QUOTE (excaza+Jul 5 2008, 03:02 PM)
Use your model to explain the pioneer anomaly, Mr. "nobel laureate"
Stop dodging.
Stop dodging.
Okey. From where comes entanglement effect? From interference of reflected paths of waves!!! When times goes slowly all waves going with same phase shift untill measurment!!! Thus there is reflected waves interference with passing all time and there thus sometimes is in one detector interference and sometimes in over. On average without any entanglement result must mach 75%, interference filling all over 25% and thus result mach 100%!!! Some 10% may be errors or maybe not...
Okey. Quantum loosers probably wondering, what impact my theory have on quantum computers? Well at curent state of my theory, it states, that entanglement error always is 12.5%. And imposible to remove this errors, becouse it actualy is not errors. thus entanglement is like entanglement, but it have errors...hmm... For quantum computer don't need errors... And such big... So my theory predicts, that quantum computer is imposible, becouse with 10 qubits erros will overcome signal. this will probably be even with 5 qubits. 
WHO is genius?
I!
WHO is genius?
I!
Borh theory is wrong. Atom radiating not only quantized energy of waves - "photons", but radiating waves of any lenght! Electron have charge and have icentrical acceleration and thus radiating magnetic waves and also then falling into proton (in hydrogen atom). Thus any atom radiating waves of any wavelenght -frenquency. When electron faliing into proton then he producing neutron if spins match and after spins disturbation, neutron decaying into proton and electron. What is wrong with Borh model? because imposibel to chack it. Supose helium atoms radiating quantized waves then with difraction you can check it wavelenght, but you can trust only in your eyes. You can put prizme and to see, what lines where is and you will see, that there is combination of lines, which for you eyes will be like one ~whait. So to you need some detectors. But how those detectors to say to you what they seen? So for you need photoefect. But how photoefect will say, how much there was absorbed red and blue and in what quantities?
So borh quantized theory imposible to prove!!!
There no any quantization and all this stuf is mixed waves with any amplitudes and frenquency waves. Waves can pull electron to nuclear even closer of farther and at any angle! Thus quantum mechanic is unproved bulshitism!!! Yes, maxwell, you hear me, electron radiating electromagnetic waves when falling into nuclear!!!
There is only two types of matter: waves and particles - particles are transmiters of waves etc, and waves are transmiter of energy...
BTW, theory of debroglie may be right, that electron say at bigger speed is like faster vibrating wave and fluctations of universe, weaker disturbing him, when he is heavier...
So borh quantized theory imposible to prove!!!
There no any quantization and all this stuf is mixed waves with any amplitudes and frenquency waves. Waves can pull electron to nuclear even closer of farther and at any angle! Thus quantum mechanic is unproved bulshitism!!! Yes, maxwell, you hear me, electron radiating electromagnetic waves when falling into nuclear!!!
There is only two types of matter: waves and particles - particles are transmiters of waves etc, and waves are transmiter of energy...
BTW, theory of debroglie may be right, that electron say at bigger speed is like faster vibrating wave and fluctations of universe, weaker disturbing him, when he is heavier...
I even laser can explain without any quantizations. Principle is simple. There is very small hole and very much waves are inserted and then this waves all can't very fast go out, becouse they will not excide (in my theory waves with infinity speed traveling, but need many waves to excide) metal in which they will shoot, thus they inductings and going small-big amount energy through small hole. Going not all energy, but after some time - all. Very simple! For lasers don't need Borh model, but enough classical model and my theory. It's like pumping in very big amount of energy and it coming out through small hole - this is lazer principle and don't need quantized myracles
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 5 2008, 03:02 PM)
Use your model to explain the pioneer anomaly, Mr. "nobel laureate"
Still waiting.
Still waiting.
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 6 2008, 02:27 PM)
Still waiting.
Okey, I sow a little bit about this anomaly of half of eye. So I think it is electromagnetic waves resistance, which pushing two planets from each over, two objects...
Now on my theory. How there grass is green and flouwers red? Well, becouse there waves spreading equaly, but some atoms have diferent electrons configuration, which more tend to radiate some favorit coloure most. Thus it's explains, why grass is green. Atoms in grass, more precisly electrons have smaller angular speed and so on and this stability of electrons to move them with some waves and acelerate them or absorb, it's all depending on wave energy and they possibilities.
ANyway if this theory part is wrong then nothing at all is wrong.
Okey, I sow a little bit about this anomaly of half of eye. So I think it is electromagnetic waves resistance, which pushing two planets from each over, two objects...
Now on my theory. How there grass is green and flouwers red? Well, becouse there waves spreading equaly, but some atoms have diferent electrons configuration, which more tend to radiate some favorit coloure most. Thus it's explains, why grass is green. Atoms in grass, more precisly electrons have smaller angular speed and so on and this stability of electrons to move them with some waves and acelerate them or absorb, it's all depending on wave energy and they possibilities.
ANyway if this theory part is wrong then nothing at all is wrong.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 6 2008, 03:12 PM)
Okey, I sow a little bit about this anomaly of half of eye. So I think it is electromagnetic waves resistance, which pushing two planets from each over, two objects...
Now on my theory. How there grass is green and flouwers red? Well, becouse there waves spreading equaly, but some atoms have diferent electrons configuration, which more tend to radiate some favorit coloure most. Thus it's explains, why grass is green. Atoms in grass, more precisly electrons have smaller angular speed and so on and this stability of electrons to move them with some waves and acelerate them or absorb, it's all depending on wave energy and they possibilities.
ANyway if this theory part is wrong then nothing at all is wrong.
If Evil Rupert doesn't, out of profound humanitarian reasons 'put you to sleep', I will fuckdumb!
Now on my theory. How there grass is green and flouwers red? Well, becouse there waves spreading equaly, but some atoms have diferent electrons configuration, which more tend to radiate some favorit coloure most. Thus it's explains, why grass is green. Atoms in grass, more precisly electrons have smaller angular speed and so on and this stability of electrons to move them with some waves and acelerate them or absorb, it's all depending on wave energy and they possibilities.
ANyway if this theory part is wrong then nothing at all is wrong.
If Evil Rupert doesn't, out of profound humanitarian reasons 'put you to sleep', I will fuckdumb!
QUOTE (Delia+Jul 6 2008, 03:21 PM)
If Evil Rupert doesn't, out of profound humanitarian reasons 'put you to sleep', I will fuckdumb!
You should be in summer beach for a wail, becouse of my briliant theory.
You should be in summer beach for a wail, becouse of my briliant theory.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 6 2008, 03:45 PM)
You should be in summer beach for a wail, becouse of my briliant theory.
You should be in a gas chamber for your evilfuck stupidity, all your math tripe reminds me of Chinese hors d'oeuvres ....... Dim Sums!
Cretinous kid!
You should be in a gas chamber for your evilfuck stupidity, all your math tripe reminds me of Chinese hors d'oeuvres ....... Dim Sums!
Cretinous kid!
QUOTE (Delia+Jul 6 2008, 03:21 PM)
If Evil Rupert doesn't, out of profound humanitarian reasons 'put you to sleep', I will fuckdumb!
You should be in summer beach for a wail, becouse of my briliant theory.
You should be in summer beach for a wail, becouse of my briliant theory.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 6 2008, 03:56 PM)
I'm a brain damaged, pretending cuntard wannabe twat.
Agreed.
Agreed.
I now so hapy with my theory, that it explain entanglement, that bothering somothing to do more... 
Also ask some question about polarization of ortoganal waves, does they interfere or not and seems all "profesionals" don't know this
Also ask some question about polarization of ortoganal waves, does they interfere or not and seems all "profesionals" don't know this
Use your 'theory' to answer questions from here : http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/examples/D19d.pdf
Particularly question 7.
Particularly question 7.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 6 2008, 04:40 PM)
Use your 'theory' to answer questions from here : http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/examples/D19d.pdf
Particularly question 7.
Use thermodinamic law!! 
All schrodinger equation is proved no more than cualshit.
I am saying, that even borh theory can't be prved and you puting your stupid mumbojumbo equaitons. When electron spins, it radiating electromagnetic waves, becouse of angular spining icentric acceleration and thus he waisting his energy, but electron realy can spin faster than ligh acording to my theory, becouse speed of light is infinity and only amount of energy is finity... Neutron consist of proton and electron and thus neutron have spin. Neutrinos don't exist.
As I said each atom radiates some waves becouse of more or less faster or slower electrons.
Particles to us can travel with infinity speed... Maybe not and electron spin is not rotation... But still my theory in all is right.
Electrons falling into nuclear and radiating electromagnetic waves adn all phey absorbing waves of any lenght, but diferent number of electrons in atom absorbing and radiating diferently and it's explains all colourse without quantized borht theory na d without scrodinger equation. this all quantizations in schrodinger equation are wrong.
Particularly question 7.
Use thermodinamic law!!
All schrodinger equation is proved no more than cualshit. I am saying, that even borh theory can't be prved and you puting your stupid mumbojumbo equaitons. When electron spins, it radiating electromagnetic waves, becouse of angular spining icentric acceleration and thus he waisting his energy, but electron realy can spin faster than ligh acording to my theory, becouse speed of light is infinity and only amount of energy is finity... Neutron consist of proton and electron and thus neutron have spin. Neutrinos don't exist.
As I said each atom radiates some waves becouse of more or less faster or slower electrons.
Particles to us can travel with infinity speed... Maybe not and electron spin is not rotation... But still my theory in all is right.
Electrons falling into nuclear and radiating electromagnetic waves adn all phey absorbing waves of any lenght, but diferent number of electrons in atom absorbing and radiating diferently and it's explains all colourse without quantized borht theory na d without scrodinger equation. this all quantizations in schrodinger equation are wrong.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 6 2008, 06:06 PM)
I am saying, that even borh theory can't be prved
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=355046
By your own statements, you know your 'theory' cannot be proved either. But if your theory is right, there shouldn't be a system involving photons and electrons you cannot model. I asked you do show that, you failed.
All of the systems in those questions I linked to can be modelled by quantum mechanics. Your 'theory' isn't even able to beat quantum mechanics.
You fail.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=355046
By your own statements, you know your 'theory' cannot be proved either. But if your theory is right, there shouldn't be a system involving photons and electrons you cannot model. I asked you do show that, you failed.
All of the systems in those questions I linked to can be modelled by quantum mechanics. Your 'theory' isn't even able to beat quantum mechanics.
You fail.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 6 2008, 05:23 PM)
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=355046
By your own statements, you know your 'theory' cannot be proved either. But if your theory is right, there shouldn't be a system involving photons and electrons you cannot model. I asked you do show that, you failed.
All of the systems in those questions I linked to can be modelled by quantum mechanics. Your 'theory' isn't even able to beat quantum mechanics.
You fail.
Current theory can nothing model evier. It's just iliusion, that it can somthing model!!!
I at least giving simpler explanation of all this.
By your own statements, you know your 'theory' cannot be proved either. But if your theory is right, there shouldn't be a system involving photons and electrons you cannot model. I asked you do show that, you failed.
All of the systems in those questions I linked to can be modelled by quantum mechanics. Your 'theory' isn't even able to beat quantum mechanics.
You fail.
Current theory can nothing model evier. It's just iliusion, that it can somthing model!!!
I at least giving simpler explanation of all this.
Okey!
Here is theory, that particles can move with infinity speed, but we faster they going the more time slowing down, acording to some rule/formula: t_0/(1-(v/c))^0.5. Where c is constant c=infinty. v can be also infinty, but time will slowing down. Mass don't increasing and mass have energy 0.5*m_0*(c*v)^2. thus there only is time dilation and no mass increasing! Mass absorbation is very long process, becouse time going slowly, thus need very much time untill absorbed mass 'revibrates' and will give energy to detector. This process is very slowly, becouse time almost stoped. Or if time not stoped say if the are on smallest possible speed and to us flying electron with speed 3*10^20 m/s, then this electron obviously will destroy us. Thus only about 10^10 m/s electrons not dangerous. Actualy even 10^15 m/s. But why we them detecting so slowly if they flying so fast? Well, becouse they have very much energy and this energy can't be retrived in short time. you would say: why? Becouse will be aceleration of our detectors and at all detectors there is real particles... Well maybe wrong somthing with this assumption.
but at least seems, that speed of light is infinity, but with many waves and need wait many waves untill will be geted detected answer... Thus this formula 1/(1-(v/c))^0.5 actualy nothing to do with speed of light, but with waves amplitude c... Thus my asumption is that particles can't travel faster than speed 300000 km/s, but waves traveling with infinity speed! But need some constant amount of energy, which can be detected. Thus there comes many many waves, which spreading over all detector until producing some photoefect and can be detected "photon". Nor my theory nor theory about finit light speed can be proved or unproved! But my theory states, that speed of light is infinty and speed of particles can't be infinity. Thus with my theory is so simple to explain entanglement!!!!!!! And my theory don't changing any over things, except about ligh induction in detector. Think in this way. In detector there coming many waves and those waves many times exciding electrons and protons, some going through. they very slowly exciding electrons, but they going higgher and higger until they "making" photoefect and are detected with detector!!!
THUS I NOW EXPLAIN ENTANGLEMENT!
AND BORH model is wrong.
Here is theory, that particles can move with infinity speed, but we faster they going the more time slowing down, acording to some rule/formula: t_0/(1-(v/c))^0.5. Where c is constant c=infinty. v can be also infinty, but time will slowing down. Mass don't increasing and mass have energy 0.5*m_0*(c*v)^2. thus there only is time dilation and no mass increasing! Mass absorbation is very long process, becouse time going slowly, thus need very much time untill absorbed mass 'revibrates' and will give energy to detector. This process is very slowly, becouse time almost stoped. Or if time not stoped say if the are on smallest possible speed and to us flying electron with speed 3*10^20 m/s, then this electron obviously will destroy us. Thus only about 10^10 m/s electrons not dangerous. Actualy even 10^15 m/s. But why we them detecting so slowly if they flying so fast? Well, becouse they have very much energy and this energy can't be retrived in short time. you would say: why? Becouse will be aceleration of our detectors and at all detectors there is real particles... Well maybe wrong somthing with this assumption.
but at least seems, that speed of light is infinity, but with many waves and need wait many waves untill will be geted detected answer... Thus this formula 1/(1-(v/c))^0.5 actualy nothing to do with speed of light, but with waves amplitude c... Thus my asumption is that particles can't travel faster than speed 300000 km/s, but waves traveling with infinity speed! But need some constant amount of energy, which can be detected. Thus there comes many many waves, which spreading over all detector until producing some photoefect and can be detected "photon". Nor my theory nor theory about finit light speed can be proved or unproved! But my theory states, that speed of light is infinty and speed of particles can't be infinity. Thus with my theory is so simple to explain entanglement!!!!!!! And my theory don't changing any over things, except about ligh induction in detector. Think in this way. In detector there coming many waves and those waves many times exciding electrons and protons, some going through. they very slowly exciding electrons, but they going higgher and higger until they "making" photoefect and are detected with detector!!!
THUS I NOW EXPLAIN ENTANGLEMENT!
AND BORH model is wrong.
Okey. how about this? light and matter can move with infinity speed, but matter flying at speed infinity arbitrary close to infinity? But this without mumbo jumbo means, that ligh traveling not at infinity speed and matter also. So I already give explanation in over thread.
Okey. Now I must kill schrodinger equation, seeems. So scrodinger equation based on electrons configuration, but all electrons at same energy taking same amount of energy and obeing similar prety... Thus in each chemical reaction, where all matter and atoms absroing equaly all wavelenghts and amplitude waves, but all atoms are configured diferently , I mean all electrons is configured diferently, becouse each atom have diferent number of electrons and thus it's explains why one atoms reacting diferently with over atoms.. This is beacause, some atoms... I think you understood already... Thus long waves don't making benzine explode, becouse they acting similarly on many atoms and they simple are too weak and electrons faster will fall into nuclears... But schort waves can explod benzine, because some small amount of atoms is inducted and there becoming transition of one atoms/electrons(proably) to another and this electrons some becouse of resonanse falling into nuclears and thus fusing and producing many energy, then they again radiated, becosue of neutrons spin dephaseing and electron decaying into proton and electron and there is energy lossing and produced over molecules atoms... They going on into air and spreading... Okey, now let's talk about such stable matter like water, which seems, don't decaying into over matterials or molecules... hydrogen and oxyden atoms very goodly conected with/by electrons and thus if some few atoms going into over molecules or decaying or nuclear neutrons protons transformations, it's don't changing subject and in major point there very strong electrons configuration mach between atoms... Thus water is very stable. And schrodinger equatino I think nothing explain but it is based on electrons configuration and not on some waves shmaves of electrons and not on some phases shmazes. Schrodinger equatino just inven bike But it is mostly wrong.
So you don't have any proves to debunk my theory, becouse everything is very unclear about atoms. And there http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...45&#entry355178 I explaine entanglement! Heh, I change all physics! I must get nobel prize at least for entanglement explanation.
Okey. Now I must kill schrodinger equation, seeems. So scrodinger equation based on electrons configuration, but all electrons at same energy taking same amount of energy and obeing similar prety... Thus in each chemical reaction, where all matter and atoms absroing equaly all wavelenghts and amplitude waves, but all atoms are configured diferently , I mean all electrons is configured diferently, becouse each atom have diferent number of electrons and thus it's explains why one atoms reacting diferently with over atoms.. This is beacause, some atoms... I think you understood already... Thus long waves don't making benzine explode, becouse they acting similarly on many atoms and they simple are too weak and electrons faster will fall into nuclears... But schort waves can explod benzine, because some small amount of atoms is inducted and there becoming transition of one atoms/electrons(proably) to another and this electrons some becouse of resonanse falling into nuclears and thus fusing and producing many energy, then they again radiated, becosue of neutrons spin dephaseing and electron decaying into proton and electron and there is energy lossing and produced over molecules atoms... They going on into air and spreading... Okey, now let's talk about such stable matter like water, which seems, don't decaying into over matterials or molecules... hydrogen and oxyden atoms very goodly conected with/by electrons and thus if some few atoms going into over molecules or decaying or nuclear neutrons protons transformations, it's don't changing subject and in major point there very strong electrons configuration mach between atoms... Thus water is very stable. And schrodinger equatino I think nothing explain but it is based on electrons configuration and not on some waves shmaves of electrons and not on some phases shmazes. Schrodinger equatino just inven bike
But it is mostly wrong.So you don't have any proves to debunk my theory, becouse everything is very unclear about atoms. And there http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...45&#entry355178 I explaine entanglement! Heh, I change all physics!
I must get nobel prize at least for entanglement explanation.
Okey, here benzine working principle. There short waves inducing benzine and separating benzine atoms or molecules, wich then fusse with oxygen and is produced amount of eneryg, becouse with oxyden there stronger electrons connections...
You're making less sense then usual.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 7 2008, 09:09 AM)
You're making less sense then usual.
Imposibole!
Imposibole!
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 7 2008, 09:09 AM)
You're making less sense then usual.
This is my second theory. The first one and most important is theory about explaining enetnaglement. But this theory making sense. No less tahn schrodinger equation... Just need to remove phases, or maybe even to leave phases
Anyway, my theory that diferent colourse are diferent electron falling speed into nuclear of diferent atoms becouse of diferent distance of electrons and diferent configurations... And all waves spreading equaly onto all atoms...
New discovery. Neutron don't have spin or have it 1. There imposible to measure neutron spin, becouse it weakly interacting with environment and atoms. Also one neutrons spins may disturb over spins and thus neutron spin can be unprecised if many eneutrons are trying to bomborded some nuclear to see protons from them...
Another "uncertainty" in quantum meachanic
This is my second theory. The first one and most important is theory about explaining enetnaglement. But this theory making sense. No less tahn schrodinger equation... Just need to remove phases, or maybe even to leave phases
Anyway, my theory that diferent colourse are diferent electron falling speed into nuclear of diferent atoms becouse of diferent distance of electrons and diferent configurations... And all waves spreading equaly onto all atoms...
New discovery. Neutron don't have spin or have it 1. There imposible to measure neutron spin, becouse it weakly interacting with environment and atoms. Also one neutrons spins may disturb over spins and thus neutron spin can be unprecised if many eneutrons are trying to bomborded some nuclear to see protons from them...
Another "uncertainty" in quantum meachanic
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Jul 7 2008, 09:25 AM)
Imposibole!
That's right!
P.S. I don't like spin and maybe it even don't exist, becouse of plenty hard confirming it in my model, hahahha When what's holding nucleons and what making neutron? Well, possible either proton mass is twice bigger or there realy is this strange nuclear forces or neutron is traped between protons(nuclear) and electrons Why then holding protons? Strong forces maybe? 
Why uranium devidings? becouse of strong neutron kinetic energy... Why over atoms don't divides? becouse of electrons shells, maybe electrons traping protons? Uranium division is protons kinetic energy going from traps? Over atoms more stabel...
That's right!
P.S. I don't like spin and maybe it even don't exist, becouse of plenty hard confirming it in my model, hahahha
When what's holding nucleons and what making neutron? Well, possible either proton mass is twice bigger or there realy is this strange nuclear forces or neutron is traped between protons(nuclear) and electrons Why then holding protons? Strong forces maybe? Why uranium devidings? becouse of strong neutron kinetic energy... Why over atoms don't divides? becouse of electrons shells, maybe electrons traping protons? Uranium division is protons kinetic energy going from traps? Over atoms more stabel...
Okey, here is theory, why electrons don't falling into nuclaer. Each electron, when flying radiating electromagnetic waves, which inducting or pushing electrons and thus loosed energy (in electromagnetic waves phorm) electrons again receiving from over electrons. Even one atom don't colapsing into neutrons, becouse he always receiving electromagnetic waves from over electrons in atom and from environment (atoms in cosmos maybe colapsing into neutrons, who know? 
). But neutrons can decay into protons and atoms becouse of spins (maybe not after 15 minutes, but years, becouse of small electroamgnetic waves in cosmos and magnetism...).
Over version, that possible that electrons always falling into nuclears, but they then becoming neutrons with protons, and neutrons then decaying and this cicle rotates.
Electrons absorbing and emiting favorit frenquency more than over frenquencies, becouse of diferent coloumb forces in diferent atoms and thus there is diferent acelerations, diferent speed of electrons in diferent distance orbits...
This new atom theory good deals with my relativistic explanation of entanglement, without nonsensial faster than speed of light. About wavefunction colapse I even don't talking, becouse it is even may be wrong for quantized atoms (and you can't prove oposit). So waves are waves and they never colapsing to particles ("photons" (actualy waves) bounce probably can't produce particles like protons).
). But neutrons can decay into protons and atoms becouse of spins (maybe not after 15 minutes, but years, becouse of small electroamgnetic waves in cosmos and magnetism...).Over version, that possible that electrons always falling into nuclears, but they then becoming neutrons with protons, and neutrons then decaying and this cicle rotates.
Electrons absorbing and emiting favorit frenquency more than over frenquencies, becouse of diferent coloumb forces in diferent atoms and thus there is diferent acelerations, diferent speed of electrons in diferent distance orbits...
This new atom theory good deals with my relativistic explanation of entanglement, without nonsensial faster than speed of light. About wavefunction colapse I even don't talking, becouse it is even may be wrong for quantized atoms (and you can't prove oposit). So waves are waves and they never colapsing to particles ("photons" (actualy waves) bounce probably can't produce particles like protons).
Okey, I found way, how to check which lenght waves are radiates by any matter. Scheme is simple, just need prizme, which devide light into many colourse and this long line of colourse need to put onto katod for photoefect and if there is photoefect in some only small regions, then it's means, that light realy is quantized. And now I think that sciencisst no so stupid and make such experiment bilions of times. With absorbtion and emision everything is very similar... BUT there is such thing likelight going through matter and loosing energy, becouse of light momentum h*f/c and roughly after about 3*10^8 particles photon must loose his energy or maybe not, becouse, when ligh frenquency is smaller then momentum also, so at least must loose half energy and then how atom supose to absorb green shifter to red? Or atom can absorb roughly some lines? Or there very small amount waves of loosing they energy to protons and electrons and neutrons, that there almost no need, becouse particles are very small to compare with emty space? So this mystery is + for my theory don't matter how stupid it sounds. And my theory possible can explain photons aborbtion of some lenghts, becouse they very good traped are into electrons shells 
So current theory is a little bit inconsistence.And here is my postulat, that atoms radaiting "photons" (which is actualy waves) of quantized (roughly) frenquency at same speed in all relativistic sistems (don't matter with what speed you flying with 0.1c or with 0.9999999c). This asumption explaining entanglement, but to detect in relativistic speed photons is harder, becouse need many waves momentum gives to electrons to makde photoefect, becouse electrons in relativistic speed are heavier. So detectors in over words in relativistic speed are less sensitive (but this don't means, that atoms radiating or absorbing slower "photons").!!
For this work I asking nobel prize, becouse it very simply and logicaly explaining entanglement.
Atoms radiation based on principle "radiate what we have", this means, that atom radiating or absorbing many waves sumed amplitude, so single atom can absorb amplitude of say green colour of any size or if this is not true then atom can radiate and absorb wave(s) amplitude only of certain size, but this all don't changing my theory at all. Not absorbed wave is reflected or difracted and going to over atoms. Or atom can absorb and reflect amplidute of waves only from infinity small amplitude to certain size amplitude, this one makes most sense.
But all this theory says, that there no need and no wave function colapse!!! All waves are waves and no any stupid photons! And dealing at all with relativistic theory of atom, that it radiating and absorbing waves with same speed in any his moving speed, this means, that atom itself is not fully relativistic and that his one part "m" is relativistic and over part "c^2" is non-realtivistic! Thus atom is particulary wave and particulary particle. Sceptic may say, but it's steel like infinity fast wavefunction colapse or like entanglement infinity speed. My answer: But there no faster than light "magic"! There no faster than ligh colapse or entanglement, there is only c speed efects!!!
But all this theory says, that there no need and no wave function colapse!!! All waves are waves and no any stupid photons! And dealing at all with relativistic theory of atom, that it radiating and absorbing waves with same speed in any his moving speed, this means, that atom itself is not fully relativistic and that his one part "m" is relativistic and over part "c^2" is non-realtivistic! Thus atom is particulary wave and particulary particle. Sceptic may say, but it's steel like infinity fast wavefunction colapse or like entanglement infinity speed. My answer: But there no faster than light "magic"! There no faster than ligh colapse or entanglement, there is only c speed efects!!!
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 7 2008, 09:30 PM)
This is my second theory. The first one and most important is theory about explaining enetnaglement. But this theory making sense. No less tahn schrodinger equation...
The schroedinger equation makes sense, you just don't understand it. The Schroedinger equation describes a standing wave, that's all.
It's also relatively simple (IIRC).
Ĥψ=ĘΨ
It's the solutions that are complicated.
The schroedinger equation makes sense, you just don't understand it. The Schroedinger equation describes a standing wave, that's all.
It's also relatively simple (IIRC).
Ĥψ=ĘΨ
It's the solutions that are complicated.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 7 2008, 09:30 PM)
Just need to remove phases, or maybe even to leave phases
But experiment says the phases are real (as are electron spins).
But experiment says the phases are real (as are electron spins).
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 7 2008, 09:30 PM)
Anyway, my theory that diferent colourse are diferent electron falling speed into nuclear of diferent atoms becouse of diferent distance of electrons and diferent configurations...
Wrong. Electrons don't really fall.
Wrong. Electrons don't really fall.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 7 2008, 09:30 PM)
And all waves spreading equaly onto all atoms...
This doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
This doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 7 2008, 09:30 PM)
New discovery. Neutron don't have spin or have it 1.
Experiment says it has spin 1/2.
Experiment says it has spin 1/2.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 7 2008, 09:30 PM)
There imposible to measure neutron spin, becouse it weakly interacting with environment and atoms.
I can assure you, it's quite measurable.
I can assure you, it's quite measurable.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 7 2008, 09:30 PM)
Also one neutrons spins may disturb over spins and thus neutron spin can be unprecised if many eneutrons are trying to bomborded some nuclear to see protons from them...
Another "uncertainty" in quantum meachanic
Experiment suggests otherwise.
Another "uncertainty" in quantum meachanic
Experiment suggests otherwise.
You a "little bit" tolate, but...
What experiments? Electron difraction? But it can be electron scatering over nuclear.
What experiments? Electron difraction? But it can be electron scatering over nuclear.
Wrong. Electrons don't really fall.
How you can check it?
Waht experiment can measure neutron spin? Ok maybe can. Why all are so interested in bullshitles part of my pretheory..?
Waht experiment can measure neutron spin? Ok maybe can. Why all are so interested in bullshitles part of my pretheory..?
I can assure you, it's quite measurable.
Of course, neutron can strocke into atoms and then protons measurable and... Why you don't understand entanglement?
Of course they can't disturb, becouse external magnetic field is stronger...
This is my artifacts of old theory which was in phase of rexamination...
This all is wrong in current state...
If you so smart then answer how atoms absorbing quantized frenquency electromagnetic waves, but this waves going through matter loosing they energy and becoming of shorter wavelenght? thus for example if there red ligh was emited of 700 nm and it go a little bit through matter and it wavelenght become 699.9999 nm and how supose, how can again the same atom absorb such wave? Becouse quantum mechanic states, that atoms absorbing and emiting quantized waves, but seems, that there is diferent between 700 nm and 699.9999 nm, huh?
QUOTE
But experiment says the phases are real (as are electron spins).
What experiments? Electron difraction? But it can be electron scatering over nuclear.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But experiment says the phases are real (as are electron spins). |
What experiments? Electron difraction? But it can be electron scatering over nuclear.
Wrong. Electrons don't really fall.
How you can check it?
QUOTE
Experiment says it has spin 1/2.
Waht experiment can measure neutron spin? Ok maybe can. Why all are so interested in bullshitles part of my pretheory..?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Experiment says it has spin 1/2. |
Waht experiment can measure neutron spin? Ok maybe can. Why all are so interested in bullshitles part of my pretheory..?
I can assure you, it's quite measurable.
Of course, neutron can strocke into atoms and then protons measurable and... Why you don't understand entanglement?
QUOTE
Experiment suggests otherwise.
Of course they can't disturb, becouse external magnetic field is stronger...
This is my artifacts of old theory which was in phase of rexamination...
This all is wrong in current state...
If you so smart then answer how atoms absorbing quantized frenquency electromagnetic waves, but this waves going through matter loosing they energy and becoming of shorter wavelenght? thus for example if there red ligh was emited of 700 nm and it go a little bit through matter and it wavelenght become 699.9999 nm and how supose, how can again the same atom absorb such wave? Becouse quantum mechanic states, that atoms absorbing and emiting quantized waves, but seems, that there is diferent between 700 nm and 699.9999 nm, huh?
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 7 2008, 09:45 PM)
That's right!
P.S. I don't like spin and maybe it even don't exist,
So what? I don't like Christian Fundamentalists, or Asparagus, and they both still exist.
P.S. I don't like spin and maybe it even don't exist,
So what? I don't like Christian Fundamentalists, or Asparagus, and they both still exist.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 7 2008, 09:45 PM)
becouse of plenty hard confirming it in my model, hahahha
Actually, you have yet to produce a shred of evidence to support your ramblings.
Actually, you have yet to produce a shred of evidence to support your ramblings.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 7 2008, 09:45 PM)
When what's holding nucleons and what making neutron?
Strong nuclear force holds Nucleons together, Quarks make up a Neutron (U-D-D).
Strong nuclear force holds Nucleons together, Quarks make up a Neutron (U-D-D).
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 7 2008, 09:45 PM)
Well, possible either proton mass is twice bigger
No, it isn't, this is something we can measure experimentaly.
No, it isn't, this is something we can measure experimentaly.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 7 2008, 09:45 PM)
or there realy is this strange nuclear forces
It's not that strange.
It's not that strange.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 7 2008, 09:45 PM)
or neutron is traped between protons(nuclear) and electrons
No, this model was tested, then abandoned.
Why then holding protons? Strong forces maybe?
Yes.
No, this model was tested, then abandoned.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 7 2008, 09:45 PM)
Why then holding protons? Strong forces maybe? Yes.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 7 2008, 09:45 PM)
Why uranium devidings?
Because it's energetically favourable, and Uranium is unstable.
Because it's energetically favourable, and Uranium is unstable.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 7 2008, 09:45 PM)
becouse of strong neutron kinetic energy...
this only represents one decay mode.
Why over atoms don't divides?
Because they're not unstable, and it's not energetically favourable.
This was more like joke...
This was more like joke...
Actually, you have yet to produce a shred of evidence to support your ramblings.
Yes, it was random thoughs...
Wrong. Spins holding nuclears toghter, but now I much more concentrated on entanglement explanation (which I already explain).
Wrong. Spins holding nuclears toghter, but now I much more concentrated on entanglement explanation (which I already explain).
No, it isn't, this is something we can measure experimentaly.
Also not my serious through...
Still waiting coments on my serious thoughts.
If you fucklng dare post again, I'll kill you, your relatives and shlt in you cats mouth.
Rupert the Bear?
this only represents one decay mode.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 7 2008, 09:45 PM)
Why over atoms don't divides? Because they're not unstable, and it's not energetically favourable.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 7 2008, 09:45 PM)
becouse of electrons shells, maybe electrons traping protons? Uranium division is protons kinetic energy going from traps? Over atoms more stabel...
No.
\
No.
\
QUOTE
So what? I don't like Christian Fundamentalists, or Asparagus, and they both still exist.
This was more like joke...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So what? I don't like Christian Fundamentalists, or Asparagus, and they both still exist. |
This was more like joke...
Actually, you have yet to produce a shred of evidence to support your ramblings.
Yes, it was random thoughs...
QUOTE
Strong nuclear force holds Nucleons together, Quarks make up a Neutron (U-D-D).
Wrong. Spins holding nuclears toghter, but now I much more concentrated on entanglement explanation (which I already explain).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Strong nuclear force holds Nucleons together, Quarks make up a Neutron (U-D-D). |
Wrong. Spins holding nuclears toghter, but now I much more concentrated on entanglement explanation (which I already explain).
No, it isn't, this is something we can measure experimentaly.
Also not my serious through...
Still waiting coments on my serious thoughts.
Okey, here so more realistic thoughts how can work atom and why emision and absorbtion lines are almost quantized. Postulates:
Atom absorbing any frenquency waves, but this waves, which are not seted by borh are absorbed exponentionaly worst depending how much far wave is from quantized line. Or maybe even not exponentionaly but linarly!
So in atom nucleons holding spins. Okey now this is worst part. Electrons falling into nuclear becouse of charge and then becoming fusion with protons into neutrons, which then decay becouse of spins or whatever... This decayed electrons are emited again and again they falling into nuclear and this is so cycling process. Now, why where is photoeffect and why electrons can be atracted from atom, by photons? Possible explanation, that or photons giving all they energy or photons are traped between electrons atom shell and slowly giving they energy. Since I don't kow how much waves loosing they wavelenght, when they flying through matter, then possible, that some waves giving all they energy to...no, I don't know many nuanses... So why sometimes photons giving all energy to electrons and sometimes only small amount of energy to particles? This is not know and this is quantum mechanic mystery. At all nor my theory about atoms nor over are right and both don't based on any calculations. Borh theory and schrodinger equaiton can't explain why there is absorbed waves also with larger wavelenght, when they loosing they wavelenght. Here is only my small asumption how this all possible to put into harmony: waves giving all they energy to particles, but waves flying like sphere so if there in sphere gap, which was taken by particle, then oer waves filling this gap and loosing they energy (becoming loonger), but then it must be like similar to wavefunction colapse, becouse waves then must feel faster than ligh, but on the over hand no! In matter waves traveling a little bit slower!!! And this all fits!!! And then possible that only very closely waves loosing energy and farther waves no so there is mix of waves, one shorter and over longer.
Atom absorbing any frenquency waves, but this waves, which are not seted by borh are absorbed exponentionaly worst depending how much far wave is from quantized line. Or maybe even not exponentionaly but linarly!
So in atom nucleons holding spins. Okey now this is worst part. Electrons falling into nuclear becouse of charge and then becoming fusion with protons into neutrons, which then decay becouse of spins or whatever... This decayed electrons are emited again and again they falling into nuclear and this is so cycling process. Now, why where is photoeffect and why electrons can be atracted from atom, by photons? Possible explanation, that or photons giving all they energy or photons are traped between electrons atom shell and slowly giving they energy. Since I don't kow how much waves loosing they wavelenght, when they flying through matter, then possible, that some waves giving all they energy to...no, I don't know many nuanses... So why sometimes photons giving all energy to electrons and sometimes only small amount of energy to particles? This is not know and this is quantum mechanic mystery. At all nor my theory about atoms nor over are right and both don't based on any calculations. Borh theory and schrodinger equaiton can't explain why there is absorbed waves also with larger wavelenght, when they loosing they wavelenght. Here is only my small asumption how this all possible to put into harmony: waves giving all they energy to particles, but waves flying like sphere so if there in sphere gap, which was taken by particle, then oer waves filling this gap and loosing they energy (becoming loonger), but then it must be like similar to wavefunction colapse, becouse waves then must feel faster than ligh, but on the over hand no!
In matter waves traveling a little bit slower!!! And this all fits!!! And then possible that only very closely waves loosing energy and farther waves no so there is mix of waves, one shorter and over longer.
Time to debunk spin
So okey, what is spin?
Spin acording to current quantum mechanic is particle, which flying in superposition. Where no proves of superposition of spin (like interference). So why just spin of particle is simply a magnet??? But you can say, but for magnet roatation need big amount of energy if say particle was radiated from somehere with random his magnetic properties. But how real much need energy to rotate say heavy proton and very ligh electron? How much less than eccelerate? Well, there we can calculate. But I afraid, that there need integrals, becouse... Or maybe no!
What a heck, I don't have time with stupid games, it's obviously for fool, that don't need many energy to rotate some ball 90 degrees! And smaller angle -the faster rotation, so small particle must align very fast. So this explains quantization of spin. so electron is like small magnet! And since nobody can precisly shoot electron then there is unprecision and nobody know does this unprecision is due to quantized spin or due to inprecision of measurment, hahaha Also for inprecision there playing some factors like lorence force.. So spin is not quantized.
How to explain atoms quantization in magnetic field, when they flying? Well, each electron in atom aligning to some magnetic field in one or another direction and thus there is prety big number of quantizations. Some atoms don't have possible spin, becouse of some electron configuration, electrons lorence force and so on (how I wonder it's explaining quantum mechanic?).
Even if spin is quantized, why it must mean, that electron flyin in superposition? It's then simply means, that alignation of spin (or like magnet) is rapid and occuring only when is magnetic field. thus then imposible to antialign if electron is already in magnetic field!
So spin superposition don't exist any way and no any colapse.
So okey, what is spin?
Spin acording to current quantum mechanic is particle, which flying in superposition. Where no proves of superposition of spin (like interference). So why just spin of particle is simply a magnet??? But you can say, but for magnet roatation need big amount of energy if say particle was radiated from somehere with random his magnetic properties. But how real much need energy to rotate say heavy proton and very ligh electron? How much less than eccelerate? Well, there we can calculate. But I afraid, that there need integrals, becouse... Or maybe no!
What a heck, I don't have time with stupid games, it's obviously for fool, that don't need many energy to rotate some ball 90 degrees! And smaller angle -the faster rotation, so small particle must align very fast. So this explains quantization of spin. so electron is like small magnet! And since nobody can precisly shoot electron then there is unprecision and nobody know does this unprecision is due to quantized spin or due to inprecision of measurment, hahaha
Also for inprecision there playing some factors like lorence force.. So spin is not quantized.How to explain atoms quantization in magnetic field, when they flying? Well, each electron in atom aligning to some magnetic field in one or another direction and thus there is prety big number of quantizations. Some atoms don't have possible spin, becouse of some electron configuration, electrons lorence force and so on (how I wonder it's explaining quantum mechanic?).
Even if spin is quantized, why it must mean, that electron flyin in superposition? It's then simply means, that alignation of spin (or like magnet) is rapid and occuring only when is magnetic field. thus then imposible to antialign if electron is already in magnetic field!
So spin superposition don't exist any way and no any colapse.
Okey, what is electron difraction (since electron interference wasn't observed)? It is either electron scatering over proton/nuclear or vibraiting particle difraction, for which don't need wave colapse.
http://www.matter.org.uk/diffraction/elect...diffraction.htm
Okey, how now we can explain double slit experiment even without my theory? http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml
Well, in link says that 0.3% photons are flying instead 100% if photon will be after photon without gaps. So very small distance between photons, huh? So if there is waves instead particles? Well, then waves making photoeffect and making free electrons, which then can be observed. So if in one point there electron was taked by photoeffect, then there is less sensitive (to photoefect) electrons and probability to "colapse" "photon" in this place is smaller and then will be colapse of photon in over place with smaller probability. And becouse waves are flying always according to my theory (but with diferent amplitudes due to interference), then in some "smaller probability places" there already will be induced 'relativistic' electrons, which sooner or later will made photoefect. And thus detection.
THUS MY THeORY SO CLEARLY AND LOGICALY EXPLAINING EVERYTHING WITHOUT FASTER THAN LIGH BULLSHITS!!!
And current official theory don't have any position on how releativistics atoms must acts if into them radiating non-relativistic atoms. For example if you want to do for relativistic atoms photoefect, then obviously electron have bigger mass into relativistic atom than normal and equation h*f=0.5*m*v^2+A seems false. Thus for relativistic atom to freelize electrons need more energy and more photons according to oficial theory. And this is true. Need more waves or with bigger amplitude to give kinetic energy to electron enough that it would become free. Thus waves many times pushing some one of electron untill he becoming freelized. Or maybe not... But in electron must fall many waves to make him free and to give to him some (sometiems small) kinetic energy. So there everything is cleare, more waves, farther electron from nuclear. Also I don't eliminating possiblity, that for over electrons this waves acting opositly by pushing them toward nuclear (this depends on ("freezed") electron possition realative to wave. This electrons which are in not good position flying inside nuclear like part of my crayzy theory, then becoming neutrons and decaying into protons and electrons and in cicle going on the same. Now, why absorbing only some waves atoms, this is hard question and this can be becouse some electron falling into atom better than from over waves adn this fallings radiates and absorbs at same time only certain waves better... Possible that there play inportant role some resonase between electron orbit and nuclear and wavelenght of 'photon"-wave. So there don't nessary made QM based on wavefunction colapse. But enough corregate/imagine some over properties of atom...
http://www.matter.org.uk/diffraction/elect...diffraction.htm
Okey, how now we can explain double slit experiment even without my theory? http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml
Well, in link says that 0.3% photons are flying instead 100% if photon will be after photon without gaps. So very small distance between photons, huh? So if there is waves instead particles? Well, then waves making photoeffect and making free electrons, which then can be observed. So if in one point there electron was taked by photoeffect, then there is less sensitive (to photoefect) electrons and probability to "colapse" "photon" in this place is smaller and then will be colapse of photon in over place with smaller probability. And becouse waves are flying always according to my theory (but with diferent amplitudes due to interference), then in some "smaller probability places" there already will be induced 'relativistic' electrons, which sooner or later will made photoefect. And thus detection.
THUS MY THeORY SO CLEARLY AND LOGICALY EXPLAINING EVERYTHING WITHOUT FASTER THAN LIGH BULLSHITS!!!
And current official theory don't have any position on how releativistics atoms must acts if into them radiating non-relativistic atoms. For example if you want to do for relativistic atoms photoefect, then obviously electron have bigger mass into relativistic atom than normal and equation h*f=0.5*m*v^2+A seems false. Thus for relativistic atom to freelize electrons need more energy and more photons according to oficial theory. And this is true. Need more waves or with bigger amplitude to give kinetic energy to electron enough that it would become free. Thus waves many times pushing some one of electron untill he becoming freelized. Or maybe not... But in electron must fall many waves to make him free and to give to him some (sometiems small) kinetic energy. So there everything is cleare, more waves, farther electron from nuclear. Also I don't eliminating possiblity, that for over electrons this waves acting opositly by pushing them toward nuclear (this depends on ("freezed") electron possition realative to wave. This electrons which are in not good position flying inside nuclear like part of my crayzy theory, then becoming neutrons and decaying into protons and electrons and in cicle going on the same. Now, why absorbing only some waves atoms, this is hard question and this can be becouse some electron falling into atom better than from over waves adn this fallings radiates and absorbs at same time only certain waves better... Possible that there play inportant role some resonase between electron orbit and nuclear and wavelenght of 'photon"-wave. So there don't nessary made QM based on wavefunction colapse. But enough corregate/imagine some over properties of atom...
Here how my theory explains entanglement with interference: http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/6088/en...erferencsx8.png
Explaining image. From center radiated waves (in center black point is source) part of waves going through polarizers and part reflected this reflected waves then going back schower up reflected wavve from right and down refelcted wave from left. How you can see then those waves interferenceing constructivly for one detector and destructivly for over detector. This interference hapening, becouse it is very small probability, that you will put detectors not in shifted possition... And anyway you don't know distance from electrons configuration and so one, which actualy producing waves... So waves packet going with same phase, becouse electrons are like freezed and thus because... So if you a little bit understand entanglement, then you can figure out that it's prety good explains entanglement, but probably with errors of 10-15%, but such errors is in current detections and thus it is not errors!
Explaining image. From center radiated waves (in center black point is source) part of waves going through polarizers and part reflected this reflected waves then going back schower up reflected wavve from right and down refelcted wave from left. How you can see then those waves interferenceing constructivly for one detector and destructivly for over detector. This interference hapening, becouse it is very small probability, that you will put detectors not in shifted possition... And anyway you don't know distance from electrons configuration and so one, which actualy producing waves... So waves packet going with same phase, becouse electrons are like freezed and thus because... So if you a little bit understand entanglement, then you can figure out that it's prety good explains entanglement, but probably with errors of 10-15%, but such errors is in current detections and thus it is not errors!
Here about entanglement: http://quantumtantra.com/bell2.html .
What's woring me is just, how waves going back and don't spliting into many paths in crystal if they to detectors from crystal goin through optical fibers. One possible explanation can be, that in fibers waves loosing (absorbed) much more than in crystal spreading
Of course there possible to insert stupid hidden variables in my theory, which is realtivistic... But I prefer to explain it with interference. Variables is very stupid, huh? So they actualy can act with very big speed then time is "frozen" and thus there no problems, but I realy hate hidden variables and hope, that this my model with interference will not be debunked by theory, becouse by experiment, that it will not be debunked I am sure 100%...
What's woring me is just, how waves going back and don't spliting into many paths in crystal if they to detectors from crystal goin through optical fibers. One possible explanation can be, that in fibers waves loosing (absorbed) much more than in crystal spreading
Of course there possible to insert stupid hidden variables in my theory, which is realtivistic... But I prefer to explain it with interference. Variables is very stupid, huh? So they actualy can act with very big speed then time is "frozen" and thus there no problems, but I realy hate hidden variables and hope, that this my model with interference will not be debunked by theory, becouse by experiment, that it will not be debunked I am sure 100%...
Okey, I will try a little bit to explain how entanglement works.
From crystal there is radiated many waves and time is freezed until will be detected one wave-"photon" (possible that on/at distance of 300000 km entanglement don't working, or maybe even at 300 km...).
So supose that there coming waves with polarization of 0 degrees and detectors two seted at polarization of 0 degrees. Then what will be? Both waves will be detected like 1:1. Now if polarizers rotated at 0 degrees and wave at 90 degrees. Then waves will not come and will be reflected from polarizers (of course they will go again to over oposit detector and will go through, because will be reflected with oposit polarization and traveling with imprecision then detection will be 0.9:0.9, which mean 0:0, becouse too small signal) and maybe reflected with same polarization (I don't know this for sure, seems, that with oposit...) and then they never go through and detection will be 0:0.
Now supose if light is polarized at 45 degrees and detectors both on 0 degrees. Then half light will go through in each detector(polarizer) and half will be reflected and now if will be reflected with oposit polarization then always many times will be reflected and untill all light will go through, but actualy will lose many energy and detection will be in ideal case 1:1 and in noisy case 0.5:0.5, which means 0:0 and actual result can be half 0:0 and half 1:1. There result will be the same in this case if both polarizers reflecting waves with oposit polarization and result will more tend to be 0.5:0.5 in ideal case and 0.6:0.6 in noisy case and 0:0 in actual case.
Now supose, that polarizers both rotated at 0 degrees and waves going rotated at 30 degrees. Then probability to pass through both detectors will be (cos30)^2=0.75 and if will be reflected with oposit polarization then amplitude of waves will be sin30 and polarization 90 degrees and thus in ideal case will be detected 0.75:0.75 and in noisy case 0.8:0.8 and in actual case 0:0. Now if polarizers rotated at 0 degrees and ligh 30 degrees and if polarizers reflecting with same polarization (I actualy don't know (precisly) and now must repeats many "experiments" ) then goes through 0.75:0.75 and will be reflected ligh with polarization 0 degrees and will be detected in ideal case 1:1 and in noisy case 0.95:0.95 and in actual case 1:1.
So who can answer with what polarization light is reflected from polarizer?
From crystal there is radiated many waves and time is freezed until will be detected one wave-"photon" (possible that on/at distance of 300000 km entanglement don't working, or maybe even at 300 km...).
So supose that there coming waves with polarization of 0 degrees and detectors two seted at polarization of 0 degrees. Then what will be? Both waves will be detected like 1:1. Now if polarizers rotated at 0 degrees and wave at 90 degrees. Then waves will not come and will be reflected from polarizers (of course they will go again to over oposit detector and will go through, because will be reflected with oposit polarization and traveling with imprecision then detection will be 0.9:0.9, which mean 0:0, becouse too small signal) and maybe reflected with same polarization (I don't know this for sure, seems, that with oposit...) and then they never go through and detection will be 0:0.
Now supose if light is polarized at 45 degrees and detectors both on 0 degrees. Then half light will go through in each detector(polarizer) and half will be reflected and now if will be reflected with oposit polarization then always many times will be reflected and untill all light will go through, but actualy will lose many energy and detection will be in ideal case 1:1 and in noisy case 0.5:0.5, which means 0:0 and actual result can be half 0:0 and half 1:1. There result will be the same in this case if both polarizers reflecting waves with oposit polarization and result will more tend to be 0.5:0.5 in ideal case and 0.6:0.6 in noisy case and 0:0 in actual case.
Now supose, that polarizers both rotated at 0 degrees and waves going rotated at 30 degrees. Then probability to pass through both detectors will be (cos30)^2=0.75 and if will be reflected with oposit polarization then amplitude of waves will be sin30 and polarization 90 degrees and thus in ideal case will be detected 0.75:0.75 and in noisy case 0.8:0.8 and in actual case 0:0. Now if polarizers rotated at 0 degrees and ligh 30 degrees and if polarizers reflecting with same polarization (I actualy don't know (precisly) and now must repeats many "experiments"
) then goes through 0.75:0.75 and will be reflected ligh with polarization 0 degrees and will be detected in ideal case 1:1 and in noisy case 0.95:0.95 and in actual case 1:1.So who can answer with what polarization light is reflected from polarizer?
Okey here is realy sad thing if it is realy true (you know how hard to trust internet?) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase...tml?th=30&i=#c3
There says that light is absorbed! Then it killing my theory about interference and polarization reflection... So what? Need explain it then with hidden variables or smallest balls, but at least now there no need faster than ligh comunication (I wonder how sciencist don't come to this theory for so long?? )
P.S. Some polarizers there read, that absorbing light even if two polarizers are at same angle! Like ligh go through first polarizer and become polarized and after second polarizer don't must to be absorbed, but is absorbed by enough big precents. But seems, that theory says, that polarized light still must be even stronger absorbed if two polarizers are ortogonal. Maybe some reflection combined with interference still can give usefull pluses to my theory?
Here good video on polarized TV/display experiments http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sdv0J57_U5g
Here is another good video, which maybe proves that half light is reflected... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMxwyrYeB40&feature=related
Here polarizer which don't absorbing light if it is in same polarization and how about reflection it's is on another side http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imQnWrLW2i0&feature=related
Here possible evidence, that light is reflected from polarizer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lVIo9C0NDA&feature=related
Here is direct evidence, that light is reflected from polarizer (except if this guy having some dark glass instead polarizer), watch reflected lazer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaeYYbLrPWY&feature=related This guy probably want to say, that lazer must be coherent, but it he or wrongly understand or laser is not coherent, but due to small hole...
Here polarized crystals http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgA6L2n476Y&feature=related
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase...tml?th=30&i=#c3 There says that light is absorbed! Then it killing my theory about interference and polarization reflection... So what? Need explain it then with hidden variables or smallest balls, but at least now there no need faster than ligh comunication (I wonder how sciencist don't come to this theory for so long??
) P.S. Some polarizers there read, that absorbing light even if two polarizers are at same angle! Like ligh go through first polarizer and become polarized and after second polarizer don't must to be absorbed, but is absorbed by enough big precents. But seems, that theory says, that polarized light still must be even stronger absorbed if two polarizers are ortogonal. Maybe some reflection combined with interference still can give usefull pluses to my theory?
Here good video on polarized TV/display experiments http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sdv0J57_U5g
Here is another good video, which maybe proves that half light is reflected... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMxwyrYeB40&feature=related
Here polarizer which don't absorbing light if it is in same polarization and how about reflection it's is on another side http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imQnWrLW2i0&feature=related
Here possible evidence, that light is reflected from polarizer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lVIo9C0NDA&feature=related
Here is direct evidence, that light is reflected from polarizer (except if this guy having some dark glass instead polarizer), watch reflected lazer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaeYYbLrPWY&feature=related This guy probably want to say, that lazer must be coherent, but it he or wrongly understand or laser is not coherent, but due to small hole...
Here polarized crystals http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgA6L2n476Y&feature=related
Here direct no doubted evidence, that polarizer reflecting waves (interesting only with what polarization?) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU7z1g-eXzw !!!
A little bit boring stuff.
What is biggest mistake in unpossibility to explain entanglement? Sciencists assuming, that we and our universe moving with some 0.3c-0.7c or somthing, but not of 0.99999c. Nobody can know with what speed moving ouor universe. With this asumption that earth moving with 0.99999c speed relative to sotmhing, possible I think even explain entanglement with current theory with all this colapses and over nonsenses, without faster than light comunication. Mabe not very easy, but possible...
About universe expansion. Universe don't expanding faster than light and probably never expand in past of many bilions years ago. So what is red shift? Well, just somthing moving verys fast realativily to us and redshift can be infinity big. For example if object moving with speed 0.9999999999999999c, then gamma rays will have redshift and will be infrared waves. So there no any evidence, that universe expanding faster than light. And also like writen in my textbook into matter waves loosing energy and are (red)shifted (they loosing energy in matter, which is small number of atoms in cosmos and this atoms making gaps in waves spheres and this waves are little bit loosing they speed and energy...). Thus no any faster than light expansion!!!
Even if electron difraction need to explain only ligh electron being "large" wave and then colapsing to small point, then even this possible to explain with my relativistic theory, becouse colapsing hapening with speed of light untill everything is "freezen" and of course some very small part of energy should to late, but this will be compensated of electron 'waveistic' moment, instead 'massistic' moment... It's like no matter how far electron will fly, most energy will be able return almost without delay if we flying at speed 0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999c. Some energy energy maybe can be compensaited by photons for a wail. But how I say, there wasn't proved electron like wave colapse! And how we know? Maybe realy there is some small delay of electron colapse if it is wave? Then this is briliant and even don't need any changings in current theory (suming we flying with speed 0.999999999c).
So I explain all quantum mechanic mysteries with relativity even don't changing it!
About atom. Possible that in atom (if my atom model wrong) electron becoming wave and traveling from one orbit to over with speed of light and radiating quantized photons and no need nothing change in current theory. Briliant, my theory is just briliant and don't requiring to change somthing in current physic, but just to assume, that we moving with speed ver very close to c (say 0.9999999*c).
But I still want to explain entanglement with polarization, interference theory and to get my nobel prize
What is biggest mistake in unpossibility to explain entanglement? Sciencists assuming, that we and our universe moving with some 0.3c-0.7c or somthing, but not of 0.99999c. Nobody can know with what speed moving ouor universe. With this asumption that earth moving with 0.99999c speed relative to sotmhing, possible I think even explain entanglement with current theory with all this colapses and over nonsenses, without faster than light comunication. Mabe not very easy, but possible...
About universe expansion. Universe don't expanding faster than light and probably never expand in past of many bilions years ago. So what is red shift? Well, just somthing moving verys fast realativily to us and redshift can be infinity big. For example if object moving with speed 0.9999999999999999c, then gamma rays will have redshift and will be infrared waves. So there no any evidence, that universe expanding faster than light. And also like writen in my textbook into matter waves loosing energy and are (red)shifted (they loosing energy in matter, which is small number of atoms in cosmos and this atoms making gaps in waves spheres and this waves are little bit loosing they speed and energy...). Thus no any faster than light expansion!!!
Even if electron difraction need to explain only ligh electron being "large" wave and then colapsing to small point, then even this possible to explain with my relativistic theory, becouse colapsing hapening with speed of light untill everything is "freezen" and of course some very small part of energy should to late, but this will be compensated of electron 'waveistic' moment, instead 'massistic' moment... It's like no matter how far electron will fly, most energy will be able return almost without delay if we flying at speed 0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999c. Some energy energy maybe can be compensaited by photons for a wail. But how I say, there wasn't proved electron like wave colapse! And how we know? Maybe realy there is some small delay of electron colapse if it is wave? Then this is briliant and even don't need any changings in current theory (suming we flying with speed 0.999999999c).
So I explain all quantum mechanic mysteries with relativity even don't changing it!
About atom. Possible that in atom (if my atom model wrong) electron becoming wave and traveling from one orbit to over with speed of light and radiating quantized photons and no need nothing change in current theory. Briliant, my theory is just briliant and don't requiring to change somthing in current physic, but just to assume, that we moving with speed ver very close to c (say 0.9999999*c).
But I still want to explain entanglement with polarization, interference theory and to get my nobel prize
Okey you coders encoders, here free pascal program for calculating in mentioned link about entanglement result...
program average;
var a, b, d,e: real;
var c:integer;
begin
e:=0; c:=0;
//for c:=0 to 360 do begin
while c<360 do begin
d:=c-30;
b:=c/57.2957795130823208232087679;
d:=d/57.2957795130823208232087679;d:=cos(d)*cos(d);
a:=cos(b)*cos(b);
a:=a*d+(1-a)*(1-d);
e:=e+a;
// writeln('x',c,' ',a:0:9);
c:=c+1;
end;
e:=e/360;
writeln('result: ',e:0:20);
readln();
end.
How this works? Supose that photon coming with polarization from 0 to 359 degrees and then one polarizer is rotated at 0 degrees and over at 30 degrees, then according to experiments result must be 0.75 match probability, that either both photons will be detected or both photons will not be detected. Acording to polarization calculations without entanglement probability to match, when one polarizer is rotated at 0 degress and over at 30 degress is 0.625 (so need hiden variables, huh?). For example if one polarizer is rotated 0 degrees and over at 15 degrees then classical theory of probabilities predicting 0.7165 probability of match and experiments says, that probability of matching is (cos15)^2=0.933.
How I was calculating probabilities without entanglement?
Well, probability of each photon to pass through 0 degrees polarizer is (cosx)^2, where x is photon polarization in degrees. Probability to pass through polarizer, which is rotated 30 degrees for any photon is (cos(x-30))^2 (becouse two photons going with same polarization). So total probability to pass two photons at same time is (cosx)^2 * (cos(x-30))^2 . And total probability to don't pass for both photons at same time is [1-(cosx)^2]*[1-(cos(x-30))^2]. And probability, that result will match (two photons will pass or two photons will not pass) is
(cosx)^2 * (cos(x-30))^2 +[1-(cosx)^2]*[1-(cos(x-30))^2], so this gives answer 0.625. So how you see answer 0.625 is prety close to 0.75, because 0.75-0.625=0.125 and 0.933-0.7165=0.2165. So what can be or what can replace this 0.125 or 0.2165? Well, interference or/and polarization of reflected from polarizer waves interference or just reflected amplitude... But this seems very dificult, because I don't know how polarizer reflectes light and does ti at all reflects and if reflects with what polarization ortogonal or at all reflects with polarization?
So If I would have more data on this I would be able to made more concrete results instead random experiments... According to some links classical theory says, that polarizer light is not reflected, but absorbed, then seems there no chance for my theory, huh? But light can be maybe reflected like artifact (error) and lead to some interference and thus to such results.
QUOTE
program average;
var a, b, d,e: real;
var c:integer;
begin
e:=0; c:=0;
//for c:=0 to 360 do begin
while c<360 do begin
d:=c-30;
b:=c/57.2957795130823208232087679;
d:=d/57.2957795130823208232087679;d:=cos(d)*cos(d);
a:=cos(b)*cos(b);
a:=a*d+(1-a)*(1-d);
e:=e+a;
// writeln('x',c,' ',a:0:9);
c:=c+1;
end;
e:=e/360;
writeln('result: ',e:0:20);
readln();
end.
How this works? Supose that photon coming with polarization from 0 to 359 degrees and then one polarizer is rotated at 0 degrees and over at 30 degrees, then according to experiments result must be 0.75 match probability, that either both photons will be detected or both photons will not be detected. Acording to polarization calculations without entanglement probability to match, when one polarizer is rotated at 0 degress and over at 30 degress is 0.625 (so need hiden variables, huh?). For example if one polarizer is rotated 0 degrees and over at 15 degrees then classical theory of probabilities predicting 0.7165 probability of match and experiments says, that probability of matching is (cos15)^2=0.933.
How I was calculating probabilities without entanglement?
Well, probability of each photon to pass through 0 degrees polarizer is (cosx)^2, where x is photon polarization in degrees. Probability to pass through polarizer, which is rotated 30 degrees for any photon is (cos(x-30))^2 (becouse two photons going with same polarization). So total probability to pass two photons at same time is (cosx)^2 * (cos(x-30))^2 . And total probability to don't pass for both photons at same time is [1-(cosx)^2]*[1-(cos(x-30))^2]. And probability, that result will match (two photons will pass or two photons will not pass) is
(cosx)^2 * (cos(x-30))^2 +[1-(cosx)^2]*[1-(cos(x-30))^2], so this gives answer 0.625. So how you see answer 0.625 is prety close to 0.75, because 0.75-0.625=0.125 and 0.933-0.7165=0.2165. So what can be or what can replace this 0.125 or 0.2165? Well, interference or/and polarization of reflected from polarizer waves interference or just reflected amplitude... But this seems very dificult, because I don't know how polarizer reflectes light and does ti at all reflects and if reflects with what polarization ortogonal or at all reflects with polarization?
So If I would have more data on this I would be able to made more concrete results instead random experiments... According to some links classical theory says, that polarizer light is not reflected, but absorbed, then seems there no chance for my theory, huh? But light can be maybe reflected like artifact (error) and lead to some interference and thus to such results.
Okey, so how fastly need to calculate cousal probability (by probabilistic consequence without entanglement...)? Here is very fast and easy formula
[(cos120)^2 * (cos(120-30))^2 +[1-(cos120)^2]*[1-(cos(120-30))^2] + (cos240)^2 * (cos(240-30))^2 +[1-(cos240)^2]*[1-(cos(240-30))^2] + (cos240)^2 * (cos(240-30))^2 +[1-(cos240)^2]*[1-(cos(240-30))^2]]/3= 0.625 .
Instead y=30 degrees you can put any number of degrees and will get compared answer with theoretical (cosy)^2=(cos30)^2=0.75.
Or in pascal program you can change 30 number by any number from 0 to 360. Also you can change step long like photon polarization is 1, 2, 3... or 5, 10, 15... or 30, 60, 90... or 120, 240, 360, but at least 3 steps must, be becouse if you will take 180, 360 then result will be wrong. Of course need know and work only with this 3 parameters:
d:=c-30;
c:=c+1;
e:=e/360; (= 0.625)
or
d:=c-15;
c:=c+120;
e:=e/3; (= 0.7165)
by changing integers, if you don't stupid you will understood...
[(cos120)^2 * (cos(120-30))^2 +[1-(cos120)^2]*[1-(cos(120-30))^2] + (cos240)^2 * (cos(240-30))^2 +[1-(cos240)^2]*[1-(cos(240-30))^2] + (cos240)^2 * (cos(240-30))^2 +[1-(cos240)^2]*[1-(cos(240-30))^2]]/3= 0.625 .
Instead y=30 degrees you can put any number of degrees and will get compared answer with theoretical (cosy)^2=(cos30)^2=0.75.
Or in pascal program you can change 30 number by any number from 0 to 360. Also you can change step long like photon polarization is 1, 2, 3... or 5, 10, 15... or 30, 60, 90... or 120, 240, 360, but at least 3 steps must, be becouse if you will take 180, 360 then result will be wrong. Of course need know and work only with this 3 parameters:
d:=c-30;
c:=c+1;
e:=e/360; (= 0.625)
or
d:=c-15;
c:=c+120;
e:=e/3; (= 0.7165)
by changing integers, if you don't stupid you will understood...
[(cos120)^2 * (cos(120-30))^2 +[1-(cos120)^2]*[1-(cos(120-30))^2] +
(cos240)^2 * (cos(240-30))^2 +[1-(cos240)^2]*[1-(cos(240-30))^2] +
(cos360)^2 * (cos(360-30))^2 +[1-(cos360)^2]*[1-(cos(360-30))^2]]/3=
(0.25*0+0.75*1+
0.25*0.75+0.75*0.25+
1*0.75+0*0.25)/3=
(0.75+
0.375+
0.75)/3 = 0.625 .
BTW, the biggest separation between quantum and probabilistic result is when two polarizers rotated at same angle, then for probabilistic result is 0.75 and for quantum (cos0)^2=1, thus 1-0.75=0.25, thus need from somwhere to take this 0.25 like local hidden variables or some interference like in my theory...
(cos240)^2 * (cos(240-30))^2 +[1-(cos240)^2]*[1-(cos(240-30))^2] +
(cos360)^2 * (cos(360-30))^2 +[1-(cos360)^2]*[1-(cos(360-30))^2]]/3=
(0.25*0+0.75*1+
0.25*0.75+0.75*0.25+
1*0.75+0*0.25)/3=
(0.75+
0.375+
0.75)/3 = 0.625 .
BTW, the biggest separation between quantum and probabilistic result is when two polarizers rotated at same angle, then for probabilistic result is 0.75 and for quantum (cos0)^2=1, thus 1-0.75=0.25, thus need from somwhere to take this 0.25 like local hidden variables or some interference like in my theory...
So, let's calculate this 0.75 probability:
[(cos120)^2 * (cos(120-0))^2 +[1-(cos120)^2]*[1-(cos(120-0))^2] +
(cos240)^2 * (cos(240-0))^2 +[1-(cos240)^2]*[1-(cos(240-0))^2] +
(cos360)^2 * (cos(360-0))^2 +[1-(cos360)^2]*[1-(cos(360-0))^2]]/3=
(0.25*0.25+0.75*0.75+
0.25*0.25+0.75*0.75+
1*1+0*0)/3=
(0.0625+0.5625+
0.0625+0.5625+
1+0)/3 =
(0.625+
0.625+
1)/3 =0.75 .
So here seems, that if assume there is some law, like if there waves equaly taking photons at same time then they will do it until free electron again will become source of photoefect... So here is possible to explain with my wave theory without any over frogshits.
edit: Here recently I understand very important question: how sciencists know, that if two photons wasn't detected in both detectors, that it is not errors or somthing, but just probabilistic entanglement verification???
[(cos120)^2 * (cos(120-0))^2 +[1-(cos120)^2]*[1-(cos(120-0))^2] +
(cos240)^2 * (cos(240-0))^2 +[1-(cos240)^2]*[1-(cos(240-0))^2] +
(cos360)^2 * (cos(360-0))^2 +[1-(cos360)^2]*[1-(cos(360-0))^2]]/3=
(0.25*0.25+0.75*0.75+
0.25*0.25+0.75*0.75+
1*1+0*0)/3=
(0.0625+0.5625+
0.0625+0.5625+
1+0)/3 =
(0.625+
0.625+
1)/3 =0.75 .
So here seems, that if assume there is some law, like if there waves equaly taking photons at same time then they will do it until free electron again will become source of photoefect... So here is possible to explain with my wave theory without any over frogshits.
edit: Here recently I understand very important question: how sciencists know, that if two photons wasn't detected in both detectors, that it is not errors or somthing, but just probabilistic entanglement verification???
Explain the pioneer anomaly using your model.
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 9 2008, 04:07 PM)
Explain the pioneer anomaly using your model.
I already explain it. Photons have pressure and they doing all this stuff!
I already explain it. Photons have pressure and they doing all this stuff!
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 9 2008, 11:15 AM)
I already explain it. Photons have pressure and they doing all this stuff!
Pressure exerted by electromagnetic radiation was discovered in the early 1900s. NASA is well aware of the force and includes it in their calculations, as do the physicists working on explaining the anomaly.
Strike one.
And given that the pioneer probes are slowing down more than expected due to an unexplained force acting towards the sun, and force from electromagnetic radiation from the sun (extraordinarily small that far from the Sun) and the craft's radio emissions would be acting you know, away from the Sun, your idea doesn't explain it at all.
Strike Two.
Do you even know what the pioneer anomaly is?
Pressure exerted by electromagnetic radiation was discovered in the early 1900s. NASA is well aware of the force and includes it in their calculations, as do the physicists working on explaining the anomaly.
Strike one.
And given that the pioneer probes are slowing down more than expected due to an unexplained force acting towards the sun, and force from electromagnetic radiation from the sun (extraordinarily small that far from the Sun) and the craft's radio emissions would be acting you know, away from the Sun, your idea doesn't explain it at all.
Strike Two.
Do you even know what the pioneer anomaly is?
Look at this image and lough from rising stupidity of entanglement treaters: http://www.quantop.nbi.dk/pics/cell_exp/il...graphs_35cm.jpg
There says, that they reducing somthing bullshiting they noise by 25%, ha, but this exactly is they biggest possible result, which can be goten without entanglement...
And also like in link in entanglement is 1+1=3 and in classical 1+1=2, wrong! In entanglement 1+1+1=4 (1) and in probabilistic model 1+1+1=3 (0.75). And if compare 1+1=3 (0.75) and in without entanglement 1+1=2.5 (0.625). So not 2, but 2.5 instead 3. Maybe this 3-2.5=0.5 is errors, huh? Maybe they stupidrons thinking, that photon is not in one polarization but in all polarizations at same time, hu? HAHAHAHA Such loosers I don't sow ever!!! Now searching entanglement with smallest errors experiments.
See on page 16:
"We have roughly k_exp^2 = 0.10 · x[deg] which should be compared to the prediction (38) k_theory^2 = 0.24 · x[deg]. The discrepancy is a little more than a
factor of two but this is acceptable for our quite simple modeling."
Loosers! What they think with such missagreement with theory? Then my calculations with certain polarization of each photon at each time already explains all this faking results."
And more:
"Let us try to apply the simple decoherence model given by Eqs. (35) and (36).
Taking the decoherence parameter beta = 0.65 we get the dashed lines in the figure.
These match nicely the experimental data. We conclude that the simple
decoherence model has some truth in it and we must accept that the entangled
state created can only be verified to be around “65% as good” as expected in
an ideal world."
Is 65% good? GOOD??? 1*0.65=0.65, while with my model there is 0.75. This is good?
Edit: There probably with atoms entanglement so this bullshit can't be counted like evidence of entanglement between atoms nor like debunktion of entanglement between photons:
"To conclude the experimental section we emphasize that we have generated
entangled states between distant atomic samples in the sense that each vapour
cell sits in its own magnetic shield. The two shields can in principle be moved
as far apart as is practical, our experiment was performed with a distance of
35cm. In the future we hope to extend this distance further. The noise reduction
below the level set by separable states was measured up to 25%. This
number is mainly limited by power broadening and light assisted collisional
relaxation of the atomic spins."
There says, that they reducing somthing bullshiting they noise by 25%, ha, but this exactly is they biggest possible result, which can be goten without entanglement...
And also like in link in entanglement is 1+1=3 and in classical 1+1=2, wrong! In entanglement 1+1+1=4 (1) and in probabilistic model 1+1+1=3 (0.75). And if compare 1+1=3 (0.75) and in without entanglement 1+1=2.5 (0.625). So not 2, but 2.5 instead 3. Maybe this 3-2.5=0.5 is errors, huh?
Maybe they stupidrons thinking, that photon is not in one polarization but in all polarizations at same time, hu? HAHAHAHA Such loosers I don't sow ever!!! Now searching entanglement with smallest errors experiments.See on page 16:
"We have roughly k_exp^2 = 0.10 · x[deg] which should be compared to the prediction (38) k_theory^2 = 0.24 · x[deg]. The discrepancy is a little more than a
factor of two but this is acceptable for our quite simple modeling."
Loosers! What they think with such missagreement with theory? Then my calculations with certain polarization of each photon at each time already explains all this faking results."
And more:
"Let us try to apply the simple decoherence model given by Eqs. (35) and (36).
Taking the decoherence parameter beta = 0.65 we get the dashed lines in the figure.
These match nicely the experimental data. We conclude that the simple
decoherence model has some truth in it and we must accept that the entangled
state created can only be verified to be around “65% as good” as expected in
an ideal world."
Is 65% good? GOOD??? 1*0.65=0.65, while with my model there is 0.75. This is good?
Edit: There probably with atoms entanglement so this bullshit can't be counted like evidence of entanglement between atoms nor like debunktion of entanglement between photons:
"To conclude the experimental section we emphasize that we have generated
entangled states between distant atomic samples in the sense that each vapour
cell sits in its own magnetic shield. The two shields can in principle be moved
as far apart as is practical, our experiment was performed with a distance of
35cm. In the future we hope to extend this distance further. The noise reduction
below the level set by separable states was measured up to 25%. This
number is mainly limited by power broadening and light assisted collisional
relaxation of the atomic spins."
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 9 2008, 04:17 PM)
Pressure exerted by electromagnetic radiation was discovered in the early 1900s. NASA is well aware of the force and includes it in their calculations, as do the physicists working on explaining the anomaly.
Strike one.
And given that the pioneer probes are slowing down more than expected due to an unexplained force acting towards the sun, and force from electromagnetic radiation from the sun (extraordinarily small that far from the Sun) and the craft's radio emissions would be acting you know, away from the Sun, your idea doesn't explain it at all.
Strike Two.
Do you even know what the pioneer anomaly is?
Pioner anomaly can be anomaly of that we don't know precise earth mass and properties and gravity and egges form from spining and so on also don't know precise mass of sun, relativistic mass smaller of object, which don't fly with earth... Sun is hot non ball form littel longer and so on, questions more than answers
Strike one.
And given that the pioneer probes are slowing down more than expected due to an unexplained force acting towards the sun, and force from electromagnetic radiation from the sun (extraordinarily small that far from the Sun) and the craft's radio emissions would be acting you know, away from the Sun, your idea doesn't explain it at all.
Strike Two.
Do you even know what the pioneer anomaly is?
Pioner anomaly can be anomaly of that we don't know precise earth mass and properties and gravity and egges form from spining and so on also don't know precise mass of sun, relativistic mass smaller of object, which don't fly with earth... Sun is hot non ball form littel longer and so on, questions more than answers
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 9 2008, 11:56 AM)
Pioner anomaly can be anomaly of that we don't know precise earth mass and properties and gravity and egges form from spining and so on also don't know precise mass of sun, relativistic mass smaller of object, which don't fly with earth... Sun is hot non ball form littel longer and so on, questions more than answers
Strike three.
Strike three.
Here is good paper if it is not wrong (claiming somthing new, which wasnot discovered, but he will discover ): http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0405155v1.pdf .
This paper completly then debunking my this theory about probabilities without any ove rtricks.
But with reflected waves all seems prety possible if assuming, that experiment results is twice smaller (average not 12.5% or 0-25%, but average 6.25 or 0-12.5% of second "B" photons). so now this direction of my theory with reflected polarized light seems, most advanced and perspective and best, becouse interference there seems, don't have any impact. So reflected polarization, hmm... Interesting, isn't?
): http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0405155v1.pdf .This paper completly then debunking my this theory about probabilities without any ove rtricks.
But with reflected waves all seems prety possible if assuming, that experiment results is twice smaller (average not 12.5% or 0-25%, but average 6.25 or 0-12.5% of second "B" photons). so now this direction of my theory with reflected polarized light seems, most advanced and perspective and best, becouse interference there seems, don't have any impact. So reflected polarization, hmm... Interesting, isn't?
Here program for probability of matching, then in gradians (400~360) there is all rotations and then probability to passing through 30 degrees rotations through polarized glass is not (cos30)^2=0.75, but 1-0.3(3)=0.666(6). So here is program http://www.codecutter.net/tools/quincy/200...05v1_3setup.exe , which to run need press "F9":
this is nothing to do with quantum mechanic, but just exotic comparition how/what would be probability of match if will be the liner dependence...
So if angle is 30 degrees or 33.(3) gradians, then probability of match is 0.524967. If one polarizer rotated at 0 degrees and over at 15 degrees (16.(6) gradians), then match probability of both detectors is 608366. If Both polarizers rotated at 0 degrees (gradians) then match probability is 0.66920 .
QUOTE
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
//#include <string>
//using namespace std;
int c=0;
double a=0,e=0;
double fun(double a)
{
//a=abs(a);
if(a<=1&&a>=0)a=1-a;
if(a<=2&&a>1)a=a-1;
if(a<=3&&a>2)a=3-a;
if(a<4&&a>3)a=a-3;
return a;
}
int main(void)
{
//string s;
char ch[500],ch2[500],ch3[500];
for (double i=0;i<4;i=i+0.01){
a=fun(i-0.166666666);
a=a*fun(i)+(1-fun(i))*(1-a);
e=e+a;
sprintf(ch, "%f",a);
sprintf(ch2, "%d",c);
printf("x");
printf(ch2);printf(" ");
printf(ch);
printf("\n");
c=c+1;
}
e=e/400;
sprintf(ch3, "%f",e);
printf(ch3);
return 0;
}
#include <stdlib.h>
//#include <string>
//using namespace std;
int c=0;
double a=0,e=0;
double fun(double a)
{
//a=abs(a);
if(a<=1&&a>=0)a=1-a;
if(a<=2&&a>1)a=a-1;
if(a<=3&&a>2)a=3-a;
if(a<4&&a>3)a=a-3;
return a;
}
int main(void)
{
//string s;
char ch[500],ch2[500],ch3[500];
for (double i=0;i<4;i=i+0.01){
a=fun(i-0.166666666);
a=a*fun(i)+(1-fun(i))*(1-a);
e=e+a;
sprintf(ch, "%f",a);
sprintf(ch2, "%d",c);
printf("x");
printf(ch2);printf(" ");
printf(ch);
printf("\n");
c=c+1;
}
e=e/400;
sprintf(ch3, "%f",e);
printf(ch3);
return 0;
}
this is nothing to do with quantum mechanic, but just exotic comparition how/what would be probability of match if will be the liner dependence...
So if angle is 30 degrees or 33.(3) gradians, then probability of match is 0.524967. If one polarizer rotated at 0 degrees and over at 15 degrees (16.(6) gradians), then match probability of both detectors is 608366. If Both polarizers rotated at 0 degrees (gradians) then match probability is 0.66920 .
Damn, why they posting papers, before making experiment ?
"At this stage, when the experiments
have not been carried out, we would consider
that there exists the continuity of quantum
entanglement."
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0405155v1.pdf
Probably such experiment too nosiy
So then my interference model also can be used here not only polarization model, which would be half as bad...
"At this stage, when the experiments
have not been carried out, we would consider
that there exists the continuity of quantum
entanglement."
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0405155v1.pdf
Probably such experiment too nosiy
So then my interference model also can be used here not only polarization model, which would be half as bad...
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 10 2008, 07:06 AM)
Damn, why they posting papers, before making experiment ?
Damn, why they posting theories and claiming to explain everything in the universe, before making experiment ?
Whoops, wait, that's you
Damn, why they posting theories and claiming to explain everything in the universe, before making experiment ?
Whoops, wait, that's you
I now starting to think that Bell was stupidron and his Bell inequalities is bullshit, becouse here found nice(? http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm ) explanation, that at 120 degrees probability of matching should be 0.25 In my theory it is also 0.25!!! And not some stupid 0.33(3) like bell think must be with hidden variables
Here how must look formula at 120 degrees:
[(cos120)^2 * (cos(120-120))^2 +[1-(cos120)^2]*[1-(cos(120-120))^2] +
(cos240)^2 * (cos(240-120))^2 +[1-(cos240)^2]*[1-(cos(240-120))^2] +
(cos360)^2 * (cos(360-120))^2 +[1-(cos360)^2]*[1-(cos(360-120))^2]]/3=
(0.25*1+0.75*0+
0.25*0.25+0.75*0.75+
1*0.25+0*0.75)/3=
(0.25+0+
0.0625+0.5625+
0.25+0)/3 =
(0.25+
0.625+
0.25)/3
=1.125/3=0.375 .
I wrong... quantum entanglement predicts 0.25 and my theory 0.375 and guy in link says, that it at most can be 0.3(3) or on average [0.(3)*6+2*1]/8=0.5. Well, even without "hidden variables tricks" cousal theory predicts 0.375 rather than 0.5, but still worst than 1/3. So there no mistakes and also in my theory, bcosue probability to pass through polarizer is (cosx)^2 for random polarized photon. http://www.cityreformed.org/snoke/hsbook/selection9.pdf
So maybe there is some measurment errors, huh? Maybe sciencists grasp simpler law (cosy)^2 to match instead my more dificult law
[(cos120)^2 * (cos(120-y))^2 +[1-(cos120)^2]*[1-(cos(120-y))^2] +
(cos240)^2 * (cos(240-y))^2 +[1-(cos240)^2]*[1-(cos(240-y))^2] +
(cos360)^2 * (cos(360-y))^2 +[1-(cos360)^2]*[1-(cos(360-y))^2]]/3
?
Then this explains why experiments don't match with "theory" and then don't need anymore play stupid games, but only to use my this calculation
In my theory it is also 0.25!!! And not some stupid 0.33(3) like bell think must be with hidden variables Here how must look formula at 120 degrees:
[(cos120)^2 * (cos(120-120))^2 +[1-(cos120)^2]*[1-(cos(120-120))^2] +
(cos240)^2 * (cos(240-120))^2 +[1-(cos240)^2]*[1-(cos(240-120))^2] +
(cos360)^2 * (cos(360-120))^2 +[1-(cos360)^2]*[1-(cos(360-120))^2]]/3=
(0.25*1+0.75*0+
0.25*0.25+0.75*0.75+
1*0.25+0*0.75)/3=
(0.25+0+
0.0625+0.5625+
0.25+0)/3 =
(0.25+
0.625+
0.25)/3
=1.125/3=0.375 .
I wrong... quantum entanglement predicts 0.25 and my theory 0.375 and guy in link says, that it at most can be 0.3(3) or on average [0.(3)*6+2*1]/8=0.5. Well, even without "hidden variables tricks" cousal theory predicts 0.375 rather than 0.5, but still worst than 1/3. So there no mistakes and also in my theory, bcosue probability to pass through polarizer is (cosx)^2 for random polarized photon. http://www.cityreformed.org/snoke/hsbook/selection9.pdf
So maybe there is some measurment errors, huh? Maybe sciencists grasp simpler law (cosy)^2 to match instead my more dificult law
[(cos120)^2 * (cos(120-y))^2 +[1-(cos120)^2]*[1-(cos(120-y))^2] +
(cos240)^2 * (cos(240-y))^2 +[1-(cos240)^2]*[1-(cos(240-y))^2] +
(cos360)^2 * (cos(360-y))^2 +[1-(cos360)^2]*[1-(cos(360-y))^2]]/3
?
Then this explains why experiments don't match with "theory" and then don't need anymore play stupid games, but only to use my this calculation
Imprtant knowledes for rather analize of my theory by interference to explain entanglement...
http://www.davidjarvis.ca/entanglement/spookiness.shtml
"For example, we can polarize the light before it goes through the slits. Like rippling a rope through a picket fence to permit only vertical waves (see Figure 4.4), polarizing allows us to limit the type of light waves that make it through the slits to the detector.
When we put a polarizing filter around one of the two slits, the interference pattern disappears. The result is shown in Figure 6.3."
