On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 8:46 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote:
> > I'm basing my remarks on what is known to be real. You seem to be > impressed by the social status of the authors and the reputation of QM. I > have great respect for QM but I have great disappointment with how it is > frequently applied. Modern physics is so dominated by mathematical > constructs, they ignore what is real, and then excuse this by saying that > this approach is ok because the quantum world is so strange. They seem to > make it as strange as possible just to avoid a challenge. I couldn't agree more, it's very frustrating to learn QM. You tend to get a lot of powerful mathematical constructs but really no good mental model how it all works. People do have tried to make it more tractable to calculate interactions with tools like Feynman diagrams and a well thought out mathematics that kind of translates between Newtonian mechanics and QM through the set of corresponding operators. Then when one start to read about relativistic QM with the Dirac Equation and the standard model it all becomes a huge mathematical generalization with many dimensions (degrees of freedom). Personally I believe that we can condense the descriptions to a conceptual representation in 3D or space time, but with actually a infinite dimension w.r.t. the number of freedoms. I base that on the concept of maybe the Higgs field. Then for one point in space you can see that you for each direction have a certain intensity e.g. the number of infinite degrees of freedom is the intensity per direction. Consider from this deviations from an even distribution according to first and second order variations. On top of this I would try to churn in the forces, for this I would note that the plane waves for EM has one direction of variation and two directions of no variation in space at any given time, the number of variates of this is ((constant) (changing) = (0 3) (1 2) (2 1) (3 0)) e.g. 4, and there is 4 known forces. To show that this description, probably modified to a good degree, but correspond to the standard model is not a small work if it bears some truth. But this is what kind of truth we should seek for and really exclude as a possibility before resting on descriptions that basically looks like a huge mathematical trick. When it comes to the actual article, I read that as if we have a three way interaction between two slow d for example and a free electron the can cause a fusion with much higher degree then at first sight if the paper have done the QM correct. I find it interesting because this is a new principle for how one can produce a nuclear reaction. But as noted getting two slow d and a free electron to collide to such a degree that the calculation is, well uncertain! Have fun! /Stefan
