Quantum mechanics

[Anonymous No.11138468]

You know what really grinds my gears.
So I'm on /sci/ right reading about how women and black people are subhuman or whatever(even though it violates the rules) and I'm like "what an open minded forum"
So I'm thinking why don't I bring up the time I was working professionally to build a quantum computer with a research team and we discovered that quantum computing is just another water powered car.
As in lots of patents, lots of pictures of quantum computers, lots of people claiming they are real, lots of "working" prototypes etc, but no actual results.
Anyway we abandoned the project, but for like another ten years I maintained an interest.
Then in around 2011 all these articles pop up in trusted magazines about "scientists make teleporter, scientists make time travel machine etc"
And I'm like "that doesn't sound right"
So it's 8 years later and still no results.
So I go on /sci/ to try and get some answers and the threads get deleted when I point out the inconsistensies in the directly contradicting theories using the scientific method I got taught at University,
And the threads keep getting deleted.
So my theory that QM is a hoax and it's turned into a cult is being reinforced and if I wasnt convinced before I really am now.
So disparriaged QM on a science forum is against the rules because apparently saying
"But the photoelectric effect used the threshold of emission as proof of the particle nature of light but later we discovered some materials don't have a threshold so it's been disproven" that's apparently a topic for paranormal investigation.

I propose (with evidence) that QM is a mass delusion.

[Anonymous No.11138472]

>>11138468
Go on

[Anonymous No.11138475]

>>11138468
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2019/03/13/scientists-reverse-time-possibly-breaking-laws-of-physics/

It sounds like they got drunk or something.

[Anonymous No.11138476]

>>11138468
this thread would be jon-tier except jon would at least not deny quantum. let me guess: there is a conspiracy? right? redpill us on the conspiracy

[Anonymous No.11138486]

>>11138468
I see you've learnt the winky face causes excessive irritation.

[Anonymous No.11138494]

>>11138486
oh goddamnit you're right it's hoaxfag winkytard again. >rolling eyes emoji

[Anonymous No.11138500]

>>11138472
>>11138476
https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.amp

>"Quantum mechanics tells us that light can behave simultaneously as a particle or a wave. However, there has never been an experiment able to capture both natures of light at the same time; the closest we have come is seeing either wave or particle, but always at different times. "

>>11138475
Welcome to the agonising hell I live in everyday lol.

>>11138476
It's not really what I would call a conspiracy, but if you argue with QM people think you are insane, which is ironic because most quantum phycisists and abstract mathematicians have serious mental health issues, so it's the pot calling the kettle black.

Also that Jacob Barnett autistic prodigy got a PhD in quantum physics at 12 just because he had a photographic memory and memorised the textbook, the wrote a paper proving the existence of God.
So quantum mechanics can be used to justify religion, the Vatican has a huge team of quantum physicists working at that observatory though.
So these were the people that tried to burn Gallileo at the stake for saying the world was round, So I will lose my job and be humiliated if I talk about this in public, so having to discuss it with 4chan anons like it's a Loli fetish or something is interesting.
Skepticism is a big part of science.

[Hoaxfag No.11138506]

>>11138486
>>11138494

Haha yeah, I'll stop doing if it it will help, it's supposed to symbolise me hinting at something so you can do your own research, if I just say it it's immediately rejected as a knee jerk reaction because it's so different.
Just trying to be polite or whatever ......;)

[Anonymous No.11138507]

>>11138500
anon, almost everything you claimed in your post is factually incorrect. you clearly have a very lacking education

[Anonymous No.11138524]

I've typed up my quantum computing rant a few times, this time I'll save it.

Quantum computing, what is truly means, is to take a computer, a classical machine, and operate it using the fundamentals of quantum physics with the processing. The processing of it is theoretically going to use a wide range of different possibilities with the answer being the waveform spread collapsed by conscious observation onto a point of data. This technique, dependent on probability, is going to somehow open doors into new possibilities yet unthought of. The enormous list of problems with this premise is astounding.
First of all is recreating the entire science of computing without the logic of "this always happens, so this result is what we consistently get, and we can build on that," because probability mechanics are inherently anathema to the error-checking and noise cancellation that your computer does constantly.
There's the programmer boys that get wet at the thought of quantum computing, but they ignore the insane fuzzy logic of the actual physics and delegate into "q-bits," where a quantum bit COULD be this value or it COULD be that value, while this whole idea is already implemented with simple if/then statements, and the whole possible value of this is nothing more than additional RAM.
I've seen nothing, not one practical application come out of the million dollar meat freezers that are the mythical "quantum computers." This trash exists in other fields, pipe dream money sinks that some snake oil salesman with a degree is getting rich off of, with nothing to show for it.

[Hoaxfag No.11138526]

>>11138507
Can you green text or paraphrase the incorrect claims? So I can politely rebuttal yours?
And I know 4chan is plagued with trolling 12 year Olds, so I understand your healthy skepticism of my QM claims, I too have healthy skepticism of QM claims, perhaps we are peers.

[Anonymous No.11138528]

>>11138526
i could post several more but let’s start with this:
> most quantum phycisists and abstract mathematicians have serious mental health issues
that is untrue on at least two levels. starting with the obvious one, most people who get paid to do quantum physics are extremely mentally healthy. because in science we filter out whackos

[Anonymous No.11138538]

>>11138468
QM is real, but quantum computing is fake and gay

[Hoaxfag No.11138545]

>>11138524
Stay strong brother, I used my alternative theories to develop a new way to convert light into RF using Graphene, and there is some wild gravity stuff using hollow superconducting spheres and high explosives to compress EMF and minipulate it, I can't really talk about it (or ever get funding) but one day :)

[Hoaxfag No.11138554]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24032022-600-exclusive-grave-doubts-over-ligos-discovery-of-gravitational-waves/amp/

"The news we had finally found ripples in space-time reverberated around the world in 2015. Now it seems they might have been an illusion"

According the the Neil's Bohr institute anyway.

[Hoaxfag No.11138560]

>>11138528
. KURT GÖDEL // PERSECUTORY DELUSIONS
Gödel was a brilliant logician and mathematician, as well as a contemporary and great friend of Albert Einstein. Einstein's super-intelligence might have made him seem a little odd to the average person, but he doesn't seem to have suffered from any actual mental illnesses. Gödel, on the other hand, thought that someone was out to poison him. He was so sure of this delusion, especially later in life, that he would only eat food that his wife had cooked, and usually made her taste it first, just to be sure. When his wife was hospitalized for six months,


Wait I have alot more, I'm using a crappy phone so it takes a while

The QM phycisist that used to wear tennis rackets on his feet so he didn't fall through the atoms in the floor is classic

[Anonymous No.11138567]

>>11138560
Kurt Godel was not a QM physicist, and he especially wasn't paid to do quantum physics. he was a mathematician. and that was about 90 years ago. and even then it was the exception to the rule.

i would ask you to give me an example of a CURRENT quantum physicist who "has serious mental health issues" but i know you can't do it. just give up. i mean if you are trying to phonepost this argument you are definitely done for

[Anonymous No.11138570]

>>11138554
thanks hoaxfag

I knew those gravitational waves losers were making much ado about nothing.

[Hoaxfag No.11138588]

http://www.factfiend.com/physicist-scared-falling-bedroom-floor/

Rutherford

[Anonymous No.11138593]

>>11138588
>factfiend.com
come on anon, really? a vidya webpage, that's the best you can do?

[Hoaxfag No.11138595]

>>11138567
Is autism and fundamentalist Christianity count as mentally illness?

Jacob Barnett, he's so famous they had to delete his Wikipedia because he was just copying and pasting theorems from his text books, sortof fraud if you think about it.

[Hoaxfag No.11138598]

>>11138593
Sorry bro :)

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/atoms-electrons.html

[Anonymous No.11138599]

>>11138595
jacob barnett has a page on the perimeter institute website. whatever wikipedia does, i don't know, but maybe they realized he is not actually notable just like most idiots whose moms get them a TED talk.

you can believe whatever you want spiritually but it doesn't belong here. there are other boards for that like /x/ or /pol/ or /bant/

[Hoaxfag No.11138603]

>>11138570
>Thanks hoaxfag

Anytime anon,

If you have any questions about the nature of the universe I can answer them with classical physics

[Anonymous No.11138604]

>>11138598
>actually citing Neil De Grasse Tyson
you just dug yourself into a hole, at least on this cite. i can't even get the audio to play but i am sure there is nothing that Neil says to support whatever you are saying. but please, since i can't hear the audio, tell me what your/Neil's point is

[Hoaxfag No.11138608]

>>11138599
So you believe in God because jocob Barnett published a paper on it?
Or do you think QM is a lie?
I don't believe in God or anything spiritual.
QM is just mysticism, you believe it based on faith and really old inconsistent books with bizarre symbols.
It's just human nature.

[Hoaxfag No.11138617]

>>11138604
I'm not sure what you are referring too.
I was just posting that site because of the text, I didn't know it had an embedded video.

This link has the same story.

And not to disparriage your theories, but he much quantum mechanics can you possibly have studied to not know anything about the history of it.......

[Hoaxfag No.11138619]

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/atoms-electrons.html

The floor story with rutherford

[Anonymous No.11138630]

If you don't like quantum mechanics, then why don't you give us an alternative theory that works as well?

[Hoaxfag No.11138665]

>>11138630
>>11138630
My theory is simply that there is nothing smaller than an electron, and that light is always a wave. So any theories after the timeline split of thinking light was a particle (wave-particle duality) which allowed us to get to "something can be on and off at the same time","a cat can be alive and dead at the same time", "matter can both exist and not exist at the same time" "god is both real and not real at the same time" "we have a limit on the speed of light and we have particles that travel faster than the speed of light" etc.
It's the most schizophrenic thing ever.

Some other scientists have challenged it and they must have alot of confidence to destroy their careers like that.

https://research.tue.nl/en/publications/an-introduction-to-randell-mills-grand-unified-theory-of-classica

Abstract
This document represents the results of a year of research as part of the Honors Program of Eindhoven University of Technology. We heard about Randell L. Mills abandoning Quantum Mechanics and proposing an alternative theory. This sounded interesting enough to contact Gerrit M.W. Kroesen whose group was looking into Mills’ experiments. After some first brainstorms we decided that the best way for us to contribute to the research would be by looking at the theory Mills is proposing. Kroesen arranged a visit to Mills in February. We would be able to ask questions about the theory and get things explained. This resulted in a shift in our focus. We went on to collect a list of questions regarding the theory, it’s assumptions, propositions and derivations. During the visit Mills explained his theory to us giving special attention to the questions we send him on forehand. This helped greatly our understanding of his theory and the relation to the more accepted Quantum Mechanics. After the visit we started to write an introduction to his theory, explaining in short the key concepts...."

The guy has a potential cancer cure published in "science" as well

[Hoaxfag No.11138667]

https://www.nature.com/articles/336787a0

Dr Randell mills seems to be an actual scientist at least.

[Anonymous No.11138671]

>>11138665
That's not a verifiable theory, just a bunch of humbug. Put it in math, then we can talk.

[Anonymous No.11138675]

>>11138545
>Graphene
lol. enjoy your work being a joke forever.

[Hoaxfag No.11138701]

>>11138671
Mam I'm not your enemy, I'm just a shitty anon whistleblower, that's all.
I'm sorry but it isn't real.
I don't know how to convey that to you with maths, this forum regularly debate whether 1x1=2, and does 0.999... approaching the asymptote limit of 1=1?
Hypothetical abstract higher maths only works if you can demonstrate something tangible with it, and you can't.
QM is just heiroglyphics, why don't you tell me how you are going to program a computer where the transistors are simultaneously on and off at the same time, then we will talk :)
I will discuss maths with you if you want, show me an equation that proves QM,

>>11138675
You know nothing of my work :P
Also why don't you go take a photo of yourself next to an magnetic resonance imager and tell me it's a quantum computer and then we can talk about who's work is a joke.
Oh hey man I have a working water powered car *shows photo of me standing next to regular car*
How dare you accuse me of lieing when I have photographic evidence, wanna see my patents and equations?

You are the one caught up in an elaborate lie. That's why you can't rebuttal me.

[Anonymous No.11138717]

>>11138468
Not everyone in /sci/ know quantum mechanics. Most of the time in science we talk about something that we do not know, quantum mechanics is really hard because sometimes it ignores logic, and it can be interesting to talk about it.

[Anonymous No.11138723]

i didnt read the thread but holy shit how fucking hard is it to understand statistics with some wonky rules.

[Anonymous No.11138729]

Explain the delayed choice quantum eraser.

[Anonymous No.11138745]

>>11138729
why dont you explain it?

[Hoaxfag No.11138753]

>>11138717
I know how interesting it is :)
That's why I wanted to be a quantum physicist and studied it for years.
Wait until you have studied it for twenty years and you have to watch another generation read the same popsci fabricated articles that you read as a child, we had "working quantum computers" in the news for decades, working water powered cars were in the news as well.
You are just too young to know, which is understandable.
I love talking about it as well,
But maybe it went about too far when people played too many videos games and started to think real life was actually VR and they could control elements of it with their psychic powers,
QM only ever ignores logic, it is a realm of pure abstraction.

>>11138723
>I didn't read the whole thread

How hard is it to read the whole thread?
Scared you will like it? ;)

[Anonymous No.11138754]

>>11138545
Good bait, except for the blatant use of every /sci/ buzzword from the past 6 years.

[Hoaxfag No.11138762]

>>11138729
>Explain the delayed choice quantum eraser.

Here you go friend.
"Delayed choice
Elementary precursors to current quantum-eraser experiments such as the "simple quantum eraser" described above have straightforward classical-wave explanations. Indeed, it could be argued that there is nothing particularly quantum about this experiment.[16] "

Chiao, R. Y.; P. G. Kwiat; Steinberg, A. M. (1995). "Quantum non-locality in two-photon experiments at Berkeley". Quantum and Semiclassical Optics: Journal of the European Optical Society Part B. 7 (3): 259–278.

[Hoaxfag No.11138765]

>>11138754
Which buzzword did I use brother?

[Anonymous No.11138767]

>>11138507
Ignore this obvious derail in the future. If he can't substantiate his claims without prompt he can't do it all as evidenced by his immediate dive into the weeds and semantics in his forthcoming posts.

[Anonymous No.11138773]

>>11138524
So the alluring part of your skepticism is how you deflate the hype around quantum computing, and then string it into a criticism of QM as a whole. As purely a reader, and not an expert in QM or QC, I come across some sticking points.

First, when you talk about QC, it sounds like QC is destined to fail because the rules of QM make the premise unachievable. This is a decent point, and one that has interesting counter arguments. The problem I have, and the way you protect this first argument, is that you next go right into how all of QM is a sham; so you see there is an inconsistency.

Either you believe all of QM is a sham, which is why QC can't work. This does not explain how researchers have been able to achieve very small bit (like 4 or 7?) QC's, it would seem to validate QM.

Or you believe QM has some merit, but is flawed in a fundamental way that will inevitably come back to hinder the field's progress. If this is the case then your rants on QC and QM should either be treated separately or you should really try and go deep on your QM beliefs and then justify the QC rants with it.

So I am giving you the open mind and time people who make fun of you don't. I think we both recognize some flaw in your presentation, but I am being gracious in trying to show you where you seem to be creating confusion. I hope you respond with answers.

[Anonymous No.11138788]

>>11138701
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Start taking your meds.

[Anonymous No.11138815]

you're right, qm stuff is mostly hype
but if reasonable real one comes about (hardware and error correction concerns addressed) then a fair deal of asymmetric cryptography is broken, meaning anyone who saved off encrypted conversations you had would be able to decrypt them
so, it is something that some people are interested in having and concerned that others may get first

[Hoaxfag No.11138849]

>>11138767
I am posting peer reviewed data my good man, the people in opposition are posting nothing other than their opinion.
I realise opinion and belief are valid in religion and politics, but in science they have no place.

>>11138773
I appreciate your politeness in this trying time :)
I'm not sure what your questions are as there are no question marks in your post,
I'm not sure what you mean by inconsistency, QM is a hoax, QC is a hoax.

I posted in the timeline I discovered it, I discovered QC was a hoax, then years later came to the same conclusion about QM, as they are the same thing, QC is application of quantum mechanics, and it doesn't work, so the theory is wrong, QM iis the theory.
I would like to be gracious by asking for a less ambiguous line of questioning so I don't have to answer in an essay or narrative format that will be too long and no one will read.

Also could you link me to the working very small bit quantum computers , I am very interested :)

>>11138788
Are you referring to Young's twin slit experiment that showed light was a wave, as I claim?
Which twin slit experiment are you referencing? Like just tell me the date and scientist that performed it. There are many twin slit experiments ;)

>>11138815
I know what quantum computers are supposed to do man :) warp drives and time machines would be fun too with lots of applications, they have to exist as a working machine though, they can't be an idea where we knock up non-functional "prototypes" for phot opportunities.

[Hoaxfag No.11138858]

Can I ask you guys a question when you look at the OP photo, what do you see, a particle or a wave?

[Anonymous No.11138867]

>>11138468
Because you're
delusional
lying
ignoring all arguments
immensely gay

In that order.

[Hoaxfag No.11138891]

>>11138867
That stings man, or at least it would if you could reference or substantiate any of your claims.
I'll just take your word for it ;)

[Anonymous No.11138898]

>>11138891
I don't have the links to the last threads where Anons spent way too much time trying to argue against your delusions.
It's not meant as an insult. It's meant as a friendly reminder that you not understanding the people you talk to is your failing, not their's.

[Anonymous No.11138914]

>>11138762
that says nothing about the delayed choice quantum eraser-that's a simple quantum eraser.

https://youtu.be/SzAQ36b9dzs

These is no classical explanation for the DCQE that doesn't involve time travel.

[Anonymous No.11138921]

>>11138849
Same guy again, mad this time. How fucking retarded are you that you come in here saying a whole field if physics is a sham, but your go to fall back is that you cite peer reviewed articles. First of all, citing articles means nothing if you can't construct a narrative, secondly, I can cite WAY more fucking articles that shit on your entire worldview if you wanna play that game. Reread what I wrote and use your fucking brain before you type.

[Anonymous No.11138922]

>>11138914
wtf is this bullshit?

[Anonymous No.11138929]

>>11138914
A delayed choice quantum eraser displays a correlation in the way that one of a pair of entangled photons (in most examples) hits a sensor when they are put through a specific type of device that erasers quantum information some of the time. This correlation exists even if one of the particles is crashed into a sensor long before the other photon has done anything-you could have the eraser positioned lightyears away and still you could pull out an interference pattern on the pattern of the detector that the entangled photons smashed into almost instantly by comparing it to data about the when of the particles that went through the eraser in such a way that their information was destroyed.

This is absolutely counterfactual to out intuitions about life and provides very strong evidence that reality is deeply alien and abstract.

[Anonymous No.11139005]

>>11138914
Dang. I've heard of this before, but it's always mind-bending.

[Hoaxfag No.11139028]

>>11138898
So you have an unsubstantiated claim of evidence, that other people posted but you can't find from another thread that's been deleted?
If we were in a courtroom do you think that would work as evidence?

>>11138921
That's an unsubstantiated claim, you have the evid nice, but you are unwilling to link to it?

My friend has a water powered car, but I can't be bothered posting the video. Dare you challenge me?

>>11138929
What's an entangled photon?
I was unaware we could measure quantum entanglement with photons, can you provide some evidence, like a link to an explanation of the experiment, "a specific type of device" is nice wordplay, what's the device?
So we can do faster than light data transmission now, that's a bold claim friend,

I'm not sure I can interpret what "this is absolutely counterfactual to out intuitions about life means"

Tell me more about the faster than light quantum entanglement data thing though because that is big news for something they did in 1999 and forgot to mention.

[Hoaxfag No.11139041]

>>11138914
You know this is an animation right?
That isn't a real video, it doesn't even reference which particles are being used and describes the detector as a piece of cloth, also the "quantum eraser" is an actual eraser in an anti gravity floating sphere of glass rings,

If this was a real experiment, show me a picture of a quantum eraser, if this is real why do the experiments have to be absurd abstract artist interpretations,
How did they do the actual experiment?

[Anonymous No.11139075]

>>11139041
I can see that you didn't actually watch the video.

[Anonymous No.11139085]

If quantum mechanics is a hoax, who would benefit from that? In my opinion, it is a small group of people who are responsible for all of the world's problems. Why a small group? Because the world is a capitalist state and wealth begets wealth exponentially. Why are they causing problems for the world? Because it is plainly in their best interest to do so.

Quantum mechanics has all of the characteristics of a misinformation scheme, from false premises, to incoherent conclusions, and the dogmatic worship of millions of brainlets.

The only question that matters, the only question that can make or break our survival as a species, is
What is the nature of the cosmos?

With this apparently useless, dead end cosmological model being presented as incontrovertibly fact, and being asserted as the framework to which all legitimate models must adhere, it really does stink of Orwellian nightmare.

Mass delusion is wishful thinking.
What we are dealing with here is mass illusion*

[Anonymous No.11139091]

QM is real enough. I'm a physics phd and there are plenty of experiments that are very quantum mechanical. However I hope we never build a quantum computer, because human failure and hubris warms my heart.

[Anonymous No.11139102]

>>11139091
What the heck

[Hoaxfag No.11139108]

>>11139075
Yes I did.
I can show you an animation of a water powered car and talk about the "specific device" that makes it work and you won't believe me, so I don't see why I should believe you.
That video says we have working faster than light data transmission.

Is that a REAL experiment,
Or a THEORETICAL experiment?

If it's real can you provide a link to the actual experiment rather than the one with the antigravity machine represented by the pencil eraser. What makes the three glass rings levitate?

>>11139085
That's a good question, my answer is that there aren't that many quantum physicists, and anyone who teaches that status has the option of telling the truth and being humiliated, flagged as insane, fired from their job and never working again,
Or
Maintaining the lie and getting high paying jobs with lots of respect and noble prizes with a million dollar reward.
Also people think you have magic powers like time travel and teleportation and are so intelligent normal educated people can't even begin to comprehend your greatness.

So with those two options it's kind of obvious which one you would pick.

Also peer reviewed quantum physics papers are reviewed by other quantum physicists who are in on it. It's called a "circle jerk", other human conditions like group think play a factor as well.

Do you think some of the people getting investors for water powered car research didn't know it would never work;)

Also there is a plague of regular people claiming to understand quantum mechanics and only knowing what they read in fraudulant pop sci Facebook feeds. This thread is filled with them.

[Hoaxfag No.11139115]

>>11139091
What is your most convincing experiment that proves quantum mechanics. Let's debate it :)

[Anonymous No.11139139]

>>11139028
This civilization fetishizes signals of intelligence, but you are at peak delusion. As someone who works on unsolved problems and has repeatedly faced my own thoughts of being close only to realize how far I really was, I hope you can humble yourself in the same way. Trust me when I say that it is truly liberating, and that there is a very special reason you can't seem to elaborate on your thoughts in a way that others can understand.

[Anonymous No.11139142]

>>11139139
INB4:

>I appreciate the concern, but you simply don't understand... ramble ramble ramble.

[Anonymous No.11139147]

>>11138475
>>11138524
google demonstrated quantum supremacy outclassing every supercomputer with prime factoring with just 70 qbits

explain that

also explain the quantum eraser delayed choice experiment with classical physics

best vid:
https://youtu.be/SzAQ36b9dzs

second best:
https://youtu.be/H6HLjpj4Nt4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser

[Anonymous No.11139153]

>>11139115
This proposition itself makes no sense. The term Quantum Mechanics is one that encompasses many different topics, no single topic proves all the others, and none being purely foundational to the others.

Asking someone to prove Quantum Mechanics is like asking them to prove Physics or Biology: you are asking one person to 'prove' (more like demonstrate in a way you can understand) decades or centuries of compounded knowledge. A service offers that for you: its about 8 years of college to get started. You are asking someone to lay out centuries worth of man hours so you can poke the joints of it.

If you are serious, you demonstrate to us what specific elements are flawed and how, though I doubt you are capable at your current power level.

[Anonymous No.11139170]

>>11138468
The computer you typed that on wouldn't even work without QM. Every transistor in a modern CPU relies on quantum tunneling to operate.

[Anonymous No.11139178]

>>11139028
>So we can do faster than light data transmission now, that's a bold claim friend,
Have you literally read nothing about QM? Entangled photos can influence each others spin at speeds faster than light, possibly instantaneously, but this cannot be used to transmit information.

Here's an experiment I guess:
https://phys.org/news/2015-11-nist-team-spooky-action-distance.html

These experiments are as old as the hills. There's a reason QM is widely accepted.

[Anonymous No.11139220]

>>11139028
>unsubstantiated claim
Dude, I don't care. I've witnessed you doing all the things I mentioned before. I don't need to prove that to anyone. Your smiley of condescension proves way more than that.
You are either delusional or trolling, I'm not sure. In any case, you're ignoring everything going against your narrative. It's a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.11139231]

>>11138468
If QM isn't real, why does it explain literally all chemistry?

[Hoaxfag No.11139233]

>>11139139
That is what you have to tell yourself so you can justify your own belief system with no real evidence, I'm sorry that sounds rude, thankyou for your concern.
But that is the quantum mechanical motto, and answer for every question.
"You will never understand it, but I do"
I'm not at peak delusion asking for proof, if I asked for answers in any other field they would be forthcoming, every other experimental apparatus has working replicas and originals in museams except quantum mechanics, it's always a drawn diagram or animation.
It's an incredible inconsistency.
There is a very special reason QM believers can't seem to elaborate on their thoughts in a way others can understand.
It's a hoax and you are being lied to.

>>11139147
It's not a working supercomputer, that's my explanation, it doesn't work. IBM challenged the claim and they withdrew the paper on it. Then said it was years before they would have a working model.

Guys I have a working water powered car ;) it doesn't work yet but it's real!

How are they measuring the passage of individual photons if we don't have the technology to measure where a single elect on is, you know the whole probability cloud, heisenbergs uncertainty principal thing, what you are claiming violates 2 physical laws we have, so that's my answer, it's a theoretical experiment, the violates the laws of physics, it's a hoax, or are you saying Heisenberg was wrong?
You are going to challenge me at physics but you don't understand the basics, you are wrong.

>>11139153
QM is a narrow field offset of regular physics, which I whole heartedly believe in which involves nothing but abstract and higher maths as proof, I can accurately predict and prove all the rules of biology and chemistry, that analogy is flawed, QM proponents claim to violate the laws of physics all the time, how can you agree with such insanity,
Please read my earlier posts for the inconsistensies I have listed, there are about thirty posts,

[Hoaxfag No.11139244]

>>11139170
Theoretical maths doesn't make transistors work man, that's rediculous , although I'm willing to read why you think that if you are willing to post it.

>>11139178
>Possibly instantaneously

So there are no applications or meaning for this experiment, so the results would mean the same whether it was real or not.....
How were they observing the spin of individual photons twenty years ago?
What apparatus were they using?
>>11139220
It's my opinion based off my research.
I don't mean to be condescending or anything like that.
It's called skepticism.
I don't mean to offend anyone.

>>11139231
No, it doesn't explain any chemistry, if it does hit me with a link :)

[Anonymous No.11139250]

>>11139244
>Theoretical maths doesn't make transistors work man, that's rediculous
But it did accurately predict the behaviour of the materials relevant to building a modern CPU. QM predicts quantum tunneling extremely accurately, which is a phenomenon observable in each of the trillion+ transistors in the CPU you are currently using. If you have some other theory that explains what happening in those transistors better than QM I'm all ears. Everyone is perfectly aware QM is incomplete, it's simply the best explanation of what we observe at the moment.

[Anonymous No.11139277]

>>11139233
>QM is a narrow field offset of regular physics
I am now convinced you are either trolling or have never set foot in a university. QM permeates all of physics. Stat mech, solid state, atomic physics are just three giant domains whose foundations are quantum mechanical.

[Anonymous No.11139303]

>>11139233
>QM is a narrow field offset of regular physics
>QM proponents claim to violate the laws of physics all the time
G8 b8 m8, I r8 8/8

[Hoaxfag No.11139320]

>>11139250
>>11139250
Man this is a beautiful question, excellent work,
I have been posting for about 12 hours so I was just calling it quits for the day and you hit me with that :P

The answer involves me explaining how CPUs work, how transistors work, how vacuum tubes work and I will do that....tomorrow haha, so check back in like say 15 hours because this is going to be a sweet debate between at least one scientist (you) and the insane conspiracy theory screaming homeless man at the bus station (me)

So I will leave with this, but you and I are the only ones in the room that will understand it :)

Negative resistance in thermionic valves is analogous to quantum tunneling in transistors, and can be explained without quantum mechanics, it's because of secondary emission, that's how the answer to your question will begin,

But thankyou, if we were debating in real life that would have fucked me right up.
Touche brother. Have a good night :)

[Anonymous No.11139324]

Isn't a Quantum Computer just a big NMR machine

[Anonymous No.11139389]

>>11138468
You're right. Most people believe Quantum Mechanics is just fiction and just a math tool. We believe quantum mechanics is really just a model and doesn't describe our reality. Our reality is simple world of particles.

[Anonymous No.11139468]

>>11139320
Spooky action at a distance is rather more difficult to explain without quantum mechanics.

Of course maybe you just doubt all those experiments were done right, in which case you might as well not believe any science. It's a miracle any of the commercial work build on QM works at all given it's all a hoax.

[Anonymous No.11139646]

Why does sci have so many schizoposters

[Anonymous No.11139675]

>>11139320
>I have been posting for about 12 hours
Maybe you need to reevaluate your priorities in life.

[Anonymous No.11139720]

>>11139028
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_parametric_down-conversion

...you do know that quantum effects are now used in shit like cryptography, right? The chinese are very interested in using entanglement to make fundamentally secure comms possible.

[Anonymous No.11139721]

>>11139646
Science is often hard to understand. Easy for a paranoid person to think it's all a grand conspiracy against them.

[Anonymous No.11140039]

>>11139320
>you and I are the only ones [...] who will understand it
I thought you didn't want to be condescending?

Tunnel effect is btw something you _don't_ want in transistors. Explaining transistor behavior doesn't involve it. The guy you responded to is still right with the rest though.

[Anonymous No.11140221]

>>11140039
Really? I though tunneling was some fundamental aspect of how silicon transistors worked these days.

[Anonymous No.11140309]

>>11140221
There are some experimental designs like the TFET (tunnel field effect transistor), but they're still being investigated. They have some valuable properties and will probably spread, but for now, no tunnel effect.
Actually, the tunnel effect limits the size of transistors. As soon as they are small enough that tunneling happens (we are very close to that point), traditional designs reach their limits.

[Anonymous No.11140412]

>>11139320
Do you believe special and general relativity are real?

[Anonymous No.11140497]

>>11138608
Actually, you can do undergrad-level experiments to see QM yourself. It only takes undergrad math to explain why classical physics can't explain these things. You actually just don't know what you are talking about enough to have a valid objection.

There are valid criticisms of QM (reduction, paradox, incompatible with GR for instance), but these don't apply to the parameters it used for and explained in (the laws of physics are not scale invariant and experiments have shown this).

[Anonymous No.11141400]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11142628]

Pmub

[Anonymous No.11142673]

>>11138468
>I propose (with evidence) that QM is a mass delusion.

Why bother doing that? There is no empirical evidence that proves the theory of QM which doesn't put the burden of proof upon you. Falsified and null results seem to make them believe that it somehow shifts that burden of proof when all it does is dig them further into the grave they already dug.

>>11139389
>Particularizing and complicating something unified is simple

Yeah, but not really

>>11140497

>It only takes undergrad math to explain why classical physics can't explain these things.

>>11138671
>Put it in math, then we can talk.

No math explains anything. It never did.

>>11139178
>Have you literally read nothing about QM? Entangled photos can influence each others spin at speeds faster than light, possibly instantaneously, but this cannot be used to transmit information.

Now explain why. Explain how light propagates without a medium. "Spooky action" and trying to explain what a description is and why it's used is not an explanation by the way.

>>11139147
What does it run on? Electricity no doubt. Oh wait I forgot you think that's a particle too.

>>11138858
>>11138849
>>11138665
My theory is simply that there is nothing smaller than an electron, and that light is always a wave.

Wave of what?

[Anonymous No.11142718]

>>11142673
>There is no empirical evidence that proves the theory of QM
Let me rephrase that:
>I am ignorant of over a century worth of empirical evidence.

[Anonymous No.11143195]

>>11142673
>Explain how light propagates without a medium.
It's doesn't propagate without a medium.

There's endless videos and experiements testing spooky action as a distance. But the short version is, observing the spin of an entangled photon will directly influence the spin of it's entangled pair when measured no matter how far away it is or how soon you measure it.

[Anonymous No.11143200]

>>11140309
i see. thanks bro

[Anonymous No.11143207]

>>11143195
It does propagate without a medium. An electromagnetic field is not a medium.

[Anonymous No.11143210]

>>11143207
What defines a "medium"?

[Anonymous No.11143343]

>>11142718
>Let me rephrase that:
No idiot, that's the problem. How about you stop wasting time rephrasing things (which is exactly what physicists have done for more than a decade now) and actually finally show some empirical evidence for your batshit insane ideas. You won't, you'll just sit here and come up with yet another word to describe what you never bothered to explain. Let me start the name of your next "discovery" for you

>"Quantum" something or other

See look, I put the word "quantum" in front of a word despite not even knowing whether or not there is "quanta" in the first place.

>>11143195
>It's doesn't propagate without a medium.

Well that sure doesn't sound like a wave or a particle does it?

>But the short version is, observing the spin of an entangled photon will directly influence the spin of it's entangled pair when measured no matter how far away it is or how soon you measure it.

There is no such thing as a photon particle, hate to break it to you. Are you sure this is not just another thought experiment like Schrodingers cat?

>>11143207
>It does propagate without a medium.
>light propagates/travels through nothing

But from nothing comes nothing though, it literally makes no sense and cannot make sense without the inclusion of a medium present. Otherwise how do compressions/rarefaction occur? They couldn't, and thus light could not exist.

>An electromagnetic field is not a medium.

Explain what a field is please.

[Anonymous No.11143347]

>>11143343
>There is no such thing as a photon particle
How do you explain light traveling is specific packets of energy then? This is the whole reason we arrived at QM.

[Anonymous No.11143386]

>>11143347
>How do you explain light traveling
>light traveling
It's induced to exist instantaneously. It doesn't travel. How does changing density constitute as "travel"? You're just changing density of thing that is still one thing and not dualistic bullshit.

>specific packets of energy
perturbations of the medium. Like splashing water, only in this case you're counting the ripples and subdivide them into "this and that" when it is still "water". It's just "Water doing something" now, it's still fucking water. You can call water whatever you want, and you can call what it does something completely different. In the end you cannot differentiate what water is as opposed to what it does, but you're still discussing the ONE SUBJECT that has been defined as "water". It cannot even exist if it didn't do something, for then it wouldn't be something definable in the first place now would it.

Now make light "stop" doing what it does and actually measure it as the "something specific" and what happens?
>It ceases to exist

yeah...

>This is the whole reason we arrived at QM.
Yes, because you assumed the universe works on quantity and atomism when the universe is in fact one thing. "The universe".

[Anonymous No.11143729]

>>11138849
Here you go schizo.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.8343
Interference observed using large molecules. There is no way to explain this classically.

[Anonymous No.11143765]

>>11143210
Mass.

>>11143343
>doesn't sound like wave or particle
Well, duh, since it's neither. It's a quantum particle, which is a concept that in some circumstances seems like a classical wave, in others like a classical particle, but mostly neither.

>no photon particle
What are single photon detectors?

>makes no sense without medium
Not sure how your argument implies necessity for a medium. The photon is its own medium in a certain sense.

>what's a field
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)

[Hoaxfag No.11144340]

>>11142673
I like your energy man :)
My theory is that the medium light uses is the "heat soup" of background electromagnetic radiation that that permeates through the entire observable universe, the thing they got the noble prize for discovering in the 1960s, (this explains the misinterpreted experimental results of before this, scientists did not know about it )
What we perceive as light is waves generated in this EMF medium, what causes these waves is electrons oscillating at light frequencies, in the outer valence shells of the matter emitting the light,
Because electrons are electronegative (charged) the electrons interact with this EMF medium.
That's why the speed of light is about 1% faster than the speed of electromagnetic energy.
Light is simply the highest energy of this medium, like ripples in a pool made by moving your hand back and forth.
It works exactly the same.

Any frequencies higher than the maximum frequency of light and the medium becomes opaque because the wavelength becomes so small.

[Hoaxfag No.11144380]

>>11143347
The image in the OP post is a recent picture of what "photons" look like according to science.

Does it look like wave or a particle to you anon?

That image is waveform peaks in an electromagnetic field.

If you see particles, you have schizophrenia. Sorry to be the one to tell you but if your visual hallucinations are that bad you need help.

[Hoaxfag No.11144409]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.space.com/amp/25945-cosmic-microwave-background-discovery-50th-anniversary.html

"
On May 20, 1964, American radio astronomers Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias discovered the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), the ancient light that began saturating the universe 380,000 years after its creation."

[Anonymous No.11144573]

>>11143729
>>>>11138849 (You) #
Here you go schizo.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.8343
Interference observed using large molecules. There is no way to explain this classically.

You should read the experiment rather than googling arXiv papers and blindly repeating them.
This is experiment shows nothing quantum.
And if you think it does tell me why?

[Anonymous No.11144602]

>>11138545
How do flux compression generators relate to the manipulation of gravitational fields?

[Hoaxfag No.11144640]

>>11144602

I'm not sure I know what you mean :)
Wikipedia can tell you,
Man I love those things.

An explosively pumped flux compression generator (EPFCG) is a device used to generate a high-power electromagnetic pulse by compressing magnetic flux using high explosive.

[Anonymous No.11144676]

>>11143765
>Mass.
And resistance to acceleration is not a speed nor measurable by a speed. No mass/medium...well you get nothing, you lose good day sir.

>Well, duh, since it's neither.
Correct
>It's a quantum particle, which is a concept that in some circumstances seems like a classical wave, in others like a classical particle, but mostly neither.
Where is the quantity? If you have no quantity then it's not exactly "quantum" anything is it? You're basically saying "it's this but also this", no different than the "wave-particle duality" nonsense.

>What are single photon detectors?
No. Where is the proof for the actual photon? There is no empirical evidence because it literally ceases being an action of something else when it is "ceased" to be measured accurately. It would be like asking where "no waves" lie on the electromagnetic spectrum. It wouldn't be an empirical "thing" to be measured. Furthermore it has no "speed" and there are literally dozens of experiments proving this, most notably ones that involve glass and optics with light. It "slows down" in (gets capacitated by) glass or any other dielectric material and somehow magically "speeds up" (discharges) once it exits the glass. Then you have the Faraday effect as well.
It's a privation, it has no subsistence without something else doing an action (the medium) and therefore doesn't even exist because it is nothing but an action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhU-nNiAgtI

>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)
>In physics, a field is a physical quantity
Quantity of what? What causes it? This doesn't tell me what a field is, only what it does.

>Waves can be constructed as physical fields

And again a "Wave" is what something does, not a thing. Water comes in "waves" at the shore. So if a wave could somehow construct a field then I fail to see how a "field" can have a quantity to begin with.

>a field occupies space

and space is also a privation. It doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.11144796]

>>11139244
>No, it doesn't explain any chemistry, if it does hit me with a link :)

...

[Hoaxfag No.11144804]

>>11144796


>>11139231
>>If QM isn't real, why does it explain literally all chemistry?

I was responding to this.

[Anonymous No.11144816]

Isn't it funny how all of these samefagging reddit spacing word salad schizo threads all have the exact same posting style?
How bad does your life have to get before you waste it arguing with yourself about nonsense that no one will ever give a shit about?

[Hoaxfag No.11144819]

>>11144676
>>Furthermore it has no "speed" and there are literally dozens of experiments proving this, most notably ones that involve glass and optics with light. It "slows down" in (gets capacitated by) glass or any other dielectric material and somehow magically "speeds up" (discharges) once it exits the glass

You know what I think man, I'm not sure why it slows down, probably the wave is bounding through the crystalline lattice so it's a longer path, different angles through the lattice have different angles of incidence so they have to bounce more through the lattice, and therefore take longer.

But the reason it speeds back up to C after exiting the glass is because it's being remitted on the surface of the glass again, as the stimulation is vibrating the electrons at the surface, so I would wager that the remitted light has lower intensity from its interaction with the lattice, but the frequency has changed.

Like when you hold a tuning for next to another tuning fork and if you hit one the other one will vibrate,
I think the answer might lie in sympathetic resonance.

[Hoaxfag No.11144826]

>>11144816
You tell me you are doing it right now.
Also if you have a problem with word salad you are not going to like quantum mechanics lol.
Perhaps you should post in threads where you understand the basic principles of the topic we are discussing.

[Hoaxfag No.11144831]

>>11144816
Also you know this is a science forum right?
But you don't wanna discuss physics?
What would you like to talk about?

[Anonymous No.11144840]

>I don't understand it therefore it's not real

classic

>but i studied it a long time and I still don't get it

double classic

[Hoaxfag No.11144851]

>>11144840
Hey man as long as you are having a conversation with yourself you don't really need to post ;)

>>Hoaxfag you are so awesome, and all the femanons reading this are so impressed.

Thanks man I'm trying to to get carried away with how awesome I am

>>Double classic

[Anonymous No.11144909]

>>11138468
If you wish to credibly assert that quantum mechanics is wrong, you must provide an alternative explanation for:

1. The structure of the periodic table
2. The spectroscopic properties of the elements, including the 21cm line of hydrogen
3. The stability of matter against Earnshaw's theorem and radiation due to acceleration.
4. The existence of lasers.
5. The existence of superfluidity and superconductivity
6. Band structures of semiconductors

Let's start with these for now.

[Hoaxfag No.11144966]

>>11144909
Nice post my good man, it will take awhile but I will get started, Be sure to check back and respond.

May I just ask you to expand a little on a few questions so we don't tangent.
And let me just clarify a few things as well.

1. Why do you think the periodic table requires quantum mechanics to explain?
I studied organic chemistry and regular chemistry at University, they never mentioned quantum mechanics except one time when my professor used a laser pointer experiment to explain heisenbergs uncertainty principal in relation to the electron probability cloud.
From memory the structure of the periodic table was to do with the number of outer valence electrons etc, look like in order of the number of protons,
What do you mean?
Or else I'll just copy and paste the Wikipedia explanation ;)

4, the existence of lasers.
We didnt need quantum mechanics to make lasers, it's a xenon tube wrapped around a ruby rod with one end a mirror and one semi silvered.
Now MASERS work exactly the same as a laser, and we're what inspired them, MASERS create microWAVE radiation, and can also be tuned to create visible light.
There is no quantum mechanics with lasers and the apparatus can produce microwaves, so are you saying microwaves are a particle as well?
Or are you wrong?

You are also wrong about superconductors and superconductivity.
The phenomenon is bizarre but it's magnetism lol, nothing to do with wave particle duality etc.
I'll do a bigger write up.
BRB

[Anonymous No.11144977]

>>11144966
>The phenomenon is bizarre but it's magnetism lol

permeability and permittivity of the material in question

[Anonymous No.11144986]

>>11138665
You're fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.11144998]

>>11144966
1. Explain the shell structure of atoms.
4. Explain stimulated emission.

"It's magnetism" is not an explanation, and definitely not for superconductivity or superfluidity. Failed, try again.

[Anonymous No.11145149]

>>11138921
Not to be weird or anything, but you sound smart.

[Anonymous No.11145168]

>>11138468
Yep, just another Jewish trick.
But we're in it for the long run- look how long special relativity has lasted.

[Anonymous No.11145178]

>>11138468
>>11125070
> "I don't understand this" or "this doesn't make sense to me" are not legitimate criticisms of established scientific theories. The fact that the universe is not simple enough for you to understand is your failing, not the universe's.
> Anyone claiming to have an alternative theory to established science should be able to explain why established science seems to give accurate answers and be able to give a concrete prediction that can be checked by experiment, where it should outperform the current theory.

[Hoaxfag No.11145282]

>>11144909
4. Lasers

"However, in the case of the free electron laser, atomic energy levels are not involved; it appears that the operation of this rather exotic device can be explained without reference to quantum mechanics.
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/free-electron_laser

A free-electron laser (FEL) is a kind of laser whose lasing medium consists of very-high-speed electrons moving freely through a magnetic structure,[1] hence the term free electron.[2] The free-electron laser is tunable and has the widest frequency range of any laser type,[3] currently ranging in wavelength from microwaves, through terahertz radiation and infrared, to the visible spectrum, ultraviolet, and X-ray.[4]

My explanation is that Einstein said lasers were quantum, and Einstein was a fraud.

[Hoaxfag No.11145286]

Oh and you guys are going to love this.

I am actually a Jew ;)

[Anonymous No.11145288]

>>11144676
>And resistance to acceleration is not a speed nor measurable by a speed. No mass/medium...well you get nothing, you lose good day sir.
The fuck do you mean? You make no sense at all. So a magnetic field doesn't resist you pulling a magnet out of it?

>Where is the quantity? If you have no quantity then it's not exactly "quantum" anything is it? You're basically saying "it's this but also this", no different than the "wave-particle duality" nonsense.
Excitations come in discrete quanta, meaning their energy content is discrete.
You don't know what wave-particle duality means obviously. It's easy to understand if you're not retarded. There once was an experiment on electrons, that could be explained by the classical particle model. Then later, there was a different experiment involving electrons, that could be explained by the classical wave model. So people said "oh shit, those are incompatible, that's a problem and we have to look for new models". Since the electron sometimes behaved like a wave, other times like a particle they called it wave-particle duality of the electron. This was solved by quantum mechanics.

>No. Where is the proof for the actual photon?
The detector going "tick".

>It wouldn't be an empirical "thing" to be measured.
You didn't even look at what the detector does.

>Furthermore it has no "speed" and there are literally dozens of experiments proving this
Cite one. This is obviously bullshit. People measured the speed of light easily with a cog wheel over 100 years ago.

>It "slows down" in [...] glass
Yeah, no, that's wrong. Light cannot change its speed. Otherwise it would acquire mass and decay. It seems to go slower through media because it interacts with them.

>It's a privation, it has no subsistence without something else doing an action (the medium) and therefore doesn't even exist because it is nothing but an action.
Meaningless rambling.

[Anonymous No.11145292]

>>11144676
>Quantity of what? What causes it? This doesn't tell me what a field is, only what it does.
Then you haven't read the article.

>And again a "Wave" is what something does, not a thing. Water comes in "waves" at the shore. So if a wave could somehow construct a field then I fail to see how a "field" can have a quantity to begin with.
No, oscillations is what something does. A wave carries energy and momentum. If you can't even see that, I'm wasting my time here.

>and space is also a privation. It doesn't exist.
What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

[Anonymous No.11145338]

>>11145282
How do non-free electron lasers work then? You're deflecting.

[Hoaxfag No.11145344]

>>11144909
5. Superconductivity
2. Atomic spectral lines
This is on Wikipedia

This phenomenon was discovered by Dutch physicist Heike Kamerlingh Onnes on April 8, 1911, in Leiden. Like ferromagnetism and atomic spectral lines, superconductivity is a quantum mechanical mystery.

So quantum mechanics cannot explain it.
So you don't know, but you want me to explain it, and if I can't that makes you right?
Doesn't work like that man.
Also sorry if I was rude before, having high school kids claiming to to quantum physicists and using scientific words like "retarded faggot" and "schizo" to prove me wrong is like 95% of the people rebutling me, you are obviously a real scientist. I feel like in real life we would be friends.

[Anonymous No.11145372]

>>11138468
>Quantum mechanics
I think you meant to type string theory.

[Anonymous No.11145377]

>>11145344
Honestly dude, if you werent so condescending, amd you provided a logical answer to every question instead of throwing out a non sequitur and hand waving, this could potentially be a decent thread.

[Hoaxfag No.11145402]

>>11145338
Am I deflecting?

>Lasers cannot exist without quantum mechanics

My response
"Yes they can *provides proof*

>You are deflecting!

[Anonymous No.11145409]

>>11145402
No, he was asking you to explain lasers (_light_ amplification by stimulated emission of radiation) without quantum mechanics. You didn't.
One example of something with "laser" in its name is not an explanation.

[Hoaxfag No.11145423]

My post are being flagged as spam so I can't post anymore.
Goodnight friends.

[Hoaxfag No.11145430]

>>11145377
I will make an effort to be less condescending, if you read the thread you will understand that I'm in the middle of a trial by fire,
I'm not your enemy and I never was, I know QM is a hoax, I can't tell you why,
Think of me as a whistle blower
It's was Carl Sagan that said it's the responsibility of a scientists to be wholly open-minded to new ideas no matter how rediculous they might seem, while being brutally skepticism of old ideas no matter how convincing they may see.
Science is the art of being the most correct, there is no right or wrong, ideas and theories evolve continuously to absorb new discoveries,
The fact people are horrified that 60 years before the discovery of background cosmic radiation,

[Anonymous No.11145440]

>>11138468
You're right, I'd even go as far as calling it a religion desu, actually the thing it's most useful for is demonstrating the mechanism of social bias and the human belief system (e.g. scientists mistaking theoretical models used to make loose predictions for reality, as has happened in QM)

[Anonymous No.11145458]

>>11138567
is this guy actually trying to imply that anybody is completely rational, mentally healthy, and doesn't "believe" in all that one knows? god damn

[Anonymous No.11145462]

>>11138595
mental illness is a meme, read thomas szasz. the crux is this; if mental illness exists, then everybody is mentally ill to some degree

[Anonymous No.11145470]

>>11138630
Sure, how about christianity? Perhaps we should spend more time thinking rather than just spitting something out because we can't deal with not knowing how the universe works

[Hoaxfag No.11145476]

>>11145458
I'm very mentally ill, I have add, Asperger's and autism, and some other serious health problems, what does this have to do with it, those were rebuttals to other posts, you should read the whole thread , let me guess, you are a quantum phycisist and you love Stephen Hawking, but you have never read any of his books.
But you know he is right because of the faith you have in I'm as being so much smarter than you you will never understand anything he says so why bother checking right?

[Anonymous No.11145517]

>>11143195
I think a more useful way to describe this spooky action at a distance is by simply removing distance from the equation. There's nothing spooky about it now

[Anonymous No.11145541]

>>11145476
Hate to break it to you but your abnormal developmental path does not constitute mental illness, it constitutes an abnormal neurological structure and it does not disprove the concept of neuroplasticity

[Hoaxfag No.11145542]

>>11145409
When you stimulate matter with light (wave energy) the electrons achieve a higher energy state, and jump to a higher valence shell, then drop back down to the baseline state, this movement between valence shells causes the electronegative (negatively charged ) electrons to interact with the background electromagnetic radiation left over from the big bang, creating ripples, as seen in the OP display pic, these ripples in the electromagnetic field are what we perceive as light.

[Anonymous No.11145567]

>>11145542
The stimulation doesn't necessarily have to be introduced by light, but what you say is correct, roughly speaking (you actually need at least 3 states involved, but that doesn't matter for the argument here). So we're making progress here!

