Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by juanrga

  1. I think that he is both "lying" and "hopelessly mislead". Immortal has avoided almost all the questions made to him in the last 200 posts. I desire you good luck.
  2. Your ad hominem attack was so blind that looks like a desperate effort to maintain alive your zombie thread. The above link shows that what I am saying in that message is that I am using certain formulations of quantum mechanics in my research work. Moreover, I cite therein L. Ballentine textbook, Quantum Mechanics, A Modern Development for details about those formulations of quantum mechanics. The particles in particle physics are not billiard balls. Why do you insist again on confounding reality with classical reality? Obviously this is a collection of nonsense The discussion of the exact definition of myth is irrelevant, the important part is that the author clearly states that QM is perfectly compatible with realism. here you quote in bold face something said to you before, that in older interpretations of QM it was incorrectly believed that the human observer had some special role. Why do you repeat what was said to you? Of course, as the same author correctly concludes, human observers do not play any special role in QM. Bernard is so right that his main award is a pseudo-religious prize awarded to nonsensical work. You continue showing that you do not know what you are writing. He is not a mere "proponent of" but one of his originators. Popularity has a historical component because this modern approach was born in the 90s (i.e. six decades after the old Copenhagen interpretation) and is still under development by several experts including the famous Nobel Prize for physics Murray Gell-Mann (the father of the quarks) for application in sophisticated fields such as quantum cosmology. Moreover, the number of quantum cosmologists is very inferior to the number of solid state or molecular physicists. I do mean that not everyone needs to know this modern approach. As is well-known, the consistent histories interpretation is an extension/improvement of the old Copenhagen interpretation advocated by your 'experts'. Who knows what new kind of misunderstanding is behind your abstract appeal to "no-go theorems"?
  3. Completely agree on that this is a zombie thread!
  4. The paper was cited when you did an ad hominem attack appealing that some member was doing "personal research" on the wave-particle duality myth. The paper shows that your charge was unfounded because there is literature on the wave-particle duality myth. Evidently the paper does not support you. In fact, the paper says about your crazy belief on that QM implies there is no reality: This is very very close to what Griffiths says in his textbook on quantum theory: Contrary to your laughable claims, all known experiments and physical theories such as QM are perfectly compatible with the existence of an external reality: physical reality. Try again!
  5. Before you start the cycle of the nonsense once again, let me add that all of this was answered/corrected in the last 230+ posts. For instance, you pretended to avoid criticism by appealing to the Orch-OR model, when we were not referring to that model. Concretely, I stated how Penrose's mathematical platonism is contrary to science, whereas another poster noted how his ideas about the mind are wrong.
  6. Again confirming what I said: "the ability to speak meaningfully of" is as a vague term as "the ability to assume the". By pretending that such vague terms are "precise definitions", you show again your ignorance of modern scientific standards and specially your lack of familiarity with the precise definitions used in physics, particularly quantum mechanics. A simple academic search by "Bell Theorem" gives 4030 results. Only 43 of them use the term "counterfactual definiteness", which is the one percent. One percent must be your own definition of "common", but it disagrees with everyone else definition. Moreover, I have checked Bell's book "Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics" and he uses the term "counterfactual definiteness" zero (0) times in the entire book. It is simply false that experiments have ruled out existence. Experiments say something different. Your misunderstanding of the experiments was already corrected before in this thread. Go back and read. And you repeat the same immortal mistake once again. First, I already pointed that Einstein was wrong in his EPR argument, but due to your ignorance of you did not notice. I will explain this to you: the failure of the EPR argument is what Weinberg did mean when he wrote "Bohr's version of quantum mechanics was deeply flawed, but not for the reason Einstein thought." in the Physics Today article which I cited very often in this thread. EPR in their criticism of quantum mechanics considered a naive notion of classical realism, which of course is incompatible with quantum reality. I will add that modern post-90s developments in the field of chaos have shown EPR naive conception of realism is in conflict even with classical reality. As stated many times before, physical reality is essentially quantum, with classical reality arising only as approximation. Your mistake is mentioned in modern textbooks (Griffiths): You can continue equating "reality" with "classical reality" and then misinterpreting what quantum mechanics says about the world, but the facts will not change. And without any surprise you repeat the same immortal mistake once again. First, you honestly omit the citation. You got the above quote from New Scientist. The nonsenses found in this news of the sensationalist magazine were reported a few posts before. No need to repeat again. Second, I already pointed that the old Copenhagen Interpretation is incorrect. This is not top-secret. This is even remarked in magazines as Physics Today. The wikipedia also has a section devoted to criticism of this old interpretation. Third, several modern interpretations have been developed to correct the defects of the old interpretation. As I pointed in numerous occassions the role of measurements is de-emphasized in modern quantum mechanics. From Griffiths textbook: Fourth, evidently no serious scientist will be abandoning the modern and corrected interpretation by the old and flawed one. Of course I am well aware that laymen as you reject the modern and corrected interpretation because conflicts with your laugdable religious beliefs. Fiveth, your fixation by Zeilinger is also well-known. He gave a recent interview at the German Newspaper "Die Zeit" Let me translate you some paragraphs (bold mine): He says about the relation between art and science: And says about recent experiments and the mind: Therefore once again we find that one of your favourite experts is not supporting your nonsense. He apologizes for how his work is misinterpreted by "mystics" like yourself. Ignorant mystics would I add. Another post unrelated to what I wrote. Yet you were the same guy who earlier argued in favour of realistic interpretations of quantum physics i.e it corresponds to an element of reality, (i.e. an objective attribute that exists before measurement). See your post #131. Your double standards and how you go by authority rather than looking at evidence and what nature is saying is quite evident. Nuf' said. And once again you fail to differentiate classical reality from quantum reality in despite of what I wrote. It is evident that you are in religious-zealot mode, and your mind is blocked from reading what others write. The last part of your post is also very laughable When will you return to post here about how you are sure that scientists of all the world are conspiring against your religious ideas and your revealed Truth? Aren't you doing some personal research and said that the wave-particle duality is a myth? I very well know that you have a personal bias against the Copenhagen interpretation. You must "very well know" a lot of wrong stuff, but that does not explain why you affirm that material by a Nobel winner published in Physics Today is my "personal bias". Don't worry I do not really wait an answer from you! About the second part of your post, you show again your terrible ignorance of such topics. There are many modern references devoted to the myth of wave-particle duality. For instance this recent Foundations of Physics paper is well-known (bold from mine): Now after explaining the above issue "personal bias" (recall I know you will not retract but will continue being silly) you would explain us how a paper published in FoP by other author is my "personal research" Another unrelated post plus your immortal misunderstanding of what is science or does. It is for the same property that the Bell Inequality is tested and found to be violated in experiments and such a property doesn't exist independent of the context of measurements. Completely nonsensical answer showing that you do not understand what I wrote. Why would he be angry by me linking to an auction of a letter where Einstein dismisses "God" as "nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses" and religion as "a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish"? At contrary he would be very happy that his ideas are so seriously considered and pay a high price. Would Einstein be hungry because he will becomes a target for your irrational attacks? Of course no
  7. And your link confirms what I said. First that this is not essential to quantum mechanics, but only found in some interpretations of quantum mechanics. Second, that this is a vague term: "the ability to speak meaningfully about the definiteness of the results of measurements" is not a precise definition by any standard. Your counter-claim reflects, once again, how far you are from physics standards and how ignorant you are of quantum mechanics. I wrote about quantum mechanical realism. You reply with something unrelated about Einstein's mathematical realism. This time you forgot to say something about intellectual honesty... This is your immortal misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. It is true that the role of measurement devices was over-hyped in earlier interpretations of quantum mechanics developed when this new stuff was not still completely understood. But our understanding of quantum mechanics has increased a lot of in last 60 years. In modern formulations/interpretations, measuring devices are just quantum systems and measurements just a kind of processes. The modern textbook cited about 100 posts ago explains how our modern understanding of quantum mechanics does not require any special role for measurements and/or observers. This is another instance of how you avoid what was written... D'Espagnat ideas have received the sympathy from an organization known by awarding nonsensical work. You must be well unaware of this, but physicists have the sane tendency to ignore useless hypothesis as the "God hypothesis" by evident reasons to all of us. It has been known for 100 years that one has "to give up the classical notion of realism at the quantum mechanical level". After the occasional laugh, I will say you that this is explained in any textbook on quantum mechanics that I know. Moreover, the difference between classical reality and quantum reality has been emphasized dozens of times in this forum. It was made in the same message that you are supposedly replying now. Saying that material published in Physics Today, by one of the most important physicists alive, is my "personal bias" is one of the most funny jokes that you have written here. :lol: Maybe you did dream that. But here, in the real word, the CERN site continues explaining to general public of what is made the world according to what experiments show us, as I said in the previous message. Spin is one of the properties that defines an elementary particle. E.g. photons are particles with spin 1, electrons are particles with spin one-half... It is unimportant if religion claims that the world is made of five elements or of 50000. Religion is useless to understand the physical nature of reality and no post in this forum will change this well-known fact. P.S.: In the past you gave partial, out of context, quotations by Albert Einstein in an attempt to convince us that he agrees with your nonsense. I gave full quotations that show the contrary. I know what you will like this link as well http://abcnews.go.co...tarting-2165601
  8. "Counterfactual definiteness" is a rather vague term (it lacks a precise definition) used in some interpretations of quantum mechanics. Contrary to your immortal misunderstanding, quantum mechanics is perfectly compatible with realism. If you were not repeating the same mistake a hundred of times, surely I would not be quoting Weinberg once again. Unlike you, he is well aware of the limitations and weakness of the old Copenhagen interpretation and of how modern interpretations have surpassed it. The popularity of the Copenhagen interpretation is related to being the older of all them and that it still work for a large class of quantum systems and also when one does not look into the details. There are situations where the old Copenhagen interpretation fails and has been surpassed by more general and rigorous interpretations, as explained in the modern literature cited hundred of posts ago. Congrats by linking to the typical sensationalist article from New Scientist with such nonsenses as "single photon that exists in three locations at once", "properties of one particle can immediately affect those of another regardless of the distance between them", and so on. Your selection reflects again your immortal inability to differentiate a reliable scientific source (as those given to you by several posters) from popular misinterpretations. Why do not link again to the pseudo-journal with the hidden agenda? Why do not cite again that pseudo-religious Prize awarded to nonsense? As the authors correctly note you cannot find a [classical] joint probability distribution allowing "a quantum system to be classically understood". They add: "We provide the first experimental evidence that even for a single three-state system, a qutrit, no such classical model can exist that correctly describes the results of a simple set of pairwise compatible measurements." I have already stated, about 200 posts ago, that quantum mechanics describes quantum reality. Universe is not classical, but quantum in essence, and quantum mechanics describes quantum reality. We know very well that classical reality is only an approximation to a more fundamental quantum reality. We already know what are the deficiencies of the Copenhagen Interpretation. This is not a secret known only among an elite of researchers, but can be found even in popular magazines as Physics Today (Weinberg's article cited before). You can ignore the facts, but they will not disappear... Sure, everyone knows that universe is made of elementary particles such as quarks and electrons, and that those particles existed in the universe before the first human was born. Look for "quark epoch" in some cosmology textbook. You hold the very laughable opinion that those elementary aspects of modern physics are only beliefs by CERN scientists and that universe is made of your five pseudo-religious 'elements'; but such collection of nonsense only reflects your ignorance of such matters.
  9. I did not even mention "hidden variable theories". I only wrote about quantum mechanics... The Copenhagen Interpretation is well-known to be inconsistent (with Bohr's ideas being plain wrong), as emphasized in the well-known Physics Today article written by Steven Weinberg. Several improvements of the old Copenhagen Interpretation are under active development in modern physics research. Of course, neither nonsensical religious beliefs nor laughable "God hypothesis" play any role in physics research. There is no such vague 'axiom' in quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is a physical theory with a precise formulation. P.S: I know that you are going to ignore this advice once again, but I am at least so persistent as you are: No wonder how many times you misunderstand science or insult others in this forum or elsewhere, your mistakes will not disappear, and your pseudo-religious post-modernism will continue being useless for science.
  10. This misleading argument was answered before. E.g. in #127: Concretely the textbook explains why there is not paradox, violation of causality, or conflict with relativity in such experiments. As is well-explained in this modern textbook, reality and scientific realism are compatible with this and other experiments. The evolution of the universe does not depend in any special way of any human choice: in fact, the universe evolved according to the laws of quantum mechanics before the first human was born.
  11. Intolerance plus ignorance is a dangerous cocktail.
  12. Maybe you would read what I wrote instead inventing it and then answering to yourself. But in any case, Penrose's platonism has been criticized by physicists such as Deutsch and Hawking. Deutsch dismisses Penrose's interpretation of quantum mechanics as "based more on aesthetics than science". Try again
  13. I believed that this topic was immortal
  14. What "real world"? Those "masters of nature" who "enter and exit a dead person's body" are so real as the "Meigas" in my country. No problem: both D'Espagnat and Penrose are wrong as is well-known.
  15. It is well-known that science is one of many disciplines. In my European country any 15-year-old student is taught the differences between science, religion, history, philosophy... their respective goals and their respective methods. Anyone would know that scientific knowledge provides an objective description of reality, whereas religion and philosophy do not. All our technology/medicine... is based in science although you continue ignoring such facts despite being mentioned very often. You cite Feyerabend! His attack on science was answered in many places, e.g. in the paper "Where Science Has Gone Wrong" (Nature 1987, 329, 595-598). The authors of the Nature paper criticize Feyerabend attacks and to other philosophers such as Lakatos or Popper. In shorth, Feyerabend "never understood science". We already know the "Truth" about religion. We already know that Penrose and Bernard are plain wrong.
  16. This answer is completely unrelated to the facts reported in my message. You have ignored the facts once again. Moreover your remark about "who disagree" is useless. We knew Penrose and D'Espagnat work much before you cited them here. We knew that they are completely wrong. This is all wrong. First, the paper does not address that. Evidently the paper does not provide a single experiment that contradicts what we know about matter. Second, I have given to you more references than the CERN site. Third, the CERN website does not reflect the perspective of CERN scientists, but the perspective of modern science. Any solid state physict, nuclear chemist, molecular biologist,... agrees on that everything known in nature is found to be made of particles such as quarks and electrons. Of course, scientists are open to add more particles to the Standard Model (several hypothetical particles have been proposed) and are also open to consider that particles are not final (e.g. some physicist study if particles are, at some fundamental scale, strings). Evidently these studies are made by scientists following the scientific method. Religion is useless. You have shown us that your questioning of science is without any serious basis. The second part of your message contradicts your hundred of posts here, which consist on repeating quotations and more quotations. None of the quotes by Einstein says that science can learn from religion. He does not say so, because that is nonsense. History shows the contrary: science diverges more and more from religion. I already explained to you what is the difference between religion and science. There is overwhelm consensus on Bell Experiments. Some few people does not understand the experiments or quantum mechanics, but there is excellent resources that correct their typical mistakes. Those resources were cited here. Scientists have ignored a "God hypothesis", because they know science and the scientific method, and can differentiate between a reliable scientific hypothesis from nonsense or useless hypothesis. The "Truth" is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real and your Gods are false. I cited the full quote: You believed that you (mis)understanding of quantum mechanics supported your religious ideas, but as shown here your ideas about quantum mechanics are incorrect and your religious ideas useless. Sorry. The wisdom hidden in the wisdom traditions were showed in this very thread and they didn't made up these ideas on their own, they got that wisdom and knowledge because the methodology of religion works. And another answer completely unrelated to the facts reported in my message. You have ignored the facts once again. Of course, I am not the only one who has detected this characteristic of you, as another poster wrote above: This is going more and more ironic immortal. You pretend that you know the ultimate Truth and the secrets of universe, still you cannot answer simple questions that any undergrad student of science can.
  17. That video does not count even as half-evidence. Scientific realism continues to work. Your "anthropism" plays no special role in nature as science has shown during its entire history: Physics showed that Earth is not the center of Universe, chemistry showed that the living and the non-living are made of the same atoms; biology showed that we are an evolving specie as any other... His main statement is quoted at the very start: "observations are not things". Apart from being a trivial statement, "things" is a not a scientific term and discussion about such vacuous terms is useless. Contrary to what you believe "quantum fields" is not a precise term. They cannot be rigorously defined even in the free case. You are now dismissing Einstein because I gave a full an extensive quotations where he clearly disagrees with you. You did not dismiss him when you gave a partial quote and pretended that he was supporting your point. In any case, the important point is that recent research supports his point of view about reality and quantum theory. Bohr was wrong, as Weinberg said to you. The goal of religion was never that. But let us concede you, for a moment, that this is its goal. The conclusion here is that religion is a poor method to develop that goal because everything said by religion about nature is either not provable (which means it is useless) or has been proven to be plain wrong. During last 1000 years you cannot find a single basic fact about nature that had been predicted/derived/provided by religion. Not a single gadget/device/material/plane/car/treatment... works thanks to knowledge provided by religion. Those are the facts and they are persistent.
  18. The above link starts with (emphasis in the original) I already wrote 94 posts ago: What is the point on repeating what has been said to you before? Both statements are untrue as shown in repeated occasions in this thread. You have not even provided a single pseudo-evidence. The author says that observations are not things. "Things" is not a scientific term, but a rather vacuous term. I am not going to debate about such terms because is a waste of time. Precisely, one of the characteristics of scientific method is the precise definition of terms used in the language before debating about them. The complete quotation is: Einstein also defends science: He gives a definition of religion that contradicts yours: Explains how religion would not interfere science: Emphasize how scientific results are independent of religion: And gives remarks about religious zealots very similar to those remarks I have given:
  19. Several of us already said you in this discussion forum that Penrose and D'Espagnat are incorrect. We already gave you literature showing why they are incorrect. Your above reaction as if you had read this criticism of their work by the first time is very funny. I know what you are going to ignore this advice once again but I am rather persistent: No matter how many times you insult others calling them "deluded," "biased scientists", intellectual dishonests or "stubborn", the scientific facts will not change; religion will continue being useless for a fundamental understanding of reality.
  20. Another blatantly false statement. Religion has nothing to do with experimental science. In fact religion is completely unrelated to any science. As is well known Hawking agrees on that religion is useless to understanding nature, although you often pretend in this thread that he is supporting your incorrect view. The difference between religion and science is well-summarized in the next quote:
  21. This is another blatantly false claim. A mature body does not reduce entropy but remains in a stationary state where its entropy is constant.
  22. Once again you have ignored what I have said in my message. I notice how you have avoided the criticism. Moreover your above reply consists of a repetition of the same stuff discussed and corrected before. My reply to your repetive arguments is the same now than before. You used this incorrect argument before. The correction is the same. We also have history of philosophy... but evidently philosophy is not a branch of history.
  23. It is philosophy, not religion. Religion is not testable. The difference between science and religion was addressed before as well. But you ignore the second part of the quote. That saying that the belief that the human mind has special powers that trascend the material universe is also rubbish. I already explained to you that, for instance, that the human mind plays absolutely no role in quantum mechanics. Only a small minory of 'mistics' who misunderstand quantum mechanics still believe the contrary.
  24. That is not scientific evidence, but a philosophical interpretation which (i) makes no sense and (ii) is not compatible with observations/experiments. From your own link: Let me repeat the last part: the "myth" of quantum consciousness has no scientific basis, nor does "the related belief that the human mind commands special powers—psychic forces—that transcend the material universe". This is essentially what I have been demonstrating to you during last hundred of posts.
  25. The same misunderstandings. The same insinuations. You restart the cycle once again.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.