Spindoc, very appropriate nomenclature mate.

Not all that long ago one could have bought said magnet laden spinning top at any branch of big Whatsit?

And then (speaking as an interested observing eye witness) placed it on a non magnetic plastic ruler, given it a big spin then removed the PLASTIC ruler, to see it spin in front of an astounded science class; hovering in mid air and at whatever level you or anyone decided to leave it!

Magic being ruled out by completing enclosing said hovering magnetic top inside two glasses that made one complete fully encasing container!

I'm sure thousands were sold and the described phenomena reproduced again and again the length and breadth of this wide brown land?

Is that what you mean by completely debunked?

I'm sure enough enquirers would see the Item restocked and again available, if not already?

I hope so, as I can think of no better B'day gift for a Granddaughter with an OPEN inquiring mind.

By the way, proving a particle exists does no more than prove a particle exists, and not every co-converging/competing theory; although it may have allowed a different way to arrive at a new or practical/theoretically feasible warp drive, that doesn't need the power of an entire universe to work!?

Or that a whirlwind has more chance of whipping through a junk and and assembling a fully functioning 747, than serendipity and chance assembling a fully functioning and vastly more complex human being?

And an application of said inertia beating spinning magnetic top(s) may allow something to be launched into outer space getting all the required acceleration up the side of a nicely shaped mountain; say like Queensland's Mount Bartle Fare? Say several times a day?

Via an electric rail gun, that could conceivably hurl 1,000+ ton payloads into orbit, perhaps utilizing solar thermal energy? And wouldn't there be a huge and lucrative commercial market for that?

A nuclear powered ion drive, space tug, able to take over from there?

An electric rail gun has I'm informed, optimal/maximum speeds near that of light?
Rhrosty.

And somewhat off topic Spinner, I've heard that magnetron trains have a current top speed of around 900 klms PH?

I wonder how much faster they'd be able to go, if you added a central rail gun and operated them inside vacuum locked tunnels i.e.?

Sydney to London, New York or Paris in half an hour?

And given a county sized solar thermal project as the power source; a lot faster than air travel and no carbon footprint?

And even if coffee tea or milk were served, would you be able to overcome the inherent belly button hugging spine inertia, to be able to drink it?

Or would it just be a case of asking the forward leaning straining compression suited hostess with the mostess, the front of her Anatomy doing its best to join/stretch round to her back, to simply hurl it in the vomit bag, just to save time?
Rhrosty.

' morning Craig,

Ran out of posts yesterday, sorry about the wait.

My next post provides some of the references I offered, one of them is the basis for my original post that you were so critical of, yet now you agree with it?

Craig, the link from Geoff of Perth is a chapter from the very same publication by Nicholas Mee, “Gravity: Cracking the Cosmic Code” and a source of both my synopsis and many references to Quantum Jelly?

https://plus.maths.org/content/secret-symmetry-and-higgs-boson-part-i

First you say “None of it made a lot of sense”, “group symmetry is also somewhat void of meaning”, “The Higgs business has not "unified" anything”, but then say of the QED/QCD quantum systems, “both of them manage “to unify 3” of the 4 fundamental forces”? Do they unify or not? (except for gravity of course).

Now you say of the same source and it’s conclusions that it is “Nicely described and to date the most elegant model put forward” ? Since you now seem to think it offers the most elegant model, I’ve added a link to the original publication at Amazon. It is also available from Quantum Wave Publishing. (Hardback and Kindle).

http://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Cracking-Cosmic-Nicholas-Mee/dp/1901579484
Author of "Gravity. Cracking the Cosmic Code" makes many references to "quantum jelly"

Nicholas Mee is also very responsive to questions, you might like to put some of your points to him directly at the following email address? Particularly some of the more in depth issues that concern you.

quantumwave@virtualimage.co.uk

Enjoy your dollops of Quantum Jelly.

‘morning Craig,

I don’t understand your difficulty in sourcing publications? You say my references don’t “appear to be carried by any academic library source that I have been able to locate. CERN appears to be similarly mystified”.

How odd? Anyway a few here to get you started which include both the CERN and Quantum Jelly references you are so keen to acquire.

arxiv.org/pdf/1405.1405.pdf;
by K Svozil - ‎2014 - ‎Related articles
Presently the consensus among quantum physicists and philosophers of ..... quantum jelly ….

https://plus.maths.org/content/hooray-higgs-edit-0
Allanach talks after a webcast from CERN, which held physicists at the ... Allanach describes the Higgs field as a weird sort of quantum jelly that..

www.phy.duke.edu/~hsg/162/files/.../assignment-03-jan-26-2015.pdf
Jan 31, 2015 - (c) Finally, show that you understand the meaning of Eq. (2) by drawing ... quantum)“jelly” theory of a helium atom ….

www-outreach.phy.cam.ac.uk/cpc/2011/dana.pdf
Particle physics and the LHC. B.C. Allanach – p. 1 .... quantum jelly. Particle physics and the LHC ... that there is no description of gravity….

http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/10/15/why-the-higgs-and-gravity-are-unrelated/
Oct 15, 2012 - ..... In the absence of any Einstein reference frames? ...... I know the whole subject is like a wobbly jelly which refuses to set. ..... The boson discovered this summer at CERN at about 125 GeV is very likely at least one ...

phys.org › Physics › General Physics
Jul 16, 2012 - At CERN they have just provided the first experimental evidence .... defines an absolute reference frame (wrong) with a favorite direction ... It is interesting that some of the pre-quantum relativistic concepts comes back in altered manner. .... direction like block of jelly….

http://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Cracking-Cosmic-Nicholas-Mee/dp/1901579484
Author of "Gravity. Cracking the Cosmic Code" makes many references to "quantum jelly"

https://plus.maths.org/content/secret-symmetry-and-higgs-boson-part-i

Thanks to Geoff of Perth for this link to an extract from "Gravity. Cracking the Cosmic Code" from which many references to “Quantum Jelly” are found.

The expression “Quantum Jelly” is simply a means of trying to describe aspects of Physics for which there is currently no other descriptor, I think the focus on this seems a distraction. Try “Particle Porridge” or “String Soup” if it comforts you.

Spindoc, what was “void of meaning” was your guff, as was clearly pointed out. I clearly did not suggest that group symmetry or QCD/QED were in that category.
You see, if Dr Mee says something and then you screw up transliterating his words, then your words are in fact, rubbish, which was precisely my point. His knowledge does not make you knowledgeable or correct.
With respect to QED/QCD, they are not, as you suggested, a “GUT” (Grand Unified Theory) and do not purport to be. They did (both) predict the existence of the Higgs, but there is a long way to go yet to unify gravity with the other forces.
That was the nub of my comment to Geoff of Perth. I didn’t read his reference, because I already actually know quite a lot about the subject. I think that if Dr Mee used the term “quantum jelly” in his popular science book, it is a poor metaphor, as I have already (briefly) explained to Geoff of Perth.

I don't think I'll be bothering to have any of your quantum jelly, but thanks anyway. It sounds like the sort of thing Hameroff and Penrose might find when looking into the quantum consciousness of some posters here.

‘morning Craig,

I thought you might have started with thanks for all those links spindoc, or how about you address some of the questions asked, or how about all that content you could address?

But no, you just want to distract and resort to verbaling?

You say << with respect to QED/QCD, they are not, as you suggested, a “GUT” (Grand Unified Theory) >>

Really, did I say that? Shall we just check that Craig?

What I actually said was << The Grand Unified Theory (GUT, the unification of quantum mechanics, the laws of physics and those of the laws of general/special relativity) >>

Posted by spindoc, Friday, 5 June 2015 1:54:56 PM

Don’t suppose you’d be up for an apology, or even a “correction” or how about one of your best excuses?

I’m beginning to suspect you don’t actually “read” posts, you “feel” them, very sloppy.

You also said in reference to Quantum Jelly, << Oh dear, I must have missed that paper, spindoc. Would you mind putting up a link to an authoritative source? >>

and that << “quantum jelly”, which doesn’t appear to be carried by any academic library source that I have been able to locate. CERN appears to be similarly mystified >>.

Really Craig, you didn’t miss just “that” paper, you actually missed “dozens” of them published since at least 2011, and since I was able to give you many more links to them from many sources, including CERN, one has to wonder where you have been and how you conduct your research?

As for your << I didn’t read his reference (Geoff of Perth) , because I already actually know quite a lot about the subject>> Did you just say that? Wow!

“Actually” Craig, you need to take a deep breath and relax, you’re squeezing it too hard buddy.

I’m afraid we are going to have to take away your Quantum Jelly Craig, I know Craig, I did promise to give you some, but you can have it back for dessert when you have finished eating all your Humble Pie :)