dennislmay

Members
  • Posts

    1,236
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by dennislmay

  1. A tragedy of the first magnitude that von Neumann's error was not widely discussed starting in 1935. Many people continue to this day to mistakenly believe that there is some proof that quantum mechanics is probablistic or indeterministic. People who should know better repeat the error continually - reinforcing 3 generations of error compounded upon error. Dennis May Even so, quantum physics brings home the results. Predictions which have not yet been falsified. The touchstone of good science is two fold (1) internal consistency - Hilbert Space is internally consistent mathemtics and (2) correct predictions --- in the case of the Standard Model of Fields and Particles predictions good to 12 decimal places. No rival theory has come even close. A theory that so so right that often cannot be very wrong. Ba'al Chatzaf The good results of quantum mechanics has nothing to say about the issue of a probablistic or indeterministic interpretation of those results. I can't count how many times I have seen that implication made. As to internal consistency - several interpretations of QM are internally consistent and produce the same results. A probablistic or indeterministic interpretation cannot in principle be internally consistent with deterministic theories such as General or Special Relativity. It is my view that a new QM, new gravitational theory, and a replacement for Special Relativity are all required. It is also my view that a new deterministic QM will form the foundation of all three. Compartmentalization of internal consistency prevents progress - internal consistency across disciplines is required. Dennis May
  2. A tragedy of the first magnitude that von Neumann's error was not widely discussed starting in 1935. Many people continue to this day to mistakenly believe that there is some proof that quantum mechanics is probablistic or indeterministic. People who should know better repeat the error continually - reinforcing 3 generations of error compounded upon error. Dennis May
  3. A deBB - de Broglie-Bohm-like [deterministic] approach is the approach I support. I believe if you look deeply into the work of J.S. Bell, and Bohm you will come to a better appreciation that neither the physics nor metaphysics is even close to being settled. Reading J.S. Bell "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics" is a must.
  4. Your statements indicate you have chosen a philosophical position concerning the meaning of quantum mechanics - one not based on observation, experiments, or mathematics but rather one of the orthodox philosophical interpretations. The work of J.S. Bell clearly shows there is no preferred status for a probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. All of the rest of your statements seem to flow from that incorrect assumption – von Neuman’s proof the probabilistic nature of QM being disproven in 1964. Dennis May
  5. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111102092929.htm An interesting spin on the Fermi Paradox - 12 billion years ago there were whole galaxies more chemically mature than our sun. A year or two ago I recall a discussion somewhere about how we are alone because it has only been recently that sufficient chemicals for life were available - according to the Big Bang theory. Dennis May
  6. In quantum mechanics you have to give up the speed of light or you have to give up causality in one form or another. I say keep causality. Dennis May Bohm Debroigle collides with relativity. Not good. Ba'al Chatzaf Special and General relativity collide with indeterministic QM. Not good. de Broglie-Bohm QM can be reconciled with a form of LET relativity which is mathematically indistinquishable from Einstein's Special Relativity. There is no reconciling deterministic relativity with indeterministic QM. Dennis May
  7. There is not an iota of physical evidence for the pilot wave. This is why it is not generally accepted. Conventional QM is in precisely the same sitatuation explaining wave funcion collapse. The work of Gregory S. Duane provides a mechanistic explanation for pilot waves. Again it comes down to choosing an interpretation [philosophy] not necessity, math, or the facts. Dennis May
  8. In quantum mechanics you have to give up the speed of light or you have to give up causality in one form or another. I say keep causality. Dennis May
  9. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/10/mundane-explanations-neutrinos/ Among the most recent ideas is a paper invoking Einstein’s supposedly challenged theory of relativity. The OPERA team used GPS satellites to accurately measure the 730-km distance between their detector and the CERN beam where the neutrinos were produced. Yet, according to special relativity, calculations will be slightly different when two observers are moving relative to one another. Since the satellites were zipping around the Earth, the positions of the neutrino source and the detector changed. According to the paper, the movement would account for a 64 nanoseconds discrepancy, nearly exactly what the OPERA team observes. http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2685 Michelson and Morley showed that an interference pattern is reference-frame independent. However, the distance between a particle's production and detection site is reference-frame dependent due to Lorentz contraction and detector movement. For the OPERA experiment detector movement in the satellite reference frame leads to corrections which can account for most of the $\pm 60$ ns discrepancy between expected and observed time of flight. ______ J.S. Bell once posed a Special Relativity puzzler to this colleagues at CERN. Virtually all of them got the wrong answer. Dennis May
  10. You have in fact made a statement which picks a quantum mechanical interpretation [not the facts, mathematics or necessity]. What is known as the de Broglie-Bohm view gives the same results as conventional mechanics. In 2001 & 2005 G.S. Duane proved that classical mechanics can in fact work as the foundation for the Bell Inequalities as long as supraluminal signaling is allowed - also in accordance with what J.S. Bell wrote. It is true that particular classical models in the distant past did not work - however a blanket statement that classical physics cannot explain quantum phenomenon has been known to be suspect for a very long time [59 years - Bohm] and proven to be untrue for 49 years - Bell. The work of Duane is further proof with a natural mechanism [10 years]. The foundation is there - the details need more work. Dennis May
  11. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-supernovae-universe-expansion-understood-dark.html "While the concept of light’s least-time path seems to be capable of explaining the supernovae data in agreement with the rest of our observations of the universe, Annila notes that it would be even more appealing if this one theoretical concept could solve a few problems at the same time. And it may – Annila shows that, when gravitational lensing is analyzed with this concept, it does not require dark matter to explain the results. Einstein’s general theory of relativity predicts that massive objects, such as galaxies, cause light to bend due to the way their gravity distorts spacetime, and scientists have observed that this is exactly what happens. The problem is that the deflection seems to be larger than what all of the known (luminous) matter can account for, prompting researchers to investigate the possibility of dark (nonluminous) matter. However, when Annila used Maupertuis’ principle of least action to analyze how much a galaxy of a certain mass should deflect passing light, he calculated the total deflection to be about five times larger than the value given by general relativity. In other words, the observed deflections require less mass than previously thought, and it can be entirely accounted for by the known matter in galaxies." Dennis May
  12. The gears shown are not what real gears even look like. I've seen the same locked gear mistake before - once on an engineering letter head and once on a website. Several years ago there was some Microsoft graphic for inserting into letterheads that had something similar to what this gearing arrangement looks like. A simple google search on "gears logo" shows many similar looking graphics being used by many groups. Not innovative in their logo besides the other issues. The mistake made it on Fox News yeserday. Dennis
  13. Clumpiness of Distant Universe Surprises Astronomers http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/06/clumpy-universe/ or tinyurl version: http://tinyurl.com/4x5htat General Relatvity fails on the scale of spiral galaxies and now it is seen to fail on the largest scales yet observed. Adding more and more fixes like Dark Matter didn't work on the scale of spiral galaxies and now the fix of Dark Energy can't fix these larger scale observations. A new model of gravity is needed. An indefinitely old universe has no problem with clumpiness on large scales. Dennis
  14. This link does not work for me. Ba'al Chatzaf http://tinyurl.com/3gaut4z It didn't work for me either. Here is a tinyurl version instead. Dennis Another link about the subject: http://tinyurl.com/3px5jfr Dennis
  15. This link does not work for me. Ba'al Chatzaf http://tinyurl.com/3gaut4z It didn't work for me either. Here is a tinyurl version instead. Dennis
  16. Another link on the original topic: http://physicsworld....icle/news/46193 Has some graphics similar to those associated with de Broglie-Bohm mechanics. Dennis
  17. Another link on the original topic: http://physicsworld....icle/news/46193 Has some graphics similar to those associated with de Broglie-Bohm mechanics. Dennis
  18. Another link on the original topic: http://physicsworld....icle/news/46193 Has some graphics similar to those associated with de Broglie-Bohm mechanics. Dennis
  19. Quantum Physics First: Physicists Measure Without Distorting http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110602143159.htm "Our measured trajectories are consistent, as Wiseman had predicted, with the realistic but unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics of such influential thinkers as David Bohm and Louis de Broglie," said Steinberg." Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1170 Abstract A consequence of the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle is that one may not discuss the path or “trajectory” that a quantum particle takes, because any measurement of position irrevocably disturbs the momentum, and vice versa. Using weak measurements, however, it is possible to operationally define a set of trajectories for an ensemble of quantum particles. We sent single photons emitted by a quantum dot through a double-slit interferometer and reconstructed these trajectories by performing a weak measurement of the photon momentum, postselected according to the result of a strong measurement of photon position in a series of planes. The results provide an observationally grounded description of the propagation of subensembles of quantum particles in a two-slit interferometer.
  20. Where is the math? Either that or a reference to a mathematical article in a refereed journal. A contradiction is a proposition of the form P & -P. Where is it. Or are you saying there is an experimental refutation of GTR? If so give a reference to a refereed journal so we can see the claim and evaluate it. I am no long interested in doubts. I want to see -results-. Hard mathematical and/or quantitative results. Ba'al Chatzaf I have contacted Dr. McGaugh for his recommended sources for futher reading. Dennis May Professor Stacy McGaugh replied the same day: “…the formation of dark matter halos is well studied in numerical simulations, so that aspect of the statistical mechanics, as you put it, are well trodden in the literature. e.g., Navarro, J.~F., et al. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 349, 1039 -http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.349.1039N There are many many more references on various apects of this. The standard cosmology predicts that dark matter halos should have a so-called NFW form. The density profile can be approximated crudely as rho_darkmatter® = rho_i/[r(1+r/r_s)^2] This has nothing to do with the luminous matter. There, a crude approximation is the so-called exponential disk S® = S0*exp(-r/Rd) Here S refers to surface mass density while rho is volume mass density.” “One can compute the rotation curves on expects for these mass distributions with the help of the Poisson equation. To make a long story short, an exponential disk embedded in an NFW halo predicts a rotation curve that does not look like those that are observed.” “What MOND does is tweak the Poisson eqn so that the rotation curve predicted by the luminous component alone matches those that are observed. That's what I mean about the baryonic tail wagging the dark matter dog. All you need to know is the distribution of the baryons. The much more massive dark matter component is unnecessary for predicting the rotation curve even though it should be dominant dynamically. The baseline prediction of the standard picture (NFW) is clearly inadequate. One can never completely falsify this hypothesis however, as one can always invoke ad hoc mechanisms to adjust the distribution of dark matter during galaxy formation. I think it absurd to imagine that this always ends up looking like MOND,..." Additional information: http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/ My comments: The requirement to use “ad hoc mechanisms to adjust the distribution of dark matter” in order to fit observation whereas predictions using luminous matter alone produce better results - indicates an impossible statistical mechanics situation. Dennis May
  21. Where is the math? Either that or a reference to a mathematical article in a refereed journal. A contradiction is a proposition of the form P & -P. Where is it. Or are you saying there is an experimental refutation of GTR? If so give a reference to a refereed journal so we can see the claim and evaluate it. I am no long interested in doubts. I want to see -results-. Hard mathematical and/or quantitative results. Ba'al Chatzaf I have contacted Dr. McGaugh for his recommended sources for futher reading. Dennis May
  22. Produce the mathematical contradiction in mathematical notation here and now. Or hush up. Ba'al Chatzaf http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dark-matter-doubts From page 2 of this link: "Instead, McGaugh says, the "baryonic tail wags the dark matter dog." In other words, astronomers can predict just what the galactic rotation curves will be from a given galaxy's stellar distribution. McGaugh makes the claim that if dark matter is dominant, observers shouldn't be able to predict the galactic rotation curves by what they see in normal luminous matter. "Because each dark matter halo should be unique, you should see lots of variation in rotation curves for the same galaxy," he says. "You don't expect the kind of uniformity that we observe in hundreds of galactic rotation curves." Impossible statistical mechanics outcomes based on observation. Dark Matter was an arbitrary fix to save GTR. Its failure to remain internally consistent means there is no longer a fix for GTR. Dennis May
  23. The Big Bang hypothesis predicts the proportions of hydrogen and helium in free space where as Hoyle's theory did not. All physical theories (at this juncture) are partial theories. There is no one theory which correctly describes and predicts both the gravitational interaction and the other three known interactions. Getting one theory to describe everything is one of the Holy Grails of physics. Ba'al Chatzaf Yet there are no first generation red dwarf's to be found to support the idea that the Big Bang has any connection to the proportions of hydrogen and helium. Those ratios are also part of the old arbitrary inflation theory which is no longer the current theory. Yet it is still claimed as supporting the theory - while no longer existing as a current part of the theory. Expansion is inferred from the Red Shift. The further away an object is the greater the Red Shift. You might want to have a look at the Hubble Deep Field images too. Ba'al Chatzaf Expansion may be inferred but it is not the only possible explanation for the Red Shift - see the topic I posted before: Alternatives to the Big Bang Theory A Different Approach to Cosmology. Since inflation can be inferred to be a case of epicycles at best and the statistical mechanics of dark matter are internally contradictory - that leaves General Relativity dead in the water as a valid theory of gravity or space-time on the scale of galaxies and larger. With no valid theory of spatial expansion how can you infer the Red Shit as spatial expansion? This is not to mention the observational fact that the angular size and luminosity of galaxies does not support the expansion model of red-shift. The "stretching" of spacetime is a direct consequence of Einstein's field equations. He fudged his theory because he liked a steady state Cosmos better. In any case even his bad move was a good move because it can account for the observed acceleration in the rate of expansion of spacetime (that fudge factor Einstein added was a tensor corresponding to so called "Dark Energy" (I dislike the term)). So far General Relativity has not been falsified. If it is ever tested in a super dooper strong gravitational field like a black hole I suspect there will be problems for the theory. In the mean time every time my Garmin ™ tells me to turn right in fifty feet it is also telling me that GTR is correct at least in a moderate gravitational field such as surrounds the earth. GTR will remain the gold standard until such time as it is explicitly falsified by an adverse experiment or someone comes up with a better theory that makes every correct prediction made by GTR and predicts something that GTR doesn't which is upheld by experiment. Only adverse facts or a blatant mathematical contradiction can really falsify a theory. Philosophical objections do not matter one little bit. Ba'al Chatzaf Ba'al Chatzaf The impossible statistical mechanics of dark matter is a matter of physics - not a philosophical objection. It is a blatant mathematical contradiction when dark matter needs to exactly track visible matter densities and distributions in visibly identical spiral galaxies but cannot track visible matter densities in other situations. This failure renders dark matter nothing more than an arbitrary fudge factor and not physics at all. This means General Relativity is a failed theory by observation on the scales relevant to cosmology. It may work on the scale needed for GPS but there are alternative theories that can do that. A replacement is needed and cosmological GTR predictions are without foundation. Dennis May
  24. The Big Bang hypothesis predicts the proportions of hydrogen and helium in free space where as Hoyle's theory did not. All physical theories (at this juncture) are partial theories. There is no one theory which correctly describes and predicts both the gravitational interaction and the other three known interactions. Getting one theory to describe everything is one of the Holy Grails of physics. Ba'al Chatzaf Yet there are no first generation red dwarf's to be found to support the idea that the Big Bang has any connection to the proportions of hydrogen and helium. Those ratios are also part of the old arbitrary inflation theory which is no longer the current theory. Yet it is still claimed as supporting the theory - while no longer existing as a current part of the theory. Expansion is inferred from the Red Shift. The further away an object is the greater the Red Shift. You might want to have a look at the Hubble Deep Field images too. Ba'al Chatzaf Expansion may be inferred but it is not the only possible explanation for the Red Shift - see the topic I posted before: Alternatives to the Big Bang Theory A Different Approach to Cosmology. Since inflation can be inferred to be a case of epicycles at best and the statistical mechanics of dark matter are internally contradictory - that leaves General Relativity dead in the water as a valid theory of gravity or space-time on the scale of galaxies and larger. With no valid theory of spatial expansion how can you infer the Red Shift as spatial expansion? This is not to mention the observational fact that the angular size and luminosity of galaxies does not support the expansion model of red-shift.
  25. The Big Bang hypothesis predicts the proportions of hydrogen and helium in free space where as Hoyle's theory did not. All physical theories (at this juncture) are partial theories. There is no one theory which correctly describes and predicts both the gravitational interaction and the other three known interactions. Getting one theory to describe everything is one of the Holy Grails of physics. Ba'al Chatzaf Yet there are no first generation red dwarf's to be found to support the idea that the Big Bang has any connection to the proportions of hydrogen and helium. Those ratios are also part of the old arbitrary inflation theory which is no longer the current theory. Yet it is still claimed as supporting the theory - while no longer existing as a current part of the theory.