interesting physics (2023 Update)

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

You sure as f*ck haven't returned much to the world for your cost.

I've funded over 100 surgeries in Africa. And rescued a lot of dogs. That's worth doing.

How about you? Do you make the world better? We all should.

Indeed! One would think that when a theory leads to clearly ridiculous assertions, like objects being in multiple locations at once, or being in mutually incompatible states simultaneously, that the theory would be rejected or adapted. Not quantum mechanics: You're expected to accept all this without question. Just keep quiet and follow the rules. Very frustrating.

Jeroen Belleman

snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Good job.

Even more deserving than most humans. Good job.

Yep.

Of course. Likely been my goal longer than it has been your goal. I simply ended up with less means.

You are right more often in this thread alone than I have seen in quite a while.

Physics is well aware of this. People are waiting for the "new physics" to emerge. A century after Relativity and QM emerged, it ought to be just about due.

In the cases of Relativity and QM, the initial clues were small but inexplicable differences between theory and experiment. But because Relativity and QM predict things to 9 decimal places, this gets difficult.

Think there might be a Nobel or two in there?

Joe Gwinn

I hope there's teleporters in there. Preferably ones that have no range limits.

Clifford Heath snipped-for-privacy@please.net wrote in news:169a67e4827c2c70$1$1200776$ snipped-for-privacy@news.thecubenet.com:

And no flies too. A definite no fly zone.

Simple experiments with a beam-splitter interferometer and a photon detector are clearly in defiance of reason. But there they are.

"Reasoning" is running a simulation inside your own head. If your mental model is inadequate, the results it predicts won't match what you observe.

They aren't "defying reason" but rather revealing the inadequacies in your mental model. It's unreasonable to look at them in any other way.

On a sunny day (Wed, 11 Aug 2021 20:46:13 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman snipped-for-privacy@nospam.please wrote in <sf15tl$sn8$ snipped-for-privacy@gioia.aioe.org>:

Yep, as does string theory.. MatheMaMaticions claim they invented the wheel as they came up with PI..

Mostly I stopped reading stuff that had 'quantum' in it and ends with the line 'this will bring the quantum computer so much closer'. Highest number they could factor now is ?? (from google): 1,099,551,473,989 is equal to 1,048,589 multiplied by 1,048,601 but:

So, I am working on my own more mechanical explanation, without all the mass of math so to speak..

On a sunny day (Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:34:06 +1000) it happened Clifford Heath snipped-for-privacy@please.net wrote in <169a67e4827c2c70$1$1200776$ snipped-for-privacy@news.thecubenet.com>:

And better replicators, ... put his girlfriend in a replicator and out came something we still do not know if its a hare or rabbit.

Think of light as waves instead of tiny marbles and there is no problem.

Jeroen Belleman

This was posted here before. Interesting.

On a sunny day (Thu, 12 Aug 2021 11:01:04 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman snipped-for-privacy@nospam.please wrote in <sf2o0h$6tj$ snipped-for-privacy@gioia.aioe.org>:

snipped-for-privacy@nospam.please wrote in <sf2o0h$6tj$ snipped-for-privacy@gioia.aioe.org>:

The thing is that a 'wave' needs something o wave in, like waves in water in a pond need water molecules.

If we take a Le Sage theory of gravity and give those particles light speed, then EM waves may just consist of Le Sage particles in a special state (maybe spin), then EM radiation and gravity is united, no photons needed.

So say you jingle an electron, it is hit by and affects many Le Sage particle (much much smaller and traveling at light speed) those in the altered state then later transfer that to say an other electron elsewhere, with enough LS particles in all directions Waves of modified Le Sage particles, different from how water waves move.

My idea.

Good point. I have no answer to that.

On the subject of weird theories, there was this paper by Wolfgang Schnell, a CERN physicist who passed away in 2006. He describes a universe that is a sort of 'spherical granular medium'. What we see as matter, particles, everything, are vibration modes in that medium. He goes on to derive from that the existence and the masses of lots of elementary particles, electro- magnetics, gravity, quantum mechanics and relativity. It's definitely an outlandish way of describing the universe, yet oddly compelling. Nobody takes it seriously though.

It was published in Il Nuovo Cimento, but you can get the paper here:

Jeroen Belleman

Well, sort of. A photon is an elementary excitation of the EM field in a given set of boundary conditions. Admittedly, if you don't have matter in the vicinity, it's hard to have any boundary conditions except free space. ;)

However, an isolated electron/positron pair that annihilated would produce two gammas. In the centre-of-mass frame of the particles, the photons would have equal energies and propagate antiparallel. (This is on account of conservation of momentum.)

The question of whether it makes sense to talk about space in the total absence of matter is one of those angel problems that philosophical pinheads worry about. ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

On a sunny day (Thu, 12 Aug 2021 13:02:05 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman snipped-for-privacy@nospam.please wrote in <sf2v3d$157h$ snipped-for-privacy@gioia.aioe.org>:

Man, just read that, some work! Yes, it make sense in a way and that the gets the masses of so many particles to a few percent or less is amazing. For a closed universe (he calls it sack of beans IIRC) he gets into the same question where does it end.. I asked 'where, if those exists, do Le Sage particles come from' So I wrote in sci.physics decades ago 'maybe from stars or black holes' Somebody then replied: "your theory is wrong because if it was that way the universe would be expanding ever faster", A while later it was found the universe is expanding ever faster....

An other thing when reading his paper strikes me, he sees the universe as CERN sees it :-) Maybe that way of looking at nature, for sure that way of looking at nature, is incomplete.

Was looking at a documentary about Christian belief in the US last night, Here is a doctor in paleontology that states dinos and humans were created by God some 4? thousand years ago_ Kids questioned and repeat it,

No shortage of theories Is mine right? Dunno, but uniting grafitti and electrickety is something we need.

Sure like to read it!, please!

See quantum mechanics field theory (QFT)

What we spend differentially on premium ice cream would save a kid's life in some poor country.