Research on the ' Strangeness ' of quantum mechanics .

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I am not so sure that we can EITHER ... OR .

 

Namely we can not really say EITHER "this is purely classical behaviour . " OR. " this is purely quantum behaviour "

 

As evidence has mounted of both sorts of behaviour being definitely present . Perhaps we ought to consider fundamental ' entities ' as being purely a ' double headed beast ' , having both characteristics.

 

Could it be that ? Sometimes the interaction with such an ' entity ' has either , or, or both , issues?

 

Could it be, that both are present ? , all the time and set of circumstances . It just depends ' which ' or ' both ' makes itself ' felt ' , as it were?

 

Prof Jim Alkahili, gave a TV presentation on this matter this week . ( looking for link ) link 1 http://richannel.org/jim-al-khalili--quantum-life-how-physics-can-revolutionise-biology

 

Recent BBC Broadcast Link :- http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04v85cj/the-secrets-of-quantum-physics-2-let-there-be-life

 

 

Mike

Edited August 29, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Mike, you need to start a blog. I think you would be fantastic at it.

 

You have several threads that are all turning into "Mike Smith Cosmos shares what he found today". No offense, please, but we're a science discussion site, and we like a fair bit of get-to-the-point when we talk about science. Discussions really should be aimed at defining a foundation for our ideas, supporting them every step of the way, ensuring their trustworthiness.

 

Most of the threads you have open are doing what you like best, skating on new ice, jumping from floe to floe. You like throwing ideas out and seeing if there's merit in them, sometimes the wilder, the better. THAT is why you should blog about that kind of thing, the ideas you can't really support with the level of evidence everyone here is always asking you for.

 

We have the mechanism for blogging right here, if you're interested. And for the types of science discussions you can support with evidence, we welcome them wholeheartedly. But we need to clean up some of these open, ambiguous ramblers that are more wishful guesswork than science discussion. I hope you understand.