Why Do You Believe Superposition/entanglement Include Spacetime?

[pittsburghjoe]

um, if you are on meds, I think you forgot your last dose. I would like a link to whatever you are talking about though, I've already told you how hard it's been to get anyone to take this seriously. 

[pittsburghjoe]

I am the antichrist, congrats!!!

[pittsburghjoe]

With this innocent looking piece of info:

• You find the key to the quantum classical boundary and thus the Theory of Everything
• What black holes and dark matter is
• Why the Uncertainty Principle is fuzzy
• Spacetime sits on QM, QM doesn't need spacetime
• What existed before the big bang
• How big a deal observation is to spacetime
• Why this is the only interpretation needed for the double slit
• Why we won't find quantum gravity
• Why the holographic principle likely only applies to QM and not spacetime objects(classical)

[exchemist]

 

With this innocent looking piece of info:

• You find the key to the quantum classical boundary and thus the Theory of Everything
• What black holes and dark matter is
• Why the Uncertainty Principle is fuzzy
• Spacetime sits on QM, QM doesn't need spacetime
• What existed before the big bang
• How big a deal observation is to spacetime
• Why this is the only interpretation needed for the double slit
• Why we won't find quantum gravity
• Why the holographic principle likely only applies to QM and not spacetime objects(classical)

 

There is no "boundary" between quantum and classical. It is just a matter of scale, specifically the size of quantities compared to Planck's Constant.

 

We understand very well how uncertainty principle arises.

 

It makes no sense to claim QM doesn't need spacetime, nor that observations somehow move things into spacetime. If that were so, unobserved matter would not interact: for instance no molecules would form.     

Edited June 7, 2019 by exchemist

[Dubbelosix]

There is no "boundary" between quantum and classical. It is just a matter of scale, specifically the size of quantities compared to Planck's Constant.

 

We understand very well how uncertainty principle arises.

 

It make no sense to claim QM doesn't need spacetime, nor that observations somehow moves things into spacetime. If that were so, unobserved matter would not interact: for instance no molecules would form.     

 

Good, oh... I meant to say, those calculations are fine as far as I can tell.

[pittsburghjoe]

 

 

There is no "boundary" between quantum and classical. It is just a matter of scale, specifically the size of quantities compared to Planck's Constant.

 

funny how that scale you speak of happens to be certain number of atoms

 

 

 

We understand very well how uncertainty principle arises.

 

Probabilities are not good enough

 

 

 

It make no sense to claim QM doesn't need spacetime, nor that observations somehow moves things into spacetime. If that were so, unobserved matter would not interact: for instance no molecules would form.

 

It makes perfect sense to me. QM waves are still mysterious to us, but we know observation collapses their wave functions ..aka permits partial spacetime. Unobserved molecules can form as QM waves.

[exchemist]

funny how that scale you speak of happens to be certain number of atoms

 

 

Probabilities are not good enough

 

 

It makes perfect sense to me. QM waves are still mysterious to us, but we know observation collapses their wave functions ..aka permits partial spacetime. Unobserved molecules can form as QM waves.

Planck's Constant, 6.62 x 10⁻³⁴ J s, has nothing to do with numbers of atoms. Avogadro's Number is the number of atoms in a mole (e.g. 12g of Carbon 12) and is 6.02 x 10²³.     

 

When you say "unobserved molecules can form as quantum waves", are you claiming they exits outside spacetime, or within it?  

[pittsburghjoe]

The point is there is a clear difference in qm objects from spacetime objects.

 

You are confusing xyz points in space vs how the object exists.

[exchemist]

The point is there is a clear difference in qm objects from spacetime objects.

 

You are confusing xyz points in space vs how the object exists.

So are you going to answer my question, then? 

[pittsburghjoe]

I already said QM doesn't not have the dimension of spacetime when it is unobserved. The examples we measure are the ones that happen to be in our xyz area.

[Vmedvil2]

I already said QM doesn't not have the dimension of spacetime when it is unobserved. The examples we measure are the ones that happen to be in our xyz area.

 

This is nonsense have you ever looked at the schrodinger equation, if you ever had you would notice the upside down triangle in it which states that in is obviously within space, those can easily be converted into space-time coordinates. "Ψ(r,t) as defined over space and time", obviously the wave function is defined over space and time. It is defined in space and time, now stop saying that even when observed or not observed, it inhabits space and time.

 

Edited June 7, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[pittsburghjoe]

Any equation that results in probabilities is a failure.

[Vmedvil2]

Any equation that results in probabilities is a failure.

 

Just go away you are now "Crank" get out of my sight, I want you other "Cranks" to read this argument and learn to what you sound like to people that know what the hell they are talking about. If you believe stupid crap and have been told you are a "Crank" then you may be not so different than this guy, see how silly this sounds, that is how you sound too.

Edited June 7, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[pittsburghjoe]

BURN THE WITCH!!!

[Vmedvil2]

BURN THE WITCH!!!

 

Crank scum!

 

Edited June 7, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[pittsburghjoe]

The del operator doesn't say anything about the dimension of spacetime ..only xyz points in space.

[Vmedvil2]

The del operator doesn't say anything about the dimension of spacetime ..only xyz points in space.

 

Just shut up