ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags quantum mechanics

Reply
Old 8th September 2019, 08:52 PM   #161
pittsburghjoe
Critical Thinker
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: BHole
Posts: 398
It's a clump, you aren't going to get anything useful from it.
pittsburghjoe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2019, 09:13 PM   #162
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,094
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
It's a clump, you aren't going to get anything useful from it.
What is this "clump"? Why can we not get anything useful from this "clump"?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2019, 09:23 PM   #163
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,364
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Can you answer my question or can't you?

If not, can you describe one of the ways that a mainstream physicist would describe that pattern mathematically?
I am not even saying that I am right or wrong here, I am happy to be corrected on this.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2019, 09:25 PM   #164
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,364
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
It's a clump, you aren't going to get anything useful from it.
So you are saying this "clump" could literally be any shape?

Again, I am happy to be corrected on this. I am not setting myself up as any expert.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2019, 09:26 PM   #165
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,364
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
So you are saying this "clump" could literally be any shape?

Again, I am happy to be corrected on this. I am not setting myself up as any expert.
Even bullets fired randomly through two slits would build up a pattern that could be described mathematically.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 05:40 AM   #166
pittsburghjoe
Critical Thinker
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: BHole
Posts: 398
two clumps for the final panel of an observed double slit experiment

no pattern, it's random
pittsburghjoe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 06:25 AM   #167
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,865
If they're flying like bullets passing through two separate slits from a single source then there will definitely be a pattern -
two narrow lines, the width of which are determined by the size of the source, the width of the slits, and the distance from the source to the slits and from the slits to the screen.

This is absolutely mathematically determinable.
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 06:50 AM   #168
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,510
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
It's a clump, you aren't going to get anything useful from it.
Realize you're on the Titanic.
Steve001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 07:06 AM   #169
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,364
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
two clumps for the final panel of an observed double slit experiment

no pattern, it's random
As I said, even if it was just like little bullets, there would still be a pattern.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 07:21 AM   #170
pittsburghjoe
Critical Thinker
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: BHole
Posts: 398
wow, a pattern of two clumps made up of random dots. Super useful.
pittsburghjoe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 07:24 AM   #171
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,364
However I have refreshed my memory from Richard Feynman's "Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals".

In chapter 1 "The Fundamental Mechanics of Quantum Mechanics".

Take a point on the back panel and ask - what is the probability that the electron will hit here?

He describes the two components, phi1 - the amplitude for it to reach that point via slit 1 and phi2, the amplitude for it to reach that point via slit 2.

When there is nothing to detect which slit the electron passes through the probability that it will reach that point is | ph1+phi2 |^2. As it is the amplitudes that are summed there will be cancelling out and therefore the interference pattern.

When there is something to detect which slit the electron passes through the probability that it will reach that point is | ph1 |^2 + | phi2 |^2. So the sums are of the probabilities derived from each amplitude.

So the pattern will be a bimodal curve ( two "clumps" as you call it), but it has a very definite mathematical shape which depends on the wave nature of the electron.

The same will happen if there are two possible sources of particles even if there is no 'detector' in between. If it would not have been possible to tell which source the particle came from you get the probability by | ph1+phi2 |^2. But if it would have been possible to tell which source emitted the particle then you get the probability by | ph1 |^2 + | phi2 |^2 and two clumps ( with a very definite mathematically predictable shape) .
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 9th September 2019 at 07:26 AM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 07:30 AM   #172
pittsburghjoe
Critical Thinker
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: BHole
Posts: 398
Probabilities are pathetic
pittsburghjoe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 07:32 AM   #173
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,364
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
Probabilities are pathetic
Fol-de-rol
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 07:36 AM   #174
pittsburghjoe
Critical Thinker
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: BHole
Posts: 398
you are not getting observed landing positions from wave nature. They are random, you don't get to say that.
pittsburghjoe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 07:41 AM   #175
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,364
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
you are not getting observed landing positions from wave nature. They are random, you don't get to say that.
They are random when there is an interference pattern too.

The difference is the way the probabilities are summed.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 07:46 AM   #176
pittsburghjoe
Critical Thinker
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: BHole
Posts: 398
A probability of two big clumps is not a probability. Probabilities are for fringes.
pittsburghjoe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 07:50 AM   #177
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,364
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
A probability of two big clumps is not a probability. Probabilities are for fringes.
So, you are saying that probabilities are for lots of little clumps, not two big clumps?
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 08:02 AM   #178
pittsburghjoe
Critical Thinker
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: BHole
Posts: 398
common sense says this
pittsburghjoe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 08:16 AM   #179
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,451
This thread should be merged with the OP's DMT/teleportation thread - I see a definite tie-in.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 08:59 AM   #180
pittsburghjoe
Critical Thinker
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: BHole
Posts: 398
They are equally groundbreaking
pittsburghjoe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 09:21 AM   #181
jrhowell
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
They are equally groundbreaking
What do you mean by that? Do you consider them both to be jokes?
jrhowell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 09:23 AM   #182
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,451
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
They are equally groundbreaking delusional.
FIFY
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 09:54 AM   #183
pittsburghjoe
Critical Thinker
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: BHole
Posts: 398
I'm very impressed if a robot is what caught my last comment. Or does it mean admins actually read these and haven't reinstated my OP yet?

Last edited by pittsburghjoe; 9th September 2019 at 10:03 AM.
pittsburghjoe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 01:39 PM   #184
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,094
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
two clumps for the final panel of an observed double slit experiment

no pattern, it's random
That is a delusion, pittsburghjoe, as you know about the double slit experiment and that there is a pattern.
If we do not detect which slit a particle (photon, electron, ... large molecule) goes through we get an interference pattern. The particles are acting as waves.
If we detect which slit a particle (photon, electron, ... large molecule) goes through we get 2 bands (not "clumps"). The particles are acting as particles.
That is wave/particle duality.

That "It's a clump, you aren't going to get anything useful from it." post is a lie. It is an interference pattern or 2 bands and we do get the useful wave/particle duality from them.
6 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: What does your theory predict for the single electron double slit experiment?
6 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: Quote the single electron double slit experiment part of your original OP.
6 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: Where in your theory are quaternions used (citation or quotation needed) [or say you wasted our time with an irrelevant video]?
9 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: Repeats ignorance and/or fantasies about the delayed choice quantum eraser.
9 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: Quantum observation non-science - an observation at any place is an observation, e.g. electrons at a screen!
9 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: Persists with ignorance about the double silt experiment and a "final panel" fantasy.

Last edited by Reality Check; 9th September 2019 at 01:42 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 01:46 PM   #185
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,094
Thumbs down A delusion that random dots are seen in the double slit experiment

Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
wow, a pattern of two clumps made up of random dots. Super useful.
A repeat of the delusion that random dots make up any pattern. The fundamental property of randomness is that there is no pattern !

6 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: What does your theory predict for the single electron double slit experiment?
6 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: Quote the single electron double slit experiment part of your original OP.
...
10 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: A delusion that random dots are seen in the double slit experiment.

Last edited by Reality Check; 9th September 2019 at 02:05 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 01:51 PM   #186
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,094
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
Probabilities are pathetic
Resorting ignorant gibberish in posts just emphasizes that is all you have for a theory.
The probabilities in QM are textbook physics. Probabilities explain how a single particle double slit experiment builds up an interference pattern from your delusion of "random dots". Probabilities explain how we get 2 bands when we measure which slit the particles go through in a double slit experiment.
Probabilities explain why radioactive decay has a specific distribution (Poisson from memory). Probabilities explain the spectra of elements. Etc.

6 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: What does your theory predict for the single electron double slit experiment?
6 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: Quote the single electron double slit experiment part of your original OP.
...
10 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: A delusion that random dots are seen in the double slit experiment.
10 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: Deep ignorance about probability in QM and the double slit experiment.

Last edited by Reality Check; 9th September 2019 at 02:05 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 01:52 PM   #187
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,451
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
I'm very impressed if a robot is what caught my last comment. Or does it mean admins actually read these and haven't reinstated my OP yet?
I don't believe you'll have any more luck being taken seriously here than you've had elsewhere.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 03:16 PM   #190
pittsburghjoe
Critical Thinker
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: BHole
Posts: 398
I think your username is super ironic. I feel like we need to go over this again.

The Observer Effect

The unobserved quantum realm doesn't care about time or distance so the order goes something like this:
  1. quantum field excitation of a new particle is about to happen
  2. it gets assigned a path in the quantum field
  3. if the path contains a spacetime enactor (a detector), it swaps the particle to physical (Physical: structure, 3D, more than just information ..real to us.)
  4. the particle or wave is sent via the quantum field if it's a wave / spacetime if physical


Uncertainty

Delta x Delta p = h-bar/2

There isn't a problem with position and momentum when the object is physical and not a quantum wave. The Uncertainty Principle is for waves.

Duality isn't a thing anymore. You may think you have evidence of a particle acting as a wave at the same time ..but you don't. You are assuming they are both at the same time because you are not taking observation into account. You wouldn't catch a quantum wave being a wave before it went through a detector (that it was moving towards). The particle is likely pre-set to be physical or a wave before it starts moving. Observation gives one type of result ..a physical one. (unless you messing around with polarizers) .

They key to killing duality is pointing out that the final panel of an experiment doesn't count as observation. When you say you can measure wave-like properties, it is derived from that final panel. If quantum observation doesn't show wave-like properties, duality at the same time falls apart. Quantum observation is only for detectors in the path of a particle that allows the particle to continue on.

People say uncertainty applies to physical objects because you peg an electron with a photon so its momentum changes ..well, duh, two objects just hit each other.

You can be certain that the particle in question will be physical if you place anything that will acknowledge its existence while it propagates on its path. That's what observation is, acknowledging a particle while it's moving from a to b. The delayed choice quantum eraser shows us that the entire life of both entangled particles is known. The first particle knows if the partner will ever be observed while in flight. Time in flight is not a factor for the state a particle will be from start to finish.


The realms of the Observed vs Unobserved

This post predicts what happens when Spacetime gets involved with unobserved quantum waves from the act of observation.
-
Mod Warning<SNIP> for rule 4
Please do not post material that is available elsewhere, especially when this information has been removed once before.

See here, for example.
Posted By:kmortis

Last edited by kmortis; 13th September 2019 at 07:17 AM.
pittsburghjoe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 03:45 PM   #191
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,364
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
I think your username is super ironic. I feel like we need to go over this again.
At least try to get the uncertainty principle right this time.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 03:58 PM   #192
pittsburghjoe
Critical Thinker
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: BHole
Posts: 398
You are saying someone proved uncertainly applies to observed objects?
pittsburghjoe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 04:05 PM   #193
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,364
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
You are saying someone proved uncertainly applies to observed objects?
It applies to all objects, but that is not what I was saying.

I was saying that it should be greater than or equal to not equal to, as has been pointed out to you before.

The version you have doesn't apply to anything.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 9th September 2019 at 04:07 PM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 04:08 PM   #194
pittsburghjoe
Critical Thinker
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: BHole
Posts: 398
The subtitle does make it confusing ..I way trying to say that with that formula you can have a certainty principle with observed objects.
pittsburghjoe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 04:14 PM   #195
pittsburghjoe
Critical Thinker
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: BHole
Posts: 398
here is a tldr;
Quantum objects are either waves OR physical while traveling from point A to B. Uncertainty is for waves, not physical objects. The final panel of a quantum experiment does not influence the state of a particle flying towards it. Because of this, you do not get to claim a particle was wave and physical at the same time.
pittsburghjoe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 04:17 PM   #196
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,364
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
The subtitle does make it confusing ..I way trying to say that with that formula you can have a certainty principle with observed objects.
You need more work on that then. You need to demonstrate why you think that is true.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 04:20 PM   #197
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,094
Exclamation More of his ignorant gibberish with no physics or even math

Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
...
10 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: More of his ignorant gibberish with no physics or even math !

Seeing more gibberish shows that his fantasy is even worse than the OP suggested.
  1. A "The Uncertainty Principle is for waves" delusion.
    The uncertainty principle is specifically for particles - "a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle".
  2. "request of quantum wave information to Spacetime' gibberish.
  3. He has a particle physically gong through both slits in the double slit experiment !
  4. The particle magically becomes 2 waves in his head.
  5. Some "single channel of fringe" gibberish.
  6. There are no cannons in the double slit experiment!\
  7. Abysmal "General Relativity = Spacetime = the theory of the large scale" ignorance.
    This is general relativity. Spacetime is a part of every physics theory. GR is a theory is built on a specific spacetime.
  8. "both realms in the same domain" stupidity about GR and QM.
    The difficulty of having a Theory of everything is the very different "realms" of GR and QM.
  9. "Theory of Everything" gibberish.
    A Theory of everything is physics. not a few sentences of gibberish.
  10. Persists with a "abbes diffraction limit" delusion.
  11. A delusion that "physical (observed) objects" cannot tunnel.
    The tunneling of electrons (physical (observed) objects!) is observed.
    Radioactive decay of nuclei (physical (observed) objects!) is often only possible through tunneling.
  12. A delusion that the delayed choice quantum eraser shows "the entire life of both entangled particles is known".
    The delayed choice quantum eraser shows that the past "life" of entangled particles can be changed by measurements in the present.
  13. "particle knows" = an implied delusion of intelligent particles?
6 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: What does your theory predict for the single electron double slit experiment?
6 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: Quote the single electron double slit experiment part of your original OP.
6 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: Where in your theory are quaternions used (citation or quotation needed) [or say you wasted our time with an irrelevant video]?
6 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: There is no "abbe diffraction limit of matter".
9 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: Repeats ignorance and/or fantasies about the delayed choice quantum eraser.
10 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: A delusion that random dots are seen in the double slit experiment.
10 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: Deep ignorance about probability in QM and the double slit experiment.

Last edited by Reality Check; 9th September 2019 at 04:53 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 04:21 PM   #198
pittsburghjoe
Critical Thinker
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: BHole
Posts: 398
It just states that position and momentum can both be found if the quantum sized object is observed.
pittsburghjoe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 04:25 PM   #199
pittsburghjoe
Critical Thinker
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: BHole
Posts: 398
Reality Check hasn't disproven a single thing.
pittsburghjoe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 04:36 PM   #200
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,286
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
Reality Check hasn't disproven a single thing.
Doesn't matter if he has or hasn't; you have yet to prove anything. Where's the math?
__________________
A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned.
-Shepard Book
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:18 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.