22
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 769:
Line 769: + + + + + + + +
→Non-Locality and Quantum Field Theory
:How about this: raise ''private'' capital for searching for gravitons to support your philosophy. Then we'll see how many really agree with you, rather than just going along for the ride.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:10, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
:How about this: raise ''private'' capital for searching for gravitons to support your philosophy. Then we'll see how many really agree with you, rather than just going along for the ride.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:10, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
Au contrere mon frere, you made up your mind that action at a distance is the only type force possible. I have nowhere said action at a distance is impossible. I've said Newton never proved, could not prove, it was the ONLY possibility. I suppose it's possible for both to exist. In field theory this would mean a Hamiltonian that is part local and part non-local. Sometimes the idea is kicked around. Mathematically, non-local Hamiltonians are a pain in the ass to compute with, and counterintuitive, but theoretically possible.
Why have you decided that action at a distance is the only possibility? Just because Newton's theory assumed it without proof, this does not mean all forces in nature must likewise be action at a distance. Think about this: suppose you and I are ice-skating. I toss you a football. When I throw the ball, reaction force pushes me backward. When you catch it, the collision pushes you away from me. Basic repulsive force at a distance, composed of local pairwise interactions. All forces in the standard model (electrodynamic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear; that is electroweak and QCD) work that way. The footballs are virtual bosons of spin 1.
Don't drag funding issues into it. You're dodging the issue. As you know, the Europeans paid for the Large Hadron Collider so all the geniuses are moving to Europe. The last smart person to leave America, please turn out the lights.
But don't dismiss field theory as "philosophy". You're playing word games because you can't back up your statements with facts. These are facts: with field theory you can predict the experimental value of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron to one part in a trillion. Of the muon, to one part in a billion. You can actually compute the mass of protons and neutrons and mesons from first principles, a priori! Newton's gravity could never predict anything to one part in a billion. Why do you call field theory philosophy, but Newton's theory is science? Explain the definition of philosophy you're using here. Word games! [[User:Cuddlytakun|Cuddlytakun]] 23:55, 18 May 2009 (EDT)