Re: I asked ChatGPT to prove that the 1965 muon decay experiment WAS A HOAX.

On Sun, 4 May 2025 19:19:23 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

On Sun, 4 May 2025 13:42:39 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>

On Sun, 4 May 2025 3:01:44 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

>

Your argument relies on a confusion between complexity of modeling and
violation of conservation laws.
>
1) Conservation laws are fundamental, not contingent on solvability.
The conservation of angular momentum is a symmetry-based law, grounded
in Noether's theorem: invariance under rotation implies conservation
of angular momentum. This is not a convenient approximation; it's a
foundational principle of physics, holding regardless of whether the
resulting motion is analytically solvable.
>
2) The presence of turbulence or complexity does not imply violation.
You're correct that vortex dynamics, like those trailing behind a jet,
are complex and often require numerical fluid dynamics (e.g., Navier-
Stokes solvers). But computational intractability ≠ physical law
violation. Even in chaotic systems, momentum is still locally and
globally conserved--verified by both experiments and simulations,
including those used in aerospace engineering and meteorology.
>
3) Heat and radiation carry momentum.
As I previously mentioned, frictional slowing of a rotating object
results in heat (phonons) and electromagnetic radiation (photons), both
of which carry linear and angular momentum. The net balance is
accounted for when you include the environment--i.e., the "system"
isn't just the spinning object, it's the object plus what it interacts
with.
>
4) Numerical simulations confirm conservation.
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) models used in aerospace engineering
do verify conservation of momentum--even when solving chaotic or
nonlinear flows. Engineers routinely use momentum flux balances to
validate their simulations against conservation principles. Preservation
of conservation laws are an integral part of the symplectic integrators
used in the numerical solution of the systems of differential equations
that appear in these models.
>
5) You're mistaking epistemic humility for physical uncertainty.
Just because we can't always analytically solve a system doesn’t mean
the underlying laws don’t apply. That's like saying the Pythagorean
theorem is invalid because we can't predict the shape of a breaking
ocean wave with pencil-and-paper math.
>
Summary:
Your dismissal of conservation laws appears rooted more in a desire to
discredit mainstream physics than in actual evidence. If you believe
angular momentum isn't conserved in turbulent or dissipative systems,
the burden is on you to show experimental results where total angular
momentum--including all fields and emitted radiation--is demonstrably
not conserved. Good luck publishing that in Physical Review Letters.

>
I suggest you to review the Mössbauer work, which granted him a Nobel
Prize.
>
Now, prove that IN the microenvironment where the radioactive Fe57
occurs, linear  momentum is conserved in the side of the Fe57 sample,
which behaves as a solid wall of atoms (like a crystal structure) that
DISSIPATES the momentum of the gamma photon within several hundred
atoms.
>
What are you going to say? That such "packet of energy" that opposes to
the photon's momentum is DISSIPATED within the sample structure, and
that the distribution of energy IS PERFECTLY ACCOUNTED USING QUANTUM
PHYSICS with the atoms involved in this phenomenon?
>
Good luck to you to write the statistical explanation about how the
momentum is conserved in the grid of atoms and its electrons (many
binding to other atoms) as they MANAGE TO SHARE (randomly) the momentum
of the gamma photon emitted in the surroundings of the structure of 100+
atoms per photon.
>
You WILL NOT BE ABLE to theoretically prove it IN ANY WAY.
>
In this case, as in many others, the superposition of classic physics
theories with quantum physics theories HAVE DEFIED FOR MORE THAN 100
YEARS any plausible explanation. What science DO is just accept that
(more or less, within error margins), the values of momentum are
conserved. And I presented this case with simplicity. I didn't account
for ATOMIC HEAT, EM RADIATION, ETC.
>
>
BTW: When I say EM radiation generated in macroscopic structures that
absorb energy, I'm not talking about IR or visible radiation (or
higher). As you HAVE TO KNOW, organic molecules that absorb energy
RE-RADIATE it with wavelength of few hundred kilohertz. With your PhD,
you knew it, isn't it?
>
I could write many more examples like the above, where to prove the MCL
is IMPOSSIBLE. Then, as with many myths on relativity, the scientific
community ACCEPT AND OBEY. Because to challenge classic physics IS MORE
HERETIC than to challenge relativity. We live surrounded by LIES AND
DECEPTIONS in almost every single aspect of life and civilization,
covering every conceivable branch (try History, for instance, or the
value of the fiat money like the USD, etc.).

>
I repeat, Richard. ***YOU*** are the one making the extraordinary
claim that conservation of linear and angular momentum are violated
in turbulent or dissipative systems, so it is ***YOU*** who have the
burden of providing evidence.
>
You have absolutely NO EVIDENCE. Rather, you seek to undermine
mainstream physics by rhetorical misdirection and appeals to
complexity. You are emitting streams of words without true meaning.
>
You are truly descending into dementia. Once upon a time I could
rely on you backing up your arguments with more than rhetorical
fluff. Indeed, several sentences that I contributed to Wikipedia
have been to address valid points that you made in previous debates.
For example,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Elastic_collisions
the sentence "Elastic scattering of charged elementary particles
deviates from ideality due to the production of Bremsstrahlung
radiation." That was a valid point that you made, and I thank you.
>
Also, I had never before seen you say anything absolutely so stupid
on a first semester physics level as when you confused the concept
of angular momentum with the concept of moment of inertia.

OK. Let get serious on this topic.
YOU, not me, explain how the angular momentum is conserved in the
Universe since
the Big Bang.
I hardly can wait to read your ridiculous explanation (I'm sure it will
be).