Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Care to respond to my hidden variable dice analogy?

My previous reply applies. To repeat:

If there exists something like hidden variables which explain the observed probabilities, they haven't yet been found. I'm not even sure this belief qualifies as a hypothesis until we have a way to test it. None of this means the belief is wrong, however with no evidence to support it, it's not very scientific and I think even Einstein would agree with that...it's the point he was trying to make by jokingly citing his little finger as evidence.

You're saying hidden variables or something like that must exist.

I'm saying that maybe they do or maybe they don't, but until we identify them we can't be sure. Why is this not logical to you?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Care to respond to my hidden variable dice analogy?

My previous reply applies. To repeat:

If there exists something like hidden variables which explain the observed probabilities, they haven't yet been found. I'm not even sure this belief qualifies as a hypothesis until we have a way to test it. None of this means the belief is wrong, however with no evidence to support it, it's not very scientific and I think even Einstein would agree with that...it's the point he was trying to make by jokingly citing his little finger as evidence.

You're saying hidden variables or something like that must exist.

I'm saying that maybe they do or maybe they don't, but until we identify them we can't be sure. Why is this not logical to you?

Because the logical and rational belief, as is true with the dice analogy, is that hidden variables exist. You take the leap of faith and believe in superposition, that is to say, you believe in the supernatural, that hidden variables dont exist. Even though the probability approaching certainty is that hidden variables exist. Do you understand this? YOU DIDNT UNDERSTAND MY DICE ANALOGY, it is perfect!

originally posted by: ImaFungi
You take the leap of faith and believe in superposition, that is to say, you believe in the supernatural, that hidden variables dont exist.

So you think this means hidden variables don't exist?

"I'm saying that maybe they do or maybe they don't"

I now have a better understanding of your confusion after observing your reading comprehension skills on some straightforward language.

I think it's a mistake to assume that everything that applies to dice applies to subatomic particles. Can you fire a die through a double slit and get it to interfere with itself, like an electron?

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Care to respond to my hidden variable dice analogy?

My previous reply applies. To repeat:

If there exists something like hidden variables which explain the observed probabilities, they haven't yet been found. I'm not even sure this belief qualifies as a hypothesis until we have a way to test it. None of this means the belief is wrong, however with no evidence to support it, it's not very scientific and I think even Einstein would agree with that...it's the point he was trying to make by jokingly citing his little finger as evidence.

You're saying hidden variables or something like that must exist.

I'm saying that maybe they do or maybe they don't, but until we identify them we can't be sure. Why is this not logical to you?

Because the logical and rational belief, as is true with the dice analogy, is that hidden variables exist. You take the leap of faith and believe in superposition, that is to say, you believe in the supernatural, that hidden variables dont exist. Even though the probability approaching certainty is that hidden variables exist. Do you understand this? YOU DIDNT UNDERSTAND MY DICE ANALOGY, it is perfect!

Because your dice analogy is wrong thats why given all the variables we still only have six possible outcomes. And given that the dice is not loaded has an equal chance of showing any of the six numbers even with other variables. See you believe that if we knew every variable we could predict the result before rolling the dice unfortunately the universe doesnt work that way. By the way im not sure why you to got stuck on superposition its basically says if you model two objects that when combined they will act the same as they did separately this is nothing more than linear mathematics. and only used in certain circumstances. Ever physicists knows that superposition principle is only an approximation of the true physical behavior. (key word here approximation)

You keep arguing like you understand physics yet i see you make gross miscalculations as to the meaning of things. Now unfortunately for you several experiments have been done which shows the random nature of the universe. Its simple really control the temperature and the environment removing those variables than run the experiments over and over. In your universe we should always get the same results but we dont! In fact a paper comes to mind to refute your argument. In fact Einstein made a similar argument only to realize later he was wrong but he wrote a paper in 1935. In this he collaborated with two others it became known as the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. They (collectively "EPR") sought to demonstrate by a paradox that QM was incomplete.

Well Einstein clarifies this better later this was more podolsky (or more accurately blames podesolsky) but to sum it up they claim that given a specific experiment, in which the outcome of a measurement is known before the measurement takes place, there must exist something in the real world, an "element of reality", that determines the measurement outcome. They postulate that these elements of reality are local, in the sense that each belongs to a certain point in spacetime. Each element may only be influenced by events which are located in the backward light cone of its point in spacetime (i.e., the past). These claims are founded on assumptions about nature that constitute what is now known as local realism.

The original paper purports to describe what must happen to "two systems I and II, which we permit to interact ...", and, after some time, "we suppose that there is no longer any interaction between the two parts." In the words of Kumar (2009), the EPR description involves "two particles, A and B, [which] interact briefly and then move off in opposite directions."[13] According to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, it is impossible to measure both the momentum and the position of particle B exactly. However, according to Kumar, it is possible to measure the exact position of particle A. By calculation, therefore, with the exact position of particle A known, the exact position of particle B can be known. Also, the exact momentum of particle A can be measured, so the exact momentum of particle B can be worked out. Kumar writes: "EPR argued that they had proved that ... [particle] B can have simultaneously exact values of position and momentum. ... Particle B has a position that is real and a momentum that is real."

EPR appeared to have contrived a means to establish the exact values of either the momentum or the position of B due to measurements made on particle A, without the slightest possibility of particle B being physically disturbed.

See this contradicts QM because not only can we know the velocity of a particle but also its position. Quantum theory predicts that both values cannot be known for a particle, and yet the EPR thought experiment purports to show that they must all have determinate values.Your argument in a nutshell as they say. However in 1965 physicist John Stewart Bell presented an analogy (based on spin measurements on pairs of entangled electrons) to EPR's hypothetical paradox. Using their reasoning, he said, a choice of measurement setting here should not affect the outcome of a measurement there (and vice versa). In short through his experiment he showed that no physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.

Now you can try to argue Bell is wrong look up bells test but i warn you hes not the only one two test this just the first.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
You take the leap of faith and believe in superposition, that is to say, you believe in the supernatural, that hidden variables dont exist.

So you think this means hidden variables don't exist?

"I'm saying that maybe they do or maybe they don't"

I now have a better understanding of your confusion after observing your reading comprehension skills on some straightforward language.

I think it's a mistake to assume that everything that applies to dice applies to subatomic particles. Can you fire a die through a double slit and get it to interfere with itself, like an electron?

You cant get an electron to interfere with itself. Unless you are saying a single electron can be split? Or you are saying a single electron, thought to be a point charge, is spread out over space, meaning its fundamentality of size is actually relatively and bafflingly large, and this is what is meant by a wave function, the electron itself is like a big fat flatish wave that the single electron crashes into the divider between the two slits and forces its self to go through both and than it 'comes back after the slit to meet itself in the middle to interact somehow'? Or it keeps going on its way and makes perfect indentations in the detector?

Can you show me the experiment in which ONE!!!!!!!! electron was fired, and it interfered with itself? That has always been a point of confusion, some people thinking the interference only occurred with multiple electrons or photons, and the interference pattern was determined over trials a series of time. But if there is evidence that one electron, like a quantity of crashing water into two slits and the middle of the slits, separating the previously singular slosh and turning it down two separate paths, yes thats interesting. Funny enough, as you see my analogies, I still dont think that has anything to do with superposition.

Your petty attempts at character assassination dont bother me in the least, anyone of sufficient intelligence reading this exchange for however long it has lasted and however long it will, will judge you correctly.

originally posted by: dragonridr

Because your dice analogy is wrong thats why given all the variables we still only have six possible outcomes.

No ish. The idea of stating all the possible variables is that NOTHING ELSE BESIDES THOSE VARIABLES IS WHAT GOES INTO THE OUTCOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you fail to grasp this? This is common sense, I cant fathom what else goes by you in the most careful commitment of chasing Truth.

And given that the dice is not loaded has an equal chance of showing any of the six numbers even with other variables.

QM ignores the variables and gives an equal chance of them all. You are lying to yourself and us all. You are being all styles of ignorant. By taking what you are arguing against, pretending it is your argument, and than arguing against what you are arguing for, but thinking you are doing the opposite. If only you antiblind enough to see this.

See you believe that if we knew every variable we could predict the result before rolling the dice unfortunately the universe doesnt work that way.

We dont work this way. The universe works just fine thank you.

By the way im not sure why you to got stuck on superposition its basically says if you model two objects that when combined they will act the same as they did separately this is nothing more than linear mathematics. and only used in certain circumstances. Ever physicists knows that superposition principle is only an approximation of the true physical behavior. (key word here approximation)

Ok, we have nothing to argue about than. I am right in stating reality = itself. superposition principle does not = reality.

You keep arguing like you understand physics yet i see you make gross miscalculations as to the meaning of things. Now unfortunately for you several experiments have been done which shows the random nature of the universe. Its simple really control the temperature and the environment removing those variables than run the experiments over and over. In your universe we should always get the same results but we dont! In fact a paper comes to mind to refute your argument.

This is the idea of hidden variables you nimrod. Too many variables, just because we dont know why there are random results, doesnt mean there arent reasons why there are random results. You are saying, because there are random results, there are no reasons there are random results, but the universe is random. A slug would call that paltry logic.

In fact Einstein made a similar argument only to realize later he was wrong but he wrote a paper in 1935. In this he collaborated with two others it became known as the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. They (collectively "EPR") sought to demonstrate by a paradox that QM was incomplete.

Well Einstein clarifies this better later this was more podolsky (or more accurately blames podesolsky) but to sum it up they claim that given a specific experiment, in which the outcome of a measurement is known before the measurement takes place, there must exist something in the real world, an "element of reality", that determines the measurement outcome. They postulate that these elements of reality are local, in the sense that each belongs to a certain point in spacetime. Each element may only be influenced by events which are located in the backward light cone of its point in spacetime (i.e., the past). These claims are founded on assumptions about nature that constitute what is now known as local realism.

Yes, I know. I dont think Einstein ever retracted this belief, and I hold this belief still, as I have seen or heard nothing to convince my perfect logic otherwise. The only attempts have been by schoolboys who are not clever to know how not clever they are attempting to sell fantasy like misinterpretations as scripture.

You will ignore most of my points as usual, you cant handle when I jump around so much, though I am only doing so in response to every single point you make. But can you show me ONE!!!!!!! example of a theory as to how non local realism may work? I will assume you dont understand this question, as a child would be able to, but that is too much to ask of you.

You have to try very hard not to think, to say some of the things you do.

The original paper purports to describe what must happen to "two systems I and II, which we permit to interact ...", and, after some time, "we suppose that there is no longer any interaction between the two parts." In the words of Kumar (2009), the EPR description involves "two particles, A and B, [which] interact briefly and then move off in opposite directions."[13] According to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, it is impossible to measure both the momentum and the position of particle B exactly. However, according to Kumar, it is possible to measure the exact position of particle A. By calculation, therefore, with the exact position of particle A known, the exact position of particle B can be known.

Know the exact position of particle B? Um... maybe if its in a wire or something, and there are two wires that go on for miles, and they fork at one point where one particle goes one way and the other goes the other, and if you know the particles are intimately related, as in had the same momentum when they were split, though that is even hard to justify certainly, than you can calculate that if this particle traveled X distance, the other particle must have always traveled X distance, at that time, and thats the calculation to know the position. But this is nothing more than knowing that if two cars are traveling down a long straight highway and their gas pedals are duct taped to travel at only 30 miles an hour, by measuring the position of one car, the position of the other can be parsed.

Also, the exact momentum of particle A can be measured, so the exact momentum of particle B can be worked out. Kumar writes: "EPR argued that they had proved that ... [particle] B can have simultaneously exact values of position and momentum. ... Particle B has a position that is real and a momentum that is real."

EPR appeared to have contrived a means to establish the exact values of either the momentum or the position of B due to measurements made on particle A, without the slightest possibility of particle B being physically disturbed.

Particles always have exact positions in reality and exact relative momentums. To exist at all, is to exist in a way, at all. To exist in a way, is to exist in a way. You cannot suppose to say something that exists, such as a particle, has only qualities of non existence.

originally posted by: dragonridr

However in 1965 physicist John Stewart Bell presented an analogy (based on spin measurements on pairs of entangled electrons) to EPR's hypothetical paradox. Using their reasoning, he said, a choice of measurement setting here should not affect the outcome of a measurement there (and vice versa). In short through his experiment he showed that no physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.

He said a choice of measurement setting here should not affect the outcome of a measurement there and vice versa. HAHAHAHAHA! Did you forget that is exactly what QM entanglement theory is suggesting?

Ok look at how good and honest at admitting my error of interpreting that. But still! Unfinished logic on his part.

I now see he means, "According to them a choice measurement here should not affect the outcome of a measurement there".

And than he says "This does occur (trust me)". "So they must be wrong".

My only problem with all this. Is that it has never been proven to me in any way, even one experiment, that shows 'that it does occur'. I have not seen an experiment of entanglement and choice stuff, that suggests that once cannot say "The particles when they were created had definite characteristics the entire time and were not altered by measurements on other particles".

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
You take the leap of faith and believe in superposition, that is to say, you believe in the supernatural, that hidden variables dont exist.

So you think this means hidden variables don't exist?

"I'm saying that maybe they do or maybe they don't"

I now have a better understanding of your confusion after observing your reading comprehension skills on some straightforward language.

I think it's a mistake to assume that everything that applies to dice applies to subatomic particles. Can you fire a die through a double slit and get it to interfere with itself, like an electron?

You cant get an electron to interfere with itself.

Can you show me the experiment in which ONE!!!!!!!! electron was fired, and it interfered with itself?

Here's the reference to the experiment by Pier Giorgio Merli, Gian Franco Missiroli, and Giulio Pozzi in 1974:

Double-slit experiment

A double-slit experiment was not performed with anything other than light until 1961, when Claus Jönsson of the University of Tübingen performed it with electrons.[19][20] In 1974 the Italian physicists Pier Giorgio Merli, Gian Franco Missiroli, and Giulio Pozzi repeated the experiment using single electrons, showing that each electron interferes with itself as predicted by quantum theory. In 2002, the single-electron version of the experiment was voted "the most beautiful experiment" by readers of Physics World.

I didn't say anything about your character, I made a simple statement "maybe it's A or maybe it's B" and you read that as "It's definitely A and not B". So my observation was about your reading comprehension, not your character, and my intent wasn't to "assassinate" anything, it was to point this out so you will be aware of this and work on improving your reading comprehension.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
You take the leap of faith and believe in superposition, that is to say, you believe in the supernatural, that hidden variables dont exist.

So you think this means hidden variables don't exist?

"I'm saying that maybe they do or maybe they don't"

I now have a better understanding of your confusion after observing your reading comprehension skills on some straightforward language.

I think it's a mistake to assume that everything that applies to dice applies to subatomic particles. Can you fire a die through a double slit and get it to interfere with itself, like an electron?

You cant get an electron to interfere with itself.

Can you show me the experiment in which ONE!!!!!!!! electron was fired, and it interfered with itself?

Here's the reference to the experiment by Pier Giorgio Merli, Gian Franco Missiroli, and Giulio Pozzi in 1974:

Double-slit experiment

A double-slit experiment was not performed with anything other than light until 1961, when Claus Jönsson of the University of Tübingen performed it with electrons.[19][20] In 1974 the Italian physicists Pier Giorgio Merli, Gian Franco Missiroli, and Giulio Pozzi repeated the experiment using single electrons, showing that each electron interferes with itself as predicted by quantum theory. In 2002, the single-electron version of the experiment was voted "the most beautiful experiment" by readers of Physics World.

I didn't say anything about your character, I made a simple statement "maybe it's A or maybe it's B" and you read that as "It's definitely A and not B". So my observation was about your reading comprehension, not your character, and my intent wasn't to "assassinate" anything, it was to point this out so you will be aware of this and work on improving your reading comprehension.

"An important version of this experiment involves single particles (or waves—for consistency, they are called particles here). Sending particles through a double-slit apparatus one at a time results in single particles appearing on the screen, as expected. Remarkably, however, an interference pattern emerges when these particles are allowed to build up one by one (see the image to the right). This demonstrates the wave-particle duality, which states that all matter exhibits both wave and particle properties: the particle is measured as a single pulse at a single position, while the wave describes the probability of absorbing the particle at a specific place of the detector.[22] This phenomenon has been shown to occur with photons, electrons, atoms and even some molecules, including buckyballs.[23][24][25][26][27] So experiments with electrons add confirmatory evidence to the view of Dirac that electrons, protons, neutrons, and even larger entities that are ordinarily called particles nevertheless have their own wave nature and even their own specific frequencies."

upload.wikimedia.org...

Just leaving this here while its fresh on my mind, for the boys to answer after they reply to my previous replies; my attempt to be clear about what I would like to know about the supposed nature of space and gravity. Dragon, dont tell me I dont understand Time, I do, I dont understand the physics theory of time, or space-time, but thats because it is not related to reality, and I do not want to know something that is not reality to reality, because what is not is related to reality is not truth, and I only want to know truth. Its like us arguing history and you saying 'no you are wrong, you just dont understand, Harry Potter defeated lord voldemort than, and than the huffle puffs won the cup, we can make much better predictions with this knowledge, than your history, this history you speak of is not = to Harry Potter world, which you dont understand, so it is wrong"




Either the substance (matter/energy/particles/fields) of the universe exists 'in/on' an infinite area of pure nothingness (meaning absent of matter/energy/particles/fields/anything/any quality other than the absence of all quality), and it is then possible for areas of pure nothingness (however small, even one planck length would qualify) to exist within the universe, in between matter/energy/particles/fields.

Or, the substance of the universe exists 'in/on' an infinite area of pure nothingness and it is not possible for areas of pure nothingness to exist within the universe. Which would mean that not even a planck length of the universe is completely devoid of matter/energy/particles/fields.


I think in either of these scenarios, there might be (might definitely be) an importance in regards to the binding nature of matter to matter. In the second scenario it would appear as the binding energy of matter/energy/particles/fields is so supreme that it doesnt not even allow a pocket of the all outer pervading nothing to enter the completely taught and closed and dense system that would than be the universe.

In the first scenario, where there are pockets, even a planck length, of true nothingness, there is still the inherent binding energy that causes all particles to not be infinitely far away from each other. In this scenario, if this is closest to prevalent models and understanding of the universe, than I suppose the space between stars, and more so, the space between galaxies, would be the greatest expressions of this fact, that areas of nothingness pervade the inner confines of the universe at large.


So now, is 'that which besides mass itself, is responsible for the phenomenon of gravity' a field of particles (like all other material and energetic things are a field of particles)?

If so, how dense is it thought this field of particles is? If it is the scenario with pockets of true nothing space in the universe, what is the average area of nothing space between each gravity particle? In other words, how dense is the gravity field, compared with I suppose, how possibly dense can it be? Is the altering of its density what causes gravity?


Can these particles transform into other particles? Do they fundamentally share an inherent nature with all other matter and energy?

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Did your post have a point? The point I was trying to make was, to quote your post:

"This phenomenon has been shown to occur with photons, electrons, atoms and even some molecules, including buckyballs."
upload.wikimedia.org...

Notice it doesn't list dice, or a single die, or anything nearly that large. So don't read too much into dice analogies or how they might apply to quantum sized objects.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Did your post have a point? The point I was trying to make was, to quote your post:

"This phenomenon has been shown to occur with photons, electrons, atoms and even some molecules, including buckyballs."
upload.wikimedia.org...

Notice it doesn't list dice, or a single die, or anything nearly that large. So don't read too much into dice analogies or how they might apply to quantum sized objects.

Oh, I assumed you would have read that quote I posted and understood it.

"This demonstrates the wave-particle duality, which states that all matter exhibits both wave and particle properties: the particle is measured as a single pulse at a single position, while the wave describes the probability of absorbing the particle at a specific place of the detector."

"THE PARTICLE IS MEASURED AS A SINGLE PULSE AT A SINGLE POSITION"

"WHILE THE WAVE DESCRIBES THE PROBABILITY OF ABSORBING THE PARTICLE AT A SPECIFIC PLACE OF THE DETECTOR"

The wave aspect isnt about superposition. The wave aspect isnt a description of a single particle. It is a description of the potential area a particle may land, because a particle does not shoot in a direct straight line as a gun or something does. Because after many trials of shooting a single particle one at a time, the slits are so big and the particle is so small, any number of things could have influenced the lack of exact straight path of the particle coming out of the gun, but most of all probably, a collision with the material of the deflector, or even a urging onto a specific path due to the trajectory of the particle from gun fire, meaning the angle its heading towards the detector via the gun, and towards the slit, the gravity of the slit could have even been responsible, or a collision with the slit, which as collisions are impossible, only EM equal and opposite forces, redirected it ever so slightly on its path towards the detector. Doing this hundreds of times, doesnt yield as a robotic gun would one constant bullet hole being hit over and over, but a stripped pattern on the detector, notifying an intelligence that something about the experiment set up, allows the path of a particle fired to hit certain areas of a detector more prevently after passing through an obsticle.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Oh, I assumed you would have read that quote I posted and understood it.

I did, but I didn't understand what the point was of your quoting the experiment. I'm still not sure I understand your point after reading your last diatribe. Are you saying that all the scientists who did the experiment don't understand the results, but you do, and you've concluded that their conclusion the electron was interfering with itself as quantum theory predicts was incorrect? If so, where is your theory that predicts the patterns observed?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Oh, I assumed you would have read that quote I posted and understood it.

I did, but I didn't understand what the point was of your quoting the experiment. I'm still not sure I understand your point after reading your last diatribe. Are you saying that all the scientists who did the experiment don't understand the results, but you do, and you've concluded that their conclusion the electron was interfering with itself as quantum theory predicts was incorrect? If so, where is your theory that predicts the patterns observed?

I stated my theory. A theory of deflection. EM or gravitational influence from the material of the slits, because when a particle is fired out of the gun it does not travel in a perfectly straight line forward. The slightest hidden variable in the course of the particles creation, to its traveling out of the gun barrel, to it just leaving the gun barrel, will cause each shot to be slightly different in terms of directional course. Because of this the particle has a slightly different path towards the deflector ultimately, but first towards the slits. The stripped pattern seen on the deflector, the areas with less or no particles detected, are angles at which it were impossible for a particle to leave the gun, pass through a slit, and hit the detector. The areas that had more particle detections and most particle detections, were areas which the particle had the greatest chance of hitting, after being fired from the gun, interacting with the slits, and than traveling onward.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Oh, I assumed you would have read that quote I posted and understood it.

I did, but I didn't understand what the point was of your quoting the experiment. I'm still not sure I understand your point after reading your last diatribe. Are you saying that all the scientists who did the experiment don't understand the results, but you do, and you've concluded that their conclusion the electron was interfering with itself as quantum theory predicts was incorrect? If so, where is your theory that predicts the patterns observed?

"This demonstrates the wave-particle duality, which states that all matter exhibits both wave and particle properties: the particle is measured as a single pulse at a single position, while the wave describes the probability of absorbing the particle at a specific place of the detector."

They are not saying the particle IS a superposition wave. They are saying they have by reviewing results, coupled with the set up of experiment and circumstances, created an equation utilizing the probabilities of those results, that describes the probabilities of the results. They have pretty much taken the results of the detections, that '2d' image of splay out, and translated it into math. And then you and believes of the non einsteinian quantum mechanics versions, have taken the results of the detections, the translated math, and gone a step forward and saying that translated math equals the particle itself.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
I stated my theory. A theory of deflection. EM or gravitational influence from the material of the slits,

OK but mathematically how do you model this behavior in your hypothesis and how does it predict the observed experimental results? I can almost see your hands waving, but I don't see any predictions of the observed interference patterns, mathematically.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
They are not saying the particle IS a superposition wave. They are saying they have by reviewing results, coupled with the set up of experiment and circumstances, created an equation utilizing the probabilities of those results, that describes the probabilities of the results. They have pretty much taken the results of the detections, that '2d' image of splay out, and translated it into math. And then you and believes of the non einsteinian quantum mechanics versions, have taken the results of the detections, the translated math, and gone a step forward and saying that translated math equals the particle itself.

I never said the math equals the particle. Quantum theory makes a prediction about what will happen when a single electron is fired through the double slit, and the prediction is observed in experiment. Like most of physics, this is modeled mathematically.

If you can show a theory that predicts the same interference pattern from "EM or gravitational influence" then I'd be amazed, but I don't see what gravity has to do with it quite frankly, or why you bring that up in this experiment, which doesn't seem to be a significant factor. I don't think classical electromagnetism will explain the results either, but if you can show otherwise, do so.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
OK but mathematically how do you model this behavior in your hypothesis and how does it predict the observed experimental results? I can almost see your hands waving, but I don't see any predictions of the observed interference patterns, mathematically.

Its not model able, its near infinite hidden variables, but its most likely the truth. I am not talking about models, tools, predictions, thoughts, equations. I am only talking about truth. Now is everything I have ever asked clear? Truth. Not science, not models, not predictions, not guesses, not best yet, not 'it works', TRUTH. REAL.

You are making an interpretation, a faith, that because your equations include probability, that the particle itself is a substance composed of probabilities. This is all I was saying was false.

Like watch this, we can see where we are at; A particle ALWAYS HAS IN REALITY A DEFINITE MOMENTUM AND POSITION.

I say TRUE.

You say ________.

You say false, BECAUSE, YOUR HAHAHAAHA REASONING is, WE CANNOT KNOW A PARTICLES MOMENTUM AND POSITION AT THE SAME TIME, THEREFORE A PARTICLE DOES NOT HAVE A MOMENTUM AND POSITION.

THIS IS BADDDDDDDDDDDDDDD LOGIC. IT IS A LEAP OF FAITH!!!! IT IS ANTI REASONABLE!!!!!

I never said the math equals the particle. Quantum theory makes a prediction about what will happen when a single electron is fired through the double slit, and the prediction is observed in experiment. Like most of physics, this is modeled mathematically.

Yes I agree with the latter, but was under the impression you believe that superposition was a real quality of a particle. That it interfered with itself, and your proof that it interfered with itself is an equation that is composed of probabilities, and the probabilities are composed of data that were taken over a series of trials, and then you say that for 1 trial, because in all the trials there is a large range where a particle can land, that 1 trial, 1 particle actually is creating an interference pattern or something.

If you can show a theory that predicts the same interference pattern from "EM or gravitational influence" then I'd be amazed, but I don't see what gravity has to do with it quite frankly, or why you bring that up in this experiment, which doesn't seem to be a significant factor. I don't think classical electromagnetism will explain the results either, but if you can show otherwise, do so.

The interpretation is different than the prediction. Lets see if you can comprehend this. I love, no, I hate, how whenever I say something really good you always make sure to quote only the small parts, and respond to the not significant aspects, I never do this to you or anyone, but anyway, you gotta do what you do to make your self think youre smarter than me...

The prediction is: Do trials. Look at results. Plot results on a graph. Plot results on an equation. Look at equation. Say 'this happened last time... this will happen next time'. Do trials. Look at results. Say 'it happened again...our equation was right...our prediction was right.

The interpretation is the why what happened happened, this is where we differ: My interpretation of why single particles fired at a double slit towards a detector do not create a perfect straight line, or one spot where all the particles hit is because; well to be honest I dont know yet, but I do think that it is more probable and rational that there are classical reasons why, hidden variables, than jumping to physically unexplainable imaginationally invented phenomenon.

You will have a real good chance of making it seem like you are not losing this argument if you only quote like cherry picked sentences from my replies, lets see how it goes.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Like watch this, we can see where we are at; A particle ALWAYS HAS IN REALITY A DEFINITE MOMENTUM AND POSITION.

I say TRUE.

You say ________.

You say false, BECAUSE, YOUR HAHAHAAHA REASONING is, WE CANNOT KNOW A PARTICLES MOMENTUM AND POSITION AT THE SAME TIME, THEREFORE A PARTICLE DOES NOT HAVE A MOMENTUM AND POSITION.

THIS IS BADDDDDDDDDDDDDDD LOGIC. IT IS A LEAP OF FAITH!!!! IT IS ANTI REASONABLE!!!!!

For a baseball, it's true. For an electron, is the electron's behavior particle-like or wave-like?

What I say is true are the experimental results we observe...we should all be able to agree on those. They tell us of the particle-wave duality which electrons can exhibit. If the electron is behaving in a wave-like manner, your insistence that it's a particle with certain particle-like properties seems to be contradicted by some experiments, yet confirmed in other experiments. If you expect it to behave like a particle at all times, I'd say experimental results contradict this expectation.

Yes I agree with the latter, but was under the impression you believe that superposition was a real quality of a particle. That it interfered with itself, and your proof that it interfered with itself is an equation that is composed of probabilities, and the probabilities are composed of data that were taken over a series of trials, and then you say that for 1 trial, because in all the trials there is a large range where a particle can land, that 1 trial, 1 particle actually is creating an interference pattern or something.

The interpretation is different than the prediction. Lets see if you can comprehend this. I love, no, I hate, how whenever I say something really good you always make sure to quote only the small parts, and respond to the not significant aspects, I never do this to you or anyone, but anyway, you gotta do what you do to make your self think youre smarter than me...

The prediction is: Do trials. Look at results. Plot results on a graph. Plot results on an equation. Look at equation. Say 'this happened last time... this will happen next time'. Do trials. Look at results. Say 'it happened again...our equation was right...our prediction was right.

The interpretation is the why what happened happened, this is where we differ: My interpretation of why single particles fired at a double slit towards a detector do not create a perfect straight line, or one spot where all the particles hit is because; well to be honest I dont know yet

Well that's a start, saying you don't know. Quantum theory predicts what we observe. You apparently have another explanation, or wait, no you just said you don't know, so I guess you don't, but somehow you just know quantum theory is wrong because you don't find it logical. You have company, some scientists didn't like quantum theory much either.

but I do think that it is more probable and rational that there are classical reasons why, hidden variables, than jumping to physically unexplainable imaginationally invented phenomenon.

The Copenhagen interpretation isn't universally accepted, but the experimental results of the double slit experiments aren't disputed. You can't explain the experimental results classically. You just admitted it. Nobody can...they can't be explained classically. You can either accept this, or live in some kind of fantasy that refuses to accept the experimental results of the double slit and insists on classical explanations.

You will have a real good chance of making it seem like you are not losing this argument if you only quote like cherry picked sentences from my replies, lets see how it goes.

It's ATS policy to trim quotes and focus on the most relevant things. On the one hand we have quantum theory. On the other hand we had your alternative which you expressed as "I stated my theory. A theory of deflection. EM or gravitational influence from the material of the slits", so of course I cherry picked this as the most relevant part of your post, it's the alternative you offered to the QM explanation you reject. And now, you've replaced that with "well to be honest I dont know yet".

Hopefully you can understand why scientists would be reluctant to discard the QM model which makes accurate predictions, for your alternate view of "I don't know yet" but QM must be wrong and there must be a classical explanation like hidden variables.

The supreme ruler in this debate is Nature. Your attempt to force Nature to follow your logic may be futile. Nature is under no obligation to cooperate with your ideas of how it should behave.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
For a baseball, it's true. For an electron, is the electron's behavior particle-like or wave-like?

What I say is true are the experimental results we observe...we should all be able to agree on those. They tell us of the particle-wave duality which electrons can exhibit. If the electron is behaving in a wave-like manner, your insistence that it's a particle with certain particle-like properties seems to be contradicted by some experiments, yet confirmed in other experiments. If you expect it to behave like a particle at all times, I'd say experimental results contradict this expectation.

No I think you are misunderstanding some terminologies and where they belong in accordance to theory, experiment and interpretation. The only interpretation of a particle behaving like a wave is like how a particle of ocean water behaves like a wave on the surface of the ocean.

You are confusing the notion that because after hundreds of trials there is not one specific bulls eye like particle indentation. They sum the total trials results to gain the greatest possibility for one particle to land. Because one particle landed here, and one there, and one next to it, Why arent they all landing in the same bulls eye space?

so its a probability, instead of a probability of rolling dice, area of space being the faces of the dice, the area of space of probability is the face of the detector. Because they dont know where a particle will land on the detector before they fire it, they are forced, from previous trials, to use what occurred on the sum of 10000 previous trials, thats their probability. Thats the 'wave function'. The wave function being the total possible extent of where a particle can possibly hit the detector. This does not mean a single particle when its fired travels through the air as all possible directional particles, and than when we measure it we collapse its wave function and it becomes one particle and hits the detector. It just means thats the abstract way a person must calculate to the best of their abilities in a math equation, what is the possible places a particle can land after being fired, they use a map, the equation, which is a map of past trials, and trialed possibilities.

Well that's a start, saying you don't know. Quantum theory predicts what we observe. You apparently have another explanation, or wait, no you just said you don't know, so I guess you don't, but somehow you just know quantum theory is wrong because you don't find it logical. You have company, some scientists didn't like quantum theory much either.

Quantum theory admits itself it is wrong. It is not trying to be right. It is only trying to help man organize data. It is not a theory on the real truthful nature of the universe. It knows this. The error occurred, when some scientists thought that it was a truthful real encapsulation of reality, without thinking others followed them. But not Einstein. And not me.

The Copenhagen interpretation isn't universally accepted, but the experimental results of the double slit experiments aren't disputed. You can't explain the experimental results classically. You just admitted it.

I explained them classically, which has more probability of being correct, than any other explanation. Did you not read my explanation?

You will have a real good chance of making it seem like you are not losing this argument if you only quote like cherry picked sentences from my replies, lets see how it goes.

It's ATS policy to trim quotes and focus on the most relevant things. On the one hand we have quantum theory. On the other hand we had your alternative which you expressed as "I stated my theory. A theory of deflection. EM or gravitational influence from the material of the slits", so of course I cherry picked this as the most relevant part of your post, it's the alternative you offered to the QM explanation you reject. And now, you've replaced that with "well to be honest I dont know yet".

No I said I dont know, as in, I cant say 100 percent sure. But as Einstein was as sure as his finger was his finger, I am quite sure that what I explained has more validity and probability of being true, than all others.

Hopefully you can understand why scientists would be reluctant to discard the QM model which makes accurate predictions, for your alternate view of "I don't know yet" but QM must be wrong and there must be a classical explanation like hidden variables.

Hey, Im not asking them to discard the model... you still dont understand this do you. They can do and think whatever they want. But thinking that their model is anything other than a clever device to approximate and appropriate to the best of their ability reality, is wrong. That is to say, saying the model and equations themselves = reality, is wrong.

Oh, and QM is wrong, because it doesnt include gravity, and yes I know only at high energies, and I think its probably because QM depends so much on probabilities.


To summarize.

Nature exists.

Man is born of nature.

Man wants to know EVERYTHING about nature, AS IT EXACTLY IS.

The best man can do at this so far, do to the pesky truth that the most fundamental constituents of nature are absolutely beyond plentiful, absolutely tiny, and absolutely reactive, as in speedy and moving and disturbed easily.

The best man can do at understanding certain bits of the most fundamental constituents of nature, requires man to be inaccurate in his descriptions, equations, theories. It seems man can not aquire complete knowledge of physical qualities of these fundamental constituents, but man still wants to do things with them, and predict the results, so he must sacrifice exactitude, because he has no choice, and instead utilize 'the best man can do'.

Some men think, 'the equations, which utilize the best men can do so far, to predict outcomes of fundamental reality, IS, and equals, the reality it self, the equations are not only tools for prediction, but perfect exact mappings of exact truth itself"

Some men, say no. Reality = Reality. The equations do not = Reality. They can predict parts of reality. They may no almost everything about reality. But the areas they dont know about reality, are the areas the men above have filled in. They have tricked themselves, into thinking that because they cannot exactly know a particles location and momentum at the same time, a particle does not have a location and momentum at the same time. They have tricked themselves into thinking, that because hundreads of trials of shooting particles at a wall does not result in 1 particle sized spot being hit every time, that when they shoot a particle it interacts with itself to create a complete interference pattern -___-. These men are wrong. Universe help me, these men are wrong.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Ok wow where to begin first an interference pattern is caused not by one particle but by one traveling through two holes. in other words it occurs because the particle actually travels through both slits not just one. Your looking at this like one particle going through one hole hitting a screen. But to get an interference pattern there has two be key word here interference between two particles. This isnt just shooting them at a wall on waiting for a pattern. But lets look at something that first proved QM and started us down this road.

So in Bell's inequality experiments will see what happens. The reason its named this is because it shows a number of inequalities that is satisfied in arguments for local hidden variables theories. This shows two main things first CHSH inequality,This shows that certain consequences of entanglement in quantum mechanics cannot be reproduced by local hidden variable theories.And also shows correlation does not imply causation. This is also a key point showing correlation proves causation is a major point when trying to show hidden variables as you say. This is a fallacy considered a questionable cause logical fallacy in that two events occurring together are taken to have a cause-and-effect relationship. In classes we teach this fallacy as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this", and "false cause".

So now the set up Bell decided in his experiment he needed a pair of spin one-half particles formed in the singlet spin state and moving freely in opposite directions. And that the two particles would travel away from each other to two distant locations where measurements of spin are performed, along axes that are independently chosen. Each measurement yields a result of either spin-up (+) or spin-down (−) showing a positive or negative direction of the chosen axis.The probability of the same result being obtained at the two locations varies, depending on the relative angles at which the two spin measurements are made (angle of the mirrors) and is strictly between zero and one for all relative angles other than perfectly parallel alignments (0° or 180°). So to make this simple we shoot a particle forward and we have two detectors we can move we should easily be able to correlate statistics 0° or 180° Now we should see the results should be between 0 and 1 if we add the spins as being spin-up (+) as +1 and spin-down (−) being −1. What we found in the experiment is we actually got was +2. But this shouldn't be possible however in QM it predicts this outcome because we are dealing with waves. In a real world experiment we should be able to aim it at the detector off the mirror and know where it will go we are controlling it no different than aiming a gun. Problem is particles dont want to play the game because they dont want us to know there location and do not go where we aim them.

Ill get into this a bit more later but before i do please look into this so we can discuss heres a godd place to start.

www.digplanet.com...