As some people have mentioned, it was Milo Wolff who first discovered the wave structure of nature. Geoff Hasselhurst not only is a popularizer of the theory but is a scientist and philosopher who has been reasearching and thinking about the WSM for well over a decade. He recently deduced the spin states of matter (two each for the positron and electron) using quaternion maths equations.
Geoff Haselhurst is brilliant. What all or many of you physicists are missing is the relationship to the 10 commandments ie 10 of Quantum. Literal and metaphysical, r one in the same.Tthe commandments is not religion, dogmatic organize crime. Jesus is also not religion. Religion is a disregard for both teachings but use them against others in vain. Deliberately! Monetarily! MetaP is the sub base to physics reality & vice versa. Like conscious to subC. 8 et Q4-4Q Black holes the door ur pupil eye
Next time you better do a good recon before you say anything to public. This is about Space Resonance theory by dr Milo Wolff. You can check it on his website: quantummatter com. There are his published papers and books on that subject.
Geoff Haselhurst is a man who made a video interview with dr Wolff and popularizes his ideas. See my YT channel for these videos and dr Wolff's website for more.
The idea that there is a "wave-structure" to matter is already 86 years old, and first appeared in Louis de Broglie's dissertation "Recherches sur la théorie des quanta", in which he proved electrons to have a wave nature.
Wavelength = Planck's constant / momentum
Which would become in conjunction with SR:
Wavelength = Planck's constant / (Lorentz factor x particle's rest mass x particle's velocity)
actually it was doctor Milo Wolff at MIT who created this theory and fits your description, geoff haselhurst is an australian physicist (i think...) who worked off of Wolff's findings, correct me if I am wrong but I think that is how things played out.
You're right. Dr Milo Wolff is the guy who discovered that and wrote 2 books on that subject: "Exploring the Physics of the Unknown Universe" and "Schroedinger's Universe". His website is quantummatter com. Geoff Haselhurst is the guy who worked with him and he popularizes his ideas. He made a video interview with dr Milo Wolff; you can find it on my YT channel.
I'd have to say good luck with trying to introduce new theories into the physics industry...it took 100years to prove Newton wrong even with the evidence starring them in the face.
Newton wasn't wron. His original equation F=dp/dt is correct even in Relativity. But scientists broke his equations by dropping the relativistic mass factor and using the simplified version F=ma. Here's where the error lies:
F = dp/dt = d(mv)/dt = m dv/dt + v dm/dt = ma + v dm/dt
As you can see (by the product rule for derivatives), the "ma" factor is only a part of a bigger picture. The other part is "d dm/dt" which means change of mass with relative velocity.
Gravity, "Universal vacuum resulting from the compression of mass in the closed system," works in tandem with, but independently of, all things atmospheric, mass, and all light-energy, including electromagnetic forces. Gravity results from the spherical expansion of the universe pulling against the cumulative mass in the universe - creating an all-pervasive vacuum in the vortex. In the closed system "mass=vacuum=gravity." Pressure doesn't exist - only varying degrees of vacuum.
Fundamental Theory 0f Existence: 1 The infinite vacuum T=0K 2 The particle: C/D = pi, E = Mc^2 3 The spins: h =E/t h* = h/2pi 4 The photon, the inertia 5 The electron: e^2 = h*ca, E = h*f , em field 6 The gravitation, the star, the time 7 The proton 8 The atom(s) 9 The cell(s) 10 The Laws a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/mass b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law 11 Testing
I googled Geoffrey Haselhurst and he is almost certainly a quack. He doesn't appear to have any credentials. Physics is already a difficult subject and it is important to not waste your time studying from questionable sources. There are plenty of good resources out there. Check out Leonard Susskind's videos on youtube(he one of today's leading physicists and teaches at at Stanford).
Everything is just a wave, matter and anything with mass just have a wavelength smaller than the quantum planck distance. That's why it's not detected and they behave like particles instead of waves.
You are familiar with the double slit experiment?
Anyways, these theories have been worked out and expanded up quite a bit since you made this video.
@OctoberLifeImages Space is nothing. Space can't move or have properties. This is true by logic. I think the only explanation is that there is an ether and that these energetic oscillations are of that ether not of space. That's what I wanted someone to say, that it was space, but space is nothing, it's not space.
@Esoparagon "This is true by logic" is a non-sequitur and you are comitting a logical fallacy there. What is your evidence that space is nothing? Physicists have already shown that at the smallest scales space isn't empty at all but fluctuating and frothing endlessly. Einstien showed that matter is spatially extended and that since general relativity implies the representation of reality by a continuous field, the concept of "empty space" loses it's meaning. You are wrong, sorry.
@OctoberLifeImages Space is nothing by definition. That is no proof. It's a priori fact. What ever you are describing is not space. Whatever is frothing is not space, I postulate it is the ether they are describing not space.
@OctoberLifeImages It's not a logical fallacy. Space is nothing by definition. That is no proof. It's a priori fact. By its very definition, space cannot have properties. What ever you are describing is not space. I'm not saying you aren't describing something that permeates space but it's not space itself. Whatever is frothing is not space, I postulate it is the ether they are describing not space. Relativity is bells and whistles based on illogical premises that cannot be true by definition.
@OctoberLifeImages It's not a logical fallacy. Space is nothing by definition. That is no proof. It's a priori fact. By its very definition, space cannot have properties. What ever you are describing is not space. I'm not saying you aren't describing something that permeates space but it's not space itself. Whatever is frothing is not space, I postulate it is the ether they are describing not space. Relativity is bells and whistles based on illogical premises that cannot be true by definition.
@OctoberLifeImages Mathematics is only useful so long as it is actually describing something that exists in reality. Otherwise, you are not describing anything about nature at all. That's what happened with relativity and the idea of space-time being able to curve.
@Esoparagon Also, even if space resonance were incorrect and even if at the planck scale space didn't flux and oscillate, the current standard model describes space as warping and expanding. Assuming the big bang theory is incorrect (likely), general relativity describes gravity as an effect of the motion of the warping of space-time. In any case, observation and theories point to space having both motion and properties. There is a mountain of evidence for this!
@OctoberLifeImages Not space, evidence needs to be interpreted and is in itself meaningless, i'm not saying there is no evidence, but that the interpretation is wrong and the evidence is of something that permeates space. Probably this ether is what everything is made of which why otherwise empty space still has properties only it's not the space that has the properties, it's this ether that they are getting results from because space having properties makes no sense.
@OctoberLifeImages I'm not the only one who thinks this is so. It's self evident. "I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. Of properties, we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view" -- Nikola Tesla
@Esoparagon It is definitely not self evident to a critical, skeptical thinker. A true scientific thinker questions their own logic endlessly. Upon his false predication (assumption, really) that space is an empty medium that zero dimensional objects can exist within and act upon each other through fields and force carriers is yet another logical leap. Nikola Tesla also believed that if he created a "death ray" it could be used to end all war.
@Esoparagon Not to mention his other paranoia and obsessions, such as with pidgeons and numbers divided by three. The problem here is in etymology, I argue. Many of us understand the word space as "empty, nothing, the lack of substance" because historically, its semiotics imply an empty geometrical area that objects can exist in.
@Esoparagon Your mistake (which in no way is attributed to a lack of intelligence) is the assumtion (and it IS an assumption) that the etymology of a word we have used to describe the geometrical area that objects exist in is correct in describing reality, which is not the case.
@Esoparagon What I find ironic is your statement that mathematics is only as useful as long as it is actually describing reality, while at least partially true, is slightly erroneous considering that mathematics and reality describe each other extremely well, while language alone falls several orders of magnitude short by comparison.
@Esoparagon So by assuming space is nothingness based on a semantical argument, you are making a special plea. The mathematics (including less abstract maths that describe reality with uncanny precision), as well as a substantial amount of emperical and experimental/observational data, disagree with your hypothesis.
@Esoparagon I need not get into the evidence that space is a continuous, tensile medium with properties to show that your "nothing" hypothesis is wrong. Funny that you posit a "luminiferous ether" in that absence! The secondary and profound irony I see in this discussion is that space resonance implies "emptiness, nothingness, the formless form" - Tao concepts that have existed for thousands of years - is what gives rise to the infinitude of temporal forms.
@Esoparagon Ultraviolet wavelengths are invisible to your ocular receptors but if you could detect them they might have a gentle hue of purple ;) Just because something is invisible to the (only apparent) seamless continuum your brain constantly plays back to you as a backdrop to the narratives of your cognitive experience doesn't mean their color or existence is negated :)
@OctoberLifeImages I didn't make any sort of argument of that kind at all. I have no idea what this a response to because I certainly made no arguments that would be refuted by this since it's got nothing to do with what I'm arguing.
@Esoparagon It doesn't matter much :) However I will say an appeal to ignorance will accomplish nothing here. One question: How can we experience a 3D space, regardless of its nature, if it doesn't exist? Evolution works in 3D - our sensory and nervous systems convert sense data gathered in a 3D space into our experiences of and within it. This doesnt neccesarily exclude space from having properties, nor from being the infinite (not bound by a second substance) medium manifesting all
there are no atoms but only waves. But the problem with waves is a waves Have Identity crisis- they look so similar. They need an observer to measure,for example, their location.But hang on - who observed the stars that the hubble telescope viewed that no man had seen before ?????Aliens ??????
Sorry, it's getting a little sloppy. What I was trying to say is galaxies could arise from a state where effective electromagnetically-dominated planck-scale is enlarged by combination with a gravitational wave component that now expresses itself in galactic-scaled quantum gravity waves.
I suppose there's is a much heavier and more compact form for mass-like energy at higher energies. Some sort of modified gravity-like DeBroglie wave radius, maybe? Galaxies would be a decay event from what could itself be a decay event and so-on, up to some point where decay events reach an equilibrium with exchange events.
It's possible to refer to the oldest imagable light as being from the "youngest galaxies" and the trend is apparently definitely from arm to ring as one goes back in age, but that doesn't mean I ascribe to a truly unitary "big bang" event or a repeating universe. If the universe is infinite it can be quasi-periodic and non-periodic, yet retain all the mathematical benefits of periodicity on any conceivable scale, which I would refer to as merely being being chaotic, for all intents and purposes.
It seems rings are more prominent than arms in younger galaxies. I'd attribute this to the mass of the centers being much more compactly distributed, or in other words more spatially coherent, in terms any theoretical physical long-range wavelike rotation of gravitational forces, otherwise the effect is easily swamped by the inverse-square aspect of flux density with distance from the source.
I have a hypothesis about quantum gravity, which I reached by looking at Hoag's galaxy. Seems the force exerted by a single graviton could actually rotate over a period measured in tens of thousands of light-years as it propagates. The graviton force thus supposedly always begins facing the source and regardlessless of whether it agrees in orientation with other gravitons from the same source, they all end up as forces periodically pointing away from the source at certain distances.
At the extreme of minimal 3-d symmetry, the rotation of light-speed energy around and through a self-defined mass-center could be equated to a tetrahedron with a leading point of a distinctly uncompressed nature and three following points of compressed nature. These three points I would equate to quarks and the uncompressed point I would equate to remaining nuclear binding energy, which would encompass the weak and strong forces.
If that doesn't make someone laugh, I don't know what will...
If the lost symmetry of compression is maintained from the mass-center perspective, then it seems the time spent in the lateral-moving component of the orbit must increase. I'll call this "Lorentz fattening" or an energy-time tradeoff of sorts.
I may very well be devolving into comedy here, however. Still trying to wake up.
Supposing energy in matter moves circularly, or as symmetrically as possible, around and across a mass-center, the orbit of a moving object would have to appear compressed in the direction of motion,otherwise the velocity in the direction of mass motion would be departing from free-space lightspeed.
If "c" (light-speed) is implicit in the wave, and matter can be considered a spinning wave convertable to light, then special relativity arises from that, I suppose.
Maybe Geoff's idea not a special idea. Maybe it depends on where "c" comes in to the picture.
I see relativity as expressing a process following from the phenomenon of light, but I tend to oversimplify. I was trying to say that if we equate matter to spinning light energy, then it becomes very apparent as to why matter can't reach the speed of light in open space.
I find that reassuring. The thing is, I don't think I got it from any course I took, heard it in any class, or read it in any book I've read. Maybe I was sleeping in class or forgot where I saw it, or maybe I came up with it on my own, I don't know.
I didn't hear about it in a course either. I just thought about it before, and thought that it would explain the time dilation and other effects of special relativity.
Though slightly familiar with Compton wavelength and deBroglie wavelength, I can't recall seeing the idea of deriving relativity entirely from wave-particle relations anywhere, though it sounds vaguely familiar. I'm a bit sceptical but it's definitely an appealing idea being obviously in the direction of simplifying things greatly, it does seem worthy of a major prize if it's correct. Curious to know if it involves "Fisher information." Oh well, I'll try to see if I can follow it.
So just wait a fucking second ensrifraff, you're ridiculing someone for not agreeing with rote learning? I don't know this guy but I'm a high school drop out. I have an IQ of 138, you don't need a collegiate degree to understand quantum mechanics, calculus, algebra, physics, general sciences, et cetera. You don't need a piece of paper from some university to say "I understand this" - so please before you decide to deride someone, realize that having a degree doesn't "make you smart"
At QM we have quarks that defy intuition with the asymptotic freedom i.e. there attraction becomes more intense as their distance widens. I'm not too sure how these conclusions were drawn? Since I'm pretty sure they've never been observed apart before. But David Gross did win the Nobel Prize for his discovery. I'm not sure what the problem with QM and Gravity is, but physicists are baffled by it
I couldn't post on the "what's wrong with modern physics" videos. I'm not sure if you did that, but if so, I think you should be open to debate. Although I disagree with much of what you say, I appreciate that you are committed to knowledge, but you are not infallible.
I think the main problem with your videos on science (not this one in particular) is that you conflate interpretations of quantum mechanics with the actual scientific theory of quantum mechanics.
The Bohm interpretation is one interpretation of QM (one which I would say is fairly psychological pleasing), but from a scientific perspective it is no more valid than many other interpretations (which is to say there's no more empirical evidence for it).
It is also important to note that there are many physical processes which as far as we can tell are governed fundamentally by statistics. If you could propose a testable deterministic mechanism that explains these random processes and turn out to be right, you would likely win a Nobel prize.
My model actually blends the particle and field into a single entity. It litterally is a field in the sense that physicists think though. It's just that when the field behaves in a certain way it can act like certain particles.
Haha well, I can't figure out for the life of me how YouTube commenting works; that last post was supposed to reply to the first post of hollowquark. Unfortunately, I have a final in 40 minutes, and I'll be stepping out in 10 to go to it! So I'll get to your second point when I return...
"the radius of the universe is 8.797*10^26 meters, mass of observable universe is 3*10^52 kg, so your prediction of h is the value 39.6*10^96 kg*m^2/s) and expect it to be right?" Too many significant digits - the error of measurement of Mu,Ru is larger than the sigdigs. Also, k = (A^2)*mass-density*speed = [(1.6x10^-35)^2](10^27 kg/m)(3x10^8 m/s) = 7x10^-35 Joules/Hz, math is fine within order of magnitude (observable error) of h. Take out or add some dark matter and it all works!
You are off by a factor of (1/(8*pi)) which is really significant empirically and theoretically...that's probably why people don't pay attention when you're predicted value is off by a factor of 0.0397887358...you're just as "close" using the universal density of luminous matter in the inverse of the Einstein radius of the FLRW metric in predicting the planck length. You're off by a factor of 10 this time.
OK, Einstein - if you have it all figured out then go on the record and predict something. For instance - if it all fits together so well why don't you tell me what you predict for the mass of the Higgs boson that the LHC will be looking for this year? I mean - I am sure you have QM and GRT united by now, so just tell me what the answers are? Where is the dark matter? If you don't have the answers, don't be so prentious.
Before you start an explanation about FLRW metrics and how it's all been worked out in the first part of the 20th century, just answer one question - why did nobody predict the existence of dark energy? When it was "discovered" in 1998 there was no previous explanation and the cosmological constant was resurrected out of ashes to explain it. If 75% of our universe is dark energy, why can't we find evidence of it in a particle accelerator on Earth? Prediction is kind of important to any theory.
Hello, I'm not an objectivist but I am a math and physics double major at UC Davis (I have 375 chars left, so god help me...) but David Bohm's quantum mechanics is incompatible with special relativity as Bohm requires a "guiding wave" that travels faster than light. Wave-particle duality is well established as a theory. Mr Geof is not a reputable physicist I'm afraid...Bohm's work actually was just to demonstrate that it's possible for hidden variables to exist in QM, not as a replacement for it
Lee Smolin (Perimeter institute), Sir Roger Penrose and a few others have openly criticized the copenhagen interpretation as a stumbling block for quantizing gravity. This theory is not sacred and regardless of what any physics professor says it is up for grabs. Formulas in QM match experiment well, but assigning a theory to those formulas has always been the problem (hence the wild speculation about multiverses - many possible universes). The LHC will be the test for multidimensional physics.
First, no one said the Copenhagen interpretation (which is not the same thing as conventional QM) is final. There are serious obstructions to quantizing anything (any formula with anything other than a linear combination of multiples of x, x*x, p*x, x*p, p, p*p cannot be consistently quantized).
Second, the multiverse idea is from a different interpretation of quantum mechanics (the "many worlds" interpretation).
Third, the LHC can't directly test for multidimensional physics, only indirectly.
Yes I agree - multiverse is a different interpretation, but a lot of professional papers are coming out on it (physical review) including Hawking's revised information in a black hole paradox and revised string theory. Understanding quantization is a big problem in physics - but as I learned in my days taking a graduate QM class - "don't ask why, just do the math". There has never been a good explanation from any of my professors on this one.
As far as replacing QM, I don't think WSM is trying to do that. I think explaining those hidden variables is more about what WSM is trying to do. Simple example - why quantization in the first place? If you have standing matter waves, you immediately have integer wavelengths, integer energy and momentum, and Planck's constant is defined by a something intuitive from Newtonian mechanics. Change the number of nodes in a standing wave from n to n+1 and find the energy difference as h*freq.
"Simple example - why quantization in the first place? If you have standing matter waves, you immediately have integer wavelengths, integer energy and momentum, and Planck's constant is defined by a something intuitive from Newtonian mechanics."
Perhaps because a "matter wave" is so ill defined, and the recovery of Planck's constant is questionable at best (e.g. you can't just "plug and chug" a standing wave equation and get consistently back h!).
OK, lets take the simple approach from freshman physics (Halliday&Resnick). We have a 1-D string (simple string theory!) and induce standing waves in it. There are n standing wave nodes over the total distance L. The wavelength is therefore L/n. We increase the number of nodes to n+1, making the wavelength L/(n+1). The speed of the wave is assumed to be c and the frequency is c/[L/n] in the first case and changes to c/[L/(n+1)] when we add a node. Change in energy = k*change in frequency.
OK lets define it: a 1-D string with standing waves over the distance L. Wavelength is L/n where n is the number of standing nodes. Speed of waves are c, so frequency f1 is c/(L/n). We now increase the number of standing nodes to n+1, so frequency increases to f2 = c/[L/(n+1)]. Change in energy = k*change in freq. = k*(f2-f1) = kc/L. Energy in any wave is E = (A^2)*freq*mass-density*speed and delta-E is due to delta-freq. which is also equal to c/L. So k = (A^2)*mass-density*speed.See next post
From last post, k = (A^2)*mass-density*speed and we said speed = c. Now A = wave amplitude = planck Length(from string theory) = 1.6 x10^-35. We have a 1-D model so mass density is 1-D inside of our universe: mass-density = mass-universe/radius universe = 10^27 kg/meter Plug it all in and k = Planck's constant(h) and it consistently gives back h because standing wave mode n is arbitrary. Mass and radius of universe are in the equation, unifying gravity and QM. What more could you ask for?!!
So you basically have an unobservable, one dimensional string, with standing waves, where you make L = radius of the universe, and M=mass of the universe, the amplitude is unobservably small and assumes quantum mechanics to be correct, then assert that this untestable description is dependent on incorrect parameters (the radius of the universe is 8.797*10^26 meters, mass of observable universe is 3*10^52 kg, so your prediction of h is the value 39.6*10^96 kg*m^2/s) and expect it to be right?
You need to retake your math final. My numbers come from Zeilik & Smith,"Intro. Astro. & Astrophysics".All these values have large observational error so the significant digits you add are incorrect. I'll show all steps : k = (A^2)*mass-density*speed, A = 1.6x10^-35 m, Mu = 10^53 Kg, Ru=2x10^26 m, mass density = Mu/Ru =10^27 Kg/m. So k = [(1.6x10^-35)^2]*(10^27)*3x10^8 =(2.6x10^-70)*(10^27)*3x10^8 = 7.8x10^-35 Joules/Hz = J*sec which is h within an order of magnitude and within error of Ru, Mu.
Really?! OK,(A^2)*(mass density)*(speed) = (meter^2)(kg/m)(m/sec) = kg*m^2/sec =(?) energy(?!) Not really - common we learned this one in high school. Energy is kg*m^2/sec^2, not kg*m^2/sec which is what (A^2)*(mass density)*(speed) is, which is energy*sec = Joules/Hz.
Unobservable but not unpredictable. One dimensional string is the same as a spherical, scalar field which changes only with r. The amplitude is unobservably small for defining h, but not for defining other particles. Again, k = (A^2)*mass-density*speed = [(1.6x10^-70)^2]*(10^27)*(3x10^8)=7x10^-35 Joule/Hz, order of mag. but add some dark matter and it works out to h (after all, it it's also unobservable!). For more on other, observable particles, google WSM unified field theory.
How would you know? Have you been out there to measure it? If so, I would like a ride on your faster than FTL ship, or an explanation of why you are so sure that measurements from Earth confirm it?!!
hollowquark, what makes you think that you have to be out there to know the size of the universe? i asked a simple question ,, what is the distance between any two given masses?. i have have a ship that is capable of reaching vast distances with actual displacement,, that ship is the mind,, so if you want, i will let you ride on my FTL ship. first you must pay a ticket by answering my question,,,, what is the distance between any two given masses?
That's exactly the problem - what it's in your mind. If you think you can solve it with just your mind and limited experimental data, then you need to read about why Aristotle failed to predict results with just rational thought. If you want to talk about center of mass (CM), it's easy to calculate based on geometry and density of object. Then the distance between two masses is the distance between the CMs. This is just a model and assumes that we know what "mass" is (higgs?).
hollow, first clue to understanding what mass is, is to aknowledge that mass is independent from dimension or geometry. it is a scalar quantity based on intensity. would you agree?..
Ah Circle, herein lies the illusion. Mass appears to be independent of geometry - but then why matter/anti-matter? How can the curvature of space be separate from mass? Perhaps warped space creates mass as much as mass warps space? The equations that result are similar to GTR equations - same G44 solution results but without the singularity. Think of it - waves have energy that compress local mass-density and interefering waves create particles. Google "spherical wave unified field theory"
The energy in a wave, without damping is constant and PE = KE = 1/2mv^2 for linear mass density with wave of bulk mass m. Substitute v = c and KE = 1/2mc^2. Since PE = KE then total energy = mc^2 = rest energy of particle. Rest energy of a particle (i.e. inertial mass) comes from a wave. Think of matter-antimatter - waves which create the particle are 180 degrees out of phase and destructively cancel but energy doesn't disappear - it creates new waves which are photons at the equiv. energy.
A better answer to your question requires an answer to the question "what scale of mass?". For objects in the large domain, the distance between CMs I mentioned is adequate. For distance between two electron masses that are within nanometers, it's going to be a different calculation based on QM. The true accuracy is limited by an understanding of "mass" and "distance" where the boundaries of mass and even a true metric for distance are ill defined at the planck length.
Google space and motion dot-com. Dr. Milo Wolff published a book in 1990 - Exploring the physics of the Unknown universe that Geoff refers to - get it, read it. You won't be disappointed - only by the fact that so many physicists are wondering aimlessly through the starry night!
As long as i am not presented with a quantum theory that can get me A/4 for a blackhole, just to quote one of the problems we currently have. That guy stuck in 1920, we had tons of scientist up to 2007, i am sorry but a metaphysicist?, i dont even like opinions of cosmologist or astrophysicist, since they dont have enough background to work with it. Personally i think Fotini Markopoulou had a closer idea with the article of emergent graphity, you can always google for it.
Absolutly, what the bleep is NOT a documentary at all, It is a pseudo scientific infomercial promoting a cult called Ramtha school of enlightment. All the knowledge you think you have acquired from that movie if good for the garbadge.
I really don't understand this real well, but try seeing the documenatry What The Bleep!? Down The Rabbit Hole. It is a really good quantum mechancs documentary that explains a lot of this kind of stuff.
I don't know this Jeff hazelsomthing you are refering to but there are a few things that I see you don't get right. First of all quantum mechanics mathematically see the wave-particle as one function (one single object not 2) it is called a wave-function.
And it is a common misconception to think about wave-particle duality actually as waves and as particles at the same time. A photon or electron for example is neither a wave nor a particle it is something else for wich we have no words for, no macroscopic equivalent to.
They are objects that have both caracteristics, take a like a cylindre for example: when you look at the roung side of it you see a circle and from the side you see a rectangle but the object is neither a circle or a rectangle it's a cylinder.
The problem is with general relativity: quantum mechanics can't account for the bending of space at microscopic scales. For now gravity is undetectable at these scales.
You said that physicist don't think that "the quantum world" is real... That depend of the physicist there are ALOT of interpretation of quantum mechanics: The copenhaguan interpretation, bohm-de broglie interpretation (wich has been abandonned), transactional, multiverse etc etc etc... quantum mechanics works but nobody seem to understand it really.
and i just check on this Geoff Haselhurst guy, he has been writing some of his stuff on wikipedia about wave matter blabla and it has been deleted by the community.
The waves = Strings I believe, this just sounds like string theory but maybe not. If he unified the theories and were valid I expect they would be in the news.
Very interesting. I'd like to know in comprehensible, concrete (to the extent possible) terms how causality can be violated in the physical world. Would acausality imply randomness in some way? Anyone know?
Is quantum mechanics acausal to the extent that it can only be adequately described and understood in terms of probability and statistics? Some aspects of quantum entanglement definitely seem non causal (Bell's theorem??).
Don't get me wrong. I respect you. I've seen your other videos and carry similar thoughts. I'd respect you even if they were not similar. I changed my nick to :Tony
ok, I just listened to your video again. There is not one wave that gives the interpretation of matter. There is 2 waves. IN and OUT. You can't have one without the other. 2 Waves create resonance. You can't have just one wave. Your talking static or dynamic. Particle or wave. etc. The only commonality is thought. Thought.
Ever notice looking at a construct of the universe from the outside. Looks like neuron pathways. Like a brain. We are neurons of this brain. Think of it that way. Closest example I can give. The universe is an extension of our collective minds. If we did not exist then the universe wouldn't either.
I never said God once. Why do you need someone else to tell you evidence. I Think Therefore I am . If you want proof, you'll never ever get it. You say you bought your T shirt because you are objective. NO, you bought it to relay your message and you know it. I truly believe that we are each part of the equation and answer.
careful about this observer is creator stuff. Alot of cults uses quantum mumbo jumbo like this like Ramtha School of Enligthment where "you are god" and everything exist because of you and you can have control over the unvivers and blablabla. This is bogus although Eugene Wigner (a real physicist) postulate this interpretation of QM, but it is really not widely accepted by the scientific community.
OK, I meant each person is in the center of the same universe. Each person observes the universe in a different way. I think the universe is the product of our collective thought. If there were no people, there would be no universe. The observer is the creator. We don't observe creation. Our collective minds are holding this universe together. I only have GR 12. science went from particles,to waves,to grand unified to consciousness.
So I end up starring at the wall for hours on end every night. Thinking for answers of my own questions because those are the only ones I can answer for sure. Too much to say in a 500 word post. And I need to change my nickname, looks unprofessional. Why? to change your perception of what I say. Perception distorts so you have to find the answers in yourselves. Thanks for posting your comment. I read the links. Half of your questions are answered on your t-shirt in the video.
old physics and quantum physics both come to the same conclusion over and over again. Nothing exists. The second we observe through our crude senses nothing makes sense and once we attempt to explain anything we are limited. We tried math but how do you explain feelings and emotions. What's the formula for love or hate? Our emotions drive us to ask questions. It is our emotion that has to be addressed. Not the question.
"Nothing exists. The second we observe through our crude senses nothing makes sense and once we attempt to explain anything we are limited... It is our emotion that has to be addressed."
Emotion is life's driving force. That's certainly true. But emotion must be channeled and guided by the mind and by pervasive morality, or it's hugely destructive as can be so easily seen, everywhere nowadays it seems. I think of emotion as like steam in a boiler. Very useful and powerful when controlled and and catastrophically destructive when not (as in a line rupture or boiler explosion).
Just want to be clear. A photon is only an expression. There is no photon either. It's all perception. collective I believe. Don't all blink at once, there may be nothing left to see.
Look, you are talking about perception like it distorts, all the while claiming to have objective knowledge of the shorcomings of perception. How did you get this knowledge?
I didn't want to sound like that. I claim nothing. Just an opinion. Each person is at the center of their own universe, we are separated by time. If we both look at an object, let's say a a brown box. I may think it's big and ugly color, you may think it's small and nice color. Both are true from the eye of the observer. But which one do we "write down" now that we have observed we must choose a reality. I'll just say that for now.
"Each person is at the center of their own universe"
How do you know that? You are claiming to know the nature of the entire universe here. Where do you get a basis for such a claim? If you ARE in your own private universe, how could you ever know it wasn't the entire real universe?
You sound like you've been brainwashed at a modern university.
Well that's it. there's no particles. There is 2 waves. (in and out)The waves create resonance that create galaxies... But wait. That's thinking in the opposite way again, the way that creates more questions. lets start again. There is 2 waves, created from our collective minds. Stop. think. The expression of waves is an instrument to express emotion....thought. For waves to exist the must be the observing consciousness. When we talk about waves we are actually talking about so much more.
First of all how can u say that their is no matter, that "its just a wave". A wave is the oscillation of matter. If u want to learn about new energy sources than you should check out Bob Lazar's video on generating gravity fields and the anti-matter reactor. I know he is telling the truth because I used to work at S4 on the disc's. I belive its the right of every person on earth to know the truth.
Light is made up of waveforms(frequencies). What if you get rid of the electro magnetic forces that bind matter and use the right frequency as the glue? Could something like that be possible? Can 2 particles be bound by light or the frequency there of?
hi i just started looking at gravity due to the fact that i was trying to create perpetual motion and was seeing gravity act differently then what i was taught could you please watch i stole newton's apple and give me some criticism i am just trying to learn and don t know who to approach also disreguard my additude for it is not directed towards you thank you
I came to the same conclusion independently, and have been fleshing it out into a full-fledged model. It hasn't gotten anything near to the point of a scientifically valid theory, but check out my physics model playlist if you are interested.
Number 1. As far as I know, the H guy is closest to Science crackpot. Surely, he hasn't produced one yota of new testable physics, nor explains 99% that we already know. Number 2. Special relativity is one thing, general relativity (gravity) another. He refers to the first, but in 1920s and 1930s P.A.M. Dirac already united QPhys with special relativity, with two outstanding predictions later verified experimentally. H (if right) would be nearly one century late.
Most big time objectivists (ARI lecturers), however, have little physical science training---ironically. But my own experience is that most objectivists (esp male objectivists) are in the sciences, esp. computer science.
"If you're smart, you're probably not an Objectivist..."
That's the stupidest, funniest, craziest thing I've ever heard.
Objectivism will destroy (revise, correct) probability theory. Probability will be replaced with a cause-effect explanation. Its inevitable if science progresses.
Probability theory? You mean quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics, which is based so much on probability itself. You say you're an avid reader? Read up on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. If you're an Objectivist, you probably also have some misconceived notions about causality.
What's funny is that you claim most Objectivists are scientists, when in fact, I've never met a scientist who's claimed Objectivism...
*msilveira* Have you met many Objectivists period, scientists or non? I haven't...
I know Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. And yes, I do mean statistical mechanics. Anyone who says we can never know the cause of subatomic units, and must content ourselves with statistics about their behavior as if it were causeless - that's modern assanine bullcrap. Besides, how could anyone KNOW that we can't KNOW what causes subatomic behavior? Aren't they claiming knowledge about it?
I've met quite a few, and showed my disgust for them accordingly. Statistical mechanics is grounded on very sturdy theory. As a scientist myself, I look at people like you who argue from ignorance of what you deny, and think you're rather dumb.
As it turns out, you can discover a lot by ammassing statistics. That I don't deny. But statistics don't explain the phenomena. And modern science insists that no cause-effect explanation is possible. That's what I object to - claiming to know that knowledge is impossible.
It's not knowledge that modern science claims is impossible, you idiot. Seriously, people like you should just stick with ridiculous claims like, "you can't deny truth without making that a truth!" Ayn Rand is to philosophy what you are to science- A very poor observer and critic who does not know what you are talking about.
Here is a wiki link. How about you pick up some of the books referenced here rather than read both your pseudo-scientific and pseudo-philosophic crap.
So exactly what discoveries have you made that put you on the map as a scientist? If we follow your suggestion, we might as well go back to epicenters and call Tycho Brahe's observations "close enough for government work because we aren't out to prove absolute truth today". People like you are the reason Copernicus was afraid to publish until he was almost dead or the proponents of plate tectonics were laughed at 40 years ago for what is now a substantiated theory. It's called Nazi science!
This last comment is in response to GravityExNihilo, who in their response to "cropperb" said, "It's not knowledge that modern science claims is impossible, you idiot. Seriously, people like you should just stick with ridiculous claims like, "you can't deny truth without making that a truth!"
You say things like "I know the answer" and "That's what I object to - claiming to know that knowledge is impossible." Please read Lakatos, Kuhn, Popper...etc before talking about modern science(s). Sorry Objectivists, but scientific knowledge begins with, and retains, doubt.
I've read Popper, Kuhn and Lakatos. You seem to think they are irrational and that they pander to religion. They each have quite different approaches to the philosophy of science, but I don't see how any of them pander to religion, or can be called "irrational". Could you please further elaborate on why you hold these opinions about these three philosophers of science?
Watch my videos on "What's Wrong with Modern Science?"
And go to the ARI website (aynrand dot com) and register as a user. There you can get FREE access to David Harriman's one hour lecture "The Crisis in physics - and its Cause"
Cropperb, I've seen that video. What I don't understand is your characterization of Popper, Kuhn, and Lakatos as irrational panderers to religion (in your replies to AngryAnthropologist). Since you have such a strong opinion of Popper, Kuhn and Lakatos, could tell me which of their books you've read, and how you reached the conclusion that each of them irrationally panders to religion?
Statistical physics is quite firm, without it things like phase transitions would be absolutely impossible to understand and explain in the way they occurr. Just one of many examples...
But in regards to statistics, it seems some of the behavior of particles get analyzed as having no verifiable cause - only a statistical observatin from past events can give accurate predictions of future events. So, ARE statistics used as a way to avoid explaining the CAUSES of the events observed?
Given that there are objectivist clubs at University of Chicago, Berkeley, MIT, Harvard, and Yale I guess objectivists are really dumb. I have objectivist friends who are graduate students and MIT and Yale. So, go fuck yourself---GravityExNihilo.
Can't anyone express disagreement on UTube without resorting to juvenile profanity? It's disgusting and does nothing whatever to bolster one's contention. It shows only a lack of culture and(or) upbringing.
The Humanities can be approached critically with philology and logic. Unfortunately, the subjet has been ruined by laziness and incompetence. Bohm is the most credible, radical physicist around. I don't know about that other guy.If you could find a paper he's published, I could definitely look into ( I am a physics grad. student). It is true , however, that quantum mechanics has become victim of dogmatism.
As some people have mentioned, it was Milo Wolff who first discovered the wave structure of nature. Geoff Hasselhurst not only is a popularizer of the theory but is a scientist and philosopher who has been reasearching and thinking about the WSM for well over a decade. He recently deduced the spin states of matter (two each for the positron and electron) using quaternion maths equations.
OctoberLifeImages 1 month ago
@OctoberLifeImages A laymans explanation/links of space resonance: octoberlife. deviantart. com /art/Fluctuations-206892279
OctoberLifeImages 1 month ago 2
Geoff Haselhurst is brilliant. What all or many of you physicists are missing is the relationship to the 10 commandments ie 10 of Quantum. Literal and metaphysical, r one in the same.Tthe commandments is not religion, dogmatic organize crime. Jesus is also not religion. Religion is a disregard for both teachings but use them against others in vain. Deliberately! Monetarily! MetaP is the sub base to physics reality & vice versa. Like conscious to subC. 8 et Q4-4Q Black holes the door ur pupil eye
1johnlangford2 1 year ago
@cropperb:
Next time you better do a good recon before you say anything to public. This is about Space Resonance theory by dr Milo Wolff. You can check it on his website: quantummatter com. There are his published papers and books on that subject.
Geoff Haselhurst is a man who made a video interview with dr Wolff and popularizes his ideas. See my YT channel for these videos and dr Wolff's website for more.
Saskachewan 1 year ago
The idea that there is a "wave-structure" to matter is already 86 years old, and first appeared in Louis de Broglie's dissertation "Recherches sur la théorie des quanta", in which he proved electrons to have a wave nature.
Wavelength = Planck's constant / momentum
Which would become in conjunction with SR:
Wavelength = Planck's constant / (Lorentz factor x particle's rest mass x particle's velocity)
This is all pretty simple stuff.
vanderbilt887 1 year ago
actually it was doctor Milo Wolff at MIT who created this theory and fits your description, geoff haselhurst is an australian physicist (i think...) who worked off of Wolff's findings, correct me if I am wrong but I think that is how things played out.
OrderOfTheAzureSky 1 year ago
@OrderOfTheAzureSky:
You're right. Dr Milo Wolff is the guy who discovered that and wrote 2 books on that subject: "Exploring the Physics of the Unknown Universe" and "Schroedinger's Universe". His website is quantummatter com. Geoff Haselhurst is the guy who worked with him and he popularizes his ideas. He made a video interview with dr Milo Wolff; you can find it on my YT channel.
Saskachewan 1 year ago
@OrderOfTheAzureSky You are correct, as well Geoff has properly deduced the spin states of matter using quaternion maths equations recently.
OctoberLifeImages 1 month ago
I was going to use your wave-matter theory in my undergraduate essay but I realised you have no credentials... sorry.
stefanheartmarsvolta 1 year ago
I'd have to say good luck with trying to introduce new theories into the physics industry...it took 100years to prove Newton wrong even with the evidence starring them in the face.
Jammieg001 2 years ago
@Jammieg001:
Newton wasn't wron. His original equation F=dp/dt is correct even in Relativity. But scientists broke his equations by dropping the relativistic mass factor and using the simplified version F=ma. Here's where the error lies:
F = dp/dt = d(mv)/dt = m dv/dt + v dm/dt = ma + v dm/dt
As you can see (by the product rule for derivatives), the "ma" factor is only a part of a bigger picture. The other part is "d dm/dt" which means change of mass with relative velocity.
Saskachewan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Gravity, "Universal vacuum resulting from the compression of mass in the closed system," works in tandem with, but independently of, all things atmospheric, mass, and all light-energy, including electromagnetic forces. Gravity results from the spherical expansion of the universe pulling against the cumulative mass in the universe - creating an all-pervasive vacuum in the vortex. In the closed system "mass=vacuum=gravity." Pressure doesn't exist - only varying degrees of vacuum.
ScottishProfessor 2 years ago
socratus1 2 years ago
I googled Geoffrey Haselhurst and he is almost certainly a quack. He doesn't appear to have any credentials. Physics is already a difficult subject and it is important to not waste your time studying from questionable sources. There are plenty of good resources out there. Check out Leonard Susskind's videos on youtube(he one of today's leading physicists and teaches at at Stanford).
barry123www 2 years ago
Everything is just a wave, matter and anything with mass just have a wavelength smaller than the quantum planck distance. That's why it's not detected and they behave like particles instead of waves.
You are familiar with the double slit experiment?
Anyways, these theories have been worked out and expanded up quite a bit since you made this video.
AlienScientist 3 years ago 3
@AlienScientist What's a wave made of?
Esoparagon 3 months ago
@Esoparagon A wave is made of the energetic oscillation of space. :)
OctoberLifeImages 1 month ago
@OctoberLifeImages Space is nothing. Space can't move or have properties. This is true by logic. I think the only explanation is that there is an ether and that these energetic oscillations are of that ether not of space. That's what I wanted someone to say, that it was space, but space is nothing, it's not space.
Esoparagon 1 month ago
@Esoparagon "This is true by logic" is a non-sequitur and you are comitting a logical fallacy there. What is your evidence that space is nothing? Physicists have already shown that at the smallest scales space isn't empty at all but fluctuating and frothing endlessly. Einstien showed that matter is spatially extended and that since general relativity implies the representation of reality by a continuous field, the concept of "empty space" loses it's meaning. You are wrong, sorry.
OctoberLifeImages 1 month ago
@OctoberLifeImages Space is nothing by definition. That is no proof. It's a priori fact. What ever you are describing is not space. Whatever is frothing is not space, I postulate it is the ether they are describing not space.
Esoparagon 1 month ago
@OctoberLifeImages It's not a logical fallacy. Space is nothing by definition. That is no proof. It's a priori fact. By its very definition, space cannot have properties. What ever you are describing is not space. I'm not saying you aren't describing something that permeates space but it's not space itself. Whatever is frothing is not space, I postulate it is the ether they are describing not space. Relativity is bells and whistles based on illogical premises that cannot be true by definition.
Esoparagon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OctoberLifeImages It's not a logical fallacy. Space is nothing by definition. That is no proof. It's a priori fact. By its very definition, space cannot have properties. What ever you are describing is not space. I'm not saying you aren't describing something that permeates space but it's not space itself. Whatever is frothing is not space, I postulate it is the ether they are describing not space. Relativity is bells and whistles based on illogical premises that cannot be true by definition.
Esoparagon 1 month ago
@OctoberLifeImages Mathematics is only useful so long as it is actually describing something that exists in reality. Otherwise, you are not describing anything about nature at all. That's what happened with relativity and the idea of space-time being able to curve.
Esoparagon 1 month ago
@Esoparagon Also, even if space resonance were incorrect and even if at the planck scale space didn't flux and oscillate, the current standard model describes space as warping and expanding. Assuming the big bang theory is incorrect (likely), general relativity describes gravity as an effect of the motion of the warping of space-time. In any case, observation and theories point to space having both motion and properties. There is a mountain of evidence for this!
OctoberLifeImages 1 month ago
@OctoberLifeImages Not space, evidence needs to be interpreted and is in itself meaningless, i'm not saying there is no evidence, but that the interpretation is wrong and the evidence is of something that permeates space. Probably this ether is what everything is made of which why otherwise empty space still has properties only it's not the space that has the properties, it's this ether that they are getting results from because space having properties makes no sense.
Esoparagon 1 month ago
@OctoberLifeImages I'm not the only one who thinks this is so. It's self evident. "I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. Of properties, we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view" -- Nikola Tesla
Esoparagon 1 month ago
@Esoparagon It is definitely not self evident to a critical, skeptical thinker. A true scientific thinker questions their own logic endlessly. Upon his false predication (assumption, really) that space is an empty medium that zero dimensional objects can exist within and act upon each other through fields and force carriers is yet another logical leap. Nikola Tesla also believed that if he created a "death ray" it could be used to end all war.
OctoberLifeImages 1 month ago
@Esoparagon Not to mention his other paranoia and obsessions, such as with pidgeons and numbers divided by three. The problem here is in etymology, I argue. Many of us understand the word space as "empty, nothing, the lack of substance" because historically, its semiotics imply an empty geometrical area that objects can exist in.
OctoberLifeImages 1 month ago
@Esoparagon Your mistake (which in no way is attributed to a lack of intelligence) is the assumtion (and it IS an assumption) that the etymology of a word we have used to describe the geometrical area that objects exist in is correct in describing reality, which is not the case.
OctoberLifeImages 1 month ago
@Esoparagon What I find ironic is your statement that mathematics is only as useful as long as it is actually describing reality, while at least partially true, is slightly erroneous considering that mathematics and reality describe each other extremely well, while language alone falls several orders of magnitude short by comparison.
OctoberLifeImages 1 month ago
@Esoparagon So by assuming space is nothingness based on a semantical argument, you are making a special plea. The mathematics (including less abstract maths that describe reality with uncanny precision), as well as a substantial amount of emperical and experimental/observational data, disagree with your hypothesis.
OctoberLifeImages 1 month ago
@Esoparagon I need not get into the evidence that space is a continuous, tensile medium with properties to show that your "nothing" hypothesis is wrong. Funny that you posit a "luminiferous ether" in that absence! The secondary and profound irony I see in this discussion is that space resonance implies "emptiness, nothingness, the formless form" - Tao concepts that have existed for thousands of years - is what gives rise to the infinitude of temporal forms.
OctoberLifeImages 1 month ago
@OctoberLifeImages No amount of evidence or creative interpretation thereof will convince me that invisible purple objects exist.
Esoparagon 1 month ago
@Esoparagon Ultraviolet wavelengths are invisible to your ocular receptors but if you could detect them they might have a gentle hue of purple ;) Just because something is invisible to the (only apparent) seamless continuum your brain constantly plays back to you as a backdrop to the narratives of your cognitive experience doesn't mean their color or existence is negated :)
OctoberLifeImages 1 month ago
@OctoberLifeImages I didn't make any sort of argument of that kind at all. I have no idea what this a response to because I certainly made no arguments that would be refuted by this since it's got nothing to do with what I'm arguing.
Esoparagon 1 month ago
@Esoparagon It doesn't matter much :) However I will say an appeal to ignorance will accomplish nothing here. One question: How can we experience a 3D space, regardless of its nature, if it doesn't exist? Evolution works in 3D - our sensory and nervous systems convert sense data gathered in a 3D space into our experiences of and within it. This doesnt neccesarily exclude space from having properties, nor from being the infinite (not bound by a second substance) medium manifesting all
OctoberLifeImages 1 month ago
there are no atoms but only waves. But the problem with waves is a waves Have Identity crisis- they look so similar. They need an observer to measure,for example, their location.But hang on - who observed the stars that the hubble telescope viewed that no man had seen before ?????Aliens ??????
kamalmichael 3 years ago
Sorry, it's getting a little sloppy. What I was trying to say is galaxies could arise from a state where effective electromagnetically-dominated planck-scale is enlarged by combination with a gravitational wave component that now expresses itself in galactic-scaled quantum gravity waves.
CACBCCCU 3 years ago
I suppose there's is a much heavier and more compact form for mass-like energy at higher energies. Some sort of modified gravity-like DeBroglie wave radius, maybe? Galaxies would be a decay event from what could itself be a decay event and so-on, up to some point where decay events reach an equilibrium with exchange events.
CACBCCCU 3 years ago
It's possible to refer to the oldest imagable light as being from the "youngest galaxies" and the trend is apparently definitely from arm to ring as one goes back in age, but that doesn't mean I ascribe to a truly unitary "big bang" event or a repeating universe. If the universe is infinite it can be quasi-periodic and non-periodic, yet retain all the mathematical benefits of periodicity on any conceivable scale, which I would refer to as merely being being chaotic, for all intents and purposes.
CACBCCCU 3 years ago
It seems rings are more prominent than arms in younger galaxies. I'd attribute this to the mass of the centers being much more compactly distributed, or in other words more spatially coherent, in terms any theoretical physical long-range wavelike rotation of gravitational forces, otherwise the effect is easily swamped by the inverse-square aspect of flux density with distance from the source.
CACBCCCU 3 years ago
I have a hypothesis about quantum gravity, which I reached by looking at Hoag's galaxy. Seems the force exerted by a single graviton could actually rotate over a period measured in tens of thousands of light-years as it propagates. The graviton force thus supposedly always begins facing the source and regardlessless of whether it agrees in orientation with other gravitons from the same source, they all end up as forces periodically pointing away from the source at certain distances.
CACBCCCU 3 years ago
At the extreme of minimal 3-d symmetry, the rotation of light-speed energy around and through a self-defined mass-center could be equated to a tetrahedron with a leading point of a distinctly uncompressed nature and three following points of compressed nature. These three points I would equate to quarks and the uncompressed point I would equate to remaining nuclear binding energy, which would encompass the weak and strong forces.
If that doesn't make someone laugh, I don't know what will...
CACBCCCU 3 years ago
Continued:
If the lost symmetry of compression is maintained from the mass-center perspective, then it seems the time spent in the lateral-moving component of the orbit must increase. I'll call this "Lorentz fattening" or an energy-time tradeoff of sorts.
I may very well be devolving into comedy here, however. Still trying to wake up.
CACBCCCU 3 years ago
I have to break this bit into two parts:
Supposing energy in matter moves circularly, or as symmetrically as possible, around and across a mass-center, the orbit of a moving object would have to appear compressed in the direction of motion,otherwise the velocity in the direction of mass motion would be departing from free-space lightspeed.
CACBCCCU 3 years ago
I have nothing but contempt for anyone who hates the humanities
BaronNully 3 years ago
If "c" (light-speed) is implicit in the wave, and matter can be considered a spinning wave convertable to light, then special relativity arises from that, I suppose.
Maybe Geoff's idea not a special idea. Maybe it depends on where "c" comes in to the picture.
CACBCCCU 3 years ago
You mean the speed of light arises from special relativity...
gtg309v 3 years ago
I see relativity as expressing a process following from the phenomenon of light, but I tend to oversimplify. I was trying to say that if we equate matter to spinning light energy, then it becomes very apparent as to why matter can't reach the speed of light in open space.
CACBCCCU 3 years ago
Yeah, I've thought about that before.
gtg309v 3 years ago
"Yeah, I've thought about that before."
I find that reassuring. The thing is, I don't think I got it from any course I took, heard it in any class, or read it in any book I've read. Maybe I was sleeping in class or forgot where I saw it, or maybe I came up with it on my own, I don't know.
CACBCCCU 3 years ago
I didn't hear about it in a course either. I just thought about it before, and thought that it would explain the time dilation and other effects of special relativity.
gtg309v 3 years ago
Apparently one must buy G.H.'s book to get any of this idea.
Oh well, there's a lot of free pages of interesting stuff if you google book search "Science from Fisher Information."
Pages 239-240 are quite neat, IMO.
CACBCCCU 3 years ago
Though slightly familiar with Compton wavelength and deBroglie wavelength, I can't recall seeing the idea of deriving relativity entirely from wave-particle relations anywhere, though it sounds vaguely familiar. I'm a bit sceptical but it's definitely an appealing idea being obviously in the direction of simplifying things greatly, it does seem worthy of a major prize if it's correct. Curious to know if it involves "Fisher information." Oh well, I'll try to see if I can follow it.
CACBCCCU 3 years ago
So wait just a fucking second. Not only are you trying to start a school without funding (begging for unearned money), but you're a fucking dropout?
ensrifraff 3 years ago
So just wait a fucking second ensrifraff, you're ridiculing someone for not agreeing with rote learning? I don't know this guy but I'm a high school drop out. I have an IQ of 138, you don't need a collegiate degree to understand quantum mechanics, calculus, algebra, physics, general sciences, et cetera. You don't need a piece of paper from some university to say "I understand this" - so please before you decide to deride someone, realize that having a degree doesn't "make you smart"
noyouaintgettingit 3 years ago
but damndoes it look good on your resume
MaLcH10R 3 years ago
ROFL
bodmondude 3 years ago
At QM we have quarks that defy intuition with the asymptotic freedom i.e. there attraction becomes more intense as their distance widens. I'm not too sure how these conclusions were drawn? Since I'm pretty sure they've never been observed apart before. But David Gross did win the Nobel Prize for his discovery. I'm not sure what the problem with QM and Gravity is, but physicists are baffled by it
wrdeboise 3 years ago
I couldn't post on the "what's wrong with modern physics" videos. I'm not sure if you did that, but if so, I think you should be open to debate. Although I disagree with much of what you say, I appreciate that you are committed to knowledge, but you are not infallible.
kjhgl1 3 years ago
I think the main problem with your videos on science (not this one in particular) is that you conflate interpretations of quantum mechanics with the actual scientific theory of quantum mechanics.
The Bohm interpretation is one interpretation of QM (one which I would say is fairly psychological pleasing), but from a scientific perspective it is no more valid than many other interpretations (which is to say there's no more empirical evidence for it).
kjhgl1 3 years ago
It is also important to note that there are many physical processes which as far as we can tell are governed fundamentally by statistics. If you could propose a testable deterministic mechanism that explains these random processes and turn out to be right, you would likely win a Nobel prize.
kjhgl1 3 years ago
My model actually blends the particle and field into a single entity. It litterally is a field in the sense that physicists think though. It's just that when the field behaves in a certain way it can act like certain particles.
JohananRaatz 3 years ago
Hmm sounds similar to something I developed awhile ago, but to less a degree.
JohananRaatz 3 years ago
Haha well, I can't figure out for the life of me how YouTube commenting works; that last post was supposed to reply to the first post of hollowquark. Unfortunately, I have a final in 40 minutes, and I'll be stepping out in 10 to go to it! So I'll get to your second point when I return...
pqnelson 3 years ago
"the radius of the universe is 8.797*10^26 meters, mass of observable universe is 3*10^52 kg, so your prediction of h is the value 39.6*10^96 kg*m^2/s) and expect it to be right?" Too many significant digits - the error of measurement of Mu,Ru is larger than the sigdigs. Also, k = (A^2)*mass-density*speed = [(1.6x10^-35)^2](10^27 kg/m)(3x10^8 m/s) = 7x10^-35 Joules/Hz, math is fine within order of magnitude (observable error) of h. Take out or add some dark matter and it all works!
hollowquark 3 years ago
You are off by a factor of (1/(8*pi)) which is really significant empirically and theoretically...that's probably why people don't pay attention when you're predicted value is off by a factor of 0.0397887358...you're just as "close" using the universal density of luminous matter in the inverse of the Einstein radius of the FLRW metric in predicting the planck length. You're off by a factor of 10 this time.
pqnelson 3 years ago
hollowquark. what is the distance between two masses. i will give a clue,,, the distance between any two given masses are constant...
circle559 3 years ago
OK, Einstein - if you have it all figured out then go on the record and predict something. For instance - if it all fits together so well why don't you tell me what you predict for the mass of the Higgs boson that the LHC will be looking for this year? I mean - I am sure you have QM and GRT united by now, so just tell me what the answers are? Where is the dark matter? If you don't have the answers, don't be so prentious.
hollowquark 3 years ago
Before you start an explanation about FLRW metrics and how it's all been worked out in the first part of the 20th century, just answer one question - why did nobody predict the existence of dark energy? When it was "discovered" in 1998 there was no previous explanation and the cosmological constant was resurrected out of ashes to explain it. If 75% of our universe is dark energy, why can't we find evidence of it in a particle accelerator on Earth? Prediction is kind of important to any theory.
hollowquark 3 years ago
Hello, I'm not an objectivist but I am a math and physics double major at UC Davis (I have 375 chars left, so god help me...) but David Bohm's quantum mechanics is incompatible with special relativity as Bohm requires a "guiding wave" that travels faster than light. Wave-particle duality is well established as a theory. Mr Geof is not a reputable physicist I'm afraid...Bohm's work actually was just to demonstrate that it's possible for hidden variables to exist in QM, not as a replacement for it
pqnelson 3 years ago
Lee Smolin (Perimeter institute), Sir Roger Penrose and a few others have openly criticized the copenhagen interpretation as a stumbling block for quantizing gravity. This theory is not sacred and regardless of what any physics professor says it is up for grabs. Formulas in QM match experiment well, but assigning a theory to those formulas has always been the problem (hence the wild speculation about multiverses - many possible universes). The LHC will be the test for multidimensional physics.
hollowquark 3 years ago
First, no one said the Copenhagen interpretation (which is not the same thing as conventional QM) is final. There are serious obstructions to quantizing anything (any formula with anything other than a linear combination of multiples of x, x*x, p*x, x*p, p, p*p cannot be consistently quantized).
Second, the multiverse idea is from a different interpretation of quantum mechanics (the "many worlds" interpretation).
Third, the LHC can't directly test for multidimensional physics, only indirectly.
pqnelson 3 years ago
Yes I agree - multiverse is a different interpretation, but a lot of professional papers are coming out on it (physical review) including Hawking's revised information in a black hole paradox and revised string theory. Understanding quantization is a big problem in physics - but as I learned in my days taking a graduate QM class - "don't ask why, just do the math". There has never been a good explanation from any of my professors on this one.
hollowquark 3 years ago
As far as replacing QM, I don't think WSM is trying to do that. I think explaining those hidden variables is more about what WSM is trying to do. Simple example - why quantization in the first place? If you have standing matter waves, you immediately have integer wavelengths, integer energy and momentum, and Planck's constant is defined by a something intuitive from Newtonian mechanics. Change the number of nodes in a standing wave from n to n+1 and find the energy difference as h*freq.
hollowquark 3 years ago
"Simple example - why quantization in the first place? If you have standing matter waves, you immediately have integer wavelengths, integer energy and momentum, and Planck's constant is defined by a something intuitive from Newtonian mechanics."
Perhaps because a "matter wave" is so ill defined, and the recovery of Planck's constant is questionable at best (e.g. you can't just "plug and chug" a standing wave equation and get consistently back h!).
pqnelson 3 years ago
OK, lets take the simple approach from freshman physics (Halliday&Resnick). We have a 1-D string (simple string theory!) and induce standing waves in it. There are n standing wave nodes over the total distance L. The wavelength is therefore L/n. We increase the number of nodes to n+1, making the wavelength L/(n+1). The speed of the wave is assumed to be c and the frequency is c/[L/n] in the first case and changes to c/[L/(n+1)] when we add a node. Change in energy = k*change in frequency.
hollowquark 3 years ago
OK lets define it: a 1-D string with standing waves over the distance L. Wavelength is L/n where n is the number of standing nodes. Speed of waves are c, so frequency f1 is c/(L/n). We now increase the number of standing nodes to n+1, so frequency increases to f2 = c/[L/(n+1)]. Change in energy = k*change in freq. = k*(f2-f1) = kc/L. Energy in any wave is E = (A^2)*freq*mass-density*speed and delta-E is due to delta-freq. which is also equal to c/L. So k = (A^2)*mass-density*speed.See next post
hollowquark 3 years ago
From last post, k = (A^2)*mass-density*speed and we said speed = c. Now A = wave amplitude = planck Length(from string theory) = 1.6 x10^-35. We have a 1-D model so mass density is 1-D inside of our universe: mass-density = mass-universe/radius universe = 10^27 kg/meter Plug it all in and k = Planck's constant(h) and it consistently gives back h because standing wave mode n is arbitrary. Mass and radius of universe are in the equation, unifying gravity and QM. What more could you ask for?!!
hollowquark 3 years ago
So you basically have an unobservable, one dimensional string, with standing waves, where you make L = radius of the universe, and M=mass of the universe, the amplitude is unobservably small and assumes quantum mechanics to be correct, then assert that this untestable description is dependent on incorrect parameters (the radius of the universe is 8.797*10^26 meters, mass of observable universe is 3*10^52 kg, so your prediction of h is the value 39.6*10^96 kg*m^2/s) and expect it to be right?
pqnelson 3 years ago
You need to retake your math final. My numbers come from Zeilik & Smith,"Intro. Astro. & Astrophysics".All these values have large observational error so the significant digits you add are incorrect. I'll show all steps : k = (A^2)*mass-density*speed, A = 1.6x10^-35 m, Mu = 10^53 Kg, Ru=2x10^26 m, mass density = Mu/Ru =10^27 Kg/m. So k = [(1.6x10^-35)^2]*(10^27)*3x10^8 =(2.6x10^-70)*(10^27)*3x10^8 = 7.8x10^-35 Joules/Hz = J*sec which is h within an order of magnitude and within error of Ru, Mu.
hollowquark 3 years ago
Not quite, because (A^2)*(mass density)*(speed) = energy = k*(c*n/Ru)...perhaps you should have caught that error...
pqnelson 3 years ago
Really?! OK,(A^2)*(mass density)*(speed) = (meter^2)(kg/m)(m/sec) = kg*m^2/sec =(?) energy(?!) Not really - common we learned this one in high school. Energy is kg*m^2/sec^2, not kg*m^2/sec which is what (A^2)*(mass density)*(speed) is, which is energy*sec = Joules/Hz.
hollowquark 3 years ago
Unobservable but not unpredictable. One dimensional string is the same as a spherical, scalar field which changes only with r. The amplitude is unobservably small for defining h, but not for defining other particles. Again, k = (A^2)*mass-density*speed = [(1.6x10^-70)^2]*(10^27)*(3x10^8)=7x10^-35 Joule/Hz, order of mag. but add some dark matter and it works out to h (after all, it it's also unobservable!). For more on other, observable particles, google WSM unified field theory.
hollowquark 3 years ago
ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha ,,,, radius of the universe? my stomach hurts,,hahahaha
circle559 3 years ago
How would you know? Have you been out there to measure it? If so, I would like a ride on your faster than FTL ship, or an explanation of why you are so sure that measurements from Earth confirm it?!!
hollowquark 3 years ago
hollowquark, what makes you think that you have to be out there to know the size of the universe? i asked a simple question ,, what is the distance between any two given masses?. i have have a ship that is capable of reaching vast distances with actual displacement,, that ship is the mind,, so if you want, i will let you ride on my FTL ship. first you must pay a ticket by answering my question,,,, what is the distance between any two given masses?
circle559 3 years ago
Circle,
That's exactly the problem - what it's in your mind. If you think you can solve it with just your mind and limited experimental data, then you need to read about why Aristotle failed to predict results with just rational thought. If you want to talk about center of mass (CM), it's easy to calculate based on geometry and density of object. Then the distance between two masses is the distance between the CMs. This is just a model and assumes that we know what "mass" is (higgs?).
hollowquark 3 years ago
hollow, first clue to understanding what mass is, is to aknowledge that mass is independent from dimension or geometry. it is a scalar quantity based on intensity. would you agree?..
circle559 3 years ago
Ah Circle, herein lies the illusion. Mass appears to be independent of geometry - but then why matter/anti-matter? How can the curvature of space be separate from mass? Perhaps warped space creates mass as much as mass warps space? The equations that result are similar to GTR equations - same G44 solution results but without the singularity. Think of it - waves have energy that compress local mass-density and interefering waves create particles. Google "spherical wave unified field theory"
hollowquark 3 years ago
The energy in a wave, without damping is constant and PE = KE = 1/2mv^2 for linear mass density with wave of bulk mass m. Substitute v = c and KE = 1/2mc^2. Since PE = KE then total energy = mc^2 = rest energy of particle. Rest energy of a particle (i.e. inertial mass) comes from a wave. Think of matter-antimatter - waves which create the particle are 180 degrees out of phase and destructively cancel but energy doesn't disappear - it creates new waves which are photons at the equiv. energy.
hollowquark 3 years ago
i like the response hollow quark.
circle559 3 years ago
A better answer to your question requires an answer to the question "what scale of mass?". For objects in the large domain, the distance between CMs I mentioned is adequate. For distance between two electron masses that are within nanometers, it's going to be a different calculation based on QM. The true accuracy is limited by an understanding of "mass" and "distance" where the boundaries of mass and even a true metric for distance are ill defined at the planck length.
hollowquark 3 years ago
Geoff Hazlehurst? Didnt he write the theme music for The Two Ronnies?
fishybishbash 3 years ago
Google space and motion dot-com. Dr. Milo Wolff published a book in 1990 - Exploring the physics of the Unknown universe that Geoff refers to - get it, read it. You won't be disappointed - only by the fact that so many physicists are wondering aimlessly through the starry night!
hollowquark 3 years ago
Yes you're right - I'm thinking of RONNIE Hazlehurst
fishybishbash 3 years ago
As long as i am not presented with a quantum theory that can get me A/4 for a blackhole, just to quote one of the problems we currently have. That guy stuck in 1920, we had tons of scientist up to 2007, i am sorry but a metaphysicist?, i dont even like opinions of cosmologist or astrophysicist, since they dont have enough background to work with it. Personally i think Fotini Markopoulou had a closer idea with the article of emergent graphity, you can always google for it.
KrelianMizrahi 4 years ago
Absolutly, what the bleep is NOT a documentary at all, It is a pseudo scientific infomercial promoting a cult called Ramtha school of enlightment. All the knowledge you think you have acquired from that movie if good for the garbadge.
WhatAliceWants 4 years ago
I really don't understand this real well, but try seeing the documenatry What The Bleep!? Down The Rabbit Hole. It is a really good quantum mechancs documentary that explains a lot of this kind of stuff.
AltecE 4 years ago
Hey there,
I don't know this Jeff hazelsomthing you are refering to but there are a few things that I see you don't get right. First of all quantum mechanics mathematically see the wave-particle as one function (one single object not 2) it is called a wave-function.
WhatAliceWants 4 years ago
And it is a common misconception to think about wave-particle duality actually as waves and as particles at the same time. A photon or electron for example is neither a wave nor a particle it is something else for wich we have no words for, no macroscopic equivalent to.
WhatAliceWants 4 years ago
They are objects that have both caracteristics, take a like a cylindre for example: when you look at the roung side of it you see a circle and from the side you see a rectangle but the object is neither a circle or a rectangle it's a cylinder.
WhatAliceWants 4 years ago
The problem with quantum mechanics is that we can't see the "cylindre" if I may say so (it's not a really good example lol but it kinda works).
WhatAliceWants 4 years ago
Secondly: You seem to be mixing up general relativity with special relativity.
Special relativity is completly compatible with quantum physics it's called: "quantum field theory" and it as notting to do with gravity.
WhatAliceWants 4 years ago
The problem is with general relativity: quantum mechanics can't account for the bending of space at microscopic scales. For now gravity is undetectable at these scales.
WhatAliceWants 4 years ago
And to conclude
You said that physicist don't think that "the quantum world" is real... That depend of the physicist there are ALOT of interpretation of quantum mechanics: The copenhaguan interpretation, bohm-de broglie interpretation (wich has been abandonned), transactional, multiverse etc etc etc... quantum mechanics works but nobody seem to understand it really.
WhatAliceWants 4 years ago
and i just check on this Geoff Haselhurst guy, he has been writing some of his stuff on wikipedia about wave matter blabla and it has been deleted by the community.
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wave_Structure_of_Matter_Theory
WhatAliceWants 4 years ago
know the book name yet?
tonyrosam 4 years ago
The waves = Strings I believe, this just sounds like string theory but maybe not. If he unified the theories and were valid I expect they would be in the news.
coyork15 4 years ago
Very interesting. I'd like to know in comprehensible, concrete (to the extent possible) terms how causality can be violated in the physical world. Would acausality imply randomness in some way? Anyone know?
apeppink 4 years ago
acausality would imply an end to the universe.
cropperb 4 years ago
Is quantum mechanics acausal to the extent that it can only be adequately described and understood in terms of probability and statistics? Some aspects of quantum entanglement definitely seem non causal (Bell's theorem??).
apeppink 4 years ago
Don't get me wrong. I respect you. I've seen your other videos and carry similar thoughts. I'd respect you even if they were not similar. I changed my nick to :Tony
take care. no more 666junkmail666.
666junkmail666 4 years ago
ok, I just listened to your video again. There is not one wave that gives the interpretation of matter. There is 2 waves. IN and OUT. You can't have one without the other. 2 Waves create resonance. You can't have just one wave. Your talking static or dynamic. Particle or wave. etc. The only commonality is thought. Thought.
666junkmail666 4 years ago
For us to understand we must come together as one. I know it sounds like religion but it's not. take care.
666junkmail666 4 years ago
Ever notice looking at a construct of the universe from the outside. Looks like neuron pathways. Like a brain. We are neurons of this brain. Think of it that way. Closest example I can give. The universe is an extension of our collective minds. If we did not exist then the universe wouldn't either.
666junkmail666 4 years ago
"If there were no people, there would be no universe. The observer is the creator."
There is no evidence for this claim, and no evidence is even POSSIBLE for such a claim. Why do you believe it? Why not believe in god, or gremlins?
cropperb 4 years ago
I never said God once. Why do you need someone else to tell you evidence. I Think Therefore I am . If you want proof, you'll never ever get it. You say you bought your T shirt because you are objective. NO, you bought it to relay your message and you know it. I truly believe that we are each part of the equation and answer.
666junkmail666 4 years ago
careful about this observer is creator stuff. Alot of cults uses quantum mumbo jumbo like this like Ramtha School of Enligthment where "you are god" and everything exist because of you and you can have control over the unvivers and blablabla. This is bogus although Eugene Wigner (a real physicist) postulate this interpretation of QM, but it is really not widely accepted by the scientific community.
WhatAliceWants 4 years ago
OK, I meant each person is in the center of the same universe. Each person observes the universe in a different way. I think the universe is the product of our collective thought. If there were no people, there would be no universe. The observer is the creator. We don't observe creation. Our collective minds are holding this universe together. I only have GR 12. science went from particles,to waves,to grand unified to consciousness.
666junkmail666 4 years ago
I was serious about the t-shirt. If you picked it out. You are telling yourself something. Only you can truly understand why you picked that shirt.
666junkmail666 4 years ago
I picked the T-shirt because I'm an Objectivist. But you obviously haven't the first clue as to what Objectivism is.
cropperb 4 years ago
So I end up starring at the wall for hours on end every night. Thinking for answers of my own questions because those are the only ones I can answer for sure. Too much to say in a 500 word post. And I need to change my nickname, looks unprofessional. Why? to change your perception of what I say. Perception distorts so you have to find the answers in yourselves. Thanks for posting your comment. I read the links. Half of your questions are answered on your t-shirt in the video.
666junkmail666 4 years ago
old physics and quantum physics both come to the same conclusion over and over again. Nothing exists. The second we observe through our crude senses nothing makes sense and once we attempt to explain anything we are limited. We tried math but how do you explain feelings and emotions. What's the formula for love or hate? Our emotions drive us to ask questions. It is our emotion that has to be addressed. Not the question.
666junkmail666 4 years ago
"Nothing exists. The second we observe through our crude senses nothing makes sense and once we attempt to explain anything we are limited... It is our emotion that has to be addressed."
Yep, definitly brainwashed at university.
cropperb 4 years ago
Emotion is life's driving force. That's certainly true. But emotion must be channeled and guided by the mind and by pervasive morality, or it's hugely destructive as can be so easily seen, everywhere nowadays it seems. I think of emotion as like steam in a boiler. Very useful and powerful when controlled and and catastrophically destructive when not (as in a line rupture or boiler explosion).
A little digression.
apeppink 4 years ago
Just want to be clear. A photon is only an expression. There is no photon either. It's all perception. collective I believe. Don't all blink at once, there may be nothing left to see.
666junkmail666 4 years ago
Clear?
Look, you are talking about perception like it distorts, all the while claiming to have objective knowledge of the shorcomings of perception. How did you get this knowledge?
cropperb 4 years ago
I didn't want to sound like that. I claim nothing. Just an opinion. Each person is at the center of their own universe, we are separated by time. If we both look at an object, let's say a a brown box. I may think it's big and ugly color, you may think it's small and nice color. Both are true from the eye of the observer. But which one do we "write down" now that we have observed we must choose a reality. I'll just say that for now.
666junkmail666 4 years ago
"Each person is at the center of their own universe"
How do you know that? You are claiming to know the nature of the entire universe here. Where do you get a basis for such a claim? If you ARE in your own private universe, how could you ever know it wasn't the entire real universe?
You sound like you've been brainwashed at a modern university.
cropperb 4 years ago
Well that's it. there's no particles. There is 2 waves. (in and out)The waves create resonance that create galaxies... But wait. That's thinking in the opposite way again, the way that creates more questions. lets start again. There is 2 waves, created from our collective minds. Stop. think. The expression of waves is an instrument to express emotion....thought. For waves to exist the must be the observing consciousness. When we talk about waves we are actually talking about so much more.
666junkmail666 4 years ago
totally unbelievable!!! better read the history of modern physics....try the book of beiser or eisberg.
scotch21 4 years ago
First of all how can u say that their is no matter, that "its just a wave". A wave is the oscillation of matter. If u want to learn about new energy sources than you should check out Bob Lazar's video on generating gravity fields and the anti-matter reactor. I know he is telling the truth because I used to work at S4 on the disc's. I belive its the right of every person on earth to know the truth.
fiberjustin 4 years ago
Light is made up of waveforms(frequencies). What if you get rid of the electro magnetic forces that bind matter and use the right frequency as the glue? Could something like that be possible? Can 2 particles be bound by light or the frequency there of?
redviper101 4 years ago
hi i just started looking at gravity due to the fact that i was trying to create perpetual motion and was seeing gravity act differently then what i was taught could you please watch i stole newton's apple and give me some criticism i am just trying to learn and don t know who to approach also disreguard my additude for it is not directed towards you thank you
brennonpr 4 years ago
I came to the same conclusion independently, and have been fleshing it out into a full-fledged model. It hasn't gotten anything near to the point of a scientifically valid theory, but check out my physics model playlist if you are interested.
cefarix 4 years ago
Number 1. As far as I know, the H guy is closest to Science crackpot. Surely, he hasn't produced one yota of new testable physics, nor explains 99% that we already know. Number 2. Special relativity is one thing, general relativity (gravity) another. He refers to the first, but in 1920s and 1930s P.A.M. Dirac already united QPhys with special relativity, with two outstanding predictions later verified experimentally. H (if right) would be nearly one century late.
schrodcat 4 years ago
Most big time objectivists (ARI lecturers), however, have little physical science training---ironically. But my own experience is that most objectivists (esp male objectivists) are in the sciences, esp. computer science.
MetaMorphy 4 years ago
This just in : Physics is hard.
In order to do well, you must be smart.
If you're smart, you're probably not an Objectivist...
-Trust me, he's not right. And trust me as well, if you're an Objectivist, stay as far away from quantum mechanics as you can.
GravityExNihilo 4 years ago
...what an ass.
russelsparadox 4 years ago
"If you're smart, you're probably not an Objectivist..."
That's the stupidest, funniest, craziest thing I've ever heard.
Objectivism will destroy (revise, correct) probability theory. Probability will be replaced with a cause-effect explanation. Its inevitable if science progresses.
cropperb 4 years ago
Probability theory? You mean quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics, which is based so much on probability itself. You say you're an avid reader? Read up on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. If you're an Objectivist, you probably also have some misconceived notions about causality.
What's funny is that you claim most Objectivists are scientists, when in fact, I've never met a scientist who's claimed Objectivism...
msilveira13 4 years ago
*msilveira* Have you met many Objectivists period, scientists or non? I haven't...
I know Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. And yes, I do mean statistical mechanics. Anyone who says we can never know the cause of subatomic units, and must content ourselves with statistics about their behavior as if it were causeless - that's modern assanine bullcrap. Besides, how could anyone KNOW that we can't KNOW what causes subatomic behavior? Aren't they claiming knowledge about it?
cropperb 4 years ago
I've met quite a few, and showed my disgust for them accordingly. Statistical mechanics is grounded on very sturdy theory. As a scientist myself, I look at people like you who argue from ignorance of what you deny, and think you're rather dumb.
GravityExNihilo 4 years ago
As it turns out, you can discover a lot by ammassing statistics. That I don't deny. But statistics don't explain the phenomena. And modern science insists that no cause-effect explanation is possible. That's what I object to - claiming to know that knowledge is impossible.
cropperb 4 years ago
It's not knowledge that modern science claims is impossible, you idiot. Seriously, people like you should just stick with ridiculous claims like, "you can't deny truth without making that a truth!" Ayn Rand is to philosophy what you are to science- A very poor observer and critic who does not know what you are talking about.
Here is a wiki link. How about you pick up some of the books referenced here rather than read both your pseudo-scientific and pseudo-philosophic crap.
GravityExNihilo 4 years ago
I digress.
cropperb 4 years ago
So exactly what discoveries have you made that put you on the map as a scientist? If we follow your suggestion, we might as well go back to epicenters and call Tycho Brahe's observations "close enough for government work because we aren't out to prove absolute truth today". People like you are the reason Copernicus was afraid to publish until he was almost dead or the proponents of plate tectonics were laughed at 40 years ago for what is now a substantiated theory. It's called Nazi science!
hollowquark 3 years ago
This last comment is in response to GravityExNihilo, who in their response to "cropperb" said, "It's not knowledge that modern science claims is impossible, you idiot. Seriously, people like you should just stick with ridiculous claims like, "you can't deny truth without making that a truth!"
hollowquark 3 years ago
Have you read any of the philosophy of science?
Science is not about opening the door to truth.
Its about closing the doors to infinite err. Hence "perfect" knowledge is impossible.
Go get yourself an education before critizing scientists for not finding absolute truth.
tgord001 4 years ago
"Hence "perfect" knowledge is impossible"
Is your knowledge of this for sure? Or is it imperfect? Don't worry, I know the answer.
cropperb 4 years ago
You say things like "I know the answer" and "That's what I object to - claiming to know that knowledge is impossible." Please read Lakatos, Kuhn, Popper...etc before talking about modern science(s). Sorry Objectivists, but scientific knowledge begins with, and retains, doubt.
MilitantAgnostic1 4 years ago
All knowledge is absolute. Popper is just another Kantian ilk pandering to the rmnannts of religion and idiocy in society.
cropperb 4 years ago
How were Popper, Kuhn, and Lakatos pandering to religion?
AngryAnthropologist 4 years ago
By being irrational.
cropperb 4 years ago
I've read Popper, Kuhn and Lakatos. You seem to think they are irrational and that they pander to religion. They each have quite different approaches to the philosophy of science, but I don't see how any of them pander to religion, or can be called "irrational". Could you please further elaborate on why you hold these opinions about these three philosophers of science?
TheSneakySkeptic 4 years ago
Watch my videos on "What's Wrong with Modern Science?"
And go to the ARI website (aynrand dot com) and register as a user. There you can get FREE access to David Harriman's one hour lecture "The Crisis in physics - and its Cause"
cropperb 4 years ago
Cropperb, I've seen that video. What I don't understand is your characterization of Popper, Kuhn, and Lakatos as irrational panderers to religion (in your replies to AngryAnthropologist). Since you have such a strong opinion of Popper, Kuhn and Lakatos, could tell me which of their books you've read, and how you reached the conclusion that each of them irrationally panders to religion?
TheSneakySkeptic 4 years ago
Their irrational physics, quantum wierdness, makes miracles seem more probable than plain old Newtonian physics.
Actually, I wish they were pandering to religion. It is much worse than that - they're nihilists. Nihilism is destruction.
cropperb 4 years ago
I agree GravityExNihilo
Statistical physics is quite firm, without it things like phase transitions would be absolutely impossible to understand and explain in the way they occurr. Just one of many examples...
schrodcat 4 years ago
But in regards to statistics, it seems some of the behavior of particles get analyzed as having no verifiable cause - only a statistical observatin from past events can give accurate predictions of future events. So, ARE statistics used as a way to avoid explaining the CAUSES of the events observed?
cropperb 4 years ago
What the hell! I leave for a couple of months and things get
crazy! First, you're right on the part of statistical mechanics.
We use calculation methods from statistical analysis based
on some hypothesis. But we don't replace causality with
statistics. In quantum mechanics, we do replace the
idea of causal agents with probability; that is, probability
is not a measure of ignorance, but the foundation of
quantum reality.
See Feynmann lectures on Google video
Newton1692 4 years ago
if you want to understand quantum mechanics. Go back to school. Then go into research.
Otherwise, you dont know anything except the crap you find on the internet.
tgord001 4 years ago
Given that there are objectivist clubs at University of Chicago, Berkeley, MIT, Harvard, and Yale I guess objectivists are really dumb. I have objectivist friends who are graduate students and MIT and Yale. So, go fuck yourself---GravityExNihilo.
MetaMorphy 4 years ago
Can't anyone express disagreement on UTube without resorting to juvenile profanity? It's disgusting and does nothing whatever to bolster one's contention. It shows only a lack of culture and(or) upbringing.
apeppink 4 years ago
The Humanities can be approached critically with philology and logic. Unfortunately, the subjet has been ruined by laziness and incompetence. Bohm is the most credible, radical physicist around. I don't know about that other guy.If you could find a paper he's published, I could definitely look into ( I am a physics grad. student). It is true , however, that quantum mechanics has become victim of dogmatism.
Newton1692 4 years ago
Thanks for the reply. I'm going to get Haselhurst's book soon if its not too much...
cropperb 4 years ago