Quantum Entanglement Has Now Been Directly Observed at The Macroscopic Scale

HarveyH55 wrote:
While reading this, I kept getting 'cold-fusion' flashbacks... Suppose I should give it time, and let other labs replicate the experiment, or attempt to...

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
While reading this, I kept getting 'cold-fusion' flashbacks... Suppose I should give it time, and let other labs replicate the experiment, or attempt to...

Quantum entanglement can be replicated by anyone trying. The frustrating thing now as was for Einstein is that it cannot be explained by classical physics, which is giving rise to the simulation theory.

Swan wrote:Quantum entanglement can be replicated by anyone trying.

Swan wrote: The frustrating thing now as was for Einstein is that it cannot be explained by classical physics,

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Quantum entanglement can be replicated by anyone trying.

Quantum entanglement cannot be replicated until it has been accomplished a first time. I know you believe it has been accomplished somehow because you read it on the internet, and you believe everything you read on the internet as long as it agrees with what you have been told to believe by the people who do your thinking for you.

Unfortunately, quantum entaglement is not possible, explaining why it has never been accomplished.

Swan wrote: The frustrating thing now as was for Einstein is that it cannot be explained by classical physics,

Incorrect. Classical physics quite adequately explains why quantum entanglement is not possible. Einstein was thoroughly knowledgeable about General Relativity, being that he authored it. Einstein was thoroughly aware that quantum entanglement is not possible.

Swan, you are also thoroughly aware that quantum entanglement is not possible, which is why you always EVADE the question "How can I discern an entangled photon from a non-entangled photon?" You EVADE the question because you know that there is no way to discern an attribute that does not exist.

Says the guy who asks "How can I discern an entangled photon from a non-entangled photon?"

IBdaMann wrote:
Quantum entanglement cannot be replicated until it has been accomplished a first time. I know you believe it has been accomplished somehow because you read it on the internet, and you believe everything you read on the internet as long as it agrees with what you have been told to believe by the people who do your thinking for you.

Roj475 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Quantum entanglement cannot be replicated until it has been accomplished a first time. I know you believe it has been accomplished somehow because you read it on the internet, and you believe everything you read on the internet as long as it agrees with what you have been told to believe by the people who do your thinking for you.

Completely confused... Everything is available on the internet... I am not sure how to decipher gravity as it is something explained on the internet and I cannot word it without a near direct example being available via an internet link...
Moreover, Google would also have the description...

I would happily accept your position of "I know you [Swan] believe it has been accomplished somehow because you read it on the internet" if that means the American military is as good as we see now and it is not becoming more advanced, only larger (or smaller).

Swan wrote:
https://www.sciencealert.com/quantum-entanglement-has-now-been-directly-observed-at-the-macroscopic-scale

Swan wrote:
Quantum entanglement is the binding together of two particles or objects, even though they may be far apart – their respective properties are linked in a way that's not possible under the rules of classical physics.

Swan wrote:
It's a weird phenomenon that Einstein described as "spooky action at a distance",

Swan wrote:
but its weirdness is what makes it so fascinating to scientists. In a 2021 study, quantum entanglement was directly observed and recorded at the macroscopic scale – a scale much bigger than the subatomic particles normally associated with entanglement.

Swan wrote:
The dimensions involved are still very small from our perspective – the experiments involved two tiny aluminum drums one-fifth the width of a human hair – but in the realm of quantum physics they're absolutely huge.

"If you analyze the position and momentum data for the two drums independently, they each simply look hot," said physicist John Teufel, from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the US, last year.

"But looking at them together, we can see that what looks like random motion of one drum is highly correlated with the other, in a way that is only possible through quantum entanglement."

Swan wrote:
While there's nothing to say that quantum entanglement can't happen with macroscopic objects, before this it was thought that the effects weren't noticeable at larger scales – or perhaps that the macroscopic scale was governed by another set of rules.

The recent research suggests that's not the case. In fact, the same quantum rules apply here, too, and can actually be seen as well. Researchers vibrated the tiny drum membranes using microwave photons and kept them kept in a synchronized state in terms of their position and velocities.

To prevent outside interference, a common problem with quantum states, the drums were cooled, entangled, and measured in separate stages while inside a cryogenically chilled enclosure. The states of the drums are then encoded in a reflected microwave field that works in a similar way to radar.

Swan wrote:
Previous studies had also reported on macroscopic quantum entanglement, but the 2021 research went further: All of the necessary measurements were recorded rather than inferred, and the entanglement was generated in a deterministic, non-random way.

Swan wrote:
In a related but separate series of experiments, researchers also working with macroscopic drums (or oscillators) in a state of quantum entanglement have shown how it's possible to measure the position and momentum of the two drumheads at the same time.

"In our work, the drumheads exhibit a collective quantum motion," said physicist Laure Mercier de Lepinay, from Aalto University in Finland. "The drums vibrate in an opposite phase to each other, such that when one of them is in an end position of the vibration cycle, the other is in the opposite position at the same time."

"In this situation, the quantum uncertainty of the drums' motion is canceled if the two drums are treated as one quantum-mechanical entity."

Swan wrote:
What makes this headline news is that it gets around Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle – the idea that position and momentum can't be perfectly measured at the same time. The principle states that recording either measurement will interfere with the other through a process called quantum back action.

Swan wrote:
As well as backing up the other study in demonstrating macroscopic quantum entanglement, this particular piece of research uses that entanglement to avoid quantum back action – essentially investigating the line between classical physics (where the Uncertainty Principle applies) and quantum physics (where it now doesn't appear to).

Swan wrote:
One of the potential future applications of both sets of findings is in quantum networks –
being able to manipulate and entangle objects on a macroscopic scale so that they can power next-generation communication networks.

Swan wrote:
"Apart from practical applications, these experiments address how far into the macroscopic realm experiments can push the observation of distinctly quantum phenomena," write physicists Hoi-Kwan Lau and Aashish Clerk, who weren't involved in the studies, in a commentary on the research published at the time.

And that's the way it is...................

HarveyH55 wrote:
While reading this, I kept getting 'cold-fusion' flashbacks... Suppose I should give it time, and let other labs replicate the experiment, or attempt to...

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
While reading this, I kept getting 'cold-fusion' flashbacks... Suppose I should give it time, and let other labs replicate the experiment, or attempt to...

Quantum entanglement can be replicated by anyone trying. The frustrating thing now as was for Einstein is that it cannot be explained by classical physics, which is giving rise to the simulation theory.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Quantum entanglement can be replicated by anyone trying.

Quantum entanglement cannot be replicated until it has been accomplished a first time. I know you believe it has been accomplished somehow because you read it on the internet, and you believe everything you read on the internet as long as it agrees with what you have been told to believe by the people who do your thinking for you.

Unfortunately, quantum entaglement is not possible, explaining why it has never been accomplished.

Swan wrote: The frustrating thing now as was for Einstein is that it cannot be explained by classical physics,

Incorrect. Classical physics quite adequately explains why quantum entanglement is not possible. Einstein was thoroughly knowledgeable about General Relativity, being that he authored it. Einstein was thoroughly aware that quantum entanglement is not possible.

Swan, you are also thoroughly aware that quantum entanglement is not possible, which is why you always EVADE the question "How can I discern an entangled photon from a non-entangled photon?" You EVADE the question because you know that there is no way to discern an attribute that does not exist.

Says the guy who asks "How can I discern an entangled photon from a non-entangled photon?"

You seem to think that your denials have an effect on reality, and that your approval is needed for progress. It is also true that you ask for arguments here in order to stimulate your dead shed existence, where you live in the mansion of choice that you find online. So with all respect, you need psychological help to escape your shell,


https://astronomy.com/news/2022/10/what-is-quantum-entanglement

The 2022 Nobel Prize in physics recognized three scientists who made groundbreaking contributions in understanding one of the most mysterious of all natural phenomena: quantum entanglement.

In the simplest terms, quantum entanglement means that aspects of one particle of an entangled pair depend on aspects of the other particle, no matter how far apart they are or what lies between them. These particles could be, for example, electrons or photons, and an aspect could be the state it is in, such as whether it is "spinning" in one direction or another.

The strange part of quantum entanglement is that when you measure something about one particle in an entangled pair, you immediately know something about the other particle, even if they are millions of light years apart. This odd connection between the two particles is instantaneous, seemingly breaking a fundamental law of the universe. Albert Einstein famously called the phenomenon "spooky action at a distance."

The fact is that you have no proof that entanglement is not real, if you did you would be as famous in reality as you are in your own mind

Swan wrote:

Roj475 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Quantum entanglement cannot be replicated until it has been accomplished a first time. I know you believe it has been accomplished somehow because you read it on the internet, and you believe everything you read on the internet as long as it agrees with what you have been told to believe by the people who do your thinking for you.

Completely confused... Everything is available on the internet... I am not sure how to decipher gravity as it is something explained on the internet and I cannot word it without a near direct example being available via an internet link...
Moreover, Google would also have the description...

I would happily accept your position of "I know you [Swan] believe it has been accomplished somehow because you read it on the internet" if that means the American military is as good as we see now and it is not becoming more advanced, only larger (or smaller).

There is no accurate definition of gravity anywhere, as if the definition that exists is accurate then 85 percent of the universe is missing. However yes you can find anything on the net, including total BS

Roj475 wrote:Completely confused... Everything is available on the internet...

Roj475 wrote:I am not sure how to decipher gravity

Roj475 wrote:Moreover, Google would also have the description...

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
https://www.sciencealert.com/quantum-entanglement-has-now-been-directly-observed-at-the-macroscopic-scale

Yet another cut and paste. *yawn*

Swan wrote:
Quantum entanglement is the binding together of two particles or objects, even though they may be far apart – their respective properties are linked in a way that's not possible under the rules of classical physics.

Nope. Not the definition of 'quantum entanglement'.
A particle with a known sum of states is split, resulting in entangled particles of indefinite state. If you measure one of them, you know the state of the other.

You cannot build a computer this way. You cannot build a telecommunications system this way.

Swan wrote:
It's a weird phenomenon that Einstein described as "spooky action at a distance",

Stop misquoting the poor guy. He was NEVER discussing your wacky definition of 'quantum entanglement'.

Swan wrote:
but its weirdness is what makes it so fascinating to scientists. In a 2021 study, quantum entanglement was directly observed and recorded at the macroscopic scale – a scale much bigger than the subatomic particles normally associated with entanglement.

It has never been observed. You cannot measure the speed of light or anything faster than the speed of light.

Swan wrote:
The dimensions involved are still very small from our perspective – the experiments involved two tiny aluminum drums one-fifth the width of a human hair – but in the realm of quantum physics they're absolutely huge.

"If you analyze the position and momentum data for the two drums independently, they each simply look hot," said physicist John Teufel, from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the US, last year.

"But looking at them together, we can see that what looks like random motion of one drum is highly correlated with the other, in a way that is only possible through quantum entanglement."

An interpretation, subject to the problems of phenomenology. Not a proof nor a direct measurement of anything.

Swan wrote:
While there's nothing to say that quantum entanglement can't happen with macroscopic objects, before this it was thought that the effects weren't noticeable at larger scales – or perhaps that the macroscopic scale was governed by another set of rules.

The recent research suggests that's not the case. In fact, the same quantum rules apply here, too, and can actually be seen as well. Researchers vibrated the tiny drum membranes using microwave photons and kept them kept in a synchronized state in terms of their position and velocities.

To prevent outside interference, a common problem with quantum states, the drums were cooled, entangled, and measured in separate stages while inside a cryogenically chilled enclosure. The states of the drums are then encoded in a reflected microwave field that works in a similar way to radar.

Nope. You cannot measure anything faster than the speed of light.

Swan wrote:
Previous studies had also reported on macroscopic quantum entanglement, but the 2021 research went further: All of the necessary measurements were recorded rather than inferred, and the entanglement was generated in a deterministic, non-random way.

It has NEVER been recorded. It has ALWAYS been inferred.

Swan wrote:
In a related but separate series of experiments, researchers also working with macroscopic drums (or oscillators) in a state of quantum entanglement have shown how it's possible to measure the position and momentum of the two drumheads at the same time.

"In our work, the drumheads exhibit a collective quantum motion," said physicist Laure Mercier de Lepinay, from Aalto University in Finland. "The drums vibrate in an opposite phase to each other, such that when one of them is in an end position of the vibration cycle, the other is in the opposite position at the same time."

"In this situation, the quantum uncertainty of the drums' motion is canceled if the two drums are treated as one quantum-mechanical entity."

Meaningless. The drumheads can be affected by many factors.

Swan wrote:
What makes this headline news is that it gets around Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle – the idea that position and momentum can't be perfectly measured at the same time. The principle states that recording either measurement will interfere with the other through a process called quantum back action.

No. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is a theory of science. It has not been falsified.

Swan wrote:
As well as backing up the other study in demonstrating macroscopic quantum entanglement, this particular piece of research uses that entanglement to avoid quantum back action – essentially investigating the line between classical physics (where the Uncertainty Principle applies) and quantum physics (where it now doesn't appear to).

The Uncertainty Principle applies to quantum mechanics and to every particle in it.

Swan wrote:
One of the potential future applications of both sets of findings is in quantum networks –
being able to manipulate and entangle objects on a macroscopic scale so that they can power next-generation communication networks.

There is no such thing as a 'quantum network'.

Swan wrote:
"Apart from practical applications, these experiments address how far into the macroscopic realm experiments can push the observation of distinctly quantum phenomena," write physicists Hoi-Kwan Lau and Aashish Clerk, who weren't involved in the studies, in a commentary on the research published at the time.

And that's the way it is...................

It is not possible to measure anything faster than the speed of light.

Swan wrote:You are clearly owned,

Swan wrote: ... and yes quantum entanglement is far faster than light and still does not violate the flawed theory of relativity which does not work with quantum mechanics?

Swan wrote:Quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity form the bedrock of the current understanding of physics—yet the two theories don't seem to work together.

Swan wrote: Physical phenomena rely on the relationship of motion between the observed and the observer.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:You are clearly owned,

You are clearly owned. You are clearly grabbing your ankles.

Swan wrote: ... and yes quantum entanglement is far faster than light and still does not violate the flawed theory of relativity which does not work with quantum mechanics?

EVERYTHING you describe is an egregious violation of physics. If your belief brings you comfort in a chaotic world of vegetable gardening, please avail yourself to the maximum extent possible.

Swan wrote:Quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity form the bedrock of the current understanding of physics—yet the two theories don't seem to work together.

They absolutely work together. Quantum mechanics is really just statistical mathematics, i.e. mostly probability math, and doesn't impinge on physics.

Mathematics works with physics.

Swan wrote: Physical phenomena rely on the relationship of motion between the observed and the observer.

No physical phenomena rely on any such relationship. Physical phenomena will exist just fine without either motion or observers.

Swan wrote:

IBDaMann wrote: No physical phenomena rely on any such relationship. Physical phenomena will exist just fine without either motion or observers.

Actually Heisenberg figured this out in 1927

Swan wrote:Quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity form the bedrock of the current understanding of physics—yet the two theories don't seem to work together.

Xadoman wrote:

Swan wrote:Quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity form the bedrock of the current understanding of physics—yet the two theories don't seem to work together.

Brutal and true.

Xadoman wrote:Theory of relativity is obviously flawed.

Xadoman wrote:Time dilation, twin paradox etc etc. It does not agree with physical reality.

Xadoman wrote:There is no time dilation. It is a mental construction.

Xadoman wrote:

Swan wrote:Quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity form the bedrock of the current understanding of physics—yet the two theories don't seem to work together.

Brutal and true.

Theory of relativity is obviously flawed. Time dilation, twin paradox etc etc. It does not agree with physical reality. There is no time dilation. It is a mental construction.

Swan wrote:Everything that you can think is a mental construction.

Swan wrote: Why does gravity not apply to the universe the same as it does to the Earth,

Swan wrote:If dark matter is real then 85 percent of the universe is missing, which is hardly possible, so what are we looking at?

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Everything that you can think is a mental construction.

Your thoughts are the mental construction, not the actual objects of your thoughts.

Swan wrote: Why does gravity not apply to the universe the same as it does to the Earth,

It does apply equally. General Relativity explains the underlying relationship.

Swan wrote:If dark matter is real then 85 percent of the universe is missing, which is hardly possible, so what are we looking at?

You're babbling like a brook. Did you have a point or are you gibbering one big non-point?

Swan wrote:LOL according to the THEORY of relativity 85 percent of the universe is missing,

Swan wrote:furthermore Einstein babbled that the universe was static as in not in motion.

Have you never used a GPS?

Einstein's special theory of relativity concerns the relation between observations (of "events" without spatial extension recorded by space-time coordinates (x,t)) made by different observers using different inertial coordinate systems moving with constant velocity with respect to each other.

Suppose there is only one observer making observations in only one coordinate system in which the observer is at rest. Let us refer to this as a one-system situation. Can there be any special relativity theory for this one-system with its single observer/inertial system? Of course not. With only one inertial system there is no room for comparison with observations in another moving inertial system. The special theory of relativity is empty for a one-system.

Now, the GPS system is a one-system based on the WGS84 spherical (ellipsoidal) coordinates system we are used to with latitude, longitude and height for spatial location, and an Earth based master clock setting common time, which is what your GPS receiver can report to you. The GPS system is thus a one-system and as such has no use for the special theory of relativity. In this one-system, the position of moving satellites are recorded by one master observer at rest on Earth and satellite clocks are synchronized with the master clock to UTC Universal Central Time (with nanosecond precision). There are no observers, sitting in the satellites making observations in moving inertial systems requiring coordination using the special theory of relativity. This is a one-master one-system for which the special theory of relativity has nothing to contribute.

This is yet another observation that GPS does not depend on the special theory of relativity.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL according to the THEORY of relativity 85 percent of the universe is missing,

Incorrect.

Swan wrote:furthermore Einstein babbled that the universe was static as in not in motion.

Says the guy who doesn't know what Einstein said.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
https://www.sciencealert.com/quantum-entanglement-has-now-been-directly-observed-at-the-macroscopic-scale

Yet another cut and paste. *yawn*

Swan wrote:
Quantum entanglement is the binding together of two particles or objects, even though they may be far apart – their respective properties are linked in a way that's not possible under the rules of classical physics.

Nope. Not the definition of 'quantum entanglement'.
A particle with a known sum of states is split, resulting in entangled particles of indefinite state. If you measure one of them, you know the state of the other.

You cannot build a computer this way. You cannot build a telecommunications system this way.

Swan wrote:
It's a weird phenomenon that Einstein described as "spooky action at a distance",

Stop misquoting the poor guy. He was NEVER discussing your wacky definition of 'quantum entanglement'.

Swan wrote:
but its weirdness is what makes it so fascinating to scientists. In a 2021 study, quantum entanglement was directly observed and recorded at the macroscopic scale – a scale much bigger than the subatomic particles normally associated with entanglement.

It has never been observed. You cannot measure the speed of light or anything faster than the speed of light.

Swan wrote:
The dimensions involved are still very small from our perspective – the experiments involved two tiny aluminum drums one-fifth the width of a human hair – but in the realm of quantum physics they're absolutely huge.

"If you analyze the position and momentum data for the two drums independently, they each simply look hot," said physicist John Teufel, from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the US, last year.

"But looking at them together, we can see that what looks like random motion of one drum is highly correlated with the other, in a way that is only possible through quantum entanglement."

An interpretation, subject to the problems of phenomenology. Not a proof nor a direct measurement of anything.

Swan wrote:
While there's nothing to say that quantum entanglement can't happen with macroscopic objects, before this it was thought that the effects weren't noticeable at larger scales – or perhaps that the macroscopic scale was governed by another set of rules.

The recent research suggests that's not the case. In fact, the same quantum rules apply here, too, and can actually be seen as well. Researchers vibrated the tiny drum membranes using microwave photons and kept them kept in a synchronized state in terms of their position and velocities.

To prevent outside interference, a common problem with quantum states, the drums were cooled, entangled, and measured in separate stages while inside a cryogenically chilled enclosure. The states of the drums are then encoded in a reflected microwave field that works in a similar way to radar.

Nope. You cannot measure anything faster than the speed of light.

Swan wrote:
Previous studies had also reported on macroscopic quantum entanglement, but the 2021 research went further: All of the necessary measurements were recorded rather than inferred, and the entanglement was generated in a deterministic, non-random way.

It has NEVER been recorded. It has ALWAYS been inferred.

Swan wrote:
In a related but separate series of experiments, researchers also working with macroscopic drums (or oscillators) in a state of quantum entanglement have shown how it's possible to measure the position and momentum of the two drumheads at the same time.

"In our work, the drumheads exhibit a collective quantum motion," said physicist Laure Mercier de Lepinay, from Aalto University in Finland. "The drums vibrate in an opposite phase to each other, such that when one of them is in an end position of the vibration cycle, the other is in the opposite position at the same time."

"In this situation, the quantum uncertainty of the drums' motion is canceled if the two drums are treated as one quantum-mechanical entity."

Meaningless. The drumheads can be affected by many factors.

Swan wrote:
What makes this headline news is that it gets around Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle – the idea that position and momentum can't be perfectly measured at the same time. The principle states that recording either measurement will interfere with the other through a process called quantum back action.

No. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is a theory of science. It has not been falsified.

Swan wrote:
As well as backing up the other study in demonstrating macroscopic quantum entanglement, this particular piece of research uses that entanglement to avoid quantum back action – essentially investigating the line between classical physics (where the Uncertainty Principle applies) and quantum physics (where it now doesn't appear to).

The Uncertainty Principle applies to quantum mechanics and to every particle in it.

Swan wrote:
One of the potential future applications of both sets of findings is in quantum networks –
being able to manipulate and entangle objects on a macroscopic scale so that they can power next-generation communication networks.

There is no such thing as a 'quantum network'.

Swan wrote:
"Apart from practical applications, these experiments address how far into the macroscopic realm experiments can push the observation of distinctly quantum phenomena," write physicists Hoi-Kwan Lau and Aashish Clerk, who weren't involved in the studies, in a commentary on the research published at the time.

And that's the way it is...................

It is not possible to measure anything faster than the speed of light.

You are clearly owned,

Swan wrote:
and yes quantum entanglement is far faster than light

Swan wrote:
and still does not violate the flawed theory of relativity

Swan wrote:
which does not work with quantum mechanics?

Swan wrote:
Quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity form the bedrock of the current understanding of physics—yet the two theories don't seem to work together.

Swan wrote:
Physical phenomena rely on the relationship of motion between the observed and the observer.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:You are clearly owned,

You are clearly owned. You are clearly grabbing your ankles.

Swan wrote: ... and yes quantum entanglement is far faster than light and still does not violate the flawed theory of relativity which does not work with quantum mechanics?

EVERYTHING you describe is an egregious violation of physics. If your belief brings you comfort in a chaotic world of vegetable gardening, please avail yourself to the maximum extent possible.

Swan wrote:Quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity form the bedrock of the current understanding of physics—yet the two theories don't seem to work together.

They absolutely work together. Quantum mechanics is really just statistical mathematics, i.e. mostly probability math, and doesn't impinge on physics.

Mathematics works with physics.

Swan wrote: Physical phenomena rely on the relationship of motion between the observed and the observer.

No physical phenomena rely on any such relationship. Physical phenomena will exist just fine without either motion or observers.

Actually Heisenberg figured this out in 1927

Formulated by the German physicist and Nobel laureate Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the uncertainty principle states that we cannot know both the position and speed of a particle, such as a photon or electron, with perfect accuracy; the more we nail down the particle's position, the less we know about its speed and vice versa.

In other words, if we could shrink a tortoise down to the size of an electron, we would only be able to precisely calculate its speed or its location, not both at the same time.

Though the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is famously known in quantum physics, a similar uncertainty principle also applies to problems in pure math and classical physics—basically, any object with wave-like properties will be affected by this principle. Quantum objects are special because they all exhibit wave-like properties by the very nature of quantum theory.

No one objects except for you because as said you need the attention that your mother deprived you of for all those years

Xadoman wrote:

Swan wrote:Quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity form the bedrock of the current understanding of physics—yet the two theories don't seem to work together.

Brutal and true.

Theory of relativity is obviously flawed. Time dilation, twin paradox etc etc. It does not agree with physical reality. There is no time dilation. It is a mental construction.

Swan wrote:

Xadoman wrote:

Swan wrote:Quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity form the bedrock of the current understanding of physics—yet the two theories don't seem to work together.

Brutal and true.

Theory of relativity is obviously flawed. Time dilation, twin paradox etc etc. It does not agree with physical reality. There is no time dilation. It is a mental construction.

Everything that you can think is a mental construction. Why does gravity not apply to the universe the same as it does to the Earth, no one knows why because we are trapped here. If dark matter is real then 85 percent of the universe is missing, which is hardly possible, so what are we looking at?

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Everything that you can think is a mental construction.

Your thoughts are the mental construction, not the actual objects of your thoughts.

Swan wrote: Why does gravity not apply to the universe the same as it does to the Earth,

It does apply equally. General Relativity explains the underlying relationship.

Swan wrote:If dark matter is real then 85 percent of the universe is missing, which is hardly possible, so what are we looking at?

You're babbling like a brook. Did you have a point or are you gibbering one big non-point?

LOL according to the THEORY of relativity 85 percent of the universe is missing, furthermore Einstein babbled that the universe was static as in not in motion.

What a total fu-ckup

Xadoman wrote:

Have you never used a GPS?

https://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/search/label/GPS?m=0

Einstein's special theory of relativity concerns the relation between observations (of "events" without spatial extension recorded by space-time coordinates (x,t)) made by different observers using different inertial coordinate systems moving with constant velocity with respect to each other.

Suppose there is only one observer making observations in only one coordinate system in which the observer is at rest. Let us refer to this as a one-system situation. Can there be any special relativity theory for this one-system with its single observer/inertial system? Of course not. With only one inertial system there is no room for comparison with observations in another moving inertial system. The special theory of relativity is empty for a one-system.

Now, the GPS system is a one-system based on the WGS84 spherical (ellipsoidal) coordinates system we are used to with latitude, longitude and height for spatial location, and an Earth based master clock setting common time, which is what your GPS receiver can report to you. The GPS system is thus a one-system and as such has no use for the special theory of relativity. In this one-system, the position of moving satellites are recorded by one master observer at rest on Earth and satellite clocks are synchronized with the master clock to UTC Universal Central Time (with nanosecond precision). There are no observers, sitting in the satellites making observations in moving inertial systems requiring coordination using the special theory of relativity. This is a one-master one-system for which the special theory of relativity has nothing to contribute.

This is yet another observation that GPS does not depend on the special theory of relativity.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL according to the THEORY of relativity 85 percent of the universe is missing,

Incorrect.

Swan wrote:furthermore Einstein babbled that the universe was static as in not in motion.

Says the guy who doesn't know what Einstein said.

Actually, Einstein claimed that the universe was static, until Hubble made him look through his telescope and observe red shift.

Yawning

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:You are clearly owned,

You are clearly owned. You are clearly grabbing your ankles.

Swan wrote: ... and yes quantum entanglement is far faster than light and still does not violate the flawed theory of relativity which does not work with quantum mechanics?

EVERYTHING you describe is an egregious violation of physics. If your belief brings you comfort in a chaotic world of vegetable gardening, please avail yourself to the maximum extent possible.

Swan wrote:Quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity form the bedrock of the current understanding of physics—yet the two theories don't seem to work together.

They absolutely work together. Quantum mechanics is really just statistical mathematics, i.e. mostly probability math, and doesn't impinge on physics.

Mathematics works with physics.

Swan wrote: Physical phenomena rely on the relationship of motion between the observed and the observer.

No physical phenomena rely on any such relationship. Physical phenomena will exist just fine without either motion or observers.

Actually Heisenberg figured this out in 1927

Formulated by the German physicist and Nobel laureate Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the uncertainty principle states that we cannot know both the position and speed of a particle, such as a photon or electron, with perfect accuracy; the more we nail down the particle's position, the less we know about its speed and vice versa.

In other words, if we could shrink a tortoise down to the size of an electron, we would only be able to precisely calculate its speed or its location, not both at the same time.

Though the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is famously known in quantum physics, a similar uncertainty principle also applies to problems in pure math and classical physics—basically, any object with wave-like properties will be affected by this principle. Quantum objects are special because they all exhibit wave-like properties by the very nature of quantum theory.

No one objects except for you because as said you need the attention that your mother deprived you of for all those years

So now you choose to misquote Heisenberg.

Swan wrote:In other words, if we could shrink a tortoise down to the size of an electron, we would only be able to precisely calculate its speed or its location, not both at the same time.

Swan wrote:Though the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is famously known in quantum physics, a similar uncertainty principle also applies to problems in pure math and classical physics—basically, any object with wave-like properties will be affected by this principle.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Xadoman wrote:

Swan wrote:Quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity form the bedrock of the current understanding of physics—yet the two theories don't seem to work together.

Brutal and true.

Theory of relativity is obviously flawed. Time dilation, twin paradox etc etc. It does not agree with physical reality. There is no time dilation. It is a mental construction.

Everything that you can think is a mental construction. Why does gravity not apply to the universe the same as it does to the Earth, no one knows why because we are trapped here. If dark matter is real then 85 percent of the universe is missing, which is hardly possible, so what are we looking at?

What is 85% of infinity?

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:You are clearly owned,

You are clearly owned. You are clearly grabbing your ankles.

Swan wrote: ... and yes quantum entanglement is far faster than light and still does not violate the flawed theory of relativity which does not work with quantum mechanics?

EVERYTHING you describe is an egregious violation of physics. If your belief brings you comfort in a chaotic world of vegetable gardening, please avail yourself to the maximum extent possible.

Swan wrote:Quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity form the bedrock of the current understanding of physics—yet the two theories don't seem to work together.

They absolutely work together. Quantum mechanics is really just statistical mathematics, i.e. mostly probability math, and doesn't impinge on physics.

Mathematics works with physics.

Swan wrote: Physical phenomena rely on the relationship of motion between the observed and the observer.

No physical phenomena rely on any such relationship. Physical phenomena will exist just fine without either motion or observers.

Actually Heisenberg figured this out in 1927

Formulated by the German physicist and Nobel laureate Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the uncertainty principle states that we cannot know both the position and speed of a particle, such as a photon or electron, with perfect accuracy; the more we nail down the particle's position, the less we know about its speed and vice versa.

In other words, if we could shrink a tortoise down to the size of an electron, we would only be able to precisely calculate its speed or its location, not both at the same time.

Though the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is famously known in quantum physics, a similar uncertainty principle also applies to problems in pure math and classical physics—basically, any object with wave-like properties will be affected by this principle. Quantum objects are special because they all exhibit wave-like properties by the very nature of quantum theory.

No one objects except for you because as said you need the attention that your mother deprived you of for all those years

So now you choose to misquote Heisenberg.

Nope I actually quoted Caltech

https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/quantum-science-explained/uncertainty-principle#:~:text=Formulated%20by%20the%20German%20physicist,about%20its%20speed%20and%20vice

Formulated by the German physicist and Nobel laureate Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the uncertainty principle states that we cannot know both the position and speed of a particle, such as a photon or electron, with perfect accuracy; the more we nail down the particle's position, the less we know about its speed and vice versa.

In other words, if we could shrink a tortoise down to the size of an electron, we would only be able to precisely calculate its speed or its location, not both at the same time.

Though the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is famously known in quantum physics, a similar uncertainty principle also applies to problems in pure math and classical physics—basically, any object with wave-like properties will be affected by this principle. Quantum objects are special because they all exhibit wave-like properties by the very nature of quantum theory.

To understand the general idea behind the uncertainty principle, think of a ripple in a pond. To measure its speed, we would monitor the passage of multiple peaks and troughs. The more peaks and troughs that pass by, the more accurately we would know the speed of a wave—but the less we would be able to say about its position. The location is spread out among the peaks and troughs. Conversely, if we wanted to know the exact position of one peak of a wave, we would have to monitor just one small section of the wave and would lose information about its speed. In short: the uncertainty principle describes a trade-off between two complementary properties, such as speed and position.

Side by side illustration of a roller coaster. On the left a coaster sits at the top about to go down a drop. On the right, the coaster speeds down a drop.
The rollercoaster above serves as an analogy for how the uncertainty principle works at scales much smaller than this. Left: When the rollercoaster car reaches the peak of the hill, we could take a snapshot and know its location. But the snapshot alone would not give us enough information about its speed. Right: As the rollercoaster car descends the hill, we can measure its speed over time but would be less certain about its position. The uncertainty principle is a trade-off between two complementary variables, such as position and speed.
Credit: Lance Hayashida/Caltech

The fundamental law comes into play in the quantum world because subatomic particles can behave like waves. A common misconception about the uncertainty principle in quantum physics is that it implies our measurements are uncertain or inaccurate. In fact, uncertainty is an inherent aspect of anything with wave-like behavior.

Silly girl, so argue with them

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Xadoman wrote:

Swan wrote:Quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity form the bedrock of the current understanding of physics—yet the two theories don't seem to work together.

Brutal and true.

Theory of relativity is obviously flawed. Time dilation, twin paradox etc etc. It does not agree with physical reality. There is no time dilation. It is a mental construction.

Everything that you can think is a mental construction. Why does gravity not apply to the universe the same as it does to the Earth, no one knows why because we are trapped here. If dark matter is real then 85 percent of the universe is missing, which is hardly possible, so what are we looking at?

What is 85% of infinity?

the missing 85 percent has nothing to do with the size of the universe, but the mass and energy needed to create the speeding gravitational speeds that are observed.

Silly girl

So you discard Einsteins theory of special relativity. Gotit.

Xadoman wrote:I am not brainwashed by mainstream.

Xadoman wrote:I do not know anything about math

Xadoman wrote:but the absurdity of time dilation alone is all I need to discard the theory.

Xadoman wrote:I simply do not belive in fairy tales.