Jump to content
Science Forums

7 Reasons To Abandon Quantum Mechanics-And Embrace This New Theory


andrewgray
 Share

Recommended Posts

JT8,  By "Venn Diagram Paradox", I assume you are referring to the Bell Inequality Venn diagram, like seen in this YouTube video:

Bell1.png

Well, let's consider Alain Aspect's dual polarizer experiment along with this video and see how far we get!!!

At the 10:36 mark (10 minutes, 36 seconds), the author of the video says:

Bell2.png

He says, "Suppose we take a particle in the state X and subject it to an experiment with two possible outcomes..."

Wrong!  Sound the ERROR Bell instead of J.S.Bell!  (Pun intended)!

https://modelofreality.org//WrongBuzzer.mp3

JT8, Like I have been trying to tell you over and over,  THERE ARE NO LIGHT PARTICLES!

So this is the incorrect assumption that I have been talking about.  If there are no light particles, then there is no silly "particle-X-subject-to-2-outcome-test-a" assumption.  If there are no light particles, YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS ASSUMPTION!   And thus there is NO BELL APPLICATION TO REALITY WHATSOEVER!  YOU ARE APPLYING THE BELL INEQUALITY TO MYTHOLOGY!  (Hey that alliterates!)  Not only that.  If you actually read these Alain-Aspect style dual polarizer experiments... 25% (YES I SAID 25%) of the outcomes of these experiments are what they call "error pulses" and they are simply not counted... real data that disagrees that is just thrown away, even though it clearly shows that there are more than the two possible outcomes! (Some of the ANALOG, NON-QUANTIZED EM pulses can be circularly polarized and go just 1/2-way through in a random direction!)   25%!  Confirmation Bias data removal!  Look at it hard, JT8!

JT8, this Bell-Inequality-No-Local-Reality stuff is really dumb!  You dumb physicists are going to have to give it up!

 

Now come on, JT8.  the electron "observer effect" is still there with real, "non-wave" electrons!  "Come ON!"...  If you put an electron detector right near the filament of the electron microscope that is doing the electron interference pattern, YOU WILL STILL MESS UP THE INTERFERENCE PATTERN.  You do not need any silly QM theory to know that your detectors will influence the experimental outcome!  Again, NO QM Mythology needed here, JT8!  Give it up I say!

 

Quote

...you’re still not explaining what most organisms on this planet with large brains have developed these organs (eyes) for and you haven’t explained what is waving

And we are back to sophisticated eyes having a WAVE stimulate their optic nerve instead of "fauxton particles"!  JT8, a WAVE can stimulate something, believe me!  How about that 2004 WAVE in the Indian Ocean that killed 250,000 people!  Those people did not experience any "WATER-ON" particles!  How dumb would that be!  JT8, THIS IS THE SAME DUMBNESS WITH YOU CLAIMING IT TAKEs LIGHT PARTICLES TO STIMULATE A RETINA.  JT8, a light WAVE can stimulate the retina!  The oscillating EM wave can make the electrons in the retina move up and down which sends a message to the brain via the optic nerve.   And "what is waving?"  Again, the electric force is waving.  JT8, accelerated charges generate transverse electric force waves that really stimulate things!

 

JT8, From Wikipedia:

Quote

Retrocausality, or backwards causation, is a concept of cause and effect in which an effect precedes its cause in time and so a later event affects an earlier one.[1][2]

JT8,  all I can say to this is "SHEESH, YOU PHYSICISTS ARE GETTING EVEN DUMBER THAN I THOUGHT!"

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited by andrewgray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ancel, the electrons, or even the nuclei of element 115 are entangled at any distance. They measured that if this effect is not instant (at any distance) then it must be at least 10,000 times faster than light. Forget the velocity of an electron, how many times does the nucleus of element 115 oscillate? It’s really quite slow compared to electricity, yet protons and neutrons in it are still entangled instantly. So it’s either a super position, or it’s retrocausality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JT8,

So now we are talking about entangled electron spin?  Oh boy does that really give me an opening! Thanks!  So let's review:

1.  You make an assumption.

2. You test the assumption with experiment.

3. Suppose you get a contradiction.

4. Then you throw out your initial assumption...   You do not keep your contradiction!

 

OK.

1. Assumption: the electron has an angular momentum of  electronL.png

2: Experiment: Electron scattering experiments show that the electron is smaller than electronR.png

3. Contradiction:  An object this small with this mass cannot possess this much angular momentum!  The most it can possess is if the surface of the electron were moving at the speed of light, or:

mrc.png

4.  This is a contradiction by a  factor of 200,000!   So we throw it away!   We throw out the electron spin angular momentum assumption, we DO NOT keep the electron spin angular momentum contradiction like my stupid graduate QM book does (and I quote!)  "electron spin is not something spinning"  ...

How stupid is that???  Real stupid... that's how stupid.  So JT8,  "electron spin" is mythology, so "entangled electron spin" is "double mythology".  Any angular momentum associated with the electron is orbital angular momentum.  No "fudge factor" gyromagnetic ratios are needed ( yes, they fudged that factor of 2 to make QM spin seem to work out! ).

Finally, JT8, the EPR paradox experiments were attemted with light ("fauxtons") instead of particles because one cannot directly measure the angular momentum of a charged particle.  Thus, your claim that element 115 nuclei have "entangled spins" is nonsense.

JT8, "retrocausality" is nonsense.  Just the fact that this concept exists tells me that modern physics is in a Deep Dark Age.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

PS. And while we are on the subject of "angular momentum contradictions", we simply cannot resist talking about "black hole angular momentum".  Black holes, which supposedly have shrunk to just a point, are claimed to possess spin angular momentum.  This again is a contradiction and it is stupid not to throw away this contradiction.  "The spin angular momentum of a point" is a moronic oxymoron.  This moronic oxymoron is just the same as claiming that the electron is a "point particle" that possesses spin angular momentum.  Dumb!

 

Edited by andrewgray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2022 at 12:41 PM, andrewgray said:

.  Thus, your claim that element 115 nuclei

Ancel; .

Protons can be entangled and have been. A neutron and a neutron can also be entangled. Their opposing angular momentum have been measured to have real quantifiable spin in the Stern-Gerlach experiment (1921).

Opposing spin has been shown in all particles experimented on to be causally related ftl when more massive the particle accelerators the slower than light they spin or travel when released as a wave. All of them seem to be able to give off photons when excited or annihilated or fused or in the case of fission.

Edited by JeffreysTubes8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JT8,

Well, you cannot measure the spin angular momentum of a charged particle with a Stern Gerlach apparatus because the charged particle would simply spiral around the magnetic field lines, like this:

 

Stern8.gif

So you cannot measure the spin angular momentum of a nucleus or a proton with the Stern Gerlach apparatus because they won't go through!

A neutron, however, will go through a Stern Gerlach apparatus!  But the neutron detector on the output depends on secondary proton collisions to detect neutrons.  So the detector would miss lots of neutron events, making the correlated "entanglement" data useless.

And finally, the electron is 200,000 times too small to have  its  claimed angular momentum so an EPR experiment with electrons is just as  useless.

In short, "fauxton" experiments  are really  your only EPR experiment option.  But "fauxton" EPR experiments lead to Bell's Contradiction, so we throw out the "fauxton" assumption ( see rule below, so "fauxtons" do not exist).

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

1.  You make an assumption.

2. You test the assumption with experiment.

3. Suppose you get a contradiction.

4. Then you throw out your initial assumption...   You do not keep your contradiction!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...