Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Experiment Confirms a Crucial Property of Electrons, Unfortunately
Gizmodo ^ | 10 Oct, 2017 | Ryan F. Mandelbaum

Posted on 10/11/2017 7:35:44 PM PDT by MtnClimber

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last
To: MtnClimber
Sheldon Cooper is deeply saddened.


21 posted on 10/11/2017 9:01:01 PM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

“The Standard Model is surprisingly accurate.”

Yes it is until we start playing with dice for the Universe per Einstein. Einstein was wrong and so admitted. Heisenberg was right but neither Einstein nor Heisenberg understood what they observed. Once you observe you have changed what you observe and it is no longer a valid observation, and this leads to quantum entanglement which is very very very strange. Not one physicists understand it. They can use it and manipulate it but they do not understand it.

I doubt anyone will understand. It is all about uncertainty.
Per Einstein “ God does not play dice with the Universe.” He was wrong and admitted he was wrong but to this day not one understands why God plays dice, but he does.

I think God has a sense of humor for us mere mortals.


22 posted on 10/11/2017 10:13:16 PM PDT by cpdiii (Deckhand, Roughneck, Mud-man, Geologist, Pilot, Pharmacist, CONSTITUTION WORTH DYING FOR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: akalinin

Yet Newton remains the standard within the practical realm, up to and including interplanetary travel. The Newtonian view has been humbled, no doubt, in having to acknowledge its status as an approximation, but it carries on.


23 posted on 10/12/2017 12:08:52 AM PDT by dr_lew (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cpdiii
...but to this day not one understands why God plays dice, but he does.

There's irony in that, since the metaphor of DICE is entirely classical, insofar as practical uncertainty in the roll of the dice overshadows whatever quantum uncertainty may lurk at its base.

OTOH, I often feel that THE QUANTUM does lurk closer to us than we recognize.

24 posted on 10/12/2017 12:15:44 AM PDT by dr_lew (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 6SJ7; AdmSmith; AFPhys; Arkinsaw; allmost; aristotleman; autumnraine; bajabaja; ...
Thanks MtnClimber.

· String Theory Ping List ·
Silly String Ordinance
· Join · Bookmark · Topics · Google ·
· View or Post in 'blog · post a topic · subscribe ·


25 posted on 10/12/2017 1:19:12 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (www.tapatalk.com/groups/godsgravesglyphs/, forum.darwincentral.org, www.gopbriefingroom.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

There was even a period before the Special Theory of Relativity when physicists would say “everything obeys Newtonian mechanics, except for electric current.”

...

Yep. A lot of the fundamental work for relativity was already done by Lorentz and Poincare. But Einstein was the only one to come up with the proper reasoning.


26 posted on 10/12/2017 2:02:38 AM PDT by Moonman62 (Make America Great Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber
“There are things that we see in the large-scale universe that can’t be explained, like different amounts of matter and antimatter or things like dark matter and dark energy.”

From the little bit I have been able to understand from reading a lot of other writers far more intelligent than I, the main reason they keep looking for the lack of symmetry is because they have made these assumptions based on a non-created universe. There is no actual proof of dark matter or dark energy, they made up these things to explain why the universe does what it does, without a creator. There is more matter than anti-matter, because the creator made more.

If you start out with a prejudice that one set of answers is totally impossible and will not even be entertained, than you have to go through a lot of mental gymnastics to make the other answers fit.
27 posted on 10/12/2017 3:05:55 AM PDT by wbarmy (I chose to be a sheepdog once I saw what happens to the sheep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

Such a negative story.....


28 posted on 10/12/2017 3:26:22 AM PDT by nesnah (Liberals - the petulant children of politics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

I just wish they’d figure out a way to make the d@mn little things stay where they are and not shock me in the winter.


29 posted on 10/12/2017 3:37:44 AM PDT by Hardastarboard (Three most annoying words on the internet - "Watch the Video")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dr_lew
Yet Newton remains the standard within the practical realm, up to and including interplanetary travel. The Newtonian view has been humbled, no doubt, in having to acknowledge its status as an approximation, but it carries on.

For those of us not traveling anywhere near c, Newton works just fine, and is a lot easier to understand intuitively.
30 posted on 10/12/2017 7:17:08 AM PDT by farming pharmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Or until somebody noticed Mercury’s orbit wasn’t what it was predicted to be.

This anomalous rate of precession of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit was first recognized in 1859 as a problem in celestial mechanics, by Urbain Le Verrier. His reanalysis of available timed observations of transits of Mercury over the Sun’s disk from 1697 to 1848 showed that the actual rate of the precession disagreed from that predicted from Newton’s theory by 38 (arc seconds) per tropical century (later re-estimated at 43” by Simon Newcomb in 1882).


I first heard about this in one of the 'Titanium Physicists' podcasts, which I highly recommend.
31 posted on 10/12/2017 7:20:32 AM PDT by farming pharmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

distressingly accurate... according to the article


32 posted on 10/12/2017 8:13:21 AM PDT by samtheman (As an oil exporter, why would the Russians prefer Trump to Hillary? (Get it or be stupid.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

They do love their made up gibberish “science” though, don’t they?


33 posted on 10/12/2017 9:02:13 AM PDT by Bullish (Whatever it takes to MAGA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cpdiii
Per Einstein "God does not play dice with the Universe." He was wrong and admitted he was wrong

Yes, Einstein was wrong: he thought he made a mistake several times but it turned out he was wrong.

There are many explanations for the observed experimental results, all certain to be wrong, but sometimes useful to pretend they are true. All explanations have to give up either on locality or causality. The Copenhagen interpretation gave up on causality to keep locality, a reasonable choice, concluding the universe is fundamentally random. However recent experiments have proven the universe is in fact non-local. That puts deterministic explanations back on the table.

An article if interested: Fluid Tests Hint at Concrete Quantum Reality

34 posted on 10/12/2017 10:10:54 AM PDT by Reeses (A journey of a thousand miles begins with a government pat down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

“There was even a period before the Special Theory of Relativity when physicists would say ‘everything obeys Newtonian mechanics, except for electric current.’”

As Albert Einstein said: “The special theory of relativity owes its origins to Maxwell’s equations of the electromagnetic field.” Newton and Maxwell were the two greatest inspirations for Einstein’s contributions.


35 posted on 10/12/2017 11:28:25 AM PDT by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: riverdawg

As Albert Einstein said: “The special theory of relativity owes its origins to Maxwell’s equations of the electromagnetic field.”

...

Maybe, but Einstein also said that all he needed was the observation of stellar aberration and the Fizeau experiments to come up with Special Relativity.

Einstein’s three miracle papers of 1905 also required the belief that particles were real. That may not sound like much today, but in the mainstream physics of the time, it was all but a forbidden belief. That’s why Lorenz and Poincare couldn’t come up with Special Relativity, but Einstein could. Einstein wasn’t a physicist in 1905 and his university work was based on the concept of particles. It could be that’s because some of Einstein’s university advisors didn’t like Einstein. Almost all famous physicists also had famous advisors. That’s not the case with Einstein. In fact, he had to switch advisors because of disagreements.

When Boltzman developed a theory that relied on particles, it is said that he was driven to suicide by the physics community for such heresy. When Planck did the same he apologized profusely.


36 posted on 10/12/2017 1:41:24 PM PDT by Moonman62 (Make America Great Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: nesnah
" Such a negative story....."

Ohm....my, your resistance is showing.

37 posted on 10/14/2017 10:34:54 PM PDT by crazy scenario ( Remember me, I'm a fixer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson