Physics is broken!

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho



Where does the quantum world stop and the N/R world start?



Where atoms form.

I agree that it's a little confusing, and it kinda makes you
when you are not a bonafide pHd holder of MIT, but hey, us layman sometimes gotta show our respect for the other guys.

The very fact that beneath the atomic layers, the properties of that space being different is not that confounding.


I would argue that bonafide pHd's (which I am not, BTW - but I travel in the same square circles) have been "drinking the coolaid" so long they have forgotten the doublethink.




posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 


Science itself is broken.
Take a look at this (2012 in science) en.wikipedia.org... Incredible breakthroughs and advances in all branches of science...What has your new age mumbo jumbo given the world this year? or any other year....

This is my personal favorite :

An international team of astronomers report that each star in the Milky Way Galaxy may host "on average ... at least 1.6 planets", suggesting that over 160 billion star-bound planets may exist in our galaxy alone. The team used gravitational microlensing to discover the gravitational effects of planets orbiting distant stars.
edit on 28-11-2012 by Atzil321 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by LittleByLittle

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by Ghost375
Saying "it's broken" instead of saying "we don't know enough about it" is rather ignorant.


What we do know is a dichotomy that indicates that somewhere, a major theoretical construct has to be entirely un-learned to allow us to advance.

They cannot both be right.



The right seeker of truth will not care about previous conditioning and will find new things. Einstein is a great example of that. But stuburn people like that is less usual that the followers of indoctrination.


We could all emulate Einstein.

Many on ATS buck the system and don't accept the mainstream. I think that cynicism is healthy.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueMule
Science itself is broken. Despite the way the 'hooray for our side' Higgs-Boson parties made it seem a short while ago.

Science advances funeral by funeral. When the 'old guard' has finally died off and taken their taboos and prejudices and pride with them, science will be able to begin healing.

edit on 28-11-2012 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)


People were still supporting Aristotelian physics in Newtons day, despite Copernicus and others having exploded those old ideas ages ago.

I still see some people on ATS who seem to use Aristotelian logic and take great and labored instruction to discard their conceptions, so ingrained are the "old guard" ideas.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
my 2 cents

isn't the reason that further physics modeling and theory leading to a "truth or fact", is being done entirely through the use of mathmatical equations, is that trying to explain what is happening in nature is otherwise beyond the normal scope of learning and/or verifiable testing?



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
my 2 cents

isn't the reason that further physics modeling and theory leading to a "truth or fact", is being done entirely through the use of mathmatical equations, is that trying to explain what is happening in nature is otherwise beyond the normal scope of learning and/or verifiable testing?


I think the issue is less a problem of verification & experimentation and more of an issue of comprehension of the abstruse consequences of that experimentation for those who have not been immersed in the process.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Physics and quantum physics tell us more about ourselves and our instruments than they do about the universe. We must realize that they are merely interpretations of phenomena, mathematical descriptions, like a map of a territory but not the territory itself.

Where else in the universe can particles be torn from the analogue flow of things for study but in the studies themselves? And we expect them to act as they always have? This is where our truth and knowledge comes from?
edit on 28-11-2012 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
“Science is always discovering odd scraps of magical wisdom and making a tremendous fuss about its cleverness.”



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by boncho



Where does the quantum world stop and the N/R world start?



Where atoms form.

I agree that it's a little confusing, and it kinda makes you
when you are not a bonafide pHd holder of MIT, but hey, us layman sometimes gotta show our respect for the other guys.

The very fact that beneath the atomic layers, the properties of that space being different is not that confounding.


I would argue that bonafide pHd's (which I am not, BTW - but I travel in the same square circles) have been "drinking the coolaid" so long they have forgotten the doublethink.



I respect your position. And although I'm a boozer at heart, many of my friends are bonafide smart asses, (not the kind that I am) and we spend hours and hours throwing back ideas waaaaay outside the box. While many people "drink the coolaid" so-to-speak, it is an inherent urge to discover/understand things that gets most science oriented people motivated to chase their dreams in that field. So while I appreciate your position, I'm just not convinced that the people drinking the cool aid aren't drinking cervezas in their spare time thinking about all the things us layman types ponder.

Cheers.

-B



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


If you simply reduce Quantum Physics to its original and core premise - that the infinite gradient does not exist - then there isn't any real problem between these two perspectives on material physics. The problem is that so many freewheeling book authors and TV documentary pundits (who took the time and effort to earn physics degrees before putting out their voodoo metaphysics shingles and hitting the lecture circuits with pure speculation-as-fact) have hijacked the popular interpretation of what quantum physics actually states as real and verifiable. Even quantum entanglement doesn't actually clash with Newtonian physics if you allow for the fact that Newtonian physics is limited to extremely complex and mature closed systems, and that quantum entanglement is impossible to exist relative to such systems due to the requirement for such entanglement to involve an extremely fragile and pristine contextual relationship to exist and persist between two specifically prepared subatomic items.

The problem that you are seeing is a problem with modern academic culture. Competition is good for inspiring creativity related to making a process become more efficient (contributing to ongoing development of established knowns and relevant technological advances), but it's value doesn't extend to accurate interpretation of available and incoming revelation that's been achieved as a result of those improved processes and technologies. In fact, this same competitive mindset and this same need to compete, is extremely harmful when inflicted upon those whose job is data and indications interpretation, since breakthroughs are also the lifeblood of the professional environment of these folks. Breakthroughs create and fuel careers, and an absence of such a breakthrough will stall one's career - generally for good. Especially now that private enterprise funds the bulk of professional research, with government research grants requiring the same sort of "what have you done for me lately" mentality in order to maintain current levels of funding. As if the private sector has all the answers on how to do things right.

The bitch is that our technologies have started to debunk our traditional wisdoms, and when you toss all the Youtube and Discovery Channel carnival theoretical physicists into that emerging blend of "WTF is that?" you start losing focus on the many reality anchors that do exist and that won't ever be debunked. An "adventurous" interpretation of the "double-slit experiment" doesn't and can't debunk the impact of progressive ramification, regardless of how many video links you throw at it. Time will still exist and you'll still age no matter how much you think you can convince the world that time is just an illusion. Now will always be replaced by the next quantum instant of now, and dismissing this as conjecture won't change the fact that each time you say the word "NOW", you're saying it within a completely different instant of now than when you said it the last time.

There are reality anchors that exist and will persist no matter what we learn about the true nature of reality as a whole. Both Quantum Physics (actual quantum physics, that is) and Newtonian Physics agree on those reality anchors. What we really need to fix are the methods that are imposed upon those tasked with translating reality's indications by those who've seized control of that process. Pitting them against one another in the sort of "Survivor - Crack the Code or Die" reality cage match, with their professional survival hanging in the balance certainly isn't going to cut it. Especially when that pressure can slide off any one of them willing to strike out with yet another impossible miracle announcement in exchange for his/her slot within that relentless academic/research nightmare world and their professional reputation among those too timid to go off the reservation. Hell, they probably all know exactly how compromised it's become anyway, so the reputation part of it is no real loss. As long as the book sells and the speaking engagements continue.
edit on 11/29/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
I heard that we can break speed of light.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


I see the type of misunderstanding about quantum physics you have displayed here almost more than the what the bleep stuff. I am not saying that in a mean way.

to understand your mistake, and perhaps to simultaneously address the OP, please read carefully misanthrope's statement about map is not territory and noreaster's infinite gradient (non existent).

the nature of uncertainty and quantization is such that, no matter what size of measure you select, you can never "know" the length of England's coastline (Google this). the reason for this is that, when you select a smaller unit of measure, you suddenly have to include pieces of the coast which had been "chopped off" by the larger unit measure. it would seem, then, that the coastline is infinitely long....which surely can't be true. what, then, is the appropriate measure?

in fact, it is precisely because the TV pixellation metaphor doesn't work, that the two disciplines cannot be resolved.


as to the solution?

the original formulations of QM were written expressly to accommodate the field equations in use at the time. since then, the science has become a patchwork for every new accommodation that must be made. not once has anyone sat down to reformulate the thing from the ground up. Von neumann tried but was ignored. I wonder, then, if the two would be in such conflict if we were to understand quantum principles from a non-referential pov?

I bet if the (reworked) model more accurately portrayed the relevant dynamics, that quantum theory and relativity would be hand-in-glove.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


The absence of a smooth gradient, because we have measured things on different levels and found discontinuity, is a mental side-step from the fact that the models we use to interpret the data are not always applicable. It is part of the double-think that allows us to calmly accept an illogical contradiction.

The "we can get valid answers, you just have to use different rules for different realms" edict is a mental cop-out.

I am aware that the "bull in the china shop" finesse of our observational methods at quantum scales is part of the issue but even ignoring this, the very tools and maths we use to intuit relevant data incorporate the stochastic nature of the quantum realm. This is because nothing else makes sufficient sense.

Einstein acknowledged the problem with the "God does not play dice" quote, demonstrating that long ago, the dichotomy was evident but has, over time, been lost to us (I can say this because I know it has not yet been resolved).

In fact, the idea of order emergent from randomness was once considered absurd. Yet today is routinely suggested that such is the case and is implicate in the way N/R physics is explained to arise from quantum indeterminacy.

It is obvious to me that (to misquote Einstein) "Dice cannot play God"! Randomness cannot create order, especially the seamless and high level of order of N/R physics.

Despite the sagacity and mellifluousness of other posts, it is plain that modern Physics is as broken now as Aristotelian Physics was in the past. Until we can see how ridiculous are the conclusions we are likely to build from this fragmented conceptual mess, we cannot have the moral strength to call the emperor out on his nakedness.

edit on 30/11/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
We need to admit that at a very fundamental level, the science of Physics is broken.
...
In the Quantum world, everything is stochastic in nature. Everything arises from the forces of randomness and probability.


What we observe and measure appears to us to arise from forces of randomness and probability, that does not mean it is so.




Effects can be un-caused, a fact which we can measure and verify, but not explain, because there is NO explanation.

There is always an explanation, we just don't have it yet, and it may be so far beyond us that we never have it.. but it still exists.

edit on 30-11-2012 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by Ghost375
Saying "it's broken" instead of saying "we don't know enough about it" is rather ignorant.


What we do know is a dichotomy that indicates that somewhere, a major theoretical construct has to be entirely un-learned to allow us to advance.

They cannot both be right.



yes they can. what ur missing. is the bridge! but u call that bridge 'nothing'. LOL
edit on 30-11-2012 by 0mage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Perhaps it would have been better to say Physicist feel broken.


The idea that the senses perceive reality and that measurements can be made that, verify its authenticity does not preclude the conclusion that reality works on a "curve". Hypothetically speaking consider a life form that can perceive reality exclusively from the context of matter the size of quarks.

Then consider an animal the size and intelligence of a dog having the same senses and trying to find food.

The fact that a disparity exits, noththeless here we are.

As a result there is in reality no disparity.


Any thoughts?
edit on 30-11-2012 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Despite the sagacity and mellifluousness of other posts, it is plain that modern Physics is as broken now as Aristotelian Physics was in the past. Until we can see how ridiculous are the conclusions we are likely to build from this fragmented conceptual mess, we cannot have the moral strength to call the emperor out on his nakedness.


I agree with you on this, and I think that one of your other post comment concerning the need to "unlearn" the core structural notion before any reality can ever be approached is also spot on. I know that around here I come across as delusional when I suggest that I've come upon a core structural notion that has the potential to be helpful in this concern, but even if all it ever does is eventually free better minds to unlearn the deeply flawed core structural notion we're still suffering under at this point in our development, then I'd be pretty thrilled with being involved in that breakthrough transition.

In the end, we will need to go all the way back to where we took that wrong turn before we can ever get back on the right road toward accurately determining what constitutes reality. There are no cross roads toward that road we missed a long time ago. The present patchwork effort to get us back on track will just land us in a confusing wilderness of contradictory assertions. It's a pretty exciting moment for those of us who honestly think we have a potential breakthrough core structural notion. Like having a lottery ticket that might just be a winner, with one more number yet to be announced.
edit on 11/30/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Music break....





posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by 0mage

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by Ghost375
Saying "it's broken" instead of saying "we don't know enough about it" is rather ignorant.


What we do know is a dichotomy that indicates that somewhere, a major theoretical construct has to be entirely un-learned to allow us to advance.

They cannot both be right.



yes they can. what ur missing. is the bridge! but u call that bridge 'nothing'. LOL
edit on 30-11-2012 by 0mage because: (no reason given)


Please explain what this 'bridge' is.

For most of physics, there is overlap between what quantum physics and Newtonian/Relativistic physics say. The problem is there are some things that quantum physics cannot explain that N/R physics has answers for. There are things that N/R physics cannot explain the quantum physics can. Rather than resolve the issue, physicist apply one rule for quantum events and another for N/R events.

Many physicists have tried to resolve the discontinuity and the goal was a "Grand Unified Theory" but this has largely been abandoned these days.

At the core of these two different methods are fundamentally divergent core concepts which cannot be reconciled. Between these two conceptual islands, there can be no bridge. It is a logical impossibility. I am suggesting that we stop trying to reconcile the two, identify the one which is most likely to be incorrect and discard it.


edit on 1/12/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 





In the Quantum world, everything is stochastic in nature. Everything arises from the forces of randomness and probability. Effects can be un-caused, a fact which we can measure and verify, but not explain, because there is NO explanation.


I attribute these findings to the fact that quantum physics is still in it's infancy. We will probably need better technologies to transform quantum weirdness into quantum logic.





new topics
 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join