Photonic
Ad astra!
- Sep 5, 2011
- 2,746
- 248
1. So, this post is pretty much an admission that you've learned not so much after having spent 'your whole life using mathematics and physical principles'?
2. You've given up trying to deny that theoretical physics uses 'faith' and 'belief' in that many of the ideas discussed in this and an earlier thread are not, have not, will not be proven....
....and in fact, are no more than a smoke-and-mirrors attempt to attack theology?
Good choice!
3. "Go ahead and enlighten me then."
Now, focus like a laser: I'm about to explain what you were unable to follow in the previous post...
...the standard model is flawed in a very serious way.
This is gonna blow your skirt up
a. The Standard Model cannot explain the transition from the elementary particles to states of matter in which the elementary particles are bound to one another and form complex structures.
b. Further, the Standard Model is arbitrary in that it contains many numerical parameters- at least twenty-one, designating specific numerical properties of the model such that they cannot be derived from theory.
c. Above all, the Standard Model does not incorporate the force of gravity. General relativity stands apart, unreconciled. While general relativity suggests an orderly and predictable universe at the large level (Einstein was known to say God does not play dice) it is unable to explain the unpredictable subatomic environment that quantum physics so accurately describes. Conversely quantum mechanics has trouble explaining the mechanics behind large objects. Unifying General Relativity and the Standard Model | The Faith of a Heretic
4. Now, get ready!
Here is the reason that string theory held so very much promise for folks like you:
String theory is an active research framework in particle physics that attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity.[1] It is a contender for a theory of everything (TOE), a self-contained mathematical model that describes all fundamental forces and forms of matter. String theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wow...doesn't it just hit you where you live, in that a mere 'layman' can eviscerate your argument, you know, you being someone who has supposedly studied "mathematics and physical principles (and) spent (his) whole life using."
I don't know about you...but I love it!!
Nasty, huh?
OK...I'll tell you why: 'cause I can read and write, and actually understand what I read.
But there is nothing wrong with you that reincarnation won't cure.
Oh excellent, you've spouted a few misconceptions here, but I'll work through them one by one so I don't hurt your brain.
1. Non-sequitur.
2. Another non-sequitur.
3.The Standard Model is conceptually simple and contains a description of the elementary particles and forces. The SM particles are 12 spin-1/2 fermions (6 quarks and 6 leptons), 4 spin-1 gauge bosons and a spin-0 Higgs boson. These are shown in the figure below and constitute the building blocks of the universe. The 6 quarks include the up and down quarks that make up the neutron and proton. The 6 leptons include the electron and its partner, the electron neutrino. The 4 bosons are particles that transmit forces and include the photon, which transmits the electromagnetic force. With the recent observation of the tau neutrino at Fermilab, all 12 fermions and all 4 gauge bosons have been observed. Seven of these 16 particles (charm, bottom, top, tau neutrino, W, Z, gluon) were predicted by the Standard Model before they were observed experimentally! There is one additional particle predicted by the Standard Model called the Higgs, which has not yet been observed. It is needed in the model to give mass to the W and Z bosons, consistent with experimental observations. While photons and gluons have no mass, the W and Z are quite heavy. The W weighs 80.3 GeV (80 times as much as the proton) and the Z weighs 91.2 GeV. The Higgs is expected to be heavy as well. Direct searches for it at CERN dictate that it must be heavier than 110 GeV.
Now that we understand WHAT the Standard Model is we will work our way down.
a. The Standard Model explains the characteristics of the interaction particles. (The particles that control the interaction of the 3 forces of Physics, it is incomplete in that it does not describe gravity). This does indeed translate to the states of matter in that it describes these forces that control the transition.
I would like to see the transition of matter occur without the fundamental forces existing.
b. Non-sequitur, I can do nothing more than simply point out that you have a serious misconception of how math applies to reality. It is not within he scope of this argument to give you an understanding of why math works.
I will simply as you the question, how do you define mass in relation to energy?
c. Non-sequitur. It has no relation to the transition of matter from one state to another.
4. String theory has shit all to do with reality as it stands. It makes no accurate predictions. What does that mean? It means it can't be tested.
The point of a Theory of Everything is to unify. Right now it is just playing pretend. If you can prove otherwise by all means.
As to your final and very weak statement, the reason you as a layman can reject my argument is that you have no understanding of my argument.
Your lack of knowledge is not the same as knowledge. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you can start learning.
Now, I've been polite, and you've been a complete cock. If you have ANY point to your argument, you will stop using ad hominem and direct attacks.
1. So...you're agreeing with my post???
This is no fun!!
2. "It means it can't be tested."
Whoops, there it is!
Let me repeat that for the hard-of-thinking:
"It means it can't be tested."
My argument exactly.
The example I've given, the multiverse, "It means it can't be tested."
Such ideas are based on....
...wait for it....
Belief and faith!!!
3. "... stop using ad hominem and direct attacks."
Nope.
See...this is only fun when someone bites it big time!
That's where you come in.
4. You have made two major mistakes in this post: First, you digress from your main point. Second, you returned to it.
5. Now, this insult is on a somewhat higher level, tell me how you like it:
You never learned to question, to look at the underpinings of your less-than-intuitive understanding of eschatological world views.
(sigh)...I know you'd be insulted if you could only understand it.
Ironic that you only seem to want to understand the world through pure intuition. Reason be damned.