Changed oil, better results.

[Rhino]

And a prayer for the lost beer and the scratched panel, as well as for the aforementioned not checked valves. May they have clearance.

We'll all miss that beer. I have to go now.

Maybe we should start a beer memorial thread

[datsaxman@hotmail.com]

Brian, PRODUCT, not SUM in the (your) following paragraph.  Everybody thinks things should be sums...products are usually the more powerful technique, as is the case here.  the PRODUCT of the UNCERTAINTY in each value is at least (the subtle QM value).  So, to reiterate from earlier, if you know the position exactly (uncertainty of ZERO), then what can you multiply by zero to get (QM value)??  Only choice is something infinite. 

Hoo boy, apologies to anybody that had a headache already...

Zero times something infinite = something finite and nonzero...sort of. 


BUT, with corrections, I think you have the gist of it...


//
BDF said:
Heisenberg's principle- yep, I believe that one is correct and fitting. As I remember, you can only know the position and speed of a particle to a sum of 1, so if you are 50% certain of its speed, you only have a 50% certainty of knowing where it is (at the exact same time). No problem- the act of measuring the particle causes a change in that particle's speed and / or position. Fine and well. But the principle has become the basis to build upon until the things that result are simply not useful or representative. I'll come back to that one in a second though.
//



About the following paragraphs...

Pretty subtle distinction being made here about QM.  If you are saying you don't believe it exists, that's fine.  But you split the hairs pretty thin, IMO.

QM has the interesting attribute of being the theory responsible for the most successful predictions in the entire history of theories.  That is a pretty good track record.  Lots of folks DON'T LIKE QM.  So what?  IT WORKS.  Computers, cell phones, etc.

And, for my money you nail the biggest problem of QM.  QM deals with the tiny...General Relativity deals with the immense...and what modern theory deals with ordinary sizes and speeds?  NONE.  For those of you following along at home, QM deals with electrons and atoms, BUT does not predict the behaviour of large objects.  AT ALL.   

Einstein's GR deals with planets and solar systems and galaxies, but does not predict the behaviour of small objects.  AT ALL.

The irony is that these are the most successful, most terrifyingly mathematical theories in history...  (and I have taught them both, so I know)...and yet, there is this gigantic GAP, this realm of sizes where neither theory applies.  THIS INCLUDES THE SIZE OF ORDINARY OBJECTS!!  SO these great theories need to be joined by either another (completely new, as yet undreamt of) theory to bridge the gap (my expectation)...OR ONE OF THEM IS WRONG, which is what Brain was alluding to in the paragraph below.

I don't know that one of QM and GR must be incorrect, even though that is the popular thing for clever folks to say at this point in time...there is no scale at which both are compatible, that is certain.   Oh, and (again, for the home audience) "TOE" stands for "Theory of Everything", which is the usual name that postulated bridge theory is given.  Every physicist worth a nickel is said to be chasing down the TOE rabbithole.  There may be nothing there.  I agree that SOMETHING has to give.



//
More BDF:
I did not say that quantum mechanics does not work, just that I do not believe it exists. Yeah, that one needs a little fleshing out: I believe many of the facets are correct but again, the overall concept is basically flawed, especially because it will not scale. Certainly there is a problem with relativity and Q.M.; both may be but one MUST be incorrect. I call Q.M. incorrect and will go with relativity. Eventually the T.O.E. will be found that is correct but for now I consider Q.M. an interesting and occasionally useful.... parlor trick. I agree physics really is a series of laws that must be obeyed or nothing makes any sense (and I reject that choice), it is just that we do not yet understand all of the rules and have some that we think we understand incorrect. Besides all that, I was never all that big a fan of Bohr's thought process as I understand it- I am much more of a Fermi guy. Hey, for what it is worth, I absolutely and totally reject both Big Al's and the Presbyterian's concept of determinism. :-)
//


saxman




P.S.  Oh, and I STILL maintain that you can NEVER expect probability to give ANY exact predictions, re: cards.  Whether you have three or 312.  The TRUTH of the exact order of cards is beyond the parameters of probability.  Its predictive power comes in the ability to understand every possible arrangement of cards (say, the remnants of six decks in your shoe after 100 known cards are gone), and give you advice accordingly. 

Probability sucks at giving advice about one card, one time.  But if you are going to play 100 hands, it works very, very well. 

[datsaxman@hotmail.com]

SO...I got some new oil today...since this is an oil thread and everything...

[tomp]

I really don't grasp what you two are discussing, but I realized that I don't need to.  For me, this is why:

Isaiah 55:8-9  My answer for "TOE"...

[datsaxman@hotmail.com]

Interesting...the context (from the previous verses) is that the ways of men are wicked.  And thus "My (God's) ways are not your (man's) ways (which are wicked and all that)."

Physics is:

1) NOT wicked.

2) NOT in conflict with religion.

3) definitely related to OIL though!!

Just sayin...

saxman

[tomp]

I
Physics is:

1) NOT wicked.

Just sayin...

saxman

Have to disagree there, saxman.  Because every time you post those long, highly evolved posts, I get a wicked headache trying to understand just what you are discussing.  Just wondering here, are the laws of physics set in stone or open to interpretation by  my governmental officials,  seeking a more fair outcome for all???   

[B.D.F.]

Actually, I think you and I (or is that me and you? :-)  ) are on the exact same page and some of my words got in the way.

I absolutely agree that Q.M. works. I too am educated in that area, though more modestly than I would like, and have no doubt about it. What I DO NOT believe is that it is a fundamental, complete part of physics. What I think we have gotten a hold of is part, or pieces of "The Rules" and without the missing part (the middle, or perhaps many other several or even many other facets) they do not really work. For whatever it is worth, based entirely on logic rather than mathematics, I believe relatively is correct and simply not quite fleshed out yet. The best example I can give you of my thinking here is how Hawking could not leave black holes alone because they violated the second law of thermodynamics. He picked and chewed at that for a long time until he found the way out.... there are always pairs of matter, one sucked in and one forced away (simple version, 'Black holes ain't so black'). I have always been taken with the theory that seems to have fallen out of favor of the 'fifth' fundamental force that we do not know about being the key to both pages of physics.

But again, we really are in agreement here I think.

Brian

<snip>

About the following paragraphs...

Pretty subtle distinction being made here about QM.  If you are saying you don't believe it exists, that's fine.  But you split the hairs pretty thin, IMO.

QM has the interesting attribute of being the theory responsible for the most successful predictions in the entire history of theories.  That is a pretty good track record.  Lots of folks DON'T LIKE QM.  So what?  IT WORKS.  Computers, cell phones, etc.

And, for my money you nail the biggest problem of QM.  QM deals with the tiny...General Relativity deals with the immense...and what modern theory deals with ordinary sizes and speeds?  NONE.  For those of you following along at home, QM deals with electrons and atoms, BUT does not predict the behaviour of large objects.  AT ALL.   

Einstein's GR deals with planets and solar systems and galaxies, but does not predict the behaviour of small objects.  AT ALL.

The irony is that these are the most successful, most terrifyingly mathematical theories in history...  (and I have taught them both, so I know)...and yet, there is this gigantic GAP, this realm of sizes where neither theory applies.  THIS INCLUDES THE SIZE OF ORDINARY OBJECTS!!  SO these great theories need to be joined by either another (completely new, as yet undreamt of) theory to bridge the gap (my expectation)...OR ONE OF THEM IS WRONG, which is what Brain was alluding to in the paragraph below.

I don't know that one of QM and GR must be incorrect, even though that is the popular thing for clever folks to say at this point in time...there is no scale at which both are compatible, that is certain.   Oh, and (again, for the home audience) "TOE" stands for "Theory of Everything", which is the usual name that postulated bridge theory is given.  Every physicist worth a nickel is said to be chasing down the TOE rabbithole.  There may be nothing there.  I agree that SOMETHING has to give.

saxman




P.S.  Oh, and I STILL maintain that you can NEVER expect probability to give ANY exact predictions, re: cards.  Whether you have three or 312.  The TRUTH of the exact order of cards is beyond the parameters of probability.  Its predictive power comes in the ability to understand every possible arrangement of cards (say, the remnants of six decks in your shoe after 100 known cards are gone), and give you advice accordingly. 

Probability sucks at giving advice about one card, one time.  But if you are going to play 100 hands, it works very, very well.

[B.D.F.]

I greatly disagree with the idea that most people cannot talk about / learn these things. I believe the words and terms get in the way of what are really simple concepts. I also believe the mathematics gets in the way of the concepts; Dan will probably disagree but the worst thing about trying to explain calculus is that most people try to use math. No joke- I can explain the fundamental concept of calculus to anyone older than about 8 using nothing more than a few hand drawings and addition. Just my personal opinion but I think education introduces the tools (mathematics, terms, definitions, nomenclature, etc.) far too quickly and instead of the basic concepts of what is being taught. For example, any engineer with a bachelor's degree from any accredited school in the US have a pretty fair understanding of mathematics but all that I have met are terrible at explaining it (note I did not say teaching it). The reason is that the focus is incorrect in my opinion. Calculus is the mathematics of change. Trigonometry is the mathematics of an angle. Algebra is the mathematics of relationships. I could elaborate on any of those and NOT use a single formula or more than three or four keywords. But the system simple overloads people new to a concept with the mechanics of that concept- want to make calculus difficult? Just start off by using new words (differential, integral), funny symbols and lots of new notation.

Everyone can learn the rules that govern things if they were explained better IMO. But the rules (physics) are covered up so badly, from someone new to them, that the concept is lost entirely. There is no such thing as negative pressure! There is no such thing as a negative temperature! But by using different scales (Fahrenheit, Celsius, Rankine, Kelvin, ad nausem) and the concept that some temperatures can be negative, which puts zero is a really weird place, we make a mess. Now the mess is negotiable for those more knowledgeable but very difficult to through to the beginner.

Even the study of oil is a mess (slick how I got back to that, huh? Slick how I got the term 'slick' into the sentence with the word 'oil' in it, huh?). Viscosity, weights, multi- weight, Group classifications, additives, and a many more words do not help explain what oil does! Even the wacky units we use mislead: the weight of motor oil is measured using a different scale than the weight of differential grease so while the grease [seems] much, much thicker, it is NOT! What a mess! There are only two ways lubricants lubricate: 1) by causing a boundary between two surfaces (the oil film) or 2) by reducing or eliminating the friction between two surfaces in contact with each other. That's it. Which actually brings us ALL the way back to the beginning of this thread: the science of lubrication is called tribology, the study of friction, lubrication and wear. It is complicated with lots of calculus, lots of gradients, lots and lots of variables. But the concepts of tribology are simple; a film of oil is between two hard surfaces (easy boys!) and does not allow them to touch. That is why an aluminum or lead based bearing shell can contain thousands of pounds of crankshaft force at very high rotational speeds and not wear out- the oil will not let the two surfaces touch.

So you guys go easy in thinking that any of this stuff is out of reach: it is not and with a little effort, anyone can understand more tomorrow then he / she did today. Just don't let the educational part get in the way of learning. 

Brian

Have to disagree there, saxman.  Because every time you post those long, highly evolved posts, I get a wicked headache trying to understand just what you are discussing.  Just wondering here, are the laws of physics set in stone or open to interpretation by  my governmental officials,  seeking a more fair outcome for all???   

[tomp]

Brian, I am digging all this information, that is enlightening this almost old man, but my post was basically a plethora of satire and political witticisms. 
As far as learning, my career of almost 50 years has lead me in many directions and caused me to learn from a little, to a lot about many things, but QM has never officially come up for me.   More of a sales strategy/marketing type, and found that the most important law I have learned is from P.T. Barnum,  "There's a fool born every minute."  With today's society, I believe the time frame has shortened to probably (see how I used probabilities, not really having any secure  facts) two or three fools born every minute.  The basis of the movie "Idiocracy" is virtually upon us, 500 years too soon...  This is more fun than an oil thread.  Just got back from a ride but heat index was around 105 and traffic everywhere, but the 14 is a screamer when the right wrist is properly applied, and shifting was OK...tomp

[datsaxman@hotmail.com]

Brian,

Agreed.  On your basic statement.  I think we are largely in agreement on the important things.

One small correction, though.  Trigonometry == the whole triangle, not just an angle.  Don't get lazy and assume all triangles are right.  Insert joke here I think...



Math Counterpoint:  ((My Credentials:  This comes from decades of teaching the stuff to many thousands of university students and some high school students too))

I think the problem of education is exactly the opposite of what you said.  The problem is that mathematics is treated as "exotic", and most folks never get comfortable thinking mathematically. 
YOU GAVE THE EXAMPLE, possibly without realizing it.  Those engineers you refer to.  THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT AT ALL.  They can (the better ones) solve the problems, but fully 90% of them do not know why it works that way.

To save us a little trouble, if you are an engineer and reading this, you have already been counted among the OTHER 10%, so un-bunch your knickers and let's move on.

Believe me, my database of engineering students in classroom discussions, in lab, on homework and exams (I always wrote my own problems and hand graded EVERYTHING) s exhaustive. 


Without understanding the mathematics, it is impossible to understand the physics. 

You can "talk about it" or whatever, but the truth is in the details, which, as with most classics, are best read in their original language.  WHICH IS MATHEMATICS, NOT AN ORDINARY SPOKEN LANGUAGE.  I agree that quite a bit of progress can be made ((for beginners)) with simple explanations, BUT...well, read the first sentence of this paragraph again. 

Example: HUP: "The product of the two uncertainties (in a matched pair) is at least x." 
To think of it in any other way is simply incorrect.  (Not picking on Brian here...just an example with some local history)




But in the end I agree that the terminology and the mathematical difficulties are the biggest/hardest part of understanding what are, actually SIMPLE IDEAS.  See me agreeing right there?   

((By the way, there IS such a thing as negative pressure, although that is fairly exotic territory.  One of my grad school profs was the first person to figure out how to measure this in nearly-empty space directly.  Very exciting stuff!!))  If your point is that a simple difference does not generate a meaningful negative value, I certainly agree with THAT.  Folks DO use their negative signs a little too indiscriminately!

Temperature is not a fundamental thing, so I will agree with you about the meaning of negative temperature.  Temperature (according to Einstein) is a measurement of the average random kinetic energy of the molecules, which is always going to be positive.  Assuming you have ordinary matter and all that.  Unfortunate at best, but I propose that Herr Fahrenheit gets a pass on this, as he was looking for convenience, and nobody knew any better.  I do not think he expected anybody to ever use negative F temperatures!!Rankine or Kelvin scales are best!!



"Hidden variable theories" make me suspicious, e.g. Fifth Force, Dark Matter, String Theories, and so on.  The history of science is littered with stopgap would-be-theories that have since been discredited.  Anything that cannot be observed, and possibly falsified, is not science.  Period.

The first two aren't so bad, even though the evidence is currently elusive at best...but (Silly) String Theory has, a priori, no testable properties.  Pure BS from a science standpoint. 



 


saxman

[VirginiaJim]

I've entertained this thread as long as I can and it's run it's course.  If you want to debate scientific theories of all sorts or any theory, theorem, or hypothesis, then start a new thread in the Open board and you can debate until the cows come home.