Too bad there is puted polarizer even before 2 slits. On the over hand photon flying already polarized, but there nothing says about angles (how possible to be so stupid by writing this?). But I think actualy this first polarizers don't have any impact before slits. So then waves through second slit changing they polarization (when time is frezed) and waves through uper slit are polarized after that, thus then ligh becoming not coherent and no interference! So then it's means, that interference can't play any role for explaining entanglement! How I don't think about this before? Polarizers only changing polarization of waves, which long time going through polarizer-matter and when time is not freezed, but if time is freezed then for a wail all waves are polarized at some same angle (this makes electrsons and atoms..). But on the over hand, maybe realy waves are polarized and splited into many smaller amplitude waves with more polarizations? But then this is very bad news for my theory, unless in bell experiment there is some prepolarizer... Anyway, very important fact I already understood, that waves with diferent polarization can't interference. And also probably very improtant point and bad new for me is that waves traveling through crystal are in diferent outcomes eadges diferently polarized, unlees traveling one waves, which is then splited with beam spliters, but no, beam spilters also polarizing in diferent way, becouse one going through beam spliter and over no. So seems, that my formula can be wrong:
[(cos120)^2 * (cos(120-y))^2 +[1-(cos120)^2]*[1-(cos(120-y))^2] +
(cos240)^2 * (cos(240-y))^2 +[1-(cos240)^2]*[1-(cos(240-y))^2] +
(cos360)^2 * (cos(360-y))^2 +[1-(cos360)^2]*[1-(cos(360-y))^2]]/3 !
Or maybe no, becouse there still traveling many wave or more times...
But wrong is interference, becouse it can't interfere with polarized waves if it is reflected similarly like from mirror and not with some polarization like polarizer or oposit... And traveling through crystal reflected waves also must change polarization. Unless all waves are without polarization. Yes! without polarization. But interference still need eliminate from my theory. So now possible only guess with what polarization light is reflected from polarizer or maybe even without polarization? So there is 3 or no - 4 variants (also then light is not reflected at all, but absorbed). 1) variant: light is reflected with oposit polarization; 2) variant: light is relfected with same polarization; 3) varinat: light is reflected from polarizer without polarization (like was before); 4) variant: light is absorbed. Oficial theory seems tend to prefer "4)" variant.
Edit: wait, why interference must be removed if polarizations much? So interference can't be removed if there flyign wave with all possible polarizations from crystal.
edit2: I am wrong, if in crystal waves are polarized with many diferent polarizations then all is wrong and probability of match will be very small. But there is good new, that possible that waves are created only in one electron and thus then they have the same polarization, but this seems like not very possible
But on the over hand maybe entangled pair producing lazer and then wave is in one point and then this is ver very possible! So if you will try to create entangled pair not from lazer then nothing to be according to this theory (that's why they so loves photons?)!
http://www.davidjarvis.ca/entanglement/spookiness.shtml
"For example, we can polarize the light before it goes through the slits. Like rippling a rope through a picket fence to permit only vertical waves (see Figure 4.4), polarizing allows us to limit the type of light waves that make it through the slits to the detector.
When we put a polarizing filter around one of the two slits, the interference pattern disappears. The result is shown in Figure 6.3."
Too bad there is puted polarizer even before 2 slits. On the over hand photon flying already polarized, but there nothing says about angles (how possible to be so stupid by writing this?). But I think actualy this first polarizers don't have any impact before slits. So then waves through second slit changing they polarization (when time is frezed) and waves through uper slit are polarized after that, thus then ligh becoming not coherent and no interference! So then it's means, that interference can't play any role for explaining entanglement! How I don't think about this before? Polarizers only changing polarization of waves, which long time going through polarizer-matter and when time is not freezed, but if time is freezed then for a wail all waves are polarized at some same angle (this makes electrsons and atoms..). But on the over hand, maybe realy waves are polarized and splited into many smaller amplitude waves with more polarizations? But then this is very bad news for my theory, unless in bell experiment there is some prepolarizer... Anyway, very important fact I already understood, that waves with diferent polarization can't interference. And also probably very improtant point and bad new for me is that waves traveling through crystal are in diferent outcomes eadges diferently polarized, unlees traveling one waves, which is then splited with beam spliters, but no, beam spilters also polarizing in diferent way, becouse one going through beam spliter and over no. So seems, that my formula can be wrong:
[(cos120)^2 * (cos(120-y))^2 +[1-(cos120)^2]*[1-(cos(120-y))^2] +
(cos240)^2 * (cos(240-y))^2 +[1-(cos240)^2]*[1-(cos(240-y))^2] +
(cos360)^2 * (cos(360-y))^2 +[1-(cos360)^2]*[1-(cos(360-y))^2]]/3 !
Or maybe no, becouse there still traveling many wave or more times...
But wrong is interference, becouse it can't interfere with polarized waves if it is reflected similarly like from mirror and not with some polarization like polarizer or oposit... And traveling through crystal reflected waves also must change polarization. Unless all waves are without polarization. Yes! without polarization. But interference still need eliminate from my theory. So now possible only guess with what polarization light is reflected from polarizer or maybe even without polarization? So there is 3 or no - 4 variants (also then light is not reflected at all, but absorbed). 1) variant: light is reflected with oposit polarization; 2) variant: light is relfected with same polarization; 3) varinat: light is reflected from polarizer without polarization (like was before); 4) variant: light is absorbed. Oficial theory seems tend to prefer "4)" variant.
Edit: wait, why interference must be removed if polarizations much?
So interference can't be removed if there flyign wave with all possible polarizations from crystal.edit2: I am wrong, if in crystal waves are polarized with many diferent polarizations then all is wrong and probability of match will be very small. But there is good new, that possible that waves are created only in one electron and thus then they have the same polarization, but this seems like not very possible
But on the over hand maybe entangled pair producing lazer and then wave is in one point and then this is ver very possible!
So if you will try to create entangled pair not from lazer then nothing to be according to this theory (that's why they so loves photons?)!
Found very profound experiment:
"Quantum Eraser
Figure 6.5 shows a Bell-state quantum eraser, named after John Bell. It illustrates the application of the following steps:
a laser fires photons into a Beta Barium Borate (BBO) crystal;
the crystal entangles some of the photons; and then
entangled photons travel to two different detectors: A and B.
Placed between the crystal and detector B is a double-slit, like in the previous experiments. Immediately in front of detector A is a polarizing filter that can be rotated. Figure 4.5 showed an experiment using sunglasses to see the effects of rotating a polarizer. Those same effects apply here.
Figure 6.5. Experiment 4 - Bell-state Quantum Eraser.
The Bell-state quantum eraser has one more feature: each slit is covered by a substance that filters the polarization of a photon. Consequently, the left-hand slit will receive photons with a counter-clockwise polarization, and the right-hand slit will pass photons with a clockwise polarization.
Note: Polarization does not affect interference patterns.
Initially, neither detector shows an interference pattern. Since we control the polarization of photons passing through the slits and we know the polarization accepted by each slit, we can deduce which way the photons travelled (counter-clockwise through the left; clockwise through the right). Thus no interference patterns are detected.
However, if we rotate the polarizing filter in front of detector A so that the polarizations of the photons that hit the detector are the same (that is, we can no longer distinguish between clockwise and counter-clockwise polarizations), then the interference pattern appears at both detectors!
How do the photons arriving at detector B know that the polarizations have been "erased" at detector A?"
http://www.davidjarvis.ca/entanglement/spookiness.shtml
In this experiment waves from crystal going to two point: in point A and in point B. Point A have polarizer before detector rotated at 0 degrees and point B have double slits before detector and between double slit and detectors in point B there is polarizers rotated at 0 degrees, which are after slits. So when polarizations match then interference of aves is possible and this seen in detecor A! How this can be? Let's think. Waves are reflected from polarizer(s) in B point and going back through crystal and are reflected from crystal and passing through polarizer A (becouse have same polarization) and then making interferece. Somebody may say, that this is prety unrealistic with this "back reflection" and he will be probably right. Maybe I should give up? But maybe if you will change distance between detector A and crystal and detector B then maybe fringers becoming longer or shorter and gaps between them? And also maybe those detectors in experiments are so close, that interference reflected patter reaching with the same distance and with any over bigger or smaller distance is imposible to do such experiment due to noise? This prety good explains all this stuff and then light in detecor A even rising amplitude for better detection, HA!
Or even better explantion. Since waves can't be reflected from polarizer, then they going through polarizer and are reflected from detector and detecor even also radiating small amount of light waves and light going from detector B through slits and then is reflected from crystal and with weak(?) amplitude going to detector A and making interference pattern. And don't need even my theory. And then some sciencists saying, that there is "small" errors , but in real big errors is in his head
"Quantum Eraser
Figure 6.5 shows a Bell-state quantum eraser, named after John Bell. It illustrates the application of the following steps:
a laser fires photons into a Beta Barium Borate (BBO) crystal;
the crystal entangles some of the photons; and then
entangled photons travel to two different detectors: A and B.
Placed between the crystal and detector B is a double-slit, like in the previous experiments. Immediately in front of detector A is a polarizing filter that can be rotated. Figure 4.5 showed an experiment using sunglasses to see the effects of rotating a polarizer. Those same effects apply here.
Figure 6.5. Experiment 4 - Bell-state Quantum Eraser.
The Bell-state quantum eraser has one more feature: each slit is covered by a substance that filters the polarization of a photon. Consequently, the left-hand slit will receive photons with a counter-clockwise polarization, and the right-hand slit will pass photons with a clockwise polarization.
Note: Polarization does not affect interference patterns.
Initially, neither detector shows an interference pattern. Since we control the polarization of photons passing through the slits and we know the polarization accepted by each slit, we can deduce which way the photons travelled (counter-clockwise through the left; clockwise through the right). Thus no interference patterns are detected.
However, if we rotate the polarizing filter in front of detector A so that the polarizations of the photons that hit the detector are the same (that is, we can no longer distinguish between clockwise and counter-clockwise polarizations), then the interference pattern appears at both detectors!
How do the photons arriving at detector B know that the polarizations have been "erased" at detector A?"
http://www.davidjarvis.ca/entanglement/spookiness.shtml
In this experiment waves from crystal going to two point: in point A and in point B. Point A have polarizer before detector rotated at 0 degrees and point B have double slits before detector and between double slit and detectors in point B there is polarizers rotated at 0 degrees, which are after slits. So when polarizations match then interference of aves is possible and this seen in detecor A! How this can be? Let's think. Waves are reflected from polarizer(s) in B point and going back through crystal and are reflected from crystal and passing through polarizer A (becouse have same polarization) and then making interferece. Somebody may say, that this is prety unrealistic with this "back reflection" and he will be probably right. Maybe I should give up? But maybe if you will change distance between detector A and crystal and detector B then maybe fringers becoming longer or shorter and gaps between them? And also maybe those detectors in experiments are so close, that interference reflected patter reaching with the same distance and with any over bigger or smaller distance is imposible to do such experiment due to noise?
This prety good explains all this stuff and then light in detecor A even rising amplitude for better detection, HA! Or even better explantion. Since waves can't be reflected from polarizer, then they going through polarizer and are reflected from detector and detecor even also radiating small amount of light waves and light going from detector B through slits and then is reflected from crystal and with weak(?) amplitude going to detector A and making interference pattern. And don't need even my theory. And then some sciencists saying, that there is "small" errors
, but in real big errors is in his head
QUOTE (Evil Rupert+Jul 5 2008, 04:03 PM)
If you fucklng dare post again, I'll kill you, your relatives and shlt in you cats mouth. Rupert the Bear?
Ok, what is most important reason in my theory, that entanglement can't be just somthing not related with waves like reflection from polarizer/detector and they interference or simply assuming, that photon is polarized when produced? Well, The biggest gap is that according to current oficial theory waves must colapse in many many points, when some one imbecile in small point is measured! So my theory states that there no wavecolpase and only waves and thus then entanglement mean, that all waves must colapse - "sppoky acts on distance", so imagine in this way, that there expanding spherical wave when time going on, and in one small point this wave(s) is measured and in over small point there also colapse everything or all wave colapse, all sphere Isn't it ridiculouse? When photon cahnging polarization then he giving his impulse to matter (like light pressure) and if you waant to change all wave polarization then need very match energy, becouse mostly this wave consist of many coherent waves (like lazer). OF course some cranck may state, that this is it, colapsing all wave and this is wavefunction colapse, but for this need energy But cranck will say, that energy don't need many, bacause we flying on relativistic speed. And cranck will add, that this polarization (energy) making photoeffect. And this is principle of colapse. But why just simply assume, that there no colapse and no entanglement and waves have only some bigger or smaller amplitude, which can or cannot be detected? My theory, prety simple explains entanglement, with only one simple assumtion, that photon-wave polarization making not some mystery or maxwel equation or over math, but simply making electrons and atoms configuration, in which was shooted wave and produce "entangled" waves. Since lazer is only about few nm radius ray, then waves producing they polarizatino on net electrons efect (because electrons don't flying faster than waves). Thus waves after short lazer shoot/impule is polarized (which sciecists call photons). Sciencists think, that this waves is not polarized and then they need hidden variables, but if they are polarized always at random angle (because electrons and atoms configuration always is random) then possible explain entanglement only with this fact, that 'photons' in both directions flying with same polarization and thus acting somthing like similarly and this acting like shown in my formulas have properties which is better than hidden variables and then experimental results can be explained with my theory and current theory about "noise" is inconsistent. So I am sure, that nature don't playing stupid games like wavefunction colapse and entanglement, because smallest spheres is for waves and not for playing magic
This is explains, why there no diference in experiments on big distance and small, because waves are almost equaly absorbed unlike photons...
If particles have somthing like wave nature, then this nature within going with speed of light and not bigger. For example assume, that there is electron, at big speed there he is like wave and in both side there is like two tenisists which playing with ball, which flying with speed c and then don't matter how big wave-lectron is then he can't colapse faster than light, but in relativistic speed can colapse almost instantly. But anyway, there no any proves, that electron is wave, except his size vibrating like wave, like bag vibrating, but he is not a wave,w hich colapsing. So electron is more like human-wave, than like water-wave...
Isn't it ridiculouse? When photon cahnging polarization then he giving his impulse to matter (like light pressure) and if you waant to change all wave polarization then need very match energy, becouse mostly this wave consist of many coherent waves (like lazer). OF course some cranck may state, that this is it, colapsing all wave and this is wavefunction colapse, but for this need energy But cranck will say, that energy don't need many, bacause we flying on relativistic speed. And cranck will add, that this polarization (energy) making photoeffect. And this is principle of colapse. But why just simply assume, that there no colapse and no entanglement and waves have only some bigger or smaller amplitude, which can or cannot be detected? My theory, prety simple explains entanglement, with only one simple assumtion, that photon-wave polarization making not some mystery or maxwel equation or over math, but simply making electrons and atoms configuration, in which was shooted wave and produce "entangled" waves. Since lazer is only about few nm radius ray, then waves producing they polarizatino on net electrons efect (because electrons don't flying faster than waves). Thus waves after short lazer shoot/impule is polarized (which sciecists call photons). Sciencists think, that this waves is not polarized and then they need hidden variables, but if they are polarized always at random angle (because electrons and atoms configuration always is random) then possible explain entanglement only with this fact, that 'photons' in both directions flying with same polarization and thus acting somthing like similarly and this acting like shown in my formulas have properties which is better than hidden variables and then experimental results can be explained with my theory and current theory about "noise" is inconsistent. So I am sure, that nature don't playing stupid games like wavefunction colapse and entanglement, because smallest spheres is for waves and not for playing magic This is explains, why there no diference in experiments on big distance and small, because waves are almost equaly absorbed unlike photons...
If particles have somthing like wave nature, then this nature within going with speed of light and not bigger. For example assume, that there is electron, at big speed there he is like wave and in both side there is like two tenisists which playing with ball, which flying with speed c and then don't matter how big wave-lectron is then he can't colapse faster than light, but in relativistic speed can colapse almost instantly. But anyway, there no any proves, that electron is wave, except his size vibrating like wave, like bag vibrating, but he is not a wave,w hich colapsing. So electron is more like human-wave, than like water-wave...
Bell eraser http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/Walborn.pdf is chalanging question for my theory, but in papers, which I have seen, no any words about accuracy of experiment, so simply maybe light in double slit is reflected from detector ang oing back and making all this stuff very weakly or maybe even light is relfected from polarizer with polarization of slit like polarizer... There many possiblities with interference and so on, but al least there no theoretical limit to don't possiblity of this my asumptions to explain this Bell eraser with simple waves tricks, like reflection/polariztion/interference.
edit: here somthing rambling about mixed state in eraser, not entangled, maybe there entanglement no at all, but eraser is just theoretical junk?:
"IV. CONCLUSIONS
We have demonstrated the operation of a quantum eraser
using a polarization interferometer. Interference is made to
appear and or disappear by modification of the measurement
apparatus rather than a modification of the interferometer,
indicating that this is an ideal quantum eraser.
The presence or absence of an interference pattern is independent
of whether we use an entangled state or a mixed
state source. However, in the presence of a beam block in
one of the interferometer arms, the measured coincidence
count rates do depend on whether the source state is entangled
or mixed. In this sense we say that the mixed state
can mimic most, but not all, of the entangled state behavior."
Here just about eraser: http://www.mat.ufmg.br/~tcunha/2003-07WalbornF.pdf
edit: here somthing rambling about mixed state in eraser, not entangled, maybe there entanglement no at all, but eraser is just theoretical junk?:
"IV. CONCLUSIONS
We have demonstrated the operation of a quantum eraser
using a polarization interferometer. Interference is made to
appear and or disappear by modification of the measurement
apparatus rather than a modification of the interferometer,
indicating that this is an ideal quantum eraser.
The presence or absence of an interference pattern is independent
of whether we use an entangled state or a mixed
state source. However, in the presence of a beam block in
one of the interferometer arms, the measured coincidence
count rates do depend on whether the source state is entangled
or mixed. In this sense we say that the mixed state
can mimic most, but not all, of the entangled state behavior."
Here just about eraser: http://www.mat.ufmg.br/~tcunha/2003-07WalbornF.pdf
A science no one understands is as good as a science nobody believes in... The point of science is to find answers to questions and explain thouse answers in as simple a term as possible. Science has become a cult religion in that respect it find answers to questions that almost nobody can understand... If scientists want to be believed by the general population right or wrong they need to have a simple model of how there things work other wise they just waisted time doing proffs for just themself and there selfishness.
I dont care if quantum mechanics is real or not IF I cant ever understand it.
So if you want me to care about quantum mechanics and get me to donate dollars to your research then you better get me to care lol. There should be a rule no idiots allowed here. And anyone who thinks there an idiot to the point of not joining would just walk away lol problem fixed no more true idiots anywhere but nowhere!
I dont care if quantum mechanics is real or not IF I cant ever understand it.
So if you want me to care about quantum mechanics and get me to donate dollars to your research then you better get me to care lol. There should be a rule no idiots allowed here. And anyone who thinks there an idiot to the point of not joining would just walk away lol problem fixed no more true idiots anywhere but nowhere!
Are you serious? You don't take the time to understand something so you're just going to say fu*k it? Such a positive and upward view of things. Instead of sitting there bitching you could be doing some armchair research and learning the basic concepts behind quantum mechanics. I hope you don't have children to pass that line of thinking along to, that would be depressing. Telling them from a young age that if they don't understand something they shouldn't care. Know that computer you're using? All those cool pictures from outer space? Those airplanes that fly around? I bet you don't know how THOSE work either, but you're not bitching about that. You're just caught up in the myth that theoretical physicists are just sitting around throwing darts at a board filled with jargon and using it to come up with theories. They're not. They're starting with fundamental equations and experimental data, and working out mathematical models that accurately reflect the data and predict future experimental results.
Quantum mechanics has been the simplest model for nearly a hundred years, just because you don't feel like taking the time to understand it doesn't mean it should be dismissed. To do so is a tie between supreme retardation and total ignorance, I can't decide.
Quantum mechanics has been the simplest model for nearly a hundred years, just because you don't feel like taking the time to understand it doesn't mean it should be dismissed. To do so is a tie between supreme retardation and total ignorance, I can't decide.
QUOTE (magpies+Jul 11 2008, 09:59 PM)
A science no one understands is as good as a science nobody believes in... The point of science is to find answers to questions and explain thouse answers in as simple a term as possible. Science has become a cult religion in that respect it find answers to questions that almost nobody can understand... If scientists want to be believed by the general population right or wrong they need to have a simple model of how there things work other wise they just waisted time doing proffs for just themself and there selfishness.
I dont care if quantum mechanics is real or not IF I cant ever understand it.
So if you want me to care about quantum mechanics and get me to donate dollars to your research then you better get me to care lol. There should be a rule no idiots allowed here. And anyone who thinks there an idiot to the point of not joining would just walk away lol problem fixed no more true idiots anywhere but nowhere!
There should care actualy science comunity, because my theory is logical and simple unlike bullshit of current quantum theory. So if my theory is true and seems, that it is, then sciencists just waisting time on quantum computer and more they should care about entanglement to debunk my theory. But if they can't debunk my theory about entanglement (that it don't exist...) 80 years, then why at all need to try it debunk? It's like searching cranks/quarks, but if after few decades you can't find them, then they just don't exist...
Currnet official model is not simple and my model is match simpler and don't have any mysteries, except maybe, that our universe flying at some 0.999999999c speed...
I dont care if quantum mechanics is real or not IF I cant ever understand it.
So if you want me to care about quantum mechanics and get me to donate dollars to your research then you better get me to care lol. There should be a rule no idiots allowed here. And anyone who thinks there an idiot to the point of not joining would just walk away lol problem fixed no more true idiots anywhere but nowhere!
There should care actualy science comunity, because my theory is logical and simple unlike bullshit of current quantum theory. So if my theory is true and seems, that it is, then sciencists just waisting time on quantum computer and more they should care about entanglement to debunk my theory. But if they can't debunk my theory about entanglement (that it don't exist...) 80 years, then why at all need to try it debunk? It's like searching cranks/quarks, but if after few decades you can't find them, then they just don't exist...
Currnet official model is not simple and my model is match simpler and don't have any mysteries, except maybe, that our universe flying at some 0.999999999c speed...
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 11 2008, 10:52 PM)
Are you serious? You don't take the time to understand something so you're just going to say fu*k it? Such a positive and upward view of things. Instead of sitting there bitching you could be doing some armchair research and learning the basic concepts behind quantum mechanics. I hope you don't have children to pass that line of thinking along to, that would be depressing. Telling them from a young age that if they don't understand something they shouldn't care. Know that computer you're using? All those cool pictures from outer space? Those airplanes that fly around? I bet you don't know how THOSE work either, but you're not bitching about that. You're just caught up in the myth that theoretical physicists are just sitting around throwing darts at a board filled with jargon and using it to come up with theories. They're not. They're starting with fundamental equations and experimental data, and working out mathematical models that accurately reflect the data and predict future experimental results.
Quantum mechanics has been the simplest model for nearly a hundred years, just because you don't feel like taking the time to understand it doesn't mean it should be dismissed. To do so is a tie between supreme retardation and total ignorance, I can't decide.
For such idiot like you I have special one version of theory... How working entanglement and Bell eraser? Well, we flying with speed 0.9999999999c, then waves going to two slits, then interferencing, then this they data propogating through waves in oposit direction chaning it polarization, then those waves until time is freezed meating waves witch produced wrom crystal and then changing them polarization and all going with same polarization and interference. but you see, there also somthing wrong, interference, not very msut occure or maybe to cahnge only some waves accoridng to waves which bounce into detector? Okey, with relativity it's of course possible to solve entanglement, but this is not very unlikely. Relativity is actualy more about wavecolapse and not about entanglement. About entanglement I have separate theory, which says, that entanglement don't exist at all.
So, what is the most likely model of quantum mechanic according to me, now?
About entanglement: entanglement don't exist like I saying in thread about entanglement, that it is new law of waves polarization within crystal, when they are produced. Bell eraser is reflection from detector and detector radiation of weak waves. Wavefunction colapse don't exist and it is detector possiblity to registre some waves, if it can registrate such amplitude then it is "photon" if can't then it is not "phopton colapse". All atoms radiating electromagnetic waves with same speed not depending with how colse to c speed they moving. But for bigger c speed objects need more waves and bigger amplitude to registrate them and detect and so on.
Quantum mechanics has been the simplest model for nearly a hundred years, just because you don't feel like taking the time to understand it doesn't mean it should be dismissed. To do so is a tie between supreme retardation and total ignorance, I can't decide.
For such idiot like you I have special one version of theory... How working entanglement and Bell eraser? Well, we flying with speed 0.9999999999c, then waves going to two slits, then interferencing, then this they data propogating through waves in oposit direction chaning it polarization, then those waves until time is freezed meating waves witch produced wrom crystal and then changing them polarization and all going with same polarization and interference. but you see, there also somthing wrong, interference, not very msut occure or maybe to cahnge only some waves accoridng to waves which bounce into detector? Okey, with relativity it's of course possible to solve entanglement, but this is not very unlikely. Relativity is actualy more about wavecolapse and not about entanglement. About entanglement I have separate theory, which says, that entanglement don't exist at all.
So, what is the most likely model of quantum mechanic according to me, now?
About entanglement: entanglement don't exist like I saying in thread about entanglement, that it is new law of waves polarization within crystal, when they are produced. Bell eraser is reflection from detector and detector radiation of weak waves. Wavefunction colapse don't exist and it is detector possiblity to registre some waves, if it can registrate such amplitude then it is "photon" if can't then it is not "phopton colapse". All atoms radiating electromagnetic waves with same speed not depending with how colse to c speed they moving. But for bigger c speed objects need more waves and bigger amplitude to registrate them and detect and so on.
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 11 2008, 10:52 PM)
is a tie between supreme retardation and total ignorance, I can't decide.
Supreme retardation is much more pronounced with DavidDestroyedbrain.
Supreme retardation is much more pronounced with DavidDestroyedbrain.
.... probably pronounced "soopreem reetardasion"
I don't know hot it can be so hard to understand, that wave or say "photon" have not the polarization of all angles at same time and thus two (entangled) photons have the 50% probability to go or not to go through polarizers adn thus mathc probability should be 50% average, but in my theory entangled photons have only one some certain polarization and both the same and thus average probability to match is not 0.5, but 0.6591549423395163 and according to current (oficial) theory match average proabbility is 0.818309759891477 from 0 to 45 degrees. hidden variables probably have average match probability some ~0.6 and thus my theory have bigger match probability than hidden variables and it so nicely matching with experiments
I think, that Bell quantum eraser can be at all only theoretical thing and nobody actualy make such experiemtn in working sense and here one more link http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/ .
But Some explanations in over case I can give. When there no polarizer for detecotr A (without two slits), then photons have bigger amplitude and double slit reflected fringers are overheaded by this stronger amplitude and when polarizer puted onto Detector A then from detector B reflected light going through double slits and creating interference patter in detector A, because now is twice weaker amplitude of photons, which going to detector A, but amplitude from Detector B radited photons interference is the same and thus then more chance to see interference pattern on detctor A and also this amplitude for detector A photons is important, because it increasing amplitude of reflected "fingers". But I need to see real experiment paper instead some pseudotheory...
But like I say, there no any theoretical limits for explaining Bell eraser and also maybe it even possible to show, that this my theory is right by don't spliting light and don't sending it to Detector A, but only do it when it reflected and send it not in circular phorm, but in linear... Everything is very simple, there even don't need to reflect from BBO crystal, becasue there seems, that there is beam spliter, which will do his work and then 25% interference in detector A theoreticaly no problem to see.
At all this entanglement is so ridiculouse, becaus
But Some explanations in over case I can give. When there no polarizer for detecotr A (without two slits), then photons have bigger amplitude and double slit reflected fringers are overheaded by this stronger amplitude and when polarizer puted onto Detector A then from detector B reflected light going through double slits and creating interference patter in detector A, because now is twice weaker amplitude of photons, which going to detector A, but amplitude from Detector B radited photons interference is the same and thus then more chance to see interference pattern on detctor A and also this amplitude for detector A photons is important, because it increasing amplitude of reflected "fingers". But I need to see real experiment paper instead some pseudotheory...
But like I say, there no any theoretical limits for explaining Bell eraser and also maybe it even possible to show, that this my theory is right by don't spliting light and don't sending it to Detector A, but only do it when it reflected and send it not in circular phorm, but in linear... Everything is very simple, there even don't need to reflect from BBO crystal, becasue there seems, that there is beam spliter, which will do his work and then 25% interference in detector A theoreticaly no problem to see.
At all this entanglement is so ridiculouse, becaus