QUOTE (Edward 3+)
Time to put up or shut up, Doc
Says the hypocritical idiot who accuses my posts of having no substance and then proceeds to post this, while ignoring this example of an actual debate.
Time to put up or shut up, Eddie
Says the hypocritical idiot who accuses my posts of having no substance and then proceeds to post this, while ignoring this example of an actual debate.
Time to put up or shut up, Eddie
We still await your erudition
QUOTE (Edward 3+Mar 22 2008, 07:23 PM)
We still await your erudition
You're getting slow
You're getting slow
You failed Doc - you´re going to have to find somewhere else to play - ´Bye
QUOTE (Edward 3+Mar 22 2008, 07:25 PM)
You failed Doc - you´re going to have to find somewhere else to play - ´Bye
So when confronted with your own hypocrisy you just run away? Pity, but not at all surprising
Bye bye Eddie...have fun!
So when confronted with your own hypocrisy you just run away? Pity, but not at all surprising
Bye bye Eddie...have fun!
EVEN 2 qubits NMR quantum computer fail:
"5.2 Physical realization and result
The experiment in Subsection 5.1 uses a two-qubit molecule, chloroform,
whose structure is shown in Fig. 6. The hydrogen and carbon nuclei serve as
qubit 1 and 2, respectively.
The actual results obtained from the experiment are compared with simulation
results [92]. After 12 steps, the error becomes very large. Imperfection
in the decoupling sequences is blamed and it is believed that the problem
can be mitigated when the technology is improved in the future. Extreme requirement
of high accuracy in the control pulse and readout is a disadvantage
of this Type-II quantum computer, because it uses a continuous representation
(the probability of occurrence) instead of a discrete one. Thus, it is
more vulnerable to the inaccuracy in the NMR operation. Small errors in every
step accumulate and finally become intolerable. Repeated measurement
and re-initialization ease the requirement for coherence time, but place a high
requirement on the fidelity at the same time."
http://www.math.tamu.edu/~zgzhang/nmr.pdf
"5.2 Physical realization and result
The experiment in Subsection 5.1 uses a two-qubit molecule, chloroform,
whose structure is shown in Fig. 6. The hydrogen and carbon nuclei serve as
qubit 1 and 2, respectively.
The actual results obtained from the experiment are compared with simulation
results [92]. After 12 steps, the error becomes very large. Imperfection
in the decoupling sequences is blamed and it is believed that the problem
can be mitigated when the technology is improved in the future. Extreme requirement
of high accuracy in the control pulse and readout is a disadvantage
of this Type-II quantum computer, because it uses a continuous representation
(the probability of occurrence) instead of a discrete one. Thus, it is
more vulnerable to the inaccuracy in the NMR operation. Small errors in every
step accumulate and finally become intolerable. Repeated measurement
and re-initialization ease the requirement for coherence time, but place a high
requirement on the fidelity at the same time."
http://www.math.tamu.edu/~zgzhang/nmr.pdf
I don’t think that QT is wrong. It gives the right answers to the most
complicated theoretical question. But QT has some paradoxical aspects :
dualism of particles, the infinite quantities of electron….etc.
I consider that these paradoxes are connected with only one reason:
" Nobody pays attention on geometrical form of particle".
And I am sure if somebody takes into consideration the
geometrical form of particle the paradoxes of QT will disappear.
================
complicated theoretical question. But QT has some paradoxical aspects :
dualism of particles, the infinite quantities of electron….etc.
I consider that these paradoxes are connected with only one reason:
" Nobody pays attention on geometrical form of particle".
And I am sure if somebody takes into consideration the
geometrical form of particle the paradoxes of QT will disappear.
================
What is QT? Quantum fourier transform? Anyway nobody saying that QFT wrong. Wrong is to think that entanglement exist or is very strong.
http://www.appi.keio.ac.jp/Itoh_group/publ...ns/03JS(EA).pdf
"So far, the only physical
system that has succeeded in the experimental implementations
of nontrivial quantum algorithms is liquidstate
nuclear spin resonance (NMR) at room temperature
[2,3]. These solution NMR quantum computers
deal with a large ensemble of about 10^18 nuclear spins
of uncoupled, identical molecules. This allows one to
control and measure qubits without destroying their
coherence or performing single-spin detection. The
drawback is that it tends to suffer exponential decrease
of signal as adding qubits, because the experiments
start with very small nuclear polarization
at the thermal equilibrium state of about 10^-5. This
limits the number of qubits accessible with solution
NMR to about 10 qubits [4]. Thus the initialization
problem should be addressed in order to improve
the scalability of NMR-based quantum computation."
If singal decrease exponentionaly then it's a probabilistic computer. Why they calling it quantum computer?
"So far, the only physical
system that has succeeded in the experimental implementations
of nontrivial quantum algorithms is liquidstate
nuclear spin resonance (NMR) at room temperature
[2,3]. These solution NMR quantum computers
deal with a large ensemble of about 10^18 nuclear spins
of uncoupled, identical molecules. This allows one to
control and measure qubits without destroying their
coherence or performing single-spin detection. The
drawback is that it tends to suffer exponential decrease
of signal as adding qubits, because the experiments
start with very small nuclear polarization
at the thermal equilibrium state of about 10^-5. This
limits the number of qubits accessible with solution
NMR to about 10 qubits [4]. Thus the initialization
problem should be addressed in order to improve
the scalability of NMR-based quantum computation."
If singal decrease exponentionaly then it's a probabilistic computer. Why they calling it quantum computer?
It seems, that NMR quantum computer was working without entanglement with pseudo pure states and they try to harnes quantum mechanic without entanglement for very small (and not exponentional) speedup.
http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/~talmo/CV/my-...BBKM04-QCwE.pdf
"5. Conclusions and directions for further research We have shown that quantum computing without entanglement is more powerful than classical computing. We achieved this result by using two well-known problems due to Deutsch–Jozsa and to Simon, and by comparingquantum-without-entang lement to classical behaviour. Our measure of performance was the amount of Shannon information that can be obtained when a single oracle query is allowed.
In the paper [4] that gave us Theorem 2, Braunstein, Caves, Jozsa, Linden, Popescu and Schack claimed that “: : : current NMR experiments should be considered as simulations of quantum computation rather than true quantum computation, since no entanglement appears in the physical states at any stage of the process”. Much to the contrary, we showed here that pseudo-entanglement is suficient to beat all possible classical algorithms, which proves our point since pseudo-entangled states are not entangled! In conclusion, a few final remarks are in order:
• The quantum advantage that we have found is negligible (exponentially small).
A much better advantage might be obtained by increasing epsilon and investigating these parability of the specific states obtained throughout the unitary evolution of the algorithms.
• The case of more than one query is left for future research.
• The case of a fixed average number of oracle calls, rather than a fixed maximum
number of oracle calls, is also left for future research. Indeed, it was pointed out by Jozsa that a classical strategy can easily outperform our unentangled quantum strategy
when solvingthe Deutsch–Jozsa problem if we restrict the number of oracle calls to
be 1 on the average. For this, the classical computer tosses a coin. With probability
1/2, it does not query the oracle at all and learns no information. But otherwise,
also with probability 1/2, it queries the oracle twice on random inputs and learns
full information—that the function is balanced—if it obtains two distinct outputs.
This happens with overall probability 1/8
if the a priori probability of the function
being balanced is 1/2, which is much better than the exponentially small amount of
information gleaned from our unentangled quantum strategy after one oracle call.
• What is the connection between this work and quantum communication complexity?
(A survey of this topic can be found in [3].) Could quantum communication have
an advantage over classical communication even when entanglement is not used?
Several papers dealingwith speed-up and its connection to entanglement have been
written, such as [1,14,6,22]. Let us mention two of these that appear at first to contradict our results: Jozsa and Linden [14] showed that for a large class of computational
problems, entanglement is required in order to achieve an exponential advantage over classical computation when the quantum state is pure throughout the computation.
Ambainis, Schulman and Vazirani [1] showed that quantum computation with a certain mixed state, other than the pseudo-pure state used by us, has no advantage over classical computation. But obviously, there is no real contradiction between our paper and these important results. We provide a case in which there exists a positive advantage of unentangled quantum computation over classical computation."
What I was saying? NMR was working even without entanglement! So about what speedup and quantum computer we are talking?
http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/~talmo/CV/my-...BBKM04-QCwE.pdf
"5. Conclusions and directions for further research We have shown that quantum computing without entanglement is more powerful than classical computing. We achieved this result by using two well-known problems due to Deutsch–Jozsa and to Simon, and by comparingquantum-without-entang lement to classical behaviour. Our measure of performance was the amount of Shannon information that can be obtained when a single oracle query is allowed.
In the paper [4] that gave us Theorem 2, Braunstein, Caves, Jozsa, Linden, Popescu and Schack claimed that “: : : current NMR experiments should be considered as simulations of quantum computation rather than true quantum computation, since no entanglement appears in the physical states at any stage of the process”. Much to the contrary, we showed here that pseudo-entanglement is suficient to beat all possible classical algorithms, which proves our point since pseudo-entangled states are not entangled! In conclusion, a few final remarks are in order:
• The quantum advantage that we have found is negligible (exponentially small).
A much better advantage might be obtained by increasing epsilon and investigating these parability of the specific states obtained throughout the unitary evolution of the algorithms.
• The case of more than one query is left for future research.
• The case of a fixed average number of oracle calls, rather than a fixed maximum
number of oracle calls, is also left for future research. Indeed, it was pointed out by Jozsa that a classical strategy can easily outperform our unentangled quantum strategy
when solvingthe Deutsch–Jozsa problem if we restrict the number of oracle calls to
be 1 on the average. For this, the classical computer tosses a coin. With probability
1/2, it does not query the oracle at all and learns no information. But otherwise,
also with probability 1/2, it queries the oracle twice on random inputs and learns
full information—that the function is balanced—if it obtains two distinct outputs.
This happens with overall probability 1/8
if the a priori probability of the function
being balanced is 1/2, which is much better than the exponentially small amount of
information gleaned from our unentangled quantum strategy after one oracle call.
• What is the connection between this work and quantum communication complexity?
(A survey of this topic can be found in [3].) Could quantum communication have
an advantage over classical communication even when entanglement is not used?
Several papers dealingwith speed-up and its connection to entanglement have been
written, such as [1,14,6,22]. Let us mention two of these that appear at first to contradict our results: Jozsa and Linden [14] showed that for a large class of computational
problems, entanglement is required in order to achieve an exponential advantage over classical computation when the quantum state is pure throughout the computation.
Ambainis, Schulman and Vazirani [1] showed that quantum computation with a certain mixed state, other than the pseudo-pure state used by us, has no advantage over classical computation. But obviously, there is no real contradiction between our paper and these important results. We provide a case in which there exists a positive advantage of unentangled quantum computation over classical computation."
What I was saying? NMR was working even without entanglement! So about what speedup and quantum computer we are talking?
Even to initialize quantum computer to state |000...000> is very hard or imposible. for such initialization need to cool to very low temperature, but this wasn't done even with state of art techincues:
http://qt.tn.tudelft.nl/publi/2002/Lieven_ENC_nmr.pdf
"Most quantum computations require a pure initial state,
for example a set of fully polarized spins, in the state
|00 . . . 0>. However, nuclear spins in thermal equilibrium at
room temperature are in an almost totally random state: for
typical magnetic field strengths, the ground (|0>) and excited
(|1>) state probabilities differ by only about 1 part in 10^5.
The spins are then said to be in a mixed (nonpure) state.
The polarization could be increased using hyperpolarization
techniques (see Optically Enhanced Magnetic Resonance,
Volume 5) but the state of the art is still very far from cooling
nuclear spins into the ground state.
The conceptional breakthrough which made NMR quantum
computation possible at room temperature was the concept of
effective pure or pseudo-pure states: effective pure states
are mixed states which produce the same signal as a pure state
to within a scaling factor."
Note: pseudo-pure state is state without entanglement (and without exponentional speedup...)...
So separation between |0> and |1> is only 10^{-5}, instead for digital computers 1 (or 0.5 - I am not sure...). So for example in digital computer "1" is 1 and "0" is 0 and in quantum computer |1> is 0.50001 and |0> is 0.49999 - so almost random. And about entanglement to talk is VERY early.
"After rearranging the populations for the eight spin states
as {3a,−a,−a,−a, a, a, a,−3a}, the last two qubits are
in an effective pure state conditioned upon the first qubit
being |0>. As the total number of qubits n in the molecule
increases, the relative fraction of effective pure qubits goes
to 1, but the preparation sequence becomes complex quite
rapidly for large n and the signal strength scales as n/2^n."
Efectiver pure state I guess is also state without entanglement...
"For arbitrary n, at least (2^n − 1)/n experiments are needed,
since the effective pure state is made up of 2^n − 1 product
operator terms and the starting state, thermal equilibrium,
contains n terms.
Spatial averaging uses a pulse sequence containing
magnetic field gradients (see Field Gradients & Their
Application, Volume 3) to equalize all the populations
but the ground state population. Only one experiment is
involved, but the preparation sequence quickly becomes
unwieldy for large spin systems and the signal strength
decreases exponentially with n.
To date, temporal and spatial averaging have been the most
popular choices for preparing effective pure states. Several
hybrid schemes have also been developed which trade
off complexity of the preparation steps for the number of
experiments. Nonetheless, all these state preparation schemes
have in common that creating effective pure states incurs an
exponential cost either in the signal strength or in the number
of experiments involved.
Such an exponential overhead is of course not tolerable for
quantum computations. The reason for this cost is that effective
state preparation techniques simply select out the signal from
the ground state population present in thermal equilibrium, and
the fraction of molecules in the ground state is proportional
to n/2^n."
