/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11094464]

What is your opinion quantum mechanics?

[Anonymous No.11094468]

>>11094464
(-1/12) / 10

[Anonymous No.11094470]

>>11094464
quantum theory is best theory

[Anonymous No.11094472]

>>11094464
it's real
and it's not real

[Anonymous No.11094512]

>>11094464
also, is the meme about on i ons actually true? they increase testosterone? (especially raw onions?)

[Anonymous No.11094513]

It's a hoax.
People have been watching too much big bang theory and thinking it's real.
And according to all the scientists that studied it, you know the long dead ones, none of the theories are testable, it observable, QM was supposed to be a tool for hypothesized thought experiments like "what do you think aliens look like?"
"Well they probably have bilateral symmetry"
"But what about silicon based lifeforms ? Would they have bilateral symmetry"

Quantum mechanics has become the victim of "groupthink" it's a phenomenon where groups of people working a project all agree with each other too much and start just making stuff up.
It's also called an" idealogical echo chamber"

I'll prove it.
For an experiment ask some valid questions about QM inconsistencies and watch how angry people get.
Because it has become a belief system. QM is only real if you believe it. So it's become a spiritual thing.

Quantum mechanics has become a god for atheists.

[Anonymous No.11094518]

>>11094513
back to >>>/x/

please take into account that undergrad physics students test quantum mechanics on their own in their upper-level classes. it's not hard. franck-hertz, photoelectric effect, shot noise, mass spectrometry. why don't you buy a kit and try for yourself?

[Anonymous No.11094523]

>>11094512
yes

[Anonymous No.11094533]

>>11094464
If you see it there's a 100 percent chance you seen it where you saw it. Simple.

[Anonymous No.11094541]

>>11094518
Why don't you tell me which of these experiments you performed and personally witnessed, and how it proved to you that matter violated standard physical and natural laws, and how you used quantum mechanics to explain these inconsistencies.

I don't believe you.
And I know you won't be able to answer that question because you are just copying and pasting other people's explanations. Which I know for certain are wrong.

[Anonymous No.11094544]

>>11094464
Quantum key distribution is very useful in infosec. Tunnel effect allows for flash storage which is also great invention.

[Anonymous No.11094559]

>>11094541
i did photoelectric effect, franck hertz, and mass spectrometry in my modern physics lab. they all worked. franck-hertz was probably the most easy to "see" quantum happening because you see a little glowing blobs of where electrons are hitting things, and they are patchy instead of a more uniform blob like you would get from the classical equations. (pic related. it's not CGI in case you are schizo)

i also did some experiments in grad school like rutherford scattering and building a laser and studying its light and making a cosmic muon detector. those all work too

i also work in particle physics and i can tell you that we know what we're doing. you can try some particle physics at home if you like:
https://youtu.be/xky3f1aSkB8

[Anonymous No.11094611]

>>11094559
Don't worry, he'll claim that all these can be explained by classical mechanics (which he won't elaborate on), or that you were just tricked by the Jewish conspiracy to think that you were actually performing any of those experiments.

The funny part is, the entirety of QM came about because of experimental results which could not be explained by classical theory. Early quantum theory was hobbled together to this end, and only after decades of work was it formulated into an "elegant", abstract mathematical formalism that seems to scare the pseuds so much.

[Anonymous No.11094615]

>>11094559
neat vid, the speaker is annoying as hell though.

[Anonymous No.11094637]

>>11094559
I like your debating style :)
Can we start with the photoelectric effect.
I state that it has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.
Electrons in the outer valence shell are stimulated into emission of light because the electrons are negatively charged and that makes them interacts with the background cosmic electromagnetic fields that permeate the observable universe. The electrons have to vibrate fast enough to reach the frequency that we perceive as visible light.

How do you think the photoelectric effect demonstrated QM?

The photo you posted shows a normal wave interference pattern.
The same as you get when you shine a laser through an interference slit ;)
The same as shown by Young's twin slit experiment ;)

Which experiment demonstrated light as a particle (photon) ?
I know Einstein said it, but what was the experiment?
That's how wave particle duality was incepted. And QM was built upon that.
Light is always a wave., That's what the image you posted proves.....

[Anonymous No.11094651]

>>11094559
Or is the image you posted electrons?
And electrons were observed as waves because electrostatic discharge was building up on the slits and creating an interference pattern with a article, and let me guess, that proves light is a particle ;)
If you are going to try and use electrons and photons interchangeably in experiments then I understand your confusion

[Anonymous No.11094653]

>>11094637
the fact that you used the word “valence shell” implies quantum mechanics is true. shells don’t exist classically

[Anonymous No.11094696]

>>11094513
>Lasers.

[Anonymous No.11094699]

>>11094653
Lol you sound like a bot, this is great,
I don't even know where to start and the irony is how short your post is.
You know what they say, the shorter the post the smarter you are ;)
Let's try
1, valence shells have nothing to do with quantum mechanics, if they do provide a reference.
2, valence shells are the accepted way electrons interact with a nucleus and there are no inconsistencies.

You are just using shitpost template style arguments to try to prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.11094702]

>>11094699
gee anon, you are arguing that electron orbitals/shells are not quantum mechanics. wow. have you heard of the "Bohr atom"? or this field called "physical chemistry"?

honestly, just give up. you are clearly lacking in any basic education on these topics

[Anonymous No.11094708]

>>11094699
Classically, we would expect that the possible distances an electron can be from the nucleus to be continuous. It is not, it is discrete.

[Anonymous No.11094709]

>>11094696
And the rebuttals get shorter and shorter,

Can you provide EVIDENCE that lasers are proof of quantum mechanics, or are you just firin ya LASER at me in a metaphorical sense.

[Anonymous No.11094712]

>>11094708
How are you measuring these distances?
You know because of the whole uncertainty principle, you know, the one that states you can't measure the properties of an electron....
They spent a while while I was at uni explaining that to us, I guess you missed those semesters ;)

[Anonymous No.11094721]

>>11094712
didn't i mention rutherford scattering already? it's 1900's technology to measure the size of an atom and the size of its nucleus.

compton did stuff like that too. and no, you can't use the jew conspiracy argument on rutherford or compton. give up

[Anonymous No.11094726]

>>11094702
I'm trying to work with you, can you point me in the right direction so I can study how valence shells have anything to do with quantum mechanics?

When do we use quantum's mechanics in chemistry?

I think you are all reading alot of fake news and it's getting to you.

"I used a laser so now I understand quantum mechanics, I just can't explain how it works ;););) " is getting a bit old.

[Anonymous No.11094735]

>>11094726
you know how in chemistry you have P-orbitals and S-orbitals and you draw those little diagrams with little lines and you put an up and down arrow on each one? that all comes directly from quantum mechanics.

it's called the Bohr atom, i already said. jesus.

i am honestly curious about you personally. you are larping as some sort of chemistry undergrad, but i doubt any chemistry undergrad is legitimately as backward as you are. what sort of community supplied you with your very flawed understanding of chemistry and physics?

[Anonymous No.11094737]

>>11094708
im not that other retard but im curious, why do we think its discrete? im not well read on theoretical physics but it certainly interests me

[Anonymous No.11094742]

>>11094712
>Electron in outer shell drop to inner shell
>Change in energy make photon
>Photon have same frequency as other photon

[Anonymous No.11094745]

>>11094721
I'm listening man,
Rutherford scattering is the elastic scattering of charged particles by the Coulomb interaction. It is a physical phenomenon explained by Ernest Rutherford in 1911[1] that led to the development of the planetary Rutherford model of the atom and eventually the Bohr model. Rutherford scattering was first referred to as Coulomb scattering because it relies only upon the static electric (Coulomb) potential, and the minimum distance between particles is set entirely by this potential. The classical Rutherford scattering process of alpha particles against gold nuclei is an example of "elastic scattering" because neither the alpha particles nor the gold nuclei are internally excited. The Rutherford formula (see below) further neglects the recoil kinetic energy of the massive target nucleus.

The initial discovery was made by Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden in 1909 when they performed the gold foil experiment in collaboration with Rutherford, in which they fired a beam of alpha particles (helium nuclei) at foils of gold leaf only a few atoms thick. At the time of the experiment, the atom was thought to be analogous to a plum pudding (as proposed by J. J. Thomson), with the negatively-charged electrons (the plums) studded throughout a positive spherical matrix (the pudding). If the plum-pudding model were correct, the positive "pudding", being more spread out than in the correct model of a concentrated nucleus, would not be able to exert such large coulombic forces, and the alpha particles should only be deflected by small angles as they pass through.

Wikipedia couldn't help me, maybe you can,
And as long as we're skipping over the whole photoelectric thing ;)

How does Rutherford scattering imply anything quantum?

I disagree strongly with both photoelectric and Rutherford scattering being anything quntum, and if they are,
Tell me why.

[Anonymous No.11094751]

>>11094737
Fire a photon into the atom, increases energy, and so the energy of the electron increases. Naturally, the electron will want to move back down to a lower energy state, and will emit a photon when it does so. All of those photons have the same frequencies (therefore energies since E=hf) for the same transitions. Look up Balmer series for an example.

[Anonymous No.11094755]

>>11094745
you brought up the photoelectric effect and you fumbled your argument outright by admitting you already believe in quantum mechanics. i doubt that discussing it further would help either of us. if you are curious then look up "action potential"

rutherford scattering offers a method to measure the size of the nucleus. combined with other kinds of similar scattering experiments, one can see the size of electron orbitals. if you look at the data, you see that electron shells exist around a very small nucleus. this confirms the bohr atom and thus confirms basic quantum theory

[Anonymous No.11094761]

>>11094751
and why does that imply that the position of the electron is discrete? couldnt the same result be had if the electron moved from one energy level to the lower one in a completely continuous fashion?

