In this space, visitors are invited to post any comments, questions, or skeptical observations about Philo T. Farnsworth's contributions to the field of Nuclear Fusion research.Subject: Re: No VooDoo

Date: Sep 30, 9:27 pm

Poster: W.J.WardOn Sep 30, 9:27 pm, W.J.Ward wrote:

>

>So, there is some interesting stuff happening in the world of academia on potential solutions of these strange effects.

This is all very interesting.

I am an electronics engineer by trade and education, and am only familiar with the basics of nuclear physics and quantum mechanics. Wasn't it Albert Einstein who said, when asked about quantum mechanics, "God does not play dice"? It is my understanding that quantum mechanics dominates the world of nuclear physics today. Yet it relies heavily on statistics to predict the outcome of events. The tools developed thus far are pretty good at predicting what will happen. But aren't statistics used when one has a less than complete knowledge of the event? For instance, polsters can predict the outcome of an election by taking a sample of the voters exiting the poles. They can predict the outcome of the event without knowing everything that is happening. So, do people "tend" to get elected? Do voters suddenly and instantaneously appear or disappear at poling locations depending on how the samples are taken? Of course not. I'm sure that one could invent a statistical model that predicts just such events. It would be acurate in predicting the outcome of an election based upon an incomplete knowlege of each vote cast. But it wouldn't be a complete model, and the model itself would become a limitation to further understanding. Yet further understanding of phenomena is essential for humans to control our environment. No doubt that quantum mechanics is a useful tool, but it should never be preached as absolute truth.

You may have seen the TV series "The Day the Universe Changed" by the British journalist, David Burke. (If you haven't, then I certainly recommend taking the time to see it.) As this series points out, the universe did NOT, in fact change, but by adopting a different way of looking at things, man's PERCEPTION of the universe changed. This change in perception alone removed obsticles and allowed advancement.

Nature does not obey mathematical relationships. Mathematical relationships attempt to model nature. Isn't it in fact bizarre that math works as well as it does?