ajb Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 knowerastronomy: Can I ask you some subtle questions? Do you disagree with the mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics? Are you objections more philosophical and related to the interpretations? Do you disagree with the experiments and observations that to date only have a well formulated understanding in the context of quantum mechanics? For instance, quantum tunnelling or the discrete nature of the hydrogen spectra? 1
knowerastronomy Posted January 12, 2012 Author Posted January 12, 2012 Anything to do with the band structure. And the effective mass. Pretty much everything to do with the MOSFET, even these days the closeness they put them together as tunnelling becomes a problem. It's all QM... Also knowerastronomy, well done on ignoring the rest of my post. You ignored my questions also. . . We cherry pick, don't we. . . Look, this is getting tiresome. . . I thought we could discus concepts, science and theory's in this thread but the only thing of interest is mathematics and quantum physics. . I am surrounded by people with one way thinking. . . What I mean by that is, my way or no way. . . Good at tearing things down but that's where the dialogue ends. . . I am willing to yield when wrong. . . Like dropping the E=MR from the theory definition but this constant hammering with old rules, math, and concepts is leading nowhere. . . I am throwing in the towel and taking a break. . . That doesn't mean this theory will go away, quite the contrary, because I believe in it. . . In the mean time thanks for all your help and understanding. . . -1
Klaynos Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 They wouldn't work because the modelling involved uses quantum mechanics. Sorry I thought that was self evident. You certainly cherry pick. We can review this thread and see that throughout. You ignored my questions also. . . We cherry pick, don't we. . . Look, this is getting tiresome. . . I thought we could discus concepts, science and theory's in this thread I again suggest you go and read about the scientific process and what the word theory means in physics. but the only thing of interest is mathematics and quantum physics. . You proposed an idea that you claim agrees with 90% of current experimental evidence, I proposed several different experiments which you have failed to explain. Quantum mechanics, predicts and explains them. I am surrounded by people with one way thinking. . . Maybe that should tell you something? What I mean by that is, my way or no way. . . Good at tearing things down but that's where the dialogue ends. . . Again you show a distinct lack of understanding of the scientific process, it is by fire. If your idea cannot hold up against criticism it is dismissed. Here we have not just dismissed the idea but tried many times to explain to you why your ideas fail and have with questions tried to make you understand why. I am willing to yield when wrong. . . Like dropping the E=MR from the theory definition but this constant hammering with old rules, math, and concepts is leading nowhere. . . Experimental evidence prevails, your ideas cannot explain it, it is wrong. I am throwing in the towel and taking a break. . . That doesn't mean this theory will go away, quite the contrary, because I believe in it. . . In the mean time thanks for all your help and understanding. . . It's not a theory. Please do some background reading. As I've told you many times before the universe doesn't care what you believe in, or don't believe in, it just works how it works, which in science we model and predict. Which is done with exceptional precision.
knowerastronomy Posted January 12, 2012 Author Posted January 12, 2012 knowerastronomy: Can I ask you some subtle questions? Do you disagree with the mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics? Are you objections more philosophical and related to the interpretations? Do you disagree with the experiments and observations that to date only have a well formulated understanding in the context of quantum mechanics? For instance, quantum tunnelling or the discrete nature of the hydrogen spectra? I disagree to the extent that it allows for the formation of Multiple Universes, A singularity, Worm Holes, The same matter to be in two places simultaneously, This is in my opinion nonsense. . I also do not agree with the concept of empty space. . . There is no support for wave propagation through empty space. . . Quantum physics is to flexible to be considered the gold standard. . . I agree that it arrives at correct solutions sometimes but in my opinion somewhere there are flaws or false assumptions. . The discrete nature of the hydrogen spectra can be explained without quantum physics. . . It is the simple resonance of the hydrogen atom receiving or expending energy in jumps. . . Quantum Tunneling is the transference of wave resonance through a beerier, the electron doesn't actually go through the beerier the electrons on the other side pick up the oscillations from the beerier. . .
Klaynos Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 I disagree to the extent that it allows for the formation of Multiple Universes That's an interpretation, not part of the theory itself. , A singularity I'm not aware of any singularities in QM, singularities are commonly accepted as breakdowns in a theory though. , Worm Holes, Worm holes are not part of any mainstream theory. They are not excluded explicitly though which some people read to meaning they exist. Normal interpretation requires white holes which have problems with thermodynamic arguments so probably do not exist. The same matter to be in two places simultaneously, This is experimental evidence. Whether you think it's nonsense or not the experimental evidence is very apparent this happens. This is in my opinion nonsense. . I also do not agree with the concept of empty space. . . This is a debatable issue, depends what you mean by empty space. Quantum fluctuations are always extent. That is not the same as some material through which you can propagate. There is no support for wave propagation through empty space. . . Again I refer you to the MM experiment I mentioned earlier. Are you familiar with this? Quantum physics is to flexible to be considered the gold standard. . . nope, it's not flexible, that's one of the great things with maths, if a theory says there should be 5 apples there and there are 4 the theory is wrong. Not flexible at all. I agree that it arrives at correct solutions sometimes but in my opinion somewhere there are flaws or false assumptions. . This discussion is all very nice and all, but we're still not really getting to whether your theory predicts the experiments that have been mentioned. You have completely disregarded my comments on your ideas and are attacking mainstream science with no evidence. Which assumptions, exactly? The discrete nature of the hydrogen spectra can be explained without quantum physics. . . It is the simple resonance of the hydrogen atom receiving or expending energy in jumps. . . That's as much an explanation as saying pixes do it. It doesn't explain or predict anything. Just shouting some sciency words doesn't make it science it just moves it more towards laughable. Quantum Tunneling is the transference of wave resonance through a beerier, the electron doesn't actually go through the beerier the electrons on the other side pick up the oscillations from the beerier. . . No, electrons move. Tunnelling in say quantum dots, you can actually count the number of electrons that tunnel in and tunnel out. The electrons are moving. More experimental evidence that you are wrong.
knowerastronomy Posted January 12, 2012 Author Posted January 12, 2012 That's an interpretation, not part of the theory itself. I'm not aware of any singularities in QM, singularities are commonly accepted as breakdowns in a theory though. Worm holes are not part of any mainstream theory. They are not excluded explicitly though which some people read to meaning they exist. Normal interpretation requires white holes which have problems with thermodynamic arguments so probably do not exist. This is experimental evidence. Whether you think it's nonsense or not the experimental evidence is very apparent this happens. This is a debatable issue, depends what you mean by empty space. Quantum fluctuations are always extent. That is not the same as some material through which you can propagate. Again I refer you to the MM experiment I mentioned earlier. Are you familiar with this? nope, it's not flexible, that's one of the great things with maths, if a theory says there should be 5 apples there and there are 4 the theory is wrong. Not flexible at all. This discussion is all very nice and all, but we're still not really getting to whether your theory predicts the experiments that have been mentioned. You have completely disregarded my comments on your ideas and are attacking mainstream science with no evidence. Which assumptions, exactly? That's as much an explanation as saying pixes do it. It doesn't explain or predict anything. Just shouting some sciency words doesn't make it science it just moves it more towards laughable. No, electrons move. Tunnelling in say quantum dots, you can actually count the number of electrons that tunnel in and tunnel out. The electrons are moving. More experimental evidence that you are wrong. I'm not going to reply to all of these posts because it takes to much time, but here is a question. . . Do electrons move through a copper wire?
mississippichem Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 I also do not agree with the concept of empty space. . . There is no support for wave propagation through empty space. . . I should add to what Klaynos said about the MM experiment. It has since been repeated at least twice that I'm aware of, and at different scales. Quantum physics is to flexible to be considered the gold standard. . . I agree that it arrives at correct solutions sometimes but in my opinion somewhere there are flaws or false assumptions. . Feel free to point these flaws and false assumptions out. The discrete nature of the hydrogen spectra can be explained without quantum physics. . . It is the simple resonance of the hydrogen atom receiving or expending energy in jumps. . . Those "jumps" are a result of the fact that the only allowed states are eigenvalues of an operator that corresponds to an observable, but that is quantum mechanics and would require you to think mathematically. If you don't understand the math how can you critique it? Are you suggesting that electrons are classical objects? Why then do the charged electrons not radiate? Charges accelerating in an electric field should radiate...where is the radiation? Quantum Tunneling is the transference of wave resonance through a beerier, the electron doesn't actually go through the beerier the electrons on the other side pick up the oscillations from the beerier. . . Tunneling electron microscopy and atomic force microscopy are both technologies that require the existence of tunneling currents to operate. How did engineers get them to work with flawed theory? Look, pony up and present your theory in a scientifically appropriate and mathematical fashion or just admit that you're in over your head. This isn't intended to be insulting. It is just blatantly obvious that your are trying to overturn the whole of modern physics when you have yet to even understand the physics that has been around since the 1920's and earlier [your confusion about rotational kinetic energy earlier was a Newtonian matter really].
Klaynos Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 I'm not going to reply to all of these posts because it takes to much time, but here is a question. . . Do electrons move through a copper wire? If you apply a DC potential difference across the wire, then yes the electrons have a drive velocity.
knowerastronomy Posted January 12, 2012 Author Posted January 12, 2012 If you apply a DC potential difference across the wire, then yes the electrons have a drive velocity. This is the answer I was told. . . electrons don't travel through the wire they displace one another. . . If you think about it, it makes more sense than anything. . . most people would say electrons travel through the wire. . . Just a little stress relief. . .
Klaynos Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 This is the answer I was told. . . electrons don't travel through the wire they displace one another. . . If you think about it, it makes more sense than anything. . . most people would say electrons travel through the wire. . . Just a little stress relief. . . Imagine marbles in a tube. Apply a potential difference is the same as pushing marbles in one end. It's DC so you're always pushing them in from one end, I was careful in my answer to note this. If all the marbles are blue and you push in a red one, blue ones will be dropping out of the end, but after some time the red one will drop out. So yes the electrons do travel down the wire with a drift velocity. The speed of changes to the potential is much faster than this drift velocity. I hope this has been clarified for you.
knowerastronomy Posted January 12, 2012 Author Posted January 12, 2012 Imagine marbles in a tube. Apply a potential difference is the same as pushing marbles in one end. It's DC so you're always pushing them in from one end, I was careful in my answer to note this. If all the marbles are blue and you push in a red one, blue ones will be dropping out of the end, but after some time the red one will drop out. So yes the electrons do travel down the wire with a drift velocity. The speed of changes to the potential is much faster than this drift velocity. I hope this has been clarified for you. I love it. . . I promise not to bad mouth quantum physics any more but I still don't like it . . . I just don't like getting beat up. . .
Klaynos Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Science is by fire. If you want to do science you have to take the hits. If you can't defend them your idea is discarded.
knowerastronomy Posted January 12, 2012 Author Posted January 12, 2012 Science is by fire. If you want to do science you have to take the hits. If you can't defend them your idea is discarded. It will be discarded only if it is wrong. . . and it should be. . .
Klaynos Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Well your idea has failed to explain any of the experiments that have been presented so far. So we are agreed it should be discarded, good. 1
knowerastronomy Posted January 13, 2012 Author Posted January 13, 2012 Well your idea has failed to explain any of the experiments that have been presented so far. So we are agreed it should be discarded, good. well I probably could give it a shot but right now I need to go stare at a blank wall. . .
ajb Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) The discrete nature of the hydrogen spectra can be explained without quantum physics. . . It is the simple resonance of the hydrogen atom receiving or expending energy in jumps. . . At the risk of repeating what Klaynos & mississippichem have said, please explain this to us. Do you have a mathematical model that backs up these claims? It is well known that one cannot model the hydrogen atom using classical electromagnetic theory and treating electrons like tiny charged balls. The basic argument is that accelerating charges radiate and thus the electrons would loose energy very quickly spiralling into the nucleus. Matter would appear very unstable. I promise not to bad mouth quantum physics any more but I still don't like it . . . You are not alone in not liking quantum mechanics. It seems very different to our macroscopic world and much of our classical intuition needs amending. However two things must be pointed out: Non-relativistic quantum mechanics is mathematically well-founded and consistent. One would find it impossible to argue mathematically that something is wrong. Today no reliable and repeatable experiment has been conducted that disagrees with the predictions of quantum mechanics, even the more unexpected or weird. (With the usual proviso of the domain of applicability and experimental errors). Most people's objections are more philosophical or based on the interpretations. Your object seems to fall in this category. There are mathematical objections when we consider relativistic theories, but even these pass our experimental tests with great accuracy. Edited January 13, 2012 by ajb
knowerastronomy Posted January 13, 2012 Author Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) At the risk of repeating what Klaynos & mississippichem have said, please explain this to us. Do you have a mathematical model that backs up these claims? It is well known that one cannot model the hydrogen atom using classical electromagnetic theory and treating electrons like tiny charged balls. The basic argument is that accelerating charges radiate and thus the electrons would loose energy very quickly spiralling into the nucleus. Matter would appear very unstable. You are not alone in not liking quantum mechanics. It seems very different to our macroscopic world and much of our classical intuition needs amending. However two things must be pointed out: Non-relativistic quantum mechanics is mathematically well-founded and consistent. One would find it impossible to argue mathematically that something is wrong. Today no reliable and repeatable experiment has been conducted that disagrees with the predictions of quantum mechanics, even the more unexpected or weird. (With the usual proviso of the domain of applicability and experimental errors). Most people's objections are more philosophical or based on the interpretations. Your object seems to fall in this category. There are mathematical objections when we consider relativistic theories, but even these pass our experimental tests with great accuracy. I can not explain this in mathematics, it is beyond my expertise. . . I have to use plain English and, I might add, normal physics. . . Resonance plays a key roll in this instance. . . This is the definition I am using . . . (Resonance. . . A balance of Gravity, Energy and Matter). . . Hydrogen atoms all resonate at a specific frequency. . . when they absorb energy or discharge energy they must maintain part of what makes them a hydrogen atom, their frequency. . . When they absorb energy they add what I call U1 particles. . . Now, to maintain the balance (resonance) something has to give. . . This would be the gravity of the atom. . . the gravity will become more, the electron will have less distance to travel, the sum of the energy will be more because the atom has more sub sub atomic particles. . .This will maintain the balance. . . Now this happens in jumps because resonance is not gradual, an atom looses its balance when a sufficient energy threshold has been reached. . . You can see this in the light spectra of the area. . .There is a void of light energy at the hydrogen frequency. . . This is only an explanation. . . you decide if it has validity. . . Edited January 13, 2012 by knowerastronomy
ajb Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 I can not explain this in mathematics, it is beyond my expertise. . . I have to use plain English and, I might add, normal physics. . . This is going to be problematic. Hydrogen atoms all resonate at a specific frequency. . . What vibrates, the electrons around the nucleus or the whole atom? when they absorb energy or discharge energy they must maintain part of what makes them a hydrogen atom, their frequency. . . I am lost. When they absorb energy the add what I call U1 particles. . . Now, to maintain the balance (resonance) something has to give. . . This would be the gravity of the atom. . . the gravity will become more, the electron will have less distance to travel, the sum of the energy will be more because the atom has more sub sub atomic particles. . .This will maintain the balance. . . Since when are U1 particles "normal physics"?
knowerastronomy Posted January 13, 2012 Author Posted January 13, 2012 This is going to be problematic. What vibrates, the electrons around the nucleus or the whole atom? I am lost. Since when are U1 particles "normal physics"? The universe has nothing to do with mathematics. . . it doesn't know mathematics. . . It works just fine without mathematics. . . It is only some humans that need mathematics to understand things. . . Are you saying that hydrogen atoms don't have a resonant frequency? U1 Particles are part of the theory of this thread. . . Physics is the tool used to explain the science of things it has nothing to do with particles. . . -1
ajb Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 The universe has nothing to do with mathematics. . . it doesn't know mathematics. . . It works just fine without mathematics. . . It is only some humans that need mathematics to understand things. . . I cannot really agree with that. The universe for some reason does seem mathematical, or at the least we have to wonder why mathematics has been so powerful in describing nature. Are you saying that hydrogen atoms don't have a resonant frequency? The 42,580,000 Hz? If so we are on the same page with this. U1 Particles are part of the theory of this thread. . . OK, so outside standard "normal physics". Physics is the tool used to explain the science of things it has nothing to do with particles. . . I am lost by this statment.
Bignose Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) I can not explain this in mathematics, it is beyond my expertise. . . I have to use plain English and, I might add, normal physics. . . This statement is .... I just ... I don't know what combination of frustrating/ignorant/ridiculous it is, but it is somewhere in those neighborhoods. 1) You fully admit here and elsewhere that you don't have the mathematical expertise. Ok, that's fine, we all have different strengths. But then I don't get this unwarranted self-confident assurance that mathematics is so non-useful. How can you be so sure that the mathematics are so wrong, when it has proven to be so useful to date? How can you have made such a damning conclusion on the usefulness of mathematics, when you readily admit that you don't know them. Maybe, just maybe, if you DID know the mathematics, isn't it possible that you could see how useful it really is? Without knowing the mathematics, why don't you take some of the people who do know mathematics word when they tell you that it does a very, very good job. As an analogy, this is like having made up your mind on what what pair of golf shoes is clearly superior to all the others without ever knowing how to tie your shoes. 2) You do realize that so-called 'normal physics' is also mathematical, don't you? I mean, what part of well-accepted physics isn't mathematical? From day 1 in any physics class, you learn F = ma, possibly the most basic rule in all of physics, as a mathematical expression. F = ma lets you actually say something like "that ball experienced 100 N of force" instead of "that ball experienced a lot of force" or "experienced a little force". The real benefit here is that you can actually measure the force, and compare to that prediction. If the force meter says 99.984 N, you can be reasonably confident in your prediction. If the force meter reads 822.701 N, then you need to re-check. The real benefit here is that you don't have to decide if 99.984 N is a lot or a little or if 822.701 is a lot or a little. If you are an Olympic weightlifter, your definition of a lot of force is going to be very different from that of the average ballet dancer's. Part of my frustration here is that I imagine that you have some level of mathematical ability. I hope that you can add, subtract, multiply and divide. You certainly use mathematical terms like percent and resonance, so I am assuming a basic level. I imagine that if your work shorted your paycheck that you'd notice. But, what if someone couldn't add or subtract? What if they decried that addition and subtraction were 'clearly wrong' and 'not necessary' and 'beyond my expertise'. Heck, what if your work decided that things like adding up how may hours you worked or figuring you annual salary was beyond their expertise and they just decided to pay you some random number each pay period? Would that be acceptable to you, or wouldn't you think that they should hire a payroll accountant to ensure you get your fair pay? I really think that you are doing the same thing. You are tearing down something you fully admit you don't know. Again, there is nothing wrong with being ignorant on a subject, nobody knows everything. But, to dismiss the thousands and thousands of people for who mathematics and mathematical physics IS their area of expertise, why don't you trust their expertise? Just like when you figure a paycheck, you have to have someone calculate out the pay correctly, when you start talking about physics, you need to calculate out predictions of what your ideas say. You need to have a prediction so that you can compare to measured values, just like you compare your paycheck to make sure your are being paid correctly. Look, words (so-called 'plain English') are great. Lots of powerful stuff is just words. Plenty of fiction and non-fiction works of literature are treasured classics of mankind. But, word are also fungible. They carry different meanings each colored by our own experiences. The truly great authors help you experience something as they want you to experience it, or at least very closely as possible. But, even the very best works are constantly debated and re-interpreted over and over. This is where math comes in. 100 N is 100 N. Not 10, not 1000, 100 and only 100 N. 99.984N is a tiny percent different from 100N, and 822.701 N is more than 8-fold different than 100 N. If your needs are for a model that is only a tiny percent different than the measured value, the choice is clear. If your needs are for a idea that predicts "some force", are you going to pick the ballet dancer, the Olympic weightlifter, or the payroll clerk? I really hope that this helped explain just why people on this science forum ask for math. As I've written several times in this thread, it is always good to have new ideas. Science needs new ideas. But, then that new idea is put through the crucible of seeing what predictions is makes and comparing them to measurements. This is what we want you to think about. Your idea as you've written it in words, imply some mathematical structure. The predictions made from that mathematical structure do not agree with what we know we've measured in reality. Unless there is an incredibly compelling reason to think that the measurements were done incorrectly, it is only logical to re-examine the idea in the first place. It is like working for a full week of 40 hours, and then your employer cuts you a paycheck for 12 cents. Unless the printer printing the checks messed up in some way, don't you go back to the source and ask them to examine what's wrong? Mathematically, your measured result (the check) didn't agree with the idea you agreed to (your pay rate when you accepted the job), so you go back and re-evaluate. And, if your employer just dismissed the error by telling you "math isn't needed" or "it's unnecessary", just how much longer are you going to work for them? Again, I really hope this helps, and I really hope that you think about what I've written here. Edited January 14, 2012 by Bignose 6
knowerastronomy Posted January 14, 2012 Author Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) I can not explain this in mathematics, it is beyond my expertise. . . I have to use plain English and, I might add, normal physics. . . Resonance plays a key roll in this instance. . . This is the definition I am using . . . (Resonance. . . A balance of Gravity, Energy and Matter). . . Hydrogen atoms all resonate at a specific frequency. . . when they absorb energy or discharge energy they must maintain part of what makes them a hydrogen atom, their frequency. . . When they absorb energy they add what I call U1 particles. . . Now, to maintain the balance, (resonance) something has to give. . . This would be gravity and the electron's kinetic energy. . . the gravity will become more, then the electrons would have less distance to travel, so the electron has to adjust its orbit to compensate. . . This will maintain the balance and frequency of the atom. . . The sum of the energy will be more because the atom has more sub, sub atomic particles. . . Now this happens in jumps because resonance is not gradual, an atom looses its balance when a sufficient energy threshold has been reached. . . You can see this in the light spectra of the area. . .There is a void of light energy at the hydrogen frequency. . . This is only an explanation. . . you decide if it has validity. . . this is a re-post, it needed clarification. . . Edited January 14, 2012 by knowerastronomy
swansont Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 ! Moderator Note A reminder here of rule #1 of the speculations forum: Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.Meaning you need to come up with specific predictions of your model. Throwing around buzzwords does not fulfill that requirement.
knowerastronomy Posted January 14, 2012 Author Posted January 14, 2012 ! Moderator Note A reminder here of rule #1 of the speculations forum: Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure. Meaning you need to come up with specific predictions of your model. Throwing around buzzwords does not fulfill that requirement. If you had proof it wouldn't be speculation. . . The proof is in logic and relativity. . . I admit that it doesn't have the power mathematical proof. . . So put it in the trash if you want to stifle free thought and speculation. . . This statement is .... I just ... I don't know what combination of frustrating/ignorant/ridiculous it is, but it is somewhere in those neighborhoods. 1) You fully admit here and elsewhere that you don't have the mathematical expertise. Ok, that's fine, we all have different strengths. But then I don't get this unwarranted self-confident assurance that mathematics is so non-useful. How can you be so sure that the mathematics are so wrong, when it has proven to be so useful to date? How can you have made such a damning conclusion on the usefulness of mathematics, when you readily admit that you don't know them. Maybe, just maybe, if you DID know the mathematics, isn't it possible that you could see how useful it really is? Without knowing the mathematics, why don't you take some of the people who do know mathematics word when they tell you that it does a very, very good job. As an analogy, this is like having made up your mind on what what pair of golf shoes is clearly superior to all the others without ever knowing how to tie your shoes. 2) You do realize that so-called 'normal physics' is also mathematical, don't you? I mean, what part of well-accepted physics isn't mathematical? From day 1 in any physics class, you learn F = ma, possibly the most basic rule in all of physics, as a mathematical expression. F = ma lets you actually say something like "that ball experienced 100 N of force" instead of "that ball experienced a lot of force" or "experienced a little force". The real benefit here is that you can actually measure the force, and compare to that prediction. If the force meter says 99.984 N, you can be reasonably confident in your prediction. If the force meter reads 822.701 N, then you need to re-check. The real benefit here is that you don't have to decide if 99.984 N is a lot or a little or if 822.701 is a lot or a little. If you are an Olympic weightlifter, your definition of a lot of force is going to be very different from that of the average ballet dancer's. Part of my frustration here is that I imagine that you have some level of mathematical ability. I hope that you can add, subtract, multiply and divide. You certainly use mathematical terms like percent and resonance, so I am assuming a basic level. I imagine that if your work shorted your paycheck that you'd notice. But, what if someone couldn't add or subtract? What if they decried that addition and subtraction were 'clearly wrong' and 'not necessary' and 'beyond my expertise'. Heck, what if your work decided that things like adding up how may hours you worked or figuring you annual salary was beyond their expertise and they just decided to pay you some random number each pay period? Would that be acceptable to you, or wouldn't you think that they should hire a payroll accountant to ensure you get your fair pay? I really think that you are doing the same thing. You are tearing down something you fully admit you don't know. Again, there is nothing wrong with being ignorant on a subject, nobody knows everything. But, to dismiss the thousands and thousands of people for who mathematics and mathematical physics IS their area of expertise, why don't you trust their expertise? Just like when you figure a paycheck, you have to have someone calculate out the pay correctly, when you start talking about physics, you need to calculate out predictions of what your ideas say. You need to have a prediction so that you can compare to measured values, just like you compare your paycheck to make sure your are being paid correctly. Look, words (so-called 'plain English') are great. Lots of powerful stuff is just words. Plenty of fiction and non-fiction works of literature are treasured classics of mankind. But, word are also fungible. They carry different meanings each colored by our own experiences. The truly great authors help you experience something as they want you to experience it, or at least very closely as possible. But, even the very best works are constantly debated and re-interpreted over and over. This is where math comes in. 100 N is 100 N. Not 10, not 1000, 100 and only 100 N. 99.984N is a tiny percent different from 100N, and 822.701 N is more than 8-fold different than 100 N. If your needs are for a model that is only a tiny percent different than the measured value, the choice is clear. If your needs are for a idea that predicts "some force", are you going to pick the ballet dancer, the Olympic weightlifter, or the payroll clerk? I really hope that this helped explain just why people on this science forum ask for math. As I've written several times in this thread, it is always good to have new ideas. Science needs new ideas. But, then that new idea is put through the crucible of seeing what predictions is makes and comparing them to measurements. This is what we want you to think about. Your idea as you've written it in words, imply some mathematical structure. The predictions made from that mathematical structure do not agree with what we know we've measured in reality. Unless there is an incredibly compelling reason to think that the measurements were done incorrectly, it is only logical to re-examine the idea in the first place. It is like working for a full week of 40 hours, and then your employer cuts you a paycheck for 12 cents. Unless the printer printing the checks messed up in some way, don't you go back to the source and ask them to examine what's wrong? Mathematically, your measured result (the check) didn't agree with the idea you agreed to (your pay rate when you accepted the job), so you go back and re-evaluate. And, if your employer just dismissed the error by telling you "math isn't needed" or "it's unnecessary", just how much longer are you going to work for them? Again, I really hope this helps, and I really hope that you think about what I've written here. I'm working on a response to your eloquent and lengthy dissertation it is appreciated and deserves some thought. . .
Recommended Posts