21
New Theories / Re: Could quantum mechanics be wrong?
« Last post by paul cotter on 16/04/2024 14:57:30 »Cotton&Wilkinson, inorganic chemistry(a text that both BC and I have) is good on general chemistry.
Let's not forget about Pareto principle. 80% of output is determined by 20% of input. How many people lives in polar regions, compared to elsewhere?But the further you live from the equator, the greater your annual energy consumption. It's a pretty continuous function.
For crying out loud go see a doctor. Don't look for medical advice from strangers on the internet!Seconded.
Returning to the question, for the last 60 years I have been well paid to measure the energy of photons, thousands of clients think I'm right, and their patients have for the most part survived and prospered because sensible people believe me.
This is New Theories. You, I am guessing, would have advised Einstein simarly when he proposed his Theory of RElativity.Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right.
I would have thought real science begins where mathemtics ends and computer science starts.The sane people think science was around centuries before computers.
This is the definition of insanity.You said it...
Real science begins (or in the case of relativity and quantum mechanics, ends) with what we already know, not by asserting that we don't know it.I would have thought real science begins where mathemtics ends and computer science starts.The mathematics of quantum mechancs for example has limitations that are transcended by quantum computing.
I rather think it is government that is insufficiently regulated. Maybe it will be better to have AI regulating government.