The control of one subatomic particle

@Susmariosep,

I've got jars full of subatomic particles, but I'm just to ethical to try to control them. This sounds like 1984.

@roger,

Dear Roger, I think you are not connected with me.

Or you are playing possum or ostrich.

Have you ever read about a particle in two places at the same time, from quantum mechanics experts?

That is the reason why these experts also go for several universes existing at the same time, and we humans happen to be in our universe, but there are our copies in other universes which are infinite in number.

And read this and do some thinking, these experts also tell mankind that, it's too bad that not one universe is ever accessible to and by another universe.

That is some hogwash balderdash nonsense stupidity, but on what motivation though in the heart and mind of these socalled quantum mechanics experts?

On the other hand, I am receptive to correction by the quantum mechanics experts who read this post of mine.

What do you say about that kind of an idea?

I think these experts are talking nonsense, but they are taken seriously by so many unthinking folks.

From Roger
Re: Susmariosep (Post 6460263)
I've got jars full of subatomic particles, but I'm just to ethical to try to control them. This sounds like 1984.

0 Replies

Please bear with me, dear readers.

As this website is a question and answer platform, I will take the liberty to share with you, dear colleagues here, my thoughts on the existence of subatomic particles, as coming from one thinking person, though not any expert in quantum mechanics and nor expert in deep deep deep mathematricks.

I wrote these two texts [as follow below] and submitted them as comments in Quora, but Quora does not seem to care about them as to, from my observation, to keep them visible to myself and I assume its readers.

In the meantime, I still hope that better thinkers here can and will teach me better thoughts from their part, on my thought about 'The control of one subatomic particle'.

Quote:

https://debunkingrelativity.com/2013/12/08/explaining-the-double-slit-experiment/#comment-7549

osolev On July 8, 2017 at 1:22 am
Permalink | Reply

Dear sir, have you tried to talk with experts like Penrose and Hawking, or lesser experts like US cosmologists, e.g., Sean Carroll?

I think they leave out ether because it had been proven to be non-existent.

However, I really like to know whether all experts who are not I guess receptive to your ideas, do they really do experiments with only one particle at all?

For I am sure that no scientists can deal with only one particle at all, but reports are always implying that experimenters do control even just one particle alone.

I think that is impossible, not even the scientists using the Hadron Large Collider can do that, controlling only one all alone single particle at a time.

The way I see all these experiments on particles, it is not in fact dealing with particles, but what they interpret to be particles, from the effects visible to them, the scientists, which effects are brought about by man invented equipment, no matter it is so big and large by coverage of square kilometers of land area.

And I also tend to see all these talk about particles and fields and etc., they are all mathematical constructs, i.e. in effect thoughts in the mind of scientists, which thoughts do not correspond to any objective reality that is outside and independent of man’s i.e. scientists’ mind.

But I am not any quantum mechanics expert at all, and also not any deep mathematician, though modesty aside, I do serious thinking.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Marius Dejess
Just now

I am also Osolev: the way I see it, it is all pure conceptival realm of things with quantum mechanics, nothing of the objectival realm of things which are outside the minds of these quantum experts, and independent of their minds.

Wherefore, don’t get all confused, just observe them with their irrational discourse all grounded on their own kinds of mathematics, which have nothing to do with the nose in our face, which is of the homoscopic realm of things in objective reality, as far as we homines sapientes are concerned.

So, don’t get all confused, just continue to hold to our homoscopic realm of things, and let them go on and on and on with their deep deep deep… subatomic realm of quantum mechanics, and/or super super super macroscopic realm of things, which are all in their purely irrational order of things in the conceptival realm of their irrational mind.

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

How many Physics or Mathematics courses have you taken in college? I am guessing zero (based on the evidence you have provided on this thread). But I would be interested to hear if I guessed incorrectly.

It is funny how many people think that they can learn modern Physics through google searches.

0 Replies

Dear readers here, I am trying to see whether I can do critique on the weirdness features of quantum mechanics, from my knowledge of the following concepts:

Quote:

See for example this link:
https://able2know.org/topic/394567-5#post-6462916.

"Existence is anything at all which we know to be real from our conscious experience and reasoning."

"In concept God is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning."

"Good is anything at all which man at least LIKES, as to strive to possess and enjoy." [17 words]

"Evil is anything at all which man at least DISLIKES, and strives to avoid or overcome." [16 words]

And other concepts to come.

You see, I do a lot of exchange with atheists, so I get to know about the importance with concurrence on concepts.

For when people don't concur on concepts at all, then they are irrational to talk about the same things on different concepts - and this is the core irrationality, that they don't care at all to first get their concepts on the things they talk about, concurred on.

Will you agree with me, that folks who don't care to get their concepts concurred on first, they are conducting themselves irrationally: because they are talking in inanity and in vacuity, for talking past each other's head.

Now, my idea is that the weirdness features of quantum mechanics can be critiqued on, by investigating them on our concept of what is existence.

So, I read time and again that in the quantum mechanics realm, a particle exists in two places at the same time.

What about dear guys here who are experts with the weirdness features of quantum mechanics, you tell me why a particle does not exist, not only just in two places at the same time, but in several indefinitely places at the same time, or a particle does not exist even in no places at the same time?

Dear readers here who are not yourselves like me also neither, experts in the weirdness features of quantum mechanics, let us sit back and await with bated breath to read from the experts in a2k of the weirdness features of quantum mechanics, what they have to tell us.

And in all honesty and sincerity, I hope to learn from the experts here in a2k with the weirdness features of quantum mechanics.

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

Quote:

I am trying to see whether I can do critique on the weirdness features of quantum mechanics, from my knowledge of the following concepts

You can't. At the core of Quantum Mechanics is the equation

$https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/2481065c6a33df9fee45fa3ae60d168fd6084109$

Any valid critique would have to be based on an understanding of this equation. You can get there, with 4 or 5 years of University Study. But if you aren't willing to put in the work to reach this level of understanding of the mathematics... than you can't possibly make a serious critique.

0 Replies

Dear maxdancona:

Thanks for your reaction to my thread here.

Now, I have this weird supposedly weird idea from experts of quantum mechanics experts of which you are one, namely, that a particle is in two places at the same time.

Is that correct, namely, my information?

0 Replies

By the way, maxdancona, how do I know whether a poster with a message in this thread is online or not, I can't figure out by searching the vicinity of your name, and also in the whole space making up the surface area of your post.

Thanks in advance when you tell me how to know a poster is online.

If I may, do you have any concept at all on what is existence, because however weird some features of quantum mechanics are, they are instances of existence: yes? no?

And I really congratulate myself to be talking with an expert of quantum mechanics weirdness.

Okay, tell me, who is that expert who says that anyone claiming to understand quantum mechanics does not know what he is talking about - do I get the person correctly, I mean what he says?

I will check in on this thread very so often, just in case you have a message for me.

Dear readers of this thread from yours truly, let us sit back and await with bated breath for maxdancona to react to my attempts to engage with him: on my idea about approaching quantum mechanics weirdness from the standpoint of what is existence.

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

I make no claim to being an expert in Quantum Mechanics. I have a Physics degree and I have taken classes in Quantum Mechanics. I currently work as an engineer (and haven't done anything in Physics for years). I have taken a couple of classes in Quantum Mechanics, worked through problem sets, read texts and attended lectures. This gives a basic level understanding... but nothing more.

But I can tell you that we are biological beings, made up of cells, that evolved through a process of evolution over millions of years. Our existence is due to biology, not Quantum mechanics. There is no reason (other than wishful thinking and a desire to be magical) to believe that Quantum mechanics has anything to do with our existence or the meaning of life.

Humans seem to always be looking for magic. And now a popular misunderstanding of Quantum Mechanics fills in for magic.

In truth, there is no magic and no mystical truth. It is just math that predicts how subatomic particles behave.

0 Replies

To maxdancona:

I am very glad to read you again, for I was worried that you would stop altogether with reacting to my thinking.

Now, you use the word magic [see his post below] as if you are reproaching me for getting into magic thinking, with my concern about existence in the weirdness features of quantum mechanics.

You tell me:

“There is no reason (other than wishful thinking and a desire to be magical) to believe that Quantum mechanics has anything to do with our existence or the meaning of life.”

Now, that is very interesting for me that you say, that Quantum mechanics has anything to do with our existence or the meaning of life.

I read you that by anything you mean nothing, i.e. quantum mechanics has got NOTHING to do with existence and the meaning of life.

Pray, tell me, how come there are nth hits from google when I enter quantum mechanics into the search box of google:

Quote:

Google quantum mechanics

About 23,000,000 results (0.53 seconds)

That number of hits indicates that for a very big number of humans like you and me insofar as being human is concerned, quantum mechanics means a lot in terms of existence and the meaning of life.

It is the meaning of their life, and they some of them many make very good in life with writing about quantum mechanics like for example, how it is the bridge to alternative universes.

Anyway, coming back to your reproach on me, that I am doing magical thinking talking about the weirdness features of quantum mechanics, do you mean that humans who deal with quantum mechanics are also into magical thinking, or I am the only one into magical thinking?

Pray tell me, WHY I am into magical thinking, and also those humans who make a good living with writing reams and reams and reams on quantum mechanics?

Dear readers here, let us all sit back and witness with bated breath to witness whether maxdancona will react to my thinking in this post, as to tell me what is magical with my thinking on quantum mechanics, as also with a lot of humans who find the meaning of life in quantum mechanics, as to write reams and reams and reams on quantum mechanics, by which they make a good living therefrom.
_________________________

Quote:

Tue 11 Jul, 2017 09:57 pm
@Susmariosep,
I make no claim to being an expert in Quantum Mechanics. I have a Physics degree and I have taken classes in Quantum Mechanics. I currently work as an engineer (and haven't done anything in Physics for years). I have taken a couple of classes in Quantum Mechanics, worked through problem sets, read texts and attended lectures. This gives a basic level understanding... but nothing more.

But I can tell you that we are biological beings, made up of cells, that evolved through a process of evolution over millions of years. Our existence is due to biology, not Quantum mechanics. There is no reason (other than wishful thinking and a desire to be magical) to believe that Quantum mechanics has anything to do with our existence or the meaning of life.

Humans seem to always be looking for magic. And now a popular misunderstanding of Quantum Mechanics fills in for magic.

In truth, there is no magic and no mystical truth. It is just math that predicts how subatomic particles behave.

2 Replies

@Susmariosep,

Argument by google is ridiculous. Try googling "Jesus was gay" and notice that you get more hits for this search than you do for yours.

Does that prove anything?

0 Replies

@Susmariosep,

Science deals with things that are testable. In science, nothing is valid until it can be modeled and tested by experiment. The scientific process is a careful process of testing, confirming and questioning. The results are reproducible and consistent.

With magic you make conjectures you feel should be true (or wish that were true). Magic doesn't use mathematical models, and the ideas of magic aren't tested by experiment. Magic certainly isn't testable or consistent.

I don't know what exactly you feel that "Quantum Mechanics" tells you about the meaning of life. If you can provide an experiment we could run... or even a model based on Schrodinger's equation than we could have an intelligent discussion.

It isn't valid to throw around pseudo-science terms when you don't understand the actual mathematical meaning. Just because you are using these terms, doesn't make your argument scientific.

0 Replies

Dear Max, you keep on using the word magic, do you mean that I am into magical thinking?

Please tell me what is your concept of magical thinking, for I really do not accept that I am into magical thinking at all.

Dear readers here, Max seems to be a person who accuses me of something which I am not into; but I will take him to be without any untoward intention on me, when he explains what is his meaning of magic and magical thinking, and it appears to me that the words used by him, magic, and magical thinking, they are not intended by him to be of any untoward intention in regard to my way of thinking.

This Max started a thread on "A Call for Intelligent Respectful Discussion" in January of 2015.

Now is the time for him to show some testimony from himself in favor of his own observance of his advocacy of "A Call for Intelligent Respectful Discussion."

So, dear readers here, let us all sit back and await to read how Max understands by the words or terms, magic and magical thinking, by which he to my impression is accusing me of, and I don't like that, not at all!

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

Did you read my thread? What I said is that you can question someone's opinions without attacking them personally. In this thread, I am questioning the opinions you have expressed by suggesting that they are an example of magical thinking. I stand by what I said and I have made the effort to explain my specific objections to what you have written here. I have not said anything negative about you as a person, nor have I said that all of your thinking is "magical thinking"... I have only commented on the specific opinions you are expressing here.

I have not attacked you personally. So stop taking it personally.

1 Reply

Dear readers here, I am reproducing the OP of Max in page 1 of his thread in January of 2015:

“A Call for Intelligent Respectful Discussion.”

Quote:

Page1 # 5,873,488 • maxdancona Sun 25 Jan, 2015 12:33 pm

I come to Able2Know for intelligent respectful discussion. I enjoy discussing topics that interest me with people who don't agree with me. This is best way to learn, and the best way to test and refine my opinions. Occasionally my mind is changed by a good discussion.

More and more able2know seems to be overrun with personal attacks, vendettas and ideological speech that allows no compromise or discussion. I would like to reach to people who like me, would like to be able to have respectful, intelligent, discussions without the name calling and sometimes hateful attacks.

After all, if we don't like each other, then why waste the time typing to each other.

I suggest a couple of guidelines to have intelligent, respectful discussions with people you don't agree with.

[Etc.]

To Max, that is a very good advocacy, now do something to show your honesty and sincerity with your advocacy.

See next post.

0 Replies

Here are the last two posts which happen to be from yours truly (that was on 24 Nov, 2015 08:19 pm), in Max' thread of January 2015, in its page 11, after them no more posts further from any posters.

Quote:

Page 11 # 6,075,047 • Susmariosep Tue 24 Nov, 2015 06:43 pm

@maxdancona,
I also want to have intelligent respectful exchange of ideas with people who are intelligent and respectful.

The trouble is that thee are forums which are fanatically attached to a particular ideology, and their adherents can engage in all kinds of foul behavior and get away with it; but when the powers that be notice that members who are not into the ideology of the owners of such forums are doing very well in advancing according to truths, facts, and logic an idea in issue contrary to thers, these powers will make life impossible for them, the intelligent and respectful posters, even to the extent of banning such intelligent and respectful posters who are making a good case in advancing the affirmative cause of the issue.

So, I address maxdancona, are you interested in discussing with me the issue of God existing or not, intelligently and with mutual respect?

Please come to my thread on critical thinking on the existence of God.

Quote:

Page 11 # 6,075,091 Susmariosep Tue 24 Nov, 2015 08:19 pm

To maxdancona and everyone who desire to engage in intelligent and respectful exchange, please go to my thread on Critical Thinking on the Existence of God.

So, dear readers here, let us sit back and await to witness how Max lives out his advocacy of:

“A Call for Intelligent Respectful Discussion.”

Dear Max, tell me what are your concepts of magic and magical thinking, by which you reproach me to be into, relative to your advocacy of “A Call for Intelligent Respectful Discussion.”

See you guys again later.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Dear Max, you have not explained what you mean by magic and magical thinking.

I take that personally because nothing is impersonal when it has to do with humans who do think, and not with robots.

So, you also are into personal thinking with using the words magic and magical, in referring to my personal thinking.

You and I and all humans are all the time into personal thinking and feeling in our communication, unless it is not us humans talking, but robots.

That is what I notice with atheists, and you are one, namely, you have code words, like in the present environment you use the code words of magic and magical thinking, to describe people who do not think the way you atheists do.

Another code word with atheists is pastafarian.

But tell me, what actually do you mean by magic and magical thinking in reference to my thinking?

Now, I notice you replied instantly to my posts, so you are online.

Tell me if you know, how do I get to notice that a poster is online?

I am still a newbie here, even though I started here in like January of 2015, but I left and then just recently last month or even later returned, when I got banned in an atheists' forum, and looked for a forum to do my exchange of ideas with fellow thinkers, and what do you know, I have returned to a2k.

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

You seem to be confusing disagreement with personal attack. You are wrong (or at least I disagree with you). Disagreeing with someone, explaining how their arguments are wrong, is part of any intelligent discussion.

You expressed some opinions on this thread. I disagreed with them. You made some arguments. I explained why I think they are invalid. This is how intelligent discussion works. Stop taking it so personally when people disagree with you. Disagreeing with your opinions or beliefs is not a personal attack.

If you want everyone to agree with you, then you are in the wrong place. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I only ask that people challenge my ideas without name-calling, or personal attacks. We obviously disagree on some things. We likely agree on others. I don't have any problem with that, and I don't have any negative feeling toward you as a person.

Let's discuss the ideas.

0 Replies

Okay, Max, tell me what is my argument here, okay, and how it is wrong, okay?

By the way, how does a poster know that another poster is online, I was away for some home chores.

0 Replies

The control of one subatomic particle

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know