Intuitionist Maths might help reconcile quantum physics and relativity

mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Mr. Tea said:
Science is a process by which things are found out. It's not just a storehouse of facts. The fact that there we don't yet have a complete theory of everything doesn't mean that every theory we have at present is wrong.

And as I've said, every sentence that guy has typed contains extremely basic errors, so whoever is going to be the next Einstein and come along with a revolutionary new theory that solves some of these unanswered questions, I'm fairly confident it isn't going to be him.
Click to expand...
'Extremely basic errors', none of which you can point out (other than the error of not having gifs on his webpage or something)
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
mixed_biscuits said:
'Extremely basic errors', none of which you can point out (other than the error of not having gifs on his webpage or something)
Click to expand...
I could, but there's no point because you lack the physics knowledge to understand it, and then you just go off on some waffly and entire semantic tangent and chalk it up as a "win".
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I mean, do my explanations make any sense to you:

"We also have no evidence or data showing that matter and anti-matter annihilate one another." - not true, we have decades of experimental data from colliders that worked by annihilating matter and antimatter, e.g. protons and antiprotons at the Tevatron (Fermilab, USA), and electrons and positrons (anti-electrons) at LEP, CERN.

"Our experiments only show that when matter and anti-matter collide, our machines cannot detect any residue." - the detectors in these experiments measure all sorts of particles being produced as a result of the annihilation, so again, flatly wrong.

"However, since our machines are measuring E/M residue, it is possible that both the matter and anti-matter have simply stopped acting in a detectable manner." - hard to even make out what he's saying here. But it's certainly possible to detect uncharged particles, such as neutrons and neutral pions, so it's no as if only charged particles can be measured. And particles of matter and antimatter are produced in equal quantities in these experiments, and both can be, and are, measured by the detectors.

"For instance, if E/M detection is ultimately a matter of spins or angular momenta..." - well it's not.

"...then both matter and anti-matter could become undetectable simply by losing all spins. In this way, colliding anti-matter and matter cancel spins, which greatly reduces energies, and completely reduces detection in a magnetic field." - completely meaningless, and since spin is a conserved quantity, particles cannot simply "lose" their spin.

Basically, about half of this is wrong, and about half of it is what Pauli used to call "not even wrong", in other words, so garbled and confused that it can't even put into the category of "wrong", because that would imply the existence of enough coherent thought that you could explain why it was wrong.
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Mr. Tea said:
I mean, do my explanations make any sense to you:

"We also have no evidence or data showing that matter and anti-matter annihilate one another." - not true, we have decades of experimental data from colliders that worked by annihilating matter and antimatter, e.g. protons and antiprotons at the Tevatron (Fermilab, USA), and electrons and positrons (anti-electrons) at LEP, CERN.

"Our experiments only show that when matter and anti-matter collide, our machines cannot detect any residue." - the detectors in these experiments measure all sorts of particles being produced as a result of the annihilation, so again, flatly wrong.

"However, since our machines are measuring E/M residue, it is possible that both the matter and anti-matter have simply stopped acting in a detectable manner." - hard to even make out what he's saying here. But it's certainly possible to detect uncharged particles, such as neutrons and neutral pions, so it's no as if only charged particles can be measured. And particles of matter and antimatter are produced in equal quantities in these experiments, and both can be, and are, measured by the detectors.

"For instance, if E/M detection is ultimately a matter of spins or angular momenta..." - well it's not.

"...then both matter and anti-matter could become undetectable simply by losing all spins. In this way, colliding anti-matter and matter cancel spins, which greatly reduces energies, and completely reduces detection in a magnetic field." - completely meaningless, and since spin is a conserved quantity, particles cannot simply "lose" their spin.

Basically, about half of this is wrong, and about half of it is what Pauli used to call "not even wrong", in other words, so garbled and confused that it can't even put into the category of "wrong", because that would imply the existence of enough coherent thought that you could explain why it was wrong.
Click to expand...
Half of the above is your not being able to parse the grammar/logic and the rest is based on his alternative theories (so obv would be inconsistent with the theory he's critiquing).
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Yes, that must be it. I'm just too stupid to understand his mind-bending "theory."
mixed_biscuits said:
Half of the above is your not being able to parse the grammar/logic and the rest is based on his alternative theories (so obv would be inconsistent with the theory he's critiquing).
Click to expand...
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
mixed_biscuits said:
His aim is to explain all of the physical phenomena strictly mechanically with no fudge of any flavour and he uses spin a lot.
Click to expand...
What would it take, I wonder, to get you to admit that you haven't got the faintest fucking clue what you're on about?
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Mr. Tea said:
What would it take, I wonder, to get you to admit that you haven't got the faintest fucking clue what you're on about?
Click to expand...
Modern physics, when failing to explain things in the orthotrad mechanomanner of the old masters, resorts to mathematical meandering and metaphysical mumbo-jumbo
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
mixed_biscuits said:
Modern physics, when failing to explain things in the orthotrad mechanomanner of the old masters, resorts to mathematical meandering and metaphysical mumbo-jumbo
Click to expand...
In the spirit of a stopped clock telling the right time twice a day, yes, physics uses mathematics to express itself, which Prof Timecube certainly doesn't.
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Mr. Tea said:
In the spirit of a stopped clock telling the right time twice a day, yes, physics uses mathematics to express itself, which Prof Timecube certainly doesn't.
Click to expand...
You make it sound like no mistakes can be made in this personified process...I refer you to the German goalkeeper
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Mr Tea is providing an object lesson in the enervated, panicked response to ideas that threaten the fundament of one's worldview rather than just a detail within it.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
mixed_biscuits said:
You make it sound like no mistakes can be made in this personified process...I refer you to the German goalkeeper
Click to expand...
I just assumed you'd got Thomas Kuhn's name wrong like you'd got the entire point of his book wrong.

Don't follow football so I hadn't heard of the other guy.
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Mr. Tea said:
I just assumed you'd got Thomas Kuhn's name wrong like you'd got the entire point of his book wrong.

Don't follow football so I hadn't heard of the other guy.
Click to expand...
Madly calling everything wrong, arms spinning, corpse of a fox in the back garden, guts splayed - a lamentable sight
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top