"Does light move", asked Quantum Quack

[AlphaNumeric]

Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla ..... Bleh
This is the only proper way to respond to miserable and intolerant person like yourself.

I have attempted a rational discussion with you. Your responses would suggest that intolerant person is you, having gotten quite upset on being corrected.

No one asked for your correction you are merely butting in

So you're prefer to go through life ignorant and saying incorrect things than someone politely correct you? What an odd way to live. Again, why come on a discussion forum if you don't want any replies?

as you've got no life

Wow, less than 100 posts and you've already guessed my life story. Amazing, you and QWC must go to the same mind reading school too, as whenever I correct either of you suddenly you both start recounting how miserable my life is, despite having never met me and having no clue about my personal life.

nothing better to do except feeling jealous of others and trying to belittle them. So go get a life pal.

What have I got to be jealous about when it comes to you or QQ. Both of you state factually incorrect things and display an ignorance of science. I'm doing a science PhD. So in that regard I don't really think I've got much to be jealous of you for. Personal life-wise I can't say much about you (unlike you about me it would seem) but I've got a pretty decent life. Not many money worries, a girlfriend of over a year, just moved into my own place, enjoying my work. So why would I be jealous of you, given I know nothing about you other than your dislike of rational discourse?

Again, you and QWC show similar behaviour, you appear to project your own short comings onto anyone who dares correct you.

 

[raggamax]

I have attempted a rational discussion with you. Your responses would suggest that intolerant person is you, having gotten quite upset on being corrected.

So you're prefer to go through life ignorant and saying incorrect things than someone politely correct you? What an odd way to live. Again, why come on a discussion forum if you don't want any replies?

Wow, less than 100 posts and you've already guessed my life story. Amazing, you and QWC must go to the same mind reading school too, as whenever I correct either of you suddenly you both start recounting how miserable my life is, despite having never met me and having no clue about my personal life.

What have I got to be jealous about when it comes to you or QQ. Both of you state factually incorrect things and display an ignorance of science. I'm doing a science PhD. So in that regard I don't really think I've got much to be jealous of you for. Personal life-wise I can't say much about you (unlike you about me it would seem) but I've got a pretty decent life. Not many money worries, a girlfriend of over a year, just moved into my own place, enjoying my work. So why would I be jealous of you, given I know nothing about you other than your dislike of rational discourse?

Again, you and QWC show similar behaviour, you appear to project your own short comings onto anyone who dares correct you.

Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla ..... Bleh

This is the only way to reply to a person like yourself. I've seen you troll other threads just as you are doing in this one Quantum wave's if I remember correctly. This is reason enough for me to have a precise opinion of your warped mentality.
Go jack off to Quantum Mechanics and live in your own ignorance as it is very clear you are very scared of change.

 

[raggamax]

AN of course meant $$G_{ab} = \frac{8\pi G}{c^{4}}T_{ab}$$.

anuraganimax: How old are you? My 5 year old daughter displays more maturity than you just did. As AN said, if you like being a moron and don't want to be corrected write a blog that no one will read and you can feel good about.

Try to pay more attention here or get lost. I was not asking for his opinion you just misunderstood because I quoted all of his post. He started this one not me. In fact if you scroll up you'll also see that I warned him first hand not to start a futile argument with me. Maturity?? Haaa what a joke. This is not my thread to begin with so whats the point of me blogging. I merely asked a question to the thread owner and you two jumped in. But its probably pointless saying this to you because it seems both of you are buddies and hence partners in crime.
Get lost and go teach to someone who wants to listen to your drivel.

 

[prometheus]

Get lost and go teach to someone who wants to listen to your drivel.

I teach undergraduates once a week minimum. If you don't want to learn then no one can force you. You'll just have to wallow in your own ignorance for the rest of your miserable life.

 

[fedr808]

I would think that light does in fact move, but the fact is that in this world, everything is relative.

Im guessing, I may be wrong here, because my translation of such complicated math to my high school level is a bit off, that you are implying that rather than light moving, space around it is moving.

I believe that light can go faster than it is, but there is the universal speed limit.

I do not believe that the defining speed limit is light, I think that light thus far is the only thing weve seen that has hit that speed limit, its not that you cant travel faster than light, it's just that light cannot go any faster because of the speed limit.

But the one exception is that nothing in space can go faster than the speed of light, but space itself CAN go faster. Now I believe that if light moved not by motion but by manipulating space around it, than light would move much faster than it already does.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

This is the only way to reply to a person like yourself. I've seen you troll other threads just as you are doing in this one Quantum wave's if I remember correctly. This is reason enough for me to have a precise opinion of your warped mentality..

Yes, how silly of me to have a warped mentality where I point out mistakes in people's claims when I see them, as I would hope others do to me if they see mistakes in my posts. How silly of me to think people come to a science discussion forum to learn and to help others learn.

Go jack off to Quantum Mechanics

And we're back to "I don't know AlphaNumeric but in order to make me feel better in my views of him I'll just make up random and baseless insults at him".

and live in your own ignorance as it is very clear you are very scared of change.

I'm ignorant because I wanted to help you learn something?! And given the very quick way in which you went hostile I would say that you have a fear of change as you have utterly refused to accept that perhaps just somewhere in your posts there was a slight error.

Cranks keep telling mainstream people "You're scared of change!" but almost universally the cranks will post their pet theory and then refuse to accept any correction on it. They want everyone to accept their view of the universe is right and they are terrified of any change in that. To them change is fine, provided its change to accept their views. I've thrown away months of work after being told "It's wrong", its the nature of science.

I would suggest you look long and hard at yourself and the insults you throw at me, they seem to be quite appropriate to your own point of view. Something Freudian in that I'm sure....

 

[raggamax]

I teach undergraduates once a week minimum. If you don't want to learn then no one can force you. You'll just have to wallow in your own ignorance for the rest of your miserable life.

Of course thats what I just said. Took you so long enough to realize this simple fact. Nobody has the right to force their opinions on others. Its up to the learner to choose his/her teacher. And sad are actually those people who become so intolerant of others opinions and try to force their opinions over others who don't even care about them.

 

[raggamax]

Yes, how silly of me to have a warped mentality where I point out mistakes in people's claims when I see them, as I would hope others do to me if they see mistakes in my posts. How silly of me to think people come to a science discussion forum to learn and to help others learn.

And we're back to "I don't know AlphaNumeric but in order to make me feel better in my views of him I'll just make up random and baseless insults at him".

I'm ignorant because I wanted to help you learn something?! And given the very quick way in which you went hostile I would say that you have a fear of change as you have utterly refused to accept that perhaps just somewhere in your posts there was a slight error.

Cranks keep telling mainstream people "You're scared of change!" but almost universally the cranks will post their pet theory and then refuse to accept any correction on it. They want everyone to accept their view of the universe is right and they are terrified of any change in that. To them change is fine, provided its change to accept their views. I've thrown away months of work after being told "It's wrong", its the nature of science.

I would suggest you look long and hard at yourself and the insults you throw at me, they seem to be quite appropriate to your own point of view. Something Freudian in that I'm sure....

Sorry man but go teach to others who believe in you because I do not want to learn from you in this case.
It is pointless to keep repeating oneself over and over as you've just did in this post. If you did not agree with QQ's point of view of light disagreeing with him once was enough. Why are you waging a crusade of words and wasting yours as well as others time ?
If I wanted to learn anything from you I would have personally asked you the question but I did not. So why are you forcing your opinions of light on me by trying to drag me into useless arguments and there you go calling other cranks again who used their imagination to come up with a model different than the established one. If everyone followed your point point of view and gave up their imaginations for math and logic there would be no progress possible.
If you truly have any respect for learning do not bother me any more.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

and there you go calling other cranks again who used their imagination to come up with a model different than the established one.

Yes and look how successful they have all been!

If everyone followed your point point of view and gave up their imaginations for math and logic there would be no progress possible.

So the fact I corrected you on your factually incorrect claim that science has no evidence for the photon means I have no imagination? Once again you reach a conclusion without reason or evidence other than it gives you an excuse to ignore me.

I haven't denounced imagination, I've corrected you on a statement of fact! If everyone ignored reality to make up their own 'facts' we'd get nowhere, would we? I'm not advocating having no imagination, I'm advocating tempering imagination with rationality and information, something you seem dead set against.

And my approach to physics must make some progress possible as I have original published work to my name so if I were incapable of original thought I'd not have managed that. But then such facts get in the way of you making up your own view of the universe, don't they?

 

[raggamax]

Yes and look how successful they have all been!

So the fact I corrected you on your factually incorrect claim that science has no evidence for the photon means I have no imagination? Once again you reach a conclusion without reason or evidence other than it gives you an excuse to ignore me.

I haven't denounced imagination, I've corrected you on a statement of fact! If everyone ignored reality to make up their own 'facts' we'd get nowhere, would we? I'm not advocating having no imagination, I'm advocating tempering imagination with rationality and information, something you seem dead set against.

And my approach to physics must make some progress possible as I have original published work to my name so if I were incapable of original thought I'd not have managed that. But then such facts get in the way of you making up your own view of the universe, don't they?

"Factually inaccurate" - This was a good one.
Here we go again with this nonsense of yours. Go find me a picture of an isolated photon of yours and then we can talk about success of quantum science. Really what a joke. While you're at it go find the graviton and higgs posing for the camera as well b4 making these claims. I can see it clearly how this argument will degenerate into a flurry of personal attacks if you don't give up that stuck up and arrogant attitude of yours.
If QQ does not have any proof neither do you have an explanation how these point particles of coordinate geometry exist in space let alone traverse distances.Who will show these point particles the direction which cannot even have a notion of existence without a coordinate axis? You?

You don't have the right to correct anyone. You get what I'm saying. Your theories are full of loopholes which must be corrected first b4 you can claim anything.

Quote
"I haven't denounced imagination, I've corrected you on a statement of fact! "

The arrogance of yours. You don't have the right to correct anyone in the world b4 clearing up these issues.

 

[fedr808]

I think all of you are a horrible represantation of science.

Science isn't about bickering, it's not about brief moments of fame or glory, it's about change, its about discovery, science is meant to further our understanding of ourselves and the world around us.

your bickering is quite immature for people whom pride themselves on the above values.

 

[raggamax]

I think all of you are a horrible represantation of science.

Science isn't about bickering, it's not about brief moments of fame or glory, it's about change, its about discovery, science is meant to further our understanding of ourselves and the world around us.

your bickering is quite immature for people whom pride themselves on the above values.

Agreed. This is indeed quite immature and I myself admit that I am a part of this immaturity as well but this is the way it goes. People get locked into retaliating over trivial matters and lose sight of the bigger picture.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Here we go again with this nonsense of yours. Go find me a picture of an isolated photon of yours and then we can talk about success of quantum science.

Now you're moving the goal posts. You said science offers no evidence for the photon and I commented that QQ had previously said such a thing but what he really meant was that the evidence for the photon doesn't meet his particular criteria and low and behold, precisely the same applies with you.

Interactions between photons and electrons form the basis of such practical devices as MRI machines or solar cells. Without quantum mechanics being at least in the same ball park as Nature we'd not be able to construct and use such machines. So yes, quantum mechanics is successful.

You're asking for a 'picture of an isolated photon'. We see objects, such as the screen you're staring at, by the light they emit and if an object doesn't emit light then it's 'dark', such as dark matter or black holes. Anyone versed in quantum mechanics knows that photons don't emit photons (I can explain the technical reason if you so wish) and so you can't take pictures of photons, you measure their properties by how they interact with objects. They carry momentum, energy, they interact with gravity, they interact with mediums between their emitter and the detector, all in a way which matches quantum field theory descriptions/predictions to 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000. That's like aiming at a human hair on the Moon with a laser and splitting it length-ways.

However, another prediction of quantum field theory is that at high enough energies a photon will turn into an electron-positron pair, which will interact with other photons before recombining back into a photon so provided you have ultra powerful light emitters you could, if QED is right, take photos of photons. And guess what, such experiments are already designed and built, with CERN planning on doing a lot of it in the LHC.

