Quantum Fraud?


That Quantum Theory is a fraud, I have believed for decades. I still remember a seminar I gave in Stanford, a bit about that, and the hatred I got in return. But it seems my point of view is finally gaining ground, among the powers that be.

I believe in moods. A mood is a neurohormonal state. It is culturally transmitted (although there are genetic factors, as the case of the incredibly fierce Catarina Sforza makes clear). Consider Athens: when it was a Direct Democracy, Athenians were ready to die for freedom. A century later, the mood had changed. When a sea battle against the Macedonians turned badly, the Athenian captains were not keen to fight to death. Instead, they surrendered Direct Democracy for 24 centuries (and counting).

Sforza: "Se io potessi scrivere tutto, farei stupire il mondo"

Sforza: “Se io potessi scrivere tutto, farei stupire il mondo”

[Caterina Sforza: If I were to write all, I would shock the world. She died in 1509, aged 46, from pneumonia. Earlier, for decades, she had been one of the fiercest war and love leaders of Renaissance Italy. She did not hesitate to engage in atrocities, and hand to hand combat, surrender not an option.]

What happened with Direct Democracy? Why did the Athenian fleet surrender readily when confronted to Macedonian plutocracy, whereas, time and time again, Athens had fought the Persians to death at Marathon, at Salamis, on the seas, in Boeotia, in Egypt, etc.?

Well, dominance by pro-fascist philosophers (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle) changed the mood from fighting to death for freedom, towards tolerance for fascist leadership (from Solon 594 CE, to the philosophers around Pericles, the mood had been just the opposite).

The ultimate mood is the one pertaining to reality. Is reality real, or should it be just what the masters want it to be. Can one make fun of reality, Should we?

Making fun of reality? What else does standard Quantum Theory, the so-called “Copenhagen Interpretation”, when it considers that cats are alive and dead, SIMULTANEOUSLY?

I spent most of my life worrying about what is really real in physics. That implied really wondering if the supposedly greatest minds in physics were really for real. Or whether they, and their admirers, were delusional, if not outright fraudulent.

I am happy to see my point of view starting to be shared by the Establishment.

Owen Maroney, a physicist at the University of Oxford, Great Britain “worries that physicists have spent the better part of a century engaging in fraud”. Says Nature, 20 may 2015 in: “Quantum Physics; What Is Really real?”:

Ever since they invented quantum theory in the early 1900s, explains Maroney… [physicists] have been talking about how strange it is — how it allows particles and atoms to move in many directions at once, for example, or to spin clockwise and anticlockwise simultaneously. But talk is not proof, says Maroney. “If we tell the public that quantum theory is weird, we better go out and test that’s actually true,” he says. “Otherwise we’re not doing science, we’re just explaining some funny squiggles on a blackboard.”

Those inclined to philosophy, economics, sociology and the like may scoff about wondering about “fraud” in theoretical physics. However the taking-over of “austerity”, also known as plutocracy, is directly related to a loss of a correct sense of reality.

This sense of reality is directed by the head, the top thinkers, and the fish rots by the head.

An example is Einstein’s discovery, or, should we say, explanation, of the photoelectric effect. It’s no doubt correct. Or, let me rephrase this more correctly, the zeroth order explanation of the photoelectric effect by Einstein is correct. It was a trivial idea, but still a new idea. What Einstein did was to suppose that electromagnetic energy was absorbed by packets. Planck, in reasoning that was much harder, conceptually, logically and mathematically, had introduced the quantification of radiation for emission (inside a cavity). That is, that radiation was emitted by packets.

Einstein made a logical hyper-jump.

What’s a logical hyper-jump? I am introducing the notion, it’s globally valid in all theories. It consists in introducing a new axiom, emotionally inspired. The emotion here is that Planck had emitted packets. Einstein decided to receive them. It’s the symmetrical emotion.

But that’s all the logic there was, and this infuriated Planck.

Einstein, as I have explained, did not stop here: he made another logical hyper-jump. That one, he did not need to explain the photoelectric effect. That was the start of the dead-live (“Schrodinger”) cat madness, and thus the Multiverse deranged debasement of reality itself.

