Incredibly huge inconsistency of modern physics

TheAdversary said:
At the lowest microcosmic level, our description of nature requires probability distribution functions.
Click to expand...
Still not correct, TheAdversary. Some interpretations of QM require probability distribution functions. Some interpretations of QM do not require probability distribution functions
No part of QM has any "employment of wave or at least wave-like models".
Conjugate variables exist. A fantasy about "probability is conserved" has nothing to do with them.
The rest of the post is fairly incoherent and need rewriting.
 
'No part of QM has any "employment of wave or at least wave-like models".'

This is obviously ridiculous.

'Conjugate variables exist. A fantasy about "probability is conserved" has nothing to do with them.'

If probability is not conserved between conjugate variables, invariance doesn't hold. This means the total amount of a conserved quantity can change.
Notice problem with change of conserved quantity? Nothing to do with it? THIS IS THE REASON THE UNCERTAINTY RELATION IS BETWEEN THE CONJUGATE VARIABLES!!!

'The rest of the post is fairly incoherent and need rewriting.'

Your ignorance of a theory doesn't imply its falsity.
 
'Some interpretations of QM require probability distribution functions. Some interpretations of QM do not require probability distribution functions.'

Then show me an 'interpretation' of QM that doesn't use PDFs and manages to not violate Occam's Razor, for all we can actually measure.
For example, why is the Heliocentric theory superior to the Geocentric? The Geocentric model can be made to comply to observation; So what's the difference?
Occam's Razor. The Heliocentric theory is vastly simpler. And if there are two theories that can make exactly the same predictions but one is simpler than the other,
common sense dictates that we should pick the simpler one. (Personally, I believe Occam's Razor is fundamental to nature; Simplicity; But this idea will of course lead to
the greatest philosophical paradox : Why is there then anything at all? That would be the simplest, right?)
Those hidden variable theories all either 1. don't work 2. have to postulate all sorts of redundant **** in the zone where you can't measure anything. You might as well
be postulating Angels, then.
 
TheAdversary said:
'Some interpretations of QM require probability distribution functions. Some interpretations of QM do not require probability distribution functions.'
Click to expand...
Interpretations of quantum mechanics
The interpretations with hidden variable work as well as any other QM interpretation - "No empirical evidence exists that distinguishes among these interpretations."
Many-worlds interpretation does not require probability distribution functions.

FYI: Occam's Razor. You may also want look up the meaning of the word interpretation.
 
Last edited:
Science facts for you :

Maxwell's equations describe electromagnetic waves with wave lengths.
A photon is the quantum of electromagnetic waves. (Wrong. Photon doesn't exist in Maxwell. QED required.)
Thus photons have wavelengths. (Conclusion doesn't follow, unless QED unnecessary.)

Logic fact for you :

This conclusion doesn't follow. I already explained this. If this conclusion would follow, Quantum Electro Dynamics wouldn't have to be worked out in the first place.
And the fact that it did and was necessary proofs that your logic cannot follow, unless you want to maintain that QED was misguided and we didn't need it in the first place.
 
TheAdversary: Cite the "employment of wave or at least wave-like models" in QM

TheAdversary said:
This is obviously ridiculous.
Click to expand...
The sentence
TheAdversary said:
The employment of wave or at least wave-like models accomplishes many things at the same time/is a very optimized solution.
Click to expand...
is obviously ridiculous or at worst gibberish.
23 November 2015 TheAdversary: Cite the "employment of wave or at least wave-like models" in QM from the scientific literature.
This "employment" accomplishes what many things at the same time according to the scientific literature, TheAdversary?
Optimized according to what scientific literature, TheAdversary?

Conjugate variables exist. A fantasy about "probability is conserved or "probability is not conserved between conjugate variables" has nothing to do with them. Repeating what looks like a fantasy does not make it science, TheAdversary. The inability to write an version of your idea that other people can understand emphasizes that it is a fantasy.
 
TheAdversary: Do you deny that photons are the quantum of EM waves

TheAdversary said:
Logic fact for you
Click to expand...
The physical, scientific facts remain
  1. Electromagnetic waves (Maxwell's equations) came before photons.
    Maxwell's equations do not include photons :eye-poppi!
  2. Then along came Planck, Einstein, etc. who proposed that electromagnetic waves come in quanta that are called photons. In order to be the quantum of electromagnetic waves, photons have the property of wavelength.
    This was proposed in 1905. QED was created about 60 years later :eek:!
  3. Thus photons have wavelengths.
23 November 2015 TheAdversary: Do you deny that Electromagnetic waves (Maxwell's equations) came before photons?
23 November 2015 TheAdversary: Do you deny that photons are the quantum of EM waves as established by Maxwell's equations and so need the property of wavelength?
Photon
A photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation. It is the force carrier for the electromagnetic force, even when static via virtual photons.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
The physical, scientific facts remain
  1. Electromagnetic waves (Maxwell's equations) came before photons.
    Maxwell's equations do not include photons :eye-poppi!
  2. Then along came Planck, Einstein, etc. who proposed that electromagnetic waves come in quanta that are called photons. In order to be the quantum of electromagnetic waves, photons have the property of wavelength.
    This was proposed in 1905. QED was created about 60 years later :eek:!
  3. Thus photons have wavelengths.
23 November 2015 TheAdversary: Do you deny that Electromagnetic waves (Maxwell's equations) came before photons?
23 November 2015 TheAdversary: Do you deny that photons are the quantum of EM waves as established by Maxwell's equations and so need the property of wavelength?
Photon
Click to expand...

Comments made by TheAdversary are all over the map. Disconnected statements about probability conservation, thermodynamics denial, Occam's razor, photon waves before QED, interpretations of QM, etc., etc. Oh -- and, of course, hyperreal numbers! What is his point? Other than demonstrating a dissonant grasp of physics vocabulary, no coherent information or theory has been offered.
Is there some central point to all this that all of us have missed? If so, this would be a good time to present it (whatever it is) in a succinct manner. Go for it -- TheAdversary.
 
Last edited:
'Cite the "employment of wave or at least wave-like models" in QM from the scientific literature.'

I randomly opened Lectures on Physics part III. Only a couple of sentences until the words 'amplitude' and 'frequency' were mentioned. At this point,
I think you just absolutely, positively, want me to be wrong, no matter what.

'This "employment" accomplishes what many things at the same time according to the scientific literature, TheAdversary?'

I guess I could start a rant again about simplicity, or quote Feynman again on 'how much can be explained from so little'.

'The inability to write an version of your idea that other people can understand emphasizes that it is a fantasy.'

I'm not going to reiterate the importance of conservation laws. If you have not understood that, you've not understood anything about nature at all despite all your
mathematical prowess; That's pointless and meaningless then. Your inability to grasp basic physics principles in spite of all your education emphasises that I don't
have to worry too much about your inability to grasp my ideas.
 
'Is there some central point to all this that all of us have missed? If so, this would be a good time to present it (whatever it is) in a succinct manner.
Go for it -- TheAdversary.'

Ultimately, that even the most rigorous and archetypical of the sciences, physics, has become infested by pseudo scientific tendencies. If these are the physicists of the future,
mankind is not going to be able to maintain its present state of technological development in the long run.
 
TheAdversary said:
'Is there some central point to all this that all of us have missed? If so, this would be a good time to present it (whatever it is) in a succinct manner.
Go for it -- TheAdversary.'

Ultimately, that even the most rigorous and archetypical of the sciences, physics, has become infested by pseudo scientific tendencies. If these are the physicists of the future,
mankind is not going to be able to maintain its present state of technological development in the long run.
Click to expand...

OK, now we have something to discuss. What is your evidence for this accusation that physics "has become infested by pseudo scientific tendencies."
Could you provide an example or two of this infestation? Keep it simple; my background is in mathematics. Physics is a kind of hobby.
 
Last edited:
TheAdversary: Please cite the scientific literature on "conservation of probability"

TheAdversary said:
'Cite the "employment of wave or at least wave-like models" in QM from the scientific literature.'
Click to expand...
Cherry picked words are not a citation.
23 November 2015 TheAdversary: Cite the "employment of wave or at least wave-like models" in QM from the scientific literature.

Avoiding questions is not answering questions:
23 November 2015 TheAdversary: This "employment" accomplishes what many things at the same time according to the scientific literature?
23 November 2015 TheAdversary: Optimized according to what scientific literature?

Repeating a fantasy about "conservation of probability" from 19 November 2015 (or maybe before?) is not an answer. Nor is insults. I am fully capable of understanding a clear explanation of this "conservation of probability".
23 November 2015 TheAdversary: Please cite the scientific literature on this "conservation of probability", e.g. in QM.
 
TheAdversary: Please link to your examples of and evidence for pseudo science

TheAdversary said:
As for the pseudo science, I've provided ample evidence for this in this thread, for those who have eyes to see.
Click to expand...
This is pseudoscience
Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method.[1][2] A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.[3]
Click to expand...
That would be something like homeopathy, the electric comet idea (where comets are rocks), Scientology, Velikovskism, etc.
So an easy question for you to answer.
23 November 2015 TheAdversary: Please link to your examples of and evidence for pseudo science in this thread.

ETA: Actually that may be impossible for you to do because the word "pseudo" first appears in your infested by pseudo scientific tendencies post with no evidence :p!
 
Last edited:
'Cherry picked words are not a citation.'

Pick up any book on QM, it's gonna be about waves. Like when you pick up any book from the Bible, it's gonna be about God. It comes with the territory :)

'Avoiding questions is not answering questions.'

It's a statement on elegance and simplicity. QM might be complicated, but I'm quite sure it's actually the simplest possible solution. Try to find a simpler theory
that explains as much.

'Please cite the scientific literature on this "conservation of probability", e.g. in QM.'

http://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node127.html

You're obviously violating basic principles of reason and common sense!
 
Pseudo science is anything that claims it is a science yet requires an a priory assumption; You know, an assumption that's true 'just because'. No matter how subtle, or hidden
by layers of sciency sounding math. I'll detect it.
Also, not everything needs to be a science; Music isn't, and Love. It needs to claim the authority of science undeservedly.
 
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