illuusio Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 There's no physical acceleration, only oscillation patterns and fields. By current quantum mechanics, an electron must transfer between quantum states without physically moving through the intervening volume of space because otherwise that would create analogous amounts of energy that would cause destructive interference between the electron's oscillation and the electron would stop existing. Current QM is wrong, obviously, of course there is physical acceleration. When an electron is orbiting nucleus, small disturbances won't count. When electron comes back to S1, it causes photon to emit. That photon takes the most disturbing energy away from electron and harmonic wave emerges again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 "Of course there is" isn't a valid basis; you need to measure it, either directly or indirectly. And QM is a fantastically successful theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 19, 2012 Author Share Posted October 19, 2012 "Of course there is" isn't a valid basis; you need to measure it, either directly or indirectly. And QM is a fantastically successful theory. I was too hasty. Theory itself is not wrong. It works great to it's limits. But ripping off physical basis from elements leads current and future physicists into dead end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 I was too hasty. Theory itself is not wrong. It works great to it's limits. But ripping off physical basis from elements leads current and future physicists into dead end. As evidenced by all of the discoveries that aren't happening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 19, 2012 Author Share Posted October 19, 2012 As evidenced by all of the discoveries that aren't happening? If you insist Actually it might be much easier with current theories. I mean when ToE is found (in science world) there will be awful amount of work at hand Actually I predict that when ToE is found we'll live with the new theory but we'll continue using old theories because they are practical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobrainer Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 (edited) If you insist Actually it might be much easier with current theories. I mean when ToE is found (in science world) there will be awful amount of work at hand Actually I predict that when ToE is found we'll live with the new theory but we'll continue using old theories because they are practical. And the current mathematical formulas which are accurately used will be a subset of the theory of everything. As Newton's laws in a single reference frame can be deduced from Einstein's general relativity. Edited October 19, 2012 by Nobrainer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 19, 2012 Author Share Posted October 19, 2012 And the current mathematical formulas which are accurately used will be a subset of the theory of everything. As Newton's laws in a single reference frame can be deduced from Einstein's general relativity. That's correct. I predict that few constants will be explained and will be calculated, like G and magnetic constant. Otherwise life goes on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 If you insist Actually it might be much easier with current theories. I mean when ToE is found (in science world) there will be awful amount of work at hand Actually I predict that when ToE is found we'll live with the new theory but we'll continue using old theories because they are practical. What makes you think that a hypothetical "ToE" (I actually hate that phrase, it's too sensational) won't be quantum mechanical? So far, all signs point to the fact that it will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 19, 2012 Author Share Posted October 19, 2012 What makes you think that a hypothetical "ToE" (I actually hate that phrase, it's too sensational) won't be quantum mechanical? So far, all signs point to the fact that it will be. Join the club! I hate that too. Better phrase would be the Grand Theory or XXXXX. Well... you know me and my ideas. Because my thing is powerful in means of prediction power, I must conclude that thing is the Thing. QM is subset of it and same goes with the relativity theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobrainer Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 I would like to throw a solution your way that I believe tweaks the constants by a new understanding of why the universe is the way it is. You will have to be able to open a closed mind up in order to accept it. Singularity- 100% particle Mass and energy in descending size- particle- wave duality Space- 100% wave interaction Currently, I have a swimming pool in which the water level never changes, the quantum world happens within it but the massive body of water always stays at a specific level in the pool, the water level never rises or falls. The tempature may be 90 degrees outside with no rain for weeks and the water level does not change. So is no evaporation going on just around my pool? No... The pool has a hidden variable, it has an automatic filler and when ever the level is below a specific line a bobber tips down and opens up a water source. My point is this; the process that allows the expansion of space to speed up, entropy to increase, is created at the quantum level. Life could not exist unless mass and energy are stable and the laws of physics are consistent. Could it be that relativity is different than quantum theory because although stable, by-product of the quantum world create the macro world in a hidden process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EquisDeXD Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 (edited) I was too hasty. Theory itself is not wrong. It works great to it's limits. But ripping off physical basis from elements leads current and future physicists into dead end. The electron as a point doesn't move, your only knowledge of an electron is simply a point in space at the instant you measure it, and a point in space at one instantaneous time does not travel distance over time, because there is no change in time in one instantaneous moment. Furthermore, a lot of quantum physical models are based on mathematics, and in mathematics as in nature itself, there is a clear difference between "correlation" and "causation". Causation requires cause and effect over time, correlation is just an equals sign. An electron doesn't move because it's position isn't ever changing, but is mathematically already equal to a superposition of all possible states, and when the momentum is completely unknown, as it when it's measured, then it's probability is only equal to one specific point. I don't know mathematically know it works exactly, and swan can call me out if I'm too incorrect, but if you can think of momentum as the coefficient of a sine function, 0*sine(x) always equals 0. But, if you have any non-zero coefficient, the probability varies as x varies, only there's some more direct function that models electron probability which has a horizontal asymtote at x=0, it looks kind of like a bell curve, i suspect it's something to do with sine and x squared ([math]x^2[/math]) because of the symmetry around the y axis that I remember. Edited October 20, 2012 by EquisDeXD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 20, 2012 Author Share Posted October 20, 2012 The electron as a point doesn't move, your only knowledge of an electron is simply a point in space at the instant you measure it, and a point in space at one instantaneous time does not travel distance over time, because there is no change in time in one instantaneous moment. Furthermore, a lot of quantum physical models are based on mathematics, and in mathematics as in nature itself, there is a clear difference between "correlation" and "causation". Causation requires cause and effect over time, correlation is just an equals sign. An electron doesn't move because it's position isn't ever changing, but is mathematically already equal to a superposition of all possible states, and when the momentum is completely unknown, as it when it's measured, then it's probability is only equal to one specific point. I don't know mathematically know it works exactly, and swan can call me out if I'm too incorrect, but if you can think of momentum as the coefficient of a sine function, 0*sine(x) always equals 0. But, if you have any non-zero coefficient, the probability varies as x varies, only there's some more direct function that models electron probability which has a horizontal asymtote at x=0, it looks kind of like a bell curve, i suspect it's something to do with sine and x squared ([math]x^2[/math]) because of the symmetry around the y axis that I remember. Well, sounds like a hand waving to me. There is movement for sure. If QM doesn't care for it, QM won't need it. That has it's consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EquisDeXD Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Well, sounds like a hand waving to me. There is movement for sure. If QM doesn't care for it, QM won't need it. That has it's consequences. Since particles can be thought of as fields, do you think a distortion in the fabric of space that creates a gravitational field "moves" within itself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 20, 2012 Author Share Posted October 20, 2012 Since particles can be thought of as fields, do you think a distortion in the fabric of space that creates a gravitational field "moves" within itself? At some level you might think particles as a fields. If you want to understand nature deeper, that thought won't cut it. And yes, field "moves" within itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EquisDeXD Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 (edited) At some level you might think particles as a fields. If you want to understand nature deeper, that thought won't cut it. And yes, field "moves" within itself. And what exactly is this "deeper nature"? You think you have some mystical understanding of the properties of the universe, but you don't, about you and millions of other people have already been there and think/thought that. Edited October 21, 2012 by EquisDeXD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 21, 2012 Author Share Posted October 21, 2012 (edited) And what exactly is this "deeper nature"? You think you have some mystical understanding of the properties of the universe, but you don't, about you and millions of other people have already been there and think/thought that. Do I really have to answer? The deeper nature is phenomenon common to gravitation, EM and strong interaction. Edited October 21, 2012 by illuusio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 The deeper nature is phenomenon common to gravitation, EM and strong interaction. Which is what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 21, 2012 Author Share Posted October 21, 2012 Which is what? Magnus effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Magnus effect. From Wiki: The Magnus effect or Magnus force[1] is the phenomenon whereby a spinning object flying in a fluid creates a whirlpool of fluid around itself, and experiences a force perpendicular to the line of motion. Not anything having to do with gravity, the strong force or electromagnetism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 21, 2012 Author Share Posted October 21, 2012 From Wiki: Not anything having to do with gravity, the strong force or electromagnetism. That's right we should call that the ToEbi effect or with my name... Xxxxxxx effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 So all you have in the way of explanation for the nonsense you make up is the nonsense you make up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 21, 2012 Author Share Posted October 21, 2012 So all you have in the way of explanation for the nonsense you make up is the nonsense you make up. You have rights to your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EquisDeXD Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 (edited) Magnus effect. The fabric of space can certainly bend twist, but there's no eddies, it's not a fluid, it's current description is of a network of quantized higher dimensional mani-folds. Edited October 21, 2012 by EquisDeXD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 That's right we should call that the ToEbi effect or with my name... Xxxxxxx effect. ! Moderator Note And so we end the thread, because you have run out of chances to discuss this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts