The Most Foolish Theory in Physics

[kerikiwi]

Now my native tongue isn't english so that could be why I don't get it,

I don't think Singulatarian's is either, but that is the least of the problems.

 

[Molinaro]

Not true.

Universall-accepted theories have such a status because they are actually existent with evidence supporting them. This makes the big bang, themost consistent theory so far concerning the standard model.

The only thing I was talking about was interpretations of QM. By that I mean: Copenhagan, Many-worlds, Transactional etc..

And in that respect, what I said is correct.

 

[Perpetual Student]

There was not enough time to start the universe!

Well, we had better get moving, NOW!!!

 

[aggle-rithm]

P.s. - the closest thing to JHWH is a Singularity. Think about why.

Because his real estate agent screwed him?

 

[dahduh]

Perhaps I could interest someone here in my theory of dinosaurs?

 

[theprestige]

Perhaps I could interest someone here in my theory of dinosaurs?

Maybe. Does it have more explanatory power than this one?

 

[RussDill]

I'd agree there is som symmetry in time. If there is not, how can any defined beginning to time provide any definition to its infinite existence without some relative ending point?

I suppose CPT symmetry now counts as "some". Its pretty easy to mark a system with a "Time beginning" marker. Just pick some time and put the system in a very ordered state. Other than the high entropy at the "beginning" I'm not aware of any asymmetry. Pick any sequence of events and play it backwards, it still follows all laws of physics, it just breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics because it is highly unlikely to occur.

 

[John Jones]

...I am here to educate on modern theories, not excruciate them to the highest impunity to make as no sense you as to anyone else, for i am here to learn myself.

For some reason, I find this partial quote fascinating. I expect to find this in a .sig some day.

 

[RussDill]

Vacuum Polarization is he very essence of CPT-invariance and more importanly the conservational rules that include them such as an expectancy factor of energy (a gamma frequency) of 1022KEV creates matter (proven in 1996 by experimentation, sep. 7), and also that matter can conversely be made into energy by splitting the matter-shells that consist of the cloud of energy it has decohered into. The appearance of some particle in space therefore, is somehwhat indestinguihable to an antipartner that equally arises, we call the positron. These two specimens when under contact, reduce their constituent electromagnetic conservational enegies into the production of one gamma energy squared [latex]E^2=(Mc^2)^2[/latex].

Wow, this is neat. I feel like I'm observing a real-life Frankenstein. Ok, lets take vacuum polarization which has nothing to do with CPT symmetry and staple them together. Next, lets make up a completely new term with no meaning called "expectancy factor of energy" and combine it with "gamma frequency" which I can only guess comes from either BSG, or the frequency of a gamma ray. Next, lets pretend that we didn't mention vacuum polarization involves the creation of electron-positron pairs for a moment, and mention 1022KeV since a photon with that amount of energy passing near a charge can produce positronium. Be sure to say it like it is some revelation. Be sure not to mention that photons not interacting with matter or other photons cannot do this.

Can we use another term with no discernible meaning? Sure, how about "matter-shell". Ok, and lets also talking about splitting it, because everyone knows what that means. Especially since using a term like "annihilate" would actually explain what is going on and include actual particles. Lets make up something else that doesn't exist, how about a "cloud of energy". Sure, that sounds uber-cool. But we stray to far from QM. Lets bolt decoherence onto the end. Surely no one will realize that it has nothing to do with broken matter-shells becoming a "cloud of energy".

Ok....umm...lets see, appearance of particle into space. Especially since single particles never "appear", lets make it more vague, we'll make it "somewhat indistinguishable", like, you can't tell the difference, but really, you can (on Tuesdays). Ok, wait, we forgot that particles never appear alone, mention the other particle that shows up..whats it called? antipart...partner...I can never decide, lets just call it an antipartner. That sounds nice, I'll figure out a better name the day after yesterday. Lets not get into conservation here, or systems involving more than just a particle and its partner, that might confuse my massive contribution to science. Lets name an antipartner. How about a positron, yes, that's a better name for it, I told you I'd come up with one.

Now, lets put the particles under contact, make sure they are touching. Now, we could talk about they energy, mass, etc, but that doesn't explain the utter greatness of what is going on here. We'll make the energy conservational, unlike all that non-conservative energy out there. And we'll also make it electromagnetic, caus that's all that can happen when a particle and its "antipartner" touch each other. And since I didn't mention photonic conservational momentum, it also only makes just one gamma energy squared. If only I had time to explain to you what a gamma energy was, maybe then...but alas, we must move quickly and square it.

I understand now what is meant by "word salad"

 

[theprestige]

witty and sarcastic deconstruction snipped...

To be fair, if Singularitarian's first language isn't English, a great many of these terms may actually be literal translations of the correct technical terms in his native language, and therefore perfectly cromulent.

It might be more productive (and certainly less antagonistic),to politely aks Singularitarian how he defines those terms, rather than simply ridiculing him for using them.

 

[RussDill]

To be fair, if Singularitarian's first language isn't English, a great many of these terms may actually be literal translations of the correct technical terms in his native language, and therefore perfectly cromulent.

It might be more productive (and certainly less antagonistic),to politely aks Singularitarian how he defines those terms, rather than simply ridiculing him for using them.

I find it interesting because I can see the individual bits and pieces of physics that are glued together.

 

[catbasket]

To be fair, if Singularitarian's first language isn't English, a great many of these terms may actually be literal translations of the correct technical terms in his native language, and therefore perfectly cromulent.

Going from this -

Yes, i am indeed the poster in the student room.

... you can find your way here where he claims -

Well, i was originally borne in the Australian outback of Queensland, where my birth mother gave life to me, and afterwards, she died. My father moved back to the UK, where he was from in England, and raised me partially there in time-wise, when we finally moved to scotland a great many years back.

I suspect he has a vague familiarity with the English language.

 

[kerikiwi]

I suspect he has a vague familiarity with the English language.

But a more tenuous familiarity with reality.
He did not learn English in Australia. Even the Australians are not that bad at English.

 

[theprestige]

Going from this -

... you can find your way here where he claims -

I suspect he has a vague familiarity with the English language.

Thanks! I had held out hope for more than a vague familiarity with some other language, but I guess not... Unless "crackpotese" is a language.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Can someone other than Singulatarian answer my question please? I'd look it up, but I haven't built up a database of trustworthy sources the way I have with other topics, and have no actual textbooks on it.

 

[Dr. Trintignant]

Can someone other than Singulatarian answer my question please? I'd look it up, but I haven't built up a database of trustworthy sources the way I have with other topics, and have no actual textbooks on it.

Molinaro basically answered it. Multiple universes are postulated by some interpretations of quantum mechanics, specifically the Many-worlds interpretation^WP. The MW interpretation of QM is fairly popular, essentially due to Ockham's Razor, because it explains QM without resorting to seemingly unphysical phenomena (non-locality) or ill-defined concepts (like decoherence).

However, all interpretations of QM are identical in their predictions, so we can't really favor one over another in terms of how likely they are to be the "real" interpretation. We can only say that one is perhaps simpler or more elegant. And unfortunately, there's probably no way, even in principle, to determine if these alternate universes really exist.

- Dr. Trintignant

 

[shadron]

Is all that stuff about "alternative/parallel universes" and whatnot really considered to be "scientific"? Or is the writer of the OP confusing science and fantasy (as many laypersons tend to do)?

Eos,

Yes, there is a basis in Physics for these theories (actually, part of quantum mechanics theory). When you execute the dual slit experiment, the particles can go in either of the two slits, and indeed they are shown to go through both. However, if you set up something to look at them, then they pick a slit and stay with it. The particles have a two-state quantum choice to make, and the probabilities (when they are unobserved) are equal.

The problem is the interpretation of this result and what it implies about the world around us. The "Copenhagen Interpretation" says that one cannot say anything useful (real world) about particles until they actually choose a slit and pass through it. The "Path Integral" formulation by Feynmen says essentially the same thing, that the particle actually takes every path from the source to the screen (Feynmen stresses his formulation is only a mathematical tweak of Copenhagen, not anything different in reality). Schrodinger's Cat's state isn't known until the box is opened.

There are a slough of other interpretations, but one of them is the multiverse or "Many Worlds" interpretation: that every time a quantum decision is made the universe bifurcates into two universes, in which the particle goes one way in one, and the other way in the other. So every microsecond in time, a very huge number of alternate universes are "created", and that any possible series of events is indeed present in a universe somewhere. Schrodinger's cat is dead iin one universe, alive in another at the point where they split.

So multiple universes is one possible interpretation of what happens when a quantum choice is made. This is my understanding of it. Wikipedia is a fairly good source for all this; look up "many worlds", and "interpretation of quantum mechanics". Hugh Everett was the developer of this interpretation. Interestingly, according to a poll 58% of physicists favor the multiverse interpretation, including Feynman, Hawking and Gell-Mann (according to wiki).

 

[critterrice]

I agree.

No, the most foolish theory in physics is the round earth theory. If it was true all the people in Australia would fall off the bottom. See, if I can't understand it, then it must be wrong.

I think that my lack of knowledge of physics trumps physicists' knowledge of physics any day. They may have their fancy book-larnin', but I've got something even more powerful ... ignorance.

 

[Singularitarian]

To be fair, if Singularitarian's first language isn't English, a great many of these terms may actually be literal translations of the correct technical terms in his native language, and therefore perfectly cromulent.

It might be more productive (and certainly less antagonistic),to politely aks Singularitarian how he defines those terms, rather than simply ridiculing him for using them.

Bravo.

It seems that too many here are quick to judge. I hope this s not reallt over me, but rather one where this site has a particularily bad past for any, reasonable debates.

Though, if my edcuation is in question, i am adversed in General and Special Relativity, with an extensive level into classical physics. Since i came here however, i've had a few people arguing over certain words. I already pawned someone yesterday for disagreeing with the spelling of ''complimentarity'' which is a commonly-used word used in Copenhagen, among other theories.

When will some people just do their own homework without bluggering about ninety questions a time so that any possible resolution of these questions are certainly unrealisistic, but, obviously, not many want to apply this method, so i am going to give up answering as much.

 

[Singularitarian]

Molinaro basically answered it. Multiple universes are postulated by some interpretations of quantum mechanics, specifically the Many-worlds interpretation^WP. The MW interpretation of QM is fairly popular, essentially due to Ockham's Razor, because it explains QM without resorting to seemingly unphysical phenomena (non-locality) or ill-defined concepts (like decoherence).

However, all interpretations of QM are identical in their predictions, so we can't really favor one over another in terms of how likely they are to be the "real" interpretation. We can only say that one is perhaps simpler or more elegant. And unfortunately, there's probably no way, even in principle, to determine if these alternate universes really exist.

- Dr. Trintignant

X-Files, Season 9,

Agent Dogget, ''Are you familiar with Occams Razor?''

Doctor Scully, ''Yes, Mulder used to identify it as the principle of least imagination.''