When the elite thinkers are idiots, or, worse, deliberately fraudulent, it is no wonder that the 99.9% are like babies one steals lunch, if not life, from.

Patrice Ayme’


Tags: , , , , , , ,

40 Responses to “Quantum Fraud?”

  1. ianmillerblog Says:

    My biggest complaint about modern quantum mechanics is that physicists are only really interested in results that confirm their beliefs. An example, in my opinion anyway, is the “Delayed “Choice” Quantum Eraser. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84: 1 – 5 (2000). Basically they “prove” the Copenhagen – type interpretation by using down converters after the two slits, and two entangled photons are generated – one, the signal photon goes off to the detector that either sees diffraction or it does not. The other photon (termed an idler photon) goes off in a direction that specifies through which slit the first photon passed. It then goes to a beam splitter, and half go to a detector, while the other half go down an optical path where they are remixed with the idler photons from the other slit. What you find is that the signal photons corresponding to the idlers that were not remixed give “no diffraction pattern” (actually, you do not get two signals either, and without knowing the details of the optics, it is hard to comment on that), while the signal photons entangled with the mixed photons do give diffraction. Also, whether diffraction is given or not depends on signal photons that are detected prior to the choice being made. In principle the choice could be made on Alpha centauri, and what do the detectors do in the interim? My argument is that the experiment is flawed, in that the correct experiment should have been to block one of the idler paths going to the mixing. Their partners were KNOWN to give diffraction, and the question then is, if you block one of the mixing paths, does the diffraction that would have come from the remaining entangled signal photons from the other path collapse the diffraction? But this obvious blank (which covers the option that in the down converter, only one of the emerging photons carries the diffraction information, and the beam splitter can separate which idlers have it from those that do not) was not done. Much better to be incomprehensible than to check that there might be a simple explanation.

    • Paul Handover Says:

      Ian, not just physicists that are interested in confirmations of their beliefs! Each and every one of has that weakness!

      (Oh, in your last sentence I think you wrote ‘eight’ when you meant to write ‘might’.)

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Thanks Paul: Ian clearly meant “might”, as you said, so I corrected it. This was the main point of my essay: “Much better to be incomprehensible than to check that there might be a simple explanation”…. Especially if one is not smart enough to find the later…
        We all have beliefs, suppositions we make we have no proofs of… Axioms, truly. But the art of wisdom is to choose them well…

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Ian: I have no time to consider carefully the experiment you consider and criticize here (I may have studied it in the past, probably did, and will come back if I have time). However I agree with your general critique. I have looked at Quantum Eraser and Delayed Choice, etc. and could not really understand what the deal was about.

      It turns out that some of these thought experiments, in my opinion, say nothing (I got excited by some, like “photon trajectories after 2-slit”, which turned out to rest on dubious logic, as you point out. In particular “weak measurements”.

      In the case of the cats, dead and alive, clearly one recovers ultimate reality by going down the filter of reality, as I explained recently.

      To change paradigm with Quantum Mechanics, one has to realize that the main argument, that the waves could not possibly be real, was philosophically inadmissible: it’s not because one does not know how to do something that it is impossible. And, indeed, it turns out wave effects a la De Broglie (particle equipped with guiding wave) are reproducible macroscopically. As I hope to write in the next essay.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      This was the main point of my essay, Ian, indeed, and you made it well: “Much better to be incomprehensible than to check that there might be a simple explanation”…. Especially if one is not smart enough to find the later…

  2. brodix Says:

    Part of the problem is that math, the study of patterns, is naturally reductionistic and that means the grey areas are ignored for purposes of clarity.

    This then leads to a tendency to project seemingly linear effects to infinity, because much of the continuous dynamic feedback, that ultimately puts the linear effect in some larger, counterbalancing context, has been edited out, to creating that seeming scientific clarity in the first place.

    Specifically I’m thinking of the opposing concepts of gravity collapsing into infinite back holes, in a universe which is supposedly expanding from a dimensionless point, out to infinity. Yet these forces of contraction and expansion are apparently balanced, but no one is willing to consider they could be two sides of some cosmic cycle of contracting mass and expanding radiation, where the mass is constantly(and obviously) radiating out enormous amounts of energy, in the process of collapse and what does fall into the central vortex seems to be shot out out the poles.

    While the opposite side of the cycle, how energy coalesces into mass, is, like all grey areas, covered in particulars, but ignored as an essential aspect of the entire dynamic.

    For instance, it is assumed that light fundamentally exists as point particle quanta, because that is what it is measured as, but doesn’t the very act of measurement entail a contraction and delineation that is required by the process of measurement, but may not necessarily be manifest in unmeasured light?

    Then possibly much of what we think of as dark matter; The gravitational force holding the outer parts of galaxies together, but not accounted for by mass, might be due to those ‘below the radar” processes of radiation contracting into quanta through ‘measurement’ processes we don’t account for.

    • gmax Says:

      Cyclic universe (Penrose and alias). Also what you are saying about photon is exactly Patrice’s main objection to Einstein. Patrice says that is equivalent to the multiverse madness, she wrote a gigantic post about it

      • brodix Says:


        Photons are released and received as packets, but are they the same packets, or does it expand out as a wave and become whole with all the other quanta being released and then the reception is a function of how much has to be absorbed to register. Aka the loading theory of light.

        I’m not talking about the entire universe cycling through big bangs and big crunches, but light radiating away from galaxies/breaking mass structures, as mass is falling into them. Then eventually all that mass breaks down and radiates back out, which is fairly reasonable, so the only missing part is the radiation coalescing back into mass.

        Basically a cosmic convection cycle. With redshift an optical effect of light not actually traveling as individual packets and thus needing the source to recede in order to redshift, but as waves, in which the accumulation/reception takes in an expanded wave front, from which to quantify its packets.

        Or some such dynamic, that doesn’t need the entire universe to appear out of nowhere, expand faster than the speed of light to create equilibrium, slow down to the speed of light to make sense and with 95% invisible to explain all that we don’t know, but need to patch the theory, since it has been proven right, except for all the times it wasn’t.

        • gmax Says:

          Did U read Patrice’s 100 billion year old universe (google)?

          She does not believe in Big Bang.

          Other thing: redshift is not due to galaxies receding, but space in between expanding: Patrice told you that explicitly to U personally

          • brodix Says:

            Physics seems to define space in this situation as the distance between two points, which is only one dimension of space. Now gravity is defined as the contraction of space, thus Einstein’s concern it would eventually collapse the universe to a point, giving the need to add the Cosmological Constant. That is because gravity is mass pulling together and thus the distance between mass points contracting.
            Now redshift is a measure of radiation and if radiation travels as waves and not as individual quanta, naturally it expands to fill volume. So it is not chance that a measure of space based on measures of radiation is expanding.
            So we have the space based on mass contracting and the space based on radiation expanding and these two effects are in balance. It would seem to me, given the relationship between energy(light) and mass, there is some form of cyclical dynamic at work here, rather than both sides projected independently and linearly.
            Thus mass eventually breaking down and radiating back out, rather than falling infinitely into a black hole, while energy eventually cooling off and coalescing back into galaxies, rather than expanding forever.

  3. Benign Says:

    There once was a physicist broad
    who declared quantum physics a fraud
    but down in the foam
    where quanta do roam
    they considered her thinking quite flawed

    “I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.”
    –J.B.S. Haldane
    Possible Worlds and Other Papers (1927), p. 286

    • brodix Says:


      That statement has been way over emphasized and only serves to validate obscurity and confusion.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      “Physicist broad”??????? Really? Who are you alluding to? Is that a personal attack? Girls want to know!
      Does not that sound a bit sexist to you? ;-)?
      Thanks for the Haldane situation, but we are starting to imagine subquantum physics. And it maybe in everybody’s face: DARK MATTER (I have a subquantic theory of it… thanks to my broad perspectives…)

  4. Heretic Says:

    There are a lot of good books on the subject of deception and blunders in modern physics. Here are just two.

