Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: "Spooky" Physicists Up Close!
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Y.Porat
Aug 30, 2008, 4:10:33 AM8/30/08
to
On Aug 30, 10:57 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 29, 8:55 pm, obamas_ins...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Has anyone noticed that there is not a "belief system" on the planet,
> > past or present, more bizarre, more slavishly religious in nature than
> > that of Quantum Mechanics? Some of the stuff this crowd believes
> > rivals that of any fundamentalist preacher at a southern tent revival
> > meeting circa 1920. They're even worse than the SR gang, and that's
> > saying something.
>
> > But get this. It's safe to say that the vast majority of these
> > "brilliant" physicists who live, breath and eat SR theory, are also on
> > board with what quantum theory is also now telling us. Naturally, the
> > glaring contradiction escapes them, but that's OK. After all, like our
> > fundamentalist preacher, some things have to be taken on faith, no?
>
> > Take, for instance, quantum entanglement, wherein presumamby two
> > photons from the same source traveling through space, which are then
> > split into two separate paths of travel, they somehow maintan a
> > "mysterious" link with each other. Thus, if one of the photons is
> > altered after they are separated, such as a change in polarity, the
> > other photon "knows" this and is instantaneously altered in the same
> > fashion - no matter how far apart they are. How about a billion years
> > apart? Man, that sure beats the hell out of light speeed, now doesn't
> > it?
>
> > Even Uncle Albert called it "spooky action at a distance," so why does
> > this same crowd generally accept this crap? Maybe they're spooky
> > physicists UP CLOSE!
>
> ---------------------
> yes of course
> 'something is rotten' in the kingdom of QM!!
> i dont say anything !!! i say ** something** )
> or may be some of the basic assumption of the above experiment
> is wrong
> for instance that we deal only with two single photons ??
> or by the **statistical** system of counting or measuring
> after all no one ever took a single couple with a 'pinceta'
> or how is the possible* bias* of the to tools they use ??
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> ---------------------
> and studied it
------------------------
and if you like another skooky
or actually cheating
> On Aug 29, 8:55 pm, obamas_ins...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Has anyone noticed that there is not a "belief system" on the planet,
> > past or present, more bizarre, more slavishly religious in nature than
> > that of Quantum Mechanics? Some of the stuff this crowd believes
> > rivals that of any fundamentalist preacher at a southern tent revival
> > meeting circa 1920. They're even worse than the SR gang, and that's
> > saying something.
>
> > But get this. It's safe to say that the vast majority of these
> > "brilliant" physicists who live, breath and eat SR theory, are also on
> > board with what quantum theory is also now telling us. Naturally, the
> > glaring contradiction escapes them, but that's OK. After all, like our
> > fundamentalist preacher, some things have to be taken on faith, no?
>
> > Take, for instance, quantum entanglement, wherein presumamby two
> > photons from the same source traveling through space, which are then
> > split into two separate paths of travel, they somehow maintan a
> > "mysterious" link with each other. Thus, if one of the photons is
> > altered after they are separated, such as a change in polarity, the
> > other photon "knows" this and is instantaneously altered in the same
> > fashion - no matter how far apart they are. How about a billion years
> > apart? Man, that sure beats the hell out of light speeed, now doesn't
> > it?
>
> > Even Uncle Albert called it "spooky action at a distance," so why does
> > this same crowd generally accept this crap? Maybe they're spooky
> > physicists UP CLOSE!
>
> ---------------------
> yes of course
> 'something is rotten' in the kingdom of QM!!
> i dont say anything !!! i say ** something** )
> or may be some of the basic assumption of the above experiment
> is wrong
> for instance that we deal only with two single photons ??
> or by the **statistical** system of counting or measuring
> after all no one ever took a single couple with a 'pinceta'
> or how is the possible* bias* of the to tools they use ??
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> ---------------------
> and studied it
------------------------
and if you like another skooky
or actually cheating
take the assumption of QM that the electron is a' point particle'
i read here that Schwinger (a QM master ??)
proves that according to the field theory of QM
the electron must be a 'point particle '!!!....
so what can we do while i proved that there is nothing like
a 'point particle' in our world of physics
may be in the world of fantasy ??
in which you have a 'supermarket theory' according which
a mouse can be turned to a cat
and if disproved they will adapt it or fit it
to be the opposite possibility
just **you name it * just invite
what ever fits your current theory
the more a theory is abstract it has less chance to be wrong
but
there is a big 'but'
in that case
it becomes LESS USEFUL !!
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------
0 new messages