I can Prove Neutrons don't Decay by Quarks Transforming.

Status
Not open for further replies.
According to you: at a single point in time, Nature has to decide to allow the transformation or not: this is not physically realizable because a computation has to happen and that takes time: so an instant transformation can't happen. I have explained how the computation happens: you can't do the same with your Feynmann diagram.

For the charge conservation calculation to happen, Nature has to have access to the start and end states; that's why I say there needs to be an in-between state.

At the vertex of the Feynmann diagram for the reason stated, there has to be at least one instant of Planck time in between, and if there is no in between state, charge conservation gets violated at that instant.
 
Last edited:
Cancelling of the electron neutrino on both sides is not essential for the argument and can be left out.
 
Last edited:
You can't explain how the quark structure changes. I can explain the transformation in detail.
 
Our conceptual Universe changes from a Transformer Universe to a more behaved Universe. More elegance.
 
I guess one more try can't hurt..



"He is absolutely stubborn, locked in a 19th-century worldview where everything must tick like a mechanical clock."


"Nature isn't a computer that needs time to calculate a budget; quantum transitions are instantaneous, and charge conservation is mathematically perfect at the exact point of the vertex. Your model doesn't offer 'elegance'—it offers a violation of basic addition to satisfy your personal intuition. Physics relies on data, not a 'Transformer' analogy."
 
Nature can calculate fast but not instantaneously: how would that work? Even if the computation is hardwired into space, because it must be encoded generally, it must take time. Specify any calculation and I can guarantee you it takes time to execute: at the very least a number must be read into a register. Nature is a computer.

Believing quantum interactions happens instantaneously is magical thinking. Also thinking Nature just "knows" the answer to a computation (every interaction is different) is magical thinking.
 
talanum1 said:
Nature can calculate fast but not instantaneously: how would that work? Even if the computation is hardwired into space, because it must be encoded generally, it must take time. Specify any calculation and I can guarantee you it takes time to execute: at the very least a number must be read into a register. Nature is a computer.

Believing quantum interactions happens instantaneously is magical thinking. Also thinking Nature just "knows" the answer to a computation (every interaction is different) is magical thinking.
Click to expand...

Go to school and find out :thumbsup::cool:


Bye
 
talanum1 said:
Nature can calculate fast but not instantaneously: how would that work?
Click to expand...
Nature doesn't sit down and work shiat out on the back of a till slip before shiat happens?

Because that's not how any of this works and I can't believe I'm bothering?

Back to the topic at hand: I can prove brussel sprouts are the best veg and anyone who disagrees is, frankly, a pinko commie liberal agitator.
 
Anyway, you can't explain how the computation happens, yet you are obliged to do computations to predict outcomes!
 
Last edited:
Of course it computes: particles with one set of momenta don't transform while the same type of particles with a different set of momenta does. This happens continuously.
 
Saying it doesn't exist because you can't explain it is like sweeping the dirt under the carpet.
 
"He is confusing the mathematical models physicists use to predict nature with how nature actually operates. He thinks because human physicists have to sit down and do laborious calculations on a computer, the particles themselves must be doing the same thing. [1, 2, 3, 4]
..."


"You are confusing the map with the territory. A falling rock doesn't calculate calculus equations to know how to fall, and a window doesn't run a computer program to decide if a rock is moving fast enough to break it. Energy thresholds and field geometries are inherent properties of the universe, not a digital CPU clock. Physics has a complete, mathematically sound explanation for these vertices—you are just mistaking human calculational tools for nature's actual mechanisms."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X