Monads are the real atoms of nature.

[Saint Guinefort]

We did have classes on nuclear physics at my university,
but they took place while I was betting on the ponies at Suffolk Downs or Rockingham Park.

With those venues no longer existing,
the current crop of scholars might have a better grasp on it all.

That's all fine and dandy...just pointing out that the simple view of the atom is not as simple as it was once thought (approximately in the 19th century). In fact one DOESN'T need to have been a great physicist in the Boston university systems to know the difference between an atom and a proton which makes up the atom thence disproving the atoms purely "atomic" nature qua Democritus.

 

[Cypress]

Then why did you say we did?



You agree you were misrepresenting, as usual?



String theory was all the rage in the 1980's through early 2000's. Finally something that would rectify the incongruity of the quantum world with the physical world. Perplexing issues such as gravity were going to at last be unified under a single model that could explain everything.

Except it didn't. It started falling apart in the new millennia and by 2005 was openly challenged among theoretical physicists. The 2006 seminal work I linked put the final nail in the coffin of string theory,

This doesn't mean all the aspect of study are wrong - not by any means, they found the Higgs Boson after all. It just means that the sum of the parts adds up to parts - there is no whole. There is no theory of everything - Sting Theory is dead.

My point was simple and crystal clear: we have spent over two thousand years imagining that fundamental particles are tiny points of matter, tiny little billiard balls, discrete and indivisible.

But we might have the wrong paradigm of elementary particles, and another way to think about them might be from the perspective of string theory, M theory, or quantum field theory.

It wasn't an invitation to a competition for who can find the most tidbits of string theory via Google.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

My point was simple and crystal clear: we have spent over two thousand years imagining that fundamental particles are tiny points of matter, tiny little billiard balls, discrete and indivisible.

But we might have the wrong paradigm of elementary particles, and another way to think about them might be from the perspective of string theory, M theory, or quantum field theory.

It wasn't an invitation to a competition for who can find the most tidbits of string theory via Google.

No one will talk to you like an adult until you stop accusing everyone of doing EXACTLY what you do.

Even if you don't go to "google" you go to your library and you look up this stuff and pontificate on it.

NO ONE THINKS YOU HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE WITH STRING THEORY PERSONALLY. You are like the rest of EVERYONE ELSE ON THE BOARD.

So stop this stupid war on googling. You do it too.

And, for the record, I agree with your point 100%. It is very sobering to think that there may be no "items" at the bottom of the stack. It may just all be field perturbations.

 

[IBDaMann]

You failed to explain what the significance of Maxwell's equations were,

I haven't failed. Your comment is akin to claiming that a sports team failed to win a game that hasn't occurred yet. You are the one who has failed to make the required thread into which I can post my comments. You have failed thus far.

Yes, you are still the failure. You are not my professor and I do not need to pass your course. Create your thread. I'm standing by.

and yet, you are here asking questions about a subject that you don't understand.

I understand the subject. I don't understand the wording used by someone who apparently doesn't understand the subject, hence the question.

Speaking of failures, I noticed that Cypress has failed to clarify his wording, because he fails to understand the material. He fails to understand why his wording is wrong. Nonetheless, he has thanked you for failing to make your thread and for blaming me for his failure.

I'm looking forward to the day that you actually rise to the occasion and become value-added to JPP. I'm sure that day will be as glorious as it will be unexpected.

 

[IBDaMann]

NO ONE THINKS YOU HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE WITH STRING THEORY PERSONALLY. You are like the rest of EVERYONE ELSE ON THE BOARD.

Don't include me in this. I have experience with String Theory. I know that it is bunk and I know why. Hint: the answer lies in yet another raving that Cypress got wrong.

And, for the record, I agree with your point 100%. It is very sobering to think that there may be no "items" at the bottom of the stack. It may just all be field perturbations.

The problem is not with Cypress' assertion, but in the implication that what he is saying is somehow some new revelation. Quantum mechanics has always been about probability fields, not about little balls of matter. Anyone who thinks otherwise has never laid eyes on any quantum mechanics and doesn't know what statistical math looks like.

In other words, Cypress is preaching specifically to a layman's audience who isn't aware of this aspect of quantum mechanics, pretending this is something new, because it's something he just learned himself, being a layman on the subject himself. Imagine if he had simply asked JPP about the nature of quantum mechanics. I, or any number of others familiar with the material, would have been happy to teach him many things that are actually correct, free of charge.

Oh, well.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Don't include me in this. I have experience with String Theory.

No you don't. You've read about it in Omni or some other pop-sci magazine. You know nothing technical about it. The kind of person who LARDS EVERY FUCKIN' POST with giant graphics all the fuckin' time does NOT know string theory in detail.

 

[Trumpet]

I haven't failed. Your comment is akin to claiming that a sports team failed to win a game that hasn't occurred yet. You are the one who has failed to make the required thread into which I can post my comments. You have failed thus far.

Yes, you are still the failure. You are not my professor and I do not need to pass your course. Create your thread. I'm standing by.


I understand the subject. I don't understand the wording used by someone who apparently doesn't understand the subject, hence the question.

Speaking of failures, I noticed that Cypress has failed to clarify his wording, because he fails to understand the material. He fails to understand why his wording is wrong. Nonetheless, he has thanked you for failing to make your thread and for blaming me for his failure.

I'm looking forward to the day that you actually rise to the occasion and become value-added to JPP. I'm sure that day will be as glorious as it will be unexpected.

Your reply is what's called deflect, distract, and distort.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Your reply is what's called deflect, distract, and distort.

