Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Uncertainty Principle - is it real?
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 46 of 48 (346926)
09-06-2006 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by nipok
09-06-2006 1:58 AM


Alternatives?
QM and the uncertainty principle have been so far in complete agreement with experimental evidence. If you don't like the theory and believe to have a better alternative which is also in complete agreement with observations, why don't you go ahead and publish it and enlight the rest of us? Declaring that the theory is no-good because of no-good reason is an instance of crackpotery.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by nipok, posted 09-06-2006 1:58 AM nipok has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 48 (346970)
09-06-2006 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by nipok
09-06-2006 1:58 AM


Re: Examples Please.
The universe is made up an infinite number of polar coordinates with an infinite number of centers. Some could be a center of mass, others a center of density, others a center of energy, and still others I suppose although I am not sure how to visualize it a center of time.
How does this idea explain the fact that the gyromagnetic ratio for spin is roughly twice as big as for orbital angular momentum?
How does it explain the production of hadrons by e-e+ annihilation?
Name some predictions of your theory and how they differ from the Standard Model or General Relativity.
Edited by Son Goku, : Inserting a few words here and there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by nipok, posted 09-06-2006 1:58 AM nipok has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by nipok, posted 09-07-2006 1:56 AM Son Goku has not replied

  
nipok
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 48 (347190)
09-07-2006 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Son Goku
09-06-2006 12:41 PM


Re: Examples Please.
How does this idea explain the fact that the gyromagnetic ratio for spin is roughly twice as big as for orbital angular momentum?
How does it explain the production of hadrons by e-e+ annihilation?
Name some predictions of your theory and how they differ from the Standard Model or General Relativity.
You don't get it. I am not trying to argue against anything that we can predict repeatedly through both equation and observation. In a huge percentage of our predictable equations of science for both classical Newtonian physics and quantum mechanics the effects of the separate relative self-contained polar coordinated pockets of space/time are so miniscule that our current levels of scientific precision can’t observe the subtle effects. Every interaction that we can observe is being affected by so many other objects but most are so minimal that they have no direct bearing on our expected predictions. You want a prediction. OK, I say that if my theories are correct then the orbit of our planet is subtly effected by our moon and I use tidal activity as an example of the pull. Now you think that is obvious and goes without saying but then why is it so hard to use the same logic to understand that Mars and Venus also have some minimal effect and take that to the extremes when examining particle physics and astronomy and then things like dark matter or the Casmir effect have other avenues of explanation.
My point is that when the effects of separate self contained centers of gravity or mass or energy interact with each other in ways that we can not explain with our current paradigm we fudge our interpretations or skew them or whatever term you want to use but what we end up with are imaginary particles and Feymann Normalization and a handful of other constructs that all boil down to the raw fact that our existing paradigm is relying too much on interpretation and general consensus and needs to step back for a moment and try to think outside the box.
I can’t argue with everything that science has proven and that is the farthest thing from my intent. I am trying to get some minds with the resources that could make a difference step back for a moment and really give some thought to questioning the existing paradigm and its flaws. What makes imaginary particles that much more likely than what I consider the more likely deduction that our scientific precision is lacking and we can not YET detect these particles and their infinite number of brethren.
Edited by nipok, : No reason given.
Edited by nipok, : No reason given.
Edited by nipok, : No reason given.
Edited by nipok, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Son Goku, posted 09-06-2006 12:41 PM Son Goku has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024