MrIntelligentDesign Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 You knew, I've been studying science for the last 15 years since I discovered the real intelligence and I am the father/founder of the new Intelligent Design <id>. My discovery predicted, I mean that if I used the real intelligence in Quantum Mechanics, that there is no such thing as UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE becuase existence is a certain phenomenon, then, if existence will follow the principle of uncertatinty, then, we will never have an existence. It is too obvious. I mean, if all particles and the coming to-be-discovered particles are meant to exist, they will never follow UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE. I think as an analogy, that the whole existence exists in a 4D world, but since we are trying to explain it in 3D, then, we will never surely understand particles and their nature... My new discovery predicted that CERTAINTY PRINCIPLE rules existence and if we use a multi-dimensions of time, we can probably understand the result of double slits and the entanglement... But I don't know how to calculate or show it in math...but in reality as shown in my new discovery about intelligence, I think I'm right... Can someone help me calculate it and then publish it in science journals and, of course, I will probably get a Nobel Prize...is that fair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 But I don't know how to calculate or show it in math...but in reality as shown in my new discovery about intelligence, I think I'm right... Oh dear... without some mathematical framework you are not really doing physics. I am not sure you understand the uncertainty principal either. It really comes from the fact that certain operators do not commute. This is a cornerstone of quantum mechanics and removing it would require to explain how quantum mechanics works without noncommutativity. Can someone help me calculate it and then publish it in science journals and, Well it is your research so you should do it. Moreover, unless you have made some real start I do not think anyone will devote their time and effort to helping you. of course, I will probably get a Nobel Prize...is that fair? Very few people get such prizes. And without some real work having been done how on Earth can you suggest this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrIntelligentDesign Posted September 12, 2015 Author Share Posted September 12, 2015 (edited) Oh dear... without some mathematical framework you are not really doing physics. I am not sure you understand the uncertainty principal either. It really comes from the fact that certain operators do not commute. This is a cornerstone of quantum mechanics and removing it would require to explain how quantum mechanics works without noncommutativity. Well it is your research so you should do it. Moreover, unless you have made some real start I do not think anyone will devote their time and effort to helping you. Very few people get such prizes. And without some real work having been done how on Earth can you suggest this? Of course, I read some of the math involved but math and their equations were formulated with an assumptions that any existence could originate without any input of intelligence but in real life, that is counter-intuitive. I mean, I am hoping to discover a new equation/s that rule the particles in accordance with existence since particles and their nature follow also the rules of existence. I mean, the math or equations involved in the current Uncertainty Principle (UP) are all probably wrong since any particle will surely follow the laws of existence and not the laws of Uncertain Principle (UP). Existence is certain, thus, all X whether X is universe or particle or life...etc surely follow the rule/principle of exsitence. Thus, I think that UP is wrong since it has a wrong assumption, resulting in a wrong equation, resulting in a wrong explanation of nature and resulting from not knowing what are the entanglement and the result in a double slits experient. Some of you may say that UP works but we can also make an explanation of flat earth to a round earth and works, thus, I think as an analogy, UP is a flat earth and my Certainty Principle (CP) is a round earth. Is there anybody here who would like to discover (or help me discover) that equation to show that UP is wrong and CP is correct and let us get a Nobel in Physics? Edited September 12, 2015 by MrIntelligentDesign Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 So you have a vague idea and you want someone else to do the hard work so you can get a prize? "Hello Mr Shakespeare, I have this idea for a story: a girl and a boy fall in love and then die. See, it's brilliant. But I never learned to write so if you could write it down then I will be famous for centuries to come." but we can also make an explanation of flat earth to a round earth and works No you can't. Which is why no one thinks the Earth is flat. (No one sane, anyway.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 (edited) I mean, the math or equations involved in the current Uncertainty Principle (UP) are all probably wrong since any particle will surely follow the laws of existence and not the laws of Uncertain Principle (UP). Existence is certain, thus, all X whether X is universe or particle or life...etc surely follow the rule/principle of exsitence. You will have to be very careful with 'existence'. We know that individual particles, via say decays go out of existence. Via scatterings, others come into existence. Within the framework of quantum field theory this is okay. The fields themselves 'exists' and particles are only 'lumpy ripples' in such fields. We have some conservations laws that must be preserved under these interactions but this does not stop things from appearing and disappearing. Thus, I think that UP is wrong since it has a wrong assumption, resulting in a wrong equation, resulting in a wrong explanation of nature and resulting from not knowing what are the entanglement and the result in a double slits experient. It comes from the very strange result that the quantum operators do not commute. For the standard uncertainty principal we have [math][x,p] = i \hbar[/math]. All of non-relativistic quantum mechanics boils down to representations of this simple algebra (and things like it). Some of you may say that UP works... Non-relativistic quantum mechanics has been tested to some great degree of accuracy. So far there are no experiments that disagree with the theoretical predictions, even the more wacky and crazy predictions seems to be realised. ...but we can also make an explanation of flat earth to a round earth and works... It works okay for small scales, and we mathematically know why! However, on larger scales it is clear that the Earth is not flat. ...thus, I think as an analogy, UP is a flat earth and my Certainty Principle (CP) is a round earth. Interesting as I would say the opposite. Your certainty principal sounds a bit like classical mechanics, nothing is described in terms of probability etc. Classical mechanics works fine on certain scales, like the flat Earth does. But at other scales classical mechanics fails and quantum is needed. The analogy is somewhat 'inverted' as classical mechanics works on macroscopic and fails near the atomic scale. But anyway analogies are analogies. Is there anybody here who would like to discover (or help me discover) that equation to show that UP is wrong and CP is correct and let us get a Nobel in Physics? Good luck. Anyway... as a discussion forum you should now decide what you really want to discuss. Do you want to discuss you ideas, the uncertainty principal, quantum mechanics or something else? Unless you bring this back to more accepted science, then this thread belongs in the speculations section. Edited September 12, 2015 by ajb 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrIntelligentDesign Posted September 12, 2015 Author Share Posted September 12, 2015 You will have to be very careful with 'existence'. We know that individual particles, via say decays go out of existence. Via scatterings, others come into existence. Within the framework of quantum field theory this is okay. The fields themselves 'exists' and particles are only 'lumpy ripples' in such fields. We have some conservations laws that must be preserved under these interactions but this does not stop things from appearing and disappearing. It comes from the very strange result that the quantum operators do not commute. For the standard uncertainty principal we have [math][x,p] = i \hbar[/math]. All of non-relativistic quantum mechanics boils down to representations of this simple algebra (and things like it). Non-relativistic quantum mechanics has been tested to some great degree of accuracy. So far there are no experiments that disagree with the theoretical predictions, even the more wacky and crazy predictions seems to be realised. It works okay for small scales, and we mathematically know why! However, on larger scales it is clear that the Earth is not flat. Interesting as I would say the opposite. Your certainty principal sounds a bit like classical mechanics, nothing is described in terms of probability etc. Classical mechanics works fine on certain scales, like the flat Earth does. But at other scales classical mechanics fails and quantum is needed. The analogy is somewhat 'inverted' as classical mechanics works on macroscopic and fails near the atomic scale. But anyway analogies are analogies. Good luck. Anyway... as a discussion forum you should now decide what you really want to discuss. Do you want to discuss you ideas, the uncertainty principal, quantum mechanics or something else? Unless you bring this back to more accepted science, then this thread belongs in the speculations section. Thank you for your effort. The reasons why I am talking this topic because 1. Scientists who support UP are not careful about "existence". Since I discovered the real intelligence for the new Intelligent Design <id>, the new <id> is so careful when dealing with existence since existence is part of the origin topic in science that should be cleared first. I mean, if we have no clue of the existence of Cosmos or universe, then, we are not even careful to know existence since where we based our explanation of "existence"? Thus, I agree with you that we must be very careful in the topic of existence. 2. Yes, I read the math and equartions but the one who formulated that eqaution assumed that he knew exstence and he thought that his assumption was correct. I will show you an analogy: We can compute/calculate the volume of the earth by using two equations. One is for flat earth and one is for round earth, but a sane scientist will use the round earth, right? Thus, it is probably the same with the assumptions of UP that it is like a flat earth that is why we cannot arrive to any explanation of double slits and entangement. 3.You had opened a topic called "theoretical predictions". Are all predictions in science good? I mean, let us make the same analogy: for flat earth (U) and round earth (CP). If flat earth is true, we can build a 24 meters length apartment, two storeys. We can surely do it, therefore, flat earth is true. As you can see that this prediction is applicable in both scenario for round earth and flat earth, thus, I think that it is not correct to accept all predictions as science and real. Thus, I think that UP is using like a flat earth for the wrong assumptions of UP... 4. Because we don't know existence, we had just assumed that "particles decays go out of existence. Via scatterings, others come into existence.". I think we don't yet know the particles. For example, why and how a particle should have a dual nature, a particle-wave property? I mean, we still don't know much nature in science, thus, UP is like a flat earth idea...we need to find the round earrth (Certainty Prionciple)... Sorry if it takes too long... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 ! Moderator Note If you are going to challenge accepted physics, you need to read and follow our guidelines. Sooner rather than later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 (edited) 1. Scientists who support UP are not careful about "existence". Physicists are indeed not always careful with 'existence'. Being pragmatic, what 'exists' is what we can measure. Much beyond that and we are discussing philosophy. Since I discovered the real intelligence for the new Intelligent Design <id>, the new <id> ... Well you have claimed to. However, I have no idea what you have actually claimed or what evidence in support of this you have. 2. Yes, I read the math and equartions but the one who formulated that eqaution assumed that he knew exstence and he thought that his assumption was correct. The canonical commutation relations (CCR) are attributed to Max Born as a postulate of quantum mechanics. The uncertainty principal was first stated by Werner Heisenberg but quickly it was realised that it follows from the CCR. I am not sure what existence really as to do with it. In order to formulate quantum mechanics, which seems to describe nature very well, we need to postulate the CCR. You can relate the CCR to the sympletic structure of classical mechanics, but even then you need some axioms or starting postulates to get the quantum theory. I will show you an analogy: We can compute/calculate the volume of the earth by using two equations. One is for flat earth and one is for round earth, but a sane scientist will use the round earth, right? Thus, it is probably the same with the assumptions of UP that it is like a flat earth that is why we cannot arrive to any explanation of double slits and entangement. Whatever, you now have to compare the calculation with experimental evidence. In general there is not a very clear distinction as any experiment need to be interpreted in terms of some theory. The best one can do is show that the theory describes nature well, or not. Again, quantum mechanics describes nature well. Are all predictions in science good? What do you mean by good? It is not true that all predictions match nature well. This is how we decide if a theory is 'good' or 'bad'. I mean, let us make the same analogy: for flat earth (U) and round earth (CP). If flat earth is true, we can build a 24 meters length apartment, two storeys. We can surely do it, therefore, flat earth is true. But you can also build such apartments on a non-flat Earth. As you can see that this prediction is applicable in both scenario for round earth and flat earth, thus, I think that it is not correct to accept all predictions as science and real. Okay, this is the 'cherry picking' people talk about. The flat Earth may be quite consistent with building apartments, on the scales of everyday buildings the curvature of the Earth is of no consequence. But the problem is that other observations do not fit a flat Earth, for example the horizon or the fact that we have pictures from the Moon showing we do not have a flat Earth. If you 'cheery pick' only the evidence that supports your idea while ignoring the rest, they you do not really see what is going on. So, as a non-flat Earth fits more data than a flat Earth we conclude that a non-flat Earth is a better model. We can match the shape of the Earth quite well to an oblate spheroid. This does not mean we have to abandon thinking of the Earth as flat provided we are working at scales for which the curvature does not matter. Thus a typical builder will not need to worry about the curvature of the earth. Thus, I think that UP is using like a flat earth for the wrong assumptions of UP... The UP really does seem to follow from the basic structure of quantum mechanics. One would need a really shake up of theory to avoid this, and one that still fits all the data. 4. Because we don't know existence, we had just assumed that "particles decays go out of existence. Via scatterings, others come into existence.". I think we don't yet know the particles. For example, why and how a particle should have a dual nature, a particle-wave property? I mean, we still don't know much nature in science, thus, UP is like a flat earth idea...we need to find the round earrth (Certainty Prionciple)... This is getting towards philosophy. What physics does is offer mathematical models that we can match with nature. Physics allows us to make predictions that we can test, it allows us to make sense of measurements and use this understanding for engineering. The question 'why' is philosophy. The best answer to 'how' is within the mathematics of physics. Anyway, you should listen to the moderators advice. At some point you will need to 'put up or shut up'. Edited September 12, 2015 by ajb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrIntelligentDesign Posted September 12, 2015 Author Share Posted September 12, 2015 ! Moderator Note If you are going to challenge accepted physics, you need to read and follow our guidelines. Sooner rather than later. I knew it. I am just trying to test if my new discoveries and its arguments are strong enough that they could alarm the mainstream erroneous science. If I don't test it, I will have NO nerve to say that I am correct scientifically. But since you said that I could possibly change our science by asking me to be lenient and scientific, I perceived that my science is heading correctly. We have more time to discuss since i am still busy right now for my new upcoming book titled "Redacted by mod", I don't have time to do it in detail. But let us do it and let us have fun in science! After I finish publication of that book maybe this month, I will share some of my new discoveries and let us intellectually fight science vs science, head to head, experiment vs experiment. And let us see who has science... Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 By an interesting coincidence this Dilbert cartoon came out at about the same time as this thread. http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-09-11 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 After I finish publication of that book maybe this month, I will share some of my new discoveries and let us intellectually fight science vs science, head to head, experiment vs experiment. And let us see who has science... ! Moderator Note Well, then, you can re-introduce it when you have something substantial to post. But shill for a work of yours again, and you'll be banned as a spammer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts