/sci/ - Science & Math

wheels bro, keep on rollin'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_theory

Schrodinger's cat is the best interpretation. It's hard to say why since that's kind of a subjective thing.

A certain science celebrity otherwise known as Sean Carroll is poisoning peoples' minds with the Everett interpretation, otherwise known as many-worlds. The truth is that no interpretation is is the right one and you should just shut up and calculate.

>>11211601
I think that time has something to do with the phenomena we observe. For example the double slit experiment, if you send individual photons or electrons or something though the slits you still end up with an interference pattern supposedly because they are interfering with themselves or some bullshit. But I think what is really happening is they are interfering with the other particles you have already sent though and the ones you haven't sent through yet.

>>11211601
All interpretations are empirically identical. So just pick that one that makes feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

I figured it out but I only have calculus level math and it will take the remainder of my sexual prime to race to the finish
I'm 27 and want to sex not math autism.
be next einstein (you won't see what I've seen for a long time ) or get laid?

>>11211601
consistent histories

>>11211601
Everything is waves. You don't see a particle instead of a wave when observing a system, just a part of the wave. By repeatedly observing the system you can piece together what the full wave might look like. Particles are a myth - they are just wave functions that happen to be unusually stable in our universe.

>>11211626
No it fucking isn't oh my god
Don't you have a shirt to be ordering from ThinkGeek or something

>>11211723
I'm pretty sure that's not even an interpretation but a meme

>>11211601
Using no interpretation at all is the best because you're not wrong.

It doesn't need an interpretation.

>>11211601
Best interpretation requires universal wave function. That leaves us with Pilot-wave/Many Worlds. Pilot wave has been debunked due to issues regarding locality, so it leaves us with Many World.

I don't believe quantum mechanics are only working during experiments or only working in local states. I don't believe in magical line that separates classical world/quantum mechanical world.

Feel free to think it over. In your heart, you know this to be true.

>>11211601
Consistent histories is the best.

Copenhagen is the second best, there is a reason why it dominates among actual physicists.

The rest is popsci bullshit.

>>11211722
FUCKING THIS. Physics can only be adequately explained by waves. If Math would had taken the wave as its building block instead of digits it would have simplified everything. We would not have had to resort to the real/imaginary nonsense. 1 + 1 = 2. That's algebra. It has nothing to do with math. 1 + 1 = 2 doesn't explain anything or prove anything. As it stands right now our math is like the math of toddlers. We can't even calculate π. Alas, mathematicians, being a bunch of academic wimps, wanted to ingratiate themselves with generals and forced us to count in digits because that's how generals count their troops. Once you organize your thoughts in waves, everything falls into place nicely.

>>11212005
>1 + 1 = 2. That's algebra.
>las, mathematicians, being a bunch of academic wimps, wanted to ingratiate themselves with generals and forced us to count in digits because that's how generals count their troops.

jesus christ you didn't even take high school calculus, why are you posting on here?

>>11211940

>many worlds

what about measuring continuous variables? how many worlds does that create?

>>11211955
Copenhagen is a psyop to prevent people en-masse from understanding this dangerous field.
Both Bohm and ensemble interpretations are way more consistent.

>>11212013
You have to get past the consequentionlist argument, aka "I don't like it because it leads to xyz." It doesn't matter what lies ahead of many world(or any science), as long as the fundamentals are right. The problem is not to ignore it, but to frame it properly in the foundations.

interpretations are for fucking idiots

>>11212026

so measuring a continuous variable such as position creates infinite worlds?

>>11212034
"infinite worlds" are created at every junction point however the zeno's paradox is not an issue on a system scale. This is just a paradox of intuition/logic imo rather than science. Every mathematician knows infinite numbers live between 1 and 2, but for non-mathematician, that's just "fiction."

>>11212016
delete this

>>11211658
do both, einstein did

>>11211723
Based retard

>>11211601
Consider QBism

https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-bayesianism-explained-by-its-founder-20150604/

>>11211636
You do realize the Earth moves, right? The path taken by photons in this trial is not in the same spatial location as the ones before or the ones after.

>>11211940
>Pilot wave has been debunked due to issues regarding locality
Incorrect. Local hidden value theories have been ruled out. Pilot wave is a global hidden value theory.

>>11212348
>le spooky unkowns

>>11212013
aleph_0 worlds lol

>>11212016
agree

>>11211601
black magic. because lmao. and now we’re cursed with this matrix bullshit.

>>11212546
*quantum entanglement

>>11211601
>>11211940
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiakP_Qfn_I

Susskind thinks Everett is the right interpretation. Talk @ ~14min if you want to skip the intro to entanglement/wormhole.

>>11212571
was the sun stolen from a wormhole

>>11212571
were our brains locked from a wormhole

>>11212571
quantum laser beams

>>11212593
green yellow red blue

>>11211601
Literally just determinism

>>11212603
is there an infiverse

>>11212650
is the universe more infinitely wormholed than previously thought

>>11211601
MWI is not science. It's a necessary condition to continue a certain line of thinking in physics that has long removed itself from being scientific.

>>11212668
That's being charitable too. You will get increasingly absurd results by mathematization of an empirically failed project.

>>11212669
The final-result of which, is to produce claims that are in principle empirically untestable, if a project is to be continuously sustained. Everybody knows this, Susskind, Witten etc. but they all suffer from a sunk cost fallacy and readily admit so when they claim "there are no alternatives". The development of physics and cosmology in particular is nowadays more interesting from the perspective of philosophy of science rather than actual physical phenomena.

>how do waves propogate
>by propogating
https://news.mit.edu/2015/phonon-tunneling-heat-flow-nanometer-gaps-0407

>>11212682

>>11212689
did they phonon tunnel into our final neuron

>>11212689
did they phonon tunnel the sun away into a wormhole of quantum entanglement

>>11212345
What is relativity?

>>11212826
is the psychnet real

>>11212896
has the public been mentally castrated using sophisticated technology

>>11212655
‘mysterious jet stream waves could cause devastating heatwaves across three continents at the same time destroying crops and putting millions at risk of starvation study warns’ north america europe and asia

How do you get a single photon? Lmao doesn't any disturbance in the EM field spread light over the projected area evenly?

>>11211636
>because they are interfering with themselves or some bullshit
It's no different to a classical probability distribution "interfering with itself" (i.e adding together) when it does through the slits, except quantum probability amplitudes are complex and so cancel out sometimes.

>>11211628
The truth is that you're a faggot.

>>11211955
>doesn't say what constitutes a measurement
>doesn't say where to draw the line between quantum and classical systems (hint: it doesn't exist)
Based retard

>>11211718

Bohmian mechanics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory#Bohmian_mechanics
But.

The speed of light is practically infinite from a photon's perspective (see F=ma, time dilation).
So a photon isn't a point, it's a line from it's point of origin to it's destination.
That way the photon IS the “pilot-wave” and you don't need hidden variables.

>>11211601
All of them are stupid.

>>11211940
>>11212348
See
>>11214095

>>11211601
The best interpretation is that quantum mechanics is a hoax.
The reason it's the best interpretation is because it's true.

>>11214223
How do you interpret me ass raping you

>>11214270
I would say it's a forced ANALogy, I much prefer a stretched ANALogy, like when I dressed up as a black man and finally allowed your mom to relive the experience of giving birth to you anally, on account of my monstrous penis ;)

>>11214095
>>11214211
Dumb. We have entanglements between molecules now. Bohmian mechanics is dead. It can't account for entanglement/speed of light.

>>11214443
What is your evidence for this though?

>>11214467
You can literally do entanglement experiments at home. Just Google it.

>>11212013
>how many worlds does that create?
This is the big misunderstanding people have with many-worlds.

Worlds aren't created. There is only one world, but it evolves according to the Schrodinger equation. You are part of that world and evolve according to the Schrodinger equation.

That means you can end up in a super position.

>>11214513
Can you list them?.....brother.
*Slaps with pimp glove*
Anon falls to his knees, mascara running
(Internal dialogue )
Anon"no.... I can't let anyone know that have PhDs in several fields...I just make the master....proud..."*profuse crying*

>>11214443
>"We have entanglements between molecules now."
>This idea doesn't instantly explain every aspect of reality therefore it must be false.
Think it through. It's not Bohmian mechanics, that's just the closest version. You eventually end up at something similar to the Coppenhagen interpretation too.
The quantum properties come from photon's travelling at the speed of light. So you should get molecule entanglement based on how fast the components are moving.
Bonus: It doesn't violate the speed of light, as well as not needing hidden variables.

>>11214537
Here we go, triple phasor paradox. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM2TkM0hzW8
You can tear apart some passive 3D glasses if you have any lying around.
Only makes sense if the photon is a line not a point.

>>11211658

Settle for your cousin

>>11214781
Entanglements are instant, there's no travel time.

>>11214951
Is not the spooky effect solved accepting that every particle just pop-out in existence once is interacting with another field? And that the true source on energy and mass comes in a shape of fields?

>>11214990
>Is not the spooky effect solved accepting that every particle just pop-out in existence once is interacting with another field?
No.

>And that the true source on energy and mass comes in a shape of fields?
No. Mass of particles comes from higgs boson field. Other energies have their own fields.

What the fuck are you reading? Sounds like some half-baked ideas.

>>11211601
A glitch in the matrix if reality is a simulation. We're looking too deep.

Sacrifice realism or locality. Take your pick.

>>11215194
Both, Everettian interpretation

>>11215194
Locality holds due to GR. Sacrificing realism is the only viable option.

>>11211601
Copenhagen. It has always been "exotic" probability for me, superposition state is just like the random state of nature, like when you throw a coin and you can observe "both" states at once and then they collapse into one. Main difference is that is not that easy to imagine an experiment where the distribution of two coins can interfere with each other.

>>11211601

black magic, lmao. now turn it off please.

hidden variables that lay beneath spacetime and are therefore non-local

no "observation creates reality" or bazillions of parallel universes

qm is our first glimpse at what spacetime emerges from

>>11215286
That's the conventional tactic employed by the "shut up and calculate" party. "Quantum mechanics is a useful fiction with no bearing on reality."

>>11211601
Best interpretation is the one that requires the fewest ontological assumptions. i.e. Copenhagen

>>11215365
>not that easy to imagine an experiment where the distribution of two coins can interfere with each other
sure it is: P(hh or tt) = P(hh) + P(tt)
the difference in qm is that P is complex, so P(A OR B) = P(A) + P(B) can be small in magnitude even if P(A) and P(B) are large, if their phases are opposite

>>11215376
>non-local hidden variables
just kill urself while ur at it

>>11215376
>non-local
>non-realism
kek

>>11214095
>you don't need hidden variables
there's nothing saying we need hidden variables right now. shit could just be fucked

>>11215542
>the difference in qm is that P is complex
No its not, even in quantum mechanics probabilities are still real numbers, complex functions are used to model the distributions, which can interfere and create "negative or complex probability/distribution interactions" at most.

>>11215542
It's pretty clear that by "interfere" they meant the point of your second paragraph. Obviously classical probabilities can add

>>11215581

no, it's realism, single universe, but with bits of non-locality.

>>11215596
So its either you destroy infinite-1 amount of universe via collapse or you're discarding wavefunction.

>>11211718
Consistent histories is literally MWI you fucking idiot

>>11215620
No. CH does not assume physical reality of all branches.

>>11215617

the wavefunction is more a measure of our knowledge (or ignorance) than a physically real thing

measuring a system entangles it with and pulls it into the rest of spacetime, then it appears to become "real"

before being measured it existed in a kind of limbo outside spacetime and is described in terms of a superposition of possible states

>>11211601
>scientists argue about how to interpret quantum mechanics
To think physics would fall to humanities tier, what a sad ending.

>>11215651
Never have I heard MWI formulated in a way where it assumes anything about the physicality of different possible universes. It's literally the same fucking thing

>>11215656
>the wavefunction is more a measure of our knowledge (or ignorance) than a physically real thing
There you have it. Non-realism. Whether actual or via solipsism.

>>11215660

the physical systems it describes are real

>>11215663
So is the wave function a description of the physical states or description of our ignorance?

>>11215651
Selecting a real branch is the same thing as collapse, I dont understand how people peddling CH dont see it's the same thing just hidden through MWI.

>>11215672

well, both

we can't know the physical states perfectly and this makes quantum behavior look random

>>11215679
So you've confused the issue. If wave function is the description of physical states and the measurement giving us random is the ignorance, then we're back to many world. Unless you want to bring back "collapse" to kill off the wave function and thus making wave function non-real and only a tool.

>>11215684
Just to clarify on the "collapse" and anti-realism.

Its either realism and collapse, thus you literally destroy infinite-1 worlds/states OR its anti-realism and collapse is merely observational tool.

>>11215684

i'm basically saying that the wavefunction is an incomplete description, it's the best we can do at the moment

the collapse of the wavefunction is just a placeholder for a process we don't yet understand

>>11215729
>wavefunction is an incomplete
So you're not in the quantum mechanics zone anymore if you don't accept wave function.

>>11215759

quantum mechanics isn't fundamental and the schrodinger equation will turn out to be an approximation to the truth

>>11215763
Right, so we're back to non-realism argument. Why is that so hard to swallow?

>>11215768
>non-realism

you mean non-realism of the wavefunction? basically yes

it's a mathematical model based on the wrong concepts, that's why it seems so strange and nonsensical

>>11215772
So back to my initial comment.

>non-realism
>non-local
kek

If you didn't understand it like before, this means you're posting non-quantum mechanics stuff in quantum mechanics thread.

>>11214537
Sure:
https://spookyactionbook.com/category/diyquantum/
I'm working on a few of them currently. Will post results here.

