It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 199
39
<< 196  197  198    200  201  202 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by SoulVisions
Apologies for the interruption here, I just wanted to throw in there that not all atoms are spherical.


Personally, I was talking about the electrostatic field of the nucleus, which in majority of cases is spherically symmetric. But what's more important, this field does not have the Swiss cheese kind of configuration that would explain the shape of the electron density distributions that we observe. These shapes are solutions of the Shroedinger's equation.




posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
the wave structure of matter(the only context where toroid lines of force and cymatic structures of the ψ-field make sense)


From cymascope.com:


To see the sounds that lie at the heart of matter is to lift the veils that conceal many mysteries of the universe.

The CymaScope represents the first scientific instrument that can give us a visual
image of sound and vibration - a cymatic image - helping us to understand
our world and universe in ways previously hidden from view.


The cymascope in action:




posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Yes, avoiding the question, avoiding an answer, avoiding backing up your statements with real proof.

not surprised.


Did I ever said there was not geometry involved? Why do I need to prove something I didn't say in the first place?

Useless.



yes, you "ever said" that there was not geometry involved in atoms.

quote


Originally posted by buddhasystem


Sand is subjected to a field with a complex geometrical structure,

whereas the electron in the H atom is not.


Sand IS subjected to a geometrical field....but electrons (that compose sand, and everything) are not?

Useless. as per usual.

edit on 2/19/12 by metalshredmetal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
yes, you "ever said" that there was not geometry involved in atoms.


You are lying.

This is what I wrote (and then commented on later)


If you look at an atom, you'll something quite different. The field (in a good approximation for this discussion) is a spherically symmetric Coulomb field. It does not possess "nooks and crannies" to be occupied by unsuspecting electrons.


You totally didn't get this part (why am I now surprised), and then I asked you to re-read it:


Please do make an effort to read my post. Sand is subjected to a field with a complex geometrical structure, whereas the electron in the H atom is not. Meditate on this, if you will. That should be a very simple thing to understand for an average person, your mileage will vary.



Maybe you need to learn to read for a change. I mentioned the spherical symmetry of the field and said that it's not a complex geometry at all.

It's amazing how much effort it takes sometimes to drill through thick substance.

edit on 19-2-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Be sure to read the Carver Mead interview.


Mead is the author of a book Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism, published by The MIT Press in August 2002.

It is interesting to read its Amazon.com Book Description:


In this book Carver Mead offers a radically new approach to the standard problems of electromagnetic theory. Motivated by the belief that the goal of scientific research should be the simplification and unification of knowledge, he describes a new way of doing electrodynamics--collective electrodynamics--that does not rely on Maxwell's equations, but rather uses the quantum nature of matter as its sole basis. Collective electrodynamics is a way of looking at how electrons interact, based on experiments that tell us about the electrons directly. (As Mead points out, Maxwell had no access to these experiments.)The results Mead derives for standard electromagnetic problems are identical to those found in any text. Collective electrodynamics reveals, however, that quantities that we usually think of as being very different are, in fact, the same--that electromagnetic phenomena are simple and direct manifestations of quantum phenomena. Mead views his approach as a first step toward reformulating quantum concepts in a clear and comprehensible manner.The book is divided into five sections: magnetic interaction of steady currents, propagating waves, electromagnetic energy, radiation in free space, and electromagnetic interaction of atoms. In an engaging preface, Mead tells how his approach to electromagnetic theory was inspired by his interaction with Richard Feynman.


It would be nice to know what this means:


Collective electrodynamics reveals, however, that quantities that we usually think of as being very different are, in fact, the same--that electromagnetic phenomena are simple and direct manifestations of quantum phenomena.





posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Mead is the author of a book Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism, published by The MIT Press in August 2002.

It is interesting to read its Amazon.com Book Description


From the first Customer Review:


The thrust of Carver's book: QM applies to all matter--not just small systems or isolated particles--is well made. He brings up experimental data from superconductors to illustrate that the phenomenon of coherent quantum entanglement can, and does, occur at macroscopic scales; and that such behavior is very quantum. Thus he proves, quite convincingly, that quantum mechanics applies to all coherent systems.

He then closes by making some very important points. (1) He shows that quantum behavior of such systems can be expressed in quantum language (wave function), relativistic language (four-vectors), or electrodynamics (vector potential, scalar potential) in an equivalent fashion. This is important, as it proves that a superconductor is macroscopic, exhibits quantum behavior, and that these quantitative results agree with those found from the other approaches. (2) He makes the point that the quantum and relativistic equations show that electromagnetic phenomena consist of two parts: one traveling forward in time; the other backward in time. Feynmann and others have said this for a long time, and he shows how thermodynamics (or un-coherent behavior) forces what we see as only time-evolution in one direction in un-coherent systems. (3) He illustrates, modeling single atoms as tiny superconducting resonators, that two atoms that are coherently linked will start exchanging energy. This causes an exponential, positive-feedback loop that ends with each atom in a quantum eigenstate. Thus quantum collapse is neither discontinuous, nor instantaneous; and in fact makes a lot of sense. (4) He explains, using four-vectors, that all points on a light-cone are near each other in four space. This point--together with (2)--shows that there's no causality contradiction between relativity and quantum mechanics. For example, he explains that two entangled particles, such as photons light years apart, can affect each other immediately if one falls into an eigenstate, since the four-dimensional distance between them (R1 dot R2) is zero. Although separated in three space, they're neighbors in four space. Through these demonstrations and proofs, he successfully suggests that there is a way to further develop the 'behavior of charged, coherent systems' such that quantum mechanics and relativity will agree--but the conceptual changes he suggests are necessary and must be further developed. Also, he admits that a better, more appropriate mathematical and computational methods [sic] will be needed, since the complexity of coherent systems runs as n^2.

Pleasantly, then, the book makes elegant, defensible, mathematical and conceptual steps to resolve some nagging points of understanding. Also, the narrative gives the best introduction to electrodynamics and quantum mechanics that I've ever seen. Since the theoretical criticisms and experimental data are quite valid, his proposed resolutions are eye-opening and valuable. The methods he suggests greatly simply [sic] thinking about complicated quantum/classical problems. New approaches for future theoretical research are also suggested. Despite the dark tone in the preface, the book is positive, enlightening, and well anchored to accepted, modern experimental results and theoretical work.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Mead is the author of a book Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism, published by The MIT Press in August 2002.

It is interesting to read its Amazon.com Book Description


From the first Customer Review:
Not all the reviews were so great and notably, the review by physicist Milo Wolff wasn't good (isn't he the fringe WSM physicist that beebs likes?):


The essence of Mead's argument is that within quantum mechanics, there is a naturally occurring 1-form on three-dimensional space with the property that integrating it over a superconducting loop gives the phase change of the "wave function" of the loop, which must be a constant multiple of an integer. Also, integrating the space part of the four-potential 1-form A over a loop gives the magnetic flux threading the loop, which for a superconducting loop is observed to be a constant multiple of an integer. This suggests identifying the "phase change" 1-form with a constant multiple of the space part of A.

Later the full A is recovered by hand-waving analogies. In my opinion, the main problem with his argument is that his construction of the "phase change" 1-form is so vague, sloppy, and problematic that it is "not even wrong".
Interesting. "so vague, sloppy, and problematic that it is "not even wrong"." might also describe Rodin's stuff.

Milo Wolff

Maybe a more balanced review is the one by Neal King, excerpted here:


In summary, this book can be interesting, especially if you know some E&M and can follow the equations: there are some cute connections that may be fun to check out more carefully. But in the end, I don't think this is going to make any substantial impact on the way most physicists will think about electrodynamics or quantum mechanics.
Who can argue with that? It seems to me that scientists trying to influence the scientific community publish papers, while those writing books for the consumption of the general public have a different purpose in mind. So of course I wouldn't expect this book to have much of an impact on "the way most physicists will think about electrodynamics or quantum mechanics."



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Not all the reviews were so great and notably, the review by physicist Milo Wolff wasn't good (isn't he the fringe WSM physicist that beebs likes?):


The essence of Mead's argument is that within quantum mechanics, there is a naturally occurring 1-form on three-dimensional space with the property that integrating it over a superconducting loop gives the phase change of the "wave function" of the loop, which must be a constant multiple of an integer. Also, integrating the space part of the four-potential 1-form A over a loop gives the magnetic flux threading the loop, which for a superconducting loop is observed to be a constant multiple of an integer. This suggests identifying the "phase change" 1-form with a constant multiple of the space part of A.

Later the full A is recovered by hand-waving analogies. In my opinion, the main problem with his argument is that his construction of the "phase change" 1-form is so vague, sloppy, and problematic that it is "not even wrong".


You have not quoted Milo Wolff. You have quoted Stephen K. Parrott.

Pretty sloppy of you.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
You have not quoted Milo Wolff. You have quoted Stephen K. Parrott.

Pretty sloppy of you.
Oops, you're right, I stand corrected. I saw Milo Wolff's name under the review I quoted from and thought it was his.

But after reading your post I looked at it again and see the name appears above the review, not below it. Sorry about that. But Wolff doesn't like it either, here is his review to atone for my mistake above (he says "Don't buy this over mathematical book"):


Carver Mead is a brilliant inventor and engineer but he does not understand the "foundations of electromagnetism" in the way Feynman would have understood these words.
Don't buy this over mathematical book. Instead buy the books that go to the heart of electromagnetism. They recognize that Nature is Simple; All the Natural Laws depend on only three properties of Space. Accordingly, the books are simple. Readers will enjoy them. Awards have been given:They are:
Then he plugs his own books.
edit on 20-2-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

edit on 02/20/12 by Mary Rose because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Milo Wolff has the chutzpah to review his own book and give it five stars on Amazon. What a clown.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Of course, stars are given by others reading a review.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Be sure to read the Carver Mead interview.


Perhaps this is the same Carver Mead?

The description:


Uploaded by BBVAFoundation on Jan 31, 2012

The BBVA Foundation Frontiers of Knowledge Award in the category of Information and Communication Technologies goes to U.S. electrical engineer Carver Mead, for being "the most influential thinker and pioneer" of the silicon age, and for enabling "the development of the billion-transistor processors that drive the electronic devices -- for example, in laptops, tablets, smartphones, DVD players -- ubiquitous in our daily lives," in the words of the jury's citation.





posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Mead Interview


Here is a link to a .pdf file of the interview, housed on lloydwatts.com. The interview was by The American Spectator and appeared in the September/October 2001 issue:

"Carver Mead’s American Spectator Interview - September/October 2001, Vol. 34 Issue 7"



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Be sure to read the Carver Mead interview.


From Technology Review, published by MIT, September 2004, "Carver Mead's Natural Inspiration" by Spencer Reiss:


Mead’s Startup Menu
Carver Mead has helped found more than 20 technology companies.

A selection of his newer ventures:

ACTEL Mountain View, CA
» Field-programmable gate array chips used in telecommunications

FOVEON Santa Clara, CA
» Multilayer silicon sensors for photographic imaging

IMPINJ Seattle,WA
»Low-power “self-adaptive” microchips

SONIC INNOVATIONS Salt Lake City, UT
»Advanced digital signal processing for hearing aids

SYNAPTICS San Jose, CA
»Touch pads and software for portable electronic devices


Clearly, theory coming from Carver Mead should be viewed within the context of his skill in real world practical endeavors.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Of course, stars are given by others reading a review.


No Mary, Milo did give 5 stars to himself, as a brief visit to the Amazon web site would readily confirm.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


A dead issue at this point.




top topics



 
39
<< 196  197  198    200  201  202 >>

log in

join