Posted: Dec 17, 2016 7:19 pm
SquiddlyDiddly wrote:Shrunk. . . Let me join you on the gate.
I have no idea if you have any knowledge of Quantum Mechanics or the 'weird stuff' it throws up. But my point was (for instance with the double slit experiment), that the experiments clearly show results totally at odds with the current views of mainstream science. Thus, the results are mostly ignored, or swept under the carpet.
Bzzzt! Manifestly false assertion!
Apparently you're completely unaware of the fact that the two-slit experiment is a cornerstone of mainstream physics. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of scientific papers devoted to that experiment, and those papers constitute the very mainstream science you assert above is purportedly "ignoring" or "sweeping under the carpet" the results. Except that oops, mainstream science is doing nothing of the sort, as you would have known if you had actually read some of the literature on the subject.
For example, I'm aware of the work of Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna, who has demonstrated that the same wave-particle duality effects are observed when using particles as large as Buckminsterfullerene molecules. The paper in which he describes this is the following:
Diffraction Of Complex Molecules By Structures Made Of Light by Olaf Nairz, Björn Brezger, Markus Arndt & Anton Zeilinger, Physical Review Letters, 87: 160401 (2001) DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.160401 [Full paper downloadable from here]
Nairz et al, 2001 wrote:ABSTRACT
We demonstrate that structures made of light can be used to coherently control the motion of complex molecules. In particular, we show diffraction of the fullerenes C60 and C70 at a thin grating based on a standing light wave. We prove experimentally that the principles of this effect, well known from atom optics, can be successfully extended to massive and large molecules which are internally in a thermodynamic mixed state and which do not exhibit narrow optical resonances. Our results will be important for the observation of quantum interference with even larger and more complex objects.
Last time I checked, he commented that he was working on reproducing the same results by firing bacteria through his slits. In the paper, he even comments that there may be technological applications for the observed phenomenon.
Another paper of his is this one:
Quantum Interference Experiments With Large Molecules by Olaf Nairz, Markus Arndt & Anton Zeilinger, American Journal of Physics, 71(4): 319-325 (April 2003) DOI: 10.1119/1.1531580 [Full paper downloadable from here]
Nairz et al, 2003 wrote:Wave–particle duality is frequently the first topic students encounter in elementary quantum physics. Although this phenomenon has been demonstrated with photons, electrons, neutrons, and atoms, the dual quantum character of the famous double-slit experiment can be best explained with the largest and most classical objects, which are currently the fullerene molecules. The soccer-ball-shaped carbon cages C60 are large, massive, and appealing objects for which it is clear that they must behave like particles under ordinary circumstances. We present the results of a multislit diffraction experiment with such objects to demonstrate their wave nature. The experiment serves as the basis for a discussion of several quantum concepts such as coherence, randomness, complementarity, and wave–particle duality. In particular, the effect of longitudinal (spectral) coherence can be demonstrated by a direct comparison of interferograms obtained with a thermal beam and a velocity selected beam in close analogy to the usual two-slit experiments using light.
Exactly how does "here are our experiments demonstrating that we can reproduce the same results using Buckminsterfullerene molecules" equal "ignoring" or "sweeping under the carpet" the requisite results?
Then we have this paper from other authors:
Complementarity In The Double Slit Experiment: Quantum Nonseparability And A Quantitative Statement Of Bohr's Principle by William K. Wooters & Wojciech H. Zurek, Physical Review D, 19(2): 473-484 (15th January 1979) [Full paper downloadable from here]
Wooters & Zurek, 1979 wrote:A detailed analysis of Einstein's version of the double-slit experiment, in which one tries to observe both wave and particle properties of light, is performed. Quantum nonseparability appears in the derivation of the interference pattern, which proves to be surprisingly sharp even when the trajectories of the photons have been determined with fairly high accuracy. An information-theoretic approach to this problem leads to a quantitative formulation of Bohr's complementarity principle for the case of the double-slit experiment. A practically realisable version of this experiment, to which the above analysis applies, is proposed.
What was that about "ignoring" or "sweeping under the carpet" again?
Even better, we have this paper:
Matter-Wave Interference With Particles Selected From A Molecular Library With Masses Exceeding 10,000 amu by Sandra Eibenberger, Stefan Gerlich, Markus Arndt, Marcel Mayor and Jens Tüxen, Physical Chemistry: Chemical Physics, 15: 14696-14700 (2013) DOI: 10.1039/C3CP51500A [Full paper downloadable from here]
Eibenberger et al, 2013 wrote:Abstract
The quantum superposition principle, a key distinction between quantum physics and classical mechanics, is often perceived as a philosophical challenge to our concepts of reality, locality or space-time since it contrasts with our intuitive expectations with experimental observations on isolated quantum systems. While we are used to associating the notion of localization with massive bodies, quantum physics teaches us that every individual object is associated with a wave function that may eventually delocalize by far more than the body's own extension. Numerous experiments have verified this concept at the microscopic scale but intuition wavers when it comes to delocalization experiments with complex objects. While quantum science is the uncontested ideal of a physical theory, one may ask if the superposition principle can persist on all complexity scales. This motivates matter–wave diffraction and interference studies with large compounds in a three-grating interferometer configuration which also necessitates the preparation of high-mass nanoparticle beams at low velocities. Here we demonstrate how synthetic chemistry allows us to prepare libraries of fluorous porphyrins which can be tailored to exhibit high mass, good thermal stability and relatively low polarizability, which allows us to form slow thermal beams of these high-mass compounds, which can be detected using electron ionization mass spectrometry. We present successful superposition experiments with selected species from these molecular libraries in a quantum interferometer, which utilizes the diffraction of matter–waves at an optical phase grating. We observe high-contrast quantum fringe patterns of molecules exceeding a mass of 10 000 amu and having 810 atoms in a single particle.
What was that about "ignoring" or "sweeping under the carpet" again?
Right let's move on to the rest of your assertions ...
SquiddlyDiddly wrote:Tom Campbell has a remarkably simple answer to the issue. But as it flies in the face of the High Priests of Science, and is a significant game changer, it is put to one side.
Let's see how long this assertion stands up to scrutiny, shall we?
SquiddlyDiddly wrote:Before you ask, the simple answer is that (as a good number of physicists are now concluding) is that we live in a digital, probabilistic, virtual reality.
Actually, Zeilinger was proposing a "digital physics" as far back as 1999, motivated by his earlier 1996 experiment, in which he demonstrated that it was possible to possible to encode more than one classical bit of information into one qubit. The relevant paper covering his achievement of hyper-dense coding is this one:
Dense Coding In Experimental Quantum Communication by Klaus Mattle, Harald Weinfurter, Paul G. Kwiat and Anton Zeilinger, Physical Review Letters, 76: 4656 (June 1996) DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.4656 [Full paper downloadable from here]
Mattle et al, 1996 wrote:Classically, sending more than one bit of information requires manipulation of more than one two-state particle. We demonstrate experimentally that one can transmit one of three messages, i.e., 1 “trit” ≈ 1.58 bit, by manipulating only one of two entangled particles. The increased channel capacity is proven by transmitting ASCII characters in five trits instead of the usual 8 bits.
Looks like you're running up quite a track record of failed assertions here, doesn't it?
SquiddlyDiddly wrote:Once this is applied to quantum 'weird stuff' then it becomes quite understandable.
Zeilinger got there back in 1999, and moreover, did so in a rigorous manner, backed by numerous peer reviewed publications. This document is a detailed list of his peer reviewed publications to date. Note how many of them are on that list - 504 of them (including one scheduled for publication in early 2017).
SquiddlyDiddly wrote:As for Pear Labs, if you use wikipedia as your research tool, then I'll just have to leave the conversation here.
Here's a scholarly review of the field. Enjoy reading it.
From that scholarly review, the following paragraph is apposite:
Falsifiability is an important concept in science, especially when highly unusual claims are made. Science did not ignore Roentgen’s rays just because they did not fit in with what was known at the time. On the other hand, science did not ignore Blondlot’s rays (N-rays) either. The former turned out to be a highly replicable phenomenon that demanded changes in physical theory to account for it. The latter, despite numerous independent ‘replications’ initially, turned out to be a figment of the imagination. This is why falsifiability is so important.
Hmm, beginning to look like Game Over here for your assertions, isn't it?