info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A QM Challenge
44 views
Skip to first unread message
Bill Miller
Jan 22, 2016, 6:40:08 PM1/22/16
to
In his later years, Einstein was asked his thoughts about the huge numbers
of short-lived heavy particles, kaons, pions, quarks, mesons, etc. found
using high-energy accelerators and enormous amounts of time and money. These
physicists thought they were finding important basic matter. The
interviewers wanted to know what Einstein thought of their work.
Einstein was a careful thinker and not given to theatrics so he was very
serious when he replied, "I would just like to know what an electron is."
During the early investigations of Atomic and Sub-Atomic physics, it
initially appeared that these miniature worlds might mimic the celestial
one. A molecule's core might be ringed with miniature satellite-like
elements - electrons.
Unfortunately, all the planetary models fell apart for numerous reasons. And
physics ground to a semi-standstill, since no one had a complete
understanding of the single most important component: the electron.
The only model that seemed to "fit" -- for the Hydrogen Atom, and, less-so
for anything else -- was a model based on Schroedinger's Wave Equation.
But even though Schroedinger - himself ridiculed the idea through his famous
Schroedinger's Cat anomaly, this model seemed to be the "only game in town."
And Quantum Mechanics (QM) was born.
However, with QM -- just like with Ptolemaic models of the universe -- it
was impossible to obtain correct calculations unless empirically derived
(and hence non-physical) "parameters" were added to the equations. In my
last Physical Research position, at EiMac, we called those: "fudge factors,"
At last count, there are some 20+ non-physical parameters that must be
applied in order for calculations to match measured data.
And this severely limits the predictive capabilities of QM
Clearly, QM is not a complete model of the Atomic/Sub-Atomic world.
That unhappy situation has changed. And that is because of the
well-established principle that
Experimental Data Trumps Theory.
In simple terms, this means that, if measured (and verified) Experimental
results are in conflict, and especially dramatic conflict, with results
explained by the current theory, then the current theory must be either
discarded or modified.
So. please examine the information found at this address:
http://brilliantlightpower.com/suncell/
and this one :
http://brilliantlightpower.com/plasma-video/
At these locations, you will find videos showing dramatic amounts of power
being produced by a catalytic process that transforms H2O - plain water -
into huge amounts of radiant energy. The only other by-product is hydrinos.
You will also find links here:
http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-report/ to numerous peer-reviewed
experiments that also (in less dramatic fashion) yield energy outputs that
are not consistent with *any* conventional chemical reactions.
None of these results are even remotely consistent with QM. All of these are
predicted as consequences Of Dr. Randell Mills' model of the electron.
So. for those that have accepted QM as a valid theory, please comment on any
or all of the following:
1. Identify the experimental data that you believe to be in error and refute
it using whatever empirical evidence you choose to present.
2. Identify any QM explanations for the excess power output of *any* (but
especially the "Bright Light" plasma results) of the power generation
experiments contained at this site.
3. Identify any QM explanations for the "blips" of spectra that are
consistent with hydrino transitions, but not consistent with any other known
entities.
Extra Credit: Please present reasons (creativity is rewarded) for why QM
should not be completely discarded.
All the best,
Bill
of short-lived heavy particles, kaons, pions, quarks, mesons, etc. found
using high-energy accelerators and enormous amounts of time and money. These
physicists thought they were finding important basic matter. The
interviewers wanted to know what Einstein thought of their work.
Einstein was a careful thinker and not given to theatrics so he was very
serious when he replied, "I would just like to know what an electron is."
During the early investigations of Atomic and Sub-Atomic physics, it
initially appeared that these miniature worlds might mimic the celestial
one. A molecule's core might be ringed with miniature satellite-like
elements - electrons.
Unfortunately, all the planetary models fell apart for numerous reasons. And
physics ground to a semi-standstill, since no one had a complete
understanding of the single most important component: the electron.
The only model that seemed to "fit" -- for the Hydrogen Atom, and, less-so
for anything else -- was a model based on Schroedinger's Wave Equation.
But even though Schroedinger - himself ridiculed the idea through his famous
Schroedinger's Cat anomaly, this model seemed to be the "only game in town."
And Quantum Mechanics (QM) was born.
However, with QM -- just like with Ptolemaic models of the universe -- it
was impossible to obtain correct calculations unless empirically derived
(and hence non-physical) "parameters" were added to the equations. In my
last Physical Research position, at EiMac, we called those: "fudge factors,"
At last count, there are some 20+ non-physical parameters that must be
applied in order for calculations to match measured data.
And this severely limits the predictive capabilities of QM
Clearly, QM is not a complete model of the Atomic/Sub-Atomic world.
That unhappy situation has changed. And that is because of the
well-established principle that
Experimental Data Trumps Theory.
In simple terms, this means that, if measured (and verified) Experimental
results are in conflict, and especially dramatic conflict, with results
explained by the current theory, then the current theory must be either
discarded or modified.
So. please examine the information found at this address:
http://brilliantlightpower.com/suncell/
and this one :
http://brilliantlightpower.com/plasma-video/
At these locations, you will find videos showing dramatic amounts of power
being produced by a catalytic process that transforms H2O - plain water -
into huge amounts of radiant energy. The only other by-product is hydrinos.
You will also find links here:
http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-report/ to numerous peer-reviewed
experiments that also (in less dramatic fashion) yield energy outputs that
are not consistent with *any* conventional chemical reactions.
None of these results are even remotely consistent with QM. All of these are
predicted as consequences Of Dr. Randell Mills' model of the electron.
So. for those that have accepted QM as a valid theory, please comment on any
or all of the following:
1. Identify the experimental data that you believe to be in error and refute
it using whatever empirical evidence you choose to present.
2. Identify any QM explanations for the excess power output of *any* (but
especially the "Bright Light" plasma results) of the power generation
experiments contained at this site.
3. Identify any QM explanations for the "blips" of spectra that are
consistent with hydrino transitions, but not consistent with any other known
entities.
Extra Credit: Please present reasons (creativity is rewarded) for why QM
should not be completely discarded.
All the best,
Bill
Jos Bergervoet
Jan 23, 2016, 5:01:38 AM1/23/16
to
On 1/23/2016 9:14 AM, benj wrote:
..
> .. Jos believes that mathematics holds the
> promise of answering all questions in science.
We accept that this is the case. Citing Mad Max:
"The Higgs Boson was predicted with the same tool as
the planet Neptune and the radio wave: with mathematics.
Galileo famously stated that our Universe is a "grand
book" written in the language of mathematics."
<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-universe-made-of-math-excerpt/>.
Even Peter "not even wrong" Woit cannot bring in much
against it, but he tries!
<http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=701>
To your comfort, benj, it is admitted by physicists
that this whole situation is *unreasonable!*
<https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html>
> ...
> you cannot get answers if the tools you need are
> forbidden. Sorry Jos.
Why does mathematics work for the universe? That's the
remaining question. The allowed scientific tools fall
into two groups:
1. Show that it doesn't work by a counter-example
(preferably presenting at the same time another
method that *does* work.)
2. Explain *why* mathematics works. (Why is the
universe so simple, relatively speaking?)
It seems you want to do 1) but you do not have the
required counter-example (nor the replacement that
would work better, I guess). OK, we'll wait..
In the mean time, we can at least all agree with Wigner
that it is totally unreasonable!
--
Jos
>
..
> .. Jos believes that mathematics holds the
> promise of answering all questions in science.
We accept that this is the case. Citing Mad Max:
"The Higgs Boson was predicted with the same tool as
the planet Neptune and the radio wave: with mathematics.
Galileo famously stated that our Universe is a "grand
book" written in the language of mathematics."
<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-universe-made-of-math-excerpt/>.
Even Peter "not even wrong" Woit cannot bring in much
against it, but he tries!
<http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=701>
To your comfort, benj, it is admitted by physicists
that this whole situation is *unreasonable!*
<https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html>
> ...
> you cannot get answers if the tools you need are
> forbidden. Sorry Jos.
Why does mathematics work for the universe? That's the
remaining question. The allowed scientific tools fall
into two groups:
1. Show that it doesn't work by a counter-example
(preferably presenting at the same time another
method that *does* work.)
2. Explain *why* mathematics works. (Why is the
universe so simple, relatively speaking?)
It seems you want to do 1) but you do not have the
required counter-example (nor the replacement that
would work better, I guess). OK, we'll wait..
In the mean time, we can at least all agree with Wigner
that it is totally unreasonable!
--
Jos
>
Jos Bergervoet
Jan 23, 2016, 3:12:35 PM1/23/16
to
On 1/23/2016 5:41 PM, benj wrote:
...
> are always things that are true that can't be proven.
He had to construct quite esoteric examples to show
it, so even in mathematics itself you see the same
*unreasonable* situation! Based on a few simple axioms
you can derive almost anything you need, only in very
special cases (like Godel showed) the simple set is
not powerful enough.
This is not a problem because these special cases cannot
be handled, on the contrary: the unreasonableness is that
the vast majority of mathematics follows from so little.
> ... "hard" sciences like physics have
> developed a set of principles upon which everything is blindly based.
> These paradigms are NEVER questioned even though there is considerable
> evidence they are not at all correct.
You mean like the situation with the standard axioms of
mathematics?
...
> Today paramount is the Grand Material Metaparadigm.
> 1. The mind is the result of physiological processes governed by
> bioelectric postulates.
> 2. Each consciousness is a discrete entity.
Not part of today's paradigm. If you allow for machine
intelligence and if you have ever heard of networks,
multi-processor architectures, etc., you would see no
need for that restriction.
> 3. Organic evolution moves toward no specific goal, but simply flows
> according to Darwinian survivalism.
How do you mean "but"? If it flows according to some
principle isn't that synonymous to the goal?
> 4. There is only ONE time-space continuum and it provides for only one
> reality.
No essential part of the physics paradigm. Lots of
quantum physicists think we are in a multi-verse (well,
even one of them could be counted as many, but that is
not what I meant here).
> These assumptions are build into the very fabric of all hard science
No, of the 4 you listed only nr. 1. might be adhered to
by a lare majority. Even there you will find scientists
that hold the opposite view: that it cannot be understood
in scientific terms (but requires religious, or other
explanations).
> any attacks against them are staunchly rejected to the sorrow of the
> heretic.
Nonsense. 2, 3 and 4 are no universal assumptions at all!
And for disagreeing 1 you will not be called a heretic.
...
> The net result is stagnation and things like QM.
It is true that QM is the result of scientific developments
until now. What you mean with "things like QM" is not so
clear, please tell us: does it include the theory of
relativity (general or special?) Does it include the big
bang? Is even Maxwell's theory a "thing like QM", perhaps?
Tell us, benj, what are those "things" that *you* want to be
declared as "forbidden topics!"
--
Jos
...
>> To your comfort, benj, it is admitted by physicists
>> that this whole situation is *unreasonable!*
>> <https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html>
..
> ...Kurt Godel showed that there
>> that this whole situation is *unreasonable!*
>> <https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html>
..
> are always things that are true that can't be proven.
He had to construct quite esoteric examples to show
it, so even in mathematics itself you see the same
*unreasonable* situation! Based on a few simple axioms
you can derive almost anything you need, only in very
special cases (like Godel showed) the simple set is
not powerful enough.
This is not a problem because these special cases cannot
be handled, on the contrary: the unreasonableness is that
the vast majority of mathematics follows from so little.
> ... "hard" sciences like physics have
> developed a set of principles upon which everything is blindly based.
> These paradigms are NEVER questioned even though there is considerable
> evidence they are not at all correct.
You mean like the situation with the standard axioms of
mathematics?
...
> Today paramount is the Grand Material Metaparadigm.
> 1. The mind is the result of physiological processes governed by
> bioelectric postulates.
> 2. Each consciousness is a discrete entity.
Not part of today's paradigm. If you allow for machine
intelligence and if you have ever heard of networks,
multi-processor architectures, etc., you would see no
need for that restriction.
> 3. Organic evolution moves toward no specific goal, but simply flows
> according to Darwinian survivalism.
How do you mean "but"? If it flows according to some
principle isn't that synonymous to the goal?
> 4. There is only ONE time-space continuum and it provides for only one
> reality.
No essential part of the physics paradigm. Lots of
quantum physicists think we are in a multi-verse (well,
even one of them could be counted as many, but that is
not what I meant here).
> These assumptions are build into the very fabric of all hard science
No, of the 4 you listed only nr. 1. might be adhered to
by a lare majority. Even there you will find scientists
that hold the opposite view: that it cannot be understood
in scientific terms (but requires religious, or other
explanations).
> any attacks against them are staunchly rejected to the sorrow of the
> heretic.
Nonsense. 2, 3 and 4 are no universal assumptions at all!
And for disagreeing 1 you will not be called a heretic.
...
> The net result is stagnation and things like QM.
It is true that QM is the result of scientific developments
until now. What you mean with "things like QM" is not so
clear, please tell us: does it include the theory of
relativity (general or special?) Does it include the big
bang? Is even Maxwell's theory a "thing like QM", perhaps?
Tell us, benj, what are those "things" that *you* want to be
declared as "forbidden topics!"
--
Jos
Bill Miller
Jan 23, 2016, 10:49:06 PM1/23/16
to
"Jos Bergervoet" <jos.ber...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:56a3deb1$0$23786$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
After all, in Grade School, we are tsught that 22/7 is "close enoigh" to pi
for us to use in calculating the area of a circle.
The *mere* fact that 22/7 has *nothing to do with* geometry is irrelevant.
Formulas that "work" are what I used to use in EE. They are not the same as
formulas that *should* be used in Physics.
Any disagreements cheerfully accepted -- as long as a rational explanation
accompanies them.
Still waiting for comments on the original post.
All the best, Bill
Jos Bergervoet
Jan 24, 2016, 7:08:59 AM1/24/16
to
On 1/24/2016 9:13 AM, benj wrote:
> On 01/23/2016 10:49 PM, Bill Miller wrote:
...
...
..
> Interestingly 22/7 is a rational number and hence is not random. Pi
> appears to be random. Although nobody has proven that it is random as
> far as I know. Maybe Jos knows something.
I do not know what you mean with random in this case.
You get Pi, and exactly Pi, if you compute the first
right-hand zero-crossing of the curve:
y = x-x^3/3!+x^5/5!-x^7/7!+....
Only a little bit more complicated than sqrt(2):
y = 2-x^2
or the number 2/3:
y = 2-3x
I'm not sure if any of these numbers is random. Is
2/3 random? If someone asks "give me a random number"
and you answer Pi, they'll say that surely you must be
joking, benj!
> .. what happens if the "true"
> solution to the phenomena describe by QM using probability
Benj, you are constantly misrepresenting the modern
theory of QM by talking about its century-old initial
status full of mysteries and probabilities and paradoxes
(still repeated ad nauseam in every popular-press article).
To be precise:
1) From QM theory it does not follow that the moon isn't
there if you don't look.
2) QM is not based on probability, but on exactly defined
complex amplitudes, described as a function of time as
precisely as Newtons point-particles.
3) There is no mystical measurement process that causes
collapsing wave functions or action at a distance.
Those are old ideas. They turned out to be unjustified.
> So is "free energy" a forbidden topic? Why? paradigm 4.
No, the idea that there is a lot of energy in the vacuum
which could be released is completely acceptable. It is
called "false vacuum". It gives off energy if it becomes
a true vacuum. And this could be very dangerous:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum#Vacuum_metastability_event>
Which is why you should never.. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyaLZHiJJnE>
> .. science sells itself as being open and
> free-thinking and ready to consider ANY new ideas, yet
> clearly it is so staunchly self-limited
Each example you tried for proving this failed completely..
--
Jos
> On 01/23/2016 10:49 PM, Bill Miller wrote:
...
...
>> After all, in Grade School, we are tsught that 22/7 is "close enoigh"
>> to pi for us to use in calculating the area of a circle.
>>
>> The *mere* fact that 22/7 has *nothing to do with* geometry is
>> irrelevant.
...
>> to pi for us to use in calculating the area of a circle.
>>
>> The *mere* fact that 22/7 has *nothing to do with* geometry is
>> irrelevant.
..
> Interestingly 22/7 is a rational number and hence is not random. Pi
> appears to be random. Although nobody has proven that it is random as
> far as I know. Maybe Jos knows something.
I do not know what you mean with random in this case.
You get Pi, and exactly Pi, if you compute the first
right-hand zero-crossing of the curve:
y = x-x^3/3!+x^5/5!-x^7/7!+....
Only a little bit more complicated than sqrt(2):
y = 2-x^2
or the number 2/3:
y = 2-3x
I'm not sure if any of these numbers is random. Is
2/3 random? If someone asks "give me a random number"
and you answer Pi, they'll say that surely you must be
joking, benj!
> .. what happens if the "true"
> solution to the phenomena describe by QM using probability
Benj, you are constantly misrepresenting the modern
theory of QM by talking about its century-old initial
status full of mysteries and probabilities and paradoxes
(still repeated ad nauseam in every popular-press article).
To be precise:
1) From QM theory it does not follow that the moon isn't
there if you don't look.
2) QM is not based on probability, but on exactly defined
complex amplitudes, described as a function of time as
precisely as Newtons point-particles.
3) There is no mystical measurement process that causes
collapsing wave functions or action at a distance.
Those are old ideas. They turned out to be unjustified.
> So is "free energy" a forbidden topic? Why? paradigm 4.
No, the idea that there is a lot of energy in the vacuum
which could be released is completely acceptable. It is
called "false vacuum". It gives off energy if it becomes
a true vacuum. And this could be very dangerous:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum#Vacuum_metastability_event>
Which is why you should never.. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyaLZHiJJnE>
> .. science sells itself as being open and
> free-thinking and ready to consider ANY new ideas, yet
> clearly it is so staunchly self-limited
Each example you tried for proving this failed completely..
--
Jos
extremesou...@yahoo.com
Jan 24, 2016, 2:24:33 PM1/24/16
to
I THINK ONE BLUNDER IS PUTTING A SPEED LIMIT ON LIGHT,WHEN YOU MULTIPLE THE SPEED BY ITS REFRACTIVE INDEX BUT ASSIGNM THE REFRACTIVE INDEX AS ONE YOU LIMIT ITS SPEED ,GO BELOW 1 LIKE .95 AND THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS STILL THE SPEED BUT YOU HAVE A NEW HIGHER speed NOT 299,792,485 m/s
Bill Miller
Jan 24, 2016, 10:15:41 PM1/24/16
to
<extremesou...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:976fe0ea-48bd-419c...@googlegroups.com...
All the best,
Bill
Jos Bergervoet
Jan 25, 2016, 3:15:34 PM1/25/16
to
On 1/24/2016 3:19 PM, benj wrote:
...
> at once. Um, sure.
No of course not, only those states that emerged in the
solution of the time-dependent Schrodinger equation.
>> 2) QM is not based on probability, but on exactly defined
>> complex amplitudes, described as a function of time as
>> precisely as Newtons point-particles.
>
> And the meaning of those amplitudes is? Oh I get it! Newtonian precise
> probability!
On the contrary! Probability has nothing to do with
it, all components of a superposition are simply
present in QM.
In the 1920s most people believed that "QM is incomplete"
and that some addition to the theory would be found which
would cause "collapse" of the superposition. And it is
this *extension of QM* that would possess an intrinsic
mechanism based on randomness for the selection.
But this is exactly what is *missing* in plain QM itself,
it has no random selection mechanism, all superpositions
remain present forever.
...
> wonder how they get from "all possible outcomes" to what we see? I
> presume the key is using a "new" word rather than the "old" word.
The jury is still out. There are still two possibilities.
1) The old "extended QM" idea. Many explicit proposals
now exist of how to *change* the Schrodinger equation
to make superpositions decay at macroscopic levels.
There is a whole zoo of such theories now.
2) The decoherence idea: all components of superposition
remain present, but after some time cannot see or feel each
other due to phase errors by interference from the environment,
so it will then be as if they are in different universes.
Whichever it is, it will be happening all the time, not
only when someone solemnly declares "this is a measurement".
What is new, is that experiments are using ever larger
objects in QM tests. Double-slit interference with
molecules of atomic weight 7000 has been done already. As
soon as 10^6..10^9 amu are reached, many of those theories
inevitably will be ruled out, or confirmed.
Then there is the quantum computing community: they very
much hope that there is no such extension to QM behavior
making superpositions disappear! The superpositions are
needed to do the work in parallel. They still have to
suppress decoherence to be able to collect the results,
but at least that can be done by enough cooling.
..
> Clearly you somehow imagine that the fantasy mathematics is
> more real than reality.
But I'll accept the results of the tests.
> .. I take it you think the "non-physical" solutions
> to Maxwell's equations are really physical
Which solutions? (And what is the relation with QM?)
--
Jos
...
>> To be precise:
>> 1) From QM theory it does not follow that the moon isn't
>> there if you don't look.
>
> No. it follows that there are supposedly "all possible states" present
>> 1) From QM theory it does not follow that the moon isn't
>> there if you don't look.
>
> at once. Um, sure.
No of course not, only those states that emerged in the
solution of the time-dependent Schrodinger equation.
>> 2) QM is not based on probability, but on exactly defined
>> complex amplitudes, described as a function of time as
>> precisely as Newtons point-particles.
>
> probability!
On the contrary! Probability has nothing to do with
it, all components of a superposition are simply
present in QM.
In the 1920s most people believed that "QM is incomplete"
and that some addition to the theory would be found which
would cause "collapse" of the superposition. And it is
this *extension of QM* that would possess an intrinsic
mechanism based on randomness for the selection.
But this is exactly what is *missing* in plain QM itself,
it has no random selection mechanism, all superpositions
remain present forever.
...
>> 3) There is no mystical measurement process that causes
>> collapsing wave functions or action at a distance.
>> Those are old ideas. They turned out to be unjustified.
>
> You already told me that nowadays wavefunctions do not collapse. I
>> collapsing wave functions or action at a distance.
>> Those are old ideas. They turned out to be unjustified.
>
> wonder how they get from "all possible outcomes" to what we see? I
> presume the key is using a "new" word rather than the "old" word.
The jury is still out. There are still two possibilities.
1) The old "extended QM" idea. Many explicit proposals
now exist of how to *change* the Schrodinger equation
to make superpositions decay at macroscopic levels.
There is a whole zoo of such theories now.
2) The decoherence idea: all components of superposition
remain present, but after some time cannot see or feel each
other due to phase errors by interference from the environment,
so it will then be as if they are in different universes.
Whichever it is, it will be happening all the time, not
only when someone solemnly declares "this is a measurement".
What is new, is that experiments are using ever larger
objects in QM tests. Double-slit interference with
molecules of atomic weight 7000 has been done already. As
soon as 10^6..10^9 amu are reached, many of those theories
inevitably will be ruled out, or confirmed.
Then there is the quantum computing community: they very
much hope that there is no such extension to QM behavior
making superpositions disappear! The superpositions are
needed to do the work in parallel. They still have to
suppress decoherence to be able to collect the results,
but at least that can be done by enough cooling.
..
> Clearly you somehow imagine that the fantasy mathematics is
> more real than reality.
But I'll accept the results of the tests.
> .. I take it you think the "non-physical" solutions
> to Maxwell's equations are really physical
Which solutions? (And what is the relation with QM?)
--
Jos
Bill Miller
Jan 30, 2016, 1:36:56 PM1/30/16
to
SunCell system on Thursday, Jan 28. It was video recorded and is being
edited to delete the "Ummms" and "Coughs."
I'll post a link when I have it.
Bill
Michael J. Strickland
Jun 26, 2016, 8:43:11 PM6/26/16
to
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 11:00:52 +0100, Jos Bergervoet
<jos.ber...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>On 1/23/2016 9:14 AM, benj wrote:
> ..
>> .. Jos believes that mathematics holds the
>> promise of answering all questions in science.
>
>We accept that this is the case. Citing Mad Max:
Mathematics is a human invention. Back in the early days of the
<jos.ber...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>On 1/23/2016 9:14 AM, benj wrote:
> ..
>> .. Jos believes that mathematics holds the
>> promise of answering all questions in science.
>
>We accept that this is the case. Citing Mad Max:
ancients, it was invented to describe the reality they witnessed
The observation comes first, then the mathematics.
> "The Higgs Boson was predicted with the same tool as
>the planet Neptune and the radio wave: with mathematics.
>Galileo famously stated that our Universe is a "grand
>book" written in the language of mathematics."
planet Neptune's location/orbit several times. You don't hear about
these incorrect mis-predictions now because when they were eventually
discovered (i.e. observed) the theories were altered and all the fudge
factors adjusted to postdict what was already observed.
...
>Why does mathematics work for the universe? That's the
>remaining question. The allowed scientific tools fall
>into two groups:
universe and is constantly adjusted to conform to observation in the
universe. It is not just due to accident or some divine trait of
mathematics.
...
---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------
Bill Miller
Jun 27, 2016, 11:15:00 AM6/27/16
to
result is consistent with QM:
http://brilliantlightpower.com/plasma-video/
All the best, Bill
Poutnik
Jul 8, 2016, 3:17:35 AM7/8/16
to
Dne 27/06/2016 v 02:43 Michael J. Strickland napsal(a):
> ....
> Mathematics first incorrectly "predicted" the Higgs Boson mass .....
It is a nonsense similar to this one :
"The hammer incorrectly hit the nail."
Both are tools and tools do not make mistakes.
Their users do.
--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
> ....
> Mathematics first incorrectly "predicted" the Higgs Boson mass .....
It is a nonsense similar to this one :
"The hammer incorrectly hit the nail."
Both are tools and tools do not make mistakes.
Their users do.
--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
Michael J. Strickland
Aug 11, 2016, 8:02:45 AM8/11/16
to
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 22:15:43 -0500, "Bill Miller" <kt...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
><extremesou...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:976fe0ea-48bd-419c...@googlegroups.com...
>I THINK ONE BLUNDER IS PUTTING A SPEED LIMIT ON LIGHT,WHEN YOU MULTIPLE THE
>SPEED BY ITS REFRACTIVE INDEX BUT ASSIGNM THE REFRACTIVE INDEX AS ONE YOU
>LIMIT ITS SPEED ,GO BELOW 1 LIKE .95 AND THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS STILL THE
>SPEED BUT YOU HAVE A NEW HIGHER speed NOT 299,792,485 m/s
I'm not sure what you mean above but the refractive index comes from
Newtonian optics which assumed air (now vacuum) had a speed limit (c)
and a refractive index of 1 corresponds to that speed limit. The speed
of light was first calculated shortly before Newton's time (Galileo's
Jupiter moon orbit discrepancies as analyzed by Roemer?). For me, it
is not necessarily a universe speed limit. The speed of light as a
universe speed limit is a postulate of Einstein's Special Relativity
(SR) and not as some say proven by it. In SR, if you exceed the speed
of light, gamma (time dilation & length contraction) goes imaginary
(or negative using (-1) * (-1) = -1 instead of +1). Therefore, I would
think c really has no place in the equations except maybe as an
expression of appearances versus actualities since the finite speed of
light does affect what you see (with light).
