believe either the explanation or theory is probably wrong. My point in this thread has always been simple. QM is not able to logically explain the double slit experiment along with a great many other things in the quantum world. Quantum Theory uses words that when put together simply cannot explain the "how" and "why" of the quantum world. Quantum Theory is known by all that have studied it to be fraught with counter-intuitive assertions and paradoxes. My assertion here is that nearly all of Quantum Theory is lacking in scientific logic, which I provided a definition for earlier, along with a great many examples presented by myself and many others in this thread.

    Richard Feynman sayings: " If you think you understand quantum mechanics then you don't understand quantum mechanics." "I think I can safely say that no one understands Quantum Mechanics." "We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress, we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt." "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

    More sober: "it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent..." "we always have had a great deal of difficulty in understanding the world view that quantum mechanics represents. At least I do.." "I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there's no real problem, but I'm not sure there's no real problem."

    Richard Feynman - Wikiquote

    All of these sayings I think are not only funny, but have much validity.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 18th, 2012 at 01:21 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #472  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    but my claim is that it cannot be explained by conventional logic using a QM interpretation of the results.
    To paraphrase Galileo, "and yet, it can."

    All of the experiments you attempt to criticise are developed in order to test QM. They use the theory to predict what should happen and then measure what actually happens. Obviously, these physicists would be absolutely effing delighted to find the experimental results did NOT match the theory (can you work out why?). Sadly, they continue to confirm the logic of QM.
    Yes, with a long history of experiments in the quantum world a competent group of scientists could come up with a system that could by its tenets and maths explain reality. That does not mean that this system would necessarily be like QM, it could be quite different, but also necessarily "illogical" and in the same way suspect as to its validity.

    I also said that such a theory could not possibly be logical if they are missing the biggest piece of the puzzle, which I believe is a presently undiscovered background field of particles within the Zero Point Field, which totally would effect quantum particle behaviors. Such a predictive system would necessarily involve unknowns requiring statistical probabilities.

    One again: There is no "verbal logic" in quantum physics....
    I agree but do not consider this a desirable characteristic of any supposed scientific field, au contrair, mon ami

    here are detailed mathematical models that very accurately predict what happens in reality. How can that be "simply wrong". It works.
    The statistical system and related equations based upon a long history of observation, works, true! Many of the principles, verbal explanations, descriptions, theory, and assertions involved with Quantum Mechanics and Theory are often illogical, and I believe generally wrong.


    1) Scientific Logic: the science of the formal principles of scientific reasoning which can involve deductive, abductive, and inductive reasoning.

    2) Mathematical Logic: is a branch of mathematics that involves axiomatic principles and a system of mathematical proofs as its objects of study.

    3) Verbal Logic: the use of a particular system and organization of principles, proofs, and inferences involved with formal methods of reasoning.

    4) Fuzzy Logic: is a form of many-valued logic or probabilistic logic; it deals with reasoning that is approximate rather than fixed and exact.

    These are the meanings/definitions of the word "logic" that I am referring to. I have asserted that Quantum Theory lacks in Scientific Logic and/ or verbal logic. Since it is a mathematical system it must necessarily have mathematical Logic. Because a system, discipline, or theory adheres to mathematical logic does not necessarily mean that the verbal aspects of it necessarily meets the criteria of Scientific Logic, instead Quantum Mechanic's justifications involve "fuzzy logic."

    http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/518511/files/0107054.pdf

    i
    http://www.space-lab.ru/files/pages/...T_X/Bobola.pdf
    c

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic



    Last edited by forrest noble; November 18th, 2012 at 07:21 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #473  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I don't know why you put this in bold. I pointed out that some believe in backwards causality, certainly not me. As for me, if an explanation of theory is not purely logical then I believe either the explanation or theory is probably wrong. My point in this thread has always been simple.
    There seems to be no logical connection between those sentences (so, by your reasoning, they must be wrong).

    QM is not able to logically explain the double slit experiment along with a great many other things in the quantum world.
    That is a ridiculous and obviously untrue statement. Not only can quantum theory explain all the various forms of the double slit experiment but, so far, only quantum theory can explain all versions of the experiment. (Obviously, classical theory can explain the classical version of the experiment.)

    Your attempts to "explain" this by vague handwaving about some magic aether you have invented, does not change this at all.

    Quantum Theory uses words that when put together simply cannot explain the "how" and "why" of the quantum world.
    Apart from the fact that this statement is, of course, meaningless (as has been repeatedly explained to you), quantum theory uses mathematics and logic which does explain the quantum world extremely well. You don't like that? Tough? You don't understand that? Study. You don't want to study? Tough.

    Quantum Theory is known by all that have studied it to be fraught with counter-intuitive assertions and paradoxes.
    That is just bollocks. Some of the results of the theory and, therefore, some aspects of reality (as the theory matches reality extremely well) might be counter-intuitive but that is simply because our intuition didn't evolve in the quantum domain.

    My assertion here is that nearly all of Quantum Theory is lacking in scientific logic
    You love definitions, so you might like to know that in philosophy an assertion is defined as a statement with no support. This is true of most of your claims.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #474  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,832
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by strange
    One again: There is no "verbal logic" in quantum physics....
    I agree but do not consider this a desirable characteristic of any supposed scientific field, au contrair, mon ami
    The phrase is "au contraire." In any case, your arbitrary tastes seem to be important only to you. Nature pretty much doesn't give a whit what you wish nature to be. Again, it's not about you, Forrest, as much as you seem to think so. We've all been trying to help you away from this narcissistic view of the universe, but it's evidently hopeless.

    I have asserted that Quantum Theory lacks in Scientific Logic and/ or verbal logic.
    You have never defined "verbal logic," beyond "it's the thing that I, FN, declare QM to lack."

    Since it is a mathematical system it must necessarily have mathematical Logic. Because a system, discipline, or theory adheres to mathematical logic does not necessarily mean that the verbal aspects of it necessarily meets the criteria of Scientific Logic, instead Quantum Mechanic's justifications involve "fuzzy logic."
    But your own definition of scientific logic says nothing about "verbal aspects." You just made that up to justify your arbitrary tastes. Tsk, tsk. Very sloppy, FN. But no surprise.

    Since you're so fond of gratuitous links to random things, here's one for you: horse pucky - Wiktionary

    Giddyup!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #475  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Yes, with a long history of experiments in the quantum world a competent group of scientists could come up with a system that could by its tenets and maths explain reality. That does not mean that this system would necessarily be like QM, it could be quite different, but also necessarily "illogical" and in the same way suspect as to its validity.
    A competent group of scientists have come up with a system that describes reality. It is called quantum physics.

    Some other extremely clever and competent scientists (a lot smarter than you or me) have attempted to come up with alternative descriptions. So far they haven't been able to do so.

    Quantum physics is currently the only contender.

    I also said that such a theory could not possibly be logical if they are missing the biggest piece of the puzzle, which I believe is a presently undiscovered background field of particles within the Zero Point Field, which totally would effect quantum particle behaviors relegating such predictions to a statistical probabilities.
    As this "missing piece of the puzzle" is totally undetectable as having any such effects it would be bad science to base a theory on it.

    One again: There is no "verbal logic" in quantum physics....
    I agree but do not consider this a desirable characteristic of any supposed scientific field
    So what. What you consider desirable or acceptable in a scientific theory is irrelevant. The theory works. End of story.

    Scientific Logic: 1) the science of the formal principles of reasoning which can involve deductive, abductive, and inductive reasoning.

    Mathematical Logic: 2) is a branch of mathematics that involves axiomatic principles and a system of mathematical proofs as its objects of study.
    These are the meanings/definitions of the word "logic" that I am referring to. I have asserted that Quantum Theory lacks in Scientific Logic and/ or verbal logic.
    It clearly doesn't lack "scientific logic" as it is a scientific theory based on sound principles.

    You provided no definition for "verbal logic", but I assume from your reliance on it, that it means "stuff what I am capable of understanding". The lack of "verbal logic" appears to be a deficiency in your understanding (ability to understand) and nothing to do with the theory itself.

    In other words, a theory lacking "verbal logic" is one which the reader is too dumb to understand.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #476  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/518511/files/0107054.pdf
    So you cite, in your support, a paper that argues against everything you say? Bizarre.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #477  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,832
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/518511/files/0107054.pdf
    So you cite, in your support, a paper that argues against everything you say? Bizarre.
    Bizarre, yes, but unprecedented, no. FN fires off citations by "quantity, not quality." It would seem that, at best, he picks papers that match some search terms, but beyond that, it doesn't appear that he spends a whole lot of time actually reading the papers themselves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #478  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I don't know why you put this in bold.
    Because it's the simple key to understanding this experiment.

    QM is not able to logically explain the double slit experiment
    What is there to explain ? If you use a screen covering both slits you capture many individual particles forming an interference pattern, which is because the paths taken between emitter and screen are probabilistic in nature. If you use a detector restricted to just one of the two slits, you get no interference, because there are no probabilities involved. Where is the mystery, I wonder...?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #479  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Strange,

    ....some aspects of reality (as the theory matches reality extremely well) might be counter-intuitive but that is simply because our intuition didn't evolve in the quantum domain.
    I know that many believe this, but as you well know I am not one of them.
    You love definitions, so you might like to know that in philosophy an assertion is defined as a statement with no support....
    Assertion defined: "Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof."

    This does not necessarily mean that there has been no support presented or attempt at proof offered.

    assertion - definition of assertion by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

    I assert little. Most of my statements are mitigated by "I believe," "I think," "in my opinion," but I also usually try to accompany such statements with an explained justification for making the statement, otherwise why make statements at all? My point is discussion, and discussion necessitates reasoning.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 18th, 2012 at 06:40 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #480  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I assert little. Most of my statements are mitigated by "I believe," "I think," "in my opinion," but I also usually try to accompany such statements with an explained justification for making the statement, otherwise why make statements at all?
    Why indeed? Presumably just to flaunt your ignorance and lack of thinking skills?

    My point is discussion, and discussion necessitates reasoning.
    Reasoning. You really ought to try that some time.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #481  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I don't know why you put this in bold.
    Because it's the simple key to understanding this experiment.

    QM is not able to logically explain the double slit experiment
    What is there to explain ? If you use a screen covering both slits you capture many individual particles forming an interference pattern, which is because the paths taken between emitter and screen are probabilistic in nature. If you use a detector restricted to just one of the two slits, you get no interference, because there are no probabilities involved. Where is the mystery, I wonder...?
    You may have missed this question in posting #471 since it was presented in a rhetorical manner. Here it is again as a question to you, along with other related questions needed to be answered for a logical understanding of what is happening in the double-slit experiment.

    Why is there only an interference pattern observed when one cannot/ does not know which path or slit the photon went through?

    Why, when you discover which path the photon has taken, is there no interference pattern observed?

    How can a photon/electron, a single particle, go through both slits at the same time? Why, if a photon/electron goes through just one slit, is there no interference pattern observed?

    Note: the same "why" and "how" questions apply for all the above questions concerning electrons and larger particles. All such questions must be answered/ explained according to valid scientific logic to enable an understanding of what is really happening in the double-slit experiment.

    These are the questions in the normal double slit experiment, questions that would still remain for the delayed-choice quantum-eraser double-slit experiment.

    For one to say he understands the results of these experiments, as you seemed to imply in your postings, one would have to provide logical answers to all these questions falling within the definition of "logic" involving reasoning processes. Obviously such QM/ QT explanations must instead involve "fuzzy logic" as defined above. Verbal and Scientific Logic (common logic involving reasoning), as defined above, would seemingly be missing from your answers based upon your postings to date.

    Here was my retort to your reply about the correlation between detectors explaining the DC QE experiment: "To say the detectors are correlated has no meaning in the context of this experiment in that it does not answer the related questions (above). And the/your answer that the detectors are somehow correlated with each other is without logical meaning, in my opinion. They are independent detectors and the quantum mechanic's explanation that the detectors are correlated is only non-sense because a normal "logical explanation" cannot be given within the tenets of QM, unless you believe that the photon (or electron) goes through both slits, interferes with itself, and then re-combines to be singly detected," which would violate particle theory.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 19th, 2012 at 12:24 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #482  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by strange
    One again: There is no "verbal logic" in quantum physics....
    (my statement)
    I have asserted that Quantum Theory lacks in Scientific Logic and/ or verbal logic.
    You have never defined "verbal logic," beyond "it's the thing that I, FN, declare QM to lack."

    (my statement)
    I referred to Scientific Logic before, which I defined, but used the word verbal logic also which seems to need its own definition in the context of this discussion.
    (my statement)
    Since it is a mathematical system it must necessarily have mathematical Logic. Because a system, discipline, or theory adheres to mathematical logic does not necessarily mean that the verbal aspects of it necessarily meets the criteria of Scientific Logic, instead Quantum Mechanic's justifications involve "fuzzy logic."
    But your own definition of scientific logic says nothing about "verbal aspects."
    The definition of "Scientific Logic" was combined from several sources. My definition of Verbal logic was also based upon several sources and definitions, but also based upon my intended meaning of the words, so that one would know my intended meaning of them. Feel free to provide your own definitions for these words or any others. Usually definitions are just one of several possible so that possible ambiguity can be avoided by giving ones intended meaning(s) via a related definition.

    Since you're so fond of gratuitous links to random things, here's one for you: horse pucky - Wiktionary
    Giddyup!
    Funny, but sarcastic.

    Sarcasm: The use of ironic humor to make a criticism seem more polite and less aggressive.

    Ironic: Applied in the opposite way expected, intending wry humor.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 18th, 2012 at 06:38 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #483  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I assert little. Most of my statements are mitigated by "I believe," "I think," "in my opinion," but I also usually try to accompany such statements with an explained justification for making the statement, otherwise why make statements at all?
    Why indeed? Presumably just to flaunt your ignorance and lack of thinking skills?

    My point is discussion, and discussion necessitates reasoning.
    Reasoning. You really ought to try that some time.
    Maybe Fuzzy Logic?

    Two of the three links that I provided you concerning fuzzy logic and Quantum Theory, in posting #472, did not seem to function properly when I later checked them so here they are again.

    http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/518511/files/0107054.pdf
    i
    http://www.space-lab.ru/files/pages/...T_X/Bobola.pdf
    c
    Fuzzy logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 19th, 2012 at 12:23 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #484  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Why is there only an interference pattern observed when one cannot/ does not know which path or slit the photon went through?
    Already answered - because the paths of the particle are probabilistic in nature.

    Why, when you discover which path the photon has taken, is there no interference pattern observed?
    Because now the path is known, and no longer probabilistic. Also, in order to find the path that the photon has taken you need to change the experimental setup, effectively turning this into a different apparatus.

    How can a photon/electron, a single particle, go through both slits at the same time?
    It doesn't. It's just that their paths are probabilistic in nature, so you simply don't know which slit they travel through unless you go and check, in which case you get a different experiment.

    Why, if a photon/electron goes through just one slit, is there no interference pattern observed?
    Answered above.

    These are the questions in the normal double slit experiment, questions that would still remain for the delayed-choice quantum-eraser double-slit experiment.
    The answers are the same, as already explained.

    And the/your answer that the detectors are somehow correlated with each other is without logical meaning, in my opinion.
    The operative here is the bit "in your opinion". In physical reality, if not in your opinion, correlation has a lot of meaning, and perfectly explains the experiment.

    They are independent detectors and the quantum mechanic's explanation that the detectors are correlated is only non-sense
    You forgot the "in my opinion".
    If there were no correlations then each detector would just show random images, completely independent of the emitter and the other detector. That is obviously not the case.

    unless you believe that the photon (or electron) goes through both slits, interferes with itself, and then re-combines to be singly detected,"
    No such behaviour is needed to explain any of the experiments mentioned.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #485  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Why is there only an interference pattern observed when one cannot/ does not know which path or slit the photon went through?
    Already answered - because the paths of the particle are probabilistic in nature.
    I don't think even you think your is a logical answer. I've heard your logical answers before and they are just as good as my logical answer. This answer of yours is just non-sense, not even fuzzy logic

    Let me reword the Question. Why is an interference pattern observed in the double slit experiment of Young?

    Queston:
    Why, when you discover which path the photon has taken, is there no interference pattern observed?
    Answer:
    Because now the path is known, and no longer probabilistic.
    The extent of probabilistic possibilities is not a logical answer to my question concerning any types of logic. Again I've seen your logical explanations and this is not one of them.

    So again, to make it simpler, I will reword the Question: Why, when you close one slit in the double slit experiment, do you get no interference pattern?

    CONSIDER ALL THE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ABOVE AS BEING RHETORICAL SINCE IT IS OBVIOUS TO ME THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO ANSWER IN ACCORD WITH THE IDEAS OF QUANTUM MECHANICS WHICH CANNOT FOLLOW CONVENTIONAL LOGIC BY ITS TENETS.

    I understand the standard Quantum Mechanic attempts at a logical explanation concerning the double slit experiment. There are two primary theoretical explanations in Quantum Mechanics for this experiment and a number of alternative hypothetical explanations accepted as alternative interpretations.None of them follow or involve conventional logic. 1) Here is the first.

    ....it is undesirable to posit anything that goes beyond the mathematical formulae and the kinds of physical apparatus and reactions that enable us to gain some knowledge of what goes on at the atomic scale.
    In other words, from this perspective: it is undesirable in Quantum Mechanics to try to logically explain the double-slit experiment.

    2) Here is the second explanation/perspective:

    The probability "wave" can be said to "pass through space" because the probability values that one can compute from its mathematical representation are dependent on time. One cannot speak of the location of any particle such as a photon between the time it is emitted and the time it is detected simply because in order to say that something is located somewhere at a certain time one has to detect it.
    This interpretation is called the "detection-determines-reality" perspective of Quantum Mechanics of Shoedinger's cat fame. The particle accordingly has no exact location or state until it is detected -- so the probability wave of the particle's location goes through both slits to create the interference pattern.

    This is what Richard Feynman had to say about the Double Slit experiment and the logical difficulty of explaining the results according to Quantum Mechanics: The double-slit experiment (and its variations), conducted with individual particles, has become a classic thought experiment for its clarity in expressing the central puzzles of quantum mechanics. Because it demonstrates the fundamental limitation of the observer to predict experimental results, Richard Feynman called it "a phenomenon which is impossible ... to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    OK, here is the correct and logical explanation. Notice I did not say in my opinion (parenthesis added)

    "If coherent light is passed through both (two) slits (in the double slit experiment) of the right size and separation then light and dark bands are seen on a screen at the correct distance from the slits. This demonstrates the wave nature of light. The light is amplified where two crests arrive at the same time and no light arrives when a crest and a throw (trough) arrive at the same time. This experiment can also be done with electrons, with similar results."

    When electrons or other particles pass through a slit they continuously produce matter waves in their passage through the slit to the detector. If a particle's location was detected, this detection would cause its wave production to momentarily be interrupted. As the particle would go through a single slit, its own particle waves would go through both open slits interfering and determining the particle's path collectively producing an interference pattern.

    Explain Young's Double Slit Experiment.





    Last edited by forrest noble; November 19th, 2012 at 09:29 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #486  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    QUANTUM MECHANICS WHICH CANNOT FOLLOW CONVENTIONAL LOGIC BY ITS TENETS. [/B]
    As we have already established that by "logic" you mean something that you, personally, are capable of understanding then this objection is pointless. All you are saying is: please give me the answer I want because I refuse to accept any other (even if obviously correct).

    Quantum physics is obviously logical (in any normal sense of the word). It also, equally obviously, matches reality.

    The "fuzzy logic" papers you linked to are kind of interesting (if a bit "out there") and, obviously, contradict everything you say by showing that quantum mechanics can be derived, via logic, from classical mechanics. I assume you are not aware of that because, as usual, (a) you did not actually read them and (b) you wouldn't be able to understand them if you did read them. Which is all pretty sad, really.


    Richard Feynman called it "a phenomenon which is impossible ... to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics.
    Why the hell are you quoting Feynman saying that it is impossible to explain classically to support your delusions that it can be explained classically. I wonder about you mental state, sometimes. This inability to think or converse rationally is what makes any dialogue with you ultimately futile.

    OK, here is the correct and logical answer. Notice I did not say in my opinion
    The first part of this is a reasonably accurate description of the classical experiment. (Although why you choose some random web page rather than a proper text book or other serious source is beyond me).

    The second part is something you have simply made up and which you cannot support either empirically or mathematically. Therefore, it is as valid as the famous unicorn explanation.

    Also, if your explanation relies on de Broglie waves, then it still doesn't need a magic non-existent aether. You are just clinging to that fantasy for "religious" reasons.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #487  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    QUANTUM MECHANICS WHICH CANNOT FOLLOW CONVENTIONAL LOGIC BY ITS TENETS. [/B]
    As we have already established that by "logic" you mean something that you, personally, are capable of understanding then this objection is pointless. All you are saying is: please give me the answer I want because I refuse to accept any other (even if obviously correct).

    Quantum physics is obviously logical (in any normal sense of the word). It also, equally obviously, matches reality.
    In my opinion quantum physics has many facets to it that are totally illogical according to all the definitions of logic I've provided; specifically it lacks sequential reasoning. Fuzzy Logic is its own system. QM is a mathematical system which requires rules of mathematical logic, which has nothing at all to do with whether the equations are valid or not, or whether its tenets or interpretations follow the rules of conventional reasoning .

    Some or many of the rules of normal reasoning involved with logic, Quantum Physics and Theory violates concerning many of its proposals, interpretations, and tenets. There are those working on systems of "Fuzzy Logic," like the two papers I presented on this thread, but only based upon a group of congruent interpretations and alternative assumptions, which QM does not have, could Fuzzy Logic ever be applied to QM as to its whole, which was pointed out in those two papers.

    I will stay with Richard Feynman's quote when he discussed the problems of Quantum Mechanics. When discussing the double slit experiment he said "....it demonstrates the fundamental limitation of the observer to predict experimental results, Richard Feynman called it "a phenomenon which is impossible ... to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics."I think the idea of general lack of explanatory capability, as in his statement, would also apply similarly to many of the other illogical tenets and interpretations of Quantum Mechanics:

    Granted, Quantum Mechanics is the best predictive system that we have so far in the quantum world. If the entire theory were trashed within a few years because of the discovery of a physical aether, for example, the mathematics of quantum mechanics would remain unscathed until other equations could show a better predictive ability. But concerning logical reasoning, QM and QT fail all tests as being a true science, in my opinion. There are practitioners of QM, in my opinion, that would be willing to trash QM verbiage by rendering it logically suspect, while retaining the system of equations and application until "logical interpretations" and tenets take their place. Since the verbiage generally reflects the underlying math, it would seem that some of the math would also necessarily have to be changed as new observations and interpretations present themselves.

    The "fuzzy logic" papers you linked to are kind of interesting (if a bit "out there") and, obviously, contradict everything you say by showing that quantum mechanics can be derived, via logic, from classical mechanics. I assume you are not aware of that because, as usual, (a) you did not actually read them and (b) you wouldn't be able to understand them if you did read them. Which is all pretty sad, really.
    I also found these papers very interesting but I disagree with nothing they said, nor do I think anything in those papers contradicts anything that I have said in this thread. These papers are talking the language of probabilities which was my specialty in Mathematics, which was my major in college.

    Richard Feynman called it "a phenomenon which is impossible ... to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics.
    Why the hell are you quoting Feynman saying that it is impossible to explain classically to support your delusions that it can be explained classically. I wonder about you mental state, sometimes. This inability to think or converse rationally is what makes any dialogue with you ultimately futile.
    The point was not whether the double-slit experiment can be explained classically, the point was that can it be explained classically or logically based upon the tenets of QM. One of the major tenets of QM is the wave-particle duality principle, whereby EM radiation can be considered either particles or waves but cannot be both at the same time. With this restriction of Quantum Mechanics the double slit experiment seems more difficult to explain, but I think my explanation above even overcomes that objection concerning light, since photons are created at the end of travel, by the detector. But the explanation thereafter concerning particles must be a particle and a wave at the same time which definitely violates the duality principle concerning particles, as in my "particle" explanation above in posting #485.

    (my quote)
    OK, here is the correct and logical answer. Notice I did not say in my opinion
    The first part of this is a reasonably accurate description of the classical experiment. (Although why you choose some random web page rather than a proper text book or other serious source is beyond me).

    The second part is something you have simply made up and which you cannot support either empirically or mathematically. ............Also, if your explanation relies on de Broglie waves, then it still doesn't need a magic non-existent aether..........
    The principles involved in the double-slit experiment are unrelated to mathematics. The second part of the explanation follows the same logic as the first part concerning waves influencing particles. The only known waves involved with matter are De Broglie waves so a logical explanation simply involves the knowledge of De Broglie waves and knowledge of experimental results.

    Yes, this explanation does not require an aether. EM radiation and De Broglie waves are presently considered pure energy waves by mainstream theory, so that's all that's needed for this explanation. But the explanation does require particles and waves to co-exist as a collective which is contrary to the duality principle of Quantum Mechanics.

    Particulate aether mechanics, on the other hand, I think is needed to logically explain other aspects of quantum mechanics including quantum entanglement and quantum tunneling, among other things, as I have already explained in prior postings. Although not needed, I think aether mechanics can better explain energy as in EM radiation, de Broglie waves, and other types.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 25th, 2012 at 03:01 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #488  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    CONSIDER ALL THE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ABOVE AS BEING RHETORICAL SINCE IT IS OBVIOUS TO ME THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO ANSWER IN ACCORD WITH THE IDEAS OF QUANTUM MECHANICS WHICH CANNOT FOLLOW CONVENTIONAL LOGIC BY ITS TENETS.
    Well, to me it is obvious ( and has been for some time ) that you are really not very interested in anything we have to say. You have long since made up your mind that QM and most other areas of mainstream science are nonsense, and that you must be one of the select few who understands "the truth". You have chosen to reject a centuries worth of knowledge in favour of such absolute nonsense as aether and push gravity. But then again - it is your good right, so go ahead.

    If a particle's location was detected, this detection would cause its wave production to momentarily be interrupted.
    How this is in any way, shape or form more logic than the probabilistic interpretation is simply beyond me. What "magical" mechanism can momentarily stop "wave production" ? What is it that magically "produces" waves ? Are you aware that you can detect single particles far away from the slits, without interference, using the right detectors ? How would the slit know to "stop wave production", when the detector is far away ? Do the detector and the slit magically communicate ? And why is your font getting bigger and bigger ?

    Oh, let me guess - it must be the aether
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #489  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,832
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    And why is your font getting bigger and bigger ?

    Oh, let me guess - it must be the aether
    Or maybe the cumulative effect of push gravity...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #490  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    In my opinion...
    As we have established quite clearly and beyond reasonable doubt that you are: (a) totally ignorant of the relevant physics; (b) unable to do even simple mathematics; (c) unable to follow or construct a logical argument; and (d) deluded (*) then I am afraid "your opinion" is worth absolutely nothing. (**)

    (*) Deluded because:

    i) You use quotes and references that contradict your position as support for your position

    ii) You ask for detailed rebuttals of your nonsensical claims then, when people put the effort in you ignore it. Soon after you repeate the same drivel and say, "there is no point just saying it is wrong, you need to says where it is wrong". And so we go round the same loop for the 10,000th time.

    iii) You think you have a basic understanding of physics but every time you open you mouth, you make hilarious mistakes.

    iv) And so on and so on, etc. Amen.

    In short, you have*delusions of adequacy.

    (**) I fully expect you to say, "you cannot just dismiss my claims without pointing out where they are wrong." To which, I reply: see above. I am not going to waste my time any more.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #491  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    CONSIDER ALL THE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ABOVE AS BEING RHETORICAL SINCE IT IS OBVIOUS TO ME THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO ANSWER IN ACCORD WITH THE IDEAS OF QUANTUM MECHANICS WHICH CANNOT FOLLOW CONVENTIONAL LOGIC BY ITS TENETS.
    Well, to me it is obvious ( and has been for some time ) that you are really not very interested in anything we have to say. You have long since made up your mind that QM and most other areas of mainstream science are nonsense, and that you must be one of the select few who understands "the truth". You have chosen to reject a centuries worth of knowledge in favour of such absolute nonsense as aether and push gravity. But then again - it is your good right, so go ahead.

    And why is your font getting bigger and bigger ?
    Good one I guess the objective is to attract attention indicating importance of selected script, like to embolden script.
    Oh, let me guess - it must be the aether
    If a particle's location was detected, this detection would cause its wave production to momentarily be interrupted.
    Well, to me it is obvious ( and has been for some time ) that you are really not very interested in anything we have to say. You have long since made up your mind that QM and most other areas of mainstream science are nonsense......
    I consider it very interesting talking to you since you make every effort to explain mainstream understandings, so I thoroughly read and consider most of your postings. The only "problem" with some of your postings that I have observed is that logic sometimes gets in your way , concerning some of your logical explanations of less-logical mainstream ideas Besides your numerous informative postings, I also appreciate their normal civil demeanor, thanks again

    Yes, I especially consider Quantum Theory non-sense but blame no one for what I consider ill-conceived theory, knowing that they believed they could not continue entertaining aether field theories, such as Maxwellian and Lorentzian aether models, with findings such as those of Michelson and Morley.

    You have chosen to reject a centuries worth of knowledge in favour of such absolute nonsense as aether and push gravity......
    Yes, I believe within just a few decades much of Quantum Theory will be replaced. Within maybe just two decades I expect the Big Bang model will be entirely discredited by the James Webb telescope and replaced. Within maybe just one year I expect to see the Higgs particle declaration, generally lose favor. Within maybe five decades I expect the standard model of particle physics to be replaced with a far better model. I expect quark theory to be replaced conceptually but maintained mathematically. Somewhat like I expect for the future of Quantum Mechanics.

    Within just ten years I also expect the theory of planetary magnetism to be replaced with obviously better theory. Within just a couple of decades I expect both General and Special Relativity to be replaced if an aether field is discovered of some kind, as I predict. The hypothesis of dark matter, I expect, will evolve into an aether theory. The hypothesis of dark energy, I expect to be totally discredited and discarded. The theory of continental drift and plate tectonics, I expect will improve within the next few decades based upon better understandings of the motivations of plate movements concerning the processes of core currents as they relate to subduction and seafloor spreading -- answering questions like why do the plates move in the directions they are known to move?

    I expect the theory of Evolution to continue rightfully on its same course with continuing improvements of knowledge such as in epi-genetics and Lamarkism-related mechanisms.

    Within just 20 years, as I said before, I expect to see some big theoretical changes.

    How this is in any way, shape or form more logic than the probabilistic interpretation is simply beyond me.
    It is infinitely superior because it involves a simple mechanical mechanism that any kid could understand upon its explanation.

    As an analogy: Think of very small water waves in a placid pond produced by a very small toy boat. As the small toy boat slowly moves by sail it produces small bow waves moving in front of the toy. As you see these small bow waves moving out in front of the toy boat you reach in with a tooth pick and quickly pock and remove it from the middle of one of these tiny waves. As you do so you see circular waves moving out around your tooth pick imprint location which not only disrupted the progress of the bow wave you were observing, it also interrupted the progress of many other adjacent waves and even slightly influenced the direction of the toy boat. After maybe 30 second the water would return to the placid small wave pattern initially produced by the toy boat that you observed. The tooth pick in this analogy represents the processes of particle measurements such as location, momentum, or state. The water in this analogy represents an aether, and water waves represent physical aether waves.

    What is it that magically "produces" waves ?
    As a fermion accordingly would spin physically and intrinsically, it would produce waves in the aether.

    How would the slit know to "stop wave production", when the detector is far away ? Do the detector and the slit magically communicate ?
    I don't understand your question here. Accordingly all related mechanisms and explanations must be simple or they accordingly would not be valid . Maybe you can reword your question?

