Post by: McQueen on 18/07/2015 13:01:23
First of all isn't it self defeating to postulate a new theory where you are required to pose your theory in the form of a question ? Could this rule be amended in anyway? Secondly, any new theory is absolutely sure to repeat itself. If a theory is new it has to be stated and restated, so that it can be improved. Thus some posts are sure to look like matter that has been posted elsewhere. Could not this rule be changed, after all we are not dealing with main forum but with a lighter less serious side of it ? Lastly does trying to put forward a new theory, which after all is the heading of the forum, amount to self aggrandizement or an attempt at self aggrandizement. Suppose for instance a heading is repeated as the pre-cursor to each new post, providing it has new subject matter, is there really anything wrong with it, to the extent that it has to be black-listed on the grounds of self aggrandizement? Would it not be more a question of advertising to members of the forum that here is yet another topic from the same theory, what do you think of it ? and so on. My plea is to make the New Theory forum more user friendly to those posting new theories. Would greatly appreciate some views on this. Also some changes in forum usage for the New Theories forum. At the moment I am stymied my posts are being denied on the ground of being black listed and it looks as if there is no recourse. Kindly advise.
Post by: David Cooper on 18/07/2015 17:57:04
Post by: PmbPhy on 18/07/2015 18:38:26
Quote from: McQueen
First of all isn't it self defeating to postulate a new theory where you are required to pose your theory in the form of a question ?Actually the rule states The site is for asking or answering questions, or general discussion. So as it says, this place isn't just for asking questions. Its for discussion too. It goes on to say To make navigation and search functions easier, each new post should take the form of a science question. Notice that it says should rather than must.
It's quite unfortunate for all of us that the moderators don't go by the rules but their modified version of it where "should" is replaced in their minds as "must". It's a terrible thing since it forces us to right bogus subject lines since the thread is sometimes about a discussion a member wants to have rather than a question he has. However its never enforced in the New Theories forum, Guest Book forum or in this forum.
Quote from: McQueen
Secondly, any new theory is absolutely sure to repeat itself. If a theory is new it has to be stated and restated, so that it can be improved. Thus some posts are sure to look like matter that has been posted elsewhere. Could not this rule be changed, after all we are not dealing with main forum but with a lighter less serious side of it ?There's no need for that since newer versions of the theory can be posted in the same thread with a post which begins with "My New Theory Version 1.2" or something like that. Or you can start a new thread with a different title with the modified theory in it.
Quote from: McQueen
Lastly does trying to put forward a new theory, which after all is the heading of the forum, amount to self aggrandizement or an attempt at self aggrandizement.While I'm sure that's the case with a lot of people who come here it doesn't mean that it's necessarily about that.
Post by: McQueen on 18/07/2015 22:08:27
Both of these answers are very reassuring. The thing is some of the stuff in Quantum mechanics is quite weird. Take the multiple dimensions that Schrodinger's wave function involves, and maybe the need for a freer new theories section becomes apparent. Let me try to explain multiple dimensions to you as I see it, in our world we use three dimensions namely width, height and length which can be called
and 
which together with time describe our world. As far as the hydrogen atom with its single electron goes, and gives an almost perfect description of all of the information needed to describe the single electron that is there, but with the next atom in line namely helium, which has two electrons we have two sets of and , and the sad thing is that the first and that we have used to describe the first electron cannot be simply used to describe the second electron some new form of dimension has to be used. This gets compounded when the next atom on the periodic table is encountered which has three electrons, now instead of finding an extra three dimensions it is necessary to find six new dimensions. The thing about string theory is that they openly admit to using 10 new dimensions, what happened, they lost credibility? "OK, it might be a nice theory but an extra 11 dimensions you have got to be kidding we can do better than that!". With Quantum Mechanics the fact that the Schrodinger wave function requires these multiple dimensions is so well hidden that even most scientists don’t know about it, they will spout on about the 2D Schrodinger equation and the 3D Schrodinger equation little knowing that it actually involves 276 dimensions for a full description ! This kind of situation might be acceptable to a statistical physicist, which is what Born was, but to an everyday person, it does look like a tangled labyrinth. The point being that, with such weird theories floating around, it is essential that some place should be given for new theories. Congratulations Naked Scientist for making this possible.n.b: I am still not able to post and am still getting the blacklisted error message. Hope it is a software glitch
Post by: chiralSPO on 18/07/2015 23:17:35
To extend this to even simpler (and more abstract) cases, imagine the description of a polynomial curve in a 2-D plane. Any point in the plane can be described by only 2 coordinates, but to adequately describe a polynomial of degree n, n+1 parameters must be defined. For instance, a horizontal line needs only be defined by the y intercept; a sloped line must be defined by slope and intercept, a parabola must be defined by 3 parameters (there are some choices for which parameters one wishes to use). Another way to think about this is: it takes 2 points to define a line, 3 points to define a parabola, 4 points to describe a cubic equation etc. You could describe these complex functions in multiple dimensions (as is done in linear algebra), but it is not required.
Bottom line is: the more complex a system, the more parameters are needed to describe it, regardless of the space that is resides in.
PS: String theory wasn't really relegated to laughable status because it invoked multiple spacial dimensions, but more because it made predictions that weren't testable, so most of theory was not verifiable.
Post by: McQueen on 19/07/2015 03:26:07
Quote
Regarding the multiple dimensions required for describing atoms: these are better thought of as parameters or coordinates than dimensions in the sense of x,y,z spacial dimensions. The same can be done for describing molecules as a system of nuclei, wherein the coordinates of each nucleus in 3 dimensions must be described to adequately describe the position, orientation and configuration of the molecule.Overall this is a really informative and useful post, as well as being entertaining, in the sense it is not too technical. It appears to me, though I may be wrong, that the situation describing individual nucleus in relation to other independent nuclei in molecules, might be a simpler situation than the one applying to Schrodinger’s wave function, where all the electrons are crowded into one space, the atom and where that space then has to be divided into dimensions. At this point I feel really tempted to ask you how Quantum Mechanics, which has also incidentally adopted the Huygen-Fresnel principle into their seemingly infinitely expandable mathematical theory, explains the fact that the isotropic space which the Huygen-Fresnel Principle claims is responsible for light propagating in accordance with the inverse square law, allows for the secondary wavelets of light to move only in the forward direction. This is something that should be impossible given that it is an isotropic space. I am aware that this is a non-technical forum and that this question might be inappropriate, if so just ignore it.
The reason that I stated that some people were not too satisfied with the 11 ( or so) multiple dimensions needed by String Theory is because I used to belong to a String Theory forum, which eventually went offline, where concerns were voiced about the many dimensions involved.
Post by: McQueen on 19/07/2015 05:13:14
I am still getting this messsage when I try to post a new topic : Error - you have used a blacklisted term *Is there anyway in which I can determine what the 'blacklisted' item is ? Could it be that the term
is not supported by the BB Code on Naked Scientist ? That doesn't seem to be it !Thanks
Post by: PmbPhy on 19/07/2015 06:58:26
Post by: Colin2B on 19/07/2015 09:31:17
On the subject of multiple dimensions, I would interpret the terms in the same way as ChiralSPO. If we take the example of a complex sound wave we might need over 100 terms to describe it. Mathematically you could be correct in describing these terms as dimensions, but it would be a mistake to imply that these are dimensions outside of space, instead of individual frequencies superposed.
Post by: McQueen on 19/07/2015 10:33:36
“ We have two possibilities. Either we use waves in space of more than three dimensions…………..or we remain in three dimensional space, but give up the simple picture of the wave amplitude as an ordinary physical magnitude , and replace it with a purely mathematical concept into which we cannot enter.”
As you can see Born not only states that more than three dimensions are required but that even in a mathematical sense it is a concept that ........we cannot enter. So either mathematically or physically it involves concepts into which it is not possible for the human psyche to enter but which have to taken for granted.
Post by: chiralSPO on 20/07/2015 16:20:59
Post by: PmbPhy on 21/07/2015 08:09:42
Post by: chiralSPO on 21/07/2015 15:44:00
Post by: McQueen on 13/08/2015 20:25:35