It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ErosA433
really interesting how people think
originally posted by: GetHyped
originally posted by: ErosA433
really interesting how people think
The problem is a lack thereof. Things like EU theory give people the feeling of being smart without having to expend any brain power. Learning is hard, it's far easier to feel superior to your fellow man by "learning" something that even a 5 year old could digest (not surprising considering the reasoning follows that of a 5 year old). Beats the hell out of all that boring math and education stuff. Why go through all the years of hard work and necessary precursory steps to learn higher level physics when you can watch a feel good youtube video in under 60 mins?
Unfortunately, education is one area where you can't "fake it until you make it".
The Dunning-Kruger effect, named after David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University, occurs where people fail to adequately assess their level of competence — or specifically, their incompetence — at a task and thus consider themselves much more competent than everyone else. This lack of awareness is attributed to their lower level of competence robbing them of the ability to critically analyse their performance, leading to a significant overestimate of themselves. Put more crudely, they're too stupid to realize they're stupid.
The inverse also applies: competent people tend to underestimate their ability compared to others; this is known as impostor syndrome.
If you have no doubts whatsoever about your brilliance, you could just be that damn good. On the other hand...
When it has such a high correlation with experiment, why would you call it guessing?
originally posted by: KrzYma
what if there is another way ? not easier but more correct without probabilities and chances.
Guessing is still not knowing
I'm not sure it needs to be proven wrong to be replaced, like relativity sort of replaced Newtonian physics without proving it was wrong (in conditions of typical observation), but yes, I would also welcome something better.
originally posted by: ErosA433
If it can be proven wrong and replaced then I would totally welcome it. It would be extremely interesting and totally amazing.
If there wasn't more knowledge to be gained, there would be a lot of unemployed scientists, but it seems like there is plenty to keep them busy. So yes, who wouldn't like to see something better? Feynman, like any good scientist, wanted to see something better, even though he helped create the theory, as he inferred with this comment in 1985:
originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: ErosA433
Its not about them not getting the job done, its about those diagrams not representing reality. There is more resolution, evolution of knowledge to be done.
Modern physicists aren't bothered as much by renormalization, but I imagine they would still like to see a better theory if one was available.
Another important critic was Feynman. Despite his crucial role in the development of quantum electrodynamics, he wrote the following in 1985:
"The shell game that we play ... is technically called 'renormalization'. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the theory still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate."
Thanks for the link, it's interesting reading. I know when Feynman first showed his diagrams, they were too difficult for most to use until others came along and figured out more systematic ways to apply them, and I think Freeman Dyson helped with that if I recall correctly. As that link states it can still get very complicated very quickly trying to model actual interactions at CERN when enough different particles are involved. I figured people would still be trying to improve and simplify their use, and it seems like Nima has an interesting approach though I have no idea about how well it works.
originally posted by: mbkennel
www.quantumdiaries.org...
Right, so, if there's a simple equivalence yet to be discovered, that would make a nice discovery.
The Feynman diagram construction is nothing but an intuitive way to understand, and with some other rules, construct a very complicated series expansion for the desired result. But people know from experience mathematics that what may be complicated in one representation may turn out to have a simple equivalence. A complicated series might be nothing but a quotient of two other transcendental functions.
Yes, I find such an analogy quite plausible, but after a reasonable period of time, Michelangelo was expected to finish and the scaffolding would be removed. If it's really analogous to scaffolding, I think Feynman might be disappointed we still haven't figured out a better way to see it without the scaffolding.
The renormalization might not have a physical meaning, it could just be part of the dirty mathematical infrastructure & scaffolding. It's like complaining about Michelangelo's results when he's still has the scaffolding & masking tape up.
I think you mean Ramanujan and yes, I've seen Ramanujan cited in efforts to evaluate multiloops Feynman integrals, but this paper on that topic states an absence of a "rigorous mathematical proof" which may be related to why Feynman called the mathematical processes "dippy", which I suppose was his cute word for "not rigorous"?
The best results come when that equivalence comes from some very deep mathematics, say like the insights of Ramanjuan.
They go on to talk about their work involving Schwinger’s parametric representation of the diagram converted into a sum of hypergeometric functions, but it's unclear to me if they are claiming this provides a rigorous mathematical proof...they don't state so explicitly but I can't tell if they're trying to imply it.
In this work we present the relation between method of brackets and the master theorem of Ramanujan in the evaluation of multivariable integrals, in this case Feynman diagrams...
Until now this technique does not have a rigorous mathematical proof. In this work we show that the method of brackets is a generalization of Ramanujan’s master theorem (RMT). However, this theorem is not sufficient to explain mathematically the bracket’s technique in complete form.
Dragonridr said he was saying this for the last time at the top of page 43:
originally posted by: ImaFungi
Is it known; Where there is no EM radiation, how the EM field exists?
How does the electric field component exist in relation to the magnetic field component, everywhere in space, where there is no EM radiation?
You keep saying they exist everywhere and Dragonridr keeps telling you they don't. How many times do you expect the same answer to be repeated?
originally posted by: dragonridr
Ok for the last time no EM fields do not exist everywhere they require a particle in motion. This is what vector fields are all about.
Here's a picture of a Faraday room. With the lights off, there's practically no EM radiation inside. Turn the lights on, and you've got EM radiation coming from the light fixture.
Faraday cages cannot block static or slowly varying magnetic fields, such as the Earth's magnetic field (a compass will still work inside). To a large degree, though, they shield the interior from external electromagnetic radiation if the conductor is thick enough and any holes are significantly smaller than the wavelength of the radiation.