Thread 16765001

Physicists love hyping up "mind-blowing" quantum discoveries like they prove how dumb we are. Lawrence Krauss once claimed an electron can be in two places at once and that people reject it because their brains can't handle it. That’s bullshit. If something's here and something's there, they’re two different things. Period.

Maybe physicists just decided to call the electron in two places the same electron because, for their purposes, it works. Like if 20 students have identical textbooks, you could technically say "the textbook" is in 20 places at once—but that’s just wordplay, not some deep truth. I suspect this "electron in two places" nonsense is the same kind of linguistic trick.

Can anyone actually explain how an object can be in two places at once without playing word games?

one electron theory

>>16765001 (OP)
Thanks chatgpt. I'll answer you directly in my own prompt

>>16765001 (OP)
It's good to note that Lawrence Krauss is jewish

>>16765001 (OP)
>Can anyone actually explain how an object can be in two places at once without playing word games
It's because they travel at the speed of light so we can only guess where it is.

It's a quantum bell curve. We only be "somewhat." sure of where it is but because the little things are so fucking small and fast we can't get a lock on it. So the electron in your brain is PRETTY SURE it's in your brain. But there is also an astronomically chance that it's on the moon. Until we get better ways to track subatomic particles the uncertainty principle remains.

Entertainers are all clowns. Interpreting De Broglie as one particle in two places is equivalent to the flower water gun gag, except it's your choice to get wet here.

>>16765001 (OP)
>>16767078

>>16765001 (OP)
I can relate to your sentiment, but the thing is that the more you think about the universe, the more you realize it can't be what you thought it was. That's why I disagree with Roger Penrose when he utters this same sort of objection about observing planets and so forth and so on. Like the objection is basically "that's ridiculous therefore it's wrong" but it's only ridiculous in your existing framework. The same framework you've unscientifically just assumed into existence.

>>16767667
>framework you've unscientifically just assumed into existence.
those are my favorite

>>16765001 (OP)
>Can anyone actually explain how an object can be in two places at once without playing word games?
By not being an object to begin with. Electrons are energy excitations in a field which "occupy" an area with a probabilistic distribution of where you may cause a particle-like effect.

>>16765001 (OP)
>Can anyone actually explain how an object can be in two places at once without playing word games?
The word they often forget to mention is POTENTIALLY.
Thus it's either there or here with 50% chance.
Copenhagen interpretation was just a symptom of a campaign to curb science. I hope soon ai is able to investigate all the baseless scientific concepts and what forces promoted them into the mass education all over the world regardless of political orientations and economic formations.

>>16767906
>I hope soon ai is able to investigate
and make an entertaining movie about it.

>>16767868
stop replying to yourself and go back to the jew board