Theoretical Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 "If the system was in a single state beforehand, then you would get different results from what we see in some experiments." I don't understand why the results would be different. If the single state were to be the same as that which the wavefunction is assumed to collapse into, why would the results of a measurement be different? I would be grateful if you could indicate which experiments can only be explained on the basis of a collapsing wavefunction. Please see one of my first threads started at this form. I've proven 100% with very simple mathematics that classical mechanics clearly predicts the Bell test experiment. Nobody found errors in my math. The admin closed the thread and said I kind of admitted to error, but that is deceptive. At one point in the thread the only thing I even hinted being wrong was the idea of a hidden variable, but that is a quantum mechanics debate that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that classical mechanics clearly predicts the correct outcome of the Bell test experiment. Yes, I used to buy into quantum mechanics, until I started deriving everything using classical mechanics; e.g., photon momentum, compton scattering, bells test experiment, photoelectric effect, blackbody radiation, the atomic world... In fact, classical mechanics predicts a second electromagnetic wave is emitted from compton scattering that has twice the compton scattering frequency. This emr is twice the frequency, but *extremely* weak. Hopefully soon this will be confirmed, putting classical mechanics back where it belongs. Classical mechanics never failed anyone. We failed classical mechanics. Einstein's intuition was correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Just so Jon G doesn't think there is anything to it, what Theoretical did was to use the results predicted by QM to produce the same results as QM. Not terribly interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoretical Posted September 5, 2015 Author Share Posted September 5, 2015 Just so Jon G doesn't think there is anything to it, what Theoretical did was to use the results predicted by QM to produce the same results as QM. Not terribly interesting.What a blatant lie. I used classical mechanics equations. Once again I ask you, show the errors, show proof. Be specific. You can't because you're all you're doing here is putting out fires to suppress truth. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 (edited) In fact, classical mechanics predicts a second electromagnetic wave is emitted from compton scattering that has twice the compton scattering frequency. This emr is twice the frequency, but *extremely* weak. Double frequency would mean double energy. Then it would violate energy conservation... There is no such thing as "Compton scattering frequency". Scattered electrons and scattered photons vary by energy/frequency. Complement each other. If electron takes more, photon takes less. And vice versa. However there is Compton frequency, unique fC=1.23559*1020 Hz. If you multiply fC by Planck const: 1.23559*1020 Hz * 6.626069*10-34 J*s, you will get energy of electron: 8.8710459571-14 J, divide by c2: 8.8710459571-14 J / 2997924582= 9.11*10-31 kg to get rest mass of electron... Hopefully soon this will be confirmed, putting classical mechanics back where it belongs. It's in the right place. In primary school physics lessons. I wish learning would start from photons, then via pair production go to electrons and positrons, then further to protons and antiprotons, then further through fusion to isotopes, radioactivity.. It's in chronological order of how particles are created.. and at the end we can learn classic physics with it's averaging quantum world.. Edited September 5, 2015 by Sensei 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 ! Moderator Note No Discussion of Theoreticals speculation in this thread. DO NOT BRING YOUR IDEAS UP IN OTHER THREADS AGAIN. This is viewed as hijacking and against our rules. No need for anyone to response to this moderation. Report it if you feel it is unfair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 ! Moderator Note Theoretical, do not continue posting your own ideas in other people's threads.I've hidden the replies since the above modnote.Do not reply to this modnote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 (edited) The formulas and math posted by Sensei are such. They are not his personal models or ideas They are experimental data. Anybody can find it out while using high voltage generator such as Van de Graaff's Generator. I suggest anybody buying this device to get experimental data: http://www.amazon.com/American-Educational-7-511-Graaff-Generator/dp/B00658B1YU $155 is not much... Edited September 5, 2015 by Sensei Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Point taken either way it's not your personal model or idea lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts