Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

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.

Quantum mechanics doesn't say that either. It says that position and momentum are not the underlying state variables of the dynamics, in contrast to Newtonian Mechanics. So in that sense, a particle doesn't "have" a position and momentum, it has a state vector.

QM says that the state vector evolves in a Hilbert space is, and position and momentum correspond to operators which are derived functionals of state, which in combination with an integration axiom, yield results which in classical limits look like position and momentum.

Very very rough analogy. You can put $N dollars cash into your bank account. Your bank account has dollars. Classical.

You can put $N dollars cash into your brokerage account and buy M shares. Your brokerage account has M shares now. Quantum.

It has a dollar *value*, but that is the result of applying an operator (look up price of securities, multiply and sum) to the true underlying state which is "account ZBC has M shares of Yoyodyne LLC".

If you actually want to convert to actual dollars, you'd have to make transactions and the actual dollars you would actually get out is somewhat uncertain because of market fluctuations and effects. So the brokerage side has something like a "dollar value" but it doesn't have dollars exactly, there is an uncertainty principle.

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

You say "X is BADDDDDDD LOGIC".

I say, "Experimental evidence is more valuable than your idea of TRVTH." The notion that position and momentum are not part of the underlying dynamical equation of motion (the subject of the time-evolution operator) didn't come about because of logical reasoning, it came about because experimental results bashed people on the head, and some of those heads were not as stubbornly attached to obsolete philosophical assumptions as yours.

originally posted by: mbkennel

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.

Quantum mechanics doesn't say that either. It says that position and momentum are not the underlying state variables of the dynamics, in contrast to Newtonian Mechanics. So in that sense, a particle doesn't "have" a position and momentum, it has a state vector.

QM says that the state vector evolves in a Hilbert space is, and position and momentum correspond to operators, which in combination with an integration axiom, yield results which in classical limits look like position and momentum.

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

You say "X is BADDDDDDD LOGIC".

I say, "Experimental evidence is more valuable than your idea of TRVTH." The notion that position and momentum are not part of the underlying dynamical equation of motion (the subject of the time-evolution operator) didn't come about because of logical reasoning, it came about because experimental results bashed people on the head, and some of those heads were not as stubbornly attached to obsolete philosophical assumptions as yours.

Your jumping the gun i was going to get him there after we examined the bell experiment but you're 100 percent correct.

But i was hoping we could drag him into the 21st century to realize why hes stuck in newtonian physics. But than again maybe your ways better we may drone on for another 10 pages lol.

a reply to: mbkennel

No, youre wrong. A particle always has a position and momentum.

Im not denying the math exists. Im not denying it works at making predictions. Im denying the math is equal to reality, the interpretation of what the equation means.

To me, and to any intelligence, you are claiming the cause of gravity, dropping an apple, is a million invisible angels like to bring objects to the ground.


Then you are making an equation that has to do with your million invisible angels theory, and than because with your equation you can predict outcomes to certan probabilities and certainties, you say "Aha! there must be a million invisible angels!"

originally posted by: dragonridr


an interference pattern is caused not by one particle but by one traveling through two holes

In a double slit experiment where is the nozzle/gun, by which a particle is projected out of, pointed?

Is it pointed exactly at the material between the two slits?

So an electron hits that middle, like a water ballon would, and bursts, it momentarily decays into other particles (or we are certain the material doesnt absorb it and shoot it out the other side? ) or it splits into two half electrons which go out the slits?

But this is all hogwash, because as the following reply will be seen, you havent shown, or I dont think you can, show one example of a single particle being fired and a single particle creating an interference pattern, so I will wait for that response, until I further consider.

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.

Show me ONE! example of ONE! particle being fired and it creating an interference problem.

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.

No it doesnt. Write ONE! and I will disprove it.

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.

No. Those sentiments are something someone who believes in locality and hidden variables would say about entanglement, that the measurements of one particle, correlation, doesnt prove that it causes the change in the 'entangled' particle.

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".

Give me a theoretical example that can exist in reality, where a physical quality is not caused.

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.

When the particles are created they are created with an exact spin, when they are measured they are found to have an exact spin. It is hard or impossible to know the spin before they are measured. Logically, an intelligence would assume correctly, that though it is hard or impossible to know the spin before they are measured, they have one none the less.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Hi ImaFungi, I think I've never replied to any post of yours at least in this thread, sorry.

You are right, a single particle (electron, proton) will never produce an interference pattern in any slit experiment.
It does interact with the barrier however so millions and millions of them will sum up to a pattern.

This wave / particle duality is BS, I know...

it came up as follows (roughly speaking)
Scientists see an EM wave kicking out electrons (photoelectric effect)
they say it must be an particle then, or particle-like
and if a wave is a particle (we know it is not)
they apply it backwards, particle is a wave.
and because of Heisenberg ( his uncertainty principle that works for QM only) localization of an particle is lost
NOW, with those assumptions particles can appear and disappear or travel on two paths simultaneously and do all other QM fancy stuff.



BTW>
i really recommend you to have a look at this video series.
You will see how and why QM is what it is

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: ImaFungi

Hi ImaFungi, I think I've never replied to any post of yours at least in this thread, sorry.

You are right, a single particle (electron, proton) will never produce an interference pattern in any slit experiment.
It does interact with the barrier however so millions and millions of them will sum up to a pattern.

This wave / particle duality is BS, I know...

it came up as follows (roughly speaking)
Scientists see an EM wave kicking out electrons (photoelectric effect)
they say it must be an particle then, or particle-like
and if a wave is a particle (we know it is not)
they apply it backwards, particle is a wave.
and because of Heisenberg ( his uncertainty principle that works for QM only) localization of an particle is lost
NOW, with those assumptions particles can appear and disappear or travel on two paths simultaneously and do all other QM fancy stuff.



BTW>
i really recommend you to have a look at this video series.
You will see how and why QM is what it is

Ummm no thats not anything like how QM came to the conclusions and the slit doesnt interfere with anything we can show this by blocking one slit. This alone shoots down your whole theory. I strongly suggest you take the time to watch the one by Allen Adams hes an instructor i met and hes very good at explaining the origins of QM and you hit part of his series. Again take the time to watch it and you wont say stupid things like this.

a reply to: dragonridr

Ummm no thats not anything like how QM came to the conclusions and the slit doesnt interfere with anything we can show this by blocking one slit

what ?? you know how those patterns appear, do you ?
every slit is an huygens source
"Every point on wave front acts as the source of secondary wavelets that spread out in the forward direction with the same speed as the wave. The new wave front is found by constructing the surface tangent to the secondary wavelets."



and for protons or any other charged particles in those slit experiments they are moving charges.
changing EM field, like one single point on wave front that acts as the source of secondary wavelets that spread out in the forward direction with the same speed as the wave.
Two equal charges repeal each other, and it doesn't matter an atom is declared as charge neutral, sure, on a big scale, but how big really for those moving charge near those matter the slits are made of.
This charge is pushed and pulled by electrons and protons as it passes the slit (and always one and not both), is gets diverted.

Or you show me an interference pattern from a single electron, than I will change my mind

Again take the time to watch it and you wont say stupid things like this.

what ?

This alone shoots down your whole theory.

what theory ? I though we talk how things work and not how virtual angels repeat God's words that is pure energy

Heisenber's uncertainty principle works perfectly well in the none quantum mechanical realm involving macroscopic events.


Kick a ball in the air

Take a camera, if you use a slow shutter speed, you will be able to understand the momentum of the object, but not the location when the photograph was taken.

Now dow the same and use a fast shutter speed, you will then know the location when the image was taken, but have less to zero information about momentum.


pretty simple

a reply to: ErosA433

so for you time is the sum of such "short" pictures,
I think that for any distance you need at least two of those pictures. Begin and end of the motion, or distance it travels at time T.

you guys have taken a wave with length and express this as point like particle.
It is not my picture that causes confusion of uncertainty.

I said I need at least two and your example with this picture is excellent example how QM people apply they own rules to deny someone's different point of view.

in a changing picture fluid like however you can stop time but pressure remains, potential energy, like an Alpha in a picture (RGBA) if you like. Is this a hidden variable ?? NO

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: dragonridr

Ummm no thats not anything like how QM came to the conclusions and the slit doesnt interfere with anything we can show this by blocking one slit

what ?? you know how those patterns appear, do you ?
every slit is an huygens source
"Every point on wave front acts as the source of secondary wavelets that spread out in the forward direction with the same speed as the wave. The new wave front is found by constructing the surface tangent to the secondary wavelets."

and for protons or any other charged particles in those slit experiments they are moving charges.
changing EM field, like one single point on wave front that acts as the source of secondary wavelets that spread out in the forward direction with the same speed as the wave.
Two equal charges repeal each other, and it doesn't matter an atom is declared as charge neutral, sure, on a big scale, but how big really for those moving charge near those matter the slits are made of.
This charge is pushed and pulled by electrons and protons as it passes the slit (and always one and not both), is gets diverted.

Or you show me an interference pattern from a single electron, than I will change my mind

Again take the time to watch it and you wont say stupid things like this.

what ?

This alone shoots down your whole theory.

what theory ? I though we talk how things work and not how virtual angels repeat God's words that is pure energy

Of course a single electron creates an interference pattern. See the electron gun fired them one at a time and we continue to do this until we have enough to see the pattern. You cant see a pattern on anything in the universe consisting of just one incident. A pattern by its very nature requires a process to be repeated.

Electrons are emitted one by one from the source in the electron microscope. They pass through a device called the "electron biprism", which consists of two parallel plates and a fine filament at the center. The filament is thinner than 1 micron (1/1000 mm) in diameter. Electrons having passed through on both sides of the filament are detected one by one as particles at the detector. This detector was specially modified for electrons from the photon detector produced by Hamamatsu Photonics (PIAS). To our surprise, it could detect even a single electron with almost 100 % detection efficiency.

www.hitachi.com...

