Quantum Mechanics discussions

[alexross]

Hi all,

Its interesting to see what is mainly a grown up debate on wether Complex Quantum Mechanics or other such theories should be treated with respect.

I can add my two penny worth? Thanks.......

First I am blushing that you accept that we are talking about thepry rather than hypotheses. You are right it is a theory but I never claimed it. Someone is more informed than they are letting on.

Next.. The comment on ones brains falling out is mind expanding if you will forgive the pun. However would not this be a good definition of what a genius is? A genius surely has a brain too big for his head?

Before I pop my head back down below the trench..........

Everything you put up (a nice list of 12 points too) has NEVER been seriously applied to Conventional Quantum Mechanics so why the sudden need for them?

I hope this stays within your guidelines.

With all respect,

Alex

[lucaspa]

Hi all' date='

Its interesting to see what is mainly a grown up debate on wether Complex Quantum Mechanics or other such theories should be treated with respect.[/quote']

All unfalsified theories/hypotheses are worth respect. However, I've never heard QM referred to as "Complex Quantum Mechanics". Could you please define what you mean by that term?

 

First I am blushing that you accept that we are talking about thepry rather than hypotheses.

A theory is not a grown up hypothesis. That is a common misconception. Both hypotheses and theories are testable statements about the physical universe. There is no hard and fast line between the two. Hypotheses are generally more specific statements while theories are more general statements. Hypotheses/theories can either be 1) untested, 2) supported (by the data), or 3 falsified (by the data).

 

As I studied QM as part of Physical Chemistry, it was a VERY strongly supported theory. Why don't you think it is supported?

[swansont]

However' date=' you can label your idea as "speculation". This indicates that you have even less attachment to it than you have to ideas you have seriously tested.[/quote']

 

The one who prompted the list had an annoying habit of not labeling their speculation as such. They presented it as the gospel designed to topple the orthodoxy. I have no problem with speculation, and I suspect neither do any of the others who post on a (semi-) regular basis. Usually, though, speculation is presented to draw discussion with those with more experience on the topic. Not in terms of "XYZ Theory is wrong! Let me lead you from the darkness with my own theory that explains all!"

[alexross]

Even speculations should adhere to the rules.

 

A rule not there is:

Test your own ideas with the intent of showing them to be wrong. Only when you have failed in your best attempts to show the idea wrong should you post it. Then you are opening up the idea for other people to try to show it wrong.

 

You should even test your speculative ideas against available data to see if the idea contradicts such data.

 

However' date=' you can label your idea as "speculation". This indicates that you have even less attachment to it than you have to ideas you have seriously tested.[/quote']

Hi lucaspa,

That is wise. Even Einstein had the good sense to say that his osmological Constant was a fudge.

You have to admire that.

How many scientists today have the same courage and conviction?

I see no shame in saying "I dont know". Nobody expects you to be perfect.

Regards,

Alex

[alexross]

Hi lucaspa,

Sorry I did not see this comment from you too.

It is Forgive the pun complicated to explain the full extent of my work on "Complex Quantum Mechanics".

You will find some other replies on this forum to explain some basic principles.

Perhaps I should restate that a differential particle is of size approximating to 10^40 while I work another level down at 10^-1600.

At this level you would reach quantum foam under my peers theories.

Actually I have suggested to quantum mechanists (at Manchester University, I believe) that the resulting measuements they have and call quantum foam are only experimental or mathematical tolerance errors. I never got a reply. Surprising really when you only have to produce your calculations.

Anyway back to the future.

I do not have to introduce the idea that the particle is complex but only smaller than the differential particle. Right?

Yes but it so much more revealing.

I should not tell you more but as you seem to be burning with curiousity...

Take any field theorists work. One of the basic assumptions is that the real number system mimics the design of space's fabric. I would refer to this has God's creation but I respect other viewpoints. I have a box of matches but do not feel inclined to burn anyone at the stake.

So back to the maths.

Take the converse of this. We have deformed space/time as revealed by Einstein.

His mistake was not in defining that distortion. If he had of doen so he would have been able to continue his work and find a solution using classical physics and new classical physics.

So we need a number system to define the distortion of relativistic space.

Now that you will sit down and ponder this with our online colleagues you will see that there are few options. The possibility of using complex mathematics seems brighter doesnt it?

Now about your statement on theories and hypothesis. I would aim for the ideal here and say a theory is 100% provable. Like Pythagoras Theorem.

As you philosophically note it isnt always like that. True you have a theory like Newton's Gravity and it seems inviable, then a few centuries later some upstart called Einstein comes along. If only they would learn to leave things be!

"As I studied QM as part of Physical Chemistry, it was a VERY strongly supported theory. Why don't you think it is supported? "

I will have to define what you mean by supported. QM is good (Do not tell anyone I told you so but I have to ruffle some feathers from time to time). However you are now only judging it by its competitors.

