usenet weirdness

Confused isn't the right word for it. Exploratory is probably closer to the mark.

Laziness does encourage people to go with the first idea that comes to mind. They will try to make it work long after they should torn up the first idea and started looking at other approaches. Not something you've ever talked about doing.

That's certainly true, but they aren't confused while they are looking - just in exploration mode rather than being locked into single-minded exploitation

You can't be careful and disciplined until you know exactly where you are going, and you frequently don't know that until you've got most of the way there.

And nobody sane would try to.

And you don't seem to know much about it.

He saw things in it that he disliked, but if you want to claim there were errors in it, you need to spell them out or a least cite a reference that does that explicitly.

I don't think he disliked the paper at all, but it took him a long time to take quantisation seriously - he saw it more as a mathematical trick that had let him get around the "ultraviolet catastrophe".

Not a widely shared opinion.

The admiration of his colleagues.

There was nothing "hidden" about Einstein's power. He wrote four ground-breaking papers in 1905, and went on to discover general relativity a few years later. After the total eclipse observations in

"On 7 November 1919, for example, the leading British newspaper, The Times, printed a" banner headline that read: "Revolution in Science – New Theory of the Universe – Newtonian Ideas Overthrown".

You seem to one of the small population of nut-cases who try to get noticed by publishing "Einstein was wrong" stories. It gets you noticed, because he wasn't. You post crap because you want to get noticed. Einstein didn't publish crap, and got noticed by people who admired what he had done.

The "chemically-assisted nuclear reaction" or "low-energy nuclear reaction" (CANR/LENR) are things, yes.

These days there's that electrolysis simply enough makes sustainable aviation fuel (or gasoline) from carbon dioxide (air) and water, about $7/gallon. (Not counting inflation.) Sustainable, carbon neutral, economical, dot dot dot. Eg "Aircela".

The closed ecosystem of consumer electronic devices is probably enough the most usual example of monopoly in effect.

Anyways the stasi-fication or surveillance-gluttons seems as likely as anything else the results of such sorts chilling events.

Sort of like a monoculture of a turkey farm, one gets sick then they all die. Or bananas, other examples of the weakness of monocultures, for example.

How about the Batavia/Baikal neutrino-phone that sent a "Watson, come into the room" quite _directly through the core of the Earth_ in _effectively zero elapsed time_.

These were larger enterprises, ....

Anyways DM/DE have falsified the usual theories with their usual interpretations.

And so does spinning a top.

Once again: Dingle became a nutcase over his objection to special relativity :-D

Once again: You are "discussing" with a well-known crackpot who is probably a nutcase, too :-D

Once again: He was not even the editor of the journal that Einstein submitted the paper to :-D

Cite evidence, or retract your outlandish claims.

F'up2 sci.physics.relativity

There is:

Veritasium: Single Photon Interference

Nonsense.

In the experiment cited above, the photons were counted before, when they did NOT pass through the slits.

And, of course, that Planck's radiation formula exactly predicts the spectral energy distribution of black-body radiation is (and was the first) observational evidence that light energy is actually quantized.

... which you misunderstand completely ...

"The Science Asylum: What Are Particles? Do They ACTUALLY Exist?!"

Yeah, in your mind everybody is "insane", except you. Particularly the people who, by contrast to you, have actually studied this :-D

BTW, by address munging you are violating network standards.

I recall someone making a laser sort of thing that dispenses a single photon periodically.

The only thing

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

Why are physics types so nasty, so determined to insult?

In s.e.d., where I'm posting, if a newbie asks a question, most of us try to help them, not call them stupid.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

It doesn't matter what you call it as long as you are willing to do it.

It's not usually laziness. It's fear of being criticized, fear of rejecting authority, fear of being wrong even temporarily. In the case of managers, it's fear of not meeting rigid milestones.

I encourage genuine confusion. That's fun and it works.

I do, but I don't claim to be sane.

Design something. Then sell it.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

Exactly. Risk is encouraged in the USA.

I go to maker/startup meetings where people present really nutty (and often funded) ideas. That sort of thing is admired here.

Fail fast, fail often.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

Yeah, sort of. The usual thing is a laser shining on a BBO crystal. This produces light of lower frequency. They say 'they split the photon into idler and signal photons'. They then say they detect one and infer the existence of the other. 'Heralded photons'.

It's true there will be some degree of correlation, but this is not the same as firing individual photons. You can fire individual fermions, but photons? No.

There's a lot of QM nonsense going around. The QM crowd also thought that Hanbury-Brown and Twiss couldn't be right. In the end, they were.

Jeroen Belleman

It does matter what you call it, because that does influence the way you approach it.

Trying to get an inadequate idea to work long after you should have tried something different does lead to fairly fierce criticism. If it does involve rejecting authority, the authority involved would be guilty of micromanagement. Fear of being wrong shouldn't come into it - there's rarely an absolutely right answer to any design question, and most practical solutions are imperfect to some extent

Then you have a funny idea of what constitutes confusion.

The dictionary definition is

"uncertainty about what is happening, intended, or required. "there seems to be some confusion about which system does what"

"a situation of panic or disorder. "the guaranteed income bond market was thrown into confusion" bles

1. the state of being bewildered or unclear in one's mind about something. "she looked about her in confusion""

You can't design anything if you don't know what it is intended to do. It's perfectly okay to be uncertain about exactly how you are going to get it do do what is required, and you should try to come up with alternative approaches, but you do need to know what you are doing.

You don't seem to have gone bust yet, so you are probably sane enough for all practical purposes.

Two different skill sets. Having worked for a guy who was much more interested in getting a product that were easy to sell as opposed to one that worked reliably after he'd sold it, I'm well aware of the difference.

Only about 30% of commercial development projects make it to market.

It's hard to predict what the market will want at the point where you can expect to have got the product developed, and if somebody comes up with a better way of doing the job while you are developing yours.

If the idea looks nutty when you start the development, it's unlikely to look less nutty in six months time (or however long it takes you to get it to work).

US venture capital is reputed to work on the principle that about one project in twenty will pay off generously enough to cover the costs of the projects that failed or were only marginally profitable.

A more sensible approach is to look for niche markets where you can make a lot out of a few machines which you can afford to cobble together in small numbers out of mostly bought-in parts, and then invest heavily in making the machines more cheaply in higher volumes.

The US pioneered solar cell manufacture, but never bothered to produce them in high volume. Germany invested a lot in making them in ten times higher volume than anybody else in the late 1990s, which let them halve the unit price and dominate the market for a few years.

About a decade or so ago, China pulled off exactly the same trick, which called for a much bigger investment, and they've now got about 90% of the world market - and solar cells now make the cheapest electric power you can buy.

America likes to think that it invented the modern industrial state, but it doesn't know as much as it should about the rest of the world.

Am 14.02.26 um 16:54 schrieb john larkin:

But that has nothing to do with lasers anymore. No coherence to anything and so on.

There is no difference to a starving LED then. I succeeded in converting a costly DFB laser to a LED :-( It takes just a few usecs until the resonator grid is gone.

Gerhard

Really not. He is telling others how to behave. (and being nasty about it, despite the preface)

Indeed, he is just trying to be,

Jan

Do look up Godwin's law,

Jan

Yea. Beyond that there is an implied 'frequency' or 'wavelength' in the theoretical energy or momentum of the photon.

I think that it is all based upon a esoteric mystical phenomenon coming from not defining terms. Point and curve have reasonably good meanings in mathematics, but 'particle' and 'wave' are just different enough for people to sort of claim they have no meaning at all, but then say 'stupid' and back track and bait and switch 'particle' and 'wave' with 'point' and 'curve'.

Then of course there is the Fourier transform. Any curve can be represented by an set of sine wave equations, just as the Laplace transform for exponential equations.

Probably it is best to just keep it simple. A photon is an increment of energy or momentum transfer from the Schrodinger equation curve. Beyond that do not get into strange mysticism.

For the actual discussions and fights of the big names developing Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, a good place to start is "Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman Paperback – November

.

Joe

But the threatened "penalty" is him kill-filing the offender, which most people would see as a benefit rather than a penalty.