[Anonymous No.11094765]

>>11094745
>Increase in intensity of light does not change the energy with which the electrons are emitted.
>This goes against the model of a wave.

[Anonymous No.11094770]

>>11094761
I think you are confusing the position of an electron in a particular energy level with the movement from one energy level to another. What I explained doesn't say anything about how the electron moves between energy levels, it just says that the electron can only be found at particular discrete energy levels. I'm not actually sure what the particle does as it moves between energy levels, and it isn't really important to show that the energy levels are discrete. (Btw, the orbit radius is related to the energy level, so it suffices to only talk about the energy level).

[Anonymous No.11094771]

>>11094765
thank you anon, but this guy is obviously an anti-science shill, and discussing high-school and undergrad-level science with him only opens doors for him to copypasta his shill-handbook responses to common sense science that he and his ideological base want to smear

[Anonymous No.11094775]

>>11094770
but youre saying the movement from one energy state to another is instantaneous? the electron is never found in the spaces between the energy states?

[Anonymous No.11094776]

>>11094771
True, but sometimes I enjoy talking to retards; it's a good exercise to see that you understand something at its various levels.

[Anonymous No.11094782]

>>11094735
I'm pretty sure you are mixing up orbitals with electron spin state,
Orbitals have nothing to do with spin state,
On orbital is the path an electron moves in,
Electron spin state is a hypothesized QM phenomenon we cannot measure or observe relating to how the electron is spinning, spin state is also a hoax.
I understand your confusion.

[Anonymous No.11094785]

>>11094782
i am pretty sure you are pulling garbage out your ass since you got pwned and you don't know the first thing about anything you're talking about

[Anonymous No.11094786]

>>11094775
I was saying that I don't know what the movement is from one state to another. It seems I was a little wrong in my explanation. Read this, and it should clear some stuff up. https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/06/18/how-can-an-electron-leap-between-atomic-levels-without-passing-through-all-the-space-in-between/

[Anonymous No.11094790]

>>11094786
alright, thank you

[Anonymous No.11094804]

Just remember everyone
Heisenbergs uncertainty principal states you cannot observe a single electron ;)
You cannot state with certainty where or what a single electron is doing.
And because "photons" are significantly smaller we can't observe them individually either ;)
QM is a tool to try to explain new phenomena we don't understand.
It has no real world applications, you guys are quoting other scientists incompatible, competing explanations and misrepresenting them yourselves.
Everyone who studies QM argues all day about which one of the several dozen interpretations is the real one.
QM has become a religion.
Just like our thousands of competing religions,
None of them are true.
There is no god.
There is no particle smaller than an electron.
And trying to convince me by quoting Bible versus or 100 year old textbooks won't convince me,
I don't make take scientific evidence base on anecdotes and inconsistent old books.
There is no more evidence for God tham quantum mechanics.
I'm still listening as to how lasers prove QM though.

[Anonymous No.11094806]

good thread, gents, i think that just about wraps it up, ill go call a mod to close it

[Anonymous No.11094812]

>>11094782
>Stern-Gerlach device
>Shell, subshell, orbital, spin correspond to quantum state of electron.
Pauli exclusion principle exists in nature and comes from the fact that fermions have half-integer spin, and can therefore be described by an antisymmetric operator. When an antisymmetric operator acts on a state, it can be written as a determinant, and so if you have two of the same states, you get zero.

[Anonymous No.11094818]

>>11094785
Can you green text the specific moment I got owned?
Or is this a quantum mechanical debate where we are both simultaneously wrong and right at the same time.
Like in quantum computing where the transistor is both on and off at the same time.
Or schrödinger's cat analogy where the cat is both alive and dead at the same time.
Or wave particle duality where the light is both a wave and a particle at the same time.
Or cognitive dissonance where you hold two ideas as true that are in direct contradiction.
And when these ideas are challenged you get really angry over such a simple debate with no real world application that doesn't effect you.

And now you know how religious people feel when atheists challenge them.
Belief systems have no place in science.

[Anonymous No.11094832]

>>11094464
There is a conspiracy to suppress knowledge regarding the true nature of the cosmos, it is not just a simple case of group think.
All of ethics and therefore politics are mere extensions of a metaphysical model. Karl Marx proposed a metaphysically real, deterministic universe, and then constructed his communist manifesto from that foundation.
Capitalism is fundamentally idealist, relying on concepts such as free will and supply/demand to avoid the obvious predatory nature of the social framework. These ideals make no sense outside of the context of metaphysical idealism, and have been reduced to platitudes, mantra and dogma which take the place of sound reasoning and prevents further investigation into these topics.
Presenting the mind with an unsolvable obstacle along the line of reasoning which leads to (((undesirable))) thoughts and actions, such that those lines of reasoning are discontinued before reaching their ultimate conclusion.
The debates being had here are more so a matter of national security than any thread to ever grace the likes of /pol/ or /x/.
The truth of the matter is that one side of this argument has clear motive and opportunity to present misinformation about the cosmos, to enforce ignorance, to make appealing and popular the most absurd and most useless metaphysical models, simply because knowledge is power.
If the cost to suppress knowledge is lower than the profit made by capitalizing on ignorance, then knowledge is suppressed.

