Physics is made up crap! (Mainly quantum mechanics)

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing80s
Just because I think all this alternate QM sci-fi crap is BS to me doesn't mean I''m too stupid to understand it.

In that case, perhaps you should do some reading on the background material to understand it (and no, I'm not being snarky.)

There's a lot of things on "quantum mechanics" on the internet that's totally bogus. I don't know what you've been reading, but I suggest that if you want to understand "all the numbers" you start with Dirac and Hilbert (and when you can comfortably read the math in their papers, you're ready to move onward.) Hilbert, in particular, is key to understanding the underpinnings of this (though most people think of the "dimensions" as physical directions, which is not correct.)

I'm having to go back and review algebra and calculus because part of my dissertation involves "game theory" and "loopy belief propagation in networks" and the formulas just make my eyes cross. However, a mix of the two does indeed describe (very elegantly... like a map) what's going on.

I think of math as a map. I can tell you (verbally) the directions for a destination, or I can draw it more simply and elegantly as a map. But if you don't know how to read a map, then maps look like paper with lots of ugly random lines.




posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Looking through some of the different AI math algorithms the Indian buffet process caught my eye. In that process the diners archetype selects a subset of menu items with some optional new items.

That may be an important key to AI processing, the subset menu selection.

Its sort of the same problem a gamer might encounter trying to use their old Apple Pippin console to run Xbox 360 cartridges. The Pippin only has 128KB of internal memory and the Xbox 360 has 1.1 GB what do you do?

you need a limited resource interface something like the three blind witches The Graeae "gray ones", or "gray witches", alternatively spelled Graiai, Graiae, Graii), one of several trinities of archaic goddesses in Greek mythology that shared a single eye.

You have to project the large content of the Xbox 360 cartridge through a glass container filled with a holographic media and sh*t a sub-schema view of interest that will fit the smaller 128KB sub menu space of your Pippin.

Mathematically it would be a *not* process that removes tons of redundant material from the original content. My wife calls whats left over "red jar" and she uses this to put up pickled aliens. Got a huge pantry full of pickled aliens.

Not sure how you could model this mathematically but its an interesting concept.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   
A picture is worth a thousand words...






edit on 9-10-2012 by PurpleChiten because: the wrong picture isn't worth anything




posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by manofearth
 


My degrees are in Math and Physics and I can assure you that Mathematics is, indeed, the basis for Physics.

Gaede was an engineer and programmer, not a Mathematician or Physicist, most likely harbored a great deal of jealousy for the fields. He was nothing spectacular and that probably bothered him a lot...



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing80s
reply to post by Druscilla
 


I doubt you have an education like I do. Trying to point out trivial mistakes in my grammar doesn't make you smarter than me. 4 college degrees make me smarter than you. Sure they're not in physics but I could run circles around you in a lab, making soap, making aspirin, growing certain bad pathogens on agar plates, sequencing genes through gel electrophoresis, or tagging proteins in cells for UV spectroscopy. So your words don't weigh anything in on how I view my education.


Mine ARE in Physics and in Mathematics and I don't treat people nasty like this (in other ways perhaps, but not like this). You are not better than her nor are you smarter than her merely due to having degrees or not having degrees.
I haven't looked at the entire conversation, but this particular part of it is very nasty and hateful. Perhaps she has done the same, perhaps not, but there's no excuse for it.


edit on 9-10-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cauliflower
reply to post by Byrd
 


Looking through some of the different AI math algorithms the Indian buffet process caught my eye.

Oh, that's just darn wicked of you -- poking my curiosity button and making me go look! What an interesting algorithm!

(must...not...use...in...current...paper. Profs...already...alarmed...enough...at...Nash...Equilibria. On the other hand, you might be onto something here.)



Mathematically it would be a *not* process that removes tons of redundant material from the original content. My wife calls whats left over "red jar" and she uses this to put up pickled aliens. Got a huge pantry full of pickled aliens.

Not sure how you could model this mathematically but its an interesting concept.

Actually, the NOT/NOR is pretty well modeled... I remember from the days when (gah!) I coded in machine language (when personal computers first came along) on an Altair (yes, I'm older than dirt.)



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Swing80s
 


Actually most theories accepted in quantum physics or any scientific academia is backed by experiments and than peer reviewed others are just theories. Using your views biology is also crap and chemistry too. Same Scientific Method Same way of collecting data.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Didn't feel like reading all the replies, so forgive me if this was already posted, but I'm willing to bet that at one point all of the tangible physics you appreciate now were at one point a scrambled mess of a theory on paper (at best). You should be glad so many people are coming up with different theories. It leads to scientific advancement. The false ones will not hold their ground, and the plausible ones will be investigated.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by Swing80s
reply to post by Druscilla
 


I doubt you have an education like I do. Trying to point out trivial mistakes in my grammar doesn't make you smarter than me. 4 college degrees make me smarter than you. Sure they're not in physics but I could run circles around you in a lab, making soap, making aspirin, growing certain bad pathogens on agar plates, sequencing genes through gel electrophoresis, or tagging proteins in cells for UV spectroscopy. So your words don't weigh anything in on how I view my education.


Mine ARE in Physics and in Mathematics and I don't treat people nasty like this (in other ways perhaps, but not like this). You are not better than her nor are you smarter than her merely due to having degrees or not having degrees.
I haven't looked at the entire conversation, but this particular part of it is very nasty and hateful. Perhaps she has done the same, perhaps not, but there's no excuse for it.


edit on 9-10-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)



Yes, it's a little sad.
It's interesting too in consideration that I asked them to identify a molecule: C9H8O4


especially in light of this statement:


I could run circles around you in a lab, making soap, making aspirin


where they then failed to identify the molecule correctly as Aspirin

Besides that, all the horn tooting about having a degree in Chem is irrelevant to the argument regarding Quantum Mechanics.

My academic accreditation extends well beyond a 4 year undergraduate program, but, I'm not shouting from the treetops about it. Specialized Accreditation certainly helps in allowing facility to understand specifics, and even demonstrate subject specific expertise regarding the specialization, but,it doesn't make anyone smarter than another person. More learned regarding a subject or subjects, certainly, but, no more or less intelligent.

My own accreditation has nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics, but, even so, it's obvious the OP is arguing from a position of incredulity and ignorance.
People who specialize in the investigation of Quantum Mechanics dedicate their lives to its study, and there's sundry numbers of colleagues, and peers who quite easily understand what's being investigated, as it's their job to crash test (peer review), critique, replicate, a and work with any and all results.

If it was all gibbering nonsense, the entire concept of Quantum Mechanics would have fallen by the wayside long ago.
Besides that, there are established replicable tests that can be conducted over and over that support the paradigms established in Quantum Mechanics.

If one is stymied by some the strangeness associated with this field, then, instead of calling shenanigans, hit the books and try leveling up on the language of math that describes it.
If one doesn't understand the language, then, learn it.




edit on 10-10-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
My impression is that the OP should have quit while he or she was ahead. The computer that enables people to discuss on the Internet applies quantum mechanics. As far as the alleged far reaching issues, the computer works because of some of these far reaching issues.

That is why they are issues....

The Multiverse was actually, originally theorized because it answered certain problems in relation to field of Chemistry

Any thoughts?



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


Agreed. The extreme hubris definitely implies he isn't of the caliber he is claiming. I would put my money on college student.
Notice those multiple degrees he claims included Associates? Clearly not of the level he is claiming to be.

I very much enjoyed your molecular contributions and his inability to recognize them

I knew it was a carbon bond with hydrogen and oxygen involved, but wasn't sure what the substance was.... and was too lazy to look it up

As I said, my fields are Math and Physics. I know enough Chemistry to get by, but recognizing molecules is not my forte





posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing80s
I can't find anybody that can explain to me why the theories of quantum mechanics isn't total B.S. Besides all these people that think they're so smart, why can't we tie in Relativity and Quantum theory? They're totally opposite of each other unless you invent something nonexistant like "Dark Matter".
'
These theories must at least have some validity, in their own sphere, for engineers use them to design working technologies. Many of the top engineers who work on such technologies are relatively indistinguishable from the physicists that you are insulting, because that's what it takes to make smaller and smaller computer parts.

The people who design cutting edge computing technology don't do so with a tool box, dirt, and sweat. They do it, for the most part, on pencil and paper, and dry erase boards. Also on powerful computers running simulation software, and modeling software, and the like.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


I don't even understand the point behind OP puffing up and crowing about Chem when Chem is pretty much irrelevant to the topic.
May as well say they have a degree in Law, Economics, Food Science, or something for all it's worth.

The Chem flag was run up the pole though, so, credibility in that regard had to be tested, even though it was irrelevant to the topic.
OP hung by own rope.

Who calls academic accreditation "college" anyway? I attended University; University of ..., ... University, etc.
Only thing I know of with "College" in it are Community Colleges where those are 2 year Associate Degree or Trade Certification programs.

My own concentrations are not in the Math, Physics, or even Chemistry specializations other than requisite curriculum, but, even so, though I may not have a pistol grip hold on Quantum Mechanics, I know enough to do research my own had I the interest, and enough to boot strap my understanding with some further study.

There are plenty papers on the subject in places like Arxiv to read over as well. For instance; The Quest for Quantum Gravity: Testing Times for Theories?

Quantum Profiles and Paradoxes

... and thousands of other papers related to Quantum Mechanics alone in just that one archive.

One necessarily needs the Lingua Franca of certain mathematics as well as some specialized subject specific vocabulary to appreciate what's being said in many of these papers, just as a trained and practiced professional musician can appreaciate and more fully understand a symphony compared to someone who simply likes the way something sounds.

For instance, from the first paper linked;

An important feature of most models of quantum space time foam is the breaking of Lorentz Invariance (LI) by quantum gravity effects.
That does indeed sound a little confusing if one doesn't know what all the talk about space time foam, Lorentz Invariance, and Quantum Gravity are all about.

Then of course, as stated, there's the dum, duh, dummmm, MATH that needs be understood as well.

I'll agree on the point that it can all be overwhelming, highly technical, confusing, and sound incomprehensible, but, these are the bleeding edges of Science in the pursuit of knowledge; not for the faint of heart or untrained mind.




edit on 10-10-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
The important new observation is that information depends on the physical laws used to store and processes the information, e.g., information stored using classical physics concepts has a very different character than information stored using QM physics. Although modern computers rely on QM to operate, the information itself is still encoded classically. The new approach is to treat information as a quantum concept and to ask what happens when both the transmission and processing of information are governed by quantum laws?

www.p-i-a.com...

Without Quantum Mechanics the Original Post would not exist.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   
As a note of humor, relating to Quantum Mechanics:

Quantum Dating Market

Quantum vs. Classic strategy for successful dating of women by men.

Abstract

We consider the dating market decision problem under the quan- tum mechanics point of view. Quantum states whose associated amplitudes are modified by men strategies are used to represent women. Grover quantum search algorithm is used as a playing strategy. Success is more frequently obtained by playing quan- tum than playing classic.



The quantum dating game

In the classic dating market game, men choose women simultaneously from N options, looking for those women who would have some “property” they want. Unlike the traditional game, in the quantum version of the dating game, players get the chance to use quantum techniques, for example they can explore their possibilities using a quantum search algorithm. Grover al- gorithm capitalizes quantum states superposition characteristic to find some “marked” state from a group of possible solutions in considerably less time than a classical algorithm can do]. That state space must be capable of being translatable, say to a graph G where to find some particular state which has a searched feature or distinctive mark, throughout the execution of the al- gorithm. By “distinctive mark” we mean problems whose algo- rithmic solution are inspired by physical processes. Furthermore it is possible to guarantee that the searched node is marked by a minimum (maximum) value of a physical property included in the algorithm.


The paper is filled with fun Math, with tables, figures, graphs, and charts to illustrate successful dating techniques toward desirable outcomes based on Quantum Mechanics.



It's a serious paper that's sure to clench the dating market for any boy that capitalizes on the techniques described.

Thus, good luck boys!



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


Nothing in the world more attractive than an intelligent woman!



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Like I said to Drusicilla or whatever her name is before my posts got taken down is that I have don't carry around a copy of the MERCK index with me so I could care less about her little tests to see if I memorized my biochemistry and O-chem series. I don't have a physics background but I do have a B.S. degree whether you guys believe me or not I don't care. But that has nothing to do with my original point! I guess she's a troll in more than one way



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Swing80s
 


The idea of you having 4 uni degrees is so laughable that I believe you are on the wind up.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swing80s
Like I said to Drusicilla or whatever her name is before my posts got taken down is that I have don't carry around a copy of the MERCK index with me so I could care less about her little tests to see if I memorized my biochemistry and O-chem series. I don't have a physics background but I do have a B.S. degree whether you guys believe me or not I don't care. But that has nothing to do with my original point! I guess she's a troll in more than one way


perhaps a BS in liberal arts, but definitely not in any of the sciences


Drusicilla-1 , Swing-0

She trounced you.



oh, the Humanities...




edit on 12-10-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Im sorry to break it to you but quantum mechanics works, is testable and has been for decades...how do we know its correct? Transistors. Transistors are purely quantum mechanical devices. They work on direct principles of quantum theory. Without them, we have no computers, or microchips...and since transistors DO work and we DO have computers, quantum mechanics is a correct theory.


Just because you dont understand it doesnt make it wrong.



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join