    Oh, let me guess - it must be the aether
    A little humor, Aye?
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 20th, 2012 at 11:36 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #492  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Strange,

    "there is no point just saying it is wrong, you need to says where it is wrong"
    Yes one does ! I totally agree And this is my specialty, giving an insight into some of the many specific problems with today's theories, and especially Quantum Theory. List the tenets of QM, cross out one or maybe two, and you will also have a list of maybe half of the problems with the theory
    In short, you have*delusions of adequacy.
    OK, pretty funny ; mad face, sad face, happy face
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 20th, 2012 at 09:58 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #493  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    tk421,

    Or maybe the cumulative effect of push gravity...
    Sorry, I missed the pun. Oh , your reply was to Markus Hanke
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 20th, 2012 at 11:10 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #494  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I consider it very interesting talking to you since you make every effort to explain mainstream understandings, so I thoroughly read and consider most of your postings. The only "problem" with some of your postings that I have observed is that logic sometimes gets in your way , concerning some of your logical explanations of less-logical mainstream ideas Besides your numerous informative postings, I also appreciate their normal civil demeanor, thanks again
    No problem.
    Perhaps it would interest you that as a matter of personal opinion only I do not favour the probabilistic interpretation of the wave function either. I myself have wholly different ideas about the meaning ( not the maths ) of this function, but I am finding it very hard to put these ideas into any kind of mathematical formalism. While I am working on it I will not make the mistake of confusing my personal ideas with applicable science. Mainstream science, at this point in time, considers the psi function a probability density, and so that is exactly what I will represent on this thread.

    Within just 20 years, as I said before, I expect to see some big theoretical changes.
    Probably not impossible, but definitely highly unlikely.

    I don't understand your question here.
    If you place a screen at some distance from the slits you see an interference pattern. If you place a telescope looking at one of the slits instead of the screen you see no pattern, just individual photons. Since you say that the experiment can be explained by wave in aether, then the slit must somehow "know" what type of detector is used, and produce waves ( or not ! ) accordingly. Do you know what I mean ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #495  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I consider it very interesting talking to you since you make every effort to explain mainstream understandings, so I thoroughly read and consider most of your postings. The only "problem" with some of your postings that I have observed is that logic sometimes gets in your way , concerning some of your logical explanations of less-logical mainstream ideas Besides your numerous informative postings, I also appreciate their normal civil demeanor, thanks again
    No problem.
    Perhaps it would interest you that as a matter of personal opinion only I do not favour the probabilistic interpretation of the wave function either. I myself have wholly different ideas about the meaning ( not the maths ) of this function, but I am finding it very hard to put these ideas into any kind of mathematical formalism. While I am working on it I will not make the mistake of confusing my personal ideas with applicable science. Mainstream science, at this point in time, considers the psi function a probability density, and so that is exactly what I will represent on this thread.

    Within just 20 years, as I said before, I expect to see some big theoretical changes.
    Probably not impossible, but definitely highly unlikely.

    I don't understand your question here.
    If you place a screen at some distance from the slits you see an interference pattern. If you place a telescope looking at one of the slits instead of the screen you see no pattern, just individual photons. Since you say that the experiment can be explained by wave in aether, then the slit must somehow "know" what type of detector is used, and produce waves ( or not ! ) accordingly. Do you know what I mean ?
    Yes, I think I understand your question now.

    In a Young-type experiment using coherent light, based upon my interpretation of your question, there are no photons accordingly produced by the light source, just waves. Light accordingly is just a wave(s). Photos are created instead when these waves hit the detector by the electrons within the detector. In this model photons are particles lasting maybe only a thousandth of a second, in this case only existing within the detector. So the light waves must go through both slits and the waves interfere with themselves producing higher wave densities where the waves come together. Higher aether wave densities would accordingly more often produce photons in the detector upon contact than an adjacent lower density part of the wave.

    If we replaced the detector with a piece of paper, the same interference pattern would appear on the paper with a continuously shining light. In this case electrons within the paper would produce photons, some reflecting and refracting to your eye. If there was no detector, paper, or target at all, just dust in the air, the same interference pattern could be observed in a darker room when the aether waves hit the dust in the air creating the same ephemeral photons at about the same distance from the slits.

    When using detectors in the delayed-choice quantum-eracer experiment, only EM radiation is involved. Again there accordingly would be no photons coming from the laser sources, just light waves, since accordingly EM radiation is just waves of aether. Only when two light waves with a different wave shift come together, will the interference pattern appear in the detectors. This exemplifies classical wave theory. So in this experiment there according never is a question of which path a photon took since there are no photons involved until the light waves produce photons within the detectors.

    Considering a Young type double slit experiment using electrons, on the other hand: Electrons spin all of the time intrinsically. In this model the spin is real and thereby produces outward moving aether waves via the spinning particle. These would be de Broglie waves and would go through both slits but the electron would go through only one. Thereafter the electron would be somewhat buffeted/ directed by its own waves interfering with each other while guiding the electron's path to the detector producing the observed interference pattern. When one slit is closed there would be no observed interference pattern.

    If the "which-path" were determined for the electron by its detection in progress, then accordingly its de Broglie waves could be interrupted by the detection process temporarily reducing or eliminating the clarity of the de Broglie waves as well as an interference pattern of the collective whole.

    Comment: since this is not a mainstream part of the forum, I think personal opinions are valuable for freer discussions.

    I don't think this applies to anyone presently commenting on this thread, but only when opinions are given but not identified as such, then such statement often become contentious. So, I think identified opinions can be a good thing in science forums in general. Mainstream science threads/postings must have a general idea/ statement concerning what conventional theory proposes, what is alternative mainstream theory, what are generally outside the mainstream box proposals, what are just hypothesis, what is simple conjecture, what are misunderstandings of theory, and which are plainly wrong statement for whatever reason. I think we are all here to express our knowledge, opinions, correct others, argue with others in a constructive way, and sometimes discuss the alternative possibilities.

    best regards
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 21st, 2012 at 02:20 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #496  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    5
    Sorry, popped in and trying to get a handle as to what has been determined as a legitimate test of quantum observations/mathematics/prediction validity.

    My main problem is that causality does not seem to be a function of quantum mechanics. Differences in probability functions can yield insights into causality I suppose.

    How is Quantum Causality represented in mathematics consistent with observations?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #497  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    5
    [QUOTE=forrest noble;367500][QUOTE=Markus Hanke;367355]
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Why is there only an interference pattern observed when one cannot/ does not know which path or slit the photon went through?
    In double slit experiments where single photons are released on at a time, the position of the photon on the detector seems random. But let the single photons accumulate one photon at a time over arbitrary photon creation times and over long periods of time and an interference pattern still forms; even though the experiment is moving (around the Earth, around the Sun).
    An explanation provided to me was based on quantum causality.

    Non-relativisitic quantum causality forms systems of spacetime. Two largely similar systems are connected and under certain circumstances those systems are different in some way forming entanglement. The perceived instantaneous relationship pre-existed as part of the shared quantum causality systems. Only relativistic causality is directly observable.

    To detect non-relativistic causality differences in data systems are observed to deduce related characteristics.

    This is how quantum causality might be modeled relation to spacetime.

    But no one has bent spacetime as far as I know, so there is no FACT and the theories continue to flow.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #498 Quackery Detection: Quantum Causaltiy and Entanglement 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    5
    [QUOTE=forrest noble;367500][QUOTE=Markus Hanke;367355]
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Why is there only an interference pattern observed when one cannot/ does not know which path or slit the photon went through?
    In double slit experiments where single photons are released one at a time, the position of the photon on the detector seems random. But let the single photons accumulate one photon at a time over arbitrary photon creation times about 20 seconds apart and over long periods of time and an interference pattern still forms; even though the experiment is moving (around the Earth, around the Sun).

    An explanation provided to me was based on quantum causality.

    Non-relativisitic quantum causality forms systems of spacetime. Two largely similar systems are connected and under certain circumstances those systems are different in some way forming entanglement. The perceived instantaneous relationship pre-existed as part of the shared quantum causality systems. Only relativistic causality is directly observable.

    So quantum entanglement is a discontinuous state in relativity, connected by duplication.

    Similarly, to detect non-relativistic causality (separable systems of spacetime), differences in measureable systems are observed to deduce related characteristics; not the observations themselves.

    This is how quantum causality might be modeled in relation to spacetime.

    Boson seem to be in quantum causality terms a system of causal relationships that evolve relativity.

    But no one has bent spacetime as far as I know, so there is no FACT and the theories continue to flow. Pointing out quakery in the absence of critical data seems an abuse of the term. But at the same time stating that a fundemental particle still exists seems to be quakery at this point.

    Plank's constant seems to be the scalar part of some causal/vector system. That said, is it quakery?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #499  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    [QUOTE=benhastings;369571]
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Why is there only an interference pattern observed when one cannot/ does not know which path or slit the photon went through?
    In double slit experiments where single photons are released one at a time, the position of the photon on the detector seems random. But let the single photons accumulate one photon at a time over arbitrary photon creation times about 20 seconds apart and over long periods of time and an interference pattern still forms; even though the experiment is moving (around the Earth, around the Sun).

    An explanation provided to me was based on quantum causality.

    Non-relativisitic quantum causality forms systems of spacetime. Two largely similar systems are connected and under certain circumstances those systems are different in some way forming entanglement. The perceived instantaneous relationship pre-existed as part of the shared quantum causality systems. Only relativistic causality is directly observable.

    So quantum entanglement is a discontinuous state in relativity, connected by duplication.

    Similarly, to detect non-relativistic causality (separable systems of spacetime), differences in measureable systems are observed to deduce related characteristics; not the observations themselves.

    This is how quantum causality might be modeled in relation to spacetime.

    Boson seem to be in quantum causality terms a system of causal relationships that evolve relativity.

    But no one has bent spacetime as far as I know, so there is no FACT and the theories continue to flow. Pointing out quakery in the absence of critical data seems an abuse of the term.

    But at the same time stating that a fundemental particle still exists seems to be quakery at this point.

    Plank's constant seems to be the scalar part of some causal/vector system. That said, is it quakery?
    Hope your still here benhastings.

    My question was for the person to give a "simple logical explanation." since I asserted that such an explanation was possible

    Of course this is a psuedo-science thread so I will just being giving my own opinion, which is what the last several pages on this thread relates to. "Is it quackery?" is just a matter of opinion. The mainstream view is not consistent. There seems to be more than one consensus opinion of the double slit experiment concerning photons, electrons, and other particles. In my view nearly all such explanations of Quantum Mechanics are pure quackery.

    Here is my simple explanation of it concerning photons: Light is solely a wave concerning its creation. It must go through both slits for an interference pattern to appear at the detector. This is the classical logical wave explanation which can be seen in posting # 485. Below it, in the same posting, is the logical explanation for electrons and other matter.

    What do you think?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Similar Threads

  1. Question about quantum physics?
    By eric0728 in forum Physics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 5th, 2010, 09:56 PM
  2. physics and new age humanisn
    By nlwright in forum Physics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: May 19th, 2009, 08:47 AM
  3. Quantum Entanglement - A New Age Thang
    By Vexer in forum Physics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: November 21st, 2008, 11:15 PM
  4. Coming out of the quantum theory dark age
    By davidsf in forum Physics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 31st, 2008, 07:56 PM
  5. Quantum physics video
    By newspaper in forum Physics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: December 15th, 2007, 01:16 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •