 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / August 2008"Spooky" Physicists Up Close!
Has anyone noticed that there is not a "belief system" on the planet, past or present, more bizarre, more slavishly religious in nature than that of Quantum Mechanics? Some of the stuff this crowd believes rivals that of any fundamentalist preacher at a southern tent revival meeting circa 1920. They're even worse than the SR gang, and that's saying something. But get this. It's safe to say that the vast majority of these "brilliant" physicists who live, breath and eat SR theory, are also on board with what quantum theory is also now telling us. Naturally, the glaring contradiction escapes them, but that's OK. After all, like our fundamentalist preacher, some things have to be taken on faith, no? Take, for instance, quantum entanglement, wherein presumamby two photons from the same source traveling through space, which are then split into two separate paths of travel, they somehow maintan a "mysterious" link with each other. Thus, if one of the photons is altered after they are separated, such as a change in polarity, the other photon "knows" this and is instantaneously altered in the same fashion - no matter how far apart they are. How about a billion years apart? Man, that sure beats the hell out of light speeed, now doesn't it? Even Uncle Albert called it "spooky action at a distance," so why does this same crowd generally accept this crap? Maybe they're spooky physicists UP CLOSE! > Has anyone noticed that there is not a "belief system" on the planet, > past or present, more bizarre, more slavishly religious in nature than > that of Quantum Mechanics? You are just fooling yourself... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/QuantumMechanics.html http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/ > obamas_ins...@yahoo.com wrote: > > Has anyone noticed that there is not a "belief system" on the planet, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/QuantumMechanics.html > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/ oh sam, you just missed a wonderful opportunity to ignore this incredibly gay person...and i don't mean homosexual, i mean *gay* On Aug 30, 6:14 am, mitchsperk...@gmail.com wrote: > > obamas_ins...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > Has anyone noticed that there is not a "belief system" on the planet, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > oh sam, you just missed a wonderful opportunity to ignore this > incredibly gay person...and i don't mean homosexual, i mean *gay* You mean jobby jabber? On Aug 29, 12:55 pm, obamas_ins...@yahoo.com wrote: > Has anyone noticed that there is not a "belief system" on the planet, > past or present, more bizarre, more slavishly religious in nature than > that of Quantum Mechanics? Compared with what? How bout that crazy evolution stuff? What about trickle-down economics? Nothing crazier than that goofy stuff about Van Allen belts! > Some of the stuff this crowd believes > rivals that of any fundamentalist preacher at a southern tent revival [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > board with what quantum theory is also now telling us. Naturally, the > glaring contradiction escapes them, but that's OK. What glaring contradiction? You mean experimental observations? Even the ones that might surprise the hell out of you? > After all, like our > fundamentalist preacher, some things have to be taken on faith, no? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > apart? Man, that sure beats the hell out of light speeed, now doesn't > it? No, it doesn't. There isn't any communication from one photon to the other. It is a *single* quantum state with two particles in it. I see that you have this preconception that two objects means two independent states. This is called "the assumption of locality". It turns out that this assumption of locality is simply wrong and that nature really does behave in an entangled state. This does mean, by the way, that that ornery electron at the tip of your left fingernail is at least partially entangled with the electron on the a.s end of a dog in China. Now, don't confuse "surprising" and "very unexpected" with "illogical". > Even Uncle Albert called it "spooky action at a distance," so why does > this same crowd generally accept this crap? Because Uncle Albert believed in the assumption of locality, and he was wrong about that. > Maybe they're spooky > physicists UP CLOSE! > I see that you have this preconception that two objects means two > independent states. This is called "the assumption of locality". You better believe I do, especially "two" objects 5 billion LY apart! PD, all you physicists have to be democrats given your natural propensity to simply sift and twist the language to fit in with your worldview, both scientific and political. You guys just make it up as you go along. Sort of like Alice In Wonderland, words mean what you want them to mean - no more and no less. On Aug 29, 4:58 pm, obamas_ins...@yahoo.com wrote: > > I see that you have this preconception that two objects means two > > independent states. This is called "the assumption of locality". > > You better believe I do, especially "two" objects 5 billion LY apart! Remarkable, this quantum entanglement thing. A single quantum state doesn't have a maximum size. > PD, all you physicists have to be democrats given your natural > propensity to simply sift and twist the language to fit in with your > worldview, both scientific and political. What political worldview do you think I have? > You guys just make it up as > you go along. And then we check it against experiment. If experiment says, yup, sho' nuff, then by golly it's probably right. Plausibility of the premise isn't required. Jiving with your common sense is not required. Nature has a right to be weird --- exactly as weird as it is. > Sort of like Alice In Wonderland, words mean what you > want them to mean - no more and no less. PD On Aug 29, 4:58 pm, obamas_ins...@yahoo.com wrote: > PD, all you physicists have to be democrats given your natural > propensity to simply sift and twist the language to fit in with your > worldview, both scientific and political. http://www.republicanoperative.com/forums/science-forum/12557-physicists-see-qua ntum-entanglement.html You guys just make it up as > you go along. Sort of like Alice In Wonderland, words mean what you > want them to mean - no more and no less. See: http://www.aliceinphysics.com > On Aug 29, 12:55 pm, obamas_ins...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > Maybe they're spooky > > physicists UP CLOSE! I was going to respond to Obamas_Insane in some detail, but I see he has deleted all his posts from Google. PD On Aug 29, 12:55 pm, obamas_ins...@yahoo.com wrote: [stuff just to be provacative] I'm curious now. You've more or less taken physicists as a general class worthy of scorn, as a whole. And you've gone on to associate them with a completely different class you also scorn, political Democrats. This is usually indicative of someone with a bunch of pent-up anger, perceiving some massive injustice or possibly even a personal vendetta. Is it scientists as a whole you despise? Or is it just physicists? If just physicists, then what about physicists drive you buggy? And if you had your way, what would you do with the lot of them, and why? What gain would be achieved if you had your way? What's your objective? PD > On Aug 29, 12:55 pm, obamas_ins...@yahoo.com wrote: > [stuff just to be provacative] [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > PD I find it interesting that you have no interest in talking about this. I wonder why. > > On Aug 29, 12:55 pm, obamas_ins...@yahoo.com wrote: > > [stuff just to be provacative] [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Respectfully, PD, I hold no animosity towards phisicists, either individually or as a class. However, I do think many of them who cling so tenaciously to theories which are so absolutely counter-intuitive and Alice-In_Wonderland stuff, even to otherwise quite intelligent people not of "your" class (or should I say caste?), should give some of you pause for thought. This thing with SR has taken on the dimensions of SRanians as a new "priestly" class - not to be questioned on matters of faith! The mere fact that none of you can explain any of this to reasonably intelligent people should disturb many of you, but instead you take the position that since we cannot grasp any of this, we're all f.cking hopeless morons. Get it? On Aug 29, 1:55 pm, obamas_ins...@yahoo.com wrote: > Has anyone noticed that there is not a "belief system" on the planet, > past or present, more bizarre, more slavishly religious in nature than [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > this same crowd generally accept this crap? Maybe they're spooky > physicists UP CLOSE! I reccomend a nice course about the scientific method before you start to really make an a.s out of yourself. > On Aug 29, 1:55 pm, obamas_ins...@yahoo.com wrote: >> Has anyone noticed that there is not a "belief system" on the planet, [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > I reccomend a nice course about the scientific method before you start > to really make an a.s out of yourself. ROFLOL A dingleberry that uses multiple standards for time and distance is talking about the scientific method as if he has any clue! LOL  SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman > I reccomend a nice course about the scientific method before you start > to really make an a.s out of yourself.- Hide quoted text - Well, Igor, one could with equal validity suggest most of you physicists and scientists take a course in thelogy before you ridicule Christians - but that sure as hell has never stopped any of you from showering them with insults! Actually, it's two sides of the same coin, sir, since anyone outside of the inner sanctum of the good ol' boys club or SR, its High Priests, is summarily dismissed as a heathen non-believer - only this time around it's SR and Quantum Theory instead of a belief in God. Know what a theory is, Igor? Look it up. >> I reccomend a nice course about the scientific method before you start >> to really make an a.s out of yourself.- Hide quoted text - [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Christians - but that sure as hell has never stopped any of you from >showering them with insults! True, but not really relevant. > Actually, it's two sides of the same coin, sir, No, it is not at all the same coin. Not even close. > since anyone outside >of the inner sanctum of the good ol' boys club or SR, its High >Priests, is summarily dismissed as a heathen non-believer Not true. I have never been "inside the inner sanctum" nor one of its "High Priests", yet I too can see that they are right, and those many opponents of SR and GTR have not got a clue what they are talking about. [snip] > On Aug 29, 1:55 pm, obamas_ins...@yahoo.com wrote: > I reccomend a nice course about the scientific method before you start > to really make an a.s out of yourself. Much too late! On Aug 29, 8:55 pm, obamas_ins...@yahoo.com wrote: > Has anyone noticed that there is not a "belief system" on the planet, > past or present, more bizarre, more slavishly religious in nature than [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > this same crowd generally accept this crap? Maybe they're spooky > physicists UP CLOSE! --------------------- yes of course 'something is rotten' in the kingdom of QM!! i dont say anything !!! i say ** something** ) or may be some of the basic assumption of the above experiment is wrong for instance that we deal only with two single photons ?? or by the **statistical** system of counting or measuring after all no one ever took a single couple with a 'pinceta' or how is the possible* bias* of the to tools they use ?? ATB Y.Porat --------------------- and studied it ATB Y.Porat ------------------------------- > On Aug 29, 8:55 pm, obamas_ins...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > --------------------- > and studied it ------------------------ and if you like another skooky or actually cheating take the assumption of QM that the electron is a' point particle' i read here that Schwinger (a QM master ??) proves that according to the field theory of QM the electron must be a 'point particle '!!!.... so what can we do while i proved that there is nothing like a 'point particle' in our world of physics may be in the world of fantasy ?? in which you have a 'supermarket theory' according which a mouse can be turned to a cat and if disproved they will adapt it or fit it to be the opposite possibility just **you name it * just invite what ever fits your current theory the more a theory is abstract it has less chance to be wrong but there is a big 'but' in that case it becomes LESS USEFUL !! ATB Y.Porat ----------------------------------- |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.