Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

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

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

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).

beekeeper wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:37 pmGreetings 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.

crawler wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 8:44 pm 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?

Higgsy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 2:25 pm

crawler wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 8:44 pmI 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.

crawler wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 8:35 pm

Higgsy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 2:25 pm

crawler wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 8:44 pmI 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?

Higgsy wrote: ↑Sun Mar 01, 2020 1:26 am

crawler wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 8:35 pm

Higgsy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 2:25 pm

crawler wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 8:44 pmI 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.

crawler wrote: ↑Sun Mar 01, 2020 2:56 am

Higgsy wrote: ↑Sun Mar 01, 2020 1:26 am

crawler wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 8:35 pm

Higgsy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 2:25 pm

crawler wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 8:44 pmI 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?

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

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

Zyxzevn wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 3:34 am 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?