Even within so-called "quantum ensemble" interpretation, EM is both a particle & wave. Can you explain to me how energy being two very different things at the same time (or at different times, to explain away how EM travels without media) is not dualistic?
-
By using this site you agree to the terms, rules, and privacy policy.
-
Charlie's Restoration Giveaway #2 (Entire Home EMF Mitigation & Protection Along With Personal Protection) - Click Here To Enter
-
Dear Carnivore Dieters, A Muscle Meat Only Diet is Extremely Healing Because it is a Low "vitamin A" Diet. This is Why it Works so Well...
Rest the rest of this post by clicking here
-
The Forum is transitioning to a subscription-based membership model - Click Here To Read
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
A Fundamental Tenet In Quantum Physics May Be Nothing But A Scam
- Thread starter haidut
- Start date
Even within so-called "quantum ensemble" interpretation, EM is both a particle & wave. Can you explain to me how energy being two very different things at the same time (or at different times, to explain away how EM travels without media) is not dualistic?
@haidut Thank you for your never ending curiosity and sharing in this forums. Now, I must say I am truly impressed by you mentioning David Bohm (guess this kind of thing only shows the high quality of this forum).
I am always surprised by the connections that end up happening. Possibly the best teacher I had, my high school Geography (went far and beyond that, dealing with ethics, geopolitics, economics) teacher Dr. Tobyanne Berenberg, introduced us in one of her last classes with us to David Bohm. And I must say his thought seems very similar to Ray Peat's as it regards taking a Holistic vs Reductionist approach. The Peat perspective of understanding health and life as a complete system stands in stark contrast to the modern medicine approach of "fixing" some specific chemical pathway and hoping for the best.
Bit of a rant but was glad to be remembered of her as I think her teaching made me much more receptive than I would be to thinkers questioning the mainstream such as RP. Always leading us to question everything and go deeper and deeper and look into history to understand how we got to today.
I am always surprised by the connections that end up happening. Possibly the best teacher I had, my high school Geography (went far and beyond that, dealing with ethics, geopolitics, economics) teacher Dr. Tobyanne Berenberg, introduced us in one of her last classes with us to David Bohm. And I must say his thought seems very similar to Ray Peat's as it regards taking a Holistic vs Reductionist approach. The Peat perspective of understanding health and life as a complete system stands in stark contrast to the modern medicine approach of "fixing" some specific chemical pathway and hoping for the best.
Bit of a rant but was glad to be remembered of her as I think her teaching made me much more receptive than I would be to thinkers questioning the mainstream such as RP. Always leading us to question everything and go deeper and deeper and look into history to understand how we got to today.
Nothing is happening "at the same time". It's a relationship. A semiotic. A process of communication.
It's like Whitehead's "misplaced concreteness" and the "fallacy of simple location". The relational is "primary" (not the right word; I can't think of the right way to say it).
The analogy in biology would be symbiogenesis. It's the dialogical urge that drives nature, not the monological.
Or you could just do this -- -- and forget about all the Hegelian double speak / claims of quantum eerieness? I would like to hear reactions/criticism of this if anyone has the inclination.
Possibly related: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1302/1302.6159.pdf and
Possibly related: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1302/1302.6159.pdf and
It has nothing to do with "Hegelian double speak".
Try looking at what some of original QM physicists said themselves. All Schrodinger (Eddington, too?) said was that QM raised questions. They never saw QM as a be-all/end-all scientific statement. They asserted that the questions raised by QM were not capable of being answered with the whole set of assumptions that gave rise to the theory.
When people point to the incompetencies and fraudulence of today's science, it's worthy of attention because they are pointing to symptoms of a real problem. But what exactly is the problem?
The problem is the limitations of science today. It's a big problem but not the kind that necessitates tying oneself into knots and agonizing over frauds, hoaxes and conspiracies.
The limitations center around the need to privilege naturalistic standards of validity over against any other standard. A good example would be dismissing philosophy as "double speak". That's the view of someone wearing concrete shoes and thinking he's a world class sprinter.
Science will live on but not if it doesn't survive scientism.
Try looking at what some of original QM physicists said themselves. All Schrodinger (Eddington, too?) said was that QM raised questions. They never saw QM as a be-all/end-all scientific statement. They asserted that the questions raised by QM were not capable of being answered with the whole set of assumptions that gave rise to the theory.
When people point to the incompetencies and fraudulence of today's science, it's worthy of attention because they are pointing to symptoms of a real problem. But what exactly is the problem?
The problem is the limitations of science today. It's a big problem but not the kind that necessitates tying oneself into knots and agonizing over frauds, hoaxes and conspiracies.
The limitations center around the need to privilege naturalistic standards of validity over against any other standard. A good example would be dismissing philosophy as "double speak". That's the view of someone wearing concrete shoes and thinking he's a world class sprinter.
Science will live on but not if it doesn't survive scientism.
Owen B, you seem offended. But it also seems you didn't watch the video.
You also don't seem to know what I mean by Hegelian double speak. (Hint: I am not referring to 'philosophy' as double speak.).
So nice rant, but it misses the point. Unfortunetately the point, in this case, may be that the quasi-mystical conception that you (and many physicists today) share isn't actually necessary. That there is a simpler explanation. I can understand you being butthurt if you are, indeed, committed to the idea that you have a superior understanding of these concepts we are told are soooo soo hard to understand... if it turns out that has been a lot of pseudo-Daoist theatre.
If you can refute something in the presentation, that would be a useful rebuttal.
Most of the leading lights have gone much further. The typical claim is that QM is irreconcilably weird.
For those who think I am exaggerating this 'mystical' reaction ("It's the dialogical urge that drives nature, not the monological.") to QM and the "you can't possibly understand this" attitude of most physics today, see https://www.amazon.com/Tao-Physics-Exploration-Parallels-Mysticism/dp/1590308352/ or just look directly the at the comments mainstream physicists who tell us at every opportunity that QM is mind-bendingly weird, torturing our innate notions beyond the capacity of most humans. That's why I think it's quite notable when the presenter in the linked video shows how a classical phenomenon replicates the double slit behavior that we are told is squarely in the quantum domain.
You also don't seem to know what I mean by Hegelian double speak. (Hint: I am not referring to 'philosophy' as double speak.).
So nice rant, but it misses the point. Unfortunetately the point, in this case, may be that the quasi-mystical conception that you (and many physicists today) share isn't actually necessary. That there is a simpler explanation. I can understand you being butthurt if you are, indeed, committed to the idea that you have a superior understanding of these concepts we are told are soooo soo hard to understand... if it turns out that has been a lot of pseudo-Daoist theatre.
If you can refute something in the presentation, that would be a useful rebuttal.
Most of the leading lights have gone much further. The typical claim is that QM is irreconcilably weird.
For those who think I am exaggerating this 'mystical' reaction ("It's the dialogical urge that drives nature, not the monological.") to QM and the "you can't possibly understand this" attitude of most physics today, see https://www.amazon.com/Tao-Physics-Exploration-Parallels-Mysticism/dp/1590308352/ or just look directly the at the comments mainstream physicists who tell us at every opportunity that QM is mind-bendingly weird, torturing our innate notions beyond the capacity of most humans. That's why I think it's quite notable when the presenter in the linked video shows how a classical phenomenon replicates the double slit behavior that we are told is squarely in the quantum domain.
Last edited:
OP
There is probably no need to do anything for now. It is collapsing on its own as the whole "paradigm shift" scam just doesn't cut it any more.
OP
Thanks, I will search for the video. Yeah, I actually had a few discussions with quantum physicists and asked them to explain what a "quantum wave" is. Of course, most of them immediately starting bringing up complex numbers and higher dimensions. The theory known as Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED) is perhaps the most "sane" version of physics we have today as it combines the realism of David Bohm's version of QM with a lot of what the Electric Universe Theory (EUT) folks have been talking about.
Stochastic electrodynamics - Wikipedia
@ecstatichamster , you may want to take a look at the SED link above.
Richiebogie
Member
The double slit experiment was first conducted in 1801 by Thomas Young. It demonstrated that light behaved like a wave.
It also showed that 2 waves from the one light source could interfere with each other. You could get extreme choppy areas and you could get calm areas.
Node (physics) - Wikipedia
File:Doubleslit3Dspectrum.gif - Wikipedia
It makes sense that light is a wave as light gets dimmer as the square of the distance from the source. The intensity thins out like the material of an inflating spherical balloon which gets thinner and thinner as the surface area of the sphere gets bigger. A bulb sends its light out in all directions.
In 1905 Einstein described the photoelectric effect which explained absorption spectra and emission spectra for elements and chemicals.
Einstein showed that light behaved like a particle. A photon of light could be absorbed by an element and then be emitted soon after if the frequency of the light was exactly one of many fixed frequencies for that element.
These fixed ‘quanta’ were theorised to relate to energy required to lift an electron in an atom to a higher orbit. Unlike a satellite which can be sent to any orbit, electrons were thought to have a finite number of fixed orbits that they could jump between with an exact quanta of energy.
So light came from atoms, and it’s strange blend of wave and particle behaviour was called quantum mechanics.
I expect that there have been more discoveries since 1905. Semiconductors, computer chips and solar panels may need some QM to predict their behaviour.
And any elaborate Quantum Mathematics must simplify to Classical Mechanics when scaled up.
I would think QM physicists are searching for the truth like biochemists.
It’s not as though their theories can be patented and force fed to the public to make them lots of money.
It also showed that 2 waves from the one light source could interfere with each other. You could get extreme choppy areas and you could get calm areas.
Node (physics) - Wikipedia
File:Doubleslit3Dspectrum.gif - Wikipedia
It makes sense that light is a wave as light gets dimmer as the square of the distance from the source. The intensity thins out like the material of an inflating spherical balloon which gets thinner and thinner as the surface area of the sphere gets bigger. A bulb sends its light out in all directions.
In 1905 Einstein described the photoelectric effect which explained absorption spectra and emission spectra for elements and chemicals.
Einstein showed that light behaved like a particle. A photon of light could be absorbed by an element and then be emitted soon after if the frequency of the light was exactly one of many fixed frequencies for that element.
These fixed ‘quanta’ were theorised to relate to energy required to lift an electron in an atom to a higher orbit. Unlike a satellite which can be sent to any orbit, electrons were thought to have a finite number of fixed orbits that they could jump between with an exact quanta of energy.
So light came from atoms, and it’s strange blend of wave and particle behaviour was called quantum mechanics.
I expect that there have been more discoveries since 1905. Semiconductors, computer chips and solar panels may need some QM to predict their behaviour.
And any elaborate Quantum Mathematics must simplify to Classical Mechanics when scaled up.
I would think QM physicists are searching for the truth like biochemists.
It’s not as though their theories can be patented and force fed to the public to make them lots of money.
Last edited:
I’m was confused by this statement:
The first experiment with particles (electrons) was successfully carried out in 1961 (source: Elektroneninterferenzen an mehreren künstlich hergestellten Feinspalten). But then I realized that the author is talking about Feynman’s proposed experiment where each slit has a tiny door that can be opened or closed which was not performed until fairly recently.
The first experiment with particles (electrons) was successfully carried out in 1961 (source: Elektroneninterferenzen an mehreren künstlich hergestellten Feinspalten). But then I realized that the author is talking about Feynman’s proposed experiment where each slit has a tiny door that can be opened or closed which was not performed until fairly recently.
Last edited:
EMF Mitigation - Flush Niacin - Big 5 Minerals
Similar threads
