Jump to content


☆ Silver Patron ☆
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


pantheory last won the day on November 8 2019

pantheory had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

225 Excellent

About pantheory

  • Rank
  • Birthday 06/04/1943

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Los Angeles
  • Interests
    all sciences, cosmology, physics, philosophy, languages
  • More About Me
    Am a retired electro-mechanical engineer, and an active theoretical cosmologist and theoretical physicist for more than 40 years. Travel a lot

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    became an atheist about age 16

Recent Profile Visitors

2,008 profile views
  1. Yes, this was one of the hypothesis they had when viewing the pictures of Ceres, that the observed white spots were related to water. Since there are a number of them in varying locations on the surface of Ceres, I expect Ceres will become a major outpost for humanity between Mars and the Moons of Jupiter in the next maybe 75 years. All space probes then will probably have nuclear reactors aboard which could desalinate the brackish water ices of Mars, Ceres, the moons of Jupiter, and maybe even Mar's moon Phobos, all expectedly future human outposts. Water can be used not only for drinking and agriculture, but also for fuel if needed for a return to Earth or another solar system outpost. Since brackish waters are more dense and heavier than fresh water, fresh water can float on salt water. If there is not too much tectonic action on Ceres to mix these waters then there could well be a fresh water table and aquifers not too far under its surface where the use of them would be almost as simple as pumping water from a well on Earth. Of course wells there would have to be internally heated and pressurized to pump out liquid water into a container or reservoir.
  2. That's how I think I might eat my horse meat, cooked and purreed in liquor, if I were not a vegetarian
  3. Speaking of anti-theists, I'm a long confirmed atheist but not an anti-theist. I do like it when people see the light concerning the non-validity of religions in general, but I believe in the principle of live and let live in that I think that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want as long as no one could ever be harmed by that belief, not even the persons themselves. I have seen much good as well as harm caused by religious beliefs but I am not confrontational concerning assertions of belief, only when people are being directly hurt by such beliefs and I am present. But after explaining to them the error of their ways they want to fight, I will usually flee with haste (run ).
  4. Welcome to X -+ FP. Hope you enjoy your time here. 1 John 4:1 "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world." I do not believe in heavenly spirits, but I do test and drink my fair share of the spirits made by man from time to time.
  5. I have a funny story to tell about sinning. When I was about 11 years old I was asked to study Catholicism by my mother. It was an interesting request since she was not a catholic and just wanted my studied opinion about it. I was originally baptized a Methodist as a baby. Upon studying and being baptized a Catholic one of the requirements was to go to confession. This was supposed to be done every week or two to relieve one of his sins. One time when I went to confession I couldn't think of any sin I committed since my last confession so I just made up some minor sin to tell the priest. That was a sin. So the next confession after that I had a valid sin to tell the priest, that I made up a sin in my previous confession since I couldn't think of any sin I committed and was expected to go to the confessional as part of my continued studies. Although I recall telling my mother pretty good things about my studies of Catholicism she never became one herself.
  6. Yeah midniterider, I agree with it all. Like most experiments, the experiment itself is not the problem; the problem is simply its misinterpretation. I'll go over the details again. It's all simple stuff that is easy to understand IMO once one is explained the correct details.of it. First light goes through both slits and an interference pattern is produced on the back screen showing light is a wave, as you understand. This has never been argued and is the mainstream interpretation. Then light goes through slits just one at a time. A photon goes through just one slit but the light wave that accompanies the photon goes through both slits and interferes with the photon going through just one slit which also creates an interference pattern. As I said before, they also have done this experiment with electrons. An electrons are directed towards both slits going through each slit one at a time. As an electron goes through a single slit, its waves, called De Broglie waves (matter waves), go through both slits. The waves interfere with the electrons and themselves and an interference pattern is also produced. No problem, easy to understand; right? Waves interfere with the path of particles. The last aspect of the experiment is when they put a detector over one slit. This detector can tell when a photon or electron goes through that particular slit. As the video announcer said, when you do this you are bounding something off the particle to know if it is there. When you do this the wave collapses. This is not a probability wave as they think it is in QM. These are real waves like ocean waves in the background field. Waves will quickly start up again after the particle is observed but not soon enough before particle detection occurs on the back screen since the particle and wave are traveling at or near the speed of light, Because the wave regeneration does not happen soon enough to interfere with the photon or electron, there will be no interference pattern. It is understandable that they cannot understand the latter aspects of this experiment since real waves in a background field would be contrary to both quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of Special Relativity. The misinterpretation in QM IMO relates to not understanding that these waves are real physical waves in the background field and that light consists of particles within waves, and that matter waves accompany their particles as Shroedinger and De Broglie understood. Once these aspects of the experiment are understood and realized then every aspect of the experiment seems easy to understand. What do you think after this explanation? Does it now make more sense in your opinion?
  7. No, I don't think so. I believe as a guide to this and most related experiments, they had the theory of QM in mind. In the case of the double slit experiment, I don't think it clouded the results of the experiment, only its incorrect interpretation.
  8. Schrodinger invented his cat to show how stupid he thought the interpretations of QM were in his day, specifically the Copenhagen interpretation, and the belief that something does not have a definite state of reality unless we look at it. Schrodinger adhered to the wave theory of particles and light and invented the wave equations they use today. He was also very handy with the ladies, a very interesting guy and scientist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Schrödinger (your quote) "I do agree that the universe isn't necessarily difficult to understand. It might be fundamentally simple. I just don't see any reason to think that it actually is. Thanks for you understanding' this was the point I was trying to make. As to an understanding of the universe as a whole, I believe they have conducted many great experiments, many of which have simply been misinterpreted IMO. Because of these experiments and when interpreted correctly, the universe is relatively simple to understand in all of its parts IMO. As I have mentioned, I am a theorist in physics and have written books concerning the simplicity of the universe and its ease of understanding; the primary one is called the Pan Theory. it has many editions some having different titles, the last being 2008. The theory also has unique equations and technical explanations for scientists and anyone interested. A brief description of it can be found in the link below; scan down to the Pan Theory. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alternative_cosmology A complete description of the theory and the book itself can be read on the internet (2008 edition, link below) and a new internet edition is planned for the coming year or so. The only available hard or soft cover copies that I know of can be found in my attic http://www.pantheory.org/ Another book I co-authored that is in print is called "Cosmology that contradicts the Big Bang model." I can't find a link to it but below is a link to the technical paper within the book, and a link to its press release below that. https://www.aijcrnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_9_September_2014/2.pdf https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/problems-with-big-bang-cosmology-300107094.html
  9. OK, my daily work is done and I'm back at my computer. The quantum world is just as massive as the atomic world. As to its mass, it mostly consists of free electrons and protons. We have plenty of free electrons here on Earth. These are electrons not attached to an atomic nucleus. We can see their flow as electrical flow or current, albeit they jump from atom to atom. There are also free protons, which have no electron orbiting them. These are rather rare in the Earth's atmosphere or crust because of all the available electrons that attach themselves to protons to form hydrogen. But with galaxies like our Milky Way, there are plenty of free protons. There are also free neutrons but they only last about 11 minutes once they are free from an atom. There are also countless neutrinos but their masses are minuscule. Outside of galaxies there are even more free unattached particles. Since the quantum world is primarily based upon unattached particles, it seem less interesting than the macro-world of togetherness, atoms, molecules, sticks and stones, you and me. But there is still another world much larger than both of these worlds. It is the world of plasma containing free particles that are too dense to form atoms and molecules. This is the world of stars, star clusters, galaxies, galaxy clusters etc. This world operates under the laws of nuclear physics.
  10. I can briefly explain the double slit experiment but a more lengthy explanation would need its own thread. Almost every problem of logic in the quantum world relate to the belief that there is no physical background field. As you may know, it used to be called the aether. Einstein discarded it in his theory of special relativity. But today we know of more than one physical background field. We have known of at least one since the 1950's. We call it the Zero Point Field. In the last decade we came up with another proposed physical background field which we call the Higgs field. We also have theorized background fields of dark matter and dark energy. As to Occam's Razor, the gist of it is that if you have two or more explanations or hypotheses for the same event, the simplest explanation having the fewest details or assumptions, is more likely to be valid than the other explanations, all else being equal. In the double slit experiment with light, the interference pattern produced is easy to understand based upon the wave theory of light and such explanation is not in dispute. But when you break light down to individual photons and direct the photons to just one of the two slits, an interference pattern is still produced. The explanation I adhere to for the double slit experiment is quite simple. A photo is part of a light wave. As a photon goes through one slit, the light wave goes through both slits and interferes with the photons so that an interference pattern is produced. The same thing happens with electrons. As an electron also produces waves in the background field. These waves are called De Broglie waves, also called matter waves. As the electron spins in the physical background fieldm it produces waves. The electron goes through just one slit but its waves go through both slits. The results is also an interference pattern of electron impacts.
  11. Schrodinger's cat and almost every aspect of quantum mechanics, based upon mainstream theory and interpretations, does not make sense. As you said, it is simply a statistical system that works in the quantum world. I also agree with you in that almost every aspect of modern physics ultimately fails in its goal to make sense of the universe. This, however, does not mean that the universe is necessarily difficult to understand. I think it just means that the explanations of the universe based upon present theory do not make sense.
  12. For now I have to go to work. My time right now is in the morning, the opposite of you down under at night. So about 10-11 hours from now I'll be able to answer your question, cheers
  13. No, the subatomic world is based upon sub-atomic particles, some of which atoms are made of. The supposed laws of QM usually don't apply or relate to the macro world of atoms and molecules, such as sticks and stones and you and me
  14. Usually the sub-atomic world is considered the same thing as the quantum world. The atomic and molecular worlds are usually considered to be something different.
  15. Hi again AntiChrist, great name Quantum mechanics relates to interactions in the world of micro particles, such as photons, electrons, protons, neutrons, neutrinos, bosons etc. It generally relates to "free particles," not molecules like we are made of. But some or many quantum physicists believe at the most fundamental level of reality, everything follows the laws of quantum mechanics. But IMO there is much these physicists don't understand concerning QM which would be contrary to present theory.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.