/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12847650

23KiB, 337x500, 417fRcF08-L[1].jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Wed 17 Mar 23:48:58 2021 No.12847650 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12847662 >>12847874 >>12847909 >>12848062 >>12848147 >>12848526 >>12848647 >>12854396

Litterally a modern day aether theory. Do people actually buy this crap?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Mar 2021 23:51:07 No.12847662 Report

Quoted By: >>12848147

>>12847650
""""buy"""" what?
Do real physicists think QFT makes accurate predictions about reality?
Yes
Do real physicists believe the retarded pop-sci theories that midwits soigasm over?
Some do, some don't, the majority have a nuanced view of the field

0/10 thread. kys

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1614397566999.jpg, 142KiB, 640x960

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 00:53:45 No.12847874 Report

Quoted By:

>>12847650
Have you actually gone through Peskin&Schroeder or is this another low-effort b8?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 01:04:00 No.12847909 Report

Quoted By: >>12848073

>>12847650
what's wrong with aether?
>Einstein didn't actually get rid of the aether. He said the luminiferous aether was redundant when he was doing special relativity in 1905. But later when he was doing general relativity, he described space as an aether. See his 1920 Leyden Address. He said this:
>"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense therefore, there exists an aether."
>Also see the quote here by Nobel Prize winner Robert B Laughlin:
>"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed. The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity.
>This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum."

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 01:48:30 No.12848062 Report

Quoted By: >>12848147 >>12848494

>>12847650
No. Quantum mechanics was pulled out of schrodingers ass. He originally wrote his diff eq to describe charge density. Later he just changed it to complex probability amplitude. Neither are correct.

Bonus tip:. To solve for the time evolution of a state schrodingers equation uses columns law, which is only correct for electrostatics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 01:50:31 No.12848073 Report

Quoted By: >>12848085 >>12848252

>>12847909
everyone except you and a small number of cranks dropped aether in early 1900s late 1800s.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 01:55:39 No.12848085 Report

Quoted By: >>12848092 >>12848252

>>12848073
read the reply again, dimwit
Einstein himself reintroduced the term to refer to space endowed with physical characteristics
also, the quote by Laughlin explains exactly how "aether" is a perfect description for how physicists actually think about space
the only reason people don't use the word "aether" in physics is because of past connotations, not for its lack of descriptiveness

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 01:58:28 No.12848092 Report

Quoted By: >>12850191

>>12848085
sorry, you can't blame me for not wanting to read another apologetic on aether. maybe that proves your point though, the word has terrible connotation. Therefore it leads to confusion and probably shouldn't be used.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 02:15:01 No.12848147 Report

Quoted By: >>12848176

>>12847650
>>12847662
>>12848062

You guys know special relativity is just Doppler shift right?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 02:25:18 No.12848176 Report

Quoted By: >>12848195

>>12848147
>You guys know special relativity is just Doppler shift right?

Well, when asked what his inspiration for relativity was Einstein said it was how a clock would appear as he rode away from it on a train. What he is describing is the basis of doppler shifts. It would also solve the twin paradox since as they speed apart they both seem to age more slowly to each other, but seem to age more quickly as they approach each other. I haven't done all the derivations yet to confirm it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 02:33:09 No.12848195 Report

Quoted By: >>12848206

>>12848176
the twin paradox isn't really a paradox, its a probably that's mentioned and solved in pretty much every elementary SR treatment

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 02:40:58 No.12848206 Report

Quoted By: >>12848212

>>12848195

Ok. What I'm saying is it can also make intuitive sense when compared to doppler shift. Think about an oscillating signal as a measure of time. As objects diverge the sound is low. (Longer period shorter time). As two things converge time speeds up (shorter period after timer) when the two meet again they will be the same age because the diverging and converging have a zero sum.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 02:43:00 No.12848212 Report

Quoted By: >>12848227

>>12848206
Maybe. But doppler shifting along can't account for most phenomena in relativity. There's a reason all new theory needed to be setup for it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 02:47:31 No.12848227 Report

Quoted By: >>12848235

>>12848212
>But doppler shifting along can't account for most phenomena in relativity

Anon said special relativity for one thing. Another thing is Einsteins inspiration was just a description of a doppler shift. So what in special relativity can't be accounted for with a cleverly reinterpreted doppler shift?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 02:49:16 No.12848235 Report

Quoted By: >>12848249

>>12848227
>what in special relativity can't be accounted for with a cleverly reinterpreted doppler shift
time dilation
mass energy equivalence
velocity addition

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 02:54:24 No.12848249 Report

Quoted By: >>12848258

>>12848235
>time dilation

I thought I just went over that. Yes it can be explained by a doppler shift.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 02:55:31 No.12848252 Report

Quoted By: >>12848258

>>12848073
>>12848085
I think Newtonian physics which allowed for absolute motion can be worked on to develop a proper supplantation of relativity and qm

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 02:57:29 No.12848258 Report

Quoted By: >>12848294

>>12848249
How? I'm not sure how the fuck that is supposed to work. Link to paper?
>>12848252
quantum mechanics and relativity contain postulates that specifically contradict classical mech (and each other)

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 03:06:33 No.12848294 Report

Quoted By: >>12848335

>>12848258
>How? I'm not sure how the fuck that is supposed to work. Link to paper?

I'll go over this one more time.

Imagine time is no longer measured by clocks but sensed by a signal. That signal is 100Hz. So you know when one second passed by counting 100cycles. Now imagine someone picks up the click or signal source. As the signal source leaves at constant velocity you'll perceive a lower frequency. The frequency which was 100hz is now 80 Hz. This is a basic doppler shift. To you the source of the signal just slowed down, just like time dilation. The faster the signal source moves away the lower the frequency and as a consequence the slower time in the emitters frame seems to be relative to you. It actually very simple. In fact I was reading one day the inspiration for Einsteins though experiment on special relativity and immediately noticed he was just reinventing a doppler shift. It's very simple logic, and if you just don't get it or refuse to see it keep it to your damn self, because this is literally the 3rd time I've explained this. If you have a counter example or derivative present it or shut the fuck up

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 03:18:01 No.12848335 Report

Quoted By: >>12848344

>>12848294
Not that anon.
How does your doppler """"""idea"""""" work for general relativity?
Special relativity is just a special case of genreral relativity (when there is no acceleration/gravity).
If you had two clocks, one at the top of a mountain, and one at sea level, they would be at rest relative to each other. Yet the effects of the miniscule difference in gravity will cause a miniscule discrepancy in time.
They are at rest, yet they have different time rates. How does your doppler """"idea"""" explain this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 03:20:40 No.12848344 Report

Quoted By: >>12848365

>>12848335
>How does your doppler """"""idea"""""" work for general relativity?

I never said it does. I explicit said special relativity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 03:26:54 No.12848365 Report

Quoted By: >>12848514 >>12853284

>>12848344
Yes.
BUT special relativity is a special case of GR
If your doppler idea correlates with SR, but it doesn't apply to GR, then it is just wrong. Sorry to break it to ya buddy.
It's very simple logic, and if you just don't get it or refuse to see it keep it to your damn self. If you have a counter example or derivative present it or shut the fuck up :^)

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:15:01 No.12848494 Report

Quoted By: >>12848527

>>12848062
Lmao what the fuck sre you talking about retard shrodinger was looking for a "wave" equation for matter that would in the limit return classical results. So he used the hamilton Jacobi equation and linearized it to get an actual wave equation you fuckin spas.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:17:52 No.12848501 Report

Quoted By:

why do anons even bother replying to faggot OPs like this? QED gives the most accurate predictions of anything in human history. 11 decimal places. case closed. faggots who whine about why they dislike physics can go back to /cesspool/

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1584373624796.png, 177KiB, 1378x1042

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:21:16 No.12848510 Report

Quoted By: >>12848513

>why do anons even bother replying to faggot OPs like this? QED gives the most accurate predictions of anything in human history. 11 decimal places. case closed. faggots who whine about why they dislike physics can go back to /cesspool/

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 9EB4936D-0BCA-4714-94CE-CEE46F39 (...).jpg, 146KiB, 588x823

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:22:29 No.12848513 Report

Quoted By:

>>12848510
>soijak

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:23:06 No.12848514 Report

Quoted By: >>12848521 >>12848666 >>12853284

>>12848365
>If your doppler idea correlates with SR, but it doesn't apply to GR, then it is just wrong

This is retarded and you should have just shut the fuck up. Special relativity is doppler shift reinvented, period. Whether or not doppler can explain all the phenomenon predicted by GR is an entirely different matter, and I've not made any comments on GR, so fuck off, retard. The fallacy here is called moving the goal posts. I'm right about my original point. I don't care whether I'm wrong about something i explicitly refrained from making an opinion about.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Pseud.png, 162KiB, 937x519

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:23:22 No.12848516 Report

Quoted By:

tell me pseud, how do you justify this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:24:44 No.12848521 Report

Quoted By: >>12848530 >>12853284

>>12848514
>I don't care whether I'm wrong about something i explicitly refrained from making an opinion about.
Prolly because you don't understand the significance of GR in explaining gravitational fields.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:27:13 No.12848526 Report

Quoted By: >>12848539

>>12847650
What background do I need to read this?

I took calc up to applications of PDEs and Green's Functions

I took algebra up to homological algebra

I took 2 courses in QM, and one in particle physics that was kinda lame.

I have no topology or differential geometry or anything like that

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:27:27 No.12848527 Report

Quoted By: >>12848536

>>12848494
>Lmao what the fuck sre you talking about retard shrodinger was looking for a "wave" equation for matter that would in the limit return classical results. So he used the hamilton Jacobi equation and linearized it to get an actual wave equation you fuckin spas.

I know, but why don't you also look up what his original differential equation describes? His original differential equation had charge density as the dependant variable. Then he for no reason what-so-ever just changed it to complex probability amplitude. Where ese does that work in physics? If you swap out electric field in maxwell's equations with air pressure does that make sound physics? Fuck no. You'd just be pulling shit out of your ass. Which is exactly what schrodinger did.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:29:27 No.12848530 Report

Quoted By: >>12848551 >>12853284

>>12848521
>Prolly because you don't understand the significance of GR in explaining gravitational fields

Why do you insist on moving the goal posts? I'm not talking about GR. I never was. You are talking about GR and you should keep to talking to yourself, because this is moronic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:30:33 No.12848536 Report

Quoted By: >>12848544 >>12848562

>>12848527
What? That's not historically accurate at all. Schrodinger was playing around with the time evolution of wave packets. He was talking about wave functions from the very beginning, but interpreted them as charge density. Shortly afterward, it was Born's idea to interpret this wave function as probability density. There is no issue.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:31:42 No.12848539 Report

Quoted By: >>12848559

>>12848526
That should be plenty. You'll likely get lost once you get to the path integral formalism, but everyone does.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:33:04 No.12848544 Report

Quoted By: >>12848549

>>12848536
actually Schrodibger was interpreting things as a “matter wave” a la de Broglie. but reminder that you guys are off the rails and all don’t know what you are talking about

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:34:00 No.12848549 Report

Quoted By: >>12848578

>>12848544
So what's the fucking problem?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:34:39 No.12848551 Report

Quoted By: >>12848565 >>12853284

>>12848530
More than one person are calling you out, bucko. If you want to overthrow Einstein's work, you need to be able to explain all the unique descriptions of GR (which SR fail to describe). That's why people are harping on it. You fail to understand this because you're completely obvious to how you need GR to describe the deflection of photons trajectories due to large astronomical masses. Even if we're being as charitable as possible, as assume that your Doppler shit is correct, you can't explain that. This suggests that all you've done is garbage.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:38:07 No.12848559 Report

Quoted By:

>>12848539
Cheers, maybe I'll give it a shot then. Reading through Mike and Ike's Quantum Computing at the moment.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:38:27 No.12848562 Report

Quoted By: >>12848566

>>12848536
>interpreted them as charge density. Shortly afterward, it was Born's idea to interpret this wave function as probability density. There is no issue.

