Excellent.... thanks 🙏.

My kind of rockstar

Gotta admit never really understood the double split experiment, but with minute photons and electrons, hitting the inside of the slits would alter their course if just a smidgen to create the pattern Brian points out. Just a thought.

I actually came across a video of Professor Zeilinger back during lockdown times, and he was actually teleoporting particles for fun. Little did I know that he would win a Nobel Prize.

In the Double Slit, the particles can be extremely small and the two lines will still appear, not the shown interference pattern @ 5:15. It is the rate at which the particles move, not their size, that determines whether or not the interference pattern emerges. However, it must also be noted that the rate of the particle traveling determines its size. And via the size, the rate can be determined.

When I believe it, I will see it...Wayne Dyer. All the best.

Love Brian

Brian, will you be discussing the recent UAP Congressional hearing? It actually ties into the exponential advance of AI.

@rhmcvay

8 ай бұрын

Will AI, combined with quantum computing expand our sensory understanding the theory of everything?

y'all just tryna see behind the curtain

Maybe there is 11 fundamental forces. In all of physics. We have 4 well, five if I’m right so far. Maybe we need to find the additional six am I theorem or unify Alberts klutz general theory of relativity with an extra dimension of the 2 d I’d like to call it now I think anti physics is the physics of this place, or maybe even a Quantum mechanics I believe time is a thermal or magnetic thing here the plank ara at the beginning of the universe is where you’ll find all the missing antimatter well, we should just call it antimatter 1/2/3/4/5/6/ and matter 1/2/3/4/5/6 think of these as John bells layers of an onion, a different era or epoch each one with a different set of physics that would show an overall progression of entropy

* is it really spinning? Iirc, no * what is new in this talk? * those 2 particles may be one particle

How can you know the other particle takes on one spin without measuring it?

Is it a coincidence that Einstein's critical description "spooky action at a distance" abbreviates to "saaad"? Or was he brilliantly poking fun? Let's ask him....oh wait.

You're still talking about the cat? The cat is dead. It's time to let go of this cat. It was a cute cat, but now it's gone.

Brian, too much prancing on stage. It makes you look like a comedian.

His double slit portrayal is hoplessly wrong. What goes through the slits are not particles, the pattern is not such narrow bands of distinct positions. The way to understand the double slit test is to realize electrons are not particles. It is a charge wave. I describe the properties of charge and light in my published papers. I am not published in great places like Physical Review, but in smaller peer-reviewed journals. Greene's whole act was pathetic. He did not even describe wave interference. Physicists know about the interferenc pattern. Particles simply do not interfere like waves. Please. Please. Do not take anything this popularist says as truth. You might ask, who am I?. I did the experiments that show how quantum mechanics fails. Everything about me and my website is easy to find. Now about that pathetic T-shirt skit. If it looks like that skit with the math on t shirts was insulting to your intelligence, it was. New paragraph. QM takes the wave to be a non-physical probability that somehow guides the particle. That particle/probability model leads to all the weirdness. There is an alternative. Look me up to see it; it is easy. There is still probability, but it is located in a pre-loaded state in the detector electron. My experiments are beam-split coincidence tests done with gamma-rays and alpha-rays, which were previously done with visible light. I see the opposite answer from QM. In short, the experiments that were done to substantiate QM did not understand a workable alternative. It is confusing because the two-particle test the Nobel winners are famous for did not understand a workable alternative to QM. It is confusing because in the case of those tests QM has it right. But if you do the one particle test like I do, you see QM is wrong. QM still usually works, but not in the one particle test done with gamma-rays. So I show how the QM probability model fails. There is still probability, but it works differently than how they think. I am the only one to do that.

@ricanderson7868

7 ай бұрын

**yawns** "I am the only one to do that."