AUDI R6

When you  work so much with math , you lose the ability to understand physical meanings .And this can create a lot of issues to the development of physics.

Just now, swansont said:

I refer you to the response I gave some moments ago.

You cant even what?

Just now, swansont said:

I can't even...

Mathematically QFT  is correct , but physically it isnt

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Asserted without evidence. 

Can I combine electrostatics with mechanics? Coulomb's law says nothing about the motion of an object, yet I think I can describe the classical motion of a charged particle in proximity to another charged particle.

 

I thought you knew all of physics.

 

But both electrostatics and mechanics , the object we measure has the same properties .....

Just now, AUDI R6 said:

But both electrostatics and mechanics , the object we measure has the same properties .....

And both theories describe something real .

Unlike QM which doesnt describe only real things but imaginary too.

1 minute ago, AUDI R6 said:

Yes of course whatever you say.

2 theories must be "physically " connected. They must describe the same situation to be combined .

You cant combine QM with Relativity because they describe two different situations . First describes quantum uncertainty of the properties of  a subatomic particle , second describes how time and space are relative to the speed of the observer for real objects . QM gives possible outcome so imaginary objects as well.

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Wow, relatively, you nearly got that right.

Dont you understand sarcasm?

Just now, dimreepr said:

You don't understand QM and relative to me ( a very low bar) you don't understand that either. 

Yes of course whatever you say.

Just now, swansont said:

Why is this a requirement?

Asserted without evidence.

2 theories must be "physically " connected. They must describe the same situation to be combined .

Just now, swansont said:

I thought you knew all physics?

I know what QFT says . I just don;t believe it.

1 minute ago, Strange said:

!

Moderator Note

Your incredulity is not a valid argument. Unless you can show an error in the mathematics this thread will be closed. 

 

Relativity is applied to real objects with distinguished properties . Quantum mechanics gives us a prediction  of the outcome of a subatomic particle's properties . They are not "physically" connected.

20 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Thank you and thanks for all the fish...

QM gives us possible outcomes about the subatomic particle's properties . In Relativity however the object has distinguished properties.

1 minute ago, Strange said:

!

Moderator Note

Your incredulity is not a valid argument. Unless you can show an error in the mathematics this thread will be closed. 

 

No wrong in mathematics . Wrong in combining those 2 concepts which are unfamiliar with each other.

16 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

We don't attack people here. Stick to attacking ideas you don't understand, and at least you won't be breaking the rules.

 

Attack dead mans?Dirac,Feynmann...

4 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Probably because it works, you know like computers and stuff...

Shouldn't this these be in the trash, or at the very least pseudoscience?

Tell me how it works...

1 minute ago, AUDI R6 said:

Attack dead mans?Dirac,Feynmann...

Tell me how it works...

The basic idea is wrong , you cant combine QM with relativity , something which predicts the outcome with something real.

6 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Probably because it works, you know like computers and stuff...

Shouldn't this these be in the trash, or at the very least pseudoscience?

something not real with something real....

Well  I dont understand why people accept QFT since Relativity and QM are not "physically" connected? This shows how stupid Paul Dirac and all those who continued his work.

Just now, dimreepr said:

After you, sir. 

I wont do any of those thing because they are silly.

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

I really thought there was hope for you before you claimed this. I don't think we can help you. I think you need to find someplace where they love to talk about guesswork and everybody gets to make up their own definitions for things. Here, we appreciate accumulated human knowledge analyzed using the scientific method, since historically it's shown itself to give us the most trustworthy explanations we've ever had. I don't trust your knowledge of physics and chemistry because you've already shown you don't know what you're talking about.

I wish we had a good way to get through to you, but until you stop acting so willful about the things you don't understand (like science being here before humans), there's little discussion can do for you. You'll just keep repeating what you've misunderstood, and we'll just keep thinking you can't possibly be serious, and we'll keep voting your posts down because it looks like trolling. This is a mainstream science discussion forum.

Yes 

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

I was always convinced of that.

Ok you continue using mathematical models in physics and try to combine QM with Relativity  .

We are the most intelligent species untill some different is proved:)

1 hour ago, Strange said:

You are misusing the word "science". 

It is like saying "science is pink, because it is a flower that grows on a plant with thorns (which, by any other name, would smell as sweet)". 

THAT IS NOT WHAT "SCIENCE" MEANS.

If you are going to make up your own meanings for words, then this whole conversation is pointless.

Science is a human activity, invented by humans.

No. It is up to you to provide a proper reference, in other words, a written document. Can you read? I would start with a dictionary.

And, quite obviously, you have not studied anything.

That is the wrong definition of science. You invented that definition. It is wrong.

 

 

It is like Alice in Wonderland:

 

Does Time Really Exist?

1 hour ago, Strange said:

You are misusing the word "science". 

It is like saying "science is pink, because it is a flower that grows on a plant with thorns (which, by any other name, would smell as sweet)". 

THAT IS NOT WHAT "SCIENCE" MEANS.

If you are going to make up your own meanings for words, then this whole conversation is pointless.

Science is a human activity, invented by humans.

No. It is up to you to provide a proper reference, in other words, a written document. Can you read? I would start with a dictionary.

And, quite obviously, you have not studied anything.

That is the wrong definition of science. You invented that definition. It is wrong.

 

 

It is like Alice in Wonderland:

 

I know all physics and chemistry regardless of what you think . You cant just understand me because you are stuck with your math or you dont want to understand .

12 hours ago, Strange said:

Please provide a reference for the. (I am genuinely curious what you are talking about)

17 hours ago, Strange said:

Wrong.

If you mean "common sense may be wrong" then, obviously, yes. That is why science doesn't use it.

That is not what the word "science" means. Go check a dictionary.

Science is a human invention.

 

Science always existed and will always exist ..... It is not an invention.

13 hours ago, Strange said:

Please provide a reference for the. (I am genuinely curious what you are talking about)

Search Through the wormhole "Does Time really exist?" . In this episode , there is one physicist who claims that time is an illusion . His idea came from math . But time cant be an illusion . And then there is a philosopher of physics which states that math may endanger the evolution of physics . And there is Lee Smolin as well , who says that time is real . Check the video;)

15 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I always hate pointing this out to people because it seems like an Appeal to Authority, but in this case it's especially relevant. I'm grateful for our professional scientists who take their time to help put meaning and trustworthiness into our discussions, and it's my hope that anyone coming here with ignorance can have it dispelled if they're willing to listen and learn to people who do this for a living. 

It's great that people think so highly of science, but it's a methodology that has to be applied correctly by humans, so it can't be infallible, by definition. If science and observation was perfect, we wouldn't need peer review. We wouldn't need theory. We could just observe that all swans are white, claim it to be proven, and never check on swans again.

Universities are sometimes wrong ! And if someone isn't a physician , this doesn't mean that he is wrong . It is more about how much you have studied , not having a degree in physics.

17 hours ago, Strange said:

Wrong.

If you mean "common sense may be wrong" then, obviously, yes. That is why science doesn't use it.

That is not what the word "science" means. Go check a dictionary.

Science is a human invention.

 

First of all two theories must be connected physically , not just mathematically . And I dont give the definition of science , just science is a part of reality but math isn't/.

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

The person may misunderstand math but this is incorrect and we can tell it is incorrect because it is part of mathematics.

That is not what "science" means.

Mathematics are not universal! Human logic may be wrong . Science is a part of reality so regardless the observer we know that those laws govern our universe . But math are personal because they are the creation of human mind.

1 minute ago, swansont said:

So it sounds like you're basically arguing the opposite of what I am. That it's trivially easy to move through interstellar space and visit other stars, so the only reason we haven't had visitors is that they don't exist. OK, make your case.

If they were we would have detected something . Intelligent species want to explore and have curiousity , so they would be searching for us too.;)

18 minutes ago, Strange said:

That isn't math. So it isn't relevant.

But as that person also doesn't see conservation of mass then, by your logic, science must be personal as well: this person sees the universe following different rules than the rest of us.

Science has always changed (and always will).

In my lifetime, science has changed:

• The universe being static to the expanding universe
• The continents being fixed and unmoving to plate tectonics
• A "zoo" of subatomic particles to the quark model

And probably other examples I can't think of right now.

The person may understand different laws but this is incorrect and we can it is incorrect because it is a part of reality . Math are not a part of reality.

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

That isn't math. So it isn't relevant.

But as that person also doesn't see conservation of mass then, by your logic, science must be personal as well: this person sees the universe following different rules than the rest of us.

Science has always changed (and always will).

In my lifetime, science has changed:

• The universe being static to the expanding universe
• The continents being fixed and unmoving to plate tectonics
• A "zoo" of subatomic particles to the quark model

And probably other examples I can't think of right now.

When science cannot change I mean the laws were and will be forever.

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

Do you have any evidence for that?

My evidence is the lack of evidence of another civilization.

Just now, Strange said:

For one thing, that sounds more like arithmetic than mathematics.

Secondly, just because one person can't do math, doesn't mean that all math is personal. That would be like saying that because one person can't read, all writing is personal and the meaning varies. (Mind you, as your sentences are making less and less sense, maybe that is true.) 

You said it cant do math . But from his point of view if we add or remove an apple nothing will change  . So there are personal math.

1 minute ago, Strange said:

If that were true of math (it isn't) then why doesn't science also depend on people's ability to observe the universe or to understand what they see?

Because there is real science and science cannot change.

2 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

You said it cant do math . But from his point of view if we add or remove an apple nothing will change  . So there are personal math.

Because there is real science and science cannot change.

Regardless of how someone sees science is part of the reality and math isnt .

Science is universal and since someone disagrees we can say he is wrong . But it doesnt work the same way with math.

Math are not universal and differ from person to person based on its ability to understand quantities . But science is universal

Just now, Strange said:

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

Imagine someone who cannot understand how many apples he has in basket.Our math to this guy dont apply so math is personal .

Just now, AUDI R6 said:

Imagine someone who cannot understand how many apples he has in basket.Our math to this guy dont apply so math is personal .

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

The philosophy of science is part of philosophy, not science. And, in general, it says the exact opposite of what you say. Maybe you should take a course?

Citation needed.

That is an ... unusual definition. Pretty much every definition I have seen says it is a body of knowledge (about the universe) particularly that developed using the scientific method. 

Can you provide a reference for your definition? Or did you make it up?

At the time, it was as good a theory as any other: in other words, it was consistent with all the evidence. Then more evidence showed it to be wrong and an alternative model was developed. This can happen to any theory.

OK. There is a big discussion among philosophers of mathematics and (some) mathematicians about whether mathematics is discovered or invented, but either way: it is not personal. Something proved by one mathematician is true to all mathematicians and for all time.

 

Er, it is.

 

That is sooooo wrong....

Just now, Strange said:

Well, that is the most impressively wrong statement I have heard for a long time.

It is actually the same thing.

Just now, AUDI R6 said:

 

Someone who cannot understand what is more and less has different math.