You talk as if this is the only thing on which the success of quantum mechanics is measured. The comptuer infront of you has CPUs designed using quantum mechanics, so if quantum mechanics wasn't 'successful' you'd not have the PC you're sitting at. It's been tested to parts per trillion and passed. By any measuring stick it is 'successful'. The fact not all of its predictions have yet been tested doesn't mean its unsuccessful, you can never do all experiments for all predictions as you can always go to higher energies, higher accuracy, new domains of applicability. You have picked one particular thing and myopically ignored all other experiments, predictions and results.

While you're at it go find the graviton and higgs posing for the camera as well b4 making these claims.

It would seem you think that a theory which predicts things is a poor theory? A good theory should predict things we've not seen before, because it should expand our understanding of the universe and guide how we observe Nature. When someone produces a new theory its very useful if they can say "My theory predicts X does Y, something we've not looked at yet. My theory can be tested by observing X". Sometimes it takes technology time to catch up. Why is this a bad thing?

I can see it clearly how this argument will degenerate into a flurry of personal attacks if you don't give up that stuck up and arrogant attitude of yours.

Yes and I wonder which direction the 'flurry of personal attacks' will flow. I'm being rational and explaining myself, you're the one with the 'stuck up and arrogant attitude' here.

If QQ does not have any proof neither do you have an explanation how these point particles of coordinate geometry exist in space let alone traverse distances.Who will show these point particles the direction which cannot even have a notion of existence without a coordinate axis? You?

I cannot be blamed for your lack of knowledge when it comes to basic vector calculus.

You don't have the right to correct anyone.

But you have the 'right' to proclaim science hasn't done something it obviously has? And what have 'rights' got to do with it? This is a discussion forum and people will have different things to say. You and I have no right to post here, we post by the grace of the moderators and owner and it is they which decide what is or isn't allowed. Spamming or excessive swearing isn't allowed but explaining to someone why their comments about mainstream science are not very accurate are. You have the right not to listen, you do not have the right to silence me, that lies with the moderators.

Your theories are full of loopholes which must be corrected first b4 you can claim anything.

The fact you don't understand said theories doesn't mean they are full of loopholes. This is a problem QQ can't grasp either. Infact, it's a common crank trait.

 

[raggamax]

You're asking for a 'picture of an isolated photon'. We see objects, such as the screen you're staring at, by the light they emit and if an object doesn't emit light then it's 'dark', such as dark matter or black holes. Anyone versed in quantum mechanics knows that photons don't emit photons (I can explain the technical reason if you so wish) and so you can't take pictures of photons, you measure their properties by how they interact with objects. They carry momentum, energy, they interact with gravity, they interact with mediums between their emitter and the detector, all in a way which matches quantum field theory descriptions/predictions to 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000. That's like aiming at a human hair on the Moon with a laser and splitting it length-ways.

Here we go again with this nonsense. The vibration effect of mass is an equally likely candidate responsible for the vision. I don't care if your photons emit other photons or not because in my opinion they don't even exist. Remove the causation ie source of light and show me an isolated photon.Then you can go claiming who is right and who is wrong. If this cannot be done then the existence of your photon myth can never be proved and QQ can never be proved wrong either and of course then everyone is eligible to take a guess that what light is composed of be it of photons,ether or mythical fairies.
The arrogance of yours claiming you've just figured all of the universe by quantum physics. When you've actually done it come back to me and then you can say it to my face that I'm wrong and then and only then you've got the right to correct me.

However, another prediction of quantum field theory is that at high enough energies a photon will turn into an electron-positron pair, which will interact with other photons before recombining back into a photon so provided you have ultra powerful light emitters you could, if QED is right, take photos of photons. And guess what, such experiments are already designed and built, with CERN planning on doing a lot of it in the LHC.

So do this first and then we'll talk later. Till then STFU.

You talk as if this is the only thing on which the success of quantum mechanics is measured. The comptuer infront of you has CPUs designed using quantum mechanics, so if quantum mechanics wasn't 'successful' you'd not have the PC you're sitting at. It's been tested to parts per trillion and passed. By any measuring stick it is 'successful'. The fact not all of its predictions have yet been tested doesn't mean its unsuccessful, you can never do all experiments for all predictions as you can always go to higher energies, higher accuracy, new domains of applicability. You have picked one particular thing and myopically ignored all other experiments, predictions and results.

My computer works on electronics not on quantum mechanics but I don't know about yours of course. If quantum hadn't been there some other theory would have made the cut. Point is the falsity of quantum mechanics doesn't even gets applied to my PC otherwise it wouldn't be possible either.

It would seem you think that a theory which predicts things is a poor theory? A good theory should predict things we've not seen before, because it should expand our understanding of the universe and guide how we observe Nature. When someone produces a new theory its very useful if they can say "My theory predicts X does Y, something we've not looked at yet. My theory can be tested by observing X". Sometimes it takes technology time to catch up. Why is this a bad thing?

Then why is it such a bad thing for QQ to post his theory if the only crime it commits is predicting something different from the established one.

Yes and I wonder which direction the 'flurry of personal attacks' will flow. I'm being rational and explaining myself, you're the one with the 'stuck up and arrogant attitude' here.

You have done nothing rational here. You've just repeated the same garbage over and over again for at least 100 times.
I've just expressed my hostility openly to you here because you messed with me first even when I warned you firstly that there is no common ground open for us for discussion.

I cannot be blamed for your lack of knowledge when it comes to basic vector calculus.

Bwahahaha. Mathematical abstractions such as vectors and point particles existing in our physical material world with our very own alphanumeric to point them in the right direction. Very nice indeed.

But you have the 'right' to proclaim science hasn't done something it obviously has? And what have 'rights' got to do with it? This is a discussion forum and people will have different things to say. You and I have no right to post here, we post by the grace of the moderators and owner and it is they which decide what is or isn't allowed. Spamming or excessive swearing isn't allowed but explaining to someone why their comments about mainstream science are not very accurate are.
The fact you don't understand said theories doesn't mean they are full of loopholes. This is a problem QQ can't grasp either. Infact, it's a common crank trait.

Quantum mechanics is not a theory but a roadblock encountered in our understanding because we ran out of options when we reached the subatomic radius. We don't have the means capable of generating more than enough power to continue the subdivision so we just plane gave up and said hey this must be the bottom of this well to falsely console our poor selves.

You have the right not to listen, you do not have the right to silence me, that lies with the moderators.

Doesn't this apply to you as well? Continuously trying to silence opposition by repeating the same garbage over and over again.

 

[raggamax]

damn double post

 

[AlphaNumeric]

The vibration effect of mass is an equally likely candidate responsible for the vision.

And how are you measuring likelihood? Simply offering two random explainations doesn't mean they are equally likely. Until you can demonstrate your hypothesis has even the rough ability to model Nature why should it be taken any more seriously than light is the effect of invisible fairies pushing around their magic fairy dust?

Remove the causation ie source of light and show me an isolated photon.

This still ignores all other evidence for the photon. You claimed science had no evidence for the photon, yet infact you meant you're ignoring all evidence except this.

If this cannot be done then the existence of your photon myth can never be proved and QQ can never be proved wrong either

But science cannot go about proving a negative. However, by using Occams razor we have no reason to think QQ's random postulation any more valid than any other random guess. He provides no way to test his ideas, no model to compare to nature and both you and I have to ignore considerable evidence, clinging desperately to your particular criteria.

If I refused to accept the existence of George Washington unless someone provided me with a time machine and took me back to his inauguration would that mean I was able to say "There's as good a chance Washington didn't exist as he did exist". Yes, without a time machine you argue its not certain he did but you'd have to ignore a hell of a lot of other evidence. Do you grasp this analogy?

The arrogance of yours claiming you've just figured all of the universe by quantum physics.

Where did I say that? Saying we have evidence for the existence of the photon is quite different to "Quantum mechanics is utterly right and explains all the universe!". If you can't do anything but fall back on paraphrasing me with hyperbola don't say anything at all.

So do this first and then we'll talk later. Till then STFU.

So you're going to wait and ignore all other evidence? And no doubt QQ (and you) will move the goal posts again once those experiments are done. Creationists do exactly the same every time there's a development in evolutionary science.

My computer works on electronics not on quantum mechanics

And the basis of 10nm electronics is quantum mechanics. Nice example of your abject ignorance and demonstration you don't even bother to check what comes out of your mouth. Semiconductors are designed and developed using quantum mechanics, the energy band gap model of different layers in modern transistors is a prime example of the application of quantum mechanics. You'll notice plenty of references to quantum mechanics in that link I just provided.

I've just expressed my hostility openly to you here because you messed with me first even when I warned you firstly that there is no common ground open for us for discussion.

So you come to a discussion site to avoid discussion with anyone who doesn't simply reinforce your views?

Bwahahaha. Mathematical abstractions such as vectors and point particles existing in our physical material world with our very own alphanumeric to point them in the right direction. Very nice indeed.

So you demand I explain how things move in space according to current models but you deliberately refuse to accept anything phrases in the language of current models. Basically you have created an unanswerable question because you demand an answer from mainstream people but will reject anything mainstream.

It would seem the only way to answer your question is with vague wordy explainations and I'm certain you'd then complain they aren't precise enough. Catch 22.

Quantum mechanics is not a theory but a roadblock encountered in our understanding because we ran out of options when we reached the subatomic radius. We don't have the means capable of generating more than enough power to continue the subdivision so we just plane gave up and said hey this must be the bottom of this well to falsely console our poor selves.

Actually particle physicists think there's plenty more going on at smaller distances and higher energies. But what would I know about that, I'm only working in the theoretical section of a physics department in a university, how would I know what theoretical physicists working on high energy processes talk about? :shrug: Particularly compared to someone who thinks electronics doesn't involve quantum mechanics....

oesn't this apply to you as well? Continuously trying to silence opposition by repeating the same garbage over and over again.

I've repeatedly asked QQ or you to provide some working model so we might be able to discuss something more complete than buzzword versions of "It's invisible fairies!" but given neither of you provide such a thing the conversation doesn't continue.

If you can provide more than "It's vibrations in matter!" I'll happily discuss it with you. Can you?

 

[raggamax]

And how are you measuring likelihood? Simply offering two random explainations doesn't mean they are equally likely. Until you can demonstrate your hypothesis has even the rough ability to model Nature why should it be taken any more seriously than light is the effect of invisible fairies pushing around their magic fairy dust?

This nonsense again. Your photon model ain't any good until you provide me with pictures and then and only then can QQ's model be refuted. You are an intolerant egomaniac who is refusing to open his eyes to alternate explanations of the phenomenon of light. In fact until you prove the existence of the photon myth the invisible fairy pushing their fairy dust around explanation of light is also equally valid.

This still ignores all other evidence for the photon. You claimed science had no evidence for the photon, yet infact you meant you're ignoring all evidence except this.

Bwahahaha. Yes show me an isolated phton and we'll talk if you can't then shut up. Simple as that.

But science cannot go about proving a negative. However, by using Occams razor we have no reason to think QQ's random postulation any more valid than any other random guess. He provides no way to test his ideas, no model to compare to nature and both you and I have to ignore considerable evidence, clinging desperately to your particular criteria.

There is no evidence of photon without causation. You are the one ignoring the fact. I repeat unless you show me an isolated photon in the universe your model is no better than QQ.

If I refused to accept the existence of George Washington unless someone provided me with a time machine and took me back to his inauguration would that mean I was able to say "There's as good a chance Washington didn't exist as he did exist". Yes, without a time machine you argue its not certain he did but you'd have to ignore a hell of a lot of other evidence. Do you grasp this analogy?

I have never seen george washington with my own eyes in person. I'm not a native of USA either. So its possible that he never existed and people just made up stories about him which I have heard until now. Bottom line I can only believe completely if I have seen him with my own two eyes. Infact this analogy you used doesn't help you one bit. Because I have seen a picture of Washington at least which definitely isn't the case for your photon.
You must be getting desperate if you can resort to using such a bad analogy.

Where did I say that? Saying we have evidence for the existence of the photon is quite different to "Quantum mechanics is utterly right and explains all the universe!". If you can't do anything but fall back on paraphrasing me with hyperbola don't say anything at all.

Your arrogance implied. We have this We have that and that over and over again. What you have is an undeveloped model of matter with over half a dozen particles which still need to be found.

So you're going to wait and ignore all other evidence? And no doubt QQ (and you) will move the goal posts again once those experiments are done. Creationists do exactly the same every time there's a development in evolutionary science.

Nonsense again. Show me an evidence of photon without its causation.

And the basis of 10nm electronics is quantum mechanics. Nice example of your abject ignorance and demonstration you don't even bother to check what comes out of your mouth. Semiconductors are designed and developed using quantum mechanics, the energy band gap model of different layers in modern transistors is a prime example of the application of quantum mechanics. You'll notice plenty of references to quantum mechanics in that link I just provided.

The ignorant one is you. The falsity of quantum mechanics does not make its way into electronics here that's why my PC works. If the uncertainty principle or the notion of indivisible particles had made into my PC then its existence too would have become uncertain.Bwahahaha.
Very naive indeed. I knew that you were going to use the band gap example of semiconductors against me when I said that electronics does not involve quantum mechanics. After all I read it in my physics book in higher secondary. Well guess what hot shot semiconductors WORK whether or not quantum mechanics explains their working so quantum mechanics does not help electronics it just tries to explain the phenomenon. The wiki link you gave me also says is bold "Explaining semiconductor energy bands" before drowning in a flood of words.

So you come to a discussion site to avoid discussion with anyone who doesn't simply reinforce your views?

This is the epitome of your stupidity. So you'll drag people into pointless arguments so you can project your beliefs onto them but when they flame you for your stupidity you get mad and offended. I'll repeat the same if you can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen. You go get a blog.

So you demand I explain how things move in space according to current models but you deliberately refuse to accept anything phrases in the language of current models. Basically you have created an unanswerable question because you demand an answer from mainstream people but will reject anything mainstream.

Just because you have no answer does not mean the question is unanswerable. You are deliberately running away from it. I repeat the question how can a point particle even exist in the material plane ? It does not even have the concept of space and hence existence. You idiot this is such a simple concept. Why are you having this much trouble with it?

It would seem the only way to answer your question is with vague wordy explainations and I'm certain you'd then complain they aren't precise enough. Catch 22.

Care to give it a try?

Actually particle physicists think there's plenty more going on at smaller distances and higher energies.

Agreed for once. This is what I keep on repeating but people like you turn a blind eye.

But what would I know about that, I'm only working in the theoretical section of a physics department in a university, how would I know what theoretical physicists working on high energy processes talk about?

Then why are you even bothering with this pointless argument. If you don't know then just shut up. But you have a problem with that as well. My attack is on the fundamentals of the theory if you don't know your basics then you got no right to reply to my questions.

I've repeatedly asked QQ or you to provide some working model so we might be able to discuss something more complete than buzzword versions of "It's invisible fairies!" but given neither of you provide such a thing the conversation doesn't continue.

We can't give you a complete model because we are just few persons not scientists with access to a laboratory. We just got curious about findings of the other who have access to these facilities. QQ did all of us a favor when he shared his insights here. Even if he's not the one to prove his theory maybe someone else reading this article will get inspired and do it. But of course I don't think one bit that you will understand this sentiment.

If you can provide more than "It's vibrations in matter!" I'll happily discuss it with you. Can you?

No I won't and I want you to not continue.

 

[Quantum Quack]

It is pointless to keep repeating oneself over and over as you've just did in this post. If you did not agree with QQ's point of view of light disagreeing with him once was enough. Why are you waging a crusade of words and wasting yours as well as others time ?

because he knows I am right! that's why....
"an ignorant moron who builds shi*ty web sites for a living happens to hold the keys to the T.O.E."
A Gravitational constant with out any mechanism to provide it? hmmmmm...you guys are definitely in the land of knod...
so someone states that Gravity and light are constants but offers no mechanism for such to exist and on top of that espouses a theory that actually destroys that very possibility by claiming the constant as being relative.....so now we have a relative constant...ha...what a joke!

• How is it that the laws of thermodynamics hold with out a mechanism or process for such to hold?
• How is it that you can cite unproven theory as fact?
• How is it you can claim the universe is a closed system yet provide no mechanism to explain how this is so?

Sorry but the universe will always prove you wrong....
and the fact that gravitational constant exists and is sustained during cosmic expansion is one such piece of damning evidence against SRT.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I am not going to explain any ideas I may have about the TOE. All I am doing is asking that you do and be what you claim to be...that being a scientist who follows scientific process. Establish the facts/laws that you claim to be "OBJECTIVELY" true and do it scientifically...
The "photon pig" is still flying and will until you apply your treasured scientific process properly to it...

 

[AlphaNumeric]

because he knows I am right! that's why....
"an ignorant moron who builds shi*ty web sites for a living happens to hold the keys to the T.O.E."

So you claim you hold the ket to a theory of everything? Where is it? Give me one, just one, phenomenon you can model with your theory of everything. I bet you can't.

A Gravitational constant with out any mechanism to provide it? hmmmmm...you guys are definitely in the land of knod...
so someone states that Gravity and light are constants but offers no mechanism for such to exist and on top of that espouses a theory that actually destroys that very possibility by claiming the constant as being relative.....so now we have a relative constant...ha...what a joke!

When special relativity was included into quantum mechanics it actually improved our understanding of how such things as the fine structure constant behave.

You are mindlessly repeating a flat out lie. This isn't even a "Does the photon exist" issue, this is you claiming that relativity is incompatible with the notion of physical constants. A complete and utter false statement. Rather than simply saying "It's incompatible!" why don't you prove, using your oh so extensive knowledge of mainstream physics, that relativity is mutually exclusive to the notion of constants. Don't just say it, prove it.

You won't because you can't.

and the fact that gravitational constant exists and is sustained during cosmic expansion is one such piece of damning evidence against SRT.

Expansion requires general relativity and in general relativity you have $$G_{ab} = \frac{8\pi G}{c^{4}}T_{ab}$$. The quantity 'G' is the gravitational constant and it has no equation of motion, it has a specific value in GR. In string theory it has an equation of motion, as do all couplings in string theory.

Your photon model ain't any good until you provide me with pictures

Simply ignoring the huge success of electromagnetism and quantum electrodynamics doesn't mean they aren't 'any good'. True, it doesn't make them right but its a clear fact they are 'good' descriptions of nature in allowing us to make accurate predictions using them.

Bwahahaha. Yes show me an isolated phton and we'll talk if you can't then shut up. Simple as that.

So you admit you're ignoring other evidence? (emphasis mine)

If the uncertainty principle or the notion of indivisible particles had made into my PC then its existence too would have become uncertain.Bwahahaha.

You have failed to grasp what the uncertainty principle is and you are obviously unaware of decoherence in quantum to classical principles. And simply ending or opening a comment with a silly laugh doesn't mean you're right.

The uncertainty principle is about how you can't be sure of position and motion of a particular particle, it is not about the uncertainty of the existence of that particle. The implications of the uncertainty principle is important to semiconductor designs because we're getting close to the 1nm scale where the UP allows for the electrons to sometimes 'tunnel' from one circuit to another. This is a major design hurdle for companies like Intel and AMD. Once again you jump in head first and fall flat on your face because you haven't bothered to understand things you whine about.

Care to give it a try?

Given your attitude and the way you clearly believe you grasp such things as the UP but really have no clue it would be wasted effort. If you were interested in such things you'd have looked them up and you'd not be making the very ignorant statements you are.

. My attack is on the fundamentals of the theory if you don't know your basics then you got no right to reply to my questions.

You just demonstrated how you haven't bothered to find out the basics anyway. Like QQ you attack things you have no clue about.