Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-4 Poor

About lidal

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    physics, relativity

Recent Profile Visitors

1336 profile views
  1. If absolute motion exists, which I believe it does, then a person in free fall in a gravitational field can detect/measure their acceleration from a continuous change in absolute velocity. Also, a person at rest on the ground in Earth's gravitational field measures his/her absolute velocity to be (almost) constant, whereas a person accelerating in free space sees his/her absolute velocity as continuously changing. What about this: we believe consciousness exists, but there is no way of testing it. Just to show that not everything that exists is testable.
  2. Isn't this the same as saying that someone else cannot / should not base their research based on your earlier successful theoretical/experimental work ? Science gets the credit for everything it has achieved so far. But science is far from complete. God created the universe. Science discovered , not created, some mysteries of the universe. Your argument is something like: ' God cannot use our science to prove Himself '. In the first place God allowed scientists to do research on the universe , which belongs to Him. Perhaps He wanted that scientists (humanity) discover Him through their own choice (science), so that there will be no excuse for not believing in Him.
  3. I can't imagine making the same claims about classical theories because classical phenomena, unlike quantum phenomena, are far from obviously pointing to God. I would have settled with the 'field' concept, but kept wondering what they really are.
  4. For me, Newton's theory is correct, but incomplete. This means gravity is a force. For you, as suppotter of general relativity, Newton's theory is wrong because gravity is not a force but is due to warping of four dimensional spacetime. So our argument is based on our views about which theories are correct and which are incorrect.
  5. Looking at the behavior of 'Which-Way' and quantum erasure experiments, it is not unreasonable, and is rational, to conclude that there is some intelligent being aiming the photons at specific points on the screen. You can call it an intelligent universe, or an alien, if you don't want to believe in God. I might back down only if it turned out that the 'Which-Way' and quantum erasure experiments are wrong. In that case, I may back down from the view that God intervenes in the universe to the point of aiming each emitted photon/electton.
  6. God is behind all apparently random phenomena in physics. One can imagine it this way. By looking at the experimental setup of a double-slit experiment, God instantly determines the wave function. Then He sends photons to form a specific interference pattern or a specific Gaussian pattern. Who/what 'tells' the charges how many virtual photons to exchange per second ? God just chose it to be 1/r2 . We (science) can only try to figure out why He chose this and not 1/r3 , for example. ( if I have understood your question) which comes down to an argument about the correctness/incorrectness of special relativity, general relativity, dark matter, dark energy, ... which should be discussed in a different thread. The case of the Neptune is an example of a remarkable success of a model, Newton's laws. But discovery of the Neptune is not a new insight. But Newton's model is also an example of models that can lead to new insights. Such models are correct but incomplete. I clarify my previous statement as: CORRECT models may lead to new insights. Examples are Newton's laws, QM.
  7. The intervention of God in classical phenomena is not as obvious as in quantum phenomena. This is because we use concepts such as 'field' to explain, for example, electrostatic force. It was after I understood quantum phenomena in terms of God's intervention that I realized that God is behind all laws of physics, including classical phenomena. Yes, God pushes two charges apart precisely according to Coloumb's law. What is the agent that executes Coulomb's laws ? The laws of physics are like human rules and laws that are written down on paper. Those human rules and laws need someone to execute them. Who executes the laws of physics ? How do the charges know the distance between them ? Are they intelligent enough to calculate the force according to Coulomb's law ? Has any one ever made sense of what 'fields' are ? Imagine dropping a stone on a pond. Who solves the differential equations that determine the wave? The watermolecules themselves? The space between them ? God solves the differential equations in real time and move the molecules. So don't throw a stone on a pond for no reason because you are occupying His computational power. But don't worry, He has infinite power.
  8. Models are for precise formulation. But being guided by models alone is like being blind and being guided by others. Our guide decides many things for us. We will be 'blind' and guided by our models. Intuitive understanding is like being able to see far. Models alone are powerless to lead to new insights. Models themselves are discovered through logical and intuitive thinking. Perhaps failure to understand a phenomenon intuitively may not mean there is no intuitive way to understand it. It only means we could not figure it out. Just the way I usually think about these.
  9. With regard to quantum phenomena, my theory does not provide a new model, it is a new scientific paradigm. Let me put it this way. QM is correct as a model, at least with regard to the double-slit experiments, including Which-Way and quantum erasure. The problem with QM is that it is counter-intuitive. The new theory provides intuitive understanding to QM. So, you asked me my model: it is QM itself, for now. But don't think that this is all.
  10. I already saw that you are one of the few calm here. I appreciate returning to the OP. Actually, I proposed it as a new scientific paradigm. So one might say that it is not a scientific theory, that is science as we know it.
  11. The discussion on this thread was rational, constructive and interesting upto some point. I see that that is no more the case now and partly I take the responsibility for this. I suggest that we all calm down and return to the opening topic of the thread which is about a new alternative theory of quantum phenomena.
  12. Special relativity is not in extraordinary agreement with experiments and I cited the Silvertooth experiment for this. SRT also has no extraordinary internal consistency. I had the Twin Paradox in mind. With regard to QM I said: “ The case of QM is a little different”. I had in mind the fact that I know of no experiment that extraordinarily proves or disproves QM. Neither was I referring to any extraordinary internal consistency/inconsistency of QM. All I was saying was that my new theory is much more explanatory than QM, for example on the “ Which Way” and quantum erasure experiment. CMBR disproves relativity indirectly because it agrees with the Silvertooth experiment. It was published in Nature journal as an advertisement. I would not ‘insult’ specific scientists because they carried out an experiment. I am claiming that there are two aspects to the nature of the speed of light. The MM experiments show one aspect: null result. If it was not for these experiments, physicists would have been stuck with the ether. The modern MM experiments, with their complete null results, were also one of those important experiments that guided me to develop/refine an alternative theory of the speed of light. So these experiments show one important aspect of the nature of light and cannot be ‘wrong’. In fact, experiments basically cannot be ‘wrong’, only their interpretation can be. I am saying that experiments showing the other aspect of the speed of light are lacking. I am talking about the fact that no mainstream scientist is known to have repeated the Silvertooth experiment, and you can call this an ‘insult’ if you like. If there was any serious replication, it would have appeared in mainstream journals reporting on proof or disproof of Silvertooth’s claim, considering the tremendous implications. I can't change the facts. Yes, conspiracy theories exist about many things. Do you just accept or reject theories, hypotheses inphysics ? No, you test them rigorously. You test them conceptually/logically, you test them physically (experimentally). Why do scientists devote themselves to understand the laws of physics ? Because they are curious about nature, they are passionate about physics, because they think that physics is important, and so on. But you settled with those conspiracy theories about the parting of the Red Sea. You are not applying at least the same level of rigor (as it applies to religion/faith) to religion as you do to science. This is simply because you think religion is ridiculous/ worthless. I think this attitude towards religion/faith developed because religion has been misrepresented over many centuries. One example is the case of Galileo and the Roman Catholic Church who opposed Galileo’s view (the Copernican system). One can only imagine the effect this had on people’s attitudes towards religion. The Roman Catholic Church has already apologized for this and would be appreciated for that. However, the damage caused cannot be undone. But religion has been misrepresented in another way. The very fact that there are tens of thousands of religions/faiths sends a wrong message. To say all of these are ‘correct’ is nothing but the same as saying that god does not exist. It is kind of saying: “ Since god doesn’t exist, what does it matter whatever religion/faiths we have about him”. Can we have tens of thousands of theories about one phenomenon in physics ? No. We can have only one theory. Scientists develop theories rigorously based on decades and centuries of observations and experimentation. This makes the society to have respect for science and scientists. Nowadays people can create religion/faith at will, every week every month, with no rigor to speak of, to the point that religion/faith has been reduced to a ridicule.This is the goal and strategy used by the devil :creating thousands of religions/faiths so that humanity cannot find the truth, that is the existence of God.
  13. I assume that you are referring to the modern Michelson-Morley experiments using optical cavity resonators that gave complete null results. The problem is that physicists have been pursuing only those experiments that gave null results and kept on pushing the limits. On the contrary, they ignored those experiments that showed absolute motion effects. Yes, some experiments give null results and others give positive results. This is a contradiction the physics community should have recognized. The first step to a solution is to identify the problem, which in this case is the contradiction between experiments. It would have led to the right direction.
  14. The Silvertooth experiment was a novel scientific fact ignored by the scientific community. Some ignore it by appeal to authority : ‘it has not been repeated by any credible physicist so far’ , as if experiments could repeat themselves spontaneously. People repeat experiments, and experiments cannot repeat themselves. The goal of the physics establishment was/is supposed to search for scientific truths. The physics establishment should have owned and, with all its resources, repeated and refined the Silvertooth experiment while he was still alive. Fortunately, Doug Marett has personally repeated this experiment and has confirmed Silvertooth’s main result: an apparent wavelength change effect with change in orientation of the experimental setup in space. He found that the maximum effect occurred when the axis of the interferometer was towards Leo constellation. However, he is a supporter of Lorentz’s theory which says absolute motion exists but cannot be detected. In his paper, A Replication of the Silvertooth experiment Doug Marett acknowledges the ‘curious’ agreement between the Silvertooth experiment and the NASA CMBR experiment. But, as a supporter of Lorentz, he suggests an alternative explanation that it is a temperature effect. However, he doesn’t explain how temperature can cause an effect that agreed not only in direction but also in magnitude with the CMBR measurement. Nevertheless, he has given a good service to physics by repeating the Silvertooth experiment. (I am not sure about my English here) God, by definition, has no origin, no end. Do you mean another God who created this God ? And what about that other God, who created Him ? and so on. So God, by definition, has no beginning, no end. It is religion that says God exists, not science, at least science as we know it so far. We should evaluate any claim or theory according to its own claims. Religion claims God exists and that He is beyond comprehension. But religion also gives us directions about how to look for God. Abraham discovered God by reason. You should ask for only what religion claims. Religion does not say God has origin. But religion says God can do miracles. It would be more legitimate if you asked for miracles to believe in God. But don't think that miracles would automatically make people believe in God. Many have seen miracles but failed to believe.
  15. No, I don't start from trying to know the "nuts and bolts" . In fact, I realize that nineteenth century physicists went wrong with their ether hypotheses because they started from trying to understand what light is rather than just searching for a model that fits the behavior of light. Some of them were stuck with this approach even when experiments disproved the ether. I think Einstein was right because his approach was to build a model. Yes, intuitions can mislead. Classical ether and emission theories were intuitive but wrong separately. However, it turns out that the new theory I posted in my other thread turns out to be a seamless fusion of the two. This may show that we should not settle with unsatisfactory theories but continue to search for a novel idea that eluded us. When I say 'unsatisfactory' I mean not extraordinarily in agreement with experiments and not having complete internal consistency. I did not say that we should search for an intuitive idea to explain experiments. I said that eventually our theories should be logical and intuitive. However, if a theory is extraordinarily in agreement with all experiments but not intuitive, logically, we keep pursuing it even if it is counter-intuitive. After all, that may be the only best theory we have and we may not have alternatives. But when alternative and better theories are found, they should be replaced. QM and relativity are currently thought to be correct as if by definition and no alternative ideas are allowed. The problem with QM and relativity is not only that they are counter-intuitive, they don't always agree with experiments. I would not reject relativity only because it is not intuitive, but mainly because experiments disprove it. The Silvertooth experiment and the NASA CMBR experiment, profoundly, measured almost the same magnitude and direction of our velocity in space, independently. The case of quantum mechanics is a little different. You put it exactly the same way I always thought about quantum mechanics (QM). QM kind of says " I don't know. It is just probability" . When Einstein asked about the mechanism underlying quantum phenomena, QM says " No mechanism exists". Science is about giving deeper explanation, and to say no explanation exists is not science. It would have been much better science if one admitted that we just don't know the explanation than claiming that that is just the way nature works at the fundamental level, as if by definition. No, I did not make up one. Belief in God is as old as humanity. People believed in God for thousands of years. However, people believed in God through religion and faith. But this faith was not unsupported by evidences. One can find many evidences in the Holy Bible. To cite just one evidence, parting of the Red Sea in Exodus. This is just one of the countless evidences, even today. However, humanity's faith in God waned during the last several centuries and, I think, one of the reasons is the advance of science and technology. It has always been thought that science and religion are mutually exclusive. Scientists started to think that our ancestors believed in God because they were scientifically backward and that they don't need God to explain the universe now. Now a direct scientific evidence comes from quantum phenomena and those in this forum deny it. Strange Said: ' I think you need to get back to that point of view, and then learn the science' You are asking me to give up rational thinking. No! I will go wherever facts, physics and rational thinking lead me. I won’t let prejudices get in my way. It seems that the ultimate destination of physics itself is God, sorry to say this but one either has to be ready to confront the truth (God ) or leave physics (and rational thinking) for good. Physics points too obviously to God.
  • 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.