• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged I killed Duality and Uncertainty for a Theory of Everything

pittsburghjoe said:
No, that's how it would be if observation wasn't in place. It hints at god that wanted life to be a thing so it created spacetime(observed).





Unobserved Quantum waves are not physical. Maybe you are thinking of mechanical waves. I killed duality.
Click to expand...

Facts not in evidence.
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
yet 99.99999999999% of the observable universe does not have life and we've only observed the bare surface and thus by your theory no chemical or nuclear reactions can take place there as it is unobserved.

Alternatively, you are wrong.
Click to expand...

There would be 0 life if spacetime wasn't around.


If their paths show they are to collide they will be physical while traveling from point A to B

Matter waves decohere at the drop of a hat.
 
Last edited:
Math is the language of physics; where is the math in this thread supposedly proving whatever?
 
My OP was edited for copying my own theory from another website ..is that really what Rule #4 is for?


Give me a symbol for observation. You don't need math to point out the bridge between the two theories.
 
Last edited:
pittsburghjoe said:
My OP was edited for copying my own theory from another website ..is that really what Rule #4 is for?
Click to expand...
Yes, basically.


Give me a symbol for observation. You don't need math to point out the bridge between the two theories.
Click to expand...
When the two theories are mathematical in nature, yes, you do need to provide a mathematical bridge. Anything else is just word games and a source of confusion and obfuscation.


ETA: it is a real shame that LaTeX used to work but hasn't been fixed for years. This is an instance where it would be invaluable to aid in discussion.
 
Last edited:
pittsburghjoe said:
Right ::rolls eyes::

spam you happen not to be able to refute
Click to expand...

Gratuitous assertions can be gratuitously rejected.

We can see what you posted. That doesn't infer that you're the author of the material and it doesn't mean that by asserting "You killed duality" you have done so.

The very fact that you've posted this material here and there on the 'net without running it through peer-review doesn't speak well of you or your theory.
 
pittsburghjoe said:
The Observer Effect...
Click to expand...
These are assertions unsupported by evidence, physics or mathematics, pittsburghjoe.

The post is also wrong.
The uncertainty principle is "Delta x Delta p >= h-bar/2". This is a derivation from QM and easily understood even using classical physics - see Heisenberg's microscope

We do have empirical evidence of particles acting as waves. There is the well known, textbook experiment of sending individual electrons toward a screen with silt and a detecting screen behind it. If they were particle then we would see two lines build up. What we see is an interference pattern.

The "final panel of an experiment" does count as an observation. The double-slit experiment using individual electrons has many observations of each electron hitting the detector screen. The final observation is whenever the researcher decides to stop the experiment!

"well, duh" - two objects just hitting each other will exchange momentum! Heisenberg's microscope and the uncertainty principle is that this exchange of momentum will change the position of the object.

This is the delayed choice quantum eraser. Not really anything to do with a vague "entire life of both entangled particles is known" phase. The delayed choice quantum eraser does not measure the entire life of any particles. The experiment of Kim et al. (1999)[ has multiple paths for the light and 4 detectors.
 
pittsburghjoe said:
spam you happen not to be able to refute
Click to expand...
There is nothing to refute, pittsburghjoe. Vague unsupported assertions are not science. When they also show ignorance about textbook physics there is no need to refute them. They are obviously wrong.

Wave/particle duality is confirmed by the single particle double slit experiments which are described in that Wikipedia article. Individual photons, electrons, atoms and even some molecules passed thru double slits act as waves, not particles. The first electron experiment was done in 1973.
 
First, everything I've said is supported by evidence.

I didn't include the ">" on purpose because it was describing an equation that uses observed particles.

The only thing that matters for my theory is what state a particle is in during its flight.

okay, momentum, whatever

both particles lives are known because the first particle tells us if the second one will ever be observed.
 
I've updated my theory for this forum. What do I have to do to get an admin to reinstate my OP? This is ridiculous.
 
What does your theory predict for the single electron double slit experiment

pittsburghjoe said:
First, everything I've said is supported by evidence. ...
Click to expand...
That is a fantasy until you supply the evidence, pittsburghjoe. For example, we have physical evidence that wave/particle duality exists. What is your physical evidence that wave/particle duality does not exist?

A possible fantasy about a "theory".
The language of science is mathematics. A scientific theory contains mathematics that gives the fundament property of a scientific theory - the production of testable, falsifiable predictions. The only mathematics you have given is your "Delta x Delta p = h-bar/2" equation appearing out of thin air! No derivation looks like the ignorance of just dropping a ">" from the uncertainty principle because you imagine that is whatever you think "observed particles" do.

The uncertainty principle in QM is "Delta x Delta p >= h-bar/2". This has a derivation using mathematics and physics from observed particles and their observed properties. That is what a scientific theory does.

If you do have a scientific theory, you should able to answer a question.
6 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: What does your theory predict for the single electron double slit experiment?
Once again: The single particle double slit experiment (single elections passing through double slits build up an interference pattern as if they were waves)
 
pittsburghjoe said:
Unobserved Quantum waves are not physical. Maybe you are thinking of mechanical waves. I killed duality.
Click to expand...
Simply saying something doesn't make it so.

Again, what definition of 'physical' are you using here?

Show me how you are deriving the conclusion that quantum waves are not physical.
 
pittsburghjoe said:
I've updated my theory for this forum. What do I have to do to get an admin to reinstate my OP? This is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Forums have rules that users accept when they join. A usual one is that a large amount of material that is available elsewhere should not be copy and pasted into a post. The OP will not be reinstated with presumably a large part of your web site.

if the OP test copied from your web site has changed then you should write a post explaining the change, not an admin. Or simply link to your web site. For example this is a link to physical evidence for wave/particle duality in the double slit experiment.

ETA: The OP has a link to what looks like the source of the OP - another forum. Unfortunately "pittsburghjoe" at that forum makes more invalid, unsupported assertions, e.g. "Time doesn't pass in a black hole (past the event horizon) because unobserved quantum waves don't use time". Black holes are generally the domain of GR, not QM, and GR states that time passes as normal inside the event horizon. "Quantum waves' do use time because they are waves (waves waving is what they do!).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom