explain why wave-particle duality is nonsense?

[Bishadi]

then why did you bring them up?

there are no experiments to prove them.... they are blather.

You still don't understand. You have a radical new idea.

i know, i strove to comprehend life, before putting my head into a black hole

i focus on what is of evidence, not pictures and dark matter on my face to fix the errors.

You get to lay out and perform the experiment, then other people get to replicate it. Among other things, it might save you the embarrassment of being spectacularly wrong.

i did lay it out

and in black and white

as well with scientific research and common sense to back it up.

Did einstein ever stand on a stool and bend space?

Yes, yes you did. General Relativity is all about describing how spacetime bends, and you flat-out denied that does with your "no bent space" utterance.

but space dont bend......... NO evidence, except a miragee from the starlight behind the sun/moon ecllipse...

bug said it clearly 'it's a mirageee' (obserse a highway on a hot day and watch all the bending you like)

Your every post implies that the other participants in the thread are stupid, ignorant, or deluded.

if you posting against, and have not comprehended or performed the experiment, then YOU are blathering because it hurts your feelings (nothing scientific there)

Using imagination is fine, and the well-trained imagination of an expert is a powerful thing, but if the results you get from an experiment are not the results you image, your imagination was wrong -- no ifs, ands, or buts.

So prove me wrong or go lay by your dish!


it is easy.


what is cracking me up is by comprehending colors, then you already should know the outcome; the mass is relevant


What is funny, is you think i am claiming yu are stupid, when i didn't say that but when you find out and finally put it together, you will be the only one responsibility for labeling yourself.

get a drink of some real coffee, roll up your sleaves and be the man of the hour and try using your brain for somethng other than arguing what you have not, nor cannot sustain.

i offered a method to test my claim
and science to render the concepts at each point
and even the basic common sense with 'colors' to share real world applicability

but for some reason you believe talking smack is how to get things done around here (or any science)

 

[nescafe]

there are no experiments to prove them.... they are blather.

Proof is for maths and alcoholic beverages. The important thing is that the theories that we use to explain them are well-tested and have great predictive power. The moment a better theory comes along, though, I will ditch GR and QM and not shed a tear about it. It had better be a very good theory, though -- GR and QM are marvelously accurate.

i did lay it out

and in black and white

as well with scientific research and common sense to back it up.

You certainly did not. No math, no non-gibberish descriptions of the test apparatus, setup, or expected results, no non-gibberish explanation of why your test would invalidate wave/particle duality, no citation of previous research along the same lines.

Did einstein ever stand on a stool and bend space?

If he ever stood on a stool, then yes. All matter/energy bends spacetime in the formalism of general relativity, and general relativity is astoundingly accurate.

but space dont bend......... NO evidence, except a miragee from the starlight behind the sun/moon ecllipse...

Oh, the body of evidence for general relativity (and therefore the bending of space) is huge.
The precession of the orbits of the inner solar system planets (Mercury, Venus, and Earth) Gravity Probe B, orbital decay of binary pulsar systems, GPS, the list goes on.

< vaguely personal attack-ish stuff snipped >

i offered a method to test my claim
and science to render the concepts at each point
and even the basic common sense with 'colors' to share real world applicability

Especially ironic, considering that Taarkin performed your "test" (to the degree that your descriptions were intelligible), and you immediately claimed that he was lying about the results.

Also, enjoy your suspension.

 

[Mikemcc]

if you see colors, then you dont need to do the experiment to comprehend that it is not the emitter shooting particles of photon or electron but that the recieving plate is rendering the emission upon the energy that is being exposed to it.

the 'gun' is affect the whole body of the mass exposed versus shooting point particle and that pattern that builds up from the emission will be affected by changing the matter of the detector (ie... from the particle count to the emission spectra; will be difference based on the receptor mass (the detector molecular content)

colors are simply everyday items we can decipher to prove the very point



If you can't see colors, then you must rely on a receiver that can translate the various data.

Utter drivel. Each clause of that entire post made no scientific or engineering sense. If you want to be taken even remotely seriously then you are going to have to make this a LOT easier to read.

If you have a theory, lay it out in mathematical terms. Make a prediction and quantify it. You don't need to do more than that, others can determine experiments to test the prediction.

If you can't or won't do that, then you are a waffling fool.

 

[dafydd]

What in the nine rings of the infernal planes makes you think RussDill is picking a fight with you? He simply asked a very intelligent and pertinent question. Are you going to answer it or not?

No.

 

[dafydd]

Also, enjoy your suspension.

Well deserved.I've sailed a bit close to the wind myself in this thread,but people like Bishadi bring out the worst in me.Sorry.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Howdy all, I've been gone a couple of days.

What did I miss?

ETA: Did Bishadi at one point seriously state that spacetime curvature (via GR) could be explained by an optical mirage (i.e. refraction of light)? Wow...

And what's with Taarkin performing a test of Bishadi's claims? Did Bishadi bother to test the claim himself?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Howdy all, I've been gone a couple of days.

What did I miss?

ETA: Did Bishadi at one point seriously state that spacetime curvature (via GR) could be explained by an optical mirage (i.e. refraction of light)? Wow...

And what's with Taarkin performing a test of Bishadi's claims? Did Bishadi bother to test the claim himself?

Well, it's been all busy, busy, busy while you've been away. Taarkin carried out Bishadi's experiment and found zero evidence of the mysterious effect Bishadi insisted would be obvious, so now Bishadi thinks the only possible explanation is that the reported result is a lie, since it's utterly impossible that his unspecified and unquantified effect might not exist.

Other than that, not much. You know - same old same old.

ETA: No. Bishadi displays no intention of ever performing his experiment.

 

[nescafe]

Howdy all, I've been gone a couple of days.

What did I miss?

Not much.

ETA: Did Bishadi at one point seriously state that spacetime curvature (via GR) could be explained by an optical mirage (i.e. refraction of light)? Wow...

Maybe. That is the straight reading of his claims. I have no idea if that is what he means, though -- clear explanation seems to be beneath him.

And what's with Taarkin performing a test of Bishadi's claims?

As best as his claims can be deciphered, yes.

himself[/I]?

Bwahahahaha!

 

[Rocko]

It think the most satisfying answer I ever received is as follows.

If you didn't know what a lion was you might be told that it is the colour of honey and makes a roaring sound like a motorcycle. That doesn't mean that a lion is a motorcycle made from honey, only that the thing that you're unfamiliar with, the lion has some limited number of properties you'd recognize from two things you presumably are familiar with, honey and motorcycles.

Similarly that light isn't exactly a wave, nor is it exactly a particle. It's light. However it has certain properties that are the same as the properties of particles (e.g. it is emitted and absorbed in discrete quantities) and it has certain properties that are the same as wave (e.g. if can interfere constructively and destructively)

That's it. Yes Wave Packets are a more accurate description but they take a heckuva lot more explaining.

I've only a pop-science understanding of wave/particle duality, and I've just started reading this thread. But that's far and away the most lovely explanation of a bizarre concept I've ever read. Thank you.

 

[Dr.Sid]

It's not bad .. but sound of motorcycle and color of honey do not conflict in common sense .. while particle qualities and wave qualities do conflict. The question originally was 'is it particle, or wave ? Because it for sure can't be both !' .. and then we learned it surprisingly can be both, or at least have qualities of both, which indeed do contradict in common sense. We had to develop new sense.

 

[Bishadi]

Howdy all, I've been gone a couple of days.

What did I miss?

ETA: Did Bishadi at one point seriously state that spacetime curvature (via GR) could be explained by an optical mirage (i.e. refraction of light)? Wow...

ie.... a mirage is reproducible evidence to share the suns corona could cause the same effect of a bent space description.

You know the eddington experiment NEVER ONCE provided consistant evidence but i know a mirage is reproducible.

Which is better?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Which is better?

Gravitational lensing or refraction. Which fits the evidence better? Got figures?

 

[Bishadi]

Gravitational lensing or refraction. Which fits the evidence better?

a prism is lensing (even shift, 'the red out')

can you show gravity lensing on this earth?

i already shared to you how to bend light (per se) with a miragee (like bugs bunny said; it's a mirageeee!)

wiki......A mirage is a naturally occurring optical phenomenon in which light rays are bent to produce a displaced image of distant objects or the sky. The word comes to English via the French mirage, from the Latin mirare, meaning "to look at, to wonder at". This is the same root as for "mirror" and "to admire".

In contrast to a hallucination, a mirage is a real optical phenomenon which can be captured on camera, since light rays actually are refracted to form the false image at the observer's location



you must be liking the hallucinations..........."dude the space is bending, man"

Got figures?

sure, i can perform, you like to adher to beliefs.


.


next

 

[aleCcowaN]

i already shared to you how to bend light (per se) with a miragee (like bugs bunny said; it's a mirageeee!)

I did! I did taw a putty nonsense ... per se

Always the same verborrhea, but no figures as none are known by you nor any of them would match the verbal nonsense anyway.

 

[Bishadi]

I did! I did taw a putty nonsense ... per se

Always the same verborrhea, but no figures as none are known by you nor any of them would match the verbal nonsense anyway.

the non-sense is the idea put to math that space bends


and evidence of a mirage shared there is no space bending in the eddington experiment to describe the star light bending around the sun.

ie... the light is passing thru the corona (heat (em) mass) and like a miragee 'bending' the light


and if you cant comprehend that, by adding evidence to increase your comprehension then math is out of your league

 

[aleCcowaN]

the non-sense is the idea put to math that space bends


and evidence of a mirage shared there is no space bending in the eddington experiment to describe the star light bending around the sun.

ie... the light is passing thru the corona (heat (em) mass) and like a miragee 'bending' the light


and if you cant comprehend that, by adding evidence to increase your comprehension then math is out of your league

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!!!!

1, 2, 4, 8, 547, i, =,

 

[nescafe]

a prism is lensing (even shift, 'the red out')

can you show gravity lensing on this earth?

i already shared to you how to bend light (per se) with a miragee (like bugs bunny said; it's a mirageeee!)

A mirage happens because light bends in the atmosphere, usually due to a boundary layer formed by a steep temperature difference.

What do you think is bending the light in space?

 

[Bishadi]

A mirage happens because light bends in the atmosphere, usually due to a boundary layer formed by a steep temperature difference.

so you do comprehend that heat and energy (em) can bend light?


Likewise, you have no evidence other than from telescope that are trying to record observations but not a single line item of respoducible evidence that 'space' bends.


Then if you covered the sun with the moon (eclipse) and the light from the star behind the sun looks like it bends, could it be from the light passing thru the corona?


yu know the answer is a YES. (as a possible, a maybe, a perhaps....... and to say NO, would be a bonafide lie.................)

What do you think is bending the light in space?

mass/energy

every star is coveying solar wind and magnetic fields and surrounded by lots of mass (non-emitting)..................

the size of the dust clouds alone are hugenormous and lots of it all over the universe.

ie.... i can build a jammer and jam most any transmitted signal within a substantial radius.......... by the 'fields'

 

[Bishadi]

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!!!!

1, 2, 4, 8, 547, i, =, [qimg]http://www.randi.org/latexrender/latex.php?%5Cint_a%5Eb%20%5C%21%20f%28x%29%20%5C,%20%5Cmathrm%7Bd%7Dx.[/qimg]

see what i mean, you forgot the 3 in your simple chain to count with.


Perhaps use your fingers and toes.

 

[Ziggurat]

a prism is lensing (even shift, 'the red out')

can you show gravity lensing on this earth?

As it turns out, yes.