The Big Bang as evidence for God

[LegionOnomaMoi]

We're four dimensional beings.

That's certainly one view (advocated for in e.g., Petkov's Relativity and the Nature of Spacetime and Heller's The Ontology of Physical Objects: Four-Dimensional Hunks of Matter and advocated by Einstein). In such a cosmos, everything that will happen already has happened. The future isn't determined, it's non-existent. Einstein subscribed to such a "block universe" in which change is a human illusion as is past and future. I don't find such a view convincing because it is founded not upon an empirical demonstration that time and space are one, but rather that we have to treat them this way if we wish to properly order events AND keep the laws of physics the same in all (inertial) reference frames. Furthermore, it does a poor job explaining anything regarding quantum physics, as significant mathematical maneuvers are required just to transform quantum mechanics into something compatible with special relativity.

Entangled particles show that there is no time involved

They don't, for a myriad of reasons. First, time in quantum mechanics is the same as in Newtonian physics: "Time in quantum mechanics is a Newtonian time, i.e., an absolute global time."
Macías, A., & Camacho, A. (2008). On the incompatibility between quantum theory and general relativity. Physics Letters B, 663(1), 99-102.

Second, entanglement isn't relativistic. It doesn't occur in "no-time", but involves a process that takes "no time". According to the transactional interpretation it actually takes a certain amount of time in that this interpretation explains nonlocal effects via bi-directional time (signals traveling forward AND backward in time).

Third, if you accept an ontological interpretation of spacetime, then nothing actually happens and there is never any "time". Thus when one measures system A, and system A is entangled with system B (located light-years away), the effect that measuring A has on system B isn't instantaneous. In fact, entangled states can decohere or even not exist in different reference frames, and the nature of entanglement in relativistic quantum physics remains problematic (I can provide you with references, even give you some papers, but they are rather complicated). Entanglement is fundamentally non-relativistic, and incorporating entanglement into 4D spacetime is not always possible, but when possible it is not instantaneous as it involves the world lines of the two systems or some coordinate transformation.to determine what properties of (possibly double) the systems are invariant AND correlated (i.e., remaining in violation of Bell's inequality).

There is no theory in physics more rooted in time than quantum mechanics. In classical physics, time asymmetry is generally postulated to be a side-effect of thermodynamic entropy, but the actual physical laws governing the evolution of systems are symmetric with respect to time and there is no basis in them for past vs. future. In special and general relativity, past and present are explicitly disregarded as meaningless. However, in quantum mechanics the time-evolution of the Schrödinger equation describes a state that "collapses" the evolution of any and all systems, fundamentally distinguishing between past and present.

That's not the classic Einstein thought experiment

That's because it's an illustration of time dilation, not the relativity of simultaneity. Wrong Wikipedia page.

I'm not sure but I think there's too much going on in your example.

No, there isn't. There isn't enough:

The light started from delta 0 and traveled straight up and down length l, giving us a time interval

But that's not what Bob observes, as he observes a different length and thus a different time interval as in the equations below:

If we solve the top equation for d and plug the result into the bottom equation we get one equation all in terms of Δt. We square it to obtain:

Δt is now related to Δt0 through an equation that tells us (thanks to the denominator) that the time interval for Bob is greater than that for Alice (Δt > Δt0)

Take out the mirror

Interestingly, the RIGHT wiki page also uses a mirror:
Time dilation

Well yes, because like light, the speed of which is invariable for all observers, Planck time/length is defined by light therefore is invariable for all observers as well.

That isn't why.

What is the reference for your train example?

I don't know, it's mine. There are many like it. I have what I think is the modern Halliday & Resnick edition as I taught an abridged modern physics course not long ago. I scanned the page on time dilation for you (see attached). It includes a train and mirrors, but I don't think it is as clear as my example.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I don't know, it's mine.

I asked because I'm suspicious. Now I'm even more so. Did you read the Wiki site, which is heavily annotated.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I asked because I'm suspicious. Now I'm even more so. Did you read the Wiki site, which is heavily annotated.

I explained time dilation. I gave you the correct wiki link. I even uploaded an example from the standard university physics textbook. And you want me to read a Wikipedia site that doesn't involve the phenomenon I am taking about? Time dilation isn't the same as the relativity of simultaneity.

How much do you know about quantum field theory (or any relativistic quantum physics)? You seem to be mostly concerned with entanglement, which has nothing to do with relativity or spacetime, as I've already pointed out. It is born out of quantum mechanics, and as I already said: "Time in quantum mechanics is a Newtonian time, i.e., an absolute global time."
Macías, A., & Camacho, A. (2008). On the incompatibility between quantum theory and general relativity. Physics Letters B, 663(1), 99-102.

If you want to discuss relativistic quantum processes, then we are dealing with something vastly more complicated than the simple algebra and geometry of relativity, which you seem to have trouble with. You can't get anywhere in even the most basic quantum field theory (QED) without tensors, gauge theory, group theory, and of course all the mathematical niceties of classical field theory. I am happy to discuss entanglement in terms of quantum mechanics or in terms of relativistic quantum physics, but if you are having trouble not only understanding time dilation but even recognizing it well-enough to go to the right Wikipedia page, we're not going to get very far.

 

[Tiapan]

A side question on the nature of light. I have often pondered this question so I should really do the experiment but thought I'd ask you blokes what you rekon.

Visible light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum having a property of an electric vector and a magnetic vector perpendicular to each other and both perpendicular to the direction of travel.

First Question: Why is light not affected by either strong local magnetic or electric fields? Is it simply that mass is "missing" so force cannot act ie F=ma where m=0

Next visible light is generated by the quantum jump of electrons from a higher atomic electronic orbital to a lower one with Energy of photon = planks constant X frequency.
(cf. gamma radiation from nuclear transitions and IR from molecular and atomic vibrational and rotational states).

If we have a light source eg a lit "perfect" candle and arrange a number of Photo-multiplier detectors at various positions in an array equidistant around it and measure the output, we see equal radiation detected at each detector, as trillions of photons are radiating out in all directions equally.

What if we now put the whole lot into a black box, then reduce the candle to a single atomic light generating electron transition producing a single photon,
A diluted phosphine in a low oxygen environment or dimethyl sulfide and ozone could be added to the box at very low levels such that only a small number of individual reactions occur per second in the box, ie a single photon is released at any one time.

So my second question is what does each detector in the array detect?
Intuitively only one detector should "see" the photon created because we assume we have a vector "ray", but does it?
Or do all detectors see this photon simultaneously, has anyone done the experiment?

Cheers

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

First Question: Why is light not affected by either strong local magnetic or electric fields?

It is affected by electric fields. Indeed, photons are quantized radiation fields.

Is it simply that mass is "missing" so force cannot act ie F=ma where m=0

Newtonian mechanics doesn't work even in classical electromagnetism.

What if we now put the whole lot into a black box, then reduce the candle to a single atomic light generating electron transition producing a single photon,

What on earth is "a single atomic light generating electron transition"?

A diluted phosphine in a low oxygen environment or dimethyl sulfide and ozone could be added to the box at very low levels such that only a small number of individual reactions occur per second in the box, ie a single photon is released at any one time.

We can do this without your set-up. In fact, we can do it with electrons (and we have)

 

[Ouroboros]

First Question: Why is light not affected by either strong local magnetic or electric fields? Is it simply that mass is "missing" so force cannot act ie F=ma where m=0

It is affected by electric and magnetic fields. Sun spots are effects from magnetic fields produced in the sun. The Zeeman effect is how you get a spread in a spectrogram and was discovered in the 19th century.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

You seem to be mostly concerned with entanglement, which has nothing to do with relativity or spacetime, as I've already pointed out. It is born out of quantum mechanics, and as I already said: "Time in quantum mechanics is a Newtonian time, i.e., an absolute global time."
Macías, A., & Camacho, A. (2008). On the incompatibility between quantum theory and general relativity. Physics Letters B, 663(1), 99-102.

Now we're getting somewhere. First, guilty as charged, I am mostly concerned with entanglement and quantum mechanics as opposed to relativity, and for good reason. It was Einstein's bugaboo in trying to work things out. Both the rules of relativity and qm are well know enough to make technical use of the theories, but with a complete lack of understanding of the Why? of it all. Einstein ran into that problem when faced with entanglement, which he called "Spooky action at a distance". We can't advance until we come to grips with that; and again, Cramer's Transactional Interpretation, using Kastner's fine tuning, is the only quantum interpretation that works. IOW, we've got to figure our qm with it's entanglement, local vs. non-local and dark matter/energy, before we can move on--and the roadblock for all of those is understanding time. Time is the 4th dimension (of how many other dimensions--10? 28? infinite?), but it appears not to be a factor at the quantum level.

A side question on the nature of light. I have often pondered this question so I should really do the experiment but thought I'd ask you blokes what you rekon.

Visible light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum having a property of an electric vector and a magnetic vector perpendicular to each other and both perpendicular to the direction of travel.

First Question: Why is light not affected by either strong local magnetic or electric fields? Is it simply that mass is "missing" so force cannot act ie F=ma where m=0

Next visible light is generated by the quantum jump of electrons from a higher atomic electronic orbital to a lower one with Energy of photon = planks constant X frequency.
(cf. gamma radiation from nuclear transitions and IR from molecular and atomic vibrational and rotational states).

If we have a light source eg a lit "perfect" candle and arrange a number of Photo-multiplier detectors at various positions in an array equidistant around it and measure the output, we see equal radiation detected at each detector, as trillions of photons are radiating out in all directions equally.

What if we now put the whole lot into a black box, then reduce the candle to a single atomic light generating electron transition producing a single photon,
A diluted phosphine in a low oxygen environment or dimethyl sulfide and ozone could be added to the box at very low levels such that only a small number of individual reactions occur per second in the box, ie a single photon is released at any one time.

So my second question is what does each detector in the array detect?
Intuitively only one detector should "see" the photon created because we assume we have a vector "ray", but does it?
Or do all detectors see this photon simultaneously, has anyone done the experiment?

Cheers

I agree with Legend's stuff there, except to emphasize, as is hinted to in the screen-shot of the video, your "candle" experiment appears to be a variation on the double-slit experiment, which has been giving physicists fits for a hundred years. I think the reason is because they're working so hard to avoid the Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics (TIQM) and its manipulation of time. TIQM explains your candle experiment by positing that the single photon sends out an offer wave to ALL of the sensors, but only accepts a confirmation wave from one of them, completing the transaction. The only way that makes sense is if time is not involved. They used to use the language "forward" and "backward" in time, and I always had a problem with that, until Kastner made the simple adjustment of thinking of it as being outside of time, in what she calls "Quantumland". I recommend her up to date book (2015), Understanding Our Unseen Reality: Solving Quantum Riddles, if you want to know more.

And, btw, if you want to get a glimpse of the future, look to quantum computers. In 2013, Google launched the Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab, hosted by NASA’s Ames Research Center. The lab will is using a 512-qubit quantum computer from D-Wave Systems. The first rudimentary 2 qubit quantum computer was made by Yale U. in only 2009!

And also, some physicists have theorized that the universe is a quantum computer. See Programming the Universe by Seth Lloyd. The implications of that are mind-boggling.

 

[McBell]

That's not evidence. Nothing else is missing a "before" like the universe is.

What does that have to do with the location of the center of the universe?

And the universe may not have a center..

Based on what?
How can the universe not have center when everything inside it does?

But you gotta think outside of the 4-D box. If you have no positive evidence for your assertions, you have to admit to the weakness of those assertions.

Kettle, meet pot.

I think the original sentence needs work.

I completely agree, your original sentence needs work.
Thus the reason I posted about it in the first place.

In any case, you're claiming that the universe's shape is shifting? Any evidence for that.

Please be so kind as to link where I made the claim that the universe is shifting.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I made no claim that it is.
Merely stated the fact a non-static center is still a center.

Oh, I get it now, I forgot what the definition of "is" is......was.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Now we're getting somewhere.

No, we're not. It seems as if you read a popular book on quantum physics (probably more than one, but you've only mentioned one) and you are acting as if you have an understanding of the technical apparatus of quantum mechanics, relativity, and relativistic quantum physics. Yet you can't even recognize time dilation, you don't appear to understand the basics of entanglement, and you insist on ignoring both my explanations and the quotations from the literature I've provided you. But let me adopt the principle of charity and assume that I have misunderstood you, and what appears to consist of fundamental misconceptions are really miscommunications.

So, let's actually get somewhere. Before we can concern ourselves with whether ANY interpretation works, we have to deal with what we are supposed to be interpreting. The typical teaching example for entanglement involves spin-1/2 systems, but as you keep talking about Einstein and EPR, let's use the original "spukhafte Fernwirkung" Einstein and co-authors wrote about in EPR:

where the system is a superposition of the momenta eigenkets

What is the eigenvalue? What can you say about the tensor product of the position operators? Are these systems entangled?

Next, let's take a simple example and explore what this instantaneous effect that you claim takes place in "quantumworld" actually is.

Consider the system given by

You perform a measurement of the spin S along the zed coordinate. What do you know about

?

Finally, and easiest of all, what do we automatically know about the systems given by

because of the product symbol?

You don't have to answer these questions for us to make the discussion clear. Feel free to formulate your own examples of entangled and non-entangled systems and how what sorts of measurements involve which operators with what results. I don't care. I'm just tired of having you seemingly dodge all the points I've made about the nature of entanglement whilst simultaneously insisting that a particular interpretation somehow is correct despite your seemingly fundamentally inaccurate description of BOTH quantum mechanics AND special relativity NOT TO MENTION the interpretation you are promoting itself.
Now, the principle of charity demands that I take these seeming inaccuracies as some sort of breakdown in communication. Fine. You DO know what you are talking about, but haven't expressed the concepts and ideas you refer to with the clarity I require to understand how you are relating these ideas to actual physics.
There's an easy solution to this: the formalisms of quantum mechanics are not ambiguous. They do not change because of interpretations. So, to facilitate this discussion, please either answer the questions I've posed so that we are on the same page, or formulate your own examples of what you are talking about using quantum mechanics (i.e., the formal apparatus) instead of just verbal, vague, ambiguous descriptions.

THEN we can talk about nonlocality and the relative merits of the TI.

We can't advance until we come to grips with that

We have. It's now so well-known and demonstrated that it has become an integral part of quantum computing (and thus we have technical terminology and notation for various kinds entangled quantities important in quantum communication and computing, e.g., entanglement of cost, entanglements of relative entropy concerning either PPT states or separable states, entanglement of purification, etc.).

Cramer's Transactional Interpretation, using Kastner's fine tuning, is the only quantum interpretation that works.

So apply it to the questions above.

Time is the 4th dimension

Not in quantum mechanics. But by all means, provide a formal description of entangled states in spacetime.

(of how many other dimensions--10? 28? infinite?)

You can't compactify infinitely many dimensions. Also, infinite dimensional spaces (such as the Hilbert space of quantum mechanics) are typically spaces of functions or operators.

but it appears not to be a factor at the quantum level.

It's a serious factor at the quantum level. THIS IS EXTREMELY BASIC. The ENTIRETY of the standard model of particle physics rests upon the fact that the inclusion of spacetime, special relativity, and electromagnetism in quantum physics means abandoning the Schrödinger equation, the appearance of almost all known particles (which would not exist if EITHER the spatial dimensions of quantum mechanics didn't matter OR the relativistic energy-mass equivalence didn't matter) is because of how huge a factor it is, and finally even in theoretical physics it is well-known that all possible string theories will fail for arbitrary dimensional spaces as well any other unified theory.

 

[`mud]

.....All of this.....
and still no container !
~
'mud

 

[McBell]

That's not evidence.

What isn't?

I understand your avoidance of the question.
If you answer it you back yourself into a corner.

Nothing else is missing a "before" like the universe is.

What makes you think the universe has no before?
But more importantly, what the hell does that have to do with the center of the universe?

And the universe may not have a center.. But you gotta think outside of the 4-D box.

How can the universe not have a center?
sounds as though you really need to take heed of your very next sentence.....

If you have no positive evidence for your assertions, you have to admit to the weakness of those assertions.

 

[idav]

Not in quantum mechanics. But by all means, provide a formal description of entangled states in spacetime.

It's a serious factor at the quantum level. THIS IS EXTREMELY BASIC. The ENTIRETY of the standard model of particle physics rests upon the fact that the inclusion of spacetime, special relativity, and electromagnetism in quantum physics means abandoning the Schrödinger equation, the appearance of almost all known particles (which would not exist if EITHER the spatial dimensions of quantum mechanics didn't matter OR the relativistic energy-mass equivalence didn't matter) is because of how huge a factor it is, and finally even in theoretical physics it is well-known that all possible string theories will fail for arbitrary dimensional spaces as well any other unified theory.

It is certainly related and a huge problem is figuring out spacetime at planck scale. In past discussions you claim that quanta are not affected by special relativity but I find that hard to believe.

In general relativity, spacetime is assumed to be smooth and continuous—and not just in the mathematical sense. In the theory of quantum mechanics, there is an inherent discreteness present in physics. In attempting to reconcile these two theories, it is sometimes postulated that spacetime should be quantized at the very smallest scales. Current theory is focused on the nature of spacetime at the Planck scale. Causal sets, loop quantum gravity, string theory, causal dynamical triangulation, and black hole thermodynamics all predict a quantized spacetime with agreement on the order of magnitude. Loop quantum gravity makes precise predictions about the geometry of spacetime at the Planck scale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In past discussions you claim that quanta are not affected by special relativity but I find that hard to believe.

It's not that quanta aren't affected by special relativity. It's that quantum mechanics isn't relativistic. This DOES NOT mean that quantum physics can't be relavistic: quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics, etc., are relativistic quantum theories. It is impossible to incorporate special relativity into quantum mechanics, because
1) the basic equations of state in quantum mechanics are incompatible with the famous equation (and its more general form) e=mc^2. The energy oscillations involved in scattering and other processes in quantum physics, described quantum mechanically, involve energy states high enough to require the creation of matter. However, the mathematics don't allow these processes to result in the necessary matter creation, nor can they be "fiddled with" to fix this.
2) Most processes described quantum mechanically (including basically anything using the Schrödinger equation, which is a partial differential equation with "time" built into it), especially what is called "time-dependent perturbation theory", treat "time" as Newtonian (i.e., as absolute). Potentials in quantum mechanics involve the transfer of information at infinite speeds, which violates the superluminal constraint of special relativity. The position operator in quantum mechanics is independent of time and there is no time operator at all, let alone a spacetime operator. To make quantum physics relativistic requires scrapping most of quantum mechanics.
3) Special relativity is part of classical field theory. It deals with electromagnetic fields (in particular, light). In quantum mechanics, light is quantized as photons (point-particles). In order to take classical field theory and turn it into a quantum theory requires quantum field theory (which differs fundamentally in structure from quantum mechanics) and what is called "second quantization" and renormalization. It is possible to create a consistent non-relativistic quantum field theory, but it is not possible to create a relativistic quantum mechanics.

 

[idav]

It's not that quanta aren't affected by special relativity. It's that quantum mechanics isn't relativistic. This DOES NOT mean that quantum physics can't be relavistic: quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics, etc., are relativistic quantum theories. It is impossible to incorporate special relativity into quantum mechanics, because
1) the basic equations of state in quantum mechanics are incompatible with the famous equation (and its more general form) e=mc^2. The energy oscillations involved in scattering and other processes in quantum physics, described quantum mechanically, involve energy states high enough to require the creation of matter. However, the mathematics don't allow these processes to result in the necessary matter creation, nor can they be "fiddled with" to fix this.
2) Most processes described quantum mechanically (including basically anything using the Schrödinger equation, which is a partial differential equation with "time" built into it), especially what is called "time-dependent perturbation theory", treat "time" as Newtonian (i.e., as absolute). Potentials in quantum mechanics involve the transfer of information at infinite speeds, which violates the superluminal constraint of special relativity. The position operator in quantum mechanics is independent of time and there is no time operator at all, let alone a spacetime operator. To make quantum physics relativistic requires scrapping most of quantum mechanics.
3) Special relativity is part of classical field theory. It deals with electromagnetic fields (in particular, light). In quantum mechanics, light is quantized as photons (point-particles). In order to take classical field theory and turn it into a quantum theory requires quantum field theory (which differs fundamentally in structure from quantum mechanics) and what is called "second quantization" and renormalization. It is possible to create a consistent non-relativistic quantum field theory, but it is not possible to create a relativistic quantum mechanics.

A photon or electron or whatever quanta you want to use is dilating space and time which explains very nicely spooky actions at a distance. Experiments show that time is dilated too not just distance. Quantum objects "know" the future. How does QM explain this? Special relativity already explained it.

 

[Thief]

time does not exist

 

[idav]

time does not exist

Don't call it time then. It is about mortality, eternal requires an enormous amount of energy and or mass and physics allows for it. If physics didn't allow it then an immortal being would not be possible.

 

[Thief]

Don't call it time then. It is about mortality, eternal requires an enormous amount of energy and or mass and physics allows for it. If physics didn't allow it then an immortal being would not be possible.

outside the flow of chemistry time does not apply
but I do believe God is moving in a linear fashion....with us.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

A photon or electron or whatever quanta you want to use is dilating space and time which explains very nicely spooky actions at a distance.

Three questions
1) If "spooky actions at a distance" and special relativity are so compatible, why did the originator of the term "spooky action at a distance" specifically state that it conflicted with special relativity and neither he nor any of his contemporaries were able to even describe how nonlocality could work in spacetime or entanglement could be described relativistically?
2) To determine the state of any system in quantum mechanics you need operators. To determine that e.g., entangled photons are anywhere you need the position operator, which locates the photon or electron in a region of 3D space, not spacetime. There is no dilation of space, time, or spacetime in quantum mechanics or special relativity or physics. So, as you assert that nonlocality is explained nicely by 'dilating space and time", how on earth do you propose this happens and why isn't it reflected in any theory in modern physics?
3) Please provide any example of an entangled system relativistically. It doesn't matter which relativistic quantum theory you use, but as you assert that entanglement (which is fundamentally quantum mechanical) somehow naturally relates to relativistic effects, surely you can give an example of an entangled system using the formalisms from some relativistic quantum theory. In fact, it would be great if you could even provide an example of a quantum entangled state in plain ol' quantum mecahnics (i.e., using Dirac notation).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

How does QM explain this? Special relativity already explained it.

The single greatest problem Einstein had with quantum mechanics was probably that it seemed to him (and still does to many) to violate the superluminal constraint of special relativity with its "spooky action at a distance".

I am truly mystified why individuals whose knowledge of physics doesn't extend beyond fairly basic familiarity with popular sources insist that this knowledge is adequate enough to make sweeping statements about the nature of modern physics, phenomena described in modern theories of physics, etc. You aren't alone here by any means (which is one reason I am so flummoxed by this attitude/approach). Physics in general is complicated. It is virtually impossible to understand much of anything in physics without college level mathematics. A very basic understanding of quantum mechanics requires knowledge of complex vector spaces and calculus (I am using Susskind's The Theoretical Minimum as a yardstick for what is needed to understand QM, as he set out deliberately to teach a course and later write a book designed to provide the absolute minimum material necessary for a very basic understanding). An undergraduate-level understanding of QM requires complicated linear algebra, functional analysis and infinite-dimensional spaces, complex analysis, knowledge of classical mechanics, vector calculus, etc. Special relativity can be learned without knowing tensor calculus, but it requires an understanding of abstract mathematical spaces that most people lack. For example, I commonly find that people understand the "extra dimension" of spacetime in terms of a notion of dimensions that is fundamentally wrong, i.e., some sort of "higher plane" or extra "reality" or something. In reality, an extra dimension is simply an additional coordinate axis (4D space is 4D because you can have 4 "lines" that are all mutually orthogonal). Lorentz transforms at least require an understanding of matrix operations. Geodesics, Minkowski space, etc., are probably a bit challenging for most, but in general special relativity isn't that difficult (not much more difficult than classical mechanics and it can be simplified).
Relativistic quantum physics, however, is one of the most difficult subjects in physics. It requires a whole slew of abstract mathematics (group theory, gauge theory, Lie algebras and other abstract algebras, path integrals and integration in spaces of such high dimensions that they are impossible to really understand by anybody, differential forms, tensor calculus, exterior calculus, fiber bundles, calculus on manifolds, Clifford algebras, Grassmann calculus, Banach spaces and algebras, etc.

Yet somehow many an individual who would have difficulty with high school mathematics and who hasn't ever taken a course in or solved problems from classical Newtonian mechanics feels comfortable characterizing the essential nature and properties of theories that can't really even begin to be understood without graduate level mathematics. Claims are made about the proper interpretation of e.g., entangled systems in quantum physics without the ability to even determine if an equation describing multiple systems in quantum mechanics is or isn't entangled. Assertions are made about the nature of wave-particle duality despite a complete lack of knowledge of classical wave mechanics, let alone the quantum mechanical wave equation (let alone the relationship between wave and matrix quantum mechanics and how both are utterly incapable of incorporating special relativity).
I don't get it.