Comments by "Stephen Villano" (@spvillano) on "Dr Ben Miles"
channel.
-
5
-
4
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well, could be worse, could have to deal with the cube root of infinity.
Although, the first measurement being met with disinterest sounds a lot off, given the phenomenal effort to figure out superluminal neutrinos that was reported in a way that basically said, "guys, I know these readings are wrong, but I can't find the cause, so what's going sideways here?" and got a swift answer that repaired the problem.
Especially when the math is claiming infinity, which means all of the particle accelerators are wrong, because of the godwhammy force holding protons and neutrons together under all conditions and hence, zero evidence of quarks, which is obviously wrong. Eh, maybe a one off due to illness, don't do my best work when feeling ill and that typically only happens on days that end in 'y' in English...
Yeah, I'd call it a godwhammy, or a Harry Potter wand whammy, anything whimsical that makes it obvious that it ain't magic and irritate enough for someone to correct the math to match observations. Maybe even name something unexplained, oh, planty.
Largely because, WTF effect being a rather ill received term...
And the explanation does need more clarity as well, as otherwise, if I go to rip a baryon apart, I'm getting something from nothing, which is nonsense, but the energy matches the input, it's an of course. I'm not going to get the excess in mass-energy within a confined region of spacetime with any reaction that isn't already there, but the laws of conservation remain alive and well. It's force and energy interacting via carriers that trigger particle generation, otherwise electrons are magic and they're merely mildly annoying at times. The laws of conservation are only violated within the constraints of my finances.
Well, there and within the constraints of single Planck units, where there still be dragons. At least, until better math is discovered.
1
-
The question is, for that last positron and electron, is the attractive force a real force or a convenient analogy for the increase in probability of interaction once one's proximity to the other is within twice the Bohr radius? At a certain range, the probability of interaction is essentially 1, but never quite 1, as otherwise we'd be discussing infinity again and one really is only stuck with that when working with Planck units, where our math remains a bit fuzzy. So, is it a real force that measurably increases or an artifact of extremely high probabilities reaching the top of the curve?
So, we inject more energy to narrow it down and measure the two photons...
In this instance, it's essentially the inverse of the problem and it's easy to make the defective analogy that with increasing distance, the force increases, but that would lead to one quark being here on Earth, the partner being orbiting Sag A* and infinite force now is accelerating the partners together, which of course falls apart due to scale and the path, it's at close ranges such things seem correct and distance confounds things as it gets macroscopic. Which is precisely what was observed with that plateau. The only reason it doesn't yet be observed to fall off as distance increases isn't that it won't, it's that we've only hit the limits of what we currently can observe.
The math never needs to meet some intuitive expectation, it just has to match up with observations, if it doesn't, we have to change the math to match the observations, for if we change the observations to meet the expected math, it's no longer science, but fiction. So, if one gets results that don't meet one's expectations, replicate it, have others replicate it, that is a good thing, as we're closing in on a superior answer.
~There is no such thing as a force of gravity. Gravity is merely mass-energy's way of telling space-time to go get bent.
Me
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1