I don't know what the rest of your post means. Are you drunk?

>>11212571
Only tangentially related, but seeing that makes me wonder if the complete description of a physical system in terms of (q)bits instead of waves could reasonably work and what it would look like.
So if the space of that system was quantized somehow, each point could maybe be seen as a register for a qbit with certain patterns representing things like type of particle, length of the pattern determining rest mass and so on.

Have any models like this been developed?

>>11211601
Copenhagen interpretation.
But.

A photon would perceive practically zero distance from it's start and end point from it's perspective (see Length contraction).
So now any interaction along the length of the photon's path is a local to the photon, regardless of the distance separating the two points.
Thus preserving the speed of light and eliminating spooky action at a distance.

>>11216146
I disagree
Pilot wave theory
Hidden variable theory

>>11214781
Man this video is awesome, but the quantum interpretation is rediculous, microwaves aren't photons.....
That guy is a quack, that is such a bizarre thing to say.
Look up "waveguides" if you want a classical interpretation of how light is always a wave. The video showing microWAVES (not photons) behaving the exact same as light waves .
That's literally proof of my theory.
Thank you.

>>11215763
This

>>11215802
Yeah I was pretty drunk.

>>11216300
>Microwaves aren't photons
Are you just acting retarded and interpreting microwave to mean the household appliance, or are you being actually retarded and ignoring photons between 300ghz-300ghz

>>11216312
I mean between 300mhz and 300ghz

>>11216300
Light waves, which are photons, may act the same way as microwaves, because microwaves are also photons
Are you aware the only differentiating factor between the two is the frequency/wavelength of the photon?

>>11213007
Pretty sure this is true ironically.

>>11216312
There isn't any evidence for microwaves being photons, if there was an experiment that proved that , where is it?
Photons are a theoretical particle.
There isn't any evidence for them.

>>11211604
based

>>11216299
Sorry, I forgot to link my earlier post.
>>11214095

>>11214951
Yes, that's my point.

>>11215194
>>11215286
Can I just swap locality for relative-locality (relative to the photon) and keep realism?

>>11215586
You either need hidden variables or break the speed of light. Both of which are fucked.
Or you can try to wrap your head around the fact that an if an object is moving infinitely fast, it exists at all points along it's path simultaneously from it's perspective.
Good luck!

>>11216300
Hmm. Well you can watch any of these https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=triple+phasor+paradox or do the experiment at home to show it's not a hoax.
Then picture the photon as a line instead of a point like particle and watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFah3SZ5UdA
I think you'll like it.

>>11216304
Cheers to that.

>>11216353
C'mon, we're using electro-magnetic wave, photon and microwave interchangeably. Play nice.

>>11211723
Based high-energy/low-intelligence autist

>>11211601
You're a brainlet if you still believe in collapse interpretations of QM and not Many-Worlds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKtwcHD3TEQ
https://www.readthesequences.com/Living-In-Many-Worlds

>>11216353
>There is no such thing as a photon, trust me

>>11211601
quarks, lmao.

>>11216353
Did Hoaxfag give up like a bitch?

>>11218388
Just busy bro, this debate has been an interest of mine for a while, I'm just trying to save some anons from the mistake I made, I have nothing to gain from this, also it's technically a little draining because you all think I'm just fucking with you.
But think about it like this.
You study QM for 15 years, it's 2035, you are getting old, you are still waiting on a working quantum computer, you wasted a great deal of your time. Maybe you are gutted, like anyone who devoted their life to a lie, maybe you think back "did someone try to tell me this?, Why didn't I at least entertain the idea before rejecting it, it would have cost me nothing"

Do you really believe in the quantum eraser thing?

Who told you we could observe the properties of individual photons?
It violates heisenbergs uncertainty principal lol.
What is the machine called that analyses individual photonic spin state.

>>11217487
"Never been observed" bro
It's just a drawing.

Have you guys ever wondered why quarks have such arcane witchcraft names,
You know, words a little girl would name her dolls or something.

The people that had to name these things knew it was a lie.
You are supposed to follow the breadcrumb trail.

Quarks have never been observed.
Neither have the particle that the quark makes up, it's a ladder of 16 page Wikipedia articles and theoretical particles one by one until you get to the correct answer.
The smallest particle that exists is an electron.

>>11216366
Man I'm sorry I didn't respond to this yet, it was well worded,
Now this is gonna sound pretty gay, but for real I had no idea scientists were now claiming all electromagnetic waves are photons, that is such a dirty way to explain away that only wave properties are shown for microwave radiation.
The videos you linked me to show microwaves having wave property, the twin slit experiment had a wave interference.
I can say there is no evidence for the particulate nature of EMF" but it is in the textbooks that it's real.
It's an unsubstantiated claim.
Check for yourself :)

>>11211626
>reddit

>>11211601
scientists created a magnetic wormhole

>>11218617
So we're on the same page...let's stick to photons for the moment?
Do you accept that light is a "thing"?
Can you pretend that photons are definite particles, from there I can tell you why they are also waves and also virtual.

>>11218388
This was also me, was just a cheeky bump.

>>11218633
That wormhole thing is absolutely wrong, my god, all they did was use the Meissner effect to create an electromagnetic shield.
Those scientists are bad people.
For shame.
>>11218799
Yes, I believe light is purturbations in the background electromagnetic fields that permeate the universe.
As electrons oscillate between the outer valence shells of atoms, this movement induces waves in the EMF because electrons are negatively charged.
These waves in the EMF are what we perceive as light.
Refer to pic.
Light is a thing like how sound waves are a thing :)

Man I will talk about this all day I love QM , I will pretend light is a particle (with no mass?)
Tell me more.
Oo also the reason black holes absorb light is because they act as big broadband antennas and absorb the background EMF ;)
No medium, no propagation.

>>11212010
Heh nice one

>>11218633
Might be right, see ER=EPR
(And if photons are 1D, then two points can be sort of connected across time and space)

>>11218980
Ah, so you're a wave kinda guy.
Particle here, obviously...
...but also if light travels infinitely fast, then we can't really be sure they ever existed.
...and particles travelling at the speed of light are what give them their wave-like behaviour.

>>11218418
>also it's technically a little draining because you all think I'm just fucking with you.
Well I've tried to take you at face value, that's tricky when so many people use that opportunity to fuck with you.

>maybe you think back "did someone try to tell me this?
So I actually had no interest in this topic because I just left it as “one of those things”, especially as the double-slit experiment is the face of the problem.
Then I found a “triple phasor paradox” video (maybe this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5GqoV9wVh4 ), which bugged the hell out of me! How can something that blocks light, be used to let more light through?! So I finally had an interest in physics again after how ever many years and looked it up.
Bohmian mechanics sounded like the best answer. But. Bell inequalites.
So then to Copenhagen interpretation. Sounds like BS, and breaks the speed of light.

Now what?! Well.
In Bohmian mechanics, information about the polarisation state travels forward in time with the photon (via hidden variables).
In the Copenhagen interpretation, information about the polarisation state travels backwards in time (basically, by travelling faster than the speed of light (spooky action at a distance)).
If neither of those are correct, there is only one option left. Information about the photon travels neither forwards or backwards in time.
For this to be the case, the length of the photon must be equal to the distance between it's point of origin and it's destination.
For that to be true, the photon must be travelling infinitely fast.
F=ma for a massless particle says that photons travel infinitely fast.
Time dilation for an object travelling at 'c' says that the object will complete all travel in approximately zero time, so infinitely fast.
Length contraction for an object travelling at 'c' says that distance to be travelled will be approximately zero, so the journey will be completed in approximately zero time, so infinitely fast.

Cont...

>>11219034
I can go over why infinitely fast means the photon is in all spatial positions along it's path if you want?
But if not, you can see that the triple polarising filter results match up with the decidley classical tennis racket experiment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFah3SZ5UdA

>Do you really believe in the quantum eraser thing?
Yes, but I haven't thought it through as much as the Double-Slit and the EPR paradox.
Basically the photon is a branching line that is passing through all points that don't cause a collision (“measurement”). So it doesn't matter when or where you cause a collision because it's all the same to the photon.

>Who told you we could observe the properties of individual photons?
You naturally can't, you can only infer. Those inferences don't add up, unless a photon is a line.

>It violates heisenbergs uncertainty principal lol.
kek

>What is the machine called that analyses individual photonic spin state.
Not bothered DESU.

>>11219040
Man I love your ethos.
Here is the phasor paradox explained without QM :)
http://alienryderflex.com/polarizer/

"Shine light through two polarizing filters oriented at 90° to each other, and no light gets through. But put a third filter inbetween them, at 45° to each of the existing filters, and amazingly enough — some lights gets through!

This popular experiment is often described as “strange.” It is usually presented in the context of quantum mechanics, as an example of the “spookiness” of quantum effects. Rarely, however, does the presenter inform the audience that this experiment can be explained in very simple terms of cause and effect, without reference to spooky quantum magic or anything like that.

Let’s start by going over the standard experiment:"

I'm in a hurry, I'll respond to everything else later.

There may come a day when you begin to suspect I might be right, I look forward to it.
Also none of this isn't my work.
I take no personal credit for what all these great scientists did. I just read the books they wrote.

The best interpretation is none at all
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/09/18/this-one-experiment-reveals-more-about-reality-than-any-quantum-interpretation-ever-will/

>>11219209
Are you trying to start another flat earth movement, but for QM? Everything you write reads like an advertising bot wrote it.

There's is a testable variation publised by Robin Hanson (an economist) that necessitates a measurable aproximation of the born rule from regular quantum mechanics and a lognormal distribution, the paper is expressed in many worlds terms, which by the way, defaults by sheer occams razor ('collapse' is so fucking arbitrary in literally every single physical sense possible)

>>11219220
>citing a clickbait forbes article

actual brainlet

>>11219249
If only you knew what you were talking about.

>>11219249
I'll spell it out for you. If you don't know this author, you are the brainlet.

>>11211955
Copenhagen and action at a distance are hot garbage which directly disagree with special relativity

>>11219250
The article states that they don't know what they're talking about, dipshit.
"We can see things, but not know them".
"God moves in mysterious ways."
Same shit.

>>11219272
Truth.
Thoughts on locality being preserved from the photon's perspective, due to F=ma, Time dilation and length contraction?

>>11219209
Well I appreciate you're unceasing cynicism, gives me something to work with ;)

>Here is the phasor paradox explained without QM :)
Ah! Close, but I already thought about this.
Whether or not a photon makes it through the final filter HAS to be calculated simultaneously from the alignment of all three filters (if you aren't using hidden variables or time travel).

If the orientation of the photon worked like it does in your link, then varying the distance between the filters would affect the outcome, which is does not.

>There may come a day when you begin to suspect I might be right
I'm looking for it.

>>11219339
Them's the facts. We see a thing, but have no idea why it works the way that it does. Has nothing to do with "god moves in mysterious ways". It's just accepting that we don't know at the moment.
>I know that I know nothing
He who can admit he does not know is more intelligent than everyone purporting to know.

>>11219339
>Here is the phasor paradox explained without QM :)
Ah! Close, but I already thought about this.
Whether or not a photon makes it through the final filter HAS to be calculated simultaneously from the alignment of all three filters (if you aren't using hidden variables or time travel).

If the orientation of the photon worked like it does in your link, then varying the distance between the filters would affect the outcome, which is does not.

The wavelength of the wave is far to small for that to matter, light is in nanometre , so if you had an accurate enough laser interferometer type thing to move the Polaroid film that would happen ;)

Yeah there would be like trillions of individual nodes if you moved the Polaroid film like 1 mm.

>>11219031
It's just ripples in an electromagnetic ocean man, what limits the speed of light is the same phenomenon that limits the speed of a wave in a pool of water.
As the frequency of the wave increases , the wavelength decreases ,as it's inversely proportional, the wavelength cannot be infinitely small.
C is the asymptote of infinity, if you graph all frequency starting at like 1 hertz through light (terrahertze I think)
That's 0.999...%C

Think about it .
Also the twin slit experiment with light shows it's only a wave.
The idea that the twin slit experiment shows particle nature of light is a mass delusion you are currently experiencing.

Did you know high speed spinning metal disks (gyroscopes) can be used to make intertial gravity drives?

>>11211723
Not recognizing and disregarding tooker posts instantly is a sign of low intelligence

I've taken physics classes that introduce QM, and I can't understand why MW has any followers, it's sci-fi tier shit that sounds cool but has no sensible grounding.

>>11219224
That's exactly what I'm doing anon.
Join the dark side brother.
*Offers fat rail of organic fishscale cocaine and gestures welcomingly at prostitutes*

>>11219459
Who is tooker anyway?

>>11219471
Unironically lurk moar fgt

>>11219464
>I can't understand why MW has any followers, it's sci-fi tier shit that sounds cool but has no sensible grounding.
Because it's the most straightforward interpretation of the mathematics, invoking the least ad-hoc justifications.

In theory, it implies something very weird about superreality; in practice, it's just a mathematical result that has basically no major effect on reality vs other interpretations.

>>11219494
>*hits bong*
>bro just have infinite universes lol

>>11219504
it's only weird or objectionable if you're particularly Platonist.

>>11219494
> least ad-hoc justifications.
Definitely not
However it does bear the fewest ad-hoc mathematical justifications

>>11219470
>uses * purportedly unironically
yeah, whatever

>>11219471
Oh my god how much more stupid can you be

>>11219470
So you admit to being a troll. Why should anyone read your posts ever again?

>>11219494
>superreality
Isn't that metaphysics, and therefore banned from /sci/?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1Ldo0XjXIk

>>11219516
The anti-QM movement thing.
I am not a troll my good man.

>>11219527
There is no anti-QM movement. That is just a figment of your schizoid imagination.

>>11219529
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2e5tAlelJXc

>>11219529
I take it back then.
The cocaine and hookers thing should have semi implied it was said in jest

>>11219530
Well, yes. There is the movement, comprised entirely of schizophrenics, who believe QM is a conspiracy perpetrated by the deep state or the reptilians or whateverthefuck. That exists, sadly.

>>11219523
>Isn't that metaphysics, and therefore banned from /sci/?
No it was just my nonnative speaker attempt to differentiate between the other infinite outcomes vs the outcome we/I am in at this moment. I wouldn't be aware of the other, more typical uses of the word.

>Definitely not
>However it does bear the fewest ad-hoc mathematical justifications
Yeah, although I'm not sure how big of a difference in meaning that is. The further we depart from our local conditions, wouldn't the difference between mathematical and non-mathematical justification from our perspective decrease?

>>11219530
>oral cumshot
i love oldfags

>>11219533
I just think it's an old theory man, like 120 years old.
It's time for a new theory based on new evidence.

>>11219572
so just come up with the new theory
how hard could it be?

>>11219572
>you should be able to solve this
>yes, you personally

>>11219572
Yes.
>>11219587
Okay.
>>11219592
Done.

See >>11214095 &>>11216146

If a particle is travelling infinitely fast, that means it's a point A at one moment in time, then at point B at the next moment in time. (F=ma, time dilation, length contraction)
This means all travel must be completed in the instant between those two moments, meaning the particle must exist at all points along it's path simultaneously.
This is where photons get their wave-like behavior from, if there is no detector at the double-slit, the photon is going so fast that it MUST be going through both slits simultaneously.
If it's detected or collides with the walls, that's a collision, that means it's stopped/slowed, means it's not travelling infinitley fast = particle-behaviour.

This fixes BOTH Coppenhagen interpretation and Bohmian mechanics at the same time.
And you can see it working in the youtube links.

Polite bump.

>>11219587
When Einstein formulated his theory, science didn't know about the background electromagnetic fields that pearmeate the universe. These were discovered in the 1960s.
So when Einstein and Bohr and all those scientists formulated their theories, wheather intuitively or with mathematics, they didn't have a complete understanding of the electromagnetic universe.
Background EMF is descriptively analogous to the "lumineforous aether " theory from hundreds of years earlier.
So as the presence of the "aether" had been "disproven" years earlier by the Michelson-Morley experiment, scientists like Einstein had to make their theories and mathematics work without adequate technology to fully understand the situation.
Because of this all quantum mechanics between 1900 and beginning at 1967 is fundamentally flawed.
Also this is why everyone thought light was a particle, because waves need a medium to propagate,
So no medium means no wave ;)
There was a medium though, the background EMF.

What we perceive as light is perturbations (ripples) in the background EMF, this is caused by electrons oscillating back and fourth between the outer valence shells of atoms, as electrons are negatively charged they interact with this EMF.

Asuka is best interpretation

>>11221654
Looks like we're on the other thread now.
I'd really appreciate it if you dropped your preconceptions of QM for me, like I assume you did when first learning of it, and deciding to reject it.

You can reconstruct the EMF from my approach. You can get the wave behaviour, the Copenhagen Interpretation, Bohemian mechanics. You can get around the Bell inequalities, without breaking the speed of light.

It's been fun here.

>>11221689
Comon mang, I answered the question.
I learned an acceptable amount of QM before I accepted it.
I don't care if it's a conspiracy or not, because it doesn't change anything.
I found out the Vatican has a quantum research lab and the world's largest optical telescope and have been writing astrophysics and QM books and papers because QM provides "scientific" evidence for the existance of God.....
So I know alot of you have been reading fradulant QM data that's Vatican propaganda and not realising it.
I know quantum computing is impossible but people are making a fortune from shilling it.
I know the noble prize winning free electron laser that doesn't use any QM to explain is kept a secret and QM believers use lasers as proof of QM even though university should have told us about that laser right, from fifty years ago?
Stern-Garlach is dodgy as if you look it up, involves Nazi war criminal scientists of course....who worked with Einstein lol.
It never ends.

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Conspiracy.html

This websites format is terrible, but if you want experimental evidence.

what book should i read to understand what you are talking about here, einsteins? wavefunction what? i know some calculus.

there can be no evidence for probabilistic characteristics of reality as in either deterministic or probabilistic universes the classical interpretation of the uncertainty principle is the limit of measurement. I.e it is always a lie to attribute an experimental result to probabilism before measurement error unless you wield a measuring device outside of our reality

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

>>11221775
Study waves, cymatics, music theory, antenna mechanics, light theory, colour theory, acoustic levitation , laser levitation, the Doppler effect etc, just use Wikipedia I guess.
To understand particles study some nuclear chemistry involving like how alpha and beta particles work,
Then just study how electrons work.
The scientists that did it are just a Wikipedia search away , there are too many to list.
It takes years to begin to understand any QM.

>>11221789
The reason for this paradox is that there is no such thing as a particle smaller than an electron.
All other QM particles are theoretical, that's photons, quarks, muons etc, all of them have never been observed.
We can accurate measure an electrons properties, we have a measuring device inside our reality.
Everything else is just pop-sci fantasy.

>>11221767
>Comon mang, I answered the question.
You gave an answer. I said my approach accommodates that answer.
Though on closer reading, your skepticism runs much deeper than I anticipated. I'm going to read the links you posted, with an open mind.

>>11219034
This was practically a diary entry because I was trying to stress that I'm being sincere.

>>11221846
there's no paradox, it's just incorrect to think you can prove inherently probabilistic characteristics of reality exist with the scientific method.

it's not just about size it's about interaction. If you had a billiard table with balls on it and I blindfolded you and said you have to tell me the position of the balls on the table by hitting the cue ball into others you have the dilema of hitting hard and being more sure of where the contact occured (louder noise) but less certain of where the balls currently are. Or hitting it gently and being less certain of where the contact occured (no sound) while being more certain the balls are close to where the contact occured.

There are many implications to a deterministic guiding wavefunction with mechanical properties that would upset the power structure of the world.
That is why money was on the side of the argument that is a lie

>>11221859
Cool man :)
My skepticism has plumbed the depths lol.
Yeah check it out.
Thanks for the sincerity man.

>>11221878
I believe our current technology has the ability to observe all real particles accurately, I think all this probabilistic interpretation is based of wave particle duality and that's based of photons and photons aren't real.

>>11221878
Which characteristics though?

>>11221912
>I believe our current technology has the ability to observe all real particles accurately
this sentence doesn't mean anything. Are you saying the hiesenberg uncertainty principle is wrong?

>>11221915
the inherently probabilistic nature of reality the Copenhagen interpretation shills

>>11221923
Not at all, I'm saying current technology can accurately observe electrons which are the smallest particle. We also have the technology to accurately "photograph" light waves.
So we can see everything now.
What we can't see is the fabricated particles like the photon, because the don't exist.
So heisenbergs uncertainty principal limits us to resolutions that are more that adequate to observe our smallest particle accurately.
But we could not measure photons or things like quarks so a science of uncertainty has reared its ugly head.
The idea that not knowing is good enough because knowing is "impossible"
According to a scientist from 100 years ago.
Quantum mechanics is antiquated, like most science from that time.

>>11221931
>accurately observe
still meaningless. define observe
>photons don't exist
semantics at best retardation at worst

>The idea that not knowing is good enough because knowing is "impossible"
there are limits to prediction because there are limits to measurement.
You not liking the fact that science is limited is the same thing that motivates people to create narratives and systems of lies to convince people reality is fundamentally probabilistic

*doesnt read thread*
we're in a simulation bro
*exits thread*

I like the traditional Copenhagen interpretation. I could say
>It's the most widely accepted.
>It's the interpretation that is typically taught at universities.
It's just an interpretation though. It just makes the most sense to me. I used to like Many Worlds, but eh.

>>11221944
Like when you use an electron microscope to look at something.
To observe like to look at and see, in a literal way.
Our technology grows better everyday to see smaller and smaller things , like in the pic I posted it's a movie IBM made with individual atoms,
We can one day soon, if not now, accurately observe the behavior of all observable matter in the universe,
The only uncertainty is with QM related ideas. And all QM is a lie.
That's why none of the theories work.

>>11221953
What is your interpretation....of the interpretation?

If you don't believe in Copenhagen you are probably an incel

>>11223272
I don't want to believe.
I want to know.

>>11223272
Einstein was an incel?

>>11221912
>photons aren't real
Wait, is that your objection to the idea that a photon is a really line?
The photon particles I'm describing exist for zero amount of time. They get destroyed the instantaneously. They effectively never exist and all we can observe of them is energy lost or gained from where they started or ended up.
Isn't that in line with what you're saying?

>>11215802
>>11223680
Hoaxfag?

>>11224193
Im not sure how to answer that I guess,
I believe in particles with mass,
And I believe in waves.
This theory took me a very long time to get to even a mentionable state, and it's so different to anything else, what I mean is I don't believe photons are real, so I can't answer the question to well about the mechanics of how photons work.

>>11211601
Relational QM

>>11211636
>they are interfering with...
>...the ones you haven't sent through yet.
.......?

>>11225685
It's just interfering with itself (heh).

We expect wave-behavior from multiple photons interacting with each other, but yeah... Send a single photon through and you still get the wave pattern at the detector.

It's not interfering with any other photons though (past, present or future).

>>11225259
Hmm.
Well I took my time getting to this point too.
Length contraction (which you don't believe in) also works with my idea in a different way. An object approaching the speed of light will appear to be shrunk along it's direction of travel to an observer at rest. So an object travelling at 'c' should appear to have a point-like length to us. Reverse this and photons (the particles which don't technically exist) should have an infinite proper length (although obviously this infinity is bounded by the distance between it's origin and destination).

Keep those gears turning either way.

>>11227092
Why don't you draw some diagrams,
I'll try to get some done up myself.
Back to the old drawing board lol.
I think we are pushing the limits of how much information we can trade with text.
That outer valence thing is hard to visualise.

the problem with current interpretations is physicists are still too human centric. the wave function collapses when 'observed' because the future, which is already determined, finds that its path becomes altered. Physicists don't understand this yet, which is why they ascribe spooky 'disappearing' or 'action at a distance'. QM is actually really fucking simple but ppl like to overcomplicate everything to prove how autistic they can be to others. Confuddle your opponents into submission while at the same time appearing like a retard to some higher intelligence you are not yet aware of.

>>11211601
>and why is the best interpretation

Fuck you! The best interpretation sucks. Its not even half as accurate as the worst interpretation, brainlet.

>>11227474
This guy gets it.
The end state of the photon is determined the moment the photon originates. The photon appears to “see into the future” from our human centric point of view, that's why the Copenhagen interpretation seems to allow information to travel backwards in time and break causality. Even though that's not the case.

>>11227438
Already have a few diagrams.
Let me know if this one makes sense.
Got a few more to follow if they do.

>>11227474
The future is not 'already determined', that's the point. The universe evolves stochastically determinism is false.

>>11229461
True.
For anything not travelling at 'c'.

Imagine your in a spaceship that can instantly accelerate to 99.999999999% of the speed of light (let's ignore the fact that that's impossible for a sec).
Let's say you're travelling a light year, but due to time dilation, you will only experience a second between the start of your journey and it's end (in real-time you'll still be taking a year).

Your journey is pretty much already determined from your point of view.
If an asteroid intersects your path, you die, that's it. There is no way for you to influence the outside world, what will be will be. From your point of view, everything is practically determined the instant you start moving.

Same deal for a photon except it doesn't experience a second, or a nano-second. It experiences practically zero time.

https://www.emc2-explained.info/Dilation-Calc/

That a particle has free will to do whatever it wants

>>11229525
...not to undersell the photon.
It won't just travel 1 light year in less than a zepto second.
It will travel a billion light years or more in less than a yocto second.

>>11211601
Bohm is underrated/overlooked a lot

What about multiple interpretations being right or maybe having true aspects which should be combined with other interpretations?
Which are mutually in/compatible?

>>11231308
>What about multiple interpretations being right or maybe having true aspects which should be combined with other interpretations?
I got you covered senpai.

Yeah, Bohm is great. Shame that the Bell inequalities conclusively rule out the idea that *information about the photon's state can travel forwards in time*. Which is why it's so overlooked.

Copenhagen is fine for the maths, but really sucks seeing as it requires information about the photon's state to travel faster than the speed of light, meaning *information about the photon's state can travel backwards in time*. Which is conclusively ruled out by relativity.

Face facts. The only conceivable option left is that *information about the photon's state travels neither forwards or backwards in time*.
In Copenhagen terms, this means that information isn't travelling backwards in time; just seems like that because we're constantly moving forwards in time.
In Bohmian terms, the "guide-wave" is the photon itself. If you want to call this a type of hidden-variable, fine, point is that this passes the Bell inequalities.
There's your hybrid theory.

Point out any inconsistencies and you will have my deepest gratitude. I am so fucking done with this rabbit hole.

>>11214095
>>11214781
>>11216146
>>11216366
>>11219034
>>11219040
>>11219339
>>11219965
>>11227092
>>11228975
>>11229525

...Disclaimer: I may be wrong.

>>11232189
Surely the idea of simultaneously time travelling backwards and forwards at the same time should be an indicator of how wild these theories have gotten,
How can matter experience time?
It do any have consciousness or any way to interpret the change in time.
It has no memory.

How is talking about quantum mechanics on this forum any different to when actors talk about QM in a sci-fi movies that the writers have come up with?
Quantum mechanics is just people's ideas of how they think the world works.
How is this a science? If we got ten leading quantum phycisists together in a room they would all disagree about everything and have no place at to prove any of their ideas.
All mainstream belief of QM is because of misrepresentation in the media and sci-fi movies.
Step back from the illusion.
It's just a group of autists discussing comic book mechanics.

>>11232189
Also I love your work man :)
Don't abandon the rabbit hole yet haha.

>>11232209
There you are!
>Surely the idea of simultaneously time travelling backwards and forwards at the same time should be...
Rather astute. F=ma for a massless particle, where any non-zero force is applied results in division by zero.
This is said to be meaningless, given that it results in both positive and negative infinity, cancelling out to zero.
But imagine you have your arms outstretched to either side of a door frame.
You could be said to be reaching your destination, in either direction, infinitely fast; whilst at the same time not travelling in either direction at all.

>How can matter experience time?
Well it doesn't. This is a thought experiment. Technically my own abstractions, that treat Time Dilation and Length Contraction as distinct processes, is improper.
We could never travel at the speed of light (what with possessing mass and all) so could never observe a photon in motion. Even if we could travel at 'c', seeing requires photons to interact with our optical receptors, and those would have to be travelling faster than the speed of light.
But doing so is the only method that gives a version of QM that obeys the speed of light and the Bell inequalities.
If you want to bitch about imagining what a photon's perspective would look like, I suggest you break causality a little more and go back in time to tell Einstein that the thought experiment that gave us the speed of light is bullshit.
(Yeah Hoax, I know you might want to, but this is a diss to all the pricks who say imagining things from a photon's PoV is pointless.)

>How is talking about quantum mechanics on this forum any different to when actors talk about QM in a sci-fi movies that the writers have come up with?
No doubt.
See http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/17/the-most-embarrassing-graph-in-modern-physics/
The irony is that the most embarrassing thing about that poll is that no-one picked Bohmian mechanics.

>>11232289
If photons travel infinitely fast/have an infinite length, the guiding-wave is the same as the photon (with no hidden-variables) and so is the best descriptor of QM.

>>11232216
I really appreciate that.
I just want out though. You know? I promised myself when I first clocked onto this, if I found definitive proof I was wrong I'd be a normal person + all the motivation I proved to myself that I had along the way.
Instead I'm stuck in this limbo months after the fact. Not knowing if I've lost the plot again or not.

After this thread dies, I'm going to start a new thread and be obnoxious AF. I want this idea picked to pieces and I expect you to be anon
and conform to prevailing mindsets in order to fan the flames.

>>11232289
"Ole Rømer first demonstrated in 1676 that light travels at a finite speed (as opposed to instantaneously) by studying the apparent motion of Jupiter's moon Io"

Calculated at 27% accuracy.

You have been mislead my good friend.
Alot of what you believe isn't true.
But you no doubt learned it from peer reviewed scientific data.
That's why I am defining it as an elaborate hoax.
If I put my arms out my overall mass is moving using energy, so if the photon is "stretching" through time? Through a time/mass wormhole of some kind?

Nothing changes if you abandon QM, it's not actually used for anything :) it's an illusion. And it's only a few percent of like physics astrophysics and maths, I'm not saying the bulk of accepted scientific dogma is wrong, just a tiny part of physics. When you take the popsci away there is nothing there. We can't actually do anything quantum.

>>11232307
Oh man you gotta expand on that, clocked onto what?
Months after what?

>>11232307
You wanna reverse the roles and I have to be a QM proponent and you try to prove QM is a hoax? Haha, yeah I can do that let me just practice copy and pasting unreviewed arXiv papers and saying "twin slit experiment" which ironically is the experiment that showed light was a wave.

>>11229461

>The universe evolves stochastically.

Let's break this down,

>The universe evolves..
No it doesn't, but I know what you mean to say, which is that the state of the universe appears to change.

>stochastically
This term is paradoxical in definition, as analysis can only be undertaken on something that can in fact be analysed; something that is inherently random, or stochastic, cannot bye, by definition, analysed.

>>11232189
You seem very intelligent, I enjoy reading your posts.

>>11232381
Thanks.
Will dig out other diagrams later.

>>11232341
>Oh man you gotta expand on that, clocked onto what?
Bollocks. I had too much to drink at when I posted that. Definitely over spoke,
The idea that photon's are a line, it popped in to my head a while ago (I "clocked" on to the idea). I'm the type to get carried away by silly ideas, but I figured I'd let myself obsess over this one for a bit until I got an answer one way or another. That was longer ago than I care to admit.

Problem is my approach has given my satisfying answers to all the questions that I was so desperate for as when I was in school.

>>11232348
I'm sort of already trying to prove that current interpretations of QM are a "hoax".
I wouldn't call it a hoax though. A lie might be a better term, but even then the Copenhagen interpretation was a fair guess at the underpinnings of physics. The lie was that it was a certainty that it was a complete description.

BTW, take a look at the "twin slit experiment" again. Every part of it that shows photons are a wave comes from photons in motion (whilst photons are travelling at the speed of light). Every part of it that shows photons as particles comes from after a particle has collided with something (i.e. has temporarily stopped travelling at the speed of light).

>>11232330
>"Ole Rømer first demonstrated in 1676 that light travels at a finite speed (as opposed to instantaneously) by studying the apparent motion of Jupiter's moon Io"

We aren't debating if there's a "speed of light", right?
There has to be. Causality. There has to be cause and effect. Otherwise things would happen out of order. If we call the smallest units of space and time the Planck length and Planck time (moment), causality means that no point in space can affect anything more than one Planck length away in the next moment.
Otherwise everything becomes chaos and we die before we get a chance to live.

>If I put my arms out my overall mass is moving using energy, so if the photon is "stretching" through time? Through a time/mass wormhole of some kind?
I mean if you have your arms already stretched out, so you are touching point A and B at the same time, you could sort of say you are travelling between both points infinitely fast whilst also not moving.
I guess you are stretched between both points. If I move push one of your arms, it will affect the other.

>Nothing changes if you abandon QM
Maybe.
But it's fun.
And stuff like "is the universe discrete/digital or continuous/analogue" has bugged me so much that it's worth if for me to know.
If you tell me if you think the universe is discrete or continuous, I'll let you in on a secret.

>>11211604
THIS

>>11234629
>>11211604
>>11216364
WTF is Wheels and how does it work with F=ma for a non-zero force and zero mass?

>>11232381
So:
F=ma means infinite speed.
Time dilation means infinite speed.
Infinite length means infinite speed and vice-versa.
Length contraction means infinite length.
Length contraction also means infinitesimal distance to be travelled.
Infinitesimal distance to be travelled, at any speed, means distance is travelled infinitely fast.
Causality/local-realism caps the infinite speed to 'c' for outside observers.
There is experimental evidence for photons behaving as waves (whilst travelling at 'c')
There is experimental evidence for photons behaving as waves (after experiencing a collision, thus not travelling at 'c').
If you are travelling between point A and B infinitely fast, any information (such as the fact that you have experienced a collision) will propagate infinitely fast as well.

If travelling THROUGH a double-slit infinitely fast, WITHOUT a collision, there will be zero time for you, or the universe to "decided" which slit you have travelled through. Therefore it is as if you were a wave, and you must have travelled through both.

If there is a detection (a collision in the EMF), you stop travelling at 'c', "collapsing the wave-function", you have time to determine your spatial location (e.g. which slit you came from), then carry on as a wave.
BUT as the wave is from a single point (post slit), it cannot interfere with itself.

Am I the only one that thinks that sounds reasonable?

>>11234967
I think it sounds quite reasonable.

>>11234967
>WTF is Wheels and how does it work with F=ma for a non-zero force and zero mass?
she doesn't know

>>11235192
Awesome. I'm not irreconcilably delusional then.
Missed the part where, if the photon IS going have a collision "in the future", the properties resulting from that will effect it's past. What with information propagating infinitely fast through an object traveling infinitely fast.
This should explain the quantum eraser.

To shut up cocksuckers like this
>>11235241
I also ought to point out that the speed of a photon is not truly infinite. It always has an upper-bound defined by the distance to be traveled. So even if it's travelling a trillion light years, it's speed will 1,000,000,000,000/1 ly/Planck time not Infinity light years per Planck time.

>>11211718
This. Consistent histories is the patrician's interpretation. Copenhagen is the common physicist's interpretation. The rest is crackpot nonsense.

>>11235895
How does consistent histories explain the double-slit experiment?
Bohmian is clearly less crackpot nonsense than Copenhagen.

>>11211601
The best interpretation is that classical mechanics satisfies the action principle with the minimum of the action and quantum mechanics satisfies it with the maximum of the action.

is this guy smarter than langan?

https://www.quora.com/profile/Enlong-Chiou

>>11236515
Langan isn't smart

>>11236411
How does that relate to the double slit experiment?

>>11211601
Dirac’s neo-aether. An unseeable substrate into which reality is suspended. Allows for the “communication” involved in Einstein’s spooky action at a distance (namely, particle spin coordination). Also side steps a lot of the silliness

>>11211628
Many worlds is definitely, definitively the stupidest of all interpretations.

Also, why would an experiment that has a 1/1000 chance of producing outcome A over B need to be run 1000 times to get an A? If new universes split off all the time, wouldn’t every cosmological crapshoot be 50/50?

>>11236515
>is this guy smarter than langan?
that wouldn't be saying much. he is equally incomprehensible.

>>11234621
Sorry man I'm busy as fuck.
Your question about discrete or continuos universe?
I believe the universe is an infinitely repeating phenomenon,
So if we start arbitrarily at the big bang, we have a singularity of all matter in the universe.
It explodes just like a supernovae or nuclear bomb or anything like that.
(My theory is at first it's just pure energy, which "condenses" into matter, similar to how spheres of water form on a hot plate, or when you mix oil and water and shake it, you get little spheres, I haven't gotten into the maths yet but just go with it it has no bearing on the rest of the theory, I can't say with certainty what matter is made of) let's say this matter is just hydrogen and electrons, BUT there is also àn outwardly radiating sphere of full spectrum electromagnetic radiation ;) which move faster than the matter at almost the speed of light.
So all this matter is attracted by gravity and swirls around and forms the celestial bodies and synthesised all the other elements in solar reactions.
Now the edge of the universe is everything from the point of the singularity, outwards in a sphere with a radius of the age of the inverse in light years, say the singularity was 14billion years ago, then the universe is a sphere, 14billion light years from the singularity.

So yes. The universe is discrete. Anything past the edge is an electromagnetic void.
It's very simple physics.

Once the heat death is over the black holes wander around for an aeon until 99.99999% of the matter is collected, then all the black holes join together, the last atom is collected, critical mass, cycle starts again.
All that "infinite possibilities" stuff works perfectly with my theory, it's just the timelines are happening linearly instead of simultaneously.
Statistically my friend,
Along time ago, in a galaxy far far away, we had this same conversation.

>>11214523
This is true. I thought I was in a superposition the other day. But it was a super wal-mart. Those places are crazy!

>>11234621
Matter (protons, neutrons, electron,) is digital,
Forces (electromagnetic waves, gravity etc) are analogy.
Quantum mechanics hybridises these two things, QM is just hybrid physics, applying non-integer values to an electron? Oh it's a half electron ;)
You can stick whatever Greek letter you want on something that's incorrect, it's still incorrect.

The speed of light comment was in response to the "we wouldn't have a speed of light without QM" thing, for some reason a big load of amateur scientists think QM was used to invent things like lasers and computers, so sorry if a misaddressed the question :)

Statements like "EINSTEIN INVENTED MOBILE PHONES" keep me up at night lol

>>11234621
I know QM is fun, I studied it for an obscenely long amount of time,

This is my analogy of what's happened, and why I don't like it.

Imagine you are in a maths lecture, packed room, hundreds of bright mathematicians all eager to learn and do maths.

The lecturer makes a mistake while writing out a question, everyone in the class tries to solve it, but they all get a different answer to the professor when he writes it on the board.
Everyone in the class just accepts that they must have made a mistake.
Everyone thinks the professor is a super genius and about to solve the meaning of life. And this question has something to do with it. The lecturer dies.
Everyone in that classroom spends the rest of their lives trying to create new maths to make the lectures answer work like 1+1=3 etc. People devote their lives to it. The search for the meaning of life, in a maths equations, by a dead scientist, who made a mistake.

That's quantum mechanics. Einstein made a mistake, it's was like 120 years ago when he was working on this. No one is allowed to criticise it unless they have a position of "smartest man in the world" or else your a crackpot. Einstein didn't know about cosmic radiation, how the fuck was he ever going to make his equations work when they didn't understand elementary foundations of physics because they weren't discovered yet.
This is at best pop-sci mixed with science fiction eg
Stoner "*hits bong* shut up for a minute guys ....what if we had matter....with no mass....*bursts into uncontrollable fit of laughter*"
Quantum physicist "oh fuck yes, I am writing this down....bit wait why would a black hole suck light particles in with no mass?
Stoner *hits bong* "because.....the....space.....time.....the space-time warps!"
Quantum physicist "oh fuck yes , bro I am hanging onto every word"

There are abandoned schools of science that you will love more than quantum physics, where you can actually build new machines, discover new phenomena like cymatics

Also if anyone wants to see the greatest false dichotomy of all time.

1,Michelson Morley "there is no background invisible force"(experiment was don't like 200 years ago, equipment not sensitive enough , later disproven)

2, Einstein, it's either particle or wave, waves need a medium, Michelson says no mediim,
Eureka! It must be a particle!

3, everyone , "I don't know man, it has lots of wave properties though.

4 Einstein, then it's a particle.....AND a wave.

5, The birth of quantum mechanics.

>>11234585
Hey brother, I know how to prove my theory, the twin slit experiment is the Rosetta stone , it's where the conspiracy lies.
The original twin slit experiment, the real one, showers light was purely a wave.
Later the experiment was done with electrons, and it should have showed a particle pattern, 2 "shadows" of the slits the particles were allowed through, the electrons are negatively charged so they interact and build up on the apparatus, this creates the wave/particle result with electrons. But it's very wrong.
This information was applied theoretically to light, so an experiment with individual photons show do that.
We haven't done that experiment yet.
It's an idea.
You have been mislead. See for yourself.
If the data is a drawing or animation it's wrong.
Artists interpretations are not data.
Where are the photos of the actual noble prize winning machines?

This one time I was doing a lab prac with these two hot Ukranian twin sisters, and let's just say I performed my own young twin slit experiment ;)
If you know what I mean.

>>11239269
>Sorry man I'm busy as fuck.
That's all cool.

I used discrete/continuous used as synonyms digital/analogue, but that's interesting. I used to like ideas like that more than an eternal heat death... but now they both kinda scare me.

>>11239307
You son of a bitch!
I always preferred the digital interpretation, but after thinking through my idea I came to the same conclusion you have!
It was the only way to describe photons as travelling infinitely fast that actually made sense.
A (theoretical) photon particle can't be in two places at the same moment, so it has to originate in one moment and be at it's destination in the next moment (one moment = 1 Planck time (I think)), those moments being discrete units of time. All the travel has to be completed instantly, so in a point-like amount of time, which would be continuous.

I guess it's not really a secret as you got it already, but I think this works to solve Zeno's "Arrow Paradox" and "Achilles and the tortoise". My understanding is that one of them needs the universe to be digital (discrete), and the other analogue (continuous), to be resolved. If the universe is a hybrid, then both can be resolved.
It would also explain why everybody gets so hot and heavy about the uncertainty principle. Yeah, it's not just the observer effect, but if you imagine taking a picture of a fuzzy dog running around a room, the quicker the shutter speed, the more accurately you can determine the dogs position, but the less you can determine it's velocity. With a slower shutter speed, you could use how blurry the dog is to figure out it's velocity. And obviously anytime you interact with the dog you're effecting it's position (say if you have to use a flash).

>>11239307
Matter, space, time = quantised/digital = particle
Anything in motion = continuous = wave
Bearing in mind that "photon particles" don't exist for even a moment.
Is that a viable basis for wave-particle duality?

I'm not sure it's plausible, but in this hybrid theory, any moving particle would be travelling at 'c' for some part of their journey, proportional to their velocity as a proportion of 'c'. So an object at 50% 'c' would spend half their time at 'c' and the rest at rest. This is the only way I can think to explain why objects behave classically as their size & mass increases and velocity decreases. The probability of encountering a collision (to stop the object travelling at 'c') increases exponentially with scale. Whilst still allowing for things like single atoms to have quantum properties on occasion.

>The speed of light comment was in response to the "we wouldn't have a speed of light without QM" thing, for some reason a big load of amateur scientists think QM was used to invent things like lasers and computers, so sorry if a misaddressed the question :) Statements like "EINSTEIN INVENTED MOBILE PHONES" keep me up at night lol

Haha. So your scepticism does have some limit!
To be fair I imagine knowing the theory has accelerated progress compared to where we would be without, but hyperbolic crap like that is a bit much sometimes.

P.S. You posted a *bunch* whilst I was typing up my response.

>>11239409
Big question.

Do you believe light waves come in discrete packets or are continuous?

>>. Yeah, it's not just the observer effect, but if you imagine taking a picture of a fuzzy dog running around a room, the quicker the shutter speed, the more accurately you can determine the dogs position, but the less you can determine it's velocity. With a slower shutter speed, you could use how blurry the dog is to figure out it's velocity. And obviously anytime you interact with the dog you're effecting it's position (say if you have to use a flash).

I've heard some QM analogies in my day man, but that is brilliant.

Two anonymous strangers with opposite viewpoints, working on the same problem and somehow making progress. There is hope for humanity yet.

This thread has some incredible stuff in it. Good times.

>>11239478
They are ripples, perturbations in an electromagnetic "ocean" caused by the electrons in atoms interacting the the EMF (electrons are negative) it's the reverse of how a electromagnet will induce current in a wire.

That whole idea of "what can we measure the smallest" is a trap, it isn't a thought experiment with any results.
Applying planck length will just confuse you.
Light is a wave, so if you apply Planck length stuff to it and say "what is the smallest devision of a nanometre possible and how can I devide a light wave into fractions then know how big light is" thing doesn't work, you are trying to convert wave to particle (discrete, individual components.
Don't try to calculate how big a photon is. Photons aren't real is what I mean,
These are complex misunderstanding from applying abstract maths to real world physics.
You can't have a single photon anyway, that's another hoax. Photomultiplier tubes cannot asses photonic spin state.

So waves are continuous.
Particles are discreet.

>>11239508
Cheers my dude. I figure if I'm going to show that Zeno's Uncertainty principle is just stating the obvious and not some mystical universal consciousness, I ought to be entertaining about it.

>>11239527
Well here is our impasse in a nutshell. I'm glad we found it as...
>I think we are pushing the limits of how much information we can trade with text.
...I really felt this several times.

>Two anonymous strangers with opposite viewpoints, working on the same problem and somehow making progress. There is hope for humanity yet.
>This thread has some incredible stuff in it. Good times.
Couldn't agree more.

>>11239414
Classic.

>>11239464
That's why wave particle duality was created ;)
Scientists were observing particles (electrons) behaving as waves (erroneously because of misunderstood electrostatic discharge)
And waves acting as particles (photoelectric effect, light energy transmitted in "packets" of energy,
It's the electrons moving from outer energy bands to inner energy bands, this oscillation works just like a speaker creating sound waves, the electron is the speaker cone(as a probibility cloud) the electron is moving a the speed of light so it creates a "swarm" but it's just the electron moving obscenely fast and acting as a solid.)

It's just old experimental error. That is all.

>>11239552
Do you wanna know what I think the real conspiracy is lol.

Have you ever heard of Seymour Cray of Cray super computers? Well the guy kicked so much ass as an engineer.
This gets weird so go with it (or read the Wikipedia about him)
He built supercomputers for IBM and NASA that he used to design BEFORE the components existed.
He did this buy digging a mineshaft under his house where he would talk to "machine elves" that told him how to make the computers, and he did it all on paper......for NASA, so the guy had game because the supercomputers were more or less from the future. And they looked heaps spaceship and had stuff like crycooling, I think he invented.
Now I have smoked a shit load of DMT for research purposes.
Two things , you are definitely hallucinating, there are no entities.
More importantly I saw the fucking elves and they told me how to make computers lol.
This is because certain psychedelics just make you visualise ideas in a narrative sense, so obviously you aren't going to like read a text book in the trip and read the idea or something. They are just subconscious ideas coming to the surface, keep in mind I studied hardware
Engineering for like twenty years Soni didn't just become a computer scientist from a drug. DMT is very misunderstood to the point of absurdity, and a different topic :P

Anyway Cray hated silicon and as the world's best hardware engineer said we should use gallium arsenide CPUs, wanna know why ? The do 250 gigaherzt , Intel's currently clicking a monster 4.... GHz. Problem was silicon is sand , gallium is a expensive metal. Capitalism.
He actually built some working models I think.
Then Mr Cray dies in a tragic car accident.
Anyway long story short.
AMD and Intel were going bankrupt for the last twenty years and losing money.
I think they made a gentleman's agreement to stay with silicon because at this stage, they have been making almost the same CPU cores since 2006, the Cray supercomputing website has a video cont

>>11239564
I was going to point out that we're starting to agree with each other again. But!

I don't think non-discrete packets of light (your interpretation) are compatible with the triple filter paradox (which you can do at home).

I already stated that this isn't complete
> http://alienryderflex.com/polarizer/
I fully agree that the polarisers are twisting the light, or else I wouldn't have linked this
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFah3SZ5UdA
But if there's no quantum properties then altering the distance between the filters will affect the results, which they don't.
In my model, photons already "perceive" zero distance between each filter. So altering the proper distance between filters won't make any difference as far as the photon is concerned.

>>11239609
Cont,
Cray supercomputers have a video about it on their website.

Now along time ago, the IT money was from making computer programs, and what Microsoft was notorious for was "vaporware", now vaporware is when a big software company hears that a smaller or startup has a really good idea, so the big company tells everyone that they are also working on the same idea.
No one buys the smaller companies idea because obviously the biggers company's program will be superior.
But the bigger company never releases the program. Smaller company goes bankrupt, bigger company buys the program and releases it. Rinse repeat.

I think that quantum computing is the vaporware at gallium arsenide CPUs,
And having to rebuild all the factories when they come out would cause like a global financial crisis for the people that make processors.
So no one on earth involved in making computers wants gallium arsenide processors, it would be a nightmare and bankrupt AMD Intel etc,
So that's why Google, IBM , Microsoft etc are all in on the quantum computing thing.
Quantum computers are pretend, to stop anyone coming up with the next gen CPU, because why would you try to make a new CPU just before quantum computers are about to come out.

And that's what I think is going on with quantum.
It's why you can't get Google results for anything that disparriaged QM.

>>11239688
Man that is just how waves propagate through a medium.
You are assuming it's a photon and trying to make it work.
Just picture a bathtub half filled with water.
Now on one end pebbled are being dropped in to make waves. Which bounce around the tub.
The wavelength of light is so small (nano metres) so visualise it as a piece of string, rather than a string of tiny particles.
The polarising film is acting as a "wave guide" sending the waves (piece of string, wave of water) in a certain direction, the same as if you put a diagonal strip of wood in the middle of the tub with a vertical slit cut in it, the waves will be redirected at a 45 degree angle as the travel through the slit, it's guiding the wave.
This is how antennas work. Look up waveguides, you can actually send radio waves through square hollow metal tubes if the hole is the same size as the wavelength, the use it in radars.

This polarised experiment also works with microwaves,
It's hard to visualise a 3d sphere of wave propagation, we are taught it in 2d, the light wave is being turned, then turned them turned again, propagating through the film and being bent, no different to how you can't see the moon if you point a telescope at it and the lenses are all at angles.

>>11239688
>>But if there's no quantum properties then altering the distance between the filters will affect the results, which they don't.

This is incorrect.
The "strobing" of the light as you move the polarising film is happening at a nanometre interval lol, you need interferometry to detect it but moving the film is creating imperceptible results, this "lack" of results creates a misinterpretation.
I could do this experiment with sound and show you no transmission by placing the waveguide at the 0 amplitude node, because the wavelengths are practical.

I'm so sure this is wrong.

>>11239688
Oh man, I just realised, the light is travelling in "discrete" "packets".
It's travelling like in this image.
The "photons" are the peaks in the wave between each wavelength node.
So light travels in distinct sections, an individual "photon' is one of these peaks.
So yeah light can be broken down into its individual energy peaks, this can be viewed as binary, but measuring the wave itself is an analog/continuous interpretation.
Cool.

You wanna know why Heisenberg's wife was unhappy?
because when he had the time, he didn't have the energy, and when he had the position, he didn't have the momentum.

*schizophrenia intensifies*

This is an example of how this has gone wrong.
And by that I mean an uncensored quantum mechanics free for all of people desperately holding on to a dead science and clutching at straws like a drowning man.

Google (and the rest of planet earth) refuse to put anything in the search results that deny QM. Sure I'm probably paranoid etc, oh well, life goes on.

Now let's pretend this is an ARG, or a videogame and we are looking for exploits.
So we know three things.
1, quantum mechanics is a hoax(anything with the word quantum in it)
2, we are not allowed to discuss this, except in anomymous message forums, because it's a cultural taboo.
3, other people know this, even if they don't talk about it, other intelligent scientists.

So let's play the ARG like this guy ;)
Dr. Randell mills
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Randell_Mills
Now he has a cancer cure published in nature, so....definitely a real scientist
https://www.nature.com/articles/336787a0

Now here is is "quantum" free energy machine that uses "quantum mechanics" to violate the laws of physics.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Light_Power

Guess how much money he has made, because if an investor types "is quantum mechanics a scam", nothing comes up :0
So Dr Randell has so far made like 50 million dollars ($50 000 000)
He knows it's a scam, but the investors don't ;) thanks Google.

I'm doing something like this by the way, so I hope you all believe quantum mechanics because it is a cash cow. And I need people like you who don't ask questions to invest in projects like LIGO and CERN and especially in quantum computing research.
Projects like this are why I can spend all day on 4chan instead of going to work lol.
Fuck I love QM.

>>11211601
>>11211628
>>11211636
I heard the MWI would be the "most accurate", since it would solve many paradoxes. Also some mentioned that the MWI model wouldn't have a complex mathematical model. Is this correct or just pop science BS talk? Elaborate pls.

>>11211601
Decoherence, because it's falsifiable by experiment

>>11221767
Yeah and I heard the automobile is impossible also.

>>11240225
Liar. You get tons of results if you're looking for evidence against QM. You're making yourself a victim when actually you aren't at all. That's schizotypical though.

You also keep ignoring my posts about doing your own quantum experiments at home, like the double slit experiment or a quantum eraser.

>>11240241
But we have automobiles?
What does that mean?

>>11240225
Ok, I take the bait. Why exactly do you think is QM a hoax? Go on. Don't leave out the details. You would also need to explain the empirical obversations and experiments then which we categorize under QM.

