Citation de: Farsight... by M B van der Mark and G W ’t Hooft....
Citation de: FarsightSee Does the Inertia of a Body Depend upon its Energy-Content? (http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/) ...
You are a delusional nut job pretending to be sane. No education in and no knowledge of real physics. Just a self-published book of nonsense and a television appearance on a British conspiracy show. Crank.
Added to your record.Citation de: FarsightInteresting, regel...
Citation de: J.C. LavauCan reasoning by insults replace scientific methods ?...
...Citation de: J.C. Lavau... B.L. Van der Waerden in its "Sources of Quantum Mechanics" (1967 North-Holland, 1968 Dover)....
Added to your record.Citation de: J.C. LavauA far more convenient method, to bend the History to your needs, is to use the Memory Hole, as used by B.L. Van der Waerden in its "Sources of Quantum Mechanics" (1967 North-Holland, 1968 Dover).
The only one pushing distortions here is you. Crank
Are reasoning by insults and harassing the others, scientific methods ?Citation de: des.red35...
Please ignore Lavau. He is a troll with a (warped) personal agenda.
Citation de: FarsightTry the copy here: http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdfNot better anyway.
But you are in a blind alley, there.
Any pretty picture MUST retrieve the same predictions, or even better predictions, than the actual formalism, using Pauli matrices, and Dirac matrices for instance.
The formalism is correct, though more obscure than necessary.
The semantics wraping it, is rubbish.
The formalism is strictly undulatory, and strictly determinist.
.What we have here folks is a psychologist masquerading as a scientist, with an agenda of some imagined slight of de Broglie, and probably Dabid Bohm as well, regarding interpretations of quantum mechanics.
..underneath it all is the distasteful and counter-productive agenda which he has here clearly revealed.
deBroglie-Bohm theory is one interpretation of QM. It is not "wrong". But neither is it the only valid interpretation. It is not suppressed. It is just not widely adopted, though it is widely known. Real physics is not dogmatic, despite what Lavau imagines.
There are classes and legitimate internet sites available to those who are interested. Nothing is being suppressed.
Citation de: J.C. LavauCitation de: DrRocket... and probably Dabid Bohm as well...Please do not hesitate to prove your statement.
There is nothing to prove. The subject theory is widely known as the de Broglie-Bohm theory.
You have been outed and debunked. End of discussion.
Citation de: J.C. LavauNow we have all the written proves that I was discussing with a mad.
For those who are not, nothing is more simple than to search the word "Bohm" on the site :
The search finds five occurrences :
Four are in the expression "Aharanov-Bohm experiment" : "Dans une expérience type Aharonov-Bohm, où un électron interfère si ...".
And the fifth is under the signature of Didier Lauwaert, where he admits that David Bohm was a corpuscularist. It was in a discussion in August 2007, on the Usenet group fr.sci.physique.
This accuser is a delirious paranoic. He had rather to consult a specialist, in his town.
Psychologist, heal thyself.
de Broglie-Bohm theory is a perfectly respectable, albeit minority, interepretation of quantum mechanics. Your "conspiracy" is pure fiction.
You attempt to impose paradigms of classical behavior on the quantum world.
This is just nuts.
Ignore Lavau's comments. He doesn't know what he is talking about.