Quantum Mechanics Deniers

Scientific reason for sacred geometry
YouTube&feature=related

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, it is hard to believe in something one knows nothing about.

you seem to have no trouble with that.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
you seem to have no trouble with that.

Ha ha.

"Our original Buddha-Nature is in highest truth devoid of any atom of objectivity. It is void, omnipresent, silent, pure; it is glorious and mysterious peaceful joy - and that is all. Enter deeply into it by awakening to it yourself. That which is before you (awareness) is it, in all it's fullness, utterly complete. There is naught beside."

Huang Po.

Is there a problem with causality and quantum mechanics. I had problem with probability and its axioms ,untill someone told me i had to treat axiomatic probability the same as axiomatic geometrty. will someone enlighten me if there is a problem with causality and quantum mechanics.

Originally posted by kaminsky
Is there a problem with causality and quantum mechanics. I had problem with probability and its axioms ,untill someone told me i had to treat axiomatic probability the same as axiomatic geometrty. will someone enlighten me if there is a problem with causality and quantum mechanics.

There is a problem with determinism and quantum mechanics. QM is probabilistic - we can't predict outcomes with certainty at the atomic level; the strange part is that it is apparently impossible in principle to do so.

For example, we can set up experiments with two entangled atoms, A and B; if we measure the spin of A, then B will invariably have the opposite spin if measured at any time after that. This holds regardless of the distance between the atoms (so long as nothing else has interfered). But we have no idea which one will have which spin until we measure one or the other.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
There is a problem with determinism and quantum mechanics. QM is probabilistic - we can't predict outcomes with certainty at the atomic level; the strange part is that it is apparently impossible in principle to do so.

For example, we can set up experiments with two entangled atoms, A and B; if we measure the spin of A, then B will invariably h ...[text shortened]... erfered). But we have no idea which one will have which spin until we measure one or the other.

Albert Einstein did not believe in Quantum Mechanics.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Albert Einstein did not believe in Quantum Mechanics.

Says who? He made a key contribution to QM theory in his paper on light quanta. From that came the idea of light as particles [photons] where it was previously thought of as only waves.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Says who? He made a key contribution to QM theory in his paper on light quanta. From that came the idea of light as particles [photons] where it was previously thought of as only waves.

Einstein’s two most memorable phrases perfectly capture the weirdness of quantum mechanics. “I cannot believe that God plays dice with the universe” expressed his disbelief that randomness in quantum physics was genuine and impervious to any causal explanation. “Spooky action at a distance” referred to the fact that quantum physics seems to allow influences to travel faster than the speed of light. This was, of course, disturbing to Einstein, whose theory of relativity prohibited any such superluminal propagation.

http://thediagonal.com/tag/einstein/

P.S. And he did not believe in the uncertainty principle.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Originally posted by RJHinds
Einstein’s two most memorable phrases perfectly capture the weirdness of quantum mechanics. “I cannot believe that God plays dice with the universe” expressed his disbelief that randomness in quantum physics was genuine and impervious to any causal explanation. “Spooky action at a distance” referred to the fact that quantum physics seems to allow influences ...[text shortened]... believe in the uncertainty principle.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Never trust a website that tells you there are only two things about QM that seem weird. 🙂

Neither of Einstein's statements should be taken as a denial of QM. The first is merely debating interpretations of QM. In the second, there is no conflict with relativity, because no particle or wave or information is propagating faster than light. If entanglement actually contradicted relativity, Einstein would have used a stronger word than 'spooky'.

For more about Einstein's battles with the Copenhagen interpretation, see:

http://www.imamu.edu.sa/Scientific_selections/abstracts/Physics/Einstein%20interpretation%20of%20quantum%20mechanics.pdf

Originally posted by RJHinds
Einstein’s two most memorable phrases perfectly capture the weirdness of quantum mechanics. “I cannot believe that God plays dice with the universe” expressed his disbelief that randomness in quantum physics was genuine and impervious to any causal explanation. “Spooky action at a distance” referred to the fact that quantum physics seems to allow influences ...[text shortened]... believe in the uncertainty principle.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

As for the Uncertainty Principle, I'll let Feynman weigh in.

The Uncertainty Principle was a warning to people of the time that 'your Classical ideas are no damn good here' ... if you simply draw amplitude arrows, you don't need an Uncertainty Principle!
(paraphrased)

Originally posted by SwissGambit
There is a problem with determinism and quantum mechanics. QM is probabilistic - we can't predict outcomes with certainty at the atomic level; the strange part is that it is apparently impossible in principle to do so.

For example, we can set up experiments with two entangled atoms, A and B; if we measure the spin of A, then B will invariably h ...[text shortened]... erfered). But we have no idea which one will have which spin until we measure one or the other.

I know that what you have described has been proved experimentally ,whats interesting is that there exists an instant (faster than light) communication between the two particles.

are the two particles communicating (for want of a better word) or are they part of one system.

Originally posted by kaminsky
I know that what you have described has been proved experimentally ,whats interesting is that there exists an instant (faster than light) communication between the two particles.

But is it really communication? That's the rub.