Jump to content

qsa

Senior Members
  • Posts

    136
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by qsa

  1. So you want a formula now, to say that Space exists. What is the formula that says Space does not exist, it's a notion? What a pity, despite your experience you can't differentiate between prose & logic. Everything I have said is based on logic, and logic is scientific method. But you think logic is not a good standard in science? I have presented falsifiable Methods in post #155. I have established beyond the slightest doubt that the light bending in the Lift is an illusion. There is a simulation in Method 4. You could have brought out the errors in one of them. You could have brought out the irregularities in the steps taken by logic. You could have brought out the mistakes in the conclusions that have been derived logically. You don't discuss these things but keep bringing up a hoax created by your own self. These things have been discussed before. You disregard that. Such discussions or tactics can only be done to keep the mill running, helping none.

     

    I have said Space cannot be curved and have given logical/scientific reasons. Tell me why they are wrong. Don't tell me that they are wrong because the reasons that I have given contain no equations & formulas, because you have become successful in Business. These are no reasons. It also shows there are no better reasons. And nothing can be derived by such discussions.

     

    "A logical statement is wrong if it does not contain any formulas" – Kindly tell us the formula that gave you this outcome. This is another big joke.

     

    And you claim to be part of the scientific world, with all your unconnected reasoning. God help Science & the scientific world and those who learn from you.

     

    You need to expressly know that; [if you are so fanatic about Mathematics,]

     

    "Mathematics is nothing but Logic in symbolic language" and, ---- I

     

    "Formula is constructed using the symbols and rules of Logic". And, ---- II

     

    "Whatever arguments I have given are absolutely logical" ---- III

     

    From I, II and III, we can arrive to the conclusion that;

     

    "Every argument I have presented is equivalent to and can be converted into Mathematical deduction".

    When someone is placing logical arguments they are actually placing basic mathematical arguments. Logic is the basic ingredient of Mathematics. Without Logic there is no Mathematics.

     

    I respect Mathematics because I respect Logic. Those who don't respect Logic don't know what Mathematics is. They are simply fascinated by its symbols and precision.

     

     

    Mathematics is more than just logic. You can google about mathematicalPhilosophy and foundation and get acquainted. By the same talk, it seems that Iwill not be able to find out what is wrong with your theory because you willdrag the conversation endlessly just like you're trying to do with DH post.That is why I found it fruitless to take that direction, but concentrated even on a more fundamental mistake you are making.

     

    And that is, how we model in physics. The word space (space-time) is used to denote certain aspect of the physics under consideration and the words do not have absolute meaningin the sense that you are imagining. For example in Loop Quantum space takes on a probabilistic and discontinuous aspect, as long as the theory is consistent(and agree with classical limit and have an experimental support) those aspects are accepted. This has been repeatedly been explained to you, and many other examples of physics have been given to you, like what is a particle, but you just shut your ears to them. It should suffice that we give you hints and not be your teacher. There is ample material out there for you to study. There are thousands of books on the subject that will do better job than me on the specific details. But I feel you do not have the proper background even for you to understandwhat is being said to you.

     

    You want to do physics without going through the motion, if you respect mathematics then do it, don't just talk. It is a requirement of doing physics, you can't pick and choose. Now, if you think you are doing a philosophy of physics the requirement is doubly stringent. We trust the methods of science because even as we are in first grade we check for 4+4=8 by raising four fingers with each hand and count. We do experiments on the facts given to get corroborated. In my Master's thesis after months of searching finally took the model of the motor I was using plugged the parameters of the motor and the condition under which it operated into six simultaneous differential equations and simulated. The results perfectly matched the behavior of the motor that is why we trust science, it works in front of our eyes, and we learn why.

     

     

     

    There is ample room to add, but not before you learn the trick of the trade. I gather you are still young, so you MIGHT be able to do it since you feel you really need to understand what reality is.

     

     

     

    Moreover, I have noticed that you keep talking about honesty and all. But please be honest with yourself first for your own good. And when I mentioned success in business it was with intent of the example of using scientific methods, so DON'T twist words.

     

    BTW, I speak from experience with science ever since I was young. I discovered this only when I was 16 see attachment

     

    http://planetmath.or...nCalculus2.html

     

    also

     

    a patent for a robot. see attachment

     

     

    not to mention my qsa theory (see my profile).

    post-64145-0-16905700-1344050200_thumb.jpg

    Publication_and_grant_fees_2009-14518.pdf

  2.  

     

    This is all that we need to build a valid picture of the World, the rest is just deduction

    and the application of logic, which is Boolean logic and mathematics.

     

     

    What are you waiting for then? What is an electron for a start.

     

     

     

     

     

  3. I suppose that would have been the, good standard.

     

     

     

     

    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.

  4. Recently came across a scientific news bulletin claiming that the evidence of having found the Higgs particle is accumulating. Which would mean the strand model can not be right, acc. to Schiller.

     

     

    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 have not yet formed an opinion on that yet, but I do like the work of Dr. Schiller (he pubishes good physics book and gives them away for free).

     

    From a philosopical point of view I would however think that the idea of a kind of substratum of physical reality is kind of weird and self-refuting in a sense. How could it be that physical reality is some sort of projection of some underlying (unobservable) physical substratum?

     

    But I think the reason he presents us this simple model of an "ultimate" theory of physics is to mock the existing science community, who develop far more elaborated models (string theory/M theory) without any real results, and with no real testable predictions.

     

     

    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. @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.

  8. 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.

  9. @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.''

  10. @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.

  11. Surely the only definition of importance is the one employed by a poster making a point, rather than some hearsay definition from another source outside SF and this thread.

     

     

     

    I am particularly chary of a source which makes this sort of statement.

     

    A functional is a particular term for a mapping from a vector space of functions to the space of real numbers. How does any definition of a wave fit this?

     

     

     

     

     

    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

  12. No apologize is needed, because both quantum mechanics and experimental evidence support the idea of that a quantum particle is not a wave but... a particle.

     

     

     

    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."

     

     

     

  13. If you cannot accept that charges could cohabit without annihilating, then you will find my model completely impossible.

     

     

     

    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.

  14. The idea is that unstable particles decay because the positive and negative charges unravel, so there is a mechanism to explain particle decay. Obviously this cannot happen with lone electrons and lone positrons. Protons do not decay because they have a uniquely stable charge configuration, however if protons collide this structure can be disrupted and they do unravel.

     

    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.

  15. I think in order to have any chance of saying that the universe is a computer, we need to re-create the universe from scratch in a computer ourselves.

     

    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.

  16. Well it's all part of communicating the idea. If the code's ugly but does what you say and the data are interesting, it doesn't matter that much.

     

    I don't think it's helpful to try to get me interested. Tailoring this for me is a dead end. It's just a slight curiosity (but not a huge curiosity because the program's bugs hide any interesting behavior), but I don't know anything about the topic---I'm not even a scientist---and I'm not seeing the point that you're seeing in all this. Even if I saw what you're seeing, I can't see what I would do with it.

     

    There are others who would be able to see pages of grandiose but vague claims, equations and numbers, and descriptions of simulations... and put it all together in their head much better than I can. But I don't expect you'll find that. I would suspect that there's a lack of interest in discussing your ideas because you start so big that there's nothing to respond to eg. "The Bohr model falls out of QSA" would need to be researched maybe for hours before someone could comment on it! For me the specifics also get lost in a sea of explanations and data.

     

    Anyway, if you want my advice anyway as a non-scientist I'd suggest working on an abstract (I think http://www.lightblue...te-an-abstract/ gives good advice about it). My non-professional opinion is that you should describe in one paragraph:

    - What it is that you're simulating (I mean your methods, not what you think it represents),

    - What your results are,

    - Why you think that's important. Something simple, not "all of QM..." unless you're showing that literally every detail of QM really does correspond (either covering every detail or show how your stuff precisely accommodates it as a whole or explain why the details that you don't know about don't matter).

    - Perhaps address what I see as a problem: show that the results happen naturally rather than that the program has been molded and tweaked to arrive at the results you want.

     

    I know a lot of that has been mentioned but for me it's too scattered and impossible for me to synthesize. I think your goal should be getting the interest of others, by writing something that's simple enough for experts in the field to say "Here's what is wrong or missing: ..."

     

     

     

    I'm using gcc-4.6 on Ubuntu. How about you?

     

    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.

×
×
  • 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.