Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: GetHyped

Man you effectively have the attention span of a fly. You're redundant. All i've written below went over your head, you've failed to see the irony and historic value of what happened back then..it's just history repeating, but dumb people are too busy acting smart to see it all go past them.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Choice777

Red flags:

Research posted exclusively on the "World Institute for Science Exploration" (a pseudoscience vanity press) and YouTube, thus avoiding serious engagement and criticism from the scientific community.

Real scientists write scientific papers to be peer reviewed and published in credible journals, welcome criticism. Pseudoscientists appeal directly to the layperson, attempting to capitalize on their scientific illiteracy and avoid scientific scrutiny.

You must be efing joking? ...''in credible journals''..Science journal refused to publish papers from a nobel prize winner cause it was on parapsychology. arxiv from cornel university deleted publications from a nobel winner..and i'm sure the list foes on and on.
FACT is (dint like to state it as this cause it's a bit redneckish but) ...that the modern breed of scientists have severe allergy to anything that contradicts their pay check stability.
Have a look
www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk...

Hawking had a personal war for 30 years with Leonard Susskind, about info escaping from black holes and Hawking lost to Susskind.

In 1978 Henry Margenau and LeShan wrote a small letter to the editor of the journal Science. His letter was ignored for 9 months, not even a confirmation of receipt. After 9 months Margenau writes them editorial smuchs a sharp letter. His original was never printed. The letter to the editor was about a link between esp and the then emerging quantum mechanics field. Do you know who Margenau is ?

Do you know that once upon a time around the 70 and 80s quantum mechanics were a joke ? You were label a quack for considering it.

Many Nobelists gathered almost in secrecy at annual meeting sponsored by various philanthropists/businessmen like Solvay and Erhard to disqus it and also unexplained phenomena like parapsychology. The brightest minds on the planet like John Bell, D'Espagnat, Jack Sarfatti, Bohm, Alain Aspect, Ellizabeth Raucher, John Clauser, Einstein, Curie, Ernst Rutherford, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Bohr, and many others met to discuss topics which were off topic in the greater community.
Alain Aspect went to CERN to ask John Bell personally if an experiment he , Aspect, was planning based on Bells theorem would be doable. Bell asks him'' do you have a permanent position ?'' as in do you have a regular job ? that was the stigma asociated back then with quantum mechanics. Later Aspect was introduced to Cohen-Tannoudji at a conference in '76 on Bell's theorem hosted by D'Espagnat. That made Cohen-Tannoudji visit Aspect at his lab where he was preparing his now historic experiment. Until a few more visits by Cohen-Tannoudji to Aspect's lab, the local scientists ''thought I (Aspect) was a crackpot for wasting so much effort on the interpretation of quantum mechanics''.
Edit: forgot the thing...Aspect's experiment was a rehash of Clauser's experiment. He would use super fast switches to change the path of a photon en route from source to detector. Switches changing 100 million times a second allowed them to flip 2 or 3 times while the photon travelled. After nearly a trillion pairs of photons , Aspect had produced ''spooky action at a distance''.
It changed physics right there...he was no longer a crackpot!

SO YOU SEE ??? Quantum mechanics , which today is massive, was a joke back then. The most intelligent people on the planet were stigmatised for considering it too much.
SO DON'T TELL ME what the ''current serious journals'' and ''established scientists'' and ''reputable peer review'' means. It meant squat back then, it means squat now.
It's nothing but a barrier set up by feeble minds to protect their little child of a theory in the face of unexplained phenomenons.
Have you read ''How the hippies saved physics'' ? Don't let the name fool you, it's got lots to teach you.

a reply to: Choice777

You completely misunderstand the point. The practice of science is slow and conservative, but Alain Aspect published in major journals with replicable experimental data.

Thousands of pages of work without ever any contact with regular scientific criticism is almost always BS.

For example: vixra.org...

If you think you have a super theorry that explains EVERYTHING and 'all is connected' and brain and this, see a doctor.

I'm serious --- the writing appears to be that of a very intelligent schizophrenic who was trained in physics. It alternates between true statements and nonsense like rap rhymes. A key symptom is the various forms of "holistic fields" or what not that connect to DNA and brains --- this is part of the schizophrenics search for the origin of his internally-created hallucinations and delusions and feeling of "understanding the Universe".

a reply to: pfishy

here's a pdf from Princeton university.

www.princeton.edu...

My point is simple. quantum mechanics is now reputable, it was not back then. ''antigravity'' is not reputable now, it might be one day and hopefully will be before we start making ourselves extinct. Actually it's begining to be called various other names like ''electrogravitics'', ''hydrodinamic waves'' etc..so there's hope.
What im saying is ..Look those guys we're on the edge of being labelled crack pots just because the contemporary ''scientists'' din't feel like their pursuit was 'noble enough''.
Imagine the state we would be today without quantum mechanics.

''You completely misunderstand the point. The practice of science is slow and conservative, but Alain Aspect published in major journals with replicable experimental data.''
Correct, while at the same time, he and his mentor, and others of his calibre and their mentors suspected a connection between entanglement and paraphsychology. So are they crackpots or just again they couldn't do proper investigative science in the field cause of the stigma ?

a reply to: Choice777

You still don't understand. Quantum mechanics wasn't disreputable, it was so entirely orthodox that people believed that experimental tests of settled science were useless, and wanting to do so smelled of somebody who might really be a crackpot.

Aspect wasn't a crackpot as it turned out and published results in standard journals, and the results upheld all predictions of quantum mechanics.

With the field of quantum computing becoming a practical reality, these questions are becoming more interesting and important.

originally posted by: Choice777
''You completely misunderstand the point. The practice of science is slow and conservative, but Alain Aspect published in major journals with replicable experimental data.''
Correct, while at the same time, he and his mentor, and others of his calibre and their mentors suspected a connection between entanglement and paraphsychology. So are they crackpots or just again they couldn't do proper investigative science in the field cause of the stigma ?

Well, where's the experimental data?

From a theoretical point of view, it's extremely unlikely since a brain is so macroscopic and slow and warm that it probably behaves like a classical state, and not a delicate, entangled quantum state, much less enabling out-of-brain communication.

There are trillions of uncorrelated random photons being emitted from your scalp, because it's warm. What secret information is in them? Nothing.

So you confirm my premise : guy tries to do things differently or have different opinion and he gets labeled a crackpot, like Aspect until the more reputable Cohen started visiting his lab and the other ''sheeple scientists'' took notice and stopped labelling him a crackpot; this was before he actually completed the experiment. So the mere presence and support of a major player shifted him from crackpot to not totally crackpot and after experiment completion gains level 100 ''not at all crackpot''.
How is it any different today with antigravity ? Not the actual matter itself, but the ''think differently=be labelled crackpot'' situation ?

ps. Now add the various sources claiming that the military is way ahead of the game and the credibility balance shifts i think quite bit.


Edit;
'' Well, where's the experimental data?

From a theoretical point of view, it's extremely unlikely since a brain is so macroscopic and slow and warm that it probably behaves like a classical state, and not a delicate, entangled quantum state, much less enabling out-of-brain communication.

There are trillions of uncorrelated random photons being emitted from your scalp, because it's warm. What secret information is in them? Nothing. ''

It's a bit more complicated..i haven't got the time here to sit and explain to you what D'Espagnat and Wheeler and Raucher all the bunch were up to. It's a complicated maze, but basically some believed in similarities.
I've got no idea you got the feeling i said photos have''secret information''.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

my question is rather a mundane one.........what "purpose" was (CERN), the hadron collider built for?...I've read all about it, and it says "to understand the innermost workings of the atom, as it relates to particle physics....hmmm, ok....so scientific curiosity?....the reason I'm asking is that CERN cost 6.4 billion dollars, took years to build, employed thousands of engineers and scientists, and the amount of time and money spent just to keep CERN running is massive as well....and for what?....curiosity about particle physics?......and this is not the only collider around...all I'm saying is that when entire countries get together to spend this amount of money, coupled with all the tens of thousands of man hours....there has to be something more than scientific curiosity, there has to be a big payoff to produce "something of purpose" from it. it's harder to get a couple of million to keep SETI running, than these colliders.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Hey, thanks. I'll check it out.

originally posted by: Choice777
So you confirm my premise : guy tries to do things differently or have different opinion and he gets labeled a crackpot, like Aspect until the more reputable Cohen started visiting his lab and the other ''sheeple scientists'' took notice and stopped labelling him a crackpot; this was before he actually completed the experiment. So the mere presence and support of a major player shifted him from crackpot to not totally crackpot and after experiment completion gains level 100 ''not at all crackpot''

If he had a lab and was doing experiments, he already passed the 'not a crackpot' test. CCT's interest turned it from "random optical physics experiment" to "deeply important experiment".

And note what you need to have:

a) an experimental program with clearly defined results and maybe some theoretical proposals
b) interest by a giant

It's completely erroneous to conflate a crackpot's ideas which don't have either (a) or (b) with brilliance by equating them to somebody who did achieve (a) and (b).

And I certainly believe in tests of experimental gravitation, I think they are insufficiently funded. Scientists only: no crackpots need apply.

Science means: clear experimental proposal for positive and null results. clear understanding of sources of confounding systematic error. Clear understanding of current theroretical understanding and feasible alternate theories, and relationship of proposed experimental results to them.

a reply to: jimmyx

While this isn't the direct purpose of the LHC itself, particle accelerators (which make up a huge part of it) have brought many important advances that affect everyday life. From food safety to cancer treatments to ensuring the safety of mail, just to name a very few. In addition, the computer science that was developed for the LHC, both software and hardware, have already helped to advance the industry in general.
Add to this the detector arrays used in the experiments being run at the collision points. The technology developed for those will certainly go on to influence the rest of the field.
Now, as far as a grand prize, it really is just what we can learn about the most fundamental aspects of matter and energy. But that too can have tremendous applications in other fields of research.
It may be that the LHC indirectly shows us an economical path to antimatter creation. That holds HUGE potential for energy production. Or it could produce supersymmetric particles, and allow us to develop new theories on the precise nature of the fabric of reality itself. We could find a way to "cheat" Relativity, and acheive a method of apparent faster-than-light travel. Or it could lead to a breakthrough regarding dark energy, which could hold truly mind-blowing possibilities if harnessed.
I know this may not be the one overarching goal you asked about, but scientific curiosity is reason enough when you examine the possibilities.

originally posted by: mbkennel

If he had a lab and was doing experiments, he already passed the 'not a crackpot' test. CCT's interest turned it from "random optical physics experiment" to "deeply important experiment".

And note what you need to have:

a) an experimental program with clearly defined results and maybe some theoretical proposals
b) interest by a giant

It's completely erroneous to conflate a crackpot's ideas which don't have either (a) or (b) with brilliance by equating them to somebody who did achieve (a) and (b).

And I certainly believe in tests of experimental gravitation, I think they are insufficiently funded. Scientists only: no crackpots need apply.

Science means: clear experimental proposal for positive and null results. clear understanding of sources of confounding systematic error. Clear understanding of current theroretical understanding and feasible alternate theories, and relationship of proposed experimental results to them.

If you have a degree in physics or stems or otherwise have a look at the papers in this topic about Stoyan Sargoytchev.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Or if you know a user that has a degree point the user towards those files.

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: Arbitrageur

my question is rather a mundane one.........what "purpose" was (CERN), the hadron collider built for?...I've read all about it, and it says "to understand the innermost workings of the atom, as it relates to particle physics....hmmm, ok....so scientific curiosity?....the reason I'm asking is that CERN cost 6.4 billion dollars, took years to build, employed thousands of engineers and scientists, and the amount of time and money spent just to keep CERN running is massive as well....and for what?....curiosity about particle physics?

Physicist Brian Cox explains:

www.popsci.com...

it is the quest for a deeper understanding of nature that has given us everything we now take for granted in modern life. In an eloquent speech to the U.S. Department of Commerce in 1966, the theoretical physicist and then Philips research director, H.G.B. Casimir, pointed out that virtually all of the great discoveries of the 19th and 20th centuries came from curiosity-driven research. The transistor emerged from the quantum theory of solids, not from a desire to build computers and televisions. Radio waves were not discovered by men in government-directed laboratories in order to connect the world together with better communication systems, but by Heinrich Hertz, a man whose overriding concern was for the beauty of physics. In his speech, Casimir went on to list many of the great innovations of the mid-20th century—from nuclear power to automobile starter motors—and point out that none of them came about as a result of some kind of pragmatic process of innovation. The lightbulb, as the saying goes, was not invented through research and development on the candle.

It should not be surprising that a deeper understanding of nature leads to great benefits for humankind. History speaks for itself.

If you take the cost of the LHC and figure out the cost per person of the people that fund it, it doesn't cost that much. The USA spends far more money researching defense aka how to kill more people. I think the LHC is a better investment.

this is not the only collider around.

What other collider are you considering? Fermilab had the second largest collider and when the LHC started, Fermilab shut down their collider. There are some small colliders but they can't do any research at the energy levels of Fermilab's shut down collider, or the LHC.

originally posted by: kranwan
can "info time machines" exist?

www.facebook.com...

I get a login page at your link which doesn't tell me anything, so I have no idea what you mean by "info time machines".

too weird to look at a facebook profile and identify 2 posts? lol:

these are the 2 posts:

i.imgur.com...
i.imgur.com...

a reply to: kranwan

You don't even have to log in to facebook to see this one:
i.imgsafe.org...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for posting the quote about Casimir. And I love the saying about the light bulb and the candle. Hadn't heard it. I wonder if Casimir's speech to Congress had an -ahem- effect?

I am a huge advocate of science purely for the sake of curiosity and understanding. I'm eagerly awaiting follow up from LHC Run 2 data about one particular signal that kept showing up in Run 1 in the CMS and (I believe) ATLAS experiments. I'm curious to see if it is reproduced, and if it's indeed a particle. It was an unexpected point that kept showing up, even after the tried to scrub it as noise originally.
Symmetry Magazine has an article about it yesterday. Decent read, if a bit watered down for a larger audience.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

The PDF was pretty good. I have read other articles about using lasers as wave guides for microwave energy. That seems to have some pretty interesting potential. And it definitely clarified your comment about using lasers and plasma as a virtual manifold. I couldn't quite wrap my head around what you were talking about at first.
Thanks again.

originally posted by: Choice777

originally posted by: mbkennel

If he had a lab and was doing experiments, he already passed the 'not a crackpot' test. CCT's interest turned it from "random optical physics experiment" to "deeply important experiment".

And note what you need to have:

a) an experimental program with clearly defined results and maybe some theoretical proposals
b) interest by a giant

It's completely erroneous to conflate a crackpot's ideas which don't have either (a) or (b) with brilliance by equating them to somebody who did achieve (a) and (b).

And I certainly believe in tests of experimental gravitation, I think they are insufficiently funded. Scientists only: no crackpots need apply.

Science means: clear experimental proposal for positive and null results. clear understanding of sources of confounding systematic error. Clear understanding of current theroretical understanding and feasible alternate theories, and relationship of proposed experimental results to them.

If you have a degree in physics or stems or otherwise have a look at the papers in this topic about Stoyan Sargoytchev.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Or if you know a user that has a degree point the user towards those files.

I'm familiar with his work he's a cold fusion believer. Choosing my words carefully here. What is it you want to know exactly?

The basic premise of his beliefs is there is a cosmic lattice made of fields stretched throughout the universe. He believes that forces such as gravity or even nuclear come from this field or ether if you will. His work is loved by companies such as e cat. Again won't go into that. His version of phase space leads to finitization of a lattice-like discretization of position and momentum. Basically he says everything happens because of energy at a particular point in space that our particles happens to be. He also believes Lorentz invariance is broken at very high energies, at present inaccessible and I might add untestable.

Honest truth his papers have a lot if misdirection and nothing to prove validity. Other than a lot of math that seems to spin in circles. And huge assumptions on energy values ina vacuum that just doesn't pan out to known observations.

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: Arbitrageur

my question is rather a mundane one.........what "purpose" was (CERN), the hadron collider built for?...I've read all about it, and it says "to understand the innermost workings of the atom, as it relates to particle physics....hmmm, ok....so scientific curiosity?....the reason I'm asking is that CERN cost 6.4 billion dollars, took years to build, employed thousands of engineers and scientists, and the amount of time and money spent just to keep CERN running is massive as well....and for what?....curiosity about particle physics?......and this is not the only collider around...all I'm saying is that when entire countries get together to spend this amount of money, coupled with all the tens of thousands of man hours....there has to be something more than scientific curiosity, there has to be a big payoff to produce "something of purpose" from it. it's harder to get a couple of million to keep SETI running, than these colliders.

There is a huge payoff a leap in science that would make the last 200 years look like child's play. If we truly understood the subatomic world nothing becomes impossible. Picture say star trek all the stuff you read about in sci fi we could do. I'd say that's worth checking out wouldn't you?