Jump to content

Is QFT really silly?


AUDI R6

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, AUDI R6 said:

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.

Thank you and thanks for all the fish...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

This shows how stupid Paul Dirac and all those who continued his work.

!

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.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

Well  I dont understand why people accept QFT

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

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

Edited by Bufofrog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

This shows how stupid Paul Dirac and all those who continued his work.

LOL

If, in spite of the rules, you are going to call people stupid, at least get the grammar right.

16 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

Well  I dont understand...

A lot of things, including the use of apostrophes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

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

!

Moderator Note

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

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

Tell me how it works...

Why, you can't even understand what science is after it was explained to you multiple times!!

I think you are just pretending to be this stupid and this is just fun trolling for you.  Reported as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AUDI R6 said:

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AUDI R6 said:

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.

Why is this a requirement?

Just now, AUDI R6 said:

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

Asserted without evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dimreepr said:

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

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 .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AUDI R6 said:

2 theories must be "physically " connected.

Asserted without evidence. 

1 minute ago, AUDI R6 said:

They must describe the same situation to be combined .

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.

 

Just now, AUDI R6 said:

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.

I thought you knew all of physics.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 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.

I can't even...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.