Quantum History
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Atomic clock behaviour in a gravitational field explained with 1905 Relativity
Next: The force of Gravity
From: Thomas Heger on 30 Jun 2010 17:36 glird schrieb: > 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. > My own idea about this goes over a spinning sphere, with an axis I call 'mass term' and a spinning equator, what I call 'radiation term'. That has an energetic content and h is the proportional factor between the frequency, its size and that content. The two (axis and equator) undergo an exchange, what could be a spinning pointer itself and we get a larger sphere with lower frequency, if the former are embedded in the larger, and a fractal pattern. This has distinct steps of spherical shape, that I call 'time domains'. The method isn't particularly intuitive, but relatively simple and uses complex four-vectors and Pauli-algebra. TH
From: whoever on 30 Jun 2010 20:25 >>> "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." I love that quote .. hadn't seen it before. There's a few good quotes around about QM. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Thomas Heger on 1 Jul 2010 08:20 whoever 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." > > I love that quote .. hadn't seen it before. There's a few good quotes > around about QM. > Still the problem remains: what does this theory describe. Since physics is a natural science (mainly), something must happen in nature, that could be described by qm. The mechanism had to be stunning simple and had to work as nature acts in general. That is with loads of time, massively parallel and smooth. This isn't quite, how qm works, starting with the term 'quant' itself. So there should be something, that is kind of smooth, but has countable substructures. I personally think about vortices in fractal arrangement and multiplicative connections of a pointlike state to its neighborhood. Than we have something to count. These are patterns like a Moire�. Those could pop in and out of existence, behave in a statistical way, because they are not 'real'. TH
From: Painius on 1 Jul 2010 10:39 "Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg(a)web.de> wrote in message news:893fhbF47mU1(a)mid.individual.net... > whoever 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." >> >> I love that quote .. hadn't seen it before. There's a few good quotes >> around about QM. >> > Still the problem remains: what does this theory describe. > Since physics is a natural science (mainly), something must happen in > nature, that could be described by qm. The mechanism had to be stunning > simple and had to work as nature acts in general. That is with loads of > time, massively parallel and smooth. This isn't quite, how qm works, > starting with the term 'quant' itself. So there should be something, that > is kind of smooth, but has countable substructures. I personally think > about vortices in fractal arrangement and multiplicative connections of a > pointlike state to its neighborhood. Than we have something to count. > These are patterns like a Moire�. Those could pop in and out of existence, > behave in a statistical way, because they are not 'real'. > > TH Could you be alluding to... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam ? Here are some other tiny, minuscule ideas... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Quantum_information 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
From: glird on 1 Jul 2010 17:04
On Jul 1, 8:20 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > whoever 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." > > > I love that quote .. hadn't seen it before. There's a few good quotes > > around about QM. > > <Still the problem remains: what does this theory describe. Since physics is a natural science (mainly), something must happen in nature, that could be described by qm. The mechanism had to be stunning simple and had to work as nature acts in general. > It IS, and it does!! Planck was treating a resonator which he took as stationary. On reading that portion of his paper, i decided the only way a "resonator" could be "stationary" is that it has to be an atom. An atom could be locally stationary, especially at zero degrees kelvin, while things inside it kept circulating at give speeds. Those things could then be considered "resonators". I then decided that the only kind of thing that fits that requirement is an electron. So I decided that if an electron IS the resonator in Planck's treatment, one "beat" would be the time it took an electron to perform one orbit in a typical atom, such as an h atom. So I found the length of one such orbital path (2pir, where r is the radius of an H atom) and multiplied that by the speed of an electron in its orbital path (which is c', where c' = cFs and Fs is the fine structure constant). The resulting number was nowhere near Planck's value of h. Playing with the numbers on my hand calculator being one of my hobbies, I did that for awhile and then EUREKA!! I multiplied my 2pirc' number by the textbook value of the weight of an electron (called the mass, m) and BINGO!! The resulting number was EXACTLY That is with loads of > time, massively parallel and smooth. This isn't quite, how qm works, > starting with the term 'quant' itself. So there should be something, > that is kind of smooth, but has countable substructures. I personally > think about vortices in fractal arrangement and multiplicative > connections of a pointlike state to its neighborhood. Than we have > something to count. These are patterns like a Moireé. Those could pop in > and out of existence, behave in a statistical way, because they are not > 'real'. > > TH |