On question 3, that is what I am currently working on.
Theoretical physics.
Sort:
Oct 1, 2016
0
#44
Great 10 minute documentary on quantum computing.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3831611.htm
Oct 1, 2016
0
#45
mdinnerspace wrote:
From same:
Problem 2. Resolve the problems in the foundations of quatum mechanics, either by making sense of the theory as it stands or by inventing a new theory that does make sense. Several ways one might do this.
1. Provide a sensible language for the theory
2. Find a new interpretation
3. Invent a new theory.
Unfortunately, not many physicists work on this problem. This is sometimes taken as an indication that the problem is either solved or unimportant. Neither is true. This is probably the most serious problem facing modern science. It is just so hard, progress is very slow.
Firstly, there are literally dozens of interpretations of quantum mechanics. Secondly, these all make indistinguishable predictions. From the point of view of science, there is nothing to pick between them. Moreover, it appears impossible to modify quantum mechanics in any way without breaking it completely. It is as it is.
What I redirected attention to was something more specific about quantum field theory. This is what you get when you apply the principles of QM to a real system and find you always need to deal with infinite numbers of particles interacting in every way possible.
It's safe to say that no-one is ever going to come along and explain how QFT is simple if you look at it in a different way: it's just inherently absurdly difficult!
Oct 1, 2016
0
#46
Tesla-jr wrote:
On question 3, that is what I am currently working on.
Do you know Hilbert Space theory? The mathematics of operators, especially Hermitian operators? Lie group theory and other maths relevant to the symmetries of particle physics? How to do QED calculations?
It would be good to hone your strokes before trying to win Wimbledon!
it's just inherently absurdly difficult!
Kinda off the wall, but I'm a little curious as Elroch is quite educated. Education may not necessarily carry much weight if directed down a dead end, but when it is applied to search for scientific answers, I respect that.
So here it goes . Elroch, how do you view the concept/hypothesis of multiverses?
Subscribers to the Big Bang say it is very likely multiple universe's were created.
Your thoughts?
Hey look guys, I know that I don't currently have a graduate degree in quantum physics, but my last theory in QM was proven true earlier this month. 5 months ago, I worked out a scheme that involved a new particle: the xon, and a new forcefield that supports it. I was sure that this theory was just over thinking, until Mdinnerspace posted that comment. I know it seems a little ambitious for a 15 year old to be working out a ToE, and I hope I don't offend anyone by speaking on such topics, but I rarely can actually speak my mind on theoretical physics, and would really like to be able to discuss my ideas openly here.
Nothing is proven regarding a fifth elementary force. It has been speculated since the 1920's
New evidence points to a as yet unseen new particle which May suggest a new force.
You're getting way ahead of yourself. There's alot of work to be done.
I posted the article because you were convinced nature is limited to 4 forces. You gave your reasoning. My post showed how limited your thinking was.
Now you jump on board, saying you knew another particle existed all along.
Sorry, but that's all a load of ..
Balderdash !
I never said that the universe was limited to 4 forces. I said that the plank scale LIMITS the "number" of forces. There may be 5 (I think there are), but my theory pointed to a new PARTICLE. The possibility of a new force is only probable if there is a new particle. Read my posts carefully, I don't waste words. May I point to the instance where I was framed for saying that Darwin's only education was theology. I said "formal" education. This relates to academic studies done as a major, or those done with the purpose of obtaining a degree. Of course Darwin had electives.
Elroch wrote:
mdinnerspace wrote:
From same:
Problem 2. Resolve the problems in the foundations of quatum mechanics, either by making sense of the theory as it stands or by inventing a new theory that does make sense. Several ways one might do this.
1. Provide a sensible language for the theory
2. Find a new interpretation
3. Invent a new theory.
Unfortunately, not many physicists work on this problem. This is sometimes taken as an indication that the problem is either solved or unimportant. Neither is true. This is probably the most serious problem facing modern science. It is just so hard, progress is very slow.
Firstly, there are literally dozens of interpretations of quantum mechanics. Secondly, these all make indistinguishable predictions. From the point of view of science, there is nothing to pick between them. Moreover, it appears impossible to modify quantum mechanics in any way without breaking it completely. It is as it is.
What I redirected attention to was something more specific about quantum field theory. This is what you get when you apply the principles of QM to a real system and find you always need to deal with infinite numbers of particles interacting in every way possible.
It's safe to say that no-one is ever going to come along and explain how QFT is simple if you look at it in a different way: it's just inherently absurdly difficult!
Yeah, guys, don't you just love nonrenormalizable mathematics? Thank you Richard P. Feynmann for doing that work so we don't have to!
Remember, at the turn of the century, we thought that we had it all figured out, and Tesla was wrong. The Michaelson Morley experiment proved this opinion wrong, and 100 years later, even with general and special relativity, we are no closer to the ultimate answer then we were before. Actually, recent experimentation involving virtual particle clouds surrounding electrons has proven that Tesla was more correct than we thought.
Wow, you guys are smart :)
My point being: we should never rule out the possibility of a new perspective, as since we don't know for sure, we can only postulate theories on ToE.
Good day you guys! :) Carry on.
What is a theory?
A theory is, technically speaking, the middle step in the process from an idea to a scientific law, but generally speaking, a theory is a plausible explanation for unexplained observations. On this forum, a theory is a possible mathematical explanation for the interactions of particles, forces, and the laws that govern them.
That's really cool. :)
Irvine, Calif., August 15, 2016 – Recent findings indicating the possible discovery of a previously unknown subatomic particle may be evidence of a fifth fundamental force of nature, according to a paper published in the journalPhysical Review Letters by theoretical physicists at the University of California, Irvine.
I knew it! I knew it! I knew it! 5 months ago I wrote a theory that suggested a new particle, the xon, and worked out some math to support it as the base of my ToE. I also proposed the existence of a 5th force. The only doubt I had in this synopsis was that "surely if there was a new particle scientists would have discovered it". Thank you Mdinnerspace!