Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Search Forums
Custom Search
Who's Online
0 registered (), 94 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Scientist Boyd Bushman UFO interview
by Tutor Turtle
Yesterday at 10:46 AM
A WEEK AT THE MACKENZIE HEALTH CENTRE, MARKHAM, ON
by Revlgking
10/30/14 10:52 PM
Is_the_Universe finite or infinite?
by Bill S.
10/30/14 06:30 PM
Recent Developments in Solar Power
by Bill
10/30/14 11:50 AM
24h test - How heavy is ORAC's intelect
by newton
10/30/14 10:31 AM
Do we ask too much of time?
by pokey
10/29/14 05:01 PM
Top Posters (30 Days)
Bill S. 31
Orac 25
newton 24
Revlgking 22
Amaranth Rose II 17
Topic Options
#41538 - 11/18/11 09:59 AM QM goes to war with itself
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2133
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
I have been watching this polite sparring in QM circles for months the irony of it erupting into centre stage just as physics is trying to deal with FTL nuetrino observations well bad timing.

Lets just say life is going to be very interesting in physics next year.

In QM there have been basically developing two groups those who think the waveforms in QM are figurative they beleive the probabilty is the most important part.

There was a very small minority who believe the waveforms were real they were concentrated mainly in solid state electronics and with advancements in that area and then expansion into metamaterials that number has expanded.

Now the topic has been thrown into the dog fight ring because a group has claimed they can complete the theory the waveforms are real and provide observational proof.

http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-theorem-shakes-foundations-1.9392

This is definitely going to be a no holes bar fight now between the two groups. Expect lots of eye gouging, name calling and dented egos.


Edited by Orac (11/18/11 10:00 AM)
_________________________
I hate QM, always wrong, never believe me, sad and broken and now lost credibility and I cry wolf.

Top
Of Interest?
#41552 - 11/20/11 07:50 AM Re: QM goes to war with itself [Re: Orac]
finiter Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/15/11
Posts: 211
As usual, Orac brings in the latest topic for discussion. Surely, as we all should expect, everything is not settled in QM. About the question whether the waves are real or not, there can be different shades of opinion. Orac has rightly pointed out: there can be a lot of 'name calling' and 'dented egos' (some may even be accused of 'spreading pseudo-science'). However, it seems that 'that is how science (scientists) works.

Here, I will support the 'real wave' theory. In my opinion, the quantum information is deterministic and finite. The information is stored in fundamental particles as mass, space and time associated with it (not in space-time or field, but in particle). This quantum information creates a wavy motion that is real. However, the present theories have not understood the nature of the quantum information, and hence, we have to depend on probability equations. I think, probability is not the important or basic aspect of the physical world.


Edited by finiter (11/20/11 07:55 AM)

Top
#41553 - 11/20/11 09:18 AM Re: QM goes to war with itself [Re: finiter]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2133
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
QM isn't settled it never has been and actually I agree with you I think they will find the waves are real.

I actually think they are going to find one more little surprise that they are built from a 1D basic version (think 3 phase power in electricity), this is my wild guess :-)

Nothing is ever really settled in science we just keep expanding the knowledge as we must.

As I said finiter if you want to try and extend you theory out to cover the observations that you would otherwise cut off that would be science.

If this gives you a mechanism to do that knock yourself out. The decision on whether you want to go down the science path or pseudoscience path is yours.

I personally do not mind if you are right or wrong, the LHC toasted my last pet theory SUSY. Stay around physics long enough you get used to your favourite theories getting smashed apart by an unexpected observation.


Edited by Orac (11/20/11 09:36 AM)
_________________________
I hate QM, always wrong, never believe me, sad and broken and now lost credibility and I cry wolf.

Top
#41561 - 11/21/11 04:02 AM Re: QM goes to war with itself [Re: Orac]
finiter Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/15/11
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Orac

I actually think they are going to find one more little surprise that they are built from a 1D basic version (think 3 phase power in electricity), this is my wild guess :-)

String theory? One dimensional fundamental entity? Let us wait an see.

As far as I am concerned, the first part of my so-called research is complete, and I have published the result. Now I have to give some publicity to my book, and see that the scientific community at large comes to know about it. They may either dismiss it as something irrelevant, or if they find something relevant, they will agree with it. Meanwhile I will be watching the latest developments in the field, and verify whether I have to make any corrections in my theory. However, it may not be possible to go through all the online publications and search for the latest development. It is here that your posts help me. I hope you will bring in the latest news every time.

Top
#41565 - 11/21/11 06:08 AM Re: QM goes to war with itself [Re: finiter]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2133
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: finiter
String theory? One dimensional fundamental entity? Let us wait an see.


Nope nothing to do with string theory.

Quote:

As far as I am concerned, the first part of my so-called research is complete, and I have published the result. Now I have to give some publicity to my book, and see that the scientific community at large comes to know about it. They may either dismiss it as something irrelevant, or if they find something relevant, they will agree with it.


They will simply dismiss it as pseudoscience junk for the same reason I did. Most won't even bother reading beyond your declaration on QM.

We get thousands of junk trying to pretend it's science like Intelligent Design every week. You don't want to play by the rules of science your outcome is guaranteed.

You never did answer has any forum actually accepted your theory is scientific and not pseudoscience?

Quote:

Meanwhile I will be watching the latest developments in the field, and verify whether I have to make any corrections in my theory. However, it may not be possible to go through all the online publications and search for the latest development. It is here that your posts help me. I hope you will bring in the latest news every time.


I certainly won't be waiting, we can already explain what you cover and much much more with current theories.

Science wont miss you theory in it's current form I guarantee you and your feedback will be silence and condemnation depending on whether people bother.


Edited by Orac (11/21/11 06:14 AM)
_________________________
I hate QM, always wrong, never believe me, sad and broken and now lost credibility and I cry wolf.

Top
#41566 - 11/21/11 09:56 AM Re: QM goes to war with itself [Re: finiter]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/30/10
Posts: 1408
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Finiter, I have basically given up on responding to your posts. The main reason is that you never provide any kind of evidence for your hypothesis. This should be relatively simple, if your hypothesis is real. All you have to do is to provide a derivation of any of the observed phenomena explained by QM, or any other recognized physical theory, using your hypothesis instead. If you can provide such an explanation, and I don't mean hand waving that your hypothesis works, but an actual mathematical demonstration that can be checked, then I might be ready to give your ideas some credence. Without that you are just blowing hot air.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#41572 - 11/22/11 03:25 AM Re: QM goes to war with itself [Re: Orac]
finiter Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/15/11
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Orac

You never did answer has any forum actually accepted your theory is scientific and not pseudoscience?

I have made my presence in the 'science forums' only recently. In one forum, I posted it in the speculative forum as per the guidelines. However no serious discussions were forthcoming. In another forum (which boasted in its guidelines that you can send any new ideas because we do not know what will happen in another 100 years), I sent an extract, and they just prevented me from logging on for a week with out giving a chance for me to argue. What an open discussion they have!

However, in this forum, the guidelines are clear and the administers stick to the guidelines. Here, Orac at least gives a patient hearing (though he does not consider my arguments in the right sense).

Top
#41573 - 11/22/11 03:50 AM Re: QM goes to war with itself [Re: Bill]
finiter Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/15/11
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Bill
Finiter, I have basically given up on responding to your posts. The main reason is that you never provide any kind of evidence for your hypothesis. This should be relatively simple, if your hypothesis is real. All you have to do is to provide a derivation of any of the observed phenomena explained by QM, or any other recognized physical theory, using your hypothesis instead. If you can provide such an explanation, and I don't mean hand waving that your hypothesis works, but an actual mathematical demonstration that can be checked, then I might be ready to give your ideas some credence. Without that you are just blowing hot air.Bill Gill

Thank you for asking a straightforward question. I have the following mathematical proofs (I call it so) for my theory.

1. The relation between the masses of electron and neutron
2. The value of unit charge (actually the product of electrostatic constant and charge) can be deduced
3. The value of G can be theoretically deduced
4. The Earth-moon distance can be theoretically calculated

The first two are rather simple, but the rest require a bit more explanation. I will post these (one by one) as a separate thread so that the present thread is not disturbed.

Top
#41586 - 11/22/11 02:49 PM Re: QM goes to war with itself [Re: Orac]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2962
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-theorem-shakes-foundations-1.9392
"Their theorem effectively says that individual quantum systems must “know” exactly what state they have been prepared in, or the results of measurements on them would lead to results at odds with quantum mechanics."


Can someone please explain, in lay terminology, why this should be?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#41587 - 11/22/11 08:04 PM Re: QM goes to war with itself [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2133
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
The problem is Bells inequality and the EPR paradox

This the most layman explaination I could find Bill S

(http://library.thinkquest.org/C008537/cool/bellsinequality/bellsinequality.html)


If you want a little more detail good old physics FAQ

(http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Quantum/bells_inequality.html)
_________________________
I hate QM, always wrong, never believe me, sad and broken and now lost credibility and I cry wolf.

Top
#41588 - 11/22/11 09:12 PM Re: QM goes to war with itself [Re: finiter]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2133
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: finiter

I have made my presence in the 'science forums' only recently. In one forum, I posted it in the speculative forum as per the guidelines. However no serious discussions were forthcoming. In another forum (which boasted in its guidelines that you can send any new ideas because we do not know what will happen in another 100 years), I sent an extract, and they just prevented me from logging on for a week with out giving a chance for me to argue. What an open discussion they have!


As I have explained finiter you are going to get that unless you change your tact, it's not that they aren't open to discussion in there view there is nothing to discuss.

I fear you are going to get this response from any science community.

Science communities will discuss invasion from mars, teleportation, time travel and all manner of whacky stuff.

What they won't tolerate is denial of knowledge or observations or insistance a theory is right without overwhelming evidence and observation.


Edited by Orac (11/22/11 09:14 PM)
_________________________
I hate QM, always wrong, never believe me, sad and broken and now lost credibility and I cry wolf.

Top
#41597 - 11/23/11 10:21 AM Re: QM goes to war with itself [Re: Orac]
finiter Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/15/11
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Orac
What they won't tolerate is denial of knowledge or observations or insistance a theory is right without overwhelming evidence and observation.

Exactly. That should be the criterion, otherwise it will not be science. However, any speculative theory, whether it is teleportation or time travel or any alternative theory should be discussed in an open science forum. Only based on the result of a discussion, you can arrive at any conclusion regarding whether there is any evidence. Arguing ones part should not be taken as 'insistance'.

Top



Moderator:  Amaranth Rose II, Kate, Mike Kremer 
Newest Members
Millias, donella07, Staley5536, mikehussey, Philep
713 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2013 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.