Celestia Forums

Quantum objects are entangled by a structure with statistical features called a wavefunction. A structure with statistical features similar to a wavefunction was isolated in the motion of the most challenging binary star systems including DI Herculis. David Hilbert long sought to understand the relationship between statistics and mechanical motion as presented in his 6th Problem. A solution to this problem was tested on binary stars: http://www.scribd.com/doc/24674634/The-Sixth-Problem

BinaryStars wrote:Quantum objects are entangled by a structure with statistical features called a wavefunction. A structure with statistical features similar to a wavefunction was isolated in the motion of the most challenging binary star systems including DI Herculis. David Hilbert long sought to understand the relationship between statistics and mechanical motion as presented in his 6th Problem. A solution to this problem was tested on binary stars: http://www.scribd.com/doc/24674634/The-Sixth-Problem

I couldn't find an author name and an institution on the frontpage of that paper...
Why?

Fridger

The Author is Mr. Jamahl A. Peavey: Mechanical Engineer, Physics and Mathematics Instructor: This seven year project was independent so there is no university affiliation. This is a project that was designed to show my mechanically gifted students that mechanical evaluation and logic can be used to make discoveries just as well as advance mathematics and instrumentation. I sincerely hope I achieved that goal. (Name located @ lower left corner of Title Page)

Take care,

BinaryStars.

I had a look at that paper.

Well, it belongs to the familiar genre that claims to explain deep questions in Nature by extremely naive considerations, thereby reflecting a most narrow physics perspective (Mechanics) besides formal mistakes.

As a professional scientist in theoretical (astro-) Particle Physics and Cosmology, let me just make two comments:

• A huge global community of gifted and highly qualified scientists has reflected throughout the last century about the topic that the author claims to have "unified" and solved in a few lines.
  
  Despite dramatic conceptual differences, the coexistence of quantum physics and classical physics is quantitatively understood since a long time, in terms of the Correspondence principle along with the Superposition principle of Quantum physics, of which the author has apparently never heard. It is elegantly embedded in Richard Feynman's celebrated Path integral formalism that we use since decades in the formulation of quantum field theories. It shows explicitly how quantum physics turns into deterministic, classical physics, whenever actions become large as compared to Planck's constant [tex]\bar{h}[/tex]. It also makes us understand the dual nature of light: e.g. when diffraction phenomena are merging into geometrical ray optics...
  
  Hence, unlike the author's claims, there is NO conceptual inconsistency between deterministic classical physics and non-deterministic quantum physics.
  
  
• In the present context, I recall a most impressive talk by late Nobel prize winner Isidor Isaac Rabi many years ago at a big international conference in Budapest/Hungary. As a contemporary witness of the glorious times of Quantum Mechanics, he described in a memorable manner the zoo of entirely incorrect "theories" existing before Quantum Mechanics, all managing perfectly to "explain" the famous Balmer spectrum in atomic physics to many digits . But when Quantum Mechanics with all its conceptual beauty had arrived and of course naturally explained the Balmer series, all of those previous "baroque" theories had vanished in NO time.

Personally, I think this forum is not the right platform for discussing such "homebrewn" attempts any further. There are plenty of specialized forums for discussing exotic theories.

Fridger

Dear Fridger,

I respectfuly disagree with your final statement as I do not believe it is an accurate description of my project. But you have the right to your opionion. As a mechanical engineer, physics and mathematics instructor I am very familiar with the history of quantum physics and classical physics as well as all the brilliant minds that have worked on similar projects. Science is about objectivity and experimentation. I presented a testable solution to Hilbert's 6th Problem or the relationship between statistics and mechanical motion. I would be honored to only speak with the brilliant minds that have worked on the problem, I'm sure if they found the time to review my test results they would put all prejudice related to status in the scientific community aside and say, " those are interesting testable results which match astronomy observations". In the end, that's really all science is about, objective, testable results and observations.

Take care,

BinaryStars.

BinaryStars wrote:Dear Fridger,
...
I'm sure if they found the time to review my test results they would put all prejudice related to status in the scientific community aside and say, " those are interesting testable results which match astrological observations". In the end, that's really all science is about, objective, testable results and observations.

BinaryStars.

Firstly, I am sure you didn't mean astrological observations. Astrology and astronomy are "somewhat" different disciplines...

There is an obvious scientific way of achieving what you write: submit your paper to one of the renowned peer reviewed journals and see what happens! It's free of charge! I have served for decades as a referee for Physics Letters B, Nuclear Physics B, Physical Review D and various british IOP Journals. So I guess I should have enough experience to predict that the chance for getting your ideas accepted for publication are vanishingly small. If you send your paper to Physical Review Letters, it will be right away reviewed by two independent referees. So this might bypass your possible suspicion that referees are biased because you are not affiliated to a respectable research institution.

Fridger

PS: while it IS important to critically test theories against experiment, be assured that most scientists don't just believe in General Relativity because it happened to get the perihelion precession of Mercury about right! Yes it was crucial as a confirmation of GR, but what really counts is the underlying depth and beauty of the general covariance idea etc. Finally, since the historical times that you were starting from, a huge amount of theoretical insight and experimental evidence has been accumulated. So unlike the naive framework that you transcribe to GR, there are many more crucial considerations from particle physics, string theory and cosmology to be taken into account before one might talk of a "solution" these days...
.

Dear Fridger,

Thanks for bringing the typo to my attention. My paper has already been informally referred by you. Now assuming you are the average referee and by no means am I calling you average, why should I expect anything other than what I heard from you? My statitical odds of recieving a favorable evaluation does not increase with 2 referees because if you're perspective is the average then I know the results. It's logical. My odds might increase with 4 referees, it gets better with 400, even better with 400,000 and lets say I got over 750,000 referees. And lets say thoses referees looked at each binary star system I described and compared the results to observation. That's the odds I want. Where do you get over 750,000 referees to look at the facts? They are called mathematics and science teachers. They are really the toughest referees because what they teach can be tested. If I never talked about String Theory it would not matter because this is going to be an evalution of a testable solution. Special and General Relativity are testable theories, the beauty comes from the fact that they work, it had to work because Einstein was a virtual nobody when he started the projects. Even then people tried to find other interpetations for the facts, he got the Nobel Prize for the Photoelectric Effect, another theory that worked.

Science should have one standard. Now that's a nieve statement, because it varies with status. That's the only way to explain why an untestable theory by a Professor would get published and cited as proof rather than conjecture while a theory that works by a nobody is disregarded. It's insane scientifically, but in this instant it's great to be a nobody.

Take care,

BinaryStars