Difference between revisions of "Talk:Atom"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(The anonymous comment is wrong on every count) |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
:::::Sure, the standard model needs extended. So did Newtonian mechanics and SR. It's still rock solid in its domain of application. The part about lack of experimental verification is about as wrong as it could be; basically every particle physics experiment involving hadrons generates vast quantities of data supporting the quark model. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:24, 29 March 2007 (EDT) | :::::Sure, the standard model needs extended. So did Newtonian mechanics and SR. It's still rock solid in its domain of application. The part about lack of experimental verification is about as wrong as it could be; basically every particle physics experiment involving hadrons generates vast quantities of data supporting the quark model. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:24, 29 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::::: The anonymous comment is wrong on every count. QCD is renormalizable. Bible quotes about quarks would have no effect on the Discovery Institute. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:58, 29 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 16:58, March 29, 2007
This entry clearly illustrates the inconsistency of the Conservapedia approach to science. The theory of evolution, which has an enormous range of experimental and observational support is reported skeptically. But the theory of quarks (QCD) is reported as simple fact though it has little experimental support. It would be easy to fill the page with quotes from quark skeptics at major universities as they do with evolution.
- Who are the quark skeptics? I never heard of any serious dispute about the theory of quarks. RSchlafly 13:48, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- I couldn't find anyone contradicting basic quark theory. A 1981 paper seemed to want to address some philosophical issues, I'm not sure. The 2003 story said that some observation was 10% different from what was expected, but no one is doubting quarks. Quark theory is rock solid science. (So is most of evolution, but that is for another page.) RSchlafly 23:58, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- Most elementary particle physicists believe there are elements of truth in the quark model but none of them think its completely correct. The most serious criticisms are that (i) it has very few new experimental verifications, (ii) it is not renormalizable (the mathematics behind it don't really make sense), and (iii) it is inconsistent with Einstein's theory of gravity (general relativity).
- However, you and I both know that if there were something in the Bible contradicting quark theory, there would be a "Discovery Institute" dedicated to debunking it. Anyone expressing any reservations (such as lamenting the lack of experimental data) would be dragged out as a hero of the opposition.
- Sure, the standard model needs extended. So did Newtonian mechanics and SR. It's still rock solid in its domain of application. The part about lack of experimental verification is about as wrong as it could be; basically every particle physics experiment involving hadrons generates vast quantities of data supporting the quark model. Tsumetai 10:24, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
- The anonymous comment is wrong on every count. QCD is renormalizable. Bible quotes about quarks would have no effect on the Discovery Institute. RSchlafly 12:58, 29 March 2007 (EDT)