RE: Citizen science on Hive - simulation of a neutrino signal at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider with its uncertainties
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
particle physics is a joke. they got you looking for massless things. and point partials. that's is the same as looking for things that don't exist. to exist things must take up space (Have volume) and mass (weight). Dark matter, point particles , black holes. hahahaha it is hard to believe some of the smartest people in the world are so stupid. And that's how I know it is a lie. Then they get there closest friends and colleges (there piers) to review it and call it pier reviewed. Do they think I am stupid. Me and my friends can lie together too. When something is this flawed it is wiser to drop it and start fresh. Use your own mind in reference to your own experience and you will find that everything you have been taught is a lie. the more money involved, the bigger the lie.
You seem to have decided to ignore, without any justification (if there are some, please show them), hundreds of year of data (experimental measurements, i.e. facts), the underlying theory predicting them (that has not been falsified so far), and numerous applications in our every day life (including current communication means, computers, etc.). Well, I don't know what to really say here. It is your choice. Fine.
PS: mass is different from weight (mass is constant, weight can change), and things can exist without taking space (for instance: light).
"You seem to have decided to ignore, without any justification (if there are some, please show them), hundreds of year of data (experimental measurements, i.e. facts), the underlying theory predicting them (that has not been falsified so far),"
-Consider for one moment that maybe the data is wrong. Perhaps you where even lied to. To not consider this would be, by definition, naive and gullible.
If I predict something ridiculous (such as a thing that has no dimensions or takes no space)and you could not prove me wrong, would that make me correct?.
"and numerous applications in our every day life (including current communication means, computers, etc.)."
-Computers take up space so I don't see how they have anything to do with point particles.
"PS: mass is different from weight (mass is constant, weight can change), and things can exist without taking space (for instance: light)."
-And I would like to see an example where you can add to the mass without weight changing. Weight is just a measurement of mass. In the way that distance is a measurement of the volume. and quantity is the measure of density.
Where is the thing (for instance: light) if it takes up no space?? Seriously where is it????? If it takes up space you could define its position (the space where it presides). If it is not some where it is NO WHERE.
To find the Mass of a black hole or a point particle you must divide the density (1 sun for example, or one particle) by the volume (no pace is zero volume). You can not divide anything into Zero. If you do not believe me get your calculator and divide any number by zero.
Personally I have never seen anything that came from nothing. And if it takes up no space it obviously is not here.
Try to imagine a "thing" that is "no where". This is the theory of point particles and black holes. No one has or can witness ever witness these fictional, impossible entities.
I am not trying to attack your science, friend. It would not be science if we did not question it.
Tell me friend. Do you believe in the Big Bang "theory" where the universe was born from nothing in an explosion??
This discussion seems to lead to nowhere. Anyway, I will answer your points, at least now.
300 years of data being wrong? That would be a huge conspiracy...
I gave you an counter-example already.
The way electronics works relies on quantum physics.
This is not what I have said. Weight is a force. Mass is not.
That's a macroscopic vision. It does not apply to the microscopic world. Check out Heisenberg's uncertainty relations.
That's not the only way to evaluate a mass, and it does not apply to everything.
Does it make it correct or wrong? It is not because you (or anyone) have not seen it that it does not exist.
The theory behind black holes is called general relativity. This is what make GPS functioning by the way... Moreover, black holes have been observed both directly and indirectly. Whatever you can conceive this or not, data exists and demonstrates general relativity works.
It is not 'my' science. It is how we, humans, managed to understand nature, and it has been built by several hundreds years of research, experiment, trials and errors. This is by far not the novelty of the year... What we call the Standard Model of particle physics is well established, and backed up by data.
What is the goal being saying it is wrong (or a lie, as you wrote), without proposing anything else to explain observations. Except trolling, I don't see.
I don't believe in anything. The Big Bang theory (or the Standard Model of cosmology) is the simplest option that explains all observations for the moment. There is not any other proposal that works that well, even if there are issues. Moreover, note that this theory does not explain what happened at what you seem to call the beginning (and should not be applied at this origin of time).
"300 years of data being wrong? That would be a huge conspiracy..."
correct
Quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics that provides a description of the physical properties of nature at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles.
The fundamental properties of physics are "volume, mass, and density". Each of these fundamentals are a sum of the other two fundamentals.
Now explain to me how a "thing" can exist without any one of these "fundamental properties".
Please explain this one thing to me.
I guess that then there is no point of continuing this discussion. You will probably qualify anything that I would write, without any proof, of lies. No matter how I back up any claim. The problem with conspiracy theorists is that either one must agree with them, or we are part of the conspiracy... I guess that I must thus be part of this conspiracy... Should thus the two of us avoid losing our time in a sterile discussion?
This is what you think, but that's incorrect. Please back up this statement if you believe it is right. In particular, it does not apply to the elementary building blocks of matter.
That's what fundamental physics is about. Take an electron or a positron. They definitely exist and have no volume or density. Only a mass. That's a fact I am afraid, despite you like it or not.
P.S.
In response to your statement "and things can exist without taking space (for instance: light)."
Light is not a thing. It is a wave within the electro magnetic spectrum. To say light is a thing would be like saying heat is a thing as heat is infrared light. Rather it is a state of being. Waves exist in a medium and the medium is the thing or things.
Waves also take up space. They are measurable. We can measure the difference between blue and red. We measure the frequency of waves in a medium. To say light (waves) are a thing is ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is to say we can not measure light (waves).
Please consider what I have said with an open mind. I look forward to your response.
Light is also a particle (photon). This is an experimental fact very well understood theoretically. This was demonstrated in the beginning of the 20th century, with the development of quantum mechanics.
once again you are believing and repeating impossible things just because your were told impossible things... Explain to me how any thing can be a particle and a wave at the same time?
I was "not told anything". I analysed the findings and developments of the last hundreds years, and learned from there, taking as proofs what were proofs. Ignoring them would just be fooling ourselves...
You can check out any textbook or online lecture on quantum mechanics. The double slit experiment may be the right place to begin with. You may even start with the wikipedia page and the references therein. It is very well explained.
I have read about the double split experiment. This could be an effect of the measuring instruments or a miss interpretation of the data or many other causations. But you did not explain how a thing can be a wave and a particle?
I would like to hear your explanation. If you have time.
lets slow down and keep this to one thread.
First I would like to remind you that an experiment proves nothing. An experiment can only provide data. Also remember almost everything believed to be fact 200 years ago has been proven to be wrong today. You throw the "fact" word around as if there are no questions left to be asked
The double slit experiment shows that the act of observation causes light to act differently. Do you think that it maybe the instrument of observation causing the light to act differently?
We measure light and place it on the electromagnetic spectrum between Ultra Violet and Infrared. This is a spectrum of wave lengths in an electromagnetic field or medium.
I am trying to get you to think rather than remember something that you read in in a text book or Wikipedia as these are the very texts I am questioning.
This is a theory. Theory meaning it has never been proven. Waves are a description of motion in a substance. The substance can be made of particles but the motion of the substance can not be a particle. Motion is not a thing....
Please. consider what I am saying. Please don't just tell me that 300 years of smarter people have proven me wrong. I really do enjoy this conversation. Thanks.
P.S. You say "This is an experimental fact very well understood theoretically"
I ask "fact or theory?"
I know the answer. I am asking the question in the attempt to bring this to your consciousness. There are no facts in the prosses we call science. Science is a prosses.
"Theory" has a very well defined meaning in science, and it is not what you wrote.
In addition, one of the core ideas in quantum mechanics (how can it be a lie when a huge fraction of the world economy relies on its properties?) is the duality between waves and particles. See my other reply and check out the double-slit experiment. This is the proof.
Sorry but I cannot. You have not backed up any of your claims, and you simply mentioned that everything we have learned during the last 300 years consisted of lies (despite tons of experiments and applications). This is not how science works. We have experiments, data, and people (remark: not only people).
You cannot throw away previous knowledge without a reason. If you want to replace the currently admitted paradigm by something else, the something else should at least explain all observations made so far as much as the currently admitted idea. Without this, we don't gain, but we lose understanding, This is how novel ideas emerge.
Both. We have experimental data, measurements or facts. Then you have a theoretical framework that can be used to derive predictions for the observations in the past, current and future experiments. This theory can of course be falsified (that's part of the definition of a theory).
So far, the Standard Model of particle physics has not been falsified. It is therefore the currently admitted paradigm. Throwing away theory and data without a good reason makes no sense. Claiming they consist of a 300-year conspiracy also requires a proof, that has not been presented.