Re: Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at atomiic level.

Liste des GroupesRevenir à p relativity 
Sujet : Re: Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at atomiic level.
De : relativity (at) *nospam* paulba.no (Paul.B.Andersen)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativity
Date : 26. Jan 2025, 10:41:46
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vn4vrq$3kr5d$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
Den 26.01.2025 00:37, skrev rhertz:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 13:21:59 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
 
>
Remember that in current physics, "photon" is defined in QED.
Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is based on SR.
So TIME is the same in the quantum world as in SR.
And the speed of light is invariant c in the atomic realm.

 Explanations about QED being based on SR have the same value as
explanations about Sagnac effect based on SR, as desperate relativists
try to find alternate explanations of a simple non-relativistic
phenomenon.
 Your comment about that QED is based on SR because Dirac's equation of
for electrons incorporates SR at velocities near c is far from true.
Dirac QF theory (1928) came after Heisenberg (1925) matrix QM and
Schrödinger (1926) wave QM. Both theories, HIGHLY relevant even today,
ARE NOT RELATIVISTIC AT ALL.
 Previous efforts (1913-1925) to find theories to explain the behavior of
H atoms were based in Newtonian celestial mechanics, with electrons
performing elliptic orbits around the nucleus (hence the universal
symbol of the atom). ALL the physicists of that period (Bohr,
Sommerfeld, Born, etc.) were dedicated to enhance the original 1913
Bohr's model. In 1925, Max Born finished his book about this theory
(250+ pages), just to throw it away in the same year when the young and
disturbed Heisenberg came with his Matrix Mechanics theory, under the
guidance of Bohr (even when he was a Born's protégée). NO RELATIVITY
HERE.
 In 1926, and out of the blue, came Schrödinger with his NON RELATIVISTIC
wave theory, which captured the imagination of most physicists, Dirac
included (due to the poor formation of most of them with matrix theory).
Born changed the interpretation of the distribution of energy amplitudes
for orbital electrons from DETERMINISTIC to PROBABILISTIC, which defined
QM SINCE THEN as a statistical theory (opening the door to a lot of
weird results).
 Dirac was triggered by many deficiencies of QM, in particular the
impossibility to explain the creation and absorption of photons by
atoms, and started to work in an extension of Schrödinger equation TO
INCLUDE SPECIAL RELATIVITY, for uses at electron speeds close to c,
which he obtained in 1928. After that achievement, Dirac started to
develop a theory based on fields, not waves (QFT), in which photons
appeared and disappeared in his fields, without the need of atoms (which
led to the development of the Cassimir effect).
 Dirac equation for electrons was so complex that only could be used in H
atoms. His QFT was also so complex that it was buried in history until
WWII finished and Feynman, Schwinger, and Shinichirō created the basis
of QED (1947).
 QED is a theory that provided very few practical results, because it was
plagued by inconsistencies and contradictions (like infinities, the need
of "virtual photons" that didn't verify Planck's E=hf, lack of domains
of applicability, etc.). Even when Feyman's diagrams provided a graphic
means for calculations of interactions between charged particles and
photons, QED was widely known as the "SHUT UP AND CALCULATE" theory. The
enormous amount of defects of QED was buried by FORGED/FORCED results
thanks to the CRAP of virtual photons (what?). They didn't exist at all,
but being taken as "carrier forces", allowed some crappy explanations
about forces between electrons and nuclei and within atoms nuclei.
 The myriad of short lived particles that started to emerge from
accelerators found in QED the necessary ground TO INVENT INTERACTIONS.
The final result, after 15 years, was the "unproven existence" of
hundred of quasi-particles, which made almost EVERYONE be crazy about
how to put order in such scenario.
 By 1962, entered Gell-Man in the scenario of elementary particles. He
started to clean up the garbage of hundred of pseudo-particles, and
began to design the framework of the STANDARD MODEL OF ELEMENTARY
PARTICLES, which has resisted the reviews of the last 60 years. QED?
R.I.P.
 For EVERY QED affirmation about WHATEVER, there are several NON-QED, NON
RELATIVISTIC THEORIES that bring the same result. Yet, QED is hailed by
relativists AS THE MOST PRECISE THEORY OF PHYSICS THAT EVER EXISTED.
  Not going to continue with this post, because it doesn't worth it.
 I only post here a link ABOUT THE VALUE OF RESULTS OF QED. There are
HUNDRED of them:
  Does QED have any real-world applications?
 https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-qed-have-any-real-world- applications.559356/
 Relativists are willing to KILL to impose relativity as the only valid
theory.
 PHYSICS DOESN'T WORK VERY WELL AT QUANTUM LEVEL. THE AMOUNT OF
INCONSISTENCIES, CONTRADICTIONS AND PLAIN LIES IS OVERWHELMING. But they
own publishing houses, media, academia and gov.
Whenever you say "relativists" you could have said "physicist" because
all (or the overwhelming majority of) physicists are accepting SR and GR
as the only valid theories within their domain, and are considering QED
as the best experimentally confirmed theory of physics.
So your only argument is that all physicists are members
of a MAFFIA, and profit from it. This is because the different
results are  COOKED with the help of statistical manipulations,
fraud, cooking and peer complicity.
We leave it at that. :-D
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/

Date Sujet#  Auteur
24 Jan 25 * Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at atomiic level.28rhertz
25 Jan 25 +* Re: Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at atomiic level.26rhertz
25 Jan 25 i+* Re: Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at atomiic level.5Paul.B.Andersen
26 Jan 25 ii`* Re: Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at atomiic level.4rhertz
26 Jan 25 ii `* Re: Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at atomiic level.3Paul.B.Andersen
26 Jan 25 ii  +- Re: Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at atomiic level.1Maciej Wozniak
27 Jan 25 ii  `- Re: Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at atomiic level.1J. J. Lodder
28 Jan 25 i`* Re: Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at atomiic level.20Bertietaylor
28 Jan 25 i +* Re: Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at atomiic level.18rhertz
28 Jan 25 i i+* Re: Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at atomiic level.7J. J. Lodder
10 Feb 25 i ii`* Re: Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at atomiic level.6Tom Roberts
10 Feb 25 i ii +- Re: Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at atomiic level.1Maciej Wozniak
10 Feb 25 i ii `* Re: Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at atomiic level.4J. J. Lodder
11 Feb 25 i ii  `* Re: Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at atomiic level.3Tom Roberts
11 Feb 25 i ii   +- Re: Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at atomiic level.1Maciej Wozniak
11 Feb 25 i ii   `- Re: Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at atomiic level.1J. J. Lodder
29 Jan 25 i i+- Re: Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at atomiic level.1Bertietaylor
29 Jan 25 i i`* Re: Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at atomiic level.9Thomas Heger
29 Jan 25 i i +* Re: Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at atomiic level.2Python
29 Jan 25 i i i`- Re: Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at atomiic level.1Physfitfreak
29 Jan 25 i i `* Re: Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at atomiic level.6Bertietaylor
30 Jan 25 i i  `* Re: Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at atomiic level.5Thomas Heger
30 Jan 25 i i   `* Re: Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at atomiic level.4Bertietaylor
31 Jan 25 i i    `* Re: Einstein divided by zero3Thomas Heger
31 Jan 25 i i     +- Re: Einstein divided by zero1Bertietaylor
31 Jan 25 i i     `- Re: Einstein divided by zero1Bertietaylor
29 Jan 25 i `- Re: Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at atomiic level.1Bertietaylor
29 Jan 25 `- Re: Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at atomiic level.1rhertz

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal