Quantum physics

[beekeeper]

Greetings EU pilgrims, here is an article from the asiatimes.com website called Quantum physics:from Plank to Sadhguru. I personally find it very interesting when I take away the mention that Maxwell discovered electricity. Anyway regards beekeeper

[beekeeper]

The address is www.atimes.com and you will find the article regards Beekeeper

[beekeeper]

Well here is the real address https://asiatimes.com/2020/02/quantum-p ... -sadhguru/ regards beekeeper if that doesnt work just Google the title of the article in asia times regards beekeeper

[Zyxzevn]

Correct link

Planck's alternative

Planck also had a much simpler explanation, which gives often the same results.
Instead of particles, we only have waves, but only see quanta when we "observe" something.
The quanta show up when a threshold is reached.
And that is it, no more "measurement problem".

It also works well with well known electromagnetism.
With an antenna we can transmit half a wave or a 10th of a wave.
This is impossible with photons.
(There are some theories about virtual photons, but they are just invisible bullshit).

[crawler]

Greetings EU pilgrims, here is an article from the asiatimes.com website called Quantum physics:from Plank to Sadhguru. I personally find it very interesting when I take away the mention that Maxwell discovered electricity. Anyway regards beekeeper

I see that that article says that Faraday & Maxwell were the fathers of electricity. But they did not understand their child. Electricity was later better explained by Heaviside & by Ivor Catt.

[Higgsy]

I see that that article says that Faraday & Maxwell were the fathers of electricity. But they did not understand their child. Electricity was later better explained by Heaviside & by Ivor Catt.

Which one?

[crawler]

I see that that article says that Faraday & Maxwell were the fathers of electricity. But they did not understand their child. Electricity was later better explained by Heaviside & by Ivor Catt.

Which one?

Heaviside was the first to say that the energy was outside the obstructer (rather than a flow of electrons inside the conductor). Ivor Catt in perhaps the 1970's added that there was no such thing as static charge in a capacitor, & explained faux-IAAAD in circuits.

[Higgsy]

I see that that article says that Faraday & Maxwell were the fathers of electricity. But they did not understand their child. Electricity was later better explained by Heaviside & by Ivor Catt.

Which one?

Heaviside was the first to say that the energy was outside the obstructer (rather than a flow of electrons inside the conductor). Ivor Catt in perhaps the 1970's added that there was no such thing as static charge in a capacitor, & explained faux-IAAAD in circuits.

Heaviside reformulated Maxwell's equations in vector calculus as we use them today and Catt has a completely eccentric EM theory that isn't accepted by anyone. They don't agree. So which one?

[crawler]

I see that that article says that Faraday & Maxwell were the fathers of electricity. But they did not understand their child. Electricity was later better explained by Heaviside & by Ivor Catt.

Which one?

Heaviside was the first to say that the energy was outside the obstructer (rather than a flow of electrons inside the conductor). Ivor Catt in perhaps the 1970's added that there was no such thing as static charge in a capacitor, & explained faux-IAAAD in circuits.

Heaviside reformulated Maxwell's equations in vector calculus as we use them today and Catt has a completely eccentric EM theory that isn't accepted by anyone. They don't agree. So which one?

Heaviside mentions that an electric current is actually a slab of E by H energy current propagating along at the speed of light in the medium (eg insulation) covering the obstructer (conductor). And Ivor Catt agrees, & Forrest Bishop & many others agree, & i agree.

[Higgsy]

I see that that article says that Faraday & Maxwell were the fathers of electricity. But they did not understand their child. Electricity was later better explained by Heaviside & by Ivor Catt.

Which one?

Heaviside was the first to say that the energy was outside the obstructer (rather than a flow of electrons inside the conductor). Ivor Catt in perhaps the 1970's added that there was no such thing as static charge in a capacitor, & explained faux-IAAAD in circuits.

Heaviside reformulated Maxwell's equations in vector calculus as we use them today and Catt has a completely eccentric EM theory that isn't accepted by anyone. They don't agree. So which one?

Heaviside mentions that an electric current is actually a slab of E by H energy current propagating along at the speed of light in the medium (eg insulation) covering the obstructer (conductor).

Well, that's not quite what Heaviside's work on transmission lines says. You need to distinguish between electric current and what he calls energy current. Heaviside never said that there is no flow of electrons in the conductor. In any case, there is no controversy about Heaviside's analysis of transmission lines. See, for example Matar and Welti, Surface charges and J H Poynting's disquisitions on energy transfer in electrical circuits, Eur. J. Phys. 38, 065201

And Ivor Catt agrees, & Forrest Bishop & many others agree, & i agree.

Who is Forrest Bishop? As I say, no-one accepts Catt's eccentric theory.

So, which one?

[beekeeper]

Greetings again EU pilgrims as the article says we seem to be missing the point

[Zyxzevn]

The Loader theory is the only variant that solves the Measurement problem.

[Higgsy]

The Loader theory is the only variant that solves the Measurement problem.

Pity it doesn't describe many quantum phenomena such as entanglement or the violation of Bell's inequality or the evolution of the probability distribution.

How about Everett, or quantum decoherence, deBroglie-Bohm or GRW or objective collapse interpretations? What's wrong with them?