Klaynos Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 What are your grounds for saying 90%? Where is the evidence. And you've still not addressed my previous points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowerastronomy Posted January 10, 2012 Author Share Posted January 10, 2012 What are your grounds for saying 90%? Where is the evidence. And you've still not addressed my previous points. Because 90% of the theory is known science. . . Why do you have to have proof of what is known. . . you only need proof of what is not known. . . I went back an looked at post 108 This is what the theory proposes. . . U1 Particles are the fundamental building blocks of the Universe. . . They rotate, increase and decrease in size according to rotation energy. They vibrate, and move in waves. They don't merge or divide. The amount of material for each U1 particle is the same. . . As U1 particles cool, they expand and the rotation slows down. The slower they rotate the weaker the integrity and the bigger the expanse. When at ultimate cold, rotation slows to a stop. Because they are not rotating, there is no pull or influence on neighboring particles. Space Time is at its maximum expanse, then the bubble pops so to speak and Space Time collapses. The residual cold matter has no energy or gravity but is part of shrinking space. . . It won't react to the energy of other U1 particles because in its present form it cant rotate. . . The only thing that can change this is another creation event. . . -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Because 90% of the theory is known science. . . Why do you have to have proof of what is known. . . you only need proof of what is not known. . . I want proof that what your ideas predict is actually known science, I want to know how you quantified "science" and how you compared your ideas to it to get the answer of 90%, it appears that you just made the number up, is that correct? I went back an looked at post 108 This is what the theory proposes. . . U1 Particles are the fundamental building blocks of the Universe. . . They rotate, increase and decrease in size according to rotation energy. They vibrate, and move in waves. They don't merge or divide. The amount of material for each U1 particle is the same. . . Again I ask why they do not obey quantum mechanics? And how you explain the wave particle duality of electrons and bucky balls? You seem to be completely ignoring these questions, why is that? As U1 particles cool, they expand and the rotation slows down. The slower they rotate the weaker the integrity and the bigger the expanse. When at ultimate cold, rotation slows to a stop. Because they are not rotating, there is no pull or influence on neighboring particles. Space Time is at its maximum expanse, then the bubble pops so to speak and Space Time collapses. The residual cold matter has no energy or gravity but is part of shrinking space. . . It won't react to the energy of other U1 particles because in its present form it cant rotate. . . The only thing that can change this is another creation event. . . I again ask you, to address my question on what you mean by touching, what this interaction is? In red I have highlighted every mathematical expression you have written in words. You are making mathematical statements, how did you get them, where did they come from, are you pulling them out of the air? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowerastronomy Posted January 10, 2012 Author Share Posted January 10, 2012 I want proof that what your ideas predict is actually known science, I want to know how you quantified "science" and how you compared your ideas to it to get the answer of 90%, it appears that you just made the number up, is that correct? Again I ask why they do not obey quantum mechanics? And how you explain the wave particle duality of electrons and bucky balls? You seem to be completely ignoring these questions, why is that? I again ask you, to address my question on what you mean by touching, what this interaction is? In red I have highlighted every mathematical expression you have written in words. You are making mathematical statements, how did you get them, where did they come from, are you pulling them out of the air? Fine, you go live in your quantum world and walk your little quantum dog and drive your little quantum car. . . I will live in the other Universe. . . I am sure glad Einstein didn't know you, we would be a hundred years behind. . . -4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Mines the one that agrees with the experimental evidence. And if you really think that about Einstein I suggest you go read his original papers. And you've still not addressed my concerns about your ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedalus Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Fine, you go live in your quantum world and walk your little quantum dog and drive your little quantum car. . . I will live in the other Universe. . . I am sure glad Einstein didn't know you, we would be a hundred years behind. . . Klaynos is not insulting you. There is no reason whatsoever to make statements that you are glad Einstein didn't know him and suggest that we would be a hundred years behind if he did... all because he asked for quantifiable mathematical equations / results which support you theory. You must understand that science is based on mathematics that predicts the outcomes of events. The equations are not 100% correct. They are simply the best we have at the moment. Scientists conduct experiments based on analyzing the predictions of such equations to validate the theory. The equations / mechanics may predict a large set of behaviors but fail in extreme cases. Our technology then takes a leap forward based on this new understanding and experiments are conducted to explore the nature of the behaviors that the equations failed to predict. Thus, our theories and mechanics that describe the universe advance and our knowledge base grows as we develop / extend the equations to predict the observed behaviours. You need to realize that there is a difference between theory and the mechanics that support it. You have suggested a theory but failed to provide quantifiable mechanics that supports your theory. Anyone can say that rotation does this and energy does that. But until you provide mathematics that describe how that works, no one can test or conduct experiments to either validate or invalidate your claims. Therefore, you are not doing science. Please refrain from using insults because even Einstein would ask how you quantified "science" and how you compared your ideas to modern physics because that is what science is all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
md65536 Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Again I ask why they do not obey quantum mechanics? Why should it obey quantum mechanics? It's made up particles, why can't it have made up interactions? U1 particles are not observed or a consequence of observations. They do not need to correspond to what is actually observed. Do string theory strings obey quantum mechanics? Strings correspond to what is observed (unlike U1 particles, as far as I can tell) and thus corresponds to QM, but QM doesn't dictate or predict the behavior of strings. I think that U1 particles, like strings, are outside the domain of QM. That said, knowerastronomy seems to be implying that the particles behave as macroscopic matter would, and that makes even less sense. Is that the meaning of your question -- that if the U1 particles are claimed to behave like known particles behave, they'd have to also behave as QM says they would behave? That seems fair. After reading your comments it is clear you do not have a basic understanding science. . . You are incapable of comprehending new concepts. . . You are stuck in the past and are surrounded by outdated rules and mathematics. . . Your logic is at the very basic level and needs improvement if you are to move forward in this ever changing environment of science. . . This belief that you know what you're talking about more than anyone who disagrees with you, is a delusion. If you keep feeding delusions you'll go insane. I would suggest that starting right now, stop with the animosity and start asking some questions that you're prepared to accept the answers to. This will stop building the feeling of "it's me against the world". Klaynos represents science fairly, and if not then others will say so (I for one am in agreement). If someone sees some value in your theory they'll say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Why should it obey quantum mechanics? It's made up particles, why can't it have made up interactions? U1 particles are not observed or a consequence of observations. They do not need to correspond to what is actually observed. Do string theory strings obey quantum mechanics? Strings correspond to what is observed (unlike U1 particles, as far as I can tell) and thus corresponds to QM, but QM doesn't dictate or predict the behavior of strings. I think that U1 particles, like strings, are outside the domain of QM. No, you are missing the point. The point is that as the U1 particles interact, the consequence or result of those interactions should result in things that obey QM. Because we know a lot about QM is right, because we have the experimental evidence. So it should be able to be shown, yes most likely using math, that the result of the U1 particles are things that obey the rules of QM. Just like it can be shown that in the limit of slower speeds, slower accelerations, and not massive objects, general and special relativity reduce to Newtonian mechanics -- which it had to because we knew that an awful lot of Newtonian mechanics was right. It is fine to propose ideas for the root of why things like QM work, but you also have to demonstrate just how your ideas will result is recreating the things that are known. You can't throw things out like "my idea is 90% right" or "99% correct" or any other quantifiable claim -- like claiming gravitational interactions that we know how to describe mathematically and what the consequences of claiming gravity -- and then not show that the claim leads to the consequence, or leads to the known verified phenomena. Claims that can be quantified need to be backed up. Again, the main measure of just how good an idea is: does the predictions the idea make match experiments. There are no points for logicalness or beauty or simpleness or any other subjective measure. Science has advanced at the speed it has because of the above objective measure or comparing prediction to experiment. What I really don't understand is why when someone is explained this, why they don't put their efforts into creating predictions with their idea to see just how well it compares with known results. That is what will get attention. Not pretty ideas, not 'logical' ideas, not awesome ideas, not creative ideas -- but ideas that lead to good agreement between prediction and known results. It is just that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowerastronomy Posted January 11, 2012 Author Share Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) Klaynos is not insulting you. There is no reason whatsoever to make statements that you are glad Einstein didn't know him and suggest that we would be a hundred years behind if he did... all because he asked for quantifiable mathematical equations / results which support you theory. You must understand that science is based on mathematics that predicts the outcomes of events. The equations are not 100% correct. They are simply the best we have at the moment. Scientists conduct experiments based on analyzing the predictions of such equations to validate the theory. The equations / mechanics may predict a large set of behaviors but fail in extreme cases. Our technology then takes a leap forward based on this new understanding and experiments are conducted to explore the nature of the behaviors that the equations failed to predict. Thus, our theories and mechanics that describe the universe advance and our knowledge base grows as we develop / extend the equations to predict the observed behaviours. You need to realize that there is a difference between theory and the mechanics that support it. You have suggested a theory but failed to provide quantifiable mechanics that supports your theory. Anyone can say that rotation does this and energy does that. But until you provide mathematics that describe how that works, no one can test or conduct experiments to either validate or invalidate your claims. Therefore, you are not doing science. Please refrain from using insults because even Einstein would ask how you quantified "science" and how you compared your ideas to modern physics because that is what science is all about. First let me say that my remarks about Einstein was justified and not an insult. . . Einstein did not know about quantum physics if he did we would have gone down ( in my opinion) the wrong path to understanding the universe. . . Quantum physics was invented to marry Atomic Physics with the developing new world of Particle Physics. . . Not much was known at the time about particles so they invented mathematics to conform with the observations and experiments of the day. . . If they had interpreted there data in a different way quantum theory wouldn't be necessary. . . What you say about mathematics predictions and justifications are not disputed. . . Logic and relativity have the same powers and backed up with observations and experiments are on an equal footing with mathematics. . . Both are needed to complete the true picture of the Universe. . . Why should it obey quantum mechanics? It's made up particles, why can't it have made up interactions? U1 particles are not observed or a consequence of observations. They do not need to correspond to what is actually observed. Do string theory strings obey quantum mechanics? Strings correspond to what is observed (unlike U1 particles, as far as I can tell) and thus corresponds to QM, but QM doesn't dictate or predict the behavior of strings. I think that U1 particles, like strings, are outside the domain of QM. That said, knowerastronomy seems to be implying that the particles behave as macroscopic matter would, and that makes even less sense. Is that the meaning of your question -- that if the U1 particles are claimed to behave like known particles behave, they'd have to also behave as QM says they would behave? That seems fair. This belief that you know what you're talking about more than anyone who disagrees with you, is a delusion. If you keep feeding delusions you'll go insane. I would suggest that starting right now, stop with the animosity and start asking some questions that you're prepared to accept the answers to. This will stop building the feeling of "it's me against the world". Klaynos represents science fairly, and if not then others will say so (I for one am in agreement). If someone sees some value in your theory they'll say so. Believe or not I agree with what your saying. . . I am guilty of pushing back when challenged. . . If I had thought it out I would have responded differently but, would any one have listened? This is frustrating at times but worth it because I see no contradictions with this theory in observable and experimental science. . . It is a given that this theory violates old rules and old mathematics. . . Edited January 11, 2012 by knowerastronomy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Explain wave particle duality, it's observable, the observations require no knowledge of quantum mechanics to measure. If quantum mechanics is wrong your computer would not work. Qm is an incredibly powerful predictive theory, it has been incredibly well tested, it is how the universe works. Sorry but that is true, you not liking that or understanding it doesn't stop it being true. Also, you've still not addressed my concerns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 . . Einstein did not know about quantum physics Let me be clear: we are talking about the same Einstein who was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize for Physics largely for his work on the photo-electric effect which was the foundation for quantum mechanics, but he didn't know about this subject? Is there some conflcit there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowerastronomy Posted January 11, 2012 Author Share Posted January 11, 2012 Explain wave particle duality, it's observable, the observations require no knowledge of quantum mechanics to measure. If quantum mechanics is wrong your computer would not work. Qm is an incredibly powerful predictive theory, it has been incredibly well tested, it is how the universe works. Sorry but that is true, you not liking that or understanding it doesn't stop it being true. Also, you've still not addressed my concerns. Now we are talking science. . . Any one can rotate a disc with holes in it and chop up a laser beam to very small bits. . . I am not so sure that photons are particles it seams more likely they are pulsed wave energy. . . I am not saying that there is no such thing as a photon, but it is up for more experimental data analyses, because of questions raised from new ideas. . . I have a definition of a particle but I am curious of how you would describe one. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Now we are talking science. . . Any one can rotate a disc with holes in it and chop up a laser beam to very small bits. . . I am not so sure that photons are particles it seams more likely they are pulsed wave energy. . . I am not saying that there is no such thing as a photon, but it is up for more experimental data analyses, because of questions raised from new ideas. . . I have a definition of a particle but I am curious of how you would describe one. . . If you are saying photons are not particles then you are saying that the photoelectric effect (first explained by Einstein, for which he won his nobel prize) does not happen. It does, it is experimentally observed and has been for around 100 years, not other explanation has worked. Also, I'm more interested in the duality of electrons and bucky balls. Bucky balls are most certainly particles yet they act as waves in a two slit experiment. This is the 5th or so time I've asked you to explain this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowerastronomy Posted January 11, 2012 Author Share Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) If you are saying photons are not particles then you are saying that the photoelectric effect (first explained by Einstein, for which he won his nobel prize) does not happen. It does, it is experimentally observed and has been for around 100 years, not other explanation has worked. Also, I'm more interested in the duality of electrons and bucky balls. Bucky balls are most certainly particles yet they act as waves in a two slit experiment. This is the 5th or so time I've asked you to explain this. The photoelectric effect requires photons with energies from a few electronvolts to over 1 MeV in high atomic number elements. Study of the photoelectric effect led to important steps in understanding the quantum nature of light and electrons and influenced the formation of the concept of wave–particle duality.[1] Other phenomena where light affects the movement of electric charges include the photoconductive effect (also known as photoconductivity or photoresistivity), the photovoltaic effect, and the photoelectrochemical effect. I reposted this from Wikipedia. . . In the Logical Universe Light is oscillating wave energy at different frequencies in the light spectrum. . . It is more compatible with the theory if the word photons is replaced with pulsed light energy. . . As I said before oscillating energy and resonance was practically ignored in the old thinking of the Universe, but is an important integral part of how it all works and fits together. . . This theory is trying to change that thinking. . . The famous double slit experiment is compatible with this theory because of the following reasons. . . There is no such thing as empty space. . . This is important to think about. . . particles traveling in this medium behave the same way they would in a liquid. . . they would cause waves. . . Also pulses of light would cause waves. . . You see the same result when you use water in this experiment. . . Buckyballs (fullerenesare) is an atomic arrangement of carbon atoms that can occur naturally. . . These are no way, in conflict with this theory. . . Let me be clear: we are talking about the same Einstein who was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize for Physics largely for his work on the photo-electric effect which was the foundation for quantum mechanics, but he didn't know about this subject? Is there some conflcit there? It is true he contributed to some of it but he also rejected some of it. . . In any case it was not your modern day quantum physics. . . Explain wave particle duality, it's observable, the observations require no knowledge of quantum mechanics to measure. If quantum mechanics is wrong your computer would not work. Qm is an incredibly powerful predictive theory, it has been incredibly well tested, it is how the universe works. Sorry but that is true, you not liking that or understanding it doesn't stop it being true. Also, you've still not addressed my concerns. My computer works just fine without quantum physics. . . your statement makes no sense. . . Edited January 11, 2012 by knowerastronomy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 My computer works just fine without quantum physics. . . your statement makes no sense. . . Seriously? Diodes and transistors (in computer chips) rely on QM. Hard drives rely on giant magnetoresistance. If you have an LED monitor, it too relies on QM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowerastronomy Posted January 11, 2012 Author Share Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) Seriously? Diodes and transistors (in computer chips) rely on QM. Hard drives rely on giant magnetoresistance. If you have an LED monitor, it too relies on QM. No they don't. . . It can also be explained without quantum physics. . . Edited January 11, 2012 by knowerastronomy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 No they don't. . . It can also be explained without quantum physics. . . Oh, well that settles that. I'm convinced..... [sarcasm off] seriously dude? Perhaps you should actually explain it. It ain't so just because you say it is so. Again, not in the Dark Ages and all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 No they don't. . . It can also be explained without quantum physics. . . And not with any mumbo-jumbo unsupported hypothesis? Do tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowerastronomy Posted January 12, 2012 Author Share Posted January 12, 2012 And not with any mumbo-jumbo unsupported hypothesis? Do tell. Absolutely. . . I worked at RCA until GE killed the corporation. . . mumbo jumbo describes quantum physics better than standard physics. . . Oh, well that settles that. I'm convinced..... [sarcasm off] seriously dude? Perhaps you should actually explain it. It ain't so just because you say it is so. Again, not in the Dark Ages and all... I would be glad to address specific questions but I don't have the time to run a computer science course. . . -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedalus Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) First let me say that my remarks about Einstein was justified and not an insult. . . Einstein did not know about quantum physics if he did we would have gone down ( in my opinion) the wrong path to understanding the universe. . . First of all this is not what you said in response to Klaynos' criticism. The remark you made towards Klaynos was in fact insulting. Your response to Klyanos: Fine, you go live in your quantum world and walk your little quantum dog and drive your little quantum car. . . I will live in the other Universe. . . I am sure glad Einstein didn't know you, we would be a hundred years behind. . . You did not state an opinion about Einstein or quantum mechanics. Instead, you suggested that if Einstein knew Klaynos and learned about QM from him, that we would be a hundred years behind. Second of all, Einstein was definitely aware of QM: "Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory yields a lot, but it hardly brings us any closer to the secret of the Old One. In any case I am convinced that He doesn't play dice." Now you are completely dodging the issue of quantifying your theory by stating that you don't have time to run a computer science course: I would be glad to address specific questions but I don't have the time to run a computer science course. . . Then why even post your theory at all if you do not have the time to explain the mechanics behind it? You state that you would be glad to address specific questions but don't have the time? I would like for you to explain your theory using the mathematics that describes U1 particles and how they interact to derive everything in existence. I understand the statements you have made regarding rotation and energy, but I would like to see the equations that make QM obsolete. Can you please provide this for us? I am actually curious about what these equations predict. Edited January 12, 2012 by Daedalus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I reposted this from Wikipedia. . . In the Logical Universe Light is oscillating wave energy at different frequencies in the light spectrum. . . It is more compatible with the theory if the word photons is replaced with pulsed light energy. . . It doesn't matter what you call it the observed effect remains the same. As I said before oscillating energy and resonance was practically ignored in the old thinking of the Universe, No, it really wasn't, I refer you to Raether, H. Surface Plasmons. Spring-Verlag, New York (1986). but is an important integral part of how it all works and fits together. . . This theory is trying to change that thinking. . . So, in summary you have not explained the photoelectric effect. The important aspect you need to explain if you wish to get around this is that you observe a step change in the photocurrent with a change in frequency, where as if you use a frequency that is below that step change you can increase your intensity and observe no photocurrent. The photocurrent is 0 and is not intensity dependent, above that step change frequency is is intensity dependent. This is only explainable by quantised electromagnetic radiation. The famous double slit experiment is compatible with this theory because of the following reasons. . . There is no such thing as empty space. . . This is important to think about. . . particles traveling in this medium behave the same way they would in a liquid. . . they would cause waves. . . Also pulses of light would cause waves. . . You see the same result when you use water in this experiment. . . By your explanation. I have a setup so that I have a water bath, with a barrier with two slits in it 3cm across. I place a ball in the water on one side of the barrier and fire it at the wall. The ball either travels through slot 1 or slot 2, the water waves exhibit the wavelike properties but the ball only acts as a particle. Now if we do the same thing with electrons or bucky balls (my mention of these is because the double slit experiment has been conducted with them), firing one particle at a time towards two slits the electron or bucky ball travels through BOTH slits, this is wavelike behaviour of the ball, not of a surrounding medium. Also your explanation has been disproved over 100 years ago by the Michelson–Morley experiment, there is no surrounding medium else it would be detectable as we would not be at rest with it. Buckyballs (fullerenesare) is an atomic arrangement of carbon atoms that can occur naturally. . . These are no way, in conflict with this theory. . . As I say I mentioned it as having been used to conduct a double slit experiment. It is true he contributed to some of it but he also rejected some of it. . . In any case it was not your modern day quantum physics. . . Which is far more powerful, is from the same foundations and has so much supporting experimental evidence it is phenomenal! My computer works just fine without quantum physics. . . your statement makes no sense. . . No, it doesn't. The MOSFET's etc... that are inside it are designed using quantum mechanics, if QM was wrong then they simply would not operate in the expected fashion and the computer would not work. Hard disks are another example, both the platters and read-write heads require quantum mechanics in their design, and they work, so QM again is supported by the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowerastronomy Posted January 12, 2012 Author Share Posted January 12, 2012 It doesn't matter what you call it the observed effect remains the same. No, it really wasn't, I refer you to Raether, H. Surface Plasmons. Spring-Verlag, New York (1986). So, in summary you have not explained the photoelectric effect. The important aspect you need to explain if you wish to get around this is that you observe a step change in the photocurrent with a change in frequency, where as if you use a frequency that is below that step change you can increase your intensity and observe no photocurrent. The photocurrent is 0 and is not intensity dependent, above that step change frequency is is intensity dependent. This is only explainable by quantised electromagnetic radiation. By your explanation. I have a setup so that I have a water bath, with a barrier with two slits in it 3cm across. I place a ball in the water on one side of the barrier and fire it at the wall. The ball either travels through slot 1 or slot 2, the water waves exhibit the wavelike properties but the ball only acts as a particle. Now if we do the same thing with electrons or bucky balls (my mention of these is because the double slit experiment has been conducted with them), firing one particle at a time towards two slits the electron or bucky ball travels through BOTH slits, this is wavelike behaviour of the ball, not of a surrounding medium. Also your explanation has been disproved over 100 years ago by the Michelson–Morley experiment, there is no surrounding medium else it would be detectable as we would not be at rest with it. As I say I mentioned it as having been used to conduct a double slit experiment. Which is far more powerful, is from the same foundations and has so much supporting experimental evidence it is phenomenal! No, it doesn't. The MOSFET's etc... that are inside it are designed using quantum mechanics, if QM was wrong then they simply would not operate in the expected fashion and the computer would not work. Hard disks are another example, both the platters and read-write heads require quantum mechanics in their design, and they work, so QM again is supported by the evidence. You are simply wrong. . . What makes you say they wouldn't work? I am very famular with MOSFETS (metal oxide field effect transistors) and they work just fine how ever you explain there design. . . I learned about them using regular physics. . . Hard disks don't require quantum mechanics to work. . . Bad thinking. . . they require normal everyday tried and true physics. . . What is not understood is magnetic resonance standing waves inductance reflected waves etc. . . If you use a tape measure to build a house, it is silly to say you cant build one without a tape measure. . . -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Every day tried and true physics is quantum mechanics. You just saying QM is not required does not make it true. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 What about the semiconductor band gap? It's most definitely a quantum mechanical phenomenon and is absolutely crucial to the functionality of computers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 What about the semiconductor band gap? It's most definitely a quantum mechanical phenomenon and is absolutely crucial to the functionality of computers. Anything to do with the band structure. And the effective mass. Pretty much everything to do with the MOSFET, even these days the closeness they put them together as tunnelling becomes a problem. It's all QM... Also knowerastronomy, well done on ignoring the rest of my post. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts