/sci/ - Science & Math

I'm going to tell you the same thing my physics professor used to say when I brought up similar concerns
>I dont care

>>14968672
>I don't care that SOIence is a lie
cringe bro

>>14968667
>They need to be investigated for fraud
Yes.

>>14968672
>I dont care
Your opinion on the subject is of little value.

I feel bad for the legitimate Scientists who are screwed over by thieving, deceiving, arrogant frauds.

Why are $Trillions being siphoned from the West into the pockets of 3rd World grifters, and domestic traitors?

>>14968748
>la grand rebrand

>>14968667
You're on the right track but it's probably not that the experiments are fraudulent but rather that the conclusions people reach from the results are wrong

>>14968791
If the results are real, it's unavoidable to conclude at least that there's a relationship between the act of measuring a photon that can take multiple paths, and whether or not it, and all photons entangled with it, interferes with itself as though it had taken all possible paths at once (without assuming it actually did so; note the "as though").
That's hardly even an interpretation of the results, that is literally just the results.
And that's already too stupid.
I don't believe they actually observed those results. That's too fucking stupid, it's not possible that photons work that way, I don't care what interpretation is proposed to explain it, none of them can make it not retarded.
The results are fake

>>14968808
You're retarded for not realizing there are other explanations

>>14968667
>Double slit experiment
was never performed. It was a thought experiment

>A single photon either always takes both paths and interferes with itself

light is a wave it is infinitely divisible.

>>14968843
The conditional variable was whether or not the photon was measured.
The empirical outcome was whether or not the photon and all entangled photons produce interference patterns.
In any experiment, not just these, the only alternative explanation to a relationship between the conditions and the outcome, is coincidence.
Coincidence is possible, but fraud is more likely.
>>14968847
>light is a wave it is infinitely divisible.
That doesn't explain why whether or not the interference pattern appears on a photon (yes I'm going to keep using that word) that interacted with the possibly measured other photon depends on whether that possibly measured photon is measured or not measured.
>buh muh maxwells equations
If the outcome is repeatable, and the equations don't predict it, then they don't explain it. It doesn't matter that they allow it, allow and predict aren't the same thing.
If the equations allow the outcome, I can accept it happening once, or even several times. But if it happens every time, I can't buy coincidence anymore, the facts suggest there is some relationship. And if the facts suggest there's a relationship, but the relationship they suggest is absurd as this one, then the facts are clearly fucking fabricated.

>>14968863
>That doesn't explain why whether or not the interference pattern appears on a photon
your problem is simple, retard. you think light is a particle, and particles can't interfere anyways. only waves can interfere.

>>14968873
Understanding it as a wave doesn't explain the relationship, that's what I just said.
Allow != predict

>>14968847
>was never performed. It was a thought experiment

What? The double slit experiment is routine in most physics undergrad courses. You can perform it in your own home with lasers that are probably available on amazon.

>>14968878
>Understanding it as a wave doesn't explain the relationship
tell me which of Maxwells laws are violated?

>>14968881
Allow != predict so that's irrelevant

>>14968880
>What? The double slit experiment is routine in most physics undergrad courses
for light perhaps, but not Feynman's thought experiment with electrons. Youngs double-slit experiment with light just proves light is a wave.

>>14968882
>Allow != predict so that's irrelevant
you failed to answer the question. I'm just not going to be impressed with you quantum mystical nonsense.

>>14968883
Measuring a wave isn't supposed to affect the behavior of another wave just because they touched once. But the quantum eraser experiments show it does. Therefore the quantum eraser experiments were fabricated, I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.
>>14968885
Your question was irrelevant and therefore didn't bear answering

>>14968892
>Measuring a wave isn't supposed to affect the behavior of another wave just because they touched once
show me where faradays law, amperes law, gausses law, or a continuity or boundary condition/equation were violated.

>>14968950
They aren't, and it literally doesn't matter, because they don't *predict* that waves should consistently behave like this either.

>>14968892
It's not that it changes the behavior, it's that their interaction changed their state and by measuring one you can measure the other. People just don't know what the quantum eraser experiments do, even most physics professors don't teach it right according to its experimental results.

>>14968963
>It's not that it changes the behavior, it's that their interaction changed their state and by measuring one you can measure the other
Then how come A just happens to self-interfere if and only if you're not going to measure B

>>14968962
>They aren't
so why should I give a fuck about your interpretation of what is happening?

>>14968966
allow != predict

>>14968971
>allow != predict
is this science? you're skirting the issue too. its not about prediction or permission it's 100% about your interpretation. I'm asking you to tell me why I should give a fuck.

>>14968988
What's yours then? The outcomes happen because the known physical laws pertaining to waves allow them, and their correlation to the conditions is just coincidence?
Seems unlikely. Like I said, coincidence is possible, but I'd believe it's fraud before I believe that. Which is why I believe it's fraud.

>>14968998
quantum mystic can't answer direct questions.

>>14969004
That was my answer.
You asked why you should give a fuck.
My answer is you should give a fuck because what's yours then.
Also name one thing mystical about midwits with degrees making up stories and fooling the world, hint you can't

>>14968667
The act of detection collapses some dimension of the photon which leaves nothing left to interfere with the spooky modular part associated with the other slit.