Apparently Light=Sound now

I've talked to professors of theoretical physics about Q.M. & they all had wildly differing opinions on it.

Really?  Name a few.

Quote from: Papa Legba on August 31, 2015, 01:09:42 PM

I've talked to professors of theoretical physics about Q.M. & they all had wildly differing opinions on it.

Really?  Name a few.

This article sounds like maybe PaPa is correct.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2011/11/debating-the-meaning-of-quantum-mechanics/

This article sounds like maybe PaPa is correct.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2011/11/debating-the-meaning-of-quantum-mechanics/

Nobody knows why the universe is fundamentally uncertain, but the math behind QM is well understood and it makes many predictions that all conform perfectly with reality.  It's similar to gravity in that it's existence is well established and the math behind it is well established and understood but nobody knows why or how it happens.

It's kind of like your computer.  Unless you have a PHD in computer science you don't fully understand how it works but you know what it does and there is no doubt in your mind that it's real.

You truly disgust me, mikeman; STOP spamming from 'wiki-for-kids' & START doing proper research...

Q.M. is HUGELY controversial in the physics community; don't just take my word for it - go ASK them ffs!

There's plenty of Physics forums around; start a thread on what Q.M. really implies & watch the sparks fly...

What is WRONG with you, mikeman, really, that you have to spam such utter CONFORMITY all the time?

Even on your alleged 18th birthday ffs...

Just YUK!

You truly disgust me, mikeman; STOP spamming from 'wiki-for-kids' & START doing proper research...

Q.M. is HUGELY controversial in the physics community; don't just take my word for it - go ASK them ffs!

There's plenty of Physics forums around; start a thread on what Q.M. really implies & watch the sparks fly...

What is WRONG with you, mikeman, really, that you have to spam such utter CONFORMITY all the time?

Even on your alleged 18th birthday ffs...

Just YUK!

Yes, there is a fair bit of controversy about QM, but none of it is about if it exists.  It's so easy to prove that even a flat earther can do it.

Uh... Now I think that you're kind of an idiot... Can you prove that you're from the future? Also, what is that that you claim will happen in a few years? Because right now, your claim that you are from the future is complete and utter bullshit.

Can I prove it? Yes and no, it would depend on your definition of proof. I have knowledge from ahead of this time (though only in the fields I studied), and I know several events, but you could always conclude that those predictions are luck. Can I provide a quick proof? No. To do so would be impossible.
I don't mind if you don't believe me. The only reason I'm here is to change the future. (Which I hope to have done, I just need to repair my time machine, and reach the future). I have a trhead in 'science an alternative science' entitled 'ask a time traveller anything' if you want to ask me any specific questions, if you want to determine whether I am genuine or not. Regardless of my origins however, my statements remain factual.

  It's so easy to prove that even a flat earther can do it.

O rly?

So please provide evidence - not even proof, just physical & verifiable evidence - of the Collapse of the Wave Function.

How does understanding Q.M. make us better at not dying long enough to reproduce? It doesn't.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on August 31, 2015, 02:20:54 PM

  It's so easy to prove that even a flat earther can do it.

O rly?

So please provide evidence - not even proof, just physical & verifiable evidence - of the Collapse of the Wave Function.

That is of course the double slit experiment.

Q.M. is HUGELY controversial in the physics community; don't just take my word for it - go ASK them ffs!

Umm,   actually no,  you are talking crap.  I've spent some time on campus at CERN,  and I can't think of a single particle physicist who doesn't know and apply QED, QCD,  and QM on an almost daily basis,  and the calculations agree with experimental data to many orders of magnitude.   Up to a few parts per trillion.   Show me the physicist who disputes QM, QED, QCD.

Have you ever studied QM?   
 

Quote from: Papa Legba on August 31, 2015, 02:03:16 PM

Q.M. is HUGELY controversial in the physics community; don't just take my word for it - go ASK them ffs!

Umm,   actually no,  you are talking crap.  I've spent some time on campus at CERN,  and I can't think of a single particle physicist who doesn't know and apply QED, QCD,  and QM on an almost daily basis,  and the calculations agree with experimental data to many orders of magnitude.   Up to a few parts per trillion.   Show me the physicist who disputes QM, QED, QCD.

Have you ever studied QM?   
 

Now, who is playing the semantics game?  Quantum means the smallest scale, so by definition, any theory that deals with the smallest scale is a Quantum Theory.  On the other hand, there is no unified Quantum Theory, and there are many are many sub-parts to this broad definition, each having several debatable theories. 

Nice deflect, though.  I am proud of you. 

There is a unified quantum theory, it's called string theory.  It may be incomplete and not conclusively proven, but it's better understood and supported then flat Earth theory.

There is a unified quantum theory, it's called string theory.  It may be incomplete and not conclusively proven, but it's better understood and supported then flat Earth theory.

So, it is unified, yet incomplete?  I thought you stayed away from drugs, mikeman. 

So, it is unified, yet incomplete?  I thought you stayed away from drugs, mikeman. 

It solves the conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics and it explains a lot but like gravity it is not fully understood.  It does however offer an explenation for Gravity as it predicts the existence of a particle with the exact properties of the theorized graviton.

My point is that the Collapse of the Wave Function is unverifiable, non-physical & has no evidence for its existence whatsoever.

Accepting it as Reality is a matter of Belief; or Faith.

So, at heart, Q.M. is more of a Belief-System, or a Religion, than a Science.

Which is why many physicists are uncomfortable with it.

The general public, on the other hand, being unaware of these issues, just unthinkingly accepts it all as hard scientific fact.

But don't take my word for it; do some research, join some online physics forums, find out for yourselves...

In the end, though, believe what you want.

My point is that the Collapse of the Wave Function is unverifiable, non-physical & has no evidence for its existence whatsoever.

Accepting it as Reality is a matter of Belief; or Faith.

So, at heart, Q.M. is more of a Belief-System, or a Religion, than a Science.

Which is why many physicists are uncomfortable with it.

The general public, on the other hand, being unaware of these issues, just unthinkingly accepts it all as hard scientific fact.

But don't take my word for it; do some research, join some online physics forums, find out for yourselves...

In the end, though, believe what you want.

Once again, the dual slit experiment seems to show the collapse of wave function. One can preform the experiment using neutrons and see the same results.

Once again, you 'defeat' yourself, sock-arul.

&, as usual, you don't even know why...

If you believe you have found verifiable physical evidence for the collapse of the wave function, then go collect your Nobel.

Won't mummy be proud!

You truly disgust me, mikeman; STOP spamming from 'wiki-for-kids' & START doing proper research...

Q.M. is HUGELY controversial in the physics community; don't just take my word for it - go ASK them ffs!

There's plenty of Physics forums around; start a thread on what Q.M. really implies & watch the sparks fly...

What is WRONG with you, mikeman, really, that you have to spam such utter CONFORMITY all the time?

Even on your alleged 18th birthday ffs...

Just YUK!

Will you stop trying to bullshit us? Do you think we don't know any theoretical physicists? Yes, many have different takes on QM and yes, they wish there was a simpler, more intuitive way to explain what we observe, but they accept that QM is all we've got, even if it's incomplete, to explain the phenomena that we observe. QM was hugely controversial. 80 years ago.

Then there is what you called "spukhafte fernwerung", or "spooky communication", which is how Einstein called quantum entanglement. They show how strange QM is, but it doesn't do anything to disprove it. It has even been verified experimentally. I think there was even a recent experiment with entangled photons. There is still debate about it though and many believe that QM is still incomplete, but correct. Just because it's not intuitive and nobody can really wrap his head around it, it doesn't mean it's wrong.

My point is that the Collapse of the Wave Function is unverifiable, non-physical & has no evidence for its existence whatsoever.

Accepting it as Reality is a matter of Belief; or Faith.

So, at heart, Q.M. is more of a Belief-System, or a Religion, than a Science.

Which is why many physicists are uncomfortable with it.

The general public, on the other hand, being unaware of these issues, just unthinkingly accepts it all as hard scientific fact.

But don't take my word for it; do some research, join some online physics forums, find out for yourselves...

In the end, though, believe what you want.

Also, just because something isn't directly physically verified, it doesn't mean there isn't evidence about it.

Oh wait. I just realized I am trying to debate QM with someone who apparently thinks that there is a perfectly reflective ice dome or something above the earth that reflects a sun that is actually a fireball in the north pole and somehow makes that reflection move -__-

Quote from: Rayzor on August 31, 2015, 07:06:01 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on August 31, 2015, 02:03:16 PM

Q.M. is HUGELY controversial in the physics community; don't just take my word for it - go ASK them ffs!

Umm,   actually no,  you are talking crap.  I've spent some time on campus at CERN,  and I can't think of a single particle physicist who doesn't know and apply QED, QCD,  and QM on an almost daily basis,  and the calculations agree with experimental data to many orders of magnitude.   Up to a few parts per trillion.   Show me the physicist who disputes QM, QED, QCD.

Have you ever studied QM?   
 

Now, who is playing the semantics game?  Quantum means the smallest scale, so by definition, any theory that deals with the smallest scale is a Quantum Theory.  On the other hand, there is no unified Quantum Theory, and there are many are many sub-parts to this broad definition, each having several debatable theories. 

Nice deflect, though.  I am proud of you.

Uh... No... Quantum does not mean in the smallest scale... Although you are right, there is no single, universally accepted unified theory of QM, although that is not the point discussed.

Once again, you 'defeat' yourself, sock-arul.

&, as usual, you don't even know why...

If you believe you have found verifiable physical evidence for the collapse of the wave function, then go collect your Nobel.

Won't mummy be proud!

Lol

Uncertainty Principle


Lol

Once again, you 'defeat' yourself, sock-arul.

&, as usual, you don't even know why...

If you believe you have found verifiable physical evidence for the collapse of the wave function, then go collect your Nobel.

Won't mummy be proud!

If only he was the first to do that.  It has been done many times, including once by myself.

Quote from: Papa Legba on August 31, 2015, 10:46:11 PM

Once again, you 'defeat' yourself, sock-arul.

&, as usual, you don't even know why...

If you believe you have found verifiable physical evidence for the collapse of the wave function, then go collect your Nobel.

Won't mummy be proud!

If only he was the first to do that.  It has been done many times, including once by myself.

?
I didn't defeat myself. What I said was correct.

LOL!!!

What Lying idiots you all are.

This Lie was best though:

Oh wait. I just realized I am trying to debate QM with someone who apparently thinks that there is a perfectly reflective ice dome or something above the earth that reflects a sun that is actually a fireball in the north pole and somehow makes that reflection move..

Please show me where I have ever expressed such a notion, LIAR?

You can not; because I have not, LIAR.

Q.M. is at heart a BELIEF-SYSTEM, not a SCIENCE; FACT.

Neutrals: don't take my word for it; do your own research & make your own minds up.

Criminal shills: LMFAO - at YOU!!!

LOL!!!

What Lying idiots you all are.

This Lie was best though:

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 01, 2015, 01:50:49 AM

Oh wait. I just realized I am trying to debate QM with someone who apparently thinks that there is a perfectly reflective ice dome or something above the earth that reflects a sun that is actually a fireball in the north pole and somehow makes that reflection move..

Please show me where I have ever expressed such a notion, LIAR?

You can not; because I have not, LIAR.

Q.M. is at heart a BELIEF-SYSTEM, not a SCIENCE; FACT.

Neutrals: don't take my word for it; do your own research & make your own minds up.

Criminal shills: LMFAO - at YOU!!!

Where you expressed such notion? I hope you realize that sceptimatic (who you seem to vastly appreciate) believes that that is the case. Don't you remember? That time when all you did is copy and paste the shit sceptimatic said about vacuum pumps not working in bold all over the place? It was you, wasn't it?

Now you really don't seem to understand the difference between theory and belief system. Even though predictions made by qm have been verified experimentally countless times, you keep insisting that it's nonsense and that there is no proof about it. However, you haven't provided a single valid way to disprove it. Still waiting.

LOL!!!

F**k off, liar & show me where I expressed the following notion you attribute to me:

Oh wait. I just realized I am trying to debate QM with someone who apparently thinks that there is a perfectly reflective ice dome or something above the earth that reflects a sun that is actually a fireball in the north pole and somehow makes that reflection move..

Either do so, or admit you are a deliberate LIAR.

Oh, & how to 'disprove' QM?

Just Stop believing in it, sucker!

True story, bro...

Oh, & lest we forget; here is what Deaf Dick thinks 'reality' is:

Light is essentially made up from particles called photons. Those particles are NOT matter in the common sense of the word and they do not have mass. They are like little packets of energy. They follow a wave of probability, which means that they are much more likely to end up in the peaks of an imaginary wave (for reasons that are too complicated to explain easily). That wave can, of course, interfere with itself, etc. It is NOT transmitted through air or anything physical. All that makes light appear to move like a wave, although it isn't actually one.

A cat (electron) has to go to take a dump (lowers its energy state) whenever it eats a bowl of Friskies (when it eats the Friskies it jumps up an energy state). It owner is a sumo fighter, and whenever he gets in the house for reasons that I'm not going to explain because it's too complicated, waves form in the floor. Because he is superstitious, he only places the litter boxes on the peaks of the waves that have been formed on the floor, so the cat randomly picks litter boxes to take a dump in. After some time, the cat litter will be spread in the room as if it was a wave. It's not a wave of cat shit flooding the room though, it's distinct litter boxes. Is that simple enough for you?

'Too complicated...'

O rly?

LMFAO!!!

True story, bro...

LOL!!!

F**k off, liar & show me where I expressed the following notion you attribute to me:

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 01, 2015, 01:50:49 AM

Oh wait. I just realized I am trying to debate QM with someone who apparently thinks that there is a perfectly reflective ice dome or something above the earth that reflects a sun that is actually a fireball in the north pole and somehow makes that reflection move..

Either do so, or admit you are a deliberate LIAR.

Oh, & how to 'disprove' QM?

Just Stop believing in it, sucker!

True story, bro...

You did defend sceptimatic, no?

Irrelevant; show me where I expressed the following notion you attribute to me:

Oh wait. I just realized I am trying to debate QM with someone who apparently thinks that there is a perfectly reflective ice dome or something above the earth that reflects a sun that is actually a fireball in the north pole and somehow makes that reflection move..

Either do so, or admit you are a deliberate LIAR.

Oh, & lest we forget; here is what Deaf Dick thinks 'reality' is:

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on August 29, 2015, 06:06:28 AM

Light is essentially made up from particles called photons. Those particles are NOT matter in the common sense of the word and they do not have mass. They are like little packets of energy. They follow a wave of probability, which means that they are much more likely to end up in the peaks of an imaginary wave (for reasons that are too complicated to explain easily). That wave can, of course, interfere with itself, etc. It is NOT transmitted through air or anything physical. All that makes light appear to move like a wave, although it isn't actually one.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on August 13, 2015, 12:58:59 PM

A cat (electron) has to go to take a dump (lowers its energy state) whenever it eats a bowl of Friskies (when it eats the Friskies it jumps up an energy state). It owner is a sumo fighter, and whenever he gets in the house for reasons that I'm not going to explain because it's too complicated, waves form in the floor. Because he is superstitious, he only places the litter boxes on the peaks of the waves that have been formed on the floor, so the cat randomly picks litter boxes to take a dump in. After some time, the cat litter will be spread in the room as if it was a wave. It's not a wave of cat shit flooding the room though, it's distinct litter boxes. Is that simple enough for you?

'Too complicated...'

O rly?

LMFAO!!!

True story, bro...

Yeah. They are too complicated to explain in a couple lines. Is there a problem with that?

Also, do you think calling me "Deaf Dick" is smart or something? At least your other dumb characterizations like "Definitely not Literate" kinda made sense. This one doesn't even do that.

Now provide hard evidence that QM is wrong, or fuck off.