This is very similar to my coin quantum computer...
"A significant breakthrough by Schulman and Vazirani
resulted in a method to cool a subset of the spins in a
molecule down to the ground state without any exponential
overhead. The idea is to redistribute the entropy of the
spins so that some have zero entropy (pure state) while the
entropy of the remaining spins increases. In a sense, this
method is simply a polarization transfer scheme. Surprisingly,
both the length of the cooling pulse sequence and the number
of spins that must be sacrificed increase only about linearly
with the number of pure spins desired. Furthermore, the
cooling algorithm approaches the entropic bound in the limit
of large numbers of spins. However, with initial polarization
α <= 1, a molecule with at least k/α^2 spins is needed to
obtain k pure spins. This method is therefore impractical when
starting from equilibrium at room temperature, with α ≈ 10^{−5}.
Nevertheless, a combination of hyperpolarization techniques
and the Schulman–Vazirani scheme may some day become
practical. In any case, despite the exponential cost incurred
when preparing effective pure states, the highly random initial
state represents no fundamental obstacle to scalable quantum
computation."
I tell you in sort what it means (in my understanding). You need very quickly to cool to near absolute zero temperature, to ground state, and then rise temperature when you want excite qubit so you must very quickly cool and rise temperature... But why it can't work initialy in low temperature?
"It consists of repeating the
computation multiple times, each time looking at the final
state of the spins after applying different sets of read-out
pulses which rotate different elements of the density matrix to
observable positions. However, since this procedure involves
on the order of 4^n experiments, it is practical only for
experiments involving a few spins."
4^n is the same number of steps as with my coin quantum computer!!! I am quantum computer maker!!!
"This observation has sparked a stimulating debate about the
“quantumness” of NMR, because it implies that each of the
states produced in NMRQC experiments so far is classical.
However, all attempts to describe the dynamics of a set
of coupled spins by an efficient classical model have been
unsuccessful. It is thus conjectured that even though the
states show no entanglement, the dynamics of the spins is
truly quantum mechanical, a proposition which will appear
obvious to most NMR spectroscopists. In fact, it has also
been the starting point of this introduction to NMR quantum
computing."
NMR quantum bullshiting. If quantum mechanic can do some tricks without entanglement and without exponentional speed-up it's don't means that it is quantum computer. http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/~talmo/CV/my-...BBKM04-QCwE.pdf
http://qt.tn.tudelft.nl/publi/2002/Lieven_ENC_nmr.pdf
"Most quantum computations require a pure initial state,
for example a set of fully polarized spins, in the state
|00 . . . 0>. However, nuclear spins in thermal equilibrium at
room temperature are in an almost totally random state: for
typical magnetic field strengths, the ground (|0>) and excited
(|1>) state probabilities differ by only about 1 part in 10^5.
The spins are then said to be in a mixed (nonpure) state.
The polarization could be increased using hyperpolarization
techniques (see Optically Enhanced Magnetic Resonance,
Volume 5) but the state of the art is still very far from cooling
nuclear spins into the ground state.
The conceptional breakthrough which made NMR quantum
computation possible at room temperature was the concept of
effective pure or pseudo-pure states: effective pure states
are mixed states which produce the same signal as a pure state
to within a scaling factor."
Note: pseudo-pure state is state without entanglement (and without exponentional speedup...)...
So separation between |0> and |1> is only 10^{-5}, instead for digital computers 1 (or 0.5 - I am not sure...). So for example in digital computer "1" is 1 and "0" is 0 and in quantum computer |1> is 0.50001 and |0> is 0.49999 - so almost random. And about entanglement to talk is VERY early.
"After rearranging the populations for the eight spin states
as {3a,−a,−a,−a, a, a, a,−3a}, the last two qubits are
in an effective pure state conditioned upon the first qubit
being |0>. As the total number of qubits n in the molecule
increases, the relative fraction of effective pure qubits goes
to 1, but the preparation sequence becomes complex quite
rapidly for large n and the signal strength scales as n/2^n."
Efectiver pure state I guess is also state without entanglement...
"For arbitrary n, at least (2^n − 1)/n experiments are needed,
since the effective pure state is made up of 2^n − 1 product
operator terms and the starting state, thermal equilibrium,
contains n terms.
Spatial averaging uses a pulse sequence containing
magnetic field gradients (see Field Gradients & Their
Application, Volume 3) to equalize all the populations
but the ground state population. Only one experiment is
involved, but the preparation sequence quickly becomes
unwieldy for large spin systems and the signal strength
decreases exponentially with n.
To date, temporal and spatial averaging have been the most
popular choices for preparing effective pure states. Several
hybrid schemes have also been developed which trade
off complexity of the preparation steps for the number of
experiments. Nonetheless, all these state preparation schemes
have in common that creating effective pure states incurs an
exponential cost either in the signal strength or in the number
of experiments involved.
Such an exponential overhead is of course not tolerable for
quantum computations. The reason for this cost is that effective
state preparation techniques simply select out the signal from
the ground state population present in thermal equilibrium, and
the fraction of molecules in the ground state is proportional
to n/2^n."
This is very similar to my coin quantum computer...
"A significant breakthrough by Schulman and Vazirani
resulted in a method to cool a subset of the spins in a
molecule down to the ground state without any exponential
overhead. The idea is to redistribute the entropy of the
spins so that some have zero entropy (pure state) while the
entropy of the remaining spins increases. In a sense, this
method is simply a polarization transfer scheme. Surprisingly,
both the length of the cooling pulse sequence and the number
of spins that must be sacrificed increase only about linearly
with the number of pure spins desired. Furthermore, the
cooling algorithm approaches the entropic bound in the limit
of large numbers of spins. However, with initial polarization
α <= 1, a molecule with at least k/α^2 spins is needed to
obtain k pure spins. This method is therefore impractical when
starting from equilibrium at room temperature, with α ≈ 10^{−5}.
Nevertheless, a combination of hyperpolarization techniques
and the Schulman–Vazirani scheme may some day become
practical. In any case, despite the exponential cost incurred
when preparing effective pure states, the highly random initial
state represents no fundamental obstacle to scalable quantum
computation."
I tell you in sort what it means (in my understanding). You need very quickly to cool to near absolute zero temperature, to ground state, and then rise temperature when you want excite qubit so you must very quickly cool and rise temperature... But why it can't work initialy in low temperature?
"It consists of repeating the
computation multiple times, each time looking at the final
state of the spins after applying different sets of read-out
pulses which rotate different elements of the density matrix to
observable positions. However, since this procedure involves
on the order of 4^n experiments, it is practical only for
experiments involving a few spins."
4^n is the same number of steps as with my coin quantum computer!!! I am quantum computer maker!!!
"This observation has sparked a stimulating debate about the
“quantumness” of NMR, because it implies that each of the
states produced in NMRQC experiments so far is classical.
However, all attempts to describe the dynamics of a set
of coupled spins by an efficient classical model have been
unsuccessful. It is thus conjectured that even though the
states show no entanglement, the dynamics of the spins is
truly quantum mechanical, a proposition which will appear
obvious to most NMR spectroscopists. In fact, it has also
been the starting point of this introduction to NMR quantum
computing."
NMR quantum bullshiting. If quantum mechanic can do some tricks without entanglement and without exponentional speed-up it's don't means that it is quantum computer. http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/~talmo/CV/my-...BBKM04-QCwE.pdf
"Since the NMR experiments cannot
prepare pure quantum states and exhibits no entanglement
during computation, concerns have been arisen
on its quantum nature [6]. In particular, it has been
proved that the presence of entanglement is a necessary
condition for quantum computational"
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0705.1684v3
prepare pure quantum states and exhibits no entanglement
during computation, concerns have been arisen
on its quantum nature [6]. In particular, it has been
proved that the presence of entanglement is a necessary
condition for quantum computational"
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0705.1684v3
DavidD - Why is do you so big ideot? Why you give neg? Becouse you do know I am right? Becouse you is do sad that no one do like you? 
QUOTE (TheDoc+Mar 27 2008, 05:35 PM)
DavidD - Why is do you so big ideot? Why you give neg? Becouse you do know I am right? Becouse you is do sad that no one do like you?
You don't write any right thing. You go better and pray to alphanumeric, which was obviuosly wrong about quantum computers and now you just want show your unrelated thoughts.
I neg you, becouse you neglibe my good explanation.
You don't write any right thing. You go better and pray to alphanumeric, which was obviuosly wrong about quantum computers and now you just want show your unrelated thoughts.
I neg you, becouse you neglibe my good explanation.
QUOTE (DavidD+)
You don't write any right thing.
First of all, it's "write", not "right". Second of all, I don't "right" anything because I'm not an egocentric ignoramus who thinks he's solved everything.
Okay, let me spell it out for you, idiot.
AlphaNumeric already proved that quantum computers exist. He already showed you the proof. You keep denying it, but that won't change the fact that QUANTUM COMPUTERS EXIST. Understand? Capice? Comprende?
Okay, let me spell it out for you, idiot.
AlphaNumeric already proved that quantum computers exist. He already showed you the proof. You keep denying it, but that won't change the fact that QUANTUM COMPUTERS EXIST. Understand? Capice? Comprende?
and now you just want show your unrelated thoughts.
No, my thoughts are plenty related. Related to the fact that I think you're an idiot.
And I negged you because you're an ignorant, egotistical, delusional idiot who can't compose a coherent sentence.
You don't write any right thing. You go better and pray to alphanumeric, which was obviuosly wrong about quantum computers and now you just want show your unrelated thoughts.
I neg you, becouse you neglibe my good explanation.
David,
Please, for the sake of a normal conversation, try to be just a wee bit humble.
AN is one of the top 3 or 4 educated people on this forum (or should I say was, mostly because he got tired of trying to teach people like you somethings that you do not know.You come off as omnipotent, which ,of course, you are not. Please look up the word 'humility' You could prove yourself intelligent, if you would just stop claiming to know all.
No one knows all. Therefore you are immediately labeled 'arrogant' and unwavering.
I do not say this as an insult, but just constructive criticism.
The guys that you contradict (usually with no fact backing up your claims) makes you unteachable.
Put your ego on hold for one minute, and yo may find that you would grow as a person and a 'scientist.
You will never gain any respect at this rate.
I have many limitations, and I accept them, along with a great many of the posters here.
I'm not trying to tell you how to live your life, but you have some knowledge that you should share, unless you are a God, You do not have all the answers.
Just an observation. there is no shame in admitting you failings.
If, in any more of your posts, you continue this trend, you will never be taken seriously, and, if I understand the topic of your threads, you claim all knowing (despite the works of the last couple of hundred yrs. Even Issac Newton claimed that he had stood on the shoulders of giants.
Flexibility could get you a long way.
Sorry for throwing this at you, but I honestly believe you have somethings to offer, if you could just gain some humility.
peace, and good luck,
Ron
First of all, it's "write", not "right". Second of all, I don't "right" anything because I'm not an egocentric ignoramus who thinks he's solved everything.
QUOTE
You go better and pray to alphanumeric, which was obviuosly wrong about quantum computers
Okay, let me spell it out for you, idiot.
AlphaNumeric already proved that quantum computers exist. He already showed you the proof. You keep denying it, but that won't change the fact that QUANTUM COMPUTERS EXIST. Understand? Capice? Comprende?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You go better and pray to alphanumeric, which was obviuosly wrong about quantum computers |
Okay, let me spell it out for you, idiot.
AlphaNumeric already proved that quantum computers exist. He already showed you the proof. You keep denying it, but that won't change the fact that QUANTUM COMPUTERS EXIST. Understand? Capice? Comprende?
and now you just want show your unrelated thoughts.
No, my thoughts are plenty related. Related to the fact that I think you're an idiot.
QUOTE
I neg you, becouse you neglibe my good explanation.
And I negged you because you're an ignorant, egotistical, delusional idiot who can't compose a coherent sentence.
QUOTE (DavidD+Mar 27 2008, 06:59 PM)
You don't write any right thing. You go better and pray to alphanumeric, which was obviuosly wrong about quantum computers and now you just want show your unrelated thoughts.
I neg you, becouse you neglibe my good explanation.
David,
Please, for the sake of a normal conversation, try to be just a wee bit humble.
AN is one of the top 3 or 4 educated people on this forum (or should I say was, mostly because he got tired of trying to teach people like you somethings that you do not know.You come off as omnipotent, which ,of course, you are not. Please look up the word 'humility' You could prove yourself intelligent, if you would just stop claiming to know all.
No one knows all. Therefore you are immediately labeled 'arrogant' and unwavering.
I do not say this as an insult, but just constructive criticism.
The guys that you contradict (usually with no fact backing up your claims) makes you unteachable.
Put your ego on hold for one minute, and yo may find that you would grow as a person and a 'scientist.
You will never gain any respect at this rate.
I have many limitations, and I accept them, along with a great many of the posters here.
I'm not trying to tell you how to live your life, but you have some knowledge that you should share, unless you are a God, You do not have all the answers.
Just an observation. there is no shame in admitting you failings.
If, in any more of your posts, you continue this trend, you will never be taken seriously, and, if I understand the topic of your threads, you claim all knowing (despite the works of the last couple of hundred yrs. Even Issac Newton claimed that he had stood on the shoulders of giants.
Flexibility could get you a long way.
Sorry for throwing this at you, but I honestly believe you have somethings to offer, if you could just gain some humility.
peace, and good luck,
Ron
TheDog, alphanumeric prove only for you
Ron, you should be philosoph instead physic
Or dog, if you like, quantum computers exist, but only such quantum computers which don't giving 2x speed up.
User posted image: http://www.physforum.com/style_images/1/icon8.gif
Ron, you should be philosoph instead physic
Or dog, if you like, quantum computers exist, but only such quantum computers which don't giving 2x speed up.
User posted image: http://www.physforum.com/style_images/1/icon8.gif
QUOTE (DavidD+)
TheDog
Let's put this to the test, shall we?
Let's put this to the test, shall we?
QUOTE (Wikipedia article on dogs+)
Dogs are valued for their intelligence...
Link
Link
QUOTE (DavidD+)
alphanumeric prove only for you
Yep, he proved you're an idiot alright!
Yep, he proved you're an idiot alright!
How with physics possible to prove that somebody is idiot? Oh, I see, he prove it with quantum computing physics...
QUOTE (DavidD+)
How with physics possible to prove that somebody is idiot?
The proof that physics can expose idiots is sitting right in your chair.
Wowowow! Self-sarcasm there, eh Jacko?
The proof that physics can expose idiots is sitting right in your chair.
QUOTE
Oh, I see, he prove it with quantum computing physics...
Wowowow! Self-sarcasm there, eh Jacko?
At least don't claiming that quantum computer is faster than the same complexity classical computer.
QUOTE (DavidD+Mar 28 2008, 07:25 PM)
At least don't claiming that quantum computer is faster than the same complexity classical computer.
Are you dyslexic or something? Because your grammar is awful.
Are you dyslexic or something? Because your grammar is awful.
Hiya Doc of the 1000 posts - should that be Dock?
I see you´re on the rampage again - what really surprises me is your returning to this thread - look back and you´ll see you ran away not too long ago. Is this courage or is it what is often referred to as "having a neck like a jockey´s ******?
edward 3
I see you´re on the rampage again - what really surprises me is your returning to this thread - look back and you´ll see you ran away not too long ago. Is this courage or is it what is often referred to as "having a neck like a jockey´s ******?
edward 3
QUOTE (Edward 3+)
Hiya Doc of the 1000 posts - should that be Dock?
You can call me 'Mr. Millenium' if you like.
Ironically enough...
You can call me 'Mr. Millenium' if you like.
QUOTE
I see you´re on the rampage again - what really surprises me is your returning to this thread - look back and you´ll see you ran away not too long ago.
Ironically enough...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I see you´re on the rampage again - what really surprises me is your returning to this thread - look back and you´ll see you ran away not too long ago. |
Hi Dock,
Courage is something that sometimes masquerades as foolhardiness.
eddie
Courage is something that sometimes masquerades as foolhardiness.
eddie
QUOTE (Edward 3+Mar 28 2008, 08:05 PM)
Hi Dock,
Courage is something that sometimes masquerades as foolhardiness.
eddie
Hi Eddie -3,
"Courage is being scared to death— and saddling up anyway." - John Wayne
Dock
Courage is something that sometimes masquerades as foolhardiness.
eddie
Hi Eddie -3,
"Courage is being scared to death— and saddling up anyway." - John Wayne
Dock
Hi Dock,
That explains a few things - you´ve been reading the deeper philosophical insights of John Wayne.
eddie
That explains a few things - you´ve been reading the deeper philosophical insights of John Wayne.
eddie
QUOTE (Edward 3+Mar 28 2008, 08:12 PM)
Hi Dock,
That explains a few things - you´ve been reading the deeper philosophical insights of John Wayne.
eddie
Why you've got it!
That explains a few things - you´ve been reading the deeper philosophical insights of John Wayne.
eddie
Why you've got it!
Hey Dock,
You´ve strayed off-topic again - accidentally, of course !!
eddie
You´ve strayed off-topic again - accidentally, of course !!
eddie
QUOTE (Edward 3+Mar 28 2008, 08:21 PM)
Hey Dock,
You´ve strayed off-topic again - accidentally, of course !!
eddie
Of course
You´ve strayed off-topic again - accidentally, of course !!
eddie
Of course
Ok more caffeine in my system now. Let's get back to the most immediate issue at hand...
typical nasty Doc, piece of ....
Do you EVER REALISE a PERSON is at the end of you inconsiderate and totally obscene attitude.
If someone is dyslexic then you would rub it in..... you are even lower than a bottom feeder..
like really really pathetic
Have you ever thought.... second thoughts... no you never do or ever will.......
forget it, creep
QUOTE (TheDoc+)
Are you dyslexic or something? Because your grammar is awful.
*looks around* Anyone here agree with this statement?
*looks around* Anyone here agree with this statement?
QUOTE
Are you dyslexic or something? Because your grammar is awful.
typical nasty Doc, piece of ....
Do you EVER REALISE a PERSON is at the end of you inconsiderate and totally obscene attitude.
If someone is dyslexic then you would rub it in..... you are even lower than a bottom feeder..
like really really pathetic
Have you ever thought.... second thoughts... no you never do or ever will.......
forget it, creep
QUOTE (Zarkov+)
typical nasty Doc, piece of ....
Wazzamatta, Zarky? Don't like what I have to say?
First of all, yes, I do realize that. A very ignorant, incoherent person.
Second of all, things aren't obscene just because you don't like them. Just ignore me if you don't like what I have to say.
First of all, yes, I do realize that. A very ignorant, incoherent person.
Second of all, things aren't obscene just because you don't like them. Just ignore me if you don't like what I have to say.
If someone is dyslexic then you would rub it in.....
No, I'm asking a question. DavidD has claimed that English is his first language, yet he has the grammatical skills of a five-year-old. I wonder why?...
You are even lower than pond scum. You're a lying, egotistical, ignorant, paranoid, delusional wacko. You deny reality in the hope that doing so will actually change the fact that you're an idiot. You're an insult to tens of thousands of people. Pond scum would be a serious step up for you.
You are even lower than pond scum. You're a lying, egotistical, ignorant, paranoid, delusional wacko. You deny reality in the hope that doing so will actually change the fact that you're an idiot. You're an insult to tens of thousands of people. Pond scum would be a serious step up for you.
Have you ever thought....
Yes, I have. That's why I don't go running around spouting pseudoscientific "theories" like you do.
Say, weren't you going to ignore me and my posts at all costs? How's that coming, Mr. Liar?
Wazzamatta, Zarky? Don't like what I have to say?
QUOTE
Do you EVER REALISE a PERSON is at the end of you inconsiderate and totally obscene attitude.
First of all, yes, I do realize that. A very ignorant, incoherent person.
Second of all, things aren't obscene just because you don't like them. Just ignore me if you don't like what I have to say.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Do you EVER REALISE a PERSON is at the end of you inconsiderate and totally obscene attitude. |
First of all, yes, I do realize that. A very ignorant, incoherent person.
Second of all, things aren't obscene just because you don't like them. Just ignore me if you don't like what I have to say.
If someone is dyslexic then you would rub it in.....
No, I'm asking a question. DavidD has claimed that English is his first language, yet he has the grammatical skills of a five-year-old. I wonder why?...
QUOTE
you are even lower than a bottom feeder..
You are even lower than pond scum. You're a lying, egotistical, ignorant, paranoid, delusional wacko. You deny reality in the hope that doing so will actually change the fact that you're an idiot. You're an insult to tens of thousands of people. Pond scum would be a serious step up for you.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| you are even lower than a bottom feeder.. |
You are even lower than pond scum. You're a lying, egotistical, ignorant, paranoid, delusional wacko. You deny reality in the hope that doing so will actually change the fact that you're an idiot. You're an insult to tens of thousands of people. Pond scum would be a serious step up for you.
Have you ever thought....
Yes, I have. That's why I don't go running around spouting pseudoscientific "theories" like you do.
QUOTE
forget it, creep
Say, weren't you going to ignore me and my posts at all costs? How's that coming, Mr. Liar?
QUOTE (Zarkov+Mar 29 2008, 09:15 AM)
Do you EVER REALISE a PERSON is at the end of you inconsiderate and totally obscene attitude.
What about lying? Everyone keeps calling you a liar, and I can't imagine they're ALL lying about it. So isn't lying obscene and inconsiderate?
But that's an assumption! You obviously mean it as an insult, too.... Isn't that obscene and inconsiderate?
But that's an assumption! You obviously mean it as an insult, too.... Isn't that obscene and inconsiderate?
like really really pathetic
Isn't that, too?
And again! You're very insulting!
And again! You're very insulting!
forget it, creep
At least you're consistant...
hey that is what a discussion is about
I say I prove my assertions
at least no one here can disprove them
keep up your attitude lad.
and in my case THEY may not be lying but THEY certainly are parroting untruths
since I do not fabricate any science, I just say it as it is.
LOL, and I don't spoon feed.
What about lying? Everyone keeps calling you a liar, and I can't imagine they're ALL lying about it. So isn't lying obscene and inconsiderate?
QUOTE
If someone is dyslexic then you would rub it in..... you are even lower than a bottom feeder..
But that's an assumption! You obviously mean it as an insult, too.... Isn't that obscene and inconsiderate?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If someone is dyslexic then you would rub it in..... you are even lower than a bottom feeder.. |
But that's an assumption! You obviously mean it as an insult, too.... Isn't that obscene and inconsiderate?
like really really pathetic
Isn't that, too?
QUOTE
Have you ever thought.... second thoughts... no you never do or ever will.......
And again! You're very insulting!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Have you ever thought.... second thoughts... no you never do or ever will....... |
And again! You're very insulting!
forget it, creep
At least you're consistant...
QUOTE
Everyone keeps calling you a liar, and I can't imagine they're ALL lying
hey that is what a discussion is about
I say I prove my assertions
at least no one here can disprove them
keep up your attitude lad.
and in my case THEY may not be lying but THEY certainly are parroting untruths
since I do not fabricate any science, I just say it as it is.
LOL, and I don't spoon feed.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Mar 29 2008, 03:21 PM)
I say I prove my assertions
Yes, you say it often, but you've yet to do so, you worthless LIAR!
Prove it.
Prove it.
since I do not fabricate any science, I just say it as it is.
Prove it.
Okey, say me, where you see horn? I don't see any horn around. So universe can be created of infinity horns...
Okey, say me, where you see horn? I don't see any horn around. So universe can be created of infinity horns...
How about you, you know, actually prove it with math first. You have ZERO math. Your theory about small spheres is about as logical as my theory of unicorn horn dust, and we have provided equal proof. If you can't disprove it then it's probably too hard for you. Since the motion of unicorn horn dust is digital, in order to prove or disprove my theory you need a million bajillion computers operating at a million bajillion petaflops.
Bla, bla bla. Even if horns are very small, you don't tell of what consist horn? My theory is arbitrary more precise than your! Horn will have errosion and will becomse atoms so the don't go any farther. You can now obtain atoms and then you don't have any theory, but just claims, that atoms are in protons, etc or somthing...
You can toss only random bullshit!
My powdered unicorn horn is pulverized into infinitely small tetrahedrons. I use a million bajillion hammers made from teeth the Tooth Fairy brings me to pulverize it.
What are your spheres made out of? Where's your proof? You have yet to prove or show ANYTHING. And I haven't either. Our theories are both equally valid. Don't cry because my 'theory' is ridiculous, when yours is equally (not) supported.
My powdered unicorn horn is pulverized into infinitely small tetrahedrons. I use a million bajillion hammers made from teeth the Tooth Fairy brings me to pulverize it.
What are your spheres made out of? Where's your proof? You have yet to prove or show ANYTHING. And I haven't either. Our theories are both equally valid. Don't cry because my 'theory' is ridiculous, when yours is equally (not) supported.
You can toss only random bullshit!
Hey! That's all you've got too! The main difference is that I'm doing it on purpose, you're saying yours is science.
If you're not sufficiently intelligent to see that I'm being sarcastic about the universe being made up of POWDERED UNICORN HORNS then that doesn't really leave much hope for the rest of your impeccable logic.
Honestly...
Yes, you say it often, but you've yet to do so, you worthless LIAR!
QUOTE
and in my case THEY may not be lying but THEY certainly are parroting untruths
Prove it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and in my case THEY may not be lying but THEY certainly are parroting untruths |
Prove it.
since I do not fabricate any science, I just say it as it is.
Prove it.
Heh heh. Hammer Pants.
QUOTE (Trippy+Mar 29 2008, 10:21 PM)
Heh heh. Hammer Pants.
Hehe yeah, but I prefer "ol' Thunder Britches."
Hehe yeah, but I prefer "ol' Thunder Britches."
Toward smallest balls theory...
Possible explanation, why in atoms levels are quantized can be the asumption, that smallest spheres are in some tricky "interesting" combination, which alows only quantized combination... Thus can't be not quantized combinations, except heisenber uncertainty principle, which after measuring giving always quantized states-measurments...
Do Shrodinger equation match with Pauli exclusive principle, that only 2 electrons can be in each orbit? Or shorodinger equation don't predicting it?
My purely classical theory of quantum mechanic and everything is only one true teory about real world without "magic" and mysteries... It frendly with enshtein reletivistic theory, entanglement, superposition...and REAL WORLD
Possible explanation, why in atoms levels are quantized can be the asumption, that smallest spheres are in some tricky "interesting" combination, which alows only quantized combination... Thus can't be not quantized combinations, except heisenber uncertainty principle, which after measuring giving always quantized states-measurments...
Do Shrodinger equation match with Pauli exclusive principle, that only 2 electrons can be in each orbit? Or shorodinger equation don't predicting it?
My purely classical theory of quantum mechanic and everything is only one true teory about real world without "magic" and mysteries... It frendly with enshtein reletivistic theory, entanglement, superposition...and REAL WORLD
Smallest spheres my theory, I think can explain faster than light expansion of bilions years away galaxies, etc (if such expansion realy exist).
So, you probably good know monte carlo method, which describing (probabilistic) atom motion in say water. So If there is two atoms, then probability that they go closer and closer to each over is 0.25, becouse for first atom probability to go in one ~direction is 0.5 and for another moving to the same point as for first is 0.5, so 0.5*0.5=0.25.
So if we put this law into smallest spheres theory, then acording to spheres random fluctations, body moving into some direction. The bigger distance between galaxies, the bigger gap between them. Thus more likely, that fluctation sometimes will be bigger than usualy. And says probability of going toward to each over of glaxies is 0.25, then it is clear, that if time going toward, galxies can only go farther and farther from each over. And sometimes the will move little bit slower, and some times little bit faster, but in opposit directions... If fluctations will become sometimes bigger, then they can push faster than speed of light galxies... I am not sure, do I am not now talking bullshit, but the key point is that galaxies moving in oposit directins and moving in same direction probability is 0.25, smaller than moving into (more) oopsit directions 0.75. So acctualy according to this theory we always moving with speed of light into random direction. And random direction means, that we don't moving. This speed sometimes can be little bit bigger than c and sometimes little bit slower... If there is such things like strong gravity like moon over earth or earth over sun, then random moving is corrected by gravity. And if gravity don't affecting, then rapidly direction becoming random and going from curse. So according to this law, unvierse expanding with speed 2*0.75*c=450000 km/s. If universe expanding faster than 450000 km/s, correct me. Anyway, maximum speed is 600000 km/s and bigger can't be, but average is 450000 km/s. And plus natural galxies speed of course, which I guess almost nothing changing. But if natural galxies speed is <300,000 km/s then maximum speed can be ~4*c= 1200,000 km/s. Thus my theory perfectly predicting universe wide which is about 100 bilions light years. And universe age is 13.7 bilions years. thus universe must expand 100/13.7=7.69 times faster, he he, but my theory predicts, that it can expand max 4 times faster than speed of light. So my prediction that universe wide is max 4*13.7=54.8 light-years. But more realisticly somthing 40-45 light years, becouse (2*3+4.5)/3=3.5 times. 13.7*3.5=47.95 light years wide. But at initial stage univrse expand slower, becouse of gravity and not normal speed is c, but say max ~0.9*c. So universe wide is about 40 light years.
Edit: Wrong. 0.25 probability is that move closer to each over at same time. But in general they always will move in random dirrections. And some galaxies must go to us...
About universe expansion. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/myst...day_040524.html
Huble constant. In first part saying that at early stage universe expand very fast (1000 times faster than light), and in second part saying about faking Huble constant? How to understand you...?
So, you probably good know monte carlo method, which describing (probabilistic) atom motion in say water. So If there is two atoms, then probability that they go closer and closer to each over is 0.25, becouse for first atom probability to go in one ~direction is 0.5 and for another moving to the same point as for first is 0.5, so 0.5*0.5=0.25.
So if we put this law into smallest spheres theory, then acording to spheres random fluctations, body moving into some direction. The bigger distance between galaxies, the bigger gap between them. Thus more likely, that fluctation sometimes will be bigger than usualy. And says probability of going toward to each over of glaxies is 0.25, then it is clear, that if time going toward, galxies can only go farther and farther from each over. And sometimes the will move little bit slower, and some times little bit faster, but in opposit directions... If fluctations will become sometimes bigger, then they can push faster than speed of light galxies... I am not sure, do I am not now talking bullshit, but the key point is that galaxies moving in oposit directins and moving in same direction probability is 0.25, smaller than moving into (more) oopsit directions 0.75. So acctualy according to this theory we always moving with speed of light into random direction. And random direction means, that we don't moving. This speed sometimes can be little bit bigger than c and sometimes little bit slower... If there is such things like strong gravity like moon over earth or earth over sun, then random moving is corrected by gravity. And if gravity don't affecting, then rapidly direction becoming random and going from curse. So according to this law, unvierse expanding with speed 2*0.75*c=450000 km/s. If universe expanding faster than 450000 km/s, correct me. Anyway, maximum speed is 600000 km/s and bigger can't be, but average is 450000 km/s. And plus natural galxies speed of course, which I guess almost nothing changing. But if natural galxies speed is <300,000 km/s then maximum speed can be ~4*c= 1200,000 km/s. Thus my theory perfectly predicting universe wide which is about 100 bilions light years. And universe age is 13.7 bilions years. thus universe must expand 100/13.7=7.69 times faster, he he, but my theory predicts, that it can expand max 4 times faster than speed of light. So my prediction that universe wide is max 4*13.7=54.8 light-years. But more realisticly somthing 40-45 light years, becouse (2*3+4.5)/3=3.5 times. 13.7*3.5=47.95 light years wide. But at initial stage univrse expand slower, becouse of gravity and not normal speed is c, but say max ~0.9*c. So universe wide is about 40 light years.
Edit: Wrong. 0.25 probability is that move closer to each over at same time. But in general they always will move in random dirrections. And some galaxies must go to us...
About universe expansion. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/myst...day_040524.html
Huble constant. In first part saying that at early stage universe expand very fast (1000 times faster than light), and in second part saying about faking Huble constant? How to understand you...?
On the over hand if those fluctations are very fast then you don't see like galxies moving to us (or slower than usual at certain distance). And according to monte carlo method I think it is more possible that the move in 3D somthere farther and farther from each over than will be at same distance always or move closer (if initial speed 0).
Another + to my theory and "-" to vacum...
Another + to my theory and "-" to vacum...
QUOTE (DavidD+May 26 2008, 06:23 PM)
On the over hand if those fluctations are very fast then you don't see like galxies moving to us (or slower than usual at certain distance). And according to monte carlo method I think it is more possible that the move in 3D somthere farther and farther from each over than will be at same distance always or move closer (if initial speed 0).
Another + to my theory and "-" to vacum...
- I reckon he's got a serious dose of the mott.carl's - poor bugger!
Another + to my theory and "-" to vacum...
- I reckon he's got a serious dose of the mott.carl's - poor bugger!
Multi-linear scepticism of quantum computer.
Consider single atom which emits photon. This photon is like wave and expanding in 3 dimensions as sphere, where atom is in center. Probability to measure photon is very small in some point on this sphere. In such way working all photon lasers and so on. Particularly in Ion Traps quantum computer there are laser pulses, which are single photons. Those photons have uncertainty principle in dimension and time... Thus photon uncertainty principle don't letting to hit the target (atom-ion) with photon. Particularly in photonic quantum computer photon emision is somthing like 5% time possible. This is becouse of uncertainty principle like wave-photon. In quantum dots quantum computer there is exactly the same problem - they controled with photon laser pulses. Thus photon very seldom reaching quantum dot. The same problem is quantum caity quantum computer, where photons also very seldom achieving target. If you want overcome those problems you need emited photon to made arbitrary close to target atom and this still don't promising nothing, I guess, reflections sometimes absorbing and reflecting and absrobing in incoherent sequence...
Superposition killing superposition...
Consider single atom which emits photon. This photon is like wave and expanding in 3 dimensions as sphere, where atom is in center. Probability to measure photon is very small in some point on this sphere. In such way working all photon lasers and so on. Particularly in Ion Traps quantum computer there are laser pulses, which are single photons. Those photons have uncertainty principle in dimension and time... Thus photon uncertainty principle don't letting to hit the target (atom-ion) with photon. Particularly in photonic quantum computer photon emision is somthing like 5% time possible. This is becouse of uncertainty principle like wave-photon. In quantum dots quantum computer there is exactly the same problem - they controled with photon laser pulses. Thus photon very seldom reaching quantum dot. The same problem is quantum caity quantum computer, where photons also very seldom achieving target. If you want overcome those problems you need emited photon to made arbitrary close to target atom and this still don't promising nothing, I guess, reflections sometimes absorbing and reflecting and absrobing in incoherent sequence...
Superposition killing superposition...
I aware $10 for person who will prove that cosmos can't be filled with equal mass and size spheres with maximal density.
This is not the question, where need prove or diprove existation of God or dragon (or many worlds, strings, etc). String s theory maybe leading somther, but probably only into math. My theory, I think, is purely geometric math, elementary math.
This is not the question, where need prove or diprove existation of God or dragon (or many worlds, strings, etc). String s theory maybe leading somther, but probably only into math. My theory, I think, is purely geometric math, elementary math.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 3 2008, 01:08 PM)
I aware $10 for person who will prove that cosmos can't be filled with equal mass and size spheres with maximal density.
This is not the question, where need prove or diprove existation of God or dragon (or many worlds, strings, etc). String s theory maybe leading somther, but probably only into math. My theory, I think, is purely geometric math, elementary math.
I'll pay $10 to anyone who can prove that the cosmos aren't filled with dust from ground up unicorn horns.
And another $10 to the person who can teach DavidD english.
This is not the question, where need prove or diprove existation of God or dragon (or many worlds, strings, etc). String s theory maybe leading somther, but probably only into math. My theory, I think, is purely geometric math, elementary math.
I'll pay $10 to anyone who can prove that the cosmos aren't filled with dust from ground up unicorn horns.
And another $10 to the person who can teach DavidD english.
QUOTE (excaza+Jun 3 2008, 07:10 PM)
I'll pay $10 to anyone who can prove that the cosmos aren't filled with dust from ground up unicorn horns.
But this is ridicilus, it the same as many universe, it don't have any initial conditions and don't saying of what consist unicorn. In my theory it says of what consist vacum or any matter - of equaly filled smallest spheres. In my problem is pure math, unlike in your stupid examples. I say in post that don't asking to prove existation of gnoms...
But this is ridicilus, it the same as many universe, it don't have any initial conditions and don't saying of what consist unicorn. In my theory it says of what consist vacum or any matter - of equaly filled smallest spheres. In my problem is pure math, unlike in your stupid examples. I say in post that don't asking to prove existation of gnoms...
Okey I can prove that universe don't consist of horses, which from your assumption they must be created from atoms. So to me just need to prove, that after atoms can't fallow atoms again. Well, I this prove with induction method. At each level of smallnes, there exist diferent matter properties and they don't dublating it, so atoms can't go again after protons, etc, atoms can't be in protons! PROVED! Give me $10!
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 4 2008, 12:59 AM)
Okey I can prove that universe don't consist of horses, which from your assumption they must be created from atoms. So to me just need to prove, that after atoms can't fallow atoms again. Well, I this prove with induction method. At each level of smallnes, there exist diferent matter properties and they don't dublating it, so atoms can't go again after protons, etc, atoms can't be in protons! PROVED! Give me $10!
I said unicorn horns, not horses. You also make absolutely no sense. You don't get $10 dollars.
No! Really!? What tipped you off, the fact that I said UNICORN HORNS or something else?
You also missed my point completely. Good job. Can you please stop talking now until you learn how to form a coherent, English, sentence?
I said unicorn horns, not horses. You also make absolutely no sense. You don't get $10 dollars.
QUOTE
But this is ridicilus,
No! Really!? What tipped you off, the fact that I said UNICORN HORNS or something else?
You also missed my point completely. Good job. Can you please stop talking now until you learn how to form a coherent, English, sentence?
What is diferent? They both would die without eating or air...
But you seems, don't recognising math and fairy-tale. If you want disprove my math then fight it with math and not with incoherent analogies, which can be easily disproved.
But if you can't disprove then it probably too hard for you. If there is discusions about entanglement do GHZ state is localy explanaible or not, when how you can disprove my theory? I can bet, that you can't simulate more than bilion such spheres with supercomputer, when spheres moving with speed of light maybe... I am not sure hot need simulate this spheres, becouse they motion is analog, so with elementary math for precise simulations need infinity amount of computation power. With integrals things may be diferent. But possible, that for disproving or proving my theory need infinity amount of computation power becouse of infinity number of smallest spheres and possible that still exist some landscape, where probability of ocuring universe is very small... Also it's possible that in 1 nm^3 can be 10^20 smallest spheres or maybe even 10^100 smallest sphers. Thus for proving atom it's don't enough nor bits on HDD nor computation speed... Why world created in such way, that it imposible to understand to you?
But you seems, don't recognising math and fairy-tale. If you want disprove my math then fight it with math and not with incoherent analogies, which can be easily disproved.
But if you can't disprove then it probably too hard for you. If there is discusions about entanglement do GHZ state is localy explanaible or not, when how you can disprove my theory? I can bet, that you can't simulate more than bilion such spheres with supercomputer, when spheres moving with speed of light maybe... I am not sure hot need simulate this spheres, becouse they motion is analog, so with elementary math for precise simulations need infinity amount of computation power. With integrals things may be diferent. But possible, that for disproving or proving my theory need infinity amount of computation power becouse of infinity number of smallest spheres and possible that still exist some landscape, where probability of ocuring universe is very small... Also it's possible that in 1 nm^3 can be 10^20 smallest spheres or maybe even 10^100 smallest sphers. Thus for proving atom it's don't enough nor bits on HDD nor computation speed... Why world created in such way, that it imposible to understand to you?
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 4 2008, 08:12 AM)
What is diferent? They both would die without eating or air...
Please tell me you're kidding. In what universe are HORNS alive? I never said the universe was composed of horses. The universe is composed of pulverized unicorn horn.
How about you, you know, actually prove it with math first. You have ZERO math. Your theory about small spheres is about as logical as my theory of unicorn horn dust, and we have provided equal proof. If you can't disprove it then it's probably too hard for you. Since the motion of unicorn horn dust is digital, in order to prove or disprove my theory you need a million bajillion computers operating at a million bajillion petaflops.
See, I can toss out random phrases too!
LEARN ENGLISH
I will give you $100 dollars if you ever form a coherent sentence.
Please tell me you're kidding. In what universe are HORNS alive? I never said the universe was composed of horses. The universe is composed of pulverized unicorn horn.
QUOTE
If you want disprove my math then fight it with math and not with incoherent analogies, which can be easily disproved.
But if you can't disprove then it probably too hard for you.
But if you can't disprove then it probably too hard for you.
How about you, you know, actually prove it with math first. You have ZERO math. Your theory about small spheres is about as logical as my theory of unicorn horn dust, and we have provided equal proof. If you can't disprove it then it's probably too hard for you. Since the motion of unicorn horn dust is digital, in order to prove or disprove my theory you need a million bajillion computers operating at a million bajillion petaflops.
See, I can toss out random phrases too!
LEARN ENGLISH
I will give you $100 dollars if you ever form a coherent sentence.
QUOTE
Please tell me you're kidding. In what universe are HORNS alive? I never said the universe was composed of horses. The universe is composed of pulverized unicorn horn.
Okey, say me, where you see horn? I don't see any horn around. So universe can be created of infinity horns...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Please tell me you're kidding. In what universe are HORNS alive? I never said the universe was composed of horses. The universe is composed of pulverized unicorn horn. |
Okey, say me, where you see horn? I don't see any horn around. So universe can be created of infinity horns...
How about you, you know, actually prove it with math first. You have ZERO math. Your theory about small spheres is about as logical as my theory of unicorn horn dust, and we have provided equal proof. If you can't disprove it then it's probably too hard for you. Since the motion of unicorn horn dust is digital, in order to prove or disprove my theory you need a million bajillion computers operating at a million bajillion petaflops.
Bla, bla bla. Even if horns are very small, you don't tell of what consist horn? My theory is arbitrary more precise than your! Horn will have errosion and will becomse atoms so the don't go any farther. You can now obtain atoms and then you don't have any theory, but just claims, that atoms are in protons, etc or somthing...
QUOTE
See, I can toss out random phrases too!
You can toss only random bullshit!
QUOTE
Bla, bla bla. Even if horns are very small, you don't tell of what consist horn? My theory is arbitrary more precise than your! Horn will have errosion and will becomse atoms so the don't go any farther.
My powdered unicorn horn is pulverized into infinitely small tetrahedrons. I use a million bajillion hammers made from teeth the Tooth Fairy brings me to pulverize it.
What are your spheres made out of? Where's your proof? You have yet to prove or show ANYTHING. And I haven't either. Our theories are both equally valid. Don't cry because my 'theory' is ridiculous, when yours is equally (not) supported.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Bla, bla bla. Even if horns are very small, you don't tell of what consist horn? My theory is arbitrary more precise than your! Horn will have errosion and will becomse atoms so the don't go any farther. |
My powdered unicorn horn is pulverized into infinitely small tetrahedrons. I use a million bajillion hammers made from teeth the Tooth Fairy brings me to pulverize it.
What are your spheres made out of? Where's your proof? You have yet to prove or show ANYTHING. And I haven't either. Our theories are both equally valid. Don't cry because my 'theory' is ridiculous, when yours is equally (not) supported.
You can toss only random bullshit!
Hey! That's all you've got too! The main difference is that I'm doing it on purpose, you're saying yours is science.
If you're not sufficiently intelligent to see that I'm being sarcastic about the universe being made up of POWDERED UNICORN HORNS then that doesn't really leave much hope for the rest of your impeccable logic.
Honestly...
Your horns even if they arent's madet of atoms, but are purely geometrical, then you don't saysing condition about what density and what position have each horn. In my theory position don't matter, becouse there is spheres and density is maximal. So my theory is more rpecise still. I can find more uncodintionet points in your theory, but don't want waist time...
And universe can't be created of horns, becouse nothing will be able to move at maximal density! Maybe only in very limited positions... And there is very hard to explain waves with horns, but much better with spheres!
Your stupidity overhelming. I almost or completly disprove your theory. Assume, that horns are pointed in position, where between 4 horns is 180 degrees inserted 1 horns and this combination going so on... Then horns can't move at all and nothing can be created, thus your theory is bullshit.
And universe can't be created of horns, becouse nothing will be able to move at maximal density! Maybe only in very limited positions... And there is very hard to explain waves with horns, but much better with spheres!
Your stupidity overhelming. I almost or completly disprove your theory. Assume, that horns are pointed in position, where between 4 horns is 180 degrees inserted 1 horns and this combination going so on... Then horns can't move at all and nothing can be created, thus your theory is bullshit.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 4 2008, 09:34 AM)
Your stupidity overhelming. I almost or completly disprove your theory. Assume, that horns are pointed in position, where between 4 horns is 180 degrees inserted 1 horns and this combination going so on... Then horns can't move at all and nothing can be created, thus your theory is bullshit.
I told you, my horns are pulverized into infinitely small tetrahedrons using a million bajillion hammers made from teeth the Tooth Fairy brings me. Why would I want to arrange the horns so that between 4 horns there is 180 degrees? That's a TOTALLY stupid orientation.
You have yet to show any proof of your theory. I have yet to as well. Our 'theories' are still equally valid and equally supported.
I would just like to point out, to people who long ago realized that I'm being sarcastic, that this argument is incredible
I told you, my horns are pulverized into infinitely small tetrahedrons using a million bajillion hammers made from teeth the Tooth Fairy brings me. Why would I want to arrange the horns so that between 4 horns there is 180 degrees? That's a TOTALLY stupid orientation.
You have yet to show any proof of your theory. I have yet to as well. Our 'theories' are still equally valid and equally supported.
I would just like to point out, to people who long ago realized that I'm being sarcastic, that this argument is incredible
QUOTE (excaza+Jun 4 2008, 02:40 PM)
I told you, my horns are pulverized into infinitely small tetrahedrons using a million bajillion hammers made from teeth the Tooth Fairy brings me. Why would I want to arrange the horns so that between 4 horns there is 180 degrees? That's a TOTALLY stupid orientation.
You have yet to show any proof of your theory. I have yet to as well. Our 'theories' are still equally valid and equally supported.
I would just like to point out, to people who long ago realized that I'm being sarcastic, that this argument is incredible
You now also saractig and you don't have any theory, but you fantasies! Any non-spehrical particles in maximal density can't move at all!!!!!!!!!!! If they aren't in maximal density, when from where is energy to move them? Thus I disprove all theories of over geometrical particles except sheres, ones and for all!!! You now have only your fantasies for hary poter book and don;t have any theory!!!
You have yet to show any proof of your theory. I have yet to as well. Our 'theories' are still equally valid and equally supported.
I would just like to point out, to people who long ago realized that I'm being sarcastic, that this argument is incredible
You now also saractig and you don't have any theory, but you fantasies! Any non-spehrical particles in maximal density can't move at all!!!!!!!!!!! If they aren't in maximal density, when from where is energy to move them? Thus I disprove all theories of over geometrical particles except sheres, ones and for all!!! You now have only your fantasies for hary poter book and don;t have any theory!!!
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 4 2008, 09:55 AM)
Any non-spehrical particles in maximal density can't move at all!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry, I meant to say that it's pulverized into infinitely small great cubicuboctahedrons. When placed in maximal density they can move.
My theory still holds, and still contains as much proof as yours.
Since roses are red, violets are blue, I disprove all theories made by you!!!
Sorry, I meant to say that it's pulverized into infinitely small great cubicuboctahedrons. When placed in maximal density they can move.
My theory still holds, and still contains as much proof as yours.
QUOTE
Thus I disprove all theories of over geometrical particles except sheres, ones and for all!!!
Since roses are red, violets are blue, I disprove all theories made by you!!!
QUOTE (excaza+Jun 4 2008, 03:00 PM)
Sorry, I meant to say that it's pulverized into infinitely small great cubicuboctahedrons. When placed in maximal density they can move.
You mean excazastupidrons?
You mean excazastupidrons?
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 4 2008, 10:20 AM)
You mean excazastupidrons?
No, I mean great cubicuboctahedrons
See, mine actually exists, I can't seem to find what an excazastupidron is, can you give me a link?
As you can clearly see, it has such a cool name and so many cool sides that the universe HAS to be made out of them. Your theory is null.
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound yet?
No, I mean great cubicuboctahedrons
See, mine actually exists, I can't seem to find what an excazastupidron is, can you give me a link?
As you can clearly see, it has such a cool name and so many cool sides that the universe HAS to be made out of them. Your theory is null.
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound yet?
QUOTE (excaza+Jun 4 2008, 04:37 PM)
No, I mean great cubicuboctahedrons
See, mine actually exists, I can't seem to find what an excazastupidron is, can you give me a link?
As you can clearly see, it has such a cool name and so many cool sides that the universe HAS to be made out of them. Your theory is null.
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound yet?
I don't know, you maybe know stupid math conspets of reducted cubes, but your cubicuboctahedrons in maximal density can't move at all! WRONG! If they isn't in maximal density, when what initial power makes them move? And how they can produce waves or somthing? How they can explain realitivity, it's simple bullshitly newton physics becoming with cubicuboctahedrons if they isn't in maximal density. Let me clarify somthing, if you will take bunch of stupid particles without maximal density and if you will shake them etc in all possible waves then nothing will be! So maximal density (of geometrical particles and even spheres) is nessasary condition for farther research. So your reducted cubes don't fit with possible explanation of world. And I just disprove them as wrong.
BTW, don't spent your time for nothing, becouse probably there no geometrical phygures, which in maximal density can freely move, except spheres of course. So I don't know you can suggest some strings with many dimensions or somthing, many worlds if you prety stupid and don't care much about it... OR you can just try to explain with quarks and over particles, but your explanation will not be about the most fundamental particles, which are spheres in my theory. So your a la hary poters analgies don't work and even from distance don't looks such convincing and clear like my theory.
See, mine actually exists, I can't seem to find what an excazastupidron is, can you give me a link?
As you can clearly see, it has such a cool name and so many cool sides that the universe HAS to be made out of them. Your theory is null.
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound yet?
I don't know, you maybe know stupid math conspets of reducted cubes, but your cubicuboctahedrons in maximal density can't move at all! WRONG! If they isn't in maximal density, when what initial power makes them move? And how they can produce waves or somthing? How they can explain realitivity, it's simple bullshitly newton physics becoming with cubicuboctahedrons if they isn't in maximal density. Let me clarify somthing, if you will take bunch of stupid particles without maximal density and if you will shake them etc in all possible waves then nothing will be! So maximal density (of geometrical particles and even spheres) is nessasary condition for farther research. So your reducted cubes don't fit with possible explanation of world. And I just disprove them as wrong.
BTW, don't spent your time for nothing, becouse probably there no geometrical phygures, which in maximal density can freely move, except spheres of course. So I don't know you can suggest some strings with many dimensions or somthing, many worlds if you prety stupid and don't care much about it... OR you can just try to explain with quarks and over particles, but your explanation will not be about the most fundamental particles, which are spheres in my theory. So your a la hary poters analgies don't work and even from distance don't looks such convincing and clear like my theory.
Well, the universe is made up of infinitely small Villarceau circles, but once you attempt to observe said solids, they change into great cubicuboctahedrons.
QUOTE (excaza+Jun 4 2008, 07:24 PM)
Well, the universe is made up of infinitely small Villarceau circles, but once you attempt to observe said solids, they change into great cubicuboctahedrons.
You mean those circles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villarceau_circles ?
You saying that universe consist of infinitely small some particles which changing they properties? then those particles indded isn't geometrical particles, but another story about hary poter...
BTW, this is your idea or some official theory?
P.S. How somthing infinitely small can have shape?
You mean those circles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villarceau_circles ?
You saying that universe consist of infinitely small some particles which changing they properties? then those particles indded isn't geometrical particles, but another story about hary poter...
BTW, this is your idea or some official theory?
P.S. How somthing infinitely small can have shape?
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 5 2008, 12:54 AM)
You mean those circles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villarceau_circles ?
You saying that universe consist of infinitely small some particles which changing they properties? then those particles indded isn't geometrical particles, but another story about hary poter...
BTW, this is your idea or some official theory?
P.S. How somthing infinitely small can have shape?
Sorry, I just checked my extensive calculations and found that the universe is made up of unicorn horn powdered into infinitely small parabolic ring cyclides, but because the human eye is round, they appear to be villarceau circles and then magically transform into great cubicuboctahedrons after long-term observations.
This is an official theory just like your smallest spheres is an official theory. Random bullshit ideas with zero proof.
You saying that universe consist of infinitely small some particles which changing they properties? then those particles indded isn't geometrical particles, but another story about hary poter...
BTW, this is your idea or some official theory?
P.S. How somthing infinitely small can have shape?
Sorry, I just checked my extensive calculations and found that the universe is made up of unicorn horn powdered into infinitely small parabolic ring cyclides, but because the human eye is round, they appear to be villarceau circles and then magically transform into great cubicuboctahedrons after long-term observations.
This is an official theory just like your smallest spheres is an official theory. Random bullshit ideas with zero proof.
QUOTE (excaza+Jun 5 2008, 11:09 AM)
Sorry, I just checked my extensive calculations and found that the universe is made up of unicorn horn powdered into infinitely small parabolic ring cyclides, but because the human eye is round, they appear to be villarceau circles and then magically transform into great cubicuboctahedrons after long-term observations.
This is an official theory just like your smallest spheres is an official theory. Random bullshit ideas with zero proof.
You changing your theory in every your post unlike me, so first creat your theory and then come back and I disprove it. And now you can't disprove my mathematical theory of universe with spheres.
This is an official theory just like your smallest spheres is an official theory. Random bullshit ideas with zero proof.
You changing your theory in every your post unlike me, so first creat your theory and then come back and I disprove it. And now you can't disprove my mathematical theory of universe with spheres.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 5 2008, 07:22 AM)
And now you can't disprove my mathematical theory of universe with spheres.
You don't even have one. Just because you said "sphere" and a sphere is part of geometry doesn't make your model mathematical. Give some equations, some actual proof that your smallest spheres theory can model...anything.
You don't even have one. Just because you said "sphere" and a sphere is part of geometry doesn't make your model mathematical. Give some equations, some actual proof that your smallest spheres theory can model...anything.
QUOTE (excaza+Jun 5 2008, 02:01 PM)
You don't even have one. Just because you said "sphere" and a sphere is part of geometry doesn't make your model mathematical. Give some equations, some actual proof that your smallest spheres theory can model...anything.
NO! It's you must prove that my spheres model can't model anything! But my model is indeed mathematical. More mathematical model I haven't ever seen! String model is either nonmathematical, either mathematical, but not on fundamental level and explaining only some higest level properties, somthing that maybe are milions times smaller than proton, but not even more smaller things. Thus for explanation even more smaller things need my spheres model. I prove that geometricaly there can't be another model than this, which I just describe and describing every time... Smallest spheres with equal mass size and biggest density, maximal density. So what initial properties, conditions is unclear for you? There everything is clear: all universe/cosmos/space consist of spheres with maximal density and the same mass and size. I completly describe my model with math. If you can't imagine how to made infinity density with smallest spheres in infinity space, well, then it is your problems, becouose it is mathematic.
NO! It's you must prove that my spheres model can't model anything! But my model is indeed mathematical. More mathematical model I haven't ever seen! String model is either nonmathematical, either mathematical, but not on fundamental level and explaining only some higest level properties, somthing that maybe are milions times smaller than proton, but not even more smaller things. Thus for explanation even more smaller things need my spheres model. I prove that geometricaly there can't be another model than this, which I just describe and describing every time... Smallest spheres with equal mass size and biggest density, maximal density. So what initial properties, conditions is unclear for you? There everything is clear: all universe/cosmos/space consist of spheres with maximal density and the same mass and size. I completly describe my model with math. If you can't imagine how to made infinity density with smallest spheres in infinity space, well, then it is your problems, becouose it is mathematic.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 5 2008, 10:56 AM)
NO! It's you must prove that my spheres model can't model anything! But my model is indeed mathematical. More mathematical model I haven't ever seen! String model is either nonmathematical, either mathematical, but not on fundamental level and explaining only some higest level properties, somthing that maybe are milions times smaller than proton, but not even more smaller things. Thus for explanation even more smaller things need my spheres model. I prove that geometricaly there can't be another model than this, which I just describe and describing every time... Smallest spheres with equal mass size and biggest density, maximal density. So what initial properties, conditions is unclear for you? There everything is clear: all universe/cosmos/space consist of spheres with maximal density and the same mass and size. I completly describe my model with math. If you can't imagine how to made infinity density with smallest spheres in infinity space, well, then it is your problems, becouose it is mathematic.
Mathematics requires math, not text. You can say whatever the hell you want. You can make up a universe with the smallest parabolic ring cyclides too. Until you can actually, you know, model something with it, you're just full of garbage.
Mathematics requires math, not text. You can say whatever the hell you want. You can make up a universe with the smallest parabolic ring cyclides too. Until you can actually, you know, model something with it, you're just full of garbage.
QUOTE (excaza+Jun 5 2008, 05:30 PM)
Mathematics requires math, not text. You can say whatever the hell you want. You can make up a universe with the smallest parabolic ring cyclides too. Until you can actually, you know, model something with it, you're just full of garbage.
I am just giving complete working model for farther development and to write it in terms of math, but indeed it already have all math, but described in words. It's like newton law described in words. So you see, you can't disprove my theory and not becouse it is too poorly described with math, but becouse theory is too hard for brain... Particularly the hardest point is that what is maximal density of spheres in infinity space. For example with say 10 spheres maximal density will have different each sphere position than with 20 spheres or 1000 spheres, so possible that while number of spheres increase, each time need recombine possition of each sphere. I am of course not sure about that, but I think it can be... But still how to imagine maimal density in infinity? This is very hard to estimate posintion of spheres... /So in my theory initial first energy come from impsoibility to establish maximal density in infinity... And thus even if infintly small energy ocure it's don't matter this very small energy can create motion of all infinity universe, becouse there no friction. I am not sure do infinity small energy can have realistic logic... Probably it's just very small energy. To perform math need to know very good integrals and it wold be very hard task even for 2-3 spheres, which somehw moving and interacting. But how much I know about integrals, they can describe only some ordering motions, etc x^2, or x^5+x^3 or cos^2 x, but can't describe chaotic and unclear functions. So I am not even sure, do integrals can describe precisly spheres in maximal density. Maybe can, but maybe only for small number like 1000 spheres and to somehow interpretate it.
But you somether may be right, that my theory as hard to prove or disprove as somthing mystical like changing shape and size rings and cubes...
But my theory still is the most easy and provable and logical and mathematical theory of possible explanation how exactly universe working and what exactly the most elementary particles are. At least my assumptions and theory eliminating all over theories with geometrical over phygures and with over densities of particles. So if my theory is wrong then world consist of not geometrical particles, but of real magic like maybe string in many REAL dimensions like 5D or 12D... Then universe working not acording to newton law. Neither according to simple geometry, it then means, that univrse working according to God or magic or mysterie laws. Of course god can maybe fit in also in smallest spheres - god consist of smallest spheres. But why for smallest spheres first need to create god and after that - god creating universe? Direct way seems more logical...
But since more than 3 dimensions seems ridicules, then either my theory is right, either there is laws, which can't be understooded with math... Then there is laws which obey acording to some unreal scheme, unreal laws... Like you puting apple on table ans omewhy it eating not worm, but small dragon or ring or cube... If such laws can exist then landscape of such laws can be infinity and you will never understand those laws. So I think much better to try understand with 'logical' laws and not with 'laws', which can't be noramaly nor simulated nor underatooded nor proved nor disproved nor predicted nor have diference with hary poter...
I am just giving complete working model for farther development and to write it in terms of math, but indeed it already have all math, but described in words. It's like newton law described in words. So you see, you can't disprove my theory and not becouse it is too poorly described with math, but becouse theory is too hard for brain... Particularly the hardest point is that what is maximal density of spheres in infinity space. For example with say 10 spheres maximal density will have different each sphere position than with 20 spheres or 1000 spheres, so possible that while number of spheres increase, each time need recombine possition of each sphere. I am of course not sure about that, but I think it can be... But still how to imagine maimal density in infinity? This is very hard to estimate posintion of spheres... /So in my theory initial first energy come from impsoibility to establish maximal density in infinity... And thus even if infintly small energy ocure it's don't matter this very small energy can create motion of all infinity universe, becouse there no friction. I am not sure do infinity small energy can have realistic logic... Probably it's just very small energy. To perform math need to know very good integrals and it wold be very hard task even for 2-3 spheres, which somehw moving and interacting. But how much I know about integrals, they can describe only some ordering motions, etc x^2, or x^5+x^3 or cos^2 x, but can't describe chaotic and unclear functions. So I am not even sure, do integrals can describe precisly spheres in maximal density. Maybe can, but maybe only for small number like 1000 spheres and to somehow interpretate it.
But you somether may be right, that my theory as hard to prove or disprove as somthing mystical like changing shape and size rings and cubes...
But my theory still is the most easy and provable and logical and mathematical theory of possible explanation how exactly universe working and what exactly the most elementary particles are. At least my assumptions and theory eliminating all over theories with geometrical over phygures and with over densities of particles. So if my theory is wrong then world consist of not geometrical particles, but of real magic like maybe string in many REAL dimensions like 5D or 12D... Then universe working not acording to newton law. Neither according to simple geometry, it then means, that univrse working according to God or magic or mysterie laws. Of course god can maybe fit in also in smallest spheres - god consist of smallest spheres. But why for smallest spheres first need to create god and after that - god creating universe? Direct way seems more logical...
But since more than 3 dimensions seems ridicules, then either my theory is right, either there is laws, which can't be understooded with math... Then there is laws which obey acording to some unreal scheme, unreal laws... Like you puting apple on table ans omewhy it eating not worm, but small dragon or ring or cube... If such laws can exist then landscape of such laws can be infinity and you will never understand those laws. So I think much better to try understand with 'logical' laws and not with 'laws', which can't be noramaly nor simulated nor underatooded nor proved nor disproved nor predicted nor have diference with hary poter...
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 6 2008, 07:25 AM)
I am just giving complete working model for farther development and to write it in terms of math, but indeed it already have all math, but described in words. It's like newton law described in words. So you see, you can't disprove my theory and not becouse it is too poorly described with math, but becouse theory is too hard for brain... Particularly the hardest point is that what is maximal density of spheres in infinity space. For example with say 10 spheres maximal density will have different each sphere position than with 20 spheres or 1000 spheres, so possible that while number of spheres increase, each time need recombine possition of each sphere. I am of course not sure about that, but I think it can be... But still how to imagine maimal density in infinity? This is very hard to estimate posintion of spheres... /So in my theory initial first energy come from impsoibility to establish maximal density in infinity... And thus even if infintly small energy ocure it's don't matter this very small energy can create motion of all infinity universe, becouse there no friction. I am not sure do infinity small energy can have realistic logic... Probably it's just very small energy. To perform math need to know very good integrals and it wold be very hard task even for 2-3 spheres, which somehw moving and interacting. But how much I know about integrals, they can describe only some ordering motions, etc x^2, or x^5+x^3 or cos^2 x, but can't describe chaotic and unclear functions. So I am not even sure, do integrals can describe precisly spheres in maximal density. Maybe can, but maybe only for small number like 1000 spheres and to somehow interpretate it.
But you somether may be right, that my theory as hard to prove or disprove as somthing mystical like changing shape and size rings and cubes...
But my theory still is the most easy and provable and logical and mathematical theory of possible explanation how exactly universe working and what exactly the most elementary particles are. At least my assumptions and theory eliminating all over theories with geometrical over phygures and with over densities of particles. So if my theory is wrong then world consist of not geometrical particles, but of real magic like maybe string in many REAL dimensions like 5D or 12D... Then universe working not acording to newton law. Neither according to simple geometry, it then means, that univrse working according to God or magic or mysterie laws. Of course god can maybe fit in also in smallest spheres - god consist of smallest spheres. But why for smallest spheres first need to create god and after that - god creating universe? Direct way seems more logical...
But since more than 3 dimensions seems ridicules, then either my theory is right, either there is laws, which can't be understooded with math... Then there is laws which obey acording to some unreal scheme, unreal laws... Like you puting apple on table ans omewhy it eating not worm, but small dragon or ring or cube... If such laws can exist then landscape of such laws can be infinity and you will never understand those laws. So I think much better to try understand with 'logical' laws and not with 'laws', which can't be noramaly nor simulated nor underatooded nor proved nor disproved nor predicted nor have diference with hary poter...
Funny, all I see is brain dead flatulence.
But you somether may be right, that my theory as hard to prove or disprove as somthing mystical like changing shape and size rings and cubes...
But my theory still is the most easy and provable and logical and mathematical theory of possible explanation how exactly universe working and what exactly the most elementary particles are. At least my assumptions and theory eliminating all over theories with geometrical over phygures and with over densities of particles. So if my theory is wrong then world consist of not geometrical particles, but of real magic like maybe string in many REAL dimensions like 5D or 12D... Then universe working not acording to newton law. Neither according to simple geometry, it then means, that univrse working according to God or magic or mysterie laws. Of course god can maybe fit in also in smallest spheres - god consist of smallest spheres. But why for smallest spheres first need to create god and after that - god creating universe? Direct way seems more logical...
But since more than 3 dimensions seems ridicules, then either my theory is right, either there is laws, which can't be understooded with math... Then there is laws which obey acording to some unreal scheme, unreal laws... Like you puting apple on table ans omewhy it eating not worm, but small dragon or ring or cube... If such laws can exist then landscape of such laws can be infinity and you will never understand those laws. So I think much better to try understand with 'logical' laws and not with 'laws', which can't be noramaly nor simulated nor underatooded nor proved nor disproved nor predicted nor have diference with hary poter...
Funny, all I see is brain dead flatulence.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jun 7 2008, 02:23 AM)
Funny, all I see is brain dead flatulence.
I the same can say about strings
I the same can say about strings
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 7 2008, 07:12 AM)
I the same can say about strings
Yep, more brain-deceased farting.
Yep, more brain-deceased farting.
Currently there is a little bit crysis with my theory, becouse I can't eliminate possibility of existing between spheres of some size in maximal density over smallest spheres between those spheres and between those smalest spheres even more smallest and this can go to infinity or not and I can't decide how it must be. But it then very strange who will so masterly put those spheres between... About maximal density. There can be that maximal density is but only one sphere, say on distance of half sphere is in infinity not in maximal density (do not touching over spheres). Then in full cosmos is equivalnet like distance between all spheres is infinity small and I can to solve this problem. If distance is infinity small then with what speed can be transmited information through say infinity serial spheres? OR with infinity speed or with finity speed? This is paraodx in some sense. Becouse I think that this one sphere in not maximal density thus they key of cousing energy in "infinity time"... Thus maybe possible to explain wavefunction colapse, that in some point information going by infinitly small amount of time faster than in over point. And if in some point amplitude is bigger then bigger probability becouse somehow more spheres in better contanct in this point or somthing... So this is open question, does distance between spheres is ifinity small or 0.
For example in interference ringers in some fringer on central line there is biggest amplitude and on egdes smaller, thus spheres with bigger amplitude wibraing in large space and thus more spheres afected and bigger probability that information will chose this point... And then after that in over places don't colapse, becouse energy don't enough there... And all energy projective on this fastest point... I was talking about infinity small distance...
I can't figure out, do spheres have possiblity of move, if there between them in maximal or infinity close to maximal density, exist even smallest spheres, which are maximaly large, what can fill gaps, but all equal size. I think they still must be able to move and maybe "better" in infinitly colse to maximal density model. Or maybe there even don't need to some size and concvrete postion and density in gaps, but enough just put in many spheres with infinity close to size of biggest spheres and then to build everything? But then still must be some one typse of spheres, which are biggest and can't be infintely big, becouse if there would exist infinity big spheres then we probably bounce in this ones. But maybe even this hapening if we flying at reletivistic speed? But why in our universe then no big spheres, which I would be able to see? Of course light from them wouldn't reflect, but maybe difract or somthing. Why we exacly seeing atoms and don't seeing those bigger spheres? Except maybe, that those big spheres move too fast and we don't able to observe them. but if such sphere would bounce to somebody he must would become 'dust'.
Edit: spheres in any size but in some cole to maximal density can't exist, becouse there half of me should be maded of those spheres. So exist can only say placnk length 1/10^35 m spheres and smaller. But I can't figure out does infinity small spheres can exist or only some finity levels of smallness. With infinity small, seems alittle bit strange, what infinity big can't exist, but infinity small - can (in maximal density at least...).
For example in interference ringers in some fringer on central line there is biggest amplitude and on egdes smaller, thus spheres with bigger amplitude wibraing in large space and thus more spheres afected and bigger probability that information will chose this point... And then after that in over places don't colapse, becouse energy don't enough there... And all energy projective on this fastest point... I was talking about infinity small distance...
I can't figure out, do spheres have possiblity of move, if there between them in maximal or infinity close to maximal density, exist even smallest spheres, which are maximaly large, what can fill gaps, but all equal size. I think they still must be able to move and maybe "better" in infinitly colse to maximal density model. Or maybe there even don't need to some size and concvrete postion and density in gaps, but enough just put in many spheres with infinity close to size of biggest spheres and then to build everything? But then still must be some one typse of spheres, which are biggest and can't be infintely big, becouse if there would exist infinity big spheres then we probably bounce in this ones. But maybe even this hapening if we flying at reletivistic speed? But why in our universe then no big spheres, which I would be able to see? Of course light from them wouldn't reflect, but maybe difract or somthing. Why we exacly seeing atoms and don't seeing those bigger spheres? Except maybe, that those big spheres move too fast and we don't able to observe them. but if such sphere would bounce to somebody he must would become 'dust'.
Edit: spheres in any size but in some cole to maximal density can't exist, becouse there half of me should be maded of those spheres. So exist can only say placnk length 1/10^35 m spheres and smaller. But I can't figure out does infinity small spheres can exist or only some finity levels of smallness. With infinity small, seems alittle bit strange, what infinity big can't exist, but infinity small - can (in maximal density at least...).
Deterministic atom model, spin, orbital magnetic moment, emision lines, cooper pairs.
I have explanation for deteministic atom model. First of all. Particles is not a waves! Waves are only photons. Particles interference wasn't proved and difraction in double slit experiment is doubful. Emission lines in hydrogen atom, cousing orabital magnetic moment, which interacting with proton spin or maybe electron spin interacting with proton spin... In bigger atoms this is the same, electrons spins interacting with protons and neutrons spins, thus absorbtion and emission lines are quantized, depending on spins strenght... It's like deuterium atom can exist only if spin are connected between nucleaons with N-S poles. If S-S or N-N, then deuterium atom can't bourn. Thus some times to change spin interactinos and to go to excided state need to absorb photon. Also maybe angular magnetic moment with more electrons than one is quantized... Cooper pairs becoming, becouse there is many free electrons, which becoming connected with spins and overcoming spin culon power. Cooper pairs can go into one of two directinos, which is probabilistic, becouse atoms don't holding electrons-pairs. Thus in rings-loops coper pairs creating closed super-spin field, which don't have direction, but after measurment can colapse to one of two probabilistic states as spin. Spin is also probabilistic. Uncertainty principle in atoms cousing either spins (magnetic moments) or orbitam magnetic moments. Thus uncertainty principle don't exist and exist only certain principle... Uncertainty principle exist maybe only for photons, but wasn't proved for particles.
Thus quantum computer can show only success if in it some how used photons...
In over words uncertainty principle creating "noise" of quantum mechanic thermal... Electrons filling orbits in atoms according to spins (or maybe also orbit magnetic moment) of electrons and nucleons. All quantum mechanic based on this properties and not on shrodinger equation, which maybe also explaining the same thing...
Quantum mechanic of particles is purely probabilistic becouse of spins (and maybe some impact have orbital magnetic moment). And photons are purely probabilistic-wavefunction colapse properties having. this is all explanation of quantum mechanic.
I have explanation for deteministic atom model. First of all. Particles is not a waves! Waves are only photons. Particles interference wasn't proved and difraction in double slit experiment is doubful. Emission lines in hydrogen atom, cousing orabital magnetic moment, which interacting with proton spin or maybe electron spin interacting with proton spin... In bigger atoms this is the same, electrons spins interacting with protons and neutrons spins, thus absorbtion and emission lines are quantized, depending on spins strenght... It's like deuterium atom can exist only if spin are connected between nucleaons with N-S poles. If S-S or N-N, then deuterium atom can't bourn. Thus some times to change spin interactinos and to go to excided state need to absorb photon. Also maybe angular magnetic moment with more electrons than one is quantized... Cooper pairs becoming, becouse there is many free electrons, which becoming connected with spins and overcoming spin culon power. Cooper pairs can go into one of two directinos, which is probabilistic, becouse atoms don't holding electrons-pairs. Thus in rings-loops coper pairs creating closed super-spin field, which don't have direction, but after measurment can colapse to one of two probabilistic states as spin. Spin is also probabilistic. Uncertainty principle in atoms cousing either spins (magnetic moments) or orbitam magnetic moments. Thus uncertainty principle don't exist and exist only certain principle... Uncertainty principle exist maybe only for photons, but wasn't proved for particles.
Thus quantum computer can show only success if in it some how used photons...
In over words uncertainty principle creating "noise" of quantum mechanic thermal... Electrons filling orbits in atoms according to spins (or maybe also orbit magnetic moment) of electrons and nucleons. All quantum mechanic based on this properties and not on shrodinger equation, which maybe also explaining the same thing...
Quantum mechanic of particles is purely probabilistic becouse of spins (and maybe some impact have orbital magnetic moment). And photons are purely probabilistic-wavefunction colapse properties having. this is all explanation of quantum mechanic.
So you're cherry-picking theories and saying others are false, even though the ones you picked depend on the ones you're tossing out to be true? Couple that with a complete and total lack of proof, experimentation, or a mathematical model, and less-than-stellar use of wikipedia to farm terms to make yourself sound smart and you get...
braindead rambling.
Also can't forget the atrocious use of the english language.
braindead rambling.
Also can't forget the atrocious use of the english language.
I sugesting, that spins combination and maybe also orbital magnetic moment is somthing more than schrodinger equation, becouse it's explaining more clearly all things like emision lines and chemical properties. And I am highly doubful about wave-particles properties for non-photon particles. They are probabilistic becouse of probabilistic spin. Orbital magnetic moment may have probabilistic properties only then there is more than one electron. (but even one electron can have quantized orbital angular moment like spin if electron have uncertainty principle). So nobody observe electron or neutrons difraction or interference, thus they probably don't have particle-wave duality. If electron linarly flying, then in his flying direction becoming North magnetic pole and in oposit direction of electron flyline, there is south Pole. So if electron flying around proton, then there is like small magnet flying around proton. This magnet obviuosly can't afect proton spin, becouse is too far and not on proton. IF there two electrons flying in same orbit around proton and if one is at 0 degrees and over at 180 degrees, then they are like two small magnets and they atracting each over a little bit, thus 2 electrons flying a littl bit closer to center/proton. This force may be like ground state of one of electrons and to go over into excided state need photon energy. For one electron and proton there excided and ground state can be parralel and antiparalel alignet electron and proton spins. Thus hydrogen atom don't have more than 2 orbits. If elctron have uncertainty principle then electron is like onto proton and is very big and then it's becoming like electron have two magnetic moments, one -spin and over - orbital. Thus total magnetic moment of electron becoming 1.5 or 0.5. With proton spin it becoming 2.5 or 0.5 or 1.5. Thus there can be 3 hydrogen orbits (I wonder do more orbits in hydrogen was obtained ).
).
I suggest that all orbits follow a figure eight, once and a while changing into electrically quantized super-de-duper neutrino waves. This is because each particle is actually a tri-magnet, it has a positive, negative, and posigative poles.
Spew wikipedia to your heart's content, it doesn't change the fact that you can't prove anything you're saying.
Just because it makes sense to YOU doesn't mean it's right. There's plenty of things one can make up that make perfect sense, without proof it means absolutely nothing.
Spew wikipedia to your heart's content, it doesn't change the fact that you can't prove anything you're saying.
Just because it makes sense to YOU doesn't mean it's right. There's plenty of things one can make up that make perfect sense, without proof it means absolutely nothing.
My theory is highly truly. If particles is not the waves, then who is ? PHOTONS! http://youtube.com/watch?v=zixo4mvP58s&feature=related
Particles don't have wave properties except photons.
If there flying in one same orbit 3 electrons then it's like flying in one orbit 3 magnets and each magnet S pole "looking" to N pole, etc. Thus those magnets making to me dificulties, but I think this eliminating maybe magnetism at all or magnetism is only inside (N) and outside (S) or this maybe interact somehow ith nuclear spin. But no! Only two electrons can be in each orbit (or at least not odd number: 3, 5, 7, I think).
Particles don't have wave properties except photons.
If there flying in one same orbit 3 electrons then it's like flying in one orbit 3 magnets and each magnet S pole "looking" to N pole, etc. Thus those magnets making to me dificulties, but I think this eliminating maybe magnetism at all or magnetism is only inside (N) and outside (S) or this maybe interact somehow ith nuclear spin. But no! Only two electrons can be in each orbit (or at least not odd number: 3, 5, 7, I think).
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 13 2008, 11:01 AM)
If particles is not the waves, then who is ? PHOTONS! Particles don't have wave properties except photons.
If there flying in one same orbit 3 electrons then it's like flying in one orbit 3 magnets and each magnet S pole "looking" to N pole, etc. Thus those magnets making to me dificulties, but I think this eliminating maybe magnetism at all or magnetism is only inside (N) and outside (S) or this maybe interact somehow ith nuclear spin. But no! Only two electrons can be in each orbit (or at least not odd number: 3, 5, 7, I think).
Do you even take the time to research anything? It seems to me that you're just looking at something, going "BWUHHHH!???!?" and making something up so it'll make sense in your own world.
PROVE SOMETHING
words are not proof. A mathematical model that can predict something, anything! ANYBODY can run around making *** up pretending it's true. Your 'theory' holds no more weight nor contains any more proof than my unicorn horn universe.
The hell does that even mean?
If there flying in one same orbit 3 electrons then it's like flying in one orbit 3 magnets and each magnet S pole "looking" to N pole, etc. Thus those magnets making to me dificulties, but I think this eliminating maybe magnetism at all or magnetism is only inside (N) and outside (S) or this maybe interact somehow ith nuclear spin. But no! Only two electrons can be in each orbit (or at least not odd number: 3, 5, 7, I think).
Do you even take the time to research anything? It seems to me that you're just looking at something, going "BWUHHHH!???!?" and making something up so it'll make sense in your own world.
PROVE SOMETHING
words are not proof. A mathematical model that can predict something, anything! ANYBODY can run around making *** up pretending it's true. Your 'theory' holds no more weight nor contains any more proof than my unicorn horn universe.
QUOTE
My theory is highly truly.
The hell does that even mean?
This means, that all quantum mechanic based on spin model...
David, use your model to predict the emission spectra of hydrogen.
Spin have energy of 5/10^35 J*s. Magnetic moment of electron or proton is e*h/2/pi=(1.6/10^19)/10^34=1.6/10^53 C*J*s.
Coloumbg force is q^2 /r^2 * k =(1.6/10^19)^2 /r^2 *10^10=(2.56/10^38) /r^2 * 10^10=2.56/10^28 /r^2. Thus need to do equation
But it obiously seen that magnetic moment force much weaker (1.6/10^53)^2 /r^2 > 2.56/10^28 /r^2 . How it can be? OR I something comparing with bad not SI sistem. Anyway emsiion lines shouldn't be discreat, becosue magnetic moment also decrease 1/r^2 like coloumb force so somebody should "win" at finish, but no. Thus this model bad. But Still I think, that electrons, protons and neutrons and any over solid particles isn't waves and are deterministic and don't ahve uncertainty principle and can interfere or difract. Electrons difractino in crystal is too pear evidence... Anotehr some atoms interference is maybe related with photons interference and are doubful... Thus unceratainty creating thermal motions of particles and spins...
Coloumbg force is q^2 /r^2 * k =(1.6/10^19)^2 /r^2 *10^10=(2.56/10^38) /r^2 * 10^10=2.56/10^28 /r^2. Thus need to do equation
But it obiously seen that magnetic moment force much weaker (1.6/10^53)^2 /r^2 > 2.56/10^28 /r^2 . How it can be? OR I something comparing with bad not SI sistem. Anyway emsiion lines shouldn't be discreat, becosue magnetic moment also decrease 1/r^2 like coloumb force so somebody should "win" at finish, but no. Thus this model bad. But Still I think, that electrons, protons and neutrons and any over solid particles isn't waves and are deterministic and don't ahve uncertainty principle and can interfere or difract. Electrons difractino in crystal is too pear evidence... Anotehr some atoms interference is maybe related with photons interference and are doubful... Thus unceratainty creating thermal motions of particles and spins...
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 14 2008, 08:35 AM)
Anyway emsiion lines shouldn't be discreat
But they are. So your model is wrong.
But they are. So your model is wrong.
Maybe someone needs to renormalize DavidD's thought processes.
You two debunking my stupids points, which I myself already argued
Debunk my over points about uncertainty and not waves particles, except photons.
Debunk my over points about uncertainty and not waves particles, except photons.
I just read a few of pages of the exchange between AlphaNumeric and DavidD and nearly pissed myself laughing. For someone who appears to be an intelligence physicist, Alpha, I don't understand why you could continue to feed this troll. Either way I had a good laugh. Keep up the good work!
I just looked at the title "Why Quantum Mechanic Is Wrong?" HAHAHAHAHHA. I'm a quantum mechanic because I study quantum mechanics? HAHAHHAAH
My theory predicting that smallest speres my not have mass. Or they mass is infinitly small, which means, that no mass... So if spheres is in contact with each over then there no matter does mass of each sphere exist and does it is known, becouse we same trick will be even without mass. So if mass don't exist then no need energy for those particles or energy can be infintly small, but motion of those particles will not be infinity fast or big...becouse energy vectors will compensate each over and thus energy diference will ocure only when structure is little bit diferent... Thus this energy...I stuck Maybe mass is realy nessasary and important... But maybe energy almost also don't exist and those particles moving freely only on some infinity cosomos assumptions laws (yeah, infinity playing there important role in existation of energy and everything...)... Thus it's only can explain that we are in reletivistic time living creators, becouse everything in universe going on with infinity speed and since sometimes processes going on slower and somtimes faster due to not realy good compensation and considece, we think that time going also the same speed, but actualy we all living in very slow time and over thing may be much faster, but why light have constant speed? Well, becouse there was created some particles, which radiating only constant energy h. Those particles have some speed and some reletivistic speed and this processes which going on in particles is infinity fast, but outside processors can be infinity faster, becouse of some small compensation slowing down... But possible that photons always moving with max infinity speed and there no slowing down processes for them and for over particles there slowing down processors becouse of not matching vectors... Thus we think that speed of light is finity but in real it is infinity and we are arbitrary close to infinity speed, but no close still, becosue we living in reletivistic world. So entanglement may be fake or not proved experimental evidence don't haved thing or fact, that waves moving like waves, but entanglemnt moving directly through 'structure' (of smalles spheres)... Thus single photon can't eist, becosue at reletivistic speed there thing going on slower and need more energy and thus there is many photons, thus photon energy is h and not hf (for observer in his "reltivistic time"...). Thus in enetanglement there going on not two photons, but almost infinity photons, but time going slower to us and thus those infinity photons can have infinity information within adn thus there it explains why there is probabilities, becouse where is more photons, there is colapse... This energy, which not colapse may inform over entangled photons to interfere with them or through structure find them faster than infinity speed, without using average fluctation vectors speed but directly, this is equalent to this, what I said before. Actualy everything oes on equivalently, but only raised than conclution that smallest spheres mass is not nessesary for them. Also if there is many smaller even spheres, but which don't changing structure of bigger spheres then seems, that they don't have any impact, but possible that entanglement goes on through them. Or through combination smaller and bigger spheres, without changing "don't touching principle" between bigest spheres. But possible that there not biggest spheres playing crucial role, but some middle... But still everythingbased on this principle.
Maybe mass is realy nessasary and important... But maybe energy almost also don't exist and those particles moving freely only on some infinity cosomos assumptions laws (yeah, infinity playing there important role in existation of energy and everything...)... Thus it's only can explain that we are in reletivistic time living creators, becouse everything in universe going on with infinity speed and since sometimes processes going on slower and somtimes faster due to not realy good compensation and considece, we think that time going also the same speed, but actualy we all living in very slow time and over thing may be much faster, but why light have constant speed? Well, becouse there was created some particles, which radiating only constant energy h. Those particles have some speed and some reletivistic speed and this processes which going on in particles is infinity fast, but outside processors can be infinity faster, becouse of some small compensation slowing down... But possible that photons always moving with max infinity speed and there no slowing down processes for them and for over particles there slowing down processors becouse of not matching vectors... Thus we think that speed of light is finity but in real it is infinity and we are arbitrary close to infinity speed, but no close still, becosue we living in reletivistic world. So entanglement may be fake or not proved experimental evidence don't haved thing or fact, that waves moving like waves, but entanglemnt moving directly through 'structure' (of smalles spheres)... Thus single photon can't eist, becosue at reletivistic speed there thing going on slower and need more energy and thus there is many photons, thus photon energy is h and not hf (for observer in his "reltivistic time"...). Thus in enetanglement there going on not two photons, but almost infinity photons, but time going slower to us and thus those infinity photons can have infinity information within adn thus there it explains why there is probabilities, becouse where is more photons, there is colapse... This energy, which not colapse may inform over entangled photons to interfere with them or through structure find them faster than infinity speed, without using average fluctation vectors speed but directly, this is equalent to this, what I said before. Actualy everything oes on equivalently, but only raised than conclution that smallest spheres mass is not nessesary for them. Also if there is many smaller even spheres, but which don't changing structure of bigger spheres then seems, that they don't have any impact, but possible that entanglement goes on through them. Or through combination smaller and bigger spheres, without changing "don't touching principle" between bigest spheres. But possible that there not biggest spheres playing crucial role, but some middle... But still everythingbased on this principle.
Eureka!!! Mystery of electromagnetic waves duality and entanglement is solved!!!
Conclusions: photons are only waves; entanglement going on faster than speed of light.
So. Particle-wave duality for photons don't exist! Photons are only waves! All phenomenas of particle-wave duality can be explained with only-wave-photon model. Each atom radiating electromagnetic waves-photons, which are waves, which expanding like sphere in space. Number of emited photons or energy of atom is this h*f/(1-(v/c)^2)^0.5, where v is velocity of atom. So emitted number of photons, let's call them subphotons, is 1/(1-(v/c)^2)^0.5 and energy emition given above. But since in reletivistic speed energy emition is slower then energy real emition is h*f*(1-(v/c)^2)^0.5 /(1-(v/c)^2)^0.5=h*f, becosue time goes slower. Imagine that at slower speed radiating some body photons or subphotons and at reletivistic speed body absorbing them then at reletivistic speed body absorbing very much photons, becouse for them need more energy to make slower heaver job/work... So number of radiated photons by both atoms is the same (probably you can ignore above bullshit). But diference is there that one flying in bigger speed and another in smaller speed. Thus for this body, which flying in bigger speed there seems that there is radiated 1/(1-(v/c)^2)^0.5 subphotons and in non-reletivistic speed there seems taht is radiated 1 subphoton-photon. But since we always are in reletivistic speed (we don't know with that speed our Sun sistem rotating about galaxy center with say 0.3c-0.7c, and we don't know with that speed our universe rotating about somthing maybe over...), then subphotons always is more than photons (so one atom can radiate one photon and infinity subphotons depending on reletivsitc speed).
So how it is possible to explain entanglement? Well, very simple. There is radiated infinity subphotons at time, which fits in our cousal understanding in one photon. Thus two entangled photons conist of very much subphotons each. So when one subphoton going on in some direction then he going through polarized glass say and then he like wave of course doing all this (maybe though optical fiber) and then subpohon spliting into two waves, which one of waves going into detector and over going back liek reflected, this reflected wave of subphoton going into another polarized glass and if she is reflected with some information angle then she have information about how to behave in another polarized glass and she giving information by interference or by just going into detector or again reflecting and so on. Thus in process of entanglement there travels p/(1-(v/c)^2)^0.5 subphotons, where p is one photon. So eureca - mystery of entanglement is solved! You may say, that photon either going through polarized glass or is abosrbed, ye ye absorbed don't kiding, it's reflected by antialignet polarized glass. So polarized glass either reflecting or leting pass through to subphoton.
Now how it is possible to explain waves not-particles not duality, but fact that particles are only waves? The same trick. There is many subphotons, which expanding like spheres, when time goes on and this subphotons fully behaving like waves, can split, intefere and so on. Thus subphotons rubing many space and subphotons going also from another atoms and if number of subphotons reaching some critical point of rubing one atom, then this atom can absorb this bucn of subphotons and in over places, where don't enough subphotons then no "colpase" in those points. Thus actualy probably wave can be explained only with photons and subphotons not nessasary.
So at reletivistic speed each atom absorbing more subphotons to excide him, becouse he is heavier. Actualy number of subphotons is the same, but due to slow process of atom absorbation you can think that need more subphotons, becouse oen photon consist of many subohotons at reletivistic speed...
So any questions?
Where is my nobel prize?
BTW, sombody may ask, why isolated particles at big distance and after long time after they isolation still colapsing like they "feel" each over? Answer is simple: becosue subphotons was divided into many direction and thus examed one subphoton both places before they was isolated.
Conclusions: photons are only waves; entanglement going on faster than speed of light.
So. Particle-wave duality for photons don't exist! Photons are only waves! All phenomenas of particle-wave duality can be explained with only-wave-photon model. Each atom radiating electromagnetic waves-photons, which are waves, which expanding like sphere in space. Number of emited photons or energy of atom is this h*f/(1-(v/c)^2)^0.5, where v is velocity of atom. So emitted number of photons, let's call them subphotons, is 1/(1-(v/c)^2)^0.5 and energy emition given above. But since in reletivistic speed energy emition is slower then energy real emition is h*f*(1-(v/c)^2)^0.5 /(1-(v/c)^2)^0.5=h*f, becosue time goes slower. Imagine that at slower speed radiating some body photons or subphotons and at reletivistic speed body absorbing them then at reletivistic speed body absorbing very much photons, becouse for them need more energy to make slower heaver job/work... So number of radiated photons by both atoms is the same (probably you can ignore above bullshit). But diference is there that one flying in bigger speed and another in smaller speed. Thus for this body, which flying in bigger speed there seems that there is radiated 1/(1-(v/c)^2)^0.5 subphotons and in non-reletivistic speed there seems taht is radiated 1 subphoton-photon. But since we always are in reletivistic speed (we don't know with that speed our Sun sistem rotating about galaxy center with say 0.3c-0.7c, and we don't know with that speed our universe rotating about somthing maybe over...), then subphotons always is more than photons (so one atom can radiate one photon and infinity subphotons depending on reletivsitc speed).
So how it is possible to explain entanglement? Well, very simple. There is radiated infinity subphotons at time, which fits in our cousal understanding in one photon. Thus two entangled photons conist of very much subphotons each. So when one subphoton going on in some direction then he going through polarized glass say and then he like wave of course doing all this (maybe though optical fiber) and then subpohon spliting into two waves, which one of waves going into detector and over going back liek reflected, this reflected wave of subphoton going into another polarized glass and if she is reflected with some information angle then she have information about how to behave in another polarized glass and she giving information by interference or by just going into detector or again reflecting and so on. Thus in process of entanglement there travels p/(1-(v/c)^2)^0.5 subphotons, where p is one photon. So eureca - mystery of entanglement is solved! You may say, that photon either going through polarized glass or is abosrbed, ye ye absorbed don't kiding, it's reflected by antialignet polarized glass. So polarized glass either reflecting or leting pass through to subphoton.
Now how it is possible to explain waves not-particles not duality, but fact that particles are only waves? The same trick. There is many subphotons, which expanding like spheres, when time goes on and this subphotons fully behaving like waves, can split, intefere and so on. Thus subphotons rubing many space and subphotons going also from another atoms and if number of subphotons reaching some critical point of rubing one atom, then this atom can absorb this bucn of subphotons and in over places, where don't enough subphotons then no "colpase" in those points. Thus actualy probably wave can be explained only with photons and subphotons not nessasary.
So at reletivistic speed each atom absorbing more subphotons to excide him, becouse he is heavier. Actualy number of subphotons is the same, but due to slow process of atom absorbation you can think that need more subphotons, becouse oen photon consist of many subohotons at reletivistic speed...
So any questions?
Where is my nobel prize?
BTW, sombody may ask, why isolated particles at big distance and after long time after they isolation still colapsing like they "feel" each over? Answer is simple: becosue subphotons was divided into many direction and thus examed one subphoton both places before they was isolated.
Ok, here more perls of true.
Photons say in hydrogen atom radiating many photons (or in relative speed - subphotons), but for detection of this photons need that they number would reach some triger barier and then this big number of photons can be detected... More precisly one wave of any amplitude exciding atom and there is quantized lines, where if in this line was absorbed photon then atom radiating certain quantized lenght wave and if in another line was absorbed wave of any amplitude then electron little bit going on to this state (but without acceleration-like wave). So actualy atom can absorb any quantized lenght wave of any amplitude. And each wave absorbation leading to atom electron orbit highing up, until certain line until over quantization, quantized line. If wave amplitude is bigger than need for fill up, cancel filling up this line, then this wave half is absorbed and half ignored or reflected or somthing. Then atom coming into new energetical level and from there all going on acording to classical physics, atom from this level radiating quantized BIG amplitude
Photons say in hydrogen atom radiating many photons (or in relative speed - subphotons), but for detection of this photons need that they number would reach some triger barier and then this big number of photons can be detected... More precisly one wave of any amplitude exciding atom and there is quantized lines, where if in this line was absorbed photon then atom radiating certain quantized lenght wave and if in another line was absorbed wave of any amplitude then electron little bit going on to this state (but without acceleration-like wave). So actualy atom can absorb any quantized lenght wave of any amplitude. And each wave absorbation leading to atom electron orbit highing up, until certain line until over quantization, quantized line. If wave amplitude is bigger than need for fill up, cancel filling up this line, then this wave half is absorbed and half ignored or reflected or somthing. Then atom coming into new energetical level and from there all going on acording to classical physics, atom from this level radiating quantized BIG amplitude