0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

The axioms of quantum mechanics are not "clearly true" to the vast majority of people.

My most accurate proposed value is 137.0359990621 for the local low energy inverse fine structure constant. The CODATA empirical value is 137.035 999 084(21), so they are off by one standard deviation. I claimed a higher accuracy for the dalton/electron mass ratio, but there was an ambiguity in determining the least significant digits, so I am not now pushing it.

Nor are the laws of cricket.But it's possible to deduce them by watching the game (for long enough).In the same way, we can watch the universe and deduce the laws of QM.However, your "axioms" don't seem to follow that pattern.If there is supporting evidence for them, please show it.

In the meantime I would like other people to address the question, "What form of evidence for this entire theory would I find most convincing?"

All this calculus is eventually based on natural numbers. To work with something truly different we need to go deeper into mathematics

Since new theories here are on the "Lighter Side"

There were so few students in Newton's day that sometimes he taught classes with no students.

It would be nice, if the thread were not being shadow banned since reply #20. I tossed out the value of the inverse fine structure constant as bait, since people were not being specific about what they regarded as evidence. I do not appreciate the strategy of people just demanding more and more evidence with no commitment to ever being satisfied.

I tossed out the value of the inverse fine structure constant as bait, since people were not being specific about what they regarded as evidence.

Quote from: larens on 03/04/2020 01:35:10My most accurate proposed value is 137.0359990621 for the local low energy inverse fine structure constant. The CODATA empirical value is 137.035 999 084(21), so they are off by one standard deviation. I claimed a higher accuracy for the dalton/electron mass ratio, but there was an ambiguity in determining the least significant digits, so I am not now pushing it.Please show your working.

Quote from: larens on 03/04/2020 17:57:51 In the meantime I would like other people to address the question, "What form of evidence for this entire theory would I find most convincing?"Since you made a prediction for the axion's mass, the ability to replicate the spectrum of other particle masses would be nice.

I suggest that a fruitful area of new mathematics has been fractals with their fractional dimensions, and chaos theory, with strange attractors.

I'm still waiting.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/04/2020 11:07:09I'm still waiting.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/04/2020 23:44:07Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/04/2020 11:07:09I'm still waiting.You may be waiting a long time. I am not going to explain my entire theory to someone who is not seriously engaged in considering my work and has a strategy of just perfunctorily demanding more.

What I am "demanding" is the bare minimum.

Once again you are making a perfunctory demand while refusing to define your terms.

Show us the calculation and the inputs.