Jump to content

qsa

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by qsa

  1. Me too. Applying the simplest scientific methods allowed us to be the biggest in our area. http://middleeastinteriors.com/section.asp?secid=725
  2. That is exactly my point. Use good standard to talk and do physics, these prose just don't cut it. You must have some formulas, simulations or some way to quantify, that IS standard physics. I will elaborate. As a matter of fact, this problem is endemic in the world. People graduate from universities with very little good grasp of fundamentals (sometimes even PHDs). Compounding the problem is that the majority will work in something very different from their specialty, so when they go into the other areas to me they become super inefficient. you see a chemical engineer becomes a salesman, a stiff as a rock. or an architect who becomes a businessman who makes up the science of business as he fire fights. I am not against doing something else, but going into something without MASTERING its fundamentals is the craziest thing I have seen humans do. But I do understand that people have to take what comes their way and they have little time and stamina to start over. But that is NOT your case I gather. A case in point, just an example among thousands I have seen. When I and my brothers graduated and joined our family business it was only one of my brothers had graduated from a good Swiss business school. Our small father's business started growing since we were educated and everybody pitched a bit of his knowledge,but we faced a major problem that got us on each other's nerves. We sold a lot but no cash in bank, only our stock was mushrooming, we knew that but we did not know how much stock was appropriate. after one year of infighting, finally I had to go to the library/bookstore and buy me whole lots of books on inventory and operation research books. It turned out that all the knowledge needed for good inventory was part of the business school classes, but my brother did not really grasp it. So when I started explaining all the formulas involved(EOQ and so on) , now he remembers!! We got our stock and related issues under control by QUANTIFYING everything and applying the properSCIENTIFIC model to the problems. Also,I became a good businessman by approaching the business problems in a scientific way( although business is science and art) and mentored all my subordinates to do the same. Scientific methods is all about quantifying to get to the heart of the problem and its solution, no matter what the discipline is. Sorry for the long post. I just thought it might be useful for all the young people out there. So get your standard strait for any particular area you are going to be involved in.
  3. When you want to get good at something, how you spend your time practicing is far more important than the amount of time you spend. - From Moonwalking with Einstein
  4. If Higgs was found it would have been big news by now. But anyhow, I thing Dr. Schiller's theory is obviously phenomenological and has no math to back it up, and so it has many unanswered questions and many premature conclusions. Yet, on its own, it seems to account for the overall physical phenomena. What I am saying is that my theory has the same sort of idea (simplicity and the crossing paradigm) but it is backed up with solid results and that is why his theory looks like viable starting point. But also, I claim that my theory diverges on many other issues and sort of "corrects" his model. Moreover, the final theory is infinitely more than just the Higgs problem, it's about the prediction of exact particle's mass, the couplings and all the other issues listed in his website. I would also like to remind you on the issue of reality based on unseen entities is that even in present day physics we model using virtual photon, quarks … etc which are not detectable in principle and there is a great debate even on their realities, not to mention the notorious wavefunction.
  5. I think if you go through his website you will find him very serious about his idea but not in a fanatical way. http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=318155 This thread discusses his theory at length and he gets criticized(I think rightly) on many points. This is where my theory comes in which usesthe similar idea but I derive it from a different concept but with a clear mathematical support. My idea is very clear cut and has the support of many reputable physicists and philosophers like DR. Tegmark and others. It remainsto be seen whether my theory can be shown to account fully for reality. But reality being a mathematical structure is a kin to a circle, we know how todescribe it but we don't actually see a circle. But the Irony is that we do seeour reality since we are part of the structure. I will say more about his theory and its relation to mine later.
  6. In my not so humble opinion I think the strand model is very close to being correct. If you generalize my own "theory" you are very much lead to a strand like model, even though I derive my theory from a more basic principle. Dr. schiller seems to have a very keen mind decucing his theory from just the requirment of simplicity, I am not so smart, I deduced mine from an imperative stand. I will elaborote if anybody is interested since I did not see any interest in this topic yet. http://www.qsa.netne.net
  7. http://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist/what_entropy-89730 http://www.science20.com/train_thought/blog/entropy_not_disorder-75081 http://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist/toying_entropy_dominos_tetris_and_black_holes-89972
  8. You can read about it in this classic book for free. There is also volume II up to QM discovery. A history of the theories of aether and electricity : from the age of Descartes to the close of the nineteenth century http://archive.org/details/historyoftheorie00whitrich
  9. Thanks for the correction and the link.
  10. @Royston I will not debate with juanrga, But I will share few things with you and I will elaborate when I have the time. My point of view is that the debate as to what is more fundamental is ongoing. There are 4 or 5 main views with a lot of other variations. 1. Particle physicists view of particle being fundamental. 2. field/wave functional ( which is nothing but the extension of normal Non relativistic schrodinger wave equation) supported by Weinberg as I showed in the other thread. 3. The question is unscientific,we only care about the formalism. 4. it is both like in this reference(bohemian picture) see page 38 http://xxx.lanl.gov/...-ph/0609163.pdf also this http://www.mat.univi...hysics-faq.html and particularly this http://www.mat.univi...opics/pointlike so the question is more involved and depends on the prespective.
  11. let's say for the sake of arqument, yes everything is energy waves. Does that make you understand things better, do you feel satisfied , does that give any meaning to you and will you stop wondering about what reality is.
  12. @owl this might be of interest to you http://discovermagaz...ist-mission-esp edit http://dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf
  13. @juanrga Also this from a well known physicist, notice the last pragraph!! Exactly what I quoted but interpreted in a very strange way by you. http://www.mat.univi...complementarity -----------------------------------------------Why are fields more fundamental than particles?----------------------------------------------- In quantum field theory, the field aspect and the particle aspect are complementary to each other (in a precise sense related to what is called ''second quantization''). Experimentally, depending on the experimental situation, we ''see'' one or the other. Now one can understand the particle concept as a limit of the field concept, namely as the approximation of geometric optics, where particle rays approximately follow definite paths. But there seems to be no way to regard the field concept as a limit of the particle concept. Moreover, a pure particle view cannot even formally capture all aspects of the fields. Dynamical symmetry breaking, for example, is an intrinsic field phenomenon. Finally, even in atomic physics and quantum chemistry, electrons are usually delocalized - a feature naturally explained in terms of fields but very counterintuitive in terms of particles. For all these reasons, the field aspect must be considered to be more fundamental.On p.2 of his essay, What is Quantum Field Theory, and What Did We Think It Is? http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9702027v1, Weinberg writes: ''In its mature form, the idea of quantum field theory is that quantum fields are the basic ingredients of the universe, and particles are just bundles of energy and momentum of the fields. In a relativistic theory the wave function is a functional of these fields, not a function of particle coordinates. Quantum field theory hence led to a more unified view of nature than the old dualistic interpretation in terms of both fields and particles.''
  14. @juanrga I have given these references to show the nature of the debate. You can emphasize the arquements that support your point of view, that is fine. But my point is that there are two points of view, hence there is no final conclusion, if there was, you would have not seen those references. But you also have the habit of taking a counter arquement and making it your own, I am a bit baffled as to the reason. For example (I don't have the energy to list all), " For example, see atomic orbital: The electron is an elementary particle, but its quantum states form three-dimensional patterns" This arquement says that the electron is NOT considered as a point particle, but smeared in a probabalistic cloud in a relatively big volume. http://www.physicsfo...ad.php?t=144746 notice the thread was locked. Since some hardcore mainstream would consider the question UNSCIENTIFIC, i.e. it is a philosophical musing. How many viewpoints do you like to see.
  15. http://en.wikipedia....nger_functional http://physics.stack...-wavefunctional http://en.wikipedia....article_duality http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8179/how-can-a-point-particle-have-properties http://en.wikipedia....:Point_particle
  16. @juanrga, Weinberg is certainly not saying what you interpret what he is saying, IMHO. I will leave it to the interested reader to come to his own conclusion.
  17. here Steven Weinberg ( not introductory level) takes the opposite view. In my opinion it is a matter of opinion. http://arxiv.org/pdf...h/9702027v1.pdf quote from page 2 "In its mature form, the idea of quantum field theory is that quantum fields are the basic ingredients of the universe, and particles are just bundles of energy and momentum of the fields. In a relativistic theory the wave function is a functional of these fields, not a function of particle coordinates. Quantum field theory hence led to a more unified view of nature than the old dualistic interpretation in terms of both fields and particles."
  18. Hi majik, you are "friend" from another forum. If you are around I like to talk to you. I also found something that might interest you. http://carlbrannen.w...uantum-numbers/ http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf/UGA.pdf http://www.montgomerycollege.edu/Departments/planet/planet/Numerical_Relativity/bookGA.pdf
  19. It is not me who says that, it is standard physics with no controvercy. I agree that the proton structure is not well understood, that is why whoever comes up with the correct quark confinment theory can claim the noble prize. But still the present theories are best available, in the same sense as QM with its surreal wavefunction and QED with its virtual photons, but with less asthetic. I don't know if you know, but there are many alternative theories to model protons, even electrons and particles in general. They come under wide classes of theories from mainstream to the fringe, but they all start with relatively reasonable assumptions. And usually not too far off reqular physics techniques which are robust(they work) by experience. But I also think that not every new idea has to solve all problems. Sometimes it is enough that it shines some light on a particular aspect, but the assumptions and the follow up derivations should be sound.
  20. what is this "have a uniquely stable charge configuration", where did you get it from, do you have an equation to prove it. We have a basic fact of annihilation, are you disbuting this fact, no amount of charge confiquration will overcome that.
  21. I have not read the whole thread, so I don't know if this has been mentioned. The electrons and the positrons that make up your proton will annihilate each other, since they have the same mass but opposite charge.
  22. That is ultimately what we want to do. But in science most of the time we do approximations to overcome the difficulty of complex systems. Typically we take the fundamental equations and we derive emperical equations for multiparticle systems. this done to study materials for instance. I think a first step will be of this type probably.
  23. Thank you very much. You helped me more than your share. I will not burden you anymore. I am using ms C++ express with sdk 7.1 for 64 bit. I have also ran it with fedora 15, but its random number generator is not so good.
  24. quote from wiki Since most physicists would consider the statement of the underlying rules to suffice as the definition of a "theory of everything", most physicists argue that Gödel's Theorem does not mean that a TOE cannot exist. http://en.wikipedia....y_of_everything however, my definition of TOE is more loaded than JUST unifying forces. But it is still less than tackling consciousness, which I think it is not fundamental. Also, Penrose comments are misinterpreted. The idea of simulating the universe did not just come from VR, but from many other considerations. The latest being quantum computing. Nobody said it is simple or can be done for sure. It is just a conjecture from many evidences that one day in the distant future it MIGHT be possible. Of course the type of TOE that we will have in hand will greatly influence that possibility.
  25. http://www.idsia.ch/...eruniverse.html My theory seems to indicate that it is possible (at least a small universe). I have made a rough estimate that we need to cannibalize one galaxy to produce enough computers at today's power to it. How hard is that? It depends. But I keep wondering if this universe produced a conscious being should we help him with his troubles, or should we ignore him since little simulation hurt nobody!!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.