The moderators closed the thread " He does not through dice" so I will respond with a new thread in order to answer questions posed to me there.

I want to reiterate my admiration and respect for the predicting power of quantum mechanics . I do not think anyone will argue with the fact that it is a work in progress. My disagreement with quantum mechanics is the standard model. For those of you that believe the standard model will eventually provide a GUT it is very unlikely that any discourse will change your mind. I understand that position very well because we require extraordinary proof when someone says something we have held to be a truth for a very long time is wrong.
We are all familiar with the measurement problem. Why is it that we can’t predict precise results for measurements but instead only probabilities for those results? Today is May 13th, on may 20th I will post my explanation of the electron double slit experiment. That will give those who are interested time to study this, http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/correlations.pdf

What does "through dice" mean? Nothing.

As I pointed out previously, the quote is I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

I find it rather stange, please write down your explanation now and not next week. Also, what does that 22 pages paper have to do with an electron double slit experiment?


Closing this thread, please PM me when you want to give your explanation. This is just plain silly.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

I will start with QM's description of the electron double slit experiment (EDSE). Please understand there is absolutely nothing wrong with the explanation other than it's a lot like reading a description of the Mona Lisa to a blind man. He will never know the beauty of the real picture.

We start with the wave function of a single electron associated with an atom of the cathode in the double slit device. The point particle or wave function is emitted from the cathode as a wave. The wave passes through the two slits as a wave and somewhere after the double slit the wave turns back into a wave function associated with a single atom of the detector. The next electron that we allow to pass through the device knows, in some manner as yet unexplained, what atom to which it should be associated. This appears to be the case, how else would the electrons build up an interference pattern if they did not know where to go in order to build this pattern.

This admittedly rough QM description of the EDSE ,for most will suffice and they will say we don't need to look any further. If I am to offer a classical explanation of the EDSE I must show a plausible way (in the classical sense) that the observer is somehow responsible for the interference pattern. Water waves through a double slit and sound wave interference were the first scientific encounter with wave interference. From there Thomas Young in 1801 did the double slit using light. Then along came de Broglio with his matter wave and the stage was set for the EDSE.

An EEG measures the movement of electrons in the brain. In simplistic terms this movement is accomplished by accelerating an electron or electrons across the gap between neurons. As we all know an accelerated electron generates an electromagnetic wave. For those of you who looked at the PEAR correlations the salient portion is the summary starting on page eighteen. Basically the PEAR experiments show that an event is random only if there are no observers involved. Can I prove that the interference pattern of the EDSE was caused by the human observer? No, but the results of the PEAR experiments are at least some supporting evidence. Those experiments showed that an observer can change the way trillions of micro-state events occur. Whose to say that we can't change where one small electron hits the detector just by the electromagnetic waves generated by our brains?

All very nice, what we want is some beef

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Unfortunately Cap it will take the resources of a Princeton to provide the beef and apparently there are some working on the problem.

If you're going to rely on Princeton to support your ATM assertions, is there any reason that this thread shouldn't be closed again?

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

No. unless someone wishes to discuss the idea.

One other thing, can't we be relatively certain that the first time the EDSE was performed the possible interference pattern was already in the mind of the experimenter?

Wasn't the thread opened so you could post your explanation?

I don't see it yet.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

An observer must be human, human brains influence electrons, and .. that's it? That's what we had to wait for a whole week, to get prepared?

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►