Inn which case that remote location must have generated the wave of zilbots, making it much less likely that we should not have noticed this effect as Carroll points out.
Quantum Field Theory: The Woo Stops Here
- Thread starter PixyMisa
- Start date
-
- Tags
- quantum mechanics
One thing we know electromagnetism can do, is generate conscious awareness.
We have only a rather vague picture of how it does that.
Every emotion ever felt; every act, good or evil, ever perpetrated; every work of art ever made was a product of electromagnetic fields interacting.
Personally, I feel it's a bit premature to rule out the possibility that different EM interactions may produce effects we have not yet encountered or not yet explained.
Whether they can produce ghosts or spirits, I have no idea, but if such can be produced, I expect that's where we should expect them to originate.
We have only a rather vague picture of how it does that.
Every emotion ever felt; every act, good or evil, ever perpetrated; every work of art ever made was a product of electromagnetic fields interacting.
Personally, I feel it's a bit premature to rule out the possibility that different EM interactions may produce effects we have not yet encountered or not yet explained.
Whether they can produce ghosts or spirits, I have no idea, but if such can be produced, I expect that's where we should expect them to originate.
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
Those are two different things.
One the one hand, it is always valid to rotate the Feynman diagram by 90 degrees to predict a second interaction.
On the other hand, the fact that the one interaction implies the other doesn't mean that either one is detectable as an individual interaction.
Basically, yes.
There has to be something material giving off those photons. We understand how it works. An EM detector of any description detects material interactions, which ghosts isn't.
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
And do you have a mechanism the size of a planet generating these targeted zilbot beams? Because the LHC is creating zero of them, and the LHC is far, far outside the scale of normal human interactions.
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
Don't answer!
If you provide a mechanism, you are labeled a crackpot;
If you don't, you are dismissed,
If you point out many current mechanics are unknown, you are back at crackpot.
It's the Kobayashi Maru of QFT questions.
To quote Tsig's quote "The only way to win is not to play."
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
The only way to win is not to invoke impossible causes for unobserved effects?
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
The argument is unrecognized effects, not unobserved effects.
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
The only way to win is not to invoke impossible causes for nonsensical interpretations of effects already well understood?
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
You continue to fail addressing the argument, rather responding with unfounded assertion and hyperbola.
1. Invoking impossible cause: Unfounded and unsupported assertion. In Carroll's presentation, fully half of the graph of Quantim particles are UNKNOWN. Therefore, the effects of those particles may likewise be unknown or unrecognized.
2. Nonsensical interpretations: Another unfounded and unsupported assertion. Carroll's presentation, again, clearly shows there are unknown particles that have unknown or unidentified effects, which is all that is being argued. That you are unable to accept it does not make it nonsensical.
3. Effects already well understood: Yes, we understand the effects we recognize and have studied, and... are well understood as a result. It is, again, unsupportable assertion that we understand every possible or plausible effect. Carroll's presentation, again, clearly states there are effects too small or too short to measure, or too large or too long to be measured. There may likewise be effects we see every second, but don't recognize a pattern to study.
The only way to win is not to try to argue against bald assertion.
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
Wrong. The effects of any unknown particles are strictly bounded by the area that is fully mapped out. That's the entire point of Carroll's presentation. There can be no new physics that account for the type of nonsense claims that Carroll discusses.
That's just a restatement of point 1, and is also wrong.
And such effects, being too small or too short to measure, are also too small or too short to account for the type of claims in question.
Can gravity account for odd movements of objects? Not unless you're lugging a small planetoid around. And the same goes for any similarly weak hypothetical force.
We know, statistically, that this is simply untrue. See also: Las Vegas.
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
We've been here before. I didn't intend to revisit all this, not that I don't have work that sorely needs avoiding at just about any cost.
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
Indeed. That's what happens when you persist in making unsubstantiated claims.
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
Right, it is something you should work on.
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
I'll try, but you don't seem to be listening.
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
I understand exactly how you feel.
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
Great.
Do you want to start addressing all the things that are wrong with your argument, or do you want me to point them all out to you again?
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
Sure, knock yourself out. We'll see if you can address the actual argument rather than what you want the argument to be.
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
Always have, TGF, always have.
So, point one: The effects of any unknown particles are strictly bounded by the area that is fully mapped out. That's the entire point of Carroll's presentation. There can be no new physics that account for the type of nonsense claims that Carroll discusses.
The unmapped area is not some magical wishing well from which you can draw anything you like. It's a precisely defined combination of field strengths and ranges, and those precisely defined ranges are precisely outside all everyday experience. In other words, these are things that only happen in particle accelerators or exploding stars. No matter what we might someday find in that area, it cannot, by definition, provide a mechanism for the sort of nonsense claims under discussion.
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
Gravity (theoretical gravitons) are such a particle and effect. It is only accounted for in QFT because we see the pattern of the effects at our scale. Carroll dismissed gravity early in his presentation.
2 Direct questions:
1) Where does QFT state there cannot be a comparable particle, in comparable quantities, with comparable level of effects that don't seem consistent or predictable, that we (apparently) don't need to account for?
2) Does QFT even state with certainty that gravity (gravitons) that we've never detected, don't have a secondary effect we have not identifed (because we don't see a pattern)?
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
And for very good reason: Because we understand gravity, and can predict, very precisely, what its effects will be for any given situation.
As noted trillions of times in this thread, we test this dozens of times a day, and our predictions are always borne out.
Or maybe those numbers are reversed.
Are you seriously asking me why we don't believe there's a force as strong and widespread as gravity that we haven't noticed because its behaviour violates the most basic principles of physics?
What, in terms of QFT, is a "secondary effect"? You have interactions. Or you don't.
And in all this talk of patterns, as I noted earlier, we've built a pattern detector the size of a city, and it's been operating 24 hours a day for decades. Guess what? We haven't seen those patterns because they don't exist.