anomalies

Well, thanks for your explanation, hypervalent_iodine. Again, I apologize if I seemed to be condescending. I may have felt rushed since I don't have time to debate points I think we all accept to begin with. I felt as though I was being attacked for something I didn't say (that the article was correct and established the conclusion as being fact). I don't have the time to debate givens. Swansot said, "I build atomic clocks for the navy." I don't recall him mentioning his expertise in anything else. Did he? He also did not say he has any experience in this particular field. Physics is a wide open, general field. Specific specialization is needed nowadays. I didn't completely discount him. I just said he didn't meet my criteria for an expert. Well, this explanation of what you had done in your work history makes you probably the most quaified of the bunch, Swansot. Thanks for that. I DO know that an article is meant for general laymen consumption and cannot be used in an argument for the conclusion (if any) made by the article. I am not an idiot. That is the reason I posted it here, asking if there was anyone who knew anything about this. I think I'm through here for a while. All I have gotten is meaningless arguments for something I never claimed. Thanks to everyone who responded. It's too bad my question was never answered.

I'm retired, but I worked in the Computer field for many years. I'm not a scientist. I apologize if I seemed to be condescending. I just don't think anyone here works in this field. Correct me if I misunderstood. The point you were trying to make is that the Discovery article (and Stanford article), in your and Swansot's opinions, are not valid, because they don't list other experiments? OK. I see your point. Don't articles do that often? As far as the Stanford article goes, it is excerpted above and discourses on measurements taken over a period of time, so it seems they used data that already existed to base their idea upon. Of course, that doesn't mean there are or aren't other 'experiments,' as Swansot put it. I can see this point, but one of the articles is by a Stansford newspaper. That lends more credence to it, as far as I'm concerned. But, of course, it's not proof. In turn, I think I have the right to ask what your background is. The reason I ask that is not to insult you, but because, in my estimation, no one here seems to know anything about this subject so far. Swansot's day job is certainly not in this field. What about you? I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but I really wanted to converse with those who work in this field or are amateurs who have studied this field extensively. Again, I didn't post the link to the article to start a debate. I just wanted to see if there was anyone here who has a background in this field.

Yeah, right. By both Perdue and Stanford professors. What do you do for a living?

I think you have it wrong. I was not trying to confirm what was said in the article. I wanted opinions on the information in the article. In other words, I was looking for the opinions of posters who knew something about this research. You asked for papers, so I listed a site with papers. Some of those papers seem to be based on the worked noted in the first article that I posted and may or may not have relevancy, but that doesn't matter. Again, I was looking for the opinions of posters who knew something about this research. You obviously are not among them. So far, it doesn't seem as though any of the posters at this forum is familiar with this research. That is what I was looking for. I can remain hopeful that there is a poster or two who knows a bit about it and can give me their educated opinion, right? Thanks for your time.

Thanks so much for your responses. Here is additional news I was able to dig up: an article featuring P. Sturrock Some excerpts: I also found a list of papers written by Ephraim Fischbach (et al) here: papers

at Discovery article on mystery particle. Excerpt: I'd like some feedback on this from you. What do you think?

I don't know, but I heard on radio that 1) the spiral was too perfect to be a missile out of control; 2) the area it came from was not a missile launch site; 3) the area it came from was close to a HAARP-like scalar array site. That thought is scary. Comments?

Thank you, Klaynos.

I am looking for someone who knows QP and as much as is known about Cosmology and regular old physics, so that I can have formulas and the physics explained. I can see I won't get that here. I don't have the time to debate as to whether waves are considered energy (as Dr. Quantum explained in the video I posted a link to), or if waves are simply another way matter - particles - can move. Truth is, every living thing has a frequency to it. I suspect even inanimate objects like rocks do, too. This frequency can be measured as energy. Am I wrong? Don't answer that! Ha, ha. I was looking for a way to explain my idea (not hypothesis, not theory) about my teeny tines, the things they can do and how it relates to dark matter/dark energy. That includes receiving thought waves instantly from where ever, and then reacting. It depends heavily on Quantum Physics, I suspect. But I am not sure about it as I need help. I had a dream, you see. This stuck in my mind. So, once again, thanks very much. Don't waste any more of your time on this.

I see it, but I don't appreciate it or see the need for it. Thanks for your quick reply.

Here (http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=528868#post528868) I was responding (with quote being employed) to 2 different people and my post was merged. This was confusing to me, and maybe to the posters themselves. Can you discontinue this practice? Thanks in advance.

Thanks for explaining that you have a Masters degree in QP. Well, I am not experienced in this matter, of course. I referenced that specific experiment, as outlined in the very entertaining and explanatory video, hosted by Dr. Quantum. That video spoke of electrons, which is thought of as matter, and described how it reacted as energy does in the form of waves. I don't think it would matter if it was photons either, since they are both considered particles, hence matter (even though this experiment clearly shows that elementary particles such as electrons and photons can be both matter and energy - well at least those used in this experiment that react in this manner). You say, "...the electron will have to interact with a photon for your detector to know which slit it has gone through, this interaction is how the electrons "knows" whether it has been observed or not." But what if a random photon were to "interact" with an electron? I mean - no device is present. Have there been any experiments in this vein? Further, the steps involved are more complex than that, aren't they? The interaction, decision making as a group and action taken all imply more than a simple interaction in my opinion. Also, "knows?" Using the word 'know' implies consciousness (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/know). There is no question about it. When you say, "It depends on the measuring device," what exactly do you mean? Does the type of device used produce a different result consistently? Do you have an online reference I can go to? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Thanks for explaining that, Klaynos. I feel better now. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I was answering 2 different people/posts. They should turn that off. Thanks, Sisyphus.

I kind of object to my posts being merged, since I cannot be sure that the context hasn't changed with this procedure. Is this done all the time here?

Thanks, Klaynos. From your response, it isn't clear how into Quantum Physics you are. The experiment was done with electrons, not photons. Care to share your view in more detail? In the example I posted (a 5 minute You Tube video with the delightful Dr. Quantum - ), the electrons' observation is mysterious. In the two slit experiment, it appears to be triggered simply by the presence of a measuring device (recording which slit the electrons entered), but that still does not explain how matter can observe anything. Do they have eyes? Psychic powers? Or are electrons a 3rd dimensional manifestation of other dimensional entities that are equiped to observe, confer and act? I feel strongly that the particles - whether they be electrons or not - have an awareness, a consciousness, if you will. The Quantum physicists who have performed this experiment agree that each electron decided which slit to enter and whether or not to behave as matter or waves (energy). Then there is also the fact that they ALL decided which slits to enter and took sides. When they were observed, there wasn't a straggler among the lot. Group mind? ESP? There was obvious conferring going on. In fact, it is my belief that absolutely everything that exists has a consciousness, from the Universe as a whole, to stars, to insects, to the tiniest of particles - my so-called teeny tinies. I have reason to believe this, too. As an aside, the fact that those electrons displayed both properties of matter and energy is fuel to my idea that dark matter and dark energy are one and the same. See? No weird stuff here. Well, no weirder than Quantum Physics is all by itself. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I found his remarks and the moving of my thread to be ridiculing. It doesn't matter what you think of him. I don't know either of you. As for questions, I would answer them happily but was not asked any questions, mooeypoo. swansont asked me how I would test my hypothesis, didn't he/she? Truth is, I am not a cosmologist, nor a mathemetician. Secondly, did I say my idea was a hypothesis? I did not. Did I say it was a theory, as you yourself suggest? No, again, I did not. Further, see my response to Klaynos. I am not a stupid person, but that is how you are treating me, mooeypoo. Don't appreciate it. I am pretending nothing, poo.

Thanks for your reply, mooeypoo. By saying, "Can you change the outcome of a double-slit experiment by thinking about it? That would count," swansont was ridiculing me, in my opinion. We all know the experiment is dependent on observation. But then, no one explains how this observation is known by the light particles. That's the tricky part. In my mind, I know where I am going with this. It is no less than a way to explain the paranormal world and what we perceive as a material world. I will find a way without you guys. It doesn't mean I won't come here anymore, but I probably won't share my ideas with you. This isn't the place for me to do that. Thanks again.