Wednesday, May 19, 2010

How Einstein Shot Physics in the Foot, Part I

Part I, II

Abstract

The fallacies of Einstein's physics are so blatant that one is at a loss to explain why it has lasted for so long. The Einstein era has been a catastrophe for science because, for close to a century, many of our best scientific minds have been preoccupied with what amounts to a wild goose chase. In this article, I present a specific example of the kind of deep damage that can result from the scientific community's irrational infatuation with Einstein's physics.

Neutron Decay, Bullshit Fabrication and Mass Hypnosis

One of the most intriguing findings of quantum physics in the last century is the peculiar way in which subatomic particles decay. For example, consider the neutron, an unstable particle that is known to slowly decay into other particles. While it is impossible to determine exactly when an individual neutron will decay, it so happens that, if you observe a certain number of neutrons in the lab, you will notice that half will decay within approximately 886 seconds, a little less than 15 minutes. Of the remaining half, half of them with decay during the next 886-second interval, and so on. Amazingly, it does not matter how far apart the neutrons are.

What is even more amazing is that nobody in the physics community seems to know why this happens. It gets even worse. In spite of their admitted cluelessness as to why particle decay is probabilistic, quantum physicists have no qualms about coming up with enough voodoo nonsense to make your head spin. My favorite is the famous Schroedinger's cat, the one where a particle is both decayed and not-decayed at the same time (cat is both dead and alive), but only when nobody is looking. This crap is called superposition and is the basis of an entire quack "science" called Quantum Computing.

As you can see, relativists cannot claim a monopoly on bullshit production. All physicists love to engage in this favorite pastime. It is an old tradition. Still, it is a little unsettling from my perspective because I cannot figure out exactly how they've been able to get away with such blatant crackpottery. It's almost as if some great but unseen power somehow managed to mass-hypnotize an entire group of otherwise intelligent people and turned them into babbling fools, jumping up and down and foaming at the mouth.

So why is it that, in all those years since the discovery of the probabilistic nature of particle decay, nobody in the physics community has ventured an explanation? The answer is that their worldview prevents them from seeing things as they are. The near total acceptance of Einstein's physics has blinded researchers to certain aspects of nature that explain all sorts of phenomena including the probabilistic nature of particle decay. I will explain what I mean in Part II.

See Also:

Why Space (Distance) Is an Illusion
Why Einstein's Physics Is Crap
How To Falsify Einstein's Physics, For Dummies
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics
Nothing Can Move in Spacetime
Physics: The Problem with Motion

9 comments:

James said...

Why would the spread of the neutrons make a difference to their rate of decay? And exactly what are you refering to when you say nobody in the physics community knows why it happens? If you're talking about half time to decay, that's based on simple probability.

And yes, that is rather the point of Schroedinger's cat. It's meant to show how ridiculous the concept is when applied to things outside the subatomic scale.

If Quantum Computing is quackery, how do explain the multiple working quantum chips?

Please do let me know, I am eager to see the mainstream proved wrong.

Louis Savain said...

James wrote:

Why would the spread of the neutrons make a difference to their rate of decay?

The underlying mechanism of decay is necessarily nonlocal. This will become clearer in my next post when I explain how nature handles probability.

And exactly what are you refering to when you say nobody in the physics community knows why it happens? If you're talking about half time to decay, that's based on simple probability.

Wow. All I am saying is that physicists do not know why decay is probabilistic. Being based on probability is not a reason or an explanation. It is an observation.

And yes, that is rather the point of Schroedinger's cat. It's meant to show how ridiculous the concept is when applied to things outside the subatomic scale.

My point is that it is all bullshit, regardless of scale. This, too, will be made clearer in my next post. Unless one understands the reason that quantum interactions are probabilistic, it is foolish to speak of obvious crap like superposition. Why? Because it makes no sense on the face of it as any child can tell you that nothing can be its own opposite. As in relativity, the bullshit is very deep in quantum physics. It's amazing that they get away with teaching such blatant crap.

