Comments by "Dr Gamma D" (@DrDeuteron) on "Sabine Hossenfelder"
channel.
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Yes! But the Coulomb central force is exactly solvable super degenerate (read: easy), and spin and relativistic effects are tiny perturbations.
In nuclei, you have a non-coulomb central force (it's a mix of repulsion and attraction). the spin-spin and spin-orbit terms are of the same size, and there's a non-central (tensor) force, and individual spin-orbit and helicity terms.
Back to atoms, you can treat the electron orbits as independent...each one just see a central force electric charge, in nuclei, each nucleon sees all the nearby nucleons...so it's a many body problem.
for charge particles, only charge matters, but in nucleons there's a strong force, and then there's another one that cares if you're a proton or neutron, in a way that is independent of being a proton or neutron---and protons and neutrons lose their identity in a nucleus....the colored ball picture is wrong...they're all in entangled states of being part proton, part neutron.
No matter how big an atom is, it's a sum of 2-body interactions. The strong force has 3 and even 4 body interactions that cannot be broken down further---it's just a huge mess.
Finally: quantum field theory effect (the Lamb shift) are tiny corrections to atomic orbitals. In the effective field theory of the strong interactions, the nucleus is full of virtual pions, sigmas, even kaons...
so as messy as you can imagine, it is far worse...while an atom is basically Laguerre and Legendre polynomials.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Also: A scientist should not be using the political term "Climate Deniers"...esp. not a German, but that's a hole nutha thing. A more accurate term would be "climate catastrophe denier". Ofc, "climate catastrophe" is unscientific, and it is now appearing in formerly reputable publications like Scientific American.
Furthermore: climate scientist who advocate policy to non-policymakers are being unscientific, they are engaging in politics, and we know that corrupts. A scientist job is say "we're gonna die if we do X". Here's what happens when we do "Y +/- dY" or "Z +/- dZ". Elected officials then choose X, Y, Z, ..., and the People choose the elected officials.
Once the scientist skips the middle and tells the ppl who to choose--s/he's lost objectivity, and it is a scientific fact s/he will be biased. So it's antiscience to deny your own bias. They become bias-denier.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3