O'Nero Samuel

Do you have any link or file that could help clearify your inferrence?I would really appreciate one.

Is this actually possible theoretically or otherwise? If so, how? If not, why not?

If I may ask, what happened to the wave-particle duality part of the whole story? If electrons are neither waves nor particles, but can be manupulated as both depending on the point of reference of the observer, then what are they really? A segue, but not so far off the point. EM waves are produced by accelerating charges (electrons). Then if the electron is "orbiting" the nucleus, then it should be creating an EM wave of a constant frequency when in a certain energy level. I learn everything like I dont know; even our everyday 1+1.

The atom is full? Is this in anyway undermining quantum energy level, or its just my misinterpretation of your words?

E"nergy is always mass?" Could you elaborate on that?

Creates a pair of protons? IT WAS THE PAIR THAT INTERACTED IN THE FIRST PLACE! I think the proton-antiproton perspective sinks easier. Would I be wrong to think that on interaction, one proton creates a back spin off the other? This to me seems to be the only logical way protons can pass through each other and still be differentiated relative to each other. Creates a pair of protons? IT WAS THE PAIR THAT INTERACTED IN THE FIRST PLACE! I think the proton-antiproton perspective sinks easier. Would I be wrong to think that on interaction, one proton creates a back spin off the other? This to me seems to be the only logical way protons can pass through each other and still be differentiated relative to each other.

Now this is confusing. How can a photon be its own antiparticle? Taken literally does that imply that a photon can extinguish another photon? If so when and why does this happen? And what happens with the initial energy that created the photons in the first place?

Now lets do aways with the eather concept, it has too many unanswered faceth. Back to EM waves and energy transmission. Having in mind that what is actually waving in an EM wave is a sinusoidally alternating electric and magnetic field. This waving is caused by a viberating charge. My Questions: 1. Does the viberating charge lose energy to the EM field produced, and is this energy lost equal to that transmitted by the wave? 2. Since the intensity of the EM wave is a function of position and time, at what position and time would it equal to zero, and if so why? Does the wave lose energy through its wave front? 3. Can the intensity gradient of this wavefront be increased and redirected relative to its source viberations?

Is the formation of mass as a result of the combination of quarks and higgs boson? I thought one can not isolate these fundamental particles- quarks?

You are the one who has it inverted. If, and whenever mainstream science claims the none existence of a thing, they PROVE it! They provide a unifying concrete evidence, in both directions, ie the zero of with it, and a result of without it. Mainstream science has beeen able to get results without it, but has not been able to get the zero of with it. Once again I'm not stating that there is an aether, just that there is not enough evidence of its none existence. You are the one who has it inverted. If, and whenever mainstream science claims the none existence of a thing, they PROVE it! They provide a unifying concrete evidence, in both directions, ie the zero of with it, and a result of without it. Mainstream science has beeen able to get results without it, but has not been able to get the zero of with it. Once again I'm not stating that there is an aether, just that there is not enough evidence of its none existence.

This is the speculation section, so lets speculate; What if we(science) work with time inverted, and we percive time inverted? Then what we think is to come has already been. But what if we we're not hardwired to percieve time this way; or maybe a part of our mind could sense time the other way round? Lets assume we stick to our old guns and I decide to, for intuitive convinience, call this backtiming? Then, in this frame of mind, deja vu are minute elements of the future picked up by the part of our minds, which was designed to sense backtiming. This may sound confusing, and it is; and I dont even understand it myself, but I know it.

Now your are actually begining to sound like HUP should be taught as so-oldschool. But HUP still stand valid, doesn't it? A nagging question in my mind is; given L. Rozema's procedure of weak measurement, is the product of two measured complimentary quantum quantities now somehow greater than planck's constant?

Okay, call it what you want. But I think you are wrong though: some things (far more many thing) are beyound logic. Think of what chaos theory reveals, and mind you, absolute time predetermination is the, so to speak, chaos of all things chaotic. Now beat that.

There are somany facet of the human mind that transcend the realm of logicality in which physiology is encapsuled. Time warp is a phenominon the human mind sometimes delve into subliminally. Think of it as sensing forward time. Physics is the closest field of study that could reveal its true essence; but we are not even close.

The time wrap explanation seems more logical and satisfying to the intuitive. Even in psychology, with concepts like this, there is are limits to physiological comprehension. If psycholoy tries to dabble in these areas, they would just be cooking non-rational word salad. The time wrap explanation seems more logical and satisfying to the intuitive. Even in psychology, with concepts like this, there is are limits to physiological comprehension. If psycholoy tries to dabble in these areas, they would just be cooking non-rational word salad.

Then those big headlines like; " Squeezing What Hasn't Been Squeezed Before: Another Victory Over Uncertainty in Quantum Physics Measurements", "Scientists Cast Doubt On Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle ", " Quantum Uncertainty: Are You Certain, Mr. Heisenberg?", "More Accurate Than Heisenberg Allows? Uncertainty in the Presence of a Quantum Memory", etcetra, are overt exagerations by the press to help them sell papers, eh? The least they could do is give, if not the man, the theory some respect. But I suppose these are the hand work of the editors, not scientists.

How can ones memory record events and feeling that has not even happened? I think that was a pretty lame explanation.

I suppose they believe they exceeded Waner Heisenber proposed limit of accuracy. And yes, that did get them in the headline. Why do we always think its something bannal when we happen to knock of a scale from an existing theory, without building something concrete in replacement? My question really is: what is the new twist to HUP gotten from their experiment?

What then do we have to say about the experiment by Dylan Mahler and Lee Rozema of the University of Toronto? They say they used a "weak-measurement technique". If my conceptions are right, it is the process of measurement that results in the, so to speak, trade-off between accuracy in the measured position and momentum.

Please, dont be mistaken. I do not argue that there is an aether; but this contradiction of the relative state of an aether still doesn't cancel the possibility of its existence. Science has taught us through time that that which seems absolutely right could be wrong, and vice versa. If we could think above the odds against its existence (as great as they seem to be; but not conclusive) and try to draw a complete nut about its futility, then maybe I would sleep so well with my back to the aether idea. But we still dont have a slam dunk case, and all that there is could be due to our erronous assumptions; because at the moment we still do not know it all.

That sounds absolute, but where is your proof? The properties and the interaction of EM waves with matter has been understoood without an aether, but EM waves and its transmission of energy, has not been filly comprehended and utilise.

Timo I really wish I had a "pet" theory on quantum gravity, then I'd splash it all over speculation. Ronald I see your point, so many maneuvre, and for the past 100years (added 20 if you dont mind) looks like we've been trying to prove science as we see it, not comprehend it as it really is. Take for example, and this is one out of many, in the generation of mass in higgs field, conclusions are drawn more on the part of the electroweak force, the gravitation part is stiil in the dark. Correct me if I'm wrong; mass and gravitation are inseperable. And if they are, then the process of mass generation should elucidate the origin of gravitation dont you think?

Why does it look like we've hit a dead-end at total comprehension when the solution of a quantum phenomenon lurks under gravity?

Does that mean its appears to collapse but really doesn't?