Bob and Alice

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Member
Joined 2002
Paid Member
I note that the latest spec birds dont even have SA GPS.gov: Selective Availability

I can't find a reference for the test in the 90s that took out IIRC most of californias mobiles but there is this from more recently What Happens If GPS Fails? - The Atlantic

Mobile phones really shouldn't work, and that's from someone who spent half his career working on the network technology![/QUOTE

Interesting the talk about e LORAN now that LORAN is gone. THE FAA is getting rid of many VOR transmitters due to cost but there will still be Minimum Operational Network (MON) of them in case of GPS outage. I still keep a stand alone unit and a paper map.
 

Attachments

  • 5D7E532C-BC03-4752-B2FF-70C89FB9DFF6.png
    5D7E532C-BC03-4752-B2FF-70C89FB9DFF6.png
    103.7 KB · Views: 80
My interest in classic QM waned after studying the 1927 Solvay agreement on how to handle what was clearly two different worlds. To prevent problems and conflicts it was agreed to use Einstein's view in the macro world and Bohr's in the quantum world. It had also been a topic at the 1911 meeting.

This is counterintuitive as the plysical laws of the universe must be scale invariant.

So I'm saying QM is not necessarly in agreement with relativity.

In a way, entanglement, non-local action or "spooky action" is a new frontier and some old theories may be scuttled or heavily appended.

I thought this excellent colorized pic gives nice view of the 1927 Solvay attendees.
 

Attachments

  • 94105D6B-C72F-478E-8A3D-F89930145BFB.jpeg
    94105D6B-C72F-478E-8A3D-F89930145BFB.jpeg
    279.7 KB · Views: 131
Last edited:
jfetter said:
So I'm saying QM is not necessarly in agreement with relativity.
'Classical' QM, as understood in 1927, is not in agreement with special relativity. We have moved on from there. Relativistic QM (e.g. Dirac electron theory), which became quantum field theory and then the 'Standard Model' is fully in accord with SR. Dirac, by combining QM and SR, was led to a prediction of the existence of antiparticles; experiment shows that he was right.

We have yet to successfully combine QM and General Relativity, but a lot of people are working on it. I made a tiny contribution to this field 40 years ago, when I and my supervisor exposed a problem with dimensional regularisation of spin-2 fields.
 
Not attempting to keep this thread alive, but a third missing factor rising above QM and Relativity (SR and General) keeps bugging me.
Any grand theory would have to explain life itself.

Here is a simple paragraph discussing 'life' from a Pier REBESA patent application.
There are probably thousands of applications and granted patents in many similar classifications.

US20150173380A1 - Method and apparatus for the amplification of electrical charges in biological systems or bioactive matter using an inductive disk with a fixed geometric trace
- Google Patents


"While it has been scientifically established that all biological systems contain DNA and RNA macro-molecules, at the same time, it cannot be affirmed that the source of life is found in this integrant. Even in the most advanced genetic laboratories, rather than being able to make living matter from the basic inanimate constituents, scientists are required to work with biological material which is already alive."

Some more from same.
Google Patents
These are not vanity patents.

-
 
Not attempting to keep this thread alive, but a third missing factor rising above QM and Relativity (SR and General) keeps bugging me.
Any grand theory would have to explain life itself.

Does our present understanding of chemistry and physics notably fail our understanding of life? I'd argue "no". We're able to model protein function to a pretty tight degree (colleagues down the hall from me did work in this field). The inordinate complexity and variation and difficulty in understanding all the forms of life is exceptionally difficult, for sure. Nor have we been too terribly successful in engineering our own enzymes. How much of that requires new physics/chemistry versus a greater understanding of the fundamentals we already have, though?

Here is a simple paragraph discussing 'life' from a Pier REBESA patent application.
There are probably thousands of applications and granted patents in many similar classifications.

US20150173380A1 - Method and apparatus for the amplification of electrical charges in biological systems or bioactive matter using an inductive disk with a fixed geometric trace
- Google Patents


"While it has been scientifically established that all biological systems contain DNA and RNA macro-molecules, at the same time, it cannot be affirmed that the source of life is found in this integrant. Even in the most advanced genetic laboratories, rather than being able to make living matter from the basic inanimate constituents, scientists are required to work with biological material which is already alive."

Some more from same.
Google Patents
These are not vanity patents.

-

The above quote would certainly be misleading any definition of "life" as I know it. Certainly nucleic acids are important, but insufficient. Which is why we haven't "made" life de novo, as the complexity has us beat.

That patent certainly doesn't inspire.
 
jfetter said:
Not attempting to keep this thread alive, but a third missing factor rising above QM and Relativity (SR and General) keeps bugging me.
Any grand theory would have to explain life itself.
This is only a requirement for those who have a strictly naturalistic world view. Anyway, you seem to have moved the goalposts by claiming that your real problem with SR is that it doesn't explain life? Start with something much simpler: explain GPS without using SR or GR. That is, explain to us why GPS falls apart within a few minutes if the SR/GR corrections are not in place.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.