39 replies to this topic

[sepulchrave]

Wow, this thread got weird fast...

onereaderone, on 02 February 2013 - 05:38 AM, said:

because  the  design  is  scaleable...   i  can  build  a  linilar  actuator  the  size  of  a 10  story  building  or  for  a nanobot  in   microns ..  with  equal  ease ...   the  device  is  patentable  and  is  also  very  easy  to  improve  ...   and  any  one  that  is  intrested...  it  has  automotive   applications   including   reactive  shock absorbers   that   flat line a  bump  in  the  road...
it  is  also  not effected  by  vaccum  or  ultra  pressure....

I am happy for you that you are so smart and innovative.

But please forgive my incredulity: if you have developed plans for an actuator that can easily be built on any scale from a micron to a decameter, why haven't you filed for a patent yet? If you have a patent, it shouldn't be too much trouble to get venture capital interested, or just subcontract out the actual construction and sale of the device. You can learn how to file for a US patent here, and a European patent here.

bmk1245, on 01 February 2013 - 11:29 PM, said:

Actually, he knows, and he knows a lot.

the L, on 01 February 2013 - 10:59 PM, said:

He dont know. He only can have intuition.

Thanks for your confidence in me! I am flattered.

bmk1245, on 01 February 2013 - 10:53 PM, said:

So what direction we have to go (in your opinion)?

The L is definitely right, I don't really know. I can guess at the direction we need to go for quantum mechanics, I don't know enough about other branches of science to comment on them.

My intuition (and this isn't really my intuition, I am just cobbling together ideas other scientists have brought up) is that exact solutions to the microstate of an absolute zero, many body ensemble are impossible to find, but exact solutions to the macrostate of a finite temperature, many body ensemble are solvable.

The typical approach to solving a many body ensemble is to make approximations to get an answer for absolute zero, and then generalize (using statistical mechanics) that result to finite temperature situations. This works well for some situations but fails for others.

I think there needs to be a more intimate connection between entropy and energy in quantum mechanics; I do not think that trying to solve for the energy (using ordinary quantum mechanics) and then including entropy (using statistical mechanics) is correct.

But I don't know how to balance entropy with energy in a sensible way.

And of course I could be totally wrong about all of this.

[bmk1245]

the L, on 02 February 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

I dont see it as exaggerated.
[...]

Thats from my point of view, though getting results after hours/days and many pages of paper, is indeed delightful.

the L, on 02 February 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

[...]
Also Fermat was genius too.

Can't argue with that.

[bmk1245]

sepulchrave, on 02 February 2013 - 05:35 PM, said:

[...]
Thanks for your confidence in me! I am flattered.


The L is definitely right, I don't really know. I can guess at the direction we need to go for quantum mechanics, I don't know enough about other branches of science to comment on them.

My intuition (and this isn't really my intuition, I am just cobbling together ideas other scientists have brought up) is that exact solutions to the microstate of an absolute zero, many body ensemble are impossible to find, but exact solutions to the macrostate of a finite temperature, many body ensemble are solvable.

The typical approach to solving a many body ensemble is to make approximations to get an answer for absolute zero, and then generalize (using statistical mechanics) that result to finite temperature situations. This works well for some situations but fails for others.

I think there needs to be a more intimate connection between entropy and energy in quantum mechanics; I do not think that trying to solve for the energy (using ordinary quantum mechanics) and then including entropy (using statistical mechanics) is correct.

But I don't know how to balance entropy with energy in a sensible way.

And of course I could be totally wrong about all of this.

Thanks for answer!

[AquilaChrysaetos]

It's naive and egotistical to think that most of science has already been explained, and to say that there are no more scientific geniuses left is even more absurd of a notion.

[keithisco]

Genius is not dead - not dead by any method of calculation.

What is needed is for more people to find applications for some of the extraordinary Fundamental Research that has been completed, or in progress. This is how meaningful (to the population) advances and inventiveness is perceived by Jo - Public (JP). They are not wrong. (IMO). One area that seems to have plateaud in recent decades is engine research for Space exploration - all of our best, and developed engines are just too slow to reach the planets in a short enogh time-frame to maintain JP´s interest. I believe there are also some breakthroughs in Comms technology that will be quite remarkable.

I look to Graphene as posessing the potential for extraordinary applications, from immensely fast computing, to building a Space Elevator.

[keithisco]

onereaderone, on 02 February 2013 - 12:57 AM, said:

post  script .  i  have  some  very  smart  people who  say  i  am  quite  clever ...  and   a bipedal  walking  robot  is  a hobby...  because  no  one  on  earth  will  spend  a dime  on  real  resurch ,  because  the  academics  have  got  it  so  pipelined  and  formatted  driven ...  if  you  have  any  really good  ideas ,  your  never  going  to see  the  light  of  day ..

watch  the  movie  contact .

the  true  genius  is  the  one  who  is  cut  out  and  handed  their hat ...  its  the  game player ,  and  the  insiders  who  get  the  bucks  to  play  buck rogers ...

untill  that  changes  (  do  not  hold  your  breath ) ... you  will  not  see  anything  like  genius .

i  have solutions  for  every  problem  man  kind  has seen  in  the  last  150  years ...   and  not  one  will  ever  be  seen  because  loud  voices  win  out  over  smart  voices .

i  should  point  out ,  i  have  made  two  people  over  100 million  dollors  from  ideas  i  did  not  get  any  credit  for  or  any  money  from ...  because  the  real  work  was  done  by  them... but  the  ideas  were  mine ...  i  have  not  fewer  than  100  other  ideas...  any  one  of  which   could  make  some  one   more  than 100  million  dollors...

and  frankly  speaking...   i  do  not  care  one  bit ,  because  realestate  is  where   money  goes...  not  ideas  or  manufacturing .
you get  what  you  pay  for ,  you  personaly  are  responcible  for  what  you  get ,  when  you  want  the  world  to  change...   i  am  waiting ....   i  will  not  fight  the  war  alone ,  i  can   do  that  with  out  your  help .

frankly  speaking ,  all  i  want  is  to  have  enought  money  for  materials  and  space  to  work .  some  one  else  to  manage  the  business  end  and  a  warm  place  to  work .

Oh Dear!!  Self - agrandisement is not a very nice trait, especially when claims cannot be substantiated...

[onereaderone]

AquilaChrysaetos, on 03 February 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

It's naive and egotistical to think that most of science has already been explained, and to say that there are no more scientific geniuses left is even more absurd of a notion.

when  building , the  foundation  is fundimental ,  getting  it  wrong  will  not  simply  limit  how  strong  or  how  high you can  go ...  but  can  only  end  in  rubble in  time....

but getting  it  right  may  take meny  trys ...  not  all  successful

[onereaderone]

the  great genius was  not  the  man  that  builds  the  wheels  ,  or  the  man  that  harness  the  horse ,  or  the  man  that  builds  the  wagon ....   the  genius  is  the  women  that  nags the  husband  that  "  she  does  not  want  to  walk  all  the  way  to  the  market  carry'n   the  farm  produce again ."

[onereaderone]

.....or.....

the  question that  has  never  been asked ,  is  the  question  that  is  hardest  to answer .

the  concept  of  one ,  assumes   more  than  one...  but  seeing  one thing  is  far  more  difficult  than  seeing  all  the  others  that follow .

you  may  look  at  an  ocean  as a single  body  of  one  water  mass  ,  or  as  meny  seas...  or  vast numbers  of  single  drops  of  rain ...   seeing  it clearly  is  not  as  hard  as  seeing  it  in  a context  that  is  novel  or  diffrent .

[DieChecker]

It is not that there are less geniuses. It is that the ruler being used for one measure is not the same as being for the other. That there were lots of geniuses over a thousand years is true, but are we really expected to have to produce geniuses in decades now, and not centuries? And the math and science of those discoverys is more expansive now too, so Greater Genius has to come along, There are probably tens times the geniuses there was 100 years ago, and they probably could figure out what was figured out 100 years ago even faster, but they are being derided because they are not coming up with New Flash every minute of every day? This is a stupid question.....

Plus.... The better geniuses are working in secret for Corporations or the Government, so we are not going to see and hear about all their ground breaking developements instantaneously. Just look at Stealth Technology in aviation. It was secret for almost 30 years before it went public. So, the really Good Stuff is probably still secret...