Opinions on Physics

Schrödinger's theory and Schrödinger's cat

Schrödinger's cat. The probability expresses the statistical chance for the cat. There's nothing more to say about it. There's something wrong with Schrödinger's theory if this is a necessary implication.
I'd also like to point out that the "mystery" of Schrödinger's cat comes down to the Copenhagen Interpretation, that I follow strictly on the observation point only, of having to be observed for something to exist. Schrodinger's cat goes clearly against this, even as an indirect observation. I therefore think that the whole of this line of thinking (Schrödinger's cat etc.) is flawed. It's almost embarrassing how mistaken it seems in regard to the huge interest.

Schrödinger's cat can also be set up with a rat, by requirement of the ladies, slightly sedated and laid under the guillotine. So when this condition of the atom triggers, the guillotine blade falls and decapitates the rat, rendering it certainly and clearly dead, with its head chopped off and thus leaving the rat in 2 pieces. This may be a better demonstration of the experiment.

Over Problems with Schrödinger's theory and other - New Angles

It's with pleasure that I note that "Branching with Uncertain Semantics: Disc. Note by N. Belnap and T. Müller, published by BJPS lies in line with my writing and that they may have been reading this writing of mine. The future should be exciting!
It's certainly time for the "wave theory" to be demolished as expressing "wave" forming from the future in opposition to my own common sense sentiment that the past shapes the future. Thus, the "wave" of future possibilities is shaped by the past/history! This has been expressed earlier/above by the rejection of the Copenhagen Interpretation, except for the one point and the rejection of Schrödinger's (et al.?) theory.

In opposition to the Copenhagen Interpretation, I hold that one needs to always take into account the 3 necessary factors of matter, energy and mathematics. If you don't have matter and energy, there will not be any reality where your mathematics can apply. Thus, mathematics can't, whatsoever, be seen as more fundamental than reality itself, ie. matter and energy, perhaps along with space and time and some other.

Take the note, please, that energy is also matter, just split up in very tiny particles that also have a very tiny (physical) mass. So, by common knowledge, the particle/wave duality of the photon enters. The physics feels very fragmented at times and I'm still awaiting the Master Work in one series of volumes on it!

On Standard Model and the Future of It

Assertion: Photons are the smallest constituents of all matter. I assume the other particles of the Standard Model are made up of photons. Why is this? The sun burns mass and to my knowledge it only/mostly by far emits electromagnetic radiation, consequently in the form of photons. When a nuclear bomb explodes, it converts matter into electromagnetic radiation, energy of various forms. Compared to this, I think one can throw the string theory out the window along with dimensions beyond the usual 4 (I'm not certain about this concerning Einstein's theories that I'd like to keep as it is). Also, let's assume higher intensity radiation emits more dense amounts of photons and that it declines further down the electromagnetic spectrum.
New on photons: I think I can also hold that photons are "semi-fluid" on a hyper-level (of course). I don't know what this adds to our view of reality, but it's a possible way of reconciling the wave-particle duality.
Aether Aesthetics and a More Credible View on Gravity by Strong and Weak Interactions

Assertion: The space and possibly everywhere is held in a background uniform space that extends to the edges of the Universe, its gravitational system I'd like to call the Neo-aether that is consistent with Michelson-Morley experiment and functions in a more sublime way that we are yet to discover the full extension of. Einstein's theory effectively describes some of the nature of the Neo-aether.

I just like to say that I support the aether theory, if not exactly for a fluid, but I guess most theorists hold that the "fluid" is not a fluid as such. Rather, it's more about undetected phenomena connected to gravity yet not being any graviton.

An alternative view to aether can be this: in a unified picture of physics where the strong and weak magnetic forces are combined, one may achieve a calculated picture that equals what we perceive as gravity, but without adding any new particles and only asserting properties to mass in general, that is, "monades", the most basic constituents have a gravity/magnetic property to them and that is all. Job's done! This is all there is to describe because we have simply reached the bottom level there is to describe whatsoever!

Let me point out again that magnetism has north and south poles and thus reflect earth gravity, but on a micro scale. So this post is now also an update on my view on aether!

So let me be clear: I'm open to both of these views and that I intend to investigate these magnetic calculations first. I'm not sure on the approach for (new) aether, MM-compatible, other than for the fact that I see it logical in the extension of Einstein's RT. But I must point out that the aether research program now looks weak as one is yet to determine any property of it (apart from pure physical space). I've been in the hope one can find or identify a kind of new ocean, one that is "plastic" in nature, has some kind of an unknown physical property and is subtle and that matter just represents a function opposite to it by making gravity definite. Further than this is hard to describe other than the fact that I think it is an aesthetic property of the Universe.

My Successful Prediction of Mini-Black Holes by CERN Experiment

Concerning the Large Hadron Collider, LHC, it's my belief there will be absolutely no possibility of baby-black holes! If the smallest building blocks really are the photons then in LHC we'll see greater emission of photons from the collisions.

Note: The reason is that it takes Supernovas to make them and they are HUGE in the sense of Universe. They are in fact far bigger than our Sun which is our heaviest object in our Solar System. I don't think it's possible even to generate the power needed for such an experiment (to actually create Mini-/Baby-Black Holes). You could put 10 nuclear power plants right beside CERN and still the energy wouldn't match the assignment. I don't think there is possibility for such things in our Earthly lives!

On Big-Bang, Natural Laws, Asymmetry and Symmetry

I guess it's a common view to consider the Big Bang "a generative mechanism for the pattern of natural laws of the Universe". I still find the mind and the phenomena elusive, though, like if it's relevant here! It may be necessary to look to the moments after Big Bang to solve the riddle of the reason for matter to exist in particles, atoms, as they do, i.e., solving the question of the Higgs boson particle. It's also worth mentioning that unless there's formation of new matter from the absorption of photons, something I think there isn't, the matter in atoms is lost forever once it's dissolved. This is seldomly pointed out by physicists. Also, the absorption of photons into existing atomic structures brings increased excitation and perhaps weight and this fact, I think, adds to the Photon theory, ie. photons are the smallest building blocks in nature, universe.
On the Complexity of the Standard Model and Particles in Nature

I also like to mention that particle physics is far more complex than being just the Standard Model. Sir Roger Penrose writes in his book, The Road to Reality - A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, p. 628, about the pions, kaons, lambda, sigma, omega-minus, anti-protons, anti-neutrons, "vast hordes of particles whose existence is so fleeting that they are never directly observed, tending to be referred to merely as 'resonances'", 'virtual' particles and 'ghosts'. There are also mentioned numerous other "theoretical" particles by other theories.

It's just a quirk of mine, but I'd like to have the Charm and Strange quarks renamed as this, Charm gets the name Control and Strange gets the name Random. Does this make sense? Is it possible to prove the characteristics of control and randomness in the two quarks?

Note: I now think it may be that the Standard Model can be (relatively) completed! As analogy, Psychiatry has been in a haze concerning its diagnostication system and I think it's likely to make this finding in Physics as well.

On Impossibility of the Graviton and the Higgs' Boson

Concerning the Graviton and the Higgs' Boson:

I think it's clear at this stage that the Graviton and the Higgs' boson are blown out the window and are not to return to the world of physics ever again.

Why? Because they need to show that the photon is relevant to both of these concepts when it's hard in the first place to show the definite particle nature of the photon. Thus, photon necessarily must have both of these properties by which are hardly ever conceivable to prove, as separable particles apart from the photon itself!
It's clear however that the photon has "graviton" and "Higgs' boson" properties before we start out simply because "graviton" is to explain why particles are drawn to other objects, especially planets, and "Higgs' boson" is to explain why particles have mass whatsoever which all(?) have. It's therefore a kind of cheating to add "false particles" or "false names of properties" when they do not add explanatory force. The "mystery" of the (basic) particle of photon remains and also the mysteries with how mass and gravitation arise in the first place. Simply adding two names isn't very constructive in the general work of physics, I think (as mass and gravity are already in place).
I acknowledge that the Fermilab has set a confidence level for the finding of the Higgs' boson to 95%, but I'm sceptical of how they get there and if their work is more than mere "string theory work".

It's definite though, that the photon has both properties of mass and particle nature since it is affected by gravity (fx. from Mercury passing by the Sun). Yet the problem arises when you are to identify the graviton and the Higgs' boson, separately from the photon itself!

The URL to Fermilab and the Higgs' boson: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/press_releases/Higgs-mass-constraints-20100726-images.html.

On the Nature of Radio Signals From Space and how They Fit the Big Picture

Public education. Question: how are radio signals from space or through space explained? This is a terrible riddle to me. Radio waves, conventionally, are fluctuations through atoms like air, water and other substances. Do you have a good explanation of it? I have an update on this and it turns out radio waves are just another part of the electromagnetic spectrum with an even weaker intensity than infra-red. Thus, just another form of emission of photons. Done! (I'm sorry to bother you with such a puny question, but I've been wondering about it and I therefore want to make this clear to all, including the school kids!)
The link to a good spectrum including sound waves and electromagnetic waves, here.

On the Bending of Light(-Streams as Photons) by Electro-Magnetic Field, a Very Strong One

I think I'll state here right away that is in fact possible to bend light with a very strong, elelctro-generated magnetic field comparable to light from Mercury passing the gravity field of the Sun, like in the classic example of Einstein Relativity Theory.

Remember the lev-trains of the Japanese and their magnet experiments where they lift an object up only by the use of electro-magnetism and draw a sheet of paper underneath, between the lower and the upper physical bodies.

You should also have in mind the relative small size of the photon and the power of the elctro-magnetic field because I think it's fairly feasible.

Now, how this is done? At least for the calculation, it's fairly known how much pull the gravity of the Sun generates and the Planck's Mass(?) of the Photon should also be possible to consider. Then it's just to add the numbers and calculate what it takes to bend light. I also think this can be done in the classroom!

Wikipedia on magnets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnets!

The calculations are up to you to make, but at least for now, I remain optimistic (partly because I've seen it demonstrated in our classroom while finishing upper secondary school having the physics class. Rather this than any negative demonstation I can recall or heard of). Thus, kill the negative notions you read about on the internet!

I'd love to hear about your own searches. I haven't come up with the positive results just yet.

I'm also writing this primarily for public education and quenching myths of people who cite uncertain, novice sources.

Note on My Competence to These Respects

Note on my competence to this [Opinions on Physics and the Evolution webpage as a whoel]: I must "warn" readers that I have been reading Lee Smolin's "The Trouble With Physics" (by Penguin Group, 2006) and Roger Penrose's "The Road to Reality" (by Vintage Books, 2004). I have also studied physics all the way through upper high school, 3 years, for the Norwegian equivalent of GCSE Science and I've looked carefully into Bayesian problems in philosophy (relating to the Raven's Paradox by Carl Hempel) and (the metaphysics of) Time for that matter.

By Terje Lea, 21.10.2009, 29.10.2009, 05.11.2009, 19.11.2009, 21.11.2009, 03.04.2010, 27.09.2010, 12.11.2010, 25.01.2011, 16.02.2011, 20.02.2011, 24.02.2011 and 11.03.2011. (Small comments: 13.08.2010, 25.01.2011 and 11.03.2011.)

Note: on the Bending of Light(-streams as photons) by electro-magnetic field has first been written on the Philosophy Now forum 15.02.2011.
Note: concerning the Graviton and the Higgs' boson, this has first been written on the Philosophy Now forum 19.02.2011.
Note: additional comment on the issue of aether as well as an alternative view has been added 24.02.2011 that has first been written on the Philosophy Now forum earlier today divided on two posts.
Note: added the rat option into writing today, 11.03.2011.
Note: added note on my competence today, 11.03.2011.