quantum mechanics
About a year ago, I was dismissed by several dp pseudo-scientists for pointing out some of the shortcomings of quantum mechanics. They are probably all gone now, but if anyone remembers...I just ran across this book review by William Faris of the book "The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" by Roland Omn`es. For anyone who does remember, I'll assume you remember the context and my point as well. Faris' concluding paragraph states things nicely:
"Some physicists regard quantum mechanics as a fully successful theoretical framework; they consider any attempt to raise questions about its foundations as an irritating distraction. Omn`es, to his credit, recognizes that the puzzles are profound and that the traditional resolutions do not achieve the level of clarity appropriate to a completed science. Furthermore, he embarks on the task of providing a resulution within the framework of orthodox quantum mechanics. If he or anyone else succeeds in this task, then the questions should be settled, once and for all. In the present case the book is energetic and lively and full of examples and ideas. But the core resolution is merely a desperate bluff. The resolution is to "add to the whole logical construction an assumption according to which present phenomena are unique (and therefore facts)." The bluff lies in such statements as: "the actuality of facts is something that need not be explained by a theory," and "when one finds a gap between theory and reality only at their common extremities, this is not a failure but the mark of an unprecedented success for quantum mechanics, as compared with all the theories before it." The fact that an obviously competent physicist is driven to such assertions is evidence that the quantum theory remains in conceptual murk. The challenge remains: interpret quantum mechanics on its own terms, without appeal to authority, in a way that makes sense to reasonable people. This challenge has not yet met an adequate response."
(Notices of the AMS November 1996)
Nassim Haramein
Grand Unified Field Theory
http://video.google.com.au/videosearch?hl=en&q=nassim%20hara...
Well, it's always tough...
to describe what you cannot see. Immediately one moves from the realm of observation to imagination. In our imagination we feel the most free, yet we are also most bound to that which we have experienced. Since none of us have experienced an infinity of circumstances, situations, and others (different people) then our imaginations are lacking because there is at minimum something out there we all do not know, and it's different for everyone. Everyone is blind concerning the "elephant" of life that they blindly try to recompose from minute snippets of interaction. These incidents of interactions, much like a child's flip book, constitute the crude cartoon we consider a human life.
Assert Your Authority
Assert Your Authority
some get stuck on the bark
others see the tree. I see the forest as a small part of a land mass from outer space.
That's why you've got to experience so you can understand.
Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/
scale...
it's all ...relative.
Assert Your Authority
Assert Your Authority
Excellent observation on the heating problems and math
Cavitation was cited as the primary challenge; however, they addressed the problem to the engineer's satisfaction. Keep in mind the vehicle is using "electron hole" theory (used in solid-state electronics) to literally fall through space-time. They also use a laser array and quantum computer for navigation. They have a patent on the quantum computer, which was written up in USA TODAY about 10 years ago.
Also, I tend to give the
Also, I tend to give the physics theories a bit more credibility than say the theory of evolution for example. The standard model of physics has been borne out by BILLIONS of experimental data that support it. Whole industries have been built around it. Quantum tunneling has been done. Holographic disk drives based around quantum mechanics are being built and do work, despite some of the logistical hurdles inherent with the problem of observation in quantum mechanics.
I think this is also very different than the global warming climate models that deliberately leave the effects of atmospheric H20 (the main greenhouse gas) out of the equation.
you don't know what you are talking about
evolution is a theory in the same sense that gravity is a theory.
for all practical purposes it is FACT (and not very difficult to understand how it is INEVITABLE under a precise set of circumstances).
Perhaps DPers should stick to politics?
http://actiontrigger.no-ip.org/
concise observation.
I would add that there is a BIG difference between bieng able to "use" a technology and actually understanding it.
a monkey can drop a rock on a nut to crack it open. but we STILL do not understand WHY the rock falls......[gravity]
btw,
it takes 970.3 BTU's of heat energy for water [one pound, or 16 ozs] to change state. [liquid to gas and vice versa] leaving this refrigeration effect out of the "global warming" equations is foolish! to say the least!
the sun heats the earth radiently, this makes the surface the "evaporator" as the warm, moist water vapor rises due to convection, it meets the colder and lower pressure upper atmosphere, where it "condenses"
this cycle can be directly compared to our "vapor compression refrigeration" cycle that we use to keep both ourselves and our food "cold"
" the important thing is to never stop questioning, curiousity, has it's own reason for existing..
Albert Einstien
Knowledge is power, action is love.
model
It's just a model.
Einstein's theory breaks down too....that's why we have quantum mechanics.
Well since Einstein was a plagarist
E=mc2 = De Pretto Not Einstein
by Anthony Parente
http://www.italiansrus.com/articles/emc2.htm
Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Einstein
Well E=MC^2 was more just a conclusion of Einstein's theory not its main thrust.
Even if someone else got that, it still leaves a lot on the table for what Einstein accomplished.
Yes and that conclusion was derived by
De Pretto, he is the one that Einstein claimed his found glory off of.
From what history I've read, Einstein was annoyed with the quantum mechanics because he couldn't understand it where upon their were a few men in the world at that time who could.
Should I name their names or is Einstein still going to get credit where none should be due?
Heck next you'll be telling me Bill Gates is a good guy.
Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/
exactly.
Einstien did the samething Newton did, he changed / liberated the way men think, this allowed for new discoveries.
a unified field theory may never be found.....untill the next Ptolomy, newton, einstien comes along......
the god of nature is certainly mysterious...... our feeble minds have not even figured out the "basics" yet. perhaps, if and when we do, we can move a step closer to the nature of god?
" the important thing is to never stop questioning, curiousity, has it's own reason for existing..
Albert Einstien
Knowledge is power, action is love.
Thank you for sharing
this. I may not understand it but I enjoy being exposed to things I don't understand, it gives me food for thought.
Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.
Whether or not quantum mechanics is more than a theory ...
it works, in many instances. Solid state electronics is a particularly good example. A couple of years ago, I read "Laser Propulsion," a proposal to build a starship which employs "macroscopic quantum tunneling" to travel through hyperspace at 4.3 light years per hour(!). I had several highly qualified engineers read the book, and none of them could fault the science. Recently, SPACE.COM reported a similar proposal; however this recent one requires enormous amounts of energy and the "Laser Propulsion" proposal does not. BTW, the "Laser Propulsion" proposal is 25 years old.
where upon
you would have to have a magnetic system or shielding at that point to travel in space.. One perceivably that wouldn't interact with the propulsion system.
I mean it would be great to just hurl a ship through the galaxy that could bend space time, question is can you take a living organism on that cruise without first crushing it upon acceleration to that speed.
Pretty interesting none the less.
Traveling at that speed you'd reach 37,668 light years out in one year, or about the amount of time since human civilizations started if you were going at the regular speed of light which is 299,792,458 meters a second. Time is relative remember.
The Milky Way Galaxy is 100,000 light years wide so it would only be about 3 years trip..
Over 2 million have been counted, but there could be about 100,000 million galaxy's in the known universe.
The known universe we can see is about About 15,000,000 light years wide and over 2 million galaxy's have been counted, but there could be about 100,000 million galaxy's in the known universe..
So traveling at 4.3 light years an hour we could traverse the known galaxy in 398 years.
NOT BAD. and to think we could have been 941,000 light years away from earth or reaching say the Leo I galaxy, if the spacecraft had been built 25 years ago..
Leo I is the furthest known Galaxy that's orbiting the Milky way Galaxy.
Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/
I have found that scientists
I have found that scientists hate to be proven wrong and bully you into accepting their prevailing view, which of course tends to change over time. Just look at global warming today. You are kicked off the IPCC if you challenge that manmade CO2 is contributing to atmospheric warming. But, just 30 years ago, the concern was global cooling.
That said, I do think string theory is on to something. The math of the universe makes more sense when expressed in higher dimensions, which is the basis of string/brane/M theories. For example, there are 8 Maxwell field equations to express electromagnetic fields in 3 dimensional space. However, if you add time as a 4th dimension, these 8 equations can be simplified into 1 equation. In other words, the math becomes more simple and elegant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory
True sceince has nothing to do with Room 101,
but from the inside I can assure you that whatever the string theorists might "be onto" does not justify the level of support it receives, much less the enslavement of others to provide that support.
Does it explain building 7?
Does it explain building 7?
No
But perhaps it at least gives some partial explanation for MOL Room 101.