Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #397174

Re: Penrose's new book

Show all headers | View raw

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> 
> On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 9:34:18 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 7:45:08 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > One mustn't forget...quantum theory is ..just a theory.
> > > >
> > > > 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a
> > > > theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Einstein was never happy with quantum theory because it denied a reality of things when they were not being observed."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  Albert Einstein[I can't accept quantum mechanics because] "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."
> > >
> > >     --Albert Einstein
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Nobody understands quantum mechanics." --Richard Feynman
> >
> > "Quantum theory" and "quantum effects" are about
> > several features observed in nature of radiation,
> > as a wave, which only exchanges as particulate,
> > or in some discrete jump or band, so to be the
> > quantum or quantized.  This is where otherwise
> > exchanges of waves (of our usual classical wave
> > model, where high energy physics may have its
> > tachyonic/bradyonic wave model for ghost wave /
> > pilot wave) are continuous, vis-a-vis, discrete.
> >
> > So, sometimes this is because there are observed
> > "particles" at the detector, so as that defines
> > the model, and sometimes this is because the
> > mathematics would integrate the continuous and
> > compute non-real-valued quantities (from,
> > correspondingly, real-valued inputs).
> >
> > Then, as mechanical interfaces or detectors
> > and real-valued quantities are necessary for
> > the usual experimental and theoretical in the
> > physics, it's important to so establish what
> > these particles and waves are (and they're both,
> > as we also know from theory and experiment),
> > for a tractable implementation of experiment
> > (or to use the effects of physics for machines).
> >
> > The measurement or observation effect, then,
> > is among the issues in the quantum to understand,
> > and the tachyonic/bradyonic wave model is among
> > the issues in the quantum to understand, in
> > the physics.
> >
> > For the quantum, "re-normalization" is actually
> > "un-de-normalization".  Then, there seem these
> > goals, to understand non-standard real numbers
> > as to how there can be computing of normalized
> > (or measured) quantities thus that normalization
> > is implemented in the continuous instead of the
> > discrete (or "quantized").
> >
> > So, the big challenge for foundations in physics,
> > is the big challenge for foundations in mathematics,
> > and as a usual explanation of the continuous and
> > discrete, and all that it is.
> 
> A point of that is that
> most all particles of the
> Standard Model "zoo" are
> interactions of waves, in
> fields (of waves).
> 
> This is the same point as
> that quantum mechanics
> is continuum mechanics.
> 
> Quantum mechanics is upheld
> as it offers beautifully
> precise extra-classical
> predictions, given very
> particular configurations
> and energies of experiment.
> While that is so, over time
> it is always changing as
> higher-energy experiments
> come online and redefine the
> "running constants", where
> Avogadro's number grows.
> 
> So, "quantum mechanics is
> never wrong", or, "always
> right", but it's never
> quite what it was or will
> be, just what it is.



so, is the moon there even if I'm not looking at it?


Does it suddenly materialize just because I look at it?

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Penrose's new book "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 20:20 -0700
  Re: Penrose's new book Walter Bautista <wabau@outlookbay.org> - 2016-10-26 16:47 +0000
    Re: Penrose's new book "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 18:57 -0700
  Re: Penrose's new book Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2016-10-27 07:19 -0600
  Re: Penrose's new book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 13:07 -0700
    Re: Penrose's new book "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 21:26 -0700
    Re: Penrose's new book The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-28 18:45 -0700
      Re: Penrose's new book Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-28 20:22 -0700
        Re: Penrose's new book The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-28 21:34 -0700
          Re: Penrose's new book "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 06:23 -0700
            Re: Penrose's new book "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 12:19 -0700
              Re: Penrose's new book The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-29 21:04 -0700
                Re: Penrose's new book The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-30 12:27 -0800
                Re: Penrose's new book "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 13:14 -0700
                Re: Penrose's new book "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 23:51 -0700
                Re: Penrose's new book "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 22:16 -0700
                Re: Penrose's new book "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 20:02 -0800

csiph-web