 |
There are currently, 305 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Fundamentalism and Free Energy belief systems (Score: 1)
by vlad on Sunday, October 26, 2003 @ 22:52:55 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | An interesting discussion on the same topic from the free-energy yahoo list:
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 20:00:15 -0500
From: "David Thomson"
Subject: RE: RE: Fundamentalism and Free Energy belief systems
Gary,
> No, most experiments can only show one nature of the
> particle, its particle-like nature or its wave-like
> nature. If you fling two streams of neutrons at each
> other they will deflect each other, as particles do.
> If you send them toward a two-slit aperture they will
> behave like waves. You can use the same neutrons,
> first deflected at one station and then diffracted by
> the two slits at the second, and demonstrate both
> natures.
>
> It is not necessary to show both contradictory natures
> "at the same time" to make them both meaningful or
> right. That must be only your supposition.
It's not that the experiment needs to show both contradictory natures at the
same time, it's that the particle must BE both a particle and a wave at the
same time to make duality theory have any real meaning.
By definition, a wave is a property of a medium and a particle is a
constituent of a medium. The problem with wave/particle duality is that an
object cannot be its own wave. But despite this obvious logic, physicists
still talk about the "wave/particle duality theory" as though it is a valid
description of the real world.
Now, whether you choose to believe in wave/particle duality theory is up to
you, just as a Christian can choose to believe Jesus is God's Son. I have
no problem with you choosing your belief structure. But I do have a problem
with the hypocrisy of pointing at the fundamentalist views of religious
people while scientists completely ignore their own fundamentalist views
about physics.
The fact that you are in denial that physics is a form of fundamentalism
only makes my point that much more serious. You are "holier" than
religionists because you have a superior belief system which you hold beyond
reproach. But it is only an illusion of being holier. You are no different
from any other fundamentalist. Your views are just as unbelievable and
illogical as the religionists.
> > There is no physical
> > model for such a
> > dual-state particle.
>
> Not at the same time, true, but any particle, even a
> brick, is correctly modeled as a dual state entity.
Can you hear yourself? You admit there is no such thing as a particle that
is both a wave and a particle at the same time. Then you turn to your
*model* for guidance and support. Your model is your god, your idol. You
have blind faith that your model will give you salvation when it comes to
understanding subatomic particles and bricks. Your logic tells you that
what your model depicts is impossible, but you have faith in your model
nonetheless. This is fundamentalism. The belief in your model is more
important to you than the fact that it can't exist.
> > The fundamentalist belief of science is that they will ignore the
> > impossibility of a solid object being its own wave and continue preaching
> > the metaphysics of wave-particle duality as though it is gospel.
>
> It is "preached" because duality best explains the
> EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE observed in real world
> laboratories.
And God best explains, to some people, why they got a certain parking space.
It is NOT a FACT that subatomic particles are BOTH a wave and a particle.
It is only a belief that wave/particle duality "best explains" the evidence
you have before you. You obviously haven't found the "best explanation"
otherwise you wouldn't be preaching an impossible theory. There is a better
theory that does explain the facts of what is observed.
Subatomic particles can be logically and geometrically modeled if the nature
of the particle is taken to be a two-dimensional particle with spin that
glides over the three dimensional surface of spacetime. In such a model,
the particle is neither particulate nor a wave, but does exhibit
characteristics of both.
> Duality, Heisenberg's Uncertainty
> Principle, the Casimir Effect and a host of other
> physically weird phenomena had to be explained
> somehow, and quantum mechanics just does the best job
> of sewing everything up. Not that everything is all
> done, but we're improving things as we go.
Well that's the whole point, isn't it? If science is wholly factual, then
there is no "best job". There is only reality and truth. Either science is
right, or it isn't. If science is not absolutely right, then it is based on
beliefs, assumptions, and theories, not complete fact or truth. It is
hypocrisy to deny the fundamentalism in modern physics.
> > Just as Christians and Jews
> > will ignore the impossibility of a man spreading a
> > vast body of water with
> > his staff, physicists will continue to ignore the
> > impossibility of a
> > physical object being its own wave.
> >
> But it isn't "impossible." It just seems weird on our
> scale, and it's highly improbable that we'll ever see
> evidence at our scale of it, but it's still as real as
> dirt.
It IS impossible. You need some kind of logic to prove it is possible.
We're talking about wave/particle duality here. If you're saying that
eventually a new theory will come along that will replace wave/particle
duality, then you are agreeing that wave/particle duality cannot exist. If
you're saying we will discover a way for an object to be its own wave, you
are dreaming. Physics is about facts, remember? Where are the facts that
demonstrate that an object can be its own wave? It doesn't exist.
> Hey, gecko lizards use the Casimir Effect to
> walk on the ceiling -- is that real enough for you?
And fireflies light up at night, is that real enough for you? What kind of
logic is that? Are you saying that geckos demonstrate an object can be its
own wave?
> Science observes things and then works up theories to
> explain how they work. Pretty simple and hard to
> reconcile with faith based issues.
I agree that science then works up theories to explain the observations.
But don't you agree that the explanation has to reflect reality? An object
being its own wave is not reality. Can't you just admit the wave/particle
duality theory is wrong and that a new theory needs to replace it? Even
*you* would have to admit that wave/particle duality is a faith based
theory. Your experience with the world tells you an object cannot be its
own wave, and yet you have faith that someone will someday find an object
that is its own wave.
> Again, though, just because quantum scale stuff seems
> strange to us is just because we aren't used to it.
> It's more of a limitation of our understanding, not
> that the world view is flawed. There's NO reason to
> force fit physics to what seems to make sense to us,
> if doing so runs counter to the way observations
> really run. That would be intellectually dishonest.
Exactly. So why do you insist on force fitting subatomic particles into a
wave or particle paradigm? The observations clearly show that subatomic
particles are angular momentum, not waves or particles. It is
intellectually dishonest to not accept the subatomic particles exactly as
their dimensions present them. So what if primary angular momentum seems
like a weird concept to you? If the dimensions show subatomic particles are
primary angular momentum, then that is what they are. Don't delude yourself
into an impossible concept such as wave/particle duality when such a
condition is impossible.
> > Contrary to the preaching of Phil, Bob and others on
> > this list, science is
> > not the purely fact-based system of discovery they
> > claim it is. Science has
> > its fair share of metaphysics, and mysteries. But
> > this isn't the fault of
> > reality, it is evidence that the Standard Model and
> > its priests are not
> > entirely correct in their assumptions and
> > interpretations of reality. And
> > to cover their ignorance, they invent beliefs
> > (fundamental beliefs) that
> > must be accepted because they're the best theory the
> > priests can come up
> > with, and not because the theories reflect reality.
>
> Says who?
You said it in your own words (scan up to see them). You said
(paraphrasing) that the current theories are the best theories available
today and that they are subject to change because they are not perfect.
> Every experiment attempted to date shows
> that Special and General Relativity works as
> advertised. Ditto quantum mechanics. So as weird as
> they are, they are a much better explanation for
> what's going on than anything else proposed to date.
Hear yourself again. "So as weird as they are, they are a much better
explanation for what's going on than anything else proposed to date." You
are again admitting that you don't have the perfect explanation. That means
you are flying by the seat of your pants, just like the religionists are.
You might *think* you have a better position because of your measurements
and data, but that is only in your mind.
As long as you believe in irrational and impossible explanations for that
data you are a scientific fundamentalist. There is nothing wrong with being
a fundamentalist with faith in your irrational ideas, but it is wrong to be
in denial of this truth and to pretend that you are better than other
fundamentalists.
> Is everything solved, are all the mysteries closed? Of
> course not. But as we refine our measurements, improve
> our technology and design better experiments we'll get
> closer to the Theory of Everything that fits all the
> situations we've ever observed. Tie SR, GR and QM into
> one neat package. It will have some weirdness in it,
> sure, but that's more a reflection of our prejudices
> and preconceptions than the underlying physics.
Modern physics actually already has extremely accurate data with regard to
quantum physics. The data and measurements are not the problem. The
problem is the weirdness of the theories used to explain the accurate data.
The theories do not come from data, they come from the minds of people to
describe the data. What we need to do is rid our science of the
preconceived notion that particles must be either a wave or particulate in
nature. We need to open our mind and allow the data to dictate the
structure of the Universe to us.
But that is so difficult to do when the scientific establishment is run by a
priesthood of metaphysicians who would rather believe in wave/particle
duality concepts than logical and mathematically correct models of
two-dimensional matter existing in an Aether.
Dave
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 20:22:27 -0500
From: "David Thomson"
Subject: RE: Re: Fundamentalism and Free Energy belief systems
Hi Shawn,
> And the photoelectric effect demonstrates, and can only be reconciled,
> when the photons (seen to be as waves in the slit experiment) are
> treated as discrete quanta possessing energy and momentum in the same
> manner as a solid particle.
It is a fundamentalist belief that the "photoelectric effect can only be
reconciled when the photons are treated as discrete quanta possessing energy
and momentum in the same manner as a solid particle." There is a more
logical and mathematically correct way to see photons as primary angular
momentum in an Aether. But because the modern physics priests dictate that
the subatomic realm must be either a wave or particulate in nature, other
mathematically correct views must be ignored. It is exactly the same as
when the Catholic Church deemed it heresy for Galileo to describe the Earth
as revolving about the Sun when it should have been the center of the
Universe.
> The Compton scattering of a photon off an atomic electron demonstrates
> the photon's particle-like behaviour as well. When one writes the
> equations of conservation of energy and momentum, treating the photon
> as a discrete particle, the results are in excellent agreement with
> experiment.
But when one tries to model the scattering of a photon off an atomic
electron using those equations one cannot produce a satisfactory model. For
example, if the photon is a wave, how does it strike an electron? And if a
photon is a particle, how big is it and why can't its position be accurately
determined in a trajectory?
An electron or photon might be measured as a wave or a particle, but that is
not proof that they are waves or particles. I can pour water onto a scale
for weighing solid objects and cause the scale to measure a weight, but that
does not mean the water is a solid object.
If the photon were a particle, then it would have dimensions of a particle.
If a photon were a wave, then there would be a medium of some kind for the
wave to occur in. The fact that an equation can be written that predicts
the energy transfer of a photon to an electron does not prove that
wave/particle duality theory is correct. It merely proves the energy can be
calculated with the equation.
Dave
|
| Parent |
|
|
|
