If every supernova were, in itself, a "micro-universe" (yes i know, by the definition of the word there can be only one universe) that would be the link between the large, and the small. (if infinite largeness, and smallness is real that is, or not...I haven't decided yet.)
For example, if you could grow so big that a star, or galaxy was the size of an atom to you, you would not be able to track its speed and location at the same time (just like atoms) the time relation also might come into play because even if you could zoom in on an atom to where you could see it, it would still be too fast to track it. You would have to slow down time also.
And there you have it. My own personal M-theory. Is it right? well being that no one has an idea of the real M-theory....it might as well be.
Mind Fodder,
Somehow I failed to see how this has anything to do with "M"
and
> the real M-theory
Is there a fake M-theory?
and
>If every supernova were, in itself, a "micro-universe"
How do we know it's not?
for all we know this entire universe could only be part of a flee on the back of one of God's pet dogs.
Somehow I failed to see how this has anything to do with "M"
and
> the real M-theory
Is there a fake M-theory?
and
>If every supernova were, in itself, a "micro-universe"
How do we know it's not?
for all we know this entire universe could only be part of a flee on the back of one of God's pet dogs.
QUOTE (paul h+Feb 16 2008, 08:08 AM)
Somehow I failed to see how this has anything to do with "M"
Mediocre maybe?
Mediocre maybe?
Moronic Misunderstood Meanderings.
I'll take crits from a couple of the replies, even though you might want to add to your science knowledge, a sense of humor.......but i suppose that's another topic....but that one guy with his 60% warning can go live on mercury for all i care.
has science jaded you that much? take a break and smell the roses, unless gods dog is peeing on them.......
has science jaded you that much? take a break and smell the roses, unless gods dog is peeing on them.......
QUOTE (Mind Fodder+Feb 15 2008, 07:53 PM)
For example, if you could grow so big that a star, or galaxy was the size of an atom to you, you would not be able to track its speed and location at the same time (just like atoms) the time relation also might come into play because even if you could zoom in on an atom to where you could see it, it would still be too fast to track it. You would have to slow down time also.
Stars and galaxies don't display quantum properties. Just because I, personally, cannot keep track of all the velocities and positions of 100 coloured balls bouncing around in a room doesn't mean a computer can't. There's nothing to stop me measuring the speed and velocity of the balls to a high enough accuracy to predict their motion for millions of years to come, no matter how large I am.
With quantum mechanical objects that's not possible. Even if we were atomic in size, we'd still be subject to the uncertainty principle.
There's a huge difference between a lack of measurement and the inability to measure.
Stars and galaxies don't display quantum properties. Just because I, personally, cannot keep track of all the velocities and positions of 100 coloured balls bouncing around in a room doesn't mean a computer can't. There's nothing to stop me measuring the speed and velocity of the balls to a high enough accuracy to predict their motion for millions of years to come, no matter how large I am.
With quantum mechanical objects that's not possible. Even if we were atomic in size, we'd still be subject to the uncertainty principle.
There's a huge difference between a lack of measurement and the inability to measure.
QUOTE (Mind Fodder+Feb 15 2008, 07:53 PM)
well being that no one has an idea of the real M-theory....it might as well be.
Does your theory have a low energy regime described by super gravity equations? Upon dimensional reduction, does your theory reduce to IIA string theory?
If you answer "No" to either of those questions then we can be certain your 'personal M theory' isn't M theory. Just because we don't know full M theory doesn't mean we cannot test possible candidates yet. We know the low energy behaviour of M theory.
If you answer "No" to either of those questions then we can be certain your 'personal M theory' isn't M theory. Just because we don't know full M theory doesn't mean we cannot test possible candidates yet. We know the low energy behaviour of M theory.
too bad you don't know what S Theory is
sense of humor...
plus you didn't even get what i was saying. so............
sense of humor...
plus you didn't even get what i was saying. so............
Humour of that kind is extremely hard to read. Remember, there's no voice inflections and facial gestures to pick up from when you're reading text.
Yes, you might have said it in a light hearted way but you wouldn't have been the first person I've come across on these forums who would honestly claim, after posting something like your first post, to have explained all of physics and 'completed M theory'. Like this post. He can't even spell his title correctly but thinks he's onto something.
Yes, you might have said it in a light hearted way but you wouldn't have been the first person I've come across on these forums who would honestly claim, after posting something like your first post, to have explained all of physics and 'completed M theory'. Like this post. He can't even spell his title correctly but thinks he's onto something.
QUOTE (Mind Fodder+Feb 15 2008, 06:53 PM)
If every supernova were, in itself, a "micro-universe" (yes i know, by the definition of the word there can be only one universe) that would be the link between the large, and the small. (if infinite largeness, and smallness is real that is, or not...I haven't decided yet.)
For example, if you could grow so big that a star, or galaxy was the size of an atom to you, you would not be able to track its speed and location at the same time (just like atoms) the time relation also might come into play because even if you could zoom in on an atom to where you could see it, it would still be too fast to track it. You would have to slow down time also.
And there you have it. My own personal M-theory. Is it right? well being that no one has an idea of the real M-theory....it might as well be.
Mind Fodder, kudos to you for posting your own theory here. It takes courage and great dedication to ask questions.
Don't let these forum morons tell you that all of the ideas have been thought of, it's extremely small minded for anyone to think so.
Just as they had the wrong head on the wrong dinosaur for 50 years, so the same mistakes can be made in science. Amazingly, a LOT more often than we even know.....
Admitting you are wrong leads to funding being pulled or expired. Better send out some press releases to reaffirm we're on the right track.....
For example, if you could grow so big that a star, or galaxy was the size of an atom to you, you would not be able to track its speed and location at the same time (just like atoms) the time relation also might come into play because even if you could zoom in on an atom to where you could see it, it would still be too fast to track it. You would have to slow down time also.
And there you have it. My own personal M-theory. Is it right? well being that no one has an idea of the real M-theory....it might as well be.
Mind Fodder, kudos to you for posting your own theory here. It takes courage and great dedication to ask questions.
Don't let these forum morons tell you that all of the ideas have been thought of, it's extremely small minded for anyone to think so.
Just as they had the wrong head on the wrong dinosaur for 50 years, so the same mistakes can be made in science. Amazingly, a LOT more often than we even know.....
Admitting you are wrong leads to funding being pulled or expired. Better send out some press releases to reaffirm we're on the right track.....
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Feb 18 2008, 10:31 AM)
Humour of that kind is extremely hard to read. Remember, there's no voice inflections and facial gestures to pick up from when you're reading text.
Yes, you might have said it in a light hearted way but you wouldn't have been the first person I've come across on these forums who would honestly claim, after posting something like your first post, to have explained all of physics and 'completed M theory'. Like this post. He can't even spell his title correctly but thinks he's onto something.
Alpha, I read DavidD's post which you reference and I disagree with you saying bad things about him. He is obviously not an English speaking person so I think he deserves even more kudos for trying to explain what he thinks in a foreign language.
It's clear that David has put some thought into what he thinks. NEVER forget that Einstein said - his ability for imagination proved more useful than his ability for logic.
Great science isn't about having all of the answers...great science is about asking the right questions. The right questions being the ones that inspire more thought and more answers.
I actually think David might be on to something with the energy waves idea. To put his entire post down because of his broken English is weak.....ideas should be borderless and shared by all.
This forum gets more and more disappointing each time I visit...it seems monkeys from the zoo visit here as opposed to actual thinking adult mammal Homo Erectus.
I think David is trying to explain how energy interacts with itself. A very noble question!
Yes, you might have said it in a light hearted way but you wouldn't have been the first person I've come across on these forums who would honestly claim, after posting something like your first post, to have explained all of physics and 'completed M theory'. Like this post. He can't even spell his title correctly but thinks he's onto something.
Alpha, I read DavidD's post which you reference and I disagree with you saying bad things about him. He is obviously not an English speaking person so I think he deserves even more kudos for trying to explain what he thinks in a foreign language.
It's clear that David has put some thought into what he thinks. NEVER forget that Einstein said - his ability for imagination proved more useful than his ability for logic.
Great science isn't about having all of the answers...great science is about asking the right questions. The right questions being the ones that inspire more thought and more answers.
I actually think David might be on to something with the energy waves idea. To put his entire post down because of his broken English is weak.....ideas should be borderless and shared by all.
This forum gets more and more disappointing each time I visit...it seems monkeys from the zoo visit here as opposed to actual thinking adult mammal Homo Erectus.
I think David is trying to explain how energy interacts with itself. A very noble question!
I liked the question about size though.
It's an immortal one::))
So if we enlarged ourselves so that this universe would be the relative size of an atom.
Would the 'laws' we know still be bound to what we before defined as QM.
(F ex the uncertainty principle)
It seems a fun question.
It's an immortal one::))
So if we enlarged ourselves so that this universe would be the relative size of an atom.
Would the 'laws' we know still be bound to what we before defined as QM.
(F ex the uncertainty principle)
It seems a fun question.
QUOTE (yor_on+Feb 18 2008, 11:52 AM)
I liked the question about size though.
It's an immortal one:
)
So if we enlarged ourselves so that this universe would be the relative size of an atom.
Would the 'laws' we know still be bound to what we before defined as QM.
(F ex the uncertainty principle)
It seems a fun question.
cool, you got the humor, and the "real" question behind it. there is hope my my "logic" yet here.
so ...............whats the answer...
It's an immortal one:
)So if we enlarged ourselves so that this universe would be the relative size of an atom.
Would the 'laws' we know still be bound to what we before defined as QM.
(F ex the uncertainty principle)
It seems a fun question.
cool, you got the humor, and the "real" question behind it. there is hope my my "logic" yet here.
so ...............whats the answer...
QUOTE (Samantha Hildreth+Feb 18 2008, 11:33 AM)
Mind Fodder, kudos to you for posting your own theory here. It takes courage and great dedication to ask questions.
Not really, however in Mindfodder's case it obviously takes great overblown stupidity and ignorance.
Not really, however in Mindfodder's case it obviously takes great overblown stupidity and ignorance.
QUOTE (Mind Fodder+Feb 19 2008, 03:18 AM)
cool, you got the humor
No, that's just the vacuous grin of a morόn
No, that's just the vacuous grin of a morόn
Mind Fodder,
I specialize in humor but AlphaNumeric was right about it being hard to read humor (sometimes). Hell, I thought you were serious but,, >take a break and smell the roses, unless gods dog is peeing on them.. That was funny
I thought you would come back with a discussion on branes. I have many questions there.
I specialize in humor but AlphaNumeric was right about it being hard to read humor (sometimes). Hell, I thought you were serious but,, >take a break and smell the roses, unless gods dog is peeing on them.. That was funny
I thought you would come back with a discussion on branes. I have many questions there.
Mind Fodder
Posted: Feb 15 2008, 06:53 PM :
Newbie, time at the keys may not be the measure, rather if it gives you pleasure, that is the start, besides, try defining the "universe" a number of ways: speculative theory, measurable, not measurable, ... the idea of even a foamy universe going on forever or just finite, the task is to find a model or many that gives peace and plenty.
Best yet, it's should be rewarding, not a hoarding, takes some thought backed by reading or equivalent, puzzling, trial and error, the latter the ladder to understanding.
Remember, it is a living for many, M-theory. Matrix, Matter, or Money?
======================================
paul h
Posted: Feb 15 2008, 07:08 PM:
At best so far, the mathematical series, finite or infinite, whether either converges or not, may have to provide for uncertainty, noise, errors.
Remember: "there is no flea lunch" but to Chow down on hunch.
Ok, maybe I should skip ahead today on replies... do have some recent essay's to report on the QT.
=======================================
N O M
Posted: Feb 16 2008, 03:30 AM:
You are helping me get thorough.
"Mediocre maybe?", has the flavor of a middle color, back in the cave people's beginnings. I understand the artists then had a tool kit of colors, paining on the cave walls, yes shadows cast moving with the motion of the flames from the fire around which our ancestors may have huddled, but in the light from the hole upon the roof of the cave, that fiery ball in the sky would make colors alive.
Ok, we are the time machines around which culture (technology included) revolves. The Internet may be the wall, the many opinions the flickering flames.
Snuff me out.
=====================================
Crankoid
Posted: Feb 16 2008, 05:16 AM;
I always liked the radio series about a Native American Indian:
"Straight Arrow". It likely was the teamwork idea of the radio show writers, but we (males) used it during the 60's as a way of stating our recognition of being "ethically straight" with the cover of recovering from occasional drug experiments.
I hope your cover name "Crankoid" is also this kind of joke.
=======================================
Mind Fodder
Posted: Feb 16 2008, 03:41 PM :
You noticed the 60% is accompanied by the title "erect member".
Nothing to be ashamed about.
=======================================
AlphaNumeric
Posted: Feb 16 2008, 09:48 PM:
Good questions. Quickly, my emerging understanding to date about QM is this:
There are measured very low frequency electromagnetic waves in the order of 100 Hertz and very high frequency, say gamma rays.
If you consider that the Black Hole(s), say conjectures, give off from glancing particles off the black body radiations (bbr), a Temperature proportional to the Mass of the BH, then I ask to myself, what is the connection each individual bbr to the "mechanics" of the BH?
In addition the Mass is proportional to the area of the BH. This suggests a hollow structure, that is the surface of the BH is the operative structure. This observation is also what I have been reading this last month about the micro levels (say Fermi).
So following this lead, I ended up this last week, yesterday included, with studying the essays on hollow molecular structures.
arXiv:math/0410314v1 [math.DG] 13 Oct 2004
{{INFINITE PERIODIC DISCRETE MINIMAL SURFACES WITHOUT SELF-INTERSECTIONS
WAYNE ROSSMAN
Abstract. A triangulated piecewise-linear minimal surface in Euclidean 3-
spaceR^3 defined using a variational characterization is critical for area amongst
all continuous piecewise-linear variations with compact support that preserve
the simplicial structure. We explicitly construct examples of such surfaces that
are embedded and are periodic in three independent directions of R^3
.
Departmentof Mathematics, Facultyof Science,
KobeUniversity, Rokko, Kobe657-8501, Japan
wayne@math.kobe-u.ac.jp
http://math.kobe-u.ac.jp/HOME/wayne/wayne.html }}
[Comments: The author, Rossman, uses and presents triangles, equal sided (regular) and non-regular, and leaves four sided holes. There are some eleven sets of figures.
The holes appear to be also five and six sided.
The practical hands on aspect is that the Roger's Connections magnet tipped N/S four inch plastic rods (edges) and 0.5 inch steel balls (vertices) have the basic regular triplet, and I noticed that in constructing objects that the holes follow the above figures.
In essence, there appears to be a "Hole in the Rhetoric, Dear Liza, Dear Liza" (from folk song).
Practically, at the molecular level, holes in structures can filter out Methane or CO2, store these in decades time their weight. If BHs are hollow, what is in the middle?
More on this soon, got other pressing legal work to do, plus a presentation at our Local Township Board, a dispute over taking our property without due process or compensation.
Best, rmuldavin
Posted: Feb 15 2008, 06:53 PM :
Newbie, time at the keys may not be the measure, rather if it gives you pleasure, that is the start, besides, try defining the "universe" a number of ways: speculative theory, measurable, not measurable, ... the idea of even a foamy universe going on forever or just finite, the task is to find a model or many that gives peace and plenty.
Best yet, it's should be rewarding, not a hoarding, takes some thought backed by reading or equivalent, puzzling, trial and error, the latter the ladder to understanding.
Remember, it is a living for many, M-theory. Matrix, Matter, or Money?
======================================
paul h
Posted: Feb 15 2008, 07:08 PM:
At best so far, the mathematical series, finite or infinite, whether either converges or not, may have to provide for uncertainty, noise, errors.
Remember: "there is no flea lunch" but to Chow down on hunch.
Ok, maybe I should skip ahead today on replies... do have some recent essay's to report on the QT.
=======================================
N O M
Posted: Feb 16 2008, 03:30 AM:
You are helping me get thorough.
"Mediocre maybe?", has the flavor of a middle color, back in the cave people's beginnings. I understand the artists then had a tool kit of colors, paining on the cave walls, yes shadows cast moving with the motion of the flames from the fire around which our ancestors may have huddled, but in the light from the hole upon the roof of the cave, that fiery ball in the sky would make colors alive.
Ok, we are the time machines around which culture (technology included) revolves. The Internet may be the wall, the many opinions the flickering flames.
Snuff me out.
=====================================
Crankoid
Posted: Feb 16 2008, 05:16 AM;
I always liked the radio series about a Native American Indian:
"Straight Arrow". It likely was the teamwork idea of the radio show writers, but we (males) used it during the 60's as a way of stating our recognition of being "ethically straight" with the cover of recovering from occasional drug experiments.
I hope your cover name "Crankoid" is also this kind of joke.
=======================================
Mind Fodder
Posted: Feb 16 2008, 03:41 PM :
You noticed the 60% is accompanied by the title "erect member".
Nothing to be ashamed about.
=======================================
AlphaNumeric
Posted: Feb 16 2008, 09:48 PM:
Good questions. Quickly, my emerging understanding to date about QM is this:
There are measured very low frequency electromagnetic waves in the order of 100 Hertz and very high frequency, say gamma rays.
If you consider that the Black Hole(s), say conjectures, give off from glancing particles off the black body radiations (bbr), a Temperature proportional to the Mass of the BH, then I ask to myself, what is the connection each individual bbr to the "mechanics" of the BH?
In addition the Mass is proportional to the area of the BH. This suggests a hollow structure, that is the surface of the BH is the operative structure. This observation is also what I have been reading this last month about the micro levels (say Fermi).
So following this lead, I ended up this last week, yesterday included, with studying the essays on hollow molecular structures.
arXiv:math/0410314v1 [math.DG] 13 Oct 2004
{{INFINITE PERIODIC DISCRETE MINIMAL SURFACES WITHOUT SELF-INTERSECTIONS
WAYNE ROSSMAN
Abstract. A triangulated piecewise-linear minimal surface in Euclidean 3-
spaceR^3 defined using a variational characterization is critical for area amongst
all continuous piecewise-linear variations with compact support that preserve
the simplicial structure. We explicitly construct examples of such surfaces that
are embedded and are periodic in three independent directions of R^3
.
Departmentof Mathematics, Facultyof Science,
KobeUniversity, Rokko, Kobe657-8501, Japan
wayne@math.kobe-u.ac.jp
http://math.kobe-u.ac.jp/HOME/wayne/wayne.html }}
[Comments: The author, Rossman, uses and presents triangles, equal sided (regular) and non-regular, and leaves four sided holes. There are some eleven sets of figures.
The holes appear to be also five and six sided.
The practical hands on aspect is that the Roger's Connections magnet tipped N/S four inch plastic rods (edges) and 0.5 inch steel balls (vertices) have the basic regular triplet, and I noticed that in constructing objects that the holes follow the above figures.
In essence, there appears to be a "Hole in the Rhetoric, Dear Liza, Dear Liza" (from folk song).
Practically, at the molecular level, holes in structures can filter out Methane or CO2, store these in decades time their weight. If BHs are hollow, what is in the middle?
More on this soon, got other pressing legal work to do, plus a presentation at our Local Township Board, a dispute over taking our property without due process or compensation.
Best, rmuldavin
rmuldavin, all i have to say to that post is...........................................................................................i like turtles
QUOTE (Samantha Hildreth+Feb 18 2008, 12:51 PM)
It's clear that David has put some thought into what he thinks.
No, he didn't. In several threads he posted extensively about the Pauli matrices. Upon asking him what he actually knew about them it turned out he didn't know anything about matrices, he didn't know anything about the SU(2) Lie group (which the Pauli matrices are generators of) and even when I gave extensive links and explainations to both the mathematical framework and the physical application of the Pauli matrices, he flat out ignored it all and carried on posting nonsense.
He is a prime example of a crank. Doesn't understand something because he's never tried to understand it and so thinks it's wrong. When the information is put right infront of him, he realises he cannot understand it so defaults back to "If I don't/can't understand it, it's wrong."
No, he didn't. In several threads he posted extensively about the Pauli matrices. Upon asking him what he actually knew about them it turned out he didn't know anything about matrices, he didn't know anything about the SU(2) Lie group (which the Pauli matrices are generators of) and even when I gave extensive links and explainations to both the mathematical framework and the physical application of the Pauli matrices, he flat out ignored it all and carried on posting nonsense.
He is a prime example of a crank. Doesn't understand something because he's never tried to understand it and so thinks it's wrong. When the information is put right infront of him, he realises he cannot understand it so defaults back to "If I don't/can't understand it, it's wrong."
QUOTE (Samantha Hildreth+Feb 18 2008, 12:51 PM)
NEVER forget that Einstein said - his ability for imagination proved more useful than his ability for logic.
This doesn't mean someone could do physics without any ability to understand mathematics or logic. Einstein, even when working in that patent office, had spent years at university and had a PhD in physics. The ease of his job meant he could devote time to reading and thinking about physics.
Remember, Einstein also said "Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater." and "Equations are more important to me, because politics is for the present, but an equation is something for eternity."
He knew the importance of logic and mathematics to physics. Hilbert worked closely with him.
Einstein's quote is more about the fact you can be technically good at physics without any imagination but you'll never advance the field. However, you'll never be good at physics or advance the field if you're completely innumerate and unwilling to open and read the work of people who came before you. Newton said he got where he got because he stood on the shoulders of giants. Even though people like Dirac showed the work of his teachers to be flawed, he'd not have acheived his work on QFT if he'd not learnt their work.
Cranks seem to use the fact science advances and old theories are replaced as an excuse for not learning ANY modern science. Such a stand point is both lazy and idiotic.
Remember, Einstein also said "Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater." and "Equations are more important to me, because politics is for the present, but an equation is something for eternity."
He knew the importance of logic and mathematics to physics. Hilbert worked closely with him.
Einstein's quote is more about the fact you can be technically good at physics without any imagination but you'll never advance the field. However, you'll never be good at physics or advance the field if you're completely innumerate and unwilling to open and read the work of people who came before you. Newton said he got where he got because he stood on the shoulders of giants. Even though people like Dirac showed the work of his teachers to be flawed, he'd not have acheived his work on QFT if he'd not learnt their work.
Cranks seem to use the fact science advances and old theories are replaced as an excuse for not learning ANY modern science. Such a stand point is both lazy and idiotic.
QUOTE (Samantha Hildreth+Feb 18 2008, 12:51 PM)
I actually think David might be on to something with the energy waves idea. To put his entire post down because of his broken English is weak
I don't dismiss his ideas just because he has the spelling and grammar of a dyslexic 10 year old, I dismiss them because of their incoherence, lack of formalism, his ignorance of current physics and his unwillingness to learn anything which isn't the product of his own imagination or someone as equally clueless.
Cranks will never touch a mainstream idea but if it's the work of another crank, they lap it up. It's as if you all give each other mutual support to avoid accepting your inability to learn or understand actual physics. If the author of an idea is just making up BS, then his supporters have nothing to learn, they just make up BS too when talking about it. Real physics is a little harder. Much to my personal frustration.
Cranks will never touch a mainstream idea but if it's the work of another crank, they lap it up. It's as if you all give each other mutual support to avoid accepting your inability to learn or understand actual physics. If the author of an idea is just making up BS, then his supporters have nothing to learn, they just make up BS too when talking about it. Real physics is a little harder. Much to my personal frustration.
QUOTE (Samantha Hildreth+Feb 18 2008, 12:51 PM)
This forum gets more and more disappointing each time I visit...it seems monkeys from the zoo visit here as opposed to actual thinking adult mammal Homo Erectus.
I'm happy to discuss any particular area of mainstream physics or if you have a personal idea about something, that (provided you present your ideas coherently, clearly and had made all attempts to grasp the mainstream area you are trying to improve upon so there's some common ground/reference points for discussion).
Unfortunately cranks don't do that. They just want to try to sell their snake oil to everyone. The only buyers are other cranks though.
Unfortunately cranks don't do that. They just want to try to sell their snake oil to everyone. The only buyers are other cranks though.
My theory unleast match with usual logic unlike 11 dimensions theory (string, M). M theory saying that there exist many (>3;>4) dimensions (I don't know real or abstract). My theory involving geometry and saying that Reletivistic theory is not constant, but constant is 3D space, geometrical particles of shape of sphere and all possible math can be realated with my theory without any limitations like enshtein reletivity theory. I don't know how good M theory explaining entanglement, but my theory explaining it by fact that spherical particles touching each over all the time and so transmiting energy/information with infinity speed. My theory don't have any proofs, but such theory seems to me most logical explanation of how universe working. My theory imposible to proof, becouse for proving it need simulate infinity number of spherical particles in 3D space. My theory with infinity speed property explaining such phenomenons like entanglement or single photon interference with itself. Maybe M theory can explain some things so it can be for it, but base of all physics (including quantum mechanic) and all space and everything is my theory. Smarter theory than my, I can't imagine... One minus is that my theory nowhere can be used in practic.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.