juanrga

The three are plain wrong. Consider <2> any undergraduate textbook on basic physics explains, in the introductory chapters, that time is not a mere number. E.g. 200 does not represent time in physics. If you have not a textbook at hand start here with a discussion of what is a physical quantity. Already Pauli, the famous Nobel laureate, replied to arrogant statements as this in a very humorous way. His quote is very famous:

Apart from revealing your misconceptions of Newton law, are you aware it is not a mathematical or logical law, but a physical law tested in experiments since it was formulated more than 300 years ago? And continuing with the experimental part, are you aware that action-reaction law is the reason why you can sit in front of your computer and write all this nonsense?

Both used the term "mass" and denoted it by m. And as it is usual in physics "mass" means what you call "rest mass". You seem to believe that "relativistic mass" and "rest mass" have the same status in physics but this is not true. This is why "mass" means the latter for any physicist. Moreover I would like to know how you obtain the relativistic mass M = E/c2 from the 'definition' M= p/v. Where, in your own words, p is momentum [*]. [*] I may confess this is a tricky question What part of photons mass is always zero m=0 you do not still understand? When it collides or when it moves in space the photon has zero mass. Time is a physical quantity.

But proper mass is also a misleading name. Students could believe that proper mass is the mass in the proper frame, when m is the mass in any frame. This is the reason why we use "invariant mass" or simply "mass" to refer to m.

You miss the main difference. Science tests its hypothesis in the real world using scientific methods. Religion does not. This is the reason why science has corrected religious claims since Galileo.

This is just untrue. QM describes the physical reality and provides a deep understanding. Physicists understand very well the difference between physical reality, which exists, and a model of it. Feynman in his famous lectures explains all this very well and remarks also by philosophers are usually wrong about this kind of topics. He chooses a chair as illustration. Because you do not understood what your professors said to you! No teacher says that electrons move in circular orbits around nucleus and any chemist know that orbitals are mathematical functions. The definition of quantum particle can be found in textbooks. In fact, in another thread, you were given a link to a textbook page with the precise definition of quantum particle, but you ignored this both then and now. Your repetitive insults against physicists will not change the facts: (i) you do not understand physics and (ii) you are who is being dogmatic about how you want nature to be.

False. And as stated in my previous message the relativistic theory of collapse has been developed. I did not mention then that the relativistic theory of collapse is in complete agreement with the relativistic speed limit, but I assumed that this fact would be obvious. This is a news written by a writer who does not know the physics. Below in the comments, you can find the two first comment by Uncle Al explaining that no information was sent faster than light. Nonsense. The uncertainty principle has already been proven right in hundred of experiments. Therefore you cannot prove it "wrong". In fact the above experiment (nature link) is in complete agreement with quantum mechanics.

A set of traditions have independently arrived to a wrong conclusion; this is not anything new or exciting. Quantum physics does not say what you imagine and, of course, it would not mixed with your "eternal wisdom". Once more: quantum physics is a branch of science. The definition of quantum particle is well-known. In another thread you were given half dozen of links explaining to you what is the world made of. For instance this one http://public.web.ce...rdModel-en.html Fields are unobservable by definition. Hawking is not precisely an authority regarding such matters (in fact his position is rather naive and he maintain it in popular books for laymen). Moreover a worldwide search of Hawking plus "positivism of science" returns only two results. And one of them is a speculations thread in SFN where you repeat your beliefs. What you say about "all the quantum physicists" is not true. In the same message that you are replying now, I name a known quantum physicist (Nobel Winner) that says the contrary to what you pretend. Separability and locality are two fundamental ingredients of quantum field theory, for instance.

Reply: It's what YOU said in a post on this topic, your exact words. The collapse is not instantaneous. Moreover you are assuming that the system was not prepared in an eigenstate of the observable, in whose case there is not collapse. http://www.sciencefo...he-epr-paradox/ What I said in this thread is exactly what you quote above: "wavefunctions are functions and therefore are not real". And the words that you are quoting from another thread do not say the contrary, evidently. What part of wavefunctions are not real you do not still understand? I'm not worried much by what the textbooks say, I'm worried by the fact that people keep making posts about the 'collapse of the wavefunction', Schrodingers Cat, and other silly and misleading ideas. If you open a textbook on QM you will find the postulate about wavefunction collapse. It must be a silly idea for people who has never studied QM or cannot understand it. P.S: Since you are so worried about other people posts, could you devote five minutes to learn to reply other's posters without adding your words inside the quotes of others? Thanks

This is a comment you made on a very recent post: The collapse is not instantaneous. Moreover you are assuming that the system was not prepared in an eigenstate of the observable, in whose case there is not collapse. You seem to believe that all wavefunctions are 'real'. I am pretty sure that my above quote "wavefunctions are functions and therefore are not real" says the contrary to what you pretend. Any textbook on QM that I have makes it clear that wavefunctions are mathematical functions, not physical 'things'. Only some people who has not studied QM or does not understand it claims otherwise.

And your point is? Your original point was that electron and proton cease to exist in an atom but this is not true: QM does not "depend on pictures". No. Electromagnetic waves are physical systems. They have energy momentum and other physical properties and thus are real. Quantum wavefunctions are functions and therefore are not real.

The collapse is not instantaneous. Moreover you are assuming that the system was not prepared in an eigenstate of the observable, in whose case there is not collapse. No experiment exists where information is instantaneously transmitted. When quantum mechanics was being developed about 100 years ago, there was a belief that collapse violated relativity, but this is false. The topic of relativistic collapse of wavefunctions is, today, a mature topic in quantum physics. The work of theoretical physicists is to think how the world is. And the work of experimental scientists is to test if theoreticians ideas agree with the physical reality via measurements of physical quantities corresponding to some amount of physical reality.

There is lots of techniques. This is one recent tracing the motion of an electron in an atom http://newscenter.lb...ectrons-moving/ Who said you than one electron and one proton in an atom have separate positions? Quantum particles are not tiny billiard balls. A radio receiver tunes into different wave lengths.I am not sure that I understand what you mean when you say" the wave function doesn't represent a concrete thing in nature". A radio receiver receives electromagnetic waves. Electromagnetic waves are physical systems; waves are 'things' in the OP language. Wavefunctions are functions; a mathematical function is not a physical system; it is not a 'thing' in the OP language.

1. Wrong. Your claim follows from your misunderstandings of the Bell inequalities. Moreover, you have shown that you do not even know what science is or does. 3. Nonsense. Lots of popular books on science explain what the world is made. Rest of points/babble ignored.

Do you mean nuclear science? The same discipline giving energy sources to human populations without any other source? Dating technology to geologists? Advanced imaging techniques for diagnostic purposes in medicine? Radiomolecules for studies in chemical, biological, and forensic sciences? Prototypes of quantum computers...

All known elements are condensed in the 140 year-old periodic table of the elements. And the new ones have been synthesized by us in the laboratory. For instance, the past year IUPAC officially added the new elements Flerovium (114) and Livermorium (116) to the periodic table.

A wave-function describes the state of some quantum systems. As its name indicates, it is a function not a "thing". Heisenberg matrices and Feynman path integral method can be derived from wave-function theory, because matrix and path integral are two alternative formulations of the same theory. Electron and proton do not cease to exist in a Hydrogen atom and each can be detected. Nobody would confound the wave-function with the 'probability cloud'. It depends on what calculations you are making that you use one or another.

Your picture of science is very narrow. For instance, fundamental physics deals with the fundamental nature of physical systems and one of its aims is to ask "why" as Steven Weinberg correctly notices. The violation of the inequalities means that quantum mechanics is correct. In fact the experimental tests of violations are in agreement with quantum mechanical predictions. Saying that the experimental verification of quantum mechanics (which is one of the branches of science) violates "one of the assumptions of science" is another nonsensical claim.

No, as swansont has said to you if the momentum is E/c then the mass is zero: m=0. One can also make the inverse computation and show that if the mass is [math] E/c^2[/math] then the momentum is zero: p=0.

Coordinate time is relative and varies with the observer but, as said to you before, proper time is the same for any observer. It is also named invariant time.

I would add that "rest mass" is an old name which can be misleading. In modern literature we say invariant mass or simply mass. E.g. we say that the mass of a photon is zero.

Bohr was not even mentioned! In any case, the point here is that physicists make claims about the physical nature of physical systems. Imaginary time is a mathematical trick promoted by Hawking in early work in quantum gravity, but that way of research is abandoned today (and by good reasons [*]). In any case what you reply here has nothing to do with the fact that quarks and electrons existed much before humans were born. 'Traditions' can say anything that they want including nonsense. The history of science is the history of the continuous discredit of such ideas, such as the ancient idea that the world "is made up of five elements". Science has shown that the world is made of elementary particles: electrons, quarks,... [*] http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/lostcauses.html#X

The belief that the human mind has some special role in quantum mechanics (e.g. wavefunction collapse) is not only an ancient point of view, but it is completely wrong. And the further claim that quarks and electron do not exist without a "human conscience" is nonsense. Contrary to what you believe, there is an overwhelm consensus among the immense majority of quantum physicists, astrophysicists, cosmologists, and other scientists on that quarks and electrons existed much before the first Human was born. E.g., any textbook on cosmology describes the quark epoch.

Yes. If this was true science could not be possible. The laws of physics are objectively the same for all the observers. If you refer to proper time then two remarks: (i) it is not well-defined for massless particles and (ii) when defined, it is the same for each observer. Indeed proper time is one of the relativistic invariants. Time is a basic physical property, with well-defined operational ways to measure it and with basic unit in the International System of Units.

I'm sorry to inform you that quarks and electrons (what you call "Scientific objects") existed much before the first Human was born. Moderators note: I submitted my post in ordinary font, just by clicking in the reply button but it seems that some post above is broken and anything add to this thread is automatically turned into bold font!!!