[pittsburghjoe (OP)]

When something doesn't have time, gravity, and 3D ..what makes you think spacetime is involved? I'm talking about QM objects when they are unobserved and are considered waves (the unobservable). Have you considered QM might not exist within the fabric of spacetime until observation?

The Wave function wouldn't result in probabilities if it was possible to include spacetime. QM waves do not need anything from spacetime to continue existing.

Entanglement is obviously not a property of Spacetime. Spooky action at a distance can happen because QM doesn't have time like we experience and the particles are likely connected via a QM wave that could stretch to infinity if needed.

Abbe's diffraction limit is the cutoff we have been looking for. Anything smaller doesn't have to adhere to the laws of relativity. It's waves until it is observed. Observation seems to be a property of spacetime.

When a ginormous star collapses on a single point, the force is so extreme that it causes a QM bubble to scale in Spacetime that does not have to adhere to the rules of the QM/Spacetime divide. Like typical QM objects, it can't be observed but can pull in anything close to it. When two black holes merge, it's just the QM bubble getting more massive. It would then make sense for dark matter to also be overgrown QM objects.

A single particle is given partial spacetime when it is observed ..a certain number of chemically bonded atoms are never going to show quantum effects. You are kidding yourself that spacetime objects have any level of quantum effects.

Please tell me why you think spacetime is capable of performing quantum weirdness acts.

[chiralSPO]

I don't understand what you're trying to say here... but I will try to provide some pertinent information:

A) The wave function of a quantum object (like an electron in a H atom) can be used to determine the probability amplitude of the electron in both time and space. Though there are also quantum aspects that can be probed without gaining (or losing, or requiring) any information about space, like spin state (so space is irrelevant for quantum entanglement dealing only with spin) see more here: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/qmech/Quantum/node88.html 

B) as far as I know, neither space nor time is quantized, so we cannot talk about the "wavefunction" of spacetime.

C) relativity does apply to the very small: we can see relativistic effects on single electrons going very fast, or that are very near large nucleii (search for relativistic corrections for wave functions and gold or mercury)

D) and quantum also applies to very big (at least, virus size).

[pittsburghjoe (OP)]

I'm saying, I understand the double slit experiment better than anyone.

[chiralSPO]

I'm saying, I understand the double slit experiment better than anyone.

Well then. I guess this is about as far as this thread can go then...

[pittsburghjoe (OP)]

I want you to understand it just as well, ask me questions.

[evan_au]

I'm saying, I understand the double slit experiment better than anyone.

Congratulations!

Now prove your claim by predicting a result for the dual-slit experiment which differs from the textbook answer.

[pittsburghjoe (OP)]

My claim isn't going to give different results. It's only the obvious reason for quantum weirdness that everyone has been overlooking.

[evan_au]

My claim isn't going to give different results.

Then your understanding is not any better.

At best you could claim that you have found an easier way of calculating the same result, compared to the textbook method.

But the textbook method seems to be about the simplest you could use to obtain an accurate result. So I don't see how you could even make this weaker claim...

[pittsburghjoe (OP)]

With this innocent looking piece of info:

• You find the key to the quantum classical boundary and thus the Theory of Everything
• What black holes and dark matter are
• Why the Uncertainty Principle is fuzzy
• Spacetime sits on QM, QM doesn't need spacetime
• What existed before the big bang
• How big a deal observation is to spacetime
• Why this is the only interpretation needed for the double slit
• Why we won't find quantum gravity
• Why the holographic principle likely only applies to QM and not spacetime objects(classical)

[Colin2B]

Your last post is clearly advertising a new theory rather than asking a science question.

Please read https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66954.0

[pittsburghjoe (OP)]

The question was real. I'm trying to figure out why no one takes this seriously.

[Colin2B]

The question was real.

It may be real, but it was in the wrong place

I'm trying to figure out why no one takes this seriously.

Mainly because you haven’t made a good case for your idea and you make a lot of statements that are not correct.

I'm saying, I understand the double slit experiment better than anyone.

Then you haven’t demonstrated that you do

The Wave function wouldn't result in probabilities if it was possible to include spacetime.

Many things result in probabilities but clearly exist in spacetime.

Entanglement is obviously not a property of Spacetime.

No one said it is. However, it is a property of certain objects that exist in spacetime.

Abbe's diffraction limit is the cutoff we have been looking for. Anything smaller doesn't have to adhere to the laws of relativity. It's waves until it is observed.

This limit refers to light which is both a wave and a quantum entity.
Electrons are smaller than this limit, are quantum objects, and have been shown to adhere to the laws of relativity. In fact most quantum objects follow relativistic laws.

Observation seems to be a property of spacetime.

I don’t think you understand what observation is in the context of QM.

a certain number of chemically bonded atoms are never going to show quantum effects. You are kidding yourself that spacetime objects have any level of quantum effects.

Then you are mistaken, because quantum effects have been shown for molecules.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp971438x
https://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/views/pdfs/V05_N3_1966/V5_N3_1966_Monchick.pdf
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/catalytic-enviro-group/?page_id=1341
Time perhaps to stop kidding yourself if you want to be taken seriously.

Please tell me why you think spacetime is capable of performing quantum weirdness acts.

That’s like going to a play and asking why we think the stage can act.

Spacetime = classical/relativity
QM = waves

An incorrect division. Again, you won’t be taken seriously if you make this kind of fundamental error.

I have to applaud your willingness to think about the world around us, but it is obvious that you are starting with a very limited understanding of spacetime and QM. It would be beneficial to yourself if you started by studying these topics in detail.

[pittsburghjoe (OP)]

Please humor me for a minute and consider QM waves don't have spacetime. Did a new avenue of science just open up to you? It did for me. When the white flag is waved on finding quantum gravity I want you to come back to this thread and take it seriously.

"Many things result in probabilities but clearly exist in spacetime."

Why anyone would accept probabilities as a legit answer is beyond me. Oh cause chemistry is so great ::rolls eyes:: They exist at certain xyz coordinates ..not that they hold the dimension of spacetime.

"In fact most quantum objects follow relativistic laws"

what!?!?!? you must be referring to observed quantum objects

"I don’t think you understand what observation is in the context of QM."

but I do, observing a quantum object gives it partial spacetime. QM waves don't use observation for anything except to signal a wave collapse. Observation being a part of spacetime is an understatement ..just look at the double slit.

"Then you are mistaken, because quantum effects have been shown for molecules."

Quantum effects can happen at the quantum level.

"That’s like going to a play and asking why we think the stage can act."

No, it's more like asking why you have been brainwashed to not consider what the unobservable is.

"An incorrect division. Again, you won’t be taken seriously if you make this kind of fundamental error."

QM = waves ..when unobserved. Happy now?

[Colin2B]

Happy now?

I was never unhappy; you were the unhappy one wondering why no one took you seriously, I tried to explain a small part of it.
Bye.

PS Worth studying probability and it’s use in everyday situations eg queuing, forecasting etc. A probability is a very useful answer.

[pittsburghjoe (OP)]

Probabilities are better than nothing, yeah. The point was that spacetime isn't involved. It doesn't sound like I got you to question why. So, yes, say bye to the person trying to show you something.

[Kryptid]

QM waves don't have spacetime.

Waves have a wavelength, which requires a space component. They also have a frequency, which requires a time component.

[pittsburghjoe (OP)]

The dimension of spacetime is a weird thing to us. If a probability is the result, obviously, something is wrong.

[pittsburghjoe (OP)]

And I already said if Spacetime/Observation was in the equations we would be getting accurate results instead of probabilities.