Something IBM made with some very flat, very clean, very cold copper and a few hundred carbon monoxide molecules.
Physicist: Actual pictures of atoms aren’t actually pictures at all.
There are a few good rules of thumb in physics. Among the best is: light acts like you’d expect on scales well above its wavelength and acts weird on scales below. In order to take a picture of a thing you need light to bounce off of it in a reasonable way and travel in straight lines (basically: behave like you’d expect). But the wavelength of visible light is about half a micrometer (a two-millionth of a meter) and atoms are around one ångström (a ten-billionth of a meter) across. On the scale of atoms, visible light acts too wonky to be used for photographs.
Atoms are literally too small to see.
(Left) A photograph of a 3 ball. (Right) What we have in lieu of a photograph of an atom.
You could try using light with a shorter wavelength, but there are issues with that as well. When light has a wavelength much shorter than an atom is wide, it takes the form of gamma rays and each photon packs enough energy to send atoms flying and/or strip them of their electrons (it is this characteristic that makes gamma rays dangerous). Using light to image atoms is like trying to get a good look at a bird’s nest by bouncing cannonballs off it.
There are “cheats” that allow us to use light to see the tiny. When the scales are so small that light behaves more like a wave than a particle, then we just use its wave properties (what else can you do?). If you get a heck of a lot of identical copies of a thing and arrange them into some kind of repeating structure, then the structure as a whole will have a very particular way of interacting with waves. Carefully prepared light waves that pass through these regular structures create predictable interference patterns that can be projected onto a screen. Using this technique we learned a lot about DNA and crystals and all kinds of stuff. This is the closest thing to a photograph of an atom that is possible using light and, it’s fair to say, it’s not really what anyone means by “photograph”. It’s less what-the-thing-looks-like and more blurry-rorschach-that-is-useful-to-scientists. Even worse, it’s not really a picture of actual individual atoms, it’s information about a repeating structure of atoms that happens to take the form of an image.
By passing light (left) or even electron streams (right) through a regular, crystalline structure we create an interference pattern that gives us information about the structure of the crystal (but never pictures of individual atoms). The picture on the left (left) is a pattern created by DNA (species unimportant). Notice how not obvious the helical structure is. The picture on the right is created by an electron beam passing through some simple mineral or salt.
These techniques are still in use today (are relatively cheap), but since 1981 we’ve also had access to the Scanning Tunneling Electron Microscope (STM). However, despite the images it creates, the STM isn’t taking a photograph either. The STM sees the world the way a blind person on the end of a tiny robotic arm sees the world.
The essential philosophy behind the Scanning Tunneling Electron Microscope is what allows this dude to know more about the bottom of this chili cauldron than you do.
The STM is basically a needle with a point that is a single atom (literally, it is the pointiest thing possible) which it uses to measure subtle electrical variations (such as a stray atom sitting on what was otherwise a very flat, clean surface). The “Tunneling Electron” bit of the name refers to the nature of the electrical interaction being used to detect the presence of atoms; when the tip is brought close to an atom electrons will quantum tunnel between them and the exchange of electrons is a detectable as a current. The “Scanning” bit of the name refers to how this is used to generate a picture: by scanning back and forth across a surface over and over until you’ve bumped every atom with your needle several times. The pictures so generated aren’t photographs, they’re maps of what the STM’s needle experienced as it was moved over the surface. The STM “sees” atoms using this needle in the same way you can “see” the bottom of a muddy river with a pokin’ stick.
An STM and some of the pictures it pokes into being.
This technology has been around for decades and, like the advent of the synth, has given rise to all manner of jackassery.
…
Good job, Physicist!
Now I know more about how these type “photos” are produced. Shoulda known… YouTube. What a wonderful era to live in!
Wes
…
Thank you for that. That was very succinct and fascinating.
Pingback: Q: What are “actual pictures” of atoms actually pictures of? | Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist - Geek Links
Thanks for the explanation, very detailed. I like the bird’s nest analogy 🙂
Is there any “picture evidence” for the quantum mechanical orbital concept?
Thank you for the explanation, I always wanted to know how electron microscopes works 😊
That was very lovely and easy to follow and made a lot of sense, and best of all your crack against synth music is hilarious, as well as the jackassery link.
Here is completely science fiction type of question. Might there be something that is small enough to bounce off of atoms in a meaningful way, like what about neutrinos, or super tiny sound waves, that could then also be detected by something that translates that into an image. Maybe this makes no sense, but I wonder if you took a big atom and surrounded it with a gas of the smallest atoms. or is there anything smaller than an atom we can gather together in once place? I don’t guess you can just have a jar full of quarks or whatever, right? atoms are like complex eco systems, if you pulled out some of the parts they all die, But anyway, the idea is with a gas of the smallest atoms, if you sent a pulse through them could you maybe make an image of your big atom that way with a sonar like effect, or ultrasound.??????
Where did you get the artsy painting of the atom? (The one next to the billiard ball photo.) Can I buy a print somewhere?
Physicist, this text only proves that the existence of atoms actually has never been proven at all, it means that atoms are just pure mathematical hypothesis!
So this means, nothing in quantum mechanics hypothesis is actually proven.
So, where does this leave us? Just making hypotheses without a shred of concrete evidence, since all those phenomenons are actually unprovable forever!
Quantum mechanic and theory of relativity remain unproven forever, ok, the problem with theory of relativity is the fact all those so-called evidences are also 100% falsely misinterpreted.
Peter von zur Muehlen asks about using a probe that is small enough to see atoms. The Physicist actually already answer this:
“You could try using light with a shorter wavelength, but there are issues with that as well. When light has a wavelength much shorter than an atom is wide, it takes the form of gamma rays and each photon packs enough energy to send atoms flying and/or strip them of their electrons (it is this characteristic that makes gamma rays dangerous). Using light to image atoms is like trying to get a good look at a bird’s nest by bouncing cannonballs off it.”
But I can elaborate a little to more directly answer your question. To see on the scale of atoms, you need to use something whose wavelength is somewhat smaller. The problem with this is that the smaller the wavelength, the more momentum the probe will have. And when you get small enough, the probe will have enough momentum to mess things up as described above. This principle holds true no matter what the particle. (The Physicist described only photons.)
This is an unavoidable consequence of quantum mechanics.
“Jefferson” writes, claiming that there is no proof of the existence of atoms. He/she also says that quantum mechanics and relativity will always be unproven. This is simply not true. When you look at all the evidence you will find that they have been proven. All (or at least the vast majority) of the consequences of relativity and of QM have been seen in experiments and observations of the cosmos. Also, most of our modern technology would not work if these theories, and the existence of atoms, weren’t true. They’re certainly right enough for that!
Betaneptune; you are 100% wrong, the fact is that you can never actually observe and therefore prove what is truly going on quantum levels-never, you can only make hypotheses, an indian true story who have never been aware of elephant’s existence 100% proves my arguments, the first blind man thought that elephant’s trunk was a snake, the second blind man thought that elephant’s ear was very rough leaf and the third blind man touched elephant’s leg-blind man thought it was hollow pipe-that’s is my point-in quantum mechanics scientists are equally blind-they do not know what was actually proven in experiments, because they cannot directly observe anything at all, they only have math and somehow all these experiments “prove” that the math is right, but they are merely unprovable hypotheses since the only thing they can do in experiments is to hear sounds and detect energy, but they cannot ever say if any of those hypotheses is true.
About relativity, yes part of relativity is truly proven but most of the relativity is unproven, actually the evidences are misinterpreted-for example space does not bend, only the trajectories of galaxies, stars and planets bend-but space does not bend at all, what really bends are their trajctories, it’s like you move 2 glasses and you say that spac between them expands of contraacts-which is absolutely 100% wrong because it is misunderstood, because of the fact the space between 2 cosmic objects is static and unchangeable and the only thing that changes and moves are those 2 glasses, also this entire universe is actually electromagnetic and gravitational it is made of all forms and all types of energy-light , so yes even on quantum level this universe is made of energy fields and matter, basically the entire universe is one huge electromagnetic/light field.
Uses in technology-like I explained and 100% proved above, none can actually prove since both parts of relativity and entire quantum mechanics are totally unprovable, the fact is there have always been and always be uses in technology regardless if an hypothesis is false, in the case of relativity and quantum mechanics is 100% wrong because of the fact we can never perceive the entire reality, the only thing you have is math but it is also 100% wrong since we can barely see/observe a scratch when it comes to objective reality, and than they say they have proven atoms, molecules, subatomic particles, it all works well in models, and models can help a lot in finding cures, therapies for diseases plus uses in technology, but that’s the biggest problem-it’s only use is for finding technologies and not for giving correct explanations on what exactly has been proven in experiments, and in computer and mathematical models, again because of the fact you can only see/observe the tiniest scratch of objective reality, the fact is that all the explanations and interpretations of computer and mathematical models are wrong, since the explanation is correct only for the that part of reality that we can observe, but like in a true indian story that I posted above when blind man touched elephant’s ear he thought that it was a leaf-the same thing is repeated when you cannot observe anything but you simply say that is is molecule, particle or whatever the math shows, but it is wrong the same as blind man is wrong when he says that he touched leaf and actually it was elephant’s ear and that’s because blind people can never actually observe elephant, the same as scientists who are also blind and 100% wrong when it comes to the size of the universe and quantum mechanics say they have observed particles, expansions, molecules atoms, subatomic particles and etc.-they say the same thing as the blind man says when he touched elephant’s ear and thought it was a leaf-the same equally blind scientists claim the same about everything they are doing experiments with.
What really is proven it is proven mathematically, and nothing more in experiments you can never prove anything, since we can barely scratch the surface of the objective reality when it comes to perception and that’s why everything is 100% wrong when it comes to explanation since scientists can only observe a very, very tiny piece of objective reality, and because of these facts you can never see the entire objective reality, and if you can never see/observe the entire objective reality all the hypotheses that we have are 100% wrong-facts.
Strong! Now just what the heck they talking about when they claim to have captured image of an electron or photon in near absolute zero conditions?
If these are atoms, what are the atoms on? And why don’t we see the atoms of that thing as well? Similarly, there are images of a pointer-type object used for moving atoms around. Is the pointer object not made of atoms? Thanks.
That is so weird that a person says atoms cannot be proven, let alone protons and neutrons and electrons and quarks. Yet people win Nobel prizes, like Gell-Mann for theorizing quarks.
And physicists write books and draw pictures of atoms, yet they cannot be seen?
From the book “The Quantum World” written by the physicist Ford, I found these words: ‘magically bursting forth are quarks spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light, forming what are called protons and neutrons.’
So if atoms have not been seen, how can any picture of them be drawn? I have seen a photograph of an atom that looks like spinning light. But this site says this is not possible. That means what I saw was a drawn picture, not a photograph. If this is true, I will never be able to buy a photograph of an atom. If I do buy a photograph, then it would be a theorized picture of an atom. Isn’t that good enough? Isn’t the core of existence full of waves of light? Or is that a theory? That would make the sun a theory.
I have also read the book “Hands of Light” written by the physicist Barbara Brennan. There are pictures in her book of what we look like out of these bodies. We are forms of light. Brennan sees through people and calls us holograms. We are not solid, nothing is. So we must be holograms and the universe is a holodeck.
I have felt all types of energy flow in to me and out of me when praying for others. My mind is very open. I agree with Ford and Brennan that we are constantly being created. Energy is always pulsating and rotating as light, theory or not.
Since nothing is solid, then all is a theory.
Jefferson: When you say “observing is proof” [paraphrase], have you considered that, by your definition, your existence is not proven? I haven’t seen you! And, in fact, you haven’t seen me. So, maybe I don’t exist, either! In fact, you seem to have a lot of faith in the instrument of your eye. Yet, if you accept that all things are made of the same stuff, then, the proof of “stuff” relies on the same _stuff_ to prove it. Isn’t that kind of like a ruler trying to measure itself? Or a glass of water trying to drink [grok] itself?
But, aren’t our posts, here, evidence of our existence? No one can be sure of _what_ we are — in other words, our basic nature remains a mystery, but our affect, left here on this blog, is observable. And, certain properties can be collected, such as number of words used, and the cadence of our respective writing styles, and of course, the content of our posts. From such observations, we might make predictions as to the content of future posts.
And if observing is proof, then what of mirages, and other optical illusions? If observing is enough, then fire comes from phlogiston, and maggots spontaneously generate from dead flesh.
But, I agree. Nothing is truly proven. But, there is the evidence of application. These things are proven to within the scope of current application. Back in the day, Newton’s theories of gravitation and mechanics were good enough to get us to the Industrial age. Then we needed Einstein to get us to the next step. And, someday, someone else may come along and refine, or even fully debunk, our currently accepted science. So, maybe this is semantics. Maybe, when you say “proof”, you mean _absolute, undeniable proof_, and when _we_ say “proof”, we mean _proof to the point of successful application_.
But, I find it odd that you claim all these things are unproven, yet you have so much faith in your conviction that “space does not bend”. Maybe your position is that space curvature is not “proven”, but then, is it’s un-bendability proven?
To Steve Lawson and to Marc Watt; to add something, when I was posting about Scanning Tunneling microcopes and this sentence:
“Basically the only thing they have actually seen is basically computer image not the real image, and second, they observe electric field, not the particle itself-they do not observe particles themselves, they are able to observe only the field-however this alone does not prove anything but that that electric energy field exists and that’s about-no atoms, no photons, no electrons, no quarks. no nothing, so no particles do not exist-particles exist only inside mathematical abstractions and nothing more and nothing else-we don’t know what actually exists in the real world, except that they are energy fields-electric, magnetic and all other forms and all other kinds of energy fields.”
I forgot to add that what exactly is visualized with all these microscopes including STM, What is visualized is the charge density of the electric field.
Basically you observe vibrations-electric vibrations.
You haven’t seen an atom either. You’ve seen an image you assume to be an atom but it is simply an instrument’s representation of the atom. It is not the atom itself.
Those aren’t actual ATOMS… That is the representation of its effects (measurements).
Because these techniques aren’t actually “visual” like microscopes we work with in biology classes. Microscopes use lenses and light to help zoom and focus on small objects. Electron microscopes, on the other hand, use quantum scattering theory to construct the shape of small objects, then the data is transferred to a computer to create a model. The wavelengths of visible light ranges on the order of ~370nm to 750nm. These are all MUCH larger than many particles of interest (and way too large to view atoms, which are on the order of Angstroms–0.1nm). Scientists need to be creative to be able to “see” atoms.
The problem with what we think are atoms are exactly about the shorter wavelengths-sure shroter wavelengths hit something, but what is it?
You cannot know what it is because of the reasons I posted above-like the example I gave above:
(A great example is people who “discovered” lost cities under the sea. They saw regular patterns of lines on the seafloor in Google Earth and interpreted them as ancient roads or walls. But they were only seeing artifacts from ships that had sailed back and forth in straight lines collecting data. If they had looked both at those sonar scans and some other data for the same location, they would have only seen the lines on one image and been able to conclude that they were either an artifact of the sonar or below the level of sensitivity of the other instrument.
So, no, scanning tunneling microscopes and atomic force microscopes did not prove the existence of atoms.)
The same limitations of trying to know what it is what we observe (which is 100% impossible, we have with what you all consider the existence of atoms and electrons and photons and all other particles for that matter on atomic, subatomic and quantum levels and sub-quantum levels-facts.
Pure energy says,
That is so weird that a person says atoms cannot be proven, let alone protons and neutrons and electrons and quarks. Yet people win Nobel prizes, like Gell-Mann for theorizing quarks.
I remember the U.S president obama won the nobel prize for peace!
Andrew, because they are not proven at all there is not even indication of them and for them, there is only matheamtical fairy tale, and that’s about it; how can you all say that something is proven based on mere flash of light-which is how exactly those most powerful miocrscopes “see”-you don’t see the background behind that flash of light that is considered to be atom-again misinterpretations because mathematics says so, not because it actually is.
One day I was observing the backlash of light of car’s window, but I observed half a mile, so it was small-the same thing is what “scientists” can see when they are trying to observe-they also observe the backlashes of lights on such tiny levels, but unlike we know what are the flashes of lights here on macroworld because we observe and use cars and see how the windows behave when the sunlight hits, on atomic level we see none of it and we have zero experience and we cannot observe what causes and what is beyond that flash of light for what scientists say it’s atom, not it’s not atom, you call it atom because mathematis sas, not because you have every day experience and directly observing every single day on atromic level like you do all the time on macroscopic level.
Why don’t they simply say a flash of light because that’s the truth not atom, because you don’t observe any atom, since you cannot see beyond that flash of light and research its physical and chemical properties and their interactions like you can with ever day objects on macroscopic level, you need to shirnk down to atomic level to actually observe what is beyond that flash of light that scientists can observe, because that flash of light called atom is actually only an effect by interactions between microscopes, not the cause that creates interactions; and only part of the picture that we cannot see ever, just like because of the ddistant’ flash of light we cannot see the car, only the flash of light created by interactions between sun and the car’s window-facts. So, no atoms, just flashes of light, and that’s it, everything else is just fairy tale.
So we and everything else are flashes of light and fairy tales
Anonymous you really don’t get it, don’t you?
I’m talking about how much correct it can be to call those flashes of light that you observe with scanning tunneling microscopes and atomic force microscopes atoms in the first place??????
I’ts like a man on the mountain trying to figure it out the flash of light a mile down below, but you cannot see anything exactly because of that flash of light, because it’s so small.
Plus, there is no such thing as atoms as physicists describe it, there are only energy waves/energy fields light and that’s about on those tiny levels, everything else is just mumbo jumbo.
In order to actually know what you are observing everyone should shink down to atomic level and live there to gain some experience and learn what exactly is what, on our mcroscopic level we know exactly what is what, on atomic and subatomic and quantum sub-qauntum level we know nothing about since it is all completely invisible to us, we only observe detections of energy levels-and than math calculates it’s atoms, why would anyone sane believe that, because math says so?
Completely wrong, because mathematics doesn’t make it real direct observation and experience of that level is real, while math is only calculating fairy tales that always ends up completely wrong as always, it’s easy to manipulate people to say that math predicts this and that, while none of it is actually observable, not to mention dead wrong.
So what is in the bottom of the chilli
Jefferson, to understand what “proving” means in this context, then we first need to agree on what the aim and method of Science is. As you’d probably know, scientists first make a hypothesis or a “guess” from observations they make, then run tests to verify the accuracy of the hypothesis and modify it on the basis of the outcome of the experiment (i.e. if the “guess” agrees with experiment or not). These hypotheses serve as data to further investigate and make accurate predictions and explanations that either work or don’t work, and they are always checked by other scientists in different places to determine if there are errors. It goes without saying that scientific theories are NOT set in stone, they are not ABSOLUTE truths. They are the closest approximations we can make, though.
If we agree to that, then in the issue of whether atoms truly exist or not, all we can say is that there are observations that HEAVILY imply the existence of tiny particles that we call atoms. There are different experiments with different machines and instruments that lead all scientists to the same conclusion, and all evidence supports the existence of these particles. Is it an absolute truth, or in other words, is this claim made with absolute 100% certainty? No, it isn’t. But it’s the closest we can get with the information we have, and it certainly works with our model of reality. However, if you have a different model that explains all the observations made in the quantum realm, then surely everyone here would love to hear it. Perhaps you can even publish a peer-reviewed paper that explains the observations plus why our technology (which uses the current model of quantum mechanics) works so perfectly. Otherwise, all you are doing is mindless criticism.
“Jefferson, to understand what “proving” means in this context, then we first need to agree on what the aim and method of Science is. As you’d probably know, scientists first make a hypothesis or a “guess” from observations they make, then run tests to verify the accuracy of the hypothesis and modify it on the basis of the outcome of the experiment (i.e. if the “guess” agrees with experiment or not).”
And how come none of you understand what is so much wrong with this approach? Seriously?
You already predetermined what is going to prove based on mathematical equations not based on what it can be and cannot be observed in the first place-everything else is just mumbo jumbo without any real world back up.
You do realize that none of these hypotheses, if they cannot be observed, are doomed to fail in the first place?
You do realize that even what you can observe you all deliberately misinterpret to fit mathematical fairy tales-this happens all the time?????
Obviously not.
You do realize that even what you claim that you observe is not observation at all-since you observe only like some energy levels on the instrument tand than you calculate and than you claijm you have proven this and that? That is no science that is pseudoscience-since ysou already decided what is going to be proven and disproven in the first place.
“These hypotheses serve as data to further investigate and make accurate predictions and explanations that either work or don’t work, and they are always checked by other scientists in different places to determine if there are errors. It goes without saying that scientific theories are NOT set in stone, they are not ABSOLUTE truths. They are the closest approximations we can make, though.”
Let’s end this once and for all: what you talk about here has absolutely nothing to do with “predictions”-there are no predictions in anything, sicne youc annot observe anything what mathematics claims it has proven or that it fits with mathematical equations-what you do is pure predetermined conclusion of what you have actually proven, without actual real world interrpetationof what ic an be actually observed and you lost the ability to distinct what is correctly interrpreted and what is observed and what is not observed, you thanks to math and just to fit the math deliberately decided this is proven-because even though you cannot observe it-it is actually the way you say it or it is aproximately you say it is-because you have mathematically calculated it-not because it actually, because you simply adapted everything to math-math is the real enemy here, since it creates its own misinterrpetatons of what is and can be observed and what is not and cannot be observed-key differences that none of you realize because you are addicted too much to mathematics, and we know all know what addiction means-basically like religion, you lose objectivity and you lost the ability to distinct about what is proved and what is observed and how exactly correctly or incorrectly is misinterpreted.
No wonder everything when it comes to true science is stuck today, plus to mention you use math to create hypotheses that cannot be observed to prove and disprove,a s a tool since the science with observation has hit its upper limits long time ago, the only thing that helps you out is tehcnology-however even with technology today you cannot really know if any particle exists or not, because all theose so called pictures are not pictures of atoms at all since what you observer you cannot study it, so whatever you observe has nothing to do with the physical and chemical properties of an atom, since your technology cannot be used in testing and studying theese particles, so called “atoms”-whcich in the end are not atoms at all.
“If we agree to that, then in the issue of whether atoms truly exist or not, all we can say is that there are observations that HEAVILY imply the existence of tiny particles that we call atoms. There are different experiments with different machines and instruments that lead all scientists to the same conclusion, and all evidence supports the existence of these particles.”
No there are no observations that imply anything-how can observation of an solid object 10 billion times below 1 meter tell if it’s any atomn or not-you need to observe what it is, what are its propreties-both physical and chemical and it it behaves exactly how you assume to behave in the first place-do we have any of it-of course not?
plus never forget the fact that looking ath these tiny objects is like looking at the bottom of the sea with radar-you don’t know what you actually observe-until you go to to the bottom of mthe sea, in this case shrink down to that atomic level-to see what exactly are these solid objects and if they are solid at all, or this is just another optical illusion, based on our both biological and technological limitations!
“Is it an absolute truth, or in other words, is this claim made with absolute 100% certainty? No, it isn’t. But it’s the closest we can get with the information we have, and it certainly works with our model of reality. However, if you have a different model that explains all the observations made in the quantum realm, then surely everyone here would love to hear it. Perhaps you can even publish a peer-reviewed paper that explains the observations plus why our technology (which uses the current model of quantum mechanics) works so perfectly. Otherwise, all you are doing is mindless criticism.”
There is no point in creating model about something you can never truly know about since it is too small to observe and creating models about something that you will never know about is completely useless since it creates its own religion and pseudoscience-just like you “scientists” and your so called “science”-it’s simply useless to spend all that money from taxpayers-it’s basically stealing money and so can you “discover” anything what you want every time you have shortage in funding, you fund your own fantasies-because you say it is mathematically viable-which is the biggest manipulation of all time-nothing is viable if you cannot observe it and study it, while you observe, only when you can both observe and study it while yopu observe it-say you have discovered something-it needs time and it needs experience with that observation of what you are trying to study-while you directly observe it in the first place.
@Jefferson
If someone tells you something, is there any way to determine if what they’re saying is true or made up?
It can be unless you use math to play with facts and ignore them and than adapt to whatever mathematics calculates in your own mind.
What you said has nothing to do what you do for living every single day, you use mathematics to prove something, instead of using real world examples with real world facts-for example where in the world in any experiment has actually been observed that space is bending for example-there is no such thingjust because you observed the change of trajectories of gyroscopses around the earth, it means nothing when it comes to space it proves only that gravity of Earth affected the position gyrocopes-not the space itself, but according to math this is evidence that space bends and stretches from what fairy tale you have fallen people? Why do you misinteprret even all those things that you can actually observe to fit the mathematics in the first place and than use mathematics to prove the quantum physics and all other things and phenomenons that do simply not exist, because they are not observed, you observe some energy patterns and energy levels on your instruments and than you say this is it, without any actual observation in the first place; basically you observe those energy levels and measurements inside instruments like you were born as a baby and you observe something you have never seen before and than you say we have proven this and that-although you have never seen it before, and than you say we have math that proves it or disproves it-prove and disprove what if you cannot observe it in the first place?
Like I said what you can observe is still not enough because in order to answer your question you need to be able to study what youa re able to observe-and since we can so little of this universe even with all that high-tech this means nothing since everything we interpret it’s entirely wrong not because we are wrong, but because we cannot see the whole picture, only its infinitely tiny part of it-and greater the observation of that picture is the more aware we are how truly wrong we truly are.
So to answer youzr question:
If someone tells you something, is there any way to determine if what they’re saying is true or made up?
Yes, if follow the facts, not mathematical equations, but facts that are directly observable and interpret them the way they are observed, not the way mathematics and its equations makes them misinterpreted in the first place-since ignore that something is observable and the other thing is not observable-that’s a key difference between what it is actually proven and what is actually suggested inside math to be “proven”-and this is why math is not reliable actually it’s like the weapon of manipulation of whoever does it-experiments also are equally important in recreating conditions, again not what mathematics “predicts” and predetermines to be proven but what is actually and what can be actually in any experiment be directly observationally proven and tested-there is no such thing as science anymore.
Jefferson, scientists do not predetermine the answers. Ironically that’s what religious people do: they start with the conclusion (there is a God) and then try to look for evidence that supports their already predetermined conclusion. A scientific hypothesis is FIRSTLY based on the observations, and then making experiments that leads to the contradiction or support of said hypothesis. If the hypothesis is wrong, then it is fixed or corrected by following the evidence, wherever it goes, and arriving to the conclusion by that method.
Anyhow, I have three questions for you that address all your “arguments”, I hope you get the chance to answer them:
1) is 2+2=4 ?
2) If Science is mumbo jumbo and useless in your opinion, then how do you explain computers that use electricity and concepts discovered by Physicists, or Radios and TVs which are based on radiowaves that are explained by Physicists, or pretty much any technology that uses knowledge gained by Science and the scientific method?
3) If you only trust what your eyes see, then what about air? gravity? uv light? infrared light? radiowaves? magnetism? You can’t see them, but obviosuly they exist. How do you explain them if you can’t see them?
@Jefferson
Is math useful for anything? Can facts and observations be expressed using math?
“Jefferson, scientists do not predetermine the answers. Ironically that’s what religious people do: they start with the conclusion (there is a God) and then try to look for evidence that supports their already predetermined conclusion. A scientific hypothesis is FIRSTLY based on the observations, and then making experiments that leads to the contradiction or support of said hypothesis. If the hypothesis is wrong, then it is fixed or corrected by following the evidence, wherever it goes, and arriving to the conclusion by that method.”
Ok lets’ ge this straight once and for all-why do you lie to people all the time? Because you already prdetermined everything what you caluclated-than you say you measure and that your measurements prove this and that and than you also say say that observed it-no you didn’t observe any of it!!!!!!
Scientific hypothesis is firstly based on observation-but the problem is just because you are able to observe something that doesn’t mean that you know what you are observing in the first place!
Second, I haven’ seen any of the observations in physics that are actual observations-for example when you measure something how dare you tell that you observe something, the energy level of whatever you mathematically created in equations is already proven since the object of what you claim that exists because mathematical calculations based on measurements is already proven in your minds-why would you need math to create predetermined conclusions of what you “observed” based only on measurements if the object is observable in the first place?
I mean how can you say that you teleported a photon particle if you cannot observe it in the first place-but you already decided that it’s teleported, even though there is zero observation of its teleportation you saiy you measure its telepoertation but the fact is you cannot observae what you measure-and than you say it’s prove observationally-where is observation in that?
This is pure pseudoscience and predetermined conclusion based on something that is caclulated in the first place but with zero observation of it!
Again it’s just mathematical predetermined conclusion based on measurements, not on actual observations of what is actually pobserved in the first place; teleportations, entelngelements, tunnelings and etc. iin the first place, because even with all that high-tech you are not able to observe anything and evern what you are able to observe it’s like observing the the bottom of the sea with radar.
The same questions are for particles as well, even though you have Scanning Tunneling and atomic force microscopes why do you lie to people that you observe atoms when you don’t in the first place:
An ultrasound picture of a baby accurately reflects the actual form of the baby. A Scanning Tunneling Electron Microscope does not accurately reflect the form of an atom because it simply uses an artificial dot to represent the presence or absence of an atom. In short, the “map” that STM’s give us is abstracted from reality and does not accurately portray the existence an atom (in large part because STM’s still simply due not measure at the scale of an atom).
There’s a philosophy idea that in order to say we can “see” something, we have to be able to collect consistent information by several different methods. For example if all we have is a STM, then we don’t know which parts of the image are artifacts and which are real so we haven’t seen anything. But if we have an STM and crystallography, we can have more faith in the features that are common to both images – such as interatomic distances and the geometry of crystal structure. But we still couldn’t say that we’ve seen the shape of an atom since that would look different in each instrument’s image.
Like I said above
A great example is people who “discovered” lost cities under the sea. They saw regular patterns of lines on the seafloor in Google Earth and interpreted them as ancient roads or walls. But they were only seeing artifacts from ships that had sailed back and forth in straight lines collecting data. If they had looked both at those sonar scans and some other data for the same location, they would have only seen the lines on one image and been able to conclude that they were no ancient lost cities under sea-the same problem is here with that technology it’s like using radar on something that is like 10 billion times below 1 meter and than you say you observe “atoms” with zero ability to be able to study those solid objects that you can observe with all of these microscopes that you call atoms-but mathematics has told you that it must be atoms, so that they are atoms and the discussion is over to people like you, while the real truth is completely different.
In order to know what is something that you observe you cannot know just by observing it for sveral minutes and hours per day you need to be able observe what you need to study-its physical and chemical properties-are you able to do that?
No you are not so you use math instead of being able to study it regardless of what you calculate in mathematics-that is why the discovery of all particles is based on already predetermined conclusions based on mathematics, because there is nothing that you can observe what mathematics claims to be actual fact-and that by itself is not science that is just pure pseudoscience and religion.
So, no scanning tunneling microscopes and atomic force microscopes did not prove the existence of atoms.
Quantum physics is religion just like relativity is, the only difference is that relativity is observable but when you talk about space bending you will not find any real observational evidence that space bends-but only those damn gyroscopes move because of Earth’s gravity, there is no observational evidence for whatever quantum physics “believes” that it’s true, why do you ignore these facts!!!!!
How can you anyone say quantumn physics is correct if there is no observation of any of it-not a single process, no particles or whatever else!
Again for all what you call observations that are actually not observable at all you call that your obseervations prove that mathematics is correct-that’s because you used mathematics to go its course and ignored the way it happened and what is actually observed in actual evidence, not the way mathematics misinterprets it-come in try to prove anything from quantum physics and completely misinterpreted relativity-or when you say that time is a dimension, how dumb and misinterpreteable the mathematics can get do you have to be to say such a thing-I mean come on people let’s end this-time is not a dimension-dimension means it just a physical size-that’s what dimension is all about-does time has size no it doesn’t neither there is any process that exists in the universe that proves that time exists at all, since people made it, you talk about atomic clocks-seriously clocks, you measure time by clocks-clock is not a maeasure of time at all, we created it, there is no clock in the universe to do that.
But you do it all the time you say you proved this and that by using mathematics you are the ones who predetermined the conclusion that everything what is written in mathematical equations exists, from wavefunction, quantum entanglement, tunneling space bending and everything else and yet none of it exists in the first place, you are trying to do science with completely unscientific and pseudoscientific and hyper-religious approach-you already decided this is the case-even though you cannot observe any of it, tell me how space bending is not predetermined, tell me where and how anything in quantum physics is not predetermined I challenge you all!
Actually I challenge you all where exactly physicis did not create already predetermined conclusions based on mathematical equations-every single discovery in 19th, 20th and 21st century is misinterpreted exactly in this way-you talk about scientific experiments and than create hypotheses-there are no hypotheses if you have direct observations in the first place, so why do you need math, if you can observe anything at all in all those experiments that you mclaim to observe-when the fact is that you cannot observe anything that you claim to prove and therefore you cannot make assumptions based on math on about anything at all in the first place?
Science simply needs admit that it is stuck in its limitations of how much it can be observed in the first place-because this is the only way it can actually prove something, unlike math that misinterpretes everything that is observable and creates assumptions thare are completely unobservable based on mathematical, pseudoscientific equations.
“2) If Science is mumbo jumbo and useless in your opinion, then how do you explain computers that use electricity and concepts discovered by Physicists, or Radios and TVs which are based on radiowaves that are explained by Physicists, or pretty much any technology that uses knowledge gained by Science and the scientific method? ”
Again technology is not science just because you build something that doesn’t mean you know how it actually works-because you don’t you only know how it works, on our level here down to earth on this tiny part of this planet, everything else is useless since it is all about speculation that has no basis on actual evidences.
One more thing: You are all completely wrong because you all think (completely wrong) just because you made technology-you think you know how it works on whatever level-especially on quantum level-again you don’t; that’s why you are so much limited to on what you can actually observe, this is the biggest lie of all, because you all base everything on trial and error methods-you can observe what you can observe on macroscopic level and with some technology what you can observe, but you cannot observe anything else-you base your “evidences” on such limited observational space, and everything is else is just mathematical mumbo jumbo.
Why do you create assumptions on how something works if you pass that level of observation where you cannot observe anything so you use math to fill all the holes-why not just stick with limitations of what is observable and accept those same limitations and admit that you don’t know beyond what is observable-no but you cannot deal with it, so you create mathematical mumbo jumbos to fill everything what is unobservable in the first place-that’s where the scientific part becomes pseudoscientific and relgious in the first place, but you are so overhyped by mathematical religion that you lost scientific objectivity and desperately try to grasp the straws of the unknown even though all the asusmptions exist only inside your own mind, not in the real world-just because you cannot accept the fact once you cannot observe it’s a subject of mathematical pseudoscience, since once you crossed that line and that limit you are no longer scientists you are pseudoscientists because everything you say it’s a matter of belief of what you think it is, not what actually is!!!!!
And technology has nothing to do with it, since all the causes you can only observe on the levels we can observe, not on the levels you are traying to grasp where there are on actual and direct observations like cells, molecules, atomic levels and below that level, heck we are also so small that we can never get the whole picture the real picture of what is what and since we can only observe this tiny part of the whole picture everything even the part of what we can observe is also dead wrong, because the tinier the observation, the greater the mistakes are.
You would need to be greater than the entire universe and see fo yourself how it actuially works for lower levels you should shirnk yourselves to these levels to actually find out the real facts on these levels.
Again you base your delusion that when you make technology that it means that you are correct about your science even though you cannot observe the entire process just as well what is behind the process-technologies will be made always, but true science behind it is completely incomrehensible-if you cannot observe everything, than you cannot know it what it is and how it works-you only create assumptions and than you say it matches by their energy levels and measurements of whatever and than you use statistical manipulation on the highest level to prove that you are right-again that’s not true science, that’s just pure pseudoscience and religion.
“3) If you only trust what your eyes see, then what about air? gravity? uv light? infrared light? radiowaves? magnetism? You can’t see them, but obviosuly they exist. How do you explain them if you can’t see them?”
I thought you were smarter than this, gravity we can actually observe and feel its physicla influence on our own level, not some atomic level-that’s whzat crucial here, all thes examples ar eon this level where we exist-it is not on some level that we cannot grasp it, it is on the level that we can grasp it and directly observe and feel their physical influences on us with all 5 senses-we are completely adapted to this elvel that’s why we actually feel observe and sense what it actually exists!
Radiowaves again you have radio you can actually observe their effects just like the magnetism you can also, em spectrum again you don’t need math you only need experiments and technology to detect it, not mathematics all of these discoveries were not discovered by math but by pure experiments-there was no math in it, and you are comparing apples and oranges something that can be found out on macroscopic level that we are able to observe sense and experience with all the experiments that we do all the time; compared to all the levels that we are not able to observe and grasp them and not experience them and not being able to do experiments inside those levels to actually see the real truths about them-again you are comparing apples and oranges.
On this tiny part of macroscopic level at least we have that possibility, on all other level we have no idea what is what and how it works-again I’m talking about this tiny part of macroiscopic level not the entire macroscopic level, so I’m talking about this tiny part that we are living in and being able to observe it what we measure being able to observe it what we experiment with, while all othe rparts of macroscopic levels and all other levels in general are either too large or too small to be able to experiment with, being able to observe them with technology only shows how small we truly are and how much we do not know and just because we can observe them with technology means nothing, since we are able to observe their infinitely small part of of any of these levels with technology-so the brutal fact is that we do know anything how anything truly works on any level since we cannot observe the whole picture the way it is, creating new technologies doesn’t change that brutal fact, you create technology with trila and error methods, plain and simple.
“1) is 2+2=4 ?”
Sure it is, but but that’s basic math based on reality, not on mathematical equations and mathematical pseudoscience/religion, plus numbers and equations do not exist in the real world since we people created them, there are no laws of mathematics, there are only laws of physics, chemistry and biology and you don’t need math to discover them, you need direct observations and experiments to correctly interpret them based on what we can experiment with and observe, not based on something that exists only inside mathematics.
No, by using math they can’t since they have been always misinterpreted by math, with math you simply lose that objectivity that always call upon.
Math is only useful for the most basic things: counting, dividing, multiplication, addition and subtraction, that’s all.
@Jefferson
What misinterpretation are you thinking of? Can math be used to figure out the distance between things or describe probabilities?
@Jefferson
Yes, as you are saying we can observe the effects of radio waves and magnetism. But, again, we can’t observe them with our eyes. How are you so sure that they are in fact radio waves and not some other type of force? Isn’t this your critique to quantum mechanics? Because scientists also observe the effects of tiny things, they study these effects and experiment with them, just like radio waves. They see falsifiable results. What’s the difference between radio waves and atoms then?
Ah, Jefferson, you only say that because you are not fluent in the language of math. Your philosophy is much like was my own father.
A language… that is all what math is… a language, a shorthand of only a few symbols for logic that can only otherwise be said in many, many words in for example, the English language. Now you have no trouble expressing yourself in English, I see. And you would have no trouble with math either, should ever choose to embrace it.
But it turns out you are at least partly right, math is not perfect. Math cannot tell us which coordinate system (graph system) to use. This is going to turn out to bite us in the butt again someday.
The most astounding example of a mathematical coordinate system screw-up was that of the Ptolemaic solar system. Aristotle started it. He said the stars moved around the earth. Ptolemy “perfected” the idea by setting the whole thing to math. Now we must keep in mind that all the observations were done with the naked eye – very direct and quite believable.
Along came fellows like Aristarchus. We don’t know much about him or his predecessors because much of the documentation is lost. But we do know what Copernicus did because manuscripts survived. The Aristarchus/Copernicus ideas were likely almost identical. “Aristarchus” was even written in the margin of some of Copernicus notes.
Copernicus perhaps believed that the wandering planets would make more sense in a godly fashion if they moved in perfect circles. The problem had been that observations of most of the stars seemed to go around perfectly, the same position each and every night, but planet-stars were observed to sometimes temporarily reverse direction (now called retrograde motion) over time. As a matter of fact, the word planet comes from Greek meaning “wandering stars”.
Copernicus somehow found that if he set the sun in the middle of the moving group of planets they DID seem to go around in a nearly perfect circle similar to all other stars. Viola! All one had to do was imagine observing the planets while sitting on the sun instead of earth. Relativity was born!
What Copernicus did is what we consider to be closer to the truth today. Even though we still speak of “sunrise”. Of course the sun doesn’t rise according to Copernicus – rather the earth turns.
The whole point is that both coordinate systems are perfectly mathematically valid. We can translate one to the other with numbers, but we still cannot mathematically prove which system is more correct. Every time we perform a quadratic equation (a lot!), we get two answers as solutions for “x”, x representing the unknown quantity (the dang answer) we are seeking. We have to guess which one is more correct and hope the heck we’ve picked the better answer.
My father flunked algebra three times and did not graduate high school because of it. But my mother loved algebra and convinced me how wonderful it was. Until, in high school, I realized the apparent folly of quadratic equations to produce the truth as usual, along with a lie. I was devastated. Now my dad wasn’t as dumb as I thought.
But lately I realized the pair of adversarial quadratic “x’s” are both true. Reality all depends on the relative coordinate system we want to use, even in General Relativity. I think we got bitten again. Sorry, Dad, Mom was right after all. Darn, I may not live much longer, but better late than never.
Wes
“@Jefferson
Yes, as you are saying we can observe the effects of radio waves and magnetism. But, again, we can’t observe them with our eyes. How are you so sure that they are in fact radio waves and not some other type of force? Isn’t this your critique to quantum mechanics? Because scientists also observe the effects of tiny things, they study these effects and experiment with them, just like radio waves. They see falsifiable results. What’s the difference between radio waves and atoms then?”
They don’t actually study tiny things on macroscopic levels, they study everything on macroscopic level because that’s the only thing that is possible to study in the first place-if you go on atomic, and lower levels you are burying yourselves up because instead of admitting we don’t know which experiment proves anything at all since you do not observe what are the effects, since you are only able to measure and observe effects-you can only know what are the effects on macroscopic levels; the level we exist in.
You do realize that “scientists” are able to study only what is on macroscopic levels, so when you say we detected this and we decteted that on quantum levels-you are lying there is no such thing as detection on such levels, you are detecting something that happened on macroscopic level, BUT YOU CANNOT KNOW IF THIS WAS THE PRODUCT OF THE LOWER LEVELS (ATOMIC/SUBATOMIC/QUANTUM LEVELS) OR NOT, because the effect appeared on macroscopic level-and that’s THE LEVEL WE CAN DETECT IT, not on quantum level that is not possible to detect it, also it depend show strong or weak that detection is-but it all happens on macroscopic levels-our own level of existence and perception-you are measuring the effects and detections that are happening on macroscopic levels-these effects that happened on macroscopic level in order to measure and detect the effect on quantum levels you need to shrink down to these levels-this is where your science stops being true science!
Just because you detect somoething it doesn’t mean that this detection comes from atomic or subatomic or quantum level, since you only detected any signal, and that’s where you put math in, to fill the holes that you can never know anything about, instead of that you create your own illusions of approximations of assumptions based on something that it isn’t even real-mathematics.
To answer your question about radio-waves:
Easily, because we are using them every day-we don’t use quantum level devices every day or any day at all since this is impossible-we use macroscopic level with macroscopic level waves with macroscopic level devices, not the quantum level ones-on quantum level we can never perceive and know and assume anythign at all since this is not the jurisdiction and the level of our own level of existence.
Second, sure they are some type of force because that’s how we know they exist-they have physical impact and those who created first signals across the ocean were the ones who actually proved that some waves exists, since they behave the waves like the waves on the sea surface.
You still don’t get it how do you know there is discovery of something on macroscopic level here on Earth not on quantum level-it needs to have physical influence on other things on macroscopic level-that is measurable on macroscopic level, again not on atomic and quantum level because that’s simply impossible since you don’t know what is actually what-there is no observation of what influences what-at least on macroscopic level you can actually see that!
And that’s when you start experimenting it until you find out-without use of math.
The pattern you get from lower levels mean absolutely nothing since there is truly nothing what you can do with them since you cannot know what they are and you cannot even assume what they are-so you use math to fill the holes-pseudoscience/religion.
At least on macroscopic level you are able to distinguish these effects, which is not possible at all on atomic and lower levels-you are like blind man that is trying to reach something that is beyond its scope.
On macroscopic level at least you can experiment with and see the effects of everything even from what is not observable-but you always observe/sense its effects.
Also if we want to be detailed:
It all started with lodestone, a naturally magnetic rock that was used to create crude compasses to aid in navigation as early as 200 BC.
By the enlightenment, we had sophisticated instruments, but still had no idea how magnets, chemistry, or nearly anything else really worked—we were finally starting to perform methodical experiments to work things out.
In Switzerland and Germany, hikers who used compasses to navigate winding alpine trails knew that lightening caused a compass needle to jump. In the 17th and 18th century, experimenters found that a static electric charge could cause a compass needle to jump as well. This led to a French system of telegraph stations, in which multiple wires were used to deflect multiple needles to transmit messages. And THAT led naturally to the idea of getting rid of the wires.
Meanwhile. all manner of static charge generators and “voltaic piles” had been invented, and experimenters had found that the wound magnetic coil “speakers” from primitive telephones could pick up noise from a spark gap at a distance.
The race was on to create wireless telegraphy. Most early systems used a simple key to trigger a spark which created broad-spectrum noise that could be heard over a crude receiver, often a crystal set exploiting a crude rectifier made with a “cat’s whisker” exploiting the electrical properties of naturally occurring crystals.
Such “wireless sets” were not radio as we know it, but will be soon indispensable in marine applications.
And then two ships collided of the east coast of the United States. A newspaperman picked up the report via wireless, and within an hour, the air waves were clogged with clicks by reporters passing the news or trying to contacts vessels busy with the rescue.
This led to the development of oscillator circuits that could be used to tune a transmitter to a particular frequency, and receivers that could be tuned by use of various components like variable rheostats and tunable antenna coils.
Meanwhile, the telephone had come into wide use, and with it, more advanced materials and understanding. It didn’t take a genius to see that the next steps was wireless telephone and voice broadcasting. At this point, that was mostly a matter of assembling existing pieces and making incremental improvements.
So the point if radiowaves didn’t have macroscopic levels of physical influence we would never be able to discover them-plain and simple.
As you can see all the history of radiowaves (and all other forms of EM) is strictly based on magnetism and electricity that is something that is both observable and measurable-and so are their physical effects-this is how exactly radiowaves have physical effects-since they are part of EM-and we are talking about EM that is on macroscopic levels.
“@Jefferson
What misinterpretation are you thinking of? Can math be used to figure out the distance between things or describe probabilities?”
Probabilities are useless and they are manipulations, just take the weather forcast, it would sunny day with possibility of clouds and rainfall and it ‘s possible that rain turn to snow-again you basically said every single scenario of weather forecast in one sentence so that none can say you were wrong, the same thing is with mathematical probabilities.
But when it come sto measuring things that’s where the math is extremely needed like in construction engineering, I have a relative who works statics expert, there is no probability here, everything has to be completely determined, not by possibilities but by actual limits-and that’s where mathematics excels.
However, no math should be used for interpretation and explanation of reality/universe/existence, because this is already condemned to fail.
“Ah, Jefferson, you only say that because you are not fluent in the language of math. Your philosophy is much like was my own father.
A language… that is all what math is… a language, a shorthand of only a few symbols for logic that can only otherwise be said in many, many words in for example, the English language. Now you have no trouble expressing yourself in English, I see. And you would have no trouble with math either, should ever choose to embrace it.”
I know exactly how the math works, that’s the bottom line, so your father is right, the only issue is what kind of criticism does he talk about.
So please don’t seel me fog here.
Math is not a language math is a weapon of deception and manipulation which ignores the facts and deliberately misinteprets them, wiithout actually looiking at facts without using math and than make conclusions, not based on what you calculated, but based on what you can experiment with and observe.
Math is useful only for the most basic things, because what is done in the last 2 centuries for science, there is no science anymore there is only math, you completely lost your touch with reality, completely.
It’s one thing you created technologies using math and its theorems it’s completely other thing when you are trying to explain the reality-this was condemned to fail from the very beginning, since like you are tlaking about things that are proven and yet none of it can be proven, none of them are observable you only detect signals, energy levels and tehir paterns and than you say, aha we have proven this and that-that’s not science that’s pseudoscience, the real science has hit the upper limit long time ago, everything else is just mumbo jumbo but the only thing that kees you moving is technology, not science itself, because of technology you are still here and dominant, and like the fields of engineering computers and all other similar other fields that you do today-however math itself has nothing to do with science itself, once you hit the upper limits with technological progresses, it would be the end for math also.
The situation with Copernicus was that he had real world examples to count on, not some imaginary atoms, quarks and gluons-that’s just pure fantasy, he was relying on real world experiments with direct observation of their measurements and their effects-what does science do today?????
It makes up things since there are no real effects, it detects all kinds of things but it cannot know what they are, since we are talking about lower levels than this macroscopic levels, and you talk about Copernicus and everybody here forgets about Michael Faraday case, but first:
Thank goodness, I’m not the only one here who realizes these facts, but the problem really is inside the math because they think it can explain everything and calculate everything and how many times we have seen this is false approach none of these people want to accept the limitations of the math and if math is so correct why cannot they adapt mathematical equations to what evidences truly show, instead of doing math they should all do experiments-not computer simulations, but experiments if you want to explain something you don’t need math you only need evidences and observations and that’s about it.
Math is useless when it comes to pure scientific investigation, because math is not investigation math is only calculation and the only thing that mathematical calculatons are for creating new technologies-that’s all.
In a way we live in scientific dogma and we taught at the school that this works like this and this basically we are taught how something works instead the correct apporach would be do the experiments yoourselves and MAKE YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS ABOUT HOW SOMETHING WORKS, not by directly saying to people how something works and everything else is pseudoscience-because they say so-that’s typical pseudoscientific reasoning and religious totalitarism.
I mean we are so small we know nothing about everything the best we can do is to imagine and make assunmptions of how something/everything in this case works, that’s all we can do, but the problem is scientists sell us as this is correct, because they say so-they mgaine and creatre story about it and that should be the evidence based on some measurements of what exactly.
Technology has nothing to do with science, creating technology is trial and error method, it has nothing to do with something that we supposedly know how it works, since our assumptions are just that assumptions, as long as it works it’s ok, technology doesn’t prove that the interpretation/science behind it is correct at all, only that we can make that technology but we can never truly know why and how does it work sincw e can observe so little so the interpretation fo what we can actually observe is also completely wrong since our observations are too small, only if can we see the whole picture how something is, works and why it is can give us full answers about everything, but since our brains are so small also the number of informations we receive and that are always in infinite number are ignored by the brain so by ignoring these informations (that the brain ignores) we cannot see anything, plus the amout of information we can receive is also too small compared the size of the entire universe, and also there is abstract level of existence that everybody ignores and abstract level of existence creates physical level of existence, not the other way around-facts.
Both the mathematicians and physicists are to blame in the first place, because both of them live in their worlds, not in the real world, both misinterpret reality the way they want-any way they want.
It’s not just basically true it is unvevrsally true everywhere in the world, how many times I have seen that they say math is true and yet whan you observe the facts, you can exactly see how it ismiisnterpeted-because mathematics says so, the problem is that mathemtics only calculates effects that we can see not the causes, sonce none truly knows the cause and and than they say that math is correct because it matchesd the effects-but IT DOESN’T MATCH ANYTHING ELSE, ESPECIALLY NOT THE CAUSES AND THE PROCESSES THAT ARE CAUSES, ONLY END RESULTS-EFFECTS-and because they say we have “predicted” this and that-and they talk about effects-not anything elser, how the hell do the yknow the math is correct if there is no way they can know anything besides the effects-and how the hell do they know matheamtics can predict it-because they say so-that’s the limitation of mathematics, not just wrong interpretation.
I wish that wasn’t the case, technology is not the same as science, just because you created math for creating technology it doesn’t make mathematical interpretations true at all any of them, for that matter.
Mathematics is the blame, because every time they calculate infinities they are stuck-that’s where all mathematical limitations are, second are the effects-they have “predicted” the physical effects, not the causes, the causes may well be outside mathematical reach in all aspects and in all levels-and they are thanks to infinities that mathematics creates.
But that’s that’s where the problem is they did not predicted anythingf since they had all the facts-you don’t need math recognize the pattern, that’s where mathematic sis a waste of time, because anyone can do it without math-it’s just incredible, here are the facts:
Example:
What Copernicus did when confronted with the perplexing motion of the planets. He challenged the geocentric worldview, showing that if the sun, not the earth, was at the center, then the movements of the planets began to make sense. But people don’t easily let go of cherished assumptions. Even when, 70 years later, the discoveries of Galileo and Kepler confirmed Copernicus’s proposal, the establishment was loath to accept the new model. Only when Newton formulated his laws of motion, providing a mathematical explanation of the planets’ paths, did the new paradigm start gaining wider acceptance.
But than again why the math was needed in the first place, you had observation of the factds that ycould not match the flat earth hypothesis-all in the experiments, not in mathematics, so we aqlready had evidences and yet they didn’t want to accept anything until mathematical backbone was created-why, it was not needed at all!!!!!!
Waste of time and money.
Another example:
Micahel Faraday was great experimentalist, he recognized the connection between light, magnetism and electricity, but he did not know math, but he had experiments, and one wanted to accept his experiments, because he did not create mathematical model, since he did not know mathematics for it, until Maxwell showed up-WHY THE HELL MATHEMATICS IS HERE NEEDED, OBSERVATIONS AND EXPERIMENTS AND CORRECT INTERPETATIONS OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY OBSERVED IN THE EXPERIMENTS MATTERS, NOT WHAT MATHEMATICS SAYS AND “PROVES”-what is wrong with these people, this repeats itself over and over again since first human civilization is created, instead of havying cool head and interpret facts the way they are, not the way they are mathematically misinterpreted as always-that is my point to all both physicists and to all mathematicians.
@Jefferson I also agree that math itself is not enough to prove a physic’s theory. In fact it was Richard Feynman who said “if it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong”. And it doesn’t matter how clever you think you are or how clever your theory is, if it disagrees with experiment, it’s indeed wrong. However math can describe reality in ways words can’t do as efficiently. Take the gravity on earth, which is about 9.8m/s^2. I don’t know about you, but that is a reliable description of what gravity is. You can describe movement of balls, for instance, by looking at the shape of its course —perhaps a parabola, which can also be described in math terms. We can make equations for speed s=d/t (distance over time) and acceleration a=v/t (rate of change of velocity with respect to time). And yes, you can also describe probability. For example, consider a bag with 4 balls inside. 1 ball is red and the other 3 are blue. What’s the probability you will grab the red ball? It’s 1/4th. If you repeat this several times you will notice that about 1/4th of the time you will indeed grab the red ball, and 3/4ths of the time you will grab the blue balls. Now, if you can tell me that all my examples are wrong and math does not describe them at all, then I’d be glad to know why. But we’ve used math for more than a thousand years and I am not convinced it will be shown wrong today. You can try though.
As for quantum mechanics, I understand your concern. And I am not an expert so I might not be able to properly explain how exactly we know that quantum particles exist. But I know there are interesting experiments, like the famous double slit experiment, and they have particular effects that are explained well with quantum theory. I also know there is technology that uses quantum theory. But since I’m not an expert in that specific field, I will leave it for someone with more knowledge to perhaps prove to you why it is the case that professional and dedicated scientists think these particles exist. However, let me tell you that I do believe that calling it BS is not productive nor conducive to learning. Even if you are intelligent, and I think you are despite your bold claims, I think you are not approaching this the best way. If you really think what scientists are doing with math and quantum theory is so wrong, and if you can prove it, I highly recommend you to publish some kind of scientific article (or something like it) that others can see and critique, in which you explain why quantum theory is wrong, and how you explain their experiments otherwise. You don’t have to, obviously, but if you can’t explain with detail these things then no one will take you serious.
@Jefferson
“Technology has nothing to do with science, creating technology is trial and error method…”
There aren’t a lot of places we can go from here. The people who invent new technologies genuinely need to understand what they’re doing in detail, and mathematics and physics is an essential part of that. Randomly guessing and hoping for the best works about as well as a stopped clock.
Mathematics is not about deception. It’s about putting together simple, true, logical statements and building up something that would otherwise be impossible to know. The laws of physics, on all scales, are discovered and verified experimentally. That’s rule #1. Any law that can’t be directly physically confirmed is considered extremely suspect.
But understanding what those laws are, how to apply them, and even how to express them simply, often requires mathematics.
You don’t have to trust me or anyone else.
If you’re interested, you can learn the math yourself and understand what physicists and engineers are doing, but it takes a serious commitment of time and effort. Khan Academy is a good place to start. For more advanced topics you’ll find lots of free textbooks online. For example, if you search for “calculus textbook pdf”. Even better, you can find a meetup.com math or science group for people looking to do the same thing (because learning things alone is really hard).
““Technology has nothing to do with science, creating technology is trial and error method…”
There aren’t a lot of places we can go from here. The people who invent new technologies genuinely need to understand what they’re doing in detail, and mathematics and physics is an essential part of that. Randomly guessing and hoping for the best works about as well as a stopped clock.”
People who invented new technologies only understand what they experiment with on the level we live in, not some atomic level, and below.
You realize that key difference?
That’s what they understand because that’s what they are able to observe to understand this tiny piece of reality.
“Mathematics is not about deception. It’s about putting together simple, true, logical statements and building up something that would otherwise be impossible to know. The laws of physics, on all scales, are discovered and verified experimentally. That’s rule #1. Any law that can’t be directly physically confirmed is considered extremely suspect.”
Yes math is all about deception-yes it is because it creates things that do not exist in the real world and uses them as an “proven” explanation-when you create technologies no matter what math says what is key important is the thing does it work or not, why would you talk about atoms and electrons since this is not what experiment shows and this is not what can be treated as understanding on the level you live in instead of electrons they should talk about electric flows not electron flows, or ionized gas, not it’s electrified gas and etc.
Where exactly is logical and true statements about building up what would be impossible to know-if you use atoms and electrons as part of an explanation?????
There are no atoms and there are no electrons, there are only things you deal with and experiment with-atoms and electrons and quantum physics and plenty of relativity is not part of what you do, it’s simply mathematical misinterpetation-anbd these are the cases-which are all of them where mathematics should be abandoned, because mathematics instantly talks about something that doesn’t even exist and misinterpets it the way both it and you like it-and that si the case from the moment Marie Curise took radium and used atoms as explanation or the atomic bomb explanation-these are completely wrong misinterpretations-and should be instantly abandoned.
It’s just funny and ironic how accuse religious people having God without any definition of what God actually and they cannot prove that that God exists and the same thing happens over and over in mathematics, excpet the difference is this is mathematics that talk about nothing started everything-it’s the same religion, except math for “scientists” here is what Bible is for religious believers and you believe in that mathematical Bible so much, with zero objectivity-since this is math we talk about.
The laws of physics-you don’t need math for them just observe them what they do all the time-and that’s it you don’t need anything else, math is just time and money consumption.
“But understanding what those laws are, how to apply them, and even how to express them simply, often requires mathematics.
You don’t have to trust me or anyone else.
If you’re interested, you can learn the math yourself and understand what physicists and engineers are doing, but it takes a serious commitment of time and effort.”
Completely wrong, you don’t need math to apply laws of physics you need experimentation, lots and lots of experimentation-not some math, if something is working you don’t need it to transform it into math, if it works, you simply interpret the way it works and based on how much is visible and observable-this is not about trust this is about pure observation, mathematics is not science since the only thing it does it calculates, you cannot expect from non-scientific discipline to apply on scientific issues/questions-completely wrong approach.
Why would I need any of that, I thankfully have lab where I test on my own everything that I can test, no need for math I only write it down all the experiments and how exactly they are made and what it can be concluded from them base don direct observation, not based on mathematical misintepretations-that’s all and that’s true science, not putting some equations and doing the same thing with mathematics-since the only true way is to do experiment liberated from mathematical dogma based on its equations.
If you start to use math everything is changed, since you completely lose you objectivity (which all of you didm who do it doing this same method from the very beginning) and you start to misinterpret everything you experiment with and every single piece of technology is directly the product of lots and lots of experimentations of trial and error methods over and over again-that0s hwo we make things, not through math but through trial and error experimentations/experimantation methods-nothing more and nothing else.
@Jefferson I also agree that math itself is not enough to prove a physic’s theory. In fact it was Richard Feynman who said “if it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong”. And it doesn’t matter how clever you think you are or how clever your theory is, if it disagrees with experiment, it’s indeed wrong. However math can describe reality in ways words can’t do as efficiently. Take the gravity on earth, which is about 9.8m/s^2. I don’t know about you, but that is a reliable description of what gravity is.”
That number only desribes the the strength of gravity, but like I said number smean nothing without experimentation-and I said above as reply to Physicist we only need basic math for counting, dividing, multiplication, addition and subtraction, that’s all.
Plus my cousin is statics expert-and that’s where ayou need math-to calculate things and to create new technoloiges, not to discover things and explain them because if you use math you are faaaar away from reality-this is the biggest hole from your side, actually not from your side but from the side of all mathematics and mathematicians.
“You can describe movement of balls, for instance, by looking at the shape of its course —perhaps a parabola, which can also be described in math terms. We can make equations for speed s=d/t (distance over time) and acceleration a=v/t (rate of change of velocity with respect to time). And yes, you can also describe probability. For example, consider a bag with 4 balls inside. 1 ball is red and the other 3 are blue. What’s the probability you will grab the red ball? It’s 1/4th. If you repeat this several times you will notice that about 1/4th of the time you will indeed grab the red ball, and 3/4ths of the time you will grab the blue balls. Now, if you can tell me that all my examples are wrong and math does not describe them at all, then I’d be glad to know why. But we’ve used math for more than a thousand years and I am not convinced it will be shown wrong today. You can try though.”
Again this is all basi math and I said it it’s ok, when you are dealing with things that are observable, not some imaginary particles that do not exist, except inside math.
“As for quantum mechanics, I understand your concern. And I am not an expert so I might not be able to properly explain how exactly we know that quantum particles exist. But I know there are interesting experiments, like the famous double slit experiment, and they have particular effects that are explained well with quantum theory.”
Double slit experiment doesn’t prove anything at all, since you cannot compare with nothing we deal on macroscopic level-the brutal fact is the only thing you can say is that you dectect energy levels and their patterns and that’s all, there is no particle myth in it-the fact is what it can actually be observed here in such experiments-literally nothing and that’s somethign that hurts so you use math to fill the holes-this is typical quackery from the side of physicists, and all of you ignore that fact-this is like blind man that touches frog and it thinks as it is something else until someone who can actually observe the frog tells him that he is wrong-the same thing is with you physicists-you are blind people here that base everything of what you imagine and calculate and by creating equations-there is an indian story about an elephant and 3 blind people.
And just for the record, why all hypotheses would actually be wrong, because we are too much limited in everything to know the real truth about everything, even its tiniest part of it-here is the example.I’ll tell you about an true life indian story: One elephant trainer gathered 3 different blind people-who did not have know about the existence of elephants.
So, trainer asked to touch elephant’s parts of the body and to say what they have touched-since they are all blind. First blind man touched elephant’s leg and thought it was a pillar, the second touched elephant’s trunk and he tought it was a thick branch of a tree, the third blind man touched the ear of elephant thought that he touched hand fan!
Anyway what is the lesson in this true life indian story?
That, no matter how much we know about this world we know absolutely nothing, second we interpret everything wrong whatever we observe because we can never see the entire reality-just like blind people from that indian story could not see any part of the elephant-scientists and all other people are exactly like those blind people from that indian story, because they only see the fraction of entire reality, and no matter all people observe and “prove” and interrpetet, all of their interpretations are 100% wrong, because they can only see the tiniest fraction of entire universal reality-just like blind people form indian story thought that elephant’s ear is hand fan-the same mistakes scientists, mathematicians, physicists, philosophers and all other people do all the time from the creation of human species!!!!!
So basically all the hypotheses that we create are all essentially entirely and absolutely 100% wrong, because they are based on the tiniest fraction of entire existence of what we can observe and sense with all of our senses and with high-tech, but high-tech means nothing with limited senses!!!!
That’s why I said we are all blind, and that’s the moment when we create assumptions and fantasies that do not exist in the real world, but they all exist only inside our own minds-that’s where ur limitations are, and none of you want to accept them and deal with them.
And so you started to use math since you don’t want to accept all of these limitations in the first place, but you will eventually have to.
Looks like verybody loves fantasies and fairy tales, first it was classical religion, but also it is mathematical religion on the other side-2 sides of the same religion.
Double-slit experiment:
Imagine that we are undertaking the double slit experiment and studying the behaviour of water molecules. For this, we have a water gun which can shoot water molecules at any desired rate i.e. it can shoot water molecules one by one or in a continuous shower like manner. And we have a screen with 2 slits in it and behind this we have a ‘hydrosensitive’ screen which records the impacts of water molecules at various points on it. Now we shoot showers of water molecules with our water gun towards the slits in the first screen. While most of the water molecules get stopped by the screen, some of them pass through the slits and go on to hit the detector screen behind. We study the distribution of the hits on the detector screen. It is no surprise that we see the following pattern.
Then we shoot water molecules one by one with our water gun. As our gun is not the best shooter in the world, it shoots the water molecules a bit randomly i.e. each molecule it shoots goes in a slightly different direction. So again, while most of the molecules get stopped by the first screen, some of the molecules pass through the slits and reach the detector screen. After a sufficient number of molecules have been shot, we study the distribution of hits on the hydrosensitive detector screen. It is again no surprise that we see the same pattern as noted above. This is obviously what we would expect from particles in our everyday world. We may call this as particle pattern of distribution in contrast to the interference pattern we get when waves are ‘fired’ instead of particles. We have found nothing too exciting or weird.
Now let’s place our whole set up inside a large container (or a sea) of still water and repeat the experiment. Let’s presume that our ‘hydrosensitive’ detector screen, despite being surrounded by water, doesn’t record any ‘hits’ because the molecules are absolutely still and as such are not hitting the hydrosensitive screen. Of course in reality, water molecules will never be absolutely still (except probably at absolute zero temperature), so adjoining molecules keep colliding with the detector screen. But these random collisions by the adjoining water molecules will only produce a diffuse/uniform distribution of hits on the entire detector screen without any specific pattern or bands. We could ignore that as ‘background noise’ or set that as zero reading.
Now let’s ‘trigger’ our water gun to shoot water molecules one by one. After a sufficient number of molecules have been shot, we study the pattern of impacts recorded on the detector screen. What kind of pattern do you expect on the detector screen? If you can guess that, the job is nearly done.
Interestingly, we don’t get the above noted ‘particle pattern’ now despite the fact that we have fired the water particles exactly as before. Rather we get ‘interference pattern’ that is characteristic of waves. Of course it is not difficult to explain why the particle pattern vanishes here and gives way to the interference or wave pattern:- Each water particle that gets fired initiates a wave in the still water which travels towards the first screen. While most of the wave gets reflected back by the screen, a portion of the wave passes through each slit and emerges on the other side as a ‘daughter wave’. Because there are two slits, there are going to be two such daughter waves or wavelets. These two ‘wavelets’ spread and interfere with each other and result in the interference pattern observed on the detector screen. Unlike what the quantum physicists preach, the particle as such doesn’t pass through both the silts but it is the wave generated by the particle’s energy which passes through both of them.
“Even if you are intelligent, and I think you are despite your bold claims, I think you are not approaching this the best way. If you really think what scientists are doing with math and quantum theory is so wrong, and if you can prove it, I highly recommend you to publish some kind of scientific article (or something like it) that others can see and critique, in which you explain why quantum theory is wrong, and how you explain their experiments otherwise. You don’t have to, obviously, but if you can’t explain with detail these things then no one will take you serious.”
And how is being realist BS??????
It is you all of you who stuck in it, not me, it’s just incredible how mesmorized you are by math and completely lost focus with the real world, the fact that quantm levels are forever beyond our reach even with all the technology since our senses are adapted to this, macroscopic level, so we can never truly kno what is down there on lower levels.
The best we can come up with technology are viruses and bacteries and that’s it sure you will say that we can observe atoms but I already debunked these claims above-what’s the point of all these scientific papers if they are all based on math not on actual experiment with actual direct observations-and sincwe know this is impossible I suggest you to give up ypur mathematical religion and deal with real world facts that you can grasp, not the ones who are 100% incomprehensible to all of the people’s little, tiny brains.
@Jefferson
To be clear, quantum theory (and atomic theory more generally), is entirely predicated on direct and extensive physical experimentation and observation. Nobody “proves” anything with math.
If you’d like to know how one idea or another was discovered, or have questions about any of the experiments, this is a good place to ask. But if you’d like to declare that quantum theory doesn’t involve observation (which is demonstrably false), then you’re not doing anyone any good. Again, if you have questions about any of the physical experiments and how they are interpreted, please feel free to ask. No one’s hiding anything and no one is trying to trick you. I will try to keep any answers as math-free as possible.
Physicist there is no such prediction of math the only thing you do is tthat you match end results and end results of numbers so than you say this theory is correct, and if you do nothing to prove anything than you should be cut from funding in the first place, you just steal tax payers’ money.
“If you’d like to know how one idea or another was discovered, or have questions about any of the experiments, this is a good place to ask. But if you’d like to declare that quantum theory doesn’t involve observation (which is demonstrably false), then you’re not doing anyone any good. Again, if you have questions about any of the physical experiments and how they are interpreted, please feel free to ask. No one’s hiding anything and no one is trying to trick you. I will try to keep any answers as math-free as possible.”
All of the experiments and so-called observations that you call are based on measurements not on actual observations of physical objects-that’s a key difference here.
How dare yu to lie to all other people that you observe, while you only observe measurements of something, sure you measure energy levels of some kind of radiation radiation of what exactly how dare you to say that?
You are all incredibly arrogant and stiffed with mathematical religion and pseudoscience and misintepretation of what you measure not observe in the first place.
How dare ou to say and directly lie toi all other pšeople that you observe while the only observation you have are measurements of energy levels?
Answer me that you are no better than the priests from Dark Ages, since you clearly lost objectivity and what it means to observe in the first place!!!!!
Your only goal is to balance the equation so that you can “prove that it’s correct”.
You are all pseudoscientific priests, if math says one thing than everyone bows so it must be true, although there is not a shred of evidence and observation of it, and even if there is evidence and observation of it, you adapt it to fit mathematical equations, and ignore everything else that doesn’t belong tomathematics-that’s perfect crime!
Yopu manipulate people to fund you and in return you sell them fantasies, mathematical fantasies so you make sure none understand so you create your own language and get lost in it and ignore all the evidence that beat you all the time.
So, no there is no observation of atoms or any other particle or whatever it is on quantum levels, you just don’t want to admit you are all sitting duck in darkness
Again you are dlewusional since you say we observe, you observe nothing yaou just measure while you truly have no idea what the hell are you measuring in the first place!
Also, FLRW metric:
FLRW metric where ‘F’ stands for ‘Friedmann’ is only a deliberate modification or at worst, the plain misunderstanding of Friedmann’s actual model. Only thing is that science community learned an amazing thing in 1929 that there is a linear relationship between distance and redshift of light coming from far off galaxies. They misread the actual fact in the modified form that there is linear relationship between distance and receding velocities of galaxies. They also wrongfully realized that in year 1922, Friedmann had derived exact this fact from equations of General Relativity. Then two new mathematicians ‘R’ (Robertson) and ‘W’ (Walker) might have modified equations of ‘F’ (Friedmann) and ‘L’ (Lemaître) and the resultant new metric equations are now known as FLRW metric. This FLRW metric is considered, under standard model, as the only possible explanation of Cosmological Redshifts discovered by Hubble in 1929. There is no physical proof that cosmological redshift has anything to do with physical receding of anything. It is only account of authority of (dubious) mathematics (FLRW metric) that Big Bang Cosmologists do not feel the need to have physical proof that cosmological redshift really means receding of galaxies from us. They do not need any proof and they do not offer any proof. Yet they say that Big Bang is a scientific theory and they promote this clearly false theory as such. Science has been wrongfully disconnected from real observations or experiments and is now based on mathematics. Mathematicians now float their equations in market (official papers) and wait for the time when any real observation would be found remotely consistent with their equations. Then they would jump in with claims that such and such observed fact was already ‘predicted’ by their equations and sadly, this is the only permissible way of proposal and acceptance of new scientific ideas under the established system of scientific methodology.
In the case of noted anomalies in rotation behaviors of galaxies and clusters of galaxies, scientists, as such, only tried to balance the equation. There were two options; either to propose significant addition of mass or to add a fitting parameter or modification to the equation and both these methods were ad hoc solutions basically. Scientists have adopted both these methods in separate streams i.e. those who added more mass did not introduce new parameters or modifications in equations and those who added fitting parameters or modifications did not add more mass. The first group i.e. the mainstream group is represented by dark matter regime and the second group that is a minority group is known as MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) regime. We see that a minority regime was allowed to modify Newtonian Dynamics with official recognition of their work; perhaps no one had the courage to directly review the ‘all time successful’ GR equations because any such attempt would not have been recognized. Anyways, those who added mass, they added fitting mass and those who added new parameters, they added fitting parameters. The achievement of both the groups was only that somehow equations were conveniently balanced. Now both groups will carry out expensive experiments – First group will try to find dark matter in galaxies or universe and second group will try to find supportive evidence other than galactic rotations because their parameters were fitting for galactic rotations only. In case any of the groups finds supportive material, the same will be announced as victory of mathematics. We will be told that unknown realities can be dig out only through ‘rigorous’ mathematics. Anyhow, the problem is that scientists look at the matters only from the point of view of how to balance the equation and then pursue supportive real data through costly experiments.
Jefferson is on a rampage now. Just trying to throw anything. Yet all the observable facts are there and he chalks it up to silly “it’s all a fantasy”.
These type of people fall are so dissonant they completely refute the 100’s observable facts. That’s not science anymore.
I guess quantum computing is bullshit then huh? Ya it’s a fairy tail! Even though we have PRACTICAL evidence and people BUILDING but no they’re wrong. Are people this delusional?
“I guess quantum computing is bullshit then huh? Ya it’s a fairy tail! Even though we have PRACTICAL evidence and people BUILDING but no they’re wrong. Are people this delusional?”
I already explained, Delusional Ones, qunatum COMPUTING DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING WHAT YOU CLAIM TO BE “PROVEN” in the first place.
The fact is instead of making up explanations out of thina ir how your calculations and you fantasies dictate, you should focus on this level we live in, and not on the levels we know nothing about which is why your mathematics made things up in the first place, you cannot face with limitations of the observations and with the unknowns in the first place, so you make things up thanks to mathematics in the first place.
Instead of actually using the real-world and above all correct interpretations, based on what you directly observe not based on something you make up out of thin air, thanks to your precious mathematics.
And that’s not practical evidence, practical evidence is what you are able to observe what you study, not what you make up out of thin air, practical evidence is when you observe study and create interpretations based on those direct observations and study, while in reality the truth is that you cannot observe and study anything, so you make up everything out of thin air, you create experiments and all that, however you cannot observe what exactly is happening on these tiny levels, exactly in the process of making and doing these experiments, as well as their results, and then you talk about practical evidences, what is wrong with you people?????
Wake up. There is no true science in such mathematical pseudoscience and religion approach, that’s what truly is delusional and you are all so blinded with waaay too much mathematical fanatism, people have completely lost ability to divide facts from fiction.
“…Quantum Computing is just bullshit…?”
IDK, but what a fascinating concept. We should try it.
@Jefferson:
You should become a writer. You wrote at least 10 times more in your comments than the physicist did in her article. (You do remember that this is the comments section on an article about atomic “photography”, right?). You would probably be a lot better at writing than calculus… But, do you actually notice how many things we consider facts that we have not actually observed with our eyes, but have proven in other ways? For example, you have never seen a sound wave or a black hole, or your brain, or the chemical energy in food, or the dark side of the moon, or the inside of the apartment building on your block, or a dinosaur, or antartica…. You get the point, right? I am not a physicist, and I didn’t read all of your comments (I’ll just add that to the list of things I haven’t ever seen), but there are so many things that you have never seen, but exist, that atoms aren’t even the most questionable thing we have ever heard of. Also, I hope you realize that there are blind people that have never seen anything in their entire lives, but still consider the world real. So, you basically have two choices: agree with the general population that australia exists, the earth is round, and that atoms are real, or you can become a physicist, try to prove yourself right, and then let us now if atoms are real or not. Or, I mean, you could become an author and spend the time you would otherwise spend writing comments on this article writing books and becoming a very famous and rich person. Just sayin’.
I dare you to search “atoms + fake” on google.
@Jefferson
“There is no physical proof that cosmological redshift has anything to do with physical receding of anything. It is only account of authority of (dubious) mathematics (FLRW metric) that Big Bang Cosmologists do not feel the need to have physical proof that cosmological redshift really means receding of galaxies from us. They do not need any proof and they do not offer any proof.”
Thats BS… the redshift here is caused by the expansion, stretching, or in other words increasing the wavelength, in turn decreasing frequency. Observe WITH YOUR EYES AS YOU LIKE TO DO the change or the difference in wavelength as a source of light moves away from the listener.
“There is no physical proof that cosmological redshift has anything to do with physical receding of anything. It is only account of authority of (dubious) mathematics (FLRW metric) that Big Bang Cosmologists do not feel the need to have physical proof that cosmological redshift really means receding of galaxies from us. They do not need any proof and they do not offer any proof.”
Thats BS… the redshift here is caused by the expansion, stretching, or in other words increasing the wavelength, in turn decreasing frequency. Observe WITH YOUR EYES AS YOU LIKE TO DO the change or the difference in wavelength as a source of light moves away from the listener.
Dead wrong beause Halton Arp actually waarned about red shift is not really reliable evidence in the first place, you should look after it more, and compare with other expalanations, and besides the universe does not expand, it’s the stars and galaxies that expand from each other, not the universe itself, if it does expand at all, get your facts straight.
I dare you to search “atoms + fake” on google.
Excpet you call them atoms but they are nothing more then energy fields, and here is the catch:
if something is the excitations of energy field, it’s not particle, it’s just vibrations of energy fields-that’s where misleading exists.
They are not quanta theese are merely vibrations of energy fields and nothing else.
Well, you already said it yourself-They are not small hard round balls like miniature snooker balls-therefore, they are not “particles”.
Here is a really bad explanation: “The particle goes from the source to the screen, passing through both slits at the same time. Its motion is described by a probability amplitude wave which interferes with itself. The position the particle is detected is governed by the squared amplitude of the wave which is the probability of finding the particle there.” This explanation is full of gobbledigook words and mystery, and is typical of the “No one can understand quantum mechanics” popular school of thought.
There are different approaches to explaining things and many competent physicists use the term “particle” all the time. They think they know what they mean and that it makes things simpler for you. Sometimes it doesn’t and it would be better be more realistic and detailed. IMO.
Here is a better explanation: “The wave(-function or field) is emitted by the source, passes through the slits and arrives at the detection screen, forming an interference pattern. There it interacts with atoms in a measurement process, the probability of it triggering a measurable change being proportional to the square of the wave-function amplitude. Its action is localised to the atom, so it looks like a “particle” has hit the atom.” This is more honest, accurate and IMO much clearer.
However, also to be mentioned; “atoms” are also “particles” as well, just like wave function is consdered some abstract entity, beats me, why they think that way at all, we are talking about physical waves not some mystical or metaphysical waves after all.
For some reason they represent wave-function in more like metaphysical level and mystical level than what it actually is and what does it actually represent, it is one of most overused terms and the most mystified for some reason, even though it should never be that way, it creates confusion with people and start to makew them create some crazy, metaphysical and above all, completely wrong ideas and completely wrong interpretations about what wave-function truly is all about.
Yep. We can draw perfectly understandable pictures of the wave functions, energy levels etc. in atoms. Yet we get “represents the probability of finding the electron particle in a particular place in its orbit”. Rubbish. It does not work like that and to say so is irresponsible and misleading.
Well there is something a bit mind-boggling in quantum theory called the “measurement problem”. At certain points when quantum systems (fields, waves) interact with lots of atoms (typically) there is some scrambling that happens. There is is a probability distribution of results, some randomness or “quantum fluctuation” appears. This is called decoherence, and it is a bit difficult to grasp, though not any more than lots of other statistical physics. To describe it you have collapse of the wave function or many-worlds branching, and it looks a bit like a particle has tuned up randomly and been “measured”.
They mistake these guys make is to think the randomness is somehow built into the waves, like the waves are random already and are “waves of probability of a particle”. It is actually a left-over misunderstanding from the last century. The great pioneers, notably Bohr, did not understand the randomization process or decoherence durign measurement and tried to make sense of what was happening some other way. They invented wave function collapse as an approximate description of what was happening, and it worked, so they stuck with it.
Also it is possible to describe any field or wave mathematically as a superposition of an infinite number of particle-like behaviours. The proton for instance, decoheres itself constantly into a particle-like state: the quark and gluon fields are confined in a small region, which we call the proton. But to pretend the quark is a particle or the gluon — ridiculous. They are waves confined inside a region.
Maybe we should not be too hard on people who are attached to the old ways of talking.
You know, as much as I love mathematics, none should ever allow himself/herself to be driven by these mystical misinterpretations and everyne should try to be as much as correct as you can and, as well as real-world like as possible, becuase that’s the only correct way to go.