Quantum Mechanics and a Century of lies. How Nonsense has Triumphed in our Education system

Armchair Activist

Well-known member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
2,083
As you read this post, consider the possibility that you are not reading this post. Imagine that there are many realities where new worlds are created in parallel, that each action has alternative actions. Although this mind experiment defies all known logic its whats been taught in some of the worlds top universities like Stanford as science.

Beautiful equations are termed such because their values are natural numbers (close to 1) as opposed to been fine tuned (very small or very large numbers).. The pursuit of beauty in mathematics has determined much of our understanding (or misunderstanding ) of nature, the universe etc.

Theoretical physicists, have described new realities to fit this pursuit of beauty. They claim something without mass or size like an electron can exist as matter and waves (a non entity deemed a duality) despite the inability to observe or isolate it. Neutrinos, quarks, gluons, photons and many other sub atomic particles all fall into this category,

From some basic research I've concluded what my bullsh*t meter was already telling me.. these so called intellectual elites are scam artists who baffle people with abstract mathematics and vritual reality. Young minds dont stand a chance. and so the cult of quantum is growing.


Here are some quotes the Gods of quantum said (quite likely in their sober state which makes it worse) I'll let you decide.

“Where common sense and intuition failed, we (the relativists) had to create a new form of intuition based upon abstract (idea only/not physical) uncommon sense...". -Leonard Susskind

"everything we call real must be made up of things which must not be real" - Neils Bohr.
"the more you see how strange nature behaves the harder it is for us to make a model to explain how the simplest of phenomenon works. theoretical physics has giving up on this pursuit" - Richard Feynman

Throughout the thread I've presented the work of Ken Wheeler whose expertise in ancient Platonic logic gives us clear rational argument and explanation. Obviously his approach to common sense conflicts with absolute nonsense our universities and colleges are pushing on people untrained in critical thinking. Tongue twisters and double speak have become the norm.

The only beauty I see is in their own destruction as they attempt to explain simplex phenomenon for which they do not know whilst ammeter scientists may well do. Peer review is a joke, which involves nothing but mutual back scratching.

Sadly too many people cannot think and depend on so called experts for opinion on just about everything.
 
Last edited:


blinding

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
19,322
Sabine Hossenfelder has an ability to make her videos feel longer than they are . I don’t mean this in a bad way . I have watched some of her other Videos and they are the same . She is able to do something with time in her videos .

Sean Carrol is very good and I thinks he has been on 3 maybe 4 Joe Rogan conversations . All very good . Sean Carroll also has many other good videos on the internet .

We are very lucky to be able to watch this stuff .

In another Universe I am Einstein and in another Newton etc etc etc .
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
49,580
As you read this post, consider the possibility that you are not reading this post. Imagine that there are many realities where new worlds are created in parallel, that each action has alternative actions. Although this mind experiment defies all known logic its whats been taught in some of the worlds top universities like Stanford as science.

Beautiful equations are termed such because their values are natural numbers (close to 1) as opposed to been fine tuned (very small or very large numbers).. The pursuit of beauty in mathematics has determined much of our understanding (or misunderstanding ) of nature, the universe etc.

Theoretical physicists, have described new realities to fit this pursuit of beauty. They claim something without mass or size like an electron can exist as matter despite the inability to observe or isolate it. Neutrinos, quarks, gluons, photons and many other sub atomic particles all fall into this category,



Good old William of Ockham and his Razor "Entities should not be multiplied without necessity" always seemed to me to rule out Everett's Many Worlds on purely philosophical grounds,, and there are other theories which may work as well.

But I can see where Many Worlds fit nicely into pop culture.

It is approaching a century of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, and maybe it is time something better came along. It would have to be good, though. "Copenhagen" may be just Instrumental, but it works, it gives the right answers. And these tiny electronic devices we depend so much upon are based very much on its veracity.
 

Armchair Activist

Well-known member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
2,083
Sean Carrol is very good and I thinks he has been on 3 maybe 4 Joe Rogan conversations . All very good . Sean Carroll also has many other good videos on the internet .
The point I was trying to make in this post is if the 'many worlds' theory and others like it in quantum mechanics are just outright delusions if not lies.

It has serious consequences for the future of science and education, even society at large.

For example I cannot go before a judge on murder charges and claim 'the real me' didnt do it your honour, "many worlds".

Allot of this is pop science because it sells books to people who are otherwise clueless about nature. I'm unsure about quantum mechanics and its contribution to technological development... much of the theoretical physics comes from the 19th and early 20th century. (Maxwell, Heaviside etc.) .

Theoria Apophasis. does a good show on youtube.

 

Armchair Activist

Well-known member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
2,083
It is approaching a century of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, and maybe it is time something better came along. It would have to be good, though. "Copenhagen" may be just Instrumental, but it works, it gives the right answers. And these tiny electronic devices we depend so much upon are based very much on its veracity.
Many people swallow every word these quantum scientists say without stopping to ask themsevles if it falls into real logic or not.

you might like this guy Ken Wheeler aka Theoria Apophasis.. without him I wouldn't have heard of James Clerk Maxwell or Oliver Heaviside.. true greats of theoretical physiscs and electrical theory. I'd like to hear your opinion

 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
49,580
Many people swallow every word these quantum scientists say without stopping to ask themsevles if it falls into real logic or not.

you might like this guy Ken Wheeler aka Theoria Apophasis.. without him I wouldn't have heard of James Clerk Maxwell or Oliver Heaviside.. true greats of theoretical physiscs and electrical theory. I'd like to hear your opinion

No, I listened until about halfway, and then decided that was enough. Looked the guy up on the internet, and he appears to be an acknowledged expert on photography. That is fine, but I think his science idiosyncratic and tending towards the fringe.

The guy who (literally) wrote the book on the modern Theory of Light (Quantum ElectroDynamics, or QED) was Richard Feynman, usually considered the greatest 20th century physicist after Einstein (arguably). Luckily, he was a legendary communicator of science, and some videos of him are on the net.

He published some lectures in book form as "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter". I found this on the web, which I will watch myself

 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
49,580
In his QED book, Feynman claims that QED (not his theory alone, by the way - he shared the Nobel Prize) delivers the most accurate numerical predictions of any theory, confirmed by experiment.

Which is what the Copenhagen Interpretation does - agrees with experimental results. And there is a whole science of photonics that depends on the photon (or quantum) interpretation of light to design devices like lasers, fibre-optic cables, photo-multipliers, CC TV and photodiodes. It cannot be overthrown lightly.
 

recedite

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
2,204
Relaxing on a hammock of a summers evening, enjoying the air on my G string.

 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
49,580
No, I listened until about halfway, and then decided that was enough. Looked the guy up on the internet, and he appears to be an acknowledged expert on photography. That is fine, but I think his science idiosyncratic and tending towards the fringe.

The guy who (literally) wrote the book on the modern Theory of Light (Quantum ElectroDynamics, or QED) was Richard Feynman, usually considered the greatest 20th century physicist after Einstein (arguably). Luckily, he was a legendary communicator of science, and some videos of him are on the net.

He published some lectures in book form as "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter". I found this on the web, which I will watch myself

I recommend the video ... around 21:00 Feynman goes into a long explanation about understanding the theory. He says "The students don't understand it, I don't understand it .... but it is the way Nature works." He says "If you can't accept it, that's too bad." You might guess he was from New York.

Quantum Mechanics is a mathematical "formalism" for describing what goes on at the sub-atomic particle level, where "Classical" physics breaks down. It is basically an accounting system, making sure everything works and is predictable. So far (afaik) no exceptions have been found where it does not work.

Newton's Theory of Gravity had mathematical equations to describe how large masses and projectiles work together. But no one knew how "Gravity" worked .. what was the essence of Gravity? Why did such a force exist? Einstein, of course, answered that with General Relativity, and we know now there are no space and time, but space-time, and matter warps space-time to create the effect called Gravity.

General Relativity was able to make predictions that Newton's Theory could not (e.g. time dilation near large masses). No such Theory has been yet found that could generalise Quantum Mechanics and make verifiable predictions. Perhaps one does not exist. Many for looked for "hidden variables" in the theory, but if they are there, they are very complex.
 
Last edited:

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
49,580
Great Thread, but to quote Feynman again "No one understands Quantum Mechanics".
 

Ardillaun

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
12,452
Quantum mechanics sounds absurd but the size of the particles and waves in question is equally so. Why wouldn’t they defy common sense? Science enables us to understand entities that are way beyond our little house of human experience.
 

blinding

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
19,322
Quantum mechanics sounds absurd but the size of the particles and waves in question is equally so. Why wouldn’t they defy common sense? Science enables us to understand entities that are way beyond our little house of human experience.
Life is tough for the small . Thats why they have to be ingenious .
 

blinding

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
19,322
It could be that unluckily for us , that we are in the Universe of the Dumb ! ! !

Just think that all or nearly all those other Universes are smarter than ours ! ! !
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
33,758
Quantum mechanics sounds absurd but the size of the particles and waves in question is equally so. Why wouldn’t they defy common sense? Science enables us to understand entities that are way beyond our little house of human experience.
Took a year of quantum theory over 40 years ago, mostly remember it being heavy on maths and applying to very small particles. I had no concept of how small these particles were until a guy described an electron in an atom as being comparable to a tennis ball bouncing around a cathedral. What really killed my interest in physics was the previous year's course when the lecturer described particles so small that they could only be detected when the got close to the speed of light and their mass increased enough. I knew then that engineering was the right choice. :) :)
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
49,580
Quantum mechanics sounds absurd but the size of the particles and waves in question is equally so. Why wouldn’t they defy common sense? Science enables us to understand entities that are way beyond our little house of human experience.
Exactly.

At the other end of the size continuum, Supermassive Black Holes are equally un-common-sensical and much more terrifying.

Luckily, humans evolved where the laws of nature unfold with identifiable regularity and within safe bounds - a small planet, orbiting a moderately-sized star, not too close, not too distant, not too close to the galactic centre. Let's make the best of it, with the wonderful scientific tools we have developed.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
49,580
Took a year of quantum theory over 40 years ago, mostly remember it being heavy on maths and applying to very small particles. I had no concept of how small these particles were until a guy described an electron in an atom as being comparable to a tennis ball bouncing around a cathedral. What really killed my interest in physics was the previous year's course when the lecturer described particles so small that they could only be detected when the got close to the speed of light and their mass increased enough. I knew then that engineering was the right choice. :) :)
Richard Feynman would say "Just shut up, and and do the calculations". :)

Einstein hated that Quantum Mechanics seemed to be just a mathematical formalism with no deep insights. To him, it was like Claudius Ptolemy's mechanical system of epicycles describing planetary motion - just a bunch of fancy wheels. In the video, Feynman is asked if he "likes" it that QM uses probability. He just shrugs it off. It is not a matter of liking, or not liking, for him.

He does say that sometime in the future, maybe an overarching theory will throw up QM as a special case, and explain everything. He adds that a wide variety of theories have been tested, and any eventual one will be very complicated.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top