>>11240238
decoherent histories is another name for consistent histories

>>11240248
For fucks sake. Not even getting that. Well, then here we go:
"I do believe in the horse. the automobile is no more than a transitory phenomenon". That's a famous quote and just shows one of the many misconceptions outsiders have of current state of technology. Just because you believe (without evidence) that quantum computing is impossible, doesn't mean it's impossible. Prove it or shut the fuck up.

Btw: Source for your claim that Vatican has a quantum research lab + source for your claim that they have the world's largest optical telescope.

>>11240243
I'm not lieing though? Can you provide a link to a Google search result about quantum mechanics being a hoax or scam?
I'm not ignoring your posts, the whole anon thing makes this a little confusing.
The information you are presenting on the twin slit, some of it is theoretical, there are several twin slit experiments,
The first one, Young's twin slit experiment proved that light had a wave interference pattern.
The one done with electrons showed a randomised particle pattern, because of electrostatic build up in the machine and the electrons repelling each other.
The "quantum" twin slit is theoretical,
We don't have the technology yet to fire individual photons.

Which one do you mean?
And the quantum eraser is theoretical as well.

>>11240247
Thanks for the question, I do agree that last post was technically bait.
I have about 100 almost word limit posts under the name "hoaxfag" all through this thread, most answering questions :)
Read the thread bro, I will answer any questions that aren't answered already, I think most of them are.

>>11240300
What the fuck is wrong with you? Nothing you provided here actually refuted QM, nor did you provide any evidence. But thanks for confirming that you're just talking BS by sneaking yourself out of the conversation with a lame excuse. Pathetic move, loser.

>>11240262
Evidence is in the thread, read it before coming at me lol. The conversation will make more sense.
Here is proof.
Working quantum computers don't exist.

Vatican proof.

https://www.ctns.org/search?keywords=research
Since its inception, CTNS has been actively involved in high level research in theology and science. With support from the John Templeton Foundation, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and other sources, CTNS has engaged in a variety of research projects, from collaborating with the Vatican Observatory on theology and science with a focus on divine action, to the ethical and theological implications of the human genome project, to how small interdisciplinary teams of researchers can wrestle with questions raised by science regarding transcendence and ultimate concern.

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

its a psyop

real scientists are working in military-funded deep sea laboratories

>>11240309
I'm hearin alot of talk brother, not seeing alot of links, which particular refutation of mine do you think is the most inaccurate?
I posted like a hundred posts man, should be pretty easy to point out how incorrect I am.....

>>11212345
Holy shit you may be right.

ITT: schizos and crackpot pseuds

The state of /sci/ in 2019...

Take special relativity for example. The idea that light requires no medium for travel and maintains a constant speed for all observers not only defies all empirical evidence that we can observe, but also invokes a sort of omniscience and sentience on behalf of light. Einstein took advantage of the fact that because light is the fastest thing we can use to measure, we can only perform measurements of light's speed around a closed loop.

Let me repeat that, and turn it over in your mind; No matter what you do, you can only measure the speed of light around a closed loop. That means that you will always measure the average speed, which in a moving system will always be c.

That was Einstein's primary contribution to physics. Clever thought-play taking advantage of the measurement limitations our bodies and tools impose on us. It has produced exactly zero tangible or useful results since its introduction a century ago.

Another whopper is the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. QM started out as a great empirical science that explored the behavior of objects at the dimensional limits of our observational ability. (((Niels Bohr))) came along and proposed that a state of superposition - unmeasured - was something physically real and distinct from the measured states. There is absolutely no observable evidence to support this idea, and it merely presents the mathematical artifact of our measurement limitations as a magical world that only the jews can truly understand. Again, there is absolutely no empirical evidence that quantum superposition is a physically real state. Consequently, just like Einstein's work, this interpretation of quantum mechanics has produced exactly zero useful or tangible results.

>>11240367
As far as I know the government doesn't know about this. It's more of a capitalism gone wrong on a global scale type thing.
There are several factors, mainly human nature. People can't stand being wrong, particularly scientists, particularly scientists that lose their jobs and funding if they don't keep quiet.

As if someone would lose their high paying job at CERN or Google just to run around like a nutjob telling everyone QM was a hoax, why would you do that.
Would you do that? If you worked at Google's quantum computing lab with a 6 figure income and you found out quantum computing was a hoax?
Let's be realistic people.
Feinnman wrote a book about scientists and how they lie all the time, it's called "cargo cult science"
He was the guy that said "if you think you understand quantum mechanics then you don't understand quantum mechanics."

Feynman knew by the way, he just didn't want to end his career as a tragic tinfoil hat type guy.

>>11240381
The schizoid and crackpots are contributing more than you brother.

>>11240392

Better to say nothing than say bullshit.

>>11240386
i agree that it's a racket built on a shaky framework of rhetoric and contrived symbol manipulation / notation systems, and we've seen D-Wave, IBM and google push out these """quantum computers""" that don't actually do anything

but i worry that so few scientists lack any real integrity about this (the top celebrity scientists have been photographed at epstein's island, for example). it's basically a given that nobel prize nominations are controlled the way oscars type events are, would that imply a 'mafia' taking out scientists who dare to speak out?

but the results are that science is giving out way less a bang for its buck. it's not as if there's a brain drain of scientists or that we know so much that it's hard to find fruitful results, it's that there's a dense informational structure of "settled science" that is compromised somewhere in the stack/hierarchy that needs to be smoothed out. we should be getting more results, more inventions, more cool shit, not less - as if it were frozen. theoretical physics seems to be the world's biggest mental gymnastics discipline in light of all this

and the start of all this science-as-business can probably be traced back to as far as Maxwell and Tesla imho

>>11240394
Man...I don't know what reaction you expect to illicit from me with that post.
I could point out that you didn't post nothing.....
So no contribution? No question?
I think you are technically trolling.
But if you have a question or want to point out an inconsistency in my theory, I would love to debate that.
You read my whole garbage thread of posts and you can't link me to something I said thats wrong? You never read any of the thread did you....

>>11240395
Holt shit dude, somehow Epstein ends up in the mix. Pro tip, people who extort money from unsuspecting victims are what we loosely refer to as criminals, so anyone high up in QM is technically a very bad person, the idea that these people can't commit other major crimes doesn't surprise me at all.

The brain drain is because we are investing incredible amounts of money into scams that will never work.

Quantum mechanics is the new water powered car. You can get as many investors as you want lol, never going to happen.
Thanks for the post.

>>11240435
yeah guys like stephen pinker, hawking (who may have been a body double since the 80s), dawkins, dennett, e.g. the "high priests" of nu-Science

i'm aware of the fraud placed upon the art world but the way science has been manipulated is a bit frightening

i still think it goes back to electromagnetism, that it has been controlled for a long time while real results are being studied in secret

since these celebrity scientists know QM is fraudulent, do you think they're doing real science behind peoples' backs?

and what to make of anyone branded a "pseudoscientist" who doesn't necessarily qualify for it? look into ruggero santilli who noticed a certain agenda to stifle his work - especially by a network of "peer reviewers" and journal editors like weinberg, or the silencing of cold fusion research. i'm not talking about paranormal stuff or mysticism

>>11240269
>I'm not lieing though? Can you provide a link to a Google search result about quantum mechanics being a hoax or scam?
https://www.google.com/search?q=reasons+why+quantum+mechanics+is+wrong&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m

>The first one, Young's twin slit experiment proved that light had a wave interference pattern.
>The one done with electrons showed a randomised particle pattern, because of electrostatic build up in the machine and the electrons repelling each other.
Do both. It's really easy. For the electrons you can use sticky tape on a roll and a motor that rips it off steadily. I'm thinking about creating this at home, will post pics if I have the time.

>The "quantum" twin slit is theoretical,
No, there were several experiments performed, even with larger particles.

>We don't have the technology yet to fire individual photons.
Erm, yes, that's been around for a while. Google "Single photon source".

>And the quantum eraser is theoretical as well.
I literally have performed the experiment at home. I'm in a different country right now, but will post pics next year if you're still around. I'll make a thread about it.

>>11240474
Hey man I gotta go to bed but God damn I want to continue this conversation, Stephen Hawking has so many red flags its a science fiction movie.
Has a disease with a 5 year lifespan, look best for like 50 years?
Can only type a small amount of words per my mute, writes dozens of books?
From my brief research all those books were "co-written", but there is alot going on with that, something about him being inducted into a Christian cult, there was weird unnoticed stuff like his nurse got done for abusing him for like 5 years, couldn't he tell someone?
Not my area of conspiracy research atm bit I gotta check that out more.
I think Hawking was a vegetable for most of his years, and the speech machine was just someone else on an iPad or something.

I studied electromagnetism for a long time, there are areas of research into using high explosives to compress the background EMF , and apparently the environment within the EMF compression experiences time differently etc, lots of other stuff, we discovered a few things at the lab with alternative theories of physics,

But gyroscopes are where it's at, conservation of angular momentum allows you to make inertial drives, it's actually really easy, you just orientate like three gyros on a wheel, and slowing and speeding them up creates net inertial movement in either direction, stuff like that ,

But man, you sound like a guy that knows a few things he isn't allowed to talk about.

I'll be on 4 Chan everyday for a bit, if you see any of my schizo posts don't be a stranger lol.

>>11240570
Superconducting gyroscopes was one thing, Meissner effect excludes EMF, interacts with the magnetic fields and gravity etc.

>>11240488
Thanks for your questions, you are totally right about the single photon source, awesome :) I withdraw that statement, it needs modification, I will respond to everything else tomorrow,

In regards to that Google search thing, do you kind of see what I mean though? Like what you posted is valid but the second half of the story is behind a paywall, so do you agree that there is very scarce information on Google in regards to QM being a hoax, like I just mean it's a little inconsistent right?

Goodnight and thanks for the response.

>>11240385
Will respond to this tomorrow.
I am out of time.

>>11240385
Based though.

>>11240679
No, I don't think it's scarce given that basically all our experiments verify the results predicted by qm. Surely it's a lot less than what you'd get if you googled for support of qm, but that is to be expected.

Will you try performing these experiments yourself? It's not that expensive really.

>>11211604
neat!

>>11239463
I read a book called "secrets of pi, why the circle can't be squared" and it had a whole chapter on infinitely large and infinitely small maths, and it had solutions to both of those paradoxii, had a specific chapter on it, I think maybe analog applies to the infinitely small, (measuring area under a curve etc, sub devisions of 1) and digital is for the infinitely large (multiples of one)
I don't know but it fits with what I am learning from you I think.

>>11240385
I love your work man, cool insight,
Hey what do you mean by closed loop?
I agree with everything you said, how did you find all this out?

>>11242000
>>11240570
hey, I saw it on an old 8ch thread

c, the speed of light is a measured average of light circulating in something like a ring. the point is einstein relied on deceptive thought experiments and reasoning by analogy is a part of the rhetoric.

notice how the Jouknowwhews had no presence in physics until after the development of propaganda as a discipline? santilli and other scientists kicked out of the club have noticed a certain pattern in their behaviors.

also, although i don't endorse all of his views - miles mathis has written a bit about the swindle that is 20th century physics and even on how hawking may have been replaced by a body double. even simple public photos from the 80s compared to recent history show two different hawkings.

i like your penetrating look at physics, but think bigger - consider every undergrad physics course and textbook has been designed to view physics in a certain light. there's a particular dogma and agenda underlying all of it. i've come to think it spans several fields and institutions although i don't see it as the work of overly competent elite but the fruits of thousands of man-hours, useful idiots and lots of money.

kabbalah describes the universe as being in 11 dimensions and so does modern string theory, coincidence?

>>11240474
I don't think they are doing any real science secretly, alot of their effort would be dedicated to maintaining the lie and making more money.
I just read up on Epstein's scientist thing, that is one of the darker things I have read in my life,

So Epstein gets out of prison, for child sex crimes, kidnaps some young girls and take them to a science dinner right, people at the dinner make statements later that they knew Epstein had bought kidnapped children because the girls looked scared and sad, and no one says anything......
Even the female scientists,
And later that night Epstein and the other pHd scientists raped all the young girls.

And this happened all the time, and when he got his second prison term for child trafficking all the scientists came out publicly to say sex with children is OK, and Epstein didn't do anything wrong....

That really happened.

I don't think these people are "scientists" I think these people are child sex predators with college degrees.

What a coincidence the Vatican is also populated with child rapists and love QM lol, coincidence I know, but still true.

I'm going to have to end up calling this "quantum-rapegate" or something.

I like to think scientists are inherently good, bit it seems less true everyday.

I read Carl Sagans book (my favourite scientist) couple of pages in it says he had a 14 year old girlfriend when he was 27, and I'm like "for fuck sake" ,
I don't know what's going on anymore.

But as well as not doing any science y ah they would definitely stifle others, it's politics, it's what you do.

>>11240381
PLEASE tell me you're a Copenhagen enthusiast.

>We have a complete description of QM.
>It's based on the idea that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
>It requires that some interactions can break the speed of light.
I can't something that exemplifies split-thinking more than that.

>Well akshually...the universe will make an exception, just for you, if you can't use it to talk with people faster than the speed of light.
Get the fuck outta here with that "consciousness causes collapse" tier bullshit.

>>11242143
he was also into weird scientific ideas, would fund things like cryogenics and life extension, and even funded some lifeboat underground bunker research. maybe these scientists were just humouring him.

top vatican clergy is at least 50% gay, some investigative journalist found out.

makes me wonder about asimov, or even bill nye for that matter and his support for weird gender theory

i think most of their public books and papers are ghostwritten

>>11242098
Thankyou, this one post is my research project for the week, I have read about all of what you said, I read a brief history of time and the companion book and it was the diary of a madman, and that's when I learned no one has actually read it, it's like the arc of the covenant, also if you read it and don't understand it, it's not because you are a sub 160IQ pleb. It's because it's gibberish. It actually talks about matter being conscious etc.
But yeah, he was at least a vegetable for most of it.
Try writing a book at 6 words a minute lol, then do it 15 times.

The Vatican uses QM to push god, Jewish people use QM to push Kabbalah,
That's how it wo works. Nice observation.
Man I have studied most fields of science , alternative science, mysticism, religion etc, hit me with anything you have, doesn't need to be a full write up.
Bullet point is fine.

Also I'm a Jew lol, I gotta tell you something, "Zionists" or whatever you want to call them aren't religious leaders, they are dangerous sociopaths using the whole WW2 thing to have complete control, Zionism is the idea of a "heaven on earth" but....it's a closed hate heaven that's Zionists only ;)
Regular Jewish people have no more knowledge of upper echelon Zionist attempts to rule the world than regular Catholics have of closed door Vatican meetings with the pope.
But the heaven on earth thing allows control over the good people that do embrace the concept of religion being good.

The penetrating look at physics is a search for definite proofs of my theory.

What do you mean by think bigger?
I am all ears :)

>>11240385
This entire post is completely retarded

>>11242194
look when people say it's the jews, they don't mean ruth at the synagogue or abraham at the deli, they mean zionists, like ZOG, or the ethnocentric biases and hypocrisy of elite jews. even regular jews are cannon fodder for the elite goal to remove race and border by having everyone mix and become dependent servile worker drones who push buttons. anything requiring sufficient IQ to do will be left to AI to finish.

everything looks more and more like Revelation every day, all the figures in that book are beginning to form.

check out Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future by Fr. Seraphim Rose. the guy started out as an eastern mystic hippie and came to his senses about what was going on and became a very influential monk.

>>11242207
I know what you mean my good man.
These posts are based as fuck,

>>11242153
Nice logic.

>>11242183
Humouring him for a shit tonne of cash and underaged prostitutes lol,
Everyone wants to live forever (telomere lengthening herbs if you need a head start)
It sounds like Epstein was out of his mind and they were up to something, he had a handler, that guy that managed everything. Probably being fleeced for cash. But if Epstein is trying to build a secret underground bunker than that is a red flag, what do you really think is under the Vatican, Jesus's bones lol?
Same thing that any pedofile would have in an underground bunker.

My friend's brother joined the clergy because he was gay and didn't want anyone to know why he was single.
It's how they recruit people with "secret double life" if you will, secrets are how canals Form. Yeah the Bill Nye thing.
Man this has nothing to do with the LGBQTI community, I have trans friends.
But recently there has been a movement to introduce people who are sexually attracted to children to the LGBQTI spectrum. Not by the community. But by the sex predators.
Now this is tin foil hat so and just a thought I had.
Do you know about elsagate? Not the conspiracy but just what happened, the wiki page is good enough.

Now my main field is neuropharmacology, and I know a bit about related fields like endocrinology etc.
You know the thai ladyboy phenomenon?
How just seemingly at random for a few years almost everyboy in Thailand was born as a girl trapped in a boys body, like millions of children.
It was a synthetic endocrine disrupting growth hormone they were putting in chickens to increase egg production.
Anyway xenoestrogens like BPA are a bit more powerful than we think.
Tetrabromobisphenol-A in children's pyjamas as a fire retardant, got enough fucking functional groups on that molecule to make it nice and hyperpigmentation and bioavailable.
Anyway someone is behind the endocrine disruptors in our water, and there is countless synthetic animal sex hormones in meat etc (that's probably just factory farming though)
Cont.

>>11242197
Lol, no it isn't.
What's your post?
Why don't we compare them.

>>11242207
>>everything looks more and more like Revelation every day, all the figures in that book are beginning to form.

It's the last days of Rome again, neurotoxic learning the water.

Remember when General motors (evil)
Created this and put it in petrol for 100 years,

"Tetraethyllead is highly toxic, with as little as 6-15mL being enough to induce severe lead poisoning.[61] The hazards of TEL's lead content are heightened due to the compound's volatility and high lipophilicity, enabling it to easily cross the blood-brain barrier and accumulate in the limbic system, frontal cortex, and hippocampus, making chelation therapy ineffectiv"

And now it's everywhere in the food, water and air?

Just remember there are plenty of ways to stop this absorrbtion and to remove lead from the brain, you just need to know how. I bet the elites take their special vitamins everyday to make themselves immune.

This is one of the primary reasons everyone is acting so crazy.

>>11242307
Neurotoxic lead in the water*

>>11242307
>>11242233
Yes xenoestrogens are everywhere, and EMF has a nontrivial effect on the body. blue light and pollutants everywhere, pollutants in the air, carbon monoxide in the cities, modern stressors, lack of sleep, lack of sunlight, poor nutrition, mercury in vegetables, pesticides, understudied GMOs, chemicals in sunscreens, cosmetics and detergents, atrazine in the water, birth control urine in water supplies, microplastics in every glass of drinking water, hormones in meats, people cooming out all of their nutrients

>>11242233
Cont.
Now just remember that the upper echelon sex predators are insane ;) everyone forgets that, rich people can get away with anything. So use Epstein as an example, he was totally mad, his manifesto was basically
-kidnap little girls
-have sex with little girls
-spread his DNA all over the planet and sees the earth
-heaps of other weird shit.

So he's not some genius , he's insane
So that's why what Epstein and his global network was trying to do sounds insane.

This is what I think the big idea was.
So we know big science is run by child sex predators, So is Disney,YouTube Facebook, the government ,private sector ,so basically everyone in charge.
So all that's on these peoples "to do" list is "children!!"
So they put the hormones in our food and water and air, to make us all a little crazy, and so the girls develop early, estrogens in milk are like taking the contraceptive pill for example, anyone here drink any milk? They run the elsagate "bondage porn for children" videos that make all the children hyper sexualised,
The gender confusion (trans, MLP, planet kin, whatever you want to call it suspends our morals while we try to work out what's happening,
During the confusion all the elites slip "pedophilia is natural" into the acceptance wave,

We are close to having "P" added to LGBQTI, it's going to happen soon.
Oh wait it's already happened, people just don't care anymore. People on masse defended Epstein , one of the quote was "so what if has sex with a 14 year old girl, girls that age want to have sex"
One of the scientists said that on tv.

And for my last point.
I'm watching Netflix, show comes on called "good girls" totally normal crime show, I'm sitting there watching right

Dad exits bedroom and walks over to mum.
Dad"it just makes me so uncomfortable, you know....when she puts her hand down there.(referring to 4year old daughter masturbating while he was reading her a bedtime story)
Mum"*laughing* Oh that's totally normal *hugs dad*
End.

>>11242320
Yeah it's wild, did you know alot of endocrine disruptors are more potent the lower the dose,
So the guy spraying it is less effected than someone several kilometres downstream, high exposure triggers your body to know something is wrong and moderate the response.
Low dose is misinterpreted as regular hormone signals, like growing breasts etc.
With a name like endocrine disruptor you know it's pretty sinister though.

You know receptor sites in humans are so sensitive they could detect a grain of salt in a normal sized swimming pool, David Suzuki taught me that.
No one knows just how bad it's really gotten.

Have you heard of nitric oxide in exhaust, it's thousands of times more dangerous that carbon monoxide, causes brain development abnormalities,
It's only in exhaust because of the catalytic converter , it's synthesized in there.
Yet another government thing that poisons the air. It's illegal not to have one, and they don't work. How mysterious

>>11239688
This was my 2nd last post.

Honestly struggling to keep track of anything atm. Sorry. Just two points for the mo.

>>11240679
>you are totally right about the single photon source
If I drop the particle part, and just refer to photons as a wave-packet (or whatever), are we on the same page?

>>11239763
I had an analogy written out involving a spinning yo-yo passing through 3 gates that each alter the angle of the yo-yo.
I found the issue.
There are two ways the polarisers can be altering the angle.
a) Deflecting them.
b) Guiding them.
Deflection would be like giving the yo-yo (/photon) a poke in mid-flight at the correct point in time. This would have an effect on the angle that would evolve over time. In this scenario, if you had an experiment set up perfectly with each gate 1m apart, at 0.25m, each poke wouldn't give the photon (/yo-yo) enough time to complete it's change in angle before the next gate.
Guiding would be like sending the yo-yo(/photon through a pipe with a half-quarter twist, so that once the object exits the pipe, it's already at the exact angle needed to pass into the next pipe.

Does that ...mess of text above make sense? Option a represents my view well enough. Is b anything like what you're picturing?

As for the conspiracy stuff...
I think humans are a stupid species, dopamine hungry, self-interested and capable of being very methodical.

The tragic part is that it's impossible to distinguish which of the above drives any given individual.

>>11240863
Help me understand how to do the quantum eraser at my house, now what machine do I use to make the scanner that detects the spin state of the individual photon'?

>>11242398
Don't worry about it.
If I miss a question just ask it again, I'm not avoiding anything but this thread is the size of a small book at this stage, so it's easy to miss stuff, especially with "anon" handles.

I only go of observational science, in my experience it's a wave all the time, but wave-particle is actually a beautiful descriptor, works for everything as far as I know. Always been on the same page, truth seeking man, I don't care what the answer is as long as it's the right one :)

The yoyo thing I picture it more like the "deflectors" are magnetic and draw the yoyo toward them as the yoyo flies through the course,
I used to make antennas for like long range wifi etc, what you are talking about is literally that, light and electromagnetism work exactly the same as far a I know, so I think light is electromagnetic in nature.

Hey man, I'm in the middle of building a small studio to do demonstrations of all the great machines, you know twin slit, Marx generator, van den Graaf etc, I just have to get my 3d printer/laser engraver/CNC lathe and I can fabricate pretty much anything.
I will have all this done in time.
It's a piece of a big puzzle.

>>11242445
*Wave-packet

>>11242415
It sounds like you haven't studied alternate history, ill put it like this. There have been very evil people in power for about 2000 years, there are evil people in power now, with unlimited power and money.
That's why the world is the way it is.
I think I might have a plan to fix it though lol. I just need like 5 anons that think the same way I do. And that's stage one of the ARG.

>>11242445
>The yoyo thing I picture it more like the "deflectors" are magnetic and draw the yoyo toward them as the yoyo flies through the course
So... an aligner?
Similarly to how magnetic poles are aligned in a bar magnet?
I can get behind that if so, but that leaves the obvious question.

>>11242467
>It sounds like you haven't studied alternate history
Correct.
The world is the way it is as a consequence of (but not limited to) the human characteristics I listed. I believe proper analysis of that might end up being a necessity for something similar to your aim to be achieved and that likely requires an open mind. So for now I'm content enough with the knowledge I have.

>>11242492
These pictures are how I see it.

You should be, you could debate an actual quantum physicist and I bet you would give them hell haha. As far as I know QM is the hardest science. You have a solid understanding of it. Good work. We are discussing the same things Einstein and Bohr and all those people discussed. Life is good.

>>11242507
>These pictures are how I see it.
I recognise that pic.
And, heck yes, I have something to work with.
That image is describing the same thing I am, with one exception.
It's implied that all the filters are represented in the same moment in time.
For a typical representation, the filters should be identified as being in subsequent moments in time, but with the wave-front of the photon being point-like (rather than continuous, as shown).

All that's missing in the image is the clarification that the filters are separate locations in time, as well as space.
I neglected to post my diagrams, I'll get on to that once I'm rested.

>>11242512
Gross dude. Is that supposed to be showing that photons passing through photons is fully probabilistic? Go back to the topic of child abuse by the powers that be, that was making me marginally less nauseous.

>We are discussing the same things Einstein and Bohr and all those people discussed.
Well we have so much more power at our fingertips than they could comprehend.
At the end of the day, I've strived to maintain an open mind and that's what made me reduce the problem to "is the information travelling forwards/backwards/not-at-all" in time.
That kinda state of mind is not in a stable equilibrium, so I'm hopeful that if I can nail a concession out of you that will translate in scale.

>>11232330
>Nothing changes if you abandon QM, it's not actually used for anything :)
Except for literally all of solid state physics, one of the largest fields of physics. And of course all atomic and molecular physics is QM as well.

QM not only explains why matter doesn't spontaneously collapse in on itself (which it would classically), you can even use it to correctly predict material properties from first principles, something which I do professionally and has been routine for decades.

>>11242507
>You should be, you could debate an actual quantum physicist and I bet you would give them hell haha.
I am an actual quantum physicist and I have debated him. It is tiring, draining and infuriating, because no matter how much evidence or demands for explanations you throw his way, he just either repeats "nuh-uh photons aren't real" or preys on some way some specific sentence on some wikipedia page can be misinterpreted. He's not an honest debater at all.

>>11242582
It is actually moving through as "quantised" "discrete" "packets" of the nanometre long "wave-packets" you defined. So you can absolutely visualise it as either a continuous line like a piece of string, OR a stream of tiny wave-packets.
I legit have never thought about that.
Analog and digital representation of the exact same phenomenon. No wonder there are so many conflicting theories,this is confusing as shit.

Man have you ever studied graphing the movement of something.
I think you might be simultaneously viewing the wave packet as at rest and moving. So you might be trying to visualise to incompatible graphs simultaneously.
So the second image is the movement of the wave-packets over time, it's a "long exposure" if you will. Unlike a very short exposure that would show the wave packet at specific time points along the wave packets journey.


It's called quantum-rapegate for a reason bro ;) lol.

X axis, y axis, z axis and time brother, that's all there is. There is no other coordinates in this universe, any more than you can go to infinity on the X axis.
It's called an asymptote, the opposite limit being the minimum Planck length you can measure. All things lie between these two limits.

>>11242624
Are you talking about "quantum tunneling"? There is nothing quantum about it. But do you have any evidence of your claim? Like a link or something.
There is nothing quantum about any aspect of CPU manufacture or anything like that. Just because it has the word quantum before it doesn't mean it's quantum. And quantum diodes aren't quantum either.

>>11242634
Who are you referring to?
You are a real quantum physicist?
Oh man this is too good.
How does a quantum computer work?
Explain it to me as if I'm either a child, or a higher functioning autistic physicist.
Or somewhere in between.

How come these threads stop getting bumped around the 300 mark?
Is that an automatic 4chan thing, or are the mods flagging it so it slowly dies?

>>11242634
What is your favourite piece of evidence to support quantum mechanics?

>>11242785
protip: write a book (in latex)

>>11242793
About my theory?
I will be killed lol.
Or labelled as mentally ill and probably never work again.
This goes deeper than you realise,
What I have planned requires a very different approach.
Of all the decades I studied all this stuff, I always dreamt that one day everyone was going to see what the government was really up to, and we could change it and make the world better. Like one day we would have proof. My hope was on the moon landing turning out to be faked.
This was along time ago. So there were like 5 conspiracy theories lol. And no internet so research was very different.
But after that Epstein thing, and elsagate? Not the conspiracy, just the phenomenon, no one cares, mother's are on some of the forums saying it doesn't matter because children are interested in sex anyway.....
What is happening.
Anyway the quantum thing is happening right now. It's not like the JFK assassination, it's literally happening in front of me as I type.
So this means a few things, if you know enough about your enemy than you can predict them. And when you can predict something, you can lay a trap.
And there's all kinds of cool stuff you can do if you study alot of psychology, you can predict what people do. So you just have to set it up just right. But with years of continuous planning and a small group of dedicated people you can achieve anything.....so they say.

>>11242847
while i sympathize, it's hard to spread the gospel by claiming threads like these. people want to discuss things and not just read someone's theories. you know how the world seems crazy trippy connected to you and you want to shout it from the rooftops? To others that sounds schizo because they want to talk about 1 thing. gotta consider writing that book and risk getting taken out

>>11242848
I understand your perspective. Have you read any of the hundreds of my posts through the thread, or just the last few.
These posts are responses to previous conversations and themes, some of which spanned several days. The world doesn't seem crazy trippy connected, but I do know what you are referring to;)
It seems like really big companies like Google are up to no good and doing vaporware, like they have been doing since they started.
All i am saying is we don't have working quantum computers. The people making the quantum computers know. And it is slowing our technological advancement. And I would prefer it to stop.

Thanks for the advice. Dr Randell mills took the time to write a book that explained all physics using a classical non quantum interpretation, with maths as well. It's already been done. This is a different problem to what you think. You sound like a good person. Maybe you could read the thread and give me some opinion on my theory. That would be cool.

>>11242894
I did read the thread and recognize most of it. There is obviously too much to respond to but considering the quantum matter I can give some thoughts. I believe the quantum theories started out alright as a kind of counter-point to the weirdness that physicists discovered at the turn of the 19th, but that it has since become completely religious. Personally I think it's overrated abstract sugar that does not help understand the equations people actually use. Nowadays it's more metaphysical than actually physical, and quantum computers are still nowhere as you said, and probably going nowhere. They are definitely grant-rakers atm and most of what is written about them is either Space Age scifi fantasy or outright speculative lies. Why this is happening is another topic, but overall I would say "quantum theories" are reasonable as models go (perturbative QED is nice) but that people need to shut the fuck up about the metaphysics. The disdain for aether comes from this too I think, so that everyone is now discouraged from reading anything written before Einstein.

As for tech giants being up to no good, I'd say that's obvious but it's not really directly related unless you want to involve the power structure of modern science. Technological advancement has been out of "the people"'s hands for a long time now so I dunno what to say about that.

When I said you should write a book I didn't mean publish it of course, just to have a PDF that people can read.

>>11242907
Man that is exactly what I am saying. Thankyou for your reply.
Keep in mind everything you just said flies dead in the face of what universities and textbooks are saying lol.
So either we are both existing in a meticulously crafted fantasy land or its everyone else that is wrong.
Welcome to the quantumgate cabal lol.
*Engaged in blood magic Moloch ritual*

I have been plugging this idea all day everyday on /sci/ for weeks and I managed to get possibly 4 people to agree with me.

It begins.
Also I'm not as crazy as I sound lol, it's more an effort to make this subject interesting or whatever.

I love your work :)

Did you see how that guy made fifty million cash by plugging fake QM, that's such a mad scam lol.
I'm probably going to do something like that. Who's gonna stop me? Schizos running around yelling about how QM is a hoax? I doubt that will cut into my profit margins.....I am being satirical.

I will write that book when I can show it to people and publish it in my own name.

>>11242424
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NAsFtJ0s2XE

A simple polarization filter is enough. Unlike in the video, I suggest using a hair instead of a double slit, it's easier and more stable.

>>11242907
Ooo and the tech giant thing. I actually think it's possible to defeat them. And by that I mean shine light onto what they are doing. There is a very real connection between quantum and for instance Epstein. But that's just icing on the cake.
It's the fact that quantum computing is literally a hoax, and Google knows lol.
Writing a paper won't work.
Me being the face of the movement won't work. People have tried. They were pretty brutal with pons and fleishman over the cold fusion, they like destroyed his life over it, made the front page lol.
Writing a book doesn't work.

It's an incredibly enemy, maybe Google will take over the world one day. I don't know what is planned for when people start asking about quantum computers and when are we going to finally get one, but it can't be good. A very complicated scenario has evolved out of this technological dystopia.

You should help me spread the word.
Help me create a better world.

>>11242907
Oh hey want to play this pointless time filling game for a sec,
I'm gonna use my quantum powers to see if I can guess some stuff about you in real real life.
How accurate is this
Male
Mid 30s,
Moderately successful
In a relationship
Possibly a psychologist or MD
Masters or double degree
American.
Happy.

Let me know how I went :)

>>11243004
Sorry m8 I don't have time right now to respond to your other posts, too bad about the thread dying soon. You're reasonably on point but I've actually gone through said cursed University system and have a few masters from there including physics/maths/chem. However here's something you might not expect: Christ is the truth. Merry Christmas, try not to go crazy with all the propaganda around.

>>11242988
Hey man let's try a thought experiment.
We are astronauts and we just got through the wormhole and landed on the alien planet.
All the aliens are greeting us.and they speak English and the leader says to me
Alien leader "whoa! How did you guys do that wormhole thing"
Me"quantum physics bro!"
Alien "can you tell me how it works, like a simple experiment we could do right now ?, If you show us, we will worship you as gods and you can have all the sex you want with our shapeshifting pleasure aliens"
Me " oh fuck yes, now we will demonstrate the triple phasor paradox"

Then I look over at you, with a crazy look in my eyes, then I point at all the sex aliens lined up waiting, and they are hot aliens. And I say
"My friend anon is gonna tell you all look about that shit son *fistbumps alien*

Then everyone goes quiet as you step up to the microphone, *loud feedback begins and gradually increases in intensity, you can tell the sex aliens don't like it. We are all looking at you, especially the sex aliens shapeshifter twins that look like your crush you never got to make it with, but even hotter!

Me "tell everybody about how the paradox works anon"

Anon takes a breath and begins speaking into the mic.......

>>11243008
You rock man, you know as well as I do I'm starting another thread tomorrow ;)
Jesus is one of my favourites, I would love to talk about that some other time.
WWJD works everytime man, no matter what you think. Thankyou for the warning about not going crazy, i have worked in mental health alot, that's a good tip lol.
Merry Christmas,
Thanks.

Man that video is using a "quadruple slit" the guy says it about 15 second in, so it has a weird interference pattern, I know how the experiment works this is a hybrid of the twin slit experiment and it has nothing to do with the quantum eraser experiment, this video is super misleading,
Quantum eraser claimed they measured individual photonic spin state.
(They never actually did the experiment , so yes it shows up in Google, no, it isn't real.
Provide some more information for us to debate, like describe what you saw in the video and why it was proves light is a particle.

>>11242785
How solving the schrodinger equation for the hydrogen atom explains the entire structure of the periodic table of the elements. Something I have pressed you on repeatedly, and you still have never answered.

Also, the simple fact that classical electrodynamics states that no collection of point charges can be stable by pure electromagnetic forces. All matter would almost instantly collapse in on itself and matter would not exist.

I suggeat you read Ashcroft&Mermin's solid state physics. It should give you at least a small idea of the scope of what you're denying.

Furthermore, you still have not explained stimulated emission, nor have you even done an attempt at explaining why superconductivity and superfluidity exists. QM easily explains all of this and more. You have nothing.

>>11243013
I don't get what you mean. Will you do the experiment, or keep ignoring it so as to not destroy your delusions?

>>11243100
Oh yeah I remember you, all good questions, thankyou for your continued interest in my project.

What do you mean by "solving" the schrödinger's equation, let's expand on this a little. So there is an equation I can put a value into and calculate the entire structure of the periodic table? Can you give me an example of like how I could calculate the periodic table with an equation, I don't understand the question. I suffer from quite a few mental health problems so its probably that.

By point charges you mean like an electron?
I know it's written that doesn't mean it's true.
I am just signing off for the night and this thread is fast approaching the inevitable heat death of a shadow ban.
But I will read up on solid state physics.

I did get distracted and skip over your superconducting stuff, I apologise,
I thought I addressed stimulated emission for days. I guess it needs more work.

Thanks again, see you tomorrow hopefully, no one is is presenting the solid state debate. Don't let me win bro, I'll be all over town runnin my mouth.
I temporarily admit defeat as I am out of energy. Those questions are very good.

>>11243108
Sorry my fault, sure, if you can wait till I buy the stuff I need :)

>>11243171
>By point charges you mean like an electron?
>I know it's written that doesn't mean it's true.
It is when it is a mathematical proof. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnshaw%27s_theorem#Effect_on_physics

>I thought I addressed stimulated emission for days. I guess it needs more work.
No, you kept pointing to the free electron laser. But you never explained how stimulated emission works.

>What do you mean by "solving" the schrödinger's equation, let's expand on this a little. So there is an equation I can put a value into and calculate the entire structure of the periodic table?
No, there is an equation, and if you solve it for the Hydrogen system, the solutions you get explain atomic orbitals and their occupations, which leads to the shape of the periodic table. See the fourth chapter of Griffith's "Introduction to quantum mechanics".

>>11242634
I am an actual quantum physicist and I have debated him.
Have you debated me? I've been saying that photons are a line.

>he just either repeats "nuh-uh photons aren't real" or preys on some way some specific sentence on some wikipedia page can be misinterpreted.
I'm saying that photons are real, we exist in a world where time we are moving forward steadily in time and 'c' is the speed limit, even if photons don't really exist from their perspective, they interact with our view of the world in a very real way.

>How solving the schrodinger equation for the...
Photons being a line shouldn't change any of the known maths or science, which I agree with but don't understand very well.
I just think it's a nice way to explain why the Copenhagen doesn't fully break the speed of light and why Bohmian mechanics works without needing hidden variables that fail the Bell inequalities.

I've read that this idea wouldn't work because you can't put photons on a Minkowski space-time diagram, or it is meaningless to do so.
I get that, space and time are practically the same thing at 'c' (roughly? maybe?), and each would get crushed to a single point, which would mean the photon was at all points simultaneously, which does sound silly.

But just looking at time dilation or length contraction individually, that gives some explanation. Both of which agree with each other. So then combining them would make sense, even if the results are meaningless when just looking at the end result.

Did you have a reason this can't be correct beyond what I just listed?

>>11243231
I think he was talking about me, to me, thinking it was you, I'm not sure. I don't know if if "nuh-uh photons aren't real" is an adequate descriptor of the effort I make.

Bro, are you a quantum phycisist?
Epic, nice work.
I managed to get myself into a situation where I can now fully devote my time to my own projects. There is research to be done. There are problems to solve. Also there is money to be made.
:)

>>11243231
Man of we could get the triple degree Jesus guy from earlier, the guy predicting revelations, you (the quantum physicist) and the crazy guy from the bush shelter (((me))), and the solid state guy all posting at the same time, now that would be a debate. Something good would have to come out of that.
That wave-packet thing is pure gold.
Let's regroup tomorrow.
Now if you'll excuse me, I gotta get back to handing out my mixtape and being gangstalked by Swiss guard Vatican operatives.

>>11243313
>I think he was talking about me, to me, thinking it was you, I'm not sure.
I considered that. Either way I figured I'd lay out my point of view and hope I got a response from a real physicist.

>Bro, are you a quantum phycisist?
No. I suck at maths if I don't have a reason to do it.
I couldn't even memorise the equations of motion, so in exams I'd just figure them out by picturing throwing a ball up in the air.

I only got interested in this stuff after getting frustrated that both interpretations of QM are impossible.
I would try to learn the maths, but like I said, the hybrid interpretation shouldn't change any of the stuff that already works.

>I managed to get myself into a situation...
That's cool.
I don't even know what I want to do. I just hate this narrative that "we can't explain physics, so maybe physics is really maths, or maybe physics is really biology, or maybe physics is really philosophy, or maybe the best way to understand physics is not to understand it at all".
Fuck.
That.
Physics is physics. The physics shows that you can't put photons on a normal space-time diagram, so you need to put it on a special space-time diagram.
It'll break your brain to imagine it, because thinking of time dilation and length contraction occurring simultaneously is basically paradoxical, but that's the same thing as the Ladder paradox, just to a greater degree.
And if you can wrap your head around that, you get something that agrees with the EPR paradox and the Bell inequalities.