[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
 | [Main General Bulletin Board | BBFAQ |
Prev by Date | Next by Date | Post Followup ]
Member Login / Signup - Members see fewer ads. - Latest Member Gallery Photos
Re: this is the peanut gallery Posted by Snowmobile [Email]  (#686)  [Profile/Gallery]
(more from Snowmobile) on Thu, 30 May 2019 10:14:22
In Reply to: Re: this is the peanut gallery, Navid S, Thu, 30 May 2019 06:11:44 Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup |
Navid,
Have you personally worked through the math yourself?
You assert that Mills' work is correct and that "QM is a fraud". If you cannot prove both statements mathematically yourself, then you should not assert it. How do you know that Mills has not made a mistake and is misleading you?
Other physicists have worked through his math and assert that there are fundamental errors. I have not yet worked through either his math or theirs so I will reserve judgement and keep an open mind on this. Perhaps Mills has found some new regime in his experimental work that is out of the bounds that limited other previous studies. Improbable, but not impossible.
Distributing hand-wavy links does not prove your case, because it is easy to manipulate the reader (especially the untrained reader). An example being hand-wavy arguments that QM proves ESP, which is complete nonsense, but nonetheless some authors have done that...
At the same time, simply throwing 100 journal articles and 2 books at people and saying "read them all" ("or just believe us") is a bit of a cop out. Most researchers have a few seminal papers that are the most useful starting point. There are a couple I do want to read, but I do not have time to go through all his work. Properly reading scientific literature is a lot more work than reading a paperback for pleasure.
At the same time, you have implied that Lee Smolin supports Mills' Hydrino theory by the way you have referred to Smolin's talk about his thoughts on QM. His statements in that talk about QM being "wrong" or "incomplete" do not necessarily mean he feels hydrino theory is "correct" or "complete". He might quite easily consider hydrinos a hoax and still present the same talk you linked to. He seems to support the DeBroglie-Bohm interpretation of QM which for simple systems like the hydrogen atom is mathematically equivalent to the Copenhagen interpretation that he is questioning. Imho, for many practical applications of QM, this is just a matter of philosophy. To a theoretician working on the bounds of the subject, it could easily make a difference. That's why there are different interpretations of QM in the first place.
BTW, many of your hand-wavy links do mix up several interpretations of QM to create straw men. One really does not need to consider many-worlds views when regarding something simple like the hydrogen atom or a double slit.
And imho, people's interpretations of the double slit experiment are often overwrought (I would say Smolin's in that talk also in some sense) in that people get caught up in the wording ("observation causes the wavefunction to collapse") and lose sense of the meaning. To "observe" a photon (or electron, or whatever particle), we measure it. However, our attempts to measure it disturb the experiment. Eg putting a detector in front of 1 slit to see if the photon went that way blocks the slit, so obviously, no interference pattern. That's the simplest crude example, but more sophisticated arrangements have similar analyses. I've linked to the double slit experiment below (for those interested). People get too caught up in the language used imho and lose sight of what is actually going on. It's not that hard to grasp.
All that said, I'm actually thankful you have brought this topic up as I was completely unaware of Mills and hydrinos previously. When I get a chance, I will go over the math because it would be fun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
1
, Thu, 16 May 2019 09:19:09, Thu, 30 May 2019 05:43:10, Tue, 28 May 2019 09:47:13, Tue, 28 May 2019 09:34:42
, Wed, 15 May 2019 13:20:431, Thu, 16 May 2019 09:20:073, Sun, 19 May 2019 19:43:55, Sun, 26 May 2019 21:20:27, Thu, 30 May 2019 05:54:11, Thu, 30 May 2019 10:14:22 <-- Viewing This Message, Thu, 30 May 2019 12:50:33, Fri, 31 May 2019 06:18:48, Fri, 31 May 2019 08:58:56
, Thu, 30 May 2019 10:47:421, Thu, 30 May 2019 10:57:011, Thu, 30 May 2019 10:19:20, Thu, 30 May 2019 06:57:44, Thu, 30 May 2019 09:02:54, Tue, 28 May 2019 04:29:07
, Wed, 29 May 2019 13:38:19, Wed, 29 May 2019 18:38:41, Mon, 27 May 2019 09:22:05, Tue, 14 May 2019 08:21:28
, Tue, 14 May 2019 19:23:27, Wed, 15 May 2019 16:52:29, Thu, 16 May 2019 23:15:201, Thu, 16 May 2019 11:52:59, Wed, 15 May 2019 18:51:06, Wed, 15 May 2019 08:30:19, Wed, 15 May 2019 10:32:22, Tue, 14 May 2019 19:30:31, Wed, 15 May 2019 16:49:52, Wed, 15 May 2019 15:34:21, Tue, 14 May 2019 19:56:13, Wed, 15 May 2019 07:32:32, Thu, 16 May 2019 22:45:46, Fri, 17 May 2019 14:01:26, Sat, 18 May 2019 03:58:49, Sat, 18 May 2019 05:48:33, Sun, 19 May 2019 11:08:46, Sun, 19 May 2019 14:04:43, Sun, 19 May 2019 08:45:11, Fri, 17 May 2019 06:33:51, Thu, 16 May 2019 00:47:281, Thu, 16 May 2019 14:10:27, Thu, 16 May 2019 22:17:211, Thu, 16 May 2019 14:34:391, Thu, 16 May 2019 22:33:12, Fri, 17 May 2019 10:10:45, Thu, 16 May 2019 17:00:02, Thu, 16 May 2019 21:52:521, Fri, 17 May 2019 10:32:44, Fri, 17 May 2019 06:58:211, Fri, 17 May 2019 20:07:18, Fri, 17 May 2019 20:16:01, Fri, 17 May 2019 23:16:06, Sat, 18 May 2019 04:07:20, Fri, 17 May 2019 10:15:58
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
