My feeling is that you aren't really here to help us understand what modern science. You seem to be here more to bolster your own ego, at the expense of us ignorant boobs. I suggest you try to be more tolerant of the fact that we really don't know as much about QM as you do. We still do have some intelligence and are capable of figuring things out, with a little guidance.
Seriously I told you why I was here Bill because it lets me practice English, I really am not here for the science just look at the state of the forum. Sorry I can't fix that it needs moderation and policies and yes I probably have become part of the problem now because I have taken advantage of that for my own ends.
So if I was to comment to you seriously on science, at the end of the day the relevant thing in science is what the observation and experimental evidence says certainly not what I say, not what the media says and not what someone else thinks. The thing is can you draw a direct line of evidence from A to B to C and does it hold up. To do that in a more modern context you have to actually read the science papers, even if you only understand 10% of what is written you will get more than the distilled down media version. Actually from that whole discussion you suddenly realize how far wikipedia can be behind in that the 2012 Nobel winners have precious little written about there work look at the entries again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Harochehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_WinelandI have sent of an email to a group that does wikipedia and hopefully that will change soon.
Of the current scientists Anton Zeilinger is the one to read any paper he publishes. I suspect he will be given the Nobel prize in the next couple of years. It is well worth doing a lot of reading around all his work.
I am sorry I get caustic at times but really sometimes is is like a discussion with a group of Marosz's where the science is bent so badly and so wrong it hurts. Energy was the big change of 2003-2013 and a lot was added and Relativistic Quantum Mechanics came to the front. That area has been updated in wikipedia heavily and is almost up to date but excludes the work merging it with GR (post 2009 stuff) but it does carry all the main work up to the discovery of the Higgs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_quantum_mechanicsFor all it's success however you are right in one sense it is incomplete
Nevertheless, RQM is only an approximation to a fully self-consistent relativistic theory of known particle interactions because it does not describe cases where the number of particles changes; for example in matter creation and annihilation
That was where I was trying to take Bill.S because it is the answer to his question and the best understanding we have of energy until the stuff still goes off the reservation or out the universe (your choice).
My complaint was and is you are treating RQM as if it somehow is just a different description of classic physics and if you read the article it is far from that it predicts results and outcomes that even old school QM doesn't. RQM isn't complete but nor does it deserve to be treated like it doesn't exist or isn't an important step because it understands enough about energy to may predictions something classic physics and old QM fail dismally at.
Ok I will try to chill out a bit besides summer vacation coming up
