Disproving the quantum revolution?

[Calrid]

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.

So what you are saying is the whole sphere of physics is a lie and only you have the truth?

Bullshit.

I'm pretty sure most of those can at least be explained if not from axioms. Why particles haves said masses is explained in a few theories, but it is not widely accepted as known. Proving why an electron has .x times the mass of a proton would win you a Nobel prize, I can only assume the reason you have yet to win that is because you are all mouth and no trousers.

Strong and weak are all the same thing ultimately, a manifestation at certain energy levels of the unified theory of everything. Why do forces exist discretely is basically the same question. Why do forces exist at all is not and of course there is no answer to that atm.

Like I already said, you have to learn the arithmetic before you can see the proof of the calculus.

Shut the fuck up and explain something without trying to patronise the hell out of me then. Might help.

You have to understand calculus before you can prove isomorhphics and topology, so what, clearly you don't understand even calculus well enough to explain it to someone who has studied it.

1+1=2
f'(x)=nx^n-1 [where x is positive integer]

There you go basic arithmetic and the chain rule in two easy lines of prose. It's not rocket science.

What I am in fact asking you to do to stretch the analogy is prove that the power rule works, which is also not exactly hard and is learnt at a very basic level of maths study.

Oh and spin is why things have magnetic moments, they are intimately related, if you can prove otherwise then do so without the demeaning arrogant assumptions.

[Flannel Jesus]

I found the exact place where I knew for a fact that Caldrid was just way out of his element:

viewtopic.php?p=2274384#p2274384

I'll summarize the posts for you:

Calrid: Bells-Aspect experiment proves that there are no local hidden variables.
Calrid: Bells-Aspect experiment disproves Many Worlds.
Flannel: Many worlds doesn't depend on hidden variables.
Calrid: No, you're wrong, it does depend on hidden variables but it doesn't depend on local hidden variables.

Now, Calrid, if you can't see the flaw in your case above then not only do you not understand anything about QM, you also don't understand the most basic rules of logic.

You say Bell disproves local hidden variables, you admit that many worlds doesn't depend on local hidden variables, and YOU STILL don't back down on your claim that it disproves Many Worlds. Jesus Christ I haven't seen somebody's foot so deep down their throat.

I later did some more research and found that Bell himself believed in a deterministic interpretation of QM, so there's that. So, you don't get it. There's not a chance that you even remotely get it.

[Calrid]

I found the exact place where I knew for a fact that Caldrid was just way out of his element:

http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.ph ... 4#p2274384

I'll summarize the posts for you:

Calrid: Bells-Aspect experiment proves that there are no local hidden variables.
Calrid: Bells-Aspect experiment disproves Many Worlds.
Flannel: Many worlds doesn't depend on hidden variables.
Calrid: No, you're wrong, it does depend on hidden variables but it doesn't depend on local hidden variables.

Now, Calrid, if you can't see the flaw in your case above then not only do you not understand anything about QM, you also don't understand the most basic rules of logic.

You say Bell disproves local hidden variables, you admit that many worlds doesn't depend on local hidden variables, and YOU STILL don't back down on your claim that it disproves Many Worlds. Jesus Christ I haven't seen somebody's foot so deep down their throat.

I later did some more research and found that Bell himself believed in a deterministic interpretation of QM, so there's that. So, you don't get it. There's not a chance that you even remotely get it.

You have no fucking idea what you are talking about, so why you presume to judge me is ridiculous. You got shown up on a thread when asked to explain what you linked and you ran off in a huff, only to return to bleat about your humiliation at every opportunity as if somehow that lends you credibility.

Ok you destroy quantum mechanics then, or are you like James all mouth.

Many worlds is a non local hidden variable theory (although it claims of course it isn't but then what else would you call worlds no one can perceive except hidden?) Einstein hence it is not disproven by that experiment, that experiment merely contends with evidence in our universe not in multiple ones, hence from the perspective of one world the outcomes cannot be explained by a local hidden variable theory, unless a) you assume it is non local, ie some sort of carrier wave like mechanics, or you invent dimensions that no one will ever perceive that are non local by definition. It only proves that MWI is eternally unprovable if it proves anything at all.

"MWI is not even wrong."

It joins the queue with all the other theories of anything.

[Flannel Jesus]

At last he backs down from his previous statement that Bell disproves MW. It's about time. That was some bullshit you tried to pull back there Calrid, luckily one of us was paying attention.

Anyway, even though you finally backed down (while still trying to maintain the image that you didn't actually make a mistake, weirdly enough -- just admit it), you still don't have a clue about QM. So, this is my message to anybody who's gonna come in here and take up Calrid on his challenge: he doesn't know what he's talking about, don't bother. Any argument he will try to make against you will not be from the POV of the "status quo" as he says, because he doesn't understand the status quo as it is. It'll be arguments mostly based on his own biases, and it won't accurately represent what real physicists think.

That is all.

[Calrid]

At last he backs down from his previous statement that Bell disproves MW. It's about time. That was some bullshit you tried to pull back there Calrid, luckily one of us was paying attention.

Anyway, even though you finally backed down (while still trying to maintain the image that you didn't actually make a mistake, weirdly enough -- just admit it), you still don't have a clue about QM. So, this is my message to anybody who's gonna come in here and take up Calrid on his challenge: he doesn't know what he's talking about, don't bother. Any argument he will try to make against you will not be from the POV of the "status quo" as he says, because he doesn't understand the status quo as it is. It'll be arguments mostly based on his own biases, and it won't accurately represent what real physicists think.

I never said what you say I did, probably because you haven't the first idea what non local or hidden variables means.

MWI can claim to be local and non hidden all it wants but that doesn't mean it is. It certainly isn't local in any sense that can be verified by Bell's Aspect was my point then and now. Stop strawmanning.

That is all.

That is quite enough. I would like to add insult to your injury but frankly you have already humiliated yourself enough so that calling you an idiot or whatever is entirely superfluous.

[Flannel Jesus]

No need to put your foot deeper in your throat. Just stop posting in this thread, it will die and your shame will abate. Your logical fallacies will eventually be forgotten in history, don't let it ruin your mood too much.

[Calrid]

No need to put your foot deeper in your throat. Just stop posting in this thread, it will die and your shame will abate. Your logical fallacies will eventually be forgotten in history, don't let it ruin your mood too much.

Take your size nines out of your mouth and stop posting before you humiliate yourself further.

Non sequitur:

Strawman means he was wrong then and will be wrong about everything hence forth.

I wasn't wrong then about MWI being fanciful horse shit and I am not wrong now, live with it. Or put your money where your mouth is and prove something for a change, like how MWI distinguishes itself empirically from Copenhagen in a valid experiment such as oh I don't know, the two slit or Bells.

[Flannel Jesus]

You were wrong then and now.
And the ultimate irony of the situation: Bell, the very scientist whose work you were using to try to debunk deterministic QM, was himself a proponent of a deterministic interpretation of QM!!! I love it!

So, you certainly don't understand the ideas and experiments of Bell's that you brought up, you probably don't understand Copenhagen, you definitely don't understand Many Worlds, and you talk about all of them like you're an expert. The ironies produced by your so-called understanding show otherwise, though. You may be an expert in the future, you may one day pull up your britches and do some real thinking and research, but for now you're just an arrogant guy who likes to read his own biases into other peoples work.

If there were, in fact, a guy defending the actual status quo of QM in a thread on ILP, I would undoubtedly root for him. You're not that guy though. You don't get it.

[Calrid]

You were wrong then and now.
And the ultimate irony of the situation: Bell, the very scientist whose work you were using to try to debunk deterministic QM, was himself a proponent of a deterministic interpretation of QM!!! I love it!

So, you certainly don't understand the ideas and experiments of Bell's that you brought up, you probably don't understand Copenhagen, you definitely don't understand Many Worlds, and you talk about all of them like you're an expert. The ironies produced by your so-called understanding show otherwise, though. You may be an expert in the future, you may one day pull up your britches and do some real thinking and research, but for now you're just an arrogant guy who likes to read his own biases into other peoples work.

