EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> wrote:
> George Neuner wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 18:50:19 -0000 (UTC), Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 7:39:32 PM UTC-5, robf...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> If it were passing faster with distance, it would blue-shift. Red-shift
>>>>>> would imply that time slows down with distance.
>>>>> More units of time per wavelength equals a lower frequency. I think
>>>>> it would result in apparent red-shifting to the remote observer. Point
>>>>> is I believe that time may not pass at the same rate everywhere at
>>>>> cosmic distances. It could explain some things.
>>>>>> It would also imply a universe with a curved spacetime (vs flat).
>>>> <
>>>>> I think time is not a dimension. I believe it is an aggregate measure. If no events
>>>>> occur then no time passes. An event as small as an electron spinning, or
>>>>> smaller, causes time to pass. So at our scale of existence it seems
>>>>> to pass consistently. Time is visibility of state change. The quanta of time is
>>>>> very small.
>>>> <
>>>> In the book "Schrodinger 's Kittens" John Gribbin explains essentially how
>>>> Stephan Weinberg won his Nobel Prize. The trick, Weinberg determined has
>>>> to do with the interpretation of the Schrodinger equations with negative
>>>> values in the SQRT() part. Weinberg reasoned that this set of solutions represent
>>>> waves running backwards in time.
>>>> <
>>>> This solves the 2-slit experiments. The negative time photon passes through
>>>> and sees the configuration of the experiment before the actual (forward time)
>>>> photon has been released. So the negative time photon informs the real photon
>>>> to act like a wave or act like a particle.
>>>> <
>>>> But also explains that our knowledge of particle physics requires there to be
>>>> an atom to receive a photon that is emitted by another atom. This, in turn,
>>>> sets up the thought experiment where a atom on one side of the universe
>>>> emits a photon which is captured by an atom on the other side of the universe.
>>>> To the photon, time does not pass, to the initiator (negative time photon) time
>>>> does not pass either. So, here we have a photon that takes 13B years of flight
>>>> time, and the photon perceives none of it. The photon is released from the
>>>> atom and it arrives instantaneously at the other atom after 13B years of travel.
>>>> <
>>>> Time is not what we as humans make it out to be.
>>>> Time merely is what it is.
>>>> And Quantum electrodynamics is happy with the notion that some things
>>>> travel backwards in time (at least our understanding/perception of time).
>>>> <
>>>> recently work on trying to ecreate the math necessary to calculate in the
>>>> "time" between 10^-43 of Big Bang and 10^-38 of BB enumerates both time
>>>> and space as particles of foam (plank scale foam) that when expanded
>>>> by inflation, 3 of these become the dimensions of distance, and the other
>>>> becomes the dimension of time. But prior to 10^-38 after BB there was
>>>> neither the concept of distance nor the concept of "flowing time". We
>>>> need this kind of new math in order to create the mathematical basis
>>>> for describing physics before the emergence of dimension and time.
>>>> QED and QCD both depend on cardinality of dimensions and the flow
>>>> of time. Gravity does not. Merging these requires "new math".
>>>>
>>> Take a look at Young’s Single Slit Experiment from 1802.
>>> You get the same distribution, the effect is interaction with the atoms of
>>> the slit.
>>> No need for ridiculous theories Ike negative time.
>>> This also explains the horizontal distribution which theories ignore.
>>> I would try heavier and lighter atoms for the slit, it’s probably been
>>> done.
>>
>> In fact, the double-slit experiment has been replicated in the 'macro'
>> world using easily visible objects.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGCtMKthRh4
>
> That is not demonstration of quantum phenomena.
>
> Young's 1882 double slit experiment works fine as a demonstration
> of the wave nature of light or sound.
> The puzzles for the double slit experiments came when
> you try to explain it using particles and quantum mechanics.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#%22Which-way%22_experiments_and_the_principle_of_complementarity
>
> A recent published result with a double-slit interferometer of
> neutrons claims to prove that _fractions of individual particles_
> travel through both slits and along both paths of the interferometer
> simultaneously, and not just statistical sums over many particles.
>
> One particle on two paths: Quantum physics is right
> https://phys.org/news/2022-05-particle-paths-quantum-physics.html
>
> "The novelty is that one does not have to resort to unsatisfactory
> statistical arguments: When measuring a single particle, our experiment
> shows that it must have taken two paths at the same time and quantifies
> the respective proportions unambiguously."
>
> [open access]
> Quantifying the presence of a neutron in the paths
> of an interferometer, 2022
> https://journals.aps.org/prresearch/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.023075
>
> "It should be emphasized that all results are completely consistent
> with standard quantum theory. The conclusion that particles can be
> physically delocalized between paths in which no strong interactions
> occur and that the localization or delocalization is decided by a
> measurement that takes place after the particles have propagated
> along the paths is a possibility inherent in the paradoxical
> aspects of quantum superpositions."

And does this theory explain the horizontal distribution as well as the
vertical distribution, like the single slit theory does?

Here’s a hint, NO.

PHd stands for Pile it Higher and Deeper, it being bullshit.

Look behind the curtain Dorothy.

The wizard is not a wizard at all, just a man.

MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> schrieb:
> On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 9:07:56 PM UTC-5, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> > Such a profound disappointment the drug companies are.
>> I wonder why you'd be disappointed. I mean they are large companies,
>> just like Nestlé, Apple, etc... They're designed to maximize their own
>> profit, not other people's well being.
><
> Which, by the way, is why medicine should not be left to "for profit"
> companies or corporations (and especially not to *.gov).

Who's left? NGOs? Research institutes (who would then have
to go into manufacturing)?