| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Sue..." |
| Date: |
05 Jun 2007 01:39:03 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Gravitational vs. Electromagnetic forces |
On Jun 5, 12:31 am, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
[...]
Hmmm. I supposed it passed your notice that you admitted to not
knowing something about EM.
Gosh, and I suppose that physicists don't know the answer to all questions
slipped under your nose as well.
If you don't know, then what is you intend
to counter my argument with?
That it is silly semantics like the smell of isomorphism
No it isn't semantics. It incorrectly assumes some
material properties and you and Tom Roberts can't
point to the error, even accessing the standard model.
So you flail your hands around and throw spit-wads
and launch personal attacks with an efficiency
that any crooked politician or schoolyard bully
would be proud of.
If you don't understand how to unify electrodynamics
and gravity, and Tom Roberts doesn't understand how
to unify electrodynamics and gravity, why can't both
of ya hold off with the insults and obsfucations that can
only maintain the satus quo.
You'll never suggest it has something to do with
old dogs and new tricks so I will.
This computer can unify gravity and electrodynamics:
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm
Your lord and saviour, Einstein thought it could be done
even 'tho his work fell short of the goal.
When you (Bill) finish your studies maybe you can convince
Tom Roberts to join you in bit of teaching in the
75% of Baghdad that is under malita control. The teaching
techniques might be apprecited there and the status quo is
so highly regarded that punishments from the dark ages
are still practiced. It is a fitting hell for the blind arrogance
that you and Tom can never seem to restrain for the sake
of integrity.
At least you have a corps of supporters that you can
be proud of. DVM, Bilge and Gisse with their Tourette
spamming and redirection have learned their lessons well
and have even added a few high-tech (for them) dirty tricks
where the standard obfuscations might fall short.
Sue...
I'm only theorizing that it indeed has
the exact same cause.
You are theorising nothing - except semantic nonsense.
Go spout your nonsense to those exploring Kaluza-
Klein then, or just keep your admitted "sentiments", to yourself.
Flat earth nuts believe arguments against thier position are nonsense as
well.
Bill
Now the problem here is that
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about so mix terms in
atrocious ways that is laughable to those who have spent a little time to
understand the subject.
Rest of stuff almost certainly in the same vein of silly misconceptions
snipped and not even read.
.
|
|
| User: "RP" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational vs. Electromagnetic forces |
05 Jun 2007 06:51:29 AM |
|
|
On Jun 5, 1:39 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On Jun 5, 12:31 am, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
[...]
Hmmm. I supposed it passed your notice that you admitted to not
knowing something about EM.
Gosh, and I suppose that physicists don't know the answer to all questions
slipped under your nose as well.
If you don't know, then what is you intend
to counter my argument with?
That it is silly semantics like the smell of isomorphism
No it isn't semantics. It incorrectly assumes some
material properties and you and Tom Roberts can't
point to the error, even accessing the standard model.
So you flail your hands around and throw spit-wads
and launch personal attacks with an efficiency
that any crooked politician or schoolyard bully
would be proud of.
If you don't understand how to unify electrodynamics
and gravity, and Tom Roberts doesn't understand how
to unify electrodynamics and gravity, why can't both
of ya hold off with the insults and obsfucations that can
only maintain the satus quo.
You'll never suggest it has something to do with
old dogs and new tricks so I will.
This computer can unify gravity and electrodynamics:http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm
Your lord and saviour, Einstein thought it could be done
even 'tho his work fell short of the goal.
When you (Bill) finish your studies maybe you can convince
Tom Roberts to join you in bit of teaching in the
75% of Baghdad that is under malita control. The teaching
techniques might be apprecited there and the status quo is
so highly regarded that punishments from the dark ages
are still practiced. It is a fitting hell for the blind arrogance
that you and Tom can never seem to restrain for the sake
of integrity.
At least you have a corps of supporters that you can
be proud of. DVM, Bilge and Gisse with their Tourette
spamming and redirection have learned their lessons well
and have even added a few high-tech (for them) dirty tricks
where the standard obfuscations might fall short.
Sue...
I'm only theorizing that it indeed has
the exact same cause.
You are theorising nothing - except semantic nonsense.
Go spout your nonsense to those exploring Kaluza-
Klein then, or just keep your admitted "sentiments", to yourself.
Flat earth nuts believe arguments against thier position are nonsense as
well.
Bill
Now the problem here is that
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about so mix terms in
atrocious ways that is laughable to those who have spent a little time to
understand the subject.
Rest of stuff almost certainly in the same vein of silly misconceptions
snipped and not even read.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Sue, at this point I think I've made my case regarding the present
state of theoretical physics, made here and in a couple of other
recent threads. Tom believes the question to be meaningless, which
must be due to his lack of ability to answer it reasonably. What he
meant to say was something like "the statement that the electron has
more than one type of charge/property, is meaningless", which is of
course my exact sentiment. The purpose of that statement was to try
to
illicit the textbook answer, which Tom did provide, to wit,
"duuuuhhhhhh". He even went on to state that the electron had
intrinsic properties, which are in reality no more intrinsic to it
than the length of a ruler is intrinsic to one of its endpoints.
Without another charge to interact with, the electron has no
properties whatsoever. All of the properties that we ascribe to it
are
associated with its influence on other charges, and or the mutual
influence of those charges upon each other.
Now here comes Bill, with nothing more substantial than a reference
to
others who at least to some extent agree with me, i.e. that
electromagnetism and gravity share one and the same cause. The
remainder of his statements amounted to page filler.
Here is the problem: If the electron moves classically, then things
can get pretty messy on the subatomic scale, because there are a lot
of them, and they are moving at exceptionally high velocities. If
they
have difficulty with the many-body problem, then they have no chance
of keep up with billions of bodies. Let me digress here for a moment
before continuing.
The notion that the electron doesn't move classically stems from
quantum mechanical views. One would think however that these quantum
physicist had at one time or another looked at the track that an
electron makes through a bubble chamber, or that they might have
taken
some remedial course in electromagnetism, where in both instances the
classical motion of the electron is as proved as anything has ever
been proved.
Regardless of their disagreements with common sense, the real problem
is that these thousands of physics who see eye-to-eye with Tom (his
own revelation) share the same delusions with him that the
statistical entities that they treat are real. They are so drawn into
the mathematical aspects, that they cannot see their way back out
again.
I admitted, that from an engineering perspective, it works, but from
the theoretical perspective, not so much. The incongruities that are
sloughed off as meaningless questions are only meaningless to them
because reality doesn't mesh well with the purely abstract.
That's really all I have to add to that discussion, so I suggest we
simply ignore their mindless objections and try to sort out the
difficulties between us who are at least sensible enough to keep an
open mind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational vs. Electromagnetic forces |
05 Jun 2007 11:52:09 AM |
|
|
On 2007-06-05, RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sue, at this point I think I've made my case regarding the present
state of theoretical physics, made here and in a couple of other
recent threads.
Seriously? What span of time preceeding the 20th century do you
think you would need to match the discoveries physics has made
since the beginning of the 20th century?
Tom believes the question to be meaningless, which
must be due to his lack of ability to answer it reasonably. What he
meant to say was something like "the statement that the electron has
more than one type of charge/property, is meaningless", which is of
course my exact sentiment. The purpose of that statement was to try
to illicit the textbook answer, which Tom did provide, to wit,
"duuuuhhhhhh". He even went on to state that the electron had
intrinsic properties, which are in reality no more intrinsic to it
than the length of a ruler is intrinsic to one of its endpoints.
An electron is defined by its quantum numbers. When a set of
detectors measures numbers consistent with our definition of an
electron, we say we have detected an electron. How hard is this
to figure out?
Without another charge to interact with, the electron has no
properties whatsoever. All of the properties that we ascribe to it
are associated with its influence on other charges, and or the mutual
influence of those charges upon each other.
What's your point? That basic tautology applies to everything.
Now here comes Bill, with nothing more substantial than a reference
to others who at least to some extent agree with me, i.e. that
electromagnetism and gravity share one and the same cause. The
remainder of his statements amounted to page filler.
Here is the problem: If the electron moves classically, then things
can get pretty messy on the subatomic scale, because there are a lot
of them, and they are moving at exceptionally high velocities.
If electrons moved classically, atoms would not exist and neither
would this newsgroup.
If they have difficulty with the many-body problem, then they have no
chance of keep up with billions of bodies.
Yet, in spite of that difficulty, physicists have managed to deduce
enough about how all of these billions of bodies interact to write
down a set of rules that engineers can use to create working devices
without the engineers needing to understand much about the physics.
Let me digress here for a moment before continuing. The notion that
the electron doesn't move classically stems from quantum mechanical
views.
Since quantum mechanics explains classicl mechanics and atoms while
classical mechanics cannot explain atoms, it's not hard to understand
why quantum mechanics is regarded as being the correct physics.
One would think however that these quantum physicist had at one time
or another looked at the track that an electron makes through a bubble
chamber,
Do you really think that is a profound bit of insight that was
totally overlooked by physicists? Perhaps you should study quantum
mechanics a little before you decide what it does and does not
imply. [Hint: See Eherenfest's theorem]
or that they might have
taken some remedial course in electromagnetism, where in both instances
the classical motion of the electron is as proved as anything has ever
been proved.
Oh, really? Could you point to the experiment which measures the
classical trajectory of an electron (as opposed to the time rate of
change of the expectation value of its position)? Better yet, could
you point me to one theory which explains the motion of electrons in
solids classically?
Regardless of their disagreements with common sense, the real problem
is that these thousands of physics who see eye-to-eye with Tom (his
own revelation) share the same delusions with him that the
statistical entities that they treat are real. They are so drawn into
the mathematical aspects, that they cannot see their way back out
again.
The most precise intruments in existence are based on probability.
The ability to make exact copies of digital media starts with a
completely probabilistic theory (look up information theory, esp.
shannon).
I admitted, that from an engineering perspective, it works, but from
the theoretical perspective, not so much.
You mean to say that a theory which tells you exactly how to
build working devices can't be right just because it can't be
understood in terms of the naive concepts introduced hundreds of
years ago to explain much simpler physics? Try explaining to
a 6 year old why one can't turn lead into gold by mixing it with
other things and stirring it all in a big pot. I'm sure he/she
will find the concept of nuclear forces to be unsatisfactory
due to a lack of understanding.
The incongruities that are sloughed off as meaningless questions are
only meaningless to them because reality doesn't mesh well with the
purely abstract.
Which incongruities? Since what you call ``the abstract'' actually
explains the reality we observe, it must ``mesh well'' with reality.
That's really all I have to add to that discussion, so I suggest we
simply ignore their mindless objections and try to sort out the
difficulties between us who are at least sensible enough to keep an
open mind.
Physicists do have open minds. If you have a simpler, less abstract
theory which explains the same phenomena, physicists will certainly
pay attention. By ``explain,'' I mean you need to provide the foundation
from which all of the results engineers use to build working devices
can be derived and it must be at least as broad in scope. Good luck.
Lots of people tried before most realized that classical mechanics
is basically flawed at a fundamental level.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RP" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational vs. Electromagnetic forces |
05 Jun 2007 09:26:00 PM |
|
|
On Jun 5, 11:52 am, Bilge <dubi...@radioactivex.sz> wrote:
On 2007-06-05, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sue, at this point I think I've made my case regarding the present
state of theoretical physics, made here and in a couple of other
recent threads.
Seriously? What span of time preceeding the 20th century do you
think you would need to match the discoveries physics has made
since the beginning of the 20th century?
Tom believes the question to be meaningless, which
must be due to his lack of ability to answer it reasonably. What he
meant to say was something like "the statement that the electron has
more than one type of charge/property, is meaningless", which is of
course my exact sentiment. The purpose of that statement was to try
to illicit the textbook answer, which Tom did provide, to wit,
"duuuuhhhhhh". He even went on to state that the electron had
intrinsic properties, which are in reality no more intrinsic to it
than the length of a ruler is intrinsic to one of its endpoints.
An electron is defined by its quantum numbers. When a set of
detectors measures numbers consistent with our definition of an
electron, we say we have detected an electron. How hard is this
to figure out?
Without another charge to interact with, the electron has no
properties whatsoever. All of the properties that we ascribe to it
are associated with its influence on other charges, and or the mutual
influence of those charges upon each other.
What's your point? That basic tautology applies to everything.
Now here comes Bill, with nothing more substantial than a reference
to others who at least to some extent agree with me, i.e. that
electromagnetism and gravity share one and the same cause. The
remainder of his statements amounted to page filler.
Here is the problem: If the electron moves classically, then things
can get pretty messy on the subatomic scale, because there are a lot
of them, and they are moving at exceptionally high velocities.
If electrons moved classically, atoms would not exist and neither
would this newsgroup.
If they have difficulty with the many-body problem, then they have no
chance of keep up with billions of bodies.
Yet, in spite of that difficulty, physicists have managed to deduce
enough about how all of these billions of bodies interact to write
down a set of rules that engineers can use to create working devices
without the engineers needing to understand much about the physics.
Let me digress here for a moment before continuing. The notion that
the electron doesn't move classically stems from quantum mechanical
views.
Since quantum mechanics explains classicl mechanics and atoms while
classical mechanics cannot explain atoms, it's not hard to understand
why quantum mechanics is regarded as being the correct physics.
One would think however that these quantum physicist had at one time
or another looked at the track that an electron makes through a bubble
chamber,
Do you really think that is a profound bit of insight that was
totally overlooked by physicists? Perhaps you should study quantum
mechanics a little before you decide what it does and does not
imply. [Hint: See Eherenfest's theorem]
or that they might have
taken some remedial course in electromagnetism, where in both instances
the classical motion of the electron is as proved as anything has ever
been proved.
Oh, really? Could you point to the experiment which measures the
classical trajectory of an electron (as opposed to the time rate of
change of the expectation value of its position)? Better yet, could
you point me to one theory which explains the motion of electrons in
solids classically?
Regardless of their disagreements with common sense, the real problem
is that these thousands of physics who see eye-to-eye with Tom (his
own revelation) share the same delusions with him that the
statistical entities that they treat are real. They are so drawn into
the mathematical aspects, that they cannot see their way back out
again.
The most precise intruments in existence are based on probability.
The ability to make exact copies of digital media starts with a
completely probabilistic theory (look up information theory, esp.
shannon).
I admitted, that from an engineering perspective, it works, but from
the theoretical perspective, not so much.
You mean to say that a theory which tells you exactly how to
build working devices can't be right just because it can't be
understood in terms of the naive concepts introduced hundreds of
years ago to explain much simpler physics? Try explaining to
a 6 year old why one can't turn lead into gold by mixing it with
other things and stirring it all in a big pot. I'm sure he/she
will find the concept of nuclear forces to be unsatisfactory
due to a lack of understanding.
The incongruities that are sloughed off as meaningless questions are
only meaningless to them because reality doesn't mesh well with the
purely abstract.
Which incongruities? Since what you call ``the abstract'' actually
explains the reality we observe, it must ``mesh well'' with reality.
That's really all I have to add to that discussion, so I suggest we
simply ignore their mindless objections and try to sort out the
difficulties between us who are at least sensible enough to keep an
open mind.
Physicists do have open minds. If you have a simpler, less abstract
theory which explains the same phenomena, physicists will certainly
pay attention. By ``explain,'' I mean you need to provide the foundation
from which all of the results engineers use to build working devices
can be derived and it must be at least as broad in scope. Good luck.
Lots of people tried before most realized that classical mechanics
is basically flawed at a fundamental level.
Didn't I say that QM was a practical approach. And when did I say
that
it wasn't empirically consistent? Don't get the wrong idea here. I'm
only suggesting that Einstein was correct about it. There is a
classical underpinning, and all of the quantum effects and entities
are patterns within the classical chaos. This is why there is quantum
weirdness. There is no causal connection between those quantum
things.
The causal connections, or better the causal mechanisms, are the em
fields that are in a basic sense fields of influence. Causality
travels at the speed of light. Light is in fact just the delayed
interaction between charges.
The point here is not to bad mouth QM, but only to illuminate the
fact
that there is nothing fundamental about QM entities. There is no way
to get from QM to gravity, and the reason for this is that gravity is
a force, a classical force, that QM won't acknowledge.
You may think that GR supersedes Newton on that count, but it does
not. GR is just Newton plus SR.
While it may be the stance of many modern theoretical physicists that
em and gravitational fields aren't fundamental, it is not my stance.
There is space around us, around everything, between everything, and
permeated through everything, and particles can only interact with
that
space because there is no direct connection between particles other
than the space between them. An electrons presence modifies that
space so that the behavior of other electrons are affected, which is
a
perfectly observable effect, one which QM can never overthrow. QM may
reinterpret it, but it can never change the fact that electrons tell
space how to curve, and space tells electrons how to move.
The force between two point test charges is just one force, and it
originates from the charges. Saying that there is another force
acting between them, namely gravitational, is a bit silly, because
the
inverse squareness of both fields prevents experimental verification
of that notion. And if it isn't testable, then it isn't physics.
Occam's Razor prefers eliminating the redundant second field, just as
it favored eliminating the aether.
As for your statement that classical mechanics is flawed, I agree,
but it is fixable without the aid of statistics. That is in fact
what
I'm attempting to do here. If you don't want to contribute to the
effort, then I have no problem with that, but as of yet nobody has
provided a convincing argument that it isn't fixable, so I'll
continue
pondering the matter as long as it suits me to do so.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RP" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational vs. Electromagnetic forces |
05 Jun 2007 09:13:20 PM |
|
|
On Jun 5, 11:52 am, Bilge <dubi...@radioactivex.sz> wrote:
On 2007-06-05, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sue, at this point I think I've made my case regarding the present
state of theoretical physics, made here and in a couple of other
recent threads.
Seriously? What span of time preceeding the 20th century do you
think you would need to match the discoveries physics has made
since the beginning of the 20th century?
Tom believes the question to be meaningless, which
must be due to his lack of ability to answer it reasonably. What he
meant to say was something like "the statement that the electron has
more than one type of charge/property, is meaningless", which is of
course my exact sentiment. The purpose of that statement was to try
to illicit the textbook answer, which Tom did provide, to wit,
"duuuuhhhhhh". He even went on to state that the electron had
intrinsic properties, which are in reality no more intrinsic to it
than the length of a ruler is intrinsic to one of its endpoints.
An electron is defined by its quantum numbers. When a set of
detectors measures numbers consistent with our definition of an
electron, we say we have detected an electron. How hard is this
to figure out?
Without another charge to interact with, the electron has no
properties whatsoever. All of the properties that we ascribe to it
are associated with its influence on other charges, and or the mutual
influence of those charges upon each other.
What's your point? That basic tautology applies to everything.
Now here comes Bill, with nothing more substantial than a reference
to others who at least to some extent agree with me, i.e. that
electromagnetism and gravity share one and the same cause. The
remainder of his statements amounted to page filler.
Here is the problem: If the electron moves classically, then things
can get pretty messy on the subatomic scale, because there are a lot
of them, and they are moving at exceptionally high velocities.
If electrons moved classically, atoms would not exist and neither
would this newsgroup.
If they have difficulty with the many-body problem, then they have no
chance of keep up with billions of bodies.
Yet, in spite of that difficulty, physicists have managed to deduce
enough about how all of these billions of bodies interact to write
down a set of rules that engineers can use to create working devices
without the engineers needing to understand much about the physics.
Let me digress here for a moment before continuing. The notion that
the electron doesn't move classically stems from quantum mechanical
views.
Since quantum mechanics explains classicl mechanics and atoms while
classical mechanics cannot explain atoms, it's not hard to understand
why quantum mechanics is regarded as being the correct physics.
One would think however that these quantum physicist had at one time
or another looked at the track that an electron makes through a bubble
chamber,
Do you really think that is a profound bit of insight that was
totally overlooked by physicists? Perhaps you should study quantum
mechanics a little before you decide what it does and does not
imply. [Hint: See Eherenfest's theorem]
or that they might have
taken some remedial course in electromagnetism, where in both instances
the classical motion of the electron is as proved as anything has ever
been proved.
Oh, really? Could you point to the experiment which measures the
classical trajectory of an electron (as opposed to the time rate of
change of the expectation value of its position)? Better yet, could
you point me to one theory which explains the motion of electrons in
solids classically?
Regardless of their disagreements with common sense, the real problem
is that these thousands of physics who see eye-to-eye with Tom (his
own revelation) share the same delusions with him that the
statistical entities that they treat are real. They are so drawn into
the mathematical aspects, that they cannot see their way back out
again.
The most precise intruments in existence are based on probability.
The ability to make exact copies of digital media starts with a
completely probabilistic theory (look up information theory, esp.
shannon).
I admitted, that from an engineering perspective, it works, but from
the theoretical perspective, not so much.
You mean to say that a theory which tells you exactly how to
build working devices can't be right just because it can't be
understood in terms of the naive concepts introduced hundreds of
years ago to explain much simpler physics? Try explaining to
a 6 year old why one can't turn lead into gold by mixing it with
other things and stirring it all in a big pot. I'm sure he/she
will find the concept of nuclear forces to be unsatisfactory
due to a lack of understanding.
The incongruities that are sloughed off as meaningless questions are
only meaningless to them because reality doesn't mesh well with the
purely abstract.
Which incongruities? Since what you call ``the abstract'' actually
explains the reality we observe, it must ``mesh well'' with reality.
That's really all I have to add to that discussion, so I suggest we
simply ignore their mindless objections and try to sort out the
difficulties between us who are at least sensible enough to keep an
open mind.
Physicists do have open minds. If you have a simpler, less abstract
theory which explains the same phenomena, physicists will certainly
pay attention. By ``explain,'' I mean you need to provide the foundation
from which all of the results engineers use to build working devices
can be derived and it must be at least as broad in scope. Good luck.
Lots of people tried before most realized that classical mechanics
is basically flawed at a fundamental level.
Didn't I say that QM was a practical approach. And when did I say that
it was empirically consistent? Don't get the wrong idea here. I'm
only suggesting that Einstein was correct about it. There is a
classical underpinning, and all of the quantum effects and entities
are patterns within the classical chaos. This is why there is quantum
weirdness. There is no causal connection between those quantum thnigs.
The causal connections, or better the causal mechanisms, are the em
fields that are in a basic sense fields of influence. Causality
travels at the speed of light. Light is in fact just the delayed
interaction between charges.
The point here is not to bad mouth QM, but only to illuminate the fact
that there is nothing fundamental about QM entities. There is no way
to get from QM to gravity, and the reason for this is that gravity is
a force, a classical force, that QM won't acknowledge.
You may think that GR supersedes Newton on that count, but it does
not. GR is just Newton plus SR.
While it may be the stance of many modern theoretical physicists that
em and gravitational fields aren't fundamental, it is not my stance.
There is space around us, around everything, between everything, and
permeated through everthing, and particles can only interact with that
space because there is no direct connection between particles other
than the space between them. An electrons presence modifies that
space so that the behavior of other electrons are affected, which is a
perfectly observable effect, one which QM can never overthrow. QM may
reinterpret it, but it can never change the fact that electrons tell
space how to curve, and space tells electrons how to move.
The force between two point test charges is just one force, and it
originates from the charges. Saying that there is another force
acting between them, namely gravitational, is a bit silly, because the
inverse squareness of both fields prevents experimental verification
of that notion. And if it isn't testable, then it isn't physics.
Occam's Razor prefers eliminating the redundant second field, just as
it favored eliminating the aether.
As for your statement that classical mechanics is flawed, I agree,
but it is fixable without the aid of statistics. That is in fact what
I'm attempting to do here. If you don't want to contribute to the
effort, then I have no problem with that, but as of yet nobody has
provided a convincing argument that it isn't fixable, so I'll continue
pondering the matter as long as it suits me to do so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational vs. Electromagnetic forces |
06 Jun 2007 01:42:54 AM |
|
|
"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181096000.303276.267660@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 5, 11:52 am, Bilge <dubi...@radioactivex.sz> wrote:
On 2007-06-05, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sue, at this point I think I've made my case regarding the present
state of theoretical physics, made here and in a couple of other
recent threads.
Seriously? What span of time preceeding the 20th century do you
think you would need to match the discoveries physics has made
since the beginning of the 20th century?
Tom believes the question to be meaningless, which
must be due to his lack of ability to answer it reasonably. What he
meant to say was something like "the statement that the electron has
more than one type of charge/property, is meaningless", which is of
course my exact sentiment. The purpose of that statement was to try
to illicit the textbook answer, which Tom did provide, to wit,
"duuuuhhhhhh". He even went on to state that the electron had
intrinsic properties, which are in reality no more intrinsic to it
than the length of a ruler is intrinsic to one of its endpoints.
An electron is defined by its quantum numbers. When a set of
detectors measures numbers consistent with our definition of an
electron, we say we have detected an electron. How hard is this
to figure out?
Without another charge to interact with, the electron has no
properties whatsoever. All of the properties that we ascribe to it
are associated with its influence on other charges, and or the mutual
influence of those charges upon each other.
What's your point? That basic tautology applies to everything.
Now here comes Bill, with nothing more substantial than a reference
to others who at least to some extent agree with me, i.e. that
electromagnetism and gravity share one and the same cause. The
remainder of his statements amounted to page filler.
Here is the problem: If the electron moves classically, then things
can get pretty messy on the subatomic scale, because there are a lot
of them, and they are moving at exceptionally high velocities.
If electrons moved classically, atoms would not exist and neither
would this newsgroup.
If they have difficulty with the many-body problem, then they have no
chance of keep up with billions of bodies.
Yet, in spite of that difficulty, physicists have managed to deduce
enough about how all of these billions of bodies interact to write
down a set of rules that engineers can use to create working devices
without the engineers needing to understand much about the physics.
Let me digress here for a moment before continuing. The notion that
the electron doesn't move classically stems from quantum mechanical
views.
Since quantum mechanics explains classicl mechanics and atoms while
classical mechanics cannot explain atoms, it's not hard to understand
why quantum mechanics is regarded as being the correct physics.
One would think however that these quantum physicist had at one time
or another looked at the track that an electron makes through a bubble
chamber,
Do you really think that is a profound bit of insight that was
totally overlooked by physicists? Perhaps you should study quantum
mechanics a little before you decide what it does and does not
imply. [Hint: See Eherenfest's theorem]
or that they might have
taken some remedial course in electromagnetism, where in both instances
the classical motion of the electron is as proved as anything has ever
been proved.
Oh, really? Could you point to the experiment which measures the
classical trajectory of an electron (as opposed to the time rate of
change of the expectation value of its position)? Better yet, could
you point me to one theory which explains the motion of electrons in
solids classically?
Regardless of their disagreements with common sense, the real problem
is that these thousands of physics who see eye-to-eye with Tom (his
own revelation) share the same delusions with him that the
statistical entities that they treat are real. They are so drawn into
the mathematical aspects, that they cannot see their way back out
again.
The most precise intruments in existence are based on probability.
The ability to make exact copies of digital media starts with a
completely probabilistic theory (look up information theory, esp.
shannon).
I admitted, that from an engineering perspective, it works, but from
the theoretical perspective, not so much.
You mean to say that a theory which tells you exactly how to
build working devices can't be right just because it can't be
understood in terms of the naive concepts introduced hundreds of
years ago to explain much simpler physics? Try explaining to
a 6 year old why one can't turn lead into gold by mixing it with
other things and stirring it all in a big pot. I'm sure he/she
will find the concept of nuclear forces to be unsatisfactory
due to a lack of understanding.
The incongruities that are sloughed off as meaningless questions are
only meaningless to them because reality doesn't mesh well with the
purely abstract.
Which incongruities? Since what you call ``the abstract'' actually
explains the reality we observe, it must ``mesh well'' with reality.
That's really all I have to add to that discussion, so I suggest we
simply ignore their mindless objections and try to sort out the
difficulties between us who are at least sensible enough to keep an
open mind.
Physicists do have open minds. If you have a simpler, less abstract
theory which explains the same phenomena, physicists will certainly
pay attention. By ``explain,'' I mean you need to provide the foundation
from which all of the results engineers use to build working devices
can be derived and it must be at least as broad in scope. Good luck.
Lots of people tried before most realized that classical mechanics
is basically flawed at a fundamental level.
Didn't I say that QM was a practical approach. And when did I say that
it was empirically consistent? Don't get the wrong idea here. I'm
only suggesting that Einstein was correct about it.
Are you actually aware of what Einstein's view was? He did not believe it
was not true only that it was incomplete. And incomplete does not mean
'classical underpinning' - it means behaves in a way appealing to Einstein's
intuition. I believe if Einstein was alive today, with all the work that
has now been done, he would be converted to a standard interpretation like
quantum decoherence or consistent histories.
There is a
classical underpinning, and all of the quantum effects and entities
are patterns within the classical chaos.
The Kochen-Speker theorem proves otherwise. Try learning about something
before discussing it.
This is why there is quantum
weirdness. There is no causal connection between those quantum thnigs.
Wrong. QM does not violate causality. Carefully study the following then
repost:
http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CQT/index.html
'Is quantum mechanics nonlocal? This depends on what one means by
"nonlocal." Two separated quantum systems A and B can be in an entangled
state that lacks any classical analog. However, it is better to think of
this as a nonclassical rather than as a nonlocal state, since doing
something to system A cannot have any influence on system B as long as the
two are sufficiently far apart. In particular, quantum theory gives no
support to the notion that the world is infested by mysterious long-range
influences that propagate faster thaan the speed of light. Claims to the
contrary are based upon an inconsistent or inadequate formulations of
quantum principles, typically with reference to measurements. (Also see
measurements, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen.) '
Bill
The causal connections, or better the causal mechanisms, are the em
fields that are in a basic sense fields of influence. Causality
travels at the speed of light. Light is in fact just the delayed
interaction between charges.
The point here is not to bad mouth QM, but only to illuminate the fact
that there is nothing fundamental about QM entities. There is no way
to get from QM to gravity, and the reason for this is that gravity is
a force, a classical force, that QM won't acknowledge.
You may think that GR supersedes Newton on that count, but it does
not. GR is just Newton plus SR.
While it may be the stance of many modern theoretical physicists that
em and gravitational fields aren't fundamental, it is not my stance.
There is space around us, around everything, between everything, and
permeated through everthing, and particles can only interact with that
space because there is no direct connection between particles other
than the space between them. An electrons presence modifies that
space so that the behavior of other electrons are affected, which is a
perfectly observable effect, one which QM can never overthrow. QM may
reinterpret it, but it can never change the fact that electrons tell
space how to curve, and space tells electrons how to move.
The force between two point test charges is just one force, and it
originates from the charges. Saying that there is another force
acting between them, namely gravitational, is a bit silly, because the
inverse squareness of both fields prevents experimental verification
of that notion. And if it isn't testable, then it isn't physics.
Occam's Razor prefers eliminating the redundant second field, just as
it favored eliminating the aether.
As for your statement that classical mechanics is flawed, I agree,
but it is fixable without the aid of statistics. That is in fact what
I'm attempting to do here. If you don't want to contribute to the
effort, then I have no problem with that, but as of yet nobody has
provided a convincing argument that it isn't fixable, so I'll continue
pondering the matter as long as it suits me to do so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RP" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational vs. Electromagnetic forces |
06 Jun 2007 07:35:11 AM |
|
|
On Jun 6, 1:42 am, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
"RP" <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181096000.303276.267660@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 5, 11:52 am, Bilge <dubi...@radioactivex.sz> wrote:
On 2007-06-05, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sue, at this point I think I've made my case regarding the present
state of theoretical physics, made here and in a couple of other
recent threads.
Seriously? What span of time preceeding the 20th century do you
think you would need to match the discoveries physics has made
since the beginning of the 20th century?
Tom believes the question to be meaningless, which
must be due to his lack of ability to answer it reasonably. What he
meant to say was something like "the statement that the electron has
more than one type of charge/property, is meaningless", which is of
course my exact sentiment. The purpose of that statement was to try
to illicit the textbook answer, which Tom did provide, to wit,
"duuuuhhhhhh". He even went on to state that the electron had
intrinsic properties, which are in reality no more intrinsic to it
than the length of a ruler is intrinsic to one of its endpoints.
An electron is defined by its quantum numbers. When a set of
detectors measures numbers consistent with our definition of an
electron, we say we have detected an electron. How hard is this
to figure out?
Without another charge to interact with, the electron has no
properties whatsoever. All of the properties that we ascribe to it
are associated with its influence on other charges, and or the mutual
influence of those charges upon each other.