So any other silly questions? Your denying the experiment and trying to change the parameters because it doesnt fit your world view.

originally posted by: dragonridr


Of course a single electron creates an interference pattern. See the electron gun fired them one at a time and we continue to do this until we have enough to see the pattern. You cant see a pattern on anything in the universe consisting of just one incident. A pattern by its very nature requires a process to be repeated.

Bahahahhahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahaahhahahaha

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: mbkennel

No, youre wrong. A particle always has a position and momentum.

Im not denying the math exists. Im not denying it works at making predictions. Im denying the math is equal to reality, the interpretation of what the equation means.

The notion that a particle "always has a position and momentum" is also an abstract theory and has specific mathematical consequences (hail Newton!). The notion of even 'a particle' is an abstraction.

You just assert "my theory is right and the other theory is wrong" for no other reason than you want it to be that way.

To me, and to any intelligence, you are claiming the cause of gravity, dropping an apple, is a million invisible angels like to bring objects to the ground.

Then you are making an equation that has to do with your million invisible angels theory, and than because with your equation you can predict outcomes to certan probabilities and certainties, you say "Aha! there must be a million invisible angels!"

And you are saying, no there aren't a million invisible angels, there are two invisible toads which you call position and momentum , except the invisible toad theory makes the wrong predictions and the math doesn't work out, but you think it's TRVTH because you said so.

As I've repeated before. Go read the Feynman Lectures on Physics, and really try to understand them.

originally posted by: mbkennel



The notion that a particle "always has a position and momentum" is also an abstract theory and has specific mathematical consequences (hail Newton!). The notion of even 'a particle' is an abstraction.

You just assert "my theory is right and the other theory is wrong" for no other reason than you want it to be that way.

No you fool, I have spent over 50 posts fledging out all I think, you just responded to the one in which I capped it off with a statement of proud acknowledgement.

And you are saying, no there aren't a million invisible angels, there are two invisible toads which you call position and momentum , except the invisible toad theory makes the wrong predictions and the math doesn't work out, but you think it's TRVTH because you said so.

No, of course you wouldnt understand, when do you, why would you, how could you?

You are so mixed up its ridiculous. You literally are brainwashed by a cult. I can question all my views and understandings COMPLETELY, I can see every side of the argument and understand them fully! I have no bias or stake, I am pure honesty and curiosity. I understand everything you have ever said and are able to think. You have not understood everything I have said, this is why I am winning.

a reply to: KrzYma

You are showing me those videos as an example of why these brainwashed quantum woo woo extremists believe what they do right? Not showing me what I should be believing in right? Just so we are on the same page, which I think we are, materialist rationalist realists who would get along nicely with Einstein and Schrodinger.

This is what QM is; en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: KrzYma

Oh my GOD! I had to stop at 30:47 ... sheesh, incredible. I am so ashamed to be a human, such a great line of thinkers have seen and thought on this earth! Look at these mass produced school boys and their cheep tricks and dim wits!

originally posted by: ImaFungi
This is what QM is; en.wikipedia.org...

Your right whats your point see QM was modelled after observations made of the universe through experiments. Its not made to tell us why this occurs that is the theory of everything yet to be discovered. So your whole argument is based on the fact QM doesnt tell us why these interactions occur? So itake it you dont believe in gravity either we have modeled it and we can figure out its interactions but we dont know what causes it. So to you is gravity just a figment of our imagination?

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi
This is what QM is; en.wikipedia.org...

Your right whats your point see QM was modelled after observations made of the universe through experiments. Its not made to tell us why this occurs that is the theory of everything yet to be discovered. So your whole argument is based on the fact QM doesnt tell us why these interactions occur? So itake it you dont believe in gravity either we have modeled it and we can figure out its interactions but we dont know what causes it. So to you is gravity just a figment of our imagination?

I knew that all along. let me be clear; I was ONLY!!!!! arguing, because I thought believes of QM believed that it equaled the universe. I was only arguing, because I thought believers of QM, thought that QM, was more than just approximations and equations. That they thought it was the exact description of reality as it is itself.

I have reason to believe that there are people who do believe that!, It is against those people I am arguing.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
This is what QM is; en.wikipedia.org...

Yes. You know this according to that post, so why haven't you learned to deal with this? It's not like you have anything better to offer.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Oh my GOD! I had to stop at 30:47 ... sheesh, incredible. I am so ashamed to be a human, such a great line of thinkers have seen and thought on this earth! Look at these mass produced school boys and their cheep tricks and dim wits!

He's talking about experimental results.

Do you deny experimental results?

Or you stopped because all the talk about black and hard versus white and soft reminded you too much of a fight you had with your ex?

No, you are a fool. It is so easy to be ignorant, it takes zero effort. I will no longer waste my energy stuping to your level of stupidity to try and raise you up. Have fun, I know you will, the state you frequently occupy is one of bliss for a reason. You may be uncertain what that reason is, but it is ignorance.