Search results

Sure you can. Point at the sky, the ground. Even a cell. How you partition that object determines if you could find one trillion there. Anywhere you point in nature, you will not find even -1.

And where do I say they aren't useful? Thats the supposition that you make. Infact, negative numbers and imaginary ones can be quite beautiful in describing nature. Take the euler's formula. It's a very self evident proof. Anyone in basic level mechanical engineering classes will be able to...

Of course you can, but you can not describe negative numbers with real world. Concepts are more flexible than nature, and that is why you must be careful with them.

Existing in nature is my criteria for something being real, yes. Call me crazy for that all you want. I can believe in all of those numbers as human concepts, because that is what they are.

I've met professors at every end of the spectrum from full on hate QM more than me to how dare you defile my temple of worship. There are grave concerns in QM, and its important for anyone who appreciates the math to understand what those grave concerns are and why. Taking the stance that its...

Dont listen, chip! Quarterbacks can carry teams just like in college. Who needs any of those other pleb players.

progress from quantum entanglement? I'm still waiting for someone to show me where its been proven as true.

The most interesting thing about your augment is that you are are arguing against proven theory and I am arguing for it. Entanglement has not been proven by scientific standards. I taught you that microwaves are a light, perhaps I can educate you a bit on a polarizer. You can make a very...

I assumed you guys knew how double slit experiments work specifically in regards to quantum entanglement when I made that statement. I realize now that this was very wrong for me to do. So I'll explain some basics. What is a polarizer, it is basically a series of lines that breaks up light...

Or malus's law. What a bizarre coincidence that it exactly follows malus's law. Of course a classical explination for quantum phenomenom is unacceptable, so there's a renamed 'quantum malus's law' to explain it in quantum terms.

Okay. That doesn't change the fact that field theory ignores the laws of physics. This is well established and an accepted problem by quantum mechanics itself, it is the reason the theories I have problem with were developed. The only issue we are arguing over is the why it violates these laws...

light and microwaves are both electromagnetic radiation. The only difference is frequency. They are both governed by the exact same equations, and they both do the exact same things.

That is what the uncertainy principle says, and it is what I disagree with.

It's clever that this experiment is done with microwaves, lots of people don't see stuff so they don't believe it. It's two cancelling snell's equations that explains why light passes through when there's two blocks. The form of them is this. Y is 45 and a is one in this equation. If you knew b...

He is correct though. Randomness is because we don't know or control all variables. Take a coin flip. Just flip a coin and it seems random. Build a machine to flip the coin the same way in the same environment every time, and something that was random becomes controllable. What Rhuma is arguing...

It makes it way different. Earth works how earth works, not how venus works. Either way, I'm against global warming because I'm against making grand sweeping statements that are unjustified. If they get proven wrong, It is generally conductive to a political climate that is generally...

It is, thats why I established the roots of both those subjects outside of QM multiple times previously. My problem isn't with subjects that QM was later put over. It is mostly with subjects that QM has created. I've explained this repeatedly throughout my posts.

How quickly we forget the past.

I've said repeatedly I respect particle physics and their creation of field theory, even if it later got labeled as part of quantum mechanics. I also said my respect for Lorentz as a brilliant mind, and he created a large chunk of QED, which was later refined by einstein and then finally claimed...

Correct. I believe we shouldn't pollute the shit out of our planet, but none of the global warming conspiracy theory bullshit. Feel free to come back and drop that supposed data you're hording that proves entanglement whenever you find it.

I'll use the scientific standard established for accepting theories, five standard deviations. Perfection isn't expected or required.

Even global warming tards have lots of numbers verifying the fact the planet should of melted by now. You could at least throw one experiment that 'proves' that theory my way. I decided to look at burnems cause you're playing coy, but I'll give you one too. If you really ask nice, I might...

Read their paper. They state that the experiment doesn't prove anything themselves They sure are close to proving something though, so don't forget to send that grant money.

I'm accusing entanglement of being pseudo science. Clearly when the majority of people agree with it, it makes it right. Just like global warming was proven by a majority. Who needs science or data when you have consensus!

Ok, here's your chance to shine cupcake. Link me an experiment that proves entanglement. Prove me wrong. You're the one claiming you have this data, where is it.

Yea, the universe doesn't exist unless humans enforce the rules with their god-given gaze. We found the limits of his omnipotence.

You asked a question about natural philosophy, you get a natural philosophy answer. Reading forums like this does ultimately convince me at times that QM mechanics may have it right. Perhaps humans are too stupid to ever refine their knowledge or figure out the missing variables that must be...

To say it as simply as possible. The view taken by QM is that nature can ignore the laws of physics unless humans are looking. I find this idea to be completely and self evidently absurd. The view taken by einstein, and the one I concur with is that we don't know all the functions of nature...

Why would I debunk a theory I agree with? Just because your shitty experiment has absolutely nothing to do with QT and is easily explained with classical physics doesn't mean it proves or debunks anything about it. As I said earlier in this thread, QT isn't even a Quantum mechanics theory, its...

I did. Even the towelheads figured this shit out 1000 years ago. What an embaressment that our education system now produces people that are less advanced than them.

You should watch the video, I really need you to save my e-honour.

There is so many variables that I do not know. How does the wax disperse the light, what is its refractive index, is it a polarizing force, ect. All of these are very important, all of them effect how these detectors would respond to the setup. Thats why I only predicted that the majority of the...

Everything was on the right orientation, though I understand perfectly why you are confused. I added a couple labels and how internal reflection works to make it even clearer.

It doesn't, and thats why they don't. It would if he touched, thats why he doesn't touch them.

internal reflection.

Trying to escape already? I'm not done hazing you. Here, have a picture. What happens is the light goes into the medium and it gets refracted. When the second block happens, it gets refracted back. This is how telescopes and magnifying glasses work. The reason moving the blocks appart...

This is extremely basic physics. The objects are not walls to microwave, they are mediums. All mediums have refractive indexes. If I knew the refractive index (which this experiment allows them to calculate), I could accurately predict how much light they detect. Introducing a second medium...

Quantum tunneling was a theory developed as part of nuclear physics and later claimed as part of quantum mechanics. Somehow saying it proves QM to any degree is pure ignorance and un worthy of any legitimate response. On top of that, that experiment has nothing to do with tunneling what so...

The sun shined before quantum mechanics.

I agree that I don't know and don't presume to know. That sums up my stance, and I only argue against people or theories that presume to know something that they don't. Bell's theorem has never been experimentally verified. Saying it proved anything wrong is pretty ridiculous. I'm not a fan of...