The 2011 Nobel prize for physics

[twilyth]

Any man with a drop of common sense never put much weight into quantum mechanics. A dead cat in a box doesnt bring on fits of logic IMO. Quantum mechanics seemed more like "We have no clue. Therefore it MUST BE quantum mechanics at work."

Obvious troll is obvious. Although it wouldn't surprise me if you did actually believe that.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Obvious troll is obvious. Although it wouldn't surprise me if you did actually believe that.

Einstein didn't put much weight behind it ether. I belive him far more then Niels Bohr.

 

[twilyth]

Einstein didn't put much weight behind it ether. I belive him far more then Niels Bohr.

Too bad albert has been proved wrong over and over again in regards to QM.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Too bad albert has been proved wrong over and over again in regards to QM.

And almost every day QM contradicts itself. All theory.

 

[twilyth]

And almost every day QM contradicts itself. All theory.

It does contradict itself - to all appearances. As for being "all theory", I guess you've never heard of the standard model and haven't the foggiest idea why it's one of the most important and powerful "theories" in human history. Color me surprised.

 

[TheMailMan78]

It does contradict itself - to all appearances. As for being "all theory", I guess you've never heard of the standard model and haven't the foggiest idea why it's one of the most important and powerful "theories" in human history. Color me surprised.

Enlighten me.

 

[twilyth]

Enlighten me.

Do your own homework.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Do your own homework.

I know what the standard model is. I was wanting to hear it from you.

Hmmm let me give you an example. Did you know it wasn't until last year they discovered protons are vastly smaller then originally thought? Do you know what that does to a LOT of theories? Or the fact there are newly discovered particles that are smaller then a neutron? Hell we even debated that one in another thread. I'm sorry QM is to young to be taken with so much "fact" as of yet. Maybe 50 years or 100 years from now when we can validate more. Until then it reminds me of a cult.

Now I ain't gonna call BS on it. Just don't believe in all the aspects of it yet. Lots of scientists seem to use it as a scape goat lately. Even heard one guy say photosynthesis was QM at work.

 

[twilyth]

I know what the standard model is. I was wanting to hear it from you.

Hmmm let me give you an example. Did you know it wasn't until last year they discovered protons are vastly smaller then originally thought? Do you know what that does to a LOT of theories? Or the fact there are newly discovered particles that are smaller then a neutron? Hell we even debated that one in another thread. I'm sorry QM is was to young to be taken with so much "fact" as of yet. Maybe 50 years or 100 years from now when we can validate more. Until then it reminds me of a cult.

Now I ain't gonna call BS on it. Just don't believe in all the aspects of it yet. Lots of scientists seem to use it as a scape goat lately. Even heard one guy say photosynthesis was QM at work.

First, reread that article. It's not "vastly" smaller. And dude, protons have ALWAYS been smaller than neutrons. A free cookie if you can tell me why.

Bottom line is, I don't really give a shit what you believe and I'm not a paid rep for QM so if you want to trash talk it, knock yourself out. You'll just end up sounding like an idiot. Not sure if that would be an encouragement or disincentive for you though.

 

[TheMailMan78]

First, reread that article. It's not "vastly" smaller. And dude, protons have ALWAYS been smaller than neutrons. A free cookie if you can tell me why.

Bottom line is, I don't really give a shit what you believe and I'm not a paid rep for QM so if you want to trash talk it, knock yourself out. You'll just end up sounding like an idiot. Not sure if that would be an encouragement or disincentive for you though.

Ya know I've come to expect that reaction from you. When it gets hot you insult.

The radius of the proton is significantly smaller than previously thought, say physicists who have measured it to the best accuracy yet. The surprising result was obtained by studying "muonic" hydrogen in which the electron is replaced by a much heavier muon. The finding could mean that physicists need to rethink how they apply the theory of quantum electrodynamics (QED) – or even that the theory itself needs a major overhaul.

Sauce

 

[twilyth]

Ya know I've come to expect that reaction from you. When it gets hot you insult.



Sauce

It wasn't an insult, just an observation.

 

[TheMailMan78]

It wasn't an insult, just an observation.

I wouldn't troll ya with science man. Politics sure. But not subjects that matter.

 

[Drone]

Sauce

Nice article. I knew that proton is the lightest fermion that carries zero lepton number but nonzero baryon number (aka lightest baryon) but I didn't know about its radius. They also unsure is proton stable or there's a possibility of its decay in some 10^blah years.

If anyone's interested here's some good article from arXiv called "What Comes Beyond the Standard Models" (a pdf file)

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0412208




And offtopic (didn't want to create a special thread for this, we talk about baryons here anyway):

Fermilab discovered new baryon called Xi-sub-b

Baryons are particles formed of three quarks, the most common examples being the proton (two up quarks and a down quark) and the neutron (two down quarks and an up quark). The neutral Xi-sub-b belongs to the family of bottom baryons, which are about six times heavier than the proton and neutron because they all contain a heavy bottom quark. The particles are produced only in high-energy collisions, and are rare and very difficult to observe.

 

[Completely Bonkers]

Rats don't drink heavy water