Comparing GR & QT: Classical vs Quantum Fields

[tfleming]

general relativity is essentially a 'classical' field theory while quantum is not. Quantum theory has a quantization IMPOSED from the start, GR has none anywhere in the maths (although that's not to say there is none). GR is a system of equations with fields imbedded while QT is based on potentials. In this regard, the maths is entirely incompatible unless one transforms either GR to QT or viceversa via integrations or backwards via differentials; then one has to look at probability densities and convert either fields to probabilities, or vice versa. not an easy job.

how the equations of GR might be quantized is something I'm not allowed to discuss, otherwise mr moderator, integral will come done on me and spit the dummy! so i won't go there unless integral 'allows' me (?integral? pretty please?? sir??)

 

[Integral]

Tfleming,
When you can link us to a professional PEER reviewed physics journal which has published your ideas, you will be free to discuss them here. Until that happens please do not post personal theories.

 

[tfleming]

so, therefore for the moment, we stop at the fact that GR and quantum theory ARE different in that quantization can be IMPOSED as a part of the maths, or it 'can' come about as partof the solution.

I'm workin' on that peer review process mr integral, sir, but it aint half slow you know!

 

[tfleming]

www.cymatherapy.com/articles/ current-events-bems-2004.html

this link is of a peer reviewed abstract in the area of biophysics-i take it that's a start for you integral??

 

[Integral]

www.cymatherapy.com/articles/ current-events-bems-2004.html

this link is of a peer reviewed abstract in the area of biophysics-i take it that's a start for you integral??

I am not impressed. I see nothing on that site which would indicate the work of a physicist. If fact I would be very suspicious that it is pseudo science.

I see nothing of a peer review that includes a physicist.

 

[tfleming]

no of course your not, you probably haven't heard of BEMS (do a google search); cymatherapy is involved in acoustic therapy and i guess integral while letting your snide remarks about pseudo-science go through to the keeper, this form of therapy is not valid to you and many others becuase in the past it has had no known scientific theory to back it just like many aspects of radiation protection and biomedical applications; but that is now changing;

this is NOT what i wanted you to check out, look at the BEMS conference proceedings in your library possibly, they're available only to members on-line so i can't help you there. i assure you this work has been peer reviewed by the biophysics community AND it was presented at Kos in Greece; again by the European BEMS community. because it is saying that the FIELD itself has a chemistry (i.e. the fields inside cells for instance) then it shows much light on how the cell cycle works and this has applications to cancer therapy, mental illness, and the aging process. this HAS been written up.

but not YET by the 'hard' physics community where i spent my earlier working life in antennas and telecommunications (lots of 'regular' uncontroversial papers), although i DO have a paper being reviewed by Physics Essays at present.

 

[quantumdude]

I split this off from Loren's thread in General Physics as it has not so much to do with that topic as it does with tfleming's personal interests. Since it has to do with the propriety of tfleming posting his personal views, I thought it would be best placed here in the Feedback forum.

 

[tfleming]

worried about integral

tom, I'm sincerely worried about the sanity of your moderator integral; he's spat the dummy with me on several occasions now, and i might add without any word of exactly why he doing what he's doing, his judgement seems to be irrational and when i claim to have peer review, he just gets overtly hostile and sends me warnings; i know not what these warning are and have asked on two occasions now what the system is as regards warnings.

he talks about pseudo-science where I'm concerned and that's not true. I've tried to explain that my work HAS been accepted for various conferences of PEER REVIEW and he won't listen just more warnings! please could you sort out what's wrong with him and why he's taken to me like a pirahna??

my work involves cancer, mental illness and aging, not things that aren't iomportant; I'm involved at teh cutting edge of the scientific method because biophysics has tried quantum theory to no avail.

please help sort this kerfuffle out before integral has a heart attack or worse!

 

[Moonbear]

www.cymatherapy.com/articles/ current-events-bems-2004.html

this link is of a peer reviewed abstract in the area of biophysics-i take it that's a start for you integral??

What peer-reviewed abstract? I followed your link and didn't find any abstract, not that abstracts would typically be considered peer reviewed anyway. There was a paper there, not published by a peer reviewed journal, but more of a proceedings of the conference, 11 pages long with only 11 references, most of which are also abstracts, so unlikely to get accepted anywhere. I didn't see anything in that paper that related to what you are talking about here, perhaps you could point out the relevance to us?

 

[Moonbear]

he talks about pseudo-science where I'm concerned and that's not true. I've tried to explain that my work HAS been accepted for various conferences of PEER REVIEW...

What do you mean by a conference of peer review? Abstracts are rarely reviewed prior to being accepted for presentation at conferences, they usually leave that up to the audience to determine for themselves. I've seen some pretty lousy science at conferences, so it means very little to have had abstracts accepted for presentation at a conference.

my work involves cancer, mental illness and aging, not things that aren't iomportant;

All that? Perhaps you should be visiting the biology forum. Any of those topics would be fair game there, as long as you can support your claims.

i'm involved at teh cutting edge of the scientific method because biophysics has tried quantum theory to no avail.

What is the cutting edge of "scientific method?" Perhaps you meant methodologies? Everyone in research works on the edge, that's the point, novel discovery.

please help sort this kerfuffle out before integral has a heart attack or worse!

I'm wondering, why are you so concerned about posting about your research here? Don't you get good input at those conferences you attend? Surely those are people who understand what you do at a level to be more helpful than anyone here. I don't tend to discuss my own research here, unless it's already published. It's really not worthwhile to discuss here, since there aren't enough people familiar enough with my field to be helpful, and since it's all hypotheses that I'm in the process of testing, I don't want the students here to misinterpret what I'm saying as fact when it's only an hypothesis that I may prove wrong.

 

[Integral]

tom, I'm sincerely worried about the sanity of your moderator integral; he's spat the dummy with me on several occasions now, and i might add without any word of exactly why he doing what he's doing, his judgment seems to be irrational and when i claim to have peer review, he just gets overtly hostile and sends me warnings; i know not what these warning are and have asked on two occasions now what the system is as regards warnings.

he talks about pseudo-science where I'm concerned and that's not true. I've tried to explain that my work HAS been accepted for various conferences of PEER REVIEW and he won't listen just more warnings! please could you sort out what's wrong with him and why he's taken to me like a pirahna??

my work involves cancer, mental illness and aging, not things that aren't iomportant; I'm involved at teh cutting edge of the scientific method because biophysics has tried quantum theory to no avail.

please help sort this kerfuffle out before integral has a heart attack or worse!

LOL this is pretty funny stuff, Do you think I am losing a wink of sleep over your tantrums? Who is it that keeps pumping out the childish insulting PMs? Get a life. At your advanced age (you claim to be older then me, so advanced must apply) you should know that insults will get you nowhere. Please stop. I am tiring of your game, and find it easier and and easier to look harder and harder for reasons to warn you. You have made posts which may actually contain a bit of meaningful information, I have given you the benefit of the doubt, and let them stand, it was hard but I did it. I will continue to be as fair as possible, but you are making it difficult.

Did you ever know a fellow called What_are_electrons?

 

[tfleming]

i've been searching for a link to the BEMS site; the abstract inside the entire conference proceedings can be downloaded by the public (i think; i could at any rate) .

when you've downloaded it, see who our 'sponsor' was, and then look up who the next president of the BEMS society is, and then come back to me.

actually one reason i come to the forum is to LEARN off all the other people out there who have similar TOE ideas, we all see an aspect of the same knowledge; so i need to learn some of the other aspects; I'm currently writing up a 'unified field theory' paper but there's a whole lot of other work to be done before i can publish it in something like phys rev D or similar journal.

but...you guys i suppose believe you are 'protecting' science from all the maddies 'out there'

really i need to find collaborators who are willing to listen and help in the jpob of comparing EMSFT with QT; it's all good maths you know, otherwise i wouldn't worry you. seriously. I'm going to ignore integral from here because I've got better things to do than argue with someone who is a 'hostile witness' so to speak.

glad to talk about what you might think of my work, if you're willing to look at it. there's threads already out there if you want to see it. i see some of you have already.

 

[tfleming]

thanks moonbear

What do you mean by a conference of peer review? Abstracts are rarely reviewed prior to being accepted for presentation at conferences, they usually leave that up to the audience to determine for themselves. I've seen some pretty lousy science at conferences, so it means very little to have had abstracts accepted for presentation at a conference.



All that? Perhaps you should be visiting the biology forum. Any of those topics would be fair game there, as long as you can support your claims.



What is the cutting edge of "scientific method?" Perhaps you meant methodologies? Everyone in research works on the edge, that's the point, novel discovery.



I'm wondering, why are you so concerned about posting about your research here? Don't you get good input at those conferences you attend? Surely those are people who understand what you do at a level to be more helpful than anyone here. I don't tend to discuss my own research here, unless it's already published. It's really not worthwhile to discuss here, since there aren't enough people familiar enough with my field to be helpful, and since it's all hypotheses that I'm in the process of testing, I don't want the students here to misinterpret what I'm saying as fact when it's only an hypothesis that I may prove wrong.

thanks moonbear; i guess it takes a female; us males get our testosterone, or is that tostesterone??) in the way and clouding up our eyes! LOL

i can't imagine integral is a she! i take your words kindly, especially about going to the conferences, you're quite right!

i'm so 'obsessed' with the fruits of the research (cell cycle etc and its impact on our health, including our mental health, cancer, etc) that i want 'tommorow' to arrive 'today'; horse before the cart and all that.

i'll try not to misbehave, but i do need you guys, so suffer the poor crazy scientist, I'm not a loon and i do have the credentials to back up my work.

 

[tfleming]

AND one of the pressing issues that also tends to put a rocket under my backside is that EMSFT WILL lead to breakthroughs in nuclear engineering and hence clean and safe ENERGY production that will depend on TOKAMAK type technolgoies; plus the implications are huge for ecological issues such as cleaner manufacturing processes, greenhouse gases, fuel for cars, etc, etc,

EMSFT is at the heart of all of this!

 

[tfleming]

but i still don't know what these warning levels are and what they mean?

 

[Evo]

thanks moonbear; i guess it takes a female; us males get our testosterone, or is that tostesterone??) in the way and clouding up our eyes! LOL

i can't imagine integral is a she! i take your words kindly, especially about going to the conferences, you're quite right!

i'm so 'obsessed' with the fruits of the research (cell cycle etc and its impact on our health, including our mental health, cancer, etc) that i want 'tommorow' to arrive 'today'; horse before the cart and all that.

i'll try not to misbehave, but i do need you guys, so suffer the poor crazy scientist, I'm not a loon and i do have the credentials to back up my work.

moonbear was saying you're not credible.

 

[tfleming]

i think i answered her, incase you missed it in your cloudy haze! have a look at the BEMS conference and see who sponsered the work as i suggested above get back to me! anyway i like her picture much better than your's you ugly mongrel LOL

and read my work, don't try to stir the pot in ignorance; it won't hurt you, it's not magic nor heresy, nor a challenge to your physical or spiritual wellbeing; I've heard not a word of critique out of any so-called expert (and that goes right across the net, so that is most encouraging) only angry hot air from a few hotheads, a pity! no worries there's work to be done apart from all this wasted rhetoric.

 

[arildno]

Just picking at random from the indicated site:
"Energy Medicine and Sound Therapy
What does cymatherapy, have to do with "vibrational medicine,” or “energy medicine"?

With Albert Einstein’s famous equation E= mc2 came the understanding that matter (including the body) is energy, generating a new paradigm in healing. Conventional medicine, based on a Newtonian viewpoint, approaches the body largely as a biomechanical system. It sees the parts of the body, controlled by the brain and nervous system, as each having their individual function. This approach looks at symptoms and tries to fix the particular part of the body that has malfunctioned, often by using drugs or surgery. "

 

[Integral]

you guys i suppose believe you are 'protecting' science from all the maddies 'out there'

Not at all, I am not concerned about science in general, it will take care of it self. I am, and I believe that the other mentors are of similar mind, protecting our site. We recognize that this is not the correct format to present cutting edge research material. We work hard at keeping close to a loosely defined "state of accepted physics". To me that means we are restricting ourselves to the material that would be presented in college level science or math course. Most of the mentors have completed undergrad degrees and several have graduate level degrees in Physics, Math and Engineering, so we are all pretty much qualified to make this judgment.

We have found that it is surprisingly difficult to maintain this standard, generally we tend to error toward the conservative side. We all want a site where a high school student can actually learn something useful and not have to sort the wheat from the chafe. Most similar sites to this are so overrun with pseudo science that they are useless for science, we will NOT let this happen here. Your work is easily over the boundary of material we are able to support. Surely there is a different site somewhere on the web that will be more then willing pat your back and tell you how wonderful your work is.

 

[tfleming]

if a website says sci.physics.RESEARCH it means more than just undergrads and high-school kids; i know because many proffesional colleagues of mine use this and many other similar forums probably a bit quieter than me admittedly. anyway they're probably learning heaps watching the fur fly here.

in your zeal to prove what an egotistical idiot i might or might not be based on your oh- so-wise 'moderation' over the past decades, try NOT to throw out the baby with the bathwater eh?

hey listen we could waste each other's time endlessly here, how about you go your way and i'll go mine, i'll let you do your thing, and you let me do mine, ok? I'm learning your rules, although i STILL know nothing about your warning levels! I'm still waiting for advice; i suppose you aren't going to tell me this side of hell freezing over huh? thanks a lot for your kind assistance mr moderator; perhaps i'll just have to keep looking over your shoulder and others for all the titbits of thought huh?

get used to me being around will you? I'm really quite a nice guy if only you'd stop chewing on my shoes!

 

[tfleming]

Just picking at random from the indicated site:
"Energy Medicine and Sound Therapy
What does cymatherapy, have to do with "vibrational medicine,” or “energy medicine"?

With Albert Einstein’s famous equation E= mc2 came the understanding that matter (including the body) is energy, generating a new paradigm in healing. Conventional medicine, based on a Newtonian viewpoint, approaches the body largely as a biomechanical system. It sees the parts of the body, controlled by the brain and nervous system, as each having their individual function. This approach looks at symptoms and tries to fix the particular part of the body that has malfunctioned, often by using drugs or surgery. "

thanks for the question on (bio)physics; it makes a healthy change.

i'm not responsible for whatever cymatics puts up on their site, but i do agree with the sentiments expressed; it could be my colleague Liz Bauer. I'm not sure if this is the place to go into this in great detail but the photon chemistry takes us away from an 'atomic' chemistry of the body (pills, transdermal patches, syringes, etc) and seeks to replace it with a 'photonic' chemistry. in other words, healing the body's tissues and organs via fundamental frequencies associated with the body's DNA. the various ions that flow inside our cells apparently use the photonic states (each of which has a different orbital and spin motions associated with it) to communicate with the DNA.

now this can be done EITHER by alternating fields (EMR) or acoustically; the reason for this is that the strong fields are a combination of both EMR and acoustic waves/particles because these forces have THREE orthogonal motions associated with them (E= 3/2*mc2 ); some of this was presented at BEMS and was asked by the incoming BEMS president to also be presented to a meeting of the European BEMS society in Kos Greece. Liz and I are currently writing this work up for BEMS for their journal with experimental results that support the theory.

so that's fine, we going gangbusters in the biophysics arena; but I'm ALSO concerned to get this work into the physics area where it will change our thinking in terms of energy production and our knowledge of atomic structures. this is because the mathematical formulation retains the E- and H-fields rather than the vectior and scalar potentials A and phi with all their mathematical baggage suich as uncertainty, mass renormalization, and most significantly the smearing of A and phi together. i would dearly love some ornery QT type to collaborate to demostrate the differences between EMSFT and QT.

photon chemistry also finds some rationale as to why homeopathy may in fact be a valid science afterall! (come in spinners)

cheers tony

 

[tfleming]

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/64/9/3288

thought all of you might like to see this site; it's a really good example of what I'm talking about

 

[jcsd]

if a website says sci.physics.RESEARCH it means more than just undergrads; i know because many proffesional colleagues of mine use this and many other similar forums probably a bit quieter than me admittedly.

in your zeal to prove what an egotistical idiot i might or might not be based on your oh- so-wise 'moderation' over the past decades, try NOT to throw out the baby with the bathwater eh?

hey listen we could waste each other's time endlessly here, how about you go your way and i'll go mine, i'll let you do your thing, and you let me do mine, ok? I'm learning your rules, although i STILL know nothing about your warning levels! I'm still waiting for advice; i suppose you aren't going to tell me this side of hell freezing over huh? thanks a lot for your kind assistance mr moderator; perhaps i'll just have to keep looking over your shoulder and others for all the titbits of thought huh?

get used to me being around will you? I'm really quite a nice guy if only you'd stop chewing on my shoes!

You do realize that sci.physics.research is a newsgroup and is not run by physics forums, all physics forums does is supply a way of reading it.

 

[tfleming]

you guys do a great job of it too!

 

[Moonbear]

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/64/9/3288

thought all of you might like to see this site; it's a really good example of what I'm talking about

Okay, a few more things...
As has been pointed out, this is not the sci.physics.research newsgroup. Feel free to use that venue if that's where your colleagues are. This site, PhysicsForums, is primarily geared toward helping high school and undergraduate students. Those of us here with more advanced degrees are not here to discuss our research with the objective of getting advice from peers, there just isn't a critical mass of that level of expertise to make that productive, instead, we are here to offer the students added guidance in their studies. You seem to be getting far too worked up about this when this is simply not the site to post your newest theories (the Theory Development forum is a misnomer, check out the other threads here discussing that and the reasons the admins here are considering eliminating it).

As for the article you just referenced, that would be fine to discuss. If what you need is some input from those outside your immediate field on understanding some of the literature, I can't promise you'll get a lot of useful input, but if you post a link to a reference like that and want to discuss it, that would be acceptable. That's generally the boundary between what's acceptable and not acceptable on this board...if it has been published in a peer-reviewed article, it can be discussed, if it is unpublished work or published in a non-peer-reviewed source, then it crossed that boundary to unacceptable, mainly because we can no longer verify the merit of the source. Keep in mind, the people on this board represent a range of specializations, but certainly cannot be experts in everything, so we could err toward rejecting something that is a legitimate new theory, but you just have to accept that because we cannot evaluate everything in every field, we have to set the limits somewhere that minimized the risk of confusing students with misinformation. It's good for them to be exposed to new findings, but we try to limit that to recent, peer-reviewed sources rather than works not yet published.

Lastly, the personal attacks on the mentors exhibited in this thread really don't help your credibility at all. All scientists know tenacity is one of the most important qualities for success, and rejection happens. You have to be able to roll with the punches without getting angry about it. Every scientist faces rejection, often, but you can't make it personal or you'll burn out pretty quickly. Let's just say your attitude in this thread does not convey a sense of professionalism I would expect of a career scientist.

 

[tfleming]

thanks moonbeam, it's a pity your words are'nt posted at the entrance to the portal eh? what about when you join the forum a screen comes up with exactly what warning points are what the misnamed forums are designed for WHO you guys are aiming at, who you DON"T WANT, including loons and maybe like me, people working 'at the fringe', and that you want peer-reviewed references if possible. good idea?

now, can i suggest that you would find ANOTHER slice of the action IFF you opened up a forum for professionals to exchange ideas, collaboration, conferences, etc; 'cos they're all out there on sci.physics.research, so it's somewhat misleading for you people to piggyback onto the newsgroup as it
were.

boy this word credibilty, what about some VALID criticism of the work itself!?? so, i take it you as a group CANNOT find anything other than personal faults in me and not my work; so that;s interesting in itself, wouldn't you say? it is certainly heartening to this old soldier to know his bullets are made of platinum/titanium.

as for being a so-called 'career' scientist, i would have to say there's much more at stake here than a personal career or credibility. maybe that's why people DO listen to what i say! we're talking about the next layer of the onion here that has revealed itself before our eyes, enough to solve some of our most pressing problems; anyone listening??

 

[Integral]

Tony,
There is an agreement that you must make to register with this site. Did you read it? As for misnamed forums, you have a habit of posting what ever you want where ever you want. Please make an effort to understand the layout of these forums.

As for commenting on your work? What do you not understand about all that has been said? Your work does not meet the basic requirement for open discussion in these forums. Perhaps someone who has the time will offer you a critique via email.

 

[tfleming]

Tony,
There is an agreement that you must make to register with this site. Did you read it? As for misnamed forums, you have a habit of posting what ever you want where ever you want. Please make an effort to understand the layout of these forums.

As for commenting on your work? What do you not understand about all that has been said? Your work does not meet the basic requirement for open discussion in these forums. Perhaps someone who has the time will offer you a critique via email.

thank you integral for calling me by my first name; I'm an old softy you know!

 

[tfleming]

have you guys yet read the EMSFT paper at www.biophotonicsresearchinstitute.com?[/url] the file is [PLAIN]http://www.biophotonicsresearchinstitute.com/BRI_EM_self_fields_all_in_one_reva_Nov_08_04.pdf

have a read and find out what all the fuss is about.

in summary this report shows how maxwell's equations are solved for self-consistent solutions (self-fields) similar to homogenous eigenvalue solutions to linear systems of equations. in particular see how so-called 'imaginary numbers are used (appendix B). this is the basis of zero radiation antenna solutions. this turns out to a key concept as well as the way the E- and H-fields are defined in terms of centre of motion rather than between charge points.

i may not be your choice for the next einstein but that's of no interest to history or me! LOL. the bottom line is the thing in this current world