Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else below.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#61  Postby Nevets » Mar 09, 2020 7:05 pm

It seems that people here do not know what Quantum Mechanics is

Scientific inquiry into the wave nature of light began in the 17th and 18th centuries, when scientists such as Robert Hooke, Christiaan Huygens and Leonhard Euler proposed a wave theory of light based on experimental observations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#History


They are searching for how light particles may be able to form matter

Perhaps this is actually where the person in the youtube video could also be misconceived.

He probably also believes that Quantum Mechanics is debunking physical matter in favour of a computer simulation.

But while Quantum mechanics may hold this theory, it seeks mostly to try and understand how physical matter can be formed
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#62  Postby Nevets » Mar 09, 2020 7:09 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Nevets wrote:
And Quantum mechanics is based upon theory, it has no Scientific explanation for how the laws of nature were drawn up, nor how matter was formed.


Ahh I see.

It's just a theory. Amirite?


Nevets wrote:Are you unaware that this is what Quantum mechanics is?


I know very little about Quantum Mechanics, but still enough to know that the idea that it's 'based upon theory' contains nonsense, therefore meaning that this is not what Quantum Mechanics is despite the confidence with which you've phrased your declaration.


What? Are you a conspiracy theorist? You are saying it is not a theory? Science knows for a "fact" how matter came in to being? Then produce a link for this claim

QM is based upon the theory of relativity

Classical physics, the description of physics that existed before the formulation of the theory of relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#History


It is, "a theory".

The theory of relativity usually encompasses two interrelated theories by Albert Einstein: special relativity and general relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity
Last edited by Nevets on Mar 09, 2020 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#63  Postby newolder » Mar 09, 2020 7:10 pm

Nevets wrote:...

But Quantum Mechanics is, at its roots, about physical matter and how it came in to existence at the beginning of time.

What has that got to do with my request to have the non-QM stuff moved elsewhere? Also, your characterisation of QM is simply quaint mischief - like some of your other attempts to characterise things.

Quantum mechanics (QM; also known as quantum physics, quantum theory, the wave mechanical model, or matrix mechanics), including quantum field theory, is a fundamental theory in physics describing the properties of nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Yep, nothing to do with stuff at "the beginning of time" (and whatever that may mean).

And Quantum mechanics is based upon theory, it has no Scientific explanation for how the laws of nature were drawn up, nor how matter was formed.

So, it has nothing to do with what you said at the start of your quaint mischief then.

Are you unaware that this is what Quantum mechanics is?

My awareness of QM started some time ago and has been a fascination ever since, thanks.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7397
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#64  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 09, 2020 7:13 pm

Nevets wrote:It seems that people here do not know what Quantum Mechanics is


You are indeed among the people here.


Nevets wrote:
Scientific inquiry into the wave nature of light began in the 17th and 18th centuries, when scientists such as Robert Hooke, Christiaan Huygens and Leonhard Euler proposed a wave theory of light based on experimental observations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#History


I like how you think that citing an entry level description of Quantum Mechanics is meant to indicate that you know what Quantum Mechanics is.

This is something we were discussing the other day: Wikipedia Warriors. Yes, we all know there's entries for everything on Wikipedia, but the existence of it on Wikipedia, and the knowledge of how to type in the words and find the relevant page doesn't actually confer any sense of the person actually knowing the topic. Generally, it's actually quite the opposite. You go to Wikipedia to find out basic information about a topic you know little about. So little, in fact, that an entry level description is sufficient, else you'd go to the actual source, like published peer-reviewed papers on QM.


Nevets wrote:They are searching for how light particles may be able to form matter


Who is?

Where are they doing this?

How can light particles 'form' matter?

Your link suggests nothing of the sort.


Nevets wrote:Perhaps this is actually where the person in the youtube video could also be misconceived.

He probably also believes that Quantum Mechanics is debunking physical matter in favour of a computer simulation.

But while Quantum mechanics may hold this theory, it seeks mostly to try and understand how physical matter can be formed


As far as I am aware, QM is specifically concerned with describing observations of how things behave.

A quick search through your link of the Wikipedia page turns up no suggestion that QM is specifically concerned with the genesis of matter.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28851
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#65  Postby campermon » Mar 09, 2020 7:16 pm

Nevets wrote:
campermon wrote:
Nevets wrote:
newolder wrote:Is it time for the non-QM stuff to be split off somewhere else, please?


But Quantum Mechanics is, at its roots, about physical matter and how it came in to existence at the beginning of time.

Quantum mechanics (QM; also known as quantum physics, quantum theory, the wave mechanical model, or matrix mechanics), including quantum field theory, is a fundamental theory in physics describing the properties of nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics


Are you certain about that? :ask:


Well what do you think Quantum Mechanics is?


That was a physics joke :)
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17438
Age: 51
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#66  Postby Nevets » Mar 09, 2020 7:18 pm

newolder wrote:
Yep, nothing to do with stuff at "the beginning of time" (and whatever that may mean)


What? The word Quantum, means for a particle to interact with an entity

In physics, a quantum (plural quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity (physical property) involved in an interaction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum


This theory is trying to describe what might have caused the big bang, such as Light photons interacting with something else, in order to create a bang and make matter
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#67  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 09, 2020 7:20 pm

Nevets wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Nevets wrote:
And Quantum mechanics is based upon theory, it has no Scientific explanation for how the laws of nature were drawn up, nor how matter was formed.


Ahh I see.

It's just a theory. Amirite?


Nevets wrote:Are you unaware that this is what Quantum mechanics is?


I know very little about Quantum Mechanics, but still enough to know that the idea that it's 'based upon theory' contains nonsense, therefore meaning that this is not what Quantum Mechanics is despite the confidence with which you've phrased your declaration.


What? Are you a conspiracy theorist? You are saying it is not a theory? Science knows for a "fact" how matter came in to being? Then produce a link for this claim


And you're doing it yet again, trying to form someone else's position for them. Please stop - I really don't need your help.

Your confusion is terrifying to behold.

You're misusing the term 'theory'. It doesn't mean what you think it means. In science, theories are well established and evidenced models of the interactions of a particular system. It's not just some conjecture. In fact, a theory in science is the highest form of explanation supported by all the evidence, and not contradicted by anything. This is an extremely elementary mistake on your part. Go and furnish yourself with the requisite understanding.

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0 ... ceworks_19


Nevets wrote:QM is based upon the theory of relativity

Classical physics, the description of physics that existed before the formulation of the theory of relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#History




Again, you cite an entry level description from Wikipedia, and again the content of the banal link doesn't even corroborate your claim.

QM is not based on the theory of relativity, rather the theory of relativity opened a new paradigm of explaining aspects of the universe in a manner different to classical physics.



Nevets wrote:It is, "a theory".


Yes, it is a theory - that is a set of propositions established through meticulous observation, hypothesis-formation, and experimentation. Ergo, it's not based upon theory - it IS theory in the scientific sense.



Nevets wrote:
The theory of relativity usually encompasses two interrelated theories by Albert Einstein: special relativity and general relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity


Another non-sequitur.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28851
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#68  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 09, 2020 7:22 pm

campermon wrote:
Nevets wrote:
campermon wrote:
Nevets wrote:

But Quantum Mechanics is, at its roots, about physical matter and how it came in to existence at the beginning of time.



Are you certain about that? :ask:


Well what do you think Quantum Mechanics is?


That was a physics joke :)



The sigma is under 0.9000!


That's an even crappier joke.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28851
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#69  Postby campermon » Mar 09, 2020 7:23 pm

In other news; Good friend of mine (we studied together) has just put out a tentative theory on the origin of dark matter:

"Nuclear physicists are putting forward a new candidate for dark matter -- a particle they recently discovered called the d-star hexaquark. "
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 140225.htm

We discussed it last year over a few beers; to paraphrase him "It could be a Nobel, or more likely just a crock of shit" :lol:

:cheers:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17438
Age: 51
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#70  Postby Nevets » Mar 09, 2020 7:24 pm

Spearthrower wrote:

Who is?

Where are they doing this?

How can light particles 'form' matter?

Your link suggests nothing of the sort.



Science is.

Wave–particle duality is the concept in quantum mechanics that every particle or quantum entity may be described as either a particle or a wave. It expresses the inability of the classical concepts "particle" or "wave" to fully describe the behaviour of quantum-scale objects. As Albert Einstein wrote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%8 ... le_duality


The wave theories of light

Classical particle and wave theories of light https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%8 ... le_duality


If you do not know the first thing about Quantum mechanics, and how it has theories of Light containing particles, and you are unable to see how this equates to them trying to establish how solid physical matter was formed, then that is not my fault
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#71  Postby campermon » Mar 09, 2020 7:26 pm

Nevets wrote:

This theory is trying to describe what might have caused the big bang, such as Light photons interacting with something else, in order to create a bang and make matter


or sumfink..

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

:cheers:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17438
Age: 51
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#72  Postby Hermit » Mar 09, 2020 7:29 pm

Nevets wrote:
In physics, a quantum (plural quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity (physical property) involved in an interaction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum


This theory is trying to describe what might have caused the big bang, such as Light photons interacting with something else, in order to create a bang and make matter

There is nothing at all whatsoever in the bit you quote that says anything at all that could possibly be described as "Light photons interacting with something else, in order to create a bang and make matter". By attempting to squeeze this interpretation out of the bit you quoted you are making an utter fool of yourself. Stop injecting meanings into statements that are exclusively of your own creation.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4658
Age: 68
Male

Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#73  Postby Nevets » Mar 09, 2020 7:35 pm

Spearthrower wrote:You're misusing the term 'theory'. It doesn't mean what you think it means. In science, theories are well established and evidenced models of the interactions of a particular system. It's not just some conjecture. In fact, a theory in science is the highest form of explanation supported by all the evidence, and not contradicted by anything. This is an extremely elementary mistake on your part. Go and furnish yourself with the requisite understanding.


Yes, it is a theory - that is a set of propositions established through meticulous observation, hypothesis-formation, and experimentation. Ergo, it's not based upon theory - it IS theory in the scientific sense.


I have absolutely no idea why you think i require enlightening to any of this.
Have i ever said anything different?

Do you think i am trying to debunk Quantum Mechanics?
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#74  Postby newolder » Mar 09, 2020 7:40 pm

Nevets wrote:
newolder wrote:
Yep, nothing to do with stuff at "the beginning of time" (and whatever that may mean)


What? The word Quantum, means for a particle to interact with an entity

The word quantum is defined well by the wiki snippet you supplied below.

In physics, a quantum (plural quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity (physical property) involved in an interaction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum


This theory is trying to describe what might have caused the big bang, such as Light photons interacting with something else, in order to create a bang and make matter


You are using the word "theory" incorrectly here. There is a big bang theory of nucleogenesis that uses some aspects of quantum theory to calculate the relative abundances of the primordial elements Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium and that match observation but there remains the problem of how matter, as opposed to anti-matter, survived the hot dense phase. The "creation of the bang' is prior to this (at times earlier than the Planck time, ~ 10-43 seconds) and is an open field of research with no scientific consensus as of today.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7397
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#75  Postby Nevets » Mar 09, 2020 7:47 pm

Hermit wrote:
Nevets wrote:
In physics, a quantum (plural quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity (physical property) involved in an interaction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum


This theory is trying to describe what might have caused the big bang, such as Light photons interacting with something else, in order to create a bang and make matter

There is nothing at all whatsoever in the bit you quote that says anything at all that could possibly be described as "Light photons interacting with something else, in order to create a bang and make matter". By attempting to squeeze this interpretation out of the bit you quoted you are making an utter fool of yourself. Stop injecting meanings into statements that are exclusively of your own creation.


