Originally Posted By: finiter
Orac, you have said a lot. But sorry, I have to repeat the same thing because you are not prepared to care what I say. I have clearly stated that QM has no proof other than observational evidence. In the end, you are also saying that observational evidences are the only proof. You say that I am not providing any alternate explanation, but do not say in which particular case I have not provided alternate explanation. Naturally, the argument becomes cyclic.


Google scientific proof please.

Proof as proved by science requires simple testing via standard scientific methods. QM makes predictions which are verified by results so is therefore scientifically proven.

You stating that it is not proven is a statement of stupidity.

If your saying it's not proven to you, so be it who cares, it's proven at science.


Originally Posted By: finiter

Regarding the mass of neutron: Are you saying that the mass of neutron varies and remains within a range? Can you provide a link which exactly says that. I am under the impression that the masses of electron and neutron have been accurately determined, and that also to a very great degree of accuracy (and always the masses remain the same).


Again wiki or any net link will provide you details I have been providing details of the renormalizing process in the other link.

Originally Posted By: finiter

Regarding the single electron interference, I think you have gone wrong. The link that you have referred to says: "The electrons travel one-by-one through the system but still build up a well pronounced interference pattern with period 130 mT" (Page no:2549 2nd para 4th line). To me, it means that the interference pattern is formed by all the electrons together and not a single electron (the electrons build up the pattern). The term 'single electron interference' is used to indicate that 'electrons are sent one by one', and not to indicate that a 'single electron creates an interference pattern'.


They are sent one by one and interfer with themselves, look at it as it's time resolved for you. You can even buy the equpment to test the same effect on light photons in the link above you yourself.

This is becoming an excercise in denial and delussion on your behalf, this stuff is all common and tested by many many labs and scientists.

At the end of the day believe what your will finiter if you want to say your don't believe QM that's fine but we are in a science section of a forum and you start telling me it's not proven and I will take you to task.

IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN END OF STORY ... YOU CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE SO BE IT ... SAY THAT I CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE.

I am consistant with this as I said to you I don't believe the classic big bang theory, that is it is proven at science but I choose to doubt it. The theory matches all observed results so it would be wrong of me to say Big bang is not proven and I do not do so.

I expect the same behaviour of you as I ask of myself on science section of a physics forum.

Last edited by Orac; 11/03/11 06:06 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.