If Quantum Computing is quackery, how do explain the multiple working quantum chips?

There is nothing to explain because it is all bullshit. They are lying.

Please do let me know, I am eager to see the mainstream proved wrong.

Why do I not believe you?

Preston said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Naturality said...

"This crap is called superposition and is the basis of an entire quack "science" called Quantum Computing."

Right... you're saying that QC is "crap" are you? You might want to check up on the three or four research groups who have demonstrated 'working' quantum computers. Only for simple things, mind you, but they do still work.

Louis Savain said...

Naturality wrote:

Right... you're saying that QC is "crap" are you?

Yep.

You might want to check up on the three or four research groups who have demonstrated 'working' quantum computers. Only for simple things, mind you, but they do still work.

Nope. It's all BS. They are either lying to attract funding or they don't know what they're talking about.

Naturality said...

Okay, clearly no sensible argument to be had there.

If superposition is such a nonsense idea, then how to do you explain the results of the double slit experiment? The results of that experiment results are absolute fact, you cannot deny them.

So what is causing it then?

Louis Savain said...

Naturality:

Okay, clearly no sensible argument to be had there.

Correct.

If superposition is such a nonsense idea, then how to do you explain the results of the double slit experiment? The results of that experiment results are absolute fact, you cannot deny them.

So what is causing it then?


One thing is certain. It is not being caused by superposition since superposition is crackpottery on the face of it. Consider that physicists have no idea why the universe is probabilistic or what causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion or why a photon seems to have both undulatory and particulate properties. And yet, in spite of their glaring and abject ignorance, they feel confident that they know enough to explain the double-slit experiment. What utter BS!

The idea that a single point particle can be a wave with a certain frequency is obviously nonsense on the face of it. The double-slit phenomenon will turn out to have a very mundane explanation. I will have more to say about this topic in an upcoming article.

Naturality said...

Something which gives absolutely perfect predictions is crackpottery is it? I note that you give no attempt at an explanation for your opinion of it, you just disregard it as 'BS'. You might not feel comfortable with it, but the current explanation using superposition has been shown to be correct time and time again. An improvement on the theory may be made in the future, but it will not stray far from this idea.

Consider that physicists have no idea why the universe is deterministic or what causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion or why a photon seems to have both undulatory and particulate properties.
Quantum theory tells us the Universe is not deterministic...
As for the inertial motion and wave particle duality, that's just evidence that our knowledge is not complete. No one is suggesting it is. The fact is, no one knows why the Universe is the way it is. Some have even suggested we can't know why. We can just determine what does happen based on observation. We know there are four forces, but we don't know why, but that doesn't change the fact that we know they exist.

Louis Savain said...

Naturality:

Something which gives absolutely perfect predictions is crackpottery is it?

This is either a bold face lie on your part or a deep misunderstanding since superposition gives no predictions whatsoever. Superposition is not a hypothesis of quantum physics. It's an interpretation of experimental observations, a stupid one at that.

I note that you give no attempt at an explanation for your opinion of it, you just disregard it as 'BS'.

I will offer a simple explanation in an upcoming article, as I said. Without the use of voodoo crap, of course.

You might not feel comfortable with it, but the current explanation using superposition has been shown to be correct time and time again.

No, it has not. Superposition is not even observable by definition. Get your facts straight. It is a useless interpretation. It's what I call "chicken shit physics".

Quantum theory tells us the Universe is not deterministic...

I have since corrected my comment. I meant to write "probabilistic". You should have realized that it was a mistake if you had read my articles. But why should I expect you to be honest, eh? After all, you are shamelessly defending a pile of crap.

We know there are four forces, but we don't know why, but that doesn't change the fact that we know they exist.

You don't even know that. You just think you do. And besides, if you don't know the why of a phenomenon, you are really clueless and your science is chicken shit.