Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #561148 > unrolled thread

The 'great smoky dragon' of quantum physics

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  The 'great smoky dragon' of quantum physics Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 09:50 -0600
    The 'great smoky dragon' of quantum physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 08:47 -0800
      The 'great smoky dragon' of quantum physics HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 08:52 -0800
        Re: The 'great smoky dragon' of quantum physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 14:06 -0500
      Re: The 'great smoky dragon' of quantum physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 10:59 -0600
        Re: The 'great smoky dragon' of quantum physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 10:34 -0800
          Re: The 'great smoky dragon' of quantum physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 13:04 -0600
      Re: The 'great smoky dragon' of quantum physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-10 17:40 +0000
      Re: The 'great smoky dragon' of quantum physics Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 12:30 -0600
        Re: The 'great smoky dragon' of quantum physics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-10 18:37 +0000
    Re: The 'great smoky dragon' of quantum physics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-10 18:35 +0000
    puff, the noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 18:58 -0800

#561148 — The 'great smoky dragon' of quantum physics

The 'great smoky dragon' of quantum physics
> http://phys.org/news/2016-03-great-smoky-dragon-quantum-physics.html


> University of Vienna physicists have, for the first time, evaluated
> the almost 100-year long history of quantum delayed-choice
> experiments—from the theoretical beginnings with Albert Einstein to
> the latest research works in the present. The extensive study now
> appeared in the renowned journal Reviews of Modern Physics.
>
> Since the 17th century, science was intrigued by the nature of light.
> Isaac Newton was certain that it consists of a stream of particles.
> His contemporary Christiaan Huygens, however, argued that light is a
> wave. Modern quantum physics says that both were right. Light can be
> observed both as particles and as waves—depending which
> characteristic is measured in an experiment, it presents itself more
> as one or the other. This so-called wave-particle dualism is one of
> the foundational principles of quantum physics. This questions our
> common sense: can one and the same indeed be of two contradictory
> natures at the same time?


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#561156

QM is nonsensical- the damage it has
done to science is incalculable 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561159

John
QM is nonsensical- the damage it has 
done to science is incalculable
------------

I suppose the fact that the screen you are looking at to read this wouldn't be possible without our knowledge of quantum mechanics doesn't factor in to your opinion?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561225

On 03/10/2016 11:52 AM, HVAC wrote:
> John QM is nonsensical- the damage it has done to science is
> incalculable ------------
>
> I suppose the fact that the screen you are looking at to read this
> wouldn't be possible without our knowledge of quantum mechanics
> doesn't factor in to your opinion?
>
Please explain the display engineering that makes use of Quantum 
Principles. Be Specific. We'll wait right here. This is something you 
heard someone else say and just repeated, right?

I heard that it was the reverse-engineered junk found at the Roswell 
crash that made modern computers possible.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561162

On 3/10/2016 10:47 AM, john wrote:
> QM is nonsensical- the damage it has
> done to science is incalculable
>

What damage, exactly?

I notice that you have repeated your cycle of going briefly quiet after 
being shamed about your kooky beliefs, and then making a random attack 
on physics.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561203

Odd twerped 
"I notice that you have repeated your cycle of going briefly quiet after 
being shamed about your kooky beliefs..."

Like you went quite for awhile after you
forgot you weren't PD?
Enlighten me on the "shaming".
Did I lie about something?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561223

On 3/10/2016 12:34 PM, john wrote:
> Enlighten me on the "shaming".
> Did I lie about something?

No, you didn't lie. You were had by a fraud, and you were ashamed to 
have that pointed out to you. I don't accuse you of lying. I accuse you 
of being a fool.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561181

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>QM is nonsensical- the damage it has
>done to science is incalculable 

What damage is that, John?  Allowing for the creation of an electronic
device that allows you to babble on the internet?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561201

On 3/10/16 10:47 AM, john wrote:
> QM is nonsensical- the damage it has
> done to science is incalculable
>

   Yeah, like your computer, mobile phone, modern cars, GNSS, Emergency
   services and modern health care electronic. Yep, it a travesty for
   sure.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561211

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/10/16 10:47 AM, john wrote:
>> QM is nonsensical- the damage it has
>> done to science is incalculable
>>
> 
>   Yeah, like your computer, mobile phone, modern cars, GNSS, Emergency
>   services and modern health care electronic. Yep, it a travesty for
>   sure.
 
QM has little to nothing to do with most of the things you list, spammer.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561210

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> The 'great smoky dragon' of quantum physics

Puerile, breatheless, tripe.

Is there not an article title too idiotic for you to copy?


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561376 — puff, the

Huyghens was gOOd.  there are really virtully no properties
of light that conform to Newton's screw-up of corpusles,
including the photon-electron effects ... iff
you bother to think about it

> > Since the 17th century, science was intrigued by the nature of light.
> > Isaac Newton was certain that it consists of a stream of particles.
> > His contemporary Christiaan Huygens, however, argued that light is a
> > wave. Modern quantum physics says that both were right. Light can be
> > observed both as particles and as waves--depending which
> > characteristic is measured in an experiment, it presents itself more
> > as one or the other. This so-called wave-particle dualism is one of
> > the foundational principles of quantum physics. This questions our
> > common sense: can one and the same indeed be of two contradictory
> > natures at the same time?
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web