Quantum Theory

[Ismael]

And it is STILL only a statistical artifact. That never changed.

In a sense yes, it stll can be seen as simply a mathematical tool… but it does describe reality very well!!!

The fact that you are using a computer right now to write here proves that QM works.

Semiconductor Physics (which is my field btw) on which computer technology is based, has its grounds in QM.

I ran into this one before. How do you come up with a “compact” or “short” dimension and still believe you are talking about actual physical existence?

I did not come up with it… I did not develope the theory of quantum gravitation

The extra dimensions are for now only mathematical, but it does not mean they are not real.
It just need to be proven if indeed there are extra dimensios or not.

Do you also not see that this is all about statistical artifacts that are being viewed as though they were real objects, starting all the way back from Heisenberg.

The extra dimensios have nothing to do with statistics or Heisenberg… they arise in trying to merge gravitational theory with QM from empirical data we have (ie. try to explain the data we observe).

QM has NEVER been about REAL things. It has always been only about the ability to measure things using STATISTICAL methods. Its “objects” are merely mathematical artifacts that have no real existence at all, much like “the average person”.

Not true. Electrons are very real. So are other perticles.
QM is a very good theory to study and predict their properties and behavior.

Besides sociology and antropology describe humanity through statistics… does that mean humans are not real anymore?

Dimensions, imagined forces, and distortions are all be invented to justify measurement problems that are largely based on statistical concerns and presumed statistical entities that never actually applied to the real world to begin with.

Imagine forces? What are you taking about?

Besides like I said QM deals only with the 3 spacial dimensions we percieve in the macroscopic world. The extra dimensions only come into play in some quantum gravity models (like string theory)

Anyway particles like electron are not “statistical entities”. They are REAL entities. Their behavior is stochastic in nature. That is what we measure ie the facts.

They are inventing what reality is made of in order to allow poor measurement ability to be acceptable. It is like not being able to know what your wife is thinking so you redefine what “thinking” is and redefine what a “wife” is and then declare that reality has a principle that forbids anyone from ever knowing what thinking is and also knowing what a wife is at the same time (“The Heisenberg Identity Paradox”). You then name it the “Husband Uncertainty Principle” of “Physics”.

I think you really should read a serious introductory text about QM.

You have a lot of facts and ideas mixed up.

I might agree that String Theory is ‘inventing dimensions’ to try to explain quantum gravity(although the dimensions might be real after all… who knows).

The main problem of String Theory is that we cannot test it experimentally, not that it tries to fit data with imaginary dimensions.

They *really *should never have allowed mathematicians to have drugs.

Theoretical Physicists, you mean.

Mathematicians usually deal with mathematics, not physics, although the two are strictly connected.

Mathematics is an abstract subject that might or might not have ‘physical’ meanings… but it;s still a very useful and fascinating subject.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Another absurdity in Quantum Myth is that gravity, electromagnetism, strong, and weak forces are fundamental properties of reality. Especially in the case of strong and weak forces, these are merely aberrant effects that do NOT extend down to the most fundamental level.

What simple minded, moronic logic was used to say that because quarks are all positive and a proton is positive then there must be an extremely “strong force” holding them together?

It is like saying that when a Chinese puzzle is assembled, it must have taken extreme pressure to force the pieces together and an extreme force to hold them together because I have to use extreme force to get them apart. “The Chinese Super Force” property of Physics.

It is the ARRANGEMENT of the particles that causes them to be able to all be positive on their own and yet be together as ONE proton particle. In their harmonic state as ONE particle, they naturally have higher energy than separate individual particles because you are at a lower entropy state.

Gravity is something that gets created by the particular arrangement of effects also. It does not apply down to an infinite level as Einstein had assumed.

QM keeps coming up with non-sense constructs to try to maintain its assumptions about these fundamental “forces” when in fact, they never were *fundamental *forces.

Logicians can figure these things out, but scientists are off the leash of logic.

It is just a self consuming ego trip to try to justify prior lack of reasoning and unjustified pride in claiming that they understood when they were just beginning.

 

[James_S_Saint]

The fact that you are using a computer right now to write here proves that QM works.

That is one of the most ridiculous excuses I have heard and I hear it over and over from the Atheists. It is EXACTLY the same as saying “Because that tree really grows PROVES that God is real.”

Give me a break.

 

[James_S_Saint]

The extra dimensios have nothing to do with statistics or Heisenberg… they arise in trying to merge gravitational theory with QM from empirical data we have (ie. try to explain the data we observe).

The extra dimensions are being CREATED so as to justify the prior STATISTICAL artifacts.

Not true. Electrons are very real. So are other perticles.
QM is a very good theory to study and predict their properties and behavior.

Those particles have NOTHING to do with QM. QM creates statistical models in an effort to predict those particles but then it proclaims that because QM cannot locate a particle, the particle has no location. Or it has no momentum, depending on which you were looking for.

 

[James_S_Saint]

In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known. This statement has been interpreted in two different ways. According to Heisenberg its meaning is that it is impossible to determine simultaneously both the position and velocity of an electron or any other particle with any degree of accuracy or certainty. According to others (for instance Ballentine[1]) this is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher’s ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but it is a statement about the nature of the system itself as described by the equations of quantum mechanics.

When your methods of measuring something resolve to the point where they reveal that you cannot know two properties of something yet believe that they still have those properties (by definition), then it is telling you that there is something amiss with your method. Either you are assuming something that was never real or your measurement method is so limited that it simply cannot tell you what you want to know. It does NOT mean that your method is perfect as is and reality must be bent in some way.

I’m sure you remember Scriptures that told of God making fools of wise men. What you don’t seem to realize is that **you **and the QM Magi are the “wise men”.

Though it is doubtful that I will ever really finish my proposed book based strictly on Logic, if I do, then I will be the one exposing the joke that God has let them play on themselves. But more, I will show how such a joke need not ever happen again because I will show how Man can walk, step by step, WITH God rather than keep trying to BE God by inventing paradigms of beliefs, morals, and values.

Science without Logic is fun, but is just science fiction made to seem real by using mathematics to the point of exceeding the mental capacity of those pondering the meanings of what they have found.

The fact that progress seems apparent isn’t proof of anything because as I said, 3 wrong turns can still lead in the right direction. The point of “Science” is to not make any wrong turns at all.

 

[hecd2]

In a sense yes, it stll can be seen as simply a mathematical tool… but it does describe reality very well!!!

The fact that you are using a computer right now to write here proves that QM works.

Semiconductor Physics (which is my field btw) on which computer technology is based, has its grounds in QM.

You are wasting your time with James. It is quite obvious that he doesn’t know, and doesn’t want to know, any physics at all. He is one of those people whom you meet regularly on Internet forums who thinks, based on nothing more substantial than arm-chair hand-waving, that he knows better than the entire community of professional scientists. He is one of the endless parade of people who deride Special or General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics or some other well established theory while not beginning to understand any of it. There is even a guy on this forum who thinks that all of physics since the time of Galileo is deranged and that Newtonian mechanics is a Masonic conspiracy

There are two deep ironies in this - one is that these people are usually so ignorant of elementary physics that they don’t even know how the laws govening a classical harmonic oscillator are derived; the other one is that they are each an island separate from all the others - each one has his or her own particular beef with some major branch of physics or with all of it, but their hoby-horses are mutually incompatible.

Yet they are each convinced beyond persuasion that they are right, that scientists are at best fundamentally misguided and at worst stupid and evil. They always show deep and unmistakeable misconceptions about basic physical principles - eg in James’s case, he has shown that he completely misunderstands all of physical optics, classical electromagnetism, gravitational lensing, quantum complementarity, entanglement, the Uncertainty Principle, the Copenhagen interpretation and other interpretations of QM, all of nuclear physics, the electroweak unification and its demonstration by discovery of the w and z bosons, QED, the existence of quarks and QCD, the use of mathematics in physics, the entire philosophical and methodological basis of science and who knows what else.

These people are impervious to education and argument, because they have an unshakeable belief in their own Mickey Mouse ideas of science. For example, Janes thinks a hand-waving argument about Chinese puzzles is a devastating blow to the existence of entire branches of particle physics. He thinks that because he finds random processes personally distasteful then they cannot exist. You cannot have a sensible discussion with someone like that (but neither can they have any influence in the world - extreme crankery is doomed to be ignored).

Now, I think that almost everything you have written on this thread has been spot-on. Do you mind if we discuss your interpretation of Young’s experiment because I see it, in its quantised form, as requiring actual non-localisation of a particle (not merely empirical uncertainty)?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[James_S_Saint]

He is one of those people whom you meet regularly on Internet forums who thinks, based on nothing more substantial than arm-chair hand-waving, that he knows better than the entire community…
.
Yet they are each convinced beyond persuasion that they are right,…
.
They always show deep and unmistakeable misconceptions…
.
.
These people are impervious to education and argument, because they have an unshakeable belief in their own Mickey Mouse ideas

You mean like Atheists who argue with professional theologians? {ever heard of payback? }

hecd2, learn a little logic and even you might learn to think outside of your box of superstitious faith. I have yet to see anything you have presented that explains or helps in any way whatsoever. And I don’t expect to, because all you can present is the very same mathematics confusion that created the question and the voodoo belief system that has been developed from it.

Explain to us how a particle can actually be in two places at once as they proclaim.

 

[JesuisSean]

Anyone like to try explaining it. How a photon can be in two places but not at the same time.

RELIGION AND SCIENCE ARE BOTH INCOMPLETE, that is why there are two separate fields of interest, rather than one field of interest known as the one truth.

Religion says that there is another side to reality, the afterlife side.

Science says religion is religion and science is science thus there is no other side at all, for that is a religious concept.

This side of reality is confined to the present time. Call it the inside reality.

The other side is ALL other time other than the present time. Call it the outside reality.

Both realities intersect. Events occur at that point of intersection. These events may be governed from either of the two sides of reality. But the laws of physics are different on one side compared to the other, since one side actually extends across time rather than be confined to just the present time.

Thus if you take the famous two slit light experiment and let it run on its own, it is an event that is being governed from the other side of reality, thus one photons complete spiral shape path that extends across time from the source to the destination, may interfere with another photons complete spiral shaped path. Thus you have wave like path shapes interfering with each other, thus producing a wave like interference pattern at the destination wall.

However, if you introduce real time ( present time ) events into the experiment, such as detecting the photons passing through the two slits, then the experiment is now being governed from our side of reality, thus photons can now only interfere with each-others paths if they intersect each-other at the same place in space at the same time, and thus now behave like mere particles interfering with each other rather than like complete spiral path shapes interfering with each other.

This is NOT the collapse of a quantum wave, but is the collapse of the event being controlled from the other side, now that it is controlled from our side.

Christ, knowing of this structure of reality, defeated Satan.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Call it the inside reality.
.
.
Thus if you take the famous two slit light experiment and let it run on its own, it is an event that is being governed from the other side of reality, thus one photons complete spiral shape path that extends across time from the source to the destination, may interfere with another photons complete spiral shaped path. Thus you have wave like path shapes interfering with each other, thus producing a wave like interference pattern at the destination wall.

“Outside of reality” is what we call “fictional” or “unreal”. I don’t think that is the argument you want to make.

You mentioned the “spiral path”. That spiral is the real answer. My metaphysical model will not only show that spiral path, but show why even one particle at a time will cause what looks like an interference pattern on a screen with extreme accuracy. There is actually no interference going on at all. And there is not but one particle in one location at any time. Unseen or random magic is not necessary. But I want to see hecd2’s QM explanation first.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Thus if you take the famous two slit light experiment and let it run on its own, it is an event that is being governed from the other side of reality, thus one photons complete spiral shape path that extends across time from the source to the destination, may interfere with another photons complete spiral shaped path. Thus you have wave like path shapes interfering with each other, thus producing a wave like interference pattern at the destination wall.

However, if you introduce real time ( present time ) events into the experiment, such as detecting the photons passing through the two slits, then the experiment is now being governed from our side of reality, thus photons can now only interfere with each-others paths if they intersect each-other at the same place in space at the same time, and thus now behave like mere particles interfering with each other rather than like complete spiral path shapes interfering with each other.

Here is the trick to understanding the two slit experiment. At every point, the photon is in a specific spot. Thus, it only goes through one slit. However, an “interference wave” splits off from the photon, and goes through the other slit, and then recombines with the photon on the other side, giving the interference pattern that is observed experimentally.

When an observation is made as to which slit the photon goes through, if the interference wave is observed, it disappears, resulting in the classical non-interference pattern. If the photon is observed, it is found, but then can no longer be affected by the interference pattern going through the other slit.

In all cases and variations of the two slit experiment, this explanation gives the same observed experimental results as quantum mechanics, but without assuming that a photon can be in two places at the same time.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Here is the trick to understanding the two slit experiment. At every point, the photon is in a specific spot. Thus, it only goes through one slit. However, an “interference wave” splits off from the photon, and goes through the other slit, and then recombines with the photon on the other side, giving the interference pattern that is observed experimentally.

If an observation is made as to which slit the photon goes through, if the interference wave is observed, it disappears, resulting in the classical non-interference pattern. If the photon is observed, it is found, but then can no longer be affected by the interference pattern going through the other slit.

Emm… don’t think so.

First, the energy of the debarked wave would have to be accounted for, which it isn’t and can’t really exist.

Second, “if it is observed, it disappears”?? How can it be observed if it disappears?

 

[Just_Lurking]

Emm… don’t think so.

It reproduces the results of traditional quantum mechanics. I can’t tell if you consider that to be a good thing or a bad thing.

First, the energy of the debarked wave would have to be accounted for, which it isn’t and can’t really exist.

I don’t know how to calculate the energy of the interference wave, or why it needs to have energy, or what breaks down if it doesn’t have energy. It contributes to the interference pattern, nothing more.

Second, “if it is observed, it disappears”?? How can it be observed if it disappears?

What I mean is that if an observation is attempted at the slit that the photon does not go through, so the observation reveals that the photon isn’t there (and thus it must have gone through the other slit), then quantum theory predicts and experimentation reveals that the quantum two-slit interference pattern is destroyed, and a classical non-interference is found instead. My theory accounts for this by having the observational apparatus destroy the interference wave going through the second slit.

Edited to add: See here for the Wikipedia article on Interaction-Free Measurement.

 

[James_S_Saint]

It reproduces the results of traditional quantum mechanics. I can’t tell if you consider that to be a good thing or a bad thing.

Haha… considering the tone of some of the prior discussion, I can certainly understand that.

As long as you aren’t talking about the fact that a conscious being observing is what is causing the final effect or trying to discuss a statistical aberration as though it were a physical wave or particle, I have no problem with QM.

(but then it is really only “quantum statistics” as it should be).

I don’t know how to calculate the energy of the interference wave, or why it needs to have energy, or what breaks down if it doesn’t have energy. It contributes to the interference pattern, nothing more.

What I mean is that if you suppose that a wave has left the photon center in order to go through the second slit, that wave must impart energy. It doesn’t matter how much. But if that were the case, then the photon after it passed through the first slit, would be less of a photon than it was before. Photons don’t do that.

Even if you consider the wave to be rejoining the photon to make up the lost energy, restoring it to being a complete photon again, you would have to explain why ALL of the departed wave rejoined. It would seem obvious that most of what left the photon would not return after going through the slit.

What I mean is that if an observation is attempted at the slit that the photon does not go through, so the observation reveals that the photon isn’t there (and thus it must have gone through the other slit), then quantum theory predicts and experimentation reveals that the quantum two-slit interference pattern is destroyed, and a classical non-interference is found instead. My theory accounts for this by having the observational apparatus destroy the interference wave going through the second slit.

But in that case, it seems obvious that what has happened is that by trying to see the photon did not go through one slot, you have prevented it from going through that slot. Your measuring effort detracts from the freedom of the photon. In effect, you have at least partially blocked the second slit. So of course, you would expect to see a one slit diffraction pattern or something much closer to one.

 

[Colmcille]

Haha… considering the tone of some of the prior discussion, I can certainly understand that.

As long as you aren’t talking about the fact that a conscious being observing is what is causing the final effect or trying to discuss a statistical aberration as though it were a physical wave or particle, I have no problem with QM.

(but then it is really only “quantum statistics” as it should be).

What I mean is that if you suppose that a wave has left the photon center in order to go through the second slit, that wave must impart energy. It doesn’t matter how much. But if that were the case, then the photon after it passed through the first slit, would be less of a photon than it was before. Photons don’t do that.

Even if you consider the wave to be rejoining the photon to make up the lost energy, restoring it to being a complete photon again, you would have to explain why ALL of the departed wave rejoined. It would seem obvious that most of what left the photon would not return after going through the slit.

But in that case, it seems obvious that what has happened is that by trying to see the photon did not go through one slot, you have prevented it from going through that slot. Your measuring effort detracts from the freedom of the photon. In effect, you have at least partially blocked the second slit. So of course, you would expect to see a one slit diffraction pattern or something much closer to one.

Originally Posted by rlg94086
How do I know that the other Global Warming “experts” didn’t either base their conclusions off the flawed research of others and/or use the same flawed research methods themselves? I’m sure the researchers that worked so hard to hoodwink the public also hoodwinked other scientists.

This is apparently exactly what happened. Hadley CRU was known to have the largest datasets relating to world temperatures. Turns out much or most of this data is bad, wrong and worthless. In one of the leaked files, a CRU programmer is actually trying to reconstruct data that was lost, and he does it by converting latitude and longitude measurements into temperatures: in other words, he just made the numbers up.

The bad, fudged data used at Hadley CRU was also used by NASA and the UN’s IPCC.

This is a major, major, giant scandal; probably the biggest scandal ever in the history of science. Bigger than Galileo, bigger than Darwin. *An audit of an ISO 9000 certified entity attempts to determine whether the (corporate) entity is following its own rules. Faith and Reason are U]both important aspects of an honest interpretation of life, existence and meaning. *Fides et Ratio./*I] Sometimes it seems that posters on this thread want to “change the gage” to fit the (defective) part, or change the (or produce a) theory to fit a flawed observation. Take a break and ponder… *

---

 

[catholic1seeks]

Anyone like to try explaining it. How a photon can be in two places but not at the same time.

Padre Pio did it! …

 

[Ismael]

Another absurdity in Quantum Myth is that gravity, electromagnetism, strong, and weak forces are fundamental properties of reality. Especially in the case of strong and weak forces, these are merely aberrant effects that do NOT extend down to the most fundamental level.

Nonsense.

There are 4 fundamental forces that relate toi the 4 fundamental properties of particles:

Charge - which interacts through the electromagnetic force ie photon exchange
Flavor - weak force, Bosons W and Z
Color (charge) - strong force, gluons
Mass- gravity, graviton (?)

before you say anything I must make clear that FLAVOR and COLOR are arbitrary name, they do not mean literally color and flavor in the normal sense but they are just a name that was though up for the property.

Only Quarks have the ‘color’ proterty, so the strong force is resticted to them, Protons & neutrons (and other hadrosn and mesons) are ‘color neutral’, hence they feel no strong force.

eg: electron
mass: 9.1E-31 Kg
color: “white” (that means color neutral, hence it has no color and no interaction through the strong force)
flavor: ‘electron’
charge= -1

hence the electron interacts with matter through 3 forces: gravity, weak and electromagnetic

eg:
electron neutrino

charge: 0 (neutral)
color: ‘white’ (neutral)
flavor: ‘electron’
mass: present but very small

neutrinos thus interact through two forces: gravity and weak.
that is why their interaction with matter is almost nihil: gravity is extremely weak and the ‘weak force’ acts only through a very showr range (1E-15 m, that is more that 10000 times smaller than an atom!)

What simple minded, moronic logic was used to say that because quarks are all positive and a proton is positive then there must be an extremely “strong force” holding them together?

Not all quarks are positive, otherwise neutrons would not exist. Neutrons are NEUTRAL electrically are made of Up and Down quarks… w charge +2/3 and -1/3 of the electron charge

Besides it would be moronic to think that would be no force to stop the repulsion between two positive charges particles so close to each other that still do not separate.

The ‘strong’ force is called like this because it is impossible to separate quarks. The exchange interaction carried out by gluons act like an elastic, the more you pull two quarks away from each-other

It’s been EXPERIMENTALLY PROVEN.

It is like saying that when a Chinese puzzle is assembled, it must have taken extreme pressure to force the pieces together and an extreme force to hold them together because I have to use extreme force to get them apart. “The Chinese Super Force” property of Physics.

You are confusing to different concepts. Besides what would be the pressure that would hold two up quarks together?

It is the ARRANGEMENT of the particles that causes them to be able to all be positive on their own and yet be together as ONE proton particle. In their harmonic state as ONE particle, they naturally have higher energy than separate individual particles because you are at a lower entropy state.

That is the main idea of string theory: there exists only one string and it can ‘take manyt forms’… etc…

1- this idea is not experimentally confirmed
2- not all scientists agree to this

Gravity is something that gets created by the particular arrangement of effects also. It does not apply down to an infinite level as Einstein had assumed.

You have proof for this?

QM keeps coming up with non-sense constructs to try to maintain its assumptions about these fundamental “forces” when in fact, they never were *fundamental *forces.

Nonsense: the experiments confirm the theory

Logicians can figure these things out, but scientists are off the leash of logic.

Science needs empirical proof. With logic you can come to very wrong conclusions with false premesis

It is just a self consuming ego trip to try to justify prior lack of reasoning and unjustified pride in claiming that they understood when they were just beginning.

The experiments confirmed the theory. You can put your fingers in your ears and ignore the facts… but that is not the good way to do things…

I said it before and say it again: get a good SERIOUS book about QM.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Science needs empirical proof. With logic you can come to very wrong conclusions with false premesis

The altruistic idea of Science was that it use empirical evidence to verify it’s logic based hypotheses. The problem has become that it has dropped off the Logic part due to having no constraint on that and is now no more than supposition supporting apparent evidence. The evidence was not supposed to be the lead, but the support. When you use the evidence as the lead, you end up inventing concepts to support the evidence.

That is how you create superstitions, magic, and myths.

“I saw the man cut the woman in half, Mommy. How did he do that?” - Mommy answers with a theory. The cutting is the evidence. Many people repeatedly witness it. It must be Science.

“The particle is in 2 places at once. How does it do that?” It gets divided and rejoined. You can see the interference pattern that it makes. It must be Science.

I said it before and say it again: get a good SERIOUS book about QM.

That would be about the same as someone telling you that you seriously need a good book on Hindu philosophy if you are going to discuss God.

 

[James_S_Saint]

This is apparently exactly what happened. Hadley CRU was known to have the largest datasets relating to world temperatures. Turns out much or most of this data is bad, wrong and worthless. In one of the leaked files, a CRU programmer is actually trying to reconstruct data that was lost, and he does it by converting latitude and longitude measurements into temperatures: in other words,

Have any links for that?

Sometimes it seems that posters on this thread want to “change the gage” to fit the (defective) part, or change the (or produce a) theory to fit a flawed observation. Take a break and ponder…

Exactly my point. “Space bends”, “There is this magic compressed 5th dimension” (I even have one of their albums), “Consciousness is causing reality”, “ALIENS did it!!”

 

[James_S_Saint]

Ismael,

Your report as to what Science has shown is much more accurate (except for the 5th dimension part). You know that quantum statistics has proven certain concepts concerning mathematical probability and that certain things have been validly demonstrated through experimentation and the conclusion is that “we don’t know”- that is Science.

The problem is, concerning the wave vs particle issue, that they have not known for 400 years. It is embarrassing.

The logic of metaphysics actually reveals the trick of the mind and eye that is keeping them confounded. But that is the logic they leave out and try to replace with mathematics such that now it takes enormous explanation and some really good and accurate pictures to clarify what has been made so cloudy. I’m not anywhere near good enough at linguistical rhetoric to be able to explain without pictures (or I would have already).

hecd2’s elitist idea that only THEY can know anything and everything THEY say is The Truth is something I am waiting for him to demonstrate.

 

[Ismael]

The altruistic idea of Science was that it use empirical evidence to verify it’s logic based hypotheses. The problem has become that it has dropped off the Logic part due to having no constraint on that and is now no more than supposition supporting apparent evidence. The evidence was not supposed to be the lead, but the support. When you use the evidence as the lead, you end up inventing concepts to support the evidence.

The advantage of PHYSICAL sciences above other sciences is that we can use the empirical method to test it.

“I saw the man cut the woman in half, Mommy. How did he do that?” - Mommy answers with a theory. The cutting is the evidence. Many people repeatedly witness it. It must be Science.

Yes but in science you vary the conditions of the experiment to check for ‘apparent results’ which my be artefacts from systematic errors, random errors, noise, etc…

Also, there is no analysis involved in the example you show above.

“The particle is in 2 places at once. How does it do that?” It gets divided and rejoined. You can see the interference pattern that it makes.

Like I said… this is false.

The interference pattern signifies that particles have ALSO wavelike nature. If you would shoot ONE electron (or photon) through a grid you would NOT get a interference pattern.

Only if you shoot MANY electrons (even one at the time) you get an interference pattern.

The particle-wave duality emerges from observation and statistics. it tells us NOT on the essential nature of particles, but on their behaviour under specific condition.

That would be about the same as someone telling you that you seriously need a good book on Hindu philosophy if you are going to discuss God.

No it would be telling someone that you seriously need a good book on Hindu philosophy if you are going to discuss Hindu philodophy.

How can you discuss something you do not know or understand?

If I’d want to prove Hindu philosophy wrong, FIRST I will have to read books that tell me what Hindu philosophy says and THEN I might try to argue why it is wrong.
How can you say something if wrong if you lack proper knowledge and understanding of it?