Now, you say there are two states and the electron jumps from one to the other. Why can it jump? Jumping means it bridges a discrete energy gap.
Since certain materials only emit certain wavelengths of light, this gap is exactly of a certain value. So by jumping, the electron gains a certain amount of energy. A discrete amount of energy. Or in other words, a ______ of energy. What's the word missing here?

[Hoaxfag No.11145592]

>>11145470
Quantum mechanics is a Christian scientist theory.
The Vatican has a team of quantum physicists that work at the observatory in Vatican City.
There are other forces at work , but QM provides proof of God, Jacob Barnett published a paper proving the existence of God.
I thought calling one of the fabricated, unobservable particle the "god" particle would be a dead giveaway, but yeah QM is a religious thing.
People having scripture class in schools and studying a book that said the earth is flat, then going from primary with scripture, secondary with scripture, then tertiary and assuming there was no scripture are a curious bunch.
QM is Bible class for university students ;)

[Hoaxfag No.11145604]

>>11145567
It's because if resonance, similar to the way nobel gases are stable in the 8th period, there are stable valence shells, and if you stimulate an atom the electrons jump into the higher stable valence shell briefly, the wavelength of the emitted light is this distance between shells.

[Anonymous No.11145611]

>>11145592
Do you think general and special relativity are real? I’m curious because most people seem to go after it rather than QM

[Anonymous No.11145636]

>>11138506
I see, so you are just an uneducated swine.

[Hoaxfag No.11145700]

>>11145611
In 1952, Israel’s first president, Chaim Weizmann, asked his friend Albert Einstein (“the greatest Jew alive,” Weizmann said) if he would be willing to lead the young nation. Though the Israelis assured him that “complete facility and freedom to pursue your great scientific work would be afforded by a government and people who are fully conscious of the supreme significance of your labors,” Einstein turned down the offer. Einstein was, however, very sympathetic to Israel. In 1947 he expressed his belief in Zionism

Also if you are bored read about how enstein was actually an evil piece of shit.

He had a very dark history, so the assumption that an evil man with that much power couldn't lie blows my mind.

The timeline works like this.
Einstein suggested special and normal relativity after people discovered the photoelectric effect, like when they discovered it by candle light with horse drawn carriages.
The threshold of electrons being emitted was a confusing phenomenon, and people tried to explain it, Einstein proposed wave particle duality.
There was a media phenomenon and it was the birth of quantum mechanics so everyone got on board.
Einstein won for the best hypothesis and got the noble prize.
World war 2.
Every physicist,.mathematician, chemist etc was recruited for the Manhattan project which lasts twenty+ years.
By this time all the scientists are in their 80s, rich, and retire as you do.
No QM theories took into account the background big bang cosmic radiation as a medium because it wasn't discovered until the 1960s, also they discovered not all photoelectric materials have a threshold, some have 0 threshold.

The next generation of physicists have to learn from textbooks written before the discovery of background EMF and the fact the photoelectric effect was disproven, no professors to ask about it or point out the inconsistensies,
These physicists work together to create work around for newly discovered phenomenon so they (cont)

[Anonymous No.11145705]

>>11145604
But why are there shells?

[Anonymous No.11145717]

>>11145344
>Like ferromagnetism and atomic spectral lines, superconductivity is a quantum mechanical mystery.
It doesn't mean quantum mechanics can't explain them, it means you can't explain them without quantum mechanics. If you had clicked through on each of those links, you would have found the QM explanation for each of those.

[Anonymous No.11145719]

>>11145542
This (aside from the CMB thing) is a quantum explanation.

0/6 so far, try again.

[Hoaxfag No.11145722]

>>11145700
They can explain away these inconsistensies, also if you criticised the world's greatest Jew after Nazi Germany don't worry about your career, worry about going to jail for being a Nazi ;)

And that's why we have quantum mechanics.

>>11145705
>But why are there shells?

Why does a planet orbit instead of flying off into the endless vacuum of space?
It's attracted to the proton, and when it gets close it "bounces" off, as it gets far away it loses energy and slows down then moves back to the nucleus.
Atoms act as antennas for cosmic broadband radiation, that's what powers Brownian motion. At 0 Kelvin they don't move, it's a practically weightless particle so very little energy is needed to make it oscillate.
The shells are where it spends the most time, if you have more than one electron they form multiple shells and have to oscillate in a harmonious Pattern because they repel each other.

[Anonymous No.11145726]

>>11145722
Explain the 2, 2 6, 2 6 10, 2 6 10 14 pattern of electron shells.

[Hoaxfag No.11145743]

>>11145719
I was told we needed QM to explain the existence of lasers.
I posted a link to a noble prize winning laser that did not need QM.
Where does the inconsistency lie?
I know I'm know for being condescending but for fuck sake man, did you really just type that ?
Are you pretending you can't read?

Then I explained that quantum mechanics cannot explain superconductivity or atomic spectral lines.

It's 3/6 so far, and by tomorrow night it will be 6/6.

I don't want to be rude but that is so intentionally provacative and childish.
It really is.

I have to go to bed, it's late.
Maybe we could have a debate tomorrow where people don't troll heaps hard then get offended if I stop being polite.

Have fun living in your holographic simulation with the extradimensional entities simultaneously exist in the past, present and future in a similar way to the book of Genesis ;)

I'm not mad at you, you just frustrate me.

Now thats condescension lol.

Thankyou all for your questions though :)
Keep em posted.

[Anonymous No.11145749]

>>11145743
>Then I explained that quantum mechanics cannot explain superconductivity or atomic spectral lines.
You misinterpreted a badly-written sentence from Wikipedia. QM can and does explain both.

[Anonymous No.11145751]

>>11145743
>I posted a link to a noble prize winning laser that did not need QM.
I wanted you to explain stimulated emission, which you then explained using quantum concepts (jumping between shells).

[Hoaxfag No.11145755]

>>11145749
I see you skipped the laser thing brah, how delightfully convenient.

[Anonymous No.11145757]

>>11145430
Why did you choose 4chan as the place to expose the hoax? Aren't you concerned that your insight will get lost in the noise of other similar but less genuine claims?

You called this thread a "trial by fire". Do you believe you have been rigorously questioned? Do you believe you've made a full and cogent argument thus far?

[Hoaxfag No.11145761]

>>11145751
Please read the OP man, this has become one of those semantics and English language definition debates, quanta means smallest, I'm not saying electrons are a hoax, I'm saying anything smaller than an electron doesn't exist, and many other thing through my 80+posts.
I don't mean to offend you. I am sorry

[Anonymous No.11145769]

>>11145761
Quantum means discrete. And electrons are point particles. What do you mean when you say "nothing smaller than an electron"? What scale are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.11145773]

>>11145700
Ok so you're against his explanation of the photoelectric but as for relativity, do you just believe in Galilean relativity and newtonian gravity?

[Anonymous No.11145812]

>>11145722
You're dodging the question. Why are there shells?
Orbits of planets are continuous. Electron shells aren't. Why?

[Anonymous No.11145815]

>>11145755
No, you are skipping the laser thing. How do lasers work? Explain. Lasers, not free-electron lasers.

[Anonymous No.11145835]

QM is not a hoax but quantum computers are. They've never managed to build one ever since they invented the damned word.
All scientists working on quantum computers just use mumbo jumbo words to impress the press and get that sweet grant money.

[Anonymous No.11145841]

>>11145835
Quantum computers are real and work. The open question is whether quantum supremacy can be achieved.

[Anonymous No.11145842]

>>11145841
They are not real and do not work. Your theoretical qm computer with barely enough qubits to be called a computer is not a computer.
It's a pipedream you've been selling for decades.
Now go do something useful in your life and do some real science.

[Anonymous No.11145851]

>>11145842
There are literally two working QCs in our basement here you fucking pleb.

[Anonymous No.11145863]

>>11145851
go play with your little toy and hopefully mummy grant donors won't get mad that it's as useless as you

[Anonymous No.11146428]

>>11145863
Oh, I'm having a lot of fun with them. Fun you'll never have thanks to your bitch-ass attitude. The cryostates alone are totally worth it.

[Anonymous No.11146432]

this article is pretty hot
https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2019/01/15/quantum-computing-as-a-field-is-obvious-bullshit/

[Anonymous No.11146445]

>>11146432
>When I say Quantum Computing is a bullshit field, I don’t mean everything in the field is bullshit, though to first order, this appears to be approximately true. I don’t have a mathematical proof that Quantum Computing isn’t at least theoretically possible. I also do not have a mathematical proof that we can make the artificial bacteria of K. Eric Drexler’s nanotech fantasies. Yet, I know both fields are bullshit. Both fields involve forming new kinds of matter that we haven’t the slightest idea how to construct. Neither field has a sane ‘first step’ to make their large claims true.

>I don't have proof
>but I know
Why would I read any further? This is hoaxfag level bullshit right from the start.

[Anonymous No.11146467]

>>11146445
You're right... I tried to trick you.. I am sorry sir...

[Anonymous No.11146905]

>>11145292
>Then you haven't read the article.

>In physics, a field is a physical quantity, represented by a number or tensor, that has a value for each point in space-time. For example, on a weather map, the surface temperature is described by assigning a real number to each point on a map; the temperature can be considered at a fixed point in time or over some time interval, to study the dynamics of temperature change.

Describes a field over a period of time. Which also does not exist by the way. "Time" is not an observable phenomena, cause, modality or anything other than an assigned measure to an action. It does not and cannot tell me what a field.

>No, oscillations is what something does.
What what does?

>A wave carries energy and momentum. If you can't even see that, I'm wasting my time here.
"waves of what". You'll have to be more specific as to what is waving. A flag? Jello? What is waving?

>What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
"An empty void/perfect vacuum of nothingness" is sort of conventional when the average person things of space. Obviously that doesn't classify as "something". So can you tell me what this "space" "is" and what properties it has that make it an observable/real phenomena?

>>11145288
>So a magnetic field doesn't resist you pulling a magnet out of it?

Resistance is not speed. Acceleration is not speed. Resistance to acceleration is obviously not going to do with speed. What part of this is complicated?

>Excitations come in discrete quanta, meaning their energy content is discrete.

Wooden doors are made of wood. At least I have empirical proof for this shitty description (that being the actual wooden door)

>You don't know what wave-particle duality means obviously
It means "I don't know what light is or how it works so lets define it with a contradiction based on an assumption" basically.

1/2

[Anonymous No.11146921]

>>11138468
Explain the spectroscopy lines of the hydrogen atom then, without qm.

[Anonymous No.11146974]

>>11145288
>There once was an experiment on electrons, that could be explained by the classical particle model. Then later, there was a different experiment involving electrons, that could be explained by the classical wave model. So people said "oh shit, those are incompatible, that's a problem and we have to look for new models". Since the electron sometimes behaved like a wave, other times like a particle they called it wave-particle duality of the electron. This was solved by quantum mechanics.

Stemmed on the assumption that the election existed, with no actual empirical evidence other than floating drops of oil in a EM field. So is an election an EM field or a specific type of oil drop? Or is it just a made up description used to simplify the action of something else (field).

>Since the electron sometimes behaved like a wave

An a wave is not a "thing" once again. It's what something does

>The detector going "tick".

And my ass going BRAAP is proof of the fart particle

>You didn't even look at what the detector does.

When you take away what it's doing (a disturbance in the medium) then it ceases to be "light" because in the end it is nothing other than an action itself. Not a thing.

>Cite one. This is obviously bullshit. People measured the speed of light easily with a cog wheel over 100 years ago.

Yeah and they altered it with magnetism too. You didn't even read my post or watch the video of the "Faraday effect".

> Light cannot change its speed.

It does and it's been empirically shown to. You're talking out of your ass right now.

>Otherwise it would acquire mass and decay. It seems to go slower through media because it interacts with them.
Yes. Waves of water do make a buoy bob up and down. But there is no water being "emitted" and there is no discrete sort of traveling that happens. It moves from where it is to where it isn't by pressure.

>Meaningless rambling.
>Shadows are real!

[Anonymous No.11147038]

>>11146905
lol, you are absolutely delusional. I'll leave out your brainlet ramblings for shortness sake.

>>A wave carries energy and momentum. If you can't even see that, I'm wasting my time here.
>"waves of what". You'll have to be more specific as to what is waving. A flag? Jello? What is waving?
It doesn't matter. That's the point.

>"An empty void/perfect vacuum of nothingness" is sort of conventional when the average person things of space.
Space is what allows you to put measuring rods next to each other.

>Resistance is not speed. Acceleration is not speed. Resistance to acceleration is obviously not going to do with speed. What part of this is complicated?
The part where nothing you say here makes any sense. Your argument implied you won't be resisted by a magnetic field when pulling away something magnetic.

>It means "I don't know what light is or how it works so lets define it with a contradiction based on an assumption" basically.
Not bad, but it refers to the electron and the last part is just wrong.

>>11146974
>Stemmed on the assumption that the election existed, with no actual empirical evidence other than floating drops of oil in a EM field.
You are referring to charge. The electron has been shown to exist by (I think) Thomson a looong time ago.

>An a wave is not a "thing" once again. It's what something does
Once again, wrong. You mean oscillations, not waves.

>>The detector going "tick".
>And my ass going BRAAP is proof of the fart particle

>Yeah and they altered it with magnetism too.
Wrong.

>It does and it's been empirically shown to.
Extremely wrong. Look, if light passes an object and seems to take more time until coming out of the other side that doesn't mean it became slower in the object.
If I go through a hall at 5km/h, and you measure the time it takes me to pass it, would you say I slowed down when I pace in circles?

[Anonymous No.11147216]

>>11147038
>It doesn't matter. That's the point.
so a wave is not a thing and therefore the duality is bullshit. There is no thing such as a "wave" so there is no "wave-particle" duality.

>Space is what allows you to put measuring rods next to each other.
So imparting your will by putting two qualitative things next to each other is "space"? No I asked for a property of this place you call "space". Proof of it's existence. If you have no proof and it doesn't actually exist then it certainly doesn't effect or impart a thing onto anything.

>The part where nothing you say here makes any sense

Mass is resistance to acceleration. I was replying to the original post. Go back and reread since you've become so lost.

>Your argument implied you won't be resisted by a magnetic field when pulling away something magnetic.

It had nothing to do with the original definition of what >>11143765 claimed a medium was. My argument was that light propagates only when a medium is present and if the medium is defined by "mass" then it's defined with "resistance to acceleration". WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SPEED NOR IMPLIES A FUCKING "SPEED OF LIGHT" BEING REAL.

>Not bad, but it refers to the electron

Which is a mathematical abstraction so it means jack shit.
>my dualistic beliefs on something never proven to be real mean something

Whatever you Mormon.

>You are referring to charge. The electron has been shown to exist by (I think) Thomson a looong time ago.

Plum pudding model, yet no actual proof .
>hurr when i place magnets with no physical field on a cathode ray tube and see effects, I'll call the effects something different
>polarizing the medium(electricity) implies quantity or indivisible particles
But it's still "the medium".

If only the null experiment that was the Michelson-Morley experiment wasn't taken seriously then maybe he wouldn't have even attempted this one. Not even Thompson agreed with the idea of the electron.

[Anonymous No.11147264]

>>11147038
>Wrong.

It's an electroMAGNETIC effect you absolute brainlet. Its very existence depends on magnetism.

>Extremely wrong. Look, if light passes an object and seems to take more time until coming out of the other side that doesn't mean it became slower in the object.
you're right because it doesn't even travel to begin with. It is capacitized, discharged and DEPENDENT on the MEDIUM. Which has NOTHING TO DO WITH SPEED. I just use the example because it just shows that it really has nothing to do with speed at all. It's observed to "slow down" but there is no "slow", there is no "fast". It's entirely dependent on the medium and the quality it has.

>If I go through a hall at 5km/h, and you measure the time it takes me to pass it, would you say I slowed down when I pace in circles?
You're spinning around a sun and earth. You are literally going in circles right now. Just because you recorded it doesn't make a difference. It only allows you to understand it in a way that is simplified and limited.

By what means do you appear to slow down or speed up? Motion and Inertia is the cause. You wouldn't pass any hall if the air molecules that are full of motion and will wave aside were now made of the inertness lead. So is the answer "infinite time" when you walk down a hall of solid lead? Is

[Anonymous No.11147344]

>>11147216
>so a wave is not a thing and therefore the duality is bullshit. There is no thing such as a "wave" so there is no "wave-particle" duality.
You are too fucking dumb this conversation makes no sense.

> My argument was that light propagates only when a medium is present and if the medium is defined by "mass" then it's defined with "resistance to acceleration".
You're confusing so many things, it's impossible to disentangle this in a single thread. Inertial mass is resistance to acceleration, yes. I said a medium must have mass in order to be called a medium. So what? How does this say anything about the speed of light? I never said I'm pulling be medium. If you want to say something about resistance you mean the mass of the excitation, not the medium. You're again confusing elementary things.

>>Not bad, but it refers to the electron
>Which is a mathematical abstraction so it means jack shit.
Wrong, as said, it is a particle that has been shown to exist. You're consistently ignoring what I wrote. The mathematical abstraction is saying it is a point particle without inner structure. You're confusing things yet again.

>>my dualistic beliefs on something never proven to be real mean something
>Whatever you Mormon.
Putting words in my mouth only proves you're as dumb as can be. I already explained what the duality referred to. You keep ignoring it and claiming I said something else.

>Plum pudding model, yet no actual proof .
You still ignore everything I wrote. No, I'm not referring to the Thomson model, I'm referring to the experiment.

>>hurr when i place magnets with no physical field on a cathode ray tube and see effects, I'll call the effects something different
>>polarizing the medium(electricity) implies quantity or indivisible particles
This makes no sense.

>If only the null experiment that was the Michelson-Morley experiment wasn't taken seriously...
It had its issues, yes, but those were addressed in later improvements of the setup.

[Anonymous No.11147358]

>>11147264
>>Wrong.
>It's an electroMAGNETIC effect you absolute brainlet. Its very existence depends on magnetism.
How are cog wheels magnetic you freaking imbecile?

>you're right because it doesn't even travel to begin with. It is capacitized, discharged and DEPENDENT on the MEDIUM. Which has NOTHING TO DO WITH SPEED. I just use the example because it just shows that it really has nothing to do with speed at all. It's observed to "slow down" but there is no "slow", there is no "fast". It's entirely dependent on the medium and the quality it has.
What does this even mean? Dude, learn to form coherent arguments. Are you saying light travels instantaneously? You can measure the speed of light with a simple cog wheel.

>You're spinning around a sun and earth. You are literally going in circles right now. Just because you recorded it doesn't make a difference. It only allows you to understand it in a way that is simplified and limited.
Answer the fucking question. Stop rambling about meaningless things.

>By what means do you appear to slow down or speed up?
I literally explained that in the sentence. You really can't be that dumb.

[Anonymous No.11147428]

>>11145863
>QM computers don't exist
>Yes they do

>They're only theoretical
>I have one right here

>G-go play with your toys....
Big brain argument right there.

[Anonymous No.11147437]

>>11147428
nitpicking on syntax
lil theoretical 6 or 8 quibit big "computers" can"'t be considered computers. At best little sicentist boys toys.
These people have spent their entire lives tyring to make this meme work and they will defend it because it is their integrity. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
I'm glad lil quantum compuper bois enjoy themselvs though.

[Anonymous No.11147454]

>>11147437
It's not like they've been working on it at the same pace as regular computers. "6 or 8" isn't 0 or 1; progress has been made.

[Hoaxfag No.11147616]

>>11145757
>>Why did you choose 4chan as the place to expose the hoax? Aren't you concerned that your insight will get lost in the noise of other similar but less genuine claims?

>>You called this thread a "trial by fire". Do you believe you have been rigorously questioned? Do you believe you've made a full and cogent argument thus far?

Because 4chan is one of the last bastions of human freedom. And the people that take time from their busy lives to contribute are king's among men.
This is a speakeasy, during a time of prohibition. Think of me as a whistleblower. I'm not trolling, and I'm not shilling.
Let me ask you, if you knew something like this. That actual quantum computing was impossible because of a significant flaw in one of the foundational theories.
And that no matter how much money and time we devoted to it it will never work.
Anymore than sacrificing food and animals to the gods would ensure a better crop.
How would you tell people?
Are you familiar with what happened to Gallileo?
Let me tell you a story.
I was at a dinner party one time. With proper scientists. I was young and foolish.
And mentioned jokingly that I didn't think quantum mechanics was as fantastic as everyone said (after we discussed how we were insidea black hole and time had stopped etc)
One of the men at the dinner table got up and started screaming and tried to fight me.

So I don't talk about it anymore.
There is more to this hoax than you realise.
It's essential for an educated person to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it.

Anyone here who considers themselves a scientist, please, as a thought experiment, let's just pretend for a minute that light is never a particle, and thus all theories based on this idea are therefore fundamentally flawed.

And we just discuss what that might mean, it explain.

In the interest of science.

[Hoaxfag No.11147685]

>>11145773
>>Ok so you're against his explanation of the photoelectric but as for relativity, do you just believe in Galilean relativity and newtonian gravity?

I'm not sure what you mean about me believing them, I'm approaching this the same way I had to tell people water powered cars weren't real and not to try to build them from mail order plans you sent away for.

So I don't claim they are fraudulant but I haven't tried to use those theories to build machines that don't work.

[Hoaxfag No.11147872]

>>11144909
4. Spectral emission.

Spectral emission is caused by the movement of the electrons between valence states.
They have specific frequencies based of the distance the electrons have to move between the shells, that is the wavelength.
They are tuned to these specific frequencies.
Hydrogen can be excited to a higher valence shell, so it has 2 spectral lines for its 2 energy states.
It's simple absorrbtion and emission.
It's described as "quantum" phenomenon as quantum is the study of how light works.
It doesn't involve any mysterious quantum mechanical properties.
It's quantum because of the system of nomenclature we use.

4/6

[Anonymous No.11147882]

>>11147358
>How are cog wheels magnetic you freaking imbecile?
If it's physical then it by definition has magnetism idiot. That's why every material has a particular effect when placed in a magnetic field. Furthermore it wasn't just cog wheels, it was an array of optics and mirrors. Tell me how this array of optics and mirrors measured the compressions and rarefactions of light and their speed. Remember that light has a longitudinal "waves" too.

>Are you saying light travels instantaneously?
It is induced to exist

>Answer the fucking question. Stop rambling about meaningless things.
I could answer it, but I'm explaining to you that it wouldn't mean anything. Time doesn't exist and doesn't control anything.

>I literally explained that in the sentence. You really can't be that dumb.
No you explained nothing. You gave me a quantified answer and expected me to then answer it again. What medium are you traveling through? "Hall" is not specific enough, what is the pressure in "hall"? What are you traveling by? By foot? By scooter? "dumb fucking example man goes down hall at 5mph" doesn't tell me anything about how he is doing that.

>>11147344
And you think a wave is a thing that it can actually be part of a dualistic answer. "Waves of what?"; the question that gets people like you into shitfit arguments about things that don't even exist.

>Putting words in my mouth only proves you're as dumb as can be. I already explained what the duality referred to. You keep ignoring it and claiming I said something else.
>"It doesn't matter that's the point"

Your words no?

>No, I'm not referring to the Thomson model, I'm referring to the experiment.
Which also didn't prove the existence of an electron particle!


>This makes no sense.
No it really doesn't! Even Thomson considered the electron the terminal end of one unit line of dielectric induction so even he didn't believe in a "discrete quanta" separate from everything else. Where does the quantity come from?

[Anonymous No.11147885]

>>11147872
Why are there electronic shells? What determines their occupation numbers? What causes stimulated emission?

[Hoaxfag No.11147902]

>>11144909
6. Band structures of semiconductors.

I'm not sure why you think this involves quantum mechanics, please expand on the question.

5/6(maybe)

[Anonymous No.11147903]

>>11147902
Where do band structures come from? How do they form? What do they represent?

[Anonymous No.11147917]

Thread theme: objective reality doesn't exist

https://phys.org/news/2019-11-quantum-physics-reality-doesnt.html

[Anonymous No.11147923]

>>11144909
>1. The structure of the periodic table
You have so far failed to give any explanation for why atomic shells fill up the way they do.
>2. The spectroscopic properties of the elements, including the 21cm line of hydrogen
You have given the quantum explanation for exciting an electron, though without 1 this explains nothing, and you have not mentioned the 21cm line.
>3. The stability of matter against Earnshaw's theorem and radiation due to acceleration.
I don't think you have answered this? If you did, I missed it.
>4. The existence of lasers.
You have so far only mentioned the quantum explanation of exciting electrons. You have not explained stimulated emition.
>5. The existence of superfluidity and superconductivity
You have wrongfully dismissed these as unexplainable by quantum mechanics. They are very well explained, but I'll make it easier and consider this answered if you can explain why Bose-Einstein condensates form
>6. Band structures of semiconductors
No answer yet.

Sorry, but you are still clearly at 0/6. Any answers you have given were either quantum (which you claim is wrong), were besides the point or just downright wrong.

[Anonymous No.11148064]

>>11147616
I guess I'd do the same but are you working on a replacement or disproof of QM? Also, the guy couldn't get worked up only over that, what was his trigger for wanting to fight you? Did he have some sort of personal connection to QM or something?

[Hoaxfag No.11148105]

>>11147923
Sorry man, I mislabeled the hydrogen line as 4, instead of 2.

Let me just write up my answers in a better format :)

I have a question though.
So these phenomenon have explanations thanks to Quantum mechanics, could you type up just a short answer to each.
When people on this forum answer QM questions it's usually answers like
"BCE forms univerted QCE TFTs with hemidipole quadrangular exponent collapsing waveform interference Feynman ring oscillator negative mass monopole micro singularities in 11 dimensions"

So if you have the real answers that aren't arXiv wordsalad I would love to hear any of them :)

Like if I say stimulated emission(like with the original xenon tube ruby rod laser) is because the full spectrum light waves are shining on the ruby molecules, which are tuned to resonate (vibrate, oscillate) the electrons and move them into a higher valence shell.
This movement of the electron interacts with the background electromagnetic field (as the electrons are negatively charged(electronegative) and creates light waves at the frequency/wavelength of the distance between these shells.
These waves generated in the ruby rod bounce back and forth until the overcome the semi silvered mirror at one end( the other end is a full mirror)
So monochromatic coherent light is emitted out of the laser.

What do you think is wrong with that theory.
Why do you think that makes light a particle rather than purely a wave.
It's discrete "packets of energy" like in the OP display photo.
Resonant peaks in an electromagnetic field.
:)

[Hoaxfag No.11148123]

>>11148064
Haha yeah I didn't know but he was writing these self published books about "quantum mechanics", he ran up to me later and I read it and it was this bizarre self help books where he claimed he could control the universe with his mind.
It was all about bosons and fermions, then he kind-of started stalking me and running up to me trying to convince me about all this crazy stuff.
It was a long time ago but I understand young people not remembering the 90s when people were talking about "manifestation" and that book the secret ,
It leterally told you you could control the universe with your mind an used stuff like when they had people who claimed to be psychic focus on random number generators and create non random results.
It turned out the machines were tuned to pick up EMF from people being near them, like when you walk near a radio and the signal goes in and out.
It was a scary time.
My friend was right into it and tried to get to another multiverse when his girlfriend left him, because with infinite possibilities she was still with him in another dimension and he went insane and never came back lol.

[Anonymous No.11148150]

>>11148123
They still talk about that kind of stuff in /x/, hell even youtube has a bunch of "manifestation" videos

[Hoaxfag No.11148168]

>>11148150
Man, for real there was a decade where it was every housewife and teenage girl talking about quantum mechanics and they were teaching it in church.
This actually happened I swear, I still see it. I went to a wedding, and the priest legit did a 45 minute quantum physics lecture.
You have to remember, we were told they had working quantum computers in the 1990s. So it was easy to get caught up in it.

[Anonymous No.11148173]

What do you think about stern gerlach you fucking mong

[Anonymous No.11148182]

>>11148168
Misunderstood science is magic

[Hoaxfag No.11148213]

>>11148173
Can you show me a picture of the stern garlach apparatus?
And I mean a photo, not an artist's interpretations.
If I asked for a picture of a Tesla coil you could show me one.

[Hoaxfag No.11148239]

>>11148182
That's setting the bar pretty low.
Misunderstood science is quantum mechanics.
Art combined with cutting edge science is magic, if you need to use such definitions.
There is nothing magic about not knowing how something works.
That's called an illusion or a trick.

[Anonymous No.11148262]

>>11138468
>women and black people are subhuman
The only coherent thing in your whole post anon, also true

[Anonymous No.11148268]

>>11148213
>>11148239
Why isn't this non-person banned yet?

[Hoaxfag No.11148279]

>>11148268
Rofl, for asking for proof?
Everything on wiki about stern gerlach has no citations.
You belong in /X/ or on Reddit.
If you don't like the scientific method don't read posts on a science forum.

[Hoaxfag No.11148285]

>>11148268
Grab your pitchforks and torches and come at me bro, I'm behind 7 quantum proxies.
I learned from Gallileo's mistake about challenging Christian dogma.

[Hoaxfag No.11148292]

>>11145769
By nothing smaller than an electron I mean there are no particles smaller than an electron.
Primarily the photon.
The photons existence forced mathematicians to try and talk their way out of all the inconsistencies in a flawed theory by inventing new particles and forces,
That's why QM math is abstract.
It can't work in this dimension.

[Hoaxfag No.11148294]

>>11145851
You have two MRI machines , if they work can you do SHA-256 or PGP decryption?

[Anonymous No.11148295]

>3/4 of the thread is the same namefag
>1/4 of respondents are people who choose to respond nonetheless
Just keep on doing your thing.

[Hoaxfag No.11148347]

>>11147885
Now this is a difficult question and will take a little while lol.
I'll use an analogy comparing it to me asking
"What makes the planets from around the sun at the orbits or shells they do"
It has to do with a type of science called "cymatics", the study of things that oscillate, so the electrons repel each other as well as being attracted to the nucleus, so if they are all moving around at the speed of light, "orbiting' a nucleus , there isn't enough room for them all in the same orbit, (I think it's called the Pauli exclusion principle, but don't quote me on that because it's called a quantum mechanical thing because it involves electrons and will be used against my argument) all it means is electrons repel each other because they are negatively charged.
So when you have more electrons than can fit in the valence shell, they move to a higher shell, and all the electrons move in a stable pattern or else the molecule is unstable.

Also the hydrogen line thing is on wiki without QM, it's because hydrogen has a second valence shell it reaches at high energy, I don't understand the confusion, electromagnetic waves hit it, and the electrons go to a higher shell, then emit that frequency, it's just very high because hydrogen is a unique atom because it doesn't have a neutron, so with such a low mass nucleus the electrons move very far relative to other atoms.

[Hoaxfag No.11148349]

>>11148295
I'm answering questions brother, that's what the number at the top of each post , someone's question.

[Anonymous No.11148355]

>>11148349
This is like a Stephen King novel. You're a ghost in the machine who claims he has answered questions. But really you have only intentionally sown more confusion with your "answers". I suppose this is funny to you. Irregardless, you can go on having your fun. It's not like I can stop you. But I just wish your readers would realize that they've been had.

[Hoaxfag No.11148386]

>>11148355
Oh man, you like Stephen King?
What do you think of the gunslinger series?
That's actually my favourite author lol,

I don't know if I necessarily showed more confusion, that's a tall order when talking QM haha.
Do you have any questions?
Would you like an answer that doesnt sound like a chatbot got uploaded with the arXiv abstract maths database and then had a few lines of code added involving a random number generator?

[Hoaxfag No.11148397]

>>11148355
And which questions do you think I haven't answered?
I'm trying to answer them one at a time.
4chan isn't my full time job as much as I wish it was haha.

Saying the people that agree with me have been had is a bit of a stretch, I'm not selling anything.
If you believe me what's the difference, is it that lasers won't work anymore?

[Anonymous No.11148454]

>>11148279
While i look for a pic, enjoy a handout from MIT where they literally do the experiment

http://web.mit.edu/8.13/www/JLExperiments/JLExp18.pdf

[Anonymous No.11148460]

>>11148454
And here is a picture of the gerlach apparatus. Learn to google ya fuckin nimrod

[Anonymous No.11148463]

>>11147616
Stop lying. This is embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.11148489]

>>11147882
Again, you're too fucking dumb and evading everything. You're a complete waste of time and effort. Only this:

>No you explained nothing
I am walking through a hall, but instead of going straight to the end, I walk left and right when in the hall. So when I leave the hall, it would have taken me more time than going straight through it.
That's what I said. You claimed this is not an explanation for why I would have appeared to slow down.
Absolute brainlet. Unbelievable.

>waves of what
Again, it doesn't matter. The wave model explained electron patterns created in a wall for example. Then in other experiments, the particle model explained what was seen. You keep ignoring this simple fact and attacking the duality statement as something you make it out to be.
So, again, do waves have energy and momentum?

>diamagnetic material influences magnetically neutral things not in contact with it
>time doesn't exist
>I won't explain how lasers work and avoid the question because I know I can't
>I ignore what wave-particle dualism means and instead put words in your mouth
>ignoring all experimental evidence for the electron and its properties
>"waves of what?" repeatedly when I already explained that the duality meant the wave model was wrong
Absolutely idiotic.

If you had attacked the existence of quarks, you might have had a point. This is just ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.11148495]

>>11148294
>SHA-256
No.
>PGP decryption
Yes.

We talked about this already.

[Hoaxfag No.11148534]

>>11148495
You are the only person on this thread who can prove that I am wrong.
You owe it to everyone to back this claim up.
I will wait until you do.
But what you are saying flies in the face of accepted quantum computing.

I think you are a physicist working with one of those MRI machines we used to use at uni for analytical chemistry.
And you are just dipping stuff in liquid nitrogen and putting it in there and taking readings.

So prove me wrong.
Don't tell me anything about yourself.
Just link me to the front page of your university website that says it has two working quantum computers that can do instantaneous decryption.
I promise I will never use 4chan again.
Don't let your brother's down.

[Hoaxfag No.11148551]

On another note here are some Jesus approved quantum mechanics books from our good friends at the Vatican quantum research lab.