    “The Big Bang Never Happened” by Eric Lerner.
    “The Virtue of Heresy” by Hilton Ratcliffe.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks Heretic! I don’t know these books, but, in the 100 billion years universe (and before) I claimed that, having DARK ENERGY, we don’t need no Big Bang no more, as soul singers would say…

  5. Heretic Says:

    The word “fascism” is rarely used properly. Since it was invented by Mussolini and his friends in Italy in WWII it could hardly have started with Plato and company. Go to ihr.org for more information on that point.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I am a philosopher. Just as Plato, or Aristotle, I can go word-forging. In the case of “FASCISM, it was established as a concept, in Rome, 25 centuries ago.
      Forget Mussolini.
      I have studied the concept. BTW, the French Republic, and the American Republic, have used fascism as a symbol, since their creation. Fasces are everywhere the French Republic display itself, and fasces throne at the Congress of the USA. Google my name and go to “pictures” and you will see…
      I will check your link, no time now.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      My point: the SEMIOLOGY of fascism was clearly the very foundational idea of Roman civilization. It is more than 25 centuries old.
      Roll over Benito!

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I use it the best, by far.
      Mussolini did not. Actually he understood nothing to it, whatsoever.
      Italian fascist ideology, largely the work of pseudo-philosopher Giovanni Gentile (what a name!!!! For such a scorpion), emphasized the subjugation of the individual to a “totalitarian” government controlling all aspects of national life. That was in complete opposition to the Roman idea, which was complete submission to REPUBLICAN LAW.

  6. Heretic Says:

    “I am happy to see my point of view starting to be shared by the Establishment.”

    Establishment physics is full of lies and corruption. Don’t wait for them to catch on or fess up. Do an end run around them. Go to the physics underground. Real progress often comes from outside the establishment, not from inside it.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I gave at Stanford, decades ago, a seminar on why Black Hole Theory was full of (QUANTUM) logical holes. The best and most famous household names were in attendance. They nearly ran me out of town with tar and feather! A Field Medalist (and friend of a few years!) told me, severely: “I saw you. I can tell. You meditate too much!”

      I had violated the “Shut Up and Calculate!” philosophy.

      Nowadays, of course, these ideas have been published as Twentieth-First Century physics, under other (famous) names. Hawking then, and now hawking again, dressed in others’ ideas…

      Whatever. I must recognize it infuriates me. But that’s not the most important. They can be insects, if they want, their medals and prizes will not protect them from the judgment of centuries to come… 😉

  7. Heretic Says:

    More good reads:

    “Albert Einstein the Incorrigible Plagiarist” by Christopher Jon Bjerknes
    “The Electric Sky” Donald Scott

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks Heretic, and welcome! I was unaware of these two works. My discovery of Einstein stealing people ideas right and left came from the technical side: I really studied as hard as possible the logic, and that turned out to mean the history, and I progressively came to realize Einstein was not first class.

      First class, as, say, Henri Poincare’, who, although he died at 58 in 1912, had elaborated the Relativity Principle in 1904 at 46, after discovering, and proving E = mcc in 1900: Einstein picked up exactly the same proof, and presented it as his, while admitting it was Poincare”s, formally speaking, although, he obscurely stated, his context was different (I don’t know in which way). Poincre’ knew space and topology much better than Einstein. He was the one who suggested clocks could be synchronized and how (moving them slowly). Einstein grabbed the exact reasoning, word for word, omitting that Poincare’ wrote it down years before, and so on…

      As I said, this is not a question of just justice (the French guy superior to the German Jew, or whatever). It’s a question of LOGOS. Poincer”s subtleties got lost through the Einstein plagiarism simplification grinder.

      BTW, Feynman tried to do exactly the same thing to John Bell: he took Bell’s proof (itself coming from research of Popper-Einstein, or Einstein-Popper, not sure…), and presented it as his own.(Astounding as Bell, an Irishman, was CHIEF THEORIST at CERN; it is as if Feyman’s world reduced to the USA, and he never heard of Europe, except as source of ideas to be stolen…

      I knew Feynman personally, and loved him very much… Just like I love the Rolling Stones, but Jagger-Richard stole songs from Brian Jones (Ruby Tuesday, say) or Bill Wyman (the riff of Jumping Jack flash). And they refuse obstinately to recognize it. Although, well, Stones fanatics as yours truly can tell…

  8. richard reinhofer Says:

    this is interesting:


    • ianmillerblog Says:

      This, to my mind, is an example of the fraud, and there has been another report recently of a calcium atom allegedly being in two places at the same time. What they actually mean (I think) is there is an equal probability of finding the particle at two places, but as far as I know, there is NEVER a simultaneous observation of one particle being at two places at the same time. The statement involving the outcome of probability calculations and whatever theory is extrapolated to something that defies conservation laws without actual observational verification is, to me, fraud.

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Indeed, Ian, indeed. Excellent, totally excellent point. Funny how philosophy, and psychology can inform physics. “THEY” (the great priests of Nobelhood) often speak of one thing being in two places. But of course, it was never OBSERVED.

        This is actually the VERY ESSENCE of the problem of the COLLAPSE of the WAVE (-packet). When one extends said wave over a parsec or two, Earth, we have a problem…

        Fraud it is! Indeed! They are just obsessed by looking like great sorcerers, and selling lots of books!

        [The MIW, BTW, only considers point particles… in many universes, interacting… Weirder, yet, not weirdest…]

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Indeed, very interesting, Richard, thanks a lot. It’s the MIW theory (Multi-Interacting-World… Not to be confused with the closely related Many Worlds, or Multiverse). I stumbled on it 2 years ago, or so, in Science mag., and came to the conclusion it may be practically interesting, but it’s a simplification, a sort of order one Copenhagen Interpretation.

      I will publish the follow up of the preceding essay (Quantum Fraud?), which explains a bit the background of MIW (weirdly, it originates in De Broglie… who would have been skeptical).

  9. 1truegarcol Says:

    The Ylem soup of the creation of the universe is formless and formful, just like Patrice’s essay. The Nature article only articulated some divergences which exist as to the “true meaning of quantum physics” – it is not representative of a definitive vote for non-reality.
    Sean Carroll has an interesting post on philosophical views held by physicists on the ‘nature’ of ‘quantum physics’ – there is little agreement…
    However, as to the experimental and verifiable reality of the predictions of mathematical quantum physics, there is no question.
    The only question is why we humans have so difficult a time wrapping our heads around these ‘really strange’ phenomena – and what is the ‘true nature’ of nature.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hello 1truegarcol. And welcome!
      Definitively, things are moving in Quantum Reality. (I have another article in the works on that, going further.)
      To see a professor of Oxford accusing the Quantum Orthodoxy of “FRAUD” is new. Especially for quoting, and quoted, in Nature!

      Did I see the Sean Carroll essay? Not sure. I believe the MIW (Many Interacting Worlds) is false, and the Many Worlds Interpretation and the Multiverse, are sheer insanities.

      I have my own alternative. Out of it pops Dark Matter (don’t ask about Dark Energy; anyway I know not enough about that one to compute… WE don’t know enough…)

      One insanity of the Copenhagen Interpretation is dead-live cat thing: claiming it’s plausible, when it’s obviously non-sensical. (Amusingly, I have a way out from the wave ultra-filter, giving just one absolute wave for any situation.)

  10. brodix Says:

    If I may offer a comment on Dark Energy;

    It was postulated to explain why the original assumption for how the rate of cosmic redshift would decline linearly, turned out to decline parabolically.

    In other words, the presumption was that the initial Bang left everything flying apart at close to the speed of light and that due to the gravity of all of this material, the velocity causing the redshift would decrease at a steady rate, but what they found is that it dropped off rapidly and then flattened out, to a slower rate.

    Since the initial burst can’t explain why it would slow down and then sustain a steady decline, much as a bullet fired can only slow down linearly and would need its own energy source to sustain momentum, the assumption became that there must be some expansion inherent to space. Therefore Dark Energy and the connection with Einstein’s Cosmological Constant.

    Now if we were to suppose that redshift is an optical effect and one which compounded on itself, then redshift would start out from our point of view slowly and then increase, eventually going parabolic, until it appeared that the sources were moving away at the speed of light and this would create a horizon effect, by which all visible light would be redshifted completely off the visible spectrum and only black body radiation would travel over from beyond this point.

    So this would explain how the rate of redshift increases, at an increasing rate, with distance.

    It would also explain the source of the cosmic microwave background radiation, as the solution to Olber’s paradox; Why we don’t see a night sky full of light, since in an infinite universe, there would eventually be a star at every point, because this light does eventually fade off the spectrum.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Brodix; No time to teach you the basics of the official theory in which I don’t even believe, as you deserve… Once again, why don’t you take a class?

      The “flying apart” is at maybe 10^10 speed of light: that’s cosmic inflation (Russians and Guth, etc.)

      The Dark Energy was not discovered the way you said, but through super nova candles, and then two other ways. Olberts’ paradox is explained by cosmic expansion at this point, and the Big bang, as they implies a cosmic horizon in time and space.

      • brodix Says:


        Inflation isn’t observed in the redshift, but as an explanation for why the CMBR appears so smooth, given that since the outer edges of the observable universe appear to be flying away in opposite directions at nearly the speed of light, then it isn’t possible for them to have been in communication. So the inflation epoch is proposed as an initial burst, at much faster than the speed of light, to create this uniformity.

        Another, possibly much more physically logical, explanation for the CMBR to be smooth, would be some form of phase transition, such that the radiation gets unstable at that level and breaks down/coalesces into some elemental quantum particle. A cosmic dew point, so to speak.

        The candles were how they measured and compared the redshift at various distances.

        Olber’s paradox wouldn’t apply to a finite universe. Presumably those galaxies at about 13 billion lightyears distant are close to the edge and the only energy radiating from beyond that is the background radiation. Which is why, in a infinite universe, in which redshift is an optical effect, this background radiation would be the light of ever more distant galaxies, but shifted entirely into the infrared.

        What is there to read, that is even remotely accessible, that isn’t promoting the current model? I have been following the debate for several decades and most ideas of interest do get batted around debates on the subject eventually.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Nothing can be seen beyond the Cosmic Horizon, so there is no filtering through (as I already told you). However, the Quantum Interaction ought to be felt, and that can be tested EXPERIMENTALLY (I, me, says).

          I do know all the traditional scientific theories in that area, all the way to differential forms formulation (the deepest). That’s why I don’t regurgitate all the BS, same as it came in.

          I don’t teach those things anymore formally, so I don’t know what/if there is a basic text out there, like I imagine there should be a General Relativity for Dummies… (Why don’t you google search?)

        • ianmillerblog Says:

          While I am not a cosmologist, so I may be missing something, I am also skeptical about dark energy. Reasons:

          (1) Regarding the 1A supernovae, they may not be standard candles. There is some evidence their luminosity depends on metallicity, and clearly that is much lower at large red shifts.

          (2) If you actually examine the primary data, you will see there is a huge observational scatter, so the data are not quite as robust as some claim. I have seen this data plotted by a cosmologist, and what struck me at the time was that the line assuming accelerating expansion did not go through the origin. Not necessarily fatal to the theory, but of concern to me.

          (3) I confess to not understanding the argument over the smoothness of the CMB. In particular, I fail to see the need for communication. Suppose everything started as a singularity (which I do not actually believe, but the theorists do) and imposed uniformly on this was the weak field, and assume what happens in condensation is governed by the weak field. (Strictly speaking, there is NO temperature at this time because there is nothing to have random motion. Everything is under uniform expansion, and there is an extreme energy density, but no temperature in the usual meaning.) If the expansion is dependent on space expanding, it will be uniform, so the energy density will remain uniform. Now the weak field would impose a localised time dependent decay sequence so the background will be uniform without communication across it. Maybe I am missing something, so anyone feel free to enlighten me.

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            No problem, I shall solve Dark Matter, in the meantime. 😉 In my theory DM is obvious, including its features. DE I have no clues. As I said, if there is DE we don’t need Big Bang.

            Some people (Penrose, etc.) have observed a cyclic universe allows to avoid a singularity. CMB smooth? They talk about lots of things I don’t understand. What I do understand is that it’s likely there is nothing there to understand about many things they freak out about…

  11. 1truegarcol Says:

    Sean Carroll survey here: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/17/the-most-embarrassing-graph-in-modern-physics/
    The article in Nature to which you originally referred, was written by a science popularizer, Zeeya Merali, who “livens” her articles up with a bit of hyperbole, eg SciAm Jan 2014: Stephen Hawking: “There Are No Black Holes” – clarified subsequently to a specific quality described may not exist; article about “wall of fire” instead of progressive gravitational event horizon starts with the sentence “In March 2012, Joseph Polchinski began to contemplate suicide — at least in mathematical form.” (more than a bit of a stretch to drama-it-up) http://www.nature.com/news/astrophysics-fire-in-the-hole-1.12726 . Ms Merali weaves an engaging story, but it must be read closely – her facts are correct, but the emphasis may mislead.
    That being said, the Nature article (http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-physics-what-is-really-real-1.17585) from which you quote Maroney is from the introductory paragraph of a three-page feature by Merali – the rest of the three pages underscore the disparate and confusing attempts to characterize the behavior of Quantum Physics in terms of everyday experience – which cannot be done, as you have demonstrated.
    However, the inability to understand or convey that understanding clearly, does not (repeat not) constitute fraud.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks for the links 1truegarcol! No time to look into them now, I am very busy in the next 40 hours.
      I appreciate your cautions about the Nature article, etc.

      However, let’s notice she quotes Marroney, an OXFORD PROFESSOR, who did not appear screaming that he had been misquoted, as he sure would have, had he been…

      A few things you may not know: a) I am a physicist. I don’t depend upon journalists to form opinions on the Foundations of Quantum Physics, a subject I have obsessed about for decades. My own foundational theory predicted Dark Matter, and explains some of its just revealed features, such as the leaving-behind… (See May 2015 news on Dark Matter.)

      b) I do believe that the attitude of most theoretical physicists about the Quantum, indeed constituted FRAUD. I have believed that since as long as I were a teenager. I am delighted to have some mainstream career physicists in one of the couple of hyper famous, oldest universities, brandish the concept. That’s why I wrote the essay.

      The other, even older, and most originating university in the world, is that of Paris. The resistance to the Copenhagen Interpretation of the Quantum has been the strongest there, and it arose as soon as 1926. It is getting way stronger, new experiments in hand.

      The Quantum is the best, deepest, most spectacular science we have. To have it consumed by fraud is assuredly a very bad aura for civilization in general.

      In particular the Copenhagen Interpretation of the Quantum puts reality in doubt, so has undermined our relationship to it, in all domains.

  12. gospelierblog Says:

    I agree that Quantum theory is a fraud.

    The ideas of entanglement, positioning, vibration and a multiverse, are simply the observer fallacy.

    That said, The above article is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thank you Gospelier for providing me with an occasion to study the structure of the insult. The essay you commented on is very difficult. It is revealing that you did not even realize it was NOT a “response”. Instead I used a physicist in Oxford as an ally for a position I long had, and then explained what is the exact flaw in Quantum Physics: the assumption of localization during translation made by Einstein. So, instead of pointing to a particular point, you just inform me that I am dumb and sick (“insane”). I suppose that is to make me feel bad. So we see here that The Insult is meant to hurt. No details needed: it’s so obvious. And the more obvious, the more hurtful, I guess.

      Amusingly, only a precise argument revealing a real error of mine could make me feel bad (and, even then, however contrite I may sound, I am delighted by my errors, as they enable me to learn!)
      May God reward you for showing me the Dark Side, I always enjoy it, each time we meet…

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: