Quantum Theory

[Ismael]

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.

Science must know it limitations. It must be able to tell ‘we do not know’ or ‘we can not know’, at least until a breakthrough is made.

Science is unable to answer certain questions, this does not mean that the questions it is capable to answer is wrong.

Otherwise, if I would have to accept your logic: science cannot tell all the truth therefore it is wrong, since also you cannot tell all the truth and are mistaken on a variety of things then you mut also be wrong.
Such argument contraddicts itself and therefore it is illogical.

Your report as to what Science has shown is much more accurate (except for the 5th dimension part).

In any case the ‘extra dimensions’ arise only in quantum gravity and especially in String Theory. Other theories, from simple QM to Quantum Chromodynamics, work just fine with the 3+1 dimensions.

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

The wave-particle duality concept is barely 100 years old.

Before that it was accepted that light had a wavelike nature, after Huygens prove light refraction and diffraction.

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).

Mathematics is soundly based upon logic… ie having a consistent set of statements.

Logic itself can lead to wrong conclusions if the premeses are wrong. An wrong argument might be perfectly logical.

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.

I disagree with such elitist idea, but before I do believe one must first learn what a theory actually says before criticizing it.

 

[James_S_Saint]

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?

If you will note, I started off not discussing the falsehood of QM, but rather the truth of a model and that QM has been confounding people for a very long time backed up by its ego. hecd2 (in line with said ego) attacked the me and the model for being heresy. So it stopped being a discussion of the actual problem at hand and tuned into a discussion of the silliness of QM. No one has to be an expert at QM or Hinduism to be able to identify non-sense concepts if they merely know logic and/or the real God.

If someone asks you a question concerning the history of Man and you give a response in accord with the Bible but then are confronted by a defender of the Hundu faith proclaiming that your explanation is non-sense because his religion has proven otherwise, then I suspect you would refute his claimed proof and ask him to show the error of yours.

This is exactly what has taken place. I am still waiting for hecd2’s explanation of the obvious problem with his religion as he has claimed that my model is “non-sense” without showing why.

I disagree with such elitist idea, but before I do believe one must first learn what a theory actually says before criticizing it.

I know what the theories say and why they say it.

There has never actually been any “interference” it is just a man cutting a lady in half.

 

[Ismael]

I know what the theories say and why they say it.

I am sorry but as a person who studied QM at an academic level I disagree with this statement.

No one has to be an expert at QM or Hinduism to be able to identify non-sense concepts if they merely know logic and/or the real God.

But we are NOT discussing God, but QM.

QM describes how things are or at best how things work, not who or what made them the way they are.

String Theory sometimes tries to do that… but it’s a whole different story

 

[James_S_Saint]

QM describes how things are or at best how things work, not who or what made them the way they are.

On the contrary. QM claims that gravity, strong, and weak forces are fundamental and are the CAUSE of how things work. This is a presumption without supporting logic or evidence. It has actually already been proven to be wrong simply by being able to destroy quarks and have electrons and positrons annihilate each other. You end up with nothing but radiant energy.

Things like gluons are merely theoretical particles based on the ideas propagated by other theories. They have never been actually seen but presupposed in order to make prior claims make more sense.

QM claims that wave like interference takes place as witnessed. The 2-slit experiment shows an interference pattern even from single fired electrons or photons. The problem is that interference like waves can be produced without actual interference.

QM keeps PRESUMING that it knows what it is looking at, “I saw the man cut the lady in half” - is that really what you saw?

 

[Colmcille]

I am sorry but as a person who studied QM at an academic level I disagree with this statement.

But we are NOT discussing God, but QM.

QM describes how things are or at best how things work, not who or what made them the way they are.

String Theory sometimes tries to do that… but it’s a whole different story

JSSaint,
This was found on another thread of CAF which discussed e-mail leaks throwing suspicion on Global Warming Theory.
*
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?

 

[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,

Oh, I don’t doubt it. I am aware of the statement that over 30,000 scientists signed claiming that global warming myth is NOT the result of actual Science. Yet it is now being used to economically entrap the US into slavery to the “New World Order” UN by insisting on reparations for causing the damage.

But in forum discussions, it helps to have some presumed authentic website publication to support such claims.

 

[Just_Lurking]

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.

People complained about the Bohr model of the atom, saying that the electrons orbiting the nucleus must radiate energy and therefore their orbit must decay and crash. It took a while to figure out how things really work. My model is the same way - the interference wave doesn’t subtract any energy from the real photon - and maybe one day people will figure out how.

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.

The problem is how you get the one slit diffraction pattern answer. My model gets the correct answer and maintains local realism. The standard interpretation of QM gets that answer by “spooky action at a distance”, whereby the measurement at one slit causes a global collapse of the wave function, which instantaneously communicates to the other slit exactly what should happen so that the photon doesn’t appear at both slits when there is only one photon.

 

[James_S_Saint]

The problem is how you get the one slit diffraction pattern answer. My model gets the correct answer and maintains local realism. The standard interpretation of QM gets that answer by “spooky action at a distance”, whereby the measurement at one slit causes a global collapse of the wave function, which instantaneously communicates to the other slit exactly what should happen so that the photon doesn’t appear at both slits when there is only one photon.

Hey, I didn’t say that your answer wasn’t Better than their’s.

 

[James_S_Saint]

This is really what I am saying about QM;

As a former professor visiting his former university in Regensburg, Germany, Pope Benedict XVI identified the crisis of reason as the root problem of the West. Human reason, reduced in modern times to empirical rationality, has forgotten what it means to be human, with tragic consequences. No longer capable of the clear perception of order, goodness, and intelligibility, our culture has reduced morality to relativism, a utilitarian calculus devoid of true reason.

It is rationalizing misperceptions.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Well, it seems that hecd2 isn’t going to come through, so I will see if I can put an explanation together “in words only” that will reveal what is happening in the case of “time-lapsed” interference and “self-interference” for the double-slit experiment.

{might take a while}