Thread: Mathematics

Mathematics

It seems that mathematics is needed to support any theory that is proposed.
I think this is a fallacy because errors can be included in any formulas or there may be missing components.

An example of a missing component below, to refute one of the greatest mathematicians in science was Isaac Newton. It is said that his math predicted the collapse of the hydrogen atom and Quantum math was needed to explain why this did not happen.

I can explain this problem without math.
The missing component that was not included in the Newtonian formula, I believe, was that the 'magnetic interaction' between the electron and proton was left out.

The electron's orbital motion around the proton causes the proton to spin synchronously with the electrons movement because of the coulomb attraction. The resulting magnetic fields are then mutually repulsive. This repulsion, in addition to the electron's orbital momentum, balances out to keep the HA from collapsing.

This can be proven easily by the use of the 'left and right' hand rules.
The right hand rule applies to the electron's motion and the left hand rule (opposite polarity) applies to the proton spin. The adjacent side of the proton spin is in the same direction as the electron's motion.
So if you clench your fists and place them closely together with the extended thumbs pointing in the same direction outward, you will notice that the fingers point upward to indicate that the magnetic fields of both particles are moving in the same direction in both hands. When this happens, there is a repulsive effect between the two fields.
This is also proven in the way a bar magnet, as illustrated, has an expansion between the two poles indicating that an intrinsic force is present to cause this expansion. This force acts perpendicularly to the motion of the field lines.

This is an example of why math may not provide the proper solutions.
I call this 'mental visualization', that to me, is more important than math.

Einstein's idea of a 'curvature of space' caused him, in an after thought, to realize that his 'static' universe would collapse if he did not introduce a component to oppose the gravitational effects.
I wondered why, and so I came to the conclusion that ‘if’ his 'curvature of space' could affect the motion of orbiting bodies around a gravitational force, then this could also cause an erosion of the orbital momentum. So, his static universe would collapse.
This would also violate the ‘conservation of momentum’ law.

Well, I think he was wrong about this also.
Matter is structured in such a way that it will not collapse. The example given above of the HA's stability is one such example. This is on the atomic level.
On the cosmological level, there is also a resistance to collapse. It is the 'linear momentum inertia' that resists any force acting on a body in motion in a straight line. Newton’s first and third laws of motion explain this.

Galaxy clusters have a tremendous increase in gravity caused by a 'mysterious' dark matter problem. This increase can be from 10x to 20x times greater that the calculated mass of the observed components. In spite of this, the structures do not collapse because the orbital momentums of the bodies increase to counter the added effects to maintain a balance.

NS

so what is this? a theory or what?

I call this 'mental visualization', that to me, is more important than math.

you can visualize anything, but then if u calculate it you might find that the electron then would either be to far, or to close from the nucleus, wich makes it a false theory. Math is the base of science, a theory that cant be explained mathematical isnt a theory but a idea

And as for errors, and missing components, you're right, they could be there. But, in case you didn't realize it, a person checks over his math dozens of times, looking for errors. Before even publishing it, he sends it off to other people in the same department of whatever-he's-working-on as him, who check for errors. When published, it is scrutinized for errors by others for errors.
Unless ALL of these people miss something, one can safely say that errors are almost nonexistant in formulas. And those that do happen, well, they're usually resolved once we get to a point where we can observe things better. That was a benefit of General Relativity, it explains errors in Newtonian Physics.

And missing components? Well, as we get better and better at observing the universe, we're going to get better and better at finding missing components and accounting for them.

Though mathematics might be a fallacy on the part of humanity, the fact is, right now, it's the best thing we've got.

Originally Posted by Legendary

And as for errors, and missing components, you're right, they could be there. But, in case you didn't realize it, a person checks over his math dozens of times, looking for errors. Before even publishing it, he sends it off to other people in the same department of whatever-he's-working-on as him, who check for errors. When published, it is scrutinized for errors by others for errors.
Unless ALL of these people miss something, one can safely say that errors are almost nonexistant in formulas.

Considering the complexity of the math in quantum mechanics, and the fact that the best formulas are only approximations, and still they are extremely complex, the notion that they are perfect and error free is not very meaningful to me.

Though mathematics might be a fallacy on the part of humanity, the fact is, right now, it's the best thing we've got.

Math is not the best thing we've got, whatever that means. Math is a tool, and a very useful one at that.

Originally Posted by Hermes

Math is not the best thing we've got, whatever that means. Math is a tool, and a very useful one at that.

a tool it is, its also a language that can more accurately describe the world around us with more clarity than anyones mental visualization.

Mike if you think that mathematical formulas can be missing something then you have not thought about the inacuracies of the human mind,
i never heard of maths getting amnesia or forgeting something.

and i'd bet that i could more accuratly describe the motion of a car rolling down a hill with maths than you could with your mental visualizations.

[size=18][/[Zelos quote]
you can visualize anything, but then if u calculate it you might find that the electron then would either be to far, or to close from the nucleus, wich makes it a false theory. Math is the base of science, a theory that cant be explained mathematical isnt a theory but a idea [/quote]

reply
Math is a byproduct of experimental research and observations. Kepler, Newton, Planck and Bohr all relied on experiment or observations to confirm their results. So math just refines their work to create predictions.
I do not refute math as I quoted above. But math is not the final word IMO.

[Legend quote]
That was a benefit of General Relativity, it explains errors in Newtonian Physics [/quote]

reply
How does it explain the MDM (Zwicky's gravity) problem?
Comparing GR's miniscule corrections to the MDM problem is like comparing a flea to an elephant.

NS


.

size]

by having somekinda invisible particle present all over the galaxy. and also its not GRs job to solve it, its another theory that is based on GR. one of the words best astrophysicists say its rather unlikly that gravity worx in any wierder way than we has, exept probebly a some modifications that doesnt involve making it strong at greater distances. He also says dark amtter is the msot likly explination

Originally Posted by Zelos

by having somekinda invisible particle present all over the galaxy. and also its not GRs job to solve it, its another theory that is based on GR. one of the words best astrophysicists say its rather unlikly that gravity worx in any wierder way than we has, exept probebly a some modifications that doesnt involve making it strong at greater distances. He also says dark amtter is the msot likly explination

Your reply above sounds like a NON solution.

NS

its a answer but it gives rise to question, GRs job isnt to explain the high speeds, thats other cosmological theories jobs, GR is a gravity theory that worx but something else gives extra G at the ends of the galaxies

Originally Posted by Mike NS

Mathematics

It seems that mathematics is needed to support any theory that is proposed.
I think this is a fallacy because errors can be included in any formulas or there may be missing components.

An example of a missing component below, to refute one of the greatest mathematicians in science was Isaac Newton. It is said that his math predicted the collapse of the hydrogen atom and Quantum math was needed to explain why this did not happen.

I can explain this problem without math.
The missing component that was not included in the Newtonian formula, I believe, was that the 'magnetic interaction' between the electron and proton was left out.

The electron's orbital motion around the proton causes the proton to spin synchronously with the electrons movement because of the coulomb attraction. The resulting magnetic fields are then mutually repulsive. This repulsion, in addition to the electron's orbital momentum, balances out to keep the HA from collapsing.

This can be proven easily by the use of the 'left and right' hand rules.
The right hand rule applies to the electron's motion and the left hand rule (opposite polarity) applies to the proton spin. The adjacent side of the proton spin is in the same direction as the electron's motion.
So if you clench your fists and place them closely together with the extended thumbs pointing in the same direction outward, you will notice that the fingers point upward to indicate that the magnetic fields of both particles are moving in the same direction in both hands. When this happens, there is a repulsive effect between the two fields.
This is also proven in the way a bar magnet, as illustrated, has an expansion between the two poles indicating that an intrinsic force is present to cause this expansion. This force acts perpendicularly to the motion of the field lines.

This is an example of why math may not provide the proper solutions.
I call this 'mental visualization', that to me, is more important than math.

Einstein's idea of a 'curvature of space' caused him, in an after thought, to realize that his 'static' universe would collapse if he did not introduce a component to oppose the gravitational effects.
I wondered why, and so I came to the conclusion that ‘if’ his 'curvature of space' could affect the motion of orbiting bodies around a gravitational force, then this could also cause an erosion of the orbital momentum. So, his static universe would collapse.
This would also violate the ‘conservation of momentum’ law.

Well, I think he was wrong about this also.
Matter is structured in such a way that it will not collapse. The example given above of the HA's stability is one such example. This is on the atomic level.
On the cosmological level, there is also a resistance to collapse. It is the 'linear momentum inertia' that resists any force acting on a body in motion in a straight line. Newton’s first and third laws of motion explain this.

Galaxy clusters have a tremendous increase in gravity caused by a 'mysterious' dark matter problem. This increase can be from 10x to 20x times greater that the calculated mass of the observed components. In spite of this, the structures do not collapse because the orbital momentums of the bodies increase to counter the added effects to maintain a balance.

NS

k.

Jym

You left the 'O' off.
Was that an oversite?
Ha ha.

NS

okey is shortened to ok
wich in turn is shortened to k

Originally Posted by Zelos

okey is shortened to ok
wich in turn is shortened to k

OK, thanks. That is the first time I have seen it used that way.

NS

its internet slang
k=okey
y=why
u=you
wtf=what the fuck
and so on

Originally Posted by Zelos

k=okey
y=why
u=you

I don't consider those internet slang, just lazy

But "wtf" I use

well, we live today, we are all lazy else we woudlnt be on this forum becuase it wouldnt exist then

NS wrote:

Mathematics

It seems that mathematics is needed to support any theory that is proposed.
I think this is a fallacy because errors can be included in any formulas or there may be missing components.

Physics without mathematics is like an opera without the fat lady....

Cheers,
william

HAHA!
Physics isnt over until the mathematics sings!

Originally Posted by Neutrino

Originally Posted by Zelos

k=okey
y=why
u=you

I don't consider those internet slang, just lazy

But "wtf" I use

Do you mean IDCTISJL

William wrote

Physics without mathematics is like an opera without the fat lady

.

Mathematics without an experimental or observational basis is a fantasy.
Kepler, Newton and Planck all relied on observation or expeimimental reliance and support.

On the other hand, the 'string' and 'inflation' theories are purely subjective as I believe Einsteins math is as well.
No experimental or observational basis is apparent for their math.

Mathematics ia a 'product' of experiment and observation, so it is a 'second hand' science.

Accurate interpretation of evidence is far more important than math will ever be.
I solved the MDM problem by interpreting a NASA x-ray observation of the residuel effects of a 'solar flare'. No math needed. The experts including the mathmeticians are still wondering what the DM is all about.

I do not refute the need for math as a support for some solutions but it is 'over glorified' as 'the' science itself.

Interpretation of the data available is the 'most important' science as I think it should be.

Vroom

See above.

NS

.

On the other hand, the 'string' and 'inflation' theories are purely subjective as I believe Einsteins math is as well.
No experimental or observational basis is apparent for their math.

wow, you were so close. only half right here. Inflation got observations. BAAM

Mathematics ia a 'product' of experiment and observation, so it is a 'second hand' science.

NO! it's mathematic that can describe the universe. A few things have come in mathematic before in observations. It's also a science in it self

Accurate interpretation of evidence is far more important than math will ever be.
I solved the MDM problem by interpreting a NASA x-ray observation of the residuel effects of a 'solar flare'. No math needed. The experts including the mathmeticians are still wondering what the DM is all about.

i agree with all the scientists bohr stood before to come with his ideas. They didnt belive in anything that couldnt be explained mathematicly. (in physics that is) So do i. No math. No validity. And you gotta have hybris to think you are smarter than scientists.

I do not refute the need for math as a support for some solutions but it is 'over glorified' as 'the' science itself

It's te tool of science. and it's a science in itself.
Hail Mathematic

Interpretation of the data available is the 'most important' science as I think it should be.

Change of mind? where did "Visualization is much more important" go?

Originally Posted by Zelos

wow, you were so close. only half right here. Inflation got observations. BAAM

What observations? The inflation theory says that after creation, the universe that was subatomic in size suddenly inflated to about pea size before it settled down to expand at the current rate.
What observations justify that? Explain!

NO! it's mathematic that can describe the universe. A few things have come in mathematic before in observations. It's also a science in it self

As I have said before, Kepler, Newton, Planck and Bohr all derived their math from some observations.
Can you explain what Einsteins math as well as Guths was derived from?

i agree with all the scientists bohr stood before to come with his ideas. They didnt belive in anything that couldnt be explained mathematicly. (in physics that is) So do i. No math. No validity. And you gotta have hybris to think you are smarter than scientists

Well, then provide a solution for the DM problem?

It's te tool of science. and it's a science in itself.
Hail Mathematic

Of course it is a tool. But all great mathematics was preceded by observations.

Change of mind? where did "Visualization is much more important" go?

I consider observations like telescopes as 'technical' observations.
They still require interpretation and evaluation to derive data.

NS

What observations? The inflation theory says that after creation, the universe that was subatomic in size suddenly inflated to about pea size before it settled down to expand at the current rate.
What observations justify that? Explain!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_...n#Observations
seems to be out of date thou. Microwaves have confirmed the inflation theory.

Can you explain what Einsteins math as well as Guths was derived from?

maybe the experiment done before einstein that confirmed speed of light is allways C?
then he used that theory in turn to come up with GR

Well, then provide a solution for the DM problem?

Matter not visible. Neutrinos. Other particles. Or maybe in worst case a slight modification of GR. but i guess it's most likly invisible matter.

Of course it is a tool. But all great mathematics was preceded by observations.

Watching, don't see any observation confirming 2+2=4
Not all. once again i´ll refer to positron. predicted by math. confirmed by observation. BAAM

And I'll refer to Neptune. Math showed irregularities in Uranus' orbit (there aren't any actually, they didn't know the right mass), so someone used math to figure out where the body that was disrupting the orbit was. And.... they found Neptune, the only planet predicted and found by math.

Zelos wrote

Microwaves have confirmed the inflation theory

Explain. A statement like that tells me nothing.

maybe the experiment done before einstein that confirmed speed of light is allways C?
then he used that theory in turn to come up with GR

GR pertains to space curvature resulting from gravity as the cause. It has nothing to do with the VoC.

Matter not visible. Neutrinos. Other particles. Or maybe in worst case a slight modification of GR. but i guess it's most likly invisible matter

Or maybe? I guess? Is that the best you can do?
MDM is not invisible. X-ray observations of the centers of clusters of galaxies has shown this.

Watching, don't see any observation confirming 2+2=4
Not all. once again i´ll refer to positron. predicted by math. confirmed by observation. BAAM

Positrons? Another teeny miniscule component in the universe that has no real role in physics.

NS

NS wrote:

MDM is not invisible. X-ray observations of the centers of clusters of galaxies has shown this.

I'm not sure about this. As far as I know, dark matter is ONLY detectable (so far...) via its gravitational influence.

Cheers,
wm

Originally Posted by Legendary

And I'll refer to Neptune. Math showed irregularities in Uranus' orbit (there aren't any actually, they didn't know the right mass), so someone used math to figure out where the body that was disrupting the orbit was. And.... they found Neptune, the only planet predicted and found by math.

I think this may be a very clever post, in which you are laying a trap for the unthinking. I congratulate you on the elegance of the trap, but claim my prize for spotting it before walking into it. 8)

Pluto, of course, was also discovered through mathematics. Neptune's own orbit was thought to show irregularities, and the probable position of the planet responsible was identified. Clyde Tombaugh, working at Flagstaff Observatory, scanned the skies in the region where the unknown planet was calculated to lie and discovered Pluto.

But since last week's decision by the IAU Pluto is no longer a planet, so your statement - "they found Neptune, the only planet predicted and found by math" - which would have been false for about seventy five years, is now true.

Nice one.

Explain. A statement like that tells me nothing.

big bang theory and inflation theory gives the rpediciton background radiation in the microwave part (if i remember right) and the prediction is confirmed by observation

GR pertains to space curvature resulting from gravity as the cause. It has nothing to do with the VoC.

i assume VoC refers to the experiment i talked about.
after that experiment einstein came with Special relativity. wich worked in none-gravitational fields. And from taht he worked out his general theory that works in gravity fields.

Or maybe? I guess? Is that the best you can do?
MDM is not invisible. X-ray observations of the centers of clusters of galaxies has shown this.

thats the best humanity can do. and you cant do better.

Positrons? Another teeny miniscule component in the universe that has no real role in physics.

don't give say so. you are hurting the positrons feelings. It plays a big role in physics. it plays a imprtant role in the very existens of us.

Originally Posted by william

I'm not sure about this. As far as I know, dark matter is ONLY detectable (so far...) via its gravitational influence

Well, you had better keep up with the news because I read that in one of my astronomy magazines.
I think it was the Chandra x-ray telescope satellite. Can't be certain though.

NS

Originally Posted by Zelos

big bang theory and inflation theory gives the rpediciton background radiation in the microwave part (if i remember right) and the prediction is confirmed by observation

Anyone can predict a space temperature since there has to be one with all the dust, molecules and gases in space.

An interstellar molecule was observed in space by McKellar(?) I believe that was at a temperature of 2K. This was in 1940.

This temperature was close enough to predict the 2.73K temperature than Gamow et al predicted that was from 5K to 10K.

i assume VoC refers to the experiment i talked about.
after that experiment einstein came with Special relativity. wich worked in none-gravitational fields. And from taht he worked out his general theory that works in gravity fields

There is still no real science for his GR.

thats the best humanity can do. and you cant do better

See the answer to willam above

don't give say so. you are hurting the positrons feelings. It plays a big role in physics. it plays a imprtant role in the very existens of us.

Positrons play no role in the creation of stars or any other real physics that is pertinent to what we see.
The only thing to be concerned about is that there are only two basic particles such as the electron and the proton.

NS

its plays a important role the positron. And you are even forgetting the neutron. God your a bastard treating particles like shit even when they have done so much for you. Please treat them with respect.

There is still no real science for his GR.

don't understand what you mean with this. but GR is confirmed and is true. Maybe will be modified but thats nothing special.

CPR(think it is CPR) symmetry. guess youre not familiar with it, am i right?

Zelos wrote:

CPR(think it is CPR) symmetry. guess youre not familiar with it, am i right?

I think you mean CPT.

Cheers,
wm

yeah thats right. CPT. my bad

Zelos

If you are going to use acronyms, than spell out the version first and then use the acronym.

answer my question, are you familiar with it?

Originally Posted by Zelos

answer my question, are you familiar with it?

I just read a brief article about it and it deals with 'charge parity'.

Are you implying that positrons are equal to electrons in equal numbers?

You must be one of those characters promoting a parallel universe.
Well, that is 'far out'. Ha ha.

NS

nope. They WERE ALMOST in equal number and thx to that we exist.

Zelos

They WERE ALMOST equal? Ha ha.

NS

yes almost, about 1 billion antiparticles per billion and one particles

Originally Posted by Zelos

yes almost, about 1 billion antiparticles per billion and one particles

Can you quote the source of your above solution?

MS

sure, but it would probebly not change a thing for you. youd probebly keep ignoring facts

Zelos

I do not ignore facts like the Conservation Laws, experimennts and observations in physics.

Your BBU does that.

And I do not believe in parallel universes. Ha ha.

NS

I do not ignore facts like the Conservation Laws, experimennts and observations in physics.

accept this then
dEdT ~ h/4pi

and strong nuclear force have been confirmed by experiments, accept it

thats all confirmed physics and you ignor it, therefor your statement is wrong

Originally Posted by Zelos

accept this then
dEdT ~ h/4pi

and strong nuclear force have been confirmed by experiments, accept it

thats all confirmed physics and you ignor it, therefor your statement is wrong

Explain the definitions of the formula components?

And I do not refute the existense of the SF, because I gave a version of it as being a combination of the coulomb force and magnetic forces resulting from particle 'spins'.

NS

mike, for you i will do some easy calculations on that. if its not even close it probebly wont work. but not right now.

dE is the change of energy, dT is the change of time. and h is plancks constant
the formula basicly says that dE energy can exists for dT time aslongest they equal to plancks constant divided with 4pi. This is a quantum phenomena that allows energy to be created and destroyed (its only the energy created that is destroyed) but since its so small amount for small time it is unnoticble by normal experience. This phenomena acctualy explains why the carrier particle of strong force and weak force has such short range. They are so heavy they cant go longer in the short time they exists

Originally Posted by Zelos

mike, for you i will do some easy calculations on that. if its not even close it probebly wont work. but not right now.

dE is the change of energy, dT is the change of time. and h is plancks constant
the formula basicly says that dE energy can exists for dT time aslongest they equal to plancks constant divided with 4pi. This is a quantum phenomena that allows energy to be created and destroyed (its only the energy created that is destroyed) but since its so small amount for small time it is unnoticble by normal experience. This phenomena acctualy explains why the carrier particle of strong force and weak force has such short range. They are so heavy they cant go longer in the short time they exists

If you are talking about those 'self annihalating virtual particle pairs', that dissappear as fast as they appear, I ignore that kind of mathematical curiousities. like any other purely theoretical particles as the quarks and other theoretical carriers of forces.

NS

ny other purely theoretical particles as the quarks and other theoretical carriers of forces.

first, im not talking about that only
secondly quarks have been proven. they arent theoretical anymore. another fact you ignor. that formula explains why elements that is unstable have halflife and dont just fall apart instantly

Originally Posted by Zelos

secondly quarks have been proven. they arent theoretical anymore. another fact you ignor. that formula explains why elements that is unstable have halflife and dont just fall apart instantly

Quarks are a product of science research and are NOT natural.
When a neutron decays, it decays into an electron and a proton. Period.

The only REAL particles I recognize are the electrons and the protons and neutrons when coupled to protons to form the basic deuteron.

The rest is subjective science resulting in interpretations that are not relavant to the SSU as far as I am concerned.
Most of this nuclear reserch is devoted to weapons development and some support for the BB(?).

NS

NS

When a neutron decays, it decays into an electron and a proton. Period.

And an anti-electron neutrino....

Quarks are a product of science research and are NOT natural.

They are natural. you wont accept it just.
Quarks are effected by strong force and when the quarks are at a certain distance the energy the seperation contain is suffient to create new quarks. Thats why they are never alone. But they exists and have been proven. END OF STORY. accept the fact

When a neutron decays, it decays into an electron and a proton. Period

yes, a quark is transformed with weak force

The only REAL particles I recognize are the electrons and the protons and neutrons when coupled to protons to form the basic deuteron.

who cares what you recognize? we go science. you go fantasy. Do it science way or leave science. If you can play with the big guys dont. Its their rules that counts, not yours.

The rest is subjective science resulting in interpretations that are not relavant to the SSU as far as I am concerned.

science as we have it today and is learnt is OBJECTIVE. the closest thing you come to subjective here is, TADA, your ideas

Quarks:

there are six types of them

UP DOWN TOP BOTTOM STRANGE CHARM.

They are my favourites, my babies,

only 2 exists under normal circumstances. Up and down. they have portial elementary charge of -1/3 and +2/3, dont remember wich have charge

Billco is right. There are 6. The ones he named. And they also have color. And they always combine so that they are colorless.

thats not entirely true. They are to small to have colors. Thats rather a theoretical concept created to understand them easier. That they shall be colorless is easier to understand rather than what ever other

Originally Posted by william

Billco is right. There are 6. The ones he named. And they also have color. And they always combine so that they are colorless.

Actually one of my grandsons became interested in Quantum Mechanics
about 3 years ago, so I studied it to teach him. He wants to Work at Cerne but he's only 14 at the moment a long way to go. Know any other Grandads who could hack QM well enough to teach it ?




My special favourites are the pink fluffy ones.... 8)

Originally Posted by Zelos

thats not entirely true. They are to small to have colors. Thats rather a theoretical concept created to understand them easier. That they shall be colorless is easier to understand rather than what ever other

Okay, 'color' then.

And the 'type' (top, bottom, charm,...) is called 'flavor' but they have no taste....

And isn't the name 'quark' itself a theoretical concept to aid in dealing with them? They don't each have the word 'quark' tattoo'd on them....

Picky picky....

cheers

what actually IS the property color when it refers to quarks. I understand properties like mass, charge, spin but what is color? How is it detected?

How does the particle scientist discern a blue bottom from a red bottom (no puns please!).

I understand that a nucleon is made from a red/green/blue combination of quarks, but that is all i understand!

Colour is unobservable for quarks as free particles are always colour neutral (ie white)

The colour idea was introduced to fix a symmetry problem with the standard model relating to electrodynamics if i recall correctly, but a lot of this is just mathematical formalism. Any way, who knows what reality is anyway

Originally Posted by river_rat

Colour is unobservable for quarks as free particles are always colour neutral (ie white)

The colour idea was introduced to fix a symmetry problem with the standard model relating to electrodynamics if i recall correctly, but a lot of this is just mathematical formalism. Any way, who knows what reality is anyway

Have any of you guys actually ever studied what color is?
Now apply that to the size of a Quark and you'll see that they just don't have a color!

Colour for quarks is not the smae thing as colour for paint bilco - anyway colour is psychology, not physics.

Originally Posted by river_rat

Colour for quarks is not the smae thing as colour for paint bilco - anyway colour is psychology, not physics.

Well I wish you'd tell me these things, almost nothing I have seen on here bears any resemblence to what I learned as QM.

Well for starters this is QFT and not standard QM

Colour for a quark is just a name given to a mathematical property of a quark so that the required symmetries still hold. Im too tired right now to go into the technicalities but just treat it as a simple formalism so that things work. They could have called it timbaktuness if the authors of the standard model so wanted.

Originally Posted by electricant

I understand properties like mass, charge, spin but what is color?

If you really do understand them I recommend breaking out your morning suit and heading towards Stockholm. There is a Nobel prize with your name on it there.

We only think we understand these concepts because they have been around for a while. All of them are analogies and metaphors for things we lack the intellect to grasp.

maybe he could give a lift to a few others on this forum while he's at it! 8)

Originally Posted by william

And an anti-electron neutrino....

That statement sounds kind of contradictive.

If its an anti-electron neutrino, then how can it be a neutrino? Your statement above implies that it has 'charge'.

Anyway, I am not concerned with these partivles(?) that do not do anything of much in the universe.

NS

Anyway, I am not concerned with these partivles(?) that do not do anything of much in the universe.

once again youre treating important particles with disrespect. neutrinos is important for the development of life.

particles can have a anti-particle even if they arent charged. neutron have a anti-particle (in its case its the subparticles that is anti)

you have to care about the little stuff to explain the big picture. they are all important in their way. remove them and the universe wont be as it is today. Its like making a cake. remove a little sugar and its not the same cake anymore

Zelos

All you do is parrot what you learned from your teacher or some book. I read those books for myself and evaluate as to the reality of what it teaches.

How about you? Do you thimk?


To the rest above:

These discussions about quarks and colors is an example of 'subjective' science. The research done with the nuclear accelerators are what created these quarks. Bashing protons, neutrons and other particles is not Natural. So I do not give them any real credibility.

Another example are the electron spins in the atoms. They are not real spins. Just 'reserved' spots for one electron. No other electrons need apply. Ha ha.

The electrons and the protons are two thoroughly researched particles that have mass, charge, and physical size. So to me, they are real.

NS

All you do is parrot what you learned from your teacher or some book. I read those books for myself and evaluate as to the reality of what it teaches.

How about you? Do you thimk?

yes, but i am smart enough to not say theories and data is invalid until i understand everything around them PERFECTLY. you just threw it away at first sight

Bashing protons, neutrons and other particles is not Natural

it is completely natural. its just extrem natural. They were produced like this in the big bang

So I do not give them any real credibility.

once again who cares what you do? accept science and play by its rule or leave it

The electrons and the protons are two thoroughly researched particles that have mass, charge, and physical size. So to me, they are real.

haha youre not updated. size cant you determen exacly since they are wave/particles. but they do have this propeties. and they are just as real as any other particle. positron. neutrino. all are important. remove one and we most likly wouldnt exist jabbing about you bieng stupid

If we shall ignor things since they seem insignifican and unimportant than we should treat you like crap. you are one unimportant individual for the society and humanity

zelos

Your poison tongue does not bother me and your childish mind is an example of your IQ level.

NS

nha, rather that im a bit odd. my IQ belong to about 2% of the population and is above 100

that last parts took i to give you a thought. just since they seem unimportant doesnt make them that

Originally Posted by Mike NS

Mathematics
I call this 'mental visualization', that to me, is more important than math.
NS

From my point of view both 'mental visualization' and math is equally important. 'Mental Visualization' gives us a theory and math will give us an universally accepted proof.

mathematic is more important. you dont have to have mental visualisation but mathematic do you have to have. You can describe the entire universe with math but that its beyond mental visualization

Originally Posted by Zelos

nha, rather that im a bit odd. my IQ belong to about 2% of the population and is above 100

that last parts took i to give you a thought. just since they seem unimportant doesnt make them that

Above 100?
If you said above 140 or so, than you can brag about it like my lady
friend genius that shuts her ears to anything I say.
The password into her brain is PhD.

She has a big EGO but you can excuse her because she comes from a long line of PhD's back to her original fathers going back to several generations. Her mother was also a teacher. So I can understand her attitude.

But yours? Your answers do not sound scientific enough to convince me of your advanced education.

NS

Originally Posted by Mike NS

But yours? Your answers do not sound scientific enough to convince me of your advanced education.

NS

funny, when i first encountered you and your theory you said you were self educated?

But yours? Your answers do not sound scientific enough to convince me of your advanced education.

i am mostly self educated and is currently working my way to PhD but as everything its taking its sweet time.

Originally Posted by wallaby

funny, when i first encountered you and your theory you said you were self educated

That is why I understand science much better, because I believe in the truth.

NS

Originally Posted by Mike NS

Originally Posted by wallaby

funny, when i first encountered you and your theory you said you were self educated

That is why I understand science much better, because I believe in the truth.

NS

let me rephrase that. You belive in your idiotic crackpot ideas.

I am mostly self educated aswell and im smarter than you since i dont dismiss any theory until i understand them perfectly. for now i dont so i dont dismiss them. You should do the same. It makes you look smarter instant of dummer as your action do now

Originally Posted by Zelos

i am mostly self educated and is currently working my way to PhD but as everything its taking its sweet time.

Well, I am self educated too with about 20 years of study regarding these subjects and a library of my own for reference.

Being a free thinker rather than being regimented by the current Latin educational system, helps me to see the truth rather than a repeat of the Latin science of the 1500's that was refuted.

If I do parrot anything I read, it is because I consider it to be true.

NS

Originally Posted by Zelos

i dont dismiss any theory until i understand them perfectly.

You dismissed my malteaser theory without consideration.

I consider you are economical with the truth. 8)

Originally Posted by billco

You dismissed my malteaser theory without consideration.

Your mateaser theory was a lightweight and full of holes.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by billco

You dismissed my malteaser theory without consideration.

Your mateaser theory was a lightweight and full of holes.

For one who advocates perfect communication, you have made one 'L' of a mistake there ophie! 8)

Not at all. I'll set them up. You knock them down.

billco. if you can provide a theory that explains it better mathematicly and i cant see any obvius errors i wont dismiss it and maybe ask you how you got it and so on

My malteaser theory does not require mathematics. If you are refering to my reluctance to accept background radiation as a pillar of the BB theory then you are in the wrong place. Science Forum Forum Index » Pseudoscience » Theory explaining the acceleration of the galaxies!

Billco == OOD

I would agree with Zelos totally in that Mathematical evidence is needed in a theory. NS you are missing the idea that you cannot argue with a mathematical proof, however your theories that you visualize can be argued simply by someone elses visualisation. If you support your theory with mathematical evidence then all that can be argued is the correctness of your physics and your understanding of the exclusion principle (for example). The actual mathematics cannot be argued with and therefore if you know your laws and have the equivalent of a CERN lab and have spent years in the mathematical physics field you are likely to be able to come up with many theories that are hard to disprove. You cannot just say that Mathematics is a spawn of physics because it has its own beauty and can be studied into much more complicated depths than most physics goes

neutralino

How do you explain 'creation out of nothing' mathematically?

NS

oh god not again. mike we dont know what was BEFORE big bang, it doesnt have to be NOTHING

Originally Posted by Zelos

oh god not again. mike we dont know what was BEFORE big bang, it doesnt have to be NOTHING

if we are talking about BB cosmology - how can you talk about before? Its a meaningless question!

TO say that talking about pre big bang is meaningless is merely to copy the ramblings of people like Stephen Hawking. They cannot explain it, therefore 'it is meaningless'. When he comes up with a theory that isn't full of holes[pun intended] maybe I'll listen. I think that all the matter in the universe was pushed [or pulled] together - it got so hot it turned into energy and exploded again. I know that currently science says there is not enough matter to do this, but that's a single flaw to this argument. The singularity theory has more holes in it than a swiss cheese. What do you say Mike?

No - if you are talking in the realm of BB cosmology then the question "what happened before the big bang" is meaningless because "before" requires time to make sense, and there is no time before the big bang (or space, the bigbang is the origin of spacetime). There is not even a big bang (i.e. no time t = 0). This has nothing to do with hawkings (BB is the brain child of Friedmann, Robertson and Walker) or singularities - just the rules of BB cosmology.

If you want to talk about what happened before the big bang, then you are not in physics anymore - and should move your discussion into philospophy.

They cannot explain it, therefore 'it is meaningless'

they cant since no theory is able to do it, so until someone can come with a theory explaining it its meaningless

also what do u have against stehen hawking? feeling inferior that he is smarter and have achived more with his crippled life than you would in 3 life times?

When he comes up with a theory that isn't full of holes[pun intended] maybe I'll listen.

come wiith it yourself or shut up and listen. cant you do better dont complain

I think that all the matter in the universe was pushed [or pulled] together

so you belive in that cycleiling theory. The chance of that happening is so small it happens at best once every 100 trillion years

I know that currently science says there is not enough matter to do this, but that's a single flaw to this argument.

there is to little matter and latest tests and observation says our universe is open not closed. our space is flat

The singularity theory has more holes in it than a swiss cheese.

a theory having more things talking for it is far better than a theory having its most basic thing going against it. therefor singularity is better.
It predicts how the universe shall look after the big bang, what happens as we approch big bang and so on. Alot have been confirmed. Maybe not all (our equipment might not be suffient)

billco do like i do. Listen, learn, accept, understand THEN QUESTION THE THEORY IF YOU FIND A FLAW. your only at learn/listen so you have no right to say its false yet

Look chaps all we really know is that in the past the universe was smaller, maybe a lot smaller. This may be suggestive of a big bang, but it is not conclusive proof of a big bang. The big bang is a theory, a theory that mathematics and some observations support, it has NOT been proven beyond doubt.

Originally Posted by billco

Look chaps all we really know is that in the past the universe was smaller, maybe a lot smaller. This may be suggestive of a big bang, but it is not conclusive proof of a big bang. The big bang is a theory, a theory that mathematics and some observations support, it has NOT been proven beyond doubt.

And what does that have to do with the fact that in big bang cosmology the talk of what was before the big bang is meaningless. That are the rules of the game - like there is no bank in a game of cluedo.

Long held scientific beliefs based on 'fact' have been turned over before, I find it surprising that so many people are willing to accept whatever is thrown at them so easily. I for one would like to see a more convincing case. The 'steady state' theory was accepted for many years based on the best knowledge they had at the time. The same is true of the big bang, it may be the 'best' theory, it may may be the 'only' theory, that does NOT make it a certainty, it is a mere probability. If Mr Hawking and others came up with an equaly plausible theory tomorrow which did NOT involve a big bang, would you believe him?

and once again what does that have to do with the price of a bag of chips?

This is a fact about big bang cosmology - if big bang cosmology has any resemblence to the evolution of the universe is a different question. You seem so hell bent on disproven hawkings (and once again what does he have to do with BB cosmology?) that you are missing the important point that if you are talking about the big bang then you need to play by the rules of big bang cosmology - and one of those rules are that spacetime has an origin a finite time in the past.

I think it would be courteous of you to answer my question, if the big bang theory were turned over tomorrow by all the world's leading cosmologists, would you accept the new theory, it only requires a yes or no!

How does that question have any baring on this discussion? Science is not a popular vote.

Now will you please explain to me what that has to do with the fact that in Big bang cosmology, the question of what is before the big bang is meaningless.

Well there must have been something right there before the big bang. If you believe it sprang out of nothing, then it could happen again, with infinite opportunities to occur, but somehow I do not see them springing up all over the place. I contend that before the big bang is important IF you accept the big bang occured. You seem to be closing your mind to every conceivable alternative - which [in my opinion] is contrary to good practice.

This may be only crakpot, but it's what I believe :

I believe in the multiverse theory. We are in an infinite space with many universe in it . The probability that each universe meet one or another is almost non existant, and each universe ignore the others (they are in the dark, read outside space arent-they).

The black hole is connected to additional dimensions , who store all the energy coming from it. Various black holes can converge in a point via interconnected lines. When this potential energy reach a critical point, the energy is released in a terrific big bang. At the same time, the black holes are disapearing.