Are you retarded? So changing the physical quantity in a differential equation preserves it's validity?

Let's have a demonstration. Let's take a capacitor

I= C*dv/dt. Neat but I'll skip the derivation.

I want a diff eq for a pendulum now. Let's just reuse that last diff eq for no reason because fuck physics

x=m*dx/dt. Why the fuck not? Let's just play musical chairs with the dependant variable and constants. It's not like physical quantities mean anything, or any of this should math any observation.

T. Schrodinger

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:40:06 No.12848565 Report

Quoted By: >>12848571 >>12853284

>>12848551
>you need GR to describe the deflection of photons trajectories due to large astronomical masses.

No, you need to, because you are talking to yourself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:40:07 No.12848566 Report

Quoted By: >>12848572

>>12848562
>So changing the physical quantity in a differential equation preserves it's validity?
if it still jives with experiment, "yes, it does"
being able to predict physical phenomena accurately is all that fucking matters when considering the validity of an equation in physics

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:42:28 No.12848571 Report

Quoted By: >>12848576 >>12853284

>>12848565
Photons move along null geodesics. In special relativity, this is a straight line. In general relativity, a null geodesic is a curved line (with respect to Earth frame). A photon that came to our galaxy from a distance galaxy will be straight, but deflected from large gravitational masses such as stars or galaxies. Our observations of distant photons from within our own solar system follows the null geodesics from GR, not from SR. Have fun explaining that with doppler shifts, pseud.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:42:45 No.12848572 Report

Quoted By: >>12848580

>>12848566
>if it still jives with experiment, "yes, it does"

Ok. Now show me some data collected in a lab regarding complex probability amplitude that schrodingers equation matches.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:44:24 No.12848576 Report

Quoted By: >>12848581 >>12853284

>>12848571

Jesus fuck are you retarded? I've said literally 10 times if you want to ramble on about GR you can go and talk to yourself because I don't give a fuck.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:44:59 No.12848578 Report

Quoted By: >>12848597

>>12848549
the problem is that /sci/ needs standards. we can all ignore the inevitable racial IQ threads and flat earth threads and Tooker threads and “scientifically speaking, Hymen lol” threads. but when you see a thread about real physics, you need to ask yourself: “should I bump this by engaging OP?”

the answer is that it is best to let it die. and go post in good threads instead. there was an anon who just today tried to make a “high energy physics general” thread that died. he was trying to talk about journal articles related to QCD. that died, yet you are posting here, feeding an anti-science troll with 30+ replies. it’s just sad

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:47:21 No.12848580 Report

Quoted By: >>12848583 >>12848587

>>12848572
ok https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_and_experimental_justification_for_the_Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation
btw the classic example specifically for probability density interpretation is double slit experiment
Funny how nobody in theoretical physics has a problem with this, but some random nigger on /sci/ does

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:47:29 No.12848581 Report

Quoted By:

>>12848576
How does your Doppler shift proscription describe a photon's curved path along spacetime?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:48:32 No.12848583 Report

Quoted By: >>12853301 >>12854938

>>12848580
>This article is at a postgraduate level.
I came. This is going to filter Nathan, hard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:49:38 No.12848587 Report

Quoted By: >>12848595

>>12848580
>btw the classic example specifically for probability density interpretation is double slit experiment

O, you mean that thought experiment that was never conducted in reality proves the equation schrodinger pulled out of his ass? Ok, you win the argument.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:51:22 No.12848594 Report

Quoted By:

Nigger-tier thread.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:51:23 No.12848595 Report

Quoted By: >>12848606

>>12848587
what the actual fuck? double slit is an actual, physical experiment that most students do in undergrad lab. I did it in entry-level EM for mechanical engineers. you dont know shit, kid.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:51:34 No.12848597 Report

Quoted By:

>>12848578
>>12847091
looks like it's still alive, but probably too high level for the pseuds. I'd contribute but I'm about to go to sleep.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:54:51 No.12848606 Report

Quoted By: >>12848614 >>12848615

>>12848595
>double slit is an actual, physical experiment that most students do in undergrad lab. I did it in entry-level EM for mechanical engineers. you dont know shit, kid.

Ok. Then it should be really easy for you to post the results of an electron through a set of diffraction gates in your next post then.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:57:42 No.12848614 Report

Quoted By: >>12848635

>>12848606
https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.6243

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 04:57:43 No.12848615 Report

Quoted By: >>12848645

>>12848606
ok here you go http://researchdata.gla.ac.uk/281/ https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.2757621

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot_20210317-220347.png, 199KiB, 480x960

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 05:05:19 No.12848635 Report

Quoted By: >>12848642 >>12848649

>>12848614

Is this s joke? There's lobes in the single slot and the lobes in the double slit look nothing like an interference pattern.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Untitled.png, 245KiB, 480x960

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 05:07:31 No.12848642 Report

Quoted By: >>12848649 >>12848650 >>12848664

>>12848635

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 05:08:47 No.12848645 Report

Quoted By:

>>12848615

Hey retard, "Video recording true single-photon double-slit interference" has nothing to do with a matter wave

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 05:08:56 No.12848647 Report

Quoted By:

>>12847650
> Think aether exists
> Perform experiments to observe it
> Experiments fail.
Oh. I guess we were wrong and it doesn't exist.

> Think QFT is a good theory
> Perform experiments to test it
> Experiments succeeed.
Oh. I guess we were right, lets carry on using it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 05:09:29 No.12848649 Report

Quoted By: >>12848652 >>12848655

>>12848635
>>12848642
are you really trying to make an argument that quantum mechanics is wrong based on you squinting your eyes at pictures and saying “nah too fuzzy4me”?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 05:09:53 No.12848650 Report

Quoted By: >>12848652

>>12848642

If you think that's an interference pattern you are just blind. The non-interference pattern had lobes too. Explain that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 05:10:22 No.12848652 Report

Quoted By:

>>12848650
see >>12848649

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 05:13:00 No.12848655 Report

Quoted By: >>12848662

>>12848649
>are you really trying to make an argument that quantum mechanics is wrong based on you squinting your eyes at pictures and saying “nah too fuzzy4me”?

I was promised an interference pattern. That looks like 5+sin(x). Where are the bands of destructive interference? There should be zeros in intensity. Also the single slits show lobes. Explain that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 05:14:36 No.12848662 Report

Quoted By: >>12848671

>>12848655
it looks like a sinusoid squared to me...oh wait. thats exactly what quantum theory predicts.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Supplementary-Movie-1.gif, 2MiB, 1154x216

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 05:15:07 No.12848664 Report

Quoted By:

>>12848642
It looks better in gif form. If you can't tell that's an interference pattern, then idk what to talk ya mate.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 05:16:16 No.12848666 Report

Quoted By:

>>12848514
You seem intelligent but unhappy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 05:17:46 No.12848671 Report

Quoted By: >>12848683 >>12848716 >>12848736

>>12848662
>it looks like a sinusoid squared to me

You can be retarded if you must, but a sinusoid squared has zeros. the double slit does not. And I'm still waiting for an explanation of the lobes that are in the single slit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 05:21:41 No.12848683 Report

Quoted By:

>>12848671
sorry, but ive already decided you are baiting. cya later anon!

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 05:30:54 No.12848716 Report

Quoted By: >>12849842

>>12848671
experiments never reproduce the platonic perfection of mathematical models. nitpicking at details is more a complaint of how perfect experiments are and cannot possibly amount to an argument against the validity of QFT

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO prev800p1.png, 54KiB, 800x395

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 05:39:10 No.12848736 Report

Quoted By: >>12849842

>>12848671
Frictional force is allegedly proportional to mass. That means a straight line.
>Ermagod the data isn't perfectly on a straight line
>Newton BTFOd
Stand by gentlemen, I'm a schizo and I'll come up with a model proving Newton wrong. This is a grave injustice and I cannot stand for it!

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 14:11:07 No.12849842 Report

Quoted By: >>12849868

>>12848716
>>12848736

Doesn't change shit. Go look up what an actual interference pattern is. It must have bands where the waves interfere destructively leaving zeros in the pattern. The experimental data lacks this critical feature. You can convince yourself it's right regardless, but I will stick to doing science.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 14:17:03 No.12849868 Report

Quoted By: >>12849906

>>12849842
>me smart me claim unless spot is absolutely dark QFT is debunked. one stray photon from a light leak debunks QFT!!!

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO InterferencePattern.png, 39KiB, 1555x715

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 14:31:37 No.12849906 Report

Quoted By: >>12849917 >>12849931 >>12853135 >>12853275 >>12853285

>>12849868
>>me smart me claim unless spot is absolutely dark QFT is debunked. one stray photon from a light leak debunks QFT!

You are just putting words in my mouth. Look at the centerline. It doesn't even diminish outside the center lobe.

Ironically just simulating a double-slit classically leads to a more convincing diffraction pattern. Pic related.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO setup.png, 13KiB, 1560x868

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 14:34:05 No.12849917 Report

Quoted By: >>12850179

>>12849906

I actually took the time to find out what the pattern would look like if you sent hard classically elastically bouncing balls throughout a double slit. Turns out it's something that resembles an interference pattern too. Pic related

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 14:37:52 No.12849931 Report

Quoted By: >>12850002

>>12849906
anon you are just missing the point. what even is your argument? i interpret what you say as “unless your interference pattern is perfect then QFT is wrong, anything less than perfection is unacceptable” which likewise debunks anything you want

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 14:59:57 No.12850002 Report

Quoted By: >>12850021 >>12850055

>>12849931

Nice straw man fallacy. You're also ignoring points I'm making. The interference pattern is no better than the interference pattern you'd expect from a classical system. I'm not saying it's imperfect. I'm saying it lacks critical features like null bands, that would show destructive interference. You can however continue to be retarded and make another straw man argument like you've done the past 10 times.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 15:09:37 No.12850021 Report

Quoted By: >>12853135

>>12850002
There's no intereference pattern in a classica3 system you retarded shit eating waste of air.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 15:18:53 No.12850055 Report

Quoted By:

>>12850002
lol, they've confirmed that the theory models reality well enough in experimental physics. You're here shouting at 4chan that tHeYr rwoNG.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Electron_Wave_DS.png, 419KiB, 933x426

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 15:59:59 No.12850179 Report

Quoted By: >>12853145 >>12853279 >>12853285

>>12849917
good luck getting this pattern, pseud.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 16:06:10 No.12850191 Report

Quoted By: >>12850193 >>12850205 >>12853240

>>12848092
Aether is the best word to describe it whether you like it or not

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 16:06:31 No.12850193 Report

Quoted By:

>>12850191
I don’t like it

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Mar 2021 16:12:12 No.12850205 Report

Quoted By:

>>12850191
huh? aether was a medium proposed to explain the propagation of light, in analogy to how sound waves propagate through air via pressure changes in the air molecules. space acts nothing like that: there is no matter there, so sounds cannot propagate. light, on the other hand, can---it self propagates via the Poynting vector. the lack of a medium doesn't imply the existence of a medium. spacetime is purely geometric in property and is not an aether, pseud.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 19 Mar 2021 01:29:56 No.12853135 Report

Quoted By: >>12853267

>>12850021
>There's no intereference pattern in a classica3 system you retarded

Then explain

>>12849906

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 19 Mar 2021 01:33:02 No.12853145 Report

Quoted By:

>>12850179
>good luck getting this pattern

Why would I want to? it's just 5+sin(x), which isn't even an interference pattern function.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 19 Mar 2021 02:04:16 No.12853240 Report

Quoted By:

>>12850191
No directionally dependent propagation asymmetries; not aether

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 19 Mar 2021 02:14:10 No.12853267 Report

Quoted By: >>12853279

>>12853135
That's nor a fucking interference patern you mong and nothing similar with the result you get form the double slit experiment. There is a mathematical relation between wavelength the lenght of the slits and the distance to the screen that gives the gaps between maxima and minima which is what is found in the experimens. Not just some random peaks. Try actually running it with actual physical dimensions used to see its a completely different pattern.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO main-qimg-90fc1737cca4df643bca1b (...).png, 65KiB, 602x227

Anonymous Fri 19 Mar 2021 02:16:46 No.12853275 Report

Quoted By: >>12853285

>>12849906
dumbass.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 19 Mar 2021 02:18:17 No.12853279 Report

Quoted By: >>12853288

>>12853267
>That's nor a fucking interference patern you mong and nothing similar with the result you get form the double slit experiment

This isn't the interference pattern Feynman predicted either. Do you have eyes?

>>12850179

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 19 Mar 2021 02:19:30 No.12853284 Report

Quoted By: >>12854489

>>12848365
>>12848514
>>12848365
>>12848521
>>12848530
>>12848551
>>12848565
>>12848571
>>12848576

Photons are particles with mass. Congratulations, we have now explained GR.

https://vixra.org/abs/2102.0169

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 19 Mar 2021 02:19:55 No.12853285 Report

Quoted By: >>12853290

>>12853275

Why does look nothing like

>>12850179

If you ask me my pattern here which is the result of a classical simulation looks more similar

>>12849906

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 19 Mar 2021 02:21:17 No.12853288 Report

Quoted By:

>>12853279
ITS NOT A MEME QUALITATIVE RESULT YPU FUCKING RETARD. THERE IS A PROPER MATHEMATICAL PREDICTION GIVEN IN TERMS OF PHYSICAL PARAMETERS.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 19 Mar 2021 02:21:29 No.12853290 Report

Quoted By:

>>12853285
LOL. thanks. i needed a laugh tonight. you're hilarious in your ignorance.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 19 Mar 2021 02:23:13 No.12853301 Report

Quoted By:

>>12848583

This article has nothing that wasn't covered during my undergrad. Sorry coomer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 19 Mar 2021 10:33:47 No.12854396 Report

Quoted By:

>>12847650
>Do people actually buy this crap?
No, they secretly buy Miles Mathis's theory, but keep quiet about it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 19 Mar 2021 11:12:18 No.12854489 Report

Quoted By:

>>12853284
based
aether denialists BTFO

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 19 Mar 2021 13:59:50 No.12854938 Report

Quoted By: >>12855321

>>12848583
>I came. This is going to filter Nathan, hard

I didn't understand this so i didn't respond. My name isn't nathan and I have a graduate degree. Also I don't remember Bacon mentioning "justification" in his explanation for the scientific method. He did talk alot about "observation" tho. So o guess I'll reiterate my question, "what observation does schrodingers equation explain?" Where is the data set of complex probability amplitudes he was working with?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 19 Mar 2021 15:56:48 No.12855321 Report

Quoted By:

>>12854938

I'm the Nathan in question. I have a paper that explains how the Michelson-Morley result is explained by classical Doppler shift, among other things:

https://vixra.org/abs/2102.0169

This makes me unpopular.

Also, it turns out the original MM experiment, contrary to popular belief, actually detected fringe shifts and measured the absolute velocity of the solar system. The data is right in the original paper:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0508174.pdf

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches