Agreed completely with Doug Lindstrom, present day dogmatists have switched off the Baconian enlightenment. The all time low in physics was the lobbying of the Nobel prize committee for a theory with so many variables that you could fit a Jackson Pollock, drip by drip. The Thesis is clearly written and obviously the result of hard work, and honesty of thought.
Lindstrom thesis part b
Many thanks for the compliments. I became disillusioned with Physics after I completed my BSc. degree, and sought out a supervisor for my MSc. that was still working in the classical arena (preferably electromagnetics). Frank Curzon and I basically chose each other. He was a great supervisor with the Plasma Physics group at UBC. We still keep in contract occasionally.
My disillusionment was that theoretical physics seemed to be more and more like a religion of 1000+ years ago where knowledge was in the hands of the priesthood, because the commoners weren’t able to understand it and the priesthood maintained this stance to keep control. This is definitely my impression of physics of today. Experimentalists were considered a lower class of physicist, much like the commoner mentioned above.
At that time, the standard model had not been assembled, but quarks were the rage. Virtual particles were beginning to be discussed in connection with the weak and strong forces, yet no one could tell me what a virtual particle was. Similarly, quantum mechanics was leaning more and more to a Copenhagen interpretation as opposed to just the simple probability models relying on a Heisenberg interpretation of measurement limits due to wavelengths of the fields used to observe events with. Stochastic models weren’t ever mentioned and yet having taken four+ terms (two at graduate level) of quantum theory, I never did get the good and satisfied feeling that you feel in your gut when things are right. Today concepts like the multi-universe are great for science fiction, but they too don’t sit well in the gut (as with dark matter, string theory, and on and on), concepts invented to prop up a failing theory.
ECE came along and used the basic tenant that physics is equivalent to geometry. This feels good. It is understandable and workable and has experimental and engineering applications. (I think we have to write some primers now on the subject, so that the knowledge can be readily grasped by those new to the theory).
Enough ranting, I want to think about chaotic Beltrami models this morning. It seems to me that devices like the E-CAT that seem to have an energy instability issue perhaps driven by material properties, might fit somewhere in here. An unstable solution would be of the form
t + I*Wi*t] with the real portion of the frequency
If a resonant solution had this form, and the resonant frequency was an attractor as in chaotic theory, then instabilities such as the above with the E-CAT would almost be inevitable when Wr was in the range of variables where Wr was non-zero.
Many thanks again! These experimental methods are impressive, especially as you designed and built the apparatus yourself. This is what is expected of a graduate student, even an undergraduate in some experiments.