Quarks cannot Transform

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Willem, Apr 11, 2019.

  1. river

    Messages:
    17,307

    There is no problem with that .

    All physical energy states exist at the same moment . To the extremes of both .

    In the Universe .
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2019
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,207
    The so-called "laws of physics" are man-made models that account, as well as we can make them, for what we observe. That is all they are: abstract concepts that relate things to one another, so we can predict what should happen in given circumstances.

    It is true that these models do capture what appear to be ordered relationships between things in the physical world. But science cannot explain the order beyond a certain point: it is just what we observe to be present.

    Do not forget that the models of science are built on observation. Any conjectures about the world that cannot be put to the test via observation are not part of science.

    All this talk of yours about "ajudicators" and "permission" suggests you have some quasi-religious or metaphysical motivation. You are welcome to that but it is not science and has no place in a discussion about physics.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Not just observation , but understanding of the observations by interpretation by the observer .
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Willem

    Space is not an enity , it is not based on life .

    Space is room . Room is three dimensional . Length , depth and breadth .

    Both energy and matter

    And life

    Need these fundamental dimensions to manifest , to exist .

    Life can manipulate energy/matter .
     
  8. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,207
    Willem, if you want a really confusing conversation that goes nowhere, River here is your man. Good luck.
     
    origin likes this.
  9. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    What is confusing about my conversation here exchemist .

    I'd like to know , really . Tell me straight .
     
  10. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    To all

    The Universe is , has always been . A physical thing .
     
  11. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,207

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Peace
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,130
    Where did that $\bar{u}u$ combination come from on the left-hand side of the reaction? That is not observed.

    And where do the $e-$ and the $\bar{\nu}_e$ come from on the right-hand side, according to you?
     
  14. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    The anti-uu started to exist by pair production. One cannot observe incoming particles. An experiment must be set up where the input is known theoretically and it is known that the anti-uu would appear. If it is true the neutron will have a shorter lifetime.

    "And where do the e−'>e−e− and the ν¯e'>ν¯eν¯e come from on the right-hand side, according to you? "

    They come form an anti-ud = pi-minus.
     
  15. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,574
    Finally! Some clarity!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    exchemist and DaveC426913 like this.
  16. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    A cause and effect at the same time is unacceptable. Cause is defined to precede effect.

    The anti-uu coming close to the neutron causes the decay.

    They must be written in some machine that can enforce them - spacetime or in the particles but then spacetime needs to be a computer.
     
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,758
    No and no.

    More to the point: you speak of things that are not testable, and therefore outside of science. They are philosophical in nature.
     
  18. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    Isn't a computer able to preform according to it's programming from random inputs (or at least variable input)?
     
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,758
    Sure. Your logic is 'therefore the universe is a computer?'
     
  20. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    The universe acts similarly on variable input: us, animals, plants and machines. Now it is therefore the universe is similar to a computer. It can be that the program is also variable.
     
  21. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,207
    Must? Why?

    I've told you they are manmade rules, made to model the patterns we observe in nature. It is silly to imagine that nature performs calculations, just because we can express relationships in mathematical from.

    To give an example, we can model population growth by an exponential formula, but that does not mean every person does a calculation before having sex.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,758
    They don't?
    I knew I was doing it wrong.
    That's why she kept singing 'Shut up and dance with me.'
     
  23. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    They are manmade but the universe isn't. So some version of the laws must exist at the enforcer, since we don't enforce it. The rules was found as consistent with experiment, so they were found in spacetime or in the particles.

    For example the law of a built house is that it was built with bricks and mortar according to a plan, the plan exists somewhere and was required to build the house. By the same logic, the universe must have a plan somewhere.

    Materialism was proven wrong.
     

Share This Page