"Does light move", asked Quantum Quack

[raggamax]

Here we go again with this mindless bickering.

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.

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

Clear out your ears because I'm going to repeat it for the last time. Remove the causation and then prove the existence of your photon or show me an isolated photon. Bet you can't.

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.

Actually its you,your precious little theory and your silly examples and analogies that fall flat on their face. You can't even answer my simple questions let alone solve the mysteries of the universe. But this is to be expected, after all Quantum mechanics does is provide warped explanations of phenomenon and blocks the road of progress(uncertainty in nature).
I asked you how Quantum physics helps electronics you couldn't cite one damn example where quantum mechanics actually does some work for electronics instead of providing these warped explanations for phenomenon that work just as well without its interference.
Your fault lies that you never question why it happens. Quantum mechanics is not a science its a dogma.

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.

You started it now don't blame me for it. Actually I know how UP works it was meant more as a joke than a statement. But just like QM, UP is false as well. There is no uncertainty in nature. UP is a result of our ignorance of these subatomic particles behavior. It origin lies is in the assumptions of De Broglie's hypothesis of dual nature of matter. UP has blocked the path of our progress about the behavior of subatomic particles because we don't even know where or will we find one.

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

Same goes for you.

 

[Quantum Quack]

So alphanueric,
You have two objects of mass 1 ly apart in a vacuumous void of space. Nothing appears to connect them materially yet they have exactly the same gravitational constant.


How is that so?

and you denial of the validity of the question is why there is no point discussing Zero Point Theory with you.

You are not able to comprehend dimensionalism and how zero dimensions expands into 4 due to the advent of mass [ which is only available due to the existance of the time dimension, duration - "eternity"]
and that at duration t=zero, distance also MUST = zero,
so when t=0, d must also.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Clear out your ears because I'm going to repeat it for the last time. Remove the causation and then prove the existence of your photon or show me an isolated photon. Bet you can't.

Simply rewording "I am going to ignore all other evidence for the photon except this one thing" doesn't magically mean you're being rational.

I asked you how Quantum physics helps electronics you couldn't cite one damn example where quantum mechanics actually does some work for electronics instead of providing these warped explanations for phenomenon that work just as well without its interference.

Solid state physics uses huge amounts of quantum mechanics. Do a little research like looking in journals which deal with semiconductor research. Laser designs are done using quantum mechanics. MRI machines and PET scanners are designed with the knowledge of how particular quantum processes work from quantum mechanics. Yes, you can stumble across particular phenomena if you try every possible experiment for every possible object but to say "Quantum mechanics is of no use to the semiconductor industry" is just plain ignorant.

How do we know the 1nm scale would present problems to chip designers even back when we were using 250nm designs? Quantum mechanics. How do designers alleviate the problems which are associated to this once you get down to the 10nm scale? Using quantum mechanics. Rather than spend HUGE quantities of money doing random trial and error designs for new chips they use quantum mechanics so they can predict how a chip will behave before spending millions or billions on a new fabrication process at a factory. We use basic Newtonian mechanics and structural engineering principles to design bridges. Yes we could just try slapping together bricks and after 100 bridges collapse we stumble onto a design which works or we use models of material behaviour under stresses and build a good bridge the first time.

Quantum mechanics is not a science its a dogma.

By any reasonable definition it is science. From observations a consistent predictive model was produced whose predictions were and are tested in many phenomena and found to match observation. If it were dogma then falsification experiments would be ignored or not done at all.

Actually I know how UP works it was meant more as a joke than a statement.

Sure you did.

It origin lies is in the assumptions of De Broglie's hypothesis of dual nature of matter.

Actually you derive it from the non-commuting nature of conjugate variables. But hey, I only teach this stuff, what would I know?

UP has blocked the path of our progress about the behavior of subatomic particles because we don't even know where or will we find one.

Plenty of attempts at deterministic quantum mechanics have been postulated and tested, none successful. Then there's such things as Bell's Theorem and Inequalities. Again, prediction, observation, comparision. QM passed each time.

Same goes for you.

How have I demonstrated I don't know the basics of quantum mechanics? I've just had to school you on it again.

You have two objects of mass 1 ly apart in a vacuumous void of space. Nothing appears to connect them materially yet they have exactly the same gravitational constant.


How is that so?

They are in space-time and are causally connected thus the properties of space-time in one region affect the properties of the region about the other object. If there were no causal contact then you might have a point but there is, so you don't. How about another explaination? Suppose G could vary, but remember the universe started very very small and then underwent inflation. The inflation was such that a region which had been in casual contact (as we know from the thermalisation of the CMB) is expanded to be larger than our visible universe and thus the properties inherent to a very small region of space, where G might have only varied a tiny tiny bit (beyond current detection), is inflated to the size of the visible universe and so you end up with a region where G appears constant and so the GR approximation of G being constant is a valid thing to say.

Of course you can consider when such things as G vary, they are generalisations of standard general relativity, and people have looked for such things via observations of distant galaxies. String theory even allows you a mechanism to model this naturally, via extra dimensions.

So there's nothing inconsistent with G being a constant nor a varying quantity. The usual formulation of GR has it being constant, which is consistent with observations, but it can be generalised if needs be.

and you denial of the validity of the question is why there is no point discussing Zero Point Theory with you.

What a surprise, you refuse to put your physics where your mouth is. Can't you give just one example of a phenomenon you can model, to prove you're not utterly full of crap? Of course not, because you're full of crap.

 

[raggamax]

Simply rewording "I am going to ignore all other evidence for the photon except this one thing" doesn't magically mean you're being rational.

Simply rewording "I am going to evade every question thrown at me with my own question just coz I don't know my basics"

Solid state physics uses huge amounts of quantum mechanics. Do a little research like looking in journals which deal with semiconductor research. Laser designs are done using quantum mechanics. MRI machines and PET scanners are designed with the knowledge of how particular quantum processes work from quantum mechanics. Yes, you can stumble across particular phenomena if you try every possible experiment for every possible object but to say "Quantum mechanics is of no use to the semiconductor industry" is just plain ignorant.

I'm only going to discuss MRI for now. Had too much difficulty finding few applications of QM? I expected that because the basis of your theory UP and point particles are false.
You caused me to read all of the MRI article just to prove you false. MRI machines works on the principle of magnetism and not on quantum. Magnets have been known since the antiquity of time and were not designed by your precious little flawed theory. The closest that quantum mechanics interferes with MRI according to what I read was Larmor frequency and even then it is not sure that QM actually DOES SOMETHING here instead of its warped explaining again.

How do we know the 1nm scale would present problems to chip designers even back when we were using 250nm designs? Quantum mechanics. How do designers alleviate the problems which are associated to this once you get down to the 10nm scale? Using quantum mechanics. Rather than spend HUGE quantities of money doing random trial and error designs for new chips they use quantum mechanics so they can predict how a chip will behave before spending millions or billions on a new fabrication process at a factory. We use basic Newtonian mechanics and structural engineering principles to design bridges. Yes we could just try slapping together bricks and after 100 bridges collapse we stumble onto a design which works or we use models of material behaviour under stresses and build a good bridge the first time.

If you had used your head and google more you would have found that there are other explanations for tunneling other than quantum. Even classical physics can do it. But you probably have never searched for phrases such as "Quantum physics is wrong", "Uncertainty principle is wrong" and "absurdities in modern physics"
newtonphysics.on.ca/HEISENBERG/Chapter8.html#Section9

By any reasonable definition it is science. From observations a consistent predictive model was produced whose predictions were and are tested in many phenomena and found to match observation. If it were dogma then falsification experiments would be ignored or not done at all.

Don't kid yourself. Quantum physics does not obey principle of causality one bit. One of the most basic facts there is. All Quantum physicists have the same mentality as you- Shut up and calculate. Because it is written it must be true. No one ever questions why.

Sure you did.

Of course I did. Are you implying something?

Actually you derive it from the non-commuting nature of conjugate variables. But hey, I only teach this stuff, what would I know?

You said it yourself.

Plenty of attempts at deterministic quantum mechanics have been postulated and tested, none successful. Then there's such things as Bell's Theorem and Inequalities. Again, prediction, observation, comparision. QM passed each time.

Deterministic QM?? You are going to determine validity of QM using QM instead of hard evidence. Assumptions of dual nature again? Assumptions of zero dimension point particles magically existing in the material plane again?

How have I demonstrated I don't know the basics of quantum mechanics? I've just had to school you on it again.

So much left for your precious little theory to discover and explain and you've actually got the nerve to correct others instead of spending time thinking about them. You said this yourself-

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?

You keep calling both me and QQ cranks but you keep coming back with your nonsense at us again and again.Do you really think if we are both cranks we are going to listen to whatever you have to say.
There can only be two possible reasons for that and there is no uncertainty here -

1) You are fearful that others are actually right and QM is false and you are desperately trying to delude both you yourself and others

2) You yourself are a crank.

Pick whichever suits you best.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Had too much difficulty finding few applications of QM?

No, just I thought I should try to keep the replies within your ability to grasp, so I aimed low.

MRI machines works on the principle of magnetism and not on quantum. Magnets have been known since the antiquity of time and were not designed by your precious little flawed theory. The closest that quantum mechanics interferes with MRI according to what I read was Larmor frequency and even then it is not sure that QM actually DOES SOMETHING here instead of its warped explaining again.

MRIs work by the fact the electrons in orbit of the Hydrogen atoms in water can have quantised spin (quantum, quantised, get it?) states. Study such things as Zeeman splittting and you'd know about them. By applying a very powerful magnetic field to a person or object you align the spins with the magnetic field but the spin states are unstable in such a configuration, like using a magnet to hold a pencil up on its point. Turn off the field and the spin states realign to a lower energy configuration and the difference in energy is emitted at a precise frequency which QM will tell you. Which QM has predicted. The precise nature of the radio emission lets you know which detected signals are from the person and which are random noise and from that you can build up a picture.

What about PET scans? They work by positron-electron annihilation. Dirac used quantum field theory to predict the existence of antimatter a year before it was observed.

Another epic fail from you.

Even classical physics can do it

Shame classical physics fails at the first hurdle, the atom.

Don't kid yourself. Quantum physics does not obey principle of causality one bit. One of the most basic facts there is. All Quantum physicists have the same mentality as you- Shut up and calculate. Because it is written it must be true. No one ever questions why.

While QM is not completely causal, quantum field theory is. Why? Because its quantum mechanics + special relativity. Special relativity is practically the definition of causal.

And how would you know, you haven't learnt or ever done either of them? And you keep saying "Physicists never ask thmselves why" but how many physicists do you actually converse with? I am one and I have been to dozens, if not hundred, of seminars where people go through in horrific detail how they tried to find mistakes and falsifying experiments for quantum mechanics. Nothing yet. And QQ isn't coming up with the goods, why dont you ask him to produce some work? You whine about quantum physics but at least you can open a book and see the work. QQ has got nothing to show for all his big claims.

Of course I did. Are you implying something?

There's someone I'd like you to meet, he's called sarcasm. I highly doubt you did else you'd not have put your foot in it.

So much left for your precious little theory to discover and explain and you've actually got the nerve to correct others instead of spending time thinking about them. You said this yourself-

So the fact we don't have all the answers means we have none? If you want to see 'no answers' ask QQ.

You keep calling both me and QQ cranks but you keep coming back with your nonsense at us again and again.

Which of us is putting forth actual models, not just saying "I've got the answers" but has results which can be read? Mainstream physics. I asked QQ, he refused, I wonder why. Which model has been tested in many ways by many people over many years. Mainstream physics. Which of us actually understands physics on a working level? Me.

So by any way you shake a stick at it, you and QQ are cranks. If not why don't you or he provide a model for just one phenomenon? Classical mechanics can't explain the atom. Quantum mechanics can. Let's see either of you do better. I'm giving you an opportunity to show you're more than just "Oh there's some other explaination", lets see you put your physics where your mouth is.

I'm 100% certain you'll both fail to provide.

 

[raggamax]

Alright todays quota of nonsense and bickering. Here it goes.

No, just I thought I should try to keep the replies within your ability to grasp, so I aimed low.

Nah you just had trouble finding them. Just like the pathetic band gap example you gave earlier.
A fundamentally false theory cannot create anything. It just capitalizes and warps the information it receives from preceding ones.

MRIs work by the fact the electrons in orbit of the Hydrogen atoms in water can have quantised spin (quantum, quantised, get it?) states. Study such things as Zeeman splittting and you'd know about them. By applying a very powerful magnetic field to a person or object you align the spins with the magnetic field but the spin states are unstable in such a configuration, like using a magnet to hold a pencil up on its point. Turn off the field and the spin states realign to a lower energy configuration and the difference in energy is emitted at a precise frequency which QM will tell you. Which QM has predicted. The precise nature of the radio emission lets you know which detected signals are from the person and which are random noise and from that you can build up a picture.

The spin or whatever property of hydrogen atom is not given to it by QM but is inherent in it. The magnetism does the work not your precious little QM. Your QM does nothing. The Larmor frequency is derived from magnetism not QM.
Epic fail from you here.

What about PET scans? They work by positron-electron annihilation. Dirac used quantum field theory to predict the existence of antimatter a year before it was observed.

I'll read about it if you want discuss it.

Another epic fail from you.

You and your faulty logic are no one to judge anybody. The failure is QM which has blocked the path of progress.

Shame classical physics fails at the first hurdle, the atom.

You QM does no better either says there are gluons or whatever acting as messengers of strong force but has been unable to find them.

While QM is not completely causal, quantum field theory is. Why? Because its quantum mechanics + special relativity. Special relativity is practically the definition of causal.

None of the QM is causal. The basis of QM are assumptions are dual nature and indeterminism. QM mutilates every theory it comes in contact with.

And how would you know, you haven't learnt or ever done either of them? And you keep saying "Physicists never ask thmselves why" but how many physicists do you actually converse with? I am one and I have been to dozens, if not hundred, of seminars where people go through in horrific detail how they tried to find mistakes and falsifying experiments for quantum mechanics. Nothing yet. And QQ isn't coming up with the goods, why dont you ask him to produce some work? You whine about quantum physics but at least you can open a book and see the work. QQ has got nothing to show for all his big claims.

All of the mess QM has caused is the proof of the degeneration of science. In fact Newton's laws of motion are probably the only thing one can take for granted.

There's someone I'd like you to meet, he's called sarcasm. I highly doubt you did else you'd not have put your foot in it.

Ah!! I knew you were implying something. Keep your sarcasm to yourself. He feels better in your company than mine.

So the fact we don't have all the answers means we have none? If you want to see 'no answers' ask QQ.

QQ is not the one to be blamed the mainstream physics is. QQ isn't a scientist he has only given an opinion physics is the one claiming dimensionless photons with no evidence to back their claims.

Which of us is putting forth actual models, not just saying "I've got the answers" but has results which can be read? Mainstream physics. I asked QQ, he refused, I wonder why. Which model has been tested in many ways by many people over many years. Mainstream physics. Which of us actually understands physics on a working level? Me.

If you did understand science you wouldn't be even making this comment. Theories aren't absolute or set in stone they have to incorporate changes and discoveries and get changed and maybe even discarded someday.

So by any way you shake a stick at it, you and QQ are cranks.

Yet you are willing to argue with us over and over. Arguing with an idiot makes one an idiot so by the same logic arguing with a crank so many times should make one a crank too. Congratulations welcome to our international association of cranks.

If not why don't you or he provide a model for just one phenomenon? Classical mechanics can't explain the atom. Quantum mechanics can. Let's see either of you do better. I'm giving you an opportunity to show you're more than just "Oh there's some other explaination", lets see you put your physics where your mouth is.

You moron QM can't do any better. The chemical processes and annihilation properties of electron prove that its position is exact and not some probabilistic distribution in space and its not a point particle either.

I'm 100% certain you'll both fail to provide.

You and your precious little QM have also failed here.

Hahahaha. Enjoy this nonsense because you yourself started it.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Just like the pathetic band gap example you gave earlier.

You mean the band gap example which oonly quantum mechanics has successfully described?

The spin or whatever property of hydrogen atom is not given to it by QM but is inherent in it. The magnetism does the work not your precious little QM. Your QM does nothing.

What? I'm saying QM successfully predicts and describes the behaviour, that's what science is about. How on Earth can I be implying a human conceptual model is somehow 'doing' something?

Classical electromagnetism cannot account for the results seen in phenomena related to MRIs. Thus far only quantum mechanics has managed to accurately describe such behavior.

If you use classical EM you find the spin orientations do not have discrete values, they can take up a continuum of values and so the frequency of the emitted radio waves should be a continuous spectrum. It isn't and classical EM can't account for this. The discrete values mean radio wave energy can only come in chunks of a set bunch of frequencies, precisely as QM says it does. My point is that if you only knew EM you'd not be able to describe how the process works and thus you'd not have the ability to construct devices which use the phenomenon by any method other than trial and error.

Can you provide me with an alternative accurate, testable theory which isn't quantum based which can describe said phenomenon?

I'll read about it if you want discuss it.

If you want to put in the effort, sure. Quantum field theory predicted antimatter before it was observed and it hasn't been falsified in the 70+ years since then. I'd say that demonstrates it's a 'good theory'.

IThe failure is QM which has blocked the path of progress.

How would you know, given you dln't do any physics? If QM is so bad why isn't it easily falsified? Why can't you give me an experiment which falsifies it?

You QM does no better either says there are gluons or whatever acting as messengers of strong force but has been unable to find them.

Other than the fact QCD matches experiments. Due to hadronisation and confinement gluons from quark jets during high energy experiments and these are observed in experiments. I know half a dozen people in my department who woork on computing what the concept of quarks and gluons imply for experiments and these predictions have matched experiments, so it's a 'good theory'.

Can you provide an experiment which falsifies QCD?

The basis of QM are assumptions are dual nature and indeterminism.

No, that's not true. Why do you say such things when you know you don't know nor have done any QMs and I've stated I have. Classical mechanics can be formulated using Hamiltonian and Lagrangian methods, as was done centuries ago by (unsurprisingly) Hamilton and Lagrange. In such constructions you have Poisson brackets which satisfy {x,p}=1. In quantum mechanics you do EXACTLY the same but with [x,p]=i. All results in the theory follow by using methods which work in classical mechanics. QM is a twist on classical mechanics. The non-determinism emerges from that.

QM mutilates every theory it comes in contact with.

QFT = QM + SR = most accurate theory in history. Yeah, that's 'mutilation'

All of the mess QM has caused is the proof of the degeneration of science. In fact Newton's laws of motion are probably the only thing one can take for granted.

And you're ideally suited to judge science because..... ?

All of the mess QM has caused is the proof of the degeneration of science. In fact Newton's laws of motion are probably the only thing one can take for granted.If you did understand science you wouldn't be even making this comment. Theories aren't absolute or set in stone they have to incorporate changes and discoveries and get changed and maybe even discarded someday.

Nothing I said implies the current state of mainstream physics is immutable, unchanging and perfect. The fact current models are tested to the limits of our technology and found to not be falsified doesn' imply they are perfect.

Yet you are willing to argue with us over and over. Arguing with an idiot makes one an idiot so by the same logic arguing with a crank so many times should make one a crank too. Congratulations welcome to our international association of cranks.

Yeah and being on a jury which convicts a murderer makes me a murderer Am I supporting untested theories? No. Am I pushing my pet theory? No. Am I up to speed on current understanding? Yes. When I have proclaimed a new result in physics have I put my physics where my mouth is and provided justification? Yes, hence my published work. QQ denies evidence and claims to have a theory he hasn't been able to provide at all.

The chemical processes and annihilation properties of electron prove that its position is exact and not some probabilistic distribution in space and its not a point particle either.

People studying quantum chemistry would disagree with that, they use quantum mechanics.

You and your precious little QM have also failed here.

So you can provide your own model or falsificaiton of QM then? If not, it has not failed and has indeed succeeded in expanding our knowledge of the universe. QQ's still stuck on forums avoiding direct questions.

 

[raggamax]

You mean the band gap example which oonly quantum mechanics has successfully described?

Described and NOT caused. My magical fairies can also do it.

What? I'm saying QM successfully predicts and describes the behaviour, that's what science is about. How on Earth can I be implying a human conceptual model is somehow 'doing' something?

Predicts and not causes. The mistake you did earlier when you said that QM actually influenced the working of semiconductor.

Classical electromagnetism cannot account for the results seen in phenomena related to MRIs. Thus far only quantum mechanics has managed to accurately describe such behavior.

MRI works and thats the end of that. The one causing it is not QM but magnetism.

If you use classical EM you find the spin orientations do not have discrete values, they can take up a continuum of values and so the frequency of the emitted radio waves should be a continuous spectrum. It isn't and classical EM can't account for this. The discrete values mean radio wave energy can only come in chunks of a set bunch of frequencies, precisely as QM says it does. My point is that if you only knew EM you'd not be able to describe how the process works and thus you'd not have the ability to construct devices which use the phenomenon by any method other than trial and error.

Yeah so what about it? On one hand you call electron a point particle on the other hand its spinning which only a body with spatial dimensions can? Better resolve this issue first. Don't tell me that your particles are magical again.

Can you provide me with an alternative accurate, testable theory which isn't quantum based which can describe said phenomenon?

I'm merely a critic not a creator here and its off topic.

If you want to put in the effort, sure. Quantum field theory predicted antimatter before it was observed and it hasn't been falsified in the 70+ years since then. I'd say that demonstrates it's a 'good theory'.

So whats so great about predicting antiparticles stuff. If QM hadn't done it someone other would have. Because yin for yang, black for white, day for night, male for female are intuitive examples of symmetry in nature.

How would you know, given you dln't do any physics? If QM is so bad why isn't it easily falsified? Why can't you give me an experiment which falsifies it?

Very simple our power level is too low to continue the subdivision. Even if its not proven completely false its not proven true either. If it was why hasn't been the standard model been discovered already and its not like one can see into the atom to prove you wrong by the standards of today's technology.

You QM is filled with paradoxes just like I stated above and many times b4 which falsify it by itself. But of course none of you QM lovers wants to admit it by evading the basic questions.

Other than the fact QCD matches experiments. Due to hadronisation and confinement gluons from quark jets during high energy experiments and these are observed in experiments. I know half a dozen people in my department who woork on computing what the concept of quarks and gluons imply for experiments and these predictions have matched experiments, so it's a 'good theory'.
Can you provide an experiment which falsifies QCD?

I really don't care what you know or think the evidence for gluon is unclear at best for now. In fact it is even possible that one of the forces encountered in our day to day life may be causing the strong force.

No, that's not true. Why do you say such things when you know you don't know nor have done any QMs and I've stated I have. Classical mechanics can be formulated using Hamiltonian and Lagrangian methods, as was done centuries ago by (unsurprisingly) Hamilton and Lagrange. In such constructions you have Poisson brackets which satisfy {x,p}=1. In quantum mechanics you do EXACTLY the same but with [x,p]=i. All results in the theory follow by using methods which work in classical mechanics. QM is a twist on classical mechanics. The non-determinism emerges from that.

The non determinism is the biggest piece of nonsense I've ever heard.
I also find it funny how E=hv is not dimensionally equivalent unless you only consider 1 cycle or packet.

QFT = QM + SR = most accurate theory in history. Yeah, that's 'mutilation'

Mutilation it is. But if I go by QQ's theory the special theory becomes falsified on the instant and I'm only left with QM.

And you're ideally suited to judge science because..... ?

So then who are you to go on correcting others on basis of your incomplete knowledge.

Nothing I said implies the current state of mainstream physics is immutable, unchanging and perfect. The fact current models are tested to the limits of our technology and found to not be falsified doesn' imply they are perfect.

You are trying to stop QQ by posting same garbage over and over because clearly you are afraid of change. If he did not give you answers you want the first 100 times why do you think he will give you them the 101'th time. But clearly you won't quit either. It is very clear there is something in his theory which you don't want discussed so your pet theory can prevail.

Yeah and being on a jury which convicts a murderer makes me a murderer Am I supporting untested theories? No. Am I pushing my pet theory? No. Am I up to speed on current understanding? Yes. When I have proclaimed a new result in physics have I put my physics where my mouth is and provided justification? Yes, hence my published work. QQ denies evidence and claims to have a theory he hasn't been able to provide at all.

Even if he has it do you really think he will provide it to you? You've proven over and over that you don't have any respect or imagination of your own. You just go by whatever is written in your textbook and never question why. If you did you would have been able to answer my basic questions about dimensionalism.

People studying quantum chemistry would disagree with that, they use quantum mechanics.

Hahaha. Do you really think I care.

So you can provide your own model or falsificaiton of QM then? If not, it has not failed and has indeed succeeded in expanding our knowledge of the universe.

[/QUOTE]
Yes. I will just repeat my unanswered question how does your pet photon go about causing photoelectric effect. Does it strike it, Does it magically become a wave again? Remember to explain it to me how can a dimensionless particle traverse physical distance.

QQ's still stuck on forums avoiding direct questions.

Maybe. But hey you are doing that too. Point is no one has all the answers not even you or your QM.

If you want an alternate theory to QM try commonsensescience.org. They also list the flaws of QM in detail which you are obviously blind to. But you probably won't even bother so its a wasted effort.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Alphanumeric,

Well I guess it 's a bit like this:

Until the notion that distance = zero when time duration = zero is fully understood as a logical premise you certaiinly aren't going to comprehend the rest of it...[we shall have to wait then for hard evidence to show the point yes?]

so I'll repeat it once again :

when t=0 d = zero.

the SRT use of the HSP is flawed for reason clearly shown by the above contention.

there can be no relative simultaneity if t= zero [duration]..because d must also = zero......end of story.


"nothing can exist if there is NO time for it to exist in" ...... a pretty straight forward ration-nal yes?

 

[Quantum Quack]

and before you counter with the question:
"if that is the case then how is it the universe appears to exist at t=0?"
Because we are witnessing or experiencing the past side of the that t=0 zero point.
we can not experience the future side because it has yet to exist. thus the universe is effectively temporal only.
The present moment is a continuous event horizon and we only get to experience that which happens [past tense] not that which will happen.
It is only because the universe has time duration that it can be said to exist. but if t=0 duration then it can not possibly exist.

and as the mythical photon ony exists at t=0 then as far as the photon is concerned the universe is non existant thus zero is absolute and not relative as SRT requires zero to be.

That being said we have just re-defined absolute rest and why absolute rest can not exist in a universe of substance.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

MRI works and thats the end of that. The one causing it is not QM but magnetism.

Once again you fail to grasp things. Quantum mechanics is a human construction which attempts to model the world of the very small. The theory of magnetism is another human construction which attempts to model the world.

The notion of electromagnetic fields are no different to the notion of quantum fields. They are ways of interpreting how the world works. It could be that the electromagnetism description of MRIs is wrong, it just happens to allow us to model the phenomena accurately, just like quantum mechanics might not be true but it allows up to model the phenomena.

Quantum electrodynamics is an extension of electromagnetism. It still talks about magnetic and electric fields and moving charges, it just says that when you look at very very small things you find that fluctuations in the fields come in packets.

There is something which interacts with the MRI machine and the person in it. You can interpret it by using the 'electromagnetism model', the 'quantum electrodynamics model' or something else. You can't cling to 'magnetism' while also saying that QED isn't a physical thing, it's just a description, they are on the same philosophical footing.

So whats so great about predicting antiparticles stuff. If QM hadn't done it someone other would have. Because yin for yang, black for white, day for night, male for female are intuitive examples of symmetry in nature.

You're struggling with the fact a completely new kind of particle was predicted before it was observed is a good thing for a theory to do?

And your claim someone else would have is utterly unsupported. Given antimatter was observed the following year it's likely that noone else would have predicted antimatter and so once observed people would then say "We've got to explain this somehow". QFT preempted the observation.

And you're wrong about all your ying/yang stuff. Only some particles have antimatter partners and quantum mechanics can say which and why.

Very simple our power level is too low to continue the subdivision. Even if its not proven completely false its not proven true either. If it was why hasn't been the standard model been discovered already and its not like one can see into the atom to prove you wrong by the standards of today's technology.

So you're admitted that the current model of particle physics is so accurate, aka good, that its currently beyond our ability to find a mistake in it?

You QM is filled with paradoxes just like I stated above

The fact you don't understand it doesn't mean its a paradox. You don't know any quantum mechanics and you clearly have a bias against it so you're hardly a good person to evaluate it.

I really don't care what you know or think the evidence for gluon is unclear at best for now.

Something tells me you don't keep yourself up to date on the latest models, experiments and observations in the theoretical physics community so, once again, you're hardly a good person to evaluate it.

In fact it is even possible that one of the forces encountered in our day to day life may be causing the strong force.

It might well be true but until there's some reason to think otherwise we stick with the simplest explaination. Otherwise we go down the road of the "Teach creationism" argument that any and all possibilities must be taught if there's even the slightest tiny chance it could be true. It could be true hadrons are made of fairies and elephants but noone is going to devote time in a physics class to taught such 'alternative views'. If someone can come up with a model which matches all current experimental results and which says the strong force is some emergent property of electromagnetism then it most certainly will be given some time in the physics community. But for all the talk QQ or any other crank here say they have yet to come up with anything which can even match electromagnetism, never mind the other forces.

The non determinism is the biggest piece of nonsense I've ever heard.

Why? Because you think everything in the universe must behave precisely like the tiny corner of the universe you live in?

I also find it funny how E=hv is not dimensionally equivalent unless you only consider 1 cycle or packet.

[E] = Joules , [h] = Joule seconds , [v] = / second. The units match.

IMutilation it is. But if I go by QQ's theory the special theory becomes falsified on the instant and I'm only left with QM.

QQ doesn't have a theory, he has a point of view/opinion. They are quite different.

So then who are you to go on correcting others on basis of your incomplete knowledge.

My knowledge of quantum mechanics is certainly higher than yours and, as I've said, I am in the physics community so I know what the mainstream view of things are or whether particular theories have 'paradoxes' or problems. Besides, your logic backfires, you know nothing of theoretical physics (and neither does QQ) and yet you're trying to make claims otherwise or to correct people who know more than you. QQ can't even form a coherent view of what special relativity is and so whenever he whines about 'it can't allow for constants' he's just showing his ignorance and lack of understanding.

It is very clear there is something in his theory which you don't want discussed so your pet theory can prevail.

What theory does he have? A theory would be a postulated model of some phenomena which has been experimentally tested and passed. QQ has no theory because he has no model of any phenomenon, I asked him to provide one but he didn't. Many thousands of books are full of quantum mechanical models, decades of experiments have been done on them and they have passed.

QQ has an opinion, nothing else.

Even if he has it do you really think he will provide it to you?

Submit it to a journal or put it online for all to see. If he's unwilling to do this then it would seem he can't put his physics where his mouth is.

You've proven over and over that you don't have any respect or imagination of your own.

I've got imagination, I just temper it with knowledge. I have published work to my name, another paper of mine will appear on ArXiv next week and another paper by the end of the month. In total it'll be more than 150 pages of original work from me. Published in journals. Cited by physicists. The fact I work in an area which is utterly beyond your comprehension and thus don't talk to you about doesn't mean I lack imagination, simply that my knowledge allows me to apply my imagination elsewhere.

Besides, cranks always pull that one out. If someone corrects a crank the crank whines "You've not got any imagination!". Random guesses about nature are not always going to be true and and crank who thinks his first guess is definitely right is delusional.

If you did you would have been able to answer my basic questions about dimensionalism.

Are you referring to the one about how a point particle can move through space? Explain precisely why a point particle can't.

But hey you are doing that too.

I'm not making claims about a bit of original work of mine. I am not claiming "I have rewritten physics" and then refusing to show one iota of justification. I do claim to have original work but I don't post it here, I post it on www.arxiv.org and I discuss my work with other physicists. I submit my work to journals so I can get referee comments, so that I can learn from my mistakes and how to present my work more clearly.

Quantum Quack, I hope you were drunk when you posted that because you're incoherent. It's really laughable you think that you've got something when you can't even coherently string your thoughts together. You admit you don't know or read any relativity or know any high school mathematics but you delude yourself into thinking you can grasp it at all. Thus far you have absolutely nothing to show for all your big claims and yet you think I'm scared?!

Tell you what, if you type up your work into a document I will help you put it into the required formating which the reputable journal JHEP requires for submission. You then submit that paper and wait for a response. I am certain that you'll be rejected because you're full of crap and I'm so certain I'm willing to help you at least try to get your work seen by the mainstream community. I know you'll fail because you are all talk with nothing (coherent) to say and I'm willing to prove that.

So what do you say? I help you submit to JHEP, so your work is evaluated on its merits not on its file formatting, and we can see just what the community thinks of you. I know which way it will go....

 

[Quantum Quack]

I can actually model to 100% accuracy the following and provide a coherant mechanism for all of it. [why 100%- because if it were less it would not work - can't be half right now can we? ]

• Gravitational constant.
• Inertial constant.
• Cosmic expansion/contraction and how it can happen with out being percieved as expansion/contraction.
• The light Effect.
• Time dilation.
• The Laws of Thermo Dynamics and why we are dealing with a closed system.
• How to open worm holes [spacial contractions between two fixed points in space/time*] and dimensional gateways.

...but wait...there's more.....

and why don't I go on to tell the world?
because of people like you Alphanumeric that's why...you simply don't derserve it...
When I have the evidence to support the major contention and worked out how to contain the amount of money and interest that knowledge will generate I may reconsider my position.
The other major issue is that the knowledge means pseudo-overunity energy would be available which means that people will have to learn to conserve a pseudo free resource [very unlikely in the short term] other wise the global warming you see today is going to be tiddly winks to what could happen.
"The Earth turns into a cinder block because someone left the lights on!"

* example: Solar cells currently only deal with half the equation. By dealing with the full equation our current solar cell efficiently is less than 15% [ not 30% as per current estimate] by contracting the massive distance between light source and solar cell [I call this tuning the cell to the source] that efficiency can climb to about 80% or in current perspectives 160% [ thus the use of the term "pseudo over unity" [ over unity only becasue of ignorance of what unity actually is and means]]

 

[AlphaNumeric]

If I claimed to have a cure for AIDS, Ebola, Parkinsons, Herpes, Erectile Dysfunction and Cancer would you believe me without evidence? Would you wonder how I obtained such results when I have no medical training? Would you challenge me to provide evidence for my claims? Of course. You're doing the physics version of 'I've cured all diseases' and low and behold you've nothing to show for it.

You complain that mainstream physics is ca lie built on the lack of evidence for the photon then you make bigger claims and provide less evidence. Nice hypocrisy.

 

[raggamax]

Once again you fail to grasp things. Quantum mechanics is a human construction which attempts to model the world of the very small. The theory of magnetism is another human construction which attempts to model the world.

That was precisely what I was saying. It is only a model. Another model which explains the same can also be constructed and in fact is under construction by commonsensescience.org.

The notion of electromagnetic fields are no different to the notion of quantum fields. They are ways of interpreting how the world works. It could be that the electromagnetism description of MRIs is wrong, it just happens to allow us to model the phenomena accurately, just like quantum mechanics might not be true but it allows up to model the phenomena.

Agreed

Quantum electrodynamics is an extension of electromagnetism. It still talks about magnetic and electric fields and moving charges, it just says that when you look at very very small things you find that fluctuations in the fields come in packets.

Have you ever thought of it in this way that discreteness may be coming from objects of mass ie the source of light and photon may not exist as a separate entity at all.

There is something which interacts with the MRI machine and the person in it. You can interpret it by using the 'electromagnetism model', the 'quantum electrodynamics model' or something else. You can't cling to 'magnetism' while also saying that QED isn't a physical thing, it's just a description, they are on the same philosophical footing.

Agreed. But you yourself admit here that alternate explanations of phenomenon exists.

You're struggling with the fact a completely new kind of particle was predicted before it was observed is a good thing for a theory to do?

And your claim someone else would have is utterly unsupported. Given antimatter was observed the following year it's likely that noone else would have predicted antimatter and so once observed people would then say "We've got to explain this somehow". QFT preempted the observation.

And you're wrong about all your ying/yang stuff. Only some particles have antimatter partners and quantum mechanics can say which and why.

IMO every antiparticle of every particle in our world exists. Just you wait time will prove who is right.

So you're admitted that the current model of particle physics is so accurate, aka good, that its currently beyond our ability to find a mistake in it?

Just because it isn't in our power doesn't mean that your pet theory is correct. Man you and your logic. sheesh

The fact you don't understand it doesn't mean its a paradox. You don't know any quantum mechanics and you clearly have a bias against it so you're hardly a good person to evaluate it.

Oh it isn't? Then explain - You call particles such as electron fundamental particles but you can't explain their charge distribution. Explain how dimensionless electrons are able to exist in space. Explain how they have magnetic moment and spin if they are dimensionless and explain why electron scattering experiments show that they have dimensions. Explain why do they demonstrate collision and annihilation if they are dimensionless.
I'm sure you will avoid this question too. Haha. I'll just keep on repeating it.

Something tells me you don't keep yourself up to date on the latest models, experiments and observations in the theoretical physics community so, once again, you're hardly a good person to evaluate it.

You first answer my above questions and then we'll talk later.

It might well be true but until there's some reason to think otherwise we stick with the simplest explaination. Otherwise we go down the road of the "Teach creationism" argument that any and all possibilities must be taught if there's even the slightest tiny chance it could be true. It could be true hadrons are made of fairies and elephants but noone is going to devote time in a physics class to taught such 'alternative views'. If someone can come up with a model which matches all current experimental results and which says the strong force is some emergent property of electromagnetism then it most certainly will be given some time in the physics community. But for all the talk QQ or any other crank here say they have yet to come up with anything which can even match electromagnetism, never mind the other forces.

Ha!! you're one to talk you can't even answer these basic questions

Why? Because you think everything in the universe must behave precisely like the tiny corner of the universe you live in?

I'm willing to go against any established logic if my intuition does not agrees with it.

[E] = Joules , [h] = Joule seconds , [v] = / second. The units match.

Only if you consider 1 cycle/sec otherwise it doesn't and frequency is measured in cycles/sec in classical physics.

QQ doesn't have a theory, he has a point of view/opinion. They are quite different.

Yes you moron he has an opinion not a theory but clearly the hypocrisy in your mind will not even allow any other person to speak if his opinions differ fro the established ones.

My knowledge of quantum mechanics is certainly higher than yours and, as I've said, I am in the physics community so I know what the mainstream view of things are or whether particular theories have 'paradoxes' or problems. Besides, your logic backfires, you know nothing of theoretical physics (and neither does QQ) and yet you're trying to make claims otherwise or to correct people who know more than you. QQ can't even form a coherent view of what special relativity is and so whenever he whines about 'it can't allow for constants' he's just showing his ignorance and lack of understanding.

Of course you might have have studied QM more than me but why can't you answer my basic questions.

What theory does he have? A theory would be a postulated model of some phenomena which has been experimentally tested and passed. QQ has no theory because he has no model of any phenomenon, I asked him to provide one but he didn't. Many thousands of books are full of quantum mechanical models, decades of experiments have been done on them and they have passed.

But they still can't answer the basic questions that I ask.

QQ has an opinion, nothing else.

Yes you fool read the thread it clearly implies he's asking a question.

Submit it to a journal or put it online for all to see. If he's unwilling to do this then it would seem he can't put his physics where his mouth is.

Tell this to QQ not me.

I've got imagination, I just temper it with knowledge. I have published work to my name, another paper of mine will appear on ArXiv next week and another paper by the end of the month. In total it'll be more than 150 pages of original work from me. Published in journals. Cited by physicists. The fact I work in an area which is utterly beyond your comprehension and thus don't talk to you about doesn't mean I lack imagination, simply that my knowledge allows me to apply my imagination elsewhere.

Standard example of your arrogant behavior. So anything that doesn't gets published is false?

Besides, cranks always pull that one out. If someone corrects a crank the crank whines "You've not got any imagination!". Random guesses about nature are not always going to be true and and crank who thinks his first guess is definitely right is delusional.

And neither are established theories foolproof. If you are correct then where is your photon? You too did imagine things. Now I have the right to correct you to. Now you'll whine. Haha
In fact photon may just be an abstraction not a real entity.

Are you referring to the one about how a point particle can move through space? Explain precisely why a point particle can't.

I asked first besides you keep claiming there is a photon not me. While you're at it also explain it to me that WHY does this discreteness even exist? WHY do electrons revolve in stationary non radiating orbits and not just any. If you can't answer this your QM is not causal and not worthy of being a science because science exists to answer "WHY?".

I'm not making claims about a bit of original work of mine. I am not claiming "I have rewritten physics" and then refusing to show one iota of justification. I do claim to have original work but I don't post it here, I post it on www.arxiv.org and I discuss my work with other physicists. I submit my work to journals so I can get referee comments, so that I can learn from my mistakes and how to present my work more clearly.

So......what?

Quantum Quack, I hope you were drunk when you posted that because you're incoherent. It's really laughable you think that you've got something when you can't even coherently string your thoughts together. You admit you don't know or read any relativity or know any high school mathematics but you delude yourself into thinking you can grasp it at all. Thus far you have absolutely nothing to show for all your big claims and yet you think I'm scared?!

But you just showed to us that you are.

The argument is over on my part if you can't answer my basic questions about electron's behavior on basis of QM. If you want the last word on me go right ahead. Nothing can be gained by this nonsense neither what I say nor you say will make a difference. So I'm ending this nonsense right here.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

IMO every antiparticle of every particle in our world exists. Just you wait time will prove who is right.

No, some particles are their own antiparticles. Those whose quantum numbers are all zero (since they all go to minus themselves when you change to antimatter).

IOh it isn't? Then explain - You call particles such as electron fundamental particles but you can't explain their charge distribution. Explain how dimensionless electrons are able to exist in space. Explain how they have magnetic moment and spin if they are dimensionless and explain why electron scattering experiments show that they have dimensions. Explain why do they demonstrate collision and annihilation if they are dimensionless.

There's no charge distribution in a point particle, the charge is at the single point. And I don't see why you have any problem with points in space. If I give the position of an object to be $$\mathbf{x}(t) = (x(t),y(t),z(t))$$ then that defines a single point but its a position. How $$\mathbf{x}(t)$$] varies in time is the description of the motion of the object. For instance, a simple harmonic oscillator might behave as $$\mathbf{x}(t) = ( sin(kt),0,0 )$$. What do you find so abhorrent about that?

The spin of an electron is determined by its transformation properties under Lorentz groups, particularly which representation it falls into. This is tied up with the Dirac equation, which then forms the basis of the QED description and which then allows us to accurately calculate the magnetic moment. Specific Feynman diagrams contribute to the 'anomalous magnetic moment' of the electron, which are QED corrections to the naive non-relativistic quantum mechanics prediction for the quantity and its these which are the 1 part in a trillion match of QED to Nature. If you want more specifics, I suggest getting ahold of a copy of 'An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory' by Peskin and Schroder and it'll teach you how to do the calculations associated with the QED processes which give that very accurate value. If you'd bother to even Google for a few minutes you'd have known that the magnetic moment prediction is one of the big results of QED because its such a huge agreement with experiments.

And you are incorrect about scattering experiments, they do not show the electron as composite or non-pointlike. If you say otherwise, link to a reputable paper describing said experiments.

And as for annihilation and creation, once again this is explained in enormous detail in any book on quantum field theory. The points you raise are not arguments against quantum field theory, they are issues you never bothered to learn about and so you use the crank method of "If I don't know it it doesn't exist or its wrong".

This is why I suggest to QQ to at least learn some relativity. Yes, there are things which need to be addressed in mainstream physics but they are almost invariably not the things cranks bring up. If you haven't bothered to find out the basics of a theory then whining "How does the theory explain...." isn't a criticism of the theory, it's a sign you're dishonest and apathetic.

I'm sure you will avoid this question too. Haha. I'll just keep on repeating it.

You can keep repeating them till the cows come home, it doesn't mean that the fact you're ignorant of the answers due to a lack of self investigation will magically invalidate the work. All your questions are "How does QED do....". Those are questions you could have answered for yourself if you read some QED. You not having read it doesn't mean the answers aren't there. Or is that logic a little too subtle for you?

 

[raggamax]

No, some particles are their own antiparticles. Those whose quantum numbers are all zero (since they all go to minus themselves when you change to antimatter).

Semantics. All I was saying that a dual to almost everything exists even if it is by itself its own dual. Don't care about QM's explanation.

There's no charge distribution in a point particle, the charge is at the single point. And I don't see why you have any problem with points in space.

I just burst into tears mingled with howling laughter as soon as I read that.
And you blame QQ for not providing proof for his claims. You poor fool give me an example of a physical entity existing in space which does not have any physical dimensions outside of the quantum realm. Yes?

There's no charge distribution in a point particle, the charge is at the single point. And I don't see why you have any problem with points in space. If I give the position of an object to be $$\mathbf{x}(t) = (x(t),y(t),z(t))$$ then that defines a single point but its a position. How $$\mathbf{x}(t)$$] varies in time is the description of the motion of the object. For instance, a simple harmonic oscillator might behave as $$\mathbf{x}(t) = ( sin(kt),0,0 )$$. What do you find so abhorrent about that?

Complete bullcrap as was expected of you.
A particle having mass is bound to occupy some space and this would mean charge is not a fundamental property of the point but somehow a mechanism must exist for its distribution. Again we differ on fundamentals so no reconciliation is possible.

The spin of an electron is determined by its transformation properties under Lorentz groups, particularly which representation it falls into. This is tied up with the Dirac equation, which then forms the basis of the QED description and which then allows us to accurately calculate the magnetic moment. Specific Feynman diagrams contribute to the 'anomalous magnetic moment' of the electron, which are QED corrections to the naive non-relativistic quantum mechanics prediction for the quantity and its these which are the 1 part in a trillion match of QED to Nature. If you want more specifics, I suggest getting ahold of a copy of 'An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory' by Peskin and Schroder and it'll teach you how to do the calculations associated with the QED processes which give that very accurate value. If you'd bother to even Google for a few minutes you'd have known that the magnetic moment prediction is one of the big results of QED because its such a huge agreement with experiments.

Yes I opened google and it said that you can't have magnetic moment without having finite size and that spin is caused by intrinsic angular momentum of a particle which you obviously can't have with a point particle. I do not have problems with notion of spin but with the assertion that point particles can have spin.

And you are incorrect about scattering experiments, they do not show the electron as composite or non-pointlike. If you say otherwise, link to a reputable paper describing said experiments.

If you read the entire website I gave to you earlier (commonsensescience.org) it better explains the charge distribution of elementary particles and scattering results but as obvious you have not made any effort to even bother. CSS says that electron is a not a point like particle but a spinning ring of charge and manages to explain its magnetic moment and its size issues. The charge is revolving on the periphery of the ring at the speed of light and manages to avoid the infinities which QM encounters.

And as for annihilation and creation, once again this is explained in enormous detail in any book on quantum field theory. The points you raise are not arguments against quantum field theory, they are issues you never bothered to learn about and so you use the crank method of "If I don't know it it doesn't exist or its wrong".

Another useless attempt to avoid basic questions. This ain't mathematics its physics no point like particles and no probability can exist in physical world its totally deterministic.

This is why I suggest to QQ to at least learn some relativity. Yes, there are things which need to be addressed in mainstream physics but they are almost invariably not the things cranks bring up. If you haven't bothered to find out the basics of a theory then whining "How does the theory explain...." isn't a criticism of the theory, it's a sign you're dishonest and apathetic.

You better answer the previous questions of existence first b4 bragging but this is all you can do as was clear to me in the beginning because you do not even want to think about the unanswered questions. QQ was right light does not exist between events maybe gravity is the same and there is no graviton.

You can keep repeating them till the cows come home, it doesn't mean that the fact you're ignorant of the answers due to a lack of self investigation will magically invalidate the work. All your questions are "How does QED do....". Those are questions you could have answered for yourself if you read some QED. You not having read it doesn't mean the answers aren't there. Or is that logic a little too subtle for you?

Yes I have read some QM and it isn't satisfactory and neither are your answers which are indeed attempts to avoid basic questions.
And...what about discreteness WHY does it exist?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I've only just realised you're the guy who started the "Can you stop the subdivision" thread .

Semantics. All I was saying that a dual to almost everything exists even if it is by itself its own dual. Don't care about QM's explanation.

'Almost'. Nice qualifier which utterly negates the usefulness of the statement.

I just burst into tears mingled with howling laughter as soon as I read that.

From the pain due to actually using your brain?

And you blame QQ for not providing proof for his claims. You poor fool give me an example of a physical entity existing in space which does not have any physical dimensions outside of the quantum realm. Yes?

So give you something which is smaller than any object outside the quantum realm which has non-zero size? Clearly you aren't even grasping the flaws of logic in your own posts.

particle having mass is bound to occupy some space and this would mean charge is not a fundamental property of the point but somehow a mechanism must exist for its distribution. Again we differ on fundamentals so no reconciliation is possible.

Says who? You? And what leads you to such a conclusion, other than the fact you don't understand it. You're using the same logic as you did in the subdivision thread, simply stating your clams about fundamental properties of the universe as fact.

Yes I opened google and it said that you can't have magnetic moment without having finite size and that spin is caused by intrinsic angular momentum of a particle which you obviously can't have with a point particle..

Wow, you opened Google. Yeah, that beats the entirity of my experience with particle physics and describing subatomic systems which have spin. Wow, if Google says I've not seen books, results, equations and experiments built around such notions then surely it must be right!

Let's see your link. The first hit on Google for 'magnetic moment' is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_moment which then mentions the electron. Quantum field theory allows the point particles to have both magnetic moment and angular momentum, you can assign such properties to point particles, work out how they interact and behave and then make predictions. And QFT ends up making the right predictions. So your claim 'magnetic moment is impossible without finite size' is not verified by experiment and not true about theory. So you are making unjustified claims.

I do not have problems with notion of spin but with the assertion that point particles can have spin.

There's 'spin' like the Earth spins on its axis and then there's 'spin' like the degree of freedom associated to quantum objects.

Quantum spin isn't about electrons spinning like a top. Instead there is a property of particles like electrons which can vary from electron to electron. In each s orbital of an atom there can be 2 electrons, despite them having the same energy. The difference between the two of them is their 'spin'. When you work out how these spins interact and transform you find that the mathematical structure they form is the same as the mathematical structure formed by how you'd describe the angular moment of a sphere under rotations. Hence because they are algebraicly the same sorts of thing they are called the same sort of thing, spin. Gluons have 'colour charge' but that doesn't mean they are literally red, green and blue, it's a naming convention. I'd explain the details of angular momentum but you're both too ignorant and too unwilling to understand. Try to understand something before you dismiss it.

IIf you read the entire website I gave to you earlier (commonsensescience.org) it better explains the charge distribution of elementary particles and scattering results but as obvious you have not made any effort to even bother. CSS says that electron is a not a point like particle but a spinning ring of charge and manages to explain its magnetic moment and its size issues. The charge is revolving on the periphery of the ring at the speed of light and manages to avoid the infinities which QM encounters.

That isn't proof, that's just you repeating the websites opinion. No experimental evidence exists to support that and the model is not as successful/accurate as quantum mechanics. You simply repeating a website whose opinions line up with your own doesn't invalidate what I'm saying.

other useless attempt to avoid basic questions. This ain't mathematics its physics no point like particles and no probability can exist in physical world its totally deterministic.

Simply repeating your views about systems you cannot describe and have never worked with experimentally doesn't make reality change to agree with you. And I'm not avoiding the questions, I've told you where the extensive explainations of these things are but you're unwilling to do any reading yourself.

You better answer the previous questions of existence first b4 bragging but this is all you can do as was clear to me in the beginning because you do not even want to think about the unanswered questions. QQ was right light does not exist between events maybe gravity is the same and there is no graviton.

Ah, the crank logic. You say I can't think about unanswered questions because I don't agree with your answers. I have thought about unanswered questions just not the ones you have and I've made a great deal more progress than you.

Cranks and creatonists think a lot alike. They denounce the mainstream as close minded and that mainstream should be open to new ideas but it always turns out to be their new ideas. Like the people in the midwest who wanted evolution and creationism to be taught side by side. Provided its Christian creationism, nothing else. Cranks denounce mainstream in the hopes their ideas will replace it. They never consider that some other non-mainstream idea might be better than theirs.

Yes I have read some QM and it isn't satisfactory and neither are your answers which are indeed attempts to avoid basic questions.

If you had read some QM you'd grasp angular momentum a little more. You'd not make the claims you have. You'd know about the history and development better. You'd perhaps understand the position of 'experimental justification' and falsifiability a little more. But you don't so I would conclude you haven't. So tell me, what precisely have you read on QM?

YAnd...what about discreteness WHY does it exist?

That isn't a question science attempts to address, that's metaphysics. You're basically asking "Why is the universe the way it is, why isn't it different?". Quantum mechanics and any other science is about saying "Given this initial system we can model it and tell you what it'll do". Why that system exists is an entirely different question. Again, this kind of basic misunderstanding in how science works shows you're not exactly familiar with it. You have no grasp of the scientific method, you have no science education or experience with phenomena which are relevant to this thread and yet you make enormous claims about the fundamental nature of the universe.

If you were truely interested and you wanted to look at things differently to the mainstream so that you can understand things better you'd not be as ignorant as you are, you'd have read more. Not specifically textbooks, though a good way to understand science is to be familiar with it and its history, but the concepts of science and its implementation. You say I don't think about unanswered questions but you have no interest in the answers to those questions if they at all conflict with your preconceptions. In both this thread and the subdivision one you show you have no wish to hear from people who don't back up your views. I welcome peer review to my work, I like it when people ask me relevant and coherent questions which make me stop and think "Hang on, I'd not thought about that...." but unfortunately neither you nor QQ manage that because you've never got your head around the basics, never mind the subtlies of various areas of physics.

I bet in 6 months QQ will be exactly where he is now, with nothing to show for his work. I bet Geist will still be harping on about his dislike for relativity, all the while showing he's not even got a high school student's grasp of it. And if you stick around here I'll bet the same will be true for you. You whine, you learn nothing, you repeat your misconceptions. Geist says he's read about GR, even got a book on it, then makes claims which anyone whose done any GR will know to be false (the claim that the Shell Theorem is negated in GR). You're doing the same for quantum mechanics. If you knew the equivalent of an introduction course in QM you'd know how to understand particle spins. f you were to read the book I suggested you'd understand how to answer all of your own questions. But you won't because you and I both know you aren't interested in the answers to your questions, even if I answered perfectly and it was experimentally backed up, you'd not be interested.

If I'm wrong in this assessment of you feel free too explain how you're informed about the topic of quantum mechanics.

 

[Quantum Quack]

certainly there is no "relative" t=0 either which of course is an outcome of relativity of simultaneity. [ but hey I wouldn't know that would I, as I never studied SRT]
Just becasue I wont answer Alpha's questions about what I know doesn't mean I don't have some idea...to suggest that silence means ignorance is absurd ....and the hall mark of an idiot.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I welcome peer review to my work, I like it when people ask me relevant and coherent questions which make me stop and think "Hang on, I'd not thought about that...."

and of course your "peer" review has a fundamental belief in a photon flying pig. One that has never been proved to exist. so much for your peer review..yes?
The issue is really about acknowledging that the photon is merely a working model that may be very well flawed terribly, thus possibly holding back science from finding the "real" physics.
I believe this thread has proved this point quite adequately...and maybe that should be put to peer review instead of any new ideas...I can tell you now they wont like it...

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Just becasue I wont answer Alpha's questions about what I know doesn't mean I don't have some idea...to suggest that silence means ignorance is absurd ....and the hall mark of an idiot.

I don't answer questions about my work here because I don't think it's terribly appropriate but I do demonstrate that I have a working familiarity with the topics at hand, thus showing I am informed about the topic. You neither talk about your work or show you're familiar with the topic at hand.

If someone never shows they understand then why should anyone believe their claims "But I do understand!!".

I claim I can fly. Do you believe me? Would you ask for evidence? For an eye witness? For me to demonstrate it? Of course because if someone makes a fantastic claim then they should provide evidence. You make the most fantastic claims and you provide nothing. How many years have you been working on your 'ideas' QQ? Have you put your work anywhere? Has anyone seen your results? Doesn't seem so. So why should anyone think you aren't simply lying?

If I claimed "I've got proof of the photon but I'm not going to tell you or show anyone" you'd jump all over that with "Oh you're lying and you're a fraud!" but when you employ precisely that methodology you don't notice your own hypocrisy.