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

Pro tip, you have already read most of what's in them ;)
Because when these scientists publish quantum physics papers they don't really have to state that it's Christian fundamentalists science do they, so they can just sneak it in over say 50+ years until no one can tell the difference.....

[Anonymous No.11148571]

>>11148534
I won't disclose any personal information here. Look for example under "History" at
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance_quantum_computer
There are also some images indexed by Google.

[Hoaxfag No.11148598]

>>11148460
That's not from the original experiment.
Show me a picture of the experiment that the experiment is named after, why are there no photos.
All the Wikipedia references are dead links.
All the paywall links are preview dead links.
There is no translation from German to English or English in text format so I can translate.
And the only website that has documentation of recreating the original got wildly different results and all the result images are dead links.

Soni don't have access to the paper, the details of the original experiment, it couldn't be recreated without heavy tweaking to fluke a similar result.
And the images for the artists interpretations vary wildly
No one ever check QM stuff because they assume someone else has.
You want to challenge me in science and then ask me to take a Wikipedia page/other experiments done by other people with a completely different experiment being done.

If you guys can point me in the direction of the paper written on this. Let's start there.

[Anonymous No.11148654]

>>11148598
Every physics department lets its students do experiments on their own. Among others, I did
>building a helium-neon laser
>Franck-Hertz experiment
>Faraday effect
>lifetime of cosmic muons
>Stern-Gerlach experiment
>building a Geiger counter
>tomography

How about you go visit a department and ask nicely if someone can introduce you to those experiments? They're usually very friendly when interested people visit.

Also, what are your thoughts on the D-Wave quantum annealer?

[Hoaxfag No.11148668]

>>11148571
I know man.
Read the first line of the link you sent me.
Nuclear magnetic resonance quantum computing (NMRQC)[1] is one of the several proposed approaches for constructing a quantum computer,


If you really think you are building a quantum computer and you are so close to finishing it that you can claim you have...I know how we feel, it's always just out of reach, so close you can taste it.

[Anonymous No.11148674]

>>11148668
Read "History".

[Hoaxfag No.11148737]

>>11148654

Thanks man, I also did stuff like that at University :)

The d wave quantum annealer doesn't do anything according to the papers published on it.
So my opinion is it's like a giant refrigerator painted black that costs 100s of millions of dollars and is purely decorative I guess :)

[Anonymous No.11148754]

>>11144966
>so are you saying microwaves are a particle as well?

They're photons just like visible light, dumbass. It's literally the same principle at a different wavelength.

[Hoaxfag No.11148768]

>>11148754
I would love to hear more about your "microwaves are particles" theory.
But brother I am afraid that is something you have come up with on your own.

[Anonymous No.11148778]

>>11148768
>talking about light and the EM spectrum as if they're different things

This isn't even a quantum thing, this is elementary school level classical knowledge. If light is particles, then microwaves are particles because they're the same fucking phenomenon.

[Hoaxfag No.11148787]

>>11148778
I don't want to offend you if you aren't trolling, but they are the same phenomenon. That is my argument.
But I don't believe light is ever a particle, so I don't believe in photons.
I agree with you they teach light is a particle. They told me alot about God as well.
I believe the particulate nature of light is a hoax perpetrated by Einstein.
Light and the EM are the same phenomenon.
Quantum was the original term to describe light as a particle. It was accepted as purely a wave for hundreds of years before that.
Proven by Thomas Young's twin slit experiment.

[Anonymous No.11148800]

>>11148737
>I guess
Not enough to debunk the 100s of experiments that successfully work on it.

[Anonymous No.11148803]

>>11148737
>>11148800
Forgot link

https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.02206

[Anonymous No.11148804]

>>11148787
No, this is all wrong. Newton described light as a particle and successfully predicted some phenomena regarding refraction iirc. Light is neither particle, nor wave. That's the whole point. It's a quantum particle.

[Anonymous No.11148811]

>>11148347
So basically, you cannot explain the occupation numbers of the different electronic shells and thus cannot explain the structure of the periodic table, while this falls readily out of the schroedinger equation. Even an undergrad can do it. So QM shines, you have nothing.

>Also the hydrogen line thing is on wiki without QM, it's because hydrogen has a second valence shell it reaches at high energy, I don't understand the confusion, electromagnetic waves hit it, and the electrons go to a higher shell, then emit that frequency, it's just very high because hydrogen is a unique atom because it doesn't have a neutron, so with such a low mass nucleus the electrons move very far relative to other atoms.
The 21 cm line is not electrons moving up a shell. It's the transition between two hyperfine levels, caused by an electron spin flip. Again, this energy can easily be predicted by an undergrad solving the hydrogen Schroedinger equation while you're stuck handwaving at best, but instead you're just completely wrong.

You are failing hard compared to the predictive power of quantum mechanics. In fact, your "QM isn't real" idea hasn't shown any predictive power at all.

[Anonymous No.11148816]

>>11148213
Two minutes of googling on my phone gave me the original paper by Stern and Gerlach, including detailed schematics and a photograph of their equipment.

http://positron.physik.uni-halle.de/F-Praktikum/PDF/39_annphys1924v74_Gerlach_Stern.pdf

[Anonymous No.11148825]

>>11148816
IN ENGLISH DOC!

[Anonymous No.11148830]

>>11148825
I didn't know photographs came in specific languages.

[Hoaxfag No.11148860]

>>11148816
Thankyou :)
I will check it out.

Goodnight guys, see you all tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.11148982]

>>11147616
>if you knew [...] quantum computing was impossible because of a significant flaw in one of the foundational theories [...] How would you tell people?
I would write it up my arguments in a single coherent work, including all my evidence, and publish it. If publication was stymied in some way, I'd share it online, sending it to as many people or groups as I thought were relevant, again as a single body of work.

I wouldn't hold a meandering coffeehouse debate style Q&A on an anonymous imageboard, unless for fun alone, because that's not a good way to either review an idea or to convince anyone. I would include /sci/ on my list of places to drop off a copy of my work if it was being blackballed, though.

[Anonymous No.11149126]

>>11148489
>I am walking through a hall, but instead of going straight to the end, I walk left and right when in the hall. So when I leave the hall, it would have taken me more time than going straight through it.
>That's what I said. You claimed this is not an explanation for why I would have appeared to slow down.
You're right. When you go left and right in the hall you magically become something completely different. You are now a noun known as a "wave" going through he hall instead of a person in motion. I can explain the wave-walking duality by sitting here and continuing to describe a walking person as both a person and a wave simply because I observed the way the person walk.

Which still doesn't explain what a fucking wave is, it describes what it does over a period of time.

>.Again, it doesn't matter. The wave model explained electron patterns created in a wall for example.
It described what they do yes. Still doesn't make a "wave" something.

Then in other experiments, the particle model explained what was seen. You keep ignoring this simple fact and attacking the duality statement as something you make it out to be.
I'm not ignoring it though! This is why I keep calling it dualistic hogwash. That is literally how you are describing it to me right now. "It is but it isn't" contradictory bullshit! That's not an explanation to anything because It doesn't explain why it actually occurs.

>So, again, do waves have energy and momentum?
WAVES
OF
WHAT????
I ignore what wave-particle dualism means
Because its a flat out contradiction, it opposes it's own meaning.
>ignoring all experimental evidence for the electron and its properties
What empirical evidence?
>Absolutely idiotic.
Yeah and if only you could actually explain why.


>If you had attacked the existence of quarks, you might have had a point.
Why would it matter if I did? Both have no empirical evidence and are just a part of rehashed atomism.

[Anonymous No.11149135]

>>11138468
Quantum mechanics is an incredibly well-tested theory. Dismissing that because you blew it at a QC firm ten years ago and a couple of Discover magazine articles doesn't jibe.

[Anonymous No.11149230]

>>11143386
>perturbations of the medium
this actually makes an immense amount of sense if you really think on it. I guess I'm with the FUCK quantum mechanics boyz now

[Anonymous No.11149267]

>>11147616
>let's just pretend for a minute that light is never a particle, and thus all theories based on this idea are therefore fundamentally flawed. And we just discuss what that might mean, it explain.
>In the interest of science.

It's
>formulate hypothesis
>test hypothesis
>refine hypothesis

Not
>formulate hypothesis
>do no empirical experimentation whatsoever
>fantasize

You're not interested in science. What if parakeets could grant wishes? Big if true. How would they grant them? What new vistas of science would open for us?

[Anonymous No.11149295]

>>11149126
Dude, fuck off with your childish bullshit. The hall example has nothing to do with waves you fucking imbecile. Am I a wave or what?
>I'm walking through a hall with constant speed 5km/h.
>You can't look inside, you only see me enter and exit.
>You measure time 10s between those events.
>I go through the hall again with constant speed 5km/h, but walk left and right in the hall.
>Now you measure a time 15s between the events.
Did I slow down in the hall? This is a yes or no question. Yes or no?

>dualistic hogwash
You don't even understand that this duality back then meant hat both particle and wave model were wrong _because they contradict each other_ and somehow accuse me of misunderstanding it as proving something else. Then you say the exact same thing I did as an argument against me somehow. Fuck off.

>waves of what
It still doesn't matter you absolute moron. Answer the question or shut it. Do waves carry energy and momentum? Again, this is a yes or no question. Yes or no?

Hint: ALL waves have amplitudes and frequencies.

[Anonymous No.11149313]

>>11138753
First off, just because you don't understand quantum mechanics doesn't mean it's not potentially true. Skepticism is good but actually knowing what you're talking about is better.

You claim to have been researching this topic for 20 years yet you have never once demonstrated any knowledge on the topic of QM other than buzzwords, you throw around "wave-particle duality" and other flashy phrases around with wild abandon yet you only discuss them at a surface level, not like someone who truly understands them.

You're more versed on the topic than the average person but the level on which all of your post have discussed QM is no higher than someone who just binged PBS space on YouTube.

You then say we have had claims of Quantum computers and water powered cars for decades with no evidence of function or practical application while in recent years atom suspension technology for research into all things quantum has advanced tremendously. Not to mention the term "water powered car" doesn't literally mean the engine pumps water in and moves it means the car operates off a hydrogen cell, which many major metropolitan areas use on their public transport. Hell even my homestate of VA has free refill stations for hydrogen cell vehicles in the capital.

The only claims you have that you can even begin to substantiate are anecdotal claiming many QM researchers have mental illness, and then relate it to a few old stories and currently irrelevant physicists.

When someone rebutes a point you just shrug it off and then provide no answer to their rebuttal and just go ;)

tl;dr this guy binged veritasium too much and thinks hes a QM researcher now

[Anonymous No.11149434]

>>11148816
Based

[Anonymous No.11149550]

This is a blessed thread and I approve of everything posted here.

[Anonymous No.11149627]

>>11138753
>the same popsci fabricated articles
Popsci is the problem, not QM

[Anonymous No.11149675]

>>11139115
not anon but:
>blackbody radiation (literally the end of classical mechanics, beginning of quantum)
>chemical bonding and reactivity (e.g., Woodward-Hoffmann rules, paramagnetism in small molecules like dioxygen, ferromagnetism in extended solids like iron metal, conduction in metals, charge transport in semiconductors)
>accurate thermodynamic predictions from first principles (ab initio like CC or MPn or even approximations like DFT are indispensable, and you can run the codes yourself on your own machine to confirm)
>double-slit experiment
>quantum confinement of semiconducting crystals
>terahertz transmitting diodes based on resonant >plasmonic nature of metals at surfaces or in confined geometries (e.g., nanowires, nanoparticles)
>plastic wrap being sticky (London dispersion between polyethylene sheets)

[Anonymous No.11149737]

>>11144573
Did you even skim the paper, retard? They sent a coherent beam of molecules through a pair of slits and observed the intensity of the beam on the far side of the slits. It showed an interference pattern, which makes no sense at all if you believe that the molecules are classical objects following specific classical trajectories. The probability of the molecules reaching the detector from either slit at different positions is always positive, real valued, so there can be no interference between the two paths. Quantum mechanics can explain this result because the it describes the molecules using wave functions. The wave functions are complex valued, and can be negative, so they can interfere.

[Anonymous No.11149800]

>>11149295
>Dude, fuck off with your childish bullshit. The hall example has nothing to do with waves you fucking imbecile. Am I a wave or what?

Wave of what?
>I'm walking through a hall with constant speed 5km/h.
doesn't explain what causes the speed
>You can't look inside, you only see me enter and exit.
Which has nothing to do with your decision of entering/exiting
>You measure time 10s between those events.
Which doesn't explain anything
>I go through the hall again with constant speed 5km/h, but walk left and right in the hall.
which increases the amount of medium you pass through
>Now you measure a time 15s between the events.
But that still doesn't explain why it took so long. All it does is record it with a predefined measurement dubbed "time". It doesn't explain why you chose to walk they way you did. If you ran and it takes less time does that mean you're traveling in time too?

>You don't even understand that this duality back then meant hat both particle and wave model were wrong
Which is precisely why I refuse to call light a particle or a wave. So can we just dismiss it altogether then already? It's neither a particle nor a wave which is why "wave-particle duality" is both an incorrect description and doesn't explain anything. Especially how light works.


>It still doesn't matter you absolute moron.

Zip zop zoopity bop! Well then I propose that light is made of waves of jello pudding because it doesn't matter

>Answer the question or shut it. Do waves carry energy and momentum?

If it doesn't exist how does it carry anything? Waves of WHAT? What is waving? It takes energy to "wave", but I don't think it works the other way around.

>Hint: ALL waves have amplitudes and frequencies.

Amplitude of what? Frequency of what? Waves of what? Apparently you don't even know so why should I take a thing you have to say seriously? Tell me what the waves are made of. You won't you'll just sit here repeating yourself in your psychosis.

[Anonymous No.11149817]

>>11149800
>If you ran and it takes less time does that mean you're traveling in time too?
That depends. 4-corner time or marshmallow time?

[Anonymous No.11149904]

>>11149800
>am I slowing down?
Yes, or no?

>do waves have energy and momentum
Yes, or no?

[Anonymous No.11149931]

>>11149800
>It's neither a particle nor a wave which is why "wave-particle duality" is both an incorrect description and doesn't explain anything.
You're unbelievably dumb. Third time:
Wave-particle duality says electrons (and other phenomena) are neither wave, nor particle. You are arguing against yourself here. Pic related, schizo.

>Amplitude of what? [followed by more irrelevancy]
So you have no idea what a wave is. Why are you even arguing? Go learn some basic physics.

>am I slowing down?
Yes, or no?

>do waves have energy and momentum
Yes, or no?

[Anonymous No.11150110]

It seems like there is some confusion around what exactly a wave is. I think this stems from the fact that the person arguing against wave particle duality has never taken a course in E&M, quantum mechanics, or PDE's. A wave is something that obeys the wave equation, which is a partial differential equation. Pic related, an abbreviated derivation of a wave equation for electric field from Maxwell's equations. A similar derivation can find a wave equation for magnetic field as well. Because the magnetic and electric fields obey wave equations, they are waves. The values of the electric and magnetic fields are related by Maxwell's equations, so the electric and magnetic waves evolve together, making an electromagnetic wave. This wave is called light. The thing that is "waving" is the magnitude of the two fields.

[hoaxfag No.11150605]

>>11148737
>I guess
>Not enough to debunk the 100s of experiments that successfully work on it.

ill debunk them.
according to mainstream Quantum computing there are no working quantum computers.
they are trying to program it. it is a non-functional prototype.
so its like a car with wings glued to it, being presented as a flying car.
you can urn it on, read the gauges, look at the engine, even drive it around a bit.
doesnt fly though.

the quantum computers they are building dont work yet.
and they never will.
70 years of research by the greatest minds on earth, china, russia, the united states,
google, IBM, multiple global corporations, unlimited funding evven in the commercial sector,
and black budget military funding.
no results.
incredible military importance and scientific discoveries beyond our wildest dreams.

and they cant get it to work.

if you can get a SHA-256 decryption capable computer you can print your own money and rule the world.

Stop saying we have working quantum computers.

>>11148804

>>11148787
>>No, this is all wrong. Newton described light as a particle and successfully predicted some
>>phenomena regarding refraction iirc. Light is neither particle, nor wave. That's the whole point. It's a quantum particle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpuscular_theory_of_light


In optics, the corpuscular theory of light, arguably set forward by Descartes in 1637, states that light
is made up of small discrete particles called "corpuscles" (little particles) which travel in a straight
line with a finite velocity and possess impetus. This was based on an alternate description of atomism of
the time period.

Isaac Newton was a pioneer of this theory, notably elaborated upon by him in 1672. This early conception of
the particle theory of light was an early forerunner to the modern understanding of the photon. This theory
cannot explain refraction, diffraction and interference, which require an understanding of the WAVE THEORY OF LIGHT.

[hoaxfag No.11150609]

>>11148811

>>>>11148347
>>So basically, you cannot explain the occupation numbers of the different electronic shells and
>>thus cannot explain the structure of the periodic table, while this falls readily out of the
>>schroedinger equation. Even an undergrad can do it. So QM shines, you have nothing.

>Also the hydrogen line thing is on wiki without QM, it's because hydrogen has a second valence
shell it reaches at high energy, I don't understand the confusion, electromagnetic waves hit it,
and the electrons go to a higher shell, then emit that frequency, it's just very high because
hydrogen is a unique atom because it doesn't have a neutron, so with such a low mass nucleus the
electrons move very far relative to other atoms.
The 21 cm line is not electrons moving up a shell. It's the transition between two hyperfine levels,
caused by an electron spin flip. Again, this energy can easily be predicted by an undergrad solving
the hydrogen Schroedinger equation while you're stuck handwaving at best, but instead you're just completely wrong.

>>You are failing hard compared to the predictive power of quantum mechanics. In fact, your "QM isn't real"
>> idea hasn't shown any predictive power at all.

what is your explanation, if its so easy an undergrad can do it why dont you?

i explained the structure of of the occupation of different shells as the electrons cannot be two close together
becaue they repel each other, so when they oscilate in the electron cloud and you add more electrons, those elecrons move into
higher shells and form stable electron clouds. whre is the magic? it looks like when you drop a stone into a pond
the waves form around it. and the atom resonates in the background electromagnetic field

the hydrogen line is an electromagnetic wave in the microwave frequency by the way, so technically, its not a
quantuum phenomena, i am not saying are a hoax.

and my prediction is we will never have working quantum computers. thats my prediction.

[hoaxfag No.11150615]

>>11150609
*not saying electrons are a hoax

[hoaxfag No.11150627]

>>11148816
>http://positron.physik.uni-halle.de/F-Praktikum/PDF/39_annphys1924v74_Gerlach_Stern.pdf
man really? the german paper?
i specifically stated i wanted the english one.
i dont speak german.
i cant read the paper.
are you so sure you are right that you are just hitting the "im feeling lucky" google search

why is there no english translation for the paper paper that proves QM?

am i allowed to post non-english papers as proof of my thery? No, i am not.
lets have the same rules for both sides of the argument and the thread wouldnt be too to read.

[hoaxfag No.11150658]

excellent question my good man :)
i am using 4chan as a testing ground for the theories, so in later debates i am prepared for any question that may arise in the
debate.
also collecting the bullet point ideas i have to expand on in the book/paper i will one day write.
and using the forum as a way to generate new ideas and discover new theories to test, also
to analyse common misconceptions and practice high energy debating so i can word my ideas without
for instance sounding condescending, and i will be sharing it anonomously so i need to factor that
in,
also im using a technique that terrence mckenna was a fan of called "the trogan horse"
its when you gradually introduce popular factual and historical ideas through a book
before you add the controversial ones at the end, so people dont immediately dismiss it.
like how i used a common racist themed headline for my thread with just a cool title
to get people to read it.
if i just wrote QUANTUM MECHANICS IS A VATICAN LIE!!!111"
not as many real scientists would bother reading it

coffe houses was ahow all the greats did it man, and i think /sci/ is the prefect place
i cant talk about it in real life or with my peers or they tend to get violent and think im insane.
this thread has been a an epic journey, i have learned alot. i feel as though some of you may have as well
:)

[hoaxfag No.11150661]

*trojan

[hoaxfag No.11150673]

>>11149126
>>11149295


you guys are agreeing like 97%, i think there is a subtle misunderstanding, you have the same personality archetype lol, you both just accidently read some vatican quantum mechanics papers and ended up like everyone debating QM.
QM has no wrong answers. keep at it boys.

[Anonymous No.11150743]

>>11150609
>i explained the structure of of the occupation of different shells as the electrons cannot be two close together
>becaue they repel each other, so when they oscilate in the electron cloud and you add more electrons, those elecrons move into
>higher shells and form stable electron clouds.
No, you have not explained where the (sub)shell occupation numbers come from. Why do the nobel gases have the atomic numbers they do? The Schroedinger equation explains this, can you?

[hoaxfag No.11150832]

>>11149135
>>Quantum mechanics is an incredibly well->>tested theory. Dismissing that because you >>blew it at a QC firm ten years ago and a >>couple of Discover magazine articles doesn't >>jibe.

>>well tested theory

have you read any QM theories?
like multiverse or the one where this is virtual reality and we are in an alien computer and we need qm to hack our way out.
the paper where they claimed to teleport a photon into space,
and they just shone a laser pointer.
people just ignore how rediculous it is, and there is so much misinformation.
common themes are that we used QM to make computers and phones.
we needed QM to invent lasers.
working quantum computers.
dozens of phenomenons that areent yet understood meaning Quantum mechanics is real.
not understanding how superconductivity is a quantum mechanical phenomena and saying it proves quantum mechanics is real.
so quantum means unknown.

[Anonymous No.11150883]

>>11143386
>perturbations of the medium.
Holy fuck is this an actual believer in the Lumiiferous Aether? Please correct me if I'm wrong but seriously dude, come on. This was disproven in the fucking victorian era.

[hoaxfag No.11150886]

>>11149230
>>>11143386
>>perturbations of the medium
>this actually makes an immense amount of sense if you really think on it. I guess I'm with the FUCK quantum mechanics boyz now

light is perturbations in the background cosmic rays, induced by the movement of electrons jumping between the valence energy bands that orbit the electron.

[Anonymous No.11150957]

>>11150832
>have you read any QM theories?
I am well-versed in quantum mechanics

>like multiverse or the one where this is virtual reality and we are in an alien computer and we need qm to hack our way out.
This is not quantum mechanics.

>the paper where they claimed to teleport a photon into space,
They copied a photon state from the ground to a space station, yes.

>and they just shone a laser pointer.
What?

>people just ignore how rediculous it is, and there is so much misinformation.
There is indeed misinformation, but you seem to retain the mis- and lose the information.

>common themes are that we used QM to make computers and phones.
We did. That's how flash memory works. That's how we understand semiconductors.

>we needed QM to invent lasers.
Stimulated emission is a quantum phenomenon.

>working quantum computers.
We have those.

>dozens of phenomenons that areent yet understood meaning Quantum mechanics is real.
Vague pointless babble.

>not understanding how superconductivity is a quantum mechanical phenomena and saying it proves quantum mechanics is real.
Type I superconductivity is well understood as a quantum phenomenon. Also, you misspelled phenomenon.

>so quantum means unknown.
No, quantum means discrete. "Unknown" is your knowledge of quantum mechanics.

[hoaxfag No.11150979]

[hoaxfag No.11150981]

[hoaxfag No.11150984]

[Anonymous No.11151009]

Why are you posting these thumbnails?

[hoaxfag No.11151034]

[Anonymous No.11151041]

>>11151009
I think he's having a schizophrenic episode.

[Anonymous No.11151108]

>>11150673
>you guys are agreeing like 97%

Then you're not really reading what I've been saying.
>Light does not travel
>particles don't exist
>A "wave" is not even a "thing" to be known. It's a privation of "something" else, specifically caused by the actions of that "something".
To sum it up

>you both just accidently read some vatican quantum mechanics papers and ended up like everyone debating QM.
Hyper atomism with nothing but mathematical descriptions that don't explain what's actually occurring. There is really no debate, I just feel bad that I have to repeat myself because idiots that think a null result supports a hypothesis.

>QM has no wrong answers. keep at it boys.

It assumes quantity with no proof whatsoever of the quanta it claims exists. I suppose from the standpoint that "it's not wrong because it describes things like every moron on the planet is capable of doing" then yeah, whatever. You really got me now.

>>11150886

>light is perturbations in the background cosmic rays, induced by the movement of electrons jumping between the valence energy bands that orbit the electron.

Alternate compressions and rarefactions of the medium. Why introduce magical bumping billiards for no reason? Even "electrons" are observed to just magically phase out of existence. They are nothing but disturbances in the medium, there is nothing physical or discrete about them. Do you also think that little particles are traveling through a copper wire when a non physical field passes over it? It's being polarized by the directions a magnet faces and has nothing to do with particles.

[Anonymous No.11151336]

The cosmos is one breath and one word.

[Anonymous No.11151346]

>>11150605
>according to mainstream Quantum computing there are no working quantum computers.
Wrong. They're not able to perform calculations we couldn't do on supercomputers for now, but they do work. You're confusing not working with not attaining quantum supremacy.

>and they never will
Like cars never replaced horses, and emails never replaces snail mail etc etc.

>no results
Have you tried using a QC? They're available via cloud access. It's fun to play around with them to see what happens. As long as your circuits are short enough they work nicely.

>Stop saying we have working quantum computers
We have working quantum computers. You just keep ignoring that because you don't understand quantum mechanics and don't want something so unintuitive to have an influence on your life. Otherwise your world view wouldn't be so narrow.

>so in later debates i am prepared for any question
You're just avoiding the questions. You'll be destroyed in a real life debate and will only make people mad for not listening.

>you guys are agreeing like 97%
Nah, he doesn't even have a clue about simple physics concepts like waves. He also evades every question by attacking something completely different like a retard.

[Anonymous No.11151347]

>>11150832
QM predicts the anomalous gyromagnetic moment of the electron to more than 20 significant digits.

This whole thread is brainlet cope.

[Anonymous No.11151357]

>>11150981
I started reading that book. It sucks. He has a lot of misconceptions about even basic things and it's not even written that well. Wouldn't recommend.

[Anonymous No.11151963]

>>11151346
>my computer that runs off of electricity is quantum.

No it still works on polarization like every other device on the planet that uses electricity. Only in this case a magical unreified "particle" represented as "bloch sphere" is your polarized medium. It no different than any other computer, only despite being able to produce 1's and 0's simultaneously and randomly.
Which basically makes it fucking useless for computer. You basically have to assume how it works and assume the output it produces, or just go along with the random output. Which is basically on par with this device here.

>>11151347
Cool story bro. Now tell me what the square root of two equals and the last digits of phi and pi.

>gyromagnetic moment of the electron
Tells me what it does not what it is. Unless you think magnetism is a fucking particle too that is.

[Anonymous No.11152075]

>>11151963
>Tells me what it does not what it is. Unless you think magnetism is a fucking particle too that is.
Magnons are a thing. They're quantized spin waves.

[Anonymous No.11152320]

>>11149931
>You're unbelievably dumb. Third time:
>Wave-particle duality says electrons (and other phenomena) are neither wave, nor particle.
Yeah yeah blah blah blah, I don't care about your misunderstand of what you're defending. It states that every particle/phenomena can be DESCRIBED as a particle of a wave. It literally means "it is both particle and wave as we described it as such" hence the term "wave-particle duality". If what you said is actually true then nobody would be discussing it right now and they would have never come up with the fucking term to begin with, numbnuts.

>So you have no idea what a wave is

Waves of what? It's what something does. It "is not", as far as I'm concerned. Stop pretending you know something.

>Yes, or no?
Irrelevant

>Yes, or no?
Waves of what?

>>11152075
>Magnons are a thing.
>a collective of things is something in and of itself

So magnetism is geomancy then?

>They're quantized spin waves.

A spin wave? Spin wave of what? Is that some cheeky way of hiding the word "vortex"?

[Anonymous No.11152390]

>>11152320
>A spin wave? Spin wave of what? Is that some cheeky way of hiding the word "vortex"?
A wave of spins in a solid. Just shut up and learn some physics, you're a fucking embarrassment.

[Anonymous No.11152520]

>>11151963
>It no different than any other computer
So you don't understand quantum computing. That's okay, but don't spread these bullshit lies.

[Anonymous No.11152533]

>>11152320
>I don't care about your misunderstand of what you're defending.
I've never talked to someone as dumb as you. Fascinating. You still think it means that things are waves and particles at the same time.

>It states that every particle/phenomena can be DESCRIBED as a particle of a wave. It literally means "it is both particle and wave as we described it as such" hence the term "wave-particle duality".
And for the fourth time now, you're wrong. It only means that neither particle nor wave description is correct. Nothing else. Nobody is discussing this now, you're the only one.

>Waves of what?
Yeah, as I said, you don't even understand the simplest physics. I know what waves are. Someone even replied to you with the definition and you keep ignoring it spouting bullshit. Get some education before posting on a science board.

You're even too stupid to answer a simple yes or no question and instead attack interpretations of it that were never put out.

I literally never met someone as dumb as you before.

[Anonymous No.11152758]

>>11152390
>A wave of spins in a solid

Lol you're delusional. Waves of Spins? Spin is also what something does, that makes even less sense.

>>11152520
There is no branch of science nor theory that has ever explained "spooky action at a distance".

The thing is that something will always act more "discrete" the more you isolate it from everything else...and obviously so. You're giving it more of the ability to act discretely by removing everything but 'it". That's what the supercooling and have layers of electromagnetic shielding do. You are forcing it to act discrete.
>we can roulette wheel and "measure" (polarize) it to get one of the already known answers it may (or may not) produce.
Which doesn't sound very "discrete" does it?

>>11152533
>You still think it means that things are waves and particles at the same time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality
"We still don't know how light works though and we'll continue to particularize it for no reason" is basically the real explanation of it.

No moron, I don't believe a wave or a fucking particle exists period. Because a "wave" is not a thing to be reified and there is still no empirical evidence of a particle. Get it through your thick skull.

>It only means that neither particle nor wave description is correct. Nothing else.

"but together they do"- Einstooge

>I know what waves are

WAVES
OF
WHAT?

>Someone even replied to you with the definition and you keep ignoring it spouting bullshit.
Not a single person has told me "what" a wave is without using a description of the "wave" they still have no empirical evidence of. Some moron called it "waves of spins in a solid" which is basically defining at an action yet again and not an actual "thing". Like I said, a privation.

>You're even too stupid to answer a simple yes or no question and instead attack interpretations of it that were never put out.
Because you didn't provide me enough information. Waves of what specifically?

[Anonymous No.11152790]

>>11152758
>Lol you're delusional. Waves of Spins? Spin is also what something does, that makes even less sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_wave

[Anonymous No.11152826]

>>11139147
I love this Steins;Gate shit. If we can just manage to send data through time, we'll be set.

[Anonymous No.11153083]

>>11152790
>Spin waves are propagating disturbances in the ordering of magnetic material. These low-lying collective excitations occur in magnetic lattices with continuous symmetry.

What something does. Not a thing.

[Anonymous No.11153990]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAsFtJ0s2XE

Explain this.

[Anonymous No.11154449]

>>11152758
> I don't believe a wave or a fucking particle exists period.
That's what I'm saying the whole time you fucking baby.

>not enough info
I am going through a hall at constant speed...
>but this doesn't explain bla blah blurg
Simple yes or no question. You still insist to derail the discussion.

>what is a wave
See
>>11150110
Un-fucking-believable.

[Anonymous No.11154454]

>>11153083
You're still confusing oscillation with waves.

[Anonymous No.11154458]

>>11138468
>my threads got baleeted it's a conspiracy I tell you!
your threads die if they don't bumped

[Anonymous No.11155018]

>>11154449
Okay lets rollback to this post that quoted no one and got overlooked because it didn't explain shit.

>>11150110
>A wave is something
What is it?
>A wave is something that obeys the wave equation
>A wave is something that obeys this particular description
No

>Because the magnetic and electric fields obey wave equations, they are waves.
>Because the magnetic and electric fields obey wave equations, they are waves.

But waves of what? It's basically saying "its a wave because I described it in a particular language. No I want empirical evidence you schmuck.

>The values of the electric and magnetic fields are related by Maxwell's equations, so the electric and magnetic waves evolve together, making an electromagnetic wave

Ooooh that makes so much more sense now. "Waves are waves and make waves" everyone! They simply illogically define themselves based on a description.

>The thing that is "waving" is the magnitude of the two fields.

So a wave isn't a thing then!

IT'S
WHAT
SOMETHING
ELSE
DOES

Just like I keep telling you. Stop calling it a thing, it's what something else does. A privation.

>>11154454
Oscillation of what?

[Anonymous No.11155043]

>>11155018
A number isn't a thing, it's what a collection of things do.

[Anonymous No.11155075]

>>11155043
>A number isn't a thing,
Correct
>it's what a collection of things do.
No, an action is not a number. Numbers and math are the language of quantification. It takes *the action* and describes it using a different language, it is not *the action* itself.

[Anonymous No.11155160]

>>11155018
You clearly lack an understanding of simple physics. All waves carry energy and momentum, regardless of what is oscillating.
>wanting empirical evidence for an abstract concept
Yeah, you're the dumb one here.

You still didn't answer whether I slow down in the hall. You can't even answer a single question.

[Hoaxfag No.11156374]

>>11154458
That isn't why I know it's a conspiracy.
Also I said hoax.
And some of my earlier threads were deleted, I wasn't OP but people were flagging them as breaking the rules as it was "paranormal".....
So that's what I thought was happening.
Just gimme a minute, I'm currently translating an obscure German paper from before world war one as proof that quantum computers work ;)
So needless to say I have my work cut out for me.
Makes you wonder who else has read the paper, other than the German scientists of course.
No one who speaks German could be an evil man.
(That's a simpsons reference for all young people, man I am getting old.)

If you would like to know more about famous, respected in their fields professors cooking up experiments and results start with the Millikan oil drop experiment, feynman wrote about it.


"The oil drop experiment: The history of published results for this experiment is an example given in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!, in which each new publication slowly and quietly drifted more and more away from the initial (erroneous) values given by Robert Millikan toward the correct value, rather than all having a random distribution from the start around what is now believed to be the correct result. This slow drift in the chronological history of results is unnatural and suggests that nobody wanted to contradict the previous one, instead submitting only concordant results for publication."

Then look into the "cold fusion delusion"
Thing with pons and Fleischman.

[Hoaxfag No.11156382]

>>11155018
A wave is perturbations in an electromagnetic field,
An oscillation is movement of matter,
Some matter interacts with electromagnetic fields,
Oscillations of matter interacting with electromagnetic fields causes electromagnetic radiation.

[Anonymous No.11156519]

>>11139147
The stuff presented here I haven't seen before.
One thing I didn't mention in my original post is how people are going to program it, and don't tell me some Isaac Asimov fiction where a classical machine will be intelligent enough to do so. A prime factoring test isn't a commercial endeavor, but from this you build up the technology after successful results.
>>11138773
Original person you replied to.
I fully believe in quantum mechanics, it's sound and if you take interesting viewpoints you can think through all the "paradoxes" it presents at a metaphysical level. Quantum mechanics functions and the foolishness of the uncertainty vanishing at an arbitrary "macro" level is absurd. Basing a computer on this still has problems. The setup of lenses with a pulsing laser to measure coincidences has an application, and some of my points are proven wrong to an extent.
Now, the real question, which I'm sure the eggheads are working on. With prime factoring done, how do you improve everyday computing beyond the world equivalent of creating one single supercar and racing it for a speed record? In other words, at what level of architecture do you introduce qbits to the system, do you intend to make an Assembly with quantum bits? Is the home computer in fifty years going to sport a quantum processing card you stick in the motherboard? If people do this, who is going to program practical applications with it? It's not impossible, but the difficulty in understanding will compound exponentially.

[Anonymous No.11156548]

>>11155160
>All waves carry energy and momentum, regardless of what is oscillating.

Waves of what? You'll have to be more specific.

>wanting empirical evidence for an abstract concept

So a wave is in fact not a thing then. Thanks for clarifying. Also please stop referring to them "As something".
They don't carry anything, they are not a thing to carry something.

>You still didn't answer whether I slow down in the hall. You can't even answer a single question.

Your question doesn't pertain to what a wave is or isn't. I could care less about it.

>>11156382
>Some matter interacts with electromagnetic fields,

All. Because it's made of it to begin with. By virtue of it being a physical phenomena it as magnetism.

[Anonymous No.11156550]

>>11138468
Seems like somebody who studied mass media marketing hit undo button and wrote article about it.

Also time travel is problematic, once you DECIDE you'll go after time traveling in future, weird thing starts to happen.

[Anonymous No.11156635]

>>11156548
>>All waves carry energy and momentum, regardless of what is oscillating.
>Waves of what? You'll have to be more specific.
As people have told you about a dozen times now, IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER. ALL, ALL waves carry energy and momentum. Pick up a fucking book and stop being so retarded. For fuck's sake.

[Anonymous No.11156707]

>>11156548
>>All waves carry energy and momentum, regardless of what is oscillating.
>Waves of what? You'll have to be more specific.
"All spheres are round."
"duurr, which spheres? You have to be more specific? Sphere of WHAT?"

>>wanting empirical evidence for an abstract concept
>So a wave is in fact not a thing then. Thanks for clarifying. Also please stop referring to them "As something".
You're so fucking dense. We humans use abstract concepts to talk about things and generalize. A rock is not a thing either, yet rocks exist as instances of this abstract class. We can say all rocks are solid. You'd argue against that with "rocks of what?"

>They don't carry anything, they are not a thing to carry something.
We've hit levels of retardation I never deemed possible. I hope an ocean wave hits you in your face soon.

>>You still didn't answer whether I slow down in the hall. You can't even answer a single question.
>Your question doesn't pertain to what a wave is or isn't. I could care less about it.
You claimed light slowed down in media. Answering this question would have shown what your perceived definition of "speed in medium is". If you didn't care, you wouldn't have dissected it with your nonsense, so stop lying. You're just too dumb.

If this is a troll, and by good u
I hope nobody is as dumb as you are, I give this 9/10.

[Anonymous No.11157198]

>>11156707
"All spheres are round."
"duurr, which spheres? You have to be more specific? Sphere of WHAT?"

Well duh idiot. If you don't even know whether it exists then saying "it's round" might be a moot point. If it doesn't exist then it certainty has no roundness whatsoever. Idiot.

>I hope an ocean wave hits you in your face soon.

see! There is the "thing" that you've been searching for. "ocean" wave. That' why I've been asking "waves of what" for like 8 posts now.


>We humans use abstract concepts to talk about things and generalize.

Well that's fine and alll, but it still doesn't answer the question "waves of what".

>A rock is not a thing either, yet rocks exist as instances of this abstract class.
They do exist you retard! They're empirical, they are definable and observable to humans. So is an action, but that doesn't fucking make an action an actual thing.

>You'd argue against that with "rocks of what?"

No I wouldn't because the "what" would be satisfied. It would be "waves of rocks", the action of rocks "waving". Not a thing, what something does.
>Answering this question would have shown what your perceived definition of "speed in medium is". If you didn't care, you wouldn't have dissected it with your nonsense, so stop lying. You're just too dumb.

It doesn't pertain to anything. You started with a predefined arbitrarily set limit and then compared it with another arbitrary one in the same conditions. It doesn't explain how the distance from point a to b is actually traveled.

[Anonymous No.11157800]

>>11157198
A sphere is a sphere you dumb baby. Regardless of what its made of. Same is true for waves.

No, you've been asking for waves of what because you don't understand what a wave is.

>they do exist
>No I wouldn't because the "what" would be satisfied
Haha, suddenly. Right. If it fits your narrative. I really hope you're trolling.
So, are rocks solid? Again, a simple yes or no question.

And you still fail with the hall. So pathetic. Obviously, you incorrectly said light slows down in media. I said it only appears to do so because it interacts with the medium, but retains its speed since otherwise it would attain mass and decay (all things at less than lightspeed have mass [THINGS OF WHAT?]).
The example with the hall would have shown what you define as slowing down. The fact you still fail to see this is absolutely pathetic.

[Anonymous No.11157991]

>>11157800
>A sphere is a sphere you dumb baby

Of what though? How spherical? You speak of the idea of sphere, a perfect roundness that has no actual existence in reality.

>Same is true for waves.

Actions aren't made of anything, because they literally "are not a thing". They are what something does.

>Obviously, you incorrectly said light slows down in media.
I probably did say that, the only incorrect thing I really said though was "slows down", but that was to stress the point that light isn't a "constant speed". In reality it is instantaneous and has no speed whatsoever and the transverse "waves" you think have a speed are just capacitized by the medium.

>I said it only appears to do so because it interacts with the medium
It is purely resultant of the medium itself. It doesn't "interact with it", it is an effect OF it. That is why a "wave" is a privation, what something else does.

>said it only appears to do so because it interacts with the medium, but retains its speed since otherwise it would attain mass and decay

Mass is basically hard light. It doesn't "attain mass and decay", It already has it by virtue of Electromagnetic retardation which only happens when a medium is present. So your next statement is technically true in that a "rock" doesn't exist, but it certainly is "more real" than a wave.

>Haha, suddenly. Right. If it fits your narrative.
No because "a rock" is not an action.

>So, are rocks solid?
How solid? Hardness scale bro.

>The example with the hall would have shown what you define as slowing down.
Your asking me to define speed and you've already defined the speed. You arbitrarily affected your own "speed" by not having the will to move from point a to point b in the shortest distance possible. You took the scenic route and blamed time for not getting to your destination the way you expected. Well remove the hall and everything else in your way to your destination. Is that altering "speed"?

[Anonymous No.11158098]

>>11157991
>there's no sphere irl
Sure, but there are spherical objects, and they're all round. But you'd argue against that, since I didn't mention what it was made of specifically. Retarded.

You're still confusing oscillations with waves. Oscillation is what something does, waves are what that produces. They carry energy and momentum. Always. It doesn't matter what is oscillating. But you'll ignore going to Wikipedia or anything to learn this simple fact because you're afraid to be outed to yourself as the retard you are.

>resultant of the medium itself
So how do waves enter and leave a body? It is very obviously an interaction of the medium with the wave. I can send photons through a medium. Some will interact, some won't. So only those which interact are a result of the medium doing something? What?

>mass is hard light
Wtf, no. And yes, anything slower than lightspeed has mass, and things which used to travel at light speed will get a mass when slowed down. This would happen when we live in a fake vacuum and another symmetry breaking occurs.

>Rock is not an action
So isn't a wave. But let's do another one, if you like. Sex is always performed by at least two people. You'll argue against this WHAT KIND OF SEX or WHO IS SEXING. Digestion always involves disintegrating things BUT WHAT IS EATEN. A dive throw always involves at least some probabilistic party BUT WHO'S THROWING. Reading always activates neurons BUT WHAT ARE YOU READING. etc etc

>how solid
You're confusing hardness with being solid, lol. You really know nothing, it's embarrassing.

>Your asking me to define speed and you've already defined the speed. You arbitrarily affected your own "speed"
That's not what you're seeing from outside. You only see me enter with 5km/s and exit with the same speed. Once you measure me to take 10s, and another time you measured me taking 15s. Did I slow down in the hall the second time?

[Anonymous No.11158442]

>>11158098

>Sure, but there are spherical objects, and they're all round.
How round?

>But you'd argue against that, since I didn't mention what it was made of specifically.
Depending on what it's made of will affect how round it is.

>Oscillation is what something does, waves are what that produces.
What is the product? An action of something that becomes a product that is measured on a spectrum? They just come out of thin air like everything else in QM don't they?

>So how do waves enter and leave a body?
They don't enter or leave anything, it's what something does.

>I can send photons through a medium. Some will interact, some won't. So only those which interact are a result of the medium doing something? What?
It's a perturbation of the medium itself. Not something discrete from everything else that just pops into existence with no rhyme or reason. That's why the more controlled your experiment becomes the more "discrete" the perturbations become. You are increasing the disparity of pressure in the medium.

>You only see me enter with 5km/s and exit with the same speed.
Then that's the answer, moron. That's literally all the information I know.


>So isn't a wave.
>Even though I can't define what it is without using a spectrum and a standard of measure that doesn't tell me what it is without eluding to the fact that it's completely arbitrary
It's another action of the medium. If I drive a boat in the water am I emitting water to move in it? Am I creating waves that have energy and momentum out of thin air? No, I'm displacing the goddamn medium with the boat, it's what causes it to fucking float in the first place. Same with a plane, same with a fucking rocket. All you are doing is displacing a MEDIUM. No medium, no travel.

>Once you measure me to take 10s, and another time you measured me taking 15s. Did I slow down in the hall the second time?

Whose to say? I have no means of knowing since you have not allowed me to know in your example.

[Anonymous No.11158492]

>>11158442
>how round?
Haha, so we finally got to "okay, waves have energy, but which frequency?". You're making progress, Anon!

>Then that's the answer, moron. That's literally all the information I know.
Again a beautiful display of absolute idiocy. First time it takes me 10s to pass, second time 15s. That's not information?

>don't enter or leave
Haha, so they get destroyed when entering a medium and just by chance come out again as the same wave? This is like comedy.

>no medium, no travel
And? How does that explain anything?
>displacement of a medium
aka oscillation. Not quite there at understand what a wave is, but I get the feeling you're getting there. Don't give up now.

>Who's to say?
It's all information you get when you say light slows down in a medium, so you are able to form an opinion. Yet you don't, because you know it'll be either wrong or not helping your trolling. People (you) confuse the situation that light takes longer to traverse a medium for light actually slowing down inside of it, although it's simply interaction with the medium causing the perceived slowing down.

Okay, so why do you think it takes ~1 minute or so to send a light beam to the moon for us to detect it coming back?

[Anonymous No.11158803]

>>11158492
>First time it takes me 10s to pass, second time 15s. That's not information?

it doesn't tell me how that happened. It only records it.

>Haha, so they get destroyed when entering a medium and just by chance come out again as the same wave?

Not the same wavelength, that's why it's on a spectrum bro. What is the spectrum of though?

>And? How does that explain anything?
It explains that a waves is what the medium does for one. It also explains why you mistake reactions in the medium that seem to "phase in and out of existence" as something discrete.

>aka oscillation. Not quite there at understand what a wave is, but I get the feeling you're getting there. Don't give up now.

What something does, not a thing. "Waves OF water". "Waves OF the medium".

>Okay, so why do you think it takes ~1 minute or so to send a light beam to the moon for us to detect it coming back?
Electromagnetic retardation

[hoaxfag No.11159512]

>>11150832 (You)

>>QM predicts the anomalous gyromagnetic moment of the electron to more than 20 significant digits.

>>This whole thread is brainlet cope.

if you understand what you just typed, can you explain what that means in a coherant way?

>>11150981 (You)
>>I started reading that book. It sucks. He has a lot of misconceptions about even basic things and
>> it's not even written that well. Wouldn't recommend.

oh man, yeah, i didnt realise that was a book cover, i was using it as a visual learning to to show how
valence shells work.

>>11151347
>>Cool story bro. Now tell me what the square root of two equals and the last digits of phi and pi.

https://www.wired.com/2016/03/six-things-probably-didnt-know-pi/


152 decimals of Pi are probably enough
Imagine a large sphere. If you know the diameter of this large sphere, you can also find the circumference
using the value of Pi. Now replace the sphere with the diameter of the observable universe at 93 billion
light years (yes, I know this is bigger than 13 billion light years—it's complicated). If we don't know the
exact value of Pi, but one 152 digits then we don't know the exact circumference. However, the uncertainty
in the circumference is less than the Planck length—the smallest unit of distance measurement that has any
meaning. You need even fewer digits of Pi to get a uncertainty in the circumference smaller than the size of
an atom.

3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286208998628034825342117067982148086
51328230664709384460955058223172535940812848

so for our universe the last 2 digits of pi are 48, and to look at it from another standpoint, pi is infinite,
but it has a definite start point, so if you look at pi being calculated from infinity to its end point, the the last 2
digits of pi are 1.3.
you can do the same with phi. the square root of two is based of vectored maths, so it must be represented with the symbol we invented
to represent it.

[hoaxfag No.11159530]

>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAsFtJ0s2XE [Embed]

>>Explain this.

thats in interference pattern ;) proving light is a wave, particles show clear distinct shadows of the slits.
also did you notice the "photons" changing their behavior and disaapearing then reappearing when you look as them
proving the "active" observer" effect?
or are you just now realising how insane the lies you were told are.

[hoaxfag No.11159572]

haha i have been translating that paper on the Stern-gerlach thing that proves quantum mechanics. man if you think its bad in english try and decipher this

becomes. In it sits eccentrically a hole of 1 mm in diameter
Exit of the atomic beam. With the few millimeters long thorn
the iron vessel is held in a thick-walled quartz capillary, cemented with a slurry of quartz powder, magnesia usta,
Kaolin and a trace of water glass. Through the hole in the lid
will be a few tenths of a gram of silver - purest silver of
the gold and silver refinery or W. C. Heraeus
- Inserted in small pieces in the interior. to
Iieizung becomes a narrow spiral around the iron pipe
wound by Schvach rolled platinum wire (1 / e-3/4 m 0.3 mm diameter). For the isolation of the iron one covers
this first with a thin layer of the above
Porridge and pure asbestos fiber (for Goochtiegel by Kahlbaum)
and slowly burn them down with the Bunsen burner. Of the
Space between the windings becomes drier
Nagnesia usta tightly filled and then with very thinned
Water glass dripped. When everything is dry, it becomes
Winding a layer of asbestos fiber and the said
Porridge hung up. This external insulation must be renewed frequently
because it vaporizes at high temperature in a vacuum. To Stromzufiihrung to platinum spiral is one of them
Metallic tied at the end of the iron sheet; the other
The end leads to the cooler in which the whole oven is inserted. This Ktihler consists of two umgegeloteten Mossingrohren with supply lines to the water supply and
-abfluS. One side of the radiator becomes one
Messingbriicke screwed, in which held by means of a angeloteten Rohrchens the furnace at the quartz capillary
becomes. The screws are set up so that the location of the
ijfchens in the cooler can be chosen arbitrarily. never others
Transverse side of the radiator is closed with a lid,
which has a 1 mm hole to exit the atomic beam.
At very high temperature
of the test and the long duration of the test

[Anonymous No.11159705]

bump

[Anonymous No.11159835]

>>11158803
>doesn't tell me how it happens.
You have the numbers. Do I slow down?

What is group velocity, what is phase velocity?

>explains that a wave is what the medium does
No, it doesn't. You're still confusing simple concepts.

>waves OF the medium
Sure, but still a wave is an underlying concept that can be made statements about, such as all waves having energy and momentum, regardless of what kind of waves they are. You still fail to see that.

>electromagnetic retardation
What's a different name for that?

[Anonymous No.11159848]

>>11159512
>if you understand what you just typed
Why the condescension? Feeling insecure?

The g-factor is, roughly speaking, the ratio of something's magnetic moment to its angular momentum. To make it a dimensionless quantity, this is given in multiples of the Bohr magneton.
Normally, this should be equal to exactly 2. Contrary to that, experiments have shown this to be slightly larger than 2 (2.0023... iirc). Quantum field theory can calculate this value to extreme precision compared with the experiments. Other theories only produce a 2.