juanrga

No. The inversion of the Ammonia molecule is a real process, with associated energy barrier and rate (frequency). This real process is completely different from quantum mechanical resonance in Benzene, which is not any real process. I repeat this again: the Benzene molecule is not given by any of the resonant forms but that both resonant forms together describe the molecule. As explained to you before chemists have provided a modern representation of the Benzene molecule which does not use resonance of two Lewis structures

You were said that those traditions have been refuted as hundred of people have found independently. Ignoring this fact will not help you. And the triple duality of the singularity reveals that they are not you. Your points are very clear. You dislike both modern physics and physicists and you argue dogmatically that philosophers are "true physicists" whereas physicists do not deserve such label. You also confound your desires with reality when you write phrases as "the world as it really is", but then fail to show familiarity even with basic aspects of modern physics (e.g., you do not even know what a quantum particle is).

Good that you quote verbatim from Wikipedia article on resonance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance_%28chemistry%29#Resonance_in_quantum_mechanics Now if you read the parts that you do not quote you can find corrections to the multiple mistakes that you are making. Indeed it is not a real process as you incorrectly believe. The same wikipedia page that you quoted (but in the part that you ignored) makes this clear: As said to you before, chemists represent resonance with a double head arrow, because this is not a real process (real processes are represented by double arrows). http://masterorganicchemistry.com/2011/02/09/the-8-types-of-arrows-in-organic-chemistry-explained/

All the experiments that test matter at small scales are compatible with a Minkowskian spacetime and both QFT and the Standard Model are built on such spacetime. One would not mix quantum particles with black holes; the black hole mode is an approximation that arises when one ignores the higher order graviton corrections to geometrodynamics.

What holds electrons to the nucleus is essentially Coulomb interaction. This is not any kind of bonding. Nope. There is no Lewis structures in an atomic nucleus. Nope. There is only one state. This state cannot be represented with a single Lewis diagram and resonance was invented to represent the state as a combination of two Lewis structures. Each Lewis structure alone does not represent Benzene. Moreover, benzene can be also represented without any appeal to resonance: the famous representation with inner circle that you can find in many chemistry textbooks. Nope. This is not any real form of isomerism. This is why chemist use a double head arrow instead of two arrows to represent it. Nope. All the C-C lengths are identical and in the middle between single and double bonds. Nope. Apart from that said above the resonance representation involves a 'switch' in the pi part but not in the sigma skeleton. Nope. As stated above this is not a real process. QM does not say anything as that. The superposition principle refers to states at the same time, not to superposition at different times.

Einstein, a physicist, developed SR by looking at the physics of both thought and real experiments.

Scientific methods do not say what you believe. Scientific methods are used to obtain scientific knowledge. There are other kind of knowledge which are acquired by other methods. The point here is that those non-scientific knowledges are not guaranteed to work regarding the empirical real world and, in fact, they are often corrected/eliminated by scientific knowledge.

What has that to do with the fact that both the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the empirical reality and the Invisible Pink Unicorn confirms this independently? You are ignoring the facts: both the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn have withstood the test of times and refute your traditions as hundred of people have found independently. No you wrote: "We" is not "I" unless you are a multiplicity of beings, but this is not allowed by the triple duality of the singularity.

Even if we assume that their stabilisation of tachyons is valid, it applies to an expanding and rotating Universe, but not inside a nucleus (where spacetime can be taken as Minkowskian). It is also relevant that their claims about supposed superluminical neutrinos (OPERA) was settled recently by demonstration that neutrinos are not tachyons (e.g. ICARUS) and, subsequently, by OPERA report claiming that it was a hardware problem and that substitution eliminated the anomalous results.

You would read your own 'law' "<2> Time is just a number, an integer" and the response to that. I also notice that by nth time you avoid to answer the question about 1025. Effectively, anyone can understand that your <3> is incorrect.

How could you do not see its relevance? Hundred of highly respected people independently arrived to the conclusion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the empirical reality and this is a fact. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is both invisible and pink as everyone knows independently. This is a fact too. Your traditions are incorrect because they did not reveal the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster nor the Invisible Pink Unicorn. This debate is very modern, It started about 2005 and it is a fact. It is very important study and there are open letters soliciting to add this facts to ordinary schools as shown in the links given above.

You are not giving any stabilization mechanism and the last part of your statement is not "very speculative" but incorrect.

Planck time has a precise physical meaning. There exists a unit of time in the SI. It is named "second" and denoted by s. Although you evade my question I will ask it again: "Who said you that everything in textbooks is right?" Take a look to #22. Where you see a "?" it denotes a question. You know why this same question in #22 has been posteriorly asked to you by another poster but you insist on avoiding it. In my first reply I offered you reasoning on why your <2> is wrong and give you a link with some basic material that you would revise before posting further nonsense. The rest of your 'laws' are also wrong as stated before. Any student of QM knows one typical QM example of why <3> is wrong, but a discussion of this example would imply that you know basic QM and can follow the discussion, and you already showed us that you lack understanding even of most elementary aspects of science such as dimensional analysis, units...

Dimensional analysis is not a "hat", it is part of standard physicists' toolkit (check the link given to you before for basic stuff about dimensions and units). Moroever, Planck units arise naturally in quantum gravity models. Who said you that everything in textbooks is right? Do you know that further editions contain corrections to mistakes in previous editions? I think that I already said to you that your original post is wrong, but I can say you again. P.S.: I notice that you did not answer my question in #22.

Notice that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is a being of great spiritual power and can do one thing and the contrary (it is both pink and invisible) whereas your traditions cannot. Moreover, the Flying Spagetti Monster is much more powerful because created the whole universe, including also Bernard and the magazine where he made his claims. Both beings "have withstood the test of times" and we would concentrate our efforts on study them instead of those traditions.

I said "tested" instead "verified" to avoid certain philosophical misconceptions. In any case what Popper said about scientific theories is incorrect. As is well-known his ideas have been criticized by both scientists and posterior philosophers. No. Empirical science does not assume that systems under study are isolated because otherwise no measurement could be possible! The only object which is generally considered to be isolated is the Universe as a whole. I did not use this hole in your statements about isolated systems for showing that quarks exist. I already offered you other argument before and it was not about isolated systems. I repeat: quarks have been detected in the lab and their properties measured. Nobody has detected a tachyon and, theoretically, its existence is very unlikely. If you read the link, the prefix ultra is also used as meaning "carrying to the furthest degree possible", "on the fringe of", "extremely". Ultrarelativistic means ,extremely relativistic, as it was explained to you before. No. Energy is real because the Hamiltonian is the generator of time translations. The imaginary values for the time-dilation factor are compensated by an imaginary factor in the mass term. Virtually any textbook on QFT explains why Dirac original theory is inconsistent and limited. For instance, his negative energy Sea model cannot be applied to other particles (Dirac just ignored this problem when he was asked about this aspect) and for electrons you need to assume that the infinite charge and energy are unobservable via nonsensical manipulations such as (Q +∞) - ∞ = Q, for example. The decision is based in analysis. As stated before, Dirac initially believed that the hole in his theory was a proton. This historical remark and the fact that his original theory is abandoned (read again the Nobel laureate quote "[...] is now best regarded as a historical curiosity") reveal how lucky Dirac was.

No. The Standard Model is not a belief it is tested. That is as saying that the Earth is not real because is not isolated. Ultrarelativistic means that the speed is close to c and the relativistic effects are much more relevant/evident. Energy in SR is real. No, it is internally inconsistent and abandoned. Yes, but Dirac positron theory is based in the supposition of negative energy electrons and there are no negative energy particles in the Standard Model (by good reasons including that no one has been detected). As said before Dirac model is inconsistent. The prediction of the positron was more heuristic and lucky than a real prediction (moreover Dirac initially believed that the positive charge hole was a proton). Steven Weinberg, quoting Julian Schwinger, correctly states:

What we need extensively investigate is how the Flying Spagetti Monster created the universe "after drinking heavily" and also the Invisible Pink Unicorn, because as everyone knows they "are beings of great spiritual power" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spagetti_monster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

Planck time is about 20 orders of magnitude smaller than that. No. 10-25 is not "the minimum amount of time that it takes an interaction to happen". From where you got that incorrect idea?

Quarks are real particles and part of the standard model. Tachions are highly speculative particles. No, because quarks are relativistic particles and satisfy SR. Let me add that "ultrarelativistic" does not mean tachionic. There is no negative energies in SR. Moreover a negative energy does not imply tachionic motion. This is incorrect. First, Dirac model has been abandoned because it is inconsistent. Second, in modern quantum field theory positrons have positive energy. Third, even if you were to ignore the inconsistencies of the Dirac model, this model is not tachionic. The negative energy Dirac electrons are not tachionic.

<1> Textbooks' goal is not to provide "a complete description of the world". Their goal is much more modest and usually explained in the preface. <2> You claim you have "read lots of textbooks" but you write "and if the text books differ they are wrong", which implies that you do not even know if the the textbooks differ from what you wrote [*]. <3> You can say otherwise, but your 'laws' continue being wrong. [*] Yes they differ.

In #85 I asked you to provide an explicit derivation of relativistic mass from your definition as m = p/v. I notice three things: (i) you ignored my invitation to provide us a derivation, (ii) you have changed the definition from your previous m = p/v to your new m = p/c --i.e., you changed a velocity by a speed-- and (iii) your new definition, m = p/c, continues being incorrect: i.e.; p/c ≠ E/c2 , because p, which you defined as momentum, is a vector. Indeed the energy of a photon is E = |p|c. I find curious that you are repeating the same kind of trivial mistakes than a recently banned user who presented himself as an 'expert' in the concept of mass. He also liked to say us that the relativistic mass of a photon was "finite" as if he believed that zero is an infinite quantity! I suppose that both of you studied the same literature.

Terminology has to be systematic and unambiguous and "proper mass" is rather inadequate. The intrinsic properties of a quantum particle are mass, spin, and charge. There is no need to add labels to "mass". A simple search in the literature reveals that the terms "proper mass", "invariant mass", and "mass" are used in proportions of about 1:10:1000.

No it is not. You are not giving any valid method neither "evidence".

Light is made of photons and photons are massless. When photons participate in the photoelectric effect ("collide" in your language) they continue having zero mass.