END OF AN ERA, FRACTALFORUMS.COM IS CONTINUED ON FRACTALFORUMS.ORG

This is John Roman Iwaszko.

His experimental work is of fundamental importance. Like so many others he is struggling to find the vocabulary to describe what he is seeing and demonstrating empirically. While he gives classical explanations it is only because he does not have an alternative language to describe the phenomena with.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/ChRKs4fJ02I&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/ChRKs4fJ02I&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

The traditional retreat is into so called mathematical languages, but there really is no such thing.
The failure by theoretical / mathematical physicists to explain what they are talking about is glaring and no longer acceptable.
Instead of seeing themselves as communicator failures they reverse it and call students " ignorant Dullards!" or worse! This reversal trick is as old as the hills. When a professor can not explain what we are paying him for he has no right to belittle our intelligence! Instead he or she should seek therapy to reconnect to the common forms of speech and analogy.

All my life I have been told by friends and others they fo not understand ehat I write or think! I regard that as my own personal failure to communicate!

In ancient times in Greece Rhetoric was the principle subject of study under which Astrology and Poetry and dance and many other arts were but subsidiary subjects. Kairos, the study of the opportune moment was the principle life skill influencing rhetoric. You passed your rhetoric exams only if you could explain anything to anyone!!

Aristotle however never completed his Pythagorean studies for political reasons. Thus he never strained the status of Mathematikos. In addition he contested key Pythagorean concepts. That was expected of a student. Over time the Musai would reveal further insight to disciples it was believed and at that time most controversy ceased as the students finally had given to thrm the same insights as the masters. Then they were given the title Mathematikos!

This never happened to Aristotle who subsequently established a ill patonic tradition . This divergence in essntislly Pythagorean teachings has resulted in confusion ever since . The biggest confusion was the introduction of the term "algebra". This was Aristotelian thinking mixed with Indian subtlety and presented by Islamic Scholars. The corresponding Pythagorean thinking is found in Euclid's Stoikeia books 5 to 10. The Arithmoi and the symbolic arithmetics described therein are the basis of Rational thought, and the rules of Analogous thinking.

While Aristotle's fame outstripped his wisdom in many respects , his grammatical nd logical studies and rhetoric were received with much admiration. True to form he made these studies foundational  or introductory to his higher level courses! In the Pythagorean school you could only qualify as a rhetorical master at the time you received Mathematikos!

My advice to any student is do not be brow beaten by any professor. Be respectful and continue to ask your question until you get a satisfactory reply. Sometimes the may hand you off to some other lecturer or phd student because they are too busy or possibly do not know how to communicate so well! But that does not matter, just patiently ask until satisfied.

If you have a good learning community they will tolerate this kind of questioning. If not you will soon know because they will start to use strong arm tactics and bullying on you or tell you to shut up or just ignore you!

It really is quite dreadful how they coerce individuals to think the same way!

The language by which physicists may speak of the phenomena they observe is bring constructed., but we must not leave it to the academicians or the mathematicians only. We need artists and artisans to be the consultative base  for this language. It is the trchnologists who impact most directly on our lives!

Where physicists failed before they can now learn to speak in terms of fractals, of scale free  or almost self similarity at any scale. This means one can choose very accessible models and iterate them to explain he omplexity we find.

So light is our simple model! We iterate it to explain the complex dynamics of everything we call matter!

I was in the Lesson Anton Zeilinger gave and couldn't find out what the clou was or if I hadn't understood an important part of quantenmechanics.
For me the things became clear as I listend to the video of Roger Penrose I posted above.

My understanding I have expressed in the following sentence.


The Experiments can be seen as a realisation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Paradoxon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
So it can be seen that Einsteins criticism on quantemechanics was wrong, but his criticism gave a deep view into the theorie of quantenmechanics.

Dr. Physics gives a very good introduction on this Issue:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/0x9AgZASQ4k&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/0x9AgZASQ4k&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

There are also lessons from Susskind on this issue but I am not through with it.
---http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A27CEA1B8B27EB67---

Hermann
P.S Thanks for the links to Dr. Physics!

There are a few variants of answers to this:

You can't take a single year to talk of climate.
Climate becomes apparent in long-term trends; something like 10+ years.
While it is ultra warm here in Europe, if I understood this right, it's unusually cold right now in the US. - it's warmer in middle Europe than it is in Texas, south-North-America. (Correct me if I'm wrong and the cold over there is, in fact, expected)

For a single year you can just talk about an anomaly. Last year this time it was significantly colder around here.
That being said, if you look at a multi-year-trend, things are indeed heating up on average. At the same time, they seem to become more extreme

If you take climate, as a crude approximation, to simply be described as temperature over time, and you fit a gaussian distribution on that data, with parameters µ and σ for your mean (and expected value) and your standard deviation (the expected distance a particular data point would land from the mean) respectively, it might be that the distribution shifts to the right (it becomes warmer, the mean µ increases) but becomes wider (it becomes more extreme, things are further away from µ, the standard deviation σ increases).

That seems to be what's happening right now, although the truth will be much, much more complicated than that: Weather is a highly thermodynamic, chaotic process. You can only predict stuff very short term (a week or maaybe two in advance) or over much longer periods of time, where variations average themselves out (over the course of a few years - the more years you take, the smoother and more predictable your results will be). That middle ground over just months is very hard to predict.


By the way, a living cell in mitosis is also a highly thermodynamic object. It is somewhat of a bold assumption that you could separate such a cell from the world well enough to have quantum effects play a role, e.g. to have a blackbox suitable for a living cell.
If you *can* do that - and we're making progress in that direction: the largest objects are small-protein-sized molecules so far, but that's still ways and ways off of cells - then yes, that would happen.
Except that, in all likelihood, the conditions under which you'd need to store a cell like that are... well... not exactly friendly for life. Most likely you'd kill a cell before it completes mitosis. You'd essentially have to cool it down to temperatures where you'd get stuff like Bose-Einstein- or Fermionic Condensate. And since a cell is made up of various different atoms, some of which would have integer spin and other half integer spin - this makes the difference between a Boson and a Fermion - you'd probably get some kind of Bose-Fermi-mixture goo that, upon rewarming, will probably not at all resemble a cell, let alone a living one.

The discussion of the elektron as a black hole has become to long so I have splittet it into tow parts.
For the first part of this discussion look at the following page:
http://www.fractalforums.com/complex-numbers/light/60/

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

Also known as position-momentum uncertainty is due to Werner Heisenberg and his development of quantenmechanic. It states that postion and momentum can not be messaured simultaniously with infinit accuracy. The accuracy of measurement of both values is limited by the following fundamental law:



Basic state of a Hydrogen Atom

This principal not only describes a frontier of possible accuracy in measurement of position and momentum of an particle simultaniously, but also has influence on the behavior of a particle. If we measure the position very accurate ( is small) it is allowed for the momentum to become very big:



That means, the particel will proberbly not be very long at this position after the mesurement. If we now look at the hydrogen atome we have an attracting Lorenz force which will tend to set the elektron on the proton. On the other hand when the elektron is on the proton, the position is very well defined. Which allows it to have very high momentum,  so that it can escape from the surface of the protron.

The lowest state in a hydrogen atom is the reuslt of the superposition of these effects. The attracting Lorenz force and the perpelling effect resulting from an accurate position measurement.

It is also possible, also with very low probability, that the elektron is catched by the proton to form a neutron. But a neutron is not a stable particle and will emit the electron very soon. (weak forces)

Hermann

I have started watching Leonard Susskind's exelent lecture on quantum entangelment. He describes each detail slowly and carefully.
But at the end one has never been faster in the center of quantenmechanics. Many of the items he talks about are known to me for a long time. But Susskind puts the Puzzel together. So at the end you can see a big Cathedral.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/0Eeuqh9QfNI&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/0Eeuqh9QfNI&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/VtBRKw1Ab7E&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/VtBRKw1Ab7E&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

Hiya hgjf2

The topic will likely continue as long as it takes!
Here is another view on light
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/Gx67FSiKwyA&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/v/Gx67FSiKwyA&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

You see there are many views, and many ideas to explore. The amazing thing is that light was once considered as one of the fundamental elements of matter. Alchemists owned it as part of their province of study. even today you will find that chemists have a better understanding of light, and all so called electromagnetic radiation, than physicists.

This is why light naturally connects to the questions about the nature of matter, and its behaviour, and why physics has lost its way.

For example, why is the sky dark at night, if the sun is the source of daylight? And how can we see starlight?

This is an animation trial of experiments i have been dong with twistors and gyres as basis elements for fluid and electro thermo magneto dynamics.

At the moment it is just a random sculpture using Quasz, but its significance is that rotation and radial expansion and contraction produce a conserved spatial region and dynamic stable forms.

I apologise for not making it into an action movie! I am still learning how this animation feature works!
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/rTExXTPpLzI&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/rTExXTPpLzI&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

z= e^(8*(ln(x#)+1*y#*i))+e^(8*(ln(x#)+1*imaj(z)*j+1*imak(z)*k))+1*c

is the generic formula and the render is a mandelbrot type iteration, which means z and c interact interdependently during the algorithm like a trochoid formulation.
This particular basis represents a circle orthogonal to a circular disc plane, ie a tangent disc to a great circle. At the time i was not clear what might best model electro thermo magneto beheaviours, and went with my intuition.
The sculpture shows only what remains as the quaternion block is iterated . The sudden jumps are more indicaive than the long still shots! the motion of zooming in probably produces some codec artifacts rather than rue dynamic behaviour , but the rotated mandelbrot form(lathed mandelbulb) is indicative of some rotary action/

Theses are not sine waves but trochoid waves.

This is a mandy or mandelbrot type render of the above plasma template. The waves are trochoidal and based on full rotation not "sin wave" oscillation .
We forget that the trigonoimetric functions derive from spherical rotation, and so accept a poor view of wave phenomenon that does not fully accord with "nature"

I think that rotation will simplify many current differential geometric descriptions of space waves and active or undulating surfaces and make more sense than the partial differential equations we now use to describe dynamic geometry.

These trials are not definitive, just feeling my way through the maze!

always rememeber, any sculpture is in negative! the sculpted forms only give an indication of what is happening in the space in and around them