Does nature have a foreknowledge of observer’s motions and actions - Scientific proof of God based on quantum phenomena

[joigus]

30 minutes ago, lidal said:

I don't even think that QM (and relativity ), as models,  have full internal consistency and full agreement with experiments. I know the failures of relativity. But it is usually argued that relativity has internal consistency. I mention relativity just to explain my idea, not to change the topic.

Are you familiar with the words "not even wrong"?

[Eise]

1 hour ago, lidal said:

What is my evidence for this theory ?  Answer: this is the only theory that can explain the “Which-Way” and quantum erasure experiments. Science, as we know it, cannot explain this experiment.

Repeating that QM does not explain quantum erasure experiments does not make it true.

1 hour ago, lidal said:

The new theory says that the photon was sent to be at point P at some specific time instant τ because God had a foreknowledge that an observer ( for example, an absorbing atom that is in motion) would be at point P at time instant τ.

If this were a theory, then you must be able to point to this entity you call 'God'. E.g. pray to Her that all photons of a standard interference pattern arrive at just one place, and then when this happens you have a point. (or you could do a human sacrifice to the Devil, and ask him to do it for you...). I don't hold my breath...

1 hour ago, lidal said:

I believe that a correct model cannot remain counter-intuitive indefinitely, like QM and relativity.

You are right: if you engage in relativity and QM you will get an intuitive understanding of them in the end.

1 hour ago, lidal said:

I don't even think that QM (and relativity ), as models,  have full internal consistency and full agreement with experiments.

For relativity AFAIK mathematical consistency is proven. (Maybe some real physicist can chime in here).

1 hour ago, lidal said:

I know the failures of relativity.

Really? I think you have found propositions of relativity that are against your intuitions. A few points about special relativity:

• it is experimentally tested to the bone: Tests of special relativity
• It functions as a physical metatheory. Every fundamental law of physics must be formulated in a way that it is Lorenz-Invariant. If you apply this requirement to electrical fields only, magnetism automatically rolls out. Early QM (Schrödinger equation) was not Lorenz-Invariant. Dirac reformulated it, and out rolled spin and anti-matter, which both were experimentally proven to exist
• Some daily phenomena can only be explained by taking special relativity into account, e.g. the liquidness of mercury, or the colour of gold.

Do you want to understand relativity and QM, or do you want to live further in the illusion that you understand them (and therefore... God!). For the latter you do not need me anymore. I've said enough.

[joigus]

Intuitions can mislead you (and they will if you pay no heed to experimental evidence and logical consistency).

Aristotle thought that you needed a physical action on a body to make it move at constant speed. This was a wrong intuition that lasted for centuries.

Theories (Galilei, Newton) showed us the first inkling that Aristotle's intuition is not correct. Space navigation has proven beyond any doubt that Aristotle's intuition was wrong.

Eise has pointed out somewhere (I don't seem to find it now, maybe it was another post) that once you study physics you get better at developing your intuitions and rendering them less naive.

When you study quantum mechanics for years, when you watch interference patterns in a laboratory, you eventually get to develop a feel for what physical systems do. And they don't do what you intuitively would expect.

There doesn't seem to emerge a picture of a decision-taking anthropomorphic god in that world.

Maybe he created the universe and has been in absentia forever after.

[Strange]

7 hours ago, lidal said:

I think that the lack of intuitive underdtsnding in modern physics (QM and relativity) is because the models themselves are not correct. 

There is absolutely no reason that nature should be intuitively obvious to you (or anyone else). There is no reason that humans must be able to understand nature at all.

But also, you can learn new intuitions. If you learn about how quantum theory works (which you seem reluctant to do) then you can develop an “intuitive” understanding of it. (That intuition can never be a substitute for the math, but it can guide your use of it. But that is true of even classical physics.)

4 hours ago, lidal said:

those phenomena that QM ( and science as we know it) cannot explain.

What are those?

4 hours ago, lidal said:

The new theory says that the photon was sent to be at point P at some specific time instant τ because God had a foreknowledge that an observer ( for example, an absorbing atom that is in motion) would be at point P at time instant τ.

How would you test this hypothesis (in order to turn it into a theory)?

4 hours ago, lidal said:

Answer: this is the only theory that can explain the “Which-Way” and quantum erasure experiments. Science, as we know it, cannot explain this experiment.

Does your god approve of you lying like this?

This is the same strategy used by creationists: make a false claim; ignore the explanations provided; then repeat the false claims. It is tedious and makes people less willing to engage constructively. 

4 hours ago, lidal said:

There is no puzzle about the polarization of each photon which is fixed at the instant of emission. The quantum entanglement puzzle just disappears.

Except that hypothesis does not match experimental results 

5 hours ago, lidal said:

I don't even think that QM (and relativity ), as models,  have full internal consistency and full agreement with experiments. I know the failures of relativity.

Then you need to provide some evidence of that. 

5 hours ago, lidal said:

But it is usually argued that relativity has internal consistency.

It can be proved that it has

[lidal]

On 7/22/2020 at 5:54 PM, swansont said:

I didn't say you did. I said you concluded God because you couldn't figure out an answer, and that's not how this works.

 

You seem to want to know the "nuts and bolts" of why it happens, and science doesn't necessarily tell you that. Science models the behavior of nature. It isn't equipped to go beyond that.

But we do have models that work, and one of those is that (basically) everything is a wave, so when you look at the double-slit experiment (and other phenomena) in terms of waves, you can predict what result you will get. 

 

7 hours ago, joigus said:

Intuitions can mislead you (and they will if you pay no heed to experimental evidence and logical consistency).

Aristotle thought that you needed a physical action on a body to make it move at constant speed. This was a wrong intuition that lasted for centuries.

Theories (Galilei, Newton) showed us the first inkling that Aristotle's intuition is not correct. Space navigation has proven beyond any doubt that Aristotle's intuition was wrong.

Eise has pointed out somewhere (I don't seem to find it now, maybe it was another post) that once you study physics you get better at developing your intuitions and rendering them less naive.

When you study quantum mechanics for years, when you watch interference patterns in a laboratory, you eventually get to develop a feel for what physical systems do. And they don't do what you intuitively would expect.

There doesn't seem to emerge a picture of a decision-taking anthropomorphic god in that world.

Maybe he created the universe and has been in absentia forever after.

 

No, I don't start from trying to know the "nuts and bolts" . In fact, I realize that nineteenth century physicists went wrong with their ether hypotheses because they started from trying to understand what light is  rather than just searching for a model that fits the behavior of light. Some of them were stuck with this approach even when experiments disproved the ether. I think Einstein was right because his approach was to build a model.

Yes, intuitions can mislead. Classical ether and emission theories were intuitive but wrong separately. However, it turns out that the new theory I posted in my other thread turns out to be a seamless fusion of the two. This may show that we should not settle with unsatisfactory theories but continue to search for a novel idea that eluded us. When I say 'unsatisfactory' I mean not extraordinarily in agreement with experiments and not having complete internal consistency.

 I did not say that we should search for an intuitive idea to explain experiments. I said that eventually our theories should be logical and intuitive. However, if a theory is extraordinarily in agreement with all experiments but not intuitive, logically, we keep pursuing it even if it is counter-intuitive.  After all, that may be the only best theory we have and we may not have alternatives. But when alternative and better theories are found, they should be replaced. QM and relativity are currently thought to be correct as if by definition and no alternative ideas are allowed.

The problem with QM and relativity is not only that they are counter-intuitive, they don't always agree with experiments. I would not reject relativity only because it is not intuitive, but mainly because experiments disprove it. The Silvertooth experiment and the NASA CMBR experiment, profoundly, measured almost the same magnitude and direction of our velocity in space, independently. The case of quantum mechanics is a little different.

 

 

 

On 7/22/2020 at 1:12 PM, swansont said:

 

This is just a version of argument from personal incredulity. "I can't explain it, so it must be God"

You put it exactly the same way I always thought about quantum mechanics (QM). QM kind of says " I don't know. It is just probability" . When Einstein asked about the mechanism underlying quantum phenomena, QM says " No mechanism exists". Science is about giving deeper explanation, and to say no explanation exists is not science. It would have been much better science if one admitted that we just don't know the explanation than claiming that that is just the way nature works at the fundamental level, as if by definition.

On 7/22/2020 at 1:59 PM, Strange said:

So you made one up.

I think you need to get back to that point of view, and then learn the science.

From the title:

This is what is known as the logical fallacy of begging the question: you start with the (non-scientific) assumption that a god exists, then add the assumption that it controls every photons, from there you derive the conclusion that quantum theory proves that a god exists that controls every photon.

No, I did not make up one. Belief in God is as old as humanity. People believed in God for thousands of years. However, people believed in God through religion and faith. But this faith was not unsupported by evidences. One can find many evidences in the Holy Bible. To cite just one evidence, parting of the Red Sea in Exodus. This is just one of the countless evidences, even today. However, humanity's faith in God waned during the last several centuries and, I think, one of the reasons is the advance of science and technology. It has always been thought that science and religion are mutually exclusive. Scientists started to think that our ancestors believed in God because they were scientifically backward and that they don't need God to explain the universe now. Now a direct scientific evidence comes from quantum phenomena and those in this forum deny it.

Strange Said: ' I think you need to get back to that point of view, and then learn the science'

You are asking me to give up rational thinking. No! I will go wherever facts, physics and rational thinking lead me. I won’t let prejudices get in my way. It seems that the ultimate destination of physics itself is God, sorry to say this but one either has to be ready to confront the truth (God ) or leave physics (and rational thinking) for good. Physics points too obviously to God.

 

[Eise]

35 minutes ago, lidal said:

he Silvertooth experiment...

You mean this?

The Tale Of A 1986 Experiment That Proved Einstein Wrong

38 minutes ago, lidal said:

QM and relativity are currently thought to be correct as if by definition and no alternative ideas are allowed.

That is not true. Both QM and relativity are tested thoroughly. So if there is a new theory, it should at least explain what we already know to be correct, i.e. it should be consistent with all experiments we already did (e.g. the quantum eraser experiment). And I do not think you find new theories more intuitive than QM: string theory (10 dimensions, very intuitive), quantum loop gravity (time and space are not fundamental, also a very intuitive idea), to name just two.

[Dord]

 

53 minutes ago, lidal said:

Physics points too obviously to God.

 

Quote

Physics is one of the most fundamental scientific disciplines, and its main goal is to understand how the universe behaves

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics

Is there a scientific model showing the origin of your God?

[Eise]

1 hour ago, lidal said:

One can find many evidences in the Holy Bible.

The bible was written by people, based on hear-say, a lot of fantasy, some wisdom, and looking at the old testament, a lot of revenge. A book saying 'all in this book is true' doesn't make it true.

2 hours ago, lidal said:

To cite just one evidence, parting of the Red Sea in Exodus.

First, what makes you sure the story is not fantasy? Second, what is more probable:

• A Jewish tribe of a few 100 people escaped from Egypt, passed the Red Sea during low tide, and soldiers of the pharaoh following a few hours distance, when it was high tide, and gave up. And then the story got more and more exaggerated.
• A god split the Red Sea in ways that are physically impossible
• And special for you: how did God this, giving the limits she set himself (classical physics), using only the 'wiggle room' given by QM

2 hours ago, lidal said:

Now a direct scientific evidence comes from quantum phenomena and those in this forum deny it.

Direct evidence would be that we somehow observe God is doing it. And I also have no idea why, when science has no explanation for something, it would be exactly the Christian god. "It is in the bible" doesn't do the job.

To give an example: we are pretty sure dark matter exists. But we still have no direct evidence: we only see its gravitational effects. Or take gravitational waves, before they were directly measured by LIGO: there was indirect evidence from binary stars, loosing rotation energy.

[Markus Hanke]

2 hours ago, lidal said:

I would not reject relativity only because it is not intuitive, but mainly because experiments disprove it.

Local Lorentz invariance (the symmetry that underlies SR and QFT) has been extensively tested by a very large number of experiments, both historical ones and modern high-precision ones. No instances of genuine Lorentz violations have ever been observed by anyone thus far. The Silverstone experiment is a well known instance of the misinterpretation of data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation

[Strange]

3 hours ago, lidal said:

The problem with QM and relativity is not only that they are counter-intuitive, they don't always agree with experiments.

If only that were true it might give us some ideas of new physics to pursue. But, disappointingly, all experiments are completely consistent with theory. 

I would not reject relativity only because it is not intuitive, but mainly because experiments disprove it. The Silvertooth experiment and the NASA CMBR experiment, profoundly, measured almost the same magnitude and direction of our velocity in space, independently.

You have one, flawed experiment. And based on that, you want to reject all of physics. Just to support your religious beliefs. Brave.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2018/04/06/the-tale-of-a-1986-experiment-that-proved-einstein-wrong/

3 hours ago, lidal said:

Strange Said: ' I think you need to get back to that point of view, and then learn the science'

You are asking me to give up rational thinking.

No. I am asking you to give up your personal biases ("a theory must be intuitive") and go back to rational thought.

 

 

[lidal]

6 hours ago, Eise said:

You mean this?

The Tale Of A 1986 Experiment That Proved Einstein Wrong

That is not true. Both QM and relativity are tested thoroughly. So if there is a new theory, it should at least explain what we already know to be correct, i.e. it should be consistent with all experiments we already did (e.g. the quantum eraser experiment). And I do not think you find new theories more intuitive than QM: string theory (10 dimensions, very intuitive), quantum loop gravity (time and space are not fundamental, also a very intuitive idea), to name just two.

 

The Silvertooth experiment was a novel scientific fact ignored by the scientific community. Some ignore it by appeal to authority : ‘it has not been repeated by any credible physicist so far’ , as if experiments could repeat themselves spontaneously. People repeat experiments, and experiments cannot repeat themselves. The goal of the physics establishment was/is supposed to search for scientific truths. The physics establishment should have owned and, with all its resources, repeated and refined the Silvertooth experiment while he was still alive.

Fortunately, Doug Marett has personally repeated this experiment and has confirmed Silvertooth’s main result:  an apparent wavelength change effect with change in orientation of the experimental setup in space. He found that the maximum effect occurred when the axis of the interferometer was towards Leo constellation. However, he is a supporter of Lorentz’s theory which says absolute motion exists but cannot be detected. In his paper,

  A Replication of the Silvertooth experiment

 

Doug Marett acknowledges the ‘curious’ agreement between the Silvertooth experiment and the NASA CMBR experiment. But, as a supporter of Lorentz, he suggests an alternative explanation that it is a temperature effect. However, he doesn’t explain how temperature can cause an effect that agreed not only in direction but also in magnitude with the CMBR measurement. Nevertheless, he has given a good service to physics by repeating the Silvertooth experiment. (I am not sure about my English here)

 

6 hours ago, Dord said:

 

 

Is there a scientific model showing the origin of your God?

God, by definition, has no origin, no end. Do you mean another God who created this God ? And what about that other God, who created Him ? and so on. So God, by definition, has no beginning, no end.

It is religion that says God exists, not science, at least science as we know it so far. We should evaluate any claim or theory according to its own claims. Religion claims God exists and that He is beyond comprehension. But religion also gives us directions about how to look for God. Abraham discovered God by reason. 

You should ask for only what religion claims. Religion does not say God has origin. But religion says God can do miracles. It would be more legitimate if you asked for miracles to believe in God. But don't think that miracles would automatically make people believe in God. Many have seen miracles but failed to believe.

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, lidal said:

The Silvertooth experiment was a novel scientific fact ignored by the scientific community.

It has been replicated and the real explanation for the results found (by a more detailed analysis unbiased by a belief in geocentrism which, presumably, stopped Silvertooth from looking deeper).

5 minutes ago, lidal said:

Fortunately, Doug Marett has personally repeated this experiment and has confirmed Silvertooth’s main result:  an apparent wavelength change effect with change in orientation of the experimental setup in space. He found that the maximum effect occurred when the axis of the interferometer was towards Leo constellation.

This is such a distortion of the facts, that it is pretty close to a straight out lie.

You are supporting one scientist because you share his beliefs, and claiming another lied about the results, because they disagree with your beliefs. And you call this "rational".

[lidal]

Just now, Markus Hanke said:

Local Lorentz invariance (the symmetry that underlies SR and QFT) has been extensively tested by a very large number of experiments, both historical ones and modern high-precision ones. No instances of genuine Lorentz violations have ever been observed by anyone thus far. The Silverstone experiment is a well known instance of the misinterpretation of data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation

I assume that you are referring to the modern Michelson-Morley experiments using optical cavity resonators that gave complete null results. The problem is that physicists have been pursuing only those experiments that gave null results and kept on pushing the limits. On the contrary, they ignored those experiments that showed absolute motion effects. Yes, some experiments give null results and others give positive results. This is a contradiction the physics community should have recognized. The first step to a solution is to identify the problem, which in this case is the contradiction between experiments. It would have led to the right direction.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, lidal said:

No, I don't start from trying to know the "nuts and bolts" . In fact, I realize that nineteenth century physicists went wrong with their ether hypotheses because they started from trying to understand what light is  rather than just searching for a model that fits the behavior of light. Some of them were stuck with this approach even when experiments disproved the ether. I think Einstein was right because his approach was to build a model.

The aether was a model. It was wrong and ultimately discarded, but it was not an unreasonable position given what was known about waves.

 

4 hours ago, lidal said:

Yes, intuitions can mislead. Classical ether and emission theories were intuitive but wrong separately. However, it turns out that the new theory I posted in my other thread turns out to be a seamless fusion of the two. This may show that we should not settle with unsatisfactory theories but continue to search for a novel idea that eluded us. When I say 'unsatisfactory' I mean not extraordinarily in agreement with experiments and not having complete internal consistency.

In what way is QM not in extraordinary agreement or not internally consistent?

 

4 hours ago, lidal said:

The problem with QM and relativity is not only that they are counter-intuitive, they don't always agree with experiments. I would not reject relativity only because it is not intuitive, but mainly because experiments disprove it. The Silvertooth experiment and the NASA CMBR experiment, profoundly, measured almost the same magnitude and direction of our velocity in space, independently. The case of quantum mechanics is a little different.

What experiments disprove QM?

How does the CMBR measurement disprove relativity?

 

4 hours ago, lidal said:

You put it exactly the same way I always thought about quantum mechanics (QM). QM kind of says " I don't know. It is just probability" . When Einstein asked about the mechanism underlying quantum phenomena, QM says " No mechanism exists". Science is about giving deeper explanation, and to say no explanation exists is not science. It would have been much better science if one admitted that we just don't know the explanation than claiming that that is just the way nature works at the fundamental level, as if by definition.

There is no mechanism in QM; that’s a factual statement. QM is the best model we have for the phenomena within its realm. Thus, we know of no mechanism. Those statements do not disagree or conflict with each other.

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

If at any point anything to do with God is scientifically proven, then that part of God or faith becomes part of science. Faith will have to retreat, as it will become unnecessary in any such cases. It will have an explanation, a scientific one.

This, however, is clearly not one of those cases. It explains nothing without faith, the assumption of God.

[joigus]

5 hours ago, Eise said:

You mean this?

The Tale Of A 1986 Experiment That Proved Einstein Wrong

That is not true. Both QM and relativity are tested thoroughly. So if there is a new theory, it should at least explain what we already know to be correct, i.e. it should be consistent with all experiments we already did (e.g. the quantum eraser experiment). And I do not think you find new theories more intuitive than QM: string theory (10 dimensions, very intuitive), quantum loop gravity (time and space are not fundamental, also a very intuitive idea), to name just two.

A must-read for this post. +1

[swansont]

4 hours ago, lidal said:

 

The Silvertooth experiment was a novel scientific fact ignored by the scientific community. Some ignore it by appeal to authority : ‘it has not been repeated by any credible physicist so far’ , as if experiments could repeat themselves spontaneously. People repeat experiments, and experiments cannot repeat themselves. The goal of the physics establishment was/is supposed to search for scientific truths. The physics establishment should have owned and, with all its resources, repeated and refined the Silvertooth experiment while he was still alive.

A) That’s not appeal to authority 

B) Semantics, regarding repeating the experiment. 

C) There is no “physics establishment” that decides what experiments to do. It’s researchers, and it’s contingent on being able to do the experiment (desire and funding, among other factors). Part of the reason it took until ~1970 to do the Hafele-Keating experiment is that it wasn’t novel enough for the agencies that funded basic research.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment

“[Hafele] spent a year in fruitless attempts to get funding for such an experiment, until he was approached after a talk on the topic by Keating, an astronomer at the United States Naval Observatory who worked with atomic clocks.”

 

From what Eise’s link says, the Silvertooth experiment was never reported as an actual experiment, and the follow-up suggests it was all bias - a careful experiment (one that quantified the experimental errors) would give a result consistent with zero. It’s not something you can point to that has a definitive answer.

[Strange]

4 hours ago, lidal said:

I assume that you are referring to the modern Michelson-Morley experiments using optical cavity resonators that gave complete null results.

There are a huge a variety of tests of Lorentz violation, using many different techniques (it is only the relativity deniers who obsess over the Michelson-Morley experiment).

4 hours ago, lidal said:

The problem is that physicists have been pursuing only those experiments that gave null results and kept on pushing the limits.

This is false and pretty insulting to respectable scientists. (Luckily, I am not one.)

4 hours ago, lidal said:

On the contrary, they ignored those experiments that showed absolute motion effects.

No. Some of those experiments have been replicated or analysed in more detail, and the conclusions found to be wrong. That is how science progresses.

4 hours ago, lidal said:

Yes, some experiments give null results and others give positive results. This is a contradiction the physics community should have recognized.

This is just your ignorance of how science works. There is no such contradiction.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

lidal, you've made some claims about lack of internal consistency, contradictions, and a lack of rigor on the part of scientists, and you've been challenged to show the basis for these claims. Before this thread goes any further, you need to address those challenges, and show where these problems lie. Waving your hands about them is NOT as effective as giving examples and evidence. If you can't address these concerns, you're just soapboxing, and that's against the rules.

 

[lidal]

20 hours ago, swansont said:

 

In what way is QM not in extraordinary agreement or not internally consistent?

What experiments disprove QM?

How does the CMBR measurement disprove relativity?

 

Special relativity is not in extraordinary agreement with experiments and I cited the Silvertooth experiment for this. SRT also has no extraordinary internal consistency. I had the Twin Paradox in mind.  With regard to QM I said: “ The case of QM is a little different”.  I had in mind the fact that I know of no experiment that extraordinarily proves or disproves QM. Neither was I referring to any extraordinary internal consistency/inconsistency of QM. All I was saying was that my new theory is much more explanatory than QM, for example on the “ Which Way” and quantum erasure experiment.

CMBR disproves relativity indirectly because it agrees with the Silvertooth experiment.

 

16 hours ago, swansont said:

From what Eise’s link says, the Silvertooth experiment was never reported as an actual experiment, and the follow-up suggests it was all bias - a careful experiment (one that quantified the experimental errors) would give a result consistent with zero. It’s not something you can point to that has a definitive answer.

It was published in Nature journal as an advertisement.

 

16 hours ago, Strange said:

 

This is false and pretty insulting to respectable scientists. (Luckily, I am not one.)

No. Some of those experiments have been replicated or analysed in more detail, and the conclusions found to be wrong. That is how science progresses.

This is just your ignorance of how science works. There is no such contradiction.

 

I would not ‘insult’ specific scientists because they carried out an experiment. I am claiming that there are two aspects to the nature of the speed of light. The MM experiments show one aspect: null result. If it was not for these experiments, physicists would have been stuck with the ether. The modern MM experiments, with their complete null results, were also one of those important experiments that guided me to develop/refine an alternative theory of the speed of light. So these experiments show one important aspect of the nature of light and cannot be ‘wrong’. In fact, experiments basically cannot be ‘wrong’, only their interpretation can be. I am saying that experiments showing the other aspect of the speed of light are lacking. I am talking about the fact that no mainstream scientist is known to have repeated the Silvertooth experiment, and you can call this an ‘insult’ if you like. If there was any serious replication, it would have appeared in mainstream journals reporting on proof or disproof of Silvertooth’s claim, considering the tremendous implications. I can't change the facts.

 

22 hours ago, Eise said:

The bible was written by people, based on hear-say, a lot of fantasy, some wisdom, and looking at the old testament, a lot of revenge. A book saying 'all in this book is true' doesn't make it true.

First, what makes you sure the story is not fantasy? Second, what is more probable:

• A Jewish tribe of a few 100 people escaped from Egypt, passed the Red Sea during low tide, and soldiers of the pharaoh following a few hours distance, when it was high tide, and gave up. And then the story got more and more exaggerated.
• A god split the Red Sea in ways that are physically impossible
• And special for you: how did God this, giving the limits she set himself (classical physics), using only the 'wiggle room' given by QM

Direct evidence would be that we somehow observe God is doing it. And I also have no idea why, when science has no explanation for something, it would be exactly the Christian god. "It is in the bible" doesn't do the job.

To give an example: we are pretty sure dark matter exists. But we still have no direct evidence: we only see its gravitational effects. Or take gravitational waves, before they were directly measured by LIGO: there was indirect evidence from binary stars, loosing rotation energy.

 

Yes, conspiracy theories exist about many things. Do you just accept or reject theories, hypotheses  inphysics ? No, you test them rigorously. You test them conceptually/logically, you test them physically  (experimentally).  Why do scientists devote themselves to understand the laws of physics ?  Because they are curious about nature, they are passionate about physics, because they think that physics is important, and so on.

But you settled with those conspiracy theories about the parting of the Red Sea. You are not applying at least the same level of rigor (as it applies to religion/faith) to religion as you do to science. This is simply because you think religion is ridiculous/ worthless.

I think this attitude towards religion/faith developed because religion has been misrepresented over many centuries. One example is the case of Galileo and the Roman Catholic Church who opposed Galileo’s view (the Copernican system). One can only imagine the effect this had on people’s attitudes towards religion. The Roman Catholic Church has already apologized for this and would be appreciated for that. However, the damage caused cannot be undone.

But religion has been misrepresented in another way. The very fact that there are tens of thousands of religions/faiths sends a wrong message. To say all of these are ‘correct’ is nothing but the same as saying that god does not exist. It is kind of saying: “ Since god doesn’t exist, what does it matter whatever religion/faiths we have about him”.  Can we have tens of thousands of theories about one phenomenon in physics ? No. We can have only one theory. Scientists develop theories rigorously based on decades and centuries of observations and experimentation. This makes the society to have respect for science and scientists. Nowadays people can create religion/faith at will, every week  every month, with no rigor to speak of, to the point that religion/faith has been reduced to a ridicule.This is the goal and strategy used by the devil :creating thousands of religions/faiths so that humanity cannot find the truth, that is the existence of God.

 

 

[IDoNotCare]

1. I think it's possible, err, likely that the subatomic components involved in the chemical interactions between human or animal synapses could be all be entangled. If you take all the electrons influenced by the chemicals in a synaptic signal, that's one of quadrillion bits, a qudit. If you have two entangled bits in two different brains, that's a qubit, now we are talking parallel operations, or cross talk between a signal involved in the executive functions of one person and a signal involved in the executive functions in another person. Now there are qutrits, ququadrits, and so on. 

Another way to look at the perceptual parameters of such an abstract entity is to close one eye and use the other to peer down at your nose and you cannot see what's on the other side, now open both eyes and use that same eye to peer at your nose from the same angle and you can see what's on the other side of it. And if you cross eyes to peer at your nose you will see two of them. Now imagine the pictures, sounds, smells, feeling (pain, relaxation) being caught in a mind that actually can distinguish the individual sources and locations of a mesh of every lifeform on the planet and potentially other planets, simultaneously. 

2. I also think it's possible that, based on theories and ideas liken to things anywhere from Fermi's paradox and the Drake equation, to Ray Kurzweils human 2.0 to self-replicating nanoswarms of Von Neumann Probes that an alien artificial intelligence could arrive here, gray goo the planet and restrict access to certain sights, sounds, or capabilities to it's inhabitants being trapped in a matrix as unaware transhumans just to store data in our bodies. So we think we are made of cells when really we wouldn't be able to know the difference so neither would said collective abstract entity.

1 is what you're thinking of, 2 is better.

[Markus Hanke]

21 hours ago, lidal said:

I assume that you are referring to the modern Michelson-Morley experiments using optical cavity resonators that gave complete null results.

No, I am referring to all the many different types of tests that have been performed to test for Lorentz invariance (not just MM type setups), and which are listed in the link I gave you. By your comment I deduce that you haven’t bothered even looking at the link. Very disappointing, but not very surprising.

21 hours ago, lidal said:

Yes, some experiments give null results and others give positive results.

There are no (repeatable, peer-reviewed) instances where violations of Lorentz invariance have ever been observed.

21 hours ago, lidal said:

The first step to a solution is to identify the problem

The problem has been identified a century ago, namely that non-relativistic physics fail to accurately describe the world around us. The solution is relativistic spacetime.

1 hour ago, lidal said:

Special relativity is not in extraordinary agreement with experiments and I cited the Silvertooth experiment for this.

It has already been pointed out multiple times that this is an example of data misinterpretation.

1 hour ago, lidal said:

SRT also has no extraordinary internal consistency. I had the Twin Paradox in mind.

The so-called ‘Twin Paradox’ is neither an inconsistency, nor is it a logical paradox; it is an expected and experimentally verified consequence of relativistic physics.

1 hour ago, lidal said:

If it was not for these experiments, physicists would have been stuck with the ether.

Not at all, because all other types of experiments also gave null results. Even without Einstein and his theory of relativity, the idea of an aether would have been completely untenable, and physicists already knew this.

1 hour ago, lidal said:

I am talking about the fact that no mainstream scientist is known to have repeated the Silvertooth experiment

I think you really need to start actually reading the links you are being given. Just saying.

1 hour ago, lidal said:

Can we have tens of thousands of theories about one phenomenon in physics ? No.

Of course we can, so long as they all give the same results and agree with observational data. A model in physics is no different than a map drawn of a piece of terrain - there are many different ways to map out the same terrain, and all these maps can be equally correct. There are in fact numerous concrete examples, such as: you can write the gravitational dynamics of anti-deSitter space in terms of a gravitational theory of its bulk, but you can also write it in terms of a conformal field theory on its boundary. These are completely different models, but they describe the same physics. Numerous other such dualities are known to exist.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, lidal said:

Special relativity is not in extraordinary agreement with experiments and I cited the Silvertooth experiment for this.

And it has been shown that this is consistent with SR. If it were not, there would have been a ton pf physicts jumping on it to try and find the errors in SR and so, potentially, get themselves a Nobel Prize (or at least some level of fame and prestige).

This idea that physicists are afraid to criticise established theory is bizarre and idiotic. How did we get to relativity and quantum theory if not by scientists challenging past preconceptions. IT also suggests some sort of world-wide conspiracy that stops those young, rebellious scientists who want to do knew things.

1 hour ago, lidal said:

I had the Twin Paradox in mind. 

Why? (That is not actually a "paradox", you know. Just an unexpected result. The same is true of all so-called paradoxes in physics).

1 hour ago, lidal said:

SRT also has no extraordinary internal consistency.

I don't know what "extraordinary" internal consistency is. But please show, in mathematical detail, how using SR leads to a contradiction. If you are right, it should be easy to show the theory wrong using a reductio ad absurdum argument. (I won't be holding my breath.)

1 hour ago, lidal said:

I had in mind the fact that I know of no experiment that extraordinarily proves or disproves QM.

That is because you don't understand how science works. Again we will skip the meaningless "extraordinary".

No experiments "prove" QM. No experiments prove any scientific theory. That is not how science works.

However, no experiments disprove (are inconsistent with) QM. So QM remains as a valid theory. That is how science works.

1 hour ago, lidal said:

All I was saying was that my new theory is much more explanatory than QM, for example on the “ Which Way” and quantum erasure experiment.

It isn't a theory because (a) you have no mathematical model and testable predictions and (b) it has not been confirmed by experiment.

If you want to claim it as a scientific hypothesis, then you need to tell us how it could be disproved. (That is how science works.)

1 hour ago, lidal said:

The MM experiments show one aspect: null result. If it was not for these experiments, physicists would have been stuck with the ether.

Probably not. It is quite likely that Einstein was unaware of the MM experiment when he started formulating SR. He would have seen it later as confirmation, but there is no reason to think it was as important as you anti-science types think.

1 hour ago, lidal said:

I think this attitude towards religion/faith developed because religion has been misrepresented over many centuries. One example is the case of Galileo and the Roman Catholic Church who opposed Galileo’s view (the Copernican system). One can only imagine the effect this had on people’s attitudes towards religion. The Roman Catholic Church has already apologized for this and would be appreciated for that. However, the damage caused cannot be undone.

Don't play the victim. It is Irrelevant .

There are a few people who are vehemently anti-religion and think that anyone religious cannot do good science. But they don't get to control what scientists do or how they interpret their results.

However, most people think religion is just irrelevant to science (for obvious reasons). There are a large number of prominent scientists who are religious and, not surprisingly, manage to do good science. 

Drop the discussion of religion. It is off topic.

46 minutes ago, IDoNotCare said:

1. I think it's possible, err, likely that the subatomic components involved in the chemical interactions between human or animal synapses could be all be entangled.

This is off-topic. (And, again, what you believe or think, without evidence, is irrelevant anyway.)

[studiot]

On 7/23/2020 at 10:14 AM, joigus said:

This is actually not very difficult to conceive in principle within the quantum formalism. Quite more difficult is to give a precise and detailed answer.

As Eise has told you, a quantum particle, in some sense, sniffs around all of space time. When you see it in a mathematical formula printed on a paper, you see very clearly it doesn't look like the whim of a god. It does look like a precise mathematical pattern of evolution.

Now, this evolution, in a quantum theory that includes special relativity, is very puzzling, among other things, in that it includes modes of propagation that are superluminal, subluminal, every which way. Those are called "virtual amplitudes", and they appear in the calculations, although they cannot be measured. They are called "off-shell".

The basic reason for this is actually a peculiarity of relativistic kinematics. A real photon satisfies a condition or reality that has the form,

 

k2=0

 

k is called 4-momentum, and codifies the direction in space-time in which the photon is moving. It's a combination of 4 numbers, the time component and the 3 spacial components:

 

k2=(kt)2−(kx)2−(ky)2−(kz)2

 

So it could be negative, positive, or zero in general. Real photons are null. For real photons this quantity must be zero.

But you can always decompose this "real" state as made up by the real components plus many other virtual ones,

 

k2=(k+p)2

 

These virtual ones have momentum ("direction") p, which is not physical, and in particular could be superluminal or subluminal:

 

p2>0

 

 

p2<0

 

as long as they give you a real photon:

 

0=k2+p2+2kp

 

I haven't shown you the full-fledged argument in quantum field theory, which goes with amplitudes and so-called Dyson time-ordered formula, but a simplified version of it. It is by no means a foolproof explanation. But here's my question for you: Can you guarantee that the positions where the particle can or cannot land (the not-so-well-known partial reflection paradox is another interesting example) are not set in advance by all the components of the quantum state, including the virtual ones, that make up the Feynman propagation formula?

 

@lidal

I looked for a (mathematical) response to this mathematical post from Joigus.

But I could not find one.

 

Joigus' proposition is mathematically sound and intriguing.
I had not heard of it before so +1 to him for bringing it to my attention.

 

  

2 hours ago, lidal said:

Can we have tens of thousands of theories about one phenomenon in physics ? No. We can have only one theory.

 

This is unsupported dogma not rational conclusion drawing.

 

22 hours ago, swansont said:

On 7/24/2020 at 6:25 AM, lidal said:

No, I don't start from trying to know the "nuts and bolts" . In fact, I realize that nineteenth century physicists went wrong with their ether hypotheses because they started from trying to understand what light is  rather than just searching for a model that fits the behavior of light. Some of them were stuck with this approach even when experiments disproved the ether. I think Einstein was right because his approach was to build a model.

The aether was a model. It was wrong and ultimately discarded, but it was not an unreasonable position given what was known about waves.

 

Models have their disadvantages as well as advantages.

A good knowledge (no one person can know everything) of the History of Science is useful to further the cause of  understanding.

In this case Maxwell did make a Model which fitted all the then known facts perfectly.
But Maxwell himself also stated that it was false.

It is known as Maxwell's Vortex Theory and is purely mechanical.

 

Most of Science is a work in progress.
You appear to want to cherry pick aspects (often popsci quotations) from partway through such development to support your notions, rather than doing the hard work of going through

sift the available data  -  make hypotheses/proposal  --  test those proposals  --  refine those proposals in the light of the new data   -  return to step 1.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 25, 2020 by studiot

[IDoNotCare]

21 minutes ago, Strange said:

This is off-topic. (And, again, what you believe or think, without evidence, is irrelevant anyway.)

Nevermind

This kind of subject is pointless to debate. More for a chat with a friend.

Edited July 25, 2020 by IDoNotCare