Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

Tuco_sl said:

I can't really tell what's going on and don't care enough to watch the video to see what happened, but I feel like I've spent as much effort as furry has understanding the experiment.

Click to expand...

You should watch the video, I really need you to save my e-honour.

Furry, if it could be explained by classic physics, then do it. The experiment outcome can be predicted and explained by the probability function. Until you go ahead and prove it using classics, QT stands.

QT is to classic physics what special relativity is to newtons physics, an example of something that only occurs at very small size, vs something that happens only on very high speeds.

This channel and veritasium are my favorites to explain physics
How the Sun works: Fusion and Quantum Tunneling - YouTube

Let me find one more that explains tunneling.

This one is a good one, it tells you the start of QF.

The Origin of Quantum Mechanics (feat. Neil Turok) - YouTube
this one explains Heisenberg uncertainty, on very layman terms.
Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle Explained - YouTube

lendarios_sl said:

Furry, if it could be explained by classic physics, then do it.

Click to expand...

I did. Even the towelheads figured this shit out 1000 years ago. What an embaressment that our education system now produces people that are less advanced than them.

Then go ahead and publish your findings debunking qt, use the drawings so we can see u winning the Nobel price.

If anyone is interested is simple physics explained easily go check out those channels. They cover a wide range of topics and they explained it on very simple terms.
The best way to explain qt and QM is as this. "It is counter intuitive", it does not conform to what you would expect, however, the universe does not care about what you expect, it just is. On qt, things happens that our day to day experience will find counterintuitive, the same way special relativity is counter intuitive, but it exists nonetheless.

lendarios_sl said:

debunking qt

Click to expand...

Why would I debunk a theory I agree with? Just because your shitty experiment has absolutely nothing to do with QT and is easily explained with classical physics doesn't mean it proves or debunks anything about it. As I said earlier in this thread, QT isn't even a Quantum mechanics theory, its origin comes from nuclear/particle physics, much like field theory which also was later placed within quantum mechanics. Both theories essentially pre-dated QM and were being used in calculations before QM even existed. Both are theories that I 100% agree with.

The attack that created QM was launched by einstein on field equations in particular. He gave that the math was very accurate, but said at the same time that despite this math being accurate, it couldn't possibly be how the universe actually worked, since the math calculated everything localized instantaneously, where we know there is the limiting factor of the speed of light. Basically, he said that field theory required there to be no limit to the speed of light, which disagreed with all observed science, and was something that needed to be rectified.

Thats why the majority of my problem is with the QM that arose after this instance, specifically stuff that tries to explain away this problem. My biggest problem is with entanglement. I find it to be a completely bullshit area of science. To a lesser degree, the uncertainty principle, which tried to say that Field theory actually is how the universe is, not just what we need to do to explain it. I believe the natural course of science will show the uncertainty principle to be wrong in our near lifetime as instruments get more accurate, as we have quickly approached the limits of it in the past couple decades. Entanglement theory, however, will stay far more insidious. As bell said himself when he created the experiment, proving or disproving it is impossible.

BurnemWizfyre_sl said:

Quantum Mechanics is the most accurate theory ever written, period.

Click to expand...

Did you read that in your QM bible?

khalid_sl said:

You believe this... why?

Click to expand...

To say it as simply as possible.

The view taken by QM is that nature can ignore the laws of physics unless humans are looking. I find this idea to be completely and self evidently absurd. The view taken by einstein, and the one I concur with is that we don't know all the functions of nature. The fact that we can't explain things except with probability and ignoring physical laws (Field theory breaks the speed of light) shows that we don't understand the universe yet, and that with better knowledge we might be able to eliminate these theories and accurately predict things on continually smalerl scale.

khalid_sl said:

So you have no reason to believe it at all, other than it makes you uncomfortable?

Click to expand...

You asked a question about natural philosophy, you get a natural philosophy answer.

Reading forums like this does ultimately convince me at times that QM mechanics may have it right. Perhaps humans are too stupid to ever refine their knowledge or figure out the missing variables that must be present.

pharmakos_sl said:

the uncertainity principle imo is an artifact from the fact that we are living in a computer simulation. if no users are directly observing a phenomena there is no need to draw the particles. just leave them as a field of possibility. uses up less hard drive space/clock cycles.

Click to expand...

Yea, the universe doesn't exist unless humans enforce the rules with their god-given gaze. We found the limits of his omnipotence.

I dont understand this disdain for randomness. What is wrong with shit just being random?