Ghideon Posted May 25, 2019 Share Posted May 25, 2019 55 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: Why does this need to be considered a new theory when it's obviously been present since the big bang? It does not need to be a new theory, did someone claim that? But the following suggested that some major answers (and hence progress of existing theories) was intended: 1 hour ago, hipster doofus said: This might be the answer to the biggest question in QM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hipster doofus Posted May 25, 2019 Author Share Posted May 25, 2019 Set whatever equations you got to say unmeasured QM objects are devoid of spacetime. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted May 25, 2019 Share Posted May 25, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: I'm either drunk or you edited your post ..doesn't matter. Do you want me to beg? Such dramatics are not requested. Yes I realised that I missed out making it clear I was referring to your idea so I added those words as an edit. I'm sorry if that threw you. The idea I'm referring to is the idea that 4 hours ago, hipster doofus said: Quantum objects are not large enough to inhabit spacetime. Yes I think they, like many other 'object' I have tried to talk to you about do not inhabit spacetime. So I think you are right there. But you also say because of their size and I disagree with this part. I think they belong in another framework because of their complexity. They do indeed have a common point of intersection between their world and spacetime. But the two 'worlds' only touch at one common point. That is how they interact with each other. Edited May 25, 2019 by studiot spelling 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hipster doofus Posted May 25, 2019 Author Share Posted May 25, 2019 well, amount of mass could equal complexity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted May 25, 2019 Share Posted May 25, 2019 Just now, hipster doofus said: well, amount of mass could equal complexity. Yes but a scale of mass is not very complex. There are other far more complicated objects around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 26, 2019 Share Posted May 26, 2019 18 hours ago, hipster doofus said: It's frightening how little you guys are willing to think outside the preconfigured box. This might be the answer to the biggest question in QM. You would rather put on your graduation cap and monocle and call me a peasant. ! Moderator Note Right. The problem isn't that you have posted something that contains a few buzzwords but no real physics. It’s with everyone else for pointing that out. 18 hours ago, hipster doofus said: I'm saying quantum weirdness has something to do with spacetime. How was my original statement not clear enough? You really can't see what I'm pointing at because I'm not using the precise terminology? ! Moderator Note Terminology, as well an not including any real physics, and being wrong about some of your claims. Quote Pretend I'm 15yo making the statements. ! Moderator Note If you were 15, I would tell you to take physics when you get the chance in school, and then when you go to college, take more physics classes. You can't hand-wave your way through this. You would probably be better served asking questions and learning how physics works. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts