## Quantum Mechanics: Einstein vs. Bohr

December 22, 2008 on 2:42 pm | In Physics, Quantum |Einstein called the cosmological constant his “greatest blunder.” Einstein was wrong. The cosmological constant was a neat idea for General Relativity that’s still important today, and General Relativity was, IMO, his greatest accomplishment. The idea that space and time are *curved* by matter and energy, and that curvature is what makes gravitational force is profound and beautiful, and profoundly affects the way I look at everything that involves Gravity.

But Einstein had his blunders, oh yes. The big thing Einstein was wrong about? Quantum mechanics. One of Einstein’s more memorable quotes was this:

“God does not play dice with the Universe.”

What was this in reference to? In good ol’ regular, classical physics (including General Relativity), if you know all the initial conditions of your system and you know the laws of physics, you can figure out exactly what’s going to happen. In quantum mechanics, though, if you know the initial conditions and you know the laws of physics, you can figure out *the probability* of various outcomes happening, but you can never know which one will definitely occur until after it’s over. Einstein didn’t believe it, and held a series of great debates with Neils Bohr over the issue.

But this isn’t Lincoln-Douglas. This is physics. You want to settle something? You do it with an experiment. So Einstein (and his grad student, Nathan Rosen) tried to show that the Universe had to be deterministic. Their hope was that there are variables that we just haven’t seen yet that determine what’s going to happen. It doesn’t, and there’s now a theorem that tells us why. So Bohr was right, and Einstein was wrong. The Universe isn’t deterministic, not even according to the laws of physics.

But this is abstract. Let’s give you a concrete example of an experiment that you can do (well, in principle) to help you better understand this. Imagine I’ve got a big screen with two narrow slits that are very close together. And I’ve got a Cathode Ray Tube that shoots out electrons. If I leave both slits open and shoot a whole myriad of electrons, the electrons go through and act like waves.

They interfere with one another, and produce a nice pattern where they have constructive interference (where lots of electrons land) and destructive interference (where no electrons land). You can keep track of where the electrons land over time, and here’s what you see when you add it all up.

Cover either slit up, and the interference pattern goes away. So it needs two slits. What about electrons? What if you fire them one-at-a-time? Sure, electrons can interfere with other electrons. But, can one electron interfere with itself? What do we see if we shoot the electrons through the double slit experiment one at a time? Well, it takes a long time to get enough electrons to see, but here’s what the results are:

Amazing. The electron must be interfering with itself! How does it know where to go? And how do you determine which slit it went through?

Now, here’s where things get interesting. You can set up some light sensors on each of the slits to figure out which one the electrons go through. When the electron passes through the slit, if a photon (a particle of light) hits the electron, you know which slit it goes through. If a photon doesn’t hit it, you don’t know.

Here’s the crazy part: if you hit the electron with a photon, *the interference pattern goes away*. You force it to go through only one slit, and you just get two bumps on your screen, one for each of the two slits. If you don’t hit the electron, though, *the electron does interfere with itself*, and you get the interference pattern above.

If you look, and you try to know, you will destroy the quantum mechanical effects. If you don’t look, though, **God plays dice** while your back is turned.

It’s messed up. And it’s awesome. Was Einstein wrong? About quantum mechanics, yes. Yes he was. And that, my friends, is what Einstein’s greatest blunder *really* was. Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics, never accepted that this is the way the Universe works. If you can accept and understand this, then at least about this one thing, you’ll have taken a step that Einstein never did.

## 94 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

## Leave a comment

Entries and comments feeds. Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^ Powered by TopSoftware4Download.com with a personally modified jd-nebula-3c theme design.

i accept it now sir

Comment by Jeremy Cortez — December 22, 2008 #

but just one question, did this applies to all in general in the bell’s theorem?

http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/0703.4179

Comment by Jeremy Cortez — December 22, 2008 #

Jeremy,

That paper doesn’t matter. That paper says “If the Clifford Algebra I looked at accurately describes this particle, then this particle can violate Bell’s Theorem.” What it doesn’t say is that if the clifford algebra is just a piece of math, then it doesn’t apply to our particles. And in this case, it’s just a piece of math.

Comment by ethan — December 22, 2008 #

This article accurately explain academia’s decades old support for quantum randomness, however the issue is not settled science according to a small number of scientists who believe Dr. Einstein was correct and academia may have adopted the wrong conceptual model.(Quantum randomness may not be random, NewScientist magazine, 22 March 2008)[1].

Recent work with Bohmian quantum models finds that Dr. Einsteinâs deterministic (non-random) model is at least as accurate a predictor of empirical (measurable) quantum events as the standard (random) quantum mechanics model, and lacks the weirdness that a random quantum model requires such as a requirement for faster than light communication.[1]

[1] http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19726485.700 Quantum randomness may not be random, NewScientist magazine, 22 March 2008

Comment by JTankers — December 22, 2008 #

ignoring Jtankers quote techniques, im convinced by you argument mr ethan ^^

best wishes

Comment by Jeremy Cortez — December 22, 2008 #

My post above was unfortunately a bit repetitive with similar post at: http://startswithabang.com/?p=1277#comment-62266

However reasonable scientists (admittedly a small number of scientists) agree with Dr. Einstein and support Bohmian mechanics, and I think that puts them in good company. That also makes this issue to some degree unsettled and should be communicated as such I think.

Intuitively I also agree with Dr. Einstein at least with respect to what it means for photons to be entangled. Given the choice between instantaneous communication at infinite distances and hidden variables, the former appears to be the far simpler explaination and I have yet to see compelling evidence against hidden variables.

I also don’t find the two slits experiment compelling proof of quantum randomness (bouncing a photon off an electron is not passive observation).

Comment by JTankers — December 22, 2008 #

Bohmian Mechanics is not a physical theory. A theory makes new predictions. Bohmian Mechanics is basically quantum mechanics but it says “it’s explained somehow.” They don’t say how. That’s not science. That is what Pauli called “Not Even Wrong.”

Bell’s theorem is a proof against hidden variables. It’s a theorem. It’s been experimentally tested. It’s right.

And I was thinking about why I’m upset about your comments. There’s no reason why a differing idea should upset me, right? It’s because you’re not making any sense. Your arguments aren’t right, and you don’t know how to distinguish right from wrong when it comes to this. I’m trying to teach you how, I’m trying to teach you what’s right about what I’m telling you and what’s wrong about what you’re telling me. What you “agree with” or what “appears to be” to you doesn’t matter; it isn’t what

is. And there isn’t any faster-than-light communication going on that we know of. And there isn’t any such thing as non-local physics that we know of. Yet that’s what you’re advocating with no evidence. Believe it all you want; it doesn’t matter, and believing in it doesn’t make it science. You want to challenge the accepted theory? Find a way that your theory is different that’s testable. Then we do the test, and then we know who’s right. If you don’t do a part of that, you’re not doing science, and you’re certainly not helping the cause of science or knowledge, you’re simply taking on a falsely authoritative voice and spreading misinformation. Either ask a genuine question, listen and think and respond about what you’ve been told, or your comment privileges get revoked.Comment by ethan — December 22, 2008 #

Dear Ethan,

I will listen to your responses to my questions below which I have attempted to put in greater context so that they might make more sense.

You stated “there isnât any faster-than-light communication going on that we know of”.

How do you reconcile this statement with the Wikipedia article on quantum entanglement which includes the statement “Observations pertaining to entangled states appear to conflict with the property of relativity that information cannot be transferred faster than the speed of light.”[1]

You also wrote “there isnât any such thing as non-local physics that we know of”?

What does that statement mean in context of the Wikipedia article on Non-locality which includes the statement “In quantum physics nonlocality re-appeared in the form of entanglement.” [2]

You also stated: “Bellâs theorem is a proof against hidden variables. Itâs a theorem. Itâs been experimentally tested. Itâs right.”

The Wikipedia article on Bell’s theorum includes the statement “not everyone agrees with these [Bell’s theoum’s] findings.”[3]

Do you find Bell’s theorum settled science even though notable minority counter arguments exist?

I realize your PHD is in astrophysicist (correct?) and not particle physics (my formal education is computer science, not particle physics), however how do you account for entanglement without faster than light (non-local) communication and without hidden variables?

[1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

[2] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

[3] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-local

Thank you,

Jim

Comment by JTankers — December 22, 2008 #

Correction:

I meant to say “the LATTER [hidden variables] appears to be the far simpler”.

Sorry for the confusion… I will wait and listen.

Comment by JTankers — December 22, 2008 #

wikipedia is not always accuarete sir Jtankers

Comment by baragon-kun — December 23, 2008 #

JTankers,

If you really want to understand more about Quantum Mechanics, I recommend you read the book “Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Development” by Leslie Ballentine. It was my favorite of the three graduate QM texts we used, and it has a great discussion of Bell’s Theorem and the various valid interpretations of it.

Hidden variable theory used to be a scientific theory, because it made different predictions than the old Copenhagen interpretation. For instance, it predicted that the ground state of an electron in a hydrogen atom really had zero energy. Experimentally, that claim has been shown to be false. The idea you’re talking about, with non-local hidden variables, isn’t a scientific theory. It makes no new predictions and is not experimentally distinct from regular QM. People who talk about non-locality reject regular QM because, like you, “it doesn’t feel right” to them.

Get over it. The laws of physics don’t care about how you feel, they don’t care about how David Bohm feels, they don’t care about how Halton Arp feels, and they don’t care about how Albert Einstein feels.

Bell’s theorem is settled. Until someone comes up with a theory that makes a different prediction that can be tested, it will remain settled.

And baragon-kun is right; you’re going to learn a lot more if you study particle physics (which I did for 3 full years in graduate school) than you’ll find in a wikipedia article, including things that supersede what you’ve found.

Comment by ethan — December 24, 2008 #

Also, JT, I checked out whether Einstein agreed with “The Bohmian Interpretation” or not, since he was still alive when it was formulated. There is evidence that Einstein was contacted by Bohm about this and there was communication. Einstein never stated support for it or had anything public at all to say about it, which suggests, at the very least, that he didn’t strongly agree with it.

Not that it matters, but I thought you would like to know that Einstein wasn’t a supporter of it.

Comment by ethan — December 24, 2008 #

Do bear in mind, Ethan, that there are actually MANY “interpretations” of QM (as there have been since it gained wide acceptance nearly a century ago) which are all consistent with what we currently know. Bohm is consistent, as is Copenhagen, as is many-worlds. This makes selection between them a non-scientific endeavor, and that includes ruling one out. I don’t know Bohm’s interpretation that well, but it may be testable in theory, if not with today’s technology (as is the case with collapse [ie Copenhagen] versus decoherence [ie many-worlds]). There’s nothing other than “how one feels” to cause a person to be willing to throw out locality (Bohm) versus reality (Copenhagen, as you describe in your post). I know I wouldn’t (though for the record many-worlds is local, realist, AND deterministic).

Basically, while I agree with you that it’s non-scientific to fully endorse the Bohm Interpretation, I think it’s equally non-scientific to rule it out, or to fully endorse the Copenhagen Interpretation (as your post seems to do). Most physicists won’t express a stronger opinion than a hunch or inkling, and many not even that.

Ironically, I think the above debate between you and JTankers arose due to a misunderstanding of a subtlety (and some confrontational wording). Bell rules out LOCAL hidden variables, while Bohm incorporates NON-LOCAL hidden variables.

Comment by benhead — December 24, 2008 #

Ben, you’re right. As long as you’re not using ideas of determinism to try to predict anything, you’re okay.

The big issue, and the reason

mostphysicists “go with” the Copenhagen interpretation is that it says “let’s assume that our Universe is the only one, let’s assume physics is local, causal, and that communication is bound by the speed of light. Let’s further assume that the laws of nature are only dependent on things that we can observe in our Universe.” In that case, all we can come up with is a probabilistic description of the outcome.It’s possible that our assumptions are wrong, and that there are other things out there that affect us that we either can’t see or haven’t seen yet. The whole issue is what Einstein called “spooky action-at-a-distance,” and it is spooky. Nonetheless, this is what happens. The Copenhagen Interpretation was the first to make sense of this. Bohm’s theory (and this is where the confusion may have arisen)

originallymade falsifiable predictions, and they were indeed falsified. But there are other possibilities, of course, there just isn’t any evidence for or against any of it. At this point, it’s not science, but the ideas are interesting, and hopefully someday we will be able to discriminate.Comment by ethan — December 25, 2008 #

Ethan, is there a more passive way to determine which slit a single electron is going through? To me, firing a photon at the electron will no doubt affect the way the electron is going to behave.

Comment by Jeremy — December 30, 2008 #

Jeremy, that’s the point.

There’s no way to measure the electron without affecting it. “Firing a photon” just

soundsmore ‘active’, but in reality it’s really the only way to interact with an electron.Comment by Sili — January 11, 2009 #

Sili’s right; you have to fire something into the electron to have an interaction…

Comment by ethan — January 11, 2009 #

It possible to build a deterministic model of quantum mechanics. Bohr quantisation was too simplistic. There is a better way to present a complete quantum mechanics than the incomplete approach used in Werner Heinsbergs statistical inequality. Uncertainty principle is seriously challangeble. It is possible to build a model in which both the position and momentum of an electron in an atom are hinged on a local causal variable, so that determination of the position enables the simultaneous determination of the causal variable and momentum of the electron. All the spectroscopic emissions of the multielectron atom can be predicted very accurately.

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — February 10, 2009 #

Samuel,

No. No it is not. That’s one of the things proven in Bell’s Theorem and verified by every single quantum mechanics experiment ever done.

If you *could* do this, you would win a Nobel Prize for your discovery, easily.

Comment by ethan — February 10, 2009 #

I presented an article entitled determination of spectroscopic emission of the multielectron atom with physics discussion forum. As far as I am concerned it has passed peer review. I have the challenge of sending the document in an appropriate format for publication. Bells inequality is challenged. The paper proved the existence of local causal variable. The paper is unchallenged to date. The paper was followed by another I presented on unification of fundamental interactions in which elements were derived from photons. Again the paper passed peer review. The challenge is for me to resubmit the same in approriate format. In short I can say quantum mechanics is incomplete as the EPR paper suggested. Quantum locality exists.

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — February 10, 2009 #

The model I have proposed shows that the concept of orbital path is still relevant in solving atomic problems. Heisenbergs effort to kill the the concept of orbital paths culminated in the formulation of his uncertainty principle generalised in the Robert- Schrodinger relation.The formulation of the uncertainty principle is falsfied by a local causal variable theory. By the local causal variable theory an electron wave is localised and emits or absorbs a delocalised electromagnetic wave only when its quantum state changes. This forbids the electron from occupying numerous areas of space at one time. Electron diffraction is made possible when the electron changes its quantum state on passing through a slit. Quantum mechanics needs a whole rewrite. It was actually Bohr who made a great blunder in his Copenhagen interpratation of uncertainty principle .

Comment by Samuel Bonaya B uya — March 6, 2009 #

Erwin Schrodinger attempt to replicate the observed quantisation of atomic spectra culminated to the equation named after him. He proposed a delocalised wavefunction associated with the electron to realise de Broglie’s wave - particle duality. For prediction of spectroscopic emission the wave function should represent emission or absorption of delocalised electromagnetic waves due to atomic transition or change in quantum state of the electron. To achieve a local causal variable theory the electron is treated as a localized wave/phenomena/particle which on change of quantum state emits delocalised wave. The failure of Schrodinger and Max Born to get the complete picture of waue particle duality was the opportunity of uncertainty. Bell’s theorem and other experiments are not proof against a local causal variable theory. The theory I have presented vindicates Einstein’s views above Bohr.

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — March 15, 2009 #

Ethan, I made an effort send my papers for peer review to meet the requirements of recognition. They will feign all excuses so that they may not publish the work in a journal even though they may not find any fault. Quantum mechanics is found on an erroneus pillar and as in the past they will not accept correction. Physics has been brought to a junction. The queen of physics (quantum mechanics) is founded on an errorneus uncertainty principle. Will they accept correction? Can they swallow a bitter pill?

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — March 19, 2009 #

This line of discussion is not productive.

Comment by ethan — March 19, 2009 #

Thanks Ethan for the correction. I got oversensational, its a wrong way of letting off pressure. It was an expression of a dissapointment for what I felt about the science community’s treatment of my contribution. It’s an error and I regret.

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — March 20, 2009 #

The Afshar experiment cast a shadow over Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Professor Afshar predicted a new generation of quantum lawyers who will populate physics literature with arguments challenging what is. He remarks that quantum mechanics needs a sounder footing than the ones presently embraced by most of the physics community. Einstein was the chief lawyer of quantum mechanics with local causal variable. Such a model will put quantum mechanics on sounder footing .

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — March 23, 2009 #

In structure Williot Mohr provided an ingenious method of solving statically indeterminate structures. The additional relationship he introduced outside the realms of statics made it possible to remove static indeterminacy. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle quantifies the inability to precisely locate an electron in an atom.

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — March 29, 2009 #

A local causal variable theory on the other hand will quantify the ability to precisely locate a particle.

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — March 29, 2009 #

The local hidden variable posited in Bell’s theory is too simplistic, limited , incomplete and a misrepresentatinn . It is true as he correctly posits: For local causal variables to determine the outcome of the must encode a result for every possible eventual direction of measurement. He then cases a weak and simplistic local variables that fail his test and makes a whole generalization. Local hdden variables can be posited that can pass all his tests.

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — March 30, 2009 #

The causal relatioship between momentum and position of an electron in an atom can be deduced from conservation laws. The underlying principle behind the concept is the causal relationship between position and mnmentum. Causal determinism is as a result of conservation laws. Killing of the concept of orbital paths would automatically lead to killing of the cocept of causal determinism and bring in the concept that events at microphysical level occur by pure chance. As Einstein concedes, the probability estimates of quantum mechanics are a result of lack of knowledge of the initial states of the particle, not as a result of lack of causal mechanism. The model I presented shows that predictive determinism is achievable.

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — April 1, 2009 #

Clearly the chance estimates reflected in the mathematics of quantum mechanics are not due to failure of causality. The concept of chance cannot be epistemological. At best the concept is epistemological due to the failure in our perception. With a better understanding of the causal mechanism predictive determism should follow suit. Predictive determinism ushers in certainty not uncertainty. God does not play dice. Be certain of God.

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — April 1, 2009 #

The universe is founded on a sure foundation of certainty and not uncertainty. Predictive determinism is the foundation of relativity and cnmplete quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics can be compatible with relativity when both laid on the foundation of predictive determinism. A foundation of uncertainty is shaky, temporal, the basis of all pseudoscientific speculation and ready to pass away when the perfect principle is ushered in. Uncertainty principle condemns quantum mechanics to a pseudoscience. Predictive determinism is proven.

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — April 1, 2009 #

The ontological claim of my model is causal determinism. The epistemologial claim is predictive determinism. Einstein was of the firm conviction that the statistical character of contemporary theory is ascribed to the fact that it operates within incomplete description of physical systems

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — April 2, 2009 #

Quantum leaps have important applications in understanding black body radiation and radioactive decay. Quantum leaps have appearance of randomness , yet in the real sense they are deterministic since they depend upon change in quantum states. Quantum states on the hand are dependent on hidden local causal variables. The results of quantum mechanics can be interpreted in the sense of Laplacian identification of predictive determinism and causality. The argument of Planck, Einsten and von Laue for the retention of this identification is valid though at their time they were not able to identify a model that could match observation.

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — April 4, 2009 #

Quantum leaps are represented by a local causal variable dimensionless parameter with an element of predictive determinism. Predictive determism demands precise specification of spatio- temporal trajectories of the quantum system. The success of predictive determinism calls the rejection of acausality in quantum mechanics since the two cannot coexist.

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — April 5, 2009 #

[…] Quello che si sta cercando di fare oggi Ăš di andare oltre la relativitĂ di Einstein ed elaborare una teoria della gravitĂ “quantistica” che riunisca questi due mondi per ora molto diversi (per chi fosse interessato rimando al famoso dissidio tra Bohr ed Einstein con quest’ultimo erroneamente scettico sulla teoria quantistica). […]

Pingback by GravitĂ Quantistica a Loop e Big Bounce | BLOG - Julian's WebSite — April 6, 2009 #

A cardinal principle of causality is that causality begets causality. A local causal variable may be sufficient for the determination of of the quantum state, position and momentum of an electron in an atom; yet the same variable may be dependent on other hidden variables which on their own are not sufficient for precise prediction. These hidden variables may be used to obtain probablistic estimates without nullifying the presence predictive local causal variable. The radical response of Bohr, Heisenberg and Pauli in rejecting causality because of their notions of experimental failure of predictive determinism is not justified. Predictive determinism can predict all spectroscopic emissions of the multielectron atom, an impossible feat for quantum mechanics.

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — April 7, 2009 #

Ethan I simply could not under stand the comments by gravita quantastica. Can you translate?

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — April 7, 2009 #

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics left many loose ends and that’s why the debate cannot be a closed chapter. The ontological claim of quantum mechanics is very questionable. The failure of the Bohr model to account for the spectroscopic emission of the multielectron atom does not imply failure of causality at quantum level. Bohr’s model failed because it did not specify the local causal variable behind his prescribed quantum states. The failure of the model became an open door for Heisenberg’s statistical inequality which was erroneusly elevated to a physical principle of nature. The uncertainty principle suggested that spectroscopic emissions of the multielectron atom cannot be precisely predicted, rejected the Laplacean identification of determinism and causality in quantum mechanics. Einstein disagreed. He was of the view that quantum mechanics should have a deterministic causality to be complete. The model I am presenting is an attorney of Einstein’s view. Bohr and his associates erred. Quantum mechanics is founded on an erroneus ontological basis . Spectroscopic emissions of the the atom are predictable from conservation laws. The Copenhagen intepretation is indicted. Who is its attorney. Let him step on the scene.

Comment by samuel Bonaya Buya — April 9, 2009 #

The physical laws provide for a system of precisely predicting spectroscopic emissions of an atom without recourse to some uncertainty principle. Strangeness of quantum mechanics is not need to understand the universe at quantum scales. The physical laws are therefore quite sufficient to create a complete quantum mechanics without recourse to trial and error and guess work. The complete quantum mechanics comes exactly according to the physical principles but contary to their interpretations. It may be illegitimate according interpretations of some group but exactly in accordance to physical principles. Its stamp of legitimacy is attested to by its ability to predict observables and staying with the physical principles without resort to quantum strangeness.

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — April 11, 2009 #

Einstein’s statement “God does not play dice” needs a deeper look. It had to do with the ontological framework of the universe both at macro and microphysical level. The physical laws of universe attest to the orderliness of God. Orderliness operates by physical principles to control and sustain the operation of the universe. Quantum system have laws imprinted in them to guide the operation. The physical laws of the universe complement each other, interpret each other, work jointly in a deterministic manner. At our level we can use the physical laws, the underlying basis of causality to predict the observables at macrophysical and microphysical levels.

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — April 12, 2009 #

The local causal variable model I have derived accounts for the presence of fine structure and hyperfine structure in spectoral lines. Bohr model could not account for these because it did not specify the causal variables behind those quantum states. By specifying the causal variable behind the electron quantum states it becomes easy to account for Zeeman effect changes in spectoral lines due to magnetic fields. The model also accounts for relative intensity of spectral lines by identifying non integer Rydberg n numbers representing electron orbitals. The model gives the ground state quantum number as fine structure constant divided by squareroot of two by relativity. The model accounts for spectra of large atom. All the above phenomena unexplained by Bohr model have an easy explanation with the identification of the appropriate causal variable.

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — April 12, 2009 #

Looking back, Rybergs formula is an important milestone in understanding quantum mechanics. The Bohr model of the atom gave the formula theoretical underpining by giving physical explanation. Bohr’s explanation was incomplete because it did not adequately deal with the causality behind the integer Rydberg n numbers. The loose end he left made his model incomplete. His quantisation was an oversiplification. Quantum mechanics attempt to replace the model with more flexible model failed in its approach. It introduce a statististical inequality in QMas a physical law. It complicated the quantum picture by puting it on a probablistic ontolological basis. The model gave up the predictive determinism cause that Bohr model had stated. By pursuing an uncertain path it attained a partial realisation just as Bohr model. Eintein’s attempt to bring QM on the right track failed because they couldn’t heed his voice. They heeded to the uncertain sound of uncertainty principle. The Rydberg formula with a complete theoretical underpining should have made quantum mechanics a complete theory.

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — April 12, 2009 #

The early scientists who probed quantum mechanics left a number of loose ends by which the others who came later could use to come up with all kinds of pseudosciences and chaos theories, junk sciences. The uncertainty principle which gained ground due to loopholes in the Bohr model of the atom, opened door for all kinds of speculations that made quantum mechanics a most mesterious area of physics. To deal with these there is need to bring quantum mecbanics back to the foundational principle of physics that Einstein quoted to Bohr, “God does not play dice with the universe”. On that foundation then we will see God hidden an revealed in simplicity. The hidden things of God are revealed in a simplicity. When this model that has observational support is exposed it shows quantum mechanics and all those great professors have gone completely out of the way? Will the Bohr of today take correction humbly? Or will he despise correction because he has swollen in numbers and his opinion is the most dominant and has the greast number of member to propapate his unfounded Copenhagen? Will the attorney Einstein of local causal variable turn them back to the track?

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — April 12, 2009 #

The local causal variable model I presented proves that the emission or absorption of discrete quanta in black bodies is a deterministic event. An analogy can be made with de Broglie thought experiment to demonstrate causality without determinism: firing the electron gun to a crystal can correspond to an electron jump from one quantum state to another. The associated scillation corresponds spectoral emission. Given the conservation laws governing the relationship between the firing and the scillation phenomena, given the local causal variable and its relationship to quantum states before firing , on hitting the crystal and its relationship to the conservation laws, then the causal relation between firing and scillation is predictive. De Broglie thought experiment without the appropriate local causal variable is a case of causality without determism. Causes of causality without determinism can be made deterministic when the appropriate local causal variable theory is identified.

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — April 14, 2009 #

A correction note on the above post. The word scillation should have been scintillation.

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buxa — April 14, 2009 #

For more reading on my quantum mechanics model with a local causal vavriabble you can read from the link below:

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=ST&f=30&t=23988&hl=&view=findpost&p=385626

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — April 14, 2009 #

For more information on the quantum mechanics model with local causal variables you can link to the sight below:

(http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=ST&f=30&t=23988&hl=&view=findpost&p=385626)

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — April 14, 2009 #

For more information on a possible model for unification of fundamental interactions you can connect to the sight below

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=ST&f=30&t=24606&hl=&view=findpost&p=393359

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — April 14, 2009 #

For more information on law of rotation of planets link to the website below:

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=ST&f=30&t=24607&hl=&view=findpost&p=393364

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — April 15, 2009 #

Consider this: For every force, motion is relied upon, and for all motion, force is relied up, so what has this to do with all of the above?

When it comes down to it, and I mean really down to it all, everything can be predicted, its just a matter of considering all motion and or force resulting from ALL current motion and or velocities, So if we consider ALL velocities then QM’s uncertainty is null and void!

Comment by Peter — April 17, 2009 #

That is right Peter. Just to add a point, deterministic causality demands that the principle of conservation of energy and the of conservation of angular momentum to jointly account for:

1) the spatio-temporal trajectories of the electron in the atom

2) spectroscopic emissions of the atom

3) existence of orbital paths in the atom

4) a deterministic relationship between the position and momentum of an electron in the atom.

Bohr’s causally deterministic model failed because it was incomplete. It failed not due to failure of causlity but due to the incomplete quantization he adopted. His model was a partial realization of causal determinism. However atomic spectra was broader than his model proposed. High resolution spectroscopy showed that the hydrogen atom had more spectoral lines than what his model had proposed. Seemingly, the concept of orbital paths in Bohr’s model narowed the scope of scope of prediction of atomic spectra. To Heisenberg the concept was not useful and only a theory that would kill the concept of orbital path would broaden the scope of QM. Conservation laws demanded the existence of the same orbital paths that narrowed the scope the scope of prediction of of prediction of spectra in Bohr’s model. This scenario, in light of Bohr’s causally deterministic model of the atom signalled also the failure of causality. The way forward for Heisenberg was to kill the concept of orbital paths and causality to build a more accomodative model. Accausality was circumstantially adopted due to the failure and shortcomings of best causally deterministic model of the atom of his time. Our shortcomings however do not qualify acausality as a fundamental phenomena in the microphysical world. Accausality is an exprsssion of a failure in knowledge of a genuine scientific attempt to understand the universe.

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — April 17, 2009 #

The council of Copenhagen adopted acausal interpretation of quantum mechanics, an interpretation that has no observational support. The interpretation has been adopted in mainstream physics as an unbending way. Local causal variable models were subsquently rejected though there was no conclusive evidence against them. A local causal variable model has no place in their journals since in their opinion it is a challenge and dismissal of quantum mechanics, a very succesful theory. They will argue that there is no need of a new theory though they will accept that the theory predicts spectroscopic emissions of the atom. They would fake all excuses to influence against its publications. Others main journals have nothing against but will simply not publish.

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — April 23, 2009 #

Causality operates the physical laws via causal variables to manifest observables.

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — May 31, 2009 #

Quantum Randomness being defined as something that is purely random is of course a myth. Einstein invented QM and only had problems with the ridiculous ascertian that the universe was in anyway indeterministic. He was of course correct, and anything that requires a Faster than light transmission to be correct should be susspicious. And certainly the experiment described here is one easy way to see how ridiculous the claims are. As one poster noted bouncing a photon off of an electron is hardly a passive enterprise, and points to HUP problem. In this experiment there is something undetected causing the interferance it is clear. Our total lack of understanding of the electron in general or anything subatomic surely is the cause of these ridiculous acertions made by some aggressive quantum theorists.

As far as Quantum Randomness..how could anything be purely random. It could not. As soon as any rule or order or restraint at all is placed on the system or process it becomes less than purely random. If we had an infinite set of possibilities and each possibility were equally weighted then that would satisfy a perfectly random possibility. But the probability of any and all possibikites in an infinite set is zero. Or stated more clearly Purely Random produces NOTHING. Or PR= NOTHING = ZERO. Or even NOTHING = PR = 0. Now Quantum Randomness can certainly exist within a limited bandwidth environment but the limits and the environment imply a deterministic environment. The fat that we may not with current technology be able to easily determine the causes or unmask all hidden variables is of course an ongoing problem.

Comment by mrblack — July 3, 2009 #

Can dogs take hydrocodone….Hydrocodone. Hydrocodone apap. Snorting hydrocodone. Taking low dose of hydrocodone while pregnant….

Trackback by Withdrawal frpm hydrocodone. — July 16, 2009 #

I have the proof to prove that both are not completely right.You will all know.Who was right and who was wrong.

And i still believe god doesn’t play with dice.

In sometime you will know me as well as my theory.

Comment by Bhushan Poojary — August 8, 2009 #

Compare stay erect and viagra….Viagra for order lamisil viagra….

Trackback by Viagra. — September 9, 2009 #

I did a bit of physics at school but Iâm no expert, so please forgive me for expressing my laymanâs point of view.

While reading the article above I though to myself âthe electrons must start out moving in a wave motion, but then lose the wave motion when being hit by a photonâ.

Not being an expert physicist I appreciate that this would be far too simple. As âquantum theoryâ has been around for many decades Iâm sure that many possible explanations (far more plausible than my puny effort) for these quantum effects must have been thoroughly scrutinised and disproved.

However, if anyone can tell me in laymanâs terms, I would be interested to know what the flaws are in what seems to me to be the most obvious explanation (many thanks in advance)?

Comment by Layman — November 17, 2009 #

The physical laws ar perhaps not deterministic. Still the Copenhagen interpretation is surly wrong, because it actually implies that the matter is created by the observer, and this again implies that I, or rather MY MIND, is the only thing existing in the universe.

Conseptually a particle can exist in the present in one special shape, but still the state of the particle in the next instance may not be determined.

Comment by Knut Holt — November 29, 2009 #

[…] Quantum Mechanics: Einstein vs. Bohr | Starts With A Bang! […]

Pingback by The Infamous Double Slit Experiment | AboutPhysics.info — January 22, 2010 #

On this site you can read on the mathematical proof on existence of deterministic model based on local causal variable other possible model of the atom mathematical solutions of 0/0, 0^0, infinity divided by infinity etc. Welcome

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — June 19, 2010 #

http://www.network54.com

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — June 19, 2010 #

http://www.network54.com

On this site you can read on the mathematical proof on existence of deterministic model based on local causal variable other possible model of the atom mathematical solutions of 0/0, 0^0, infinity divided by infinity etc. Welcome

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — June 19, 2010 #

http://www.network54.com

You can connect to the above sight to read on the mathematical proof on existence of deterministic model based on local causal variable other possible model of the atom mathematical solutions of 0/0, 0^0, infinity divided by infinity etc. Welcome

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — June 19, 2010 #

http://www.network54.com/Forum/666092/thread/1276954577/last-1276954577/The+wavefunction+and+the+mathematics+of+infinity+etc.

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — June 19, 2010 #

Careful considerations are given on the foundational issues of quantum mechanics with regard to its statistical nature and what entails quantum mechanics statistical measurement procedures as explicitly expounded by John von Neumann.

The eloquently presented von Neumannâs âImpossibility proof published in 1932 argued that quantum mechanics is not logically compatible with hidden variables of dispersion free states. The artfully, logically and rigorously presented paper cannot just be summarily dismissed because it contains issues that a hidden variables theory must carefully and sufficiently address.

In 1966 John Stewart Bell published the first explicit identification of the mistake in Von Neumannâs âImpossibility proofâ. Using an inequality with âpossible loopholesâ [2] he proved the impossibility of a Local Realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. Since the 1932 von Neumannâs proof no hidden variables theory has found to match the successes of quantum mechanics.

Are hidden local causal variables an illusion? In view of the compelling evidence against such variables did Einstein err in suggesting that quantum mechanics needs to be completed by a hidden local causal variable? If Einstein did not err how his hidden local can causal variables account for the dispersion states of quantum mechanics without violating locality and causality? How could a hidden variable theory achieve quantum mechanics requirement of a homogeneous and dispersive ensemble? Von Neumann based his logically deducted proof from reasonable axioms.

John Von Neumann starts with his logical proof by asserting (with the support of carefully formulated axioms) that âif there are hidden variables then no dispersive ensemble is homogeneousâ. He then goes on to show that a dispersive ensemble of many systems is in fact homogeneous with respect to itself and its sub-ensembles and that therefore there are no hidden variables. A hidden variable theory must unfold sufficiently unfold the paradox of the above assertion through a counter assertion. Logic must meet with logic. How would Kurt GĂ¶del counter such a logical reasoning? What the response and of Kurt GĂ¶del to von Neumannâs proof? Could Kurt GĂ¶delâs response via his first incompleteness theory provide a way forward for a hidden variable theory? Could there be truths in hidden variable theories that are not provable within von Neumannâs axiomatic framework? Can hidden variable theories achieve homogeneous dispersive ensemble?

I discuss on how the dispersion states of quantum mechanics can be accounted for and included in a hidden variables theory. I identify a probability density function with the dispersion states of quantum mechanics on the foundational basis of a Complete Hidden Local Causal Variable theory. The degrees of freedom of the postulated probability density function have a definitive relationship to the state of ensemble and the outcomes of measurements on the ensemble or its sub-ensembles or even specific system. The hidden variables based probability function derives the probability of each outcome when fed with the eigenvalues of an ensemble, sub-ensemble or system. The probability distribution of function shown to be consistent with a homogeneous ensemble. Additionally through a definitive relationship between the degrees of freedom governing outcomes and particles properties the outcomes of each measurement in an ensemble sub-ensemble or system are shown to be unique even though a system may not have sharp eigenvalues.

. Could there be a deterministic framework determining underlying spin correlation between two photons sent to two observers one at station s_1 and the other at station s_2 ? Could there be a possible relationship between detector settings and the results registered by the detector? To establish a simple theoretical framework for answering this question I will propose an approach a principle of nature concerning between N dependent events. If the degrees of freedom governing the outcomes are evenly distributed between these events then each of the event has an equal probability of appearance in a given measurement. I will also look at environmental setups that can interfere with the distribution of these degrees of freedom and the possible effects on the various outcomes registered.

KEY WORDS: Bellâs theory ; Ensemble; sub-ensemble; degrees of freedom; dispersion states; Homogeneous; holonomies; particle properties; Hilbert space; commutator rules; classical topological definitions; elastic orbit number; particles degrees of freedom; relative degrees of freedom; spin bias; entangled quantum states; Von Neumann; Kurt GĂ¶del; detector settings; Qubits; Qubytes; Probability density function; Complete hidden variable theory

PACS: 03.67.-a; 05.30.-d; 03.65.Ta; 42.50.Xa; 03.65.Ud; 03.67.-a; 03.67.Hk; 03.67.Mn; 03.67.Lx

For more information see:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/666092/thread/1282424477/last-1282424477/ON+THE+FOUNDATIONS+OF+QUANTUM+MECHANICS+WITH+HIDDEN+LOCAL+CAUSAL+VARIABLES+AND+THE+DYNAMIC

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — August 21, 2010 #

ON THE FOUNDATIONS OF QUANTUM MECHANICS WITH HIDDEN LOCAL CAUSAL VARIABLES AND THE DYNAMICS OF ENTANGLED QUANTUM STATES

ABSTRACT

Careful considerations are given on the foundational issues of quantum mechanics with regard to its statistical nature and what entails quantum mechanics statistical measurement procedures as explicitly expounded by John von Neumann.

The eloquently presented von Neumannâs âImpossibility proof published in 1932 argued that quantum mechanics is not logically compatible with hidden variables of dispersion free states. The artfully, logically and rigorously presented paper cannot just be summarily dismissed because it contains issues that a hidden variables theory must carefully and sufficiently address.

In 1966 John Stewart Bell published the first explicit identification of the mistake in Von Neumannâs âImpossibility proofâ. Using an inequality with âpossible loopholesâ [2] he proved the impossibility of a Local Realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. Since the 1932 von Neumannâs proof no hidden variables theory has found to match the successes of quantum mechanics.

Are hidden local causal variables an illusion? In view of the compelling evidence against such variables did Einstein err in suggesting that quantum mechanics needs to be completed by a hidden local causal variable? If Einstein did not err how his hidden local can causal variables account for the dispersion states of quantum mechanics without violating locality and causality? How could a hidden variable theory achieve quantum mechanics requirement of a homogeneous and dispersive ensemble? Von Neumann based his logically deducted proof from reasonable axioms.

John Von Neumann starts with his logical proof by asserting (with the support of carefully formulated axioms) that âif there are hidden variables then no dispersive ensemble is homogeneousâ. He then goes on to show that a dispersive ensemble of many systems is in fact homogeneous with respect to itself and its sub-ensembles and that therefore there are no hidden variables. A hidden variable theory must unfold sufficiently unfold the paradox of the above assertion through a counter assertion. Logic must meet with logic. How would Kurt GĂ¶del counter such a logical reasoning? What the response and of Kurt GĂ¶del to von Neumannâs proof? Could Kurt GĂ¶delâs response via his first incompleteness theory provide a way forward for a hidden variable theory? Could there be truths in hidden variable theories that are not provable within von Neumannâs axiomatic framework? Can hidden variable theories achieve homogeneous dispersive ensemble?

I discuss on how the dispersion states of quantum mechanics can be accounted for and included in a hidden variables theory. I identify a probability density function with the dispersion states of quantum mechanics on the foundational basis of a Complete Hidden Local Causal Variable theory. The degrees of freedom of the postulated probability density function have a definitive relationship to the state of ensemble and the outcomes of measurements on the ensemble or its sub-ensembles or even specific system. The hidden variables based probability function derives the probability of each outcome when fed with the eigenvalues of an ensemble, sub-ensemble or system. The probability distribution of function shown to be consistent with a homogeneous ensemble. Additionally through a definitive relationship between the degrees of freedom governing outcomes and particles properties the outcomes of each measurement in an ensemble sub-ensemble or system are shown to be unique even though a system may not have sharp eigenvalues.

. Could there be a deterministic framework determining underlying spin correlation between two photons sent to two observers one at station s_1 and the other at station s_2 ? Could there be a possible relationship between detector settings and the results registered by the detector? To establish a simple theoretical framework for answering this question I will propose an approach a principle of nature concerning between N dependent events. If the degrees of freedom governing the outcomes are evenly distributed between these events then each of the event has an equal probability of appearance in a given measurement. I will also look at environmental setups that can interfere with the distribution of these degrees of freedom and the possible effects on the various outcomes registered.

KEY WORDS: Bellâs theory ; Ensemble; sub-ensemble; degrees of freedom; dispersion states; Homogeneous; holonomies; particle properties; Hilbert space; commutator rules; classical topological definitions; elastic orbit number; particles degrees of freedom; relative degrees of freedom; spin bias; entangled quantum states; Von Neumann; Kurt GĂ¶del; detector settings; Qubits; Qubytes; Probability density function; Complete hidden variable theory

PACS: 03.67.-a; 05.30.-d; 03.65.Ta; 42.50.Xa; 03.65.Ud; 03.67.-a; 03.67.Hk; 03.67.Mn; 03.67.Lx

for mor information see:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/666092/thread/1282424477/last-1282424477/ON+THE+FOUNDATIONS+OF+QUANTUM+MECHANICS+WITH+HIDDEN+LOCAL+CAUSAL+VARIABLES+AND+THE+DYNAMIC

Comment by Samuel Bonaya Buya — August 21, 2010 #

KNOWN QUANTUM MECHANICS IS AN INCOMPLETED THEORY

I proved to this proposition on my new mechanics.

When I was studying on local and nonlocal effects.I cosntrusted a new relativitiy.It is called Complex Relativity.I combined all effects in the same theory.I found its all field equations.I applied on its for Quantum Mechanics.I saw that Quantum Mechanical field equations can explain on local effects.But they can not explain on nonlocal effects.

I found Quantum Complex Relativisitic Equations.As to them Quantum Mechanics is incompleted mechanics.I have local and nonlocal equations of my theory.I saw that Dirac Equation is a local equation.Because of it can not explain on nonlocal effects.”Quantum Complex Relativity Theory ” can explain on local and nonlocal effects at the same time.

I constructed Quantum Complex Relativity Theory ” for local and nonlocal effects.As to this theory known Quantum Mechanics is an incompleted theory for nonlocal effects.

Best Regatds

cebrail hasimi

Comment by cebrail hasimi oktar — October 24, 2010 #

ALL CONSERVATED FIELDS DIFFUSE FASTER THAN SPEED OF LIGHT

We know that all conservated fields are

1- Gravitational field

Fg= G.m1m2/r^2

2- Electrical field

Fe = k.q1q2/r^2

3- Magnetic field

Fm= s.g1g2/r^2

These equations show that all conservated fields diffuse faster than speed of light.Because they are independent from the velocity and speed.

Best Regards.

cebrail hasimi oktar

Comment by cebrail hasimi oktar — February 9, 2011 #

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

*****************************************

Comment by Stephen — April 5, 2011 #

Lots of thanks for posting this, Itâs just what I was researching this on google. I’ve been comparing opinions from many persons, rather than an biased news internet page, that’s why I like blogs so much. Many thanks!

Comment by Jeanette Alexis — July 16, 2011 #

I was just seeking this information for some time. After 6 hours of continuous Googleing, at last I got it in your site. I wonder what’s the lack of Google strategy that don’t rank this kind of informative web sites in top of the list. Usually the top websites are full of garbage.

Comment by Tanisha — September 3, 2011 #

After checking through the the net and coming across principles which are not powerful, I was thinking my life was done.

Comment by Brett Oleson — September 6, 2011 #

The design is amazing!

Comment by Gaston Lundmark — September 15, 2011 #

Thanks a lot for giving everyone remarkably nice possiblity to read critical reviews from here. It really is so pleasurable and also packed with fun for me personally and my office colleagues to search your blog the equivalent of thrice in 7 days to learn the fresh guidance you will have. And of course, I’m also always pleased considering the very good advice served by you. Some 3 tips in this article are undeniably the finest we’ve had.

Comment by Lauryn Jahnke — September 20, 2011 #

Why is Harris getting so much credit? He fought an old guy who did nothing, was winging a haymaker every three minutes and did nothing else. He powerbombed an old man, and it was awesome, but he seemed unimpressive to me.

Comment by xoeve — September 29, 2011 #

Yeah all of this is very interesting but it’s only discussions of mathematically congruous metrics applied to our existential scale. That’s why this all breaks down or results in surprises and confusion as we attempt to apply them. We are in a gigantic onion that is infinitely small in one direction and infinitely large in the other. As we discern metrics applying to our layer and layers nearby, they work fine. But as we attempt to discern smaller or larger layers those concepts break down and the onion fools us once again. The conceptual trap we continually fall into is that we foolishly believe there is finality in either direction and may one day understand the root of all things. Ain’t gonna happen.

Comment by Mark James — December 11, 2011 #

clockwork orange rape scene…date rape pics…

Trackback by celebrity rape stories — December 27, 2011 #

Hello, this is a good post!

Comment by johnson — February 9, 2012 #

its great fantastic

Comment by ehsan — April 9, 2012 #

fantastic where you from doyou have group?

Comment by ehsan — April 9, 2012 #

have goood days

Comment by ehsan — April 9, 2012 #

Ive made an amazing scientific discovery regarding the infamous double slit experiment within quantum physics but I dont know who to contact within the scientific community. Ive solved the exact reason as to why particles pop in and out of existence. Its simple and amazingly easy to solve! All scientists jeed to do to understand why its the way it is is to remove ONE SINGLE HUMAN MAN MADE VARIABLE and poof it magically makes perfect sense all of a sudden! Also explains consciousness, existence, and all of creation simply as well. Soemone who knows the right ppl to contact plz email me at cybersax18@gmail.com

Comment by Jesse Haley — March 3, 2013 #

I am new to building sites and I was wondering if having your

site title related to your articles and other content really that

critical? I see your title, “Quantum Mechanics: Einstein vs. Bohr | Starts With A Bang! ” does seem to be spot

on with what your website is about but yet, I

prefer to keep my title less content descriptive and based more around site branding.

Would you think this is a good idea or bad idea? Any kind of assistance would be greatly valued.

Comment by appliance repair service — July 31, 2013 #

Good way of describing, and pleasant article to get facts regarding my presentation subject matter, which i am going to

convey in academy.

Comment by sex — September 25, 2013 #

garcinia cambogia extract weight loss…My thoughts precisely!…

Trackback by garcinia cambogia extract weight loss — January 16, 2014 #

I relish, cause I discovered exactly what I used to be looking for. You have ended my four day lengthy hunt! God Bless you man. Have a nice day. Bye

Comment by Panasonic VIERA TC P55ST60 — January 24, 2014 #

teeth whitening…Blogger/Blog*Spot feeds shows the most recent (recently updated as the default setting) 25 headlines or what others call as post titles. My question is how can I increase/decrease the number of those headlines because I think they’re too many…..

Trackback by teeth whitening — February 11, 2014 #

structured settlements…I have heard that you can make money from blogging, but i really don’t understand the concept. How do you make the money? How much can you make? Is it hard? Is it easy? Is it time consuming? Is it worth it? If you could answer that would be great, tha…

Trackback by structured settlements — March 4, 2014 #

sizzling 2011 dubai shopping festival…Quantum Mechanics: Einstein vs. Bohr | Starts With A Bang!…

Trackback by sizzling 2011 dubai shopping festival — April 15, 2014 #

women nike air max 90 shoes…it is far from unnatural for a lady for that father little nervous for the setting aside backwards ones boyfriend in addition to the giving them objects an additional treatment. fancy stings for both the man and wife, and it’s totally natural on her b…

Trackback by women nike air max 90 shoes — April 16, 2014 #

Wen dream nodded sure, I see far rich although the property all together to secure a hand, but he was not married to another woman, nor had satisfied concubine, said that he does not even demand brothel, and Qi Yingying relationship can be very better, this is indeed unusual.

Gucci purses 2014 http://guccioutlet.shopperscans.com

Comment by Gucci purses 2014 — April 16, 2014 #

latest nike trainers for men…whenever multiple unsecured or secured unpaid sums and then you’re finding it tough pay by the due date, one can have a debt consolidation loan. It is certainly not with the exception of system that can help you in trying to repay just about all acces…

Trackback by latest nike trainers for men — April 16, 2014 #