19
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 32:
Line 32: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Quantum mechanics (view source)
Revision as of 01:10, December 10, 2009
, 01:10, December 10, 2009no edit summary
:Myself, I think it's better to explain or mention the consequences of math (e.g. tunneling) without the math itself than to not mention them at all. But, of course, it's better to have both. By all means, when you've got the time, please add the math! --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 19:24, 9 December 2009 (EST)
:Myself, I think it's better to explain or mention the consequences of math (e.g. tunneling) without the math itself than to not mention them at all. But, of course, it's better to have both. By all means, when you've got the time, please add the math! --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 19:24, 9 December 2009 (EST)
Explanation of tunneling can only come about after the explanation of the problem. I read your user page and understand what you're trying to do. But you have to accept the responsibility that in order to present knowledge you have to present why it is. Why is tunneling allowed, how is it realized? These are things that you have to answer if you want it up there. Myself I feel compelled to let the truth about things be known. I have a growing concern after visiting pages on this site that people are making up wildly outrageous claims that don't seem to be trolls. For example on your nuclear fusion site someone said "stars are stable". Your(the site's not your personally I kinda like you) entire page on nuclear power is either erroneous or just unnecessary. You seem to have an interest in keeping together the scientific pages. If this is the case I strongly urge you to post math, reason, experiments. How is it we know a wave function is correct? Think about it, if things aren't exactly in one particular position, why does the universe work? There are a lot of gaps in knowledge here that lead me to believe this is an mission of lunacy.
It is scientifically reckless to just present results. What you are doing is telling people to just believe what you say is true. If science were done in this fashion where would we be as a society? I could just say, "Hey cold things get colder for no reason, just believe me." If this was accepted it would violate the laws of thermodynamics. Claims need proof. Results need proof. Consequences of things need math. With every fiber of my being I believe you are doing your race a disservice by simply presenting quantum mechanics as something that should be accepted.(Make no mistake that is what is happening here).
I understand the idea that this site is a safe-haven from liberal bias, but without references, without proof, without any reason for its claims, this site is worthless. Try and see this from my perspective. You say that this is a "trustworthy encyclopedia" yet you post information. You also leave out information that you do not know about. This is a dangerous practice and it is morally and ethically wrong to say you are trustworthy without offering the full truth.
Honestly, with all that said I like you Evan.(anyone who has taken and not failed a course in quantum obviously has some intelligence)But if you are going to walk down the scientific path, you have to make sure that you are thorough and complete. Otherwise what you are saying is harmful. You may think that my concern is unfounded but I promise you, it is very very dangerous just presenting claims and having people believe them to be true.
Also on not of the math, I have absolutely no idea how to type it up, if you want me to send it to you in some other way so you can type it up (or better review your work on these problems) I would be more than happy to.
Sorry for the long windedness of this but the sharing of knowledge, while noble, is dangerous if not done properly. I simply fear that if we continue in this fashion, physics, all its laws and findings, will only be a field of debate rather than that of true science. Science is based on the principle that you must prove something for it to be true. I believe that this should hold true in the communication of scientific ideas.
[[User:Swifty|Swifty]] 20:10, 9 December 2009 (EST)
==Older stuff==
==Older stuff==