Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

On Mar 19, 12:23*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Dorn.Strich wrote:
On Mar 19, 10:24 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
Dorn.Strich wrote:

Relativity occupied a useless and redundant position. *No replacement
is necessary. *Straight to the trash bin it goes.
* *Translation: David doesn't understand relativity.

Translation: Wormley does not understand quantum mechanics and finds
comfort in the simple childish geometry of relativity.

Example: Wormley cannot grasp non-locality, a feature of quantum
mechanics which relativity is clueless about.

* *David, how do you see non-locality as appears in the form of
* *entanglement, contradicting any prediction of relativity? Be
* *specific please.

First of all, do not qualify non-locality as if it only occurs in the
context of entanglement (unless that is how far your pitiful
understanding goes). Non-locality is INTRINSIC to QM; whereas
relativity is fully local. Thus QM invalidates relativity and
relativity invalidates QM. Since QM has no evidence against it, QM
stands and relativity crumbles.

Simple eh Sam?

On Mar 19, 8:18*am, "Dorn.Strich" wrote:
On Mar 19, 12:10*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:



On Mar 19, 7:58*am, "Dorn.Strich" wrote:

On Mar 19, 10:24*am, Sam Wormley wrote:

Dorn.Strich wrote:

Relativity occupied a useless and redundant position. *No replacement
is necessary. *Straight to the trash bin it goes.

* *Translation: David doesn't understand relativity.

Translation: Wormley does not understand quantum mechanics and finds
comfort in the simple childish geometry of relativity.

Describe the WKB approximation in your own words.

Explain what Berry's phase is, and how it is related to the WKB
approximation.

If you can't do either of those, you don't really 'understand' quantum
mechanics nearly as much as you think you do.

Example: Wormley cannot grasp non-locality, a feature of quantum
mechanics which relativity is clueless about.

Example: Dave cannot answer questions about QM that require non-
shallow levels of study and understanding.
Example: Dave can't solve any QM system.
Example: Dave doesn't know what a wave function is.

Watch Eric display the full spectrum of symptoms of anti-social
personality disorder. *He throws those questions as if they are
rocks. *One can almost feel the aggression in his reply. *I am amused
how the flunkie student has the nerve to start asking questions.

I guess playing armchair physicist is a lot harder than playing
armchair psychiatrist when you know nothing about physics but lots
about psychology. Looks like the time you are spending in the mental
ward is paying off.

BTW, you'd be wise to learn that aggression does not mean 'anti
social'.


Since we are merely throwing questions, here is a little one for the
flunkie: How can you reconcile quantum non-locality with relativistic
locality?

With quantum field theory, which is Lorentz invariant quantum
mechanics.

But the answer is a waste of words because you do not know what
Lorentz invariance means.

On Mar 19, 11:32*am, "Dorn.Strich" wrote:
On Mar 19, 12:23*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:



Dorn.Strich wrote:
On Mar 19, 10:24 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
Dorn.Strich wrote:

Relativity occupied a useless and redundant position. *No replacement
is necessary. *Straight to the trash bin it goes.
* *Translation: David doesn't understand relativity.

Translation: Wormley does not understand quantum mechanics and finds
comfort in the simple childish geometry of relativity.

Example: Wormley cannot grasp non-locality, a feature of quantum
mechanics which relativity is clueless about.

* *David, how do you see non-locality as appears in the form of
* *entanglement, contradicting any prediction of relativity? Be
* *specific please.

First of all, do not qualify non-locality as if it only occurs in the
context of entanglement (unless that is how far your pitiful
understanding goes). *Non-locality is INTRINSIC to QM; whereas
relativity is fully local.


This last clause is what's wrong. Locality has to be added as an extra
assumption, on top of relativity. Relativity alone is perfectly
compatible with non-locality. That's what QED is -- a fully
relativistic, non-local theory. A darned successful model to boot.


*Thus QM invalidates relativity and
relativity invalidates QM. *Since QM has no evidence against it, QM
stands and relativity crumbles.

Simple eh Sam?

On Mar 19, 1:13*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 19, 8:18*am, "Dorn.Strich" wrote:





On Mar 19, 12:10*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Mar 19, 7:58*am, "Dorn.Strich" wrote:

On Mar 19, 10:24*am, Sam Wormley wrote:

Dorn.Strich wrote:

Relativity occupied a useless and redundant position. *No replacement
is necessary. *Straight to the trash bin it goes.

* *Translation: David doesn't understand relativity.

Translation: Wormley does not understand quantum mechanics and finds
comfort in the simple childish geometry of relativity.

Describe the WKB approximation in your own words.

Explain what Berry's phase is, and how it is related to the WKB
approximation.

If you can't do either of those, you don't really 'understand' quantum
mechanics nearly as much as you think you do.

Example: Wormley cannot grasp non-locality, a feature of quantum
mechanics which relativity is clueless about.

Example: Dave cannot answer questions about QM that require non-
shallow levels of study and understanding.
Example: Dave can't solve any QM system.
Example: Dave doesn't know what a wave function is.

Watch Eric display the full spectrum of symptoms of anti-social
personality disorder. *He throws those questions as if they are
rocks. *One can almost feel the aggression in his reply. *I am amused
how the flunkie student has the nerve to start asking questions.

I guess playing armchair physicist is a lot harder than playing
armchair psychiatrist when you know nothing about physics but lots
about psychology. Looks like the time you are spending in the mental
ward is paying off.

BTW, you'd be wise to learn that aggression does not mean 'anti
social'.



Since we are merely throwing questions, here is a little one for the
flunkie: How can you reconcile quantum non-locality with relativistic
locality?

With quantum field theory, which is Lorentz invariant quantum
mechanics.

But the answer is a waste of words...

That is really a waste. QFT, the so-called reconciliation of QM and
SR/GR, runs aground with invalid results. This is treated with
renormalization. Do you know what renormalization is Eric? (Hint: It
does not mean you going into rehab to become a normal person.)

[For the newbie, renormalization is an abnormal outgrowth of QFT. It
never existed in QM.]

On Mar 19, 1:36*pm, PD wrote:
On Mar 19, 11:32*am, "Dorn.Strich" wrote:
First of all, do not qualify non-locality as if it only occurs in the
context of entanglement (unless that is how far your pitiful
understanding goes). *Non-locality is INTRINSIC to QM; whereas
relativity is fully local.

This last clause is what's wrong. Locality has to be added as an extra
assumption, on top of relativity. Relativity alone is perfectly
compatible with non-locality.

Your schizophrenia is getting the better of you again. While you
hallucinate that relativity is non-local, you are blinded to the fact
that relativity is at most luminal, and way below non-local. Einstein
postulated that nothing can travel faster than light, and non-local
effects obviously travel much faster, at instantaneous speed.

This is my suggestion:
1) Get a dictionary. Look up instantaneous, infinite, non-local.
2) Get a psychiatrist. Take the prescribed medications for a month,
then revisit the problems you are having a hard time following.
3) Thank me for my help.

On Mar 19, 12:59*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Dorn.Strich wrote:
On Mar 19, 12:23 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
* *David, how do you see non-locality as appears in the form of
* *entanglement, contradicting any prediction of relativity? Be
* *specific please.

First of all, do not qualify non-locality as if it only occurs in the
context of entanglement (unless that is how far your pitiful
understanding goes). *Non-locality is INTRINSIC to QM; whereas
relativity is fully local. *Thus QM invalidates relativity and
relativity invalidates QM. *

* *How? Be specific. All you are doing is throwing about a bunch
* *of words. Specifically, what prediction of relativity is contradicted?

See my reply to PD.

On Mar 19, 1:19*pm, "Dorn.Strich" wrote:
On Mar 19, 1:36*pm, PD wrote:

On Mar 19, 11:32*am, "Dorn.Strich" wrote:
First of all, do not qualify non-locality as if it only occurs in the
context of entanglement (unless that is how far your pitiful
understanding goes). *Non-locality is INTRINSIC to QM; whereas
relativity is fully local.

This last clause is what's wrong. Locality has to be added as an extra
assumption, on top of relativity. Relativity alone is perfectly
compatible with non-locality.

Your schizophrenia is getting the better of you again. *While you
hallucinate that relativity is non-local, you are blinded to the fact
that relativity is at most luminal, and way below non-local.

Nice word salad. I wonder what you could ever possibly mean by it?

*Einstein
postulated that nothing can travel faster than light, and non-local
effects obviously travel much faster, at instantaneous speed.

Not so. There are no non-local effects "traveling" at faster than
light speed in quantum mechanics. Whatever gave you the idea that
there are?


This is my suggestion:
1) Get a dictionary. *Look up instantaneous, infinite, non-local.

You mean a dictionary of standard-usage English? Won't help you with
physics jargon. For that you need to look in physics books to see how
the term is defined. In this case, nonlocality has a specific
connotation that you won't find in Funk & Wagnalls, sorry.

2) Get a psychiatrist. *Take the prescribed medications for a month,
then revisit the problems you are having a hard time following.
3) Thank me for my help.

Thank you for your help. You've been tremendously amusing today.

PD

On Mar 19, 2:45*pm, PD wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...0e17e17045ef64
On Mar 19, 1:19*pm, "Dorn.Strich" wrote:
Your schizophrenia is getting the better of you again. *While you
hallucinate that relativity is non-local, you are blinded to the fact
that relativity is at most luminal, and way below non-local.

Nice word salad. I wonder what you could ever possibly mean by it?


Did I not suggest a dictionary? It will take out some of your
confusion. Also, look up 'word salad' as well. Try to get some
insight into your symptoms.

*Einstein
postulated that nothing can travel faster than light, and non-local
effects obviously travel much faster, at instantaneous speed.

Not so. There are no non-local effects "traveling" at faster than
light speed in quantum mechanics. Whatever gave you the idea that
there are?


I like this one. If as you claim the non-local effects travel no
faster than light, then why call them 'non-local' to begin with? Ha
ha ha, the liar getting caught in his own web.

On Mar 19, 1:58*pm, "Dorn.Strich" wrote:
On Mar 19, 2:45*pm, PD wrote:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/d70e17e1704...

On Mar 19, 1:19*pm, "Dorn.Strich" wrote:
Your schizophrenia is getting the better of you again. *While you
hallucinate that relativity is non-local, you are blinded to the fact
that relativity is at most luminal, and way below non-local.

Nice word salad. I wonder what you could ever possibly mean by it?

Did I not suggest a dictionary? *It will take out some of your
confusion. *Also, look up 'word salad' as well. *Try to get some
insight into your symptoms.

*Einstein
postulated that nothing can travel faster than light, and non-local
effects obviously travel much faster, at instantaneous speed.

Not so. There are no non-local effects "traveling" at faster than
light speed in quantum mechanics. Whatever gave you the idea that
there are?

I like this one. *If as you claim the non-local effects travel no
faster than light, then why call them 'non-local' to begin with? *Ha
ha ha, the liar getting caught in his own web.

I had no idea you spelled "nonlocal" s-u-b-l-u-m-i-n-a-l.
If you don't know what nonlocal means to a physicist, would you like a
reading reference as to what it means?

PD

PD stated:
Not so. There are no non-local effects "traveling" at faster than
light speed in quantum mechanics. Whatever gave you the idea that
there are?

Strich smiles:
I like this one. *If as you claim the non-local effects travel no
faster than light, then why call them 'non-local' to begin with? *Ha
ha ha, the liar getting caught in his own web.

PD hallucinates:
I had no idea you spelled "nonlocal" s-u-b-l-u-m-i-n-a-l.

Strich replies:
Duh. Where is 'subluminal' in my post?

Obviously PD only means to mislead from his error, replayed he

PD stated: "There are no non-local effects "traveling" at faster than
light speed in quantum mechanics."

Strich asks rhetorically: "If as you claim the non-local effects
travel no faster than light, then why call them 'non-local' to begin
with?"