Think carefully now, (((who))) would benefit from the democratization of ideas, and the entrenching of dogma and tribalism in the scientific community?
Who would actively shill idealism despite the obvious fact that it is a fundamentally useless line of reasoning which goes nowhere of interest or value?
Someone who has a whole lot of mother fucking money, that's who.

[Anonymous No.11094837]

>>11094804
>Heisenbergs uncertainty principal states you cannot observe a single electron ;)
Wrong
>You cannot state with certainty where or what a single electron is doing.
Wrong
>And because "photons" are significantly smaller we can't observe them individually either ;)
Wrong
>QM is a tool to try to explain new phenomena we don't understand.
They're newly discovered phenomena, but yes
>It has no real world applications, you guys are quoting other scientists incompatible, competing explanations and misrepresenting them yourselves.
Your utilizing it in typing this (solid state)
>Everyone who studies QM argues all day about which one of the several dozen interpretations is the real one.
That's pseuds, not physicists
>QM has become a religion.
>Just like our thousands of competing religions,
Religion requires a god, so you're wrong
>None of them are true.
>There is no god.
No shit
>And trying to convince me by quoting Bible versus or 100 year old textbooks won't convince me,
No one cares
>I don't make take scientific evidence base on anecdotes and inconsistent old books.
You clearly don't take scientific evidence period.
>There is no more evidence for God tham quantum mechanics.
No shit.
>I'm still listening as to how lasers prove QM though.
They don't prove it. QM is used to describe the universe, there is no argument about proving it. Lasers utilize QM. They are an example that show that QM effects exist.

[Anonymous No.11094841]

>>11094832
Please go back to your containment board. >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.11094844]

>>11094832
>Karl Marx proposed a metaphysically real, deterministic universe, and then constructed his communist manifesto from that foundation
This statement is provably false though. It's not correct in any way.

[Anonymous No.11094851]

>>11094841
This guy belongs on /x/. /pol/ does not want that shit.

[Anonymous No.11094857]

>>11094851
>Implying the difference between them isn't superficial and the people on both boards don't share identical thought processes to redditors.

[Anonymous No.11094860]

>>11094841
>>11094844
>>11094851
>>11094857
the circle jerk commences

[Anonymous No.11094883]

>>11094837
So you disagree with Heisenberg but you agree with Einstein? That's a minor inconsistency so I will overlook it,

Do you disagree with Nikola Tesla ?

Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.
Nikola Tesla

Also what do you think heisenbergs uncertainty principal was about?

[Anonymous No.11094890]

>>11094883
Long story short.
If you believe in Einstein's work (wave particle duality in particular, the foundation and inspiration for Quantum mechanics), then you should
Get off /sci/ and back to >>>/X/ or Reddit.

The scientific method requires evidence.

[Anonymous No.11094902]

>>11094883
>So you disagree with Heisenberg but you agree with Einstein?
No. You do not understand HUP, and so your claim regarding it was wrong.
>Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb
Special relativity follows directly from Maxwell's equations (showing that c is constant) and the fact that inertial reference frames are arbitrary (Shown by Michelson-Morley experiment results). I don't really understand much about GR, and neither do you, so stop pretending like you can comment on it.

[Anonymous No.11094904]

>>11094890
>Photoelectric effect.

[Anonymous No.11094908]

>>11094883
>brings up Tesla in a debate over theoretical physics

[Anonymous No.11094915]

>>11094908
>naughty-pidgins.com
what
what is

[Anonymous No.11094927]

Its bullshit. Incompatible with GR.

[Anonymous No.11094940]

>>11094902
You remind me of a young me :)
Anyway sorry if I come across as disrespectful or whatever but 4chan isn't the best place to debate.

The speed of light isn't a constant, it's only a theoretical constant in a theoretical void. Lights speed changes in a medium, that's why a prism splits light into its component colours as the light waves travel through the glass at different speeds ;)
Even deep space isn't a true vacuum and background cosmic radiation permeates the entire observable universe, and light and electromagnetism interact, there is no void for light to travel through by itself.

>>11094904
>Photoelectric effect.

Were down to two word rebuttals, you are just a razors edge away from responding with the dull grunts of a beast lol.
And you forgot
>Lazer!

[Anonymous No.11094948]

>>11094940
hey anon you seem smart, what was your major?

