Fractal patterns spotted in the quantum realm (Feb 2010)

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by common_sense_seeker, Feb 17, 2010.

  1. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    This article shows that fractals can be seen in the quantum world Fractal patterns spotted in the quantum realm (FEB 2010). This makes sense, but how can they be described using non-fractal Newtonian/Einsteinian physics and maths? Surely a new quantum fractal physics can also describe planetary motion??
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,699
    So you're asking how can a quantum phenomenon be described by a model which doesn't model quantum phenomenon? Tell me, how do you set fire to something using ice?

    Why do you use the word 'surely'? Simply wishing it to be true doesn't make it so. I wish I was rich so I didn't have to apply for jobs but unfortunately its not the case. :shrug: The patterns are described by pre-existing quantum mechanics and we already know quantum mechanics doesn't naively lead to gravitational models.

    Try to use some common sense. Perhaps that's why you're seeking it, you don't have any.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Make an ice lens to focus sunlight onto something flammable.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,699
    I knew I'd invite replies to that

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Using ice and only ice. No other input of energy. Of course if you allow sources of light you just need a powerful or concentrated enough source so why use the Sun when you can use a terawatt laser. Shone through the ice cube, obviously

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    How does quantum mechanics describe the events of creation at T=0? A fractal pattern would be more informative than current maths imo.
     
  9. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,699
    What does that have to do with anything?

    A fractal pattern in what? How does that relate to your first question? And you do realise that fractals are already in current mathematics. That's why we know so much about them. The link you provide in your original post makes it clear that the fractal patterns already appear within quantum mechanics, when you consider large numbers of particles. You keep claiming there's something really good about fractals but you haven't demonstrated they solve or address any problem currently not addressed by physics or that current physics hasn't already included them in some way.

    I asked you to explain your use of the word 'surely' and you completely ignored me and simply asserted, yet again, that fractals will solve some currently unsolved problem. A point you have yet to justify.
     
  10. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    I'm talking about an eventual visualisation of the creation process, the beginning of spinning matter and radiation, what else? Is this something that math will lead to do you think or not??
     
  11. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,699
    And you said 'surely' because....? Please at least try to directly respond to a straight forward, direct question.

    We use mathematics as the logical construct in which to investigate the implications of theories or the possible new explanations for phenomena but that has nothing to do with what you've been saying. You implied fractals would provide new methods thus far not considered, yet the application of fractals to science is already something which has a history. Further more, you firmly state things like 'surely' fractals could explain particular things without a single shred of justification for such a statement. Can you provide some justification? If not just bloody say so, don't keep quoting my posts and then completely refusing to address anything I say or ask.
     
  12. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    I say 'surely' because its seems common sense to me that pictures are better at explaining things than math equations, despite the two being equivalent. This would certainly be the case with the general public, surely? The average person can't understand your math, but they can understand computer graphic interpretation if its done well enough.
     
  13. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,699
    It has been clearly established from your pseudoscience posts that you have no common sense. Also, given you have no experience with mathematics or science in general how are you in any position to evaluate what method of examining physical systems is 'better'? Diagrams can be useful but without the formal mathematics behind them they are imprecise and lack detail. For instance, you can draw world line diagrams if you know the expressions Lorentz transforms but you can't write down the equations from a world line diagram.

    And having nice diagrams for a documentary is fine but that isn't how science is done. You talk about fractals and quantum mechanics and describing the gravity of the solar system, so you're talking about quantitative models, not "Here's how it roughly works". Science works by being precise, not arm waving. The fact you and nuts like Pincho Paxton are unable to grasp this doesn't make it magically go away.
     
  14. fadingCaptain are you a robot? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,762
  15. stateofmind seeker of lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,362
    A picture is worth a 1000 numerical concepts

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    Thanks guys, that's a perfect link. That's exactly what I'm talking about. The breakthrough will come eventually, I know..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Bishadi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,745
    I guess, you still torturing folks seeking answers.

    The inquiry was asking how to describe evidence without QM.

    They have OBSERVED fractals in the real small, and newt/ein mechanics dont fit what is geometrically described as fractals.

    that is like asking; 'define the progression of living systems within a reductionary mathematical frame; define an evolutions?"

    fractals have been identified in nature and now at the 'quantum level' but can the physics of today share how this works?

    Show us Alph

    show us how obsolete your education is as reading your post did, just that

    No they are not! QM cant even render the observed evidence by hubble and now the link shares they observing the fractal pattern at the Quantum scale.

    you are ranting as if you are aware of the claim (evdence)

    I want to see you prove the golden ratio within QM to describe your claim.

    No computer models, no pretty pictures and no ranting.

    Share the golden (fractal) within a QM progression
    Show me alph; you are being called out!

    Mods......... leave me alone!
     
  18. Wexler Gadfly Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    115
    Pardon my ignorance...

    Does fractal geometry apply to all matter?

    Thank you.
     
  19. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
  20. Wexler Gadfly Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    115
  21. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,634
    Don't get Me started . Walk away Mikey Walk Away
     
  22. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    The latter.
     
  23. Wexler Gadfly Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    115
    Ok.

    Is that because there is not enough evidence, or because it has been proven to not be true?
     

Share This Page