J Mac Bets a Physicist

I propose that there is no such thing as distance, time or geometry, on subatomic level of QM…
I challenge anyone to prove me wrong… I have $170 in my wallet to the one who does it with some evidence…
BTW: A buddy of mine thinks that we should think of particles, like electrons, as waves…

@J_Mac this is inappropriate. Show appropriate respect and kindness, or we will suspended you or give you another opportunity to get schooled. Remember what happened last time? J Mac Seeking a Pupil. You don’t know much about this topic, so stop rudely challenging scientists.


Good bye!


Has anyone noticed how that was his only ‘liked’ comment?

1 Like

Send me via paypal the $170 first and I will give you the answer I got directly from a vision that I had. :sunglasses:

1 Like

Many, many more sock puppets are going to be required to keep this sh…y forum alive…
This is my final bet: $1 lol

Wrong again. Don’t under estimate the power of secular science and technology. Remember Eisenhower’s Military-Industrial Complex? Secular science and technology is global, is the $20 trillion a year global economy, and is the future of our planet and its 7 billion people.

We can compute the nuclear decay of materials very accurately using quantum mechanics, which explicitly include time as its coordinate. You can confirm this yourself with a Geiger counter and a radiation source. Easy to get radiation sources include antique watches with glow in the dark dials and a bunch of bananas. This proves that time exists on the subatomic level.

Now, if you ask whether time, distance, and geometry exists under Planck scale instead of the subatomic level, this question becomes interesting. Indeed there are already many theories in which spacetime variables such as time and distance do not exist under the Planck scale.

This is a trivial thing that any physics student learned at the latest halfway through undergrad…



I was fine with the results of the double slit experiment using photons. But then I was most agitated when electrons (and even protons?) were used to reproduce the same results.

Does anyone know of the largest particle aggregate that is anle to make the same double slit results as photons?

For example… how about radiation made of helium nuclei (aka, 2 protons joined to two neutrons)? Even bigger?

Largest particle that was ever tested to produce quantum interference signatures (that I can find) is a molecule with 800ish atoms (paper here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.8343).

Theoretically there is no limit and planets, stars, galaxies, etc can perform double slit experiments.



Seems like you owe him $170.

@J_Mac do you see why it is silly to bluster around actual experts? I’m glad you are here, but please calm down. Ask questions to learn something. It could be fun.

Some of the woven silk ‘baskets’ that are used in gas lanterns work very well. You might be able to still find ones coated with thorium oxide.

Wood ash too, for the potassium.

Any electronics hobbyist who has reached some level of knowledge is familiar with that concept, not at the level a physicist understands it but still it is nothing new. I remember talking about it with fellow nerds in high school years ago.

I love experts with self-inflated, gargantuan egos especially when they are proven wrong:

"Space is just the construct that gives the illusion that there are separate objects”.

In other words there is no distance on quantum level. The alternative would be that entanglement is faster than speed of light; instantaneous, but the experts here don’t like it either… because it would violate special relativity…

It’s my kids favourite video by Dr. Quantum or Fred Alan Wolf

I’m sure our QM experts here are PhDs and just as respected as Dr. Quantum

Someone owes J-Mac $170 lol
ETA: I forgot to mention time reversal symmetry in QM that crushes our concept of time…
Let us see our experts speculate now… That’s all they can do against experimental evidence…

Entanglement does not mean that there is no distance on the quantum level. For one, “the quantum level” is an ill defined concept. In reality everything is quantum, which makes “the quantum level” all of reality. Lets talk about the subatomic level, as you mentioned previously.

Second, well tested quantum mechanical predictions for everything from the hydrogen atom to the double slit experiment to radioactive decay use time and space coordinates. If there is no space and time at the subatomic level, then why do our calculations that explicitly include space and time works extremely well?

Entanglement does not violate special relativity, because it transfers no information.


So, for the record, this is an excerpt of a film from a New Age Cult (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramtha's_School_of_Enlightenment), full of psuedoscience:

See the academic reaction here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!%3F#Academic_reaction

Thought this article is much better: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/may/16/g2.science

I have spent my entire working life either doing science or conveying its meaning and beauty to the public. Consequently, I despise What the Bleep Do We Know!?, because it distorts science to fit its own agenda, it is full of half-truths and misleading analogies, and some of its so-called scientific claims are downright lies. Worse still, having achieved cult status in America, this film has already duped millions into mistaking pure claptrap for something of cosmic importance.

Take my advice and do not see this film. I repeat, do not see this film. I repeat again, do not see this film.

Call me crazy, but I will go with @PdotdQ and the actual “directly” observed evidence against the claim in radioactive decay.

1 Like

Are you trying to get banned?

I don’t care…
This is really a bad forum and blog because the idea of guided evolution by a god is just plain stupid…
It will never catch on because when evolutionists can’t explain something in evolutionary theory they respond, usually to creationists: So , God did it?!
Your idea of theistic evolution does exactly that: evolutionary theory can’t explains evolution so maybe God did it…

Even if the entanglement speed is infinity, it will still not violate relativity. In order to violate relativity one has to show that entanglement carry information, which this paper does not (and does not attempt to).