Go Back   Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Philosophy of Physics Philosophy of Physics Forum - Philosophical questions about our universe

Like Tree4Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Jul 18th 2017, 03:47 PM   #31
Member
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 43


QM is only half the equation if it can't speak of the Energy channel that this thread is about. It blows my mind that you physicists can settle for this. I'm attempting to give an answer and because some smart guy didn't say it first ..it gets poo pooed on.
pittsburghjoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 19th 2017, 06:27 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
Woody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: England
Posts: 491
As one of the moderators for this forum Pmb is almost obliged to follow the line of the "standard" physics text-book.
He has a responsibility to any physics students who might view these pages, and who might look upon Pmb as an expert whose answers can be used in their next exam.

As an ordinary member, who is obviously just playing at being a Physicist, I can perhaps be freer with my comments.

Physicists have their own peculiar dialect of English (as do Chemists and Engineers, etc...) in which commonly used words or expressions have very particular meanings.
This makes trying to interpret your posts quite difficult.

Also it is necessary to identify the point at which your ideas branch off from what we might recognise as "standard" physics, so that we can sensibly follow the modified story.

We have tried to wrap our understanding around your explanations,
but have spectacularly failed!
__________________
~\o/~
Woody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 19th 2017, 04:05 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 534
Does this link still work? I found a pdf but it was only 1 page long.
kiwiheretic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 19th 2017, 04:18 PM   #34
Member
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 43
I am curious to know why it takes a chapter to answer

"why scientists came to accept why that's an invalid question"

I get the feeling it's something like this

pittsburghjoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 20th 2017, 03:29 PM   #35
Pmb
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,526
Originally Posted by kiwiheretic View Post
Does this link still work? I found a pdf but it was only 1 page long.
Go to Electronic library. Download books free. Finding books and do a search for it.
Pmb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 20th 2017, 03:51 PM   #36
Member
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 43
Is this the chapter?



imgur images don't work on this site?

okay, so does it go like this:

chapter 1. Quantum Behavior
1-1 Atomic mechanics
1-2 an experiment with bullets
1-3 an experiment with waves
1.4 an experiment with electrons
1.5 the interference of electron waves
1-6 watching
1-7 first principles of qm
1-8 the uncertainty principle

Last edited by pittsburghjoe; Jul 20th 2017 at 03:54 PM.
pittsburghjoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 20th 2017, 04:02 PM   #37
Pmb
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,526
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
One of the worst problems we face when attempting to explain physics is that people will read things into our meaning which are completely absent from out minds and intent. Posting that image implies that you meant I had the same tone that Will Wonka had in that part of the movie. All I meant was that since you chose not to read a simple chapter for no valid reason, a chapter which will answer all of your questions much more clearly that I can, I saw no reason to go on. To explain things to that level take a great deal of work. More that can be done in a post or two. In this discussion it became clear to me that you don't have an understanding of the basic concepts of physics and as such you've been trying to use terminology to explain ideas which you've formed from wrong ideas. I was trying to be polite and not say anything like that but clearly you've stopped trying to be either nice or open-minded. So I stopped trying.

In the past 20 years of trying to explain things to people about physics there comes a point in some cases where one realizes that there's no use in going on to try to help. In some cases I explain that I'm bowing of the discussion. I say that so people know that I've stopped reading the thread. Most of those people either assume that I'm lying when I say that or post knowing that I'm not reading. In very few cases will I check back to see if their attitude has changed. In this case I saw others posting whom I respect and wanted to see where they got with you. Seeing what you wrote made me decide to take this one last chance to help you realize why I suggested reading that chapter.

Since you made the decision to be rude about it, the kid gloves are now off.

Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
QM is only half the equation if it can't speak of the Energy channel that this thread is about.
And herein lies your problem. There's no such thing as an "Energy channel." But you insist on ignoring that. You've tried to explain what you meant when you said that but you lack a proper understanding of physics to explain it. In fact your opening post doesn't even hint that the subject is related to QM.

Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
It blows my mind that you physicists can settle for this. I'm attempting to give an answer and because some smart guy didn't say it first ..it gets poo pooed on.
The reason it blows your mind is because you have no idea about what you're about. If you did actually know what you're talking about then either you'd know that there's no such thing as an energy channel or know that your attempt to explain it failed because you lack the knowledge of physics to explain it. In either case that's not our problem, its yours.

And there's a reason that smart people are the ones doing physics and that's because it requires intelligence to not merely know the basic terms used but also to know the scientific method and how to properly apply it but also to know, understand and be able to actually use the laws of physics as well as be able to solve problems. That means knowing why they are the way they are, why physicist are forced to accept them regardless of whether we're confused about the reality of them, and to know the history of how they became laws and why that's all true. One also has to have a basic understanding of the philosophy of science. Almost all of that takes a higher than average intelligence.

Your mistake in that comment is thinking that one has to be a "smart guy" to realize what you're claiming is nonsense.

Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
I am curious to know why it takes a chapter to answer

"why scientists came to accept why that's an invalid question"
Oh my God! Why on Earth did you think I suggested reading it? I did so not only because it takes an entire chapter to properly explain it but because after you read it (hopefully) then understand the physics and thus you'd know why I suggested reading it. Did you honestly thing I'd do so for no valid reason whatsoever? If so then I can't even imagine it. It's not as if I didn't try to explain it to you but you clearly demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the basic concepts of QM. I explained why its an invalid question in one post but you claimed I was wrong. I knew from this discussion why you made that claim, i.e. you don't know QM, and it was for that reason I recommended reading that chapter.

And yes, that's the chapter.

Since all legitimate QM books explain why that's an invalid question I have to ask at this point where did you get your understanding of QM from? In fact where did you get any of your understanding of physics from? E.g. where did you get your understanding of what energy is? Where did you get the idea of the notion of dimensions from?
Pmb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 20th 2017, 04:13 PM   #38
Member
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 43
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻

hang on, I'll read it now that I was able to download it.
pittsburghjoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 20th 2017, 04:22 PM   #39
Pmb
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,526
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
Okay. Enough with comments like "](ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻"? We are all aware of the low opinion that you have of some of us. You don't have to keep reminding us. We're all adults here discussing science, remember? I'm assuming you're an adult btw.

Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
hang on, I'll read it now that I was able to download it.
See how easy that was? My level of respect for you just increased 3 fold.

While Feynman does a superb job of explaining it I don't have any expectations of you accepting it. That's why I may not post again in this thread, i.e. all that cane be said by me has already been said. The others know how to explain it all anyway as well as address your further remarks. The forum I created is taking up more of my time so I'll be spending less time here.

Last edited by Pmb; Jul 20th 2017 at 04:51 PM.
Pmb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 20th 2017, 05:33 PM   #40
Member
 
pittsburghjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 43
Are you under the impression that a particle going through the double slit is physically affected by the detector? This isn't always the case if you use polarizers https://www.physicsforums.com/thread.../#post-5604049 or the quantum eraser experiment.


A free/single particle is physically created (with mass) when a conscience being acknowledges its existence. Before then, it is in a massless state that moves in a wavelike pattern (I'm convinced it's in the form of EM waves ..or something close to it)


Did I read that chapter just to find that you could have said "breaking the uncertainty principle would kill QM"? ohhh noooooess we can't have that now can we!

Last edited by pittsburghjoe; Jul 20th 2017 at 06:55 PM.
pittsburghjoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Tags
dimension, energy, quantum



Thread Tools
Display Modes



Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed