Expert psychologist suggests the era of genius scientists is over

Jan 31, 2013 by Bob Yirka report
Albert Einstein

(Phys.org)—Dean Keith Simonton, a psychology professor at the University of California, has published a comment piece in the journal Nature, where he argues that it's unlikely mankind will ever produce another Einstein, Newton, Darwin, etc. This is because, he says, we've already discovered all the most basic ideas that describe how the natural world works. Any new work, will involve little more than adding to our knowledge base.

Simonton's comments are likely to draw a strong reaction, both in and out of the world. It's been the geniuses among us that have driven science forward for thousands of years, after all. If no more geniuses appear to offer an entirely new way of looking at things, how will the human race ever reach new heights?

Simonton has been studying geniuses and their contributions to science for more than 30 years and has even written books on them. He also writes that he hopes he is wrong in his assessment, even as he clearly doesn't think he is. Sadly, the past several decades only offer proof. Since the time of , he says, no one has really come up with anything that would mark them as a giant in the field, to be looked up to hundreds, if not thousands of years from now. Worse perhaps, he details how the way is conducted is only adding to the problem. Rather than fostering lone wolves pondering the universe in , the new paradigm has researchers working together as teams, efficiently going about their way, marching towards incremental increases in knowledge. That doesn't leave much room for true insight, which is of course, a necessary ingredient for genius level discoveries.

Simonton could be wrong of course – there might yet be some person that looks at all that has been discovered and compares it with his or her own observations, and finds that what we think we know, is completely wrong, and offers evidence of something truly groundbreaking as an alternative. The study of , for example, appears ripe for a new approach. Scientists are becoming increasingly frustrated in trying to explain why the universe is not just expanding, but is doing so at an increasing rate. Perhaps most of the theories put forth over the past half-century or so, are completely off base. Modern science can't even explain gravity, after all. Isn't it possible that there is something at work that will need the intelligence, insight and courage of an Einstein to figure out? It appears we as a species are counting on it, even as we wonder if it's even possible.

Explore further: Decoding ethnic labels

More information: After Einstein: Scientific genius is extinct, Nature 493, 602 (31 January 2013) doi:10.1038/493602a
Dean Keith Simonton fears that surprising originality in the natural sciences is a thing of the past, as vast teams finesse knowledge rather than create disciplines.

Related Stories

New Features Found in Einstein's Brain

Apr 21, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- When one thinks of Einstein, it is natural to assume that obviously his brain differed from that of the average person. And, ever since Thomas Harvey, a pathologist in Princeton, removed Einste ...

The Genesis of Relativity

Feb 22, 2007

New insights into the premises, assumptions and preconditions that underlie Einstein’s Relativity Theory, as well as the intellectual, and cultural contexts that shaped it, are the subject of a comprehensive study published ...

Challenging Einstein is usually a losing venture

Sep 23, 2011

(AP) -- Betting against Einstein and his theory of relativity is a way to go broke. For more than a century, everyone from physicists to the Nazi Party - which encouraged the publication of the tract "One ...

Recommended for you

Decoding ethnic labels

13 hours ago

If you are of Latin American descent, do you call yourself Chicano? Latino? Hispanic?

Local education politics 'far from dead'

Jul 29, 2014

Teach for America, known for recruiting teachers, is also setting its sights on capturing school board seats across the nation. Surprisingly, however, political candidates from the program aren't just pushing ...

First grade reading suffers in segregated schools

Jul 29, 2014

A groundbreaking study from the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute (FPG) has found that African-American students in first grade experience smaller gains in reading when they attend segregated schools—but the ...

Why aren't consumers buying remanufactured products?

Jul 29, 2014

Firms looking to increase market share of remanufactured consumer products will have to overcome a big barrier to do so, according to a recent study from the Penn State Smeal College of Business. Findings from faculty members ...

Expecting to teach enhances learning, recall

Jul 29, 2014

People learn better and recall more when given the impression that they will soon have to teach newly acquired material to someone else, suggests new research from Washington University in St. Louis.

User comments : 288

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

alq131
4.4 / 5 (33) Jan 31, 2013
Throughout history people have claimed "we've learned all there is to know..." then, we learn something new and revolutionary. Why do people keep making these claims, and why do we listen?

What do we define as Genius? Robert Zubrin could be, because of his realistic plan to get to Mars...and what discoveries would follow. Maybe Steve Jobs, because of Apple and how the world was revolutionized. What about the next person...

I think this is just hype to sell a book...and it will probably work great...maybe THAT is genius ;)
involution
4.8 / 5 (34) Jan 31, 2013
Indeed, and why should we listen to a psychologist, out of them all? Ridiculous stuff. Our ignorance about dark matter shows that there is ample room for an entire rethinking of our worldview.
deerkaa
4.6 / 5 (21) Jan 31, 2013
wrooooooooong. its just beginning, just so big its lagging to us.
Manitou
4.8 / 5 (28) Jan 31, 2013
We do not lack geniuses. Indeed, there are so many now that we discount their excellence.
dcoder
4.5 / 5 (18) Jan 31, 2013
Simonton needs to pick up on that Charles Holland Duell was famously misquoted: "Everything that can be invented has been invented".

Duell actually described wishing he could see the next century of "wonders", as they would make most present century patents "insignificant".

This psych takes his own medicine by cliche: "The internet is just a fad"
Lizzee
2.3 / 5 (13) Jan 31, 2013
This guys hasn't met my kids yet!
He'd better sit back and buckle his seat belt, because he is in for one wild ride.
Infiniteloop
4.1 / 5 (13) Jan 31, 2013
'He also writes that he hopes he is wrong in his assessment, even as he clearly doesn't think he is.'
Well, I guess we can count him out.
I find the premise completely ridiculous. Although there is little doubt we, 'stand on the shoulders of giants' we're a LONG way from done ...
Picard
4.1 / 5 (14) Jan 31, 2013
The problem is not that their aren't any geniuses anymore. They are still among us. The problem is that natural sciences especially have become so complex and the bureaucracy of donors and funding have cluttered the field in which individuals can't do any research on their own anymore that would lead to EUREKA moments.
Modernmystic
3.4 / 5 (33) Jan 31, 2013
Why even print this? A psychologist speculating that every other field of knowledge has already been basically explained? Really?
eljo
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2013
There exist alternative theories in almost every field of science that contradict the mainstream theories. The moment it is established that a mainstream theory is falsified and overtaken by the theory of some lone scientist who's theory had not been taken seriously while the other was dominent, this scientist is inmediately propelled into the realm of geniuses. Not in the least for holding on to his guns when pressured to distance himself from his views or experiencing character murder of seeing his career possibilities ended and funds revoked for not adhering to mainstream views. Until definitely proven wrong, there are millions of geniuses :)

This psycholigist is ignorant about the way science, committees and peer review pressure works in the circuit of closeminded academic politics.
Whydening Gyre
1.5 / 5 (19) Jan 31, 2013
Maybe this should be considered when reading and commenting on some of the other contributions to other articles...
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (19) Jan 31, 2013
his is because, he says, we've already discovered all the most basic ideas that describe how the natural world works.

With 95% of the matter/energy in the universe more or less unaccounted for? I don't think so.

Even if: There's still the possibility of many universes instead of one - where the physics we have now are only a TINY part of that whole construct and may be only applicable to this one.

Then there's always the possibility that looking at something from another angle redefines the whole of physics. Einstein took it from particle based physics to a geometrical interpretation. I see no reason why such a shift (to a wholly new paradigm) could not happen again (e.g. looking at the universe with time as an integrated factor - instead as is now: in a more or less linear fashion).
PJS
4.5 / 5 (26) Jan 31, 2013
I'm guessing the era of genius psychologists is over...
Fisty_McBeefpunch
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 31, 2013
No more Carl Rogers, please.
PosterusNeticus
4.7 / 5 (15) Jan 31, 2013
Simonton seems to be downplaying just how much progress is made through "normal", incremental advances rather than monumental leaps of individual genius.

Consider the laser. While it's true that Einstein laid down one of the cornerstones of what would later become laser physics, he did not invent the thing. Decades of painstaking, laborious study conducted by countless researchers - most of which you've never heard of by name - is how the technology evolved to its present state. You don't go directly from Einstein's theoretical discussion of stimulated emission to laser eye surgery and optical drives.

I would also point out that more than 200 years separate the births of Newton and Einstein, and that science has hardly gone without genius-level contributions since Einstein's time.

I just can't seem to find a logical basis for what Simonton is trying to say.
Nodrog
3.6 / 5 (8) Jan 31, 2013
We are a very long way from understanding how the universe works. It is likely that even the brain of a genius has an upper limit to what it can comprehend. A brain, despite the wonders of how it works and what it is capable of, is limited by the complexity and processing which can be encompassed within a limited space.

So there may well be an upper limit to what human brains can comprehend. If the workings of the universe are beyond that limit humankind may well reach a limit in what it can comprehend - unless the brain can evolve enhanced capabilities. It maybe that we can eventually develop artificial brains which can evolve into much superior organs than those developed by nature to date.

However, such an advanced artificial brain may well struggle to transmit its greater understanding to a less capable brain. I think humankind will continue to improve its understanding of the universe and all it contains, but I suspect that a full comprehension will be forever beyond its reach.
Gradivus
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 31, 2013
Rubbish. There's a long, long list of others who have said the same throughout the ages, using the same faulty reasoning, and who have been proven just as wrong. Here's another, that's all.
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (12) Jan 31, 2013
So there may well be an upper limit to what human brains can comprehend.

Though the brain may be able to comprehend how to (artificially) augment itself so it can comprehend more. I don't think the brain's capacity is a hard limit.
However, such an advanced artificial brain may well struggle to transmit its greater understanding to a less capable brain.

You don't have to go that far. It's already nigh impossible to transmit the findings (and implications) of someone like Einstein to even 5% of the population.

but I suspect that a full comprehension will be forever beyond its reach.

Full comprehension would necessitate that there is something outside the universe relative to which it can be comprehended (see information-theory). So comprehension is always relative to some (arbitrarily) chosen standard.
I think it can be argued with logical rigor that full comprehension ('absolute truth') doesn't exist.
rkolter
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2013
I don't think this psychologist has much imagination.
indio007
2.8 / 5 (20) Jan 31, 2013
Feynman on the social sciences....
http://www.youtub...LOfKv_hI
be4r
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 31, 2013
Indeed, and why should we listen to a psychologist, out of them all?


Haha right? I didn't know they even let psychologists publish in Nature.
icuvd
2.5 / 5 (18) Jan 31, 2013
Feynman on the social sciences....
http://www.youtub...LOfKv_hI

Excellent link! The social sciences are soft as a limp noodle!
seb
4.4 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2013
How can they make such a claim? Where's the unified theory of everything, for example? Shrinks should leave science to the scientists, instead of using their pseudo-science beliefs on people who aren't their patients.
NikFromNYC
2.1 / 5 (15) Jan 31, 2013
As biology merges with nano tech, creative engineering takes over, and complexity being an unlimited realm, I see no dead end in sight to massive advances in life changing inventions driven by geniuses rather than just geeks.
krundoloss
1.3 / 5 (21) Jan 31, 2013
There are many aspects to this dicussion, but I agree somewhat with what he is saying. The modern world resists change more than it used to in some ways. Lets say some "Genius" invents a new battery technology. Would his invention be utilized? Would the huge battery industry allow this to happen? Probably not. So, many geniuses in this modern world get swept under the rug so that the ones with power keep thier power.
Back in the early and mid 20th century, innovation and change was the way of the world. Diseases were actually cured. New technology quickly and completely displaced old technology. I think this type of unhindered progress is what labels poeple as geniuses, and if we want to progress like that again, we need to make laws to ensure that Corporations do not have the power to bury technology that threatens their industries.
PosterusNeticus
3.8 / 5 (13) Jan 31, 2013
Lets say some "Genius" invents a new battery technology. Would his invention be utilized? Would the huge battery industry allow this to happen? Probably not.


You mean the way the battery industry suppressed lithim-ion, which is why you've never heard of it and why people don't use them every day? Oh wait, that didn't happen. What actually happened is the exact opposite of your conspiracy drivel.

I don't mean to pick on you. I just want you to spend more time here in reality.
FrankHerbert2
1.5 / 5 (16) Jan 31, 2013
Throughout history people have claimed "we've learned all there is to know..." then, we learn something new and revolutionary. Why do people keep making these claims, and why do we listen?
The author never said that.

Maybe Steve Jobs, because of Apple and how the world was revolutionized.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
debbles
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 31, 2013
"...This is because, he says, we've already discovered all the most basic ideas that describe how the natural world works..."

Scientifically perpetuated Dogma.

We are no longer producing great minds because we spend all our time and energy figuring ways to pacify them. TV, Video Games, Internet, Facebook, Ipods, Cell Phones...

We can not produce another era of genius so long as our children's explorative and inquisitive nature is met with "Go watch some TV". And unfortunately that is the era we are in at present. The era of the electronically pacified people.

Kedas
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2013
Maybe after we can time travel then the era will be over :)
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (17) Jan 31, 2013
The situation in the Einstein era was different, as the relativity and quantum theories brought new opportunities for formally thinking scientists. The epoch of Universe understanding now favors just the models, which would threat the overgrown community of scientists. The classical geniuses still exist, but they've no chance with their ideas at the moment, when they threat the employment of scientific establishment. Too many people today want to keep their jobs.

In dense aether model it's geometric effect. At the proximity the observable reality appears hyperdimensional and complex. With increasing distance from human observer scale the simplicity of observable reality increases and it goes trough maximum at the dimensional scales of atom nuclei and large stars. But when distance from human observer scales increases even more, the complexity increases again. Not only it's increasingly difficult to develop working formal model of reality, but these models are less and less useful.
PhysGeek
4.6 / 5 (8) Jan 31, 2013
I would argue just the opposite. Many things have to happen for a revolutionary thinker to make a difference in science. The aptitude needed to be there. It needs to be identified and nurtured. It needs to fixate on a big, revolutionary concept. Finally there needs to be a huge helping of luck.

It isn't surprising that we only had really great geniuses appearing every 100 years or so. These days our educational system identifies geniuses far better than ever before. They are encouraged and given large amounts of resources to work with. The pool of people is also larger. If 1 genius appears every billion people then we should start seeing them more often with a greater population. Just think of how many people who may have had the ability to change the world but didn't because they were dirt poor and never went to school. More advanced tools allow a genius to work on ideas faster.

And no big mysteries left? Complete narcissistic arrogance.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (16) Jan 31, 2013
IMO Einstein, Planck and another well known "big science" guys weren't actually so smart - but they managed to born into the "right" epoch of understanding of observable reality, which favored the formal approach to reality understanding. From this reason they become an icons of the formal approach to physics. But IMO many formally thinking scientists today are way more intelligent than Einstein, but the formal approach simply doesn't work at the dimensional scale of the Universe, which we are starting to recognize right know. The 60's of the last century was just the epoch, when the understanding of stars and atom nuclei culminated. But these objects are all very symmetrical and spherical - they can be described with low-dimensional models reliably. This is just the domain of quantum mechanics and general relativity theories. When we go toward smaller and larger scales, then these two theories suddenly appear not to work anymore.
dschlink
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 31, 2013
Battery technology is an excellent example. All of the recent government grants for advanced batteries went to Lithium research. Nothing to air-zinc, nothing to carbon fiber lead acid, nothing to sodium-sulfur.
julianpenrod
1.9 / 5 (28) Jan 31, 2013
What isn't mentioned is that fundamental facet of the process of new knowledge, people being willing to disengage from what they "believe" already! Just try saying "'evolution' is wrong" to any "science" devotee. They won't let you get past the first couple of syllables! "Evolution is absolutely, utterly and completely right! There is nothing that is better than it! I won't listen to a word you say! I won't listen to your arguments! I won't look at your proof! Everything you provide must be wrong, because I am ordered to believe evolution is right! Tin foil hat alert! Take your meds!" If Carl Sagan didn't say it, they won't accept it. They all mirror Manitou's suggestion that every "scientist" is a genius. If "geniuses" say these things, they can't be wrong! Then they go and condemn, say, the people of Copernicus' day for believing what "experts" said that the sun went around the earth.
julianpenrod
2 / 5 (28) Jan 31, 2013
And there is another crucial facet of the situation that needs to be overcome. The rabid insistence by "science" devotees that "scientists" cannot lie, that anything they say must be believed, without question. They never provide a single piece of tangible, incontrovertible evidence by "science", but devotees insist it must be true because "experts" said it. You can give them a truckload of evidence of crop circles and they will still scoff, but they accept "science" without a single piece of "evidence". The most they'll do is sya, "'Scientists' tell me this GPS works by 'relativity'. This GPS works, therefore, 'relativity' is proved true!" They describe "scientists" in glowing terms of utter selflessness and altruism. If there are any who abide by devotioin to truth, they get no further than quality control lines at factories. Only "the kind of crooks the New World Order can work with" are allowed higher, into the well paid lie facilities they call "laboratories".
wiyosaya
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 31, 2013
The problem is not that their aren't any geniuses anymore. They are still among us. The problem is that natural sciences especially have become so complex and the bureaucracy of donors and funding have cluttered the field in which individuals can't do any research on their own anymore that would lead to EUREKA moments.

Also, it is almost impossible for legitimate "garage researchers" or "mad scientists" :) to get some materials in the US because of extreme government regulation designed to cull the extremely rare bad apple from the pack (think Unabomber and the Antrax scare), and it is also difficult to get some equipment because of extreme cost.

Our society has successfully quelled the scientific advancement that was possible in the pre 1920's era for "factory advancement."

Personally, I think people who think the way this guy does are the idiots in our society. Statements that amount to "we won't discover anything new because everything has been discovered" are idiotic.
Fabio P_
1.4 / 5 (8) Jan 31, 2013
Please everyone, do not make the mistake of elevating the opinion of one psychologist to the status of consensus within cognitive science. At the same time, do not make the mistake of dismissing cognitive science as "not science," regardless of what Feynman may have claimed about it. It only betrays a deep ignorance on your - and his - part. Believe it or not, we're all on the same team. And with this I'm only defending legitimate cognitive research, not the pseudoscience a handful of individuals sell as such.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (13) Jan 31, 2013
Battery technology is an excellent example.
The condensed state physics is actually, what maintains the credibility of mainstream physics in the eyes of layman publics. But these areas are way closer to applied research than the rest of physics. In another areas it's results are way less impressive - actually the worse, the more theoretical such research is. The formal approach simply failed, which is documented with paradigm shift of two MIT teachers: Max Tegmark: We are living in mathematical universe. Alan Lightman: We are living in universe incalculable with math.
Whereas the later insight is more advanced and as such closer to reality, it's way less commonly accepted within scientific community, because it apparently doesn't play well with employment perspective of formally thinking theorists. In Czech we have a proverb: the carps will never empty their own pond..
daggoth
2.3 / 5 (10) Jan 31, 2013
I think we won't have any geniuses that will change the world ON THEIR OWN. It will now be a calibration of very intelligent people and maybe one or two that has a new idea and they work together to solve it. The day and age of a single person changing the world on their own is long over.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (14) Jan 31, 2013
In medieval era the priests of Holy Church dismissed all ideas, which could threat their occupation. But the modern science, physics in particular suffers with exactly the same problem, as R.R. Wilson "ingeniously" recognized and named before years. The finding of brights solutions is OK, until it doesn't threat the existing research positions. This criterion is even stronger, than the adherence of physicists to formal description of reality. One of the brightest geniuses of the 20th century Burkhard Heim is ignored - despite his physics is able to predict the properties of whole spectrum of elementary particles in many orders of precisions. His theory is hyperdimensional and it extends most of insights of string theory - with the only difference: it really works. The "only" problem is, it's independent on existing theories, which makes the problems for myriads of people, who are living from relativity and QM.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (13) Jan 31, 2013
..the day and age of a single person changing the world on their own is long over.
It's indeed true - but it could mean as well, this day and age is nearing again...;-) Until you believe in periodicity of evolution, indeed. In addition, we can observe, that the pace of evolutionary cycles is accelerating in recent period. The frequency of fundamental findings was never so high during human history, as at the last century. And we are more than one hundred years from Einstein's time already...
PhysGeek
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 31, 2013
This psychology professor should go to his books and look up the definition of Narcissism. He is showing some of the primary traits. Since he doesn't know of anything else that could be discovered then obviously there is nothing left to discover. Also there is no need for any genius to come along and prove him wrong.

Given the history of these guys getting laughed at for years after they make these statements I wonder why they do it. I assume this Prof is fairly intelligent.

Oh well, it doesn't actually change anything.
MandoZink
1 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2013
Our ability to immediately argue on a massive scale with the next great genius will prove to be truly impressive.
Roy A
1 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2013
We might see a new era of genius scientists during and after the current paradigm shift. I find Nassim Haramein's work very inspiring and most recommendable reading (at least take a peek at some of the dvd's)
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (14) Jan 31, 2013
I find Nassim Haramein's work very inspiring and most recommendable reading
Maybe it's inspiring, but most of his ideas cannot be taken cum grano salis. Until you believe, inside of every planet is black hole (one nonsense) which generates the excess of energy (another nonsense, as the black holes are black by their definition). Of course the double negative leads into positive (excess of thermal energy of most planets) - which is really observable and which makes whole the double nonsense valid in the eyes of laymans - but I would prefer to derive such a positive with sequence of relevant claims, not just with piling of logical fallacies.
Noumenon
3.1 / 5 (23) Jan 31, 2013
It appears that Simonton learned enough physics to know that the standard model is approaching completion but not enough to know that it accounts for only 5% of the universe.
Tausch
1 / 5 (7) Jan 31, 2013
Simonton:
Repeat this:

Nothing is so wonderful that it can not be repeated.
Silverhill
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2013
@julianpenrod:
Just try saying "'evolution' is wrong" to any "science" devotee. They won't let you get past the first couple of syllables! "Evolution is absolutely, utterly and completely right! ... I won't listen to a word you say! I won't listen to your arguments! I won't look at your proof!
OK, you have the floor. Show how evolution -- which *does* happen -- is wrong.

You can give them a truckload of evidence of crop circles and they will still scoff, but they accept "science" without a single piece of "evidence".
Evidence, hey? Show us *any* piece of evidence (that is worthy of the term) of crop-circle makers in action. Other than human pranksters, of course.

The most they'll do is say, "'Scientists' tell me this GPS works by 'relativity'. This GPS works, therefore, 'relativity' is proved true!"
Sloppy thinking, indeed. The functioning of a GPS device is, of course, *further evidence*, not *proof*, of the correctness of SR and GR.
Argiod
1.5 / 5 (15) Jan 31, 2013
Yeah; and I remember there was a time when the patent office stopped taking new applications because they said that everything that could be invented, had been invented. What arrogance to say there will be no more geniuses in the human race.
jonnyboy
2.5 / 5 (19) Jan 31, 2013
"Expert psychologist"

isn't that an oxymoron?
HealingMindN
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2013
I'm guessing the era of genius psychologists is over...


I'm sure that the era of genius psychologists begins and ends with Simonton...
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (14) Jan 31, 2013
"Expert psychologist" isn't that an oxymoron?
This is ignorant stance which judges the relevance of opinion with occupation of its author. You people should learn to argue the opinion, not its circumstances. The http://koti.welho...ein'.pdf appeared between physicists itself before many years. Is the same stance more relevant by now, just because Lee Smolin is recognized physicist?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (12) Jan 31, 2013
Errata: The same opinion appeared between physicists.. As you can see, it's actually the same story, but because the layman people don't remember the informational noise more than few months, they're willing to discuss about it again and again and again... despite no actual progress exists in it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (21) Jan 31, 2013
Here is a nice quote:

"Arguably, psychology is a form of philosophy since very little to nothing ever gets proven. If I had any illusions, they were shattered after taking a statistics course and a research methods course. Psychology has struggled for acceptance as a 'science' but real scientists still have trouble believing that psychology could ever be a science."

-And as we all know, philosophy never produced anything of value. Science has only recently developed the tools to examine the brain directly and figure out why we do what we do. But as authority abhors the phrase 'we dont know', it developed psychology and anthropology and sociology et al as sort of 'place-holders' in order to make it APPEAR as if they were elucidating things which were in effect well beyond their grasp.

This differs little from how religions strive to do the very same thing. But at least these guys put some effort into it, and collected a lot of useful data which I am sure will come in handy some day.
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (16) Jan 31, 2013
Errata:


Uh, Zeph, you are using "errata" wrong. That is the same link you posted twice in a row in two comments. Rather than "errata" you should have used "Ad nausium".

Lee was a great teacher. He studied hard and paid his dues. But he seems to be going the way of people like LaViolette and Parett and too many others.

As a theoretical physicist he is only mediocre. It is more important to him to sell books to the lay public, and he usually does this by giving his readers the false sense that they NOW understand life's mysteries and are NOW among the elite KNOWING & WISE of the world. His later work is more worthy of Art Bell than academia. He thinks he is the next Carl Sagan, Brian Greene or Leonard Susskind. And in that role he is only mediocre.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (23) Jan 31, 2013
[cont]
This is no more obvious than in the tabula rasa nonsense, that humans were born as blank slates. People SUFFERED for this crap but it was insisted upon by an entire generation of psychologists.

In retrospect we can see that it was entirely political in nature. Women and minorities were being liberated and a scientific basis for indistinguishable equality had to be sold to the public.

We have perhaps matured to the point where we can acknowledge our intrinsic differences without sacrificing the freedoms these lies enabled.

Philosophy has been Used to similar Effect. The german philos generated an atmosphere of superiority which convinced the germans that they had an intrinsic right to rule the world. This enabled the wars which destroyed the religionist euro cultures, which in turn allowed for the breathtaking advancements in medicine, technology, and growth reduction through family planning.

Imagine a 19th century world with nuclear weapons.
ralph_zuniga
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 31, 2013
Please, there were 165 years between the death of Newton and the birth of Einstein and nearly 1800 years between Archimedes and Galileo. Einstein passed away only 57 years ago.
Great science takes time because it has to go through many dead ends before the light shows up at the end of the tunnel. It could be we are living in a period where we are eliminating dead ends. In 100 years or so, a scientist will analyse all the dead ends and reach a genial conclusion that will be the next great advance in the history of science.
JVK
2.1 / 5 (15) Jan 31, 2013
I hope that Dean Keith Simonton will comment here on the difference between what he wrote and what was published, just in case those who are casting aspersions need to be reminded that such damning statements are not always what they have been made to appear to be.
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (17) Jan 31, 2013
Simonton has been studying geniuses and their contributions to science for more than 30 years and has even written books on them.


Has written books on them,, well that means it must be truth,, he's written books.

This is because, he says, we've already discovered all the most basic ideas that describe how the natural world works.


He should have spent some of that 30 years of "studying geniuses" and "writing books about them looking a the state of science today,,,, but then, I doubt he could understand "all the basic ideas" he says are already discovered.

Any new work, will involve little more than adding to our knowledge base.


His op-ed piece in Nature fails miserably in this.

I agree with Feynman, psychology, sociology, etc, are not science, they have just hijacked the forms. Nothing they produce gives the level of prediction or reliability that physicists require as routine.

I wonder if Nature would let me write a piece on the state of Psychology
Telekinetic
3 / 5 (22) Jan 31, 2013
"Philosophy has been Used to similar Effect. The german philos generated an atmosphere of superiority which convinced the germans that they had an intrinsic right to rule the world. This enabled the wars which destroyed the religionist euro cultures, which in turn allowed for the breathtaking advancements in medicine, technology, and growth reduction through family planning."-TheGhostofOtto1923

Here you're describing the "good" that came of the Nazis annihilating millions from the religionist cultures (Jews) so that the world could be free and prosper. You're a sickening dope, Ghost. Einstein, a Jew, escaped Nazi Germany, as well as a number of other Jewish physicists that were involved in the Manhattan project, putting an end to your Fuhrer (who was a male hustler as a young man). Your revisionism is just plain wrong as well as dumb.

Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (20) Jan 31, 2013
I hope that Dean Keith Simonton will comment here on the difference between what he wrote and what was published, just in case those who are casting aspersions need to be reminded that such damning statements are not always what they have been made to appear to be.


Actually it is worse than what is reported in this piece. He writes like one of those New-Age morons who think that anything you think is the way reality is.

You know, let's take some music,,,, some philosophy,,,, some psychology,,,, some biology,,, some physics,,,, some art,,, and stir it all together,,,,, oops, I left out the some spirit stuff,,,,, stir that in also,,,, and you will have eternal truth, bliss and all the world will sing in harmony. AND you will be wiser than anyone else.

(After all that stirring, what you'll really have is one or more helpings of those wacky physicist wannabes commenting on this forum.)
InterestedAmateur
5 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2013
There's no shortage of geniuses, just read the comments on PHYSORG regarding pretty well any topic and it appears that several people are experts\geniuses\visionaries on EVERYTHING.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (19) Jan 31, 2013
Here you're describing the "good" that came of the Nazis annihilating millions from the religionist cultures (Jews) so that the world could be free and prosper.
What, I say religion and you think Jews? Were they the only impediment to 20th century progress?

30 million German xians died in both wars. 50 million Russian orthodox. Countless more throughout europe. Perhaps 100 million religionists throughout asia. I am guessing here.

But afterward there was no impedimrnt to family planning and the ONE BILLION ABORTIONS which followed, and their descendants to 3 and 4 gens, never born. Enduring peace reigns throughout northern Eurasia today as a direct result, except where religions still threaten in the south.

This CANNOT be just some unintended consequence. The tech was foreseen and the world was consequently Prepared to receive it. It has been Done this way for millenia.
JVK
2.2 / 5 (20) Jan 31, 2013
There's no shortage of geniuses, just read the comments on PHYSORG regarding pretty well any topic and it appears that several people are experts\geniuses\visionaries on EVERYTHING.


Or, watch the Youtube video from my presentation on human pheromones at the 2010 Mensa Annual Gathering. https://www.youtu...cyr898rY To qualify for Mensa, you must score in the top 2% on a standardized IQ test. That's one in every 50 people, which does not necessarily make you a genius. But you need not be a genius to know that adaptive evolution is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. On the other hand you may be a dullard if you think that mutations cause adaptive evolution, which is what I read in comments from many physorg participants.
Telekinetic
2.8 / 5 (22) Jan 31, 2013
Ghost, are you saying that your own family- mother, father, uncles and aunts, undoubtedly identifying with some religion themselves, should have been burned on the same pyre with the others to keep the world's population in bounds?
twasnow
2 / 5 (8) Jan 31, 2013
hahaha, I can't believe a psychologist actually tried to comment on real science. What a joke.

ZachB
1 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2013
Non sequitur;

A non sequitur (pron.: /ˌnɒnˈsɛkwɨtər/; Latin for It does not follow) is a conversational and literary device, often used for comedic purposes. It is something said that, because of its apparent lack of meaning relative to what preceded it,[1] seems absurd to the point of being humorous or confusing.

See also:

Absurdity
Antihumour
Dadaism
Gibberish
Randomness
Surreal humour
Derailment (thought disorder)
Code_Warrior
1 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2013
I think there are plenty of geniuses out there and plenty of brilliant insights. There are just way more fields of study these days, each of which have a lot of sub-specialties that are narrowly focused. It is difficult for a genius focused in a narrow sub-specialty to capture the imagination of the public regardless of how brilliant or trans-formative their work is because it is generally too narrowly focused and complex to be easily understood. Take Andrew Wiles's proof of Fermat's last theorem for example. In addition, the rate of change of technology can render today's brilliant and trans-formative technology insights obsolete in very short order.

So, it's not the case that there are no geniuses like Einstein these days, it's just that they are involved in obscure sub-specialties or involved in technology that quickly becomes obsolete.
Doctor Dean
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2013
It is unfortunate that Simonton's thought piece has been seriously misrepresented in the media. The misrepresentation is largely the fault of the Nature editors, who made many changes to his original essay. One remarkable change was introduced after the galley, when he had already been sent the final pdf during the embargo period. They added the "After Einstein" to the title even though Simonton did not argue nor does he believe that Einstein was the last scientific genius! HTML tags are not permitted, so just Google Dean Keith Simonton and then go to the bottom of the errata page (publication currently numbered #437. Please read the article in its entirety, too.
nuge
1 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2013
I think his prediction is more or less right, but the reason is wrong. Of course we haven't "discovered all the basic things" (what a twit, we don't even know what gravity is or time, or how the universe began or what conciousness is, how life began or how to cure cancer, etc. etc. etc). The reason there won't be any more Einsteins is because that isn't how science works any more. Theories aren't discovered all by one person, there is too much in a field for any one person to have to master in order to make any significant progress all on there own; scientists nowadays work in large international teams of hundreds of people, each contributing to pushing forward some extremely difficult mathematics or hugely complicated computational simulation in order to advance a theory. No one person can claim all the credit for new science. You have to embrace teamwork to make any real progress.
ShotmanMaslo
2 / 5 (16) Feb 01, 2013
I will just leave this here...

http://en.wikiped...problems

There is plenty of fundamental questions still unanswered.
maxb500_live_nl
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 01, 2013
What this man says is utterly ridiculous and something we have seen proclaimed far to often. 95% of the existing Universe is not explained. We don`t understand gravity. There could be other Universes. Other Dimensions, Warp Drive might be build someday, or Hyperspace technology, Wormholes, etc. If you would tell humanity has barely began with trying to grasp and understand nature then i could believe you.
Neal Asher
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 01, 2013
Absolute rubbish. Just because a lot of the low-hanging fruit have been picked doesn't mean the pickers now have short arms! But we shouldn't expect better from the non-science of psychology.
ALV
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 01, 2013
A non-affiliated independent thinker cannot emerge against the current paradigm; all the platforms are closed for him. In 1905 science was bogged down trying to explain the Michelson-Morley results, Einstein apparently solved that problem. Today science is stuck in trying to unify the forces, however there is no call for out of the box ideas. Producing such ideas is the earmark of a genius.

Yes, Nature is correct in editing Simonton's article as science will not allow another genius to rock the boat; Simonton is incorrect in believing that that the laws of nature as they are now thought to be understood by science are the true laws.
thingumbobesquire
1 / 5 (12) Feb 01, 2013
I think professor Simonton must himself be a genius though...
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2013
however there is no call for out of the box ideas.

There is plenty of call (and plenty of good approaches) for that subject - and any other in science.
Out-of-the-box thinking is NOT discouraged in science. It's what drives science.

What people fail to realise is that when their crackpot theories get dismissed it is NOT because they didn't mesh with the 'current paradigm' (which doesn't exist. There is no such thing as 'scientific dogma').

Crackpot theories get dismissed quickly because they don't hold up to observation. Simple as that. Scientists are VERY quick to see ramifications of what a theory predicts (much quicker than the 'genius' who though up the crackpot theory - because scientists are smart whereas that person only thinks he's smart)

The only way for that person to uphold the illusion of being smart is to accuse scientists of 'clinging to dogma' or somesuch nonsense.

You know: Because it's always the other guy's (or global cabal's) fault.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2013
Scientists aren't smart than for example Buckhard Heim and his theory works way way better than any other contemporary theory

Ya know: when the site you link to has statements like these:
Heim's theory also predicts the existence of two hypothetical neutrinos, which have been shown not to exist by experiments at the Large Electron–Positron Collider.


Then I somehow doubt that Heim theory works 'way better' than any other contemporary theory.

When all is said and done: you (who are not a scientist) are one of those people who thinks he's smart (but really isn't) - and therefore you must cling to the notion that scientists are trying to 'protect their...' what exactly? Highly paid jobs (sarcasm)? Grants?
None of which are dependent on whether a scientists is 'in the mainstream' or not.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (21) Feb 01, 2013
Ghost, are you saying that your own family- mother, father, uncles and aunts, undoubtedly identifying with some religion themselves, should have been burned on the same pyre with the others to keep the world's population in bounds?
We all Serve. War is Inevitable. Those with the composure and the maturity to accept this FACT decided that it would not be allowed to endanger civilization. Prosperity and Beauty has been the Result.

YOU think domesticated primates actually represent the natural order. You WISH that this were so, and so it is. Meanwhile the enemy assembles outside your gate. 'Children of our youth.'

Humanity = Tragedy. But thank god Leaders found Ways to FIX this. Heaven will come to earth when god finally leaves it.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2013
Dammit Ghost...I had a bet going whether our native lunatic would break the half-dozen-consecutive-posts barrier when going on his inevitable, crazy rant.

Because my perception of reality is already dual

Given the number of aliases and sockpuppets you operate you're already way beyond dual. You're multi-schizophrenic.

String theory predicts myriads of other particles (superpartners of existing particles) - while it's not still able to predict anything,

And you may notice that string theory isn't part of the standard model for that very reason.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (22) Feb 01, 2013
Dammit Ghost...I had a bet going whether our native lunatic would break the half-dozen-consecutive-posts barrier when going on his inevitable, crazy rant.
And I was hoping that the resident sage would start to look stuff up but I too was disappointed.

Did you know that the German word for pray is 'beten'? What a coinkidink.
Dug
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 01, 2013
The author is confusing popularity and public recognition with the level of scientific contribution and achievement. Einsteins achievements would have been no less brilliant had he never been introduced to the US press. We would never have heard about Jesus if it weren't for his "press agent" Paul. Fame and the quality of genius contribution are not directly connected. Admittedly, fame provides the funding and support to expand genius contributions - and look even more genius like than perhaps they really are. Sadly, many a so-called genius have been promoted by the "media" whom have made little if any direct personal contributions, but rather stand on the backs and shoulders of less recognized contributors and or their support staff. The media has a history of turning an avg. story into a spectacular story. Some times those stories are about genius - real or promoted. The author is far from a genius real or imagined - though this article is part of a promotion.
Dug
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 01, 2013
The author is confusing popularity and public recognition with the level of scientific contribution and achievement. Einsteins achievements would have been no less brilliant had he never been introduced to the US press. We would never have heard about Jesus if it weren't for his "press agent" Paul. Fame and the quality of genius contribution are not directly connected. Admittedly, fame provides the funding and support to expand genius contributions - and look even more genius like than perhaps they really are. Sadly, many a so-called genius have been promoted by the "media" whom have made little if any direct personal contributions, but rather stand on the backs and shoulders of less recognized contributors and or their support staff. The media has a history of turning an avg. story into a spectacular story. Some times those stories are about genius - real or promoted. The author is far from a genius real or imagined - though this article is part of a promotion.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2013
Did you know that the German word for pray is 'beten'?

Um. yes? I am german, you know.

But I fail to see what that's supposed to be coincidental to.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (20) Feb 01, 2013
Did you know that the German word for pray is 'beten'?

Um. yes? I am german, you know.

But I fail to see what that's supposed to be coincidental to.
You said bet. To pray is to bet. Praying to a nonexistant god is nothing more than a wager. This is funny, take my word for it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (21) Feb 01, 2013
"1 And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days...And Semjaza, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not 4 indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.' And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations 5 not to abandon this PLAN but to do this thing.'

1 And then Michael, Uriel, Raphael, and Gabriel looked down from heaven and saw much blood being 2 shed upon the earth, and all lawlessness being wrought upon the earth. And they said one to another: 'The earth made without inhabitant cries the voice of their cryingst up to the gates of heaven.

"...and destroy [the children of fornication and] the children of the Watchers from amongst men [and cause them to go forth]: SEND THEM ONE AGAINST THE OTHER that they may destroy each other in 10 battle..."

http://www.youtub...a_player
antialias_physorg
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2013
Different phoneme. 'Beten' is pronounced VERY differently from 'to bet'.

It's about as coincidental as 'hack' with 'Häagen Dazs'.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (18) Feb 01, 2013
'Divide the people up and set them against one another according to Plan...' Look at history. It doesn't take a genius scientist to realize that this is what has been going on.
Different phoneme. 'Beten' is pronounced VERY differently from 'to bet'.
Yeahyeah like I say you'll have to take my word for it. Did you know that gift is the German word for poison? Haha

Haagen
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (19) Feb 01, 2013
Daz is a totally made-up name. Not a useful example.
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2013
Did you know that gift is the German word for poison?

Excrutiatingly funny. Oh. My sides are splitting.

Seriously? Is that stuff you find funny? I mean...seriously?

I mean. the german word for fat ('dick') means penis in english. That must crack you up all day, does it?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (21) Feb 01, 2013
Did you know that gift is the German word for poison?

Excrutiatingly funny. Oh. My sides are splitting.

Seriously? Is that stuff you find funny? I mean...seriously?

I mean. the german word for fat ('dick') means penis in english. That must crack you up all day, does it?
No. I think schadenfreude is funny though. I think it is the difference between irony and jokes about genitalia.
Q-Star
2.6 / 5 (18) Feb 01, 2013
It is unfortunate that Simonton's thought piece has been seriously misrepresented in the media. The misrepresentation is largely the fault of the Nature editors, who made many changes to his original essay. One remarkable change was introduced after the galley, when he had already been sent the final pdf during the embargo period. They added the "After Einstein" to the title even though Simonton did not argue nor does he believe that Einstein was the last scientific genius!


I read the op-ed piece in Nature,,, I don't think they edited it before they printed,, Nature has too much to lose by doing something like that.

But the good Doctor Dean might wish to spin his words due to the reaction to his words, a typical device in the "science" of psychology. Endless arguing over the meaning of words is the greatest part of being an expert psychologist.

Please read the article in its entirety, too.


Can ya post a link the item you would like us to read in it's entirety?
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2013
I think schadenfreude is funny though.

You do know what "schadenfreude" means? Glee at the expense of someone else's misery.

That's the sort of 'fun' only psychopaths have.
Yeah...sort of what I would expect you'd find funny.
tadchem
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2013
Wrong, Mr. Simonton. There are plenty of geniuses out there. I'm sorry that you don't personally know of any. Maybe you should look outside your own field.
Some do not get recognized within their own lifetimes for various reasons. Some fields are so tradition-bound that they are highly resistant to the novel types of ideas that can spring only from genius. Paradigm shifts have occurred recently in medicine, in physics, and in chemistry. In fact virtually all empirical sciences have seen such recently, based on the fact the experimental data quite efficiently disproves faulty hypotheses.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (19) Feb 01, 2013
I think schadenfreude is funny though.

You do know what "schadenfreude" means? Glee at the expense of someone else's misery.

That's the sort of 'fun' only psychopaths have.
Yeah...sort of what I would expect you'd find funny.
-And you saying these things is also funny, in an ironic sort of way. Say something funny about genitals again and I promise not to laugh.

I do NOT find pleasure in the prospect that the deaths of millions of people can be, and are, Planned. I am pleased that their deaths can actually mean something.

Either way, millions will have died in war, as they always have, because WAR has always been INEVITABLE given our tropical rate of growth.

There is now an END to this. Not by ignoring it, or by talking and wasting time until it is much worse, but by Managing it to create Order where only chaos would be.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2013
Say something funny about genitals again and I promise not to laugh.

Never fear. Dick and fart jokes (and bad word puns) are your kind of shtick, remember?

As for the war stuff. I don't really know why you'd go off on that rail. Must have been something you must have been posting elsewhere. Or earlier.
But as I don't normally read your posts ... meh ... whatever.

HTK
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 01, 2013
ROFL.

Not so expert a psychologist. Even in many field of sciences, there are so much of knowledge base is yet to be added.

How presumptuous ignoramous.
Jo01
1.5 / 5 (14) Feb 01, 2013
So, you can only be a genius if there is something to discover.
Remarkable.
I assume logic isn't required if you study psychology.

J.
JVK
2.2 / 5 (17) Feb 01, 2013
A former president of American Physical Society Robert R. Wilson http://www.datapa...IC~1.HTM this stance publicly(!) in widespread Physics Today journal quite pregnantly in his memorandum


I cannot find the article attributed to him via information in the link you provided.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 01, 2013
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (18) Feb 01, 2013
I can


So can I,,, and I can do it with my eyes closed.
GaryB
2 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2013
I suspect the complete opposite. We're going to start realizing that just like an ape can never understand Shakespeare, compose classical music, understand rocketry so to MOST of what is going on in the universe cannot be understood by human brains. Some possible examples: Nature of consciousness, strong AI, dark matter, true nature of universe, unified field theory, what a "natural law" really is etc. That being so, there are plenty of areas near these boundaries where we can make large breakthroughs.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (22) Feb 01, 2013
Say something funny about genitals again and I promise not to laugh.

Never fear. Dick and fart jokes (and bad word puns) are your kind of shtick, remember?

As for the war stuff. I don't really know why you'd go off on that rail. Must have been something you must have been posting elsewhere. Or earlier.
But as I don't normally read your posts ... meh ... whatever.
Yes well I think you should at least appreciate the effort I put in to proving you wrong. A lot. This is not usually hard but it can be somewhat tedious.

No, no need to thank me. I too welcome the chance to learn.
buxcador
not rated yet Feb 01, 2013
Find the key for artificial intelligence, and you will be larger than Einstein and Newton added.
Neinsense99
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 02, 2013
"I think we won't have any geniuses that will change the world ON THEIR OWN. It will now be a calibration of very intelligent people" Presumably people intelligent and literate enough to know the difference between "calibration" and collaboration.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
OttoSkadelig
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2013
Just goes to show that even psychology professors can be trolls. The internet does not have a monopoly on them.
Fabio P_
1 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2013
It appears that some of the "hard" scientists never really left high school after all. Simply because you have the luxury of working in a field that studies entities that act in reliable ways - reliable enough to allow you to develop laws concerning their nature, at any rate - does not mean that scientific fields that do not are any less scientific. Until the day you are able to subsume complex cognition and behaviour under your own paradigms, I suggest you shut the fuck up and leave cognition to the cognitive - wait for it - scientists, people who actually understand how, with the cognitive revolution, psychology has evolved way past the psychoanalytical nonsense most of you seem to equate it with. It is a science, whether you like it or not, and it's not going away. There is really no need for you to put your ignorance of the field on display. I'll say this again, we're all on the same side. Leave the high school mentality behind.

Once again, I am not defending Simonton.
plasticpower
1.1 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2013
Uhh.. Hawking is still around, isn't he? Is he not a genius? Despite his debilitating handicap he is still able to make genuine discoveries, using nothing but the power of his brain and a computer interface that takes hours just to spell "hello". I don't buy this.
Tetryonix
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 02, 2013
Time to stand up and be counted on this matter to prove this paper wrong..... Want answers to Science's greatest mysteries check out my eBooks on unifying QM, QED, Chemistry and Gravity through equilateral geometry and quantised angular momentum - Tetryonic theory, a new understanding of mass-ENERGY-Matter
Q-Star
2.3 / 5 (18) Feb 02, 2013
A non-affiliated independent thinker cannot emerge against the current paradigm; all the platforms are closed for him. In 1905 science was bogged down trying to explain the Michelson-Morley results, Einstein apparently solved that problem. Today science is stuck in trying to unify the forces, however there is no call for out of the box ideas. Producing such ideas is the earmark of a genius.


You again? Boyo, you are as dumb as a half-baked brick. Out of the box ideas? You seem to miss the idea that is the box we are attempting to describe.
phasegen
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2013
I disagree with Dr. Simonton. We are constantly rewriting the "laws" of physics. We know that there are huge areas of the natural world we are just finding out about. Need I mention dark matter? To op it off, we have more individual genius talent than ever before. The reason we don't see them in the spotlight is that universities can't afford to employ them. These giants of scientific intellect work for corporations, and are hidden behind "non-disclosure clauses" and confidentiality agreements. The corporations get the credit, not the individuals. Look no further than military research to find some of the game changers.
Lino235
1.8 / 5 (15) Feb 02, 2013
I second Picard above.

The fact is that the scientific enterprise within particle physics is dauntingly mathematically complex. General relativity is also rather complex. And the efforts to combine GR and the SM, which is the fundamental task that faces physics these days, must somehow integrate all of this complexity.

It's not that there are no geniuses among us, it's that the task is so monumentally large.

Further, in the case of Einstein's relativity, he was outside of mainstream physics at first, and so was free to think whatever he wanted. Bohr, was a completely open-minded man who ran an institute, not a university. It was therefore within the freedom of thought that existed in patent office and institute, fertile ideas emerged.

I'm afraid that universities are cluttered with a narrow-minded orthodoxy as regards how physics should go forward with too little freedom of here. I sense any breakthrough will likely come from outside of the strict university setting.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2013
Despite his debilitating handicap he is still able to make genuine discoveries
Which were never confirmed (Hawking's radiation) and now they become silently obsolete (there are many other much more powerful mechanisms, in which black holes can lose their energy). Just remember the number of his lost bets. That is to say, Hawking is smart, but many others are smart too. The theoretical physics is simply too wide area of research and we have number of geniuses working on it. It's difficult to become star inside of such ocean of brilliant minds.
Isaacsname
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2013
You are all geniuses, but your awareness of it is inversely proportional to your need to hang on to the things you know.
Isaacsname
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2013
The other very obvious problem with the author's premise is that we still have to master physics, science, and biology in space, under incredibly variant gravitational conditions. That alone is going to take quite a while at the current rate of progress towards long distance travel/and or colonization outside of Earth.

Stick to the inkblots, broski , stick to the inkblots...

Eikka
1 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2013
You don't have to go that far. It's already nigh impossible to transmit the findings (and implications) of someone like Einstein to even 5% of the population.


You're being overly pessimistic.

Think of how hard it would have been to transmit the understanding of the findings and implications of Newton to even 1% of the population of his time.
grondilu
1 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2013
This guy certainly knows that this idea has been claimed several times in the past and was proven wrong. And yet he makes this claim anyway. It's kind of courageous. And why not? Empirical evidence is not proof. History does not have to repeat itself. Even if there are still lots of questions to answer, those questions might be answered by calculations and tedious mathematical proof, as a result of a long team work, or even by machines (who knows) instead of coming from a particular genius mind.
sirchick
3.5 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2013
Would we spot an Einstein genius equivalent if they did bad in school and failed? Einstein did terrible at school.

Would such a unknown poor graded person get heard if they found some thing, how would they get heard the world is saturated now. No one can stand out its very difficult.
Ducklet
1 / 5 (11) Feb 03, 2013
More likely it goes in cycles. There a periods when existing theories get mostly tinkered with and refined, alternating with periods of rapid progress. It may be there's more going on than mere theory-fu here, but that all human knowledge is intertwined (the only thing that exists is the natural world, so all our knowledge is of that and nothing else) and interdependent. For instance, material sciences and earth sciences are in periods of rapid advance. Maybe in 25 years as scientific heros are explaining gravity in unified terms, we'll think we have invented very possible material there is and know all there is to know about planet earth. It may be that advances in say material sciences is what suddenly brings a big leap within reach.
EBENEZR
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 03, 2013
I thought this could have been an interesting article on the evolution of the human mind, or the effect of a descending education system.

But no, it's merely myopic nostalgia.
Telekinetic
2.5 / 5 (24) Feb 03, 2013
Would we spot an Einstein genius equivalent if they did bad in school and failed? Einstein did terrible at school.

Would such a unknown poor graded person get heard if they found some thing, how would they get heard the world is saturated now. No one can stand out its very difficult.

By the grammatical quality of your post, you make the poor student Einstein look like a genius.
ODesign
not rated yet Feb 03, 2013
Devil's Advocate: I'll argue for the article since no one else seems to want to. key points. . .

1) The article clearly indicates this is a declaration dependent on our social and economic situation. Note it says "the new paradigm has researchers working together as teams." This means to non-sociologist there may be genius teams or genius researchers, but no more independent genious scientist making discoveries. Einstein's discoveries only count towards a genious scientist after he stopped being considered a crackpot from the patent office. he was not a "scientist" by todays definition of the word until he received that title by the majority of sociologist, tax officials, politicians, etc.

2) "the most basic ideas about how stuff works is discovered." Who decides what "basic" means? It's a linguistics judgement beyond the reach of logic. Society decides whether a new idea is basic or not. So this article is maybe better understood as a discussion of new-speak language.
johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 04, 2013
A very interesting thread! Lots of truth posted but also plenty of the pompous, arrogant prejudice one finds among theoretical physicists.

Feynman's You-Tube discussion is a typical disgusting example! His paths over histories and renormalization approaches are probably far more Voodoo, than any writing by any psychologist ever!

Geniuses have always been suppressed or crucified. Human nature has not changed one iota in this respect. Any genius coming up with a new insight that threatens established institutions and their incomes will be excommunicated and if possible burned at the stake or crucified. This is why humankind is fast approaching the end of the road: Evolution is being blocked left right and center, thus making our whole existence meaningless!
Andy Csonka
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2013
I totally disagree with this statement! I just think those geniuses are lost in communities. Most people have to pay to get an education and there are a load of people who are capable of being very clever, but need money to progress. if you don't have money in this day and age, you get no where. potential mathematicians have to settle with cleaning jobs...
swordsman
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 04, 2013
Simonton overlooks the real problem, which is the illusion created by the complete adoption of Quantum Mechanics that does not allow contradictory evidence or thoughts. The universe is not a quantum phenomena, but a dynamic field phenomena. Electromagnetic theory advances will eventually change that once the high hats get down off their throwns.
johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 04, 2013
Simonton overlooks the real problem, which is the illusion created by the complete adoption of Quantum Mechanics that does not allow contradictory evidence or thoughts. The universe is not a quantum phenomena, but a dynamic field phenomena. Electromagnetic theory advances will eventually change that once the high hats get down off their throwns.


BRAVO!! You are a genius!
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 04, 2013
This means to non-sociologist there may be genius teams or genius researchers, but no more independent genious scientist making discoveries.

I'd agree somewhat with that. Even in the fundamental sciences things have gotten so complex that it's the norm to work in (international) teams. So I would expect the overwhelming part of new discoveries to be a team effort - simply because the amount of knowledge needed to make a contribution has grown to the extent that no individual can have it all.

This doesn't preclude the indvidual genius from cropping up who can simplify an entire field. But the occurence of such paradigm shifts are likely to become fewer as time goes on.
nickc
1 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2013
One word sums it up...hubris.
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (15) Feb 04, 2013
I'd agree somewhat with that. Even in the fundamental sciences things have gotten so complex that it's the norm to work in (international) teams.


This statement is the best proof that physics has lost its way. The whole object of physics-research is to simplify our understanding of Nature.

I have found in my career that when the mathematics becomes complicated, and integrals explode, the physics you are modelling is usually based on totally wrong assumptions; like, for example "wave-particle duality" and "complementarity": Only fools then try and doctor up the mathematics instead of looking for the faults in logic!
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2013
The whole object of physics-research is to simplify our understanding of Nature.

While this is true there is no guarantee that nature is simple. If you simplify beyond that then you're losing information (for example Newtonian laws are certainly 'simpler' than Einsteinian Relativity - but they aren't therefore better suited at describing reality)

Physics should aim for the simplest POSSIBLE laws. And the minimum simplicity is dictated by nature - not our own predilection how simple the laws should be.
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (15) Feb 04, 2013
While this is true there is no guarantee that nature is simple. If you simplify beyond that then you're losing information (for example Newtonian laws are certainly 'simpler' than Einsteinian Relativity - but they aren't therefore better suited at describing reality)
The only difference between Einstein and Newton laws is that momentum is not solely determined by rest mass. Why does this make Einstein's mechanics more complicated?

Physics should aim for the simplest POSSIBLE laws. And the minimum simplicity is dictated by nature
My my how CLEVER you are! Who would have come to such a great insight but a "genius" like you?
- not our own predilection how simple the laws should be.
Again my my! You really are a "genius"! Any physicist who follows his/her predilection ends up believing in Voodoo like "wave-particle duality" and "complimentarity". Or did you not know that experiment must be the final arbiter? Have you ever done a course in physics?
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2013
Again my my! You really are a genius!

Compared to you? Any day.

Any physicist who follows his/her predilection ends up believing in Voodoo like "wave-particle duality"

What's wrong with wave particle duality? Doesn't mean it's a wave or a particle. It just means that it's something other that exhibits wave-LIKE behavior under some circumstances of measurement and particle-LIKE behavior under others.
And this seems to be borne out by experiment. So what's the poblem? Yes: experiment is the final arbiter. And if experiment says: "wave-particle duality", then wave-particle duality it is.
johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 04, 2013
What's wrong with wave particle duality?
As I have asked many times on this forum: When an entity (say an electron) passes you by following a path, when is it "acting" like a "particle" and when is it "acting" like a wave? Since you claim to know the difference, this should be an EASY question for you to answer.

Doesn't mean it's a wave or a particle.
BULLSHIT that lives within a schizophrenic mind!
It just means that it's something other that exhibits wave-LIKE behavior under some circumstances of measurement
Obviously, when it diffracts it MUST be a wave
and particle-LIKE behavior under others.
When does it do this?
And this seems to be borne out by experiment.
Which experiment?
So what's the poblem? Yes: experiment is the final arbiter. And if experiment says: "wave-particle duality", then wave-particle duality it is.
There is NO experiment that EVER proved this: All experiments to date can be modeled in terms of waves ONLY!
Q-Star
3 / 5 (24) Feb 04, 2013
There is NO experiment that EVER proved this: All experiments to date can be modeled in terms of waves ONLY!


Just because ya don't understand it, ya don't have to work so hard at trying to make sure no one else does also. Trying to get everyone else as confused yourself only makes ya look desperate and insecure. Shoot, Zephyr seems to understand it better than you do. So I suggest ya go to the back of the class, sit down, shut up and then, maybe, just maybe, ya'll learn something.

I'm beginning to think ya just might be one one the good Doctor Dean's patients which caused him to write this article.
FastEddy
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 04, 2013
The US Patent Office closed at the turn of the last century, too = nothing new being patented ... Then came Einstein, Bore, Edison, Tesla and hundreds, nay thousands more. And who invented the Silicon substrate photo-lythrographic etching process, anyway? (The R in TRW, in his basement.) Who really "invented" the Internet? (Several dozen quite bright wage slaves and academics, each a genius in a speciality.) Who invented APL, Fortran and BASIC ... ? (Grace Hopper.) ... Generally, the towering geniuses of this age go unsung because popular media does not understand or recognize these "when they happen".
dahman_hakim
not rated yet Feb 04, 2013
yes humanity can not give us another Einstein, Newton ...; but it can give us other geniuses can be smarter. and they give us more interesting advancement in the sciences.
Eventide
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2013
I say more paid sabbaticals for longer periods of time for everyone to jump into their mancave or womancave to explore things outside of our daily routine.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 04, 2013
When an entity (say an electron) passes you by following a path, when is it "acting" like a "particle" and when is it "acting" like a wave?
Didn't I explain to you many times, that every quantum wave packet exhibits both aspects at the same moment, including the vacuum around particles? I even gave you an interactive simulation of this model.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (21) Feb 04, 2013
There is NO experiment that EVER proved this: All experiments to date can be modeled in terms of waves ONLY!
Why, heres some:

"In 1896, the British physicist J. J. Thomson, with his colleagues John S. Townsend and H. A. Wilson, performed experiments indicating that cathode rays really were unique particles, rather than waves, atoms or molecules as was believed earlier."
Silverhill
3 / 5 (2) Feb 04, 2013
@FastEddy:
The US Patent Office closed at the turn of the last century, too = nothing new being patented
No, the USPTO never closed. There's a famous quotation allegedly from the director, Charles Duell: "Everything that can be invented has been invented." Unfortunately, there is NO primary attestation for this, in 1899 or elsewhen.

...Then came Einstein, Bore
You mean Bohr.
photo-lythrographic
You mean 'photo-lithographic'.
a genius in a speciality.
You mean 'specialty'
Who invented APL, Fortran and BASIC ... ? (Grace Hopper.)
Very wrong. You mean:
APL...invented in 1957 by Kenneth E. Iverson; Fortran...developed by IBM in the 1950s; BASIC ... designed in 1964 by John George Kemeny and Thomas Eugene Kurtz.

geniuses of this age go unsung because popular media does not understand or recognize these "when they happen".
If the happenings were reported in your sloppy style, the popular media certainly would not understand!
Telekinetic
2.6 / 5 (25) Feb 05, 2013
John Hutchison, without doubt a genius, made machinery that produced genuine anti-gravity effects, only to be harassed by Canadian authorities and most recently was forced to sell his original lab equipment. That's the world we live in.

http://www.youtub...=related
johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 05, 2013
When an entity (say an electron) passes you by following a path, when is it "acting" like a "particle" and when is it "acting" like a wave?
Didn't I explain to you many times, that every quantum wave packet exhibits http://i48.tinypi...7r45.gif of this model.
OOPS!!! According to wave-particle duality an entity can act "like a particle" or "act like a wave", but cannot do both at the same time. You are again, as usual, proving that you do not know your physics.
johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 05, 2013
There is NO experiment that EVER proved this: All experiments to date can be modeled in terms of waves ONLY!
Why, heres some:

"In 1896, the British physicist J. J. Thomson, with his colleagues John S. Townsend and H. A. Wilson, performed experiments indicating that cathode rays really were unique particles, rather than waves, atoms or molecules as was believed earlier."
That was their conclusion, but they had no incontrovertible experimental proof that electrons are actually "particles". In fact, when Thomson presented his results, there was a person in the audience who was not a gullible fool, who asked Thomson: "How could you have discovered a particle that you cannot even see? Thomson should have answered this question, but decided to pussyfoot out of it!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (21) Feb 05, 2013
asked Thomson: "How could you have discovered a particle that you cannot even see?
But science discovers things we cannot see all the time. We have many other ways of collecting evidence. Sounds like that person was somewhat myopic? Like you?

Evidence tells us that electrons act like 'particles', a word which only has meaning to scientists who are fully familiar with the maths which actually describe it. Words are inadequate for understanding science.
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (16) Feb 05, 2013
But science discovers things we cannot see all the time.

Agreed! But you should then not be so stupid to state that it is a "particle", unless you first define what the meaning is of this term.
Sounds like that person was somewhat myopic?

I think that person was a genius!
Evidence tells us that electrons act like 'particles',

What evidence? Please spell out which measurements by Thompson "proved" that an electron is a "particle". Define what a "particle" is then show by using impeccable logic why Thompson's measurements proved that an electron is a "particle". That IS how scientists with brains do science!
a word which only has meaning to scientists who are fully familiar with the maths which actually describe it.

BULLSHIT! If a scientist cannot define what he means by a term, he is TOO stupid to do mathematics!
Words are inadequate for understanding science.

Only in your case with your limited vocabulary and brain! Not in my case!
Telekinetic
2.8 / 5 (22) Feb 05, 2013
February 5, 2013,12:25 am 1 TheGhostofOtto1923 | lite | FrankHerbert2 |

The real holy trinity- they're all the same person!
Vendicar Dickarian
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2013
"...the era of genius scientists is over..."

Naw, couldn't be. They're all just busy commenting on Physorg. At least they say they're geniuses.
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (15) Feb 06, 2013
Naw, couldn't be. They're all just busy commenting on Physorg. At least they say they're geniuses.


There is a lot of truth in this statement since any new physics which could lead to a genius moment, is consistently blocked from the mainstream physics journals by editors like Wilczek, 'tHooft, Berry, Eckern, Saller, Toyhama, Holland, Osborne, Southwell, etc. etc. etc. Thank God there is an internet with forums like Physorg, or else the Physics-Vatican would totally get away with their shortsightedness, buffoonery, inquisitions, and excommunications!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (20) Feb 06, 2013
Agreed! But you should then not be so stupid to state that it is a "particle", unless you first define what the meaning is of this term.
But I am not a scientist and neither are you, and so we are incapable of understanding what scientists mean when they use the word particle to represent all the math behind it.

THEY know what they are talking about. YOU dont. Science is not done with words it is done with numbers. You can't understand science by talking about it.
The real holy trinity- they're all the same person!
Well that's not true tk. You only say this because you can't win an argument and you resort to fighting dirty. Maybe you should just accept how faulty your arguments are.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (18) Feb 06, 2013
For instance this has crank written all over it:
John Hutchison, without doubt a genius, made machinery that produced genuine anti-gravity effects, only to be harassed by Canadian authorities and most recently was forced to sell his original lab equipment. That's the world we live in.
-As do your other comments pertaining to ass-tral planes and alien visitations. Why is it you resent the inevitable derision? Can't you rise above this? Try being existential for a change.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (17) Feb 06, 2013
Well jp I see by your profile page that you are supposedly some sort of scientist

"Doctorate: Mat. Science 1966 MSc Physics 1963 BSc Physics and Mathematics 1961 Well cited in physics literature"

-I wonder how I could have thought otherwise-
kochevnik
1.9 / 5 (17) Feb 06, 2013
Agreed! But you should then not be so stupid to state that it is a "particle", unless you first define what the meaning is of this term.
But I am not a scientist and neither are you, and so we are incapable of understanding what scientists mean when they use the word particle to represent all the math behind it.
That's a lame appeal to authority. That's like saying only physicists understand gravity, when they don't. It's just another model that creates needless complexity. You're elevating physicists to priesthood when can't even agree with each-other
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (20) Feb 06, 2013
Re the hutcheson effect:
http://www.skepdi...oax.html

-That was easy.
The real holy trinity- they're all the same person!
This is only 3 different people who think you are full of crap. Many others you know.
That's a lame appeal to authority. That's like saying only physicists understand gravity, when they don't.
They understand the math behind it which IS understanding it. They know exactly how it works and what to expect when they encounter it. There IS no other way. You are referring to philo questions like 'why are we here' and 'what is the meaning of life' which are unscientific.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (20) Feb 06, 2013
Feynman on understanding and physics
http://www.youtub...a_player

-OF COURSE only physicists are the only ones who can UNDERSTAND gravity. Who else? Religionists? Philos? Hobbyists? Anyone without the proper education and experience with the scientific method requires to UNDERSTAND how it works?

Only they know what we currently know about the phenomenon. We cannot inform ourselves about it, or discover anything about it, that is beyond what science already knows. Only they possess the tools to learn more.
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (15) Feb 06, 2013
Agreed! But you should then not be so stupid to state that it is a "particle", unless you first define what the meaning is of this term.
But I am not a scientist and neither are you,
I am an excellent scientist with cited contributions in Solid State Physics, Materials Science, Engineering and theoretical physics.
and so we are incapable of understanding what scientists mean when they use the word particle to represent all the math behind it.
Like I said: YOU obviously do not know what the hell you are talking about. But you are such an arrogant pompous fart, that you are willing to make posts on a Physics-forum!

THEY know what they are talking about. YOU dont.
Who are THEY?
Science is not done with words it is done with numbers. You can't understand science by talking about it.
If you cannot understand science in terms of words, then you are not a scientist's asshole! YOU are really one of the biggest fools I have come across in my life!
johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 06, 2013
Well jp I see by your profile page that you are supposedly some sort of scientist

"Doctorate: Mat. Science 1966 MSc Physics 1963 BSc Physics and Mathematics 1961 Well cited in physics literature"

-I wonder how I could have thought otherwise-


There is NOTHING to wonder about: An idiot like you is incapable of thinking or making logically relevant deductions AT ALL!
johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 06, 2013
That's a lame appeal to authority. That's like saying only physicists understand gravity, when they don't. It's just another model that creates needless complexity. You're elevating physicists to priesthood when can't even agree with each-other
BRAVO! The problem is even worse: Your mainstream theoretical physicists themselves think that they are untouchable priests. But most of them have no common-sense whatsoever! In 1927, Heisenberg too a small step for (a) man and caused a giant leap backwards for mankind; so that physics at present is again within the dark ages!

Goodbye for now: We are having lightning and I must switch off my router.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2013
An idiot like you is incapable of thinking or making logically relevant deductions AT ALL!
In dense aether model when the black hole is being observed from flat space-time, it appears in similar way, like the flat space-time, when being observed from inside of black hole. If it seems for you, most of people around you behave like the idiots, you should seriously judge the option, if it's not just you, who is idiot here, because the first option appears way less probable.
Q-Star
2.4 / 5 (19) Feb 06, 2013
I am an excellent scientist with cited contributions in Solid State Physics, Materials Science, Engineering and theoretical physics.


You can't even understand Zephyr, so why should we believe you?

But you are such an arrogant pompous fart, that you are willing to make posts on a Physics-forum!


Did YOU just call HIM "arrogant" and "pompous"? I can see why you would have so much trouble with the language of science, you can't even use basic English properly.

If you cannot understand science in terms of words, then you are not a scientist's asshole! YOU are really one of the biggest fools I have come across in my life.


There are many fools out there, of which you are the most illustrious example. Now I understand why your children never come to visit you.
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (16) Feb 06, 2013
OF COURSE only physicists are the only ones who can UNDERSTAND gravity.
I am one of the best physicists around and I can assure you that mainstream physicists are FAAAR from understanding gravity.
Who else? Religionists? Philos? Hobbyists? Anyone without the proper education and experience with the scientific method requires to UNDERSTAND how it works?
What are YOU? YOU ARE A certifiable nincompoop who arrogates himself the right to know what physicists "understand"? Can you not see how pathetic you are?

Only they know what we currently know about the phenomenon. We cannot inform ourselves about it,
So if this reasoning is correct you have NO RIGHT to attack me, since I AM a physicist!
johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (16) Feb 06, 2013
You can't even understand Zephyr,
Nobody with a logical mind can understand such a brainless idiot.

Now I understand why your children never come to visit you.
My children and my grandchildren visit me regularly and even offer to pay my travelling costs to visit them more regularly! Only a disgusting, stinking cretin like you with no background (who probably do not even know who your real mother and father is: Have you by chance been conceived in a sewage pipe?) will drag my children into your disgusting realm.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 06, 2013
If you're the best physicist around, can you provide and explain some useful applications of particle-wave duality in QM?
johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 06, 2013
If you're the best physicist around,
I have not claimed that I am the best. Although I must admit that I am not mediocre like most of the mainstream theoretical physicists are.
can you provide and explain some useful applications of particle-wave duality in QM?
There is NO wave=particle duality: So how is it possible to "usefully" apply something that is illogical Voodoo?
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (19) Feb 06, 2013
So if this reasoning is correct you have NO RIGHT to attack me, since I AM a physicist!


Sure ya are. Maybe ya used to be physicist, but ya seemed to have lost your way between now and way back then. Now ya seem to be nothing more than an angry old man.

Why don't ya move to the back of the class and be quiet. Three posts to one is not equatable, and ya are taking years off your life by getting so stressed out.

Maybe ya should try to contact the expert psychologist, Doctor Dean and let him know that when he was studying geniuses he overlooked ya, and should revise his paper. Aren't ya the one who said Heisenberg and Feynman were both fools? Maybe ya could explain to Doctor Dean that a person who makes Heisenberg and Feynman look like fools has to be a genius beyond the caliber of Einstein.
johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 06, 2013
Sure ya are. Maybe ya used to be physicist,


What are your qualifications? You are no even a "has-been". You are someone who "will never be"!

Aren't ya the one who said Heisenberg and Feynman were both fools?
Heisenberg misled physics back into the dark ages: His father told him he did not have the brains to be a physicist. Feynman, intimated that he knew that his models were nonsense, but if he had to fight the Copenhagen fools, he would never had won the Nobel Prize. I am grateful to Feynman for his lectures: He was no doubt the best teacher of physics during the 20th century!
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (19) Feb 06, 2013
I am one of the best physicists around and,,,,,,


Can ya tell us about the Nobel ya won? Maybe the textbooks that can be found in any university that ya wrote? Or the laws or principles named after ya? Sure ya at least have a constant named after ya?

So I assume that Johan Prins is an alias, otherwise such a great physicist such as yourself would be a household name. No? Well at least a name anyone in a science field would know without thinking? How many people know your name? (How many people do ya wish knew your name?)

Can ya say: Delusions of grandiosity?
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (19) Feb 06, 2013
What are your qualifications? You are no even a "has-been". You are someone who "will never be"!


I pray I am never as angry and unhappy with my life as ya seem to be. I'm qualified to make a decent living. I'm qualified to be at peace with my colleagues and fellows.

(And my children still enjoy coming home to visit me.)
johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 06, 2013
So I assume that Johan Prins is an alias,
No I am not a criminal like you who hide behind aliases.

Can ya say: Delusions of grandiosity?
Why? My CURVIT is on the internet for anybody to see. I am not a scoundrel and a skunk like you are. YOU must have crawled out of a sewage pipe. RIGHT?
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (22) Feb 06, 2013
No I am not a criminal like you who hide behind aliases.


Criminal? Because I have the temerity to recognize an egotistical delusional misanthrope? It doesn't take a genius to see that it ya are. There is no crime in that, it's a blatant fact that is obvious to all the small minded fools, morons, and nitwits of the world. Criminal, is that the best ya can do? If so ya are the dumbest genius I ever saw.

Why? My CURVIT is on the internet for anybody to see. I am not a scoundrel and a skunk like you are. YOU must have crawled out of a sewage pipe. RIGHT?


For a really smart, nay, genius sort of fellow, ya sure do write some stupid stuff. Learn that in physics school did ya?
johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 06, 2013
I pray I am never as angry and unhappy with my life as ya seem to be.


What makes you think I am unhappy as a person? Only an idiot like you will jump to unverified conclusions! The only thing that might make me unhappy is that God created abortions like you! But I have made peace with that long ago!

I'm qualified to make a decent living
You are only qualified to be stinking skunk. If not, then post your qualifications. THIEF? LIAR? RAPIST etc.?
Q-Star
2.9 / 5 (23) Feb 06, 2013
I pray I am never as angry and unhappy with my life as ya seem to be.


What makes you think I am unhappy as a person? Only an idiot like you will jump to unverified conclusions! The only thing that might make me unhappy is that God created abortions like you! But I have made peace with that long ago!

I'm qualified to make a decent living
You are only qualified to be stinking skunk. If not, then post your qualifications. THIEF? LIAR? RAPIST etc.?


Oh my, well I guess ya told me. Gave me what for. Yeppers, ya are one angry and frustrated man,,,, but being as great ya are and not having anyone know it, I can see why ya are so discontented.
johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 06, 2013
For a really smart, nay, genius sort of fellow, ya sure do write some stupid stuff. Learn that in physics school did ya?
You will not admit that you do not have the qualifications to judge anybody, or else you would have given your qualifications. You hide behind a false name which defines what a piece of excrement you really are!
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (22) Feb 06, 2013
For a really smart, nay, genius sort of fellow, ya sure do write some stupid stuff. Learn that in physics school did ya?
You will not admit that you do not have the qualifications to judge anybody, or else you would have given your qualifications. You hide behind a false name which defines what a piece of excrement you really are!


It requires no special qualifications to see that ya are a very unhappy individual. That ya resent sharing the world with us mere mortals. It requires no special qualifications to see that it eats ya up knowing that not one single person in the world realizes that ya are as great as ya think ya are.

(Even us morons and idiots can see all that.)
Telekinetic
2.8 / 5 (24) Feb 06, 2013
Re the hutcheson effect:
http://www.skepdi...oax.html

-That was easy.- GhostofOtto

Of course that was easy- for every scientific claim there is an internet counterclaim made by an anonymous writer using hearsay and gossip as their sole evidence or who have never themselves performed an experiment- like yourself. All of your swagger in uncovering the truth is the real fraud.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (19) Feb 06, 2013
So how come umpteem million people havent figured out how to do this since, and we cant see just how they do it on youtube?

-Have I said this before?

"His laboratory is his garage, kitchen, and other rooms in his apartment. Much of his apparatus seems to have come from military surplus stores.

"Hutchison came on the scene around 1979, but he has not been able to convince the scientific community that he is anything more than a crackpot."

"Many agencies, including NASA, have attempted to recreate Hutchison's Effect. After extensive testing, NASA's head of finding new propulsion methods for spacecraft stated, "This 'Hutchison Effect' has been claimed for years, without any independent verification — ever... This is in the category of folklore."

-NASA is on the internet but I was familiar with them before this. Say where did YOU hear about this fellow? Was it on the internet?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (20) Feb 06, 2013
Like I said: YOU obviously do not know what the hell you are talking about. But you are such an arrogant pompous fart, that you are willing to make posts on a Physics-forum!
I stand on the shoulders of giants.
Who are THEY?
Giants like feynman.
If you cannot understand science in terms of words, then you are not a scientist's asshole! YOU are really one of the biggest fools I have come across in my life!
Ah the crux. You cannot devise a useful experiment without describing it mathematically. You cannot hope to replicate or communicate the results of experiments without having devised them along mathematical parameters, and recorded their function mathematically. You CANNOT model physical phenomena any other way, than mathematically.

When philos began using numbers to describe the universe, they began to get somewhere. But then they were no longer philos, they were scientists.

Words are worthless. You sure youre not a crank?
Telekinetic
2.6 / 5 (20) Feb 06, 2013
Here's a solid iron bar twisted beyond recognition, or maybe it's actually a bar of chocolate to perpetrate a hoax...

http://www.youtub...NFGwWO-k
johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 07, 2013
shoulders of giants. Giants like feynman.

Impossible: You are too stupid to do that.
You cannot devise a useful experiment without describing it mathematically

Wrong! A quantitative model is more helpful, but not always required. Einstein has correctly stated that if you cannot explain physics in simple terms you do not understand it.

When philos began using numbers to describe the universe, they began to get somewhere.
They began to get somewhere when they accepted that experiment, and not mathematics, must be the final arbiter. But this is obviously waaay above you cranial capacity.
But then they were no longer philos, they were scientists.
The correct route is still "experimental philosophy": Not that this is followed anymore by our modern dimwitted theoretical physicists.

Words are worthless.
Then why are you posting "worthless" words here and not mathematics?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (14) Feb 07, 2013
It requires no special qualifications to see that ya are a very unhappy individual. That ya resent sharing the world with us mere mortals.


Let us assume that your worthless insight has merit: What the hell has this to do with my physics. Are you saying that somebody who is "angry and unhappy" cannot be correct when he is doing physics?

I am not going to allow you pull me down further into the cesspool into which you were born and in which you obviously like to wallow for the rest of your useless and fruitless life. Let us stick to physics:

So I ask again: When an object with energy m*c^2 follows a path past you, is it acting as a "particle" or as a wave. Note: According to wave-particle duality it cannot be both, but ONLY one or the other. So tell me which one: And explain why your choice is correct.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (13) Feb 07, 2013
It's not true as prof. Afshar and many others have proven, that the particles can behave in both ways at the same moment.
Ag! ValeriaT, aka, aka akak!. As usual you are unable to understand physics. Afshar did not prove that a photon can behave simultaneously as a a wave and a "particle". He used laser-wave (not a single photon) and proved that this wave moves through both slits and interferes on the other side to form a diffracted wave front, which is then detected LATER by two detectors, Just as any single radio-wave can be detected by different radio=antennas. There are NO "PARTICLES" involved in his experiment; even if one wants to be stupid enough to classify a photon-wave as a "particle".

The rest of your post is the usual BULLSHITT which only lives in your demented mind! If you look at Couder's experiment you will see that there is NO WAY in which the wave motion around the droplet can form a DOUBLE-slit diffraction pattern when the droplet moves through a slit.



johanfprins
1 / 5 (14) Feb 07, 2013
After all, the wave appears like the atemporal ripple without shape and center of mass,

An electromagnetic wave's distributed energy IS EQUAL to m*c^2: So how the hell can it not have a center-of mass?
The mixed particle-wave character is quite apparent in every picture of quantum wave.

What do you "see" that makes the presence of a "particle" apparent? More detail please.

It has absolutely no meaning to dispute about it - just try to draw the quantum wave in accordance of Copenhagen interpretation

The Copenhagen interpretation clearly states that there is either a wave or a "particle": Not both. So how the hell can you "draw" a "mixed" wave-particle entity in terms of the Copenhagen interpretation? Stop posting such nonsense!
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (22) Feb 07, 2013
When an object [..] follows a path past you, is it acting as a "particle" or as a wave. Note: According to wave-particle duality it cannot be both, but ONLY one or the other.


This is a misrepresentation of wave-particle duality, where no such metaphysical statements are intended. It's form is undefined until observed.

Fundamentally, physics can only say things about observables, which is to say, physics can only construct models that link observables together in a way that allows for accurate predictions.

So, in fact, the point of the wave-particle duality, is not to make statements about the form of the underlying reality, but rather to indicate that that underlying reality can only be observed and modeled as a particle or as a wave (of amplitudes).

The implications of this is simply that the form in which we represent the underlying reality, is dependent upon the most expedient means of it's conceptualization, which of necessity is dependent upon experimental arrangement.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (22) Feb 07, 2013
,..... the real discoverable things in physics are invariants , symmetries and conservation laws, and the like,... NOT the representations or form which depend upon experiment and concepts. It is simply meaningless to say what the form of an entity is, independent of its conceptualization and observation! You wish science to state more than it is able to and then accuse it of being wrong on that false premise!

There is an analogy between different reference frames in relativity, where the components and so representation can change based upon experimental circumstance, but the invariants remain constant for each such IRF,... similarly in Hilbert space for conjugate variables there is 'position' representation, and there is 'momentum' representation, both dependent upon experimental arrangement, but both describe the same invariant underlying reality. What is important is not the observer dependancy of representation, but the invariants,..... symmetries and conservation laws, etc
megmaltese
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2013
Sounds stupid... genius is imagination and intelligence, and there's always space to have some people coming out of the crowd with an incredible amount of these qualities.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (13) Feb 07, 2013
This is a misrepresentation of wave-particle duality, where no such metaphysical statements are intended. It's form is undefined until observed.


You OBSERVE an object with energy m*c^2 by measuring that it is following a path: How is it undefined? So I ask you again: How do you know that this OBSERVED object is a "particle" or a wave?

The rest of your post is as usual irrelevant to the issue at hand! Also your long tirade in your follow-up post. Just answer the simple question without wrapping it up in irrelevant bullshit.
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (23) Feb 07, 2013
There are NO "PARTICLES" involved in his experiment; even if one wants to be stupid enough to classify a photon-wave as a "particle".


All that is meant by a 'particle' in the QM context is as represented in Compton Scattering and the Photo Electric Effect, etc, where a purely wave representation can not explain them.

You admit that the smallest EM that can be emitted or absorbed is hv,... but then object to the implied granular implication of this. Why? Your insistence upon only a wave representation implies you wish physics to make metaphysical statements, rather than accepting useful conceptualizations.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (22) Feb 07, 2013
Would you like me to repeat what I said in the other thread,...

I have asked Noumenon many times to tell us when an entity that passes one by is acting like a wave and when is it acting like a "particle"; but he or she is not willing to define the difference. - johanfprins
Actually I have explained this multiple times, and even referred to two experiments in this thread. If an entity "passes one by" he is not in a position to say anything at all about it. He must interact with it using some classical apparatus of his design, ...using concepts borrowed from the macroscopic realm in which he lives and in which forms his intuition. He can only arrange to observe in one of various complementary basis at a time. He can not acquire a full description of a particular aspect of the quantum entity without observing it in the conjugate basis as well....- Noumenon


The notion of a 'particle' is a useful description, not a metaphysical statement.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (13) Feb 07, 2013
All that is meant by a 'particle' in the QM context is as represented in Compton Scattering and the Photo Electric Effect, etc, where a purely wave representation can not explain them.
In both these cases the experimental data can be modeled purely in terms of waves and wave-interactions. Obviously people like you who could not pick up this simple fact during the past 100 years, will do anything in their power not to be exposed for the morons that you have been!

You admit that the smallest EM that can be emitted or absorbed is hv,... but then object to the implied granular implication of this.
Waves form from superposition of waves: After overlapping by superposition of smaller waves having the same frequency, the wave is still a single continuous wave: NOT a granular wave.
Your insistence upon only a wave representation implies you wish physics to make metaphysical statements,..
LOL! YOU are the one believing in Voodoo metaphysics which has no physics-merit!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (12) Feb 07, 2013
I have asked Noumenon many times to tell us when an entity that passes one by is acting like a wave and when is it acting like a "particle"; but he or she is not willing to define the difference --Johan Prins
Actually I have explained this multiple times,


YOU HAVE NOT! Stop Lying!

If an entity "passes one by" he is not in a position to say anything at all about it. He must interact with it using some classical apparatus of his design,


So he interacts and measures a path!

The notion of a 'particle' is a useful description, not a metaphysical statement.


So which "notion" will you use to describe the path? A "particle-notion" or a "wave-notion". Stop bullshitting and answer my question!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (13) Feb 07, 2013
1. A coherent electromagnetic wave (no matter what its total energy is) has distributed electromagnetic energy so that its total integrated energy is m*c^2. Thus, it has distributed mass-energy and MUST THUS have a center-of-mass that follows a path so that along this path there is NO UNCERTAINTY in momentum and position at ANY INSTANT IN TIME.

2. If this is the case for any coherent EM-wave, with ANY total amount of energy, why must it be different for a coherent wave which has the lowest possible energy: i.e. a photon?

Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (23) Feb 07, 2013
All that is meant by a 'particle' in the QM context is as represented in Compton Scattering and the Photo Electric Effect, etc, where a purely wave representation can not explain them.
In both these cases the experimental data can be modeled purely in terms of waves and wave-interactions.


You state that when a 'wave-function' collapses it is due to 'boundary conditions',.... but in Compton scattering where the photon energy is high enough that the electron is essentially free, what 'boundary condition' apparatus will save you?

So which "notion" will you use to describe the path? A "particle-notion" or a "wave-notion". Stop bullshitting and answer my question!


You will need to define what you mean by 'a path'. Obviously one cannot continuously observe a qm entity all along a path. The wavefunction of all possible paths is described by Schrodinger, but does not represent a physical wave of 'stuff', but rather mathematical amplitudes.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (11) Feb 07, 2013
You state that when a 'wave-function' collapses it is due to 'boundary conditions',.... but in Compton scattering where the photon energy is high enough that the electron is essentially free,

"Essentially free"? THERE ARE NO FREE ELECTRONS WITHIN ANY MATERIAL NOT EVEN A BLOCK OF COPPER! If they were, there would be no chemical bonding.

A change in 'boundary condition' causes a wave to resonate and change shape and size and sometimes also energy: For example, the shape and size of the stationary wave of an atomic electron presents a boundary-condition for an incoming photon-wave. The wave resonates with this boundary-condition and collapses to become a stationary wave which adds its stationary energy to the electron-wave. The mass energy of the electron-wave must thus increase so that the electron-wave also resonates with its boundary conditions (the Coulomb potential) to morph into a higher energy wave.

A moron will call such an interaction a quantum jump of a "particle".
johanfprins
1 / 5 (12) Feb 07, 2013
You will need to define what you mean by 'a path'. Obviously one cannot continuously observe a qm entity all along a path.


Why? We know from Newton's first law that when an entity experiences no forces on it, it follows a path along which there is NO uncertainty in position and momentum: Why should I change this concept which has withstood the test of time for more than 300 years? To suit your Voodoo preferences?

The wavefunction of all possible paths is described by Schrodinger, but does not represent a physical wave of 'stuff', but rather mathematical amplitudes


Bullshit! The Schroedinger wave-equation is a modified Maxwell equation which is valid for EM waves which do not move with the speed of light: i.e. when the wave is actually stationary within its own inertial reference frame (IRF). Its time dependence only becomes relevant when the wave resonates and changes its shape and size. It has nothing to do with its motion relative to other IRF's.
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (23) Feb 07, 2013
"Essentially free"? THERE ARE NO FREE ELECTRONS WITHIN ANY MATERIAL NOT EVEN A BLOCK OF COPPER! If they were, there would be no chemical bonding.


You must consider Compton scattering as occurring with 'free electrons'. When I said 'essentially free', I meant that in practice valence electrons are used, which is very weak in comparison with the high frequency photons used in Compton scattering, of the order of the electron itself. Also, in Compton scattering the electrons are knocked free of the atom, otherwise the incident photon frequency is the same as the scattered frequency.

With high frequency photons, the electrons do not simply reradiate with the same frequency as the incident light as in a coherent scattering. Instead, the emitted photon is of a lower frequency, the difference added to the ejected electron's kinetic energy, thus implying that the photon has momentum.

This would occur for a truly free electron, so 'boundary conditions' are not essential here.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (12) Feb 07, 2013
You must consider Compton scattering as occurring with 'free electrons'. When I said 'essentially free', I meant that in practice valence electrons are used, which is very weak in comparison with the high frequency photons used in Compton scattering, of the order of the electron itself.


So!? They are NOT FREE!!!!!! no matter what the energy of the incoming light is! Stop being such an idiot!

Also, in Compton scattering the electrons are knocked free of the atom, otherwise the incident photon frequency is the same as the scattered frequency.


Correct! Are you arguing that the electron produced by the photoelectric effect IS NOT knocked free? Are you REALLY so daft? So again: So what!? The electron being ejected was NOT FREE within the material. So to call it free is bullshit!! Your favorite way of reasoning!

continued below

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (16) Feb 07, 2013
Here's a solid iron bar twisted beyond recognition, or maybe it's actually a bar of chocolate to perpetrate a hoax...

http://www.youtub...NFGwWO-k
Yah I think youre right its chocolate. Or clay in a microwave. If it was iron why didnt he pick it up and bang it on the table to show what it was? Thats what I would have done. Do scientists often put their experimental materials on paper towels with flower graphics on them?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (12) Feb 07, 2013
With high frequency photons, the electrons do not simply reradiate with the same frequency as the incident light as in a coherent scattering. Instead, the emitted photon is of a lower frequency, the difference added to the ejected electron's kinetic energy, thus implying that the photon has momentum.
Any moving light-wave ALWAYS has momentum: Did you not know this?

This would occur for a truly free electron, so 'boundary conditions' are not essential here
Firstly, Compton scattering has NEVER been demonstrated experimentally for a "truly" free electron: Secondly, even if it could happen for a "truly" free electron, the free electron wave does present a boundary condition for the incoming light wave so that it resonates with this and become absorbed.

The only difference between Compton scattering and the photo-electric effect is that the higher energy electron, after resonance and absorption of the photon-wave, emits another photon-wave! Where does a "particle" feature?
johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 07, 2013
Here's a solid iron bar twisted beyond recognition, or maybe it's actually a bar of chocolate to perpetrate a hoax...

http://www.youtub...NFGwWO-k
Yah I think youre right its chocolate. Or clay in a microwave. If it was iron why didnt he pick it up and bang it on the table to show what it was? Thats what I would have done. Do scientists often put their experimental materials on paper towels with flower graphics on them?


I am not defending the experiment: But it is appropriate to post that "The Ghost of Otto" is probably THE asshole of assholes in the world! Although Q-Star, ValeriaT AKAK, are tough competition!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (16) Feb 07, 2013
You are too stupid to do that.
Waaa? Duh. Drrr.
Wrong! A quantitative model is more helpful, but not always required. Einstein has correctly stated that if you cannot explain physics in simple terms you do not understand it.
Indeed and this is why he said E=mc2. But this is mathematics not poetry. Words by their nature are hopelessly complex. Correct?
This is a misrepresentation of wave-particle duality, where no such metaphysical statements are intended. It's form is undefined until observed.
The 'wave' 'particle' 'duality' only has meaning when represented mathematically. Duh.
In both these cases the experimental data can be modeled purely in terms of waves and wave-interactions.
If this is true then you must be able to do this mathematically, otherwise how could you KNOW it was true? How could you ever hope to PROVE it?

Please demonstrate.
You will need to define what you mean by 'a path'.
-And the only meaningful way to do this is mathematically.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (12) Feb 07, 2013
Energy "electron" at the Fermi-level is m(F)*c^2;

Photo-electric effect:

T=(m(F)*c^2)plus(h*(nu))minus(m(0)*c^2)
*c^2)

Compton:

T=(m(F)*c^2)plus(h*(nu1))minus(m(0)*c^2)minus(h*(nu2)) where T is the kinetic energy of the emitted electron and (nu1)>(nu2)

Totally wave absorption and emission: NO "particles".
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (19) Feb 07, 2013
Energy "electron" at the Fermi-level is m(F)*c^2


Well see, I told ya that ya'd probably be better off taking a seat in the back of the class and piping down. Move on over there and put your face in the corner. Ya are disrupting all the really smart people. Ya are like that weird little kid who keeps bouncing up and down going "ooh, ooh, I know, I know, ooh, ooh, I know, I know" and usually get a large part of it confused with some other question.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (11) Feb 07, 2013
Please demonstrate.
You will need to define what you mean by 'a path'.
-And the only meaningful way to do this is mathematically.


You are an APE: Galileo already demonstrated it very well without using mathematics! Newton only afterwards defined it in terms of mathematics which demands NO UNCERTAINTY IN MOMENTUM AND POSITION of the freely moving entity.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (12) Feb 07, 2013
Energy "electron" at the Fermi-level is m(F)*c^2


Well see, I told ya that ya'd probably be better off taking a seat in the back of the class and piping down. Move on over there and put your face in the corner. Ya are disrupting all the really smart people. Ya are like that weird little kid who keeps bouncing up and down going "ooh, ooh, I know, I know, ooh, ooh, I know, I know" and usually get a large part of it confused with some other question.


For some reason the full post did not come out first time around. But of course for somebody like you waddling in effluence you just could not wait until I corrected it! I wish you would first do something about your stink breath before posting again!
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (19) Feb 07, 2013
Well see, I told ya that ya'd probably be better off taking a seat in the back of the class and piping down. Move on over there and put your face in the corner. Ya are disrupting all the really smart people. Ya are like that weird little kid who keeps bouncing up and down going "ooh, ooh, I know, I know, ooh, ooh, I know, I know" and usually get a large part of it confused with some other question.


I wish you would first do something about your stink breath before posting again!


Stink breath? Oh my, for such a smart genius sort of world class physicist, ya sure are sounding more and more like that weird kid. What next? Poopy-Head?

Ya are like that weird little kid who keeps bouncing up and down going "ooh, ooh, I know, I know, ooh, ooh, I know, I know" and usually get a large part of it confused with some other question.


I thought that needed repeating. Ya should show more respect to your betters.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (17) Feb 07, 2013
Energy "electron" at the Fermi-level is m(F)*c^2;

Photo-electric effect:

T=(m(F)*c^2)plus(h*(nu))minus(m(0)*c^2)
*c^2)

Compton:

T=(m(F)*c^2)plus(h*(nu1))minus(m(0)*c^2)minus(h*(nu2)) where T is the kinetic energy of the emitted electron and (nu1)>(nu2)

Totally wave absorption and emission: NO "particles".
This is it? This is the sum total of your argument which is supposed to overturn what is considered fundamental physics by 1000s of scientists over the course of many generations? Physics that has been used to produce heretofore undreamed-of technology and accurately predict all sorts of undreamed-of phenomena???

I am sorry but I should expect to see many many more numbers and letters and symbols than this. Along with reams of raw data.

Actually I think I have all this on a t-shirt somewhere. 'And then there was light.'
Whydening Gyre
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 07, 2013
The Copenhagen interpretation clearly states that there is either a wave or a "particle": Not both. So how the hell can you "draw" a "mixed" wave-particle entity in terms of the Copenhagen interpretation? Stop posting such nonsense!

Isn't it a particle when we're looking at IT and a wave when we look at it's action?
Like a mime doing that weird dance wave thing with his arms - it's still a mime doing it...
ValeriaT
2.2 / 5 (17) Feb 07, 2013
I wouldn't use the word "mime" in this connection, but handwaving of johanfprins could serve as the best example of particle-wave duality.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (20) Feb 07, 2013
Sorry tk but this guy is a freak.
http://www.youtub...ndscreen
-I suspect the trauma of hair loss has driven the poor chap over the edge.

Here is his effect deftly recreated through the magic of stop-motion, editing and no doubt shooping. The echo effect of the narration only adds to the veracity.
http://www.youtub...ndscreen
Telekinetic
2.4 / 5 (20) Feb 07, 2013
I actually enjoyed the first video, Ghost, because it's sympathetic to Hutchison. Never become a defense lawyer or prosecutor because you'll wind up throwing court cases by giving the opposition the evidence they need to win. Did you bother to watch it? The military investigator suggested that the source of the phenomenon may be Hutchison's own poltergeist energy! Do you really think he'd spend every nickel he had on military surplus electronics because he's a clutterbug? History is full of groundbreaking inventions not discovered by committee but by individuals who work better and more efficiently alone.

The second video, spelling the word "independantly", turned me off right away- I can't stomach illiteracy.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (11) Feb 08, 2013
Isn't it a particle when we're looking at IT and a wave when we look at it's action?

This is the Voodoo that Heisenberg preached in order to lead physics back to the superstitious dark ages.

Consider a laser source: Switch it on and then switch it off. You create a coherent wave with a cross sectional are (say A) and a length (say L). You will then have a light wave with EM energy E=m*c^2 moving past following a rectilinear path. It is obviously NOT a "particle" even though it has a center-of mass moving with a momentum p=E/c which at any instant in time has a definite position in space. No uncertainty at all.

Send this laser-wave through a double-slit and it will diffract. Thus although it is purely a coherent light-wave, it moves like a "particle" when it encounters no changes in boundary conditions, and it diffracts when it does encounter a suitable change in boundary conditions. So why the HELL bring in the concepts of "wave particle duality" and "complementarity"?
Tausch
1 / 5 (11) Feb 08, 2013
Help us out. No other person is in a better position to answer your own question than you. We are asking what the motivation(s) is/are behind introducing the concepts. You may or may not have little empathy for incorrect reasoning that leads to disarray. That plays no role.
The simply answer is because they did not know what is known now.
Tausch
1 / 5 (9) Feb 08, 2013
There is nothing that can not be improved upon.
(Guardians of double negatives kiss my a.)
This comment directed to the poorly formed comment directly above.
Q-Star
2.4 / 5 (17) Feb 08, 2013
No uncertainty at all.


Just because ya don't understand it, doesn't make it certain. It is pretty certain that ya don't understand it as well as ya are certain that ya do.

It is quite certain that ya are frustrated misanthropic miscreant.

No uncertainty at all.


I'm glad ya agree, now go back and sit in the corner, and pipe down.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 08, 2013
I actually enjoyed the first video, Ghost, because it's sympathetic to Hutchison. Never become a defense lawyer or prosecutor because you'll wind up throwing court cases by giving the opposition the evidence they need to win.
Well yeah if I thought my client was guilty. That's why I am not a lawyer.
Did you bother to watch it?
Yes.
The military investigator suggested that the source of the phenomenon may be Hutchison's own poltergeist energy!
So how is calling him a crackpot in any way sympathetic -?
Do you really think he'd spend every nickel he had on military surplus electronics because he's a clutterbug
A neurotic clutterbug. Did you read about that missing lady who they eventually found under a huge pile of garbage in her living room? She was a retired engr.

He crawls into what's left of his bathroom and 'cups' himself with water as he calls it, to clean up. I know - errant microwaves have scrambled his neocortex. He is a fakir.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (16) Feb 08, 2013
Let's see what randi has to say
http://forums.ran...t=233775

-A vid showing strings? A lot of his footage looks as if it was filmed upside down. And that block of iron - why didn't he stick a magnet on it? Maybe his fields ruined all his magnets? Why didn't he BANG IT on the table to show that it was a solid chunk of metal tk?

Why did the investigators never see these things happen in person?? People with hair fixations and comb-overs and such are capable if all sorts of self-deception you know.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (12) Feb 08, 2013
The simply answer is because they did not know what is known now.


Very well said: NOT just that: They could not free themselves from classical dogma that relies on the concept of a "particle" even though nobody ever defined what a "particle" is. All we know from Newton is that it is an entity with a center-of-mass which follows a definite path: There are NO uncertainties in position and momentum since this would make Galileo's inertia, on which ALL physics is based, invalid! NOTHING ELSE!

J J Thomson found from measurements that within a beam of electrons, each electron follows a definite path which does not violate Galileo's inertia, and, he therefore called electrons "particles". But just imagine if he had and found that the electrons diffract: He would then have claimed that a beam of electrons must be a coherent wave. This raises two fundamental questions:

1. Can a particle diffract? NO!!! NEVER EVER!!

2. Can a wave move like a "particle"? Einstein proved YES! How?
johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 08, 2013
E=M*c^2!!!!! This means that ANY entity,also a wave, has distributed mass and thus a center-of-mass which must move according to Galileo's inertia, WITHOUT any uncertainty in position and momentum, by following a straight path when it experiences no forces on it.

Thus the need to call an entity which moves like a "particle" a "particle" vanished. One does not need particles anymore since a wave can move like a "particle" and diffract like a wave! It has no DUALITY in behavior since this is the way that a wave behaves under different circumstances: Thus why complicate physics with VOODOO like "wave-particle duality" and "complementarity". It is insane to do the latter just to keep Bohr's impossible model of the atom as a possibility, instead of throwing it on the trash heap, with an epitaph: This model did help physics but it is physically impossible and thus just plain WRONG!

I will be back later when I have the time.
Telekinetic
2.3 / 5 (19) Feb 08, 2013
Ghost, Colonel John B. Alexander of the U.S. military taught military personnel how to bend metal psychically. That's who's assessing Hutchison in the video YOU provided, ostensibly to disprove Hutchison. It backfired on you. The stringed UFO toy is the way Hutchison intended it to be- suspended so that the generated field would spin the toy one way or the other. The string was so obvious, Hutchinson wasn't trying to deceive anyone, he'd have to be blind not to see it himself. But magicians who turn a waning career into a career as skeptic love to pounce on such things as well as young boys. And I'm not referring to Houdini, either.
johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 08, 2013
It actually has a particle character, just because of the boundary conditions of this artifact. You cannot create such a beam in natural way without some particle interactions on background


Bullshit as usual from ValeriaT, Natello AKAK. Although the lasing medium emits individual photon-waves, a laser beam can ONLY be emitted when these coherent photon-waves entangle (superpose) to form a single STATIONERY light wave within the laser cavity. The light within in the cavity does NOT exist of individual DISTINGUISHABLE photon-waves! If it did you would not be able to emit a single coherent laser beam of light!
Q-Star
2.3 / 5 (16) Feb 08, 2013
Bullshit as usual from ValeriaT, Natello AKAK. Although the lasing medium emits individual photon-waves, a laser beam can ONLY be emitted when these coherent photon-waves entangle (superpose) to form a single STATIONERY light wave within the laser cavity. The light within in the cavity does NOT exist of individual DISTINGUISHABLE photon-waves! If it did you would not be able to emit a single coherent laser beam of light!


Ya seem to be making a spectacle of yourself again. No real person could actually be as dumb as you so quit your foolishness. We've had just about enough of your shenanigans. (Do we need to put ya in the corner with the pointy cap on your head?)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 08, 2013
Ghost, Colonel John B. Alexander of the U.S. military taught military personnel how to bend metal psychically.
Yah right. So how come I havent seen it on tv? This would be some big news you have to admit.

"Col. John B. Alexander on the ARV (ALIEN REPRODUCTION VEHICLE)
Many of the attendees seem to believe that ARV, (the Alien Reproduction Vehicle), is real and being hidden from the public.

"Those not steeped in UFO conspiracy theory may not be aware that there exists a substantial body of published information that state that THEY have gained the scientific knowledge necessary to provide limitless energy at very low cost.

"The evidence provided to support their conclusions of the existence of ARV involve a few, hard to substantiate, eye-witness accounts, and some low-quality videotape of questionable origin that purports to show an object morphing in an unusual manner."

Tk. Do you have anything to post which is not crackpot-related? Anything at all??
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (17) Feb 08, 2013
Oh wait I have seen this on tv
http://www.youtub...7jHYriFo
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (12) Feb 08, 2013
1. Can a particle diffract? NO!!! NEVER EVER!!
It's not the particle what is diffracting during double slit experiment, but it's wake wave of vacuum, which is formed around it due its motion in similar way, like wave around duck swimming at the surface of river. The tiny density fluctuations of vacuum are responsible for this behavior.

Can a wave move like a "particle"? Einstein proved YES! How?
In elastic foamy vacuum wave spreads like less or more dense blob of foam, which gets more dense temporarily similar way, like the soap foam during shaking. The tiny density fluctuations of vacuum are responsible for this behavior.

So did you remember it? The duck and the soap foam are the key for your understanding of particle-wave duality...
Telekinetic
2.3 / 5 (18) Feb 08, 2013
"Tk. Do you have anything to post which is not crackpot-related? Anything at all??"- Ghost

Today's crackpot ideas can be tomorrow's curriculum.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (18) Feb 08, 2013
Plus the "solid block of iron" seemed to lose much volume, magically. Does the crank have any theories at all that he thinks may explain it?
Telekinetic
2.5 / 5 (19) Feb 08, 2013
Oh wait I have seen this on tv- GhostofOtto
http://www.youtub...7jHYriFo


Perhaps you're naturally drawn to pederasty-
http://www.whale....i_h.html
Telekinetic
2.5 / 5 (19) Feb 08, 2013
Plus the "solid block of iron" seemed to lose much volume, magically. Does the crank have any theories at all that he thinks may explain it?
- Noumenon

One theory would be that both you and Ghost are complete shut-ins that have never witnessed anything in the outside world because you're riveted by the whistle toy offer on the back of your cereal box. To be curious about science is to find people and places that are pushing the boundaries of what's known. You will never discover anything new because you refuse to believe that anything new can be discovered. Quantum entanglement, if not proved to be real a relatively short while ago would be a completely implausible concept, yet here it is despite nincompoops like yourselves yucking it up with cynicism.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (20) Feb 08, 2013
Actually Telekinetic, it is much more debilitating in acquiring knowledge to have little or no standards in accepting things as true. People that go out of their way to believe such fraud are not interested in science at all,.... they're interested in mystery.

Here is the scientific standard for claiming new things experimentally; ... it must defeat the honest sceptic who is looking for reasons not to believe it.... by forcing him to concede its truth by the power of clear and unambiguous facts.

The experiment must be clearly defined, in great detail, both the set up and the expected results, so that it can be repeated independently by others. The experiment should be designed so that it doesn't generate obvious questions, like 'was the thing really sold iron.'.

you refuse to believe that anything new can be discovered.


Ridiculous unsubstantiated statement.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (18) Feb 08, 2013
EDIT; "was the thing really [solid] iron."
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (16) Feb 08, 2013
Oh wait I have seen this on tv- GhostofOtto
Huh. I was not aware of this. I did not see anything about convictions but no matter. I suppose this means that geller must really have bent spoons on Carson, that your guy can twist iron bars, and that popoff was actually hearing from god through his earpiece and it only SOUNDED like his wife?

Randi has a stellar record of debunking true crackpots. Yes? Crackpots (like yourself?) can't seem to refrain from calling people pedos when they can't get their way. This reflects poorly on you tk, not me.
Telekinetic
2.5 / 5 (19) Feb 09, 2013
I calls 'em as I seez 'em, 'cause some pederasts throw up elaborate smoke screens to cover their deeds. Want to get anything off your chest, Ghost?
Estevan57
2.7 / 5 (21) Feb 09, 2013
Ghosty DOES mention my neice an awful lot...
Perhaps he did something horrible in the past and has to refute God for the sins and guilt he carries with him.

Just a theory.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (12) Feb 09, 2013
It's not the particle what is diffracting during double slit experiment, but it's wake wave of vacuum, ..
You have posted this bullshit so many times that it is getting boring: As James Randy stated: Why are people so attracted to the irrational? Ducks and foam!!LOL.
In elastic foamy vacuum wave spreads like less or more dense blob of foam,...
Irrational bullshit again!
A photon, whatever you want to interpret it to be, moves with the same speed c relative to any object NO MATTER WITH WHICH SPEED THE OBJECT IS MOVING!! If it moved with this speed relative to an aether, its speed WILL ONLY BE c RELATIVE TO THE AETHER: Not relative any other body moving with any speed.
The only time that the photon is moving relative to another body which can be considered as an aether, is when it moves through glass. It THEN has a speed less than c within the glass, and DIFFERENT SPEEDS RELATIVE TO OTHER MOVING BODIES!

PLEASE learn some physics and calculus before posting more KAK!
johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 09, 2013
Plus the "solid block of iron" seemed to lose much volume, magically. Does the crank have any theories at all that he thinks may explain it?


I am not defending the video! But not surprisingly it is clear that Noumenon has never heard of volume and density.
johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 09, 2013
Here is the scientific standard for claiming new things experimentally; ... it must defeat the honest sceptic who is looking for reasons not to believe it.... by forcing him to concede its truth by the power of clear and unambiguous facts.
Where do one find an "honest sceptic" today. You do not know what this concept means since you are not and never has been an "honest sceptic".!

The experiment must be clearly defined, in great detail, both the set up and the expected results, so that it can be repeated independently by others. The experiment should be designed so that it doesn't generate obvious questions, like 'was the thing really sold iron.'.
You are the Jimmy Swaggert of physics. You know the rules, but do not follow them yourself. In your case it does not matter how convincing the experimental results are, you will not accept them as even possibly correct when they contradict your own bigotry and dogma!

Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (19) Feb 09, 2013
Plus the "solid block of iron" seemed to lose much volume, magically. Does the crank have any theories at all that he thinks may explain it?


I am not defending the video! But not surprisingly it is clear that Noumenon has never heard of volume and density.


I don't know about chocolate, but liquid iron is less dense than solid iron, so would take up More volume in liquid state, not less, correct? That video seems to show a collapsing volume.
Telekinetic
2.3 / 5 (18) Feb 09, 2013
johanf:
"The only time that the photon is moving relative to another body which can be considered as an aether, is when it moves through glass. It THEN has a speed less than c within the glass, and DIFFERENT SPEEDS RELATIVE TO OTHER MOVING BODIES!"

Glass AND Bose-Einstein condensate:
http://www.news.h...ght.html

While Noumenon is the Jimmy Swaggart here, you may be the Clarence Darrow of the forum. Bravo!
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (20) Feb 09, 2013
The experiment must be clearly defined, in great detail, both the set up and the expected results, so that it can be repeated independently by others. The experiment should be designed so that it doesn't generate obvious questions, like 'was the thing really sold iron.'.
You are the Jimmy Swaggert of physics. You know the rules, but do not follow them yourself. In your case it does not matter how convincing the experimental results are, you will not accept them as even possibly correct when they contradict your own bigotry and dogma!


But you're the one who rejects time dilation despite its repeated experimental support, and QED, despite its experimental support, and have called Dirac, Pauli, Heisenberg, and Feynman "buffoons",......... not I.
Telekinetic
2.5 / 5 (19) Feb 09, 2013
Plus the "solid block of iron" seemed to lose much volume, magically. Does the crank have any theories at all that he thinks may explain it?


I am not defending the video! But not surprisingly it is clear that Noumenon has never heard of volume and density.


I don't know about chocolate, but liquid iron is less dense than solid iron, so would take up More volume in liquid state, not less, correct? That video seems to show a collapsing volume.

Did you ever consider that there may be other forces capable of collapsing the crystalline structure of iron besides melting it at tremendous temperatures? If it was heat being used in the video, then the paper towel it was sitting on would have begun to burn- which it didn't. And softer materials would pool. I saw some kind of vapor being released from the top of the bar- was it heat, smoke? A real scientist doesn't instantly jump to conclusions of fraud, but searches first for other possible explanations.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (20) Feb 09, 2013
Did you ever consider that there may be other forces capable of collapsing the crystalline structure of iron besides melting it at tremendous temperatures


Yes, thats why I mentioned "magic". You can't just pull "other forces" out of your ass and offer such vacuous nothingness as an explanation. What "other forces" do you mean, and how does it effect the iron? Was iron transformed into a more dense material? If so, what? I would think he would have mentioned that.

If it was heat being used in the video, then the paper towel it was sitting on would have begun to burn- which it didn't.

It is not apparent in that vid when the "iron" was placed on the napkin, so your conclusions are baseless. If it was iron and it deformed like that then creep flow (melt) would have occurred. For all I know it was a box covered in chocolate icing.
Telekinetic
2.3 / 5 (19) Feb 09, 2013
"It is not apparent in that vid when the "iron" was placed on the napkin, so your conclusions are baseless."

The "when" is completely irrelevant, because if it was placed on a paper towel and the iron was red-hot (which it wasn't) the paper would burn in a second. But if you observe the video carefully (which apparently you have not), the pattern on the paper towel is seen while the bar is collapsing in close-ups. If I knew what the acting force was and could explain it but knew it was unique, then I wouldn't share it with the likes of you. Hutchison's lab was confiscated while he was out of the country. Maybe it was the repo man, eh, Noumenon?

Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (20) Feb 09, 2013
if you observe the video carefully (which apparently you have not), the pattern on the paper towel is seen while the bar is collapsing in close-ups


I didn't notice that,.. thank you for pointing that out, because if true, that would significantly add even more hilarity to the video. There is no way you can twist a large iron block like that and not generate enormous amounts of heat,... the kind that burns paper towels.

Hutchison's lab was confiscated while he was out of the country. Maybe it was the repo man, eh, Noumenon?


Ah yes, of course, the conspiracy theory. Has there ever been a fraud without one?
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (20) Feb 09, 2013
,...the government ate my homework.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (20) Feb 09, 2013
'cause some pederasts throw up elaborate smoke screens to cover their deeds.
What, you mean like this guy?
http://www.whatso...ces.html

-I would think that people who reject reality would be more prone to this sort of thing. Want to start a list? Scientists vs mystics? Priests included. Which would be the longer?

Even poor esai who bribes his little niece to stalk people for him, exhibits a preference for unreality by following me all over the site, and desperately uprating himself with his sickpuppet congregation.

Say how's that going esai? 'I own you otto.' That's pretty deviant don't you think?
But if you observe the video carefully (which apparently you have not)
Well no if I recall right he says he moved the block of -wax?- to the towel after the twisting.

But you didn't answer the questions. Why didn't he bang it on the table? Why no magnet? He didn't even pick it up. WHY NOT?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (19) Feb 09, 2013
You know it does resemble something hollow that was having the air sucked out of it. He also did this with a bottle right?
Tausch
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 09, 2013
@Johan
This model did help physics but it is physically impossible and thus just plain WRONG! - J

Particle mechanics helps me. You too. Even today.
Everyone here is a proponent of discrete mechanics. You included.
I see no downside to discrete wave mechanics.
We have to be honest here. A discrete nature of nature is synonymous with or to approximation. Which makes the assertion there is no uncertainty contradictory and inconsistent.

Sometimes I don't understand you.
Here your sentiments:
http://www.pnas.o...full.pdf
johanfprins
1 / 5 (11) Feb 09, 2013
I don't know about chocolate, but liquid iron is less dense than solid iron, so would take up More volume in liquid state, not less, correct? That video seems to show a collapsing volume.
Obviously when there are no other forces acting on "liquid iron". But you are, as regularly demonstrated on this forum far too stupid to understand! Are you a physicist. If you claim you are one: God help us!!!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (12) Feb 09, 2013
johanf:
Glass AND Bose-Einstein condensate:
http://www.news.h...ght.html

While Noumenon is the Jimmy Swaggart here, you may be the Clarence Darrow of the forum. Bravo!


I know this work better tan you and also why it happens: Obviously it light slows down in glass one can also generate other phases in which it slows down: So EFFEN what!?

I just used glass as an example. I agree I should have been more careful not make the statement so that an asshole like you can argue that I have argued that glass is the ONLY material in which this happens. In fact an electron is nothing else but a light wave that has been stopped in its tracks so that its EM energy becomes rest-mass energy!

But why argue about this with a moron like you?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (12) Feb 09, 2013
But you're the one who rejects time dilation despite its repeated experimental support
I am not rejecting this except to point out that if the experimental results are correct these results violate the Special Theory of Relativity according to which time dilation on a moving clock IS NOT POSSIBLE. If these experiments prove to be correct it is proof that Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity MUST be rejected
and QED, despite its experimental support, and have called Dirac, Pauli, Heisenberg, and Feynman "buffoons",......... not I.
Even though Dirac was a buffoon, he also rejected renormalization, on which QED is based as bullshit! If I can subtract two terms which are each infinitely large to get a finite answer and add trillions of these terms, I will also be able to get a "perfect fit" to any experimental result. This is of course meaningless as far as real physics is concerned!
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (22) Feb 09, 2013
In fact an electron is nothing else but a light wave that has been stopped in its tracks so that its EM energy becomes rest-mass energy!


Being called stupid by someone who thinks the above probably works out to being a complement in the end. Cranks can't burn bridges fast enough.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (14) Feb 09, 2013
@Johan
Particle mechanics helps me. You too. Even today.
No it does not since it is misleading Voodoo.
Everyone here is a proponent of discrete mechanics. You included.
Where have I stated this? Nowhere after 2000 did I do this anymore after it was experimentally proved to me that this is bullshit. Don't blame me that I have taught the Voodoo of "particles" to my students until 2000: I just did not know better before then. But an experiment then proved me wrong!

I see no downside to discrete wave mechanics.
I do! Since it requires that an accelerating electron cannot radiate EM waves, while we know that such an electron MUST do this!!

We have to be honest here. A discrete nature of nature is synonymous with or to approximation.
No it is NOT! I do agree that a coherent light wave cannot have less energy than h*(nu) but this does not mean that a coherent light wave with a higher energy consists of separate "particles" each having an energy h*(nu)!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (14) Feb 09, 2013
In fact an electron is nothing else but a light wave that has been stopped in its tracks so that its EM energy becomes rest-mass energy!


Being called stupid by someone who thinks the above probably works out to being a complement in the end. Cranks can't burn bridges fast enough.


Are you a physicist? And why do you not answer my simple question? To repeat: When an entity moves past you and you measure that it follows a definite path, as it acting like a "particle" or acting like a wave? Come on! You claimed to know what the term "honest sceptic" means: Show us some honesty if you really have some!
Tausch
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 09, 2013
No it is NOT! - J


H*(nu) is exactly where approximation starts and ends. The Planck constant. What am I missing here?
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (20) Feb 09, 2013
I don't know about chocolate, but liquid iron is less dense than solid iron, so would take up More volume in liquid state, not less, correct? That video seems to show a collapsing volume.
Obviously when there are no other forces acting on "liquid iron". But you are, as regularly demonstrated on this forum far too stupid to understand! Are you a physicist. If you claim you are one: God help us!!!


After the experiment the "solid block" had the same collapsed and reduced volume shape as during the experiment. If you're not defending the experiment by making things up, what is it that you're doing?
Silverhill
5 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2013
@johanfprins:
In fact an electron is nothing else but a light wave that has been stopped in its tracks so that its EM energy becomes rest-mass energy!
Charge conservation disagrees with you here. A photon is uncharged, so it can't give rise to a single particle (or whatever you choose to call it) that has a charge. (Pair production is OK, of course.)

I am not rejecting [SR time dilation] except to point out that if the experimental results are correct these results violate the Special Theory of Relativity according to which time dilation on a moving clock IS NOT POSSIBLE.
t = t0√(1-(v/c)²) was what we learned in *my* relativity class. What about yours?

(If you choose to answer, I politely request that you refrain from the invective and slurs with which you have been so free here. Such behavior is unbecoming a gentleman and/or a scholar.) Thank you.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (11) Feb 10, 2013
-I would think that people who reject reality would be more prone to this sort of thing.


Then why are you not in full support? YOU are THE master when it comes to rejecting reality!!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (12) Feb 10, 2013
No it is NOT! - J


...What am I missing here?


You are missing the FACT that a photon is NOT a "particle" but a coherent EM-wave with frequency nu which is THE SAME solution of Maxwell's Equations as the one for a coherent light-wave with MORE energy than the energy of an photon. These higher -energy solutions are NOT "granular": Each one is a SINGLE wave in its own right, just like a photon is a single light-wave in its own right. This is what you are missing.

What you are further missing is that an electron moving with speed v is also a coherent EM-wave and thus also a solution of Maxwell's EM equations. It is a very simple task to derive this from Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. Einstein should have seen this but made two blunders after he in a moment of genius realized that c must always be the same.

Blunder 1: time dilation: Time on moving clock is not slower!

Blunder 2: length contraction: Length actually increases to accommodate dBroglie wavelength
johanfprins
1 / 5 (11) Feb 10, 2013
@johanfprins:

I politely request that you refrain from the invective and slurs with which you have been so free here.
In your case it is easy since you are asking relevant questions based on physics and not insulting my background in physics.

an electron.. a light wave that has been stopped in its tracks
Charge conservation disagrees with you here. A photon is uncharged, Good point!

But, when not dropping the term giving the charge-density (rho), Maxwell's equations give you EM-solutions of waves within which there is a distribution of charge. These solutions have different speeds within different inertial reference frames and has thus an IRF within which the EM-energy is stationary: In other words a solution for a charged light-wave which is stationary: Even though this wave moves relative to the other IRF's it is "stopped within its tracks" within its own IRF.

Obviously, there is an issue: Must all stationary light-waves have charge?

further below
johanfprins
1 / 5 (11) Feb 10, 2013
Whether a stationary light-wave has charge or no charge is determined by the boundary conditions which keep the light wave stationary: For example when a light wave is absorbed by an atomic "orbital" electron, it stops in its tracks and adds its now stationary energy to that of the electron-wave without adding extra charge. This is also what happens in the experiments of Lene Hau.

So what must be the boundary conditions which cause charge to appear. I am studying this aspect and have come to the conclusion that it is curved space-time: i.e. gravity. So far everything seems to fit together very well.

In pair formation the photon is neutral and splits up into an electron and a positron which have opposite charges: This implies that the photon has had TWO opposite charges which cancel. Now consider an interaction in curved space-time which also splits the two charges so that the one is moved out of our 3D space across a fourth dimension: A single charge remains within our 3D space.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (11) Feb 10, 2013
Thus, a solitary electron is neutrally charged since it forms a dipole across a fourth dimension. This means that there cannot be an electric field-energy around a solitary electron within our 3D space. Renormalization is NOT required when modelling a solitary electron

The electron's EM energy (m*c^2) is contained within a limited volume as determined by its wave-interaction with a positive-charge across the fourth dimension. Only when two or more electrons are brought together within our 3D space do their charges interact within our 3D space.

Furthermore, the opposite charge along the fourth dimension acts as a restoring force to keep the electron stationary, thus explaining Galileo's inertia. In addition when accelerating the electron, it has to resonate with the charge across the fourth dimension, and therefore it emits EM radiation. Maxwell's equations only allow the emission of EM-waves when opposite charges oscillate relative to one another.

Thank you for your courtesy!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (10) Feb 10, 2013
t = t0√(1-(v/c)²) was what we learned in *my* relativity class. What about yours?


I nearly missed this easy question. I will rewrite your equation as ts=(gamma)tm where tm is the time at which an event occurs at the position of the moving clock.

the clocks were synchronized so that tm=ts=0. After a time ts has elapsed on the stationary clock, the moving clock shows atime tm which is not zero, and has moved a distance Dm given by:

Dm=v*tm (1)

Now let us transform the time tm using the Lorentz transformation (LT). One obtains a time within the reference frame of the stationary clock which we will donate t both read zero. After a time tLs *where L stands for LT: which is given by:

tLs=(gamma)*tm. (2)

From this formula Einstein claimed that the moving clock keeps slower time. But Einstein did not do the FULL LT: The position of the moving clock is also LT'ed to obtain that:

DmL=(gamma)*(vtm) (4)

From (1) one has that DmL=(gamma)*Dm, and from (2) DmL=v*tsL.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (11) Feb 10, 2013
Firstly, when the time on the moving clock is tm, this clock is a distance Dm from the stationary clock, and when the time on the stationary clock is tsL, the distance between the clocks is DmL which is larger than Dm.

Thus the time tm on the moving clock is NOT simultaneous with the time tsL on the stationary clock: Thus you cannot conclude, as Einstein has done, that the moving clock keeps time at a slower rate than the stationary clock.

What the LT transformation really means is that an event at time tm on the moving clock a distance Dm away from the stationary clock, is observed at a later time tsL on the stationary clock after the moving clock has moved away further to be at a distance DmL from the stationary clock.

From this result it simple to see that the two clocks MUST keep the same time, so that they read the same time when the event occurs at time tm on the moving clock, AND when the event is subsequently recorded by the stationary clock at time tsL!

QED
johanfprins
1 / 5 (12) Feb 10, 2013
Correction of my second last post:

Now let us transform the time tm using the Lorentz transformation (LT). One obtains a time within the reference frame of the stationary clock which we will donate tsL (where L stands for LT): which is given by:

tsL=(gamma)*tm. (2)

Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (21) Feb 10, 2013
Why aren't you using the space-time interval to determine distance,...

s = (Δr² - c²Δt²)^½
johanfprins
1 / 5 (11) Feb 10, 2013
Why aren't you using the space-time interval to determine distance,...

s = (Δr² - c²Δt²)^½


Because such a space-time interval is physically impossible. To have a four-dimensional interval, the coordinates within such a space must be linearly independent. This means that in a four-dimensional space (x,y,z,w) the expression:

s^2=x^2+y^2+z^2+w^2

can only have a value for s=0 when (x,y,z,w) are independently EACH equal to zero:

i.e. x=0, y=0, z=0, and w=0.

This is also the situation in differential format. If this rule does not apply, there are not unique distances within this space which can be used to model paths between two different four-dimensional points.

In the case of Minkowski space the coordinates (x,y,z,w=ict) are not linearly independent since on a wave-front you can have that s^2=0 without x, y and z being independently zero. Einstein was correct Minkowski was a fool who did not understand mathematics! Just a pity that Einstein was later swayed!
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (18) Feb 10, 2013
We have already been over this, here, (& here, & here),... I just think you should point out straight away that you disagree with Minkowski, and then procede to explain why.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (12) Feb 10, 2013
We have already been over this, http://phys.org/n...tml),... I just think you should point out straight away that you disagree with Minkowski, and then procede to explain why.


I have just done so! The coordinates within Minkowski space are not linearly independent as they MUST be to model a four-dimensional coordinate-space.

If they were to be linearly independent a spherical wave-front would have been impossible. We know from experiment that the latter is not the case; and since experimental results are the final arbiters, this impeccably proves that Minkowski's space-time is an abortion of mathematics. Nearly just as bad as renormalization!
Tausch
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 10, 2013
Oh dear. Can a photon interact with itself? And...
"According to the principles of quantum mechanics, particles do not actually have trajectories through space. Motion can only be described in terms of waves, and the momentum p of an individual particle is related to its wavelength λ by p = h/λ. In terms of empirical measurements, the wavelength can only be determined by observing a change in the wave between one point in space and another nearby point (mathematically, by differentiation). "
So if QFT is hogwash, then I am confused. And what are they doing at LHC?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (11) Feb 10, 2013
Oh dear. Can a photon interact with itself?

It is a single HOLISTIC wave which changes "instantaneously" in shape-size when its its boundary conditions require this.
"According to the principles of quantum mechanics, particles do not actually have trajectories through space.

This is a moronic statement without first defining what a "particle" is!
Motion can only be described in terms of waves,

Correct.
and the momentum p of a particle is related to its wavelength λ by p = h/λ.

What "particle"? This is the case for all coherent EM-waves.
In terms of empirical measurements, the wavelength can only be determined by observing a change in the wave between one point in space and another nearby point (mathematically, by differentiation).

So what?!
So if QFT is hogwash, then I am confused.

Why are you confused when both matter and light consist of EM waves withou any Voodoo?
And what are they doing at LHC?
Creating the biggest circus EVER
Tausch
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 10, 2013
What "particle"? - J

The one you get when a wave is quantized?
Just a wild guess and I'm cheating - falling into the same rut as Einstein when he introduced his photoelectric effect.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (12) Feb 10, 2013
What "particle"? - J


The one you get when a wave is quantized?


A "quantized" wave is the smallest energy coherent wave with that frequency which can be emitted or detected: Higher energy coherent waves with the same frequency ARE NOT "quantized".

A "photon" is still an EM-wave and will ALWAYS be a wave. Only an idiot will call a coherent wave with energy h*(nu)=m*c^2 moving with a momentum p acting at its center-of-mass of this wave a "particle".

Why introduce this "UNDEFINED" Voodoo term? For God's sake?

Just a wild guess and I'm cheating - falling into the same rut as Einstein when he introduced his photoelectric effect.


I am delighted that you realize this! It is sad that the leading, mainstream theoretical physicists during the past 100 years were ALL too stupid to realize this. We urgently need tom rewrite our text books on "modern physics" in order to remove the Voodoo: Why cling to irrationality? Jeff Randy: PLEASE HELP HERE!!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (18) Feb 10, 2013
Holistic. Now theres a nasty word. How does one express it mathematically? All I could find was this:

"Holistic Mathematics (Holomatics).
Standard (conventional) mathematics is understood - in formal terms - as an exclusively rational discipline and is based on the somewhat rigid cognitive type appreciation of the middle of the psychological spectrum. Such understanding by its very nature is well suited for the specialised analytic interpretation of symbols and is associated with our conventional notions of science. However beyond the middle level lie several "higher" spiritual levels of understanding. Here a more dynamic and refined cognition unfolds where reason and (spiritual) intuition increasingly interpenetrate in experience. This understanding in turn enables an entirely new scientific appreciation which is inherently suited for a truly integral - as opposed to merely analytic - interpretation of reality."

-Spiritual johan? Is this the difference between particle and grain?
Tausch
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 10, 2013
Why introduce this "UNDEFINED" Voodoo term? For God's sake? -J

I don't know what you are.
I call you Johan.
Everybody gives names to undefined objects or effects.
Gravity is hardly defined. Described in detail though.
Maybe the prefix 'dark' before every undefined label might help...oh wait, hmmm...
dark energy, dark matter, ... you alright with dark particle?
dark duality? dark complementarity? You get the picture.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (13) Feb 11, 2013
Holistic. Now theres a nasty word.


Not for somebody with brains. Genl. Jan Smuts wrote a book on it. It only means that there are aspects in nature which confound dissection into smaller parts.

that How does one express it mathematically?
Maxwell's differential wave equation for a coherent wave gives a holistic solution. The wave is a single entity which moves so that the motion at any point within the volume of the wave is connected with the motion at all the other points within the volume of the wave. IT forms a single holistic pattern, which cannot be dissected into smaller parts without destroying the holism of the wave.

-Spiritual johan?
That their might be spiritual aspects to holism is not of relevance here. I am discussing physics and this is the reason why I am not a fool like Heisenberg who claimed that "a path only comes into existence when you observe it". The latter is not even spiritual it is just plain Voodoo.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (11) Feb 11, 2013
I don't know what you are.
So I am not a "human being"?

I call you Johan.
That is not defining to what collective I belong!

Everybody gives names to undefined objects or effects.
Bullshit! Only when you cross a fowl and a duck, you are forced to call it "Harry".

Gravity is hardly defined.
Giving it the name Johan does not define it.

"Particle" means that the entity belongs to a collective where each member of the collective has similarities to the other members of the collective that defines why one calls it a "particle". If you point out an animal and tell me it is a "human being" and I ask you why is it a human being, you will be able to name the characteristics of a human being. I have tried for many years to find a single physicist to define the characteristics of an electron which were used by J J Thomson to call an electron a "particle". I have not yet obtained an answer!

Tausch
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 11, 2013
Energy is undefined.
There are numberless fundamental aspects used as descriptions characterized with words, symbols and language to obtain the closest possible meaning to a definition.

An irreducible, elementary, indivisible entity is a good description of a particle.

Of course everyone knows you cannot treat angular momentum quantum
with the characteristics of a particle.

So you win for now.

In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction. Of course everyone knows this is where energy to stored...not defined.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (11) Feb 11, 2013
Energy is undefined.
Since when?

An irreducible, elementary, indivisible entity is a good description of a particle.


Indivisible entity of WHAT?

In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction.
Of WHAT physical entity?

Are you trying to be funny? Well, forget it! You are not funny: I would say rather more pathetic in this instance!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (16) Feb 13, 2013
Not for somebody with brains. Genl. Jan Smuts wrote a book on it. It only means that there are aspects in nature which confound dissection into smaller parts.
What, this guy?

"While in academia, Smuts pioneered the concept of holism, defined as "the tendency in nature to form wholes that are greater than the sum of the parts through creative evolution" in his 1926 book, Holism and Evolution."

-And when we look it up;

Holistic - 
a. Emphasizing the importance of the whole and the interdependence of its parts.
b. Concerned with wholes rather than analysis or separation into parts: holistic medicine; holistic ecology.

-So what does this have to do with electron waves? Are you saying, like smuts and the dictionary, that these waves are the sum of smaller parts which, together, are greater than the sum of the parts? Ie particulate in nature?

Or do you just enjoy dropping names and words to try to add some credence to an otherwise empty argument?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (11) Feb 13, 2013
Are you saying, like smuts and the dictionary, that these waves are the sum of smaller parts which, together, are greater than the sum of the parts?


You are starting to THINK! It is probably VEEERY traumatic for you!

In the case of a laser beam, smaller parts are emitted by the active medium, which then form a holistic stationary wave in the laser cavity, which is greater than the sum of its parts. When having a semi-transparent window, this holistic stationary wave emits a SINGLE holistic coherent wave which is also greater than the sum of the parts that formed it within the laser cavity.

When extracting electrons into the space (cavity) between an n-type diamond and an anode, they also form a single, holistic wave which is greater than the individual electrons that have been extracted.

This macro- holistic wave of electrons, which I can form between the diamond and the anode, is superconducting up to 400 to 500 C. Shows you what holism can do!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (16) Feb 13, 2013
I am starting to think that you are harder to make fun of than I thought.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (12) Feb 14, 2013
I am starting to think that you are harder to make fun of than I thought.


Thank you! At last you are considering new evidence like a real scientist should be doing! I am not just glad for myself, but also for your sake. I do not mind to be proved wrong as long as it is based on physics-logic and/or experiment! But not by the inane wisecracks of an utter fool like Q-Star!
Q-Star
2.6 / 5 (18) Feb 14, 2013
But not by the inane wisecracks of an utter fool like Q-Star!


Sir, I told ya day before yesterday, ya could have the last word, in ONE post. For free. But ooooh nooooo, ya don't know when to give it up.

Wisecracks ya say?

Excrement?
Criminal?
Abortion?
Idiot?
Moron?
Stupid?
Liar?
Pathological?
Coward?

And the most mature of the many,,,

Stink breath?

Who do ya think ya are? One of Plato's Philosopher-Kings?

Ya are nothing more than a social miscreant. An angry old man. A misanthrope. That is all. And it is apparent that ya are truly dissatisfied with your lot in life. That is not my fault, ya must be more introspective to find the answer.

When I call YOU names, they are based in reality. Unlike your own self's inane insults, mine are not just a string of meaningless invectives, they are quite in line with your real actions, your real demeanor, and your real words.

So call me some silly thing, and I'll poke fun at ya for it. Have ya tried "doggie doo-doo" yet?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (12) Feb 14, 2013
When I call YOU names, they are based in reality.


"Reality" as seen by a mentally disturbed mind, which therefore hide criminally behind anonymity: You are disgusting and I am sure your breath must be stinking: How else for somebody like you who clearly likes to wallow in a cesspool!

Unlike your own self's inane insults, mine are not just a string of meaningless invectives, they are quite in line with your real actions, your real demeanor, and your real words.


Considering YOUR "real actions, real demeanor, and your real words" my comments concerning you have all along been compliments. It is probably impossible that a word can exist in the vocabulary of mankind which can be used to really insult a miscreant like you.

Q-Star
2.3 / 5 (16) Feb 14, 2013
When I call YOU names, they are based in reality.


You are disgusting and I am sure your breath must be stinking: How else for somebody like you who clearly likes to wallow in a cesspool!


Well I guess ya gave me what for, oh my goodness,
ya are just too much for me.

Unlike your own self's inane insults, mine are not just a string of meaningless invectives, they are quite in line with your real actions, your real demeanor, and your real words.


Considering YOUR "real actions, real demeanor, and your real words" my comments concerning you have all along been compliments.


Yeah,it's hard to come up with a truly uncomplimentary word to use on someone stupid enough to object to being called stupid, moronic and idiotic. Keep trying, maybe ya will find one.

Now leave me be I'll let ya have the last word. Again. But only ONE post. More than one, I'll assume ya like making yourself look foolish with your insults & enjoy my help.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (12) Feb 14, 2013
Now leave me be I'll let ya have the last word.
Why do I need to repeat what is so obvious about you that any person with a normal brain can see it for him/herself?
Q-Star
2.4 / 5 (17) Feb 14, 2013
Why do I need to repeat what is so obvious about you that any person with a normal brain can see it for him/herself?


What part of ONE POST gives such a genius like ya such a problem? Yesterday (many other days too) ya were crowing about how good ya were at the maths,, but it seem ya are having trouble with the first couple of counting numbers. ONE comes before TWO. When I say ya can have the last word if ya keep it to ONE post, it means that TWO posts must mean that ya want more of my attention.

Here is what it is:

Ya are a misanthropic, sad, angry man. Your own ego is the seed of all your misery, not me, not anyone else on this forum.

I am sorry the world doesn't acknowledge your genius. I am sorry that ya can't find any peers to review your Nobel caliber insights into the true nature of reality. I am not so sorry that I find much amusement in your foot stamping and huffing.

If ya want the last word, ONE post is all ya get. Use it wisely.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (12) Feb 14, 2013
I am sorry the world doesn't acknowledge your genius.


The "world" does not have to.

I am sorry that ya can't find any peers to review your Nobel caliber insights into the true nature of reality


So am I. It only proves that there are not any "peers" who have the integrity to judge new ideas objectively an honestly anymore.

I am not so sorry that I find much amusement in your foot stamping and huffing.


What "foot-stamping and huffing and puffing"?: Can you not see what a liar and scumbag you are? If you have anything to convey on physics with honesty and integrity, then first post who you are and what your qualifications are. If you do not do this you are THE scumbag of scumbags who EVER lived.

You are probably a delinquent 15 year old teenager who is so high on pot that you have permanent brain damage!

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 15, 2013
From my experience at this site, trolls who assert they are defending science are the ones giving themselves and science a bad name.
So sorry ryggy if science has discovered that biblical events like the flood, the exodus, and the genocidal joshuan rampage never happened; and that people like adam and eve, noah, moses, jesus the water-walker and jehovah himself (and his loving wife asherah) never existed as described.

But this only gives religionists who continue to insist that they did despite overwhelming EVIDENCE to the contrary, a bad name.

And most people here will continue to remind you and all religionists who show up here, about these unfortunate Truths. Because it is only right and proper to respect Science based on evidence, and to reject superstitions which of necessity are based on the REJECTION of evidence.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 15, 2013
From my experience at this site, trolls who assert they are defending science are the ones giving themselves and science a bad name.
So sorry ryggy if science has discovered that biblical events like the flood, the exodus, and the genocidal joshuan rampage never happened; and that people like adam and eve, noah, moses, jesus the water-walker and jehovah himself (and his loving wife asherah) never existed as described.

But this only gives religionists who continue to insist that they did despite overwhelming EVIDENCE to the contrary, a bad name.

And most people here will continue to remind you and all religionists who show up here, about these unfortunate Truths. Because it is only right and proper to respect Science based on evidence, and to reject superstitions which of necessity are based on the REJECTION of evidence.
Huh. Wrong thread. Wonder how that happened.