For the last 400 years, the corpuscular model of light and the atomic world have driven the development Mathematical
    Physics. The modern version of this billiard-ball world is known as Quantum Mechanics (QM), the third pillar of modern
    ‘Physics’. At its core, QM has three of the most ludicrous notions ever devised by man: negative momentum transfer,
    quasi-particles, and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (UP). Negative momentum transfer is so absurd that we must
    either conclude that the mathematicians are joking or that they suffer from serious psychiatric disorders. Virtual and
    quasi-particles are not nouns, but verbs, and this makes you wonder how it is possible for the mathematicians to move
    what is already in motion. Finally, the sacred ‘principles’ of quantum – Uncertainty and Complementarity – place the
    observer at the center of inquiry, thus making all inferences subjective. All these far-fetched ideas concocted by the
    mathematicians are really symptoms of the establishment’s impotence to explain the nature of our Universe.

    Here I treat QM and the mathematicians that invented this nonsense with the contempt they deserve. In fact, sometimes
    it is difficult to maintain a straight face in light of the mechanics’ gullible assertions. The physical conclusions of
    Quantum Mechanics are not only irrational, but most often comical. They lead me to wonder how it is possible for
    overly-educated people to believe that they are at the brink of scientific breakthrough when they are actually on the
    verge of lunacy. The UP, quasi-particles, and negative momentum transfer, together with the round-trip graviton and
    the one way photon, are examples of how otherwise brilliant mathematicians can be bumbling fools when providing
    physical interpretations to their equations:

    " Bell's theorem explicitly prevents any local hidden variable theory from holding true
      because it shows the necessity of a system to describe correlations between objects.
      The implication is, if a hidden local variable is the cause of particle 1 being at a position,
      then a second hidden local variable would be responsible for particle 2 being in its own
      position — and there is no system to correlate the behavior between them. Experiments
      have demonstrated that there is correlation. In the years following, Bell's theorem was
      tested and has held up experimentally time and time again, and these experiments are in
      a sense the clearest experimental confirmation of quantum mechanics." [1]

    Wrong! What these experiments confirmed is that the mathematicians of the world are a bunch of stupid idiots. (And I
    am being conservative with my expletives.) Discrete particles have no way of explaining 'correlation.' The intermediary
    must necessarily be continuous. The alleged confirmation of QM that the authors talk about is contingent on a
    corpuscular universe. If this assumption is wrong, the conclusions of the mechanics are not only incorrect, but fit for
    the Funny Farm.

    There are two strategic problems with Quantum Mechanics. This purely mathematical theory purports to explain the
    workings of the subatomic universe in terms of forces and particles.  With regards to forces, the problem is the misuse
    of language necessary to communicate scientific concepts. With regards to particles, the argument is simple. If the
    ‘photon’ and the electron are not particles, Quantum Mechanics is a big fat lie. Everything from Uncertainty and
    Complementarity to the explanations QM provides for the slit and EPR experiments to the carefully-crafted Standard
    Model flushes down the drain; nothing survives. Therefore, it is in our best interest to determine whether the photon
    and the electron could possibly be particles. Either they are or they aren’t. It can’t be half way nor can the mechanics
    have it both ways.

    In the first part of this section, I argue that the mechanics incongruously use the word force as a physical object. QM
    is so divorced from reality and its adherents are so fanatic about billiard ball physics that they ended up morphing
    the adverb force into a particle too. Likewise, the mechanics have converted the verbs push and pull into nouns. This
    is as irrational as it gets in Mathematics.

    In the second part I will argue that, assuming there are things such as particles, they nevertheless fail every
    fundamental experiment and observation known to man. The particle is a very convenient, but very incorrect and
    extremely misleading hypothesis that the mathematicians fall back on to peddle their religions. Experiment after
    experiment has shown that neither light nor the electron can be or consist of particles. Yet the mechanics refuse to
    accept the verdict of the lab. Practically every paper published today tacitly or explicitly assumes that the photon and
    the electron are particles. Some mathematicians would have you believe that the photon and the electron merely have
    'particle-like' properties. This is a veiled way the used car salesman has found of selling you the same lemon in a
    different way. The mechanic is saying that the photon is not a particle, but that he will treat it as a particle for the
    purposes of his presentation anyways. So oblivious are the mechanics to the refuting results of the lab that most are
    not even aware that there is a problem. The mathematicians of the new generation don’t even ask the fundamental
    questions anymore. What is light? What is an electron? Such trivial matters don’t concern them these days. They
    have more important business to tend to, especially since Bohr set this issue squarely in the hands of the
    philosophers. The mechanics now use concepts as their building blocks (virtual particles, wave-packets, tachyons,
    solitons, phonons, etc.). In fact, the new generation of mathematicians doesn’t even do Quantum any more. The
    mathematical morons coming out of the universities these days have moved on to String Mathematics, a topic I will
    take up in another module since the only purpose of String Theory is to explain gravity. Nevertheless, since String
    Theory is founded upon Quantum Theory, many of the objections I raise here applicable to both.

    Module main page: Main Page

    This page: They don't call it Quantum Magic for nothing!

    Pages in this module:

Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist
They don't call it Quantum Magic
for nothing!
There's that lousy trio from the sixties singing 'That Old Black Quantum
Magic' and 'Puff the Magic Virtual Photon' again. I can't stand them. I think
it's time for me to save humanity the agony and do a little bit of real magic!


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            

        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008