1

New Theories / Re: Where does quantization of energy of electromagnetic radiation come from?

« on: 30/11/2024 23:22:57 »

I can generate any frequency of radio waves, continuously, for as long as I like, by an entirely linear and continuous process.

Yes, but the process is continuous because you don't get to see individual, long-wavelength photons. Emission of photons by charged particles is still a hot topic in research labs.

We're talking about the electromagnetic field as if it's fully understood, done and dusted. It's not true, yet.

2

New Theories / Re: what is temperature?

« on: 26/11/2024 14:55:18 »

Following up on the test tube with water being heated, here is something NOT to do and I repeat NOT. Faced with a dirty pyrex boiling tube which resisted cleaning I added water to a depth of about 2 inches and added conc sulphuric acid to a depth of about 1 inch and applied vigorous heating at the base. Some time later I was surprised that boiling had not ensued and I gave the tube a slight shake and whoosh, the entire contents of hot acid and boiling water exploded out of the tube. The acid had not mixed significantly with the water and with a boiling point in the region of 300c it was not going to boil for quite some time and shaking the tube led to mixing and a subsequent runaway reaction.  My mistake was a failure to thoroughly mix acid and water before heating.

3

Just Chat! / Re: What's your advice on writing a series of story?

« on: 14/11/2024 19:26:17 »

Hemingway's sentences are short, and so are the words he uses. The UK civil service style manuals tell you to use the Anglo-Saxon word rather than the Norman French word wherever you have a choice - they advocate against sesquipedalianism!

Also worth studying Steinbeck. His background was journalism, so he knew how to tell a story with impact, and he also worked with the legendary "Doc": "The Log from the Sea of Cortez"  is a brilliant blend of scientific reporting (a marine biology expedition) and beautifully descriptive writing, with an underlying adventure almost as exciting as his war reports.

4

General Science / Re: What's 0^0 ?

« on: 24/10/2024 21:23:23 »

If you think logically 2x0 is a non function, this sort of sum can cause all sorts of problems.  Even though the sum above does infact give the answer of zero it is not arrived at in the conventional sense of 2x0, that is 2x0=0, it is a non function that gives an answer of zero through its non function status. Zero being zero is neither positive nor negative. Therefore a non functon zero from 0^0 must be true.

5

General Science / Re: Is There A Pattern In The Number Pi?

« on: 30/09/2024 06:28:47 »

Pi can be represented by a very simple pattern:
π/4 = 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + etc

This series is very slow to converge, so it's not of any practical use to calculate π

But it does illustrate some important aspects:
- 1/1000001 is zero in the first 6 decimal places
- So any pattern that you might detect in the first 6 decimal places will be destroyed by adding in this factor which does not affect the first 6 decimal places.
- The series continues forever, so it will destroy any other pattern you detect in the decimal expansion

It is necessary that the digits of π (or any transcendental number) do not form a repeating pattern
- But it is not sufficient

If you want to represent π, you could use the infinite series, or adopt the standard mathematical shorthand, and just write "π".

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinknudson/2016/04/18/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-pi-part-4-infinite-series/

6

Just Chat! / Re: Where do I get my confidence to challenge established theories?

« on: 11/08/2024 13:15:42 »

Totally get where you're coming from. Sharing the backstory really helps people connect with and understand the context behind your theories. It makes the discussion more engaging and relatable. Plus, personal insights and real-life experiences add a layer of depth that raw data alone can?t provide.

7

Just Chat! / Re: Where do I get my confidence to challenge established theories?

« on: 04/08/2024 18:07:54 »

Non-mainstream ideas are less likely to get public funding.

One of the great flaws of public funding, alas. Your brilliant hypothesis and amazingly simple experiment will be judged by lesser minds who prefer to sit on committees rather than get their hands dirty.

The way to get research funding is to find a private company with a problem whose solution will make money. 

8

New Theories / Re: Could quantum mechanics be wrong?

« on: 12/07/2024 17:49:47 »

description of Quantum Parallelism:

What's the source of the paragraph that you quoted? Who are "we" there?

https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.07222

9

Science Experiments / Re: How to build DIY lasers?

« on: 06/07/2024 15:43:10 »

Can it show destructive and constructive interference?

Yes.
Longitudinal Modes
https://www.experimental-engineering.co.uk/helium-neon-lasers/theory-modes-coherence/

10

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: 15/06/2024 20:47:52 »

Best estimate is my 84th birthday, by hypothermia (winter birthday) or nitrogen hypoxia.

I started many years ago with a guess as to when life would become intolerable. It's subject to continuous review but actually hasn't changed much, though this week's consultation with a cardiologist gives me cause to consider extending by a couple of years.

Not that the date matters anyway. My family and friends are fully aware of my intention so a day's notice will suffice to get someone to look after the dog when I've gone, and they can take their time selling the piano.

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: why do a lot of people confuse between interference and diffraction?

« on: 16/05/2024 09:30:53 »

Ghatak is as wrong as Feynman! He seems to base his definition of diffraction on diffraction gratings  (devices that exploit diffraction) rather than the single edge case (which is the underlying phenomenon) and an implicit belief that Huygens is a fact rather than a model.

12

New Theories / Re: How does light propagate? By what means does light get from Point A To Point B?

« on: 14/04/2024 17:38:38 »

If we insist that speed of light in vacuum is constant while also accepting that space is stretching, it implies that we also need to stretch the time by the same amount. So far, I haven't found any source for the latter.

That doesn't follow. It takes light one second to travel 299,792,458 meters. Of course, over the course of one second, a portion of space of that distance will expand to be ever-so-slightly longer than 299,792,458 meters. As such, it will take ever-so-slightly longer than one second for light to travel that distance because it can only travel 299,792,458 meters in one second.

13

New Theories / Re: How does light propagate? By what means does light get from Point A To Point B?

« on: 05/04/2024 04:00:24 »

Galileo summed up the argument very neatly: eppur si muove.

                           But it moves!  and also: "In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." - Nelle questioni scientifiche l'autorit? di mille non vale l'umile ragionamento di un solo individuo

14

New Theories / Re: How does light propagate? By what means does light get from Point A To Point B?

« on: 03/04/2024 19:59:08 »

@McQueen

I think i get the gist of what you are tryin to say, i might be misunderstanding, but still...

The official " Speed of Light " in a vacuum keeps changing every Century.

Perhaps, a hundred years from now, it won't be what it is today.
Obviously, the ' Speed ' is not changing in Reality, just our instrumentations are getting more precise n accurate n averaging becomes better.

But if all we have are hypothetical models to describe Reality, hence if our Theories change, then so do our Realities!
(gotcha)

ps - @Eternal
Thanks for the replies, always a Treat!
Still, a little shorter, a little less sweet,
Well help me in avoiding DiabeteeZ!

15

New Theories / Re: Could quantum mechanics be wrong?

« on: 28/03/2024 07:02:02 »

Great.  Could you please provide a link to one of these experiments?

                    No problem, just look at the door on any microwave oven, a fine grating or mesh is provided. Usually the mesh is much smaller than the microwave radiation that is being shielded or about 1mm in size is normal as compared to the 12 cm size microwave. The holes are made deliberately small to cover a wide range of side frequencies that might arise. The point is, while a pure metal plate will provide effective shielding and act as a Faraday Cage, it would be completely opaque and it would not be possible to look into the microwave oven to see what was cooking.
            Now look at Tesla's cage, it has comparatively huge spacing at least six inches or so:

https://images.app.goo.gl/NDAutVfakFiS7Wf58

               This must be due to the fact that the electric currents that are being shielded have huge wave-lengths and a 6 inch square (roughly) grating, is more than sufficient to shield form any possible significant combinations of frequencies and wave-lengths  that might arise. Size matters.

16

New Theories / Re: Universal Utopia? What's The Universal Terminal Goal?

« on: 22/03/2024 18:28:45 »

GDP per capita is what should determine a country's willingness to indulge in peacetime scientific speculation, so the Japanese space program looks sensible but not the Indian, Chinese or Russian programs.

Where GDP per capita is low but central government is more interested in vanity than welfare, the opposite applies.

The way & manner in which We as a Species have Evolved, hoping for PeaceTime is Wishful Thinking.

The Russians do it coz Space Weapons are a Must.

The Chinese do it cause No progress without Research & Development.

The Indians do it to just makee use of abundant human resources & Capitalize on it.

IMHO, it's quite less of a Vanity, Alot more of a Necessity!

$50,000 gdp per/cap, housing subsidies, free energy, tax cuts & rebates, pensions, free healthcare etc etc etc, Nothing guarantees Satisfaction.

ps - if only one could buy happiness by the kilo by the pound in the flea market, this world would be overflowing with smiles.

17

New Theories / Re: How does light propagate? By what means does light get from Point A To Point B?

« on: 19/03/2024 03:39:46 »

Physics is the business of constructing mathematical models of stuff that happens. We have two models that are useful when dealing with high frequency electromagnetic radiation: a wave model describes propagation, and a particle model becomes increasingly useful when describing the interaction of emr with particulate matter above 1012 Hz.

There shouldn't be two models.

18

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: why do a lot of people confuse between interference and diffraction?

« on: 17/03/2024 10:10:37 »

There's an old adage that "thermodynamics owes more to the steam engine than the steam engine owes to thermodynamics".

A great deal of science begins with an engineering failure, and we question our hypotheses in the light of the unexpected finding, because that shows us where to look!

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: why do a lot of people confuse between interference and diffraction?

« on: 06/03/2024 10:06:07 »

a single source of wavefronts generates waves that will diffract when they encounter surfaces.

Pedant hat firmly in place, I would say "edges" , not "surfaces". Surfaces reflect and/or absorb, but em radiation doesn't "bend" round a surface!

I've been pondering on the photon model of radio waves. We generate them by a continuous process - essentially, sinusoidal alternating current in a wire - with no essential discontinuity of frequency or duration. The energy received from a radio transmitter depends only on how long you listen to it  - it doesn't arrive in discrete packets. Why assume that it is quantised?

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: why do a lot of people confuse between interference and diffraction?

« on: 05/03/2024 10:21:22 »

Can't you distinguish between interference and diffraction without invoking quantum physics?

I can, and have done several times in this thread.

The phenomenon of diffraction can be modelled with a single wavefront and Huygens' construction

Modelling interference requires at least two wavefronts and the principle of superposition

Sometimes, both happen.