Quantum Mechanics Debunked

[Nahm]

10 minutes ago, wildflower said:

I disagree, the wave function is a abstract object that describes probabilities. The problem is if you apply this to abstract notion to large objects you end up with errors, or thinking things like an elephant is existing in a superposition of an ant when you are not looking. This isnt true actuality. Becuase QM shows us things are relational, that is to say the thing that comes into existence, comes into existence in relation to what already exists.

There is no ‘abstract object’, if anything it’s an abstract thought about an abstract object. If QM reveals anything at all, it’s that there are no separate objects. Think of the wave function as a pointing rather than a verifiable (scientifically) truth (direct experience instead). Even if it is verifiable, see the opposite view is equally true (that it is not verifiable). Likewise, things never actually ‘come into existence’. This implies separation where QM reveals there is not. 

(Nobody’s saying an elephant is existing in a superposition as an ant.)

 

Quote

 

Let me explain further, the beginning of universe was a wave function that contained an infinite^infnite amount of possibilites, but as reality manifests, the amount of possibilities is negated, all the way until the end of the universe

There is no beginning of a universe. There is the apparent theory that there is, but there isn’t. Point to it, literally, to notice it’s a thought, without any actuality to actually reference. 

Quote

But right now, not everthing in the material world is existing in an infinite superposition, form is negating possibilities., this eventually becomes the infinitiy of infinities containing the negation of infinities.

There is not a material world, with things in it. This is the revelation of QM’s. 

Quote

This is obviously abstract, but I can explain further if it's not clear. But it should be clear by the consistency of form at size you can see, it isn't every time you look again at the world a complete infinitely different form. When you look at an elephant, look away, look back, it's almost identical to you. It isn't now some strange esoteric possible form

Form is a thought, a belief, which QM’s debunks. 

[wildflower]

9 minutes ago, Nahm said:

There is no ‘abstract object’, if anything it’s an abstract thought about an abstract object. If QM reveals anything at all, it’s that there are no separate objects. Think of the wave function as a pointing rather than a verifiable (scientifically) truth (direct experience instead). Even if it is verifiable, see the opposite view is equally true (that it is not verifiable). Likewise, things never actually ‘come into existence’. This implies separation where QM reveals there is not. 

(Nobody’s saying an elephant is existing in a superposition as an ant.)

 

There is no beginning of a universe. There is the apparent theory that there is, but there isn’t. Point to it, literally, to notice it’s a thought, without any actuality to actually reference. 

There is not a material world, with things in it. This is the revelation of QM’s. 

Form is a thought, a belief, which QM’s debunks. 

Abstract object literally means abstract thought about an abstract object.... that should be obvious

No you haven't watched Leo's videos, he claims that the elephant and your children when you aren't looking are existing in a superposition of infinite possibilities, and mentions other objects like elephant and cat....

 

You don't understand what I'm saying or Leos video, he mentions beginning of universe being an wave function of infinite possibility, I agree, but I added my own views and clarifications.

 

But we are talking past each other, as your not addressing or perhaps understand what I'm saying. I am going to be honest what I think you are talking about is completely nonsensical to even talk about, because as soon as you write or say anything it's a contradiction, which I find untenable

[Nahm]

@wildflower
You just basically have to allow quantum mechanics to debunk quantum mechanics. Similarly, spirituality wise, the hearing of the message is that there is no hearer of a message. 

[wildflower]

1 minute ago, Nahm said:

@wildflower
You just basically have to allow quantum mechanics to debunk quantum mechanics. Similarly, spirituality wise, the hearing of the message is that there is no hearer of a message. 

Yeah I wasn't talking about any of that, so don't worry, misunderstanding each other

[Nahm]

@wildflower

The whole point of quantum mechanics, to the extent there is a point, is you telling yourself there is no each other, there is no  quantum mechanics. There is no right or wrong you or me, no understander or understanding. 

[wildflower]

10 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@wildflower

The whole point of quantum mechanics, to the extent there is a point, is you telling yourself there is no each other, there is no  quantum mechanics. There is no right or wrong you or me, no understander or understanding. 

There is no whole point, thats the point, you need to go deeper

[Inliytened1]

44 minutes ago, wildflower said:

There is no whole point, thats the point, you need to go deeper

In the end the founding fathers of quantum mechanics went on, some of them, to become mystics.  They realized that QM revealed that reality was made of nothing, or consciousness- which really freaked them out.  Einstein did not want to admit it.  But Bohr knew.  He knew.

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Adamq8 said:

@Breakingthewall https://youtu.be/PM7nA4TP4Y0

Better explained ?

Impossible to understand spoken... anything similar wrote? I ve been searching but i didn't find anything about these theories. 

1 hour ago, wildflower said:

No you can't actually measure light

 

Why? It has been measured many times, in the void, air, water, even in a compound that reduced it to 50% or something like that. 

[Chris365]

22 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Impossible to understand spoken... anything similar wrote? I ve been searching but i didn't find anything about these theories. 

Why? It has been measured many times, in the void, air, water, even in a compound that reduced it to 50% or something like that. 

The measured speed of light is always for a return trip, i.e. light bouncing off a mirror and going back to its source. It was never measured in a one way trip. For all we know, light might travel at twice the currently accepted speed of light  when going away from the measuring device, and at infinite speed on the way back. The average would still be the currently accepted speed of light ?

[Breakingthewall]

17 minutes ago, Chris365 said:

The measured speed of light is always for a return trip, i.e. light bouncing off a mirror and going back to its source

Are you sure of that? Would be easy to make a direct measurement without bouncing 

 

[Chris365]

17 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Are you sure of that? Would be easy to make a direct measurement without bouncing 

 

And what about... relativity? 

[Breakingthewall]

10 minutes ago, Chris365 said:

And what about... relativity? 

47 minutes ago, Chris365 said:

 

What do you mean? Really I'd like to understand that about the speed of light, there is something wrong there. The theory of relativity says that the speed of light is invariable, regardless of the movement of the observers, so space and time are variable. something very strange

Edited August 10, 2021 by Breakingthewall

[Chris365]

6 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

What do you mean? Really I'd like to understand that about the speed of light, there is something wrong there. The theory of relativity says that the speed of light is invariable, regardless of the movement of the observers, so space and time are variable. something very strange

Einstein assumed speed of light is the same in all directions by definition.

To measure the one way speed of light,  you need synchronized clocks. To synchronize clocks, you assume the one way speed of light is the same in all directions.

Edited August 10, 2021 by Chris365

[Breakingthewall]

7 minutes ago, Chris365 said:

Einstein assumed speed of light is the same in all directions by definition

Probably it's true, why not?

7 minutes ago, Chris365 said:

To synchronize clocks, you assume the one way speed of light is the same in all directions.

Why? you can synchronize the clocks, move them and do the measurement. where is the problem? in the speed of movement by having displaced them? can be calculated.

[Chris365]

3 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Probably it's true, why not?

Why? you can synchronize the clocks, move them and do the measurement. where is the problem? in the speed of movement by having displaced them? can be calculated.

'Probably' true? I thought you wanted proof

 

[Breakingthewall]

4 minutes ago, Chris365 said:

'Probably' true? I thought you wanted proof

 

Yeah , only probably, but i don't understand yet why is a problem to measure the speed of light with a laser, two atomic clock synchronized and no rebound. I will try to see that video... i ve problems with the English spoken

[Breakingthewall]

well, there is directly a flaw in their exposition. They say that if you synchronize the clocks and then move them, they would no longer be synchronized due to the theory of relativity. It would be possible to know exactly what the variation is if the speed with which they have moved is measured exactly, and thus the speed of light could be measured exactly

[Chris365]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

well, there is directly a flaw in their exposition. They say that if you synchronize the clocks and then move them, they would no longer be synchronized due to the theory of relativity. It would be possible to know exactly what the variation is if the speed with which they have moved is measured exactly, and thus the speed of light could be measured exactly

But time dilation for the clocks is assumed to be consistent with a speed of light that's the same in all directions (that's the hypothesis we are verifying).  

This exact experiment is explained why it doesn't work at 10:42 in the video

Edit. Also, if there was a way to measure the one-way speed of light, we would not still be stuck with Einstein's axiom/assumption

Edited August 10, 2021 by Chris365

[Breakingthewall]

39 minutes ago, Chris365 said:

This exact experiment is explained why it doesn't work at 10:42 in the video

They say that it could only be measured if the speed of light is the same in both directions and that is unprovable ... well, I don't understand. if you move the lasers 1 km away, you measure from one side, then from the other, it gives you the same values, and that's it 

39 minutes ago, Chris365 said:

Edit. Also, if there was a way to measure the one-way speed of light, we would not still be stuck with Einstein's axiom/assumption

Why not? It is a very counterintuitive theory but its validity has been proven many times 

But anyway, i asked why they said the light have not any speed, like it's instantaneous, or infinite speed. I read that some times in this forum, one time in a post of Leo, maybe this is any theory , I'd like to know the reason to affirm that

 

Edited August 10, 2021 by Breakingthewall

[Purple Man]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

 

But anyway, i asked why they said the light have not any speed, like it's instantaneous, or infinite speed. I read that some times in this forum, one time in a post of Leo, maybe this is any theory , I'd like to know the reason to affirm that

 

There is a fantastic interview Renée Weber had with David Bohm and he insists on this view. The logic behind it is simple: Distance decreases when a body approaches the speed of light. When you get to the speed of light there is no distance at all. There is no exit point and no finish line. For light itself there is no time or space whatsoever, or travelling. It just "is".

In his view, and this is very interesting, "light" is a unified, eternal field. But this light field becomes the visible world by reducing his speed. The manifest universe is "frozen light",light that has gotten into the "speed game". In this way, it can understand itself and observe itself. 

As you can see, it totally resembles the notion of the Unmanifest Absolute creating the manifest as a way to gain knowledge about itself.