It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The fact that you can reliably predict a result does not mean that you understand the fundamental principles behind it.
I don't know if you read the thread and I realize it's kind of long....but we covered this back on page 19:
originally posted by: Galileo400
There it was, a single “Particle” moving through a double slit and interfering with itself! The “Particle” creating the “Wave” and the “Wave” guiding the “Particle”...
If this is true it would mean that Superposition, a most fundamental tenet of QM, is wrong! How hard would this be for the physics community to accept? What do you think? Could Superposition be wrong?
If you watch the video in the OP, this is one of the options in the survey, but it wasn't too popular. Apparently there are some historical reasons for this quoted below.
originally posted by: mbkennel
In the Bohm-deBroglie interpretation of QM there is a joint particle and wave simultaneously propagating.
It's an interesting idea, which I wouldn't rule out, but it does seem a little more complicated. This doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, but you know Occam's razor, right? (see section 4.7 of the link).
The de Broglie–Bohm theory is an example of a hidden variables theory. Bohm originally hoped that hidden variables could provide a local, causal, objective description that would resolve or eliminate many of the paradoxes of quantum mechanics, such as Schrödinger's cat, the measurement problem and the collapse of the wavefunction. However, Bell's theorem complicates this hope, as it demonstrates that there can be no local hidden variable theory that is compatible with the predictions of quantum mechanics. The Bohmian interpretation is causal but not local.
Bohm's paper was largely ignored or panned by other physicists. Albert Einstein, who had suggested that Bohm search for a realist alternative to the prevailing Copenhagen approach, did not consider Bohm's interpretation to be a satisfactory answer to the quantum nonlocality question, calling it "too cheap",[62] while Werner Heisenberg considered it a "superfluous 'ideological superstructure' ".[63] Wolfgang Pauli, who had been unconvinced by de Broglie in 1927, conceded to Bohm as follows:
I just received your long letter of 20th November, and I also have studied more thoroughly the details of your paper. I do not see any longer the possibility of any logical contradiction as long as your results agree completely with those of the usual wave mechanics and as long as no means is given to measure the values of your hidden parameters both in the measuring apparatus and in the observe [sic] system. As far as the whole matter stands now, your ‘extra wave-mechanical predictions’ are still a check, which cannot be cashed.[64]
He subsequently described Bohm's theory as "artificial metaphysics".[65]
According to physicist Max Dresden, when Bohm's theory was presented at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, many of the objections were ad hominem, focusing on Bohm's sympathy with communists as exemplified by his refusal to give testimony to the House Un-American Activities Committee.
Implying you don't? The only people who know what's in the current secret projects can't talk about any specifics, but it stands to reason that many of the secret patents are related to nuclear device technology.
Like I said, we already have seen declassified projects from decades ago. They do represent some advanced engineering technology, but I can't think of any that represent advanced physics, can you?
According to one aviation expert, Bill Scott, the basic technology involved in such craft may precede airplanes, that is, assuming they aren't alien. I posted his explanation in the second video here which played for me when I posted it but now it's saying it's not available in my country. But if you're curious I'm sure you can find that episode from another source if it won't play in your country either. There is a patent involved, but it's advanced engineering, and some really mundane physics. I discuss that in the same thread in another post here. See the link called "Has the world’s best-documented “UFO” phenomenon just been a close encounter of the military kind?". The military version, if it exists, which I suspect it does, is still classified, but here is a non-military version of similar technology and if you recognize it, the physics of how it's able to hover silently is pretty mundane:
originally posted by: combatmaster
You see... this is the thing.
I have read some very recent threads lately on ATS that made me go hmmmmm. threads regarding UFO's in the form of big black triangles.
Someone said flying pink elephants exist, and since they offered the same amount of evidence for that claim as you do for yours, I'll just put them both in the same, circular file until I see some evidence of either one.
originally posted by: Nochzwei
Yes advanced and completely new physics does exist
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
How can a blind person see visible evidence of a ufo or any advanced physics
originally posted by: combatmaster
You see... this is the thing.
Someone said flying pink elephants exist, and since they offered the same amount of evidence for that claim as you do for yours, I'll just put them both in the same, circular file until I see some evidence of either one.
originally posted by: Nochzwei
Yes advanced and completely new physics does exist
I have nothing against Carl Sagan's and others' speculation that alien intelligences are likely to exist, and some may have way more advanced knowledge of physics than ours, but that's entirely speculative, so I'm talking about human knowledge of physics here.
originally posted by: Galileo400
As you can see in this video, it is possible that a critical error in QM is the question: “Particle or Wave” when it may actually be “Particle and Wave”. If this is true it would mean that Superposition, a most fundamental tenet of QM, is wrong! How hard would this be for the physics community to accept? What do you think? Could Superposition be wrong?
Someone said flying pink elephants exist, and since they offered the same amount of evidence for that claim as you do for yours, I'll just put them both in the same, circular file until I see some evidence of either one.
originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: GetHyped
OMG... r u really using that as an argument?
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I don't know if you read the thread and I realize it's kind of long....but we covered this back on page 19:
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
So the only thing not covered [in] that video you posted and that is somewhat like deBroglie-Bohm in that the particle only goes though one slit, and there's a wave associated with the particle that goes through the other slit.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
It's an interesting idea, which I wouldn't rule out, but it does seem a little more complicated. This doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, but you know Occam's razor, right? (see section 4.7 of the link).
I don't consider Occam's razor to be sufficient reason to reject the idea, nor do I see strong reasons in physics experiments to reject it, so, as I said in that discussion, I see it as one possibility, but it's apparently not a popular idea. What's needed is some experimental way to distinguish the different interpretations to figure out which one is right. There's probably a Nobel prize awaiting whoever figures out how to do that.
It seems to me that, as far as the op is concerned, giant black triangles , ufos/ and or advanced physics ought not to be discussed
originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Someone said flying pink elephants exist, and since they offered the same amount of evidence for that claim as you do for yours, I'll just put them both in the same, circular file until I see some evidence of either one.
Wow... talk about ignorance.
You say you want evidence, yet in your entire post you failed to ask me which thread i refer to.... this shows that you have already made your mind up.
If you cannot put 2 and 2 together then i cannot help you. nobody can!
As for pink elephants, that pic of a silver balloon and your chinese lantern escapism.... if that is your argument, you really are lacking in homework. For someone as knowledgable as you it is very scary that you use these amateur arguments to discredit what is pretty much fact. Giant black triangles exist mate!
So, are you saying it's not possible to make that big silver lighter than air ship in the shape of a black triangle? As I said that's the commercial version, not the military version. If the military version exists, most of the witnesses in that thread I linked to described it as triangular in shape (though one said rectangular).
originally posted by: combatmaster
As for pink elephants, that pic of a silver balloon and your chinese lantern escapism.... if that is your argument, you really are lacking in homework. For someone as knowledgable as you it is very scary that you use these amateur arguments to discredit what is pretty much fact. Giant black triangles exist mate!
It's very similar.
originally posted by: GetHyped
It's exactly the same argument you're using (i.e. appeal to popularity fallacy + no evidence).
It's a hair different in that some people are really seeing things in the sky they don't understand, so in most cases it's not an hallucination.
originally posted by: combatmaster
UFO's are not quite in the same scope. It is really a sad argument!
Sort of, though I'd say perhaps 97% of it went through the same slit as the particle, and the other 3% went through the other slit, which wouldn't explain QM observations, though of course the scientist admits it's not exactly like the quantum world. The point I was trying to make is that in Debroglie-Bohm, the particle actually does go through one slit and not through the other, and you still get an interference pattern as if it's interfering with itself.
originally posted by: Galileo400
thought that the video did show the wave going through both slits, which is how the particle interferes with itself without the need for superposition. Am I seeing that right?
9/11 can be discussed on ATS in the 9/11 forum, and UFOs can be discussed in the UFO forum. This topic is already extremely broad covering all of physics.
originally posted by: Nochzwei
It seems to me that, as far as the op is concerned, giant black triangles , ufos/ and or advanced physics ought not to be discussed
originally posted by: Galileo400
As you can see in this video, it is possible that a critical error in QM is the question: “Particle or Wave” when it may actually be “Particle and Wave”. If this is true it would mean that Superposition, a most fundamental tenet of QM, is wrong! How hard would this be for the physics community to accept? What do you think?
Could Superposition be wrong?
originally posted by: KrzYma
simply said I see it this way.
EM radiation is a wave.
Any mass is a particle, like electron, proton, neutron.
moving charge is an particle creating a wave in Em field.
photon is not a reel particle but mathematical description of the energy carried by EM wave.
there are two types of waves in EM field.