You really have some nerve. I think you fail to realize a large chunk of your assertions on this website are untested and I can't say I've ever seen you provide an extensive mathematical proof of your own hand. Sorry but pasting a link doesn't count. The simple fact that you constantly degrade people with little evidence tells me you are an egomaniac with little practical knowledge yourself on these topics.

This is a funny reply to a reply to a funny reply of a member that posts internet memes as proof.

Edit: I missed a step in the chain. Fixed.

 

Sure I have some nerve not to waste time, but am I wrong? Prove I'm wrong with a an extensive mathematical proof. When the poster asserts things that don't require a extensive mathematical proof (FTL causality), why waste time with such a nonsensical misunderstanding of what something like entanglement really shows. I don't degrade all people, only the ones that IMO deserve it.

You don't get it. You have a terribly rude and egotistical attitude. If you give someone a tip, it often comes with a smack on the head as well as if they should have known better. This is not the way to teach and share information. No one deserves to be degraded in this way or at all.

As for your proofs, is that an actual challenge? I've been watching you for a while, especially your views on AI. I'm employed in AI and you recently called me a nut job for making what you perceived to be a political claim.

When in reality, the issue I raised directly affects my job and the service I produce. I was blown away by your comments because your own views are conjecture and you completely dismissed my view from someone actively employed in the industry.

In this recent encounter of ours, you took the position of an authority figure but I can't put my finger on where your authority on AI comes from. Now I see you doing the same thing about quantum mechanics. There is a pattern here.

 

You don't get it. You have a terribly rude and egotistical attitude. If you give someone a tip, it often comes with a smack on the head as well as if they should have known better. This is not the way to teach and share information. No one deserves to be degraded in this way or at all.

As for your proofs, is that an actual challenge? I've been watching you for a while, especially your views on AI. I'm employed in AI and you recently called me a nut job for making what you perceived to be a political claim.

When in reality, the issue I raised directly affects my job and the service I produce. I was blown away by your comments because your own views are conjecture and you completely dismissed my view from someone activity employed in the industry.

In this recent encounter of ours, you took the position of an authority figure but I can't put my finger on when your authority on AI comes from. Now I see you doing the same thing about quantum mechanics. There is a pattern here.

Stop being so damn sensitive about what random people post on some random website.

Post or link to the AI 'nut job' claim. I don't expect much objectivity from someone activity employed in the AI or X industry because it's their paycheck.

For QM, yes, a pattern is here, starting from years ago.
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/quantum-teleportation.84865/post-608336
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/jamming-a-signal.67923/post-469264
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/...r-than-the-speed-of-light.186645/post-1729705

 

Stop being so damn sensitive about what random people post on some random website.

Post or link to the AI 'nut job' claim. I don't expect much objectivity from someone activity employed in the AI or X industry because it's their paycheck.

For QM, yes, a pattern is here, starting from years ago.
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/quantum-teleportation.84865/post-608336
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/jamming-a-signal.67923/post-469264
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/...r-than-the-speed-of-light.186645/post-1729705

We both know this isn't the topic to further specific discussion. I called you out today specifically on being rude because I read these forums for enjoyment more than anything. Today I sat down and the first post I read was more nastiness from you. Smarten up.

 

We both know this isn't the topic to further specific discussion. I called you out today specifically on being rude because I read these forums for enjoyment more than anything. Today I sat down and the first post I read was more nastiness from you. Smarten up.

Stop being sensitive.

Called Out?

The universe is a rude place and a harsh mistress. The person my QM comments were directed to likely understands that even if we disagree.


Still waiting for that link to the 'nut job' post.

 

Stop being sensitive.

Called Out?
View attachment 322669
The universe is a rude place and a harsh mistress. Still waiting for that link to the 'nut job' post.

I don't need to repost the nutjob remark because it's spit balls vs armour plating. If I'm really going to dig into your posts, it will be to find the rude ones to make a case for the moderators to look at. I don't care to do that nor have I ever but that is what I am inclined to do. It's also misplaced to call me sensitive about this because what I'm doing now is standing up to big bully on the block. Unless TS permits it, I'm not in a position to make the discussion about anything else. I would greatly prefer for you to take this as a lesson in humanity instead of taking it to the bitter end.

 

.. to make a case for the moderators to look at.

Ut-oh. He's gonna tell on you, Spook.

Now you're really going to get it.

 

I don't need to repost the nutjob remark because it's spit balls vs armour plating. If I'm really going to dig into your posts, it will be to find the rude ones to make a case for the moderators to look at. I don't care to do that nor have I ever but that is what I am inclined to do. It's also misplaced to call me sensitive about this because what I'm doing now is standing up to big bully on the block. Unless TS permits it, I'm not in a position to make the discussion about anything else. I would greatly prefer for you to take this as a lesson in humanity instead of taking it to the bitter end.

IMO the no repost likely means I didn't say such a thing directly to you. You should see that this discussion is not about you personally and IMO you're wasting your breath defending the person it is directed to. My personal lesson in humanity was learned somewhere off the cost of Cambodia after seeing and smelling the remains of women and kids murdered for the small amount of gold they had to escape a killing fields holocaust of millions. This discussion is a trivial matter.

 

IMO the no repost likely means I didn't say such a thing directly to you. You should see that this discussion is not about you personally and IMO you're wasting your breath defending the person it is directed to. My personal lesson in humanity was learned somewhere off the cost of Cambodia after seeing and smelling the remains of women and kids murdered for the small amount of gold they had to escape a killing fields holocaust of millions. This discussion is a trivial matter.

If it's a trivial matter then you surely recognize your opinions are just as valid as the person you seek to invalidate. The topic title itself is as about as speculative as a person can get when asking a question about literally anything. Then to come at people as if they have primitive knowledge when you have not demonstrated your own expertise is a shameful display. We are talking about QM, not some simple expression consisting of integers. QM is expressed mathematically and without that inclusion as part of an argument, there is no argument. As far as philosophy goes, this is fine and dandy because this is a necessary step in the process of discovery.

The issue I consistently have with members like yourself is you take an authoritative tone on every topic. There are countless examples of folks doing that in this thread alone, not just you. Here you are talking about QM but the theory has major flaws rendering it incomplete at best. To present this stuff as law then lord over people is appalling behaviour. Am I wrong?

 

You seem to have little basic understanding of quantum mechanics with that statement. Your idea about entanglement and causality is total pseudoscience from popsci articles. Objects can be correlated over large distances but that information must be transported over that large distance classically at the speed of causality (light speed). The fact that measurements over vast distances are correlated does not imply that information is transmitted between the particles.

Where did I say information was transported faster than the speed of light? I also did qualify my claim with "I'm not very skilled at quantum mechanics" did I not?

One thing is clear though, you have little basic understanding of colonialism and the history of Israel and the neo-Zionism Jew supremacist ideology that underpins its society. Your ideas about that are pseudopolitics from popnews TV news stations like FOX and NEWSMAX.

 

If it's a trivial matter then you surely recognize your opinions are just as valid as the person you seek to invalidate. The topic title itself is as about as speculative as a person can get when asking a question about literally anything. Then to come at people as if they have primitive knowledge when you have not demonstrated your own expertise is a shameful display. We are talking about QM, not some simple expression consisting of integers. QM is expressed mathematically and without that inclusion as part of an argument, there is no argument. As far as philosophy goes, this is fine and dandy because this is a necessary step in the process of discovery.

The issue I consistently have with members like yourself is you take an authoritative tone on every topic. There are countless examples of folks doing that in this thread alone, not just you. Here you are talking about QM but the theory has major flaws rendering it incomplete at best. To present this stuff as law then lord over people is appalling behaviour. Am I wrong?

Yes, IMO you are wrong on that point. Who has every said QM is a law? I'm sure I never have nor have presented argument to that effect. I do understand the basic mathematics of the QM wave function and probability to the point I can easily detect fundamental misunderstandings of the theory at the level discussed here.
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/naked-neutron-theory.129327/post-1060931
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/naked-neutron-theory.129327/post-1060973

You really don't need to be an QM expert for that, it's only basic knowledge anyone can GROK from a lifetime of learning, step by step. The flaws in QM are not related to entanglement and how it works as proven by experiment.

