Comments

• 

  Roaring Lovely June 16, 2021 at 7:08pm

  The 'emperor's cloths falacy'
  
  Generaly, it goes this way:
  
  There is something that I know but which I can't explain to you. This knowledge makes me better off, in some way, than you.
  
  In other words 'unlike you, I am privileged to see emperor's cloths'. It is a form of intimidation or peer preasure. We cant know or confirm if the claimant is actually seeing anything!!! But, he puts us down 'for not seeing it' anyway!! However, it turns out that there us nothing like that that actually exists, and so 'the emperor is naked'!
  
  But they manage to intimidate pple to claim too that 'they see the cloths' by assigning those who 'don't see' to a 'lower state' eg '3d'!! So everyone claims 'they too are in 5d' to avoid being undertooked by the peers!!
  
  Meanwhile, the concocters gets away with selling poppycock!!
• 

  Roaring Lovely June 16, 2021 at 6:53pm

  "Hi Roaring Lovely
  
  Again. I do not live in your world. The work of 3d physics that you reference is primitive. Sorry."
  
  It doesn't justify your belief that 'you create the world by merely looking at it', so again you resort to emperor's cloths!! If you don't see the cloths of the emperor, then 'you are primitive'. Hopefully , pple will claim that 'i too see the cloths' for fear that you will describe them as 'primitive'. But they will end up walking naked!! I am not one of them!!
• 

  marker dragon June 16, 2021 at 6:43pm

  Hi Roaring Lovely
  
  Again. I do not live in your world. The work of 3d physics that you reference is primitive. Sorry.
• 

  Roaring Lovely June 16, 2021 at 6:39pm

  

  "Needing volumes to explain quantum mechanics is applying 3d models to a 5d problem"
  
  Pure nonsense!! QM is a 3D theory! Must you hijack a physics theory, written with volumes of books to justify a simple, non-scientific, unfalsifiable claim about '5D'? Do you need a rubber stamp of a physicist to justify your beliefs?
• 

  marker dragon June 16, 2021 at 6:21pm

  Needing volumes to explain quantum mechanics is applying 3d models to a 5d problem
• 

  Roaring Lovely June 16, 2021 at 5:45pm

  String theory is a mathematical nonsense, not science!!
• 

  Roaring Lovely June 16, 2021 at 5:41pm

  

  No, string theory is not true,...,it is not even false!! It is not a scientific theory. It is unfalsifiable, and here I explain. Note the article says:
  
  "But is string theory any closer to describing reality? “People say that string theory doesn’t make predictions, but that’s simply not true. It predicts the dimensionality of space, which is the only theory so far to do so, and it also predicts, at tree level"
  
  Prediction is not what counts. Testing it does. Is this 'dimensions' testable? No!! We are stuck in 3d and this surverely limits our ability to test any theory that talks of 'other dimensions'. To test 'other dimensions', we must see if kinetic energy is as described by:
  
  E=mvx2+ mvy2+mvz2,
  
  or we have to add more terms other than just the 3 for the 3 dimensions. If, for instance, there is a 'fourth dimension', then we expect even an object that looks stationary to, at times surreptitiously moves due to 'its motion in fourth dimension being bent towards the third dimension' in some way. As you can see, this method of testing is not practical!! It demands that we know everything!! How are we to be sure that the particle is not being simply hit by an unknown, invisible particle, hence its kinetic energy increases unexpectedly but without anything 'going to another dimension'.?
  
  What we need when testing in science is never 'confirmation'. Rather, we do 'falsification'. A theory that can only be 'tested' by supposing that 'we know everything' is not falsifiable, hence not science.
• 

  Roaring Lovely June 16, 2021 at 3:12pm

  

  "Are some competing on a most words wins basis? Sorry. A little humor.... Hope you are not offended RL"
  
  This is humorous, I mean in the sense of hilarious. The topic of QM demands a lot of words if you are not to be simplistic like those guys who tell you that you are a god who creats the moon and the stars by a blink of an eye.
  
  Quantum books are often 3 centimetres or so thick! Pple who think they know QM by reading a 9min read article are fooling themselves!!
• 

  marker dragon June 16, 2021 at 2:29pm

  Are some competing on a most words wins basis? Sorry. A little humor.... Hope you are not offended RL
• 

  Roaring Lovely June 16, 2021 at 12:44pm

  

  How can a physicist fail to understand that observation necessarily involves interaction between objects?? Furthermore, it is even worse in microscopic objects as we cannot observe them directly. An electron has to hit a screen and then emit light before we see one. So we actually seeing light, not the electron. Why should we not suppose that the interaction with the screen 'collapses' the wavefunction?? Nope! This is a stupid stop-gap done before the advent of Quantum Elecyrodynamics (QED) that says, yes, the electron does interact with the photonic field to emit light from the spot. Thus light beams from a spot way before it reaches the eyes of the observer. Therefore the 'collapse' does take place upon the interaction between the electron and the photon!! It is not in the 'fundamental understanding of QM' simply because such 'understanding' was done before QED, a quantum theory that involves interactions.
  
  Thus to understand what happens during observation, you must drop 'fundamental QM' done by the likes of Neumann and use more complete theories like QED. The 'fundamental QM' misleadingly removes a particle off its environment and considers an ideal, non-interacting particles, which we know they don't exists, therefore irrelevant! Its just like Newt considers an object moving in a perfect vacuum and then concludes that such object can move forever, or the way he 'removes' all evenly bodies and considers only the earth and the moon as though they are the only things in the universe.
  
  These guys who say 'in QM, observation does it all' applies 'fundamental QM where it obviously doesn't apply: in interacting particles! It is like claiming that a billiard ball can never stop because Newts first law of motion does not mension 'friction'. It woefully misleading and stupid!!