New Blender Add-On Accurately Models Subatomic Particles, Involves Community with Contest (energywavetheory.com) 101
BlenderArtists.org writes:
To build and model the universe from the Planck scale to galactic scales requires an incredible number of mathematical computations to simulate particles and their interactions, yet the framework of nature and the physics of these interactions should be simple. Blender's physics engine provides a good base to begin this project, but it will take work from the community to accurately model subatomic particles.
That's where "Quantum Microscope" comes in. It's a newly open sourced add-on for Blender that simulates subatomic particles and the formation of matter using classical physics. "It provides a microscopic look at molecules, atoms, atomic nuclei, particles and spacetime, using the theoretical model from Energy Wave Theory," explains its web page, linking to a video summarizing some of its features.
And that's just the beginning, writes Slashdot reader atomicphysics: A contest begins September 1, 2020 for developers to enhance the add-on, or create a new simulator meeting project requirements to use classical physics for the quantum realm, with at least $15,000 in prizes being awarded over the next year.
That's where "Quantum Microscope" comes in. It's a newly open sourced add-on for Blender that simulates subatomic particles and the formation of matter using classical physics. "It provides a microscopic look at molecules, atoms, atomic nuclei, particles and spacetime, using the theoretical model from Energy Wave Theory," explains its web page, linking to a video summarizing some of its features.
And that's just the beginning, writes Slashdot reader atomicphysics: A contest begins September 1, 2020 for developers to enhance the add-on, or create a new simulator meeting project requirements to use classical physics for the quantum realm, with at least $15,000 in prizes being awarded over the next year.
Uh, seriously? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Uh, seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uh, seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uh, seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the only way if you want it to be *just right*.
- Willy Wonka
noob question (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You're no newbie, your 6-digit UID is a giveaway.
I used to have a 7-digit palindromic UID, but the whole account got censored out of existence, and not for any abuse of the account, either.
This is physics, and chemistry is just applied physics. If this guy is correct (and there are doubts about that) the engine that might come out of it should be able to model such a system, given enough computing grunt.
About a decade ago I met a former PhD student (don't know whether he completed) who had some experience
I really thought this meant a blender (Score:2)
Hmm (Score:2, Redundant)
LOL (Score:4)
Particle physics cannot accurately model subatomic particles, but yeah, blender can.
With a "theory" that is "published" on an alternative science site.
Thanks.
Re: (Score:1)
There is a difference between modelling a virtual event and reality. Modelling the motion of a single sub-atomic particle in reality requires the entire universe, modelling something virtually means eliminating all the variables you are not interested and just uselessly expand complexity, so much so, your model collapses.
You have to decide exactly what elements you want to model and focus on those and effectively pretend the rest of the universe does not exist, as it creates a huge number of variable and a
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Thank you for the drivel, but you're straying off the topic. TFA says "accurately models subatomic particles based on whatever theory". Whatever theory is nutjob level bullshit, and so is the "accurate modeling".
To "accurately model" a system of "subatomic particles" in the simplest case, you have to solve a Schrodinger partial differential equation with something like a bazillion variables. This is currently impossible - neither numerically, nor analytically - and will likely remain so for a long time.
You
Re: (Score:2)
You're a bit slow in the head and weak in the reading comprehension department. But here's an "A" for your effort.
Looks familiar... (Score:1)
Yep, garbage (Score:5, Informative)
It's crank physics. Ignore.
So now Slashdot is promoting physics cranks? (Score:5, Informative)
"Based on this completely not-even-wrong physics crank looking to generate publicity for their website"
This isn't the first time this has been attempted. (Score:2)
EWT equals BS squared (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
I will probably butcher a summary of the theory, but this is my understanding:
EWT has 1 fundamental particle called the wave center that exists along with the aether. Particles are a result of standing waves reflected by wave centers in the aether. Forces are traveling waves reflected by wave centers in the aether. Forces are a result of wave centers minimizing the amplitude of th
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, no, it doesn't "explains all of the forces (strong, electromagnetic, gravitational) as manifestations of the wave equation used in its model". EWT works in a 3D space, not the 3D+1T spacetime of relativity.
I am not claiming EWT *correctly* explains anything, but it does have explanations for all of the forces and it does explain how it fits in with relativity.
EWT works in a 3D space, not the 3D+1T spacetime of relativity.
How have you confirmed this? Where does EWT fall short of obeying the laws of relativity?
Two Slit Experiment (Score:4, Insightful)
That is all.
Re: (Score:1)
That was my first thought when I read that it's all classical physics - can he reproduce the double slit experiment under his system. I've seen no discussion of it, but I haven't looked at the multiple videos that go back a couple of years.
I recently read about Stephen Wolfram's physics project and the recent reproduction of some good-looking results for their system. It almost falls out of Jonathan Gorard's system.
Let me see if I can find a link... here it is:
https://wolframphysics.org/bul... [wolframphysics.org]
Re: Two Slit Experiment (Score:2)
Actually, even better: I want to see it do just plain old magnetism (aka electrostatic force under relativistic effects).
Or to go even more extreme: A *temporal* double-slit experiment, where you send exactly two photons, a minute apart, and they interact *anyway*... Or where the sequence of events and hence cause and effect differs with the observer!
Yes, those are real things that one can verify.
No way in hell can you explain or simulate that with classical physics.
Re: (Score:2)
No way in hell can you explain or simulate that with classical physics.
The double slit experiment can be explained in a classical like way by simply saying that the particle and the wave that pilots the particle are separate entities. This sort of fits the EWT model because EWT contains an aether and a fundamental particle (the wave center) that moves as a result of disturbances in the aether. That said, I don't know how EWT explains the photon in the double slit experiment, because I don't think the photon is considered a particle in EWT.
Or where the sequence of events and hence cause and effect differs with the observer!
I don't think you or anyone else can
I'm going to need (Score:2)
another few threadrippers for my 3D work.
Re: (Score:1)
I've fired up Blender on my Raspberry Pi 4modB and I think I'll have to upgrade to 8GB.
Why are nutcases being given any credibility here? (Score:4, Informative)
This has nothing to do with physics, this is just a fancier version of the cranks who sent letters to the Caltech physics department when I was an undergrad there, teasing their Wonderful Theory of Everything that Mainstream Physicsists were too stupid to comprehend.
Very on-brand for 2020, though. Call back when you've got some Phys. Rev. D papers published.
Re:Why are nutcases being given any credibility he (Score:4, Informative)
I read of a simple way to deal with these letters:
================
Thank you for your letter about your comprehensive subatomic theory. Unfortunately, as you have no doubt heard, being a prof is all about "publish or perish" and I'm in the middle of finishing a paper so I don't have time to review your theory in detail, my apologies.
I have an offer: my paper is on the anomalous zeeman splitting coefficient. As your theory is comprehensive, if you can send me details on your analytical solution to this problem I will give you a co-author credit on my paper.
=================
You will never hear from them again.
Re: (Score:2)
I once sat down on a plane next to a guy reading Einstein's Special Relativity book. He seemed like he might be slightly geeky and worth talking to, so I started a conversation. Big mistake; almost immediately he pulled out his 300 page manuscript about the luminferous ether and wanted me to review it and support his simple $250M satellite test program to verify it. Could not get him to shut up but at least it was only a two hour flight
Breach of /. trust (Score:5, Interesting)
The apparent editor "atomicphysics" that posted the article, and then referenced themself in the post is a brand new user (no comments) whose photo is of the originator of energy wave theory, Jeff Yee. Every link in the post goes to the energy wave theory page, made by Jeff Yee, or the blenderartist post by him.
Assuming "atomicphysics" is Jeff Yee, then slashdot just got used to promote a random, questionable physics theory by its originator. What's to prevent anyone with a random science idea to do the same? Are we going to have some flat-earther make an account and post stories? How about a creationist?
This is basically just self-promotion pretending to be legitimate. I know I shouldn't expect more out of slashdot anymore, but this is disappointing.
Re: Breach of /. trust (Score:2)
This is Slashdot. If you trusted any ot the other "editors", you're already a lost cause. ;)
"accurately models" & "classical physics" = ER (Score:3)
Does not compute.
Which one is it?
Classical physics or an accurate model?
Incongruity... (Score:2)