questionposter

There's something called color charge which is the same thing as the normal charge you think of except in more than two varieties. With protons you have + and -, but with current quark theory, you have "green" "blue" "red", which just happen to be the names of charges because there aren't many better systems of names to call them, and then for gluons have have even as much as 8 different charges. http://en.wikipedia....ki/Color_charge

There's probably some way to set it up a system of equations. time=3:15+(1+5/60)x time=2:30-(1+1/3)x (5/6)time=(1+6/10)x And I'll get back to it later. 3:15+(1+5/60)x = 2:30-(1+1/3)x [(1+6/10)x]/(5/6) = 2:30-(1+1/3)x

What? I've seen Dr. Rocket recommend books all the time and he never got a penalty. I've even seen mods do it. I think the theory is logical in that context, but it's possible we may encounter a situation where there has to be more than two charges to explain why certain particles like to stick together and repel each other.

It seems like every theory in just the QM world alone as it's drawbacks and things it fails to describe. With that said, why do scientists think its a good idea to try and force relativity into it?

Well maybe if people had hands on the ends of their arms like pterodactyls. There wouldn't really be much selective pressure, any genes that might help with starting it would just form an equalibrium throughout the population, but maybe if there was an apocalypse it might help.

Not all systems can be described as wave functions, but not all systems can be described as little spheres or with simple matrices either, that's why we have different theories. And as I already said, there is a lot of lol-wave math that is equivalent to quantum wave mechanics, like the uncertainty principal for instance. Heisenberg said the more precise the position, the less precise the momentum, and Schrodinger said you create a summation of multiple probable frequencies, both instances give the same result.

I think in order to have any chance of saying that the universe is a computer, we need to re-create the universe from scratch in a computer ourselves.

There isn't really a lot of science to support "if" human had wings, because having such things would be incredibly inefficient. You'd have all these weird extra-muscles attached to your rear delta muscles that you'd need to somehow have room for and they would weigh you down in the back and take more energy to keep alive, and you already burns more than half a pound of day from metabolism without any extra movement at all. Maybe if people had wings instead of arms...it would make more sense. But anyway, in order to get to that point it will take many small steps as it did with dinosaurs, so it would likely take much longer than 100,000 years.

A lot of the matrix and non-wave math Heisenberg developed for quantum mechanics in the end was the same as Schrodinger's wave mechanics, they had a sort of bitter feud over which one was right, and in the end they both got the same results.

It's actually more logical than you think. Many people probably did have a problem with being able to fit every species on a single boat, but since god would be able to do anything it wanted happen, it could make it so that it's possible to fit that many animals, so people would just accept that since you couldn't really prove otherwise.

Why would it do that? The ground still repels it, and it's only a small amount.

I don't really see a reason for the universe to exist for that purpose, you'd need a computer infinitely complex therefore requiring infinite memory therefore requiring infinite mass and energy anyway. And if we are in a computer that complex, it's not like we'd be able to actually tell. If you actually research and gain some knowledge on quantum mechanics, there are many logical reasons for those properties existing the way they do.

There's people who have a lot of power, and some of those people are smart, that's it, no one controls everything, some people just have more power influence than most people. By your standards I could say the sun is the Illuminati because it's energy controls weather or not we live because we make ourselves dependent on solar energy to survive in our ecosystems rather than thermal energy.

That's just completely and utterly wrong. Electrons can't orbit at all because orbiting requires constant acceleration and if an electron did that it would radiate all of it's energy away, and I did some research http://hyperphysics....base/uncer.html And if you look at the 3rd box, the energy needed to force an electron in the nucleus is massive, I can see why it would take a huge particle accelerator. There's a few theories for particles not falling into the nucleus. Some of them depict them as fields just simply don't exist in a way to interact in the nucleus, some picture them as waves who's probabilities don't exist enough in the nucleus nucleus, some theories view electrons as having odd extra-dimensional properties that make it move in dimensions we can't see. Gravity and electro-magnetism are not the same thing, they have completely different equations and different force carrier particles.

I'm not ignoring anything, your not addressing how many aspects of an atom can be accurately described by wave mechanics, all you do is keep saying there's new math, when even a Hamiltonian operator uses wave functions, although I suppose that might just be for using Schrodinger's equation. It makes no sense what-so-ever that particles are not like waves in any shape or form given the observable evidence. I have no problem with wave mechanics not being the only thing, but it's definitely involved. Do you think a little marble follows the uncertainty principal? Because I sure don't. Do you think a little marble interferes with itself? Makes no sense that way. All the modern quantum operators were derived from that data anyway. Tell me one other thing in the universe that makes an interference pattern besides a wave. 1s2 2s2 2p1 - Boron I think you were triyng to say orbitals in chemistry are inaccurate. Modern quantum mechanics uses perturbation theory anyway yet not everything in QM has an exact answer. Even modern QM is an approximation. In other words, there's' room for interpretation, which is exactly why you have things like string theory which to me don't seem likely, but have caught on, whereas wave-mechanics doesn't seem likely to you but has also caught on. http://en.wikipedia....antum_mechanics wave-particle duality seems to be pretty fundamental for QM. Dirac equations can end up with many of the same results as quantum wave mechanics and Schrodinger's equations, but still has some loose ends. In fact, the wave mechanics of Schrodinger and the operators and linear systems you seem to like are actually the same thing. I wouldn't be surprised if the math you like was developed by Heisenberg.

Well inferior is still better than yours. You don't even have any math while even psuedo-scientists have some.

I don't understand, do you actually think by wave mechanics I mean only wave mechanics and nothing to do with actual quantum mechanics? Because wave mechanics is how quantum mechanics was originally coming about, and the Uncertainty Principal I don't think can only be described with wave mechanics for instance even though you can infer it by adding multiple probable frequencies and seeing it take place. Also, I don't know what you mean by "we can'y observe a multi-electornic atom" when there are special labs specifically designed with electron microscopes and guns to determine with accuracy the actual structure of a molecule or atom.

Your not the Wright brothers, and your not the first person to do this, there's even 6 dimensional shapes and higher, http://en.wikipedia....%93Yau_manifold And even with all the math they have, it's still more or less a fringe theory. Time is just not a spacial dimension, so I don't see why your trying to force it to be one.

It's not cumbersome its just that you can't do it with 100% accuracy, ever. Not even Einstein could create this equation, and scientists definitely don't know for sure how the universe will end up, there's multiple theories.

It's possible there might be more than one biosphere, and all the uranium in the world could destroy Earth at least a few times over, so self sustaining nuclear-reactor based bio-spheres might work.

If you showed us an anti-gravity you would HAVE to have an equation to prove it's actually anti-gravity and not electro-magnetic repulsion.

If there isn't a singular equation to describe the entire universe, how can the universe be math?

I don't remember exactly what I looked up, but it was close to this. It's possible the book you looked in is what was cited on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_(quantum_mechanics) And that operator still uses a wave function and probability density distribution. For the most part I like QTF, but I think it has to be more than a coincidence that so many aspects of a particle can be accurately described using wave mechanics.

Yes, I've seen that wikipedia article too, and wave-functions don't seem to be obsolete. It also doesn't seem operators can holistically describe an atom. on their own.

That's right You don't need to be the brains to be boss, you just need to be the ***hole.