SLAC theorist explains quantum gravity

November 19, 2015
Quantum gravity tries to combine Einstein’s general theory of relativity with quantum mechanics. On large scales, general relativity explains gravity as the result of massive objects distorting the fabric of space-time. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, explores the effects of fundamental forces on subatomic particles. Quantum corrections to classical gravity are visualized as loop diagrams, as the one shown here in white. Credit: SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory

Our world is ruled by four fundamental forces: the gravitational pull of massive objects, the electromagnetic interaction between electric charges, the strong nuclear interaction holding atomic nuclei together and the weak nuclear force causing unstable ones to fall apart.

Physicists have quantum theories for the last three of them that allow very precise calculations of phenomena on the smallest, subatomic scales. However, does not fit into this scheme. Despite decades of research, there is no generally accepted quantum theory of gravity, which is needed to better understand fundamental aspects of our universe.

In this Q&A, Particle Physics and Astrophysics Professor Lance Dixon of Stanford University and the Department of Energy's SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory explains one approach to developing such a theory, called .

What is quantum gravity?

With the exception of gravity, we can describe nature's using the concepts of quantum mechanics. In these theories, which are summarized in the Standard Model of particle physics, forces are the result of an exchange of tiny quanta of information between interacting particles. Electric charges, for instance, attract or repel each other by exchanging photons – quanta of light that carry the electromagnetic force. The strong and weak forces have corresponding carriers called gluons and W and Z bosons, respectively.

We routinely use these theories to calculate the outcome of subatomic processes with extraordinary precision. For example, we can make accurate predictions for the complex proton-proton collisions at CERN's Large Hadron Collider, the most powerful man-made particle accelerator.

But gravity is different. Although Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity explains gravity on larger scales as the result of massive objects distorting the fabric of space-time, it doesn't tell us anything about what happens to subatomic particles gravitationally. Quantum gravity is an attempt to combine Einstein's general relativity with quantum mechanics. In analogy to the other forces, we predict gravity to be mediated by a force carrier as well, the graviton.

What questions do researchers hope to answer with quantum gravity?

Quantum gravity could help us answer important questions about the universe.

For example, quantum effects play a role near black holes – objects so massive that not even light can escape their when emitted from within a certain radius, the black hole's event horizon. However, black holes are thought to be not completely black. If quantum effects near the event horizon produce pairs of particles, one of them would fall into the black hole, but the other one would escape as so-called Hawking radiation.

Researchers also hope to better understand the very first moments after the Big Bang, when the universe was an extremely hot and dense state with a tremendous amount of energy. On that energy scale, which we call the Planck scale, gravity was as strong as the other fundamental forces, and quantum gravitational effects were crucial. However, we don't have a compelling quantum theory of gravity yet that could describe physics at those energies.

One has to realize, though, that processes on Earth occur at much smaller energy scales, with unmeasurably small quantum corrections to gravity. With the LHC, for instance, we can reach energies that are a million billion times smaller than the Planck scale. Therefore, quantum gravity studies are mostly "thought experiments," in which we want to figure out whether we can make predictions about other interactions that might be measurable. However, it turns out that the calculations are quite complicated.

Quantum gravity could be key to answering fundamental questions about the universe, such as the physics near black holes. In this illustration, turbulent winds of gas swirl around a black hole. Some of the gas is spiraling inward toward the black hole, but another part is blown away. Credit: NASA, M.Weiss/Chandra X-ray Center

Why is it so difficult to find a quantum theory of gravity?

One version of quantum gravity is provided by , but we're looking for other possibilities. Gravity is quite different from the other forces, for which we already have quantum theories.

First of all, gravity is extremely weak – on the order of a million billion billion billion times weaker than the weak force. In fact, the only reason why we notice gravity at all is because we feel the combined pull of a huge amount of particles in the Earth.

Gravity is also different because massive objects always attract each other. In contrast, the strong force is only attractive on very short distances, and the electromagnetic force can be either attractive or repellent.

Finally, the graviton fundamentally differs from all the other known force carriers in a particle property known as spin. It has twice the spin of the other force carriers.

How does this affect the calculations?

It makes the mathematical treatment much more difficult.

We generally calculate quantum effects by starting with a dominant mathematical term to which we then add a number of increasingly smaller terms. The number of terms, or order, we need to calculate depends on the accuracy we want to achieve. A complication is that higher-order terms sometimes become infinitely large, and we first need to get rid of these infinities, or divergences, to make meaningful predictions.

For the electromagnetic, weak and strong forces, we've known how to do this for decades. We have a systematic way of removing infinities for all orders, called renormalization, which allows us to calculate quantum effects very precisely. Unfortunately, due to gravity's different nature, we haven't found a renormalizable theory of gravity yet.

What have you learned about quantum gravity so far?

Over the past decades, researchers in the field have made a lot of progress in better understanding how to do calculations in quantum gravity. For example, it was empirically found that in certain theories and to certain orders, we can replace the complicated mathematical expression for the interaction of gravitons with the square of the interaction of gluons – a simpler expression that we already know how to calculate.

We've succeeded in using this discovery to calculate quantum effects to increasingly higher order, which helps us better understand when divergences occur. My colleagues and I have made calculations to fourth order in a theory called N=8 supergravity without finding any divergences. Ideally, we would like to compute to higher orders to test various predictions for infinities, but that's very hard.

We were also involved in a recent study in which we looked at the theory of two gravitons bouncing off each other. It was shown over 30 years ago that divergences occurring on the second order of these calculations can change under so-called duality transformations that replace one description of the gravitational field with a different but equivalent one. These changes were a surprise because they could mean that the descriptions are not equivalent on the quantum level. However, we've now demonstrated that these differences actually don't change the underlying physics.

How is your approach to quantum gravity different from string theory?

In the approach we're taking, subatomic particles are described as point-like, as they are in the Standard Model. Each of these particles is associated with a fundamental field that extends throughout space and time. In string theory, on the other hand, particles are thought to be different vibrations of an extended object, similar to different tones coming from the same guitar string. In the first approach, gravitons and photons, for example, are linked to gravitational and photon fields, whereas in string theory, both are different vibrational modes of a string.

One appeal of string theory is that its way of treating particles like extended objects solves the problem of divergences. So, in principle, string theory could make predictions of gravitational effects on the subatomic level.

However, over the years, researchers have found more and more ways of making string theories that look right. I began to be concerned that there may be actually too many options for string theory to ever be predictive, when I studied the subject as a graduate student at Princeton in the mid-1980s. About 10 years ago, the number of possible solutions was already on the order of 10500. For comparison, there are less than 1010 people on Earth and less than 1012 stars in the Milky Way. So how will we ever find the theory that accurately describes our universe?

For quantum gravity, the situation is somewhat the opposite, making the approach potentially more predictive than string theory, in principle. There are probably not too many theories that would allow us to properly handle divergences in quantum gravity – we haven't actually found a single one yet.

What would be a breakthrough in the field?

It would be very interesting if someone miraculously found a theory that we could use to consistently predict quantum gravitational effects to much higher orders than possible today. Such a theory of gravity would fit into our current picture of nature's other fundamental forces.

Explore further: The universe as we know it

Related Stories

The universe as we know it

November 17, 2015

Sitting in a small French bistro across from Pershing Square in downtown Los Angeles, Clifford Johnson held the pumpkin-hued drinking straw parallel to the table.

How spacetime is built by quantum entanglement

May 27, 2015

A collaboration of physicists and a mathematician has made a significant step toward unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics by explaining how spacetime emerges from quantum entanglement in a more fundamental theory. ...

Einstein saves the quantum cat

June 16, 2015

Einstein's theory of time and space will celebrate its 100th anniversary this year. Even today it captures the imagination of scientists. In an international collaboration, researchers from the universities of Vienna, Harvard ...

Recommended for you

Electron highway inside crystal

December 8, 2016

Physicists of the University of Würzburg have made an astonishing discovery in a specific type of topological insulators. The effect is due to the structure of the materials used. The researchers have now published their ...

Researchers improve qubit lifetime for quantum computers

December 8, 2016

An international team of scientists has succeeded in making further improvements to the lifetime of superconducting quantum circuits. An important prerequisite for the realization of high-performance quantum computers is ...

87 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

flag
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2015
The magnetic induction creates a negative electric field, causing an electromagnetic inertia responsible for the relativistic mass change; it is the mysterious Higgs Field giving mass to the particles. The Planck Distribution Law of the electromagnetic oscillators explains the electron/proton mass rate by the diffraction patterns. The accelerating charges explain not only the Maxwell Equations and the Special Relativity, but the Heisenberg Uncertainty Relation, the wave particle duality and the electron's spin also, building the bridge between the Classical and Relativistic Quantum Theories. The self maintained electric potential of the accelerating charges equivalent with the General Relativity space-time curvature, and since it is true on the quantum level also, gives the base of the Quantum Gravity.
https://www.acade..._Gravity
ECat
Nov 19, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
DiscipleOfScience
3 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2015
"With the LHC, for instance, we can reach energies that are a million billion times smaller than the Planck scale."

This is just wrong, cannot even get close to Planck scale, did this really come from SLAC; million billion times LARGER is more accurate, but still off.
DiscipleOfScience
3 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2015
Just some numbers: Planck scale energy 1.22x10^19 GEV; while the LHC has a max of about 13 TEV = 13000 GEV = 1.3x10^4 GEV. Off by factor of 9.38x10^14 and a million billion is 10^15.

So I think they meant Larger than Planck scale.
bschott
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 19, 2015
Electric charges, for instance, attract or repel each other by exchanging photons – quanta of light that carry the electromagnetic force.


Stopped reading after this. It is fundamentally incorrect and as such has no observational or experimental backing. Too bad it was the first thing he said.
pongobongo
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2015
Just some numbers: Planck scale energy 1.22x10^19 GEV; while the LHC has a max of about 13 TEV = 13000 GEV = 1.3x10^4 GEV. Off by factor of 9.38x10^14 and a million billion is 10^15.

So I think they meant Larger than Planck scale.


You are a sorry excuse for a disciple. Think about it and try again.
Nik_2213
4 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2015
"...10500. For comparison, there are less than 1010 people on Earth and less than 1012 ..."

Sloppy, sloppy proof-reading, again, again, again...
10E500 or 10^500 etc would survive cut/paste where fancy formatting WILL NOT.
baudrunner
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2015
I think of gravity as the cancellation of volume between objects in space. The orientation of gravitons (I call them iotons to separate them from any perceived association with the atom) that comprise the gravitational field around a mass have a 180 degree relationship with direct line of sight iotons that comprise the gravitational field around an adjacent object. So - these iotons have an orientation with respect to the mass that is displacing them, and the volume of the space between the objects is compromised when they interact with the iotons of other objects because they will cancel out. Iotons are very small entities, much, much smaller than subatomic particles, even approaching the Planck length.

Well, that's one idea where logic, not math, is needed to make this leap of faith. I think it works, though, and it precludes the existence of gravitational waves since influence occurs instantaneously over the shortest distance between points.
arom
Nov 19, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
24volts
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2015
Personally I still think gravity is nothing more that displacement stress on space caused by the energy that makes up the parts of atoms. It works both in large areas and in nano size areas. Doesn't make any difference except that at atom size it's so small it would probably be extremely hard to get any measurement. Maybe get a measurement out in deep space between galaxies but I doubt it would be possible here on this planet.
theon
3 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2015
String theory is a theory of everything, except the standard model.
bluehigh
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2015
Stopped reading after this.


I made the mistake of reading the rest. Bourbon or Scotch, either way fill my glass. Must forget. Crikey, it just hit 40 degrees C here. Make it a tall glass with lots of ice.

sandler
1 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2015
Stopped reading after this.


That's pretty "cool".. Works both ways charged particles emit light and electricity is a form of light? I could easily misspell neutrino for neutron, same speed, same function. Each molecule is a mini star and as a saying goes a little candle can disperse a lot of darkness, Happy Hanukkah!

So without the electrical bonding what else could be causing them tiny things to stick together? May be some other very powerful force we all heard about but underestimated it to the power of 10 googolpexians. After all things move at speeds approaching theoretical limit of speed of light on both quantum and cosmic scales. May be there should also be such a limit of maximum G obtained by blackhole of any size.. or maybe Bluehigh is right and it's drink the kool-aid time.
bschott
2.4 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2015
So without the electrical bonding what else could be causing them tiny things to stick together?


It is the nature of magnetic polarity.

The fact that he said quanta of light carry the magnetic force, and that the interaction of magnetic poles is mediated by photons demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of magnetic interaction. I would urge Lance Dixon to get 2 magnets, align both positve ends to face each other and move them together so the repulsion can be felt (in other words force them to interact), then walk into a pitch black room full of bear traps and attempt to use his new flashlight to navigate.
bschott
3 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2015
Stopped reading after this.


I made the mistake of reading the rest. Bourbon or Scotch, either way fill my glass. Must forget. Crikey, it just hit 40 degrees C here. Make it a tall glass with lots of ice.



LMAO...Bourbon unless we are talking Johnnie Walker Blue.....Blue.
TechnoCreed
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2015
The fact that he said quanta of light carry the magnetic force, and that the interaction of magnetic poles is mediated by photons demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of magnetic interaction.
For you oh Mighty Dumbstruck!

Here is what Duke University has to say about that http://www.phy.du...ces.html
the University of Oregon http://abyss.uore...c07.html
and Georgia State http://hyperphysi...chg.html

I hope that this fact check did not short circuit your enthousiasm toward your totally fried ideas... It would be a shame that you would stop your electrifying comedy show.
my2cts
1 / 5 (3) Nov 22, 2015
Disappointing, of course. An article about a theory that we do not have.
bschott
3 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2015
I hope that this fact check did not short circuit your enthousiasm toward your totally fried ideas... It would be a shame that you would stop your electrifying comedy show.


Thank you for linking the basic mainstream lunacy. Sadly I was hoping for something a bit more explanatory from a mechanics standpoint. I have personally never witnessed any magnet producing photons, no matter how sensitive my instruments are.

You may have to go into the room to retrieve Lances body, please, use the same flashlight.

I am dumbstruck.... that the smartest people on earth have somehow botched this interpretation this badly. Unfortunately I must ask you for any demonstration of magnets exchanging photons in a lab. Otherwise I have act 2 for my "electrifying comedy show", and will kindly thank you for the extra material.
Captain Stumpy
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2015
I am dumbstruck.... that the smartest people on earth have somehow botched this interpretation this badly
@bs
so why don't you teach everyone in the world the truth with your experiment heavy peer reveiwed journal publications

that'll show us who is right and who is "linking lunacy"!!

then again, Antialias_Physorg also posted a reply to realitycheck that is very relevant to you as well... you can find it here: http://phys.org/n...tic.html

it certainly applies to your "interpretations" of the evidence
SuperThunder
2 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2015
TechnoCreed is back! Follow his links, ye howlers, and be enlightened.

Or you can follow my new religion...

By what I can gather from the image, gravity is a scary bright squiggle monster that lives in the cosmic grid and eats planets. I, for one, plan to worship this being and beg it for mercy. Who's with me? Tithing line forms at the left and it's 73% or the gravity squiggle gets you.
bschott
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2015
so why don't you teach everyone in the world the truth with your experiment heavy peer reveiwed journal publications


Mr. Investigator, when a lawyer proves his client didn't do what he is accused of, does said lawyer then have to also demonstrate who it actually was in order for people to believe it?

Show me one peer reviewed experiment which details the frequency of the photons that mediate magnetic force. Any paper showing a magnetic field of flux comprised of photons?

that'll show us who is right and who is "linking lunacy"!!


Indeed!

it certainly applies to your "interpretations" of the evidence


Photons are the energy released by particles due to an interaction with another higher energy photon, another particle, or a magnetic field. The field is not comprised of photons and this is not interpretation, it is observation.

Show me where this is a misinterpretation Stump.
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2015
when a lawyer proves his client
@bs
1- this aint court
2- extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: you've produced ZERO evidence
you've only CLAIMED to have proven something, you aint actually done it... BIG DIFFERENCE
LMFAO
Show me where this is a misinterpretation Stump
Ah, re-read #2 again

this is YOUR claim to prove, not my claim to refute
you've not proven anything except that you can make a claim that isn't substantiated by evidence... and TechnoCreed provided the evidence proving this point

therefore, if this WERE a court, you would be asked to substantiate your claims
given your evidence produced above, you would then be asked if you were a professional witness (meaning: in the profession) or qualified to speak on behalf of the science, and then tested by BOTH sides to insure credibility

given that you've not demonstrated evidence OR qualifications, you would be summarily dismissed, or fined and dismissed, depending
Captain Stumpy
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2015
@bs cont'd
given that you've not demonstrated evidence OR qualifications, you would be summarily dismissed, or fined and dismissed, depending
this part is important, because if you go before a judge professing to be an expert or professional, but provide the above as evidence, then said judge will have the options of censure (and fine) as well as fine for contempt

this means you can be punished for lying in court, and this has a long history of precedent going back to the foundation of our court system

in this case, you are simply posting to a science site without evidence, so you can't be fined
HOWEVER
you can be pointed out to be a crackpot and posting without evidence
there is a difference between certain levels of evidence, and claims

i've already linked those to you in the past... you really should have read them
bschott
3 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2015
Stumpid. Once again you are getting all worked up with your strawmen of me "making claims".

Here is what I have said that could possibly constitute claims in this thread:

It is fundamentally incorrect and as such has no observational or experimental backing.


Which was in response to:

Electric charges, for instance, attract or repel each other by exchanging photons – quanta of light that carry the electromagnetic force.


My "claim" is valid due to the complete lack of any evidence to the contrary. I can't believe how often our debates involve you asking me to provide evidence of somethings non existence, when "it" hasn't been found. That this simple concept evades you, although funny every time, demonstrates how inept you really are.

This is the only other one:

So without the electrical bonding what else could be causing them tiny things to stick together?

It is the nature of magnetic polarity.


Is this too complicated for you?
Captain Stumpy
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2015
My "claim" is valid due to the complete lack of any evidence to the contrary
@bs
... except that Techno proved you a mite delusional... so
Oh, and not a strawman
not worked up

when you say
That this simple concept evades you...demonstrates how inept you really are
it is actually more revealing to your own personal dunning-kruger and mental beliefs &/or instabilities etc

although i DID really enjoy your attempt to use a court analogy... because that was hilarious!

and if you would have read my posts, you would understand and not have posted the above
or didn't you get the whole "false claim" part of here:
http://www.auburn...ion.html

re read the "false claim" definition, then re-read my posts to your court analogy
maybe, with help, you will get it
i hope

.

Is this too complicated for you?
bschott
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2015
OOps, made some other claims:

Photons are the energy released by particles due to an interaction with another higher energy photon, another particle, or a magnetic field. The field is not comprised of photons and this is not interpretation, it is observation.


Do you believe these are correct or do you require links?

in this case, you are simply posting to a science site without evidence


All I requested was evidence that photons mediate the magnetic force and I told you I would take ONE example. If you want to continue to debate and cannot provide this, well, it will be as easy and fun making you look like a goof as it has been every other time.

As usual you completely missed the lawyer comparison and ignored the request beneath it. I should have known better than to complicate things where you are involved.

Find a single link showing the statement that I disagreed with is supported by science, or give it up.

Captain Stumpy
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2015
Oh, and @bs
Once again you are getting all worked up with your strawmen of me "making claims".
made some other claims
i don't tend to mark you down or reply when you actually add evidence that supports your claims, and that can be verified... or that is validated or at least supported by evidence...

case in point: http://phys.org/n...uds.html

you produced a good argument with evidence that was quoted almost verbatim from the definitions that i found... that is why i simply re-quoted your post to cd

that is evidence, and it was relevant, and it was supported/validated
great post-uprated

but above:
i say it again- extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
and then i refer you back to the definition of "false claim"
(and my posts re: your court analogy)
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2015
Electric charges, for instance, attract or repel each other by exchanging photons – quanta of light that carry the electromagnetic force.


Stopped reading after this. It is fundamentally incorrect and as such has no observational or experimental backing. Too bad it was the first thing he said.

Here you are basically saying that Richard Feynman, among other Nobel laureates, understood nothing about electromagnetism. Impressive.
You are literally an absolute fool.
Photons are the energy released by particles due to an interaction with another higher energy photon, another particle, or a magnetic field. The field is not comprised of photons and this is not interpretation, it is observation.

Surely you're joking mister "I know better than Feynman" ?
Captain Stumpy
2 / 5 (8) Nov 23, 2015
As usual you completely missed the lawyer comparison and ignored the request beneath it
@bs
no... actually, you screwed that whole analogy up for several reasons:
1- it isn't what you portrayed it as
2- you are not familiar with the process
3- you didn't do any research re: court and claims and evidence

that is all on you!
and hilarious too!

this actually does bring us back to evidence and claims, though
http://www.auburn...ion.html

https://en.wikipe...evidence

perhaps you should talk to a tutor?
bschott
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 23, 2015
i say it again- extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
and then i refer you back to the definition of "false claim"


As I said, "Find a single link showing the statement that I disagreed with is supported by science, or give it up."

here is the statement for the painfully inept...one more time

Electric charges, for instance, attract or repel each other by exchanging photons – quanta of light that carry the electromagnetic force.


After I read this, but before I posted my first comment, I dug for an hour and came up empty. Maybe I am inept, but there is no experiment or paper about how photons carry magnetic force.

All you have to do to win this one is find what I couldn't Stump. Or, you can do what you usually do.

Lose.

Discuss the science Stump.
bschott
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 23, 2015

Here you are basically saying that Richard Feynman, among other Nobel laureates, understood nothing about electromagnetism. Impressive.
You are literally an absolute fool.


If Feynman said that magnets attract and repel through photon exchange, show me. I have read a lot of his stuff and never saw that. If you can't...it would appear you have been taking "how to really suck at setting up strawmen 101" as taught by Stumpid.

Or, help him find evidence that this claim made by the mainstream has some scientific merit.

One...simple...paper........please.
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2015
Your strategy is to order others to prove the entire body of physics to you, an unwilling crank.
It's not going to work.
my2cts
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2015

Here you are basically saying that Richard Feynman, among other Nobel laureates, understood nothing about electromagnetism. Impressive.
You are literally an absolute fool.


If Feynman said that magnets attract and repel through photon exchange, show me. I have read a lot of his stuff and never saw that. If you can't...it would appear you have been taking "how to really suck at setting up strawmen 101" as taught by Stumpid.

Or, help him find evidence that this claim made by the mainstream has some scientific merit.

One...simple...paper........please.

What about any textbook discussing QED ? You could start there.
You know, Feynman diagrams. and stuff.
What about 21 cm radiation, EPR, NMR, MRI ?
SuperThunder
3 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2015
I actually stood up, grabbed QED off my shelf, opened it, stopped, put it right back, and felt like an idiot for even entertaining the idea that I can fix stupid.

The knowledge they deny exists and has never been denied to them. They don't want it, they want to burn our lives away into as worthless an existence as theirs by arguing with them. Their existence, and our participation in their nonsense, makes the world worse.
Captain Stumpy
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2015
As I said, blah blah blah or give it up."
@bs
here is the statement for the painfully inept...one more time:
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: you've produced ZERO evidence
you've only CLAIMED something, you aint actually proven anything
http://www.auburn...ion.html

Discuss the science
Is this too complicated for you?
read it again
then also go to the link and here: https://en.wikipe...evidence

a claim is not evidence, nor is it valid unless you can prove it to be such, therefore your claims are invalid unless you can substantiate them, which is the reason for my retort (and my reply to your "court" analogy)
All you have to do to win this one is find what I couldn't Stump
so.. you can't prove your claim is legit, and since you can't find evidence proving it, i must prove you false?
what are you, Monty Python?
https://www.youtu...l5ntikaU
Captain Stumpy
2 / 5 (8) Nov 23, 2015
@bs cont'd
Or, you can do what you usually do.
Lose
still trying to figure out the logic in this one...
you made a claim

i say prove your claim because "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: you've produced ZERO evidence"

you pull a monty python witch logic; you can't prove your claim is legit, and since you can't find evidence proving it, i must prove you false

and you say i will lose
lose what?
my birthday? i don't celebrate them anymore...not since i was 32... so does that make me still 32?
per your logic, it does... but then you say
Discuss the science Stump
and i am trying to do exactly that
WHERE is the science that proves YOUR CLAIMS?

b/c the links Techno supplied actually directly REFUTE your claims
all went to EDU sites with references & links you could research- or search the site to get more info

nice try bs
as usual, you are full of BS
my2cts
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2015
@ ST
Well said, but they do exist and must be constrained.
tallenglish
3 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2015
Gravity is the resistance to the expansion of space by negative energy (mass), since space is expanding in all directions it will appear as pulling back in all directions (the well) and will appear weak. Black holes are just mass that has matched the rate of expansion of spacetime so light can't escape and why time slows down to 0 as you reach the event horizon.

The reason I class matter as negative energy is it encompases its own space (think ballon animals where you twist the ballon and make a smaller head to a large body), that space is what pulls back on the outlying spacetime as its still attached, just warped by the energy that caused the twisting in the first place. More negative energy (more gravity).

Think of gravity the same way you do friction and ballon animals and its a lot simpler to understand.
tallenglish
3 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2015
strings are what carry the charge around the surface of that balloon and hold it together, snap the strings and you pop the balloon to release the energy outward.
Uncle Ira
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2015
strings are what carry the charge around the surface of that balloon and hold it together, snap the strings and you pop the balloon to release the energy outward.


@ Tallish-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good me. So, are you the new and improved Zephir-Skippy? Or some other under appreciated Genius-Skippy? Anyhoo, I would not be twisting balloon heads into bodies here, okayeei? It might scare the kiddies.

Where do you stand on the AWT battles being fought here on the physorg interweb place?
bschott
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2015
LMAO!!!!

Look at all those comments about....everything but a paper, experiment or observation proving photons mediate magnetic force.

Sorry guys, I just searched for a link among whatever the other stuff you all chose to say was, I knew there would be nothing there because YOU HAVE NOTHING.

Your strategy is to order others to prove the entire body of physics to you, an unwilling crank.
It's not going to work.


No small change, I asked for one piece of scientific verification regarding the statement about photons and magnetic force ( if this encompasses the entire body of physics, the mainstreams issues are much larger than even I suspected).

All of you dedicated mainstream lemmings could not produce a single thing.

C'mon guys....one shred of evidence demonstrating that is how it works and i will go away and stop laughing at you.

Or please post a bunch more about "my claims" and psychological disorders while you fumble around the topic like retards.

bschott
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2015
Or please post a bunch more about "my claims" and psychological disorders while you fumble around the topic like retards.


For Captain Biff, your "links" were unrelated to Photons and magnetic force so clearly you were a bit confused by what I meant a "link proving the statement". Although fumbling around like a retard appears to be your comfort zone.

tallenglish
3 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2015
Black holes are stars that shine inwards not outwards, so nothing special. They also prove that energy at least can travel faster than light (rate of expansion of spacetime) and why I think of mass as negative energy (which way its flowing in respect to the expansion). Granted simple explanation, but it helps explain why we have these wieird objects in the sky. spacetime itself is one big balloon (black hole), so you get patterns repeating in smaller and smaller sizes until you get to the point energy can't hold onto space (quanta sizes) or is so tightly wound it forms a point of almost infinite energy and infitesimal size (singularity).

Seems simple to me, and you know what they say about the simple explanation.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2015
@Captain_Stumpy,
I just read all of your posts above, and not in a single one did you even attempt to explain WHY bschott is wrong with any actual scientific substance. If you are not capable of refuting a comment, then it is better that you not post at all,… because all you end up doing, besides earning 5's, is extending the length of threads without adding any actual substance,… and this is not instructive for anyone nor is the discussion even interesting.

This is a comment section, not a scientific journal. Science does not involve itself in "proving" things. A Hypothesis does not necessarily require "evidence" as the point of a hypothesis is a starting proposition for further exploration.

As it turns out and evidently entirely unbeknownst to you, bschott is actually correct, that there are no photon's detectable between two magnets.

Would it not have been more instructive to say something like this instead….
Noumenon
4 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2015
@bschott,

The concept of 'photons' is applicable in the quantum realm, …very low intensity and high frequency. Expecting to use [virtual] photons to explain magnetic forces is like shaving with a chain-saw, ….even though it can theoretically be done [QED].

Maxwell's classical equations of electromagnetism describes the repulsive force between two magnets in terms of 'magnetic force', ….not exchange of light,… just a "force",…. the source being the circularity of electric charges, a perpetual current in the metal.

If you insist on understanding this macroscopic phenomenon in terms of quantum concepts, then you need quantum field theory,…. which is not as simple as [virtual] photon's being exchanged back and forth to recreate the magnetic force.

@CaptainStumpy, that is how you engage in a substantive discussion in a science comment section,... and is more valuable than your incessant and pointless "peer reviewed, evidence, prove it" rants.
Captain Stumpy
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2015
...unrelated to Photons and magnetic force
@bs
i see... so reading is not your strong point?
The Electromagnetic Force
The electromagnetic force operates between particles which contain electric charge. The force carrier for the electromagnetic force is the photon. Photons, which are commonly called light waves, and referred to as gamma rays, X-rays, visible light, radio waves, and other names depending on their energy...
&
One of the four fundamental forces, the electromagnetic force manifests itself through the forces between charges (Coulomb's Law) and the magnetic force, both of which are summarized in the Lorentz force law. Fundamentally, both magnetic and electric forces are manifestations of an exchange force involving the exchange of photons

right
gotcha
so... you didn't bother actually reading any of the links
thanks for admitting that
Captain Stumpy
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2015
I just read all of your posts above, and not in a single one did you even attempt to explain WHY bschott is wrong with any actual scientific substance
@nou
1- extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: BS made a claim without evidence that is refuted by the known science

2- phys.org/news/2014-08-debating-science-withtrolls.html

3- http://phys.org/n...nce.html

4- when someone refuses to provide evidence for an argument (like BS above) then there really isn't any need to provide evidence of a refute b/c no evidence will be accepted by bs anyway (as shown above)
the existing evidence is linked in Techno's links (which bs, and apparently you, refused to read)

therefore, what BS made was a FALSE CLAIM and doesn't require linked evidence from me (again) as i already stated the evidence was linked by Techno

when a person makes a false claim or one that is unsubstantiated with evidence, it doesn't require evidence to refute
Captain Stumpy
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2015
@nou continued
@CaptainStumpy, that is how you engage in a substantive discussion in a science comment section
no, it is how you WANT EVERYONE ELSE to be
however, if you would have actually read the links i referred to numerous times above, you would see that all of your posted information was actually included in the links.... thrice... and it was a valid original source (EDU) as well as searchable for relevant info

the sites also contained plenty of info, and it would be similar to linking a QM course:
http://ocw.mit.ed...echanics

therefore, all the info was contained in a short easy to use/read link

just because yall refuse to read it doesn't mean we're at fault for not dumbing it down for the intellectually challenged bs-TROLL
http://phys.org/n...eet.html
my2cts
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2015
Black holes are stars that shine inwards not outwards, so nothing special.

Everyday i read new ridiculous ideas here. Amazing.

Seems simple to me, and you know what they say about the simple explanation.
The explanation should be as simple as possible, but no simpler than that.
my2cts
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2015
LMAO!!!!


What about any textbook discussing QED ? You could start there.
You know, Feynman diagrams. and stuff.
What about 21 cm radiation, EPR, NMR, MRI ?

Have you checked the past 70 years of publications in all of these fields already ?
I don't think so.
Stop taking whatever caused you totally distorted self image and intellectual darkness. (was it pot ?)
Start reading or remain a retard forever.
It is your own responsibility to evolve from your dark state.
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2015
@CaptainStumpy,

Well, it is your fault, if you're incapable of putting your retort in your own words in a comment section.

A discussion via proxy-links is actually no discussion at all. If you disagree with a commenter's statement then say WHY you disagree in your own words,... provide links only as supplementary. Personally I rarely read links without summarization, because I expect and want to verify that the person knows for themselves, and don't have time to be sent off to debate the Internet, nor engage in link-wars or defend against link-chaff (which is a thing).

Now, what point was bschott making that had "no evidence"?
Captain Stumpy
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2015
Well, it is your fault, if you're incapable of putting your retort in your own words in a comment section
@nou
WTF? so you really didn't read for comprehension then?
go back and try again... i will wait: the points made above were clear WRT bs, and the links were clear about the info, and the message didn't change regardless of bs's circular delusional biased red-herrings and failure to actually validate his claims
If you disagree ...say WHY you disagree in your own words
sigh...no, evidence is FAR more powerful than "words" or opinion-also
Brevity is the soul of wit:
...Include references to the published scientific literature to support your statements. Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted
IN SUMMATION: you are here to pick a fight and bait into yet another comment war, as i noted above with the link
Captain Stumpy
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2015
now... specifically about this, @Nou
I rarely read links without summarization, because I expect and want to verify that the person knows for themselves
this is a load of philo crap, IMHO

just because a person can regurgitate words from a site or even reword something that is found in a reference doesn't mean they comprehend it at all... however, when someone posts a link as well as evidence that is relevant as well as specific to a point (like in places where you seriously fail to prove any point except your personal bias as well as failure to comprehend the differences between evidence and opinion- http://phys.org/n...eet.html ) then you can connect the dots and track intelligence

anyone can regurgitate words: rc does this regularly, except - his personal site, you will see that his points are more like a SCIgen (to steal a point from a friend)

your argument about "summarization" being proof of knowledge is a mite off
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2015
just because a person can regurgitate words from a site or even reword something that is found in a reference doesn't mean they comprehend it at all


... but even less so by simply posting links with no supporting effort of articulation. The only way of determining that is by direct engagement, not shooting link-arrows and proxy-quotes. HERE, is an example of such a failed google-attack on me, and how useless that is in the wrong hands.

Why should one read an entire page or pages of a web site to mine your own point for you? The end result is that your don't hit the mark.

All you had to say is this,..... yes bshott, you are correct that there are no detectable photons between two magnets accounting for that real force, ... if you insist on understanding that macroscopic phenomenon using quantum concepts, you need quantum field theory and 'virtual photons' which are not directly observable.
bschott
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2015
so... you didn't bother actually reading any of the links
thanks for admitting that


You are one dumbass angry little bitch aren't you? I read TC's useless links, they are other people making the same claim I am disputing here, also without anything to back the claim.

It's been over 24 hours and 14 posts from you and still waiting for:

a paper, experiment or observation proving photons mediate magnetic force.


Now, slow down, take a deep breath, and try to comprehend.

One valid scientific ANYTHING where this point I am disputing has been verified. One link to anything anyone has done to demonstrate the validity of this claim.

Not 14 posts of insane Stumpy babble, just post the link and I'll fuck off, if you can't find something that supports the statement I am disputing, it is up to you to fuck off.

Thank you for the objectivity Nou. I'll get to the QED/QFT which you referred to if I can today.
It's "successes" are an interesting topic.
bschott
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2015
All you had to say is this,..... yes bshott, you are correct that there are no detectable photons between two magnets accounting for that real force...if you insist on understanding that macroscopic phenomenon using quantum concepts, you need quantum field theory and 'virtual photons' which are not directly observable.


He doesn't get that virtual photons are used in QFT/QED due to the particle nature of mainstream physics combined with the theory that the fields propagate at speed c. Thus he can't possibly understand why someone would dispute the statement I am.

There is a reason the word "virtual" is in there.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2015
... failure to comprehend the differences between evidence and opinion


You linked to our discussion of Karl's bouy/ship data reanalysis. I've stated in that thread that I thought Karl's statistical analysis would be 'mechanically sound'.

I expressed skepticism, which is my opinion, of the legitimacy of rearranging short term data to fit the long term narrative when AGW models are only capable of long term predictions in any case,... and that the "pause" was not legitimate evidence to counter that long term narrative to begin with. I quoted climatologists.

Your contention, and nearly singular argument at phys.org, is that one doesn't know the difference between opinion and evidence. Karl's study in particular is NOT a pure form of deduction based on NIST traceable calibrated pure omnipotent evidence.

In fact, it's the evidence itself which was reanalyzed and adjusted, and the justification had an element of 'judgement' and 'argument'.
Captain Stumpy
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2015
@Nou
1- take a look at BS
much like your following (from your link)
Oh, so they couldn't rape you, and that's what angers you, apparently
there are differing methods of making a point, and as you can see, sometimes, it doesn't matter what you say, especially to a TROLL(like bs), who isn't here for science at all, but rather for attention and self gratification

this is why he thinks he is "winning something"

2- i could have paraphrased it, however, it is also clearly stated on said page, thus, if it had been read, it would have been clear

3- when there are floods of pseudoscience or crap, like bs posts, then it is FAR better (and easier) to leave a concise, cogent and comprehensive yet easily read link that explains things, because it is far easier to undermine the TROLL, especially when said troll doesn't read the link

I concede i could have dumbed it down for bs (3stars)
but the links already did that
redundant redundant redundant redundant re-e-e-e-dundant
Captain Stumpy
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2015
@nou
as for this
I expressed skepticism, which is my opinion
and you tried to justify it with "appeal to authority" though said dr was already debunked
you offered no evidence to support your "-climatologist" quotes
etc etc etc

thus, by your actions, you attempted to justify a known fallacy with what you thought was evidence but failed to meet evidenciary requirements that are considered reputable or even semi-valid

an opinion i can live with... you made it sound far different
Your contention, and nearly singular argument at phys.org, is that one doesn't know the difference between opinion and evidence
i have, yes. especially with you
pure omnipotent evidence
do you really want to go here?

you missed the point of the argument in that thread because of a touch of dunning-kruger and bias (especially confirmation bias)

there isn't a need to rehash it as you still don't get it, so likely will refuse to accept the facts, period
bschott
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2015
@ Nou

Re QFT/QED - "In QED, the electromagnetic force between two electrons is caused by an exchange of photons. Similarly, intermediate vector bosons mediate the weak force and gluons mediate the strong force in QCD. The notion of a force-mediating particle comes from perturbation theory,

Re Purturbation theory - Perturbation theory comprises mathematical methods for finding an approximate solution to a problem, by starting from the exact solution of a related, simpler problem. A critical feature of the technique is a middle step that breaks the problem into "solvable" and "perturbation" parts.[1] Perturbation theory is applicable if the problem at hand cannot be solved exactly, but can be formulated by adding a "small" term to the mathematical description of the exactly solvable problem.

Approximating fields with particles may somewhat work mathematically, but said math will never describe the interactions accurately because of actual field properties. Gotta go.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2015
I expressed skepticism, which is my opinion


and you tried to justify it with "appeal to authority"


Now, all of a sudden that isn't valid? That's all you do here. I gave my opinion. I'm not a climatologist, so I put forward that some are questioning it.

You spoke in that thread as though Karl's analysis was a pure form of Deduction, based on Gaia Purified Omnipotent Evidence**,.... because this is your naive view of that science,... no elements of judgement involved, no elements of hypothesis, no elements of speculation.

Karl et al, presented 'an argument', on possibly flawed premise, in favor of reinterpreting the data in their way, which was different from what even the IPCC had previously accepted.

There is plenty of room for skepticism there as I linked to a list of such points made. But you naively believe that merely on account of it being published, that it MUST be so.

**[despite that evidences-reanalysis itself being at issue]

Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2015
Approximating fields with particles may somewhat work mathematically, but said math will never describe the interactions accurately because of actual field properties. Gotta go.


But in some experiments, at extreme scales (as above, low intensity, high frequency) classical fields failed to account for observations accurately.

For example, in the photo-electric effect, electrons where observed to be knocked out of a metal with a momentum in proportion to the frequency of light, rather than what would otherwise be expected on classical field principals, the intensity of light. The solution, for more accuracy, required the quantification of the electromagnetic field,... the photon.

Also, QED is the most accurate theory ever devised by man.

Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2015
..... in QM every possible [virtual] interaction must be taken into account,... so perturbation or adding more and more complicated Feynman diagrams (representing terms), is just resolving the calculation more and more accurately.

SuperThunder
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2015
Everyday i read new ridiculous ideas here. Amazing.

Careful, they'll take that as a challenge! Stars are made of water is still my favorite.
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2015
Now, all of a sudden that isn't valid? That's all you do here
@Nou
WTF? you are thinking of gkam, not me... i don't appeal to "authority", i appeal to "evidence"

there is a difference... and i don't care if said person is a physicist or a podiatrist... validated is validated-period... that is why i argue to post links to studies, not PEOPLE

or didn't you get that?
Karl's analysis was a pure form of Deduction, based on Gaia Purified Omnipotent Evidence**
you're going philo again - and no, i spoke because Karl had a HISTORY of examining this exact same problem (and that is noted)

If you're not going to even quote it right... why argue the point?
and why the intentional denigration of the evidence?
is it because you couldn't actually support your claims?
or because you think there is an equivalence between opinion and validated evidence?

perspective is subjective, it isn't validation or logic
this is why philosophers (& you) can't discuss science
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2015
@nou cont'd
But you naively believe that merely on account of it being published, that it MUST be so
no, i said
so you're saying that 3 decades of studying the same basic situation/subject is excluding elements of judgement, etc?
this is called conspiracist ideation, you know
and it IS conspiracist ideation

in that thread, you quoted people without references
you claimed
- Climatologist
was equivalent to studies.. and before you argue against it... you posted a quote and attributed it to the above quote... NO LINK, NO REFERENCE, NO PROOF
then you got silly
- Roy Spencer
this guy has the same credibility now as Zephir

you linked OPINION & even unsubstantiated conjecture in an argument about scientists challenging the study... none of it has been proven false, but you cling to the idea that it already is

so confirmation bias is ok when you're a philo?
or is that just you?
because if i tried that, you would eat me alive with evidence...
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2015
@nou cont'd
but worse yet... this crap
here is plenty of room for skepticism
when there is reason for skepticism, and someone finds fault with a study and retracts it, then i will agree that something is wrong or faulty... until then, i will not judge it, and surely YOU can't judge it due to your own personal bias

you posted opinion, but draped with other opinion which somehow is equal to STUDIES?
no links
no proof
no evidence

but you want to complain when challenged...
now, again... if i would have made a similar claim WRT QM, you would tear up every stitch of "opinion" that i presented... but doing the same to you is bad?
WHY?

no "opinion" is equivalent to a study with evidence
this is the flaw in your philo thought process, and why i said
this is why philosophers (& you) can't discuss science...subjectivity/subjective argument is NOT the same as evidence
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 25, 2015
@Stumpy,

The point of my First post in THIS thread, was to attempt to show you, that simply calling for 'evidence and PR-studies' and posting links over and over, is not itself an effective counter-argument, because it lacks objective substance.

You're trying to argue exclusively via proxy, and as bshott stated, he didn't think your links addressed the point.

You should have first-hand understanding of the subject to be more effective. I provided an example of how to engage in SUBSTANTIVE discussion. This is orders of magnitude more instructive and to the point, than simply posting links,...

Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 25, 2015
@Stumpy,

...You routinely critique my 'form of argument' with insulting and unsubstantiated claims that I don't know the difference between evidence and subjective argument,.... but yet I have displayed far more understanding of all aspects of physics than you have here.

It is clear that you don't like it when others critique your form-of-argument. That is the point of me doing so here. If you back off, I will do likewise.

Now, what point was bschott making that had "no evidence"?
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2015
calling for 'evidence and PR-studies' ...is not itself an effective counter-argument
@nou
nor is it the argument above: the argument was to post "evidence and PR-studies" to substantiate his claims - which he can't, and didn't

it was also that he made a "false claim", which is proven (evidence linked above)
You routinely critique ...claims that I don't know the difference between evidence and subjective argument...I have displayed far more understanding ...
in QM, you definitely have a good grasp, which is why i don't usually downrate you there
everything else? not so much: especially climate science / basics
you're too tied up in complexity to see reality

your typical argument is also subjective, and NOT scientific (see: http://phys.org/n...eet.html )

i typically don't even rate your posts (actually, i usually ignore them)
but when you get stupid, or go all philo... you deserve correction
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2015
by the way, the links came from Techno, not I- i can't take credit for his work
i pointed out (because i freakin READ them) that the points were clear/made in said links
It is clear that you don't like it when others critique your form-of-argument. That is the point of me doing so here. If you back off, I will do likewise
funny... i was just about to say the same about you!
I can take criticism, and i can accept when i am wrong. i can admit it... just ask Blue or some others.... plenty of evidence here of it
i LEARN from my mistakes... just ask Otto that one

but i noticed YOU can't accept being flawed at all
https://www.psych...ttle-ego

Now, what point was bschott making that had "no evidence"?
already made- see above
Redundant Redundant Redundant Redundant Re-e-e-e-dundant
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 25, 2015
Now, what point was bschott making that had "no evidence"?


I want you to restate it. Are you not going to answer this simple question?
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 25, 2015
You routinely critique my 'form of argument' with insulting and unsubstantiated claims that I don't know the difference between evidence and subjective argument,.... but yet I have displayed far more understanding of all aspects of physics than you have here.


in QM, you definitely have a good grasp, which is why i don't usually downrate you there
everything else? not so much: especially climate science / basics
you're too tied up in complexity to see reality


I have stated that I don't know a lot about AGW,... but yet enough to correct some frequent posters here.

It is not possible to understand QM without understanding the difference between subjective opinion, [philosophical yet valid] interpretation, and experimental evidence,... yet you routinely and insultingly make such ad hominem claims and carry that accusation from thread to thread.

Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2015
I want you to restate it. Are you not going to answer this simple question?
@nou
no, because it is already restated several times above

Redundant Redundant Redundant Redundant Re-e-e-e-dundant
I have stated that I don't know a lot about AGW,... but yet enough to correct some frequent posters here
except that for "correction", there should also be "evidence", not "opinion" or "subjective perspectives" (as i repeatedly told you)
It is not possible to understand QM without understanding
1- red herring
2- not relevant, IMHO
3- so, someone who does the math, learns QM, comprehends it, works with it and frequently builds with it doesn't understand what it does?
this is your argument WRT QM for "subjective opinion, [philosophical yet valid] "????

why do YOU think it requires a "[philosophical yet valid] interpretation" to do QM?
because my daughter does QM, and (like me) despises philosophy and it's "interpretations"
bschott
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 25, 2015
Nou. I have attempted the approach you are taking right now with this guy, it resulted in the same exchange you are having now....so many times that I just wind up screwing around with him because you will never get anywhere so you may as well have fun.....why?

but yet I have displayed far more understanding of all aspects of physics than you have here.


This is true of everyone he engages here, even supporters of "pseudoscience". He can only debate from the standpoint that the mainstream says something and that is right, so he feels he doesn't actually need to have an understanding of the topic itself.

yet you routinely and insultingly make such ad hominem claims and carry that accusation from thread to thread.


He makes himself look stupid and deals with it by projecting it to his debate opponent, accusing them of his own issues.

His constant referrals to Dunning -Krueger about others when he is the one who is blatantly wrong...like right now.
bschott
3 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2015
..... in QM every possible [virtual] interaction must be taken into account,... so perturbation or adding more and more complicated Feynman diagrams (representing terms), is just resolving the calculation more and more accurately.



I agree.

The problem with perturbation is the particle proxy for a field. If I had to link something to demonstrate, it would be a recent article here about solar magnetic fields and the effects which they generate, and how said effects generate fields which then alter the configuration of the existing field. Particle flow in a magnetic field is only dictated by the base field until the particle flow generates an impinging field. In this instance the fields restructure. If the flow is constant the new structure is stable, if it is not, any instability results in a non uniform field configuration that is unstable. Many papers on the instabilities within tokamek plasmas describe this. Solar flares demonstrate it.
my2cts
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2015
"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate. "
We should assess this discussion in this light.
In principle a discussion on the _interpretation_ of QED perturbation terms could have been interesting. However the Dunning-Kruger effect, causing the ignorant to take an attitude of superiority, makes this impossible.
bluehigh
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 26, 2015
Captain, you've been asked to provide evidence to support your point of view. You've got nothing. You've been called out by at least two superior minds. Best you take a break and go play policeman with your other infantile buddies.
Captain Stumpy
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2015
you've been asked to provide evidence
@blue
it already up there, repeated more than once: try reading it
You've got nothing
so, you didn't read the thread, you just jumped into the conversation- this is twice now. you are not usually this stupid.
You've been called out by at least two superior minds
a superior mind would be able to provide evidence that isn't subjective as well as make an argument based upon evidence, not subjectivity, which is my point to both "superior minds" above (and you)
the answers and refute to BS are there as well, in easy to read small concise words linked for easy access, too

you seem as though a considerable stressor has influenced your life and caused your comprehension and literacy to go wonky. is everything all right?

you can get counseling...or contact me via SciForums and vent
there are also meds you can get to help

my2cts
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2015
@bs
what's this stuff about little "bitches" with you lately?
No luck with the ladies?
Or is it projection?
my2cts
2 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2015
@bs
The problem with perturbation is the particle proxy for a field.

This is an, in my opinion baseless, interpretation of perturbation theory.
It certainly is not a _problem_ with it.
A real problem with QED is the infinite zero point energy. Also there are diverging perturbation terms that can be addressed with renormalisation but leave an uneasy feeling.
Benni
3 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2015
If Feynman said that magnets attract and repel through photon exchange, show me. I have read a lot of his stuff and never saw that.


When I read the "photon exchange" phrase, I went : "What?"

Do you have any idea what is meant by this or what the hypothesis entails as it relates to magnetic lines of force?
Noumenon
3 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2015
It is not possible to understand QM without understanding the difference between subjective opinion, [philosophical yet valid] interpretation, and experimental evidence,... yet you routinely and insultingly make such ad hominem claims and carry that accusation from thread to thread.

why do YOU think it requires a "[philosophical yet valid] interpretation" to do QM?
because my daughter does QM, and (like me) despises philosophy and it's "interpretations"


Well, it doesn't make any sense to "despise" interpretations; a sign that you probably don't know what you're talking about.

....

Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 28, 2015
....What I'm referring to as interpretations,.... Copenhagen, CI / transactional, Bohm-de'Broglie Pilot-Wave, Everett many-worlds, objective-reduction, consistent histories, instrumentalist, etc,.... are constructed by theoretical physicists as alternative mathematical and conceptual formulations used as a guide to form further hypothesis as an attempt at understanding the relation between the phenomenology (empirical results), and the extent to which knowledge of the physical world is possible to claim. That is the job of an adult theoretical physicist, as in distinction to a disinterested applied mathematician.

What qualifies the above interpretations (possibly with the exception of OR) as "philosophy of physics", is that they are all based on the same experimental evidence and make the same predictions.

If you're one who takes a CI or instrumentalists interpretation, i.e. "shut up and calculate",.. you are effectively taking an epistemic POV. There is meaning to that.

Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 28, 2015
... there are many present physicists who are Positivists and many who are Realists,... but none who don't seek to understand the nature of reality.

John von Neumann made use David Hilberts generalization of vector calculus and Fourier analysis, to develop a coherent mathematical foundation to QM. Elements of this branch of mathematics already existed prior to QM, as did Riemann differential geometry (aspects development concomitantly) before GR,... the point is that physicists apply mathematical models, as just one of several steps, in their effort to understand nature.

To "do QM" without interest in what it means wrt knowledge of reality, is to simply move symbols around.

Noumenon
3 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2015
therefore, what BS made was a FALSE CLAIM and doesn't require linked evidence from me (again) as i already stated the evidence was linked by Techno


I asked you several times to tell me what that "FALSE CLAIM" was. Now all of a sudden you're not interested? Do you not see how useless scientific "evidence" is in your hands, and thus how vacuous your incessant charges of "subjective opinion is not evidence" is?

Technocreed's links did not address the point made by bschott, and was a classic case of link-chaff,... i.e. ...dumping pages of internet to diverge for the "more important" point of insulting and earning 5's from disinterested troll rating cabal (techno generally a good poster though). You followed along, because you're not actually interested in substance.

Bschott's first two posts in this thread were technically factual,.... there are no observable photon's that would account for that felt force between two close magnets.

Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2015
Well, it doesn't make any sense to "despise" interpretations
depends on if it is subjective or not, which is "a sign that you probably don't know what you're talking about"
as noted elsewhere
I asked you several times to tell me
i am gonna tell you like i told dog: learn to read

the only reason you are posting on this topic is because you want to pick a fight you think you can win: a subjective argument that includes semantics and philo (as noted in your three posts above)

as for this
To "do QM" without interest in what it means wrt knowledge of reality
there is a difference in what can be proven and what is a subjective interpretation of the evidence
I don't care about the latter, only the former
you can "interpret" all you want, but until you can validate it, it's nothing more than a subjective OPINION based upon your subjective interpretation of the evidence (keyword: subjective)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.