Disproving the quantum revolution?

[Calrid]

Can you do it. And how can you do it?

Now I don't have ultimate faith in any theory because I am a decent scientist if not a professional one but it seems to me that you should be able to overturn theory if you can so- do so.

Call out thread, have at me.

I shall be taking the position of conservative and inured Scientist who spends all his time just agreeing with the status quo. You will be taking the position of Einstein for the 21st century cause Einstein hated QM.

[James S Saint]

Can you do it. And how can you do it?

Now I don't have ultimate faith in any theory because I am a decent scientist if not a professional one but it seems to me that you should be able to overturn theory if you can so- do so.

Call out thread, have at me.

I shall be taking the position of conservative and inured Scientist who spends all his time just agreeing with the status quo. You will be taking the position of Einstein for the 21st century cause Einstein hated QM.

Are you referring to disproving the actual theories (if so which) or are you talking about the notion of QM having the total picture ironed out?

[Flannel Jesus]

I'm not convinced Calrid has a clear grasp of what the status quo even is, given his previous posts about QM. Doesn't sound like a game I wanna play.

[James S Saint]

I'm not convinced Calrid has a clear grasp of what the status quo even is, given his previous posts about QM. Doesn't sound like a game I wanna play.

Yeah arguing with the half educated can be the toughest.

[Calrid]

I'm not convinced Calrid has a clear grasp of what the status quo even is, given his previous posts about QM. Doesn't sound like a game I wanna play.

Coward.

It sounds to me it's not a game you can win because you don't have the first clue.


Smack talk. Let's go...

[Calrid]

I'm not convinced Calrid has a clear grasp of what the status quo even is, given his previous posts about QM. Doesn't sound like a game I wanna play.

Yeah arguing with the half educated can be the toughest.

Flannel jesus has no idea what the hell he is talking about all the time. Do not for any reason accept he is knowledgeable enough to judge anyone.

Problem is with FJ is I asked him questions he had no means to answer and he's been bitter about that ever since. He has absolutely no idea on Earth what he's talking about, he quotes blogs to prove his incompetence, and claims I am wrong because that is all he can do. Wrong about what FJ? Do you even understand what I am wrong about, then have at me? Coward.

[Calrid]

I'm not convinced Calrid has a clear grasp of what the status quo even is, given his previous posts about QM. Doesn't sound like a game I wanna play.

Yeah arguing with the half educated can be the toughest.

And you think you are wholly educated, well then let's go. If you are so much better than I this should be easy.

Smack talk, this is callout thread, you should put your money where your mouth is or just get out of my dojo.

Oh come on guys, I can't win this easily can I? Ad homs, you can't beat my kung fu?

[James S Saint]

Are you referring to disproving the actual theories (if so which) or are you talking about the notion of QM having the total picture ironed out?

Answer the question.

[Calrid]

Are you referring to disproving the actual theories (if so which) or are you talking about the notion of QM having the total picture ironed out?

Answer the question.

I already did. But yes I am referring to everything now it's time you showed me the money.

Qm hasn't got the whole picture ironed out, but you seem to think you have so...

Welcome to our new show, it's called talk the talk and then walk the walk, next week we shall be asking some chancer to prove something else, probably ghosts exist, but this week we are on the science.

Now I am an idiot of physics so any genius should be able to defeat me. But yet even though I am the worlds biggest idiot on physics I cannot get a discussion on it from the worlds greatest authorities. Look and learn people, some people claim the sun but they can't even prove the moon.

Diddums James.

[James S Saint]

Are you referring to disproving the actual theories (if so which) or are you talking about the notion of QM having the total picture ironed out?

Answer the question.

I already did. But yes I am referring to everything now it's time you showed me the money.

Qm hasn't got the whole picture ironed out, but you seem to think you have so...

Welcome to our new show, it's called talk the talk and then walk the walk, next week we shall be asking some chancer to prove something else, probably ghosts exist, but this week we are on the science.

Now I am an idiot of physics so any genius should be able to defeat me. But yet even though I am the worlds biggest idiot on physics I cannot get a discussion on it from the worlds greatest authorities. Look and learn people, some people claim the sun but they can't even prove the moon.

Diddums James.

Geeez.. so many recalcitrant confusions in one post... where to begin.

So, okay, one of my many claims against QM is a simple question;
"Why does positive and negative attract?"

Another would be perhaps;
"What causes the speed of light to be what it is?"

Take care how you answer.

[Calrid]

You already know the answer it's about spin?

I'm not asking you to question classical mechanics, but quantum mechanics?

No one knows why the fundamental c constant is what it is? You genuinely believe asking a question no one can answer proves anything except our general ignorance of first principles?

[James S Saint]

You already know the answer it's about spin?

I'm not asking you to question classical mechanics, but quantum mechanics?

That was a question for the Quantum Magi who claim that they have the entire picture.
And the answer has nothing to do with spin in either case.

[Calrid]

You already know the answer it's about spin?

I'm not asking you to question classical mechanics, but quantum mechanics?

That was a question for the Quantum Magi who claim that they have the entire picture.
And the answer has nothing to do with spin in either case.

Why does the answer have nothing to do with spin?

No one has claimed they have the whole picture except you.

[James S Saint]

No one knows why the fundamental c constant is what it is? You genuinely believe asking a question no one can answer proves anything except pour general ignorance of first principles?

Ahh.. so you are Jewish?
"It is what it is"
"I am that I am"
"First Cause [Principles] does it"
"God does it"

[Calrid]

No one knows why the fundamental c constant is what it is? You genuinely believe asking a question no one can answer proves anything except pour general ignorance of first principles?

Ahh.. so you are Jewish?
"It is what it is"
"I am that I am"
"God does it"

What the hell are you talking about?

I never said God does anything, but it may just be some constants are the way they are because they are fundamentally irreducible to first principle, they just are first principles.

Why does the answer have nothing to do with spin?

[James S Saint]

What the hell are you talking about?

Now you know why proving anything to you might be a bit of a problem.
You have to learn arithmetic before you can prove calculus.

I never said God does anything,

You did. You just didn't know it (even after my reply apparently).

but it may just be some constants are the way they are because they are fundamentally irreducible to first principle, they just are first principles.

"Maybe", huh.
Doesn't sound like much of a proof.

Why does the answer have nothing to do with spin?

For the same reason that it has nothing to do with peanut butter nuttiness.
Total disassociation; non-sequitor relationship.

[Calrid]

What the hell are you talking about?

Now you know why proving anything to you might be a bit of a problem.
You have to learn arithmetic before you can prove calculus.

I never said God does anything,

You did. You just didn't know it (even after my reply apparently).

but it may just be some constants are the way they are because they are fundamentally irreducible to first principle, they just are first principles.

"Maybe", huh.
Doesn't sound like much of a proof.

Why does the answer have nothing to do with spin?

For the same reason that it has nothing to do with peanut butter nuttiness.
Total disassociation; non-sequitor relationship.

Ok so you hope to prove your knowledge by patronising me, because I am unable to understand maths. I understand calculus. So use calculus if you must. But for Gods sake spare me.

James you think you know the answers but you can't even prove them to us plebs. If you have a mathematical answer using calculus show it, I understand that. You just patronising me, just means you want to have a wank and then rub my tits. I am not impressed.

who on Earth has ever claimed that c is provable? So basically what you are doing is taking things no one knows about and then claiming no one therefore knows nothing. Dude will your once in your Jesus life do something other than talk and demean anyone who doesn't agree with you, no wonder you have never got anywhere you haven't convinced experts let alone plebs. Your arrogance though is invigorating, I do love the fact that you have faith if not evidence. That's what religion is all about.

[James S Saint]

Ok so you hope to prove your knowledge by patronising me, because I am unable to understand maths. I understand calculus. So use calculus if you must. But for Gods sake spare me.

Haha.. "patronizing"??
You asked for me to disprove something that you don't understand in the first place.
Who is patronizing whom?

[Calrid]

Ok so you hope to prove your knowledge by patronising me, because I am unable to understand maths. I understand calculus. So use calculus if you must. But for Gods sake spare me.

Haha.. "patronizing"??
You asked for me to disprove something that you don't understand in the first place.
Who is patronizing whom?

I don't understand what?

Are you just trolling now?

What is it I don't understand, and more importantly what is it that the whole field doesn't understand?

You arrogant bar steward, you can't claim you have any knowledge about anything if you can't even convince me, the worst physics student in the world.

Come on dude. If I'm so bad at physics, why is it you can't even convince me?

Show me the fucking money. Or are you just all talk and no trousers?

[James S Saint]

What is it I don't understand, and more importantly what is it that the whole field doesn't understand?

You arrogant bar steward, you can't claim you have any knowledge about anything if you can't even convince me, the worst physics student in the world.

Come on dude. If I'm so bad at physics, why is it you can't even convince me?

Like I already said, you have to learn the arithmetic before you can see the proof of the calculus.
Since you seem to not understand metaphor, "arithmetic" means "the basics" and "calculus" means "the complex".
Just to cut this short a bit, the following are questions that QM can't answer and thus they dub them "fundamental" (irreconcilable TO THEM);
1) why does positive and negative attract?
2) why do like charges repel?
3) why does light travel at that particular speed?
4) why do particles form?
5) why do particles quantize at their particular size?
6) why is there a "strong force"?
7) why is there a "weak force"?
8 ) why don't electrons simply fall into protons?
9) why do large nuclei become unstable/radioactive?
10) what causes inertia?
..and probably a few others.

My issue is that I CAN answer all of those, but the Quantum Magi seem to not have a clue.

Now as far as proving things to YOU, realize that any and all proofs require that YOU understand and hence agree with what would be the axioms of the logical proof or at very least be aware of many empirical demonstrations that have taken place.

I am a Metaphysicist. To me, physicists are just technicians. They are very good at what they do, but they have no idea as to why any of it actually works. Yet those are the ones proclaiming that they have a total understanding of literally all things (another God-wannabe). You aren't even one of those technicians, and yet you want me (effectively an "engineer" to their "technician") to explain to you not only what they can't seem to figure out but also prove that they are wrong about things that you are not even aware that they claim.

You have to have significant education merely to know what to ask.

[Moreno]

Can you do it. And how can you do it?

Now I don't have ultimate faith in any theory because I am a decent scientist if not a professional one but it seems to me that you should be able to overturn theory if you can so- do so.

Call out thread, have at me.

I shall be taking the position of conservative and inured Scientist who spends all his time just agreeing with the status quo. You will be taking the position of Einstein for the 21st century cause Einstein hated QM.

Einstein did not hate QM, he had problems with certain parts of it and certain interpretations.

There is tremendous evidence for QM, though not necessarily all interpretations of that evidence. It seems to me rather unlikely that anyone here has the research lab in the garage to present counterevidence. If we are going to disprove some particular portion of QM, it would seem smart to focus on a specific area and likely one of the standard interpretations of the evidence.

[James S Saint]

There is tremendous evidence for QM, though not necessarily all interpretations of that evidence.

There si a lot of QM that is simple directly observed statistical evidence. They screw up only when they venture into trying to claim the "why"s behind what they have witnessed. They once proclaimed that "because we can predict, we must be right". That is a fallacy. Two wrongs might not make a right, but 3 lefts will. Just because you end up with a right answer doesn't mean that you understood anything at all.

[Moreno]

There is tremendous evidence for QM, though not necessarily all interpretations of that evidence.

There si a lot of QM that is simple directly observed statistical evidence. They screw up only when they venture into trying to claim the "why"s behind what they have witnessed. They once proclaimed that "because we can predict, we must be right". That is a fallacy. Two wrongs might not make a right, but 3 lefts will. Just because you end up with a right answer doesn't mean that you understood anything at all.

I can't tell if they screwed up or not, but yes, I agree in general with what you say. I think the OP is funny because, well 1) disproving is well nigh impossible to do. One can make arguments against, perhaps even strong ones, but disproving is pretty much out of the question, even if a physicist came online here and gave it a shot. Then 2) QM is fairly vast. To disprove QM would require a very large scholarly volume at the least. Many hundreds of pages.

[James S Saint]

Probably the quintessential argument against QM in general is the well known double slit experiment.
QM's explanation effort toward that experiment can't avoid magical or mystical properties such as a particle being in two locations at once.

The Quantum Magi obviously had no comprehension of what it means to exist as is evident throughout their mysticism style speculations such as "quantum superposition".

[Calrid]

Probably the quintessential argument against QM in general is the well known double slit experiment.
QM's explanation effort toward that experiment can't avoid magical or mystical properties such as a particle being in two locations at once.

The Quantum Magi obviously had no comprehension of what it means to exist as is evident throughout their mysticism style speculations such as "quantum superposition".

That's not a disproof of anything. The explanation is not that it is in two places at once? Straw man. The explanation is that you cannot know where it is and its momentum.