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

Status
Not open for further replies.
talanum1 said:
One billiard ball colliding with another is a physical calculation. Same with an object reacting to a field.
Click to expand...
Er no it's a collision... just like when you drove your car into the ditch and thought it was an alien abduction
 
Literally only Mybb could humour this bs and make it into a 25-page thread :cautious: :ROFL:
 
The fun thing is that’s it’s not even interesting.

No problem with alternative thinkers.

Think.
 
Interesting how @talanum1 always vanishes when the game is up. But he'll be plotting and planning his next sequence of denials, once self-convinced (aka instructed by alien comms) he'll be back for more.

His ego won't allow for anything less, he must play his power role.

Round and round we go.

No thanks
 
RedViking said:
But do you know how to cook steak and eggs ?
Click to expand...

i-think-my-favorite-star-trek-trope-is-just-the-hot-rock-v0-0s4zorf08skc1.jpeg
 
As for the interaction happening at a single vertex: Feynmann diagrams are drawn with space on on axis and time on another, so we have an interaction that requires 1/infinity in both time and space. Since infinity is non-physical the Feynmann diagram is wrong!

At the vertex you have to have something that is all of a down and up quark and W-minus at the same time: absurd.
 
Last edited:
""

He is fundamentally misinterpreting Feynman diagrams, treating a calculational map as literal physical reality.
  • Feynman Diagrams Are Math, Not Movies: Feynman diagrams are not literal pictures of particles colliding in spacetime. They are visual shorthand for complex calculus equations (integrals) used to calculate probabilities. [1, 2, 3, 4]
  • The Point-Vertex Myth: Physics does not claim a vertex is a literal zero-size point in real space where three particles magically morph into each other. Quantum Field Theory explicitly states particles are extended, blurry field excitations. The "infinitesimal point" is a mathematical abstraction used to set up the calculation, which is later smoothed out by "renormalisation" math to avoid any non-physical infinities. [1, 2, 3, 4]
  • No Hybrid State Exists: At no point is there a weird "hybrid" particle that is simultaneously an up quark, down quark, and W boson. The fields smoothly transfer energy and charge from one to the other through quantum superposition, not a physical mashup.
  • Panpsychism Is Deflection: Claiming "space thinks" is a classic goalpost shift into panpsychism because his physical model failed. Space lacks the feedback loops, energy storage, and structural complexity required to process information or "think."
 
talanum1 said:
As for the interaction happening at a single vertex: Feynmann diagrams are drawn with space on on axis and time on another, so we have an interaction that requires 1/infinity in both time and space. Since infinity is non-physical the Feynmann diagram is wrong!

At the vertex you have to have something that is all of a down and up quark and W-minus at the same time: absurd.
Click to expand...

Game's over china, you have now revealed your lack of knowledge to AI. Why would you try study such an advanced and long investigated science on your own?

Now please stop spamming us with this confusion. Next time I report you for doing so.
 
talanum1 said:
As for the interaction happening at a single vertex: Feynmann diagrams are drawn with space on on axis and time on another, so we have an interaction that requires 1/infinity in both time and space. Since infinity is non-physical the Feynmann diagram is wrong!

At the vertex you have to have something that is all of a down and up quark and W-minus at the same time: absurd.
Click to expand...
One thing I do know- Feynman was a hell of a lot smarter than YOU
 
If there is no down/up/W-minus state isn't your calculation tool then mistaken? You based your calculation on something non-physical.

If the field smoothly changes, why can't you explain how?

Again: a calculation must happen for space to decide whether to allow an interaction or not, what alternative do you suggest?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X