A physi-activist declared I didn't understand quantum physics but was prepared to twist it toward what he called my 'confirmation bias'. I quoted Feynman's "if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't" line, and gave a link to LiveScience where scientists disagree over what quantum mechanics even means! The activist then pronounced himself thus (without bleeps):
"as a physicist, I f*king know what quantum theory is, it is you that don't. When we joke about not knowing,, it is our joke. Our joke is not your proof."
Behind the picture, a link describes how a plasma ball works
"as a physicist, I f*king know what quantum theory is, it is you that don't. When we joke about not knowing,, it is our joke. Our joke is not your proof."
Behind the picture, a link describes how a plasma ball works
I'm shamelessly using this incident as an introduction to a post on Parity Violation, and will seamlessly weave in references to intolerance as they arise in application of key-to-screen.
Linked to the indeterminable equation here, you'll find explained that certain types of interaction seem to be common and others forbidden. Laying down the law is fine when you're conserving numbers in leptons and baryons, but actual life and death (decay) of a particle with mass leaves it subject to options, thus uncertainties (not mentioned). The 'totalitarian principle' blanket-assumes that every process that is not forbidden must occur, while processes that are forbidden also occur - a lot of those due to interface with the weak force involving the W particle. Strange things can happen with strange quarks in weak interaction.
Now I've been making noises for a long time about quarks and neutrinos interacting. At SQM2019 (the write-up is in the main menu), two variant hypotheses were put to me, one being that the quark sector does not engage with the weak force, and the other being that quarks are subject to weak-force interference. One is right, the other is wrong. As regards parity violation, quarks are all over it, but specific references as to which quarks do what are notable by absence, because it's not the kind of thing you can see happening for real, it's something you have to assume, and assumption, especially in physics, is dangerous...
...the kind of anomaly that happens when physicists dismiss (with bared teeth) observations and indications from people with no formal training in equations. Understanding the math or not understanding the math doesn't negate our being atomic, composed of quarks. Scientists insist we only contain Up and Down quarks, yet that violates a flow of quark oscillation, and such a limit discounts any interface a body of matter could have with the weak force. In the equation 'dimensionless' appears - that absence of dimension relates directly to energy (e).
Linked behind this picture of a colliding gold atom is a story from the RHIC.... the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven. In 2005, a team seeking to recreate early-universe versions of quark-gluon plasma found that the state of matter they produced was more like a liquid, in which quarks and gluons move together exhibiting a fluid motion that is "nearly perfect - meaning its viscosity is close to zero, or friction-free." This 'highly coordinated manner' of movement harks to the system in our brains, where coherent water moves in a similar way through microtubules. Scientists (in other fields) have found quantum processes at work in there, but of course, one could always say that was a different science. Anyone can cite differences to excuse lack of tolerance to another way of thinking.
Renormalisation is one of my pet hates. Mathematicians need it to get rid of infinities. My view is that if infinities arise in the equation, there's something to be said for them, and they should be respected rather than refused a place in the schematics of scientific enquiry. Parity violation is simply the refusal of particles to behave as mathematicians think they should, and the more evidence coming to light for violation, the happier I am, for eventually it's going to come down to nature versus nodal systems, the points of intersecting interest science-to-science, and those findings that break the Standard Model are not going to come easily against a tide of intolerant activists fiercely protecting their Principles like tormented dragons over mountains of treasure stolen and claimed, but never theirs to own. Dogspangling, as it were.
RSS Feed
