Intuitionist Maths might help reconcile quantum physics and relativity

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Madly calling everything wrong, arms spinning, corpse of a fox in the back garden, guts splayed - a lamentable sight
The thing is, there is simply a superabundance of wrongness in everything you've said in the last three pages. An embarrassment of riches.

An embarrassment of embarrassments, come to that.

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Content-free fulmination again

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.