Quantum Mechanics very much discusses the big bang

The use of only general relativity to predict what happened in the beginnings of the Universe has been heavily criticized, as quantum mechanics becomes a significant factor in the high-energy environment of the earliest Universe, and general relativity on its own fails to make accurate predictions.[1][3] In response to the inaccuracy of considering only general relativity, as in the traditional model of the Big Bang, alternative theoretical formulations for the beginning of the Universe have been proposed, including a string theory-based model in which two branes, enormous membranes much larger than the Universe, collided, creating mass and energy.[4]

Although there is no direct evidence for a singularity of infinite density, the cosmic microwave background is evidence that the universe expanded from a very hot, dense state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity


They are of the belief that

CMB is landmark evidence of the Big Bang origin of the universe. When the universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was denser, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from a white-hot fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and the radiation filling it grew cooler. When the universe cooled enough, protons and electrons combined to form neutral hydrogen atoms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_mi ... background


Now, do you deny that Scientists are exploring Atoms, and subatomic particles in order to understand how this process became ignited? Or do you think Scientists just think this process, just, came in to being, just like that?
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#76  Postby Nevets » Mar 09, 2020 7:51 pm

newolder wrote:

You are using the word "theory" incorrectly here. There is a big bang theory of nucleogenesis that uses some aspects of quantum theory to calculate the relative abundances of the primordial elements Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium and that match observation but there remains the problem of how matter, as opposed to anti-matter, survived the hot dense phase. The "creation of the bang' is prior to this (at times earlier than the Planck time, ~ 10-43 seconds) and is an open field of research with no scientific consensus as of today.


If you wish to elaborate on what my definition of Science theory is, please do.
But you are assuming too much.

Also, i would say more than Quantum Mechanics being more predominant in trying to understand how matter survived the hot period, they would be more predominant in trying to understand how matter came in to being in the first place.

For this, they study sub-atomic particles.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#77  Postby campermon » Mar 09, 2020 7:51 pm

Troll credentials shown.
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17438
Age: 51
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#78  Postby campermon » Mar 09, 2020 7:52 pm

Anyone fancy a beer?
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17438
Age: 51
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#79  Postby Hermit » Mar 09, 2020 7:55 pm

Nevets wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Nevets wrote:
In physics, a quantum (plural quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity (physical property) involved in an interaction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum


This theory is trying to describe what might have caused the big bang, such as Light photons interacting with something else, in order to create a bang and make matter

There is nothing at all whatsoever in the bit you quote that says anything at all that could possibly be described as "Light photons interacting with something else, in order to create a bang and make matter". By attempting to squeeze this interpretation out of the bit you quoted you are making an utter fool of yourself. Stop injecting meanings into statements that are exclusively of your own creation.


Quantum Mechanics very much discusses the big bang

The use of only general relativity to predict what happened in the beginnings of the Universe has been heavily criticized, as quantum mechanics becomes a significant factor in the high-energy environment of the earliest Universe, and general relativity on its own fails to make accurate predictions.[1][3] In response to the inaccuracy of considering only general relativity, as in the traditional model of the Big Bang, alternative theoretical formulations for the beginning of the Universe have been proposed, including a string theory-based model in which two branes, enormous membranes much larger than the Universe, collided, creating mass and energy.[4]

Although there is no direct evidence for a singularity of infinite density, the cosmic microwave background is evidence that the universe expanded from a very hot, dense state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity


They are of the belief that

CMB is landmark evidence of the Big Bang origin of the universe. When the universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was denser, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from a white-hot fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and the radiation filling it grew cooler. When the universe cooled enough, protons and electrons combined to form neutral hydrogen atoms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_mi ... background


Now, do you deny that Scientists are exploring Atoms, and subatomic particles in order to understand how this process became ignited? Or do you think Scientists just think this process, just, came in to being, just like that?

Stop digging already nevets. Read the bolded and underlined text again. Pay particular attention to the two words "make matter". QM is not, cannot be concerned with making matter. That is not even within the purview of science. Leave abiogenesis to theology and metaphysics.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4658
Age: 68
Male

Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#80  Postby newolder » Mar 09, 2020 7:57 pm

Nevets wrote:...

If you wish to elaborate on what my definition of Science theory is, please do.

Sure. Give me a link to where your definition of "Science theory" can be found and I'll elaborate.

But you are assuming too much.

I assume you have posted a definition of "Science theory".

Also, i would say more than Quantum Mechanics being more predominant in trying to understand how matter survived the hot period, they would be more predominant in trying to understand how matter came in to being in the first place.

For this, they study sub-atomic particles.

That snippet is difficult to understand because it's gibberish.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7397
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Debunking

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest

cron