[humanbydefault]

Is quantum mechanics [QM] complete? NO!
Does QM offers an acceptable and correct description of REALITY? Absolutely NOT!
Are there "hidden variables" we haven't discover yet? I don't think so! I believe there are "hidden interests" most of us don't know about it yet!

Now! Let's start with the one on top: Incompleteness of QM.
QM can't and won't give us answers to solve the two slit experiment. It was good for Bohr in his personal aim to destroy Einstein's arguments in the Solvay congress but that's all it did. It cannot offer an answer to what is actually happening to the "Pauli exclussion principle." It can not explain the so-called "electronic subshell overlapping and the length of atoms." It is obsessed with finding the "particle" believed to exist with its own cohesiveness, charge, polarity and other "HUMAN-GIVEN powers." It cannot offer an explanation WHY protons are not willing to decay. It avoids every argument to explain what a FIELD is made since there are not supposed to be "sub-atomic particles" hanging around in the "EMPTY VACUUM" outside the lattice of the magnet.

Does QM offers an acceptable description of REALITY? The whole thing is just ABSURD! It offers nothing but uncertainties and probabilities but on top of that theirs postulates try to convince us that we won't understand them because our own language problems, our incompetence to translate their mathematical formulism etc,etc... NONSENSE!
If you have read my articles and tried to understand them [which I think not everyone who criticizes my posts have... no offense!] I am not attacking the concept of QUANTUM. I am against the "theory of particles," I am against the assumed existence of "sub-atomic particles" with a birth certificate of their own, I am totally against the present atomic model and I went further than that propposing a new one. I'm not just criticizing the present status, I'm giving a better alternative to fix it! With me or against me? It is irrelevant after all, I believe TIME will have the last word on the subject. My FIGHT today and tomorrow is to spread my vision to the world since I won't accept others to take credit for it. I believe I've done a very good job so far. I wrote a book saying exactly what I've said in my articles [under a fictional context for obvious reasons] and my articles have been sent to thousand of scientists around the globe. I do not expect them to answer to me either... Not for a long time I expect, but the day is not too faraway when one will.

The last question: Are there "hidden variables"?
The only hidden variable is inside our imperfect nature. We cannot observe [no matter the advance of our technology] the SPEED of response of the universe in the validation of "The law of conservation of energy." I'm not suggesting crazy philosophical views about mind, spirit, God or religions. I'm talking PHYSICS! Read my articles and "filter out" the "alien stuff" from them! All you'll find are facts! I'll continue with this subject in later posts right here but I don't want to make it too extense... Others have already complaint in the past for it.

I'll answer Greg's comment in the next page... Don't go away because this will turn very interesting and controversial...

HUMANBYDEFAULT
www.humanbydefault.com

[humanbydefault]

There are some [recycled materialists hanging around us] truly happy with the actual status of "things." Technology runs faster than we could follow and theory has become unable to explain what's really happening inside those labs.
Philosophy... we better avoid the subject. It's just shamefully!
The TOE [theory of everything] is not a "caprice." No wonder is trying to be seen as an "old man's illusion" by some of those P.P. [positive pragmatists].
OH! but they have very good rea$ons for that!
The TOE will reveal that matter is just another "HUMAN ILLUSION." Energy and its eternal confrontation will prevail and there is no other way to hide its truth.
We live in the "Stone-age of humanity" and I'm not exagerating facts!
The old hammer has turned into sophisticated "atom-smashers" with the utopical purpose to find the smallest piece of crunch that makes up matter!
I condemned that concept yesterday and I will keep doing it tomorrow!
I can understand that some of you don't care about any of this stuff... what a heck! We have cellular phones, satellite equipment and lasers... what else do we need?
I tell you what we need:

WE NEED THE TRUTH! Less than that is not enough for true human beings in search for the nature of things. The gadgets mentioned above are enough to calm the thirst of "easy to satisfied" materialists! No offense!
Interestingly that has been the classical difference of opinion between German scientists and English ones.
German physicists have always been concerned with the philosophical interpretations of what we see in our observations [with some exceptions of course]. English physicists have insisted on the existence of particles and have spread dangerously the concept of "particleness" through out the quantum world.
My point is that those particles we believe exist forming everything we call matter are the complex interaction of energy in the pattern of standing waves [atom]. Mass do not hold chanrges on their own. Mass is innert and its sole roll in the vacuum is to avoid total emptiness. You could go back and read the introducting quote of my article "Rediscovering the atomic model part one" ..."We don't have to change what we see, but the way we see it."

Thank you.

HUMANBYDEFAULT
www.humanbydefault.com

[dwing29]

default:
You stated "The TOE will reveal that matter is just another "HUMAN ILLUSION." Energy and its eternal confrontation will prevail and there is no other way to hide its truth."

You will have to excuse me, I have not read you work on your website.
But if I interpret you words correctly, you believe that matter does not exist only energy.

If so I would ask you this, "What is your definition of Energy?"

Best wishes,

The other Dave.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by humanbydefault If you still can't see what I'm trying to say... I can't blame you since others haven't either. HUMANBYDEFAULT www.humanbydefault.com

I'll be the first to say that, amid all the ramblings you've managed to post, I have no idea what your theory is or what you're trying to say. Nonetheless, I realize that patience is painstaking, but that also doesn't mean I want to read a fifty page paper that doesn't seem worth reading. My only hope is that I don't end up with my theory like you did with yours, alone and desperate, so in that fear I sympathize for you. Another thing which draws me to write this reply is your cynicism. I myself must fight against cynicism, so if somebody else is cynical, I can appreciate that in a fashion, before I hold it to ridicule.

The main difference between you and me is that I don't ramble, and I try my best to hide my cynicism. If I was to share my theory with everybody here right now, I would let it's simplicity shine through, such that everybody would see it's beauty in a couple, perhaps even just one sentence. Can you do this? Can you explain the tenants of your theory in one paragraph, such that we all can understand and have no question as to the insight you've found? I invite you, because due to your passion I assume that you at least THINK you have something elucidating to share. So please, tell me in the simplest way possible what your theory means or forever hold your peace. If you don't know where to start, I'll give you the one question which I'll ask anybody who purports to know about everything, the one question I can use to guage your theory against mine. How and why did the universe start?

good luck communicating an answer, subversion

[subversion]

Hey now, I never said that I had a low opinion of your work now did I? I'm just saying don't terry when getting to the point, that's all. I actually admire your critiquing of QM and atom smashing experiments, because I agree that they are, to put it in a few words, going nowhere. So I know that you at least know something.

I'm just trying to figure out how to guage your ideas, and what your ideas are in the first place. For this reason I just asked you a simple question which I assume your theory should have the answer to. You did not answer my question however, so I still have no clue if you really know anything or not. I never took pleasure in discrediting you, I'm just trying to get you to communicate with clarity. Maybe if you had been able to do that then you wouldn't be so irritated in the first pace. I'm not all that new, I'm just making sure that when I do present my theory, I do it in the best manner possible such to avoid any miscommunication. A good theory is too good not to gain instant recognition, at least from a few.

So no need to apologize friend, please share your ideas as best you can, and please give me your opinion on the question I've asked, if you have an opinion about it. When you post it, I will read your article about the road you've taken, it sounds like it may be interesting.

good luck, subversion