What's your point? That basic tautology applies to everything.
Now here comes Bill, with nothing more substantial than a reference
to others who at least to some extent agree with me, i.e. that
electromagnetism and gravity share one and the same cause. The
remainder of his statements amounted to page filler.
Here is the problem: If the electron moves classically, then things
can get pretty messy on the subatomic scale, because there are a lot
of them, and they are moving at exceptionally high velocities.
If electrons moved classically, atoms would not exist and neither
would this newsgroup.
If they have difficulty with the many-body problem, then they have no
chance of keep up with billions of bodies.
Yet, in spite of that difficulty, physicists have managed to deduce
enough about how all of these billions of bodies interact to write
down a set of rules that engineers can use to create working devices
without the engineers needing to understand much about the physics.
Let me digress here for a moment before continuing. The notion that
the electron doesn't move classically stems from quantum mechanical
views.
Since quantum mechanics explains classicl mechanics and atoms while
classical mechanics cannot explain atoms, it's not hard to understand
why quantum mechanics is regarded as being the correct physics.
One would think however that these quantum physicist had at one time
or another looked at the track that an electron makes through a bubb=
le
chamber,
Do you really think that is a profound bit of insight that was
totally overlooked by physicists? Perhaps you should study quantum
mechanics a little before you decide what it does and does not
imply. [Hint: See Eherenfest's theorem]
or that they might have
taken some remedial course in electromagnetism, where in both instan=
ces
the classical motion of the electron is as proved as anything has ev=
er
been proved.
Oh, really? Could you point to the experiment which measures the
classical trajectory of an electron (as opposed to the time rate of
change of the expectation value of its position)? Better yet, could
you point me to one theory which explains the motion of electrons in
solids classically?
Regardless of their disagreements with common sense, the real problem
is that these thousands of physics who see eye-to-eye with Tom (his
own revelation) share the same delusions with him that the
statistical entities that they treat are real. They are so drawn into
the mathematical aspects, that they cannot see their way back out
again.
The most precise intruments in existence are based on probability.
The ability to make exact copies of digital media starts with a
completely probabilistic theory (look up information theory, esp.
shannon).
I admitted, that from an engineering perspective, it works, but from
the theoretical perspective, not so much.
You mean to say that a theory which tells you exactly how to
build working devices can't be right just because it can't be
understood in terms of the naive concepts introduced hundreds of
years ago to explain much simpler physics? Try explaining to
a 6 year old why one can't turn lead into gold by mixing it with
other things and stirring it all in a big pot. I'm sure he/she
will find the concept of nuclear forces to be unsatisfactory
due to a lack of understanding.
The incongruities that are sloughed off as meaningless questions are
only meaningless to them because reality doesn't mesh well with the
purely abstract.
Which incongruities? Since what you call ``the abstract'' actually
explains the reality we observe, it must ``mesh well'' with reality.
That's really all I have to add to that discussion, so I suggest we
simply ignore their mindless objections and try to sort out the
difficulties between us who are at least sensible enough to keep an
open mind.
Physicists do have open minds. If you have a simpler, less abstract
theory which explains the same phenomena, physicists will certainly
pay attention. By ``explain,'' I mean you need to provide the foundati=
on
from which all of the results engineers use to build working devices
can be derived and it must be at least as broad in scope. Good luck.
Lots of people tried before most realized that classical mechanics
is basically flawed at a fundamental level.
Didn't I say that QM was a practical approach. And when did I say that
it was empirically consistent? Don't get the wrong idea here. I'm
only suggesting that Einstein was correct about it.
Are you actually aware of what Einstein's view was? He did not believe it
was not true only that it was incomplete. And incomplete does not mean
'classical underpinning' - it means behaves in a way appealing to Einstei=
n's
intuition. I believe if Einstein was alive today, with all the work that
has now been done, he would be converted to a standard interpretation like
quantum decoherence or consistent histories.
There is a
classical underpinning, and all of the quantum effects and entities
are patterns within the classical chaos.
The Kochen-Speker theorem proves otherwise. Try learning about something
before discussing it.
There is no way
to get from QM to gravity, and the reason for this is that gravity is
a force, a classical force, that QM won't acknowledge.
This is why there is quantum
weirdness. There is no causal connection between those quantum thnigs.
Wrong. QM does not violate causality. Carefully study the following then
repost:http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CQT/index.html
Please don't counter-argue by saying the same thing that I did. I
didn't say that causality is violated, I only said that there was no
causal connection between the entities, that connection being em, i.e.
the underpinning above which exist these images of patterns that are
the quantum entities. Check the details of the EPR debate. Oh, I see
you refer me to that same thing below. I'm afraid that again saying
what I say is no counterargument.
'nuff said. :)
'Is quantum mechanics nonlocal? This depends on what one means by
"nonlocal." Two separated quantum systems A and B can be in an entangled
state that lacks any classical analog. However, it is better to think of
this as a nonclassical rather than as a nonlocal state, since doing
something to system A cannot have any influence on system B as long as the
two are sufficiently far apart. In particular, quantum theory gives no
support to the notion that the world is infested by mysterious long-range
influences that propagate faster thaan the speed of light. Claims to the
contrary are based upon an inconsistent or inadequate formulations of
quantum principles, typically with reference to measurements. (Also see
measurements, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen.) '
Bill
The causal connections, or better the causal mechanisms, are the em
fields that are in a basic sense fields of influence. Causality
travels at the speed of light. Light is in fact just the delayed
interaction between charges.
The point here is not to bad mouth QM, but only to illuminate the fact
that there is nothing fundamental about QM entities. There is no way
to get from QM to gravity, and the reason for this is that gravity is
a force, a classical force, that QM won't acknowledge.
You may think that GR supersedes Newton on that count, but it does
not. GR is just Newton plus SR.
While it may be the stance of many modern theoretical physicists that
em and gravitational fields aren't fundamental, it is not my stance.
There is space around us, around everything, between everything, and
permeated through everthing, and particles can only interact with that
space because there is no direct connection between particles other
than the space between them. An electrons presence modifies that
space so that the behavior of other electrons are affected, which is a
perfectly observable effect, one which QM can never overthrow. QM may
reinterpret it, but it can never change the fact that electrons tell
space how to curve, and space tells electrons how to move.
The force between two point test charges is just one force, and it
originates from the charges. Saying that there is another force
acting between them, namely gravitational, is a bit silly, because the
inverse squareness of both fields prevents experimental verification
of that notion. And if it isn't testable, then it isn't physics.
Occam's Razor prefers eliminating the redundant second field, just as
it favored eliminating the aether.
As for your statement that
...
read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational vs. Electromagnetic forces |
06 Jun 2007 10:28:43 PM |
|
|
"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181133311.650930.163950@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 6, 1:42 am, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
"RP" <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181096000.303276.267660@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 5, 11:52 am, Bilge <dubi...@radioactivex.sz> wrote:
On 2007-06-05, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sue, at this point I think I've made my case regarding the present
state of theoretical physics, made here and in a couple of other
recent threads.
Seriously? What span of time preceeding the 20th century do you
think you would need to match the discoveries physics has made
since the beginning of the 20th century?
Tom believes the question to be meaningless, which
must be due to his lack of ability to answer it reasonably. What he
meant to say was something like "the statement that the electron has
more than one type of charge/property, is meaningless", which is of
course my exact sentiment. The purpose of that statement was to try
to illicit the textbook answer, which Tom did provide, to wit,
"duuuuhhhhhh". He even went on to state that the electron had
intrinsic properties, which are in reality no more intrinsic to it
than the length of a ruler is intrinsic to one of its endpoints.
An electron is defined by its quantum numbers. When a set of
detectors measures numbers consistent with our definition of an
electron, we say we have detected an electron. How hard is this
to figure out?
Without another charge to interact with, the electron has no
properties whatsoever. All of the properties that we ascribe to it
are associated with its influence on other charges, and or the mutual
influence of those charges upon each other.
What's your point? That basic tautology applies to everything.
Now here comes Bill, with nothing more substantial than a reference
to others who at least to some extent agree with me, i.e. that
electromagnetism and gravity share one and the same cause. The
remainder of his statements amounted to page filler.
Here is the problem: If the electron moves classically, then things
can get pretty messy on the subatomic scale, because there are a lot
of them, and they are moving at exceptionally high velocities.
If electrons moved classically, atoms would not exist and neither
would this newsgroup.
If they have difficulty with the many-body problem, then they have no
chance of keep up with billions of bodies.
Yet, in spite of that difficulty, physicists have managed to deduce
enough about how all of these billions of bodies interact to write
down a set of rules that engineers can use to create working devices
without the engineers needing to understand much about the physics.
Let me digress here for a moment before continuing. The notion that
the electron doesn't move classically stems from quantum mechanical
views.
Since quantum mechanics explains classicl mechanics and atoms while
classical mechanics cannot explain atoms, it's not hard to understand
why quantum mechanics is regarded as being the correct physics.
One would think however that these quantum physicist had at one time
or another looked at the track that an electron makes through a
bubble
chamber,
Do you really think that is a profound bit of insight that was
totally overlooked by physicists? Perhaps you should study quantum
mechanics a little before you decide what it does and does not
imply. [Hint: See Eherenfest's theorem]
or that they might have
taken some remedial course in electromagnetism, where in both
instances
the classical motion of the electron is as proved as anything has
ever
been proved.
Oh, really? Could you point to the experiment which measures the
classical trajectory of an electron (as opposed to the time rate of
change of the expectation value of its position)? Better yet, could
you point me to one theory which explains the motion of electrons in
solids classically?
Regardless of their disagreements with common sense, the real problem
is that these thousands of physics who see eye-to-eye with Tom (his
own revelation) share the same delusions with him that the
statistical entities that they treat are real. They are so drawn into
the mathematical aspects, that they cannot see their way back out
again.
The most precise intruments in existence are based on probability.
The ability to make exact copies of digital media starts with a
completely probabilistic theory (look up information theory, esp.
shannon).
I admitted, that from an engineering perspective, it works, but from
the theoretical perspective, not so much.
You mean to say that a theory which tells you exactly how to
build working devices can't be right just because it can't be
understood in terms of the naive concepts introduced hundreds of
years ago to explain much simpler physics? Try explaining to
a 6 year old why one can't turn lead into gold by mixing it with
other things and stirring it all in a big pot. I'm sure he/she
will find the concept of nuclear forces to be unsatisfactory
due to a lack of understanding.
The incongruities that are sloughed off as meaningless questions are
only meaningless to them because reality doesn't mesh well with the
purely abstract.
Which incongruities? Since what you call ``the abstract'' actually
explains the reality we observe, it must ``mesh well'' with reality.
That's really all I have to add to that discussion, so I suggest we
simply ignore their mindless objections and try to sort out the
difficulties between us who are at least sensible enough to keep an
open mind.
Physicists do have open minds. If you have a simpler, less abstract
theory which explains the same phenomena, physicists will certainly
pay attention. By ``explain,'' I mean you need to provide the
foundation
from which all of the results engineers use to build working devices
can be derived and it must be at least as broad in scope. Good luck.
Lots of people tried before most realized that classical mechanics
is basically flawed at a fundamental level.
Didn't I say that QM was a practical approach. And when did I say that
it was empirically consistent? Don't get the wrong idea here. I'm
only suggesting that Einstein was correct about it.
Are you actually aware of what Einstein's view was? He did not believe it
was not true only that it was incomplete. And incomplete does not mean
'classical underpinning' - it means behaves in a way appealing to
Einstein's
intuition. I believe if Einstein was alive today, with all the work that
has now been done, he would be converted to a standard interpretation like
quantum decoherence or consistent histories.
There is a
classical underpinning, and all of the quantum effects and entities
are patterns within the classical chaos.
The Kochen-Speker theorem proves otherwise. Try learning about something
before discussing it.
There is no way too get from QM to gravity,
Will you stop sprouting off about what you obviously don't know anything
about eg
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9512024
Go away and study the facts then repost.
Rest snipped.
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "RP" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational vs. Electromagnetic forces |
07 Jun 2007 07:42:10 AM |
|
|
On Jun 6, 10:28 pm, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
"RP" <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181133311.650930.163950@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 6, 1:42 am, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
"RP" <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181096000.303276.267660@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 5, 11:52 am, Bilge <dubi...@radioactivex.sz> wrote:
On 2007-06-05, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sue, at this point I think I've made my case regarding the present
state of theoretical physics, made here and in a couple of other
recent threads.
Seriously? What span of time preceeding the 20th century do you
think you would need to match the discoveries physics has made
since the beginning of the 20th century?
Tom believes the question to be meaningless, which
must be due to his lack of ability to answer it reasonably. What he
meant to say was something like "the statement that the electron has
more than one type of charge/property, is meaningless", which is of
course my exact sentiment. The purpose of that statement was to try
to illicit the textbook answer, which Tom did provide, to wit,
"duuuuhhhhhh". He even went on to state that the electron had
intrinsic properties, which are in reality no more intrinsic to it
than the length of a ruler is intrinsic to one of its endpoints.
An electron is defined by its quantum numbers. When a set of
detectors measures numbers consistent with our definition of an
electron, we say we have detected an electron. How hard is this
to figure out?
Without another charge to interact with, the electron has no
properties whatsoever. All of the properties that we ascribe to it
are associated with its influence on other charges, and or the mutual
influence of those charges upon each other.
What's your point? That basic tautology applies to everything.
Now here comes Bill, with nothing more substantial than a reference
to others who at least to some extent agree with me, i.e. that
electromagnetism and gravity share one and the same cause. The
remainder of his statements amounted to page filler.
Here is the problem: If the electron moves classically, then things
can get pretty messy on the subatomic scale, because there are a lot
of them, and they are moving at exceptionally high velocities.
If electrons moved classically, atoms would not exist and neither
would this newsgroup.
If they have difficulty with the many-body problem, then they have no
chance of keep up with billions of bodies.
Yet, in spite of that difficulty, physicists have managed to deduce
enough about how all of these billions of bodies interact to write
down a set of rules that engineers can use to create working devices
without the engineers needing to understand much about the physics.
Let me digress here for a moment before continuing. The notion that
the electron doesn't move classically stems from quantum mechanical
views.
Since quantum mechanics explains classicl mechanics and atoms while
classical mechanics cannot explain atoms, it's not hard to understand
why quantum mechanics is regarded as being the correct physics.
One would think however that these quantum physicist had at one time
or another looked at the track that an electron makes through a
bubble
chamber,
Do you really think that is a profound bit of insight that was
totally overlooked by physicists? Perhaps you should study quantum
mechanics a little before you decide what it does and does not
imply. [Hint: See Eherenfest's theorem]
or that they might have
taken some remedial course in electromagnetism, where in both
instances
the classical motion of the electron is as proved as anything has
ever
been proved.
Oh, really? Could you point to the experiment which measures the
classical trajectory of an electron (as opposed to the time rate of
change of the expectation value of its position)? Better yet, could
you point me to one theory which explains the motion of electrons in
solids classically?
Regardless of their disagreements with common sense, the real problem
is that these thousands of physics who see eye-to-eye with Tom (his
own revelation) share the same delusions with him that the
statistical entities that they treat are real. They are so drawn into
the mathematical aspects, that they cannot see their way back out
again.
The most precise intruments in existence are based on probability.
The ability to make exact copies of digital media starts with a
completely probabilistic theory (look up information theory, esp.
shannon).
I admitted, that from an engineering perspective, it works, but from
the theoretical perspective, not so much.
You mean to say that a theory which tells you exactly how to
build working devices can't be right just because it can't be
understood in terms of the naive concepts introduced hundreds of
years ago to explain much simpler physics? Try explaining to
a 6 year old why one can't turn lead into gold by mixing it with
other things and stirring it all in a big pot. I'm sure he/she
will find the concept of nuclear forces to be unsatisfactory
due to a lack of understanding.
The incongruities that are sloughed off as meaningless questions are
only meaningless to them because reality doesn't mesh well with the
purely abstract.
Which incongruities? Since what you call ``the abstract'' actually
explains the reality we observe, it must ``mesh well'' with reality.
That's really all I have to add to that discussion, so I suggest we
simply ignore their mindless objections and try to sort out the
difficulties between us who are at least sensible enough to keep an
open mind.
Physicists do have open minds. If you have a simpler, less abstract
theory which explains the same phenomena, physicists will certainly
pay attention. By ``explain,'' I mean you need to provide the
foundation
from which all of the results engineers use to build working devices
can be derived and it must be at least as broad in scope. Good luck.
Lots of people tried before most realized that classical mechanics
is basically flawed at a fundamental level.
Didn't I say that QM was a practical approach. And when did I say that
it was empirically consistent? Don't get the wrong idea here. I'm
only suggesting that Einstein was correct about it.
Are you actually aware of what Einstein's view was? He did not believe it
was not true only that it was incomplete. And incomplete does not mean
'classical underpinning' - it means behaves in a way appealing to
Einstein's
intuition. I believe if Einstein was alive today, with all the work that
has now been done, he would be converted to a standard interpretation like
quantum decoherence or consistent histories.
There is a
classical underpinning, and all of the quantum effects and entities
are patterns within the classical chaos.
The Kochen-Speker theorem proves otherwise. Try learning about something
before discussing it.
There is no way too get from QM to gravity,
Will you stop sprouting off about what you obviously don't know anything
about eghttp://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9512024
Go away and study the facts then repost.
Rest snipped.
Bill- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
"[...]Because physics is an experimental science, it
is possible that we will not be able to truly know the ultimate
theory, but
impressive attempts are underway."
Like Feynman, these people thought it best to add the above
disclaimer. Conversely, the majority of the supposed physicsts posting
here know every fucking thing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational vs. Electromagnetic forces |
07 Jun 2007 10:31:53 PM |
|
|
"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181220130.327881.10120@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 6, 10:28 pm, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
"RP" <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181133311.650930.163950@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 6, 1:42 am, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
"RP" <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181096000.303276.267660@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 5, 11:52 am, Bilge <dubi...@radioactivex.sz> wrote:
On 2007-06-05, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sue, at this point I think I've made my case regarding the present
state of theoretical physics, made here and in a couple of other
recent threads.
Seriously? What span of time preceeding the 20th century do you
think you would need to match the discoveries physics has made
since the beginning of the 20th century?
Tom believes the question to be meaningless, which
must be due to his lack of ability to answer it reasonably. What
he
meant to say was something like "the statement that the electron
has
more than one type of charge/property, is meaningless", which is
of
course my exact sentiment. The purpose of that statement was to
try
to illicit the textbook answer, which Tom did provide, to wit,
"duuuuhhhhhh". He even went on to state that the electron had
intrinsic properties, which are in reality no more intrinsic to it
than the length of a ruler is intrinsic to one of its endpoints.
An electron is defined by its quantum numbers. When a set of
detectors measures numbers consistent with our definition of an
electron, we say we have detected an electron. How hard is this
to figure out?
Without another charge to interact with, the electron has no
properties whatsoever. All of the properties that we ascribe to it
are associated with its influence on other charges, and or the
mutual
influence of those charges upon each other.
What's your point? That basic tautology applies to everything.
Now here comes Bill, with nothing more substantial than a
reference
to others who at least to some extent agree with me, i.e. that
electromagnetism and gravity share one and the same cause. The
remainder of his statements amounted to page filler.
Here is the problem: If the electron moves classically, then
things
can get pretty messy on the subatomic scale, because there are a
lot
of them, and they are moving at exceptionally high velocities.
If electrons moved classically, atoms would not exist and neither
would this newsgroup.
If they have difficulty with the many-body problem, then they have
no
chance of keep up with billions of bodies.
Yet, in spite of that difficulty, physicists have managed to
deduce
enough about how all of these billions of bodies interact to write
down a set of rules that engineers can use to create working devices
without the engineers needing to understand much about the physics.
Let me digress here for a moment before continuing. The notion
that
the electron doesn't move classically stems from quantum
mechanical
views.
Since quantum mechanics explains classicl mechanics and atoms
while
classical mechanics cannot explain atoms, it's not hard to
understand
why quantum mechanics is regarded as being the correct physics.
One would think however that these quantum physicist had at one
time
or another looked at the track that an electron makes through a
bubble
chamber,
Do you really think that is a profound bit of insight that was
totally overlooked by physicists? Perhaps you should study quantum
mechanics a little before you decide what it does and does not
imply. [Hint: See Eherenfest's theorem]
or that they might have
taken some remedial course in electromagnetism, where in both
instances
the classical motion of the electron is as proved as anything has
ever
been proved.
Oh, really? Could you point to the experiment which measures the
classical trajectory of an electron (as opposed to the time rate of
change of the expectation value of its position)? Better yet, could
you point me to one theory which explains the motion of electrons in
solids classically?
Regardless of their disagreements with common sense, the real
problem
is that these thousands of physics who see eye-to-eye with Tom
(his
own revelation) share the same delusions with him that the
statistical entities that they treat are real. They are so drawn
into
the mathematical aspects, that they cannot see their way back out
again.
The most precise intruments in existence are based on probability.
The ability to make exact copies of digital media starts with a
completely probabilistic theory (look up information theory, esp.
shannon).
I admitted, that from an engineering perspective, it works, but
from
the theoretical perspective, not so much.
You mean to say that a theory which tells you exactly how to
build working devices can't be right just because it can't be
understood in terms of the naive concepts introduced hundreds of
years ago to explain much simpler physics? Try explaining to
a 6 year old why one can't turn lead into gold by mixing it with
other things and stirring it all in a big pot. I'm sure he/she
will find the concept of nuclear forces to be unsatisfactory
due to a lack of understanding.
The incongruities that are sloughed off as meaningless questions
are
only meaningless to them because reality doesn't mesh well with
the
purely abstract.
Which incongruities? Since what you call ``the abstract'' actually
explains the reality we observe, it must ``mesh well'' with reality.
That's really all I have to add to that discussion, so I suggest
we
simply ignore their mindless objections and try to sort out the
difficulties between us who are at least sensible enough to keep
an
open mind.
Physicists do have open minds. If you have a simpler, less
abstract
theory which explains the same phenomena, physicists will certainly
pay attention. By ``explain,'' I mean you need to provide the
foundation
from which all of the results engineers use to build working devices
can be derived and it must be at least as broad in scope. Good luck.
Lots of people tried before most realized that classical mechanics
is basically flawed at a fundamental level.
Didn't I say that QM was a practical approach. And when did I say
that
it was empirically consistent? Don't get the wrong idea here. I'm
only suggesting that Einstein was correct about it.
Are you actually aware of what Einstein's view was? He did not believe
it
was not true only that it was incomplete. And incomplete does not mean
'classical underpinning' - it means behaves in a way appealing to
Einstein's
intuition. I believe if Einstein was alive today, with all the work
that
has now been done, he would be converted to a standard interpretation
like
quantum decoherence or consistent histories.
There is a
classical underpinning, and all of the quantum effects and entities
are patterns within the classical chaos.
The Kochen-Speker theorem proves otherwise. Try learning about
something
before discussing it.
There is no way too get from QM to gravity,
Will you stop sprouting off about what you obviously don't know anything
about eghttp://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9512024
Go away and study the facts then repost.
Rest snipped.
Bill- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
"[...]Because physics is an experimental science, it
is possible that we will not be able to truly know the ultimate
theory, but
impressive attempts are underway."
Like Feynman, these people thought it best to add the above
disclaimer. Conversely, the majority of the supposed physicsts posting
here know every fucking thing.
So you did not study the link I. gave and comment on it. I wonder why?
Conjecture: You have zero aptitude for understanding technical issues so it
is beyond you. Want to prove me wrong? - study it and made some kind of
reasonable comment on its content. Here I will even post its abstract:
'This is a pedagogical introduction to the treatment of general relativity
as a quantum effective field theory. Gravity fits nicely into the effective
field theory description and forms a good quantum theory at ordinary
energies.'
Now in plain English how do you reconcile your statement 'There is no way
too get from QM to gravity' with what the paper proves?
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational vs. Electromagnetic forces |
08 Jun 2007 03:04:25 AM |
|
|
On 2007-06-07, RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote:
"[...]Because physics is an experimental science, it
is possible that we will not be able to truly know the ultimate
theory, but
impressive attempts are underway."
Like Feynman, these people thought it best to add the above
disclaimer. Conversely, the majority of the supposed physicsts posting
here know every fucking thing.
You aren't feynman and if you think he'd be any more tolerant of
*****, you are delusional[1]. Claims for new physics have to be
supported by the prediction of physical phenomena which would justify
the claim. The most bizarre claims are those who think relativity and/or
quantum mechanics are merely mathematical abstractions, despite being
given the physical meaning they demand, yet consider their own abstractions
to have physical meaning despite their inability to attribute any physical
properties to them or derive any physical result from them.
[1] I talked to someone who was a physics graduate student at cal tech when
feynman was alive. He told me that when someone gave a talk, feynman always
sat front row and center, and if he thought the physics being presented was
bad, he made it very obvious that he thought it was bad by spending the
entire hour with his head buried in his hands. If you think the disclaimer
you posted implies that he'd knuckle-under and concede that you have a point
when he had no doubt you are completely wrong, you need a reality check.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational vs. Electromagnetic forces |
08 Jun 2007 12:30:17 AM |
|
|
On 2007-06-06, RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote:
There is no way
to get from QM to gravity, and the reason for this is that gravity is
a force, a classical force, that QM won't acknowledge.
That statement is completely insane. Quantum mechanics would work just
fine if gravity was a classical force. The reason it was so sucessful right
out of the box is because classical physicists had already developed the
machinary that became the basis for quantum mechanics, so classical forces
in classical theories had a straight forward transcription to the quantum
analogues. I really think you have no idea what it means when physicists
comment about quantum mechanics being incompatible with general relativity.
For the record, what they mean is that no one has any idea how to quantize
space and time itself or if it really needs to be done or if it makes
sense. I don't see a very compelling argument for returning to theories
which are known to not work, just because there are a few conceptual
issues to solve in consolidating the ones that do work.
Wrong. QM does not violate causality. Carefully study the following then
repost:http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CQT/index.html
Please don't counter-argue by saying the same thing that I did. I
didn't say that causality is violated, I only said that there was no
causal connection between the entities, that connection being em, i.e.
As the saying goes, your statement is ``not even wrong.'' I have no idea
what ``no causal connection between the entities means,'' or why you think
E&M fits the bill, but quantum theory is quite explicit with respect to
which events can and cannot be causally connected. This is treated in detail
for E&M in most quantum mechanics texts (e.g., schiff).
the underpinning above which exist these images of patterns that are
the quantum entities. Check the details of the EPR debate.
What about it? To einstein's credit, he provided a concise argument
for the experiment that ultimately proved his arguments againsts quantum
mechanics were wrong.
Oh, I see you refer me to that same thing below. I'm afraid that again
saying what I say is no counterargument.
'nuff said. :)
Sorry, but I can't follow this. In general, when a theory correctly
predicts the outcome of an experiment, we call that theory, successful.
In physics, the bizarre only appears that way for as long as it takes to
become obvious, after which everyone wonders how anyone could have
spent so much time trying to find a clumsy way to avoid altering their
preconceptions.
Since nature didn't bother to set up a focus group to see how well
the universe would be received unless it was a hodge-podge of kludges
to satisfy every lunatic who would eventually inhabit it. Those of us
in physics land expect a few conceptual challenges along the way to
figuring out what nature had in mind. If you have a complaint, you might
google for the universe complaints department. Maybe nature has a web
site. I certainly don't know how you can lobby nature to implement
whatever it is you think will be an improvement.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational vs. Electromagnetic forces |
09 Jun 2007 09:48:23 AM |
|
|
Motion for any reason is the atom moving its self. Pushing on atoms
to move them dont move them , it only changes the orbits to an eliptical
orbit and all its parts spend more time on one side of the center of G
,,that moves the center of G from the center of mass as the atom pushes
its self down the energy slope.
Gravity is a slope to less energy /time.
The same energy for a longer time.
Magnets is the wave coliding with the orbit repulsion or riding the wave
attraction.
The atom will move for the same reason as gravity .
A higher state of an atom is oposit what you think because evrything is
going c and cant change speed. More mass is a lower faster orbit and
less mass is a highe slower orbit as energy is converted to mass .
The lower faster orbit of more mass is a stronger faster wave of
heating up.
Electrons conduct at a figer 8 point when an electron between 2 atoms
belongs to either orbit without changing directions .
The more it must change diections in conductivity the more resistance
there is.
If its an insulator then the electrons cant change directions enouph to
belong to the next atom.
Its the amount of mass exchanged from atom to atom that is conductivity
and not just absorbsion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational vs. Electromagnetic forces |
06 Jun 2007 01:37:21 AM |
|
|
On 2007-06-06, RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 5, 11:52 am, Bilge <dubi...@radioactivex.sz> wrote:
Physicists do have open minds. If you have a simpler, less abstract
theory which explains the same phenomena, physicists will certainly
pay attention. By ``explain,'' I mean you need to provide the foundation
from which all of the results engineers use to build working devices
can be derived and it must be at least as broad in scope. Good luck.
Lots of people tried before most realized that classical mechanics
is basically flawed at a fundamental level.
Didn't I say that QM was a practical approach. And when did I say that
it was empirically consistent?
It's that part where you dismiss it as a theory because you think
the abstractions are somehow less physical than classical theories.
If anything, it's the classical theories which are unphysical.
Don't get the wrong idea here. I'm only suggesting that Einstein was
correct about it.
Einstein was wrong. He posed the experiment which illustrated that
he was wrong.
There is a classical underpinning,
If there were a ``classical underpinning,'' why would quantum
mechanics ever have been needed? Classical theories lead to
physical absurdities and an infinite regress of new explanations
to explain the previous new explanations of the explanations
previous to those, etc.
and all of the quantum effects and entities are patterns within
the classical chaos.
That makes no sense. Chaotic systems are, contrary to unwarranted
assumptions inferred from the word ``chaotic,'' precisely deterministic.
The ``chaotic'' part refers to the fact that chaotic systems are not
ergodic.
This is why there is quantum weirdness.
Such as?
There is no causal connection between those quantum thnigs.
So what? That is a feature which results in a causal universe
in which predictions can be made.
The causal connections, or better the causal mechanisms, are the em
fields that are in a basic sense fields of influence.
The constant \alpha (which defines the electromagnetic coupling)
is what defines the fundamental probability of two electrons interacting
through their electric charge.
Causality travels at the speed of light.
Causality doesn't travel. The light cone separates events which
can be time ordered and those which cannot. Those which can be
time ordered are called causally connected.
Light is in fact just the delayed interaction between charges.
Leave out the ``delayed.'' It doesn't mean anything.
The point here is not to bad mouth QM, but only to illuminate the fact
that there is nothing fundamental about QM entities.
Explain the quantization of angular momentum without quantum
mechanics. Explain the epr effect without quantum mechanics and
relativity. The bottom line is that quantum mechanics exists because
classical mechanics went as far as it could and died, despite the
few hangers on who would rather believe in a failed theory than
try to understand what quantum mechanics is trying to point out.
[...]
As for your statement that classical mechanics is flawed, I agree,
but it is fixable without the aid of statistics.
No, it cannot. Statistics is not probability and no statistical
theory which assumes a classical reality can predict all of the
same effects that quantum mechanics does.
That is in fact what
I'm attempting to do here. If you don't want to contribute to the
effort, then I have no problem with that, but as of yet nobody has
provided a convincing argument that it isn't fixable, so I'll continue
pondering the matter as long as it suits me to do so.
All you have to do is read the literature to obtain all the reasons
you need. The fact that quantum mechanics makes more sense as a fundamental
theory than classical mechanics, ought to be sufficiently persuasive.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational vs. Electromagnetic forces |
07 Jun 2007 10:58:06 PM |
|
|
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.sz> wrote in message
news:slrnf6clhk.9kt.dubious@iris.lebesque-al.net...
On 2007-06-06, RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 5, 11:52 am, Bilge <dubi...@radioactivex.sz> wrote:
Physicists do have open minds. If you have a simpler, less abstract
theory which explains the same phenomena, physicists will certainly
pay attention. By ``explain,'' I mean you need to provide the foundation
from which all of the results engineers use to build working devices
can be derived and it must be at least as broad in scope. Good luck.
Lots of people tried before most realized that classical mechanics
is basically flawed at a fundamental level.
Didn't I say that QM was a practical approach. And when did I say that
it was empirically consistent?
| | | | | |
