I'm taking the word of the Brookhaven National Laboratory physicists over your word.
Last edited:
Monads are the real atoms of nature.
- Thread starter BidenPresident
- Start date
I'm taking the word of the Brookhaven National Laboratory physicists over your word.
It's not just string theory that envisions elementary particles as vibrations of energy..
Quantum field theory (-- let the frantic Googling commence --) somewhat similarly predicts that particles are localized vibrations in quantum fields that fill space.
Last edited:
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Thank you, oh Quora-raider extraordinaire! You have hit on the main point. You don't understand any science. You are relegated to choosing whose "word" you should believe on science matters instead of doing what I do and going exclusively with the science in question. The huge nail in your coffin is that you prefer to believe non-authoritative crap just because you read it on the internet, rather than to listen to someone who is trying to help you by explaining the science in question. You made it a point of emphasizing your complete delusion of equating a statement on an internet website with "Brookhaven National Laboratory physicists." Too funny. The bottom line is that the science itself is the only authority on what the science states, and since you don't understand any science, you should be letting people such as myself or Into the Night walk you through the science, making yourself an authority on the subject matter in the process. One has to wonder why you don't.
All of your "
" responses are public testaments to your stupidity because you are mocking that which is correct. You won't find anyone asking you to stop because it's amusing to everyone else. Broadcast away.
Into the Night
Verified User
No light is converted into matter.
It is NOT a direct consequence of E=mc^2. The equation does NOT state that energy and matter are the same thing.
Into the Night
Verified User
No. You are making shit up.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Predicts? Are you claiming that the word "predicts" is the correct word? What are you saying quantum field theory predicts exactly and how does the theory perform this predicting? Could you give me a simple example?
I love that my threads are making you waste hours of your time on late Sunday night frantic Google research projects! 
Since this is the first time in your entire life you've ever heard of quantum field theory, I'll give you a homework assignment:
https://www.britannica.com/science/quantum-field-theory
I see that you're back on troll patrol.
Predicts? Are you claiming that the word "predicts" is the correct word? What are you saying quantum field theory predicts exactly and how does the theory perform this predicting? Could you give me a simple example?
You failed to explain what the significance of Maxwell's equations were, and you dodge the question when I asked, and yet, you are here asking questions about a subject that you don't understand.
Ah, so you think humans evolved from Chimps.
ur sew smurt....
String theory is dead.
https://iai.tv/articles/string-theory-is-dead-peter-woit-auid-2399?_auid=2020
Everyone Googles.
To be effective in obtaining pertinent information, one must have at least basic knowledge of the subject.
I can't believe I'm defending Cypress, but you're off base with this.
You've never heard of non-Euclidean geometry, quantum field theory, so I am not surprised you've never heard of Brookhaven National Laboratory.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
I'm still good with "regular" atoms.
No, humans didn't evolve from chimps. And that's not what theory of evolution implies.
String theory is an elegant mathmatical construct which hasn't really been tested, because our particle accelerators cannot generate the power required, and will never be able to do so in the foreseeable future.
String theory is not the only scientific idea that changes the paradigm of how we think about elementary particles. Quantum field theory envisions particles as localized disturbances in quantum fields that exist throughout space.
Nothing I have written is particularly smart. It's knowledge available to any sentient person who consistently reads science journalism and books.
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.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
I'm still good with "regular" atoms.
But even regular atoms aren't "monads", nor are they "atoms" as Democritus envisioned.
Atoms aren't even close to the smallest indivisible thing making up all of reality.
As Cypress noted it's even weirder than that if everything is perturbations of fields.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
Actually I KNOW everyone googles. But Cypress attacks people for googling when he does it himself.. That's the point.
So I'm not off base. Cypress is a hypocrite because he attacks others for doing exactly what he does.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
How is it trolling to discuss the topic?
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
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.