[Anonymous No.11094957]

>>11094837
>Heisenbergs uncertainty principal states you cannot observe a single electron ;)
Wrong
>You cannot state with certainty where or what a single electron is doing.
Wrong
>And because "photons" are significantly smaller we can't observe them individually either ;)
Wrong

Man I gotta be honest, I think those statements are technically correct, like physics exam correct. I'm not sure what you think HUP is but that's what they taught me at University so I'm not sure how to approach the debate.
I know what I am saying is Gallileo level controversial and you mistakenly think I'm trolling. But what does HUP mean if not that's, it's the reason we have the 99.98 electron probability thing.

[Anonymous No.11094969]

>>11094957
You can observe an electron, as has been done in countless experiments, and HUP does not state that you can't. All it says that the uncertainty in the position multiplied by the uncertainty in the momentum is greater than h-bar divided by 2. So the more certain you are about position, the less certain you can be about momentum and vice versa. In fact you can theoretically know the exact position of a particle, and then the momentum will be completely uncertain.
We can observe individual photons by firing individual photons - once again, it just has to follow HUP.

[Anonymous No.11094978]

>>11094940
You don't come across as disrespectful; you come across as deficient.
I never said speed of light, I said c, which is defined as the speed of light in a vacuum.
The photoelectric effect demonstrates "wave-particle duality". See >>11094765
Once again, lasers work because of QM effects.
>>11094948
samefag

[Anonymous No.11094987]

>>11094969
Can you name the experiment where light was first observed to be a particle?

Like which scientists did it, when was it performed, a diagram of the experiment,

Also not to be a dick but the op was "what's your opinion on QM"
So I'm not really breaking any rules, my opinion is QM is a hoax.

[Anonymous No.11094990]

>>11094987
>>11094904
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect

[Anonymous No.11095002]

>>11094990
anon you just sunk yourself. relying to photoelectric effect denialists is a trap. you better know some QED

[Anonymous No.11095011]

>>11094990
"Emissions can be induced with photons with energies approaching zero "

From the link you just posted ;)

So there is no threshold, it's was an experiment done over a hundred years ago by candlelight.
They just reached a few false conclusions.

Are we really going to have the debate format play out like this.
"QM is a hoax."
"No it isn't >photoelectric effect, photons have a threshhold "
*Checks wiki* >photons do not have a threshold "
"QM is real, I just can't prove it"
*QM Google search shitpost reference spam continues*

[Anonymous No.11095016]

>>11094978
What specifically about lasers makes you need quantum mechanics to explain?

[Anonymous No.11095021]

>>11095011
jon

[Anonymous No.11095024]

>>11095016
>hurr durr lasers don’t quantum

[Anonymous No.11095030]

>>11095016
>laser
>stimulated emission

[Anonymous No.11095033]

>>11095011
>in the case of negative electron affinity
You're essentially drawing conclusions from a lack of knowledge.
>>11095016
>Stimulated emission of photons.

[Anonymous No.11095037]

>>11094940
Ah, it's EMR-uses-EMR-as-a-medium fag again. Good to see you.

[Hoaxfag No.11095043]

>>11095037
You know you love it :)
It's good to see you too haha.
Sorry about my dangerous thinking ;)

Also I have an image if you would all like to know how lasers work.

[Anonymous No.11095054]

>>11095043
>Picture used to explain lasers to Elementary schoolkids proves that lasers don't use QM effects.
That isn't how it works.

[Hoaxfag No.11095066]

>>11095037
Also that might explain why they travel at nearly the same speed.....

It's not that I don't understand it, it's that I understand it too well, so when people bust out with
"Photons are MASSless particles that are affected by GRAVITY, and they oscillate in between infinite dimensions as there waveform collapses from the active observers psychic interaction with polydimensional timespace zeta reinmann functions and if you go to space then come back really fast, you will get back before you left"

Kinda gets old after a few decades.
I have been reading "we have a working quantum computer" news for twenty years, I think it's our responsibility at some stage to ask for proof or evidence.

[Hoaxfag No.11095070]

>>11095054
>>11095043 (You) #
>Picture used to explain lasers to Elementary schoolkids proves that lasers don't use QM effects.
That isn't how it works.


I'm listening

[Anonymous No.11095080]

>>11095070
How about you read about how lasers work then.
>>11095066
Spoken like someone who watched a couple documentaries, looked through a couple wikipedia pages, found some buzzwords, and didn't bother to understand any of it.

[Anonymous No.11095083]

>>11094464
Red onions are better than white and brown onions.

[Anonymous No.11095155]

>>11095070
In the pic:
>As each atom sends out a light ray, it falls in step with the other rays
This is the quantum effect of stimulated emission.

[Hoaxfag No.11095166]

>>11095080
Thanks for the advice man,
Hey I was just wondering, would you objecting I claimed microwaves were a particle?

Because according to wiki
The laser works by the same principle as the maser, but produces higher frequency coherent radiation at visible wavelengths. The maser was the forerunner of the laser, inspiring theoretical work by Townes and Arthur Leonard Schawlow that led to the invention of the laser in 1960 by Theodore Maiman. When the coherent optical oscillator was first imagined in 1957, it was originally called the "optical maser". This was ultimately changed to laser for "Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation"

Lasers and microwave lasers work exactly the same, except apparently one is a particle and one is a wave.

So I can say microwave radiation is a particle, and use masers as evidence?

Like how you claim light is a particle and use lasers as an example....

Because the timespace wave function collapses as it moves between the quantum valence shells and the microwave radiation converts into a particle from another dimension?

Now we're talking quantum mechanics ;)

I'm claiming this is a hoax because there are hundreds of inconsistencies, no evidence, and huge political and financial motivators for such a thing.

Have fun with your motons, that's my word for a new particle I just discovered ;)
It's a microwave particle ;)
Evidence is >masers

[Anonymous No.11095178]

>>11095166
Microwaves and light are both electromagnetic radiation, i.e. photons, they just have different energies.
>apparently one is a particle and one is a wave
No; they have both have properties which are described by a wave model, and properties which are described by a particle model.
You have grossly misinterpreted QM. Light (EM radiation / photons) and really any matter (e.g. electrons, neutrinos, etc.) is neither a particle nor a wave. Experiments show that in some situations it can be modeled as a wave but not a particle. In other experiments, it can be modeled as a particle but not a wave, so rather than switching between models, we can model it using QM.
>Because the timespace wave function collapses as it moves between the quantum valence shells and the microwave radiation converts into a particle from another dimension?
What the fuck are you even on about? Try constructing coherent sentences.
>there are hundreds of inconsistencies
Name some. Btw, physicists haven't fully worked this all out yet, so no shit they can't explain everything. That's literally what they're working on.

[Hoaxfag No.11095234]

>>11095178
>Because the timespace wave function collapses as it moves between the quantum valence shells and the microwave radiation converts into a particle from another dimension?
What the fuck are you even on about? Try constructing coherent sentences


That's the current explanation for the particle nature of light man, I finding as rediculous as you do, that was why in posted that, as an example of how rediculous QM interpretations are.

Light is always a wave.
Young's twin slit experiment proved that.
Einstein claimed the particulate nature of light to explain early, low tech, misunderstood, misinterpreted experiments, people took Einstein's word as dogma(infallible truth) and when later experiments showed evidence that contradicted Einstein's claims, people invented new theories to try and explain away the inconsistensies.

I know you don't believe me and that's cool :)

But I known for sure it's wrong.
And I know you can't take my word for it and thats cool.

But help me to realise how retarded I am,
Explain it to me like I'm a child.
Or a PhD quantum physicist because either works for me.

What is the evidence that light is a particle. Because that's how QM began. Just one paragraph. like if you were in an exam and it said
Q1, How do we know light is a particle, explain your answer.

Because if you post
>Photoelectric effect
Or
>Laser
Or
>Einstein said it!

You are going to fail that exam.
I trust you are a real scientist though which is pretty cool, good work :)

Did you know if you make a sphere from superconducting material that inside becomes an electromagnetic void, cool hey

[El Arcón No.11095242]

My opinion on QM is that althought he matrix-valued spin states are useful for describing experiments, they pretty well shitted up physics, and there is probably some better description, and physicists are not keeping their eye on the ball when they just use the matrices and tell people that they are good enough instead of looking for something better. There is too much emphasis on how to use QM and not hardly any effort these days that goes into finding a better formalism. It's true that the matrix theories are good enough for making a theory that famously no one can understand, but they are not really up to the task of the classical aim of physics to give a natural and comprehensive description of the experiments we do.

[Anonymous No.11095246]

>>11095234
>Fire light at a specific wavelength at a particular metal
>Measure the energies with which the electrons are emitted from the metal (see photoelectric effect setup for how this is done)
>Increase intensity of the light
>Observe that the energies with which the electrons are emitted do no vary
>This disagrees with the wave model, since the square of the energy of the wave is proportional with the intensity of the wave, which implies that an increase in intensity would increase the maximum energy imparted on the electrons
>What actually happens with an increase in intensity is that the number of electrons that are emitted increases (provided there are that many electrons in the metal above the threshold energy).
>It is actually the frequency which when varied will vary the maximum energy of the emitted electrons
You are yet to refute anything. All you have done is demonstrate your lack of understanding.

[Anonymous No.11095252]

>>11095242
>The very fact that the formalism of quantum mechanics cannot be interpreted as a visual description of a phenomenon occurring in space and time...
That's just completely wrong. It describes quantum effects, which can be observed in a freshman physics lab.
Son, if you're complaining about matrices, I'm sorry to say, but you're going to struggle if you plan on doing any math or physics after high school.
Matrices are such a neat and elegant way of describing things. There are other formalisms, but they are more complicated. Also, as you get into QFT, you deal with abstract groups, rather than just matrices.

[El Arcón No.11095261]

>>11095252
Did you see that it was Werner Heisenberg, the discoverer of quantum mechanics, who said the thing you're saying is wrong?

>you get into QFT, you deal with abstract groups, rather than just matrices.
Tell me more about this. Do you get the best deals? Like, do you yooge deals?

[Anonymous No.11095272]

>>11095261
>Did you see that it was Werner Heisenberg, the discoverer of quantum mechanics, who said the thing you're saying is wrong?
No he didn't. Everything I wrote there are observed, experimental results.
>Do you get the best deals? Like, do you yooge deals?
What are you on about? You aren't even coherent.

[Anonymous No.11095274]

>>11095272
Sorry, disregard the first part, I thought you were replying to a different post.

[Anonymous No.11095327]

>>11094559
I did the exact same experiments. Weird.

[Anonymous No.11095337]

Here is a paper by a nobel prize winning physicist that studied under Oppenheimer about how photoelectric effect can be explained without photons,

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu viewdocPDF
Anti-photon - CiteSeerX

Sorry for the weird link.there is a nasa.gov link but it's been deleted for some reason

It's called "the photoelectric effect without photons" by lamb and Scully.
There are other deleted and covered up papers by people who disagreed with Einstein, but you wouldn't know anything about that ;)

[Anonymous No.11095340]

>>11095337
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.393.688%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ved=2ahUKEwitweSxhLzlAhUEfisKHa3FDysQFjAAegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw0JsVxJXS8tZCvZwqgvKzDJ

This is the link I meant to post

[Anonymous No.11095419]

>>11095337
That study has already been discredited multiple times.

[Anonymous No.11095429]

>>11095419
So you are saying, sometimes, every now and then, another example being pons and Fleischman with the cold fusion thing, that intelligent, genius, respected scientists, even when working in teams, sometimes get it wrong ;)
Like no matter what your IQ, your education, who your peers were, that sometimes, just sometimes, scientists, just like the rest of us.....can make mistakes :0
But Einstein is like the limit function of that equation, Einstein could never be wrong, every other scientist can hit the assymptote of being infallible, but Einstein , he can never, ever be wrong, Einstein is infallible, like a scientific god.

[Anonymous No.11095432]

>>11095429
Pretty much.

[Anonymous No.11095459]

>>11095432
There are no gods here, only men.

[Anonymous No.11095473]

String theorist at my uni summed up QM for me, paraphrasing "It's fundamentally about what happens to systems in isolation. Nothing about the theory requires quantum systems to be microscopic, it's just that's how nature operates."

[Anonymous No.11095748]

>>11095070
I dont go on /sci/ often . Actually I'm just lurking in my bed bored because I hate that I never learned math fully periodically. Came here because I want to guilt myself into learning some today . The way you talk reminds me of a 40 year old indian cs/ sales cog who takes his wikianswers supervisor position way too seriously.
I like it , I just want to say -- you seem to be debating a boolean without values of reference . If you think QM is a hoax (specifically after saying you think this way because "you know it too well" ) naturally one will want some< if any > context . This is a great place to seuge into your counterpoints.
Perhaps something actually relating to quantum mechanics, media and unis obvious political agendas that purposefully use QM for funding , people defending it like a "religion " , and something about vibrating photons -- all of which can be denoted as to "people lying for ulterior motives" are not QM . It's just such a broad statement , can you specify what parts of quantum mechanics is "speculation" and if any isnt , what and why is it applicable in contrast . I know you're posting some image model on how a lazerbeam works but how does this model, in your own words, act as a counterpoint to how QM explains it. First time posting on /sci/though I've lurked for a few years . Your winky faces made me want to respond.

[Anonymous No.11095796]

>>11095748 (you)
I'm waiting ;) saw that one study few posts up but it was debunked apparently . From the other threads you're posting in you dont seem to specifically believe in (to give benefit of the doubt) " the progression of quantum computing ? Why is that?

[Anonymous No.11095799]

>>11094464
it is interesting

[Anonymous No.11095817]

>>11095796
winkyfag have you literally been trolling this same thread for like 12 hours?

[Anonymous No.11095821]

>>11094512
I started balding after adding onions to my diet so I'd say yes.

[Anonymous No.11095829]

>>11095748
Man I like your style :) ( ;) ), and your politeness has renewed my vigour lol.
It's a very long, very sad story but I will condense it for you.
Let's say a team of very motivated people were thinking "what if, instead of just mining heaps of Bitcoins using solar panels and getting really rich, we built a quantum computer and wrote our own sha256 algorithm that could run on a quantum computer we built, and we could print our own money and take over the world, not in an evil way though, but in a good way, so they all devoted, oh I don't know, let's say 8 years of their precious lives, to a secret project to build a Bitcoin mining quantum computer, and after a decade of pooling their resources and time and energy and money.
They discovered that quantum computing wasn't actually real, like not real the way time travel, or warp drives or teleportation wasn't real, like you know what I mean. It was a science fiction thing, certainly might be real in the future, just not real now.
Well one of these people, thinking he was next in line for a noble prize (and it wasnt about the money, not with the XXatrillion in Bitcoin he would be making) got pretty upset about the decade he spent working on quantum computers so he kept at it, you wanna know what else he eventually discovered? And while a ten thousand word essay could describe it in more detail the main bullet point would be the same.
Quantum mechanics is a hoax.
All of it from the day of its first creation, there is no "oh I disagree with that part of QM but this part works just fine" type scenario.

It's actually all of it.
Wave particle duality, electron spin state, string theory, relativity, etc, all of it.

And this guy has been reading fake news articles for about twenty years now "working quantum computer, scientists teleport matter, scientists make atom travel back in time" etc, and he's starting to notice that in 2019 we are seeing the same QM headlines from twenty years ago (continued)

[wonder No.11095833]

>>11095817
I'm making fun of winkyfag who abandoned the thread after I posted for the first time on /sci/ ever . He is now in a quantum supremacy thread trying to deny quantum computing . Fuck it I'm a namefag now just so he knows he's a lame for not responding.

;( no winkyfag response makes me sad wink

[wonder No.11095836]

>>11095829
Oh wait there you are nevermind I got sad for a sec . I take back you being lame thanks for responding;))) also wow please more context.

[Hoaxfag No.11095849]

>>11095833
I post under hoaxfag but someone called me a namefag so I thought it violated 4chan etiquette so I just went with anon haha,

Anyway yeah. So I was just trying to spread the word that quantum mechanics was a hoax, because I wasted alot of time on it, an unlike the people at University who lose their jobs if they don't get results (I believe /sci/ calls them "quantum physicists") I had nothing to lose by voicing my opinion on 4chan ;)

But for real I had no idea people would attack you for criticising quantum mechanics lol, I only learned that last week, I was trying to be helpful lol, and I end up getting called a fag :0 just because I managed the get the entire penis in my mouth....how dare you

[Anonymous No.11095856]

>>11095242
Tooker I love this comment. It's so level and it pretty much perfectly sums it up. So based.
10/10 would join a cult headed by you.

[wonder No.11095859]

>>11095836 I see, would you go as far as to say matter cannot be quantum in nature as it is not a real state ? It just adds a lot of questions to what humans consider a integral part of nature. Also wouldnt unregulatory cloning of a fiat currency just lead to inflation ? Thanks again for the time . Big appreciate .

[Hydrinofag No.11095866]

If I were to go full retard and reply to every single shitpost in this thread with 100% effort, I would need to identify at least 100 logical fallacies.

[Hoaxfag No.11095874]

>>11095866
We'll come back when you got the balls to say it ;)

Unless your agreeing with me (I can't tell your post is to short)

In which case grab a beer!
*Turns up music"

[Anonymous No.11095878]

>>11095874
Solivagus? Is that you?

[Hydrinofag No.11095885]

>>11095874
I want to have a circle jerk as much as the next guy but it's all so tiresome. I mean, you joined the discussion shortly after my one time psa on /pol/ and /x/ and honestly I regret it because you have contributed basically nothing except maybe an easy target for my opposition.

[Hoaxfag No.11095895]

>>11095878
That stings a little man, are our posts really similar :s ughh I gots to work on my grammar...which is to say I must refine my grammatical skills....indubitably sir.

Anyway friends or "scifags" (am I saying it right? ) I gotta go to bed for it is late, see you all tomorrow

[Hoaxfag No.11095902]

>>11095885
It's not a circle jerk for me mang, I gotta beat myself off because ain't nobody helpin me, let's at least call it what it is.
Unwanted criticism ;)

[wonder No.11095910]

>>11095849
Yea people here are very blunt . Currently 4chan as a whole is stagnating traffic wise aside from summer on nsfw boards . The fact you two know each other from pol gives me a completely different perspective on what I already as a small vocal minority . There has been a noticeable amount of inactivity.
>>11095859 meant to respond to >>11095829
But you answered what I was wondering so much obliged.

[Hydrinofag No.11095917]

>>11095902
I don't think you're a strawman, but I guess you could be.
I guess my cognitive bias is that I really want you to be on my side in all of this, maybe that was just wishful thinking all along.
You're spoonfeeding your alleged opponents and spamming the thread with illegible and irrelevant content. That's definitely the makings of a strawman but you could just as easliy be a regular old newfag/ kiddo crossposter who doesn't know any better.

[Hydrinofag No.11095946]

>>11095917
>>11095885
I take that back, and apologize.
I'm not better than you, I'm sorry for putting you down. Your contributions are welcomed and appreciated. I'm just being paranoid.
I've spent the last year trying to have this discussion on /sci/ and I have become bitter and cynical as a result.

Sleep tight frien

[Zweistein !!JKvYU4Nb6DE No.11096212]

>>11094464
I believe that quantum superpostion may be the effect of backwards causality, that is things are in superposition when it takes a future event to decide what happened.