Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: sciconoclast on 18/07/2015 21:19:52
-
I am listing some of my youtube videos which are relevant to McQueen's post in the physics section on the ten problems with quantum theory.
"Crackpot Physics: At Home Experimental Challenge to Quantum Theory" is a long and boring example of simple experiments that challenge the concept of non-locality and detection induced quantum field collapse (if you are familiar with quantum theory you can skip the 15 minute introduction). They are variations on the double slit experiment which McQueen spent some attention to. In my reply to McQueen I mentioned the Steinberg Experiment which shows photons passing through one slit but still forming a double slit pattern. There is a much simpler experiment showing the same thing at about 40 minutes and 40 seconds into my video which anyone can do.
"Crackpot Physics: At Home interferomerty Expeiments" is a short video that shows how the actual point of photon interference can be determined.
"Crackpot Physics: The Slinky Toy Model of Light" mentions a photon generating a pilot wave as did McQueen.
"Crackpot Physics: proving the Slinky Toy Model" proposes an experiment that could be performed in most university physics labs that would either verify the previous ideas or confirm existing theory.
If you think that the use of three and four year old kids, kindergarten math, and simplistic illustrations, in the Slinky Videos is a deliberate attempt to counter the arrogance associated with dogmatic physics, then you get it. Never the less these are also serious videos.
-
"Crackpot Physics: proving the Slinky Toy Model" proposes an experiment that could be performed in most university physics labs that would either verify the previous ideas or confirm existing theory.
I think it is really remarkable that you have adopted these simple illustrations to explain complicated ideas.
If you think that the use of three and four year old kids, kindergarten math, and simplistic illustrations, in the Slinky Videos is a deliberate attempt to counter the arrogance associated with dogmatic physics, then you get it. Never the less these are also serious videos.
There were great musicians like Beethoven who composed beautiful music, there were wonderful artists like Rembrandt and Raphael who painted beautiful pictures. This doesn’t mean that everyone who can play music can be a Beethoven or that everyone who can pick up a brush is a Raphael. In the same way there were great Mathematicians like Newton and Henri Lorentz, but just because someone knows maths it doesn’t mean that they are gifted in the same way . So yes, some times simple theories serve as well as more complicated ones do. Again, most people like classical music, just not all the time. Preferences differ, sometimes a simpler solution is more preferable than an abstruse complicated and involved one.
Continuing in the same vein, some people might like to describe physical phenomenon solely through mathematics, this would appeal to statistical mathematicians, others ( Faraday is one example)might like to describe physical phenomena in words and through observation and experiment, even though the mathematicians might claim this is impossible. Still, like the description I have given of the
photon (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=59435.0), it might describe something in simpler more accurate terms than the more complicated and abstruse mathematical model.