The great mistake of quantum mechanics

[Cerveny]

The great mistake of quantum mechanics is overvalued influence of a measuring to a measured object. Of course the measuring itself can “fix” some value, a parameter of state. But it becomes only if measuring offers some choice. Insted, for example, if I send a beam of mono energetic electrons through a magnetic field, it splits to two beams. In the first case I can measure top spin, in other case I can measure down spin. There is not any engagement. The strict measuring influence to a measured object is not possible even as there are no sharp limit where quantum world begins...

[Epsilon=One]

The great mistake of quantum mechanics is overvalued influence of a measuring to a measured object. Of course the measuring itself can “fix” some value, a parameter of state. But it becomes only if measuring offers some choice. Insted, for example, if I send a beam of mono energetic electrons through a magnetic field, it splits to two beams. In the first case I can measure top spin, in other case I can measure down spin. There is not any engagement. The strict measuring influence to a measured object is not possible even as there are no sharp limit where quantum world begins...It seems that you do not understand the phenomenon of non-locality, which is central to "quantum mechanics." Nor, I expect, do you understand the physical makeup of an electron, its spin, or the etiology of a "magnetic field."

Thus, to so speculate about "great mistakes" that concern such manifestations is ludicrous. Particularly, when you consider that "quantum mechanics," as a tool, has had spectacular success with the measurements of ephemeral phenomena.

[Cerveny]

the phenomenon of non-locality, which is central to "quantum mechanics."
The phenomenon of non-locality is very marginal one from practical view. It is only fictitious, imaginary problem that follows from wrong interpretation of “measuring” term. There are only one quantum entanglement: between measured and measuring object - between interacting systems.

[Epsilon=One]

The phenomenon of non-locality is very marginal one from practical view. It is only fictitious, imaginary problem that follows from wrong interpretation of “measuring” term. There are only one quantum entanglement: between measured and measuring object - between interacting systems.Such an interpretation as yours is nonsense and flies in the face of all logic and observation. I doubt if you have any concept of the fundamentals of any ""measuring" term."

As, for instance: How would you arrive at the the fundamental unit for any "measuring" scale . . . including time.

The phenomenon of non-locality is about as omnipresent as any concept can be. To refer to non-locality as "very marginal" is to equate light, mass, and radiant "fields" to moot manifestations of Reality (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/R).

[Cerveny]

Such an interpretation as yours is nonsense...
I rather feel as nonsense that there would be some no local causality, some unlimited speed of a signal that nobody needs.

If you, for example, measure a position of electron you do not change any quantum number / quantum status, you only can slow down it - for example. If it anyhow happens that a spin of electron is changed, than status of measuring photons are changed to - there is not changed any another electron ...

[Epsilon=One]

I rather feel as nonsense that there would be some no local causality, some unlimited speed of a signal that nobody needs.Speed is limited. The limits are Infinity (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/I): the infintesimal and the infinite. Why should speed be logically otherwise? Because Einstein so theorized???

Speed is not determined by the "needs" or theories of the observer.

If...for example, measure a position of electron you do not change any quantum number / quantum status, you only can slow down it - for example. If it anyhow happens that a spin of electron is changed, than status of measuring photons are changed to - there is not changed any another electron ...What has this got to do with the marginality of non-locality?

There is a possibility that my disagreement with your thoughts has to do with your unfamiliarty with English vocabulary.

[Cerveny]

What has this got to do with the marginality of non-locality?

Wrong interpretation of measuring =>
EPR Paradox =>
quantum non-locality

<=>

not quantum non-locality =>
not EPR Paradox not = >
not wrong interpretation of measuring

There is a possibility that my disagreement with your thoughts has to do with your unfamiliarty with English vocabulary.
Of course, it is very well possible :-(

[Epsilon=One]

Wrong interpretation of measuring =>
EPR Paradox =>
quantum non-locality

<=>

not quantum non-locality =>
not EPR Paradox not = >
not wrong interpretation of measuringThe EPR Paradox was originally a gedanken that had nothing to do with "measuring."

Non-locality is universal; it does not depend upon EPR Paradox "measuring."

My argument is that non-locality is far from marginal, as you state; understanding non-locality is paramount to understanding all physical phenomena.

There is nowhere, at the level of quantum chromodynamics QCD, that non-locality is not observed.

There is nowhere, at the macro level of the Cosmos, that the non-locality of the gravitational and inertial phenomena is not observed.

In fact, nowhere is there anything that is not composed of non-local phenomena.

[Cerveny]

Consider beta-decaying atom. If EPR phenomena was worth the atom would change its spin whenever someone measure spin of emitted electron... It is evidently controversial

[Epsilon=One]

Consider beta-decaying atom. If EPR phenomena was worth the atom would change its spin whenever someone measure spin of emitted electron... It is evidently controversialIt is only controversial because no one understands the etiology of half-spin other than the observed behavior of colliding masses at high speeds. Spin is entirely a phenomenon of single resonances. If the resonances are within two conge neric [formatted to defeat SPAM filter], ellipsoidal "fields" the spin is complex and maintained and referred to as half-spin; otherwise, when a resonance is traumatically ejected from the double "envelope," such as with a "free" photon, the spin of the resonance is a "normal," decelerating, dissipating spin.

At all times the internal motion of the resonance and its "field" that propagates it are non-local. Thus, everything that exists has a non-local component. The manifestation of the resonance itself is local.

[Math Dude]

It seems that you do not understand the phenomenon of non-locality, which is central to "quantum mechanics." Nor, I expect, do you understand the physical makeup of an electron, its spin, or the etiology of a "magnetic field."

Thus, to so speculate about "great mistakes" that concern such manifestations is ludicrous. Particularly, when you consider that "quantum mechanics," as a tool, has had spectacular success with the measurements of ephemeral phenomena.


A substantial amount of matter has never arose out of complete nothingness. I think quantum physics is sciences way of denouncing God's creation of the universe, and all that is in it.

[Epsilon=One]

A substantial amount of matter has never arose out of complete nothingness. I think quantum physics is sciences way of denouncing God's creation of the universe, and all that is in it.ALL matter is a manifestation of emergent energy (dimensionless motion); and, said emergent energy essentially arises from "complete nothingness."

When you capitalize the word "God" how are you defining "God"? It is true that god can be defined as that which has created everything. And, as such, god also can be equated to such as "Oneness (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/One)", Infinity (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/I), and even . . . "complete nothingness."

[Cerveny]

Thus, everything that exists has a non-local component.

Non local = non causal = non sence :(

[Epsilon=One]

Non local = non causal = non sence :(Everything that exists is "caused" by a pulse that has accelerating and decelerating speeds that are comprised of oscillations between the limits of the duality of Infinity (www.CQthus.com/PT/I); that is: between infinite speed and motionlessness; thus change of direction . . . oscillation.

At these limits that are referred to as Infinity (www.CQthus.com/PT/I), there is an element of uncertainty; as decribed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (www.CQthus.com/PT/HUP) (HUP).

If this were nonsence, there would not be the existence of non-local phenomena; thus, there would be no philosophical argument concerning causality.

[Cerveny]

If this were nonsence, there would not be the existence of non-local phenomena; thus, there would be no philosophical argument concerning causality.

The main space category is a distance. Common sense perceive: the large distance the lower influence due to decreasing fields. The lower influence the lower causality. The causality spreads and decrease by distance. (There are exception here of course e.g. Internet. But it is based on informations. Information is based on some precision, fixed medium and other mechanism... The keeping of information consumes energy [by third thermodynamical law:]) Non locality seems to be very obscure, not physical... It is a incomprehension of quantum physics.. Quantum mechanics has a much simple principle: Anything can occur, but next Planck time layer, next time tick, next growing dimension sediment try to smooth this excess.. (as falling snow does). (Realy we can consider: the future snowing:) In many time periods laws of conservation become to paid so..

[Cerveny]

The measurement is the same process as any common interaction. It makes quantum system/particle to manifest some (measured) value, to join into causality, to fulfill causality. It glues the present to the history . . .

It means that any interaction makes the same “wave function collapse” as is considered for measurement.

[Epsilon=One]

The measurement is the same process as any common interaction. It makes quantum system/particle to manifest some (measured) value, to join into causality, to fulfill causality. It glues the present to the history . . . More precisely; all is entangled . . . and, thus, of necessity, non-local. This would seem to support my argument throughout this thread.

It means that any interaction makes the same “wave function collapse” as is considered for measurement.Said "wave function collapse," more precisely; demonstrates that, fundamentally, "all" emanates from "nothing," continuously, from which the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (www.CQthus.com/PT/HUP) (HUP) manifests . . . continuously and universally.

[Cerveny]

More precisely; all is entangled . . . and, thus, of necessity, non-local. This would seem to support my argument throughout this thread.

I do not know how quick is your entanglement ... I am rather reserved (undecided) as velocity higher then c is concerned :(

I wanted to express that a particle does not exist before interaction (measurement) in fact only. There is only preg-nant, uncertain, waving 3d-space (next unsettled time sediment) and suitable conditions make it to bear a particle. The deformed time surface of space a-cts (during interaction, measurement), as well as an enzyme, on such “undecided” substance (the future) and develops new time surface of the world (the history)... I believe it is similar process as a new crystal layer replicates some crystal defect, say a dislinction...

Sorry unskillful English :(

[Epsilon=One]

I do not know how quick is your entanglement ... I am rather reserved (undecided) as velocity higher then c is concernedUniversal entanglement, at speed near the infinite, is proof that there is hyper-relativistic speed. There is no logical reason for the speed of light to be either constant or an arbitrary speed limit . . . other than that Einstein's theories so state. When Einstein's brilliance shown, there was very little known concerning fundamental physics or cosmology . . . and nothing known of cosmogony. Mechanical equipment was quite limited; though, the brilliance of the few theoreticians was truly amazing compared to the lost "souls" of today.

I wanted to express that a particle does not exist before interaction (measurement)A particle's existence has nothing to do with "interaction/(measurement)." A particle was "there" before there was anyone to measure it; and, it will be there long after there are anthropoids.

in fact only. There is only preg-nant, uncertain, waving 3d-space (next unsettled time sediment) and suitable conditions make it to bear a particle. The deformed time surface of space a-cts (during interaction, measurement), as well as an enzyme, on such “undecided” substance (the future) and develops new time surface of the world (the history)... I believe it is similar process as a new crystal layer replicates some crystal defect, say a dislinction...Nonsense.
Sorry unskillful EnglishYour English is fine; it's your logic that worries me. Your English is far better than any 2nd language that I have.

[Cerveny]

Universal entanglement, at speed near the infinite, is proof that there is hyper-relativistic speed. There is no logical reason for the speed of light to be either constant or an arbitrary speed limit . . . other than that Einstein's theories so state. When Einstein's brilliance shown, there was very little known concerning fundamental physics or cosmology . . . and nothing known of cosmogony. Mechanical equipment was quite limited; though, the brilliance of the few theoreticians was truly amazing compared to the lost "souls" of today.
I am not sure about it, but I am able to think about it. I rather afraid about an implausible impact to causality in your case :(

A particle's existence has nothing to do with "interaction/(measurement)." A particle was "there" before there was anyone to measure it; and, it will be there long after there are anthropoids.
I believe just even an interaction (somebody say "measurement") unhides the a system/particle and places it into causal system (history)... There is that I criticize: "overvalued, misunderstanding influence of measurement to quantum system.." I believe that they say about "measurement" pays in case of any interaction...


Nonsense.

Do you believe the future is already prepared? How do you explain we can measure different values under the same condition? (e.g. beta radioactive decay - why a radioactive particle does not emit electrons in regular periods?)


Your English is fine; it's your logic that worries me. Your English is far better than any 2nd language that I have.
Please do not worry: I do not declare this opinion too firmly, I put only an alternative to common sense, maybe someone finds an inspiration and support in it...