http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111211134004.htm Show me where it is included in the Big Bang theory? Where is entanglement in the measuring of potential between planets, stars and galaxies? Is it a property of nature? Yes or no
basic wiki i guess if people observe evidence to sustain the truth of what they comprehend; entanglement is a FACT of nature! ie.... it aint the evidence that is wrong, it is the QM as used to describe the evidence that has the errors. the ptolemaic model was wrong too! no big deal. Time to start over!
Bishadi, has anyone made the claim that physics as a science is over because quantum mechanics explains everything?
Yes it's a product of nature.I came across this report today - http://www.fastmr.com/prod/283883_oil_sands_industry_in_canada_2011_market_analysis.aspx. I'm not familiar the publisher, but it looks pretty focused. Anybody here know the company?
Have I missed something? The article doesn't even mention the Big Bang. But if you agree that a "property of nature" is simply a phenomenon we can agree actually occurs, then sure, let's call it a property of nature. It may have no bearing whatsoever on the formation of planets or the arrow of time, or it might be a fundamental component of everything and we just don't see it yet. Does it matter? Scientists noticed something kind of odd about the way particles could be made to behave, and they're getting better at controlling and making use of this odd behavior. It's no different than the discovery, understanding, and eventual harnessing of electricity. It wasn't so long ago that lightning was a completely mysterious event to us, it was so beyond our understanding we didn't even have an inkling how useful it would become once we figured it out. Is electricity a property of nature? I would say so. But I'm not sure why I would bother - it seems self evident.
exactly. And if you have ever done any math that supports a BB, you would find, that the property of nature, mentioned is not included. ie.... the BB model (math) is wrong! so if that property is not addressed in the existing model and does in fact, offer a natural causality of 'spooky action'..... then the whole paradigm of how existence operates must be rewritten. kind of like the realization that the earth is not the center of the universe, the whole of the ptolemaic model, died! sure it does. accreation of entangled systems is far different that falling matter yes, it does matter and to discount it, provides the evidence of not 'closing' the system to causally define it So you admit that mass is affected by this at the smallest level of particles makes sense that in the universal, the property must exist and do far more than the old timers ever realized at least you see it All i wanted to point out, is there is far more of nature, than many realize
I think you're missing my point here. You were arguing with two positions. But I wasn't taking either of them, just explaining how we lack sufficient evidence to know either way, or if there's a third alternative. So I'm not going to admit anything because you were arguing against a position I don't hold. Funnily enough, all I've been trying to explain is what you said to me in your final sentence. We might be agreeing here. But I've never viewed QM as a subject worth getting worked up about. There are people who have a much deeper understanding than my poor remedial QM skills and they're not rioting in the streets. I would assume, if I started to get worked up about what's not being taken into account here and how it's obvious these things resonate over there, I would blame myself for getting all worked up over something I didn't understand.
the thread is about evidence. That is what is important; 'there is evidence'...... Which means, there is no option; address it! I can see that you really are not willing to have a position on something that could require you to relearn what you thought you know. the EPR was the enough to share to anyone that QM is a joke. Have you ever read the EPR paper? aint asking for riots i expect a little bit of integrity or just shut up no problem. Find other threads to play in.
I haven't read the actual paper but I'm familiar with its thesis. All it does is indicate that QM isn't all there is. But it doesn't matter that the it's not resolved - QM is useful as it is, even if it is incomplete. Most of the solid state electronics you use every day, the semiconducters in particular, were proposed, designed and developed based on predictions borne out of QM. So to the extent we've built technology based on the theory I'd say it's enjoying phenomenal success even if it is incomplete. Maybe it's close but still more a good analogy than anything else. A pretty (*)(*)(*)(*) good one considering how little a margin for error there is with chips and the like. If it gets us along until somebody figures out something else that is even more precise so be it - they'll chuck QM like they did Newton's laws of motion. But it undeniably works, so throwing it all out seems senseless.
i know Newton wasnt correct either. Close but incomplete. Lots more data and evidence now, so the old beliefs do evolve into new definitions. It's natural
I agree. It seems to follow that is one state was observed, that collapsed the wave involved such that Reality unfolded instantly with the correponding effects on the second particle.
