Quantum History
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Atomic clock behaviour in a gravitational field explained with 1905 Relativity
Next: The force of Gravity
From: glird on 29 Jun 2010 21:07 On Jun 29, 6:42 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > HVAC schrieb: > > > "In fact, it is often stated that of all the theories proposed in this > > century, the silliest is quantum theory. Some say that the only thing that > > quantum theory has going for it, in fact, is that it is unquestionably > > correct." > > The problem with QM is, that they calculate something and don't know > what it means. > This is result of bad strategies, that lie deep buried in the way > physics is done. It starts with the introduction of the 'quant' by > Planck to explain some behavior of light on basis of a wrong > understanding of light. This wrong understanding is codified into a > formula, but the process itself isn't really understood. Than the method > of quants was fixed and the subsequent developments were based on that > formula. > This method inherits the fault of not properly understanding the > phenomenon in the first place and physics got trapped. > > The next more sever turn in the wrong direction came from the > introduction of real particles. To question the 'realness' of these > things is now impossible, because an entire century was wasted upon this > assumption and almost everybody in the 'business' is bound to this, > because he or she devoted his career to such problems and now don't want > the problem to disappear. > > The possibility to correct faults of any kind is severely hindered by > the way that science is done and how personal, financial or other > interests try to steer the boat in favor of their own interests. > Critics are blocked or belittled on a regular basis. Then we have the > problem of a kind of flood of publications, that nobody could ever read > and that are in no way consistent to each other. So there might be good > ideas, but they are just wasted in an enormous amount of - well- junk. > > So, this is how it goes. > > TH What HVAC wrote was excellent. What Thomas Heger wrote was even better; alas for that. Unfortunately, physics without an accurate metaphysics is an enormous amount of highly effective junk. GIL
From: BURT on 29 Jun 2010 21:28 On Jun 29, 6:07 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Jun 29, 6:42 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > > > > > > > HVAC schrieb: > > > > "In fact, it is often stated that of all the theories proposed in this > > > century, the silliest is quantum theory. Some say that the only thing that > > > quantum theory has going for it, in fact, is that it is unquestionably > > > correct." > > > The problem with QM is, that they calculate something and don't know > > what it means. > > This is result of bad strategies, that lie deep buried in the way > > physics is done. It starts with the introduction of the 'quant' by > > Planck to explain some behavior of light on basis of a wrong > > understanding of light. This wrong understanding is codified into a > > formula, but the process itself isn't really understood. Than the method > > of quants was fixed and the subsequent developments were based on that > > formula. > > This method inherits the fault of not properly understanding the > > phenomenon in the first place and physics got trapped. > > > The next more sever turn in the wrong direction came from the > > introduction of real particles. To question the 'realness' of these > > things is now impossible, because an entire century was wasted upon this > > assumption and almost everybody in the 'business' is bound to this, > > because he or she devoted his career to such problems and now don't want > > the problem to disappear. > > > The possibility to correct faults of any kind is severely hindered by > > the way that science is done and how personal, financial or other > > interests try to steer the boat in favor of their own interests. > > Critics are blocked or belittled on a regular basis. Then we have the > > problem of a kind of flood of publications, that nobody could ever read > > and that are in no way consistent to each other. So there might be good > > ideas, but they are just wasted in an enormous amount of - well- junk. > > > So, this is how it goes. > > > TH > > What HVAC wrote was excellent. What Thomas Heger wrote was even > better; alas for that. > > Unfortunately, physics without an accurate metaphysics is an > enormous amount of highly effective junk. > > GIL- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Quantum theory is really our first shot. We have much ahead to look forward to. Mitch Raemsch
From: glird on 30 Jun 2010 12:06 On Jun 29, 9:28 pm, BURT wrote: > On Jun 29, 6:07 pm, glird wrote: > > On Jun 29, 6:42 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > HVAC schrieb: > > > >< "In fact, it is often stated that of all the theories proposed in this century, the silliest is quantum theory. Some say that the only thing that quantum theory has going for it, in fact, is that it is unquestionably correct." > > > > > The problem with QM is, that they calculate > > > something and don't know what it means. snip > > What HVAC wrote was excellent. What Thomas > > Heger wrote was even better; alas for that. > > Unfortunately, physics without an accurate > > metaphysics is an enormous amount of highly >> effective junk. > >GIL > Quantum theory is really our first shot. We have > much ahead to look forward to. > Mitch Raemsch Planck's quantum was a numerical value, not a theory. His quantum of action, h = 2pirmc', is always vaid, his quantum of energy, e_0 = hf, depends on the relative speed of an observer; thus is a variable value. As of now, other than in The Theory of Everything, there is NO theory as to what the two physically represent or how they work. glird
From: BURT on 30 Jun 2010 13:26 On Jun 30, 9:06 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Jun 29, 9:28 pm, BURT wrote:> On Jun 29, 6:07 pm, glird wrote: > > > On Jun 29, 6:42 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > HVAC schrieb: > > > > >< "In fact, it is often stated that of all the theories proposed in this century, the silliest is quantum theory. Some say that the only thing that > > quantum theory has going for it, in fact, is that it is unquestionably > correct." > > > > > > > > The problem with QM is, that they calculate > > > > something and don't know what it means. > snip > > > What HVAC wrote was excellent. What Thomas > > > Heger wrote was even better; alas for that. > > > Unfortunately, physics without an accurate > > > metaphysics is an enormous amount of highly > >> effective junk. > > >GIL > > Quantum theory is really our first shot. We have > > much ahead to look forward to. > > Mitch Raemsch > > Planck's quantum was a numerical value, not a theory. His quantum of > action, h = 2pirmc', is always vaid, his quantum of energy, e_0 = hf, > depends on the relative speed of an observer; thus is a variable > value. As of now, other than in The Theory of Everything, there is NO > theory as to what the two physically represent or how they work. > > glird QM will be dismantled the way it is and replaced. Mitch Raemsch
From: Painius on 30 Jun 2010 14:51
"glird" <glird(a)aol.com> wrote in message... news:816c1296-2b1b-4f8e-b24b-ea863ea79bb3(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... On Jun 29, 9:28 pm, BURT wrote: > On Jun 29, 6:07 pm, glird wrote: > > On Jun 29, 6:42 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > HVAC schrieb: > > > >< "In fact, it is often stated that of all the theories proposed in > > > >this century, the silliest is quantum theory. Some say that the only > > > >thing that quantum theory has going for it, in fact, is that it is unquestionably correct." > > > > > The problem with QM is, that they calculate > > > something and don't know what it means. snip > > What HVAC wrote was excellent. What Thomas > > Heger wrote was even better; alas for that. > > Unfortunately, physics without an accurate > > metaphysics is an enormous amount of highly >> effective junk. > >GIL > Quantum theory is really our first shot. We have > much ahead to look forward to. > Mitch Raemsch Planck's quantum was a numerical value, not a theory. His quantum of action, h = 2pirmc', is always vaid, his quantum of energy, e_0 = hf, depends on the relative speed of an observer; thus is a variable value. As of now, other than in The Theory of Everything, there is NO theory as to what the two physically represent or how they work. glird P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A I'll grant you that quantum ideas are better described as "quantum postulates" and "quantum hypotheses", however particle physicists do like to use "theory" when they describe their magnificent, majestic, tiny, minuscule ideas... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_theory ....and they *do* call the shots, don't they? happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "I have tried so hard to do right." > Grover Cleveland's last words P.P.S.: http://www.painellsworth.net http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth |