Classical Mechanics is Dead!

[junglelord]

I would like a thread devoted to classical mechanics. Is it dead?
Your thoughts are most appricated. This is born out of the attempt to unify physics around the movers and shakers of the schools of thought. Mead and Feynman would argure that Classical Mechanics is dead. I agree in its current form, deader then a doorknob.

I am really learning a lot from the Carver Mead book Collective Electrodynamics. This quote will either mean nothing to you or cause a nonlinear paradigm shift in your world. Classical Mechanics is Dead!. I believe the whole issue in APM, over spin, was what is fundamental? This paradigm would indicate that angular momentum is fundamental, any classical mechanical approach to solve it is "fundamentally flawed" as I kept pointing out in that thread over issue of angular momentum as a fundamental dimension. Since Plasmatic tried to prove with classical mechanics that Quantum Spin is not a fundamental, I think we can lay that argument to rest now. Classical Mechanics is what is not fundamental. Any attempt to say QM or Quantum Strutucture (APM) is not fundamental from a classical mechanics model is not logical.
Thats what I meant by his double worded statement. He really thought he was using logic, but as we can see the circle (double worded sentance that using as a rebuttal acutally proves the case) logic of classical mechanics gyroscopic spin does not apply and is not even fundamental in and of itself.

Classical mechanics is an inappropriate starting point for physics because it is not fundamental; rather it is the incoherent aggregation of the enormous number of quantum elements.

Feynamn wrote
there are many changes and concepts that are important when we go from classical to quantum mechanics. Instead of forces we deal with the way interactions change the wavelengths of waves.

To make contact with the fundamental nature of matter, we must work in a coherent context in which the underlying quantum reality has not been corrupted by incoherent averaging process. Traditional treatments of quantum mechanics universally confused results that follow from the wave nature of matter with those that follow from the statistical nature of the experiment. In the usual picture, these aspects are inextricably intertwined. Einstein himself had a massive case of this confusion, at a cost in the debate with Bohr. Had he stuck to his hunch that the fundamental laws are continuous, he would have fared better; but to do that he would have needed a model quantum system in which statistics play a vanishingly small role. At that time, no such system was known. Today we have many such systems. Of these, none is more accessible than the superconductor itself; it is a quantum phenomenon/system on a grand scale. And, all by itself, provides us strikingly direct access to a near perfect coherent system/state.

Despite the muddle and fuss over theory, the past 70 years have been an age of enlightenment on the experimental front. On the astounding experimental discoveries made during that period, a number are particularly important for the present discussion:

1933, Persistent Current in Superconducting Ring

1933 Expulsion of Magnetic Field by Superconductor

1954 Maser

1960 Atomic Laser

1961 Quantized Flux in Superconducting Ring

1962 Semiconductor Laser

1964 Superconducting Quantum Interface Device

1980 Integer Quantum Hall Effect

1981, Fractional Quantum Hall Effect

1995 Bose-Einstein Condensate
http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0 ... T0#PPA7,M1

[Plasmatic]

Since Plasmatic tried to prove with classical mechanics that Quantum Spin is not a fundamental, I think we can lay that argument to rest now.

Its amusing to see you spout claims when the thread is no longer around for others to see the consequent you are affirming. I never said "spin " isnt fundamental . And "double worded" is a jumble of words completely disconnected from the concepts you asserted as belonging to them. Defining concepts by non essential charachteristics is not a good way to be understood.

[junglelord]

You used classical mechanics (coin spin) to say that angular momentum was not a valid dimension in APM
I used this opinion of Feynman and Mead to back up the claim I made from the start. You were using classical mechanics to refute QM basicly, I said thats no good.

No matter how ever each of us define spin, you said never a noun, only a verb, and not a dimension. We cannot use classical mechanics to debate it.

I happen to think the opposite (is classical mechanics dead) after I posted this and even wrote dave thomson to ask if I was not in my own classical mess. After all did not APM reorganize the Classical Mechanics to marry Wave Function Collective Electrodynamics and solve the disconnect?


So in essence although your anology as Mead and Feynman and I pointed out is non valid, for Mead and Feynman to say Classical Mechanics is dead, Dave Thomson would disagree, therefore in that instance I owe you my apology.

I said classical mechanics was dead, I think that is not true because of APM, I think Mead is right, it is dead in its present arrangement and certainly Collective Electrodynamics is much more fundmental to what reality is then is classical mechanics in its present form.

Since we are discussing what is real, we need to be using the best model of physics possible *the most current* to qualify or disqualify, bad comparisons with outdated or unorganized models is something to be pointed out and corrected. I used Mead and Feynman to correct you,and provided links and quotes. I did not just say it was so, because I said so.

I then used APM to correct Mead or at least to clarify that statement. It is non inclusive (that statement) not all inclusive, if you reorganize the units and dimensions of classical mechanics around a unifying principle, then Classical Mechanics can live again. APM has achieved this in my mind. Therefore I am using APM to rebuttal myself.

Since you want to back up your belief, you need some representation. Certainly you disqualify APM because no one else has made the same representations and that in your mind disqualifies it. Therefore you need a reference, to change your article faith, into to a fact, backed up in the physics of present day technology of classical size quantum systems, with a link. If you had taken a Collective Electrodynamics approach like StevenO then at least you would have some good reference, as it stands, not a single person who understands physics, believes in or would use your stance, anologys, or logic. That is my point and it still stands.

[Plasmatic]

As you can tell I speak for my own view of what is valid conceptually not anyone elses. But if you insist on some references:

“The idea of normal matter being composed of smaller units of charge came from Ralph Sansbury in his paper Electron Structure. Even now there is debate about whether an electron has structure, while protons and neutrons are accepted to have structure. There is experimental evidence for electron structure. The fact that it has spin and a magnetic moment requires structure.”

“The question of the existence of an ether needs to be reexamined. A wave of any kind needs a medium to wave.”

By Wal Thornhill

Both of these reflect my point on waves and spin , the previous discussion was before i searched these quotes out.
Thank you for the apology , I accept gladly and with respect .

[junglelord]

I love your mind and its questions about what is valid. I truly do. You are not afraid to argue the basics.

I also think that anyone who thinks the electron, proton, neutron do not have a structure could never exist in the same paradigm of physics as Ida Rolf, Structural Engineering, Osteopathy, Molecular Material Scientist, Nanotechnology, Electronics, or myself.

Our dictium is that you cannot seperate Structure from Function. That is our Law.


I happen to apply that law to physics at every level and every dimension. Most people stop at the subatomic, I do not.

To me, It is a Law that is applicable all the time in every circumstance. In that respect I will be of great help to a theory like APM.

[Plasmatic]

Just to be clear I just explained that I do believe that the electron has "structure". I wish it was not so hard to disagree without our discussions becoming personal. Theres no malice in my motivations. Im only persuing what i see as real. You are doing the same. Somehow we have to find a way to allow a level of respect for that individual persuit , to prevent the desire to "demonize" the opposing person even if one finds the views of the other disastrous for the E.U. movement. The most impoartant thing as I see it is to refuse to make assertions without support and to refuse to prevent the opposing views to be heard. Thats dealing with integrity.

[junglelord]

My apology too, I for the life of me missed your preceeding post. You must have loaded two seconds before me.
LOL
Thats way to funny.


We seem to be having a meeting of the minds.


Everyone agrees that electons are minimum two charge structure. Some even think three. The Aether is back in the Zome Cube.