/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11395119
>electric universe
>google it
>mfw
What the fuck? Nobody's sincerely this stupid, r-right? You can image the sun from the neutrinos its fusion outputs. How could it be not using fusion and running on electrified plasma instead? That's completely insane.

>>11395119
Particles smaller than electrons don't exist.
That is why they are called "theoretical particled"
For example, can you drive a theoretical car?
No. You cannot say ",I did this car equation on the blackboard, theoretically there is a car here"
Is there really a car there?
No. Because quantum mechanics does not give you magical powers to control the universe with your mind.

So when some scientist from 1870 says because of a blackboard equation there is a theoretical particle, it doesn't materialise a particle out if thin air.

Stern garlach was a hoax. So was the twin slit experiments done after Thomas Young's twin slit experiment that showed light was a wave.

The twin slit experiment s after that were hoaxes.
Particles like protons neutrons and electrons are real. Just not photons
That's what heisenbergs uncertainty principal says anyway.
But none of you actually understand even basic physics.
And apparently you all believe in magic.

>>11395119
>electric universe
>google it
>mfw
What the fuck? Nobody's sincerely this stupid, r-right? You can image the sun from the neutrinos its fusion outputs. How could it be not using fusion and running on electrified plasma instead? That's completely insane.

>>11395142
so hoaxfag, what isn't a hoax then? what do you believe in?

>>11395146
Yes they are just like people are stupid enough to believe in quantum phenonenom.

>>11395159
lol oh no no you're serious

>>11395148
99% of contemporary physics, astronomy, electrochemistry etc are all correct.
You know how there are specialised fields of science?
For instance, at the University of went to there was a guy who only studied bee penis. That was his job. All day, microscopically photographing bee penis. He had a PhD.

So if I took too much of my ADD medication, and went into a psychosis, and started running around declaring that he was doing fradulant research, sloppy bookkeeping, faking photos

I am not saying biology, or microscopy, or bees are a hoax. I am not saying bees don't have penii.

Quantum mechanics is a tiny fraction of physics. Because it has no results.
So if I challenge the LIGO gravity wave experiment because I know that they were fradulantly claiming they were getting results by fudging the algorithms.
I am not saying particle accelerators aren't real. I am not saying gravity and lasers are a hoax.
I am challenging scientists doing fraudulant research.

There is a few small groups of scientists publishing fradulant quantum physics papers, for the purpose of grant funding.
In the highly specialised field of the study of potential theoretical particles.
CERN are doing it. So is the Vatican's quantum research lab.

It's no different to the cold fusion fraudulant papers.
If you can't recreate the experiment, and show results, you cannot claim success.
That fraud.
Higgs boson god particle is fraudulant research for example.

>>11395196

>99% of contemporary physics
>Quantum mechanics is a tiny fraction of physics. Because it has no results.

So you have misunderstood 100% of contemporary physics then

>>11395196
oh okay so you dial back your argument dramatically once confronted. that seems like a reasonable tactic.

yet you still deny particle physics, or no? it is one thing to question say the higgs discovery but it another thing to deny what you can clearly see in a cloud chamber, as in OP. as far as i can tell you just completely rolled back your anti-science view to much more specific claims about subtle things. which is it? you reject quantum physics or you have some small statistical arguments about some recent results?

>>11395208
Tell me more about how Einstein said light has a speed limit.
The tell me how you are going to use Einstein's work to travel faster than that speed limit.
I love that story.
"Einstein was simultaneously wrong and right at the same time! Let me compartmentalise these concepts in incompatible abstract formats in my brain."

>>11395212
I see you have been to this rodeo before lol.

Yeah, I do that because I'm not actually trolling. It seems so alien because you probably haven't encountered it before.

I deny photons are particles. They are perturbations (ripples) in the background electromagnetic fields that permeate the universe.
Stimulating atoms causes the outer valence electrons to jump between lower and outer valence shells. As electrons are charged they interact with this EMF,.and induce these ripples.
Maxwell's equations explain it fully. But they are very difficult. So no one learns them.

Heisenbergs uncertainty principle states we cannot observe particles smaller than an electron with any accuracy. Because we need to interact with (change) them to observe them.

Schrödinger's cat literally says quantum physics is wrong. The alive and dead thing was a paradox about wave particle duality. No one understands any of this. They all pretend to. And when challenged QM people just say "do you have a triple degree in maths, physics and astrophysics and a PhD ? How dare you challenge these dead scientists,.you don't have the right"
Yes I do lol. We are allowed to ask questions and chellenge science.
No one has the authority to challenge these ideas unless they are independently wealthy and are just doing PhDs for fun. It has been put on a pedestal because of how awe inspiring it must have been 120 years ago.
But it's very old and very outdated and very inaccurate.

Can you expand on the cloud chamber thing. Lol, I worked with someone sortof involved with the invention of the cloud chamber. Small world.

>>11395119
What's your point?

>>11395142
>twin slit experiment that showed light was a wave.
>Particles like protons neutrons and electrons are real. Just not photons
Double slit experiment shows electron "particles" are waves too. Now what?

>>11395146
>You can image the sun from the neutrinos
Let me know where anyone can buy a neutrino detector to image the sun, retard.

>>11395278
denying photons are particles is not out of the mainstream. that is why quantum FIELD theories exist. they embrace particle-wave duality. it makes the situation more subtle.

attacking academia is a brainlet way out of actually arguing science. if you can’t actually make any good arguments physically, which you can’t, then you’re out of your depth. i realize you have some history as a failed quantum computer person so i pity you but i have no sympathy for your butthurt cope mechanisms

>>11395196
ElectroBOOM just build a particle detector recently. Educate yourself

>>11395142
>The twin slit experiment s after that were hoaxes
Literally any community college “intro to physics” course has a double slit lab. Are the millions of undergrads who have successfully repeated the experiment in on it too?

>>11395278
>Maxwell's equations explain it fully. But they are very difficult. So no one learns them
Oh no no no.

>>11395326
Let's start at the beginning :)
The evidence you have for that is an artist's interpretation of what you are saying.
Can you show me a pic of the real experiment?
Rather than a drawing.

>>11395342
I like your energy.
You understand it's a little difficult for me to condense several hundred years of global scientific history into one 4chan post.

If you devote your time to this. You will look forever and never find what you are looking for.

How about you provide me with a link of the evidence to prove the existence of photons.

I challenge you.
Show me the proof.
Of the thing you are so certain of.

>>11395354
Anecdotal evidence is my favourite.
"A guy I used to know said he saw it"

>>11395356
Never heard of quantum optics, eh?

>>11395356
>Show me the proof.
how about any simple photomultiplier tube? that again is a thing you could test at home

>>11395333
>Let me know where anyone can buy a neutrino detector to image the sun, retard.
Because the equipment is large and expensive it doesn't count? What the fuck is wrong with your brain?

>>11395380
The point is "you" cannot image the sun with neutrinos.

>>11395384
Are you literally autistic?

>>11395385
>if you point out my lies, you're autistic.

Fuck all y'all if you doubt me

>>11395357
Here's my actual data. You EU fags are insufferable.
>Clearly I'm a shill for big physics. And a gangstalker.

>>11395362
I've heard of ghosts?
My friend saw one once.
Convinced?

Can you expand on what specifically from the field of quantum optics convinces you of the existence of any particles smaller than an electron.
Explain to me the need for quantum mechanics in this field?

>>11395364
Yeah, except the premise relies on a way to detect and observe the properties of individual photons.
Which heisenbergs uncertainty principal states is impossible,
What experiment would you like me to do with a photomultiplier tube to prove the existence of photons.
Individual light waves would do the exact same thing as all supposed photomultiplier tubes
I am not saying light doesn't exist.
I am saying it is not a particle. And there is no evidence.

You know if I disprove photon theory that lasers and computers won't stop working right?
That seems to be a common theme, they we used quantum physics to make lasers or something.
Quantum mechanics is theoretical explanations of observed unexplained scientific phenomenon. Who told you it was all proven? It's theoretical physics.
Theory.
Do you know what theoretical means?

>>11395119
>this video gets posted on a fairly regular basis when EU idiots start going off on "particles don't exist!!! all the experiments were hoaxes!"
Are you saying this experiment proves particles exist or something? Where are the particles? All I see is fog.

>what is funny is how hard it triggers them
That you showing some fog effects and then call them "proof of particles"? I'd be pissed too, that sounds dumb as shit.

>oh, the rarefactions induce a magnetic response that forces the epistemological holographic nature of transcendental chi to localize because tesla pigeon spirits hurr durr
Are you the samefag that keeps posting that stupid tesla brain image every fucking day here? Did Wayne Lambright scam you or something and this is how you're getting payback?


>>11395326
>Double slit experiment shows electron "particles" are waves too. Now what?
Waves of what?

>>11395356
>How about you provide me with a link of the evidence to prove the existence of photons.
An even worse question to ask on /sci/.

>>11395390
Did you name that file in my honour?
Thankyou.
Your evidence appears to be a drawing of a pretty spiky bell curve.

I'm Australian lol.
It's why I can shitpost 18 hours a day like a team of bots.
Can you expand on physics shilling and big physics?
Because I think you are misinterpreting my intentions my good man.

>>11395405
>>11395409
>>11395417
no anons, you are wrong. keep posting your high IQ posts to prove me wrong please.

>>11395429
How can I >>11395409 be wrong? All I did was ask questions.

>>11395417
Yes I did name it in your honor because I had to re-write my csv reader program to plot it again. If you want to claim the double slit experiment is fake that's fine, you're allowed to be retarded, but if you can't recognize an interference pattern then you're on the wrong board.
>>>/x/

>>11395443
>See If you want to claim the double slit experiment is fake that's fine, you're allowed to be retarded, but if you can't recognize an interference pattern then you're on the wrong board.

Oh I see, he's arguing that the experiment itself exists. Why yes of course, it just doesn't prove or explain anything is all. There's no "gotcha" moment for either of you, sorry to ruin it.

>>11395405
Lemme guess, single photon sources are a hoax?

>>11395443
So you could plot anything you wanted on your simulation.
You are obviously a talented technician.
But that is basically a drawing you did.
You you accept a drawing I did?
Why don't you just post a photo of a real interference pattern lol.

Would you like to know why.
Because they don't exist and you are indulging the delusions of a group think experiment that went way to far.
And you are currently experiencing a mass hallucination.
Where apparently there is just evidence for days. But it's been 2 hours and no one can post any.......

Is google broken?
While it reboots please tell me more anecdotes about theories you have concocted to support your narrative.

Where is the evidence lol.
None of you have any evidence.
Because there is no evidence.
It is a cult.

>>11395461
No they have those. Called a photon well or something. It's on wiki. It isn't a massless particle though. Or wave and a particle simultaneously. It is just a wave.
Like a microwave. Or a radiowave.
It is a light wave.
A wave-packet if you will. Quantised into discrete energy packets.

>>11395387
Hey, idiot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you
You can image the sun with neutrinos. Just because you personally don't have a neutrino detector in your back yard doesn't make this stop being true. Are you under the impression the ones that exist are just useless massive garbage piles that people made up lies about to trick you into believing the sun engages in nuclear fusion?

>>11395470
You just described a photon.

>>11395463
Here you go. It's not from the same experiment, but it's a photo I took of an interference pattern nonetheless.
Honestly pretty excited to see what kind of mental gymnastics you come up with for this one desu. My bets are on:
>CLEARLY A SIMULATION/CGI. NOT PROOF.
>You said it's not from the same experiment so I will ignore it entirely
>No reply

>>11395480
I'm not your enemy man. This has nothing on do with either of us.
It's science not politics.
Sorry if I offended you, it is hard to keep track of all the "anon" handles.

The picture you posted is a light wave interference pattern.
There is no particle pattern present.
Your photographic evidence shows no suggestion of the particulate nature of light.

Check my photo for reference.

>>11395486
The idea that someone would see the top pattern if photons were real is nonsense that isn't at all related to what modern physics ever says. You apparently don't understand the mainstream physics enough to argue against it.

>>11395496
That's because modern physics is wrong.
That's why it hasn't made a worthwhile discovery in like 80 years.
Other than the discoveries in your imagination of course.

There is no shame in being lied to by people in positions of power man.
How are you supposed to know.

I don't fully understand what you mean.
But pic related. It's how waves look.

>>11395486
I'm not arguing with you, just providing evidence contrary to your statements. your posts are too obviously bait to be real, though you could create some serious rage if you hone you bait crafting skills a little more.

Unfortunately I no longer have the data from my photoelectric effect experiments, which I'm sure you'll "interpret" to mean I'm hiding something nefarious. Nevertheless, I have no more experimental data to show, so this is where our engagement must unfortunately end, as you (or your persona) are obviously unwilling to trust data that isn't obtained first-hand.

>>11395503
>That's because modern physics is wrong.

Wow. I just said that you don't understand what modern physics says about photons, and this is the best you could come up with.

>>11395496
If you fire particles (say a machine gun) through two twin slits. You get to "shadows" of the slits on the observing screen.

Waves show multiple lines, because it's a wave interference pattern.

The experiment that showed light is a particle was never done.
You have been mislead.

Aaaaaaaaand that is why it's a hoax.

There is my proof.
You all have no proof.
One of us is wrong.

Pic is single slit experiment.

>>11395511
So you apparently don't know what "particle" even means in QFT. Hint: look up "particle" in the index of Peskin & Schroeder. And look up Wigner's classification while you're at it.

>>11395508
The picture I uploaded was the proof.

>>11395520
Proof that a random picture off the internet doesn't substitute for reading a QFT textbook.

>atom
>not actually atomic
why were the ancient Greeks so fuckin stupid

>>11395470
>A wave-packet if you will. Quantised into discrete energy packets
aka "photons".

>>11395519
Why don't you explain to me what a particle is.
And there are different definition of particle depending on what quantum mechanical text book I read
With a different definition depending on which hoax scenario is being acted out.

Why don't you explain a massless particle.

Then tell me why massless particles are drawn by gravity into black holes.

I know why. It's because black holes act as giant broadband antennas and absorb electromagnetic radiation Such as light.

But why don't you tell me how gravity can interfere with massless objects.
I love a good impossible paradox.

>>11395471
>have faith in reported results that you cannot possibly verify

>>11395528
>Why don't you explain to me what a particle is.
An irreducible representation of the Poincare group is a good starting point.

>And there are different definition of particle depending on what quantum mechanical text book I read
Did you read the one I named in the post?

>Why don't you explain a massless particle.
Their mass is 0. Shocker, right?

>Then tell me why massless particles are drawn by gravity into black holes.
I don't know how to break this to you, but gravity couples to the stress-energy tensor.

>But why don't you tell me how gravity can interfere with massless objects.
lol

>>11395525
Wave-packet, not wave/particle.

A "photon" is a measure between each node in the waveform.

If you want to discuss how the English language works and how humans make up sounds to describe things, that's cool.

>>11395537
>A "photon" is a measure between each node in the waveform.
That would be a "wavelength", which is just a measure of distance my man.

>>11395523
It wasn't the Greek's fault. It's the scientists who came after and (wrongly) though they had found the indivisible building blocks of nature who are to blame.

>>11395535
particle
/ˈpɑːtJk(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
a minute portion of matter.
"tiny particles of dust"


Man I suspect you are making stuff up at this stage.
How is define a particle to much to ask
"An irreproducible representation of the Poincare group"?

Use it in a sentence.
Hoaxfag "could you define particle?"
Anon" an ireeproducible representation. Of the Poincare group"


What is happening.

particle
/ˈpɑːtJk(ə)l/
noun
1.
a minute portion of matter.
"tiny particles of dust"

Now define matter
Gotta have mass.
Massless=no matter=by definition, cannot be a particle.

As long as we can just make stuff up let's just assume we are both right.

>>11395546
Ahh, the classic "take the colloquial dictionary definition of a technical term" strategy.

>>11395554
Yeah I sure am a stickler for the standard universal rules on debate.
I had no idea when I was debating that I could use shifting poly-definitions as a confusion strategy emulating some kind of Pokemon battle.

*A wild hoaxfag appears*
Hoaxfag uses "define photon"

Anon uses "confuse"

>>11395563
Did you open up your copy of Peskin and Schroeder yet?

>>11395563
>>11395546
>>11395537
These posts are hilarious.

>>11395575
Amusing, yes. But I’m pretty sure we’re being played.

>>11395119
The waves are just smaller anon.

>>11395568
If you open your copy of the Bible and admit Moses built that ark.

Quantum physicists are Christian scientists.

I don't believe in God. I will not accept the Vatican's quantum research lab data clumsily disguised as science.

You think because I don't own a specific textbook that you can use that as an argument against my theory?
Just how convoluted is this going get.


What where we talking about again?
How you need several arbitrary gibberish definitions of the same word to make your your theory fit?

>>11395581
Wow look at that. He prefers the old science guys to the talking heads. AND he doesn’t believe in any of that “math” or “quantum” mumbo jumbo. You sure seem to know what you’re talking mister!

>>11395579
Do you remember when Galileo told everyone what he saw through his telescope.
And the Vatican tried to burn him alive.
Made him state publicly he was wrong. And he died destitute and alone. And they took 400 years to apologise?

You would have said the same thing.
If you were there.
"Mang I think old man Galileo trynna play us son!"
"Dayam baby! Heliocentric? He crazy"
"Oh shit! The pope is rurl angery now baby! He gone burn tonight son"

At least that's how it plays out in my mind.

Science get proven wrong all the time.
Lobotomies, crystal meth as a prescription drug, heroin as a safe non addictive painkiller for children (and cocaine), flat earth,
People can be wrong sometimes.
And sometimes people lie for money.
Maybe check how much CERN is allocated.

I'm not trolling lol. Man this would be an incredible troll if it was.

>>11395588
What math are you referencing, Maxwell's equations wholly explain electromagnetic radiation without quantum.

Show me some maths that proves quantum is real lol.

Quantum literally means unexplained. You can't observe any of this. It's theoretical.

>>11395610
Try to explain the photoelectric effect and the observed lack of intensity dependence without a particle of light using only Maxwell.

>Quantum literally means unexplained
Since you were resorting to dictionary definitions to defend your arguments I suggest you look this one up. You seem to be confused about the nature of physics; it is not the final arbiter of what is and what isn't, nature is. Physics is just the study and modeling of nature. The true clockwork of reality is a philosophical discussion.

The fact that you're considering your
>quantum don't real
theory to be on par with the revelations of Galileo when it has been a huge field of study for the last hundred years should tell you something about your ego.

>>11395581
>You think because I don't own a specific textbook that you can use that as an argument against my theory?

For some reason, I expected you to be capable of finding the pdf on the first page of a google search.

>>11395629
How do you explain the photoelectric effect?
Specifically, the key evidence in the theory was the emission threshold of the substance being stimulated.
But then later they discovered some materials don't have thresholds.
So it was disproven. And everyone ignored it.

I will challenge that you can't explain the photoelectric effect. And all you need to explain it is a quick google copy paste for something so foundational and elementary for the theory.

I don't believe that you need any philosophy. It's because Americans are holding onto the concept of white Christianity and quantum mechanics provides an avenue to prove god with science. Which has been the holy grail since the first fossil was found and the church accused him of making the fossils and said it was a hoax ;) remember that? With the church and covering up scientific discoveries they didn't like. That still happens.

I have been polite, tried to answer everyone's questions in a similar format to how they spoke to me, and I didn't fly into a rage when challenged and get into character assassination in an attempt to teach you all about some inconsistensies in modern physics that may have a negative impact on your work if not acknowledged. And I did that for no personal benefit.
Ego?
Who do you think I am some kind of science Jesus.

I am just a scientist. (A guy who went to college), that is all. I am just trying to help.
Would you like to see me at my most egotistical,
It's your loss anon.
I don't know what you think you have to lose. Like if you entertain the idea for a bit when you walk near lasers and computers they will dim and fade simply by your presence, and everyone will yell "he doesn't believe in QM, shun the non-believer!"

There is some cool stuff you can do when you abandon the theories that clearly don't work.
Have fun with your quantum computers ;)
They have working ones now hey?
I am of course using a shifting poly definition for the word "working"

>>11395119
Why does she sound like she is out of breath all the time

>>11395662


Post degree or GTFO. Not the guy who you're replying to, just a lurker but you're literally an idiot or need to take his meds.

No self respecting scientist would be as ignorant as you are.

>>11395662
>no u :)
Every material has a work function anon. This is even predicted by maxwell, or did you forget about electrostatic attraction? The defining “weirdness” of the PE effect was that you could pump as much energy into a system as you wanted, and (provided it didn’t ionize or boil off electrons) you still would get zero emission if you didn’t have the correct frequency. This flies right in the face of classical EM. Without energy quantization this doesn’t make any sense.

>I don't believe that you need any philosophy
You can believe whatever the fuck you want, that doesn’t mean that physics suddenly becomes the truth rather than a model of the truth. Quantum mechanics only provides an avenue to god to those that have never studied it because yuppies keep misinterpreting the observer effect. Again, the object of physics is not to discover some ultimate truth, the object is to describe nature. There is no grand conspiracy here that you have heroically exposed to the world, you have only succeeded in displaying your ignorance on the subject. The fact that you went to college doesn’t make you an expert, or even a novice.

It is good to question things and I applaud you for being skeptical, but stubbornness in the face of a century of emperical evidence is foolish if you don’t even bring an alternative theory to the table.

>>11395662

Also in addition to asking for a time stamped degree, I really think just because you took some physics classes in undergrad doesn't refute that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Where are you published works describing your observations and debunking of QT? I'd love to read them. What journal would I find them in?

>>11395662

You're a fraud, a fool, and you're not nearly as clever as you think you are. What ever is plaguing your mind to speak so arrogantly of something you know nothing about must be purged. Lest you want to be known a fool for the rest of your life.

>>11395698
I am on alot of meds lol. And I take them all the time because half of them are narcotics. But I have a script so it renders them harmless apparently.
I for real didn't mean to upset anyone.
So I'm sorry. Did you read the whole thread?

>>11395702
Man, you are definitely a physicist. Please don't think I am criticising physics. I am literally just talking about a small area of it with some major problems we need to clean up. It is very hard to concisely word that, and my intentions in general.

With the photoelectric effect. Not the correct frequency, just above a certain frequency (but I know you know that), the energy doesn't build up. The surface electrons are easy to dislodge compared to say melting the material. So it's not like heating something until it gets hot.
The electrons are bouncing around and you hit them with a light wave. If the wave isn't big enough the energy just dissapates, because it doesn't have enough energy to move the electron far enough out of its valence shell.
It's like trying to knock a cereal box over with a ping pong ball. It doesn't matter how many times you hit it, it will never fall. But a heavy enough ball will.

You can't put as much energy as you want.
Very high amplitude low frequency lasers can make anything emit electrons. There is no threshold with a 600 watt commercial Infra red cutting laser.
Because the material will ionise.

What I mean is this experiment was done in the 1900s by candlelight, they did all this with technology from like 120 years ago. I don't think the experiment was interpreted correctly. They didn't have the equipment to test things like we do now. It was custom made wooden equipment.

If you view light as an electromagnetic wave in the background EMF cosmic rays. It can all be explained. It doesn't matter if it's a massless particle, or a wave, the photoelectric effect works the same. It's just a sine wave, if it's monochromatic light all the wavelengths and frequencies are the same.

>>11395119
I watch Eu now since manny years.

A: I never hear theme taking about particles arent real. (maybe i just missed a memo)

B: the explain me the patterns structures and forms of so called impact craters. Main stream science says its random.

C:they explain me the behavior of sun winds, and back it up with experiments. Your mainstream scinece says its random.

D: They explain me the patterns shapes and behavior of natural accruing vortexes. And back it up with experiments. Your mainstream science says its random, just believe get ass fucked good boy.

D: They explain me why Venus turns the other direction. You say its random.

E: They explain me the odd shape of Saturn storm. You say its random.

F: the explain me horizontal tornadoes. You say its a hoax.

G: They explain me the energy output of Galaxy cores. You say its say miracle.

H: the explain me Spacial locations of Quasars relative to Galaxies. You say its an statistical Illusion.


Is there anything mainstream science can explain?

>>11395736
Yes anon, you’re right. How could I have been so foolish? How could I not have seen the light? IT WAS THE CHURCH! THE CHRISTIANS! AAAAAAAAA!!!!

If you have nothing left but ad-hominems I hope you at least take a real interest in physics beyond the conspiracy level. There’s a lot of cool stuff waiting to be explored, even when it doesn’t have anything to do with exposing a global conspiracy.

>>11395741

Think you are confusing me with the wrong guy

>>11395739
I skimmed enough but kind of realized halfway when you started trying to mention this narrative of Christianity to explain why QM is just a means for more control.
There are hundreds, and I MEAN hundreds of experiments and papers that can prove you wrong. If you still have access to your universities library I suggest you read up on them, contrary to what you read here in 4chan.
Also I think you need to see a therapist, obviously your meds aren't really helping with the mania.

>>11395739
The experimentalists of the early 20th century were a lot more clever than you give them credit for. The electrons emitted from an incident photon didn’t just have a threshold, but they had a kinetic energy that was dependent solely on the wavelength of the incident light. With a classical wave model, the kinetic energy of the electrons should be dependent on the amplitude of the light, not just the frequency.

>>11395739
All I am saying is that light isn't a particle.
It is a "quantised" meaning in "discrete" individual "packets" of energy. Continuous pulses of electromagnetic energy.
I presented my alternative theory earlier.

You really don't think at the world's largest optical telescope located at the Vatican's quantum research lab, populated entirely by fundamentalist religious zealots with practically unlimited funding. Who have tried to burn and discredit scientific discoveries
Like fossils, evolution, climate change and the heliocentric model of the universe. That there is no conspiracy?


I like your energy man. It's good to keep a cool head in these trying times :)

>>11395739

Here: attend this workshop. You'll find the answers to the questions you're looking for. http://scgp.stonybrook.edu/archives/29732

No im curious about this. I believe particles dont exist. But i never hear EU talk about this plz explain where you get that good informed. Caus with out this it makes no sense to talk about what EU believes.

>>11395765
Yes I had you confused with hoaxfag. You’re still a fag yourself though. I’m just stating the obvious and standing on the shoulders of the currently accepted paradigm, I’m not claiming to be clever myself. Something I said must’ve struck a nerve for such a defensive response.

Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action
By Book, By Author, By Topic
Quantum Mechanics
Berry, Michael. “Chaos and the Semiclassical Limit of Quantum Mechanics (Is the Moon There When Somebody Looks?)"
Butterfield, Jeremy. “Some Worlds of Quantum Theory."
Chiao, Raymond Y. “Quantum Nonlocalities: Experimental Evidence."
Clarke, Chris. “The Histories Interpretation of Quantum Theory and the Problem of Human/Divine Action."
Clayton, Philip. “Tracing the Lines: Constraint and Freedom In the Movement from Quantum Physics to Theology."
Cushing, James T. “Determinism Versus Indeterminism in Quantum Mechanics: A “Free” Choice."
Ellis, George F.R. “Quantum Theory and the Macroscopic World."
Heller, Michael. “Generalizations: From Quantum Mechanics to God."
McMullin, Ernan. “Formalism and Ontology in Early Astronomy."
Polkinghorne, John. “Physical Process, Quantum Events, and Divine Agency."
Redhead, Michael. “The Tangled Story of Nonlocality in Quantum Mechanics."
Russell, Robert John. “Divine Action and Quantum Mechanics: A Fresh Assessment."
Shimony, Abner. “The Reality of the Quantum World."
Stoeger, William R. “Epistemological and Ontological Issues Arising from Quantum Theory."
Tracy, Thomas F. “Creation, Providence, and Quantum Chance


Source:
CTNS/Vatican Observatory

>>11395779

...you okay there bud? I was responding to hoaxfag, not you.

>>11395780
https://www.archbalt.org/vatican-worlds-largest-particle-physics-lab-plan-to-collaborate/

Welcome to the real world anon.

You have no idea how bad things really are.

>>11395781
I’m fucking retarded. Carry on.

>>11395785

Also for your sanity, this guy (hoaxfag) clearly is either trolling or has a few chemical imbalances going on in addition to being really bored. I'm sure you're probably the first person in a long time who he's been able to "unload" his theories to. In essence it's validation for his behavior and thinking because he thinks there's a fight for truth to be had when in reality the truth and facts and hard science is already there.

>>11395781
>>11395785
We should regroup, perhaps picking a handle would make this less confusing :)

>>11395718
My degree has nothing to do with this.
Also if you haven't noticed people have quite a rage going towards me. So no doxxing.
I'm just trying to talk about science. Can we just do that.

>>11395736
Perhaps I am a beggar clothed in purple robes, mistaken for a king.

>>11395740
That's interesting man, I gotta check that out.

>>11395741
I'm really old man. I think I have already done that. It's not a global conspiracy. It's a few corrupt science groups.
Like the scientists that hung out with Epstein and said sex with children was ok because he fronted fat stacks of cash.

>>11395765
You should read the whole thing man :) it isn't that long. Won't really make much sense otherwise.

>>11395769
Cool man, do you think it is compatible with my wave-packet theory?

>>11395774
Cool man, thanks I'll check it out.

>>11395779
QM debates make people furious. It's because it's the hardest science.
You gotta know maths, physics, history, politics, astrophysics, programming, engineering.
It is truely awesome.
We stand on the shoulders of giants lol.

>>11395792
Man you are pretty good at reading people that's pretty accurate.

Except I have been posting this stuff on 4chan all day for months.
Mostly on /X/ (they are way more polite and nice, I notice a "I can't get a gf/I hate girls/girls are stupid and have low IQs thing going on here, maybe throttle that back, it's a little gay)

There is no hard science.
It's only books and equations and anecdotes.

>>11395779
Let's just agree we are all fags......no homo.

>>11395119
What the fuck this is the female version of Jenson Button.

>>11395142
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder

>>11395898
Like how you believe in quantum mechanics even though it lacks tangible evidence?

Yeah the people who think we are in a computer simulation run by aliens from the multiverse sure are crazy.

Quantum physicists lol.
Get help.

>>11395898
Tell me again how electrons know when you are observing them telepathically?

>>11395902
quantum mechanics - literally math tool invented to describe weird experimental data
>no evidence

>>11395907
What do quantum computers do?

>>11395119
>oh, the rarefactions induce a magnetic response that forces the epistemological holographic nature of transcendental chi to localize because tesla pigeon spirits hurr durr
Thanks for the laughs, anon. Well put.

>>11395142
Some folks would like to have a word with you
https://home.cern/

>>11395902
>>11395904
>being this triggered

>>11395907
Cope

>>11395902
The only hoax here is your assertions.

>>11395119
>particles don't exist

From what I've heard they are postulating the exact contrary, they consider neutrinos and even photons as particles with non-zero mass. Protons and electrons are stated to be made of smaller, charged particles that also have non-zero mass.

Are you confusing EU with something else?

>>11395916
Lol, you are right. But it is in a different way than you think.
You knows what's funny and off topic.
You know how CERN invented the internet.
I have a manual in my archive from 1986, it's a modem you plug into your commodore 64 or whatever and it lets you send and receive bulletin board type stuff (early internet) over ham and shortwave radios, so you could wirelessly transmit data over a privatised wireless network.
Then ham radios got banned.
And we got that he'll slow internet you had to pay for and run through a government network?
Guys I'm sorry. I know you are all young and naive. But CERN sucks dick.

Do you guys remember when I was talking about the Vatican's involvment in particle physics. And everyone thought I was crazy. Then I posted the link to prove it. And y'all just pretended you didn't see it.
Nice.

>>11395916
Hey, let's say I went back in time. And used political assassinations or whatever to make sure CERN didn't do ANY particle stuff.

Now what would we not have now, if CERN never existed (other than the internet)
So 50 years, a fucktonne of cash.
What did we get?

>>11395917
I don't think you know what triggered means.

>>11395919
No it isn't, it's the quantum mechanics/Vatican/CERN/mass delusion/meticulously crafted fantasy land thing I'm explaining now.
With all the links and the evidence, and the timeline.

>>11395119
Which EU idiots? The professors behind Thunderbolts, or random crazies on the internet?

>>11395146
Yawn you are overdoing it.

Like any junk theory it has 99 things right and 1 thing wrong.

All the counterarguments you provided didnt disprove the theory btw.

>>11395986
> The professors behind Thunderbolts, or random crazies on the internet?
You just said the same thing twice.

>>11395533
>have faith that this bridge you're walking over is structurally sound despite you personally not being able to verify this
Welcome to society, retard.

>>11395902
t. Retard that never had a followed a single lecture on QM or did any experiments where QM is used to predict occurring events (successfully).

Normies like you misinterpret mainstream SOIENCE because it's dumbed down to the level that it's basically useless to even talk about it. You have to understand the math (which is the core of the theory), know when and how to apply it before you have any idea at all to know what QM is about.

>>11396131
The Thunderbolts guys say nothing akin to what OP says.

>>11396161
What does a quantum computer do?

>>11395354
I'm pretty sure that in undergraduate courses Youngs double slit experiment is done with LIGHT and not ELECTRONS.

>>11395904
that's not what "observing" in a scientific context means you dunce

>>11395602
Nobody tried to burn Galileo. He was given a pension and only had a 22 day trial with the apartments and accommodations of a high church official. He published a comedy dialog that was seen as direct challenge of an inquisition order and was punished by reciting seven psalms once a week for three years. Anyway. I'm not a science man, but wasn't there an experiment where the researchers "fired" photons at a black and white disc to make it rotate. Demonstrating that photons exist and have mass?

I think you're interesting hoaxfag. Keep on keeping on.

>>11395904
Shit. I wish I would have read this before I told you to keep on keeping on. You are a fool. Fuck. I was so taken.

>>11395146
Would a flat earther by any other delusion still be as stupid?

Yes, as you've seen, he is.

>>11396313
Maybe Hoaxie has lost his touch.

>>11396203
That is absolutely correct,
Thomas Young's twin slit experiment was done with light.
It proved the wave nature of light, because of the wave interference pattern that was observed.

When you do the twin slit experiment with electrons you get a particle pattern, because electrons are particles, and an interference pattern because the electrons are negative, so they repel each other and create a randomised pattern halfway between a wave and a particle.
So theoretical physicists told everyone that light "photons" must obviously do the same thing.

There is no experiment that showed light was a particle.
It was made up.

>>11396297
Excellent. Time to talk about the active observer.
What does "observing" mean?

>>11396303
I think the experiment you are referring to is that glass ball with the little windmill thing.
I can explain that if we are on the same page.
Also massless particles would have an effect on mass.
It's the light hitting the black disk, generating heat and micro disturbances in the air. This provides a tiny amount of force as the air is expanding from the heat. So an imbalance in force makes the disk spin.

>>11396313
Have you read the whole thread?
Do you have any questions?
Any inconsistencies in my explanations or theories?
Any of your own theories or observations?

>>11396329
Stupid is as stupid does.

>>11396614
Knowing there was at some point, a horizontal point of inflection, if you were to graph my "touch" on a Cartesian number plane.
No matter how infinitely small and technically immeasurable.
There is still a point where I technically had the touch.
And that's all th motivation I need.
Thanks anon.

>>11396161
What does QM predict accurately?
And this is a real thing?
Or an equation?

>>11397639
>>11397669
cringe

Yeah I think electric universe is far closer to the truth than the standard model. Any of it's problems are faaaar less severe than the stupidity of "dark energy" and "dark matter."

>>11395196
So quantum mechanics is hoax, and apparently relativity too for what I read from your other posts, but the rest of physics is not. So, what is the purpose of faking results in this special fields of physics, but not in the others?

>>11395119
>"particles don't exist!!!"
You're just putting words into people's mouths. Don't do that.

>>11395119
Who is this fine piece of ass

>>11399166
He stated that most of physics is correct. If you have done an undergrad course I'm pretty certain that you have questioned the validity of some of the models and mathematics near the end of the course. The introductory content is simple enough for any moron to accept. Your final years become religious physics.

>>11399457
That does not answer my question. Why "religious physics" is only applied to these fields and not the others?

Whats most funny is this topic is so relevant as a mayflie fart

This thread is dumb. Not one mention of compton scattering or pair production.

>>11397669
Quantum Mechanics is a mathematical model for predicting certain events.
These events are in most normal cases things that become apperant around the atomic scale.
Classical physics (also nothing but a mathematical model) is no longer sufficient to explain these phenomena.
One must never forget that physics is a model to predict events that occur in reality.
It is not itself reality, but rather a way of predicting future events, or explaining past events.

One thing that is a wel documented is the quantum spin of electrons.
One well known, quite easy to understand experiment is the stern-gerlach-experiment. Look it up if you're interested.

Note that the whole atomic model is based on QM, and therefore so is chemistry. Modern chemistry would not exist
without the QM models developed in the early 20th century. Do you deny chemistry? Becaus if QM is out of the window
so is our entire model of the atom. Computer science is based on QM too. The very fact that you're typing on your
computer right now relies on the predictions of QM.

Sure QM can't explain everything, but it sure can explain a LOT of things.