Merged Theory links Newtonian/Quantum the amazing Frank Znidarsic

[Hellbound]

There has been a dispute about the use of the word "phonon", which I think FZ treats as a compression wave.
It has been denied that such a thing exists.

No.

Phonons exist, and are defined in science.

However, the phonons in real science are NOT the phonons FZ uses.

And what people are saying is impossible is a "compression wave" inside an atomic nucleus.

 

[Dancing David]

.
Even if Newtonian physics hit you right in the face as in the WTC7 case, you would probably find a way out and claim something - and here all what you had learned in QM magically disappears - completely improbable that even contradicts empirical data (no steel frame high-rise building has ever collapsed due to fire - there have been fires burning for 48h straight with much higher temperatures without reducing the whole building to a pile of rubble neatly arranged between adjacent buildings).

Sorry, you belong in the CT, I shan't respond further to this kind of nonsense.

 

[Dancing David]

There has been a dispute about the use of the word "phonon", which I think FZ treats as a compression wave.
It has been denied that such a thing exists.

How do you get a compression wave with asymptotic freedom? Compression wave, where doing what?

 

[Tubbythin]

I found another forum that discusses FZs work and other interesting stuff.
Those people are actually *reading* the stuff. And they try to use it.
Look at quantumtransition dot com.
This is something I want to see here too. People like most of you want to destroy everything that doesn't accord to the Mainstream. This has always been a bad idea.
But might not be the only phenomenon here, I would guess.
Even if Newtonian physics hit you right in the face as in the WTC7 case, you would probably find a way out and claim something - and here all what you had learned in QM magically disappears - completely improbable that even contradicts empirical data (no steel frame high-rise building has ever collapsed due to fire - there have been fires burning for 48h straight with much higher temperatures without reducing the whole building to a pile of rubble neatly arranged between adjacent buildings).

I hope I'm right so I can rant a little more ;-)

The above wouldn't be a load of baseless claims with zero supporting evidence would they? Oh yes, I do believe they would.

 

[Chronopolitan]

Sorry, you belong in the CT, I shan't respond further to this kind of nonsense.

I knew it. Should have placed a bet on that one...

 

[Chronopolitan]

Ok, my friends, that settles it.

Unlike QM, people on this forum are extremely predictable.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
[People typing: "This is indeed easily predictable: You write crap, we react to it accordingly"]

See? I win again. ;-)

But seriously. You obviously don't want to think other models if they try to start totally new at some point. Imagine, you're in a dead end. Where do you start looking for another way? Right - where you last had an opportunity to branch off.
This is obviously not the case in physics. Now you need fancy "dark matter" to explain the "wrong" measurements.

According to Kurt Gödel, your theory will either be contradictory (GR-QM) or incomplete (can't compute Time Zero for the Big Bang)
This is where people normally insert "G*D".
Or "G*del".


As for the compression wave - I try to understand FZ's paper - this is the photon "crashing" into the atom, thus producing a resonance which has to be matched with the atom's resonance that is of the electron in the shell and the proton which obviously cannot eat the electron.
FZ talks about "impedance matching", a term used in electro engineering. Fz is an engineer after all...
He obviously tries to find the propagation of this "collision" of waves somehow.
What is the Standard Model for this, and how could or could not FZ have found a different approach to the same phenomena.
Again, I want to know, like JCM wants to know. I still, after 7 pages of thread, have no idea why FZ's approach doesn't make any sense. That's because you compare it to the standard model, and it's different, thus it must be wrong.
Please specify *using the paper* why his model is IN ITSELF illogical. If this doesn't rip a hole into the paper, then try to get out some math to predict values for experiments you want to check. Devise new experiments who could prove FZ right and are at odds with the standard model.
That's science!
All you do is trying to ridicule. And I want knowledge, not a good time laughing at people and their thoughts.

 

[Tubbythin]

Ok, my friends, that settles it.

Unlike QM, people on this forum are extremely predictable.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
[People typing: "This is indeed easily predictable: You write crap, we react to it accordingly"]

See? I win again. ;-)

Snore.

But seriously. You obviously don't want to think other models if they try to start totally new at some point. Imagine, you're in a dead end. Where do you start looking for another way? Right - where you last had an opportunity to branch off.
This is obviously not the case in physics. Now you need fancy "dark matter" to explain the "wrong" measurements.

Huh? Dark matter is a pretty simple solution to a whole arrange of otherwise unexplained observations. ITs not so much killing two birds with one stone as killing three or four. If you have a better solution then by all means tell us...?

 

[Chronopolitan]

Huh? Dark matter is a pretty simple solution to a whole arrange of otherwise unexplained observations. ITs not so much killing two birds with one stone as killing three or four. If you have a better solution then by all means tell us...?

A friend, Ph.D. in physics, said if you regard the galaxy as a section of a sphere, the values come out right.
Another friend wasn't sure, if physicists take into account that huge rotating gravitational objects might develop magnetic fields that somehow produce the effect for which dark matter was invented.

 

[MattusMaximus]

MattusMaximus, you are truly the champion of willing misunderstanding here.
As a scientist, you should know that it is still possible, if not likely, that the next "GUT" comes from an outsider.
If Faraday had posted on this forum, he would have been ridiculed. Shame on all of you.'

Okay, consider me shamed. Now that that's accomplished, how about some actual physics, as opposed to all-too-standard "the Establishment just doesn't want to accept the Truth" crankery?

MattusMaximus, as a professor you should not look down upon laymen or students. Do not disregard those who QUESTION, for those who question are the natural selection of the evolution of science.
If they are wrong, tell them where they are wrong.

Did that, as did plenty of others in this thread.

All YOU did was saying: "It does not accord to the Standard Model we have today, therefore it must be wrong."

Where, exactly, did I say that?

You have to prove HIM wrong.

Why? Are we to assume that he's automatically right until proven otherwise? Are we suddenly given the burden of proving a negative? If that is the standard, then I challenge you to prove that you AREN'T a leprechaun riding a unicorn which farts rainbows - until such a time as you provide such proof, I am automatically correct.

His math is valid.

His algebra may be valid, but the physical assumptions behind it are way off.

You have to USE HIS equations to fill in the gaps of QM and find out what does not comply and WHY. Present your findings in an orderly scientific discussion. If you ridicule those people, they will never publish peer reviewed papers.

They won't publish peer review papers because their assumptions are faulty and their logic is essentially circular in nature. Hell, they don't even understand the very theory (QM) that they claim to be on the brink of "overthrowing". As a result, they will never pass any kind of decent peer review process in a respected physics journal.

Lord Kelvin said around 1900: "There is nothing new in physics. All we have to do is measure correctly." Or words to that effect. Boy, was he wrong.

Oh wow, with a quote like that you MUST be right! You win the game

 

[MattusMaximus]

It more seems to me like predicting how the waves on a lake's surface will move not knowing exactly where the stone will fall. Something like that.

So you don't understand the nature of reality, particles are waves all the time. They are waves all the time.

Chronopolitan, my advice is that you should take some time to read up on the QM concept of wave-particle duality. Otherwise, all you will accomplish here is a grand display of your ignorance of the subject matter.

 

[ben m]

A friend, Ph.D. in physics, said if you regard the galaxy as a section of a sphere, the values come out right.
Another friend wasn't sure, if physicists take into account that huge rotating gravitational objects might develop magnetic fields that somehow produce the effect for which dark matter was invented.

We do take magnetic fields into account. They are observed to be very weak and have no effect whatsoever on the main observations.

 

[Chronopolitan]

We do take magnetic fields into account. They are observed to be very weak and have no effect whatsoever on the main observations.

Well, then try the other one. I don't know, he didn't follow the thought.
Maybe you will.

 

[ben m]

Well, then try the other one. I don't know, he didn't follow the thought.
Maybe you will.

From your paraphrase, I cannot make out what the other one was talking about.

 

[Chronopolitan]

Chronopolitan, my advice is that you should take some time to read up on the QM concept of (....) Otherwise, all you will accomplish here is a grand display of your ignorance of the subject matter.

Thanks for the advice. In fact, the duality has always come to me as illogical. There are two seperate realms.
Now that the double slit experiment even works with bucky balls, what exactly is the point in assuming there is something like a particle?

If you look at Conway's Game of life (2-3 rule), there are stable or oscillating structures. It is possible to construct a turing machine within the rules. It is possible to create meta-cells who exactly follow the underlying rules.
There is a "particle" (the Glider) that moves at constant speed and this is the maximum speed of all things in Game of Life.

Yet no one would assume that the structures are "particles" or "waves".
The underlying rules alone make up the whole thing.

If there's "particles", they must act like particles. If they are waves, they must behave like waves.
But waves need a medium such as an "ether", which does not exist.
Additionally, there's not even a vacuum. How does that fit together?
Waves must have a medium, particles must have a vacuum to travel in.
It's both sides of the same coin.

I never understood that. Maybe you can explain it to me.

 

[khan2012]

I have found something by Hagelstein (MIT) mentioning "phonons".

"Inclusion of phonon exchange in a nuclear matrix element" (2007)

You can find this on arXiv...

Thanks for the reference

 

[Tubbythin]

A friend, Ph.D. in physics, said if you regard the galaxy as a section of a sphere, the values come out right.

Well you could hypothesize that the actual matter in a galaxy is very different from the one inferred from observation with telescopes (which is certainly not spherical). For this to make sense you would have to add some matter that is dark (since it isn't seen) to your model of the galaxy. Oh, and it might be good if you come up with a good name for this matter that is dark. Nothing springs to mind at the minute though.

 

[Tubbythin]

Now that the double slit experiment even works with bucky balls, what exactly is the point in assuming there is something like a particle?

If you just assume it's only a wave and run the experiment one buckyball at a time then you'd get a completely different result to what you'd expect.

 

[Chronopolitan]

If you just assume it's only a wave and run the experiment one buckyball at a time then you'd get a completely different result to what you'd expect.

Now what would the result be?

I read:
"One of the deepest mysteries of quantum mechanics is that an interference pattern is formed even if there is only one particle in the experimental set-up at any given time. The Vienna team write that "all these observations support the view that each carbon-60 molecule interferes with itself only." They also confirmed that the interactions of the molecules with their environment - such as the spontaneous emission of photons by the thermally excited molecules - could not reveal which slit they had passed through. Even the mere possibility of being able to know which slit the particle passes through would be enough to wipe out the interference pattern.

Another mystery in physics is the length scale at which quantum behaviour breaks down. The carbon-60 molecules in the Vienna experiment are the largest objects ever to have shown quantum behaviour, but they are still 15 orders of magnitude smaller than true macroscopic objects. In the quest to establish when and how quantum mechanics breaks down and classical physics takes over, Arndt and co-workers plan to repeat their experiments with larger macromolecules and possibly even viruses."
(physicsworld dot com 1999)


So there is a mystery.

If there's ONLY waves, which I prefer but cannot prove, there must be all kinds of waves, and certainly there must be vortices.
How can you possibly predict the behavior of vortices at such a small scale?
Is "spin" a vortex?

Please elaborate.

 

[Dave Rogers]

There has been a dispute about the use of the word "phonon", which I think FZ treats as a compression wave.
It has been denied that such a thing exists.

Phonons are a well known concept in solid state physics, where they are simply quanta of lattice vibrations. It has not been, or should not have been, denied that such things exist; whether they're a useful concept in modelling the nucleus is the important question.

Even if Newtonian physics hit you right in the face as in the WTC7 case, you would probably find a way out and claim something - and here all what you had learned in QM magically disappears - completely improbable that even contradicts empirical data (no steel frame high-rise building has ever collapsed due to fire - there have been fires burning for 48h straight with much higher temperatures without reducing the whole building to a pile of rubble neatly arranged between adjacent buildings).

Take it to the 9/11 sub-forum, where a whole bunch of us will be more than happy to explain to you how idiotic the above rant is.

Dave

 

[Chronopolitan]

Phonons are a well known concept in solid state physics, where they are simply quanta of lattice vibrations. It has not been, or should not have been, denied that such things exist; whether they're a useful concept in modelling the nucleus is the important question.

Thanks Dave for your clarification. Now let's discuss the question:
Does modeling the "crash" of a photon into an atom make sense? Does a collision of a wave into a standing wave (atom) produce something like a vibration that could be interpreted as a "phonon"?

Please be kind and explain why or why not. I want to understand.