[silvaservice (OP)]

Quantum mechanics and classical physics are contradictory according to science. Could this be one of the rare mysteries where philosophy could provide the answer? Watch EVERYTHING - newbielink:http://bbc.in/1twY582 [nonactive]

[PmbPhy]

Quantum mechanics and classical physics are contradictory according to science.

Welcome to the forum!

What you say here is only true in a certain sense. They really are compatible because one doesn't use quantum mechanics on the scale where classical mechanics applies and vice versa. There's something called the correspondence principle which relates the domains of applicability.

Could this be one of the rare mysteries where philosophy could provide the answer? ...

No. Philosophy has a different job than science. Philosophy doesn't provide answers. It's only a guide to asking questions.

[yor_on]

Silva, why are you referring to utube? Engage in the discussion instead. Philosophy of science are important, it produces ideas that sometimes give birth to experiments able to test them. Einsteins interpretation of 'c' didn't come from Maxwell's equations, although they were there, but from him wondering what he would see if he pursued a beam of light with the velocity c (velocity of light in a vacuum). That's what seem to have lead him to stipulating the idea of 'c' being 'c', no matter your (uniform) 'speed' relative something else. He undoubtedly used Maxwell's equations as a foundation later though. But first he 'philosophized' and got sufficiently curious to try to reason it out mathematically as well as experimentally.
==

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Chasing_the_light/

[jccc]

Force rules everything.

[jccc]

strong and weak forces are doubtful.

let's see if we can use electrostatic force to explain everything.

if nucleus is in fact built by u and d quarks, We should assume all nucleus have some degree of polarity according their unique charges carried and the structure of all quarks stick together.

An iron atom maybe is a small magnet, the positive pole of the nucleus attract dense space fluid to form a force field that its density/strength drop off at 1/r^3, that matches the observation, and fits Coulombs law.

a moving charge will produce vortex and that's moving magnetic field.

ring a bell?

don't delete my post again please, have a little merit. whoever did it again and again. I recorded everything i posted. please don't make fun to your forum.

[jccc]

My theory is the space is negative charged elastic fluid. All things are within it. 

Positive charged nucleus attracts the negative charged fluid to form atom. The density of the fluid is Df=1/r^3. Electrons also attracted by positive charged nucleus and stable at atom radius where the attracting force is equal to the repel force. A demo

The electrons around the atom is like bond by a spring, need force to push in or pull out from the nucleus. Now if a force is applied, the electron will vibrating and produce pressure/EM wave across the space around it. Every element has certain charge and bonding strength, therefore unique spectrum.

If Coulombs's law stands universally, we should assume that every atom or charged particle are connected by their force field across the whole space.

An atoms force field does not end at atom radius, but extend to infinity. In whole, an atom or planet maybe electrically neutral, but Every charge within has its own force field beyond distance, those forces overlapped to produce chemical bonding, magnetism and gravity. Ever wonder why is Fe=q1q2/r^2, Fg=m1m2/r^2, and mass proportional to proton numbers within it?

Now you have it, grand unified field theory.

i just realized all my theories maybe was discovered long ago, published and got deleted. think abut, every science forum banned me for no good reason from www open forum. how about without internet? science is just like religion and politic, power to be controls everything.

i hope, we can change to better, faster.

[chiralSPO]

jccc, it's not your ideas getting you banned from forums. It's your comments.

[Ethos_]

My theory is the space is negative charged elastic fluid. All things are within it. 

Wikipedia on spin and charge: "The spin of an elementary particle is therefore seen as a truly intrinsic property, akin to the particles electric charge and rest mass."

If space is as you say; a "negative charged elastic fluid", how does one logically understand empty space as having a spin?

I think the only thing spinning here are your proverbial wheels.

[Ethos_]

If space is as you say; a "negative charged elastic fluid", how does one logically understand empty space as having a spin?

What!...............no answer to that question jccc. Frankly, I didn't expect one from you even though you continually demand answers from us. Maybe you should rethink your hypothesis there my friend. And maybe a visit back to college to complement your education would also be advised?

[jccc]

jccc, it's not your ideas getting you banned from forums. It's your comments.

comments like crashing bird and passenger?

try walking naked?

see a monkey in the mirror?

have a little class.

[Ethos_]

jccc, it's not your ideas getting you banned from forums. It's your comments.

comments like crashing bird and passenger?

try walking naked?

see a monkey in the mirror?

have a little class.

Loony.........................

[PmbPhy]

Loony.........................

He sure is. It's posts like that which the moderators leave up that make me angry with them. He should have been suspended long ago to send a message to him that this kind of behavior is unacceptable or simply have banned him.

[jccc]

Pete, i love you. to make you happy, i be glad to leave this forum.

Wish all a great life!

[justthinkit]

Quantum mechanics and classical physics are contradictory according to science.

I think progress in physics will require a challenging of the assumptions that have got us to where we are today.

For starters, today we assume there is no ether.  Merely because we haven't found one.

Yet, from the beginning, scientists like Newton, JCMaxwell & Einstein (*after* he came out with SR & GR) have seen the need for an ether.

As a way to ultimately resolve this, we could try simulations that assume an ether.  If they yield better results, including a removal of nasty bits like DM/DE, then we should proceed from there.

[jccc]

Quantum mechanics and classical physics are contradictory according to science.

I think progress in physics will require a challenging of the assumptions that have got us to where we are today.

For starters, today we assume there is no ether.  Merely because we haven't found one.

Yet, from the beginning, scientists like Newton, JCMaxwell & Einstein (*after* he came out with SR & GR) have seen the need for an ether.

As a way to ultimately resolve this, we could try simulations that assume an ether.  If they yield better results, including a removal of nasty bits like DM/DE, then we should proceed from there.

i guess we are just you and i, they are not interested. can you do simulation at all? i don't know how.

[justthinkit]

I'm not the best person for that job.  Need some programmer type.

[jccc]

i am sure science can wait as long it takes to fine theory of everything.

some times science is denying.

like this time.

[paradigm]

The closest thing to the theory of everything is The Paradigm of Types in Cosmology and Biology, which is introduced in an essay located at <<<LINK REMOVED>>>

The paradigm indicates that all solar systems begin with nine planets and that the planets are progressively destroyed by being drawn towards the Sun through the increasing gravity (emission) of the Sun.

Whereas the completely sequenced genome of life on Earth lists 191 phylogenetic types across three domains, the paradigm indicates that there are 211 types in the Universe. The other 20 exist on another planet.

Whereas there are 505 genera of virus on Earth, the paradigm indicates that in the future there will be 507 genera of virus.

In being a complete representation of everything within the realms of cosmology and biology, the paradigm has predictive capacity.

Stephen

[MicheR]

A true ToE is impossible through orthodox science because the geometry of a ToE is different to that of a partial theory, and all modern theories are based in a partial paradigm. A true ToE contains only one context, "everything that exists", but nothing can exist outside of this context. However, forces act upon objects from the outside, when this "outside" does not exist within the ToE's context due to its containment requirement. Everything must be inside the ToE, invalidating any external context that cannot exist. This issue is covered in Moment Theory, Vol.0, Quantum Quay, and it is unfortunately an initial condition problem that few theorists give any consideration.

[Bill S]

Hi, MicheR, welcome.

A true ToE contains only one context, "everything that exists", but nothing can exist outside of this context. However, forces act upon objects from the outside, when this "outside" does not exist within the ToE's context due to its containment requirement.

I don't follow this.  It seems like a self-contradicting argument.

If "nothing can exist outside" the context of the ToE, there is nowhere for a force to come from, therefore there can be no such force.  (?)