Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Ethernos D Grace, Jan 31, 2022.
What “link”? According to QM there is no link between detection of one particle and the next.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Are you totaly nuts ?
We dont know, you dont know, he dont know, she dont know, it dont know...
It is too much to underdstand ?
But we DO know. QM says there is no “link” between one detection and the next, and we know QM works, i.e. correctly predicts what we should observe, every time it has been put to the test.
So YOU need to explain on what grounds you think, contrary to QM, there is a link between one detection and the next, such that changing screens each time would break this “link” and give different results. So far you have not been able to offer one word of a rationale for this supposition.
You are like some free energy crank, demanding that we build some contraption he claims breaks the laws of thermodynamics. Well sorry but no. These laws are known to work. So the onus is on the person who claims otherwise to make his case, not for science to waste time on wild goose chases.
Again : Whats the use to only do experiments you are totaly sure of ?
You can not learn anything if you think like this (you already know all... ???)
Let do as before when physicists did real experimenting : Try something foolish (who know who is the real fool here ?) sometime (based on some foolish or wrong thinking...why not).
Just as we need to try the experiment with different screens, so we need to try it while the scientists are wearing bowties.
And when it's raining.
And when Jupiter aligns with Mars.
I mean, we should certainly be spending our money on doing foolish experiments.
Bingo! It’s a waste of time. Which is why we don’t do them.
Instead we do experiments for which we do NOT know the outcome.
But, as I have told you before several times now, if you think there is a reason why changing the screen might make a difference, explain your reason and convince us it is worthwhile to do the experiment. If you can’t come up with a reason, well, we all have better things to do with our time.
You have better things to do with your time.... (and our money)
You mean your method actualy permit science to add new knowledge since 100 years ?
What a joke !
For the third time, what reason do you have to think changing the screen between detection events might alter the outcome? Because QM says it won’t.
For the last time.
I dont know.
But "it has something to do" (in some intuitive mean of thinking without any straight reasoning... because i dont kown the result of any experience) so i need to test it.
Fine, so you have no idea, you’ve just pulled it out of your arse. That’s even more stupid than a free energy crank.
If you had a better understanding of physics you would know that you don't need to test it.
If you had better understanding of SCIENCE (so physics) you would know that NOTHING is TABOO.
When you consider something as taboo... you are dealing with religious or mysticical thougth.
Apparently, you and I are guilty of mysticical thougth. Oo-er, that sounds bad. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
We dont have the same goal.
I want the progress of science.
You want the confirmation of your ego.
And yet, you reject the idea of testing with the scientists wearing bowties, and testing when Dems versus Reps are in power.
Hear me out.
Somewhere between the obvious and the preposterous, you, Dicart have drawn a line that says "this could affect the experiment but that could not."
The question I put to you is: why do you think where you draw your line is a better then where people who have spent their careers in this field draw their line? Do you think they do so arbitrarily? Do you think they have no idea why one thing will affect the experiment and another will not? Do you think it's a guessing game?
Changing neckties does not affect QM experiments Neither does changing detector screens. The reason scientists know this is because - unlike you - they know there is no such thing as a "quantic random link" for whatever it was you made up.
It is trivially easy to say "all scientists could be wrong." Any five year old can doubt. The question is: why do you think that those who know the least, are the ones who know the most?
Really? I thought you said I was guilty of mysticical thougth. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
But enough of this tomfoolery. You are clearly an idiot. So onto The Ignore list you go.
It is amusing that you fight against this kind of thinking (it is and it is not at the same time) and at the same time you agree with the quantum mecanis interpretations (who says exactly the same).
So you are doing the same here...
But this is not a problem : When you think so it is because "you dont know".
I have already said that "i dont know".
Then, if their method is your method (experementing only what we already knows) i understand why the have spent all their career without having never found the rational explaination of quantum mecanic.
But if you think that considering something "that is and is not" at the same time, that" is falling left and right" at the same time, etc, is rational thinking, up to you.
You think they already know all ?
I am not an idiot. I am a crow.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If not i would be a human.
Only humans can be idiot, crows are "other".
Idiot/Not idiot/Other : You understand the trivalent thinking and how usefull it can be relativ to binary thinking (bad/good) ?
Furthermore, an idiot do not have some efficient strategy when in front of something unknown.
I repeat my strategy :
"It has something to do", i do some test, whatever.
You need to understand the scientific method.
It does not involve just willy-nilly picking tests at random.
That's why we don't do tests when the Dems are in power versus when the Reps are in power.
It's also why we don't do tests by swapping the screen in and out.
The missing requirement is the hypothesis. The hypothesis is the evidence that suggests there is a link that warrants experimentation.
There is no evidence that political climate has any causal effect on QM. Nor does the math suggest it.
There is no evidence that swapping screens has any causal effect on QM. Nor does the math suggest it.
Your idea would have scientists going down random rabbit holes instead of pursuing the evidence. There are innumerably more useless rabbit holes than there are useful evidenced avenues to explore.
Your idea is how we would never discover anything.
I have a hypothesis : Since 100 years nothing never permit to understand quantum mecanic.
Lets try random testing.
But they already never discovered anything !
They are already stucked in the rabbit holes (they just dont understand that this is always the same rabbit hole...)
Separate names with a comma.