I learned quantum physics at university.
As did a lot of people. Which is to say, quite a lot of people make the attempt. We've been teaching it in universities for quite a number of decades. And as a result, those who teach it acquire a sixth sense for the handful of particular ways students misconceive the workings of statistical mechanics at the quantum level.
You have a blind spot when it comes to all your bluffing. You truly think you can quickly Google stuff, or rely on biased secondary-source summaries, and that no one will notice when you fall into the various pitfalls that await people just then trying to come to terms with a new topic. Or when they try to discuss it among people with more generalized understanding. These pitfalls that are well known and easily recognized by those who are conversant with the topic and in some cases were called upon to teach it.
Your "knowledge" of electromagnetic field energy comes from the anti-capitalist polemical literature. How can we tell? They make specific kinds of errors in interpreting the science. It's like a signature. Your "knowledge" of world history comes from the far-right extremum. How can we tell? They make certain assertions and misrepresentations that are also characteristic, and which you have clearly copied. No one else talks about it that way. Your "knowledge" of quantum electrodynamics comes from woo-ish pseudo-physics. How can we tell? They conceptualize it in a certain specific (wrong) way, with the desire for it to leave the door open for whatever mysterious phenomena they think they can shoehorn into it. The actual purported phenomenon varies, but you'd hardly be the first to try combine quantum mechanics and Aristotle.
Oh, sure, you've thrown out a few buzzwords, as you typically do. And you've gesticulated in a suitable manner around them, without really applying any sort of coherent understanding. And you've made an "argument" around causation that is popular among the woo authors who lament how physics spoil their fun. (Real physicists don't care.) But just as you made fundamental errors in understanding radiation, and fundamental errors in understanding genetics, you're making fundamental errors in understanding quantum mechanics -- chiefly that physics cannot know whether vacuum fluctuations are uncaused. How do we know you're making a fundamental error? Every woo author steps over this principle. And because that's where you're getting your information, it's something you evidently don't know. But it's fairly important.
Here's a tip. When someone starts talking about descriptive statistics and you say it's too laborious or uninteresting for you to pay attention to, you're going to have a really hard time convincing those same people later than you are so proficient in an esoteric field
based on statistical mechanics to be able to wave your finger and tell others it doesn't dispel your pseudo-Aristotelian theology.
Your theology is gibberish, as is your attempt to hand-wave around the science that dispels it. You still somehow think we can't tell. Baffling.
Perhaps you can take over from Pixel42 and suggest an "uncaused" effect. Show us your stuff.
Oh, look. You're frantically trying to shift the onus when cornered. What a surprise.