There is room for improvement. Like Einstein I do not accept it's non-classical elements and I believe that is my priviledge.

Complex QM is crafty. It strips QM bare and takes the provable and classical elements.

I do not try bettering the work of Stephen Hawking. I simply look at his results and see if I have got a better interpetation (please dont tell him he partly wrote CQM or we will never hear the last of it). Thats the value of taking positive critiscm and what people like me can do with it if you want to ignore critiscm.

Regards,

Alex

[swansont]

 

 

[stuff]

 

 

Alex

 

 

What does this have to do with the topic at hand? If you want to discuss the specifics of your particular theory, start a new thread on it.

[lucaspa]

How many scientists today have the same courage and conviction?

I see no shame in saying "I dont know". Nobody expects you to be perfect.

Regards' date='

Alex[/quote']

99+% of the scientists I have known. And I've known quite a few in my career. I can think of only 3 that have been completely dogmatic, and those were dogmatic over thinking another person's ideas were wrong.

 

Here's one example of a scientist not caring whether his idea is wrong or not:

 

"As its inventor, I would like it [MOND] to be a revolution, but I look at it coolly," says Milgrom. "I will be very sad, but not shocked if turns out to be dark matter."

MOND = modified newtonian dynamics.

 

Now, you didn't answer my questions about your views on quantum mechanics. Did you notice that the Nobel Prize in physics was awarded to 3 physicists who applied QM for better communication systems? Now, if QM were wrong, how could those new communication systems work? Gotta think about that.

[lucaspa]

Complex QM is crafty. It strips QM bare and takes the provable and classical elements.

So "Complex QM" is a term that you have made up. Fair enough. Now define it for me, please. Simply, completely.

 

Perhaps I should restate that a differential particle is of size approximating to 10^40 while I work another level down at 10^-1600.

1. You haven't given any units. Are you talking energy, size, what?

2. A quick Google search gives me articles using the term "differential particle" in a number of ways, none of them having a value of 10^40 in any measurement system. Please give me a reference, preferably online.

3. Yes, the Planck length is much greater than 10^-1600.

 

Actually I have suggested to quantum mechanists (at Manchester University, I believe) that the resulting measuements they have and call quantum foam are only experimental or mathematical tolerance errors. I never got a reply. Surprising really when you only have to produce your calculations.

Not surprising when you can't even remember who you suggested this to. Have you written a paper and submitted it to a peer-reviewed physics journal? Do that and I guarantee that you will get a reply in the form of the reviewers' comments. Until you do that, talking about it to non-physicists on boards, especially in the cryptic and self-indulgent language you use, is pretty futile and silly.

 

I should not tell you more

Nonsense, you should tell it as simply, but completely, as possible. Science is about public results. This is part of the self-indulgent language I referred to above.

Take any field theorists work. One of the basic assumptions is that the real number system mimics the design of space's fabric.

That's not an assumption. It is a supported hypothesis. That is, it has been tested. Why would you think it an assumption?

 

Now about your statement on theories and hypothesis. I would aim for the ideal here and say a theory is 100% provable.

Sorry, but that is not possible. You have the Problem of Induction and the inability of deduction to prove. I suggest you read David Hume and Pierre Duhem. They are the ones that did the original work in this area.

 

Inductive logic cannot "prove" because you cannot really extrapolate from the subset of observations to the entire set of all objects. In deduction, there are always more tests to make and the hypothesis/theory is likely to fail.

 

So, science can 100% falsify a theory. It is 100% certain that the earth is NOT flat. It is 100% certain that proteins are NOT the hereditary material. But science can never "prove" a theory. What happens is that the evidence is so strong in support that we accept that theory as provisionally true unless and until new data is found.

 

"As I studied QM as part of Physical Chemistry, it was a VERY strongly supported theory. Why don't you think it is supported? "

I will have to define what you mean by supported. QM is good (Do not tell anyone I told you so but I have to ruffle some feathers from time to time). However you are now only judging it by its competitors.

There is room for improvement. Like Einstein I do not accept it's non-classical elements and I believe that is my priviledge.

"Supported" means that you have data to support the theory, data obtained in efforts to show the theory to be wrong, often data that is explained only by that theory.

 

Actually, that is not your "priviledge". It is your psychology. As it was with Einstein. Refusal to (provisionally) accept the indeterminancy of QM (like Einstein did) says something about your psychology, but nothing about QM. Einstein made himself the laughingstock in physics in the 1930s by his refusal to accept QM (his Nobel was given for his paper laying the groundwork of QM, how's that for irony?) altho he was still revered by the general public. He was respected within physics for his work on Relativity, but ignored and ridiculed for his refusal to accept the data on QM.

 

It appears that you also refuse to accept data. You can't do that and still be a scientist.

[lucaspa]

The one who prompted the list had an annoying habit of not labeling their speculation as such. They presented it as the gospel designed to topple the orthodoxy. I have no problem with speculation, and I suspect neither do any of the others who post on a (semi-) regular basis. Usually, though, speculation is presented to draw discussion with those with more experience on the topic. Not in terms of "XYZ Theory is wrong! Let me lead you from the darkness with my own theory that explains all!"

Just reading the words of the OP, the background on the poster is hinted at but not explicitly stated.

 

Yes, speculations are presented as tentative hypotheses about the questions that arise from the present work. For instance, my latest paper on the use of adult stem cells to treat crush injuries of the spinal cord documents that the adult stem cells improved functionality. There follows in the Discussion several speculations about the mechanism by which the stem cells worked, because the gross histology does not overwhelmingly support that the stem cells differentiated into neuronal cells to regenerate the cord. Thus, we speculate (tentatively hypothesize) that the stem cells could 1) produce factors to stimulate host nerve cells, 2) stimulate host cells to produce factors to stimulate host nerve cells, 3) provide a scaffold for the growth and reconnection of host nerve cells, or 4) subtly reconnect individual nerve tracts that do not show up on gross histological examination.

 

Now, this is designed to prompt discussion of future experiments to test these individual possibilities and see if anyone has data that would refute or support one of them.

 

Like you said, speculations are not "theory A is wrong (despite all the supporting evidence) and I say another theory (not published in the scientific literature) is right, and I will put this new theory out to non-scientists."

[alexross]

Hi lucaspa,

Seems I upset you. Sorry about that. Try and calm down.

By now you will have read a reply giving you some indication of my underlying

principles.

I will attempt to answer your points (although they are many) one by one.

Lets clear the deck first though. I do not mind if you are an ardent QM. You can go on forever if you so wish. I just hope to stop you wasting your effort.

 

So firstly:

1> I have tested my ideas and they stand up. Please accept that I have to right to tell anyone I choose and not to tell them too!

2> You should even test your speculative ideas against available data to

see if the idea contradicts such data. Well I have suggested certain tests which need to be performed but I do not have limitless resources myself.

3> CQM is a term I invented and I claim authorship to the theory - correct.

If I had called it some other term would it please you more?

4> I am not in the business of bringing you down or showing you up. If you reread my comments I hope you will find no trace of this.

I criticise QM theory not the QM theorists. Please would you return the compliment (there is no suggestion that you have not by the way).

5> I label my ideas as "speculation" to pacify QM supporters like you. I also do not want to embaress people I have woken to in confidence. I will not betray their confidence and their examination of my work by naming and shaming. As I say I forget who I speak to. What was your name?

Suppose you were in their shoes how would you feel if I did what you suggest?

I may disagree with Roger Penrose (for example only) but I do not send him poison pen letters or abuse him. I respect him to much for that. In fact Roger is quite undervalued.

6> I will sound pompous to you. It comes from having the benefit of hindsight and so sounding 'elevated'. I try to avoid this as best I can. I can forgive your outburst because it is just that. A release of intellectual energy so long tied up that this emotional trigger of CQM sets up an explosion. I have done the same myself to a lesser or greater degree or both at some time or other.

7> I really do think a written letter would have been better.

8> Form the textbooks I have read the differential particle is of the order 10^-37 or 10^-38. There is not an exact measurement which is another small piece of evidence in support of my statement that we can alter its measurement. I noted that in the texts I have read there are no units though I presume we are talking about metres. This surely is not going to be a major problem for you.

9> Now your comment on "Have you written a paper and submitted it to a peer-reviewed

physics journal? Do that and I guarantee that you will get a reply in the form

of the reviewers' comments".

I am afraid I do not share your optimism. I will take months composing

it and formatting it to their satisfaction and then they will tell me

I have to do this or that before I get a fair deal.

Been there done that. You also ignore government intervention.

10> It is a hasty word to say that "talking about it to

non-physicists on boards, especially in the cryptic and

self-indulgent language you use, is pretty futile and silly".

I am not looking done on people using this service. I do not believe

it (or they by inference) are futile and silly. I will take this back

for you I believe that you are a good person.

11> Again with my statement about field theory and its 'assumption' I

try to avoid argument over trivial points. It is enough to defend my own

theories. Yes it is theoretical.

12> I believe I did mention that a 100% provable theory was not always

possibel and if it was likely to be revised in the future.

This should alert you to the fact that QM will be revised at same time

in the future. You are asking for whom does the bell toll? The bell tolls

for QM.

13> Now at the end of your message you defend QM. I will admit one

thing. YOu are the first QM theorist to stand up to me.

So let me be gentle with you.

14> "Supported" means that you have data to support the theory, data

obtained in efforts to show the theory to be wrong, often data that

is explained only by that theory". I believe I said that.

15> Now I only compose such a wordy response to answer your questions.

You like me are emotionally attached to your work. The value of peer

inspection and pressure helps to remove this. Why not complain to

your colleagues before you reply?

Respectfully yours,

Alex

[alexross]

Hi lucaspa,

Seems I upset you. Sorry about that. Try and calm down.

By now you will have read a reply giving you some indication of my underlying

principles.

I will attempt to answer your points (although they are many) one by one.

Lets clear the deck first though. I do not mind if you are an ardent QM. You can go on forever if you so wish. I just hope to stop you wasting your effort.

 

So firstly:

1> I have tested my ideas and they stand up. Please accept that I have to right to tell anyone I choose and not to tell them too!

2> You should even test your speculative ideas against available data to

see if the idea contradicts such data. Well I have suggested certain tests which need to be performed but I do not have limitless resources myself.

3> CQM is a term I invented and I claim authorship to the theory - correct.

If I had called it some other term would it please you more?

4> I am not in the business of bringing you down or showing you up. If you reread my comments I hope you will find no trace of this.

I criticise QM theory not the QM theorists. Please would you return the compliment (there is no suggestion that you have not by the way).

5> I label my ideas as "speculation" to pacify QM supporters like you. I also do not want to embaress people I have woken to in confidence. I will not betray their confidence and their examination of my work by naming and shaming. As I say I forget who I speak to. What was your name?

Suppose you were in their shoes how would you feel if I did what you suggest?

I may disagree with Roger Penrose (for example only) but I do not send him poison pen letters or abuse him. I respect him to much for that. In fact Roger is quite undervalued.

6> I will sound pompous to you. It comes from having the benefit of hindsight and so sounding 'elevated'. I try to avoid this as best I can. I can forgive your outburst because it is just that. A release of intellectual energy so long tied up that this emotional trigger of CQM sets up an explosion. I have done the same myself to a lesser or greater degree or both at some time or other.

7> I really do think a written letter would have been better.

8> Form the textbooks I have read the differential particle is of the order 10^-37 or 10^-38. There is not an exact measurement which is another small piece of evidence in support of my statement that we can alter its measurement. I noted that in the texts I have read there are no units though I presume we are talking about metres. This surely is not going to be a major problem for you.

9> Now your comment on "Have you written a paper and submitted it to a peer-reviewed

physics journal? Do that and I guarantee that you will get a reply in the form

of the reviewers' comments".

I am afraid I do not share your optimism. I will take months composing

it and formatting it to their satisfaction and then they will tell me

I have to do this or that before I get a fair deal.

Been there done that. You also ignore government intervention.

10> It is a hasty word to say that "talking about it to

non-physicists on boards, especially in the cryptic and

self-indulgent language you use, is pretty futile and silly".

I am not looking done on people using this service. I do not believe

it (or they by inference) are futile and silly. I will take this back

for you I believe that you are a good person.

11> Again with my statement about field theory and its 'assumption' I

try to avoid argument over trivial points. It is enough to defend my own

theories. Yes it is theoretical.

12> I believe I did mention that a 100% provable theory was not always

possibel and if it was likely to be revised in the future.

This should alert you to the fact that QM will be revised at same time

in the future. You are asking for whom does the bell toll? The bell tolls

for QM.

13> Now at the end of your message you defend QM. I will admit one

thing. YOu are the first QM theorist to stand up to me.

So let me be gentle with you.

14> "Supported" means that you have data to support the theory, data

obtained in efforts to show the theory to be wrong, often data that

is explained only by that theory". I believe I said that.

15> Now I only compose such a wordy response to answer your questions.

You like me are emotionally attached to your work. The value of peer

inspection and pressure helps to remove this. Why not complain to

your colleagues before you reply?

Respectfully yours,

Alex

[lucaspa]

Seems I upset you. Sorry about that. Try and calm down.

You didn't upset me and I am calm. You will never see me when I'm not calm in a science discussion.

 

So firstly:

1> I have tested my ideas and they stand up. Please accept that I have to right to tell anyone I choose and not to tell them too!

If you are claiming to do science, then the avenue is submission to a peer-reviewed journal. Trying to tell a biochemist that you have a correct new, revolutionary theory that violates QM isn't productive. If you have really tested your ideas, then run them past physicists by submitting a paper for publication. Look at what Swansout, myself, and the other scientists on the board do. We submit papers in our specialty. Those papers may be revolutionary (my first papers on adult stem cells were). When we discuss science outside our specialty, we refer to peer-reviewed papers in that specialty and do not presume to overthrow established, strongly supported theories. I would not, for instance, tell you or Swansout about a revolutionary idea on the relationship of cancer and adult stem cells until I had a peer-reviewed paper.

 

2> You should even test your speculative ideas against available data to

see if the idea contradicts such data. Well I have suggested certain tests which need to be performed but I do not have limitless resources myself.

I said available data. The data has already been collected by others, probably in the testing of other hypotheses. The only resource you need is access to a good library of journals in physics. That's hardly "limitless".

 

3> CQM is a term I invented and I claim authorship to the theory - correct.

If I had called it some other term would it please you more?

I don't care what you call it. I said as much. What I wanted was a definition of the term. I still haven't gotten that.

 

If you look at your first post in the thread, you use the term as tho it is a standard term that everyone should know. Now we find out CQM is NOT a standard term. What's more, I had to ask twice before you admitted you invented the term. Such coyness is unacceptable. If you are going to use terms you invented, common courtesy demands that you tell us this and define the term so that we know what you are talking about.

4> I criticise QM theory not the QM theorists.

So far, there has been no coherent criticism of QM. When you make one, then I'll pay attention.

 

5> I label my ideas as "speculation" to pacify QM supporters like you. I also do not want to embaress people I have woken to in confidence. I will not betray their confidence and their examination of my work by naming and shaming. ...As I say I forget who I speak to.

You could not even remember the institution these people were at. Now, when I discuss a new idea, I remember exactly who I spoke to about it and where I presented it. Often, that talk is logged into my CV. All scietists I know do the same. You did embarrass them in anonymity by saying they did not respond and implying that the non-response was because they could not respond. So it's a little late in the day to claim you "do not want to embaress [sic] people". You already have.

 

What you did was use some anonymous people and their "inability" to respond to your ideas as support for your ideas. I object to that tactic. The implication was that, if they could have responded, they would have. Let me offer a couple of different scenarios:

1. You haven't really broached your ideas to any physicist. Instead, you just want a biochemist to think you had as a way to gain credibility.

2. You did broach the idea. The physicist saw the flaws in it immediately. He either a) did not want to hurt your feelings and kept quiet, b) looked on you as just another crank (of dozens he has seen) and did not want to waste energy and time telling you how the idea was wrong. Because his experience tells him people who think they can overthrow QM aren't going to listen or give up their idea. It is b) that prompted me to urge you to submit a paper to a peer-reviewed journal. If you are correct, it is THE ONLY way to demonstrate it. If you are wrong, then you will get a detailed analysis of why you are wrong. Now, are you willing to do what all scientists do, take the risk that you are wrong?

 

6> I will sound pompous to you. It comes from having the benefit of hindsight and so sounding 'elevated'. I try to avoid this as best I can. I can forgive your outburst because it is just that. A release of intellectual energy so long tied up that this emotional trigger of CQM sets up an explosion. I have done the same myself to a lesser or greater degree or both at some time or other.

You don't sound pompous. I said "self-indulgent". There's a difference.

 

8> Form the textbooks I have read the differential particle is of the order 10^-37 or 10^-38. ... I noted that in the texts I have read there are no units though I presume we are talking about metres.

Which textbooks? Please list them.

The units are there. In the context if not right next to the numbers. What are the units? This is the second time I've asked for units. If you are working with differential particles, you must know the units. Otherwise, you have no idea what you are doing.

Define "differential particle" for me. Tell me where you got the defintion (especially tell me if you made it up). As I said, I've been doing searches thru physics sites online and "differential particle" refers to a number of things.

There is not an exact measurement which is another small piece of evidence in support of my statement that we can alter its measurement.

The inexactness of the value is no support that we can alter the measurement. Ever heard of error bars? Ever heard of discrepancy between two different methods of measurement? If you are getting this only from textbooks, they are giving you a summary of the data. If you are really serious, before you make a statement like you did, you MUST go back to the original papers and see 1) how they measured and 2) what the error bars are.

 

9> Now your comment on "Have you written a paper and submitted it to a peer-reviewed

physics journal? Do that and I guarantee that you will get a reply in the form

of the reviewers' comments".

I am afraid I do not share your optimism. I will take months composing

it and formatting it to their satisfaction and then they will tell me

I have to do this or that before I get a fair deal. Been there done that. You also ignore government intervention.

You contradict yourself. First, it won't take "months" composing it or formatting it. Good grief, I've got over 50 peer-reviewed publications and formatting is a pain but, with word-processors, it is easy. No time at all. Takes more time to read the requirements than to do them.

 

Now, when you say you "must do this or do that", was that the reviewer's commments? I never said you would get published. I only said that you would get comments. The paper may indeed be rejected because it is flawed. Your comments make me think that scenario b) above is correct: you are not going to accept that your theory is wrong.

 

Now, what is this "government intervention" thing? Is there anything to do with national security in your paper? Even if there is, it will still get published. Remember about a year ago scientists published a paper with methods in it that could be used by terrorists to make more potent bioweapons? That paper got published. QM itself is not in that category.

 

I submit that you are already making excuses so that you don't have to admit your idea is wrong.

 

10> It is a hasty word to say that "talking about it to

non-physicists on boards, especially in the cryptic and

self-indulgent language you use, is pretty futile and silly".

I am not looking done on people using this service. I do not believe

it (or they by inference) are futile and silly.

Oh, WE are not futile and silly. However, trying to get a biochemist to validate a theory that is not accepted by the physics scientific community is silly and futile. If you want your theory accepted, you must convince PHYSICISTS. Particularly physicists whose specialty is QM. Talking to a biochemist on an internet board isn't going to do that. Only peer-reviewed papers in physics journals are going to do that. It is your behavior that is futile and silly.

 

11> Again with my statement about field theory and its 'assumption' I

try to avoid argument over trivial points. It is enough to defend my own

theories. Yes it is theoretical.

Simple denial of my point is not going to work. If you think the correspondence of the real number system to the physical universe is an assumption, then you are going to have to demonstrate that. Now, your "trivial" point was one of the few testable statements in your post. If the correspondence is wrong, then you should be able to demonstrate that.

 

BTW, isn't electromagnetism a field theory? That particular field theory and real numbers seems to work together just fine.

 

12> I believe I did mention that a 100% provable theory was not always

possibel and if it was likely to be revised in the future.

Let me say this again. Read carefully. A 100% provable theory is NEVER possible. NOT EVER. The only "100% provable" in science is when you falsify a theory. You can 100% prove a theory is false.

 

This should alert you to the fact that QM will be revised at same time

in the future. You are asking for whom does the bell toll? The bell tolls

for QM.

This is self-indulgent language. Where is your DATA that QM is in trouble?

 

13> Now at the end of your message you defend QM. I will admit one

thing. YOu are the first QM theorist to stand up to me.

I'm not a QM theorist. I'm a biochemist who's taken some courses involving QM and read some papers involving QM. I think most physicists simply ignore you, like they came to ignore Einstein. However, notice that self-indulgent language. Quite full of yourself that no QM theorist has stood up to you. And yet ... you are afraid to submit a peer-reviewed paper. I'm not upset now. I'm just vastly amused.

 

So let me be gentle with you.

Be rough. So far you haven't given me any data to hint that QM might be wrong.

14> "Supported" means that you have data to support the theory, data

obtained in efforts to show the theory to be wrong, often data that

is explained only by that theory". I believe I said that.

You did? When? Where is the data?

 

15> Now I only compose such a wordy response to answer your questions.

You like me are emotionally attached to your work. The value of peer

inspection and pressure helps to remove this.

And yet you won't submit a peer-reviewed paper. So much for your considertation of the "value of peer inspection". Since you won't submit to peer inspection, I can only conclude that you are emotionally attached to your work and do not want to remove that.

 

Again, I am vastly amused. Well, maybe a little contemptuous and bored of your self-indulgence and self-contradictions. IF you had a real theory, OTOH, I would respect that. However, you are doing a song and dance to try to distract me from the obvious conclusion that you DON'T have a theory. You simply don't like indeterminancy. Tough luck for you.

[CPL.Luke]

alexross lucaspa in no way seemed to get angry or any such thing, to presume thta he did so is to invite an angered post.

 

just a copule of things I noticed (I don't want to go point by point on this one (far to long))

 

as a general warning, if you find yourself thinking that the government is trying to keep your idea down.... you may want to see someone

 

you assume that the particles you speek of are in meters, I have yet to here of a textbook that works without units, can you give me the name of the textbook?

 

remember that some technology works on QM now, so you must think about any theory you make as building off of it rathe than starting anew, to alleviate "inconsistencies"

 

as far as your concerns on the scientific community refusing to here your claim you should take a look through the threads that debate creationism. Scientists don't have the time to go out and shoot down every crackpot out there (in no way trying to say you are one) so the community created a system of peer review so that they would only have to go out and debate people who weren't crackpots.

 

bottom line is that, unless you send a paper through peer review...no physisist is going to take his time and talk to you out in the open and get your idea off the ground.

[Klaynos]

A couple comments I'd like to make.

 

QM is one of our best tested theories.

QM is not perfect, and will have to change, this does not mean it is wrong just that it is not complete.

I'd be interested to see some predictions made by CQM which are better than predictions made by QM when tested.

 

And one other thing, is this really the thread in which to discuse this?

[Dave]

I've split the posts off from the previous thread into this one. This is a far more appropriate place for discussion.

[alexross]

alexross lucaspa in no way seemed to get angry or any such thing' date=' to presume thta he did so is to invite an angered post.

 

just a copule of things I noticed (I don't want to go point by point on this one (far to long))

 

as a general warning, if you find yourself thinking that the government is trying to keep your idea down.... you may want to see someone

 

you assume that the particles you speek of are in meters, I have yet to here of a textbook that works without units, can you give me the name of the textbook?

 

remember that some technology works on QM now, so you must think about any theory you make as building off of it rathe than starting anew, to alleviate "inconsistencies"

 

as far as your concerns on the scientific community refusing to here your claim you should take a look through the threads that debate creationism. Scientists don't have the time to go out and shoot down every crackpot out there (in no way trying to say you are one) so the community created a system of peer review so that they would only have to go out and debate people who weren't crackpots.

 

bottom line is that, unless you send a paper through peer review...no physisist is going to take his time and talk to you out in the open and get your idea off the ground.[/quote']

Hello CPL,

I take your points. It is a matter fo my interpretation regards feelings. However I do not believe there is any harm in avoiding unpleasantness.

Perhaps I tried too hard.

I will refrain from commenting on the government. Mind you we were talking UK and not USA.

I loathe publishing papers but this is not my main concern. I do not think for our purposes it is necessary but if you are saying a formal challenge needs a formal approach I see your point.

Thank you CPL

[alexross]

A couple comments I'd like to make.

 

QM is one of our best tested theories.

QM is not perfect' date=' and will have to change, this does not mean it is wrong just that it is not complete.

I'd be interested to see some predictions made by CQM which are better than predictions made by QM when tested.

 

And one other thing, is this really the thread in which to discuse this?[/quote']

I think you have said EXACTLY what I have been saying.

Regards,

Alex

[alexross]

Hi Lucaspa,

I guess I should be grateful you do not think me pompous. Its a small comfort.

I will read your reply fully but just add a quick reply I believe will help.

I did not say QM was wrong we are losing track of the original comments.

I said parts of it are wrong.

In fact I admitted to picking and choosing but this honesty seems to have been mistaken. I do not pick arbitrarily as you will know by now. To complicate things I am quite prepared to strip existing papers of their non-classical content and absorb the rest into CQM.

If I take work from another I give credit even though I have not used it but just digested it.

If you want to know where QM has problems then from the top of my head:

It does not cope with matter/energy/matter transactions.

It fails to define the missing sub-atomic forces.

It does not extend to a Unified Field Theory.

It has made no appreciable recent advance, and in particular better describing a quanta of light.

I could cheat by researching and adding the critisms from string theory (which I suppose are covered by the second point) but want to be fair.

If QM were perfect though you would not have string or M theorists.

Now to balance that:

QM succeeds in:

1> modelling sub-atomic interactions to a high degree of experimental accuracy.

2> explaining some of the behaviour of light.

3> fixing shell positions, ecetera.

Now if you know my approach perhaps it will help.

I know stephen Hawking is too smart for me to beat head head on. But the tortoise can beat the hare,,,,,,,,,,

I follow his work but particularly like to here roger Penrose comment.

I have never been able to fault anything he says. So I select my favourite critics even if they do not see themselves in that light.

Admittedly I started from a completely different approach in mathematics and complex mathematics in particular. What I am saying is that just as electronics is based upon the foolhardy notion of complex mathematics so there is an underlying and hidden layer to QM but you must use complex mathematics to see it.

Now I need a drink.

Cheers,

Alex

[Tom Mattson]

It does not cope with matter/energy/matter transactions.

 

True' date=' but that problem has been solved by QFT.

 

It fails to define the missing sub-atomic forces.

 

The Standard Model gives a quantum theoretic account of 3 of the 4 known forces, and work is being done on the 4th.

 

It does not extend to a Unified Field Theory.

 

That remains to be seen.

 

It has made no appreciable recent advance, and in particular better describing a quanta of light.

 

Quantum theory has made the only advances in describing a quantum of light.

 

Admittedly I started from a completely different approach in mathematics and complex mathematics in particular. What I am saying is that just as electronics is based upon the foolhardy notion of complex mathematics so there is an underlying and hidden layer to QM but you must use complex mathematics to see it.

 

Maybe I missed it, but when you say "complex mathematics" do you mean "complex-valued functions and/or complex variables"? If so, then QM already makes use of that.

[drochaid]

So basically, you have a new theory; you demand respect for it; you refuse to explain your theory.

 

Great.

[Timetravler]

What is it?

 

and if you want credit, why dont You tell us!

[Timetravler]

Can someone answer my question i posted awhile back?

 

about time travel~

 

1> is it possible ( i think someone will do it)

 

2> can we get back to the future once we have jumped back in time(present day)

 

thanks

 

time:cool:

 

Also i had a good theory on what would happen to the human brain if we did make the jump sucessfully!

[alexross]

True' date=' but that problem has been solved by QFT.

 

 

 

The Standard Model gives a quantum theoretic account of 3 of the 4 known forces, and work is being done on the 4th.

 

 

 

That remains to be seen.

 

 

 

Quantum theory has made the [b']only[/b] advances in describing a quantum of light.

 

 

 

Maybe I missed it, but when you say "complex mathematics" do you mean "complex-valued functions and/or complex variables"? If so, then QM already makes use of that.

Hi Tom,

Yes, thank you. You are the first person to note that Stephen Hawkings has repeatedly mentioned this in his books. I cannot be said to be outside mainstream QM. I do push things further than what is currently contained in QM.

I would like to see how far I or others can actually apply my ideas to in QM.

I am a better supporter and the best representative there is for QM as I

stand for progress (at least for the moment).

I am not attacking QM but I have supported it by putting forward a better

scenario (as you so rightly point out there is nothing actually new in this approach). I am greatly misunderstood and you only have to read my comments (thank God you did).

My understanding and talk of QM has wider appeal because I do not treat

opponents as if they deserve an Inquisition similar to that (perceived by classical theorists) of Einstein at Copenhagen.

If you sit most prominent QM theorists down they will admit the Presence of complex mathematics in QM. Why should I not conceptualise this further?

I am just standing on the shoulders of giants.

Regards,

Alex

[swansont]

If you sit most prominent QM theorists down they will admit the Presence of complex mathematics in QM. Why should I not conceptualise this further?

 

 

If, as Tom Mattson has inquired (and to which you have not responded), what you mean by this is the use of complex variables, you need not sit a prominent QM theorist down to see this. Picking up a textbook will suffice.

[alexross]

As a general background:

"Quest for the theory of everything" by Stephen Hawking ISBN 0-553-40507-1

PAGE 112:

"Imaginary time allows physicists to study gravity on the quantum level IN A

BETTER WAY, and it gives them a NEW WAY OF LOOKING at the early universe".

This is not meant as an infringement of copyright but I did not want to

misquote him. I have not researched other books or texts saying the same

thing. I see no need and this is perfectly clear.

Also the text makes it clear you cannot study imaginary time without using

complex mathematics.

To avoid misdirected questioning I may repost this at intervals.

I can only go as fast as people are prepared to accept new ideas.

I am aware that I have come to fully accept that with which you experience as I did when I first uncovered CQM. I can therefore forget the element of surprise and I must not rush people.

The practice of scientific reasoning (rather than debate which can but should not be one sided) has evolved over the centuries to acknowledge that mathematics, experimentation, and observation are better arbitors than dogmatism.

 

My approach has be born of a mathematical exploration. The work I have done on calculus and complex mathematics have been applied to QM. This helps to cross check my own work in a practical environment and reduce an element of abstraction. CQM uses and develops not only mathematical logic and abstract mathematical concepts but scientific results and concepts.

 

Mathematics has always been used to test and determine the accuracy of

scientific results, beliefs, and laws. You can use complex mathematics to

do the same thing. It takes science out of the academic and into the

practical world. This is why complex mathematics works contrary to our

natural senses with electronics.

There is also a good precedence with electronics.

 

Now to give you a more specific instance:

Leading on from QM's use of complex mathematics with gravity, CQM describes gravity and magnetism with ADDITIONAL (not exclusive) clarity.

I did not claim it replaces the work on gravity already achieved but enhances it and offers a new opening for development.

This is a good example of CQM in practice. I accept that additional work

needs to be done to reconcile some of the explanations of QM with CQM.

It would be better to think of CQM as the other side of the coin to QM

rather than combative and seeking exclusion for QM.

That would be counter-productive in a search for a UFT.

I seek the truth not to prove QM wrong as my main motive. As I said before it is a layer thing.

Being on the other side of the coin does not mean at opposite poles.

CQM gives a picture of unification. Now with any such unification the

marriage of all the present theories is not going to be achieved without

questioning or disputing some existing claims. If that were true the

unification and UFT would exist already. Again I would point you to the list of

desired characteristics for a UFT by Stephen Hawking and compare it to CQM.

This again is climbing on his shoulders but I give credit where credit is due he has mapped the way there.

The question of discrepancy HAS to arise at some point with ANY two theories.

It does not actually arise with gravity although you may instinctively have assumed

otherwise. It arises when I push CQM to its logical limitations.

CQM has a radical new view of gravity (which instinctly you may sense) but

that is not to say it cannot lie side by side with QM in this area.

Think of this mathematically: the real is just an expression of the complex

and vice versa. They are joined together in complex mathematics and NOT

separated.

The main body of CQM marries very well with QM albeit not being a marriage

of equals but of similars. It is definitely not a marriage of opposites

though.

This progression can pose new questions and a reinvestigation into previously

unquestioned views.