If there were, in fact, a guy defending the actual status quo of QM in a thread on ILP, I would undoubtedly root for him. You're not that guy though. You don't get it.

Can you quote the exact contention I made that is wrong?

No, shut up then.

I claimed many worlds is horse shit and to prove it I used an experiment where it cannot ever distinguish itself in any empirical form hence it is not even wrong. You need to STFU I think.

I contend that no local hidden variable theory can explain the experimental results of quantum mechanics, that is still true whether you like it or not.

[Flannel Jesus]

No, I don't think I'll shut up. I think you're getting a bit flustered because I'm showing you up. Your recourse is to just tell me to shut up, lol. Oh boy, you little weenie.

[Calrid]

No, I don't think I'll shut up. I think you're getting a bit flustered because I'm showing you up. Your recourse is to just tell me to shut up, lol. Oh boy, you little weenie.

I think you have started flaming me because you are flustered and can't admit your straw man.

So how about you prove that many worlds explains the Bells-Aspect and hence is not just philosophical twaddle with the entire intention of messing about with silly abstractions no one can ever measure or ever will.

You have two choices prove it or STFU.

[Flannel Jesus]

Dude, the way you talk about this stuff is just even more proof that you don't know what it means.

I don't have to prove Many Worlds any more than you have to prove Copenhagen. You're the one claiming Bell proved it wrong, and then backing down on that, so I've already won. That makes you (tee hee) the LOSER.

[James S Saint]

Just gotta love that atmosphere of free intellectual exchange.

[Faust]

Calm down, gentlemen.

[Flannel Jesus]

This little gem deserves getting pounded on as well:

Or put your money where your mouth is and prove something for a change, like how MWI distinguishes itself empirically from Copenhagen in a valid experiment such as oh I don't know, the two slit or Bells.

So, Calrid expects MW to distinguish itself in the two slits or Bells experiments. Very, very interesting Calrid. You see, that's absolutely nonsense. Because, quite simply, these experiments HAVE ALREADY BEEN DONE!

They've already been done. We know what happens in those experiments. Any theory that pertains to those experiments has to make THE SAME prediction about them, because they've already been done and we already know the results. A theory which makes a different prediction, like you strangely expect of MW, is incorrect. If it predicts something different from WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW HAPPENS, it's wrong. So no, it's not supposed to distinguish itself in experiments that we've already done. That would make it immediately wrong, don't you get it?

It's like, we already know approximately how things fall on earth: discounting air resistance and some other factors, things fall towards earth at approximately 9.81 m/s/s. So, any theory of gravity and physics which makes predictions about how things fall HAS TO NOT DIFFERENTIATE ITSELF in regards to that. They all have to produce approximately the same result. If the experiment has already been done, any differentiation IS WRONG! A theory of gravity that predicts that things fall towards earth at 20 m/s/s is WRONG. We know it's wrong.

Likewise, any theory about QM which makes different predictions about double slit or any other experiment that's already been done is WRONG. So, to say that Many Worlds doesn't differentiate itself in how it predicts results of experiments that have already been done...that's not a bad thing. It shouldn't differentiate itself. Don't you get it? Any difference from what actually happens is wrong, little buddy. So no, MW doesn't differentiate itself in those experiments that have already happened, and it would be wrong if it did.

The fact that you think it should differentiate itself in experiments that have already been done tells me you don't understand even the most basic principles of science. There wasn't a single shred of thought that went into that post of yours.

[phyllo]

Are you two going to say anything of substance on this thread or should Faust just lock it?

[Calrid]

Are you two going to say anything of substance on this thread or should Faust just lock it?

Well yes, because these guys are all mouth and no trousers.

Flannel shut up and stop talking, you have not the first clue what you are banging on about.

The whole point of science is to distinguish yourself, the fact MWI cannot be distinguished in an empirical way from Copenhagen is precisely why it is not a theoretical concern any more than Copenhagen is. I'm saying in order to prove reality bifurcates into magic kingdoms given any measurement even sound half baked, requires the actual existence of them empirically. If you can't prove MWI is what is going on what is the point of it? At least Copenhagen is honest and says there is no classical description of what is going on. Unfortunately MWI relies on maths as proof like String "theory" neither of which are actually scientifically testable.

MWI claims to be local and non hidden, something I dispute because basically they can't prove it. So in effect since the realities are hidden from scrutiny and locally undetectable, the theory is neither. In fact it's a complete non sequitur really if something exists then it could be this way but we can never know it does is all very well if you are doodling nonsense maths while waiting for CERN to fire up but it is unlikely to win you a Nobel Prize, thank Christ.

[Calrid]

Dude, the way you talk about this stuff is just even more proof that you don't know what it means.

I don't have to prove Many Worlds any more than you have to prove Copenhagen. You're the one claiming Bell proved it wrong, and then backing down on that, so I've already won. That makes you (tee hee) the LOSER.

I never said that and despite you being asked to point out where I did, you have as yet not done so.

[Moreno]

Probably the quintessential argument against QM in general is the well known double slit experiment.

To be fussy, the experiment is not an argument.

QM's explanation effort toward that experiment can't avoid magical or mystical properties such as a particle being in two locations at once.

That's not really the main explanation.

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".

And your explanation of the results of the double slit experiment is?

[Flannel Jesus]

I never said that and despite you being asked to point out where I did, you have as yet not done so.

Jesus you're so inconsistent you can't even keep straight what it is you did and didn't say.

"The Bell's-Aspect experiment shows that any deterministic local model will not explain quantum mechanics phenomena."
You brought this up in the context of a discussion of Many Worlds and Determinism. I don't know why you even brought it up if you didn't think it refuted Many Worlds. Are you now saying that you were just making irrelevant posts? Those are the two options: you were making irrelevant posts or you were making incorrect posts. Which one is it? I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were saying something actually relevant, but if after all this time you're going to say that you were just saying nonsense, I can accept that.

[Calrid]

I never said that and despite you being asked to point out where I did, you have as yet not done so.

Jesus you're so inconsistent you can't even keep straight what it is you did and didn't say.

"The Bell's-Aspect experiment shows that any deterministic local model will not explain quantum mechanics phenomena."
You brought this up in the context of a discussion of Many Worlds and Determinism. I don't know why you even brought it up if you didn't think it refuted Many Worlds. Are you now saying that you were just making irrelevant posts? Those are the two options: you were making irrelevant posts or you were making incorrect posts. Which one is it? I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were saying something actually relevant, but if after all this time you're going to say that you were just saying nonsense, I can accept that.

Yeah the key there is to understand what I am saying. The experiment disputes many worlds only in the sense that you can't experimentally verify local hidden natures of postulates. That was the point I was making, if you could say that all possible outcomes actually do happen and show them all happening then it would disprove the assertions made by the experiment, but it can't so it doesn't so its useless. In fact because of the spin relationship formed by entangled photons only a probability of an outcome is possible, this isn't hard to understand it just requires basic maths.

"No local hidden variable theory can explain the Aspect experiments."

Since MWI claims it can make a logical argument not an experimental one the point still stands. No local... Note the use of theory (in science this means empirically verified). I haven't proved MWI is wrong, what I have done is much worse, I have proved it is not even wrong.

[Flannel Jesus]

Oh boy, you're still saying it disputes many worlds, and at the same time trying to say that you were never using it to argue against many worlds. Facepalm. You're not an expert, you're not even an amateur yet. You don't know enough about the status quo to defend the status quo. You can't even argue consistently. You don't get it.

[Calrid]

Oh boy, you're still saying it disputes many worlds, and at the same time trying to say that you were never using it to argue against many worlds. Facepalm. You're not an expert, you're not even an amateur yet. You don't know enough about the status quo to defend the status quo. You can't even argue consistently. You don't get it.

Yes it disputes it, no it does not disprove it, that's not what I said, the semantics are vital. It only says that MWI is not even wrong, for it to be wrong it would need to be tested.

Calrid: Bells-Aspect experiment proves that there are no local hidden variables.
Calrid: Bells-Aspect experiment disproves Many Worlds.

I never said that.

Me or any scientist for that matter who claims he can prove something does not exist is shooting himself in the foot.

http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_The ... y_Math.htm

Read this it requires a school education to understand it. It has been proven in experiment.

We're done! We have proved the main component of Bell's Theorem: that the predictions of any Hidden Variables theory (1/3 or greater) are incompatible with the predictions of Quantum Mechanics (1/4). Bell does not tell us whether it is Quantum Mechanics or Hidden Variables which is correct - in fact they could both be wrong. But they cannot both be right. That didn't hurt, did it?

Perhaps if you had read this link you would not of claimed what I said as being proof of the lack of existence?

After Bell

So the last step is one you can see coming: perform an EXPERIMENT that tests the above; then see if the results are closer to QM's prediction of .250 or to the Local Hidden Variables scenario (i.e. at least .333). They cannot both be right. If they are NOT in accordance with the .333 prediction, then our initial assumption above - that A, B and C exist simultaneously - must be WRONG. Please recall: a single counter-example is sufficient to disprove any theory, and this forms the basis of our conclusion.

The results: Experiments support the predictions of QM. The measured value for the matches at 120 degrees is very nearly .250 just as QM predicts. As a practical matter, the experiments are set up differently than described here; and a different version of Bell's Inequality - called the CHSH Inequality - is what is actually analyzed. See these actual experiments, which seem to defy common sense! See also Aspect's 1981 work (4), which is considered definitive. This result means that our seemingly reasonable assumption (that there are simultaneous Hidden Variables) that we started with in a. above is invalid. This is easily explained in QM because QM says that particle attributes only exist within the context of an actual measurement. Therefore, we must conclude that the moon is NOT there when we are not looking at it (so to speak). This is the end result of Bell's Theorem.

Please note that there is a way out of this seemingly impossible scenario, but the loophole may be difficult to swallow: if Einstein's Relativity is wrong, and the speed of light is NOT a limit for propagation of cause and effect (which is called "signal locality"), then that would give us a way out of the situation. Theoretically, there could exist non-local hidden variables (Bohm outlined such a theory, for example). But regardless, the net effect of Bell's Theorem is profound. Reality is somehow dependent upon how we observe it.

Incidentally since that article was written almost all of the loopholes have been closed, but new ones keep popping up.

[Flannel Jesus]

"The classic "Bell's Theorem" of Clauser, Holt, Shimony and Horne tells us that we must give up at least one of: (1) objective reality (aka "hidden variables"); (2) locality; or (3) time-forwards macroscopic statistics (aka "causality"). The orthodox Copenhagen version of physics gives up the first. The many-worlds theory of Everett and Wheeler gives up the second."

http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1234

Bell's theorem does not disprove, dispute, undermine, or in any way challenge Many Worlds. Many Worlds works with Bell's Theorem as much as anything else.

[Calrid]

"The classic "Bell's Theorem" of Clauser, Holt, Shimony and Horne tells us that we must give up at least one of: (1) objective reality (aka "hidden variables"); (2) locality; or (3) time-forwards macroscopic statistics (aka "causality"). The orthodox Copenhagen version of physics gives up the first. The many-worlds theory of Everett and Wheeler gives up the second."

http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1234

Bell's theorem does not disprove, dispute, undermine, or in any way challenge Many Worlds. Many Worlds works with Bell's Theorem as much as anything else.

It does though doesn't it because it can't be tested. Do you see Bell's doesn't just imply that local hidden variable theories and non local theories can't both be true, it implies any testable local theory has yet to show that Bells theorem is wrong in any known experiment, hence it is not even wrong. What is right is simply as stated on that link:

No physical theory of local Hidden Variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of Quantum Mechanics.

So MWI is not a local hidden variable theory or that statement is false, and I can tell you that it isn't as far as we know.

So we can't say no local hidden variable hypothesis exists, but we can say no theory does as yet.