So what's the point of focusing on Maxwell's equation in this thread?

 

[IBDaMann]

In fact one DOESN'T need to have been a great physicist in the Boston university systems to know the difference between an atom and a proton which makes up the atom thence disproving the atoms purely "atomic" nature qua Democritus.

Do remember that no one has ever seen an "atom" or a "proton" and there might not be any such things. Nature might be something entirely different. This is just the best model that we have at the moment. For our purposes, this model seems to work so let's ride it until something better comes along.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Do remember that no one has ever seen an "atom"

ORLY?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/see-the-highest-resolution-atomic-image-ever-captured/

 

[Trumpet]

So what's the point of focusing on Maxwell's equation in this thread?

So what's the point of all the trolling that you do???????

 

[IBDaMann]

This doesn't mean all the aspect of study are wrong - not by any means, they found the Higgs Boson after all.

This was the claim, yes. Did you ever get to see the Higgs Boson that they found? I didn't either. You'd think they'd put it in a museum or something. As it stands, the only people who have ever seen the Higgs Boson are the ones whose research grants depend on them claiming they found it.

 

[Trumpet]

whatever

 

[Trumpet]

So what's the point of focusing on Maxwell's equation in this thread?

What's the point in the trolling that you do????

 

[IBDaMann]

ORLY?

These images are "constructed" via extrapolation using math, meaning the software programmer controls how the image is actually going to appear, i.e. they aren't photographs, they are more like Photoshop filters that create imagery.

Yes, the final product is very hi-res, but atoms and subatomic particles are smaller than the amplitude of light waves, so there is no way anybody will ever be able to see or photograph them.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

So what's the point of all the trolling that you do???????

Got it. You just wanted people to think you are smarter than you really are so you trot out whatever sounds the most science-y to you.

(I keep assuming that sometime there's going to be someone on this forum who has darkened the door of a science class)

 

[Saint Guinefort]

These images are "constructed" via extrapolation using math, meaning the software programmer controls how the image is actually going to appear, i.e. they aren't photographs, they are more like Photoshop filters that create imagery.

I take it you've never used a TEM (admit it, you don't even know what "TEM" stands for)

SOURCE: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-84499-w

 

[IBDaMann]

So what's the point of focusing on Maxwell's equation in this thread?

Trumpet is trying to "get me" with a "gotcha." You have to understand that Trumpet is as stupid as fuck, and I am not, and that burns him to no end. His envy ... and anger and confusions and frustration ... are too much for him to endure, so he will continue to try to "get me" in every thread in which we both happen to be at the moment.

What he is trying to do is play "professor" whereby he asks me a question, and when I answer it, he declares that I am wrong and gives me an "F". Yes, it's childish, but that's what he is doing. Since I'm not going to play his game, I told him to create a thread with that as the topic so that he can go on record with his views and that I would participate in the thread with my views, and that I would answer all of his questions and correct all of his errors. Trumpet is an intellectual coward, by the way, as well as being one of the stupidest shits trolling the internet, and he doesn't want me putting his ignorance on display. He far prefers putting his cowardice on display and leaving open the possibility that he might actually be a scholarly genius.

Since he and I happen to be in this thread together (with both of us posting) he is naturally going to try to hammer away at my "failure" to submit my paper for his grading, leaving me to remind him that he still hasn't created the thread that is required for my comments. Are you aware that he created twelve threads since the beginning of August? It's not like he has some compunction against creating threads. He just can't stomach the idea of everyone witnessing his stupid in all its glory.

 

[IBDaMann]

No you don't. You've read about it in Omni or some other pop-sci magazine. You know nothing technical about it. The kind of person who LARDS EVERY FUCKIN' POST with giant graphics all the fuckin' time does NOT know string theory in detail.

Let's unpack this, shall we? (Yes, we shall)

No you don't. You've read about it in Omni or some other pop-sci magazine.

You become more and more like Cypress by the day, which is disappointing. Have you always felt that you are omniscient, or is this a recent thing, or is this simply one of the perks of being a devoted member of the Climate Change congregation? Your lashing out in fear of my knowledge is exactly the kind of thing that forces Cypress to flee to his safe space. If you simply cannot endure a world in which there are people who know something you don't (because that so totally fucks with your delusion that you are somehow omniscient) then perhaps you shouldn't be on the internet. Get off now. The internet isn't safe for insecure, deluded snowflakes.

You know nothing technical about it. The kind of person who LARDS EVERY FUCKIN' POST with giant graphics all the fuckin' time does NOT know string theory in detail.

You're probably going to wonder how I know that logic isn't your forté. I'm going to keep that little tidbit a secret.

One would think that if you are so allergic to graphics that you would be avoiding the internet. But no, you are on JPP every day. The internet is full of images, even images put online by String Theory experts. Were you not aware that experts in String Theory can put graphics on the internet? I'm guessing that you were taught, probably at your Global Warming indoctrination when you were bent over furniture having disinformation reamed into you, that the internet has revoked graphics privileges for String Theory experts.

You have become a Cypress-level moron. This is the perfect time for you to blame me for every poor decision that you have ever made and for every bad thing that has ever happened to you.

Here are some graphics just for you, to help confirm in your mind that I don't know anything about String Theory:

Just let me know if you need more. I have plenty more.

.

 

[Trumpet]

Got it. You just wanted people to think you are smarter than you really are so you trot out whatever sounds the most science-y to you.

(I keep assuming that sometime there's going to be someone on this forum who has darkened the door of a science class)

Sob, whine and cry.