questionposter

Well not only are some of the modern operators and equations such as Dirac's equations (which you seem to like) based off of and use wave mechanics and also have ways to show equivalence to other operators and properties of quantum wave mechanics, but quantum wave mechanics is still used by scientists today in an industrial capacity. I know both a chemist and hydrologist and in the past both of then have brought up using quantum wave mechanics when I asked them about things they do on their job, and there isn't much of a reason to not use them. Virtually any "model" is just an approximation of particles anyway, because math isn't the universe, the universe is the universe, and all of the alternative models you had said either have their own problems and places where they fail, use quantum wave mechanics, or both. And as I had already said before, I'm fine with quantum wave mechanics not being the "only" aspect of a quantum particle, but with current experimental evidence there's no reason to throw it away. At can easily see a sort of Bohr situation, but that would only suggest that at the very least that newer models of quantum particles are built off of the data of quantum wave mechanics and in many cases can be shown to have equivalent results, not that quantum wave mechanics is completely wrong. Not even the Bohr model is completely wrong, there ARE quantized energy levels and the electron orbitals can accurately describe the approximate average distances of many electron states away from the nucleus.

There's a good chance this did happen, but it didn't happen by itself, because if you look at current models of galaxies a single black hole is hardly enough to consistently hold together an entire galaxy, which is why astronomers are suspecting the existence of dark matter.

I guess it's sort of theoretically possible given how fractal mechanics is so often found in nature, but there isn't really any evidence to support it, especially considering matter that and energy are quantized.

No, IQ is something around 1/3 inherited, which makes sense, but still I disagree with the concept of Eugenics as IQ tests are sort of limited ways of measuring overall intelligence, and there's different ways to think and perceive information, and it also doesn't really matter anyway, people should have that right if they want. There's also species of animals which we consider to have a much lower IQ that have been around millions of years longer than humans have.

I think the fact that there's religious scientists should disprove this whole "religious people are broken thing". Even Einstein was religious to a degree. Maybe he didn't believe in god, but he did believe that there was some almost mystical entity responsible for the intricate workings of the universe.

I don't think we know enough about consciousness to say it couldn't exist even with determinism in place. Also, there isn't a chance of being born in the past, that doesn't make any sense, there's time symmetry, but no scientific report as ever stated it has been observed in reality, it's just a byproduct of the weird math in quantum mechanics.

Considering that human race has already survived ice ages and the desert and that other mammals had survived the k-t event and all the technology we have that none of them had, I'd say it's almost certain the human race will survive in the next 1,000 years even if civilization itself doesn't.

How does experimental evidence suggest they don't exist? You can see that protons and neutrons are broken into smaller particles when you collide them. Quarks and gluons also have these, they just have more than 2. Individual quarks can't be isolated/detected, but you can still see combinations of only two/three quarks, sometimes with their anti-matter counterpart in the same system We can't directly detect them, but as more time goes on, the evidence for them is like that of black holes. When hadrons decay they sometimes shoot jets of gluons, and in recent particle collisions, labs like at the hadron collider have managed to make quark-gluon plasma, or a substance so hot that the current model of a proton would have to break into it's component particles. http://en.wikipedia....rk-gluon_plasma

It would also raise the question though of how that universe that made the computer we are in started existing. It wouldn't really make sense to have an infinite simulations paradox. If we are in a simulation, what made the computer that's simulating us? How do they know they aren't in a simulation? Paradox.

I don't get why people have an issue with quantum erasers and entanglement. The probability of a particle collapses to a single point, that's it, no paths were destroyed because they weren't causally connected in the first place.

But let's just say I have data points maybe mapping out the acceleration of a falling object or how light get's weaker as it get's further from a source, but I end up setting up a system of equations to solve of it like this y=ax^3+bx^2+cx+d y=ax^3+bx^2+cx+d y=ax^3+bx^2+cx+d y=ax^3+bx^2+cx+d and I plug 4 different data points in for x and y to find a,b, c and d, but one data point isn't really possible to have considering the other three points, what would the graph or equation look like?

Don't know, it's a hypothetical, but it would help illustrate how localization works if it does actually work like that.

If I have two different frames of reference, one of which would observe a photon at a very energy and one at a very low energy if the photon got to either one, but both frames of reference were equidistant from the photon source, the low energy photon would be much more delocialized, so wouldn't the observer who's frame of reference possibly observe a low energy photon before the high energy photon could be measured?

You said there are many contemporary operators professional scientists always use over quantum wave mechanics because quantum wave mechanics is outdated. This is false, yet you said I was wrong in assuming you that's what you meant, so please explain what you really mean clearly. I quoted you 4 times with you not supporting the use of quantum wave mechanics, and you seemed to be fine with those quotes.

Please address the issue of what you actually mean if you do not mean to say that electrons are not anything like a wave at all, even though today many parts of industrial sciences use quantum wave mechanics to describe particles and alternative quantum theories still use some quantum wave mechanics.

If it is really true though, how did the universe get here?

No I'm pretty sure you repeatedly said the wave mechanics used for describing particles isn't something that's used now or is wrong, which I'm pretty sure is an assumption that is in of itself wrong. Maybe CERN does use quantum wave mechanics by using wave-packets to describe free-particles. Which, why bring it up in your argument if your not in support of it in at least some way? Some of Dirac's equations ARE wave equations! How many different ways are there to interpret "an electron is not a wave"?

OR, you could just accept that a lot of quantum wave mechanics isn't Also, you seemed to be in support of his paper, so it is only logical that you would think a similar thing. There's even a chemist I know who still uses quantum wave mechanics to create accurate models of molecules in a computer, and that's today, not 50 years ago. Furthermore I don't see how you could say everything else is right when all the other systems to describe quantum particles also have their own problems and are also mostly approximations. The Heisenberg Uncertainty principal can even be derived by looking at the patterns of applying quantum wave mechanics to particles.

Neutronium requires unimaginable amounts of energy to create though, it takes a super-massive star to supernova to create it.

Actually, I wonder if a purely capitalistic system in which everyone is dependent on everyone else for buying products, or if everyone owned a successful business, that it would be more uniform.

In your system, how would you describe 3 different places in the same relative region in a single particle collision map that seems to result from repulsion of an unknown force? Because you'd notice that certain particles are diverging from one another, and although you can't isolate quarks the energy put into colliding particles can generate new particles and I think even hadrons.

No I'm pretty sure it's exactly related to what you said, that's why I quoted you, you said wave mechanics in quantum mechanics is a flat out wrong and a "myth", which I don't see how it could be a myth seeing as how it's documented that scientists to this day use to to achieve values of some things because of how well certain aspects of atoms can be described by it, like predicting molecular bonding. Also, aren't wave functions used with Dirac equations? And don't Dirac equations have problems too? http://en.wikipedia....i/Klein_paradox

But couldn't there be some new extra-dimensional theory that describes a way in which the manifolds of space fold as to create different dilations? Just because wave mechanics isn't the only math doesn't mean it doesn't exist. By your reasoning I could agrue gravity doesn't exist because there are some situations where attraction can't be described by it, aka magnetism. Considering that much of Schrodinger's math and Heisenberg's math end up getting the exact same results, I'd say quantum wave mechanics is only "outdated" because there are simpler ways to state the patterns found in them, such as the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal".

That clump theory seems to make more sense to me. If you think about it, solar wind doesn't really blow rocks away, so the many rocky objects that would have also formed while the star was forming could be remaining even after the star's 20-solar mass fusion process has blown away much of the accretion disk.

Basically I'm just wondering what happens if you use create a quadratic/cubic/quadic formula from scratch with the equation system substitution with the needed amount of data points but end up using a point that's not actually possible as part of the equation, like let's say I have just x^2, and for my data point I have 1,20 for the x,y substitution. What would I see? I would do it myself but creating polynomial formulas from scratch takes a long time for me, so I'm just wondering if anyone else has done than and can tell me what happens or what I should look for.