I find it easy to believe that EM radiation, being a natural
phenomenon, has a natural characteristic speed in a true vacuum (c)
and that its speed varies with the medium it travels through. In a
true vacuum without any other mass in the universe, its speed might be
infinite ( v = 1/sqrt(epsilon * mu). In an empty universe, if epsilon
and mu go to zero, v goes infinite. In low density regions of the
universe devoid of nearby mass and charge, epsilon and mu may trend
below epsilon_0 & mu_0 yielding a much faster speed of light.
Keep in mind that regardless of where we measure the speed of light
(even in our best vacuums which are much better than outer space's),
it is still propagating in a universe full of charge and mass and may
be limited in speed by some sort of reaction/resistance (epsilon & mu)
even while traveling locally through a hypothetical "perfect vacuum".
If you assume this reaction limits light's energy by sapping its
energy (by reducing its velocity and frequency), the speed of light
could vary at different locations in the universe. Since the universe
seems fairly homogenous on a large scale, the characteristic velocity
of light probably does not vary much anywhere we can measure it.
Mike
wrote:
>
><extremesou...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:976fe0ea-48bd-419c...@googlegroups.com...
>I THINK ONE BLUNDER IS PUTTING A SPEED LIMIT ON LIGHT,WHEN YOU MULTIPLE THE
>SPEED BY ITS REFRACTIVE INDEX BUT ASSIGNM THE REFRACTIVE INDEX AS ONE YOU
>LIMIT ITS SPEED ,GO BELOW 1 LIKE .95 AND THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS STILL THE
>SPEED BUT YOU HAVE A NEW HIGHER speed NOT 299,792,485 m/s
Newtonian optics which assumed air (now vacuum) had a speed limit (c)
and a refractive index of 1 corresponds to that speed limit. The speed
of light was first calculated shortly before Newton's time (Galileo's
Jupiter moon orbit discrepancies as analyzed by Roemer?). For me, it
is not necessarily a universe speed limit. The speed of light as a
universe speed limit is a postulate of Einstein's Special Relativity
(SR) and not as some say proven by it. In SR, if you exceed the speed
of light, gamma (time dilation & length contraction) goes imaginary
(or negative using (-1) * (-1) = -1 instead of +1). Therefore, I would
think c really has no place in the equations except maybe as an
expression of appearances versus actualities since the finite speed of
light does affect what you see (with light).
I find it easy to believe that EM radiation, being a natural
phenomenon, has a natural characteristic speed in a true vacuum (c)
and that its speed varies with the medium it travels through. In a
true vacuum without any other mass in the universe, its speed might be
infinite ( v = 1/sqrt(epsilon * mu). In an empty universe, if epsilon
and mu go to zero, v goes infinite. In low density regions of the
universe devoid of nearby mass and charge, epsilon and mu may trend
below epsilon_0 & mu_0 yielding a much faster speed of light.
Keep in mind that regardless of where we measure the speed of light
(even in our best vacuums which are much better than outer space's),
it is still propagating in a universe full of charge and mass and may
be limited in speed by some sort of reaction/resistance (epsilon & mu)
even while traveling locally through a hypothetical "perfect vacuum".
If you assume this reaction limits light's energy by sapping its
energy (by reducing its velocity and frequency), the speed of light
could vary at different locations in the universe. Since the universe
seems fairly homogenous on a large scale, the characteristic velocity
of light probably does not vary much anywhere we can measure it.
Mike
0 new messages