You are the one lording over people by making up arguments for mathematical QM authority over points discussed at this level. You are correct that my word should not be taken as authority but you MUST have some other argument than I not an authority to invalidate what I said about QM. To do otherwise is the non-scientific, emotional babble I'm being accused of.

 

My personal lesson in humanity was learned somewhere off the cost of Cambodia after seeing and smelling the remains of women and kids murdered for the small amount of gold they had to escape a killing fields holocaust of millions.

Were you looking the other way then when the United States started "Operation barrel roll"?

Between 1964 and 1973, the Americans flew 580,000 bombing runs over Laos, according to Defense Department figures. That works out to an almost incomprehensible one planeload every eight minutes for nearly a decade. By the time of the last sortie, in April 1973, Pentagon statistics reveal, U.S. aircraft had dumped 2,093,100 tons of ordnance on the landlocked country, which is about twice the size of Pennsylvania, with a population then under 3 million. Laos to this day remains the most heavily bombed country in the history of the world — more than Japan, Germany and Britain during World War II.

What do you have to say about that? does that outrage you as much as Cambodia? So stop, please stop with the crocodile tears.

Source.

 

Laos is the ‘most bombed country’ in the world per capita, as a result of heavy aerial attacks in the 60s and 70s during the Vietnam War. Although Laos People’s Democratic Republic (PDR) is committed to removing the bombs, the scale of the problem continues to put lives at risk.

Around 20,000 people—40 per cent of them children—have been killed or injured by cluster bombs or other unexploded items in Laos since the war ended. Soy, aged six, was playing with her friends when they discovered a cluster bomb. Not knowing how dangerous it was, they started to play with it. Moments later it exploded, killing one of her friends.

Source.

 

Were you looking the other way then when the United States started "Operation barrel roll"?



What do you have to say about that? does that outrage you as much as Cambodia? So stop, please stop with the crocodile tears.

Source.

It might shock you but I mainly agree.

We bear a large degree of responsibility for that horror, so yes it does outrage me as just some guy helping to save those that escaped the war crimes (may kissinger burn in hell) of that era by the US and those the used that power vacuum created by the US to murder millions. We delivered people to the UN camps on the Thai border from boats at sea, the barbaric acts we saw on innocent people by criminals at sea after the horrors we did earlier have no excuses.

What did you do?

 

Yes, IMO you are wrong on that point. Who has every said QM is a law? I'm sure I never have nor have presented argument to that effect. I do understand the basic mathematics of the QM wave function and probability to the point I can easily detect fundamental misunderstandings of the theory at the level discussed here.
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/naked-neutron-theory.129327/post-1060931
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/naked-neutron-theory.129327/post-1060973

You really don't need to be an QM expert for that, it's only basic knowledge anyone can GROK from a lifetime of learning, step by step. The flaws in QM are not related to entanglement and how it works as proven by experiment.

You are the one lording over people by making up arguments for mathematical QM authority over points discussed at this level. You are correct that my word should not be taken as authority but you MUST have some other argument than I not an authority to invalidate what I said about QM. To do otherwise is the non-scientific, emotional babble I'm being accused of.

This started by you telling a guy he doesn't know what he is talking about and your only citation was a Forbes article. The point I'm trying to make is none of us here are really in a position to have an informed opinion about QM. There may be one or two but those people are anomalies. The rest of us are talking science not conducting science. And those who are in the lab doing QM experiments pretty much say they don't know what the hell is going on. To make it worse, those experiments have a tiny sample size and are limited in context.

Second to the religious, my pet peeve is seeing people use science in this way as a means to win an argument. It goes back to the question: Are you conducting a QM experiment or involved in research? If the answer is no, you are just another random person like the rest of us. Not only do you not have the figures, you probably don't understand them at the intended level. This is not meant to be an insult to anyone but a reminder of where we really are in our scientific progress.

 

This started by you telling a guy he doesn't know what he is talking about and your only citation was a Forbes article. The point I'm trying to make is none of us here are really in a position to have an informed opinion about QM. There may be one or two but those people are anomalies. The rest of us are talking science not conducting science. And those who are in the lab doing QM experiments pretty much say they don't know what the hell is going on. To make it worse, those experiments have a tiny sample size and are limited in context.

Second to the religious, my pet peeve is seeing people use science in this way as a means to win an argument. It goes back to the question: Are you conducting a QM experiment or involved in research? If the answer is no, you are just another random person like the rest of us. Not only do you not have the figures, you probably don't understand them at the intended level. This is not meant to be an insult to anyone but a reminder of where we really are in our scientific progress.

My citation was a Forbes article by this person. I would trust his article over anything the misinformed poster said or you and me for that matter.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/?sh=5d3d02a45951

I'm an Associate Professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Union College, and I write books about science for non-scientists. I have a BA in physics from Williams College and a Ph.D. in Chemical Physics from the University of Maryland, College Park (studying laser cooling at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the lab of Bill Phillips, who shared the 1997 Nobel in Physics). I was a post-doc at Yale, and have been at Union since 2001.

What is the intended level needed for telling a guy he doesn't know what he is talking about, when a uneducated hillbilly like me can see how wrong the poster was, and then can easily cite a guy that's not a uneducated hillbilly to show how wrong the poster was. Quantum Mechanics is not magic. Since when do you need to be a researcher to understand the applied science of QM? Quantum mechanics is often referred to as one of the most precisely tested theories in the history of science, so yes I'm a believer in the probabilistic and non-probabilistic predictions of QM. It does this while being a incomplete theory of everything. Researchers are looking a those incomplete boundaries but the rest of us mere mortals simply use what works.

All of atomic theory, solid state physics, and elementary particle theory is based on QM.

If you deal with semiconductor device production processes at the hardware engineering level for the last 30 plus years, that uses solid state physics (matter, energy interactions at the atomic level with industrial particle accelerators or with most devices that modify devices lattice structures) then you use applied QM daily and study the research literature in your field and basic science in general. This allows a person to make IMO informed statements about the basics tenets of QM that have been tested experimentally for many decades.

When was the last time you investigated channeling effects on transistors at 3Mev due to variations in UH vacuum? Talked about corrections for device intrinsic crystalline silicon junction shifts, band gaps due to charging effects of strain dopants or surface gate voltage effects in a two-dimensional semiconductor material? A basic understanding of QM gives some direction for possible device defect or yield countermeasures.

 

Where did I say information was transported faster than the speed of light?

Here:

An event could take place here and completely determine some state a billion light years away and instantly too.

No, entanglement does work that way. The measurement does not affect the entangled particle in any way. It merely allows us to know the outcome of a possible measurement on the entangled particle.

 

My citation was a Forbes article by this person. I would trust his article over anything the misinformed poster said or you and me for that matter.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/?sh=5d3d02a45951


What is the intended level needed for telling a guy he doesn't know what he is talking about, when a uneducated hillbilly like me can see how wrong the poster was, and then can easily cite a guy that's not a uneducated hillbilly to show how wrong the poster was. Quantum Mechanics is not magic. Since when do you need to be a researcher to understand the applied science of QM? Quantum mechanics is often referred to as one of the most precisely tested theories in the history of science, so yes I'm a believer in the probabilistic and non-probabilistic predictions of QM. It does this while being a incomplete theory of everything. Researchers are looking a those incomplete boundaries but the rest of us mere mortals simply use what works.

All of atomic theory, solid state physics, and elementary particle theory is based on QM.

If you deal with semiconductor device production processes at the hardware engineering level for the last 30 plus years, that uses solid state physics (matter, energy interactions at the atomic level with industrial particle accelerators or with most devices that modify devices lattice structures) then you use applied QM daily and study the research literature in your field and basic science in general. This allows a person to make IMO informed statements about the basics tenets of QM that have been tested experimentally for many decades.

When was the last time you investigated channeling effects on transistors at 3Mev due to variations in UH vacuum? Talked about corrections for device intrinsic crystalline silicon junction shifts, band gaps due to charging effects of strain dopants or surface gate voltage effects in a two-dimensional semiconductor material? A basic understanding of QM gives some direction for possible device defect or yield countermeasures.

I'm not disputing the usefulness for QM as a paradigm. As for being a "theory of everything", I find the evidence entirely insufficient. One of the things I really like about computer science is looking at the computational complexity of a problem as well as defining computation itself. I've become fascinated by the different classes of computational problems which seem to exist as well as problems which do not seem to be described by computation such as the notion of "free will" or consciousness.

Insofar building circuits is a class of problems, QM is an extremely effective theory. But outside of optoelectronics, how useful is QM for anything? Moreover, I argue the persistent interest in refining useful technologies is what gives us confidence these theorems are correct. But the fact remains, QM is largely incompatible with the macroscopic world. If one is to praise what QM has given us, one must admit it is a specific set of answers to a specific set of problems.

As I remarked a few times now, I see people use QM as a basis to put forth metaphysical claims which in my mind have not be demonstrated to be correlated at any level in society. This is particularly common with reductionist arguments against notions of free will. They say things like "if you could go back in time, you would do the exact same thing". But by the rules of QM, such a statement is not provable (or even really suggestible) nor can we go back in time to begin with to conduct such an experiment. Another common correlation is to multiverse theory. Here we go from quantum states of an isolated system to all the universe itself! Not only is the data extrapolated to the extreme, it is inflated to include everything in existence. This is a huge computational problem which is nicely swept under the carpet by physicists and engineers.

We are dancing around the fact that QM does very little in actually describing the phenomena we encounter in this thing we call the universe. Furthermore, the computational complexity associated with actually number crunching an answer is mind boggling. It seems to me QM boils down to a nice heuristic. The equations themselves make reference to a sort of statistics that is entirely random or unknowable under the paradigm of trying to "measure" something. This becomes especially salient for applying QM to things like the "size" of the universe because the computation involved is practically infinite and inaccessible. Schrodinger himself noted there were big problems with his formulations. As far as I can tell, little progress has been made because little progress can be made.

 

As far as I can tell, little progress has been made because little progress can be made.

It's all a matter of perspective, in my opinion.

I'd say rather that enormous progress has been made if you consider the scale of history. And I'm sure that far more progress will be made once we learn more about the universe and its behavior.

There are still quite a few questions out there that might change the destiny of our species when their answers become revealed.

 

I'm not disputing the usefulness for QM as a paradigm. As for being a "theory of everything", I find the evidence entirely insufficient. One of the things I really like about computer science is looking at the computational complexity of a problem as well as defining computation itself. I've become fascinated by the different classes of computational problems which seem to exist as well as problems which do not seem to be described by computation such as the notion of "free will" or consciousness.

Insofar building circuits is a class of problems, QM is an extremely effective theory. But outside of optoelectronics, how useful is QM for anything? Moreover, I argue the persistent interest in refining useful technologies is what gives us confidence these theorems are correct. But the fact remains, QM is largely incompatible with the macroscopic world. If one is to praise what QM has given us, one must admit it is a specific set of answers to a specific set of problems.

As I remarked a few times now, I see people use QM as a basis to put forth metaphysical claims which in my mind have not be demonstrated to be correlated at any level in society. This is particularly common with reductionist arguments against notions of free will. They say things like "if you could go back in time, you would do the exact same thing". But by the rules of QM, such a statement is not provable (or even really suggestible) nor can we go back in time to begin with to conduct such an experiment. Another common correlation is to multiverse theory. Here we go from quantum states of an isolated system to all the universe itself! Not only is the data extrapolated to the extreme, it is inflated to include everything in existence. This is a huge computational problem which is nicely swept under the carpet by physicists and engineers.

We are dancing around the fact that QM does very little in actually describing the phenomena we encounter in this thing we call the universe. Furthermore, the computational complexity associated with actually number crunching an answer is mind boggling. It seems to me QM boils down to a nice heuristic. The equations themselves make reference to a sort of statistics that is entirely random or unknowable under the paradigm of trying to "measure" something. This becomes especially salient for applying QM to things like the "size" of the universe because the computation involved is practically infinite and inaccessible. Schrodinger himself noted there were big problems with his formulations. As far as I can tell, little progress has been made because little progress can be made.

Your issues are not with QM as discussed here. You are mixing good food with IMO the spoiled and saying it's all bad.
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/beauty.150513/post-1288660


IMO you underestimate the power of QM being used in modern technology by your narrow focus on computational problems that have little effect on practical applications we use daily. QM is totally compatible with the macroscopic world that we work in because it's a theory designed to explain what we see during experiments like the double-slit. The QM happens at the two (now three)-dimensional layers of semiconductor devices on current technology devices. The semi-classical physics used for most semiconductor devices does absolutely have a quantum underpinning even if QM is not used as first principles except for designing new production tools sets that cost billions.. It's been refined to the engineering level much like classical electromagnetics has been refined to circuit theory so mere mortals can use it. A low voltage Zener or Tunnel diode can't be designed or explained precisely using classical physics because of the quantum tunnelling effects of very thin junctions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling
Silicon 'cat whisker' diodes were invented before quantum mechanics but only a QM understanding of those diodes could lead to the design of the point-contact transistor. The entire theoretical underpinnings of transistors is quantum-mechanical. All of Shockley and Bardeen's theoretical work was using quantum mechanics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_transistor

After the war, Shockley decided to attempt the building of a triode-like semiconductor device. He secured funding and lab space, and went to work on the problem with Bardeen and Brattain. John Bardeen eventually developed a new branch of quantum mechanics known as surface physics to account for the "odd" behavior they saw, and Bardeen and Walter Brattain eventually succeeded in building a working device.

Most of your QM objections are the reasons I objected strongly to the QM post about instant effects across vast distances and other such IMO nonsense. Most of the claims of people using QM as a basis to put forth metaphysical claims are from POPSCI articles of speculative physics papers, not from the physicists and engineers that use QM at some level on a daily basis. Things like multiverse theory are interpretation's used to 'explain' the source of QM probabilities that are used in calculations to predict things like magnetism in certain atomic elements that can't be explained using classical physics. The unresolved questions about how to 'interpret' quantum mechanics, details about how it relates to classical mechanics, etc ... are mainly what these speculative physics papers are about.

They are not about the math of it, how useful it is or if it can be used to make useful predictions of common material properties like magnetic properties of rare-earth metals used to explain and make the powerful magnetics of today used in things like compact, efficient motors, generators, etc ... that power our world.
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_34.html

Now that we have tried to give you a qualitative explanation of diamagnetism and paramagnetism, we must correct ourselves and say that it is not possible to understand the magnetic effects of materials in any honest way from the point of view of classical physics. Such magnetic effects are a completely quantum-mechanical phenomenon. It is, however, possible to make some phoney classical arguments and to get some idea of what is going on. We might put it this way. You can make some classical arguments and get guesses as to the behavior of the material, but these arguments are not “legal” in any sense because it is absolutely essential that quantum mechanics be involved in every one of these magnetic phenomena. On the other hand, there are situations, such as in a plasma or a region of space with many free electrons, where the electrons do obey the laws of classical mechanics. And in those circumstances, some of the theorems from classical magnetism are worthwhile. Also, the classical arguments are of some value for historical reasons. The first few times that people were able to guess at the meaning and behavior of magnetic materials, they used classical arguments. Finally, as we have already illustrated, classical mechanics can give us some useful guesses as to what might happen—even though the really honest way to study this subject would be to learn quantum mechanics first and then to understand the magnetism in terms of quantum mechanics.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.03455
Quantum Theory of Rare-Earth Magnets

Modern permanent magnets are the consequences of the fine combination of various magnetic and nonmagnetic materials, as well as micro-, macro-, and metallographic structures.1) Thus, quantum theory tells only part of the story of rare-earth magnets. Nevertheless, since magnetism is one of
the most prominent manifestations of the quantal nature of electrons,2) quantum theory must be a key player in studying permanent magnet materials. In this review, we will concentrate mostly on the electronic and magnetic properties of single crystals of rare-earth magnet materials, discussing some
selected topics that may be essential in terms of developing permanent magnets.

QM, as poorly presented in most mass media, usually defines quantum mechanical systems as infinitely small objects but leaves out the fact that everything is made from quantum sized objects and the QM effects can be designed scale up with those objects.
Superconducting magnets with masses of many tons only function because they are in a macroscopic quantum state. The superconducting wires only function because they are in a macroscopic quantum state.