The Double Slit Experiment & Buddhism's Interpretation.

Re: Bernard d'Espagnat

Kryonlight,

I dont mean to insult you.

What are you without the quotes and articles by others, or the "Buddhist" Philosophy written and expounded by others?

While Vamjok thoroughly and vulgarly abuses you, his level of understanding, critical assessment and intelligent inference leading to logical conclusion, independent of others, far exceeds yours. Besides quoting others, any of your other opinions is just a rehash of what you read.

Whether or not I write this, and whatever your observation and reaction, you exist at your mental level.

kryonlight said:

Are you are saying that the Copenhagen Interpretation is wrong? Then which interpretation is the right one? vamjok's interpretation of quantum weirdness?

Click to expand...

the very fact you dare to question this statement merely shows you have zero fucking foundation in this topic. no offense, but your background is too weak to talk to me. OF COS ITS FUCKING WRONG AND EVERYONE IN THIS FIELD KNOWS. do you even have a proper university education?

kryonlight said:

And that's why I am saying that interpretations of quantum weirdness are not testable.

Click to expand...

dumb fuck, i am repeating this for the 3rd or is it the 4th time as stupid fuck like you can never register it up your head.

physics is an experimental science, ANY theory we are holding are supported by strong experimental evidences which can be reproduced with high confidence (statistically speaking).

you do not come up with a theory and said it must be right but it can never be tested. Religious dumb fuck like you forever amazed me.

Lastly, the last post of yours with regards to entanglement at a distance simply shows you have zero idea about what the fuck is going on. For it has totally nothing to do with conscience. Do you have even a slight fucking idea what the fuck is it talking about here. you want to bullshit, you choose your target to bullshit, you do not do that to someone with a science degree.

Re: Bernard d'Espagnat

mark.l said:

Kryonlight,

I dont mean to insult you.

What are you without the quotes and articles by others, or the "Buddhist" Philosophy written and expounded by others?

While Vamjok thoroughly and vulgarly abuses you, his level of understanding, critical assessment and intelligent inference leading to logical conclusion, independent of others, far exceeds yours. Besides quoting others, any of your other opinions is just a rehash of what you read.

Whether or not I write this, and whatever your observation and reaction, you exist at your mental level.

Click to expand...

what i said here is actually not my interpretation. it was what i learn from my undergrad years

Re: Bernard d'Espagnat

mark.l said:

What are you without the quotes and articles by others, or the "Buddhist" Philosophy written and expounded by others?

Click to expand...

Do I even have to define what am I? Why don't you define what are you instead?

mark.l said:

While Vamjok thoroughly and vulgarly abuses you, his level of understanding, critical assessment and intelligent inference leading to logical conclusion, independent of others, far exceeds yours.

Click to expand...

This must be a great joke. Yeah, the intelligence of our resident sammyboy scientist far exceeds the intelligence of Roger Penrose, Henry Stapp and Bernard d'Espagnat combined.

You have just made vamjok your idol because of your puny intelligence.

mark.l said:

Besides quoting others, any of your other opinions is just a rehash of what you read.

Click to expand...

Because their opinions are also my opinions. Is there anything wrong with that?

vamjok said:

the very fact you dare to question this statement merely shows you have zero fucking foundation in this topic. no offense, but your background is too weak to talk to me. OF COS ITS FUCKING WRONG AND EVERYONE IN THIS FIELD KNOWS. do you even have a proper university education?

Click to expand...

Of course, I also know it's fucking wrong and that's why I don't subscribe to it. It was you who actually subscribe to this mainstream view in the first place, not me.

Now, just tell me what is the correct interpretation according to our resident sammyboy scientist?

vamjok said:

you want to bullshit, you choose your target to bullshit, you do not do that to someone with a science degree.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah, claiming to have a science degree is a license to bullshit. No wonder those physicists like Roger Penrose, Henry Stapp and Bernard d'Espagnat are churning out the biggest bullshit of all time.

Your science degree is a bigger fuck than these physicists, I suppose.

kryonlight said:

Of course, I also know it's fucking wrong and that's why I don't subscribe to it. It was you who actually subscribe to this mainstream view in the first place, not me.

Now, just tell me what is the correct interpretation according to our resident sammyboy scientist?

Click to expand...

as i have suspected u are really a dumb fuck, i already had explain why and this is the 4th time i believe i had to say this. the current theory explain the experimental findings the best or in most of the situation (even though its not complete). those stupid alternative views ARE NOT IN STRONG AGREEMENT WITH EXPERIMENTAL DATA that why its not accepted by the mainstream. only when those theories are proven with strong convincing data, they will then be accepted.

which fucking part of this you dun understand stupid fuck. Having a science degree means i am able to shoot idiot like you with stupid views and bias view.

"Roger Penrose, Henry Stapp and Bernard d'Espagnat are churning out the biggest bullshit of all time."

BIG DEAL ABOUT THESE PEOPLE? SOME OF THEM ARE NOT EVEN THAT WELL KNOWN EVEN THOUGH THEY MIGHT BE A PROF. EVEN LINUS PAULING WAS SHOOTING BULLSHIT ABOUT VITAMIN C TOWARDS THE END OF HIS LIFE.

As far as i am concern, they are shooting bullshit in the view of science. they are only expressing their views with zero experimental data. However, dumb fuck like you prehaps will never understand, i am always open and willing to accept their views if they are able to produce experimental observation which support their theories. this is totally different from dumb fuck like you - straight away think they must be right as their view is in agreement with your religion.

the beauty about science is, no matter who the fuck you are, you can claim whatever shit you want, if upon countercheck if what you say is bullshit, it is still bulllshit. dumb fuck like you upon seeing big names without checking with a single logical mind straight away think they must be right.

i bet you never went to university as well. typical trademark of religious idiot - zero training in science and yet want to act as an expert.

vamjok said:

the current theory explain the experimental findings the best or in most of the situation (even though its not complete). those stupid alternative views ARE NOT IN STRONG AGREEMENT WITH EXPERIMENTAL DATA that why its not accepted by the mainstream. only when those theories are proven with strong convincing data, they will then be accepted.

Click to expand...

I interpret you to say that there is currently no one single interpretation that is the correct interpretation, because even the mainstream Copenhagen interpretation is wrong according to you and most physicists (like you said).

And you can't provide an alternative interpretation of your own. Is that correct?

kryonlight said:

I interpret you to say that there is currently no one single interpretation that is the correct interpretation, because even the mainstream Copenhagen interpretation is wrong according to you and most physicists (like you said).

And you can't provide an alternative interpretation of your own. Is that correct?

Click to expand...

that is right. the current understanding is not yet complete. stupid fuck you mean you do not know this? why do you think they build CERN for? the very fact you do not know why we are still holding on the the "wrong theory" shows how stupid you are.

A good example of this is; schrodinger equation is commonly used by physical chemists (and yes the chemists they know its wrong, they are not stupid like religious idiots) and not the more refined and accurate dirac equation. stupid fuck, any idea why? IF YOU FUCKING KNOW THIS YOU WILL NOT POST THAT LAST SILLY REPLY OF YOURS DUMB FUCK

your stupid view that consci play a role in the double slit experiment is obviously wrong. Reason? see the youtube video earlier on. computer probe is used, result fixed, no wave behaviour observed whether anything living or not observed it. dumb fuck, you know how to use your mouse? why make me keep repeating the same thing ? This theory NO WAY can it explain why a dead probe without conscience can cause wave function to collapse. Sugar coat it whatever way you like, play with words if you want, face it. its wrong! experimentally it does not make any sense. of cos uneducated dumb fuck like you with zero science training might not be able to see WHY it does not make any sense. i already fucking spoonfeed and guide you the thought process. yet you are not able to get it

i am indeed right, all religious freak are born stupid. how many times must i repeat the same thing over and over again.

vamjok said:

your stupid view that consci play a role in the double slit experiment is obviously wrong. Reason? see the youtube video earlier on. computer probe is used, result fixed, no wave behaviour observed whether anything living or not observed it.

Click to expand...

I don't see a computer probe anywhere in that video. It says a detector. Of course a detector is needed to detect photons. Our human eye can't see a single photon.

The narrator even says "When the photons are being watched, the wave pattern disappears." and "This suggests that we can change the way reality behaves just by looking at it".

The detector is merely an extension of our human eye. It still links back to consciousness.

vamjok said:

This theory NO WAY can it explain why a dead probe without conscience can cause wave function to collapse. Sugar coat it whatever way you like, play with words if you want, face it. its wrong!

Click to expand...

If it was so wrong, this must be obvious to big name physicists such as Roger Penrose. I take it that you mean that you are smarter than Roger Penrose.

kryonlight said:

I don't see a computer probe anywhere in that video. It says a detector. Of course a detector is needed to detect photons. Our human eye can't see a single photon.

The narrator even says "When the photons are being watched, the wave pattern disappears." and "This suggests that we can change the way reality behaves just by looking at it".

The detector is merely an extension of our human eye. It still links back to consciousness.



If it was so wrong, this must be obvious to big name physicists such as Roger Penrose. I take it that you mean that you are smarter than Roger Penrose.

Click to expand...

dumb fuck, this very last post of yours make me confirm you have fucking zero idea how the setup was being carried out and has never carry out this classic experiment before. now restort to playing with words - probe and detector? fuck are you really that stupid ?

the video saying "watch" here is by the probe, are you really so stupid not to be able to get it? whether you staying there to view the result does not matter, the result is fix, particle behaviour is observed. this one don't even bothered to argue with me, this is an experiment that is carried out so often till its rot. anyone with basic science background knows about this, the very fact that you dare to be so thickskin and argue on this shows your level of ignorance in this field.

i am going to spoonfeed you again one last time, this is what happen when you carry out the experiment

1. You stand there in the room, observe the screen (which the electron or single photon hit), particle behaviour observed
2. you leave the room, after the experiment, wave behaviour observed
3. using probe to detect which holes the electron pass through in front of the slide, no living observer - particle behaviour observed
4. using probe to detect which holes the electron pass through behind of the slide, no living observer - particle behaviour observed
5. using probe to detect which holes the electron pass through behind of the slide, living observer *- particle behaviour observed
6. using probe to detect which holes the electron pass through in front of the slide, living observer - particle behaviour observed
7. turn off the probe in front or behind the slide, no living observer - wave observed
8. turn on both probe in front and back of the slide - particle behavior

there might be more situation in which this experiments can be carried out but all point to one thing - probing disturb the set up = particle behaviour.

the above experiments are carried out by tons of individuals around the world and has being repeated tons of time with very high reproducibility. this experiments has being carried out so many times till its rot, you dare to argue with me on this? fuck you on that, stupid dumb uneducated fuck. all these results are well knowns and easily dig out in any university level texts. wave behaviour is only observed when the system is not probe, from this we know the action of probing disturb the experiment, CONSCIENCE DO NOT PLAY A FUCKING PART. dumb shit, which part of this fucking statement you do not understand.

its not i am smarter than Roger Penrose, after explaining nearly 4 times the process of acceptance of a theory via peer review process you still saying this. i have for the matter of fact brought up 2 examples - einstein and linus pauling to highlight this. you are indeed born stupid for not being able to get it.

chorut said:

God, creation and laws of physics are three very different studies altogether. Each can be exclusive and can also overlap.

Creationist God is Abraham's God.

All this quarrel about Darwinism versus Creationism are the juvenile concoction of ill-equipped and ignorant brags who believes the universe is limited to Abraham's God.

Why should one who believe in God or a Creator be limited to Genesis or Abraham's God. Isn't this plain dumb?

Click to expand...

Put it this way, if fake science is right, we should NOT be discussing this here. You guys should have won many years ago. But, the situation is actually in the opposite direction. So, your "plain dumb" doesn't work for us BUT for science and atheists in general. Too bad.

vamjok said:

the video saying "watch" here is by the probe, are you really so stupid not to be able to get it?

Click to expand...

No, it does not say there is a probe. It says that there is a detector. A detector is not a probe.

A detector does not "watch". It merely detects the presence of a photon. It is merely an aid to the human eye.

The narrator says "This suggests that we can change the way reality behaves just by looking at it". Which part of this sentence do you not understand?

"We" refers to us, the conscious human.

vamjok said:

its not i am smarter than Roger Penrose

Click to expand...

I am actually glad that Roger Penrose is smarter than you. At least he knows the difference between a probe and a detector.

I am convinced that you are just a fake charlatan scientist. All the evidences that you had presented does not prove that the consciousness interpretation is implausible.

Conceptual Physics by Hewitt doesn't prove anything. The lecture notes by Edward Teo suggests that the consciousness interpretation is plausible. The Youtube video that you told me to watch suggests the same also.

All your other rantings are just hot air in the name of science.

kryonlight said:

No, it does not say there is a probe. It says that there is a detector. A detector is not a probe.

A detector does not "watch". It merely detects the presence of a photon. It is merely an aid to the human eye.

The narrator says "This suggests that we can change the way reality behaves just by looking at it". Which part of this sentence do you not understand?

"We" refers to us, the conscious human.



I am actually glad that Roger Penrose is smarter than you. At least he knows the difference between a probe and a detector.

I am convinced that you are just a fake charlatan scientist. All the evidences that you had presented does not prove that the consciousness interpretation is implausible.

Conceptual Physics by Hewitt doesn't prove anything. The lecture notes by Edward Teo suggests that the consciousness interpretation is plausible. The Youtube video that you told me to watch suggests the same also.

All your other rantings are just hot air in the name of science.

Click to expand...

1. You stand there in the room, observe the screen (which the electron or single photon hit), particle behaviour observed
2. you leave the room, after the experiment, wave behaviour observed
3. using probe to detect which holes the electron pass through in front of the slide, no living observer - particle behaviour observed
4. using probe to detect which holes the electron pass through behind of the slide, no living observer - particle behaviour observed
5. using probe to detect which holes the electron pass through behind of the slide, living observer *- particle behaviour observed
6. using probe to detect which holes the electron pass through in front of the slide, living observer - particle behaviour observed
7. turn off the probe in front or behind the slide, no living observer - wave observed
8. turn on both probe in front and back of the slide - particle behavior

WAHAHHAHA DUMB SHIT YOU STILL DARE TO ARGUE AGAINST ME ON THESE WELL PROVEN RESULT AND EVEN HAD TO RESTORT TO PLAY WITH ENGLISH? DETECTOR OR PROBE ? COME ON STUPID SHIT

another religious dumb fuck that never step into the university before trying to act as an expert in this area.

THE MORE YOU DARE TO ARGUE AGAINST THESE THE MORE I WANT TO LAUGH AT YOU DUMB SHIT WAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA. go bloody get a decent education on this if you are really interested, dun be a joke read on internet and try to argue against someone who went through 4 years of proper education

and dumb fuck, dun use concepture physics try to fake me. i suspect you read also never read it. if you really do you will not say that double slit experiment is not in it earlier on for its under light wave and quanta. stupid fuck, want to bluff also use a better idea.

vamjok said:

EVEN HAD TO RESTORT TO PLAY WITH ENGLISH? DETECTOR OR PROBE ?

Click to expand...

Nobody who is a qualified quantum physicist ever uses the term "computer probe" to refer to a detector.

The NUS Associate Professor of Physics Edward Teo also uses the term "detector" to refer to a detector.

The fact that you even use the term "computer probe" to refer to a detector shows that you actually never had a formal education on quantum physics.

This much is clear and simple for anyone who is reasonable to see.

I am just short of saying that you are actually posting from Buangkok Hospital.

vamjok said:

if you really do you will not say that double slit experiment is not in it earlier on for its under light wave and quanta.

Click to expand...

That's because I do not know what you are referring to by a "computer probe experiment" then. It's only until now that I realize what you actually meant by a "computer probe". LOL!

kryonlight said:

Nobody who is a qualified quantum physicist ever uses the term "computer probe" to refer to a detector.

The NUS Associate Professor of Physics Edward Teo also uses the term "detector" to refer to a detector.

The fact that you even use the term "computer probe" to refer to a detector shows that you actually never had a formal education on quantum physics.

This much is clear and simple for anyone who is reasonable to see.

I am just short of saying that you are actually posting from Buangkok Hospital.

Click to expand...

is it my fault that you are born stupid? do not even knows that computer probe is part of a setup of a detector? these terms are easily exchangeable and anyone with a bit of IQ grasp that easily without a need of any further explanation. you confirm my deduction about you, you are god damn fucking stupid.

argue against me on experiments with well known results and now on term used probe and detector. the very fact you dare to argue now on terms shows that most likely in your fucking life you read less than 10 scientific journals. probe is a scientific term stupid fuck, i know someone/labmates published tons of paper using such terms and i read tons of paper to be published using such terms.

it look god damn fucking silly on you now resorting to this level - playing with words. is that the best you can do? let us see how much more stupidity spilling out from your mouth.

kryonlight said:

That's because I do not know what you are referring to by a "computer probe experiment" then. It's only until now that I realize what you actually meant by a "computer probe". LOL!

Click to expand...

stop lying, its under the subheading in the book AND ITS FUCKING BIG.