M. Gregg, QM isn't something you can talk about terribly casually, so an ostensibly simple question like the one you're asking is either purely metaphysical or extremely complex.
I hope you can appreciate that it can be frustrating to try to interact without at least having some core components of vocabulary and understanding to work from.
I hope you can appreciate that it can be frustrating to try to interact without at least having some core components of vocabulary and understanding to work from.
Thank's,
Its nice to have constructive posts.
What I'm asking for in an opinion on the possibility of the two versions of nothing. ie between particles there is not nothing..etc The idea of virtual particles etc.
Then the opinion if you think its possible to have absolute nothing.<<the idea of size and nothing is a problem.
The two versions of nothing were coined by Micho Kaku..
Absolute nothing= no energy of any kind.
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
Perhaps this will remove some of the confusion,
Its not the main information but its the idea in a nutshell.
Big Bang Theory Flawed | Michio Kaku | Professor Andrei Linde | Neil Turok - Before the Big Bang
So what I'm asking is can anyone see how you can have absolute nothing?
So what's the main difference..OK its energy..
Regards
M. Gregg
Its not the main information but its the idea in a nutshell.
Big Bang Theory Flawed | Michio Kaku | Professor Andrei Linde | Neil Turok - Before the Big Bang
So what I'm asking is can anyone see how you can have absolute nothing?
So what's the main difference..OK its energy..
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
SY - just caught a way too brief BBC "documentary" on Netflix last night - "the Fantastic Mr Feynman" - one helluva guy, and surely sometimes it must have been a challenge being the smartest guy in most rooms, and not giving a tinker's dam about what the other folks thought.
I don't think one needs to understand 10% of the technical stuff to enjoy the hell out of his "memoirs" - probably good prep for the Lectures series, would you think?
I don't think one needs to understand 10% of the technical stuff to enjoy the hell out of his "memoirs" - probably good prep for the Lectures series, would you think?
I won't bother repeating what I said in post 28#
You see I think its interesting to discuss issues you sir are a bully.
But you already know that..And if you could think past it you would realise that I will also raise awareness of dangers to others at risk to myself if I think it might help!
Ref Game over..
Regards
M. Gregg
I enjoyed each of them on their own, and for different reasons. The Lectures assume a good grasp of freshman math, but nothing beyond that. You can get the essence of his really novel path integral approach to QM without being able to work through the more rigorous stuff, but if you CAN follow the math, it's even better. The real beauty is how much information you can extract from just basic QM axioms and symmetry operations.
Leonard Susskind http://www.amazon.ca/Quantum-Mechan...=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=0465036678
Available everywhere (wink-wink), very easy to read (well, as easy as any other entry level QM book).
Available everywhere (wink-wink), very easy to read (well, as easy as any other entry level QM book).
Honestly, it's not that difficult.
PS - There is a current pop science book "Life on the Edge" that at least can function as an introduction to QM concepts that didn't find their way into my freshman physics courses back in 1968.
Each piece, or part, of the whole of nature is always merely an approximation to the complete truth, or the complete truth so far as we know it. In fact everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know we do not know all the laws as yet.
The imagination of Nature is far, far greater than the imagination of man
tubesuy: that was past tense
The imagination of Nature is far, far greater than the imagination of man
tubesuy: that was past tense
"Ideas" are what arty folk discuss on late night TV. They can talk for 25 minutes without actually saying anything. They use big words to hide the fact that they are saying nothing.M Gregg said:
My experience is that almost all questions about QM asked by layman are such that the questioner does not understand his own question sufficiently well to even begin to comprehend the answer. The usual outcome is that the answer is rejected (usually by employing classical or even mechanical thinking) and QM pronounced to be bunkum.
Those who wish to intelligently discuss QM have first to study and attempt to understand QM. That unavoidably requires some maths. Anything else is merely late night TV.
If you're content with nonsense, sure. To have an actual useful and intelligent discussion, a basic knowledge of the area being discussed is requisite. Try discussing merits and demerits of GICs with someone having no knowledge of Ohm's Law, Kirchoff's Law, Thevenin, or Norton, but who read a Stereophile article once where the reviewer said that they destroy sound.
Einstein may have had a problem with some aspects of QM, but not because he didn't understand basic physics!
There is no moderation on this site, correction there is attempted moderation on this site by individuals that think they have a right to stop free speech!
The fact that you consider ideas rubbish is irrelevant..it is still free speech!
If people want to discuss over coffee the latest idea in a magazine on QM they have a right to do so!
There is nothing wrong with people thinking about a magnetic field as virtual particles and applying that to electrical theory..the fact that they don't have a doctorate in QM has no relevance. The fact that people use the word electron in an electrical terminology according to some here should not be used because it has QM connotations<<so is it that people should remain completely blind to anything because they don't have a place in MIT?
You probably discuss flowers but you are not a botanist.
I think its disgusting behaviour to try to suppress enquiry and discussion.
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.