What are the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics?: Video
This is an excellent video that discusses four theories on the foundations of quantum mechanics and it is some of the best explanations I have seen and it is not a dry video. I have pointed out that there are a number of problems with the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, see http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/37.... The video presents four alternatives to the Copenhagen Interpretation. They are the De Broglie–Bohm theory (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%...), the many-worlds theory also known as the Everett interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds...), the spontaneous collapse theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghirardi%E2...), and the QBism theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bay...). These ideas were presented with respect to the famous double slit experiment. The video mentions that Einstein was unhappy with the CI, but so was Schrodenger. Here are my thoughts on them, what are yours?
1) De Broglie–Bohm theory
I think this is better than the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI). However, it does not appear to provide any significantly different predictions and requires an additional equation, which makes it problematic.
2) Many-Worlds theory
The other panelists point out a number of problems with this interpretation, but my problem is that it violates conservation of matter and energy, because it requires an infinite number of universes and each event requires infinitely more universes.
3) Spontaneous collapse theory
I did not think this was very well explained. It does appear to solve the measurement problem however, but other than that I do not think it is promising.
4) QBism
I think this may actually be worse than the CI.
Other Thoughts:
In the double slit experiment when we are shooting one electron at a time, we do not consider that the detector is made up of atoms that also have a wave function and therefor a probability of interacting with the free electron. I am not exactly sure how this would change the interpretation of the double slit experiment with single electrons at a time, but it would suggest that the position of the electron may not be as localized as the experiment suggests. Another problem with the single electron double slit experiment is how do we know we are shooting a single electron at a time? If we know this for sure, then we must be measuring it in some way which would affect the experiment. If we don’t know this then we don’t know that one of the free electrons does not make two dots on the screen or no dots on the screen. Again going back to the limits of our detector. In order for a dot to occur, the free electron has to cause an electron in an atom to change state. If the free electron is truly a wave then it might cause a single dot, because of the atomic nature of our detector. However, you would also expect that a single electron might cause two, three, or more dots if it were a wave or no dots at all.
Personally I think we will eventually find that all matter is really waves. We will find that the probabilistic side of QM is a result of these waves being spread out. Point particles of charge cause all sorts of problems, including infinitely intense electrical fields.
Feynman did some work on the wave nature of matter. Carver Mead has done some work in this area as have many others and I am not talking about string theory, but as yet there is no comprehensive ideas in this area.
1) De Broglie–Bohm theory
I think this is better than the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI). However, it does not appear to provide any significantly different predictions and requires an additional equation, which makes it problematic.
2) Many-Worlds theory
The other panelists point out a number of problems with this interpretation, but my problem is that it violates conservation of matter and energy, because it requires an infinite number of universes and each event requires infinitely more universes.
3) Spontaneous collapse theory
I did not think this was very well explained. It does appear to solve the measurement problem however, but other than that I do not think it is promising.
4) QBism
I think this may actually be worse than the CI.
Other Thoughts:
In the double slit experiment when we are shooting one electron at a time, we do not consider that the detector is made up of atoms that also have a wave function and therefor a probability of interacting with the free electron. I am not exactly sure how this would change the interpretation of the double slit experiment with single electrons at a time, but it would suggest that the position of the electron may not be as localized as the experiment suggests. Another problem with the single electron double slit experiment is how do we know we are shooting a single electron at a time? If we know this for sure, then we must be measuring it in some way which would affect the experiment. If we don’t know this then we don’t know that one of the free electrons does not make two dots on the screen or no dots on the screen. Again going back to the limits of our detector. In order for a dot to occur, the free electron has to cause an electron in an atom to change state. If the free electron is truly a wave then it might cause a single dot, because of the atomic nature of our detector. However, you would also expect that a single electron might cause two, three, or more dots if it were a wave or no dots at all.
Personally I think we will eventually find that all matter is really waves. We will find that the probabilistic side of QM is a result of these waves being spread out. Point particles of charge cause all sorts of problems, including infinitely intense electrical fields.
Feynman did some work on the wave nature of matter. Carver Mead has done some work in this area as have many others and I am not talking about string theory, but as yet there is no comprehensive ideas in this area.
SOURCE URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdqC2bVLesQ
I read a book a decade ago - it's in my library now packed into boxes so I'm afraid I don't have the title at the ready.
It was on the subject of the nature of planet orbits and explained how we had a VERY GOOD theory that described the motion of the planets back in the era of a "earth centered" solar system. It was a very good theory because one could predict the future positions of the planets with it.
The sun-centered theory was a SIMPLER theory that gave the same results.
The difference between them basically came down to the earth-centered theory had planet orbits reversing direction at times for unknown reasons, and the sun-centered theory kept them going in the same direction.
The subject of the book was basically wrestling with the issue about what to do when you've got a theory that is predictive of reality but still may not actually be DESCRIBING reality, and how you can tell the difference.
I'm afraid we're in the same situation with Quantum Mechanics on the matter of "behaves like a wave". Just because the mathematics WORK OUT the right answer, it doesn't mean that's REALLY WHAT HAPPENS.
That's all I can say on the subject - this is way beyond my pay grade.
So much of sub-atomic and particle physics (as well as cosmology) is math and model driven today, that I'm not sure it really helps the thinkers, and so much of the money is controlled today by the math and model crowd. It's kind of like losing sight of the forest through total concentration on a tree.
Excellent commentary on the nature of observation. To be objective, is to be open to new information and when our instrumentality is always evolving so too must our theories. I too am fascinated by this subject matter, but it is also beyond my pay grade. Still, one day I hope to gain understanding.
Regards,
O.A.
What we do know is that when quantum mechanics is applied to real world situations it works. Doors open automatically and the nature of circuitry has become infinitely tiny, and etc.,etc. For me, learning about quantum physics is an amusing hobby so long as you don't lay the math on me. For most folks it's quantum, schmantum, as long as the thing I'm using works.
Have you read "Quantum Enigma" by Rosenblum and Kuttner? It is sub titled, Physics Encounters Consciousness. Fred Kuttner is my cousin-in-law, but I don't have the confidence to give a qualified opinion of it. It seems to start off at a beginner's level then moves along toward some pretty sophisticated ideas. I would appreciate your input that helps me to greater understanding of the quantum world as presented in this book.. I'm sure your time is valuable, but if you could give me your take on the book at whatever time you may have available I would be very appreciative. I must assure you that this is a request to which you should feel no qualms about turning down and I would completely understand.
Heisenberg was more successful in his more generalized attempts to find a principle for the spectrum. Through tedious algebraic calculations he came up with what others converted to simpler matrix equations which turned out later to be the discrete basis equivalent of the later independently formulated Schrodinger equation with the same spectrum. It was a legitimate accomplishment, but lacked conceptual explanation, even in the form of Bohr's modified classical orbit approach. Attempts like deBroglie to formulate sensible explanations failed, and then they turned to the gibberish of the Copenhagen interpretation making things perpetually worse than a lack of understanding. That was related to the paraphrase above, but it sure wasn't what made doors open automatically and circuits smaller.
From what I can tell, for every solution, five more problems appear. I am very, very, far from being a physicist but I started my quantum "hobby" because I couldn't feel comfortable living in the 21st century without knowing something about it. I had the same feeling 50 years ago when I felt that living in the 20th century, I should know how to fly a plane. I learned, I solo'd but that didn't make me a pilot.
The best you could do is to try to understand some of the experiments that show how different the quantum world is.
But you'll have a hard time getting anywhere with what you think is learning about quantum mechanics without the mathematics. In particular, pawing through speculative debates over the speculative 'interpretations' competing for the bizarre is not helping you to understand quantum mechanics!
As for the modern scherzo harmonies, I prefer the simpler harmonies of New Orleans jazz improvization and know what to stay away from :-)
Einstein himself noted the distinction and advocated for some kind of ether whose characteristics are presently not known. In his "Ether and the Theory of Relativity" address at the University of Leden on May 5, 1920, he stated:
".. the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitational potentials g_mu_nu), has, I think finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. But therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that of the ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events."
We understand gravitation but not why the masses attract. We understand electricity and magnetism through Maxwell's equations and material properties, but not what gives rise to the waves and fields at a deeper level. 19th century attempts to concoct mechanical explanations of electromagnetic waves all failed, but they aren't needed.
We know things by their attributes, and only the attributes we know of. A thing is the totality of it's attributes, not an identity-less blob to which attributes are attached. 'Existence is identity". Existence and identity are th same thing from different perspectives. Our expanding knowledge is knowledge of more and more attributes and their relations which make things what they are.
Matter consists of atoms and molecules. As long as you hold onto "matter" and "matter in motion" as the basis of conceptual explanation you are precluding understanding of subatomic phenomena, which is understood through its observable attributes obtained by indirect measurement. The only measurement equipment we have is based on macroscopic entities, and in that sense our entire hierarchy of knowledge depends on macroscopic entities we directly perceive, but that does not mean that higher levels of abstraction inferring non-perceivable entities and attributes must conclude that they are based on "matter".
In addition to subatomic particles like electrons, there are also subatomic forces within the nucleus as well as electric fields. An explanation of the mechanism of gravitational, electric, and magnetic attraction, let alone nuclear forces, would necessarily be very abstract and mathematical, not something you can grasp directly in terms of matter at the macroscopic level which we experience directly.
The physicists were very smart people who were doing the best they could, and made remarkable progress. To some extent they did "throw up their hands" when the established concepts and theories could not be directly applied (which they of course tried first). Fundamentally new ideas were required in a realm where existing theory and concepts were shown to be inadequate, observation could only be by indirect measurement, and theory formation and new concepts involving ever higher levels of abstraction from abstraction were without philosophical guidance and under the influence of Mach and the positivists, which had permeated physics. That was all on top of very difficult problems in the physics and mathematics which took a great deal of intelligence and creativity to solve.
Many of the 'interpretations' they came up with have given them a bad name, not that they weren't mistakenly serious about them but that they succeeded as much as they did in formulating general mathematical and somewhat conceptual accounts of the new physics confirmed by experiment to high accuracy is remarkable -- and look at some of the technology today that came from it.
Especially in the last few decades there have been some really excellent scientific biographies of some of the major scientists. They provide enormous insight into their backgrounds, interests, and motives, along with what problems they faced and how they dealt with them -- and the strange 'interpretations' they cooked up and promoted and how they came about. But the biographies are not philosophical and strive to report the technical events accurately without getting into the epistemology. It's hard to find good fiction as interesting as this, but they also require varying degrees of prior technical understanding to follow.
There may very well be further information yet to be determined or even conceptualized, but that in no way negates the present understanding or application of current knowledge.
It may very well be that science is just not your bailiwick or that you haven't yet developed the necessary level of conceptualization.
Much of what else you read in popularized accounts is hype and metaphor, and is not a good source to try to understand anything.
I didn't say that subatomic particles are not "material" in the philosophical sense, or in any way mystical. They are not "matter"; they are not materialS as we commonly know different substances as matter consisting of atomic building blocks in different configurations leading to different perceivable or directly measurable macroscopic properties. They are physical, but have fundamentally different attributes and do not follow the laws of classical physics. That is simply a brute fact determined by countless experiments and to be accepted for what it is.
How you determine what they are, unlike so much of elementary classical physics, can only be determined by inference and indirect measurements indicating their behavior and attributes. A thing is the totality of its attributes, not an identityless pin cushion with attributes stuck to it. All you know about anything is through those attributes you know about.
You can't "visualize" them either, it can only be understood through abstractions based on abstractions (in the sense of Ayn Rand's epistemology). The mental concretes are the words under which concepts are integrated, not visual images. This is not at all the same as the positivist approach of equating the meaning of a concept of physics with how it is measured (then followed by rampant speculation into fantasies) which is why we got such poor explanations in physics classes.
(Also the opposite of physical is not mystical; consciousness is an objective part of the universe, inherent in some living beings, but is not physical.)
Bohm gave one of the better explanations of special relativity, including the history of Lorentz's attempt to explain an actual physical contraction in terms of electric fields (which didn't work in the end). You didn't find the explanation you wanted because there is none. The primary fact that has not been further investigated and explained is the speed of light being the same in any reference frame, and what that means for a "speed", and why. That is the real physics of the theory in that one fact. Given that, special relativity is almost entirely the mathematics of the kinematics for what is observed from and for different moving reference frames. A lot of the confusion arises from the fact that Einstein at the time (but not later) was heavily influenced by Mach's positivism, so what things are were confused with measurement only, obfuscating the difference between an apparent contraction and a real one (which in Einstein's theory does not occur). Read it again from that perspective and you will see better what they were doing and how it fits together.
But your approach of not accepting what you don't understand is the correct one. If something in quantum mechanics doesn't make sense, then the proper approach is to say you don't understand it and try then or later to understand better the experiments on which it is based so see if the concepts are correct, rather than treating it as dogma to accept and then talk yourself into.
But there is no question that mass can be converted to energy: it means there is less mass and more energy at the end of some process than at the beginning in accordance with a known equivalence. The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki witnessed it directly. The internal mechanism, beyond the production and annihilation of elementary 'particles' along with changes in atomic structure, is not known, which might have been what the professor did not explain to your satisfaction. Nuclear explosions are not the only examples.
Thanks for the posting.
Could you provide a link? I have tried to find this without any luck.
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joha...
Look for a book coming out (not sure when) by Dr. Johan Prins on this very subject. I have a copy of the manuscript in my eMail, but am not allowed to distribute. Suffice it to say, it will be a very interesting read along the lines of this subject.
OK to all that, but I am a lot more centered on discovering how America can be saved and survive the worst president in history since WWII before the elections in 2016. What really has me anxious is wondering what largesse redistributing candidate the Democrats will tender in that election cycle. I only pray it is NOT Hillary Clinton.
There are many unexplained facts in science. There always are at any stage of knowledge. That is not a call for religion to 'fill in the gaps'. There are always puzzles to be solved in the frontiers of science, which is constantly expanding our knowledge and understanding through rational explanation. It does not do so by arbitrarily adding new "Greek" symbols to include faith, the opposite of reason and science.
Primitive appeals to the supernatural in ethics and politics are just as irrelevant to understanding in those fields and only contradict and undermine the kind of rational philosophy needed to save the country.
You did not describe what kind of abnormal mental images you experienced as your brain phased in and out. Whatever it was, you fortunately survived it, and it was what it was as fact, but it is not a substitute for rational understanding of the causes and not a reason to engage in mystic fantasies as a substitute for explanation. There is always much that it is not understood. Resorting to mystical speculation does not provide any more understanding, it remains mystical speculation of no cognitive value. Learning does not fail, it continues to grow as long as we live, but never becomes omniscience. A failing intellect is a physical breakdown, not a revelation to trust in.
No variety of faith, which is the belief contrary to or in the absence of reason, provides understanding. It is arbitrary imagination.
We have seen this over and over from a loud but small handful of proselytizing religious conservatives here on gg trying to cash in on Atlas Shrugged while denying it: The try to parlay religious testimonials about some strange experience (real or passed on as gossip) -- which no one has looked into to provide a rational explanation -- into "evidence" for a preposterous, sweeping fantasy about the entire universe, all life, an attack on reason, and a mystical duty ethics to serve the supernatural. 'Explain the testimonial or abandon reason and accept the supernatural' is an obvious fallacy.
Compare that with the topic of this thread.
There have been discoveries of facts in a realm of physics that appear strange in comparison with the more familiar facts we experience every day. New discoveries are always 'strange'. Some scientists go about trying to understand and explain them. When rational general principles are hard to formulate even though the details become understood very well mathematically, some resort to fantasies based on bad and destructive philosophical premises, promoted in the name of "science" and the authority and reputation of previous real accomplishments.
The philosophical vacuum then permits others to engage in increasingly bizarre nonsensical speculations such as fantasized parallel universes framed in floating abstractions and rationalized in the name of equations in a modern version of numerology. The worst of it is sensationalized, and promoted in the name of "science", while the majority of quiet, hardworking scientists, who realize that there are some things they simply don't know, are ignored.
The public sensationalizing, in the context of a continuing philosophical vacuum, then provides an opening for the worst charlatans and mystics, including some former scientists, to proclaim that modern science has validated ancient Eastern mysticism. Philosophical skeptics who never understood science proclaim that there is no difference while the overt mystics proclaim that reason has failed and we must succumb to their demands for faith and primitivist mythology.
This is why a rational philosophy, and not just pursuit of science, is required to save the culture.
The hell it is.
Global Warming, Not Global Warming
Catholicism, Taoism, Shinto, Sunni Shia,
Evolution, Creation, Intelligent Design, Big Bang
Seems to me that all are faith based. The Scientists are even more faith based than people and their religions.
Can't we all just get along and agree to disagree?
No, we can't "just get along" with faith and force. Belief through faith is cognitively irrelevant at best, and in practice destructive in both thought and action. With no objective standards of truth, there is no way for people to interact without force and no way to "just get along".
Let us examine the context of the Video. and several "Sciences":
Global Warming/Climate Change. Scientists are split on their "OPINION" based on the "evidence" they believe and defend their belief with the same vigor as the Crusaders of old.
Evolution vs. Creation: I can present to you just as much science for, as against., and again each side presents argues and defends their belief with similar zeal to the Jihadists in the middle east.
Quantum Science. Again, the four here in the video present 4 views and 4 opinions based on the same equations and reported "science", and defend them with the same vigor as to religious zealots. If you paid close attention each of the "scientists: view and opinion was radically different from each other with vastly different implications. Yes this is belief. Belief is faith. Faith is religious in nature. Even if that religion is Science.
I can go on and on within different "Scientific Disciplines" There is a MASSIVE amount of "science" that is every bit as religious as religion.
Allow me to point out that the Biblical definition of faith is, "..The assured expectation of things hope for, and the evident demonstration of reality though not beheld." Gravity is an example. If I drop an apple from a 100 story building I have complete faith that:
1) The apple will fall toward the earth, not up
2) The apple will be smashed to pieces when it hits the ground
Can I prove that without dropping the apple? No, however based on evidence and previous empirical data, I have faith and believe this is the case. Of course that makes the assumption that while the apple is falling an eagle does not swoop in and catch it, or some other unforeseen event interrupts the fall, but these things could happen, hence the differences in belief, especially when correlating this with the possibilities in Quantum Math given some of the "beliefs" in parallel universes and so on all based on the MATH of quantum mechanics.
Objective standards are also given and established by the subjective nature of those setting the standards. Global warming using results based "Bayesian" analysis vs. other forms and calling those standards conclusive.
The only thing I know is 1+1=2 until proven otherwise.
Anyone can call himself a "scientist" bu these pseudo scientists are doing a good deal of damage dishonestly exploiting the reputation of science for their own ends -- which they do because they realize that science is good and the reputation is worth their while to steal. Science does not claim mystic insights to boost its reputation. To equate defense of science with jihad is obscene.
If you want to understand science learn the science and look to see how it rationally follows from and confirms observation instead of watching videos on bizarre speculation for an audience not expected to know anything -- which only feeds and cashes in on ignorance, philosophical skepticism, a turn to faith and mysticism, and ultimately a lot of brute force and collapse of advanced civilization.
Evolutionary biology, quantum physics and Newtonian gravitation are science based on experiment and observation, resulting in rational inductive principles for understanding of the real world and a successful technology. Creationism, mystic sects, and sacred texts are not, and result in the Dark Ages. The culture will be in a terrible state when people are so ignorant they can't tell the difference (and don't know any more than 1+1=2).
In the context of this interchange, I am specifically referring to the folks that ARE educated as scientists, who all have recognized PhD's, all whom have different "opinions"/theories" while observing the SAME empirical data, and reported facts., all with different interpretations of the data based on their perception of reality.
Your defense of science is admirable, but even you must recognize that much of science, in fact the VAST majority is based on "theories." Theories are defined specifically as:
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>
4b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation.
The "scientific method" suggests to CHAGE your theory based on facts and re-run experiments, however this is predicated on the "scientists themselves" being willing to easily give up their prized belief or theory in favor of how the facts play out. Too often this is not the case, and scientists use results based experiments in stead of experiments that are repeatable, provable, and consistent,.
Again this is FAITH and Religion, you just call it science, and try to make a distinction between biblical and science books.
I personally believe, "opinion" that science asks the wrong questions when trying to prove theories. Instead of asking how did this evolve, or how did this come into being through a random explosion, they should be asking, how was this made, and work on reverse engineering it like you would any mechanical device.
The irony of it all.
Also please refer to the definition of "Religion", in particular the third definition.
re·li·gion noun \ri-ˈli-jən\
1: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
2: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
3:an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group
I have great respect for both and find a solid place for both in our lives. I to not believe that Science disproves religion or Religion disproves Science. Both have many exceptional qualities.
I am presenting my debate using the actual definitions in the English language and in specific context of said definitions. This is reasonable, and logical.
Psalms 139:16. talks about The embryo and all parts down in writing.
DNA is what Science calls it now. DNA was only discovered by Science and Friedrich Miescher in 1953, over 2 thousand years after mentioned in the Bible.
I am sorry you feel this discuss is troll like, however; the dogma and fervent attitude toward science vs. religion, I find very closed minded.
There is a great deal of FACT in the Bible and other religious materials that predate "Science" that Science has only recently "discovered" or should I say validated, since it is hard to "discover" something that had already been written about.
Rejecting the irrational is not dogma. Rational minds are in fact "closed" to mysticism, sacred texts, and the supernatural for good reason. This is a thread about science on a site for those who like the pro-reason philosophy of Atlas Shrugged. Take your nonsense harassment somewhere else. DB is right to characterize it as trolling.
That is not the definition of the concept religion and rational people do not misuse the word that way. You know very well that the supernaturalism you are promoting is essentially something other than an "interest, belief, or activity". You are dishonest. Science is not a kind of religion and you know it. You are desperate to con people into taking your mysticism seriously -- just like the creationists tried to con the world by attempting to have it accepted as "creation science". Get lost.
What happened to Individual freedom of belief without being excoriated. I guess the left has truly won the battle and the war.
We are most certainly lost.
The relationship between ozone depletion and chlorofluorocarbon emission was clear and easily demonstrated in a lab environment using free radical chemistry. We curtailed CFC emissions, and because CFC's have quite a long persistence in the atmosphere, it took quite a long time (25-30 years) before their concentrations started coming down enough to . Most CFC's have lifetimes in the upper atmosphere of 25-100 years. Concerns over NO (nitric oxide) and CFC's (refrigerants) are based on science. CO2 and H2O have very low dissociation constants to generate free radicals, but are in very high concentrations, so there was at least cause for concern. This concern was grossly overblown by those looters who found it to be an effective weapon against do-gooder, touchy-feely types, who then attempt to shame us into agreeing with them.
I am not saying I agree with everything in these articles below, but they make the basic point. http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/t... and file:///C:/Users/Dale/Downloads/EIR_CFCs%20are%20not%20depleting%20the%20ozone%20layer_Maduro.pdf
Are you saying b/c people's values invariably affect the hypotheses they test and the models they construct, we should just give up on science, give up on constructing models based on testing hypotheses?
You don't know what a scientific theory is or how it is established. You are the cargo cult "scientist", the primitive witchdoctor who doesn't know how scientists think and accomplish what they do, but fears the 'miracles' that come to them from "opinions" you don't understand. You are no supporter of Atlas Shrugged.
I have not mentioned what I personally believe, only presented some logical arguments based on the 4 scientists with vastly different opinions or theories on the same exact field.
I presented definitions according to the English language using the exact definitions from Miriam Webster's dictionary. something I guess some here lack the comprehension of.
Name calling is not a valid argument. sorry to disappoint.
"The only thing I know is 1+1=2 until proven otherwise. "
Actually, 1+1=10. You use the number base you like, I'll use the number base I like.