Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

New Quantum Theory Discovered "GODDESS WAVE" could prove existance of GOD/GODDESS/ONE

page: 8
26
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   

There's no chance, even with technology way beyond what we currently have, to catch a photon "half way out" of an emitter.


This is where the debate is from physicsforum. They admit it is possible now.
They just need tech that is way,way past what we have now.

Seeing our tech is advancing exponetially it should not be long until it is possible to
do by their own admission.

We only designed the experiment a few weeks ago so I think this
judgement a little hasty. I havn't even given much thought to how to do the experiment yet.
So there is no way I'd say it was impossible to do now until people had thought
about it for a bit, then still had no answer.

This discussion is a matter of how, not if.

If anyone would like to help, any ideas for moving a light source at high speed?




posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Now i have to say something to this as well:

PLEASE read the replies on the physic forum, since they point out some significant thinking mistakes you made.

A)
"
You are under a misconception that a photon is made of a wave packet. This is not true. The wave function describes the photon according to our own rules and math. It allows us to make predictions about photons, such as what the probability of a photon hitting a detector at a specific location is. The wave function, or wave packet, is not "something". It is a mathematical concept.
"

You are making the classic mistake to assume that something "is" because that's how physics describes it. (Similar as if some people assume that an Atom is a nucleus where an electron is "rotating around")

However, modern physics, quantum physics and in particular Heisenberg has shown that it's not that easy. There is no "location" of an electron which is rotating around a nucleus etc...IT'S A MODEL

With your thought it's the same, "wave packet" etc. as the guy above said "is not something" to observe since it's a concept to describe something, nothing more.

You assume in your theory that a photon is going from the "emitter" wherever it's going, so you move the emitter hoping to catch the photon midway "before" it's arriving at the target - but this is also a big misconception, as the guys pointed out....a photon can not be "50%" out of the device...it's emitted or NOT emitted....and i bet that also Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle will be trolling you big time if you hope somehow to catch an photon "at some location" (eg 50% out of the device)....since principles such as "distance" etc. become meaningless in quantum physics.

Heisenberg states (and it has been proven) a "position" and momentum of a partcle can not be known at the same time. In other words: You will have a heck of the time with your experiment. The experiment is BOUND to not give a valid result this is why no one has done it already.

Your cardinal mistake is to use common "layman" concepts of classical mechanics such as "position," "speed" of a particle/photon etc....but you cannot use concepts of classical mechanics and work with them in quantum and particle physics.

Short: You cannot "measure" the position of a photon!
edit on 13-10-2012 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   


Sure, there are some details about the nature of light and subatomic particles in general that we cannot describe in any situation, including your image experiments


Do you even look at what you write? You are a walking, breathing, living contradiction. Congratulations.



Nothing about your proposed experiemnt could tell us anything more than we already know


You are so funny



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by flexy123
 


How is it that people measure length of wavepackets then?

How can you measure something that does not exist?



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
Knowing about God, is not knowing God personally. Anyone can read the bible if they want to know about God. That doesn't mean they know him personally or are saved.


Saved from what? How do you know an entity personally that, from a scientific perspective, does not exist? Where is the proof? Talking burning bushes? Men walking the Earth one minute, and the next they are "floating" up into space? Where did they go? One man with a cool wooden staff parting a huge body of water?

We can't prove these stories because quite conveniently they happened so long ago there is no way to investigate these claims. We can prove, however, that the Bible was written by a group of men trying to make sense of a senseless world.

We can prove that when it comes to the New Testament, there were SEVERAL other "Gospels" that the early church rejected because they didn't fit into their neat little story. These are the Agnostic Gospels. Again, man held complete sway over the creation of, and EDITING of, the Bible. Supposedly the word of God. Yet, all proof points to it being the word of man. Stories - passed down at least multiple generations before pen hit paper. Ever play Telephone? And that's real time in the same room. Nuff said.

No proof of the Divine. None. No proof that one being is keeping track of 8 billion individuals, and can hold "conversations" with this many people simultaneously. Ask yourself when you came to believe in your God. Was it recently? Was it after being exposed to all possibilities and choosing the one that you KNEW was the Truth?

No. Religion is indoctrinated into the majority of believers at a very early age. It's genetic lottery whether you are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. In cases where Mom and Dad are from different faiths, more than likely your faith is chosen for you before you can even speak. This is what has allowed organized religion to thrive for as long as it has. But as you can see, people are starting to wake up. Spirituality is one thing, organized religion quite another. When I look at Rome, the wealth, the opulence - it's quite sickening actually. Especially given the teachings of Christ. If you took half of the gold and cash out of the vatican, how many people could you feed?

And again, I ask - how does a mathematical equation, or scientific theory, come close to proving the existance of God? Again I say - 1+1=2 doesn't prove anything other than - 1+1=2......
edit on 13-10-2012 by flashtrum because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by primalfractal


Sure, there are some details about the nature of light and subatomic particles in general that we cannot describe in any situation, including your image experiments


Do you even look at what you write? You are a walking, breathing, living contradiction. Congratulations.



Nothing about your proposed experiemnt could tell us anything more than we already know


You are so funny


What a GEM dude. Cognative dissonance anyone? Brain FART?



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by flashtrum
 


Bohms theory shows the universe is self reflecting or aware. If his theory is proved
the universe can be shown to be aware mathematically. Call it what you will.
edit on 13-10-2012 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   


Nothing about your proposed experiemnt could tell us anything more than we already know


How about "curving light wave paths" from fractional quantum hall effect in photons.

New info because fractional quantum hall effect like this is only seen in anyons.


Originally posted by tgidkp
i think i found the answer to the proposed experiment suggested by arbitrageur. by using a smaller probe (shorter time interval) for measurement, you will introduce virtual particle interactions.

i think this could be legitimately described as "curving" the vector potential. but the REAL particles will only be manifest at their known energy quanta.

Running Coupling Constant

reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


by "either of its basis states", i am referring to the collapse of the wavefunction to ket1 or ket0. in the case of a laser, ket0 is filtered out which leads to the coherent phase. so, at the NEW trajectory, it will collapse either of its basis. no matter how quickly you move the laser, you will never change the angle (change the frequency) of the photon.

but, as i mentioned above, "either" can turn into a menagerie of intermediate states depending on the length of the probe.
edit on 27-9-2012 by tgidkp because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by flexy123
Now i have to say something to this as well:

PLEASE read the replies on the physic forum, since they point out some significant thinking mistakes you made.

A)
"
You are under a misconception that a photon is made of a wave packet. This is not true. The wave function describes the photon according to our own rules and math. It allows us to make predictions about photons, such as what the probability of a photon hitting a detector at a specific location is. The wave function, or wave packet, is not "something". It is a mathematical concept.
"

You are making the classic mistake to assume that something "is" because that's how physics describes it. (Similar as if some people assume that an Atom is a nucleus where an electron is "rotating around")

However, modern physics, quantum physics and in particular Heisenberg has shown that it's not that easy. There is no "location" of an electron which is rotating around a nucleus etc...IT'S A MODEL

With your thought it's the same, "wave packet" etc. as the guy above said "is not something" to observe since it's a concept to describe something, nothing more.

You assume in your theory that a photon is going from the "emitter" wherever it's going, so you move the emitter hoping to catch the photon midway "before" it's arriving at the target - but this is also a big misconception, as the guys pointed out....a photon can not be "50%" out of the device...it's emitted or NOT emitted....and i bet that also Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle will be trolling you big time if you hope somehow to catch an photon "at some location" (eg 50% out of the device)....since principles such as "distance" etc. become meaningless in quantum physics.

Heisenberg states (and it has been proven) a "position" and momentum of a partcle can not be known at the same time. In other words: You will have a heck of the time with your experiment. The experiment is BOUND to not give a valid result this is why no one has done it already.

Your cardinal mistake is to use common "layman" concepts of classical mechanics such as "position," "speed" of a particle/photon etc....but you cannot use concepts of classical mechanics and work with them in quantum and particle physics.

Short: You cannot "measure" the position of a photon!
edit on 13-10-2012 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)


Novel attempt. Hes heard it all before from me and others.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   
To assure ourselves of the existence of God, we have only to look abroad on the works of creation. The universe exists, therefore it has a cause. To doubt the existence of God is to doubt that every effect has a cause, and to assume that something can have been made by nothing.

Can man comprehend the essential nature of God?

"No; he lacks the sense required for comprehending it."

Is God a being distinct from the universe, or is He, according to the opinion of some, the result of all the forces and intelligences of the universe?

"If the latter were the case, God would not be God, for He would be effect and not cause; He cannot be both cause and effect."

"God exists. You cannot doubt His existence, and that is one essential point. Do not seek to go beyond it; do not lose yourselves in a labyrinth which, for you, is without an issue. Such inquiries would not make you better; they would rather tend to add to your pride, by causing you to imagine that you knew something, while, in reality, you would know nothing. Put aside systems. You have things enough to think about that concern you much more nearly, beginning with yourselves. Study your own imperfections, that you may get rid of them; this will be far more useful to you than the vain attempt to penetrate the impenetrable."

www.allankardec.ca...

Nice theory tho. God is the infinite math the regulates controls and creates all things. Its not what you think it is.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Dear Micpsi,

1. No, sir. My statement was indeed a declaration of fact. It has proven of the course of 250,000 years of human existence.
2. The only issue I'm evading is making a decision on no hard evidence.
3. Wrong. There would be plenty that would constitute evidence for God. For instance, he could show himself. That would be a start. But you certainly are cynical. Lighten up.
4. Your link seems to be broken. It took me to a site from someone who seems to use clairvoyance-based ideology to study the universe. Hardly an unbiased mathematical approach. Sir, if the secrets to the universe are only known to those who can exercise paranormal abilities why not give the sciences back to the church?



In conclusion, what I said in the post you quoted is reasonable and equitable based on the known evidence. They are statements that even many Christians wouldn't argue. The are agnostic and they are based in known reality.
edit on 14-10-2012 by Philodemus because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-10-2012 by Philodemus because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-10-2012 by Philodemus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by primalfractal

How about "curving light wave paths" from fractional quantum hall effect in photons.

New info because fractional quantum hall effect like this is only seen in anyons.


I had a good laugh at that one.

1. Do you even know what a regular hall effect is? The answer to that question is no obviously.
2. The FQHE is for 2 dimensional systems.
3. The entire point is that its a property of what particle physicsts call a collective state.
4. Infact experts in this particular field would call a phonon(what you would compare to what your referring to as an anyon but for bosons), not a quasiparticle or an anyon, but a "collective excitation".
5. Now you can use any sort of 2d grouping and run a magnetic field and a current through it and cause FQHE and yes quasiparticles. You dont use anyons, anyons are part of the quasiparticles that are produces in freespace(outside of the 2d solid/gas)

So like I said, if you actually knew what you were talking about this would not be an issue.
edit on 14-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by primalfractal


Sure, there are some details about the nature of light and subatomic particles in general that we cannot describe in any situation, including your image experiments


Do you even look at what you write? You are a walking, breathing, living contradiction. Congratulations.



Nothing about your proposed experiemnt could tell us anything more than we already know


You are so funny


This is a clear case of cognative dissonance - a mental problem.

UB has said two things in the one post that are mutually exclusive, they cancel each other out. They cant both be true but he thinks them both at the same time. Is this sane?

I would like to point out that such statements come from raving madmen, with no base in logic or reality. His mental fitness to continue this convo is questionable to say the least.

en.wikipedia.org...

Cognitive dissonance is the term used in modern psychology to describe the state of holding two or more conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously. In a state of dissonance, people may sometimes feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment.[1]



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Thanks man. I'm far from understanding everything and think I would be wrong if I ever did.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by primalfractal
.


Ignoring the facts huh?

Honestly, its been fun but your not gunna see reason, so Ill just let you speculate and cloud the minds of the less objective.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by primalfractal

How about "curving light wave paths" from fractional quantum hall effect in photons.

New info because fractional quantum hall effect like this is only seen in anyons.


I had a good laugh at that one.

1. Do you even know what a regular hall effect is? The answer to that question is no obviously.
2. The FQHE is for 2 dimensional systems.
3. The entire point is that its a property of what particle physicsts call a collective state.
4. Infact experts in this particular field would call a phonon(what you would compare to what your referring to as an anyon but for bosons), not a quasiparticle or an anyon, but a "collective excitation".
5. Now you can use any sort of 2d grouping and run a magnetic field and a current through it and cause FQHE and yes quasiparticles. You dont use anyons, anyons are part of the quasiparticles that are produces in freespace(outside of the 2d solid/gas)

So like I said, if you actually knew what you were talking about this would not be an issue.
edit on 14-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   


Sure, there are some details about the nature of light and subatomic particles in general that we cannot describe in any situation, including your image experiments


One of your two disconnected brains agrees with me and keeps speaking to me. No matter what "you" do. That's why I love you, thanks bro. Keep up the fight and you'll get there



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by primalfractal
 


You're the one who promised us a mathematical equation that we would be free to pick apart for anything meaningful, then you just post a picture and say, "What? There's no math involved! Just figure it out from the picture LOL!"

Is it any wonder no one is taking you seriously? I'm ashamed that I even considered getting my hopes up for this crap. When you say you have something, you better have it or you lose all credibility in the future. Now we can't trust any of your theories and discoveries!



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Does math prove theories or does it just model them?



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


It proves them by modeling them. When you have a model, you have something to work with. Unless you have something to work with, you can't prove OR disprove it. So since a model is required for verification, your question is answered.

Regardless, OP promised a mathematical equation. If you look at the OP, the words, "I CAN MATHEMATICALLY PROVE THE DIVINE NOW" says that he/she has an equation, even as I type this, for proving the existence of divinity.

So where is the equation? I don't see one. Do you? Or was OP blowing smoke up our dresses? As far as I can tell, Op hasn't delivered anything except a picture that has limited explanation and no data. No numbers, no diagrams, nothing.

OP has essentially said, "I can prove this!" and plopped a picture in front of us and said, "Figure it our yourselves!"

I don't play that kind of game. When I'm promised a clear-cut explanation, I'm not looking to solve another person's theories for myself. That's cheap, and that's unsavory. Either deliver what you promise, or go home. That's what I'm saying.
edit on 14-10-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)





new topics




 
26
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join