Wonderful!!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: The North American Nanohertz Observatory for Gravitational Waves
Next: Exactly why the theories of relativity are complete nonsense- the basic mistake exposed!
From: mpc755 on 26 Jan 2010 12:22 On Jan 26, 12:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 25, 11:18 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 25, 10:05 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 23, 6:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 23, 3:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 22, 5:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > It's not taken. It is just completely misinterpreted by QM. Just like > > > > > > the math is not taken. What occurs physically in nature is just > > > > > > completely misunderstood by QM. That is not how science is supposed to > > > > > > work but how would you know that with being so diluted with the > > > > > > absurdity of QM. Why am I supposed to not use terms and the math > > > > > > correctly simply because QM is very, very, very, incorrect? > > > > > > OK, MPC, let's summarize, and then I'll stop feeding you attention for > > > > > a while. > > > > > - You believe you have the right to use physics terms to mean whatever > > > > > you want them to mean. > > > > > - You believe you have the right to use the math from another theory > > > > > and say it applies to your theory just the same. > > > > > - You believe you have the right to claim you know how nature works > > > > > just by using your common sense and without the benefit of > > > > > experimental test. > > > > > - You believe you have the right to claim you understand and everybody > > > > > else doesn't understand, and that people should just accept that. > > > > > > Nice little fantasy world you have there. Enjoy it and don't overdose > > > > > on the meds, and maybe the nurse will give you extra dessert. > > > > > Let summarize where we are: > > > > > - You continue to bring forth more and more experiments such as > > > > 'quantum eraser' and 'delayed choice' and whatever else you think you > > > > can throw at me to avoid having to stop existing in your state of > > > > denial. > > > > :>) Experiments are how truth is decided in physics, MPC. I know you > > > don't like it, and want truth decided your way. Sucks, doesn't it? > > > > > Since you know my explanation is more correct than QM when I > > > > answer and explain what is occurring in nature in double slit, > > > > 'quantum eraser' and 'delayed choice' experiments you do not even read > > > > the complete response and reply with 'show the derivations'. > > > > You don't have an explanation until you can show the derivations. In > > > physics, an explanation REQUIRES derivations. I know you don't like > > > it, and want to do something else. Sucks, doesn't it? > > > > > - You continue to discuss a double slit experiment and choose to > > > > believe the future determines the past, 'quantum eraser', 'delayed > > > > choice', 'which way', 'erasing which way', and on and on the nonsense > > > > goes is how nature works. When I respond and explain to you exactly > > > > what is occurring in nature, you respond with 'show the derivations'. > > > > Yes, indeed. Sucks, doesn't it. > > > > > - Denial. Denial. And more denial. > > > > Nothing to deny if you don't have an explanation with derivations. > > > Sucks, doesn't it? > > > Nothing to deny if you don't have a unique experimental prediction > > > that is supported by actual measurement. Sucks, doesn't it? > > > > > - Instead of understanding the absurdity of what you choose to > > > > believe, you choose to hide behind derivations and exist in a state of > > > > denial. > > > > There's nothing absurd about it. It may conflict with your common > > > sense, but conflicts with your common sense aren't absurd. I know you > > > don't like it. Sucks, doesn't it? > > > > > - QM dogma. > > > > QM has derived predictions supported by experimental measurement. > > > The de Broglie QM understanding of nature has derived predictions > > based upon any moving particle or object had an associated wave. > > Really? What predictions do you think were made by the de Broglie > understanding of nature. > Note the statements below are NOT quantitative predictions of > measurable observables. > You DO know what "quantitative predictions of measurable observables" > means, right? > I understand you use it to allow yourself to belief in the absurd. You use it as an excuse to make up whatever you want, such as the future determining the past (absurd), virtual particles that pop into existence out of nothing (absurd), and the sum over all histories (absurd). Why would would want to understand boring old nature as a moving physical 'particle' has an associated physical wave when you get to believe in the absurd? > > > > > > de Broglie: > > > "Any moving particle or object had an associated wave." > > > "I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and > > particles." > > > "In my view, the wave is a physical one..." > > > "For me, the particle, precisely located in space at every instant, > > forms on the v wave a small region of high energy concentration, which > > may be likened in a first approximation, to a moving singularity." > > > "I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the > > wave, the guidance formula. It may easily be generalized to the case > > of an external field acting on the particle." > > > As in nature, de Broglie is discussing the single path the 'particle' > > travels and the multiple paths the wave propagates. > > > > Sucks, doesn't it? > > > Sucks for you and the absurdity of the Copenhagen interpretation. > > Foam and blather away. > Tell me about how much progress you've made doing that. > > > > > > > I'll leave you with the following in case you ever do decide to > > > > understand nature: > > > > > As far as I know, de Broglie was the first to define wave-particle > > > > duality as any moving particle or object had an associated wave > > > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie). > > > > > This is exactly what is occurring in nature in a double slit > > > > experiment. The 'particle' travels a single path and the associated > > > > wave propagates available paths. When the associated wave exits the > > > > slits it creates interference which alters the direction the > > > > 'particle' travels. Detecting the 'particle' causes decoherence of the > > > > associated wave and there is no interference. > > > > > If you want to understand what is occurring in double double slit, > > > > 'quantum erase', 'delayed choice', or any other experiment consisting > > > > of a probability of a particle traveling a particular path all you > > > > have to understand is the 'particle' has an associated wave. The > > > > 'particle' travels a single path and the associated wave propagates > > > > available paths. > > > > > If you want to take de Broglie's definition to the next step in order > > > > to understand what occurs physically in nature then a 'particle' has > > > > an associated aether wave. > > > > > If you want to understand what is occurring physically in nature in > > > > double slit, 'quantum erase', 'delayed choice', or any other > > > > experiment consisting of a probability of a particle traveling a > > > > particular path all you have to understand is the 'particle' has an > > > > associated aether wave. The 'particle' travels a single path and the > > > > associated aether wave propagates available paths. > > > > > In AD, a 'particle' has an associated aether wave. > > |