hipster doofus

why/how a particle can go into superposition

Recommended Posts

Quantum objects are not large enough to inhabit spacetime. When a particle is in a state that can only be described as math ..it is not part of spacetime. If something was tiny and didn't inhabit spacetime ..I'd say it would probably do quantum weird things. The math says the physical object remains 3D when in superposition, so the only avenue left to detach is spacetime. In math, it is waves, in reality, it has lost a dimension. Something that has lost a dimension is crazy to us.

What is the Uncertainty Principle telling us? Is it saying the power of observation/measurement of a quantum object is not enough to make it a genuine 3D + 1 space-time object? If something on our scale was partially fuzzy depending on how many measurements you made (at the same time) ..would you say it was a full fledged three dimensional object? No, you'd say isn't fully here, its Space-Time element is being partially held back. Wave collapse doesn't appear to be completely collapsing. If a particle is fuzzy while moving, it suggest that particle is on a different timeline than you or the object doesn't posses the properties needed. If it doesn't have momentum and becomes clear, it's because time isn't required to take a still shot.

This is also the reason they are not going to find quantum gravity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hipster doofus said:

Quantum objects are not large enough to inhabit spacetime. 

Um, no.

1 hour ago, hipster doofus said:

If a particle is fuzzy while moving, it suggest that particle is on a different timeline than you or the object doesn't posses the properties needed. If it doesn't have momentum and becomes clear, it's because time isn't required to take a still shot.

Also no.

speculations requires evidence to back it up. Please provide some.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They partially inhabit spacetime while we are observing them.

Fuzziness implies something is missing from the object.

I feel pretty good about this if that's your only problem with this so far.

You want evidence that quantum objects can sometimes only be described as math?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, hipster doofus said:

They partially inhabit spacetime while we are observing them.

Fuzziness implies something is missing from the object.

I feel pretty good about this if that's your only problem with this so far.

You want evidence that quantum objects can sometimes only be described as math?

!

Moderator Note

Only problem? No. You’ve been cautioned about rigor before. This isn’t the WAG forum. Present a model and/or evidence, or this too will be closed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My evidence is quantum gravity being nonexistent.

Evidence is also quantum weirdness events.

Please don't close this, I want constructive criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, hipster doofus said:

Please don't close this, I want constructive criticism.

Ok:

2 hours ago, hipster doofus said:

object doesn't posses the properties needed

No, your statements doesn't posses the properties needed.

55 minutes ago, hipster doofus said:

Fuzziness implies something is missing from the object.

No, the fuzziness here implies something is missing from your posts.

2 hours ago, hipster doofus said:

If it doesn't have momentum and becomes clear

If your discussion doesn't gain momentum and becomes clear the discussion will be short.

 

How about posting enough details and definitions so that some kind of scientific discussion about your idea is possible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's frightening how little you guys are willing to think outside the preconfigured box. This might be the answer to the biggest question in QM. You would rather put on your graduation cap and monocle and call me a peasant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, hipster doofus said:

It's frightening how little you guys are willing to think outside the preconfigured box. This might be the answer to the biggest question in QM.

I believe there are plenty of members here quite capable of such thinking once a box is defined. But why not try some thinking inside the preconfigured box first; maybe some way of communicating the idea may emerge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm saying quantum weirdness has something to do with spacetime. How was my original statement not clear enough? You really can't see what I'm pointing at because I'm not using the precise terminology? Pretend I'm 15yo making the statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, hipster doofus said:

It's frightening how little you guys are willing to think outside the preconfigured box. This might be the answer to the biggest question in QM. You would rather put on your graduation cap and monocle and call me a peasant.

It's far more frightening how many Joe Blows can have the audacity to claim on a science forum, that he or she has somehow found the answer to a particular scenario, that the professionals have been researching for many years. As Ghideon has alluded to, first know what exactly is inside the box before trying to explore outside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, screw joe blow for having a unique idea. That dude didn't waste his life like i did searching dead leads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hipster doofus said:

Quantum objects are not large enough to inhabit spacetime.

 

A pity you are not talking to me since you are both right and wrong here.

 

3 hours ago, hipster doofus said:

When a particle is in a state that can only be described as math ..it is not part of spacetime.

 

Part of you problem is you start talking about non particulate things, like spacetime for example, but then switch to particles for your discussion.

Why do you do this, it makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, hipster doofus said:

Pretend I'm 15yo making the statements.

Quantum physics is a complicated topic. It contains concepts and properties that might look counter intuitive from our daily macroscopic perspective. It means that analogies and pop-sci comparisons are of limited use to explain and predict behaviour at quantum level. Progress is made by understanding an applying mathematic tools and concepts (inside and outside of the box) and by performing rather complicated experiments. Reaching such a level of mathematic knowledge at age 15 is definitely not impossible but probably very unlikely. That, in combination with rather vague posts without math in this thread, makes it unlikely that the ideas stated will lead to profound levels of progress at this point. But since genuine interest in fundamental physics have been displayed it might be good to pause the posting of new ideas and take some time posting questions in the mainframe sections?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, hipster doofus said:

Yes, screw joe blow for having a unique idea. That dude didn't waste his life like i did searching dead leads.

That's not what I said. Ignorance begats ignorance. Like I said and others have alluded to...know fully what is inside the box before attempting to modify/change it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

A pity you are not talking to me since you are both right and wrong here.

 

 

Part of you problem is you start talking about non particulate things, like spacetime for example, but then switch to particles for your discussion.

Why do you do this, it makes no sense.

You are saying I'm a quantum object? There is an obvious divide between spacetime and quantum.

The whole point is that spacetime doesn't touch particles until they are observed.

13 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Quantum physics is a complicated topic. It contains concepts and properties that might look counter intuitive from our daily macroscopic perspective. It means that analogies and pop-sci comparisons are of limited use to explain and predict behaviour at quantum level. Progress is made by understanding an applying mathematic tools and concepts (inside and outside of the box) and by performing rather complicated experiments. Reaching such a level of mathematic knowledge at age 15 is definitely not impossible but probably very unlikely. That, in combination with rather vague posts without math in this thread, makes it unlikely that the ideas stated will lead to profound levels of progress at this point. But since genuine interest in fundamental physics have been displayed it might be good to pause the posting of new ideas and take some time posting questions in the mainframe sections?

 

Why does this need to be considered a new theory when it's obviously been present since the big bang?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, hipster doofus said:

You are saying I'm a quantum object?

 

What exactly in what I wrote leads you to think this might be the case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps if you took other people more seriously you might make faster progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You have had a good idea.

Good because most people don't notice this.

However your idea is not quite right and the consequences that you attribute to it do not flow from it.

Your consequences are thus wrong.

The last time I tried to help you understand (and develop)  this idea of yours you were quite rude, and then stopped talking to me.

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You told me to write an equation for an idea that turned out to be wrong. Not sure how sucking at math was being rude to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, hipster doofus said:

You told me to write an equation for an idea that turned out to be wrong.

And yet you repeated your idea at the beginning of this thread.

Why do you think it was wrong?

Wouldn't it be better to ask what idea of yours I thought, and think might be (nearly) right?

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hipster doofus said:

The bigger question is why you didn't declare your discovery already.

I don't understand what you mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.