Stephen Hawking Was Wrong, Said Stephen Hawking

a reply to: Degradation33

If the electron is real and has been observed, cut the bullcrap and show me a picture of it... a REAL PICTURE of one, not a "detection", or a "measurement" (which could be "god" taking a piss at subatomic level, or whatever), not a theorized knock off of ions, a REAL PICTURE of it. Try, but you won't find one.

We have pictures of atoms, for sure, but not of electrons. You will never get a picture of one, because what you call electrons are one unit line of dielectric induction, as JJ Thompson put it. It's not a particle. The idea of the electron being a charge carrying particle (charge that it drops off like it was just a piece of luggage), which is appearing and disappearing like a mythical creature, is utterly ridiculous, nonsensical and illogical. Practically magical. Since when matter appears and disappears à volonté? Do you even question this?.... Nah, don't think so.


What you call "electrons" is a flow of energy. The issue is that your beloved and confused mainstream physicists have NO IDEA where this energy comes from, so they theorize this stupid and nonsensical charge-carrying particle that no one has ever saw and makes no sense, as the source of such energy. Materialistic and confused mathematicians, inventing bullcrap as they go. They need to justify their budgets, or they are out of a job.

The advantage mainstream physicists have is that practically 99.99% of this world does not understands the field well enough to see through their lies, and those that do, are generally being brainwashed by the university. But if you ever visit the anonymous forums dedicated to physics, you'll see them asking these question from under their beds. There is not much funding in this field, they don't want to risk their jobs by questioning the mainstream.


To summarize, believing in electrons and Higgs Bosons is like believing in the Bible stories, or in unicorns, elves and fairies. But I don't expect you to understand this, or for you to get something out of this, I'm writing this for anyone reading who might have REAL INTEREST in the truth and intellectual honesty. Your misinterpretations are an excellent platform to do that. So, thank you for that.

All the rest you wrote are simply attempts of personal attacks, quite laughable ones. So, sure, whatever you say.


PS: The links I posted, which speak about mainstream physicists questioning of the "discovery of the Higgs Boson", was to show that you OPENLY LIE when you claim that the existence of such particle has been confirmed. Seems like you cannot differentiate a theory, an speculation, from verified reality. Too bad.

Much love

a reply to: ltrz2025

Start here.

If the electron is real and has been observed, cut the bullcrap and show me a picture of it.

Sure.

This one has its own caption.



Technology is awesome. Laser cameras with attosecond pulses. That's what a Swedish team used to capture this.



It has a video:



Do you want it on Kodak film? They went out of fashion over scoffing at digital photography.

I predict you won't accept this as evidence.

Regardless, can you still tell me your alternative? What are they filming and taking images of? What's around the hydrogen atom?

Or would you prefer to keep reiterating electrons don't really exist? That must be your thing. To try to argue accepted things don't really exist and be all keyboard warrior about it.

FACEPALM x 1.000

HAHAHA, incredible.


The first image you posted is an atom, not an electron. It even says it in the image. They push many energy flows (which they call "electrons", but are not such things), to see the shape of the atom. But you don't see the electrons there darling. The only thing you see is the contour of the atom, while the dielectric induction makes it "shine" (in a way of speaking). You clearly misread, because it was written to confuse you.


The 2nd image and video is not an image of an electron, but a "detection" of "something moving" that they theorize that it's an electron. The video is actually called "video of a moving electron". If they can photograph the electron, why can't they photograph it still?... They are scamming everyone and mocking everyone as well.

The system they've used for that is what they call a "knock off of ions", which I explained in the previous post that is NOT A PICTURE of an electron. They just detect the trace of something and named it "an electron" just because. It's literally like saying that a car just passed by, when you didn't see the car, but just because you smell gasoline in the air, or you see a tire mark on the ground. Literally.

By the way, this 2nd picture and video you posted are from 2009. So, even in the theoretical scenario that you are right, and that the thing moving there is actually an "electron" (which is NOT), that means that electrons have NEVER BEEN OBSERVED until 2009, which means that they have lied to you for almost a century and the entire mainstream model was built over nothing, and you never even knew that. LOL.


Anyway, I think this has been enough
Anyone with a half working brain reading us realized by now the B.S. of the mainstream academia.
I know you don't, but I never expected that.

Kiss Kiss



P.S. 1: This is not me accepting anything or not. What you showed it's simply NOT evidence. When you have REAL evidence, I'll gladly accept it. I've been looking for it for over 20 years, so it will be great to find it.

P.S. 2: I responded what "electrons" are in my previous post, probably with all the dissonance you missed it.

a reply to: ltrz2025

Wow.

I cant type slower, so I'll just rephrase ..

IN THE IMAGE OF THE ATOM WHAT IS PICTURED? WHAT ARE THE THE CONSTITUANT PARTS OF AN ATOM USED TO MAKE THAT IMAGE?

Do you read anything beyond the first three words? It says "by combining snapshots of several electrons at once". The electron images are used to create a composite of the image of the atom. MEANING ELECTRONS ARE SO OBSERVABLE AND HEIDELBERG LIKE THEY OBSCURE IMAGES OF ATOMIC NUCLEI.

And you understand how videos work, right? A video is not a still image! That's a joke, right?

You must have dealt with some pretty low-end online forum folk in your time, because you have some "weaksauce forum kung-fu".

a reply to: Degradation33


Wishful thinking x 1.000.000.

Again....

Picture 1, they are detections of units of dielectric induction, that's why they are being "measured" by "intensity of density". It's just an energy reading, not a physical particle.

The 2nd picture and the video, the same, they detect the trace of an energy reading and they call it "an electron", just because. But there is no picture of it.

Seems like you will never get the difference between evidence and speculation, but well, people with a bit of understanding will. That's all that matters.


Question for you:

Since these leprechauns (electrons) of science exist according to you, let's see how your wishful thinking answer this:

How can electrons appear and disappear when they want? How does matter manage to teletransport itself from one point to a distant one without traveling?...

And please, give me facts, not unicorns and fairy tales...

a reply to: ltrz2025

Picture 1, they are detections of units of dielectric induction, that's why they are being "measured" by "intensity of density". It's just an energy reading, not a physical particle.

And? What's the point. It's all freaking indirect. Including signatures from several electrons popping in and out of existence. Or measuring electrons by the field

You're not going to get much beyond that.

But it leads me back to my FREAKING QUESTION

If it's not electrons (or indirectly detected signatures of things called electrons converted to an image of something) what is it they are detecting? A lot of things that exist are measured by their effect on surroundings.

And you're the one upending the Standard Model, and I'm all for it, so freaking do it.

What are we indirectly detecting as electrons, and why does it fit the standard model? What is your alternative? Why does it have the right spin, charge, and interaction with the strong and weak nuclear force? What else could it be?

You need to do more than just say people are wrong. It's a hell of a statement, and one you need to convince people of.

a reply to: Degradation33


When you say "It's all freaking indirect. Including indirect signatures of electrons", you are acknowledging that electrons were NEVER OBSERVED DIRECTLY, and that they are simply theoretical. Bravo, you half got it!

So, when the mainstream tells you that "electrons are confirmed to exist and have been observed" they are lying to your face, literally mocking you. That's what you don't get. They are pushing you something theoretical (and nonsensical) as truth, and you repeat it simply because you heard it.

For the 5th time, what they detect are energy traces or readings, which they then theorize that is a magical charge-carrying particle that appears and disappears like a freaking magic show. They theorized this particle because they don't know where the energy is coming from. They don't see anything, so they assume that "there must be a magical particle carrying the charge", because they are confused and materialistic mathematicians.

Mainstream physics can't even define what energy is. That's how bad it is.


Then, you don't answer my question because you can't. Because the idea of the electron MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE and goes against every law and principle of physics we know. Matter teletransporting itself like a freaking Star Trek character... and then you complain of people talking about God. LOL. The hypocrisy!....

At least, the last 20 years mainstream physics has been just a TINY BIT more honest and started calling their ignorance with concepts like "dark energy" or "dark matter", which are other ways of saying: "our model is a total failure and 95% of what we see in the universe goes completely against our theories, but we don't want to confess it". With the electron, their bullcrap passed through, but we live in different times. With internet, the B.S. doesn't go that far.


I answered your other "FREAKING QUESTION" already, several times. Either you can't interpret what I wrote, or the dissonance you are going through is not allowing you to.

I bet you don't like LIGO either.

"Just because you detected gravity waves doesn't mean there is a force called gravity!"

Can I get you going on the graviton?
Only particle left in the standard model to find.

Still I am going to keep REPEATING UNTIL YOU ANSWER IT.

And no, you haven't answered it, you said "energy traces or readings".

ENERGY TRACES OF WHAT? IF THOSE ARENT ELECTRONS BEING TRACED OR READ, WHAT IS?

You need to replace or rework the entire standard model to hold this position. Leprechaun rhetoric won't help you. You first need to get the foundation strait.

All you've said is they detect something, say it's their magical force carrying elves (electrons arent force carriers), but haven't supplanted it with a reasonable alternative that explains the readings better than the standard model.

Late edit...

The standard predicted the Higgs-Mechanism years before it was observed. About 50 years.

So let's do that one too.

What particle's decay are they detecting?

What is the particle decaying into other detectable particles?

Gee, sorry it's only detectors picking up spins and charges, but thats all you can get, so what are they picking up? And why does what's detected follow standing predictions?

For fun...

Did you know, technically the only particle you can see is a gauge boson. The photon. Everything we observe with our eyes is actually just one force being carried by the one particle we can see.

So I guess all images of electrons (or their readings) are actually just photons carrying the electromagnetic image of them.

Where does that leave this debate?

Please tell me where you stand on the observational existence of the photon.

originally posted by: Degradation33
"Just because you detected gravity waves doesn't mean there is a force called gravity!"

OMG, you really need to take a logic course, like immediately.

The phenomena you call "gravity" is detectable. It exists. However, the definition and understanding we have of "gravity", what is it, are simply theoretical and there still a lot we don't know about it. Again, the mainstream academia had to come up with concepts like "dark matter", because their mainstream explanation of gravity FAILS completely at explaining what they see in the universe.

THE SAME WITH THE ELECTRONS. The phenomena you call "electrons" is detectable. The phenomena exist. There are energy readings, traces of charge, in energy flows. What is in question is the THEORY that the mainstream academia has come up with, which speculates (with no direct observation) the existence of these magical leprechauns that go against every single law and principle of physics we DO know.


Do you get it know?... Again: The phenomena exists. What is questionable (with CAPITAL letters) is the unverifiable and nonsensical theory that your mainstream academia friends came up with, and you repeat as if it was a revealed and confirmed truth, when it's far from being so.


I'll also explain it to you in an simple analogy: You wake up on Christmas morning and see presents under the tree, you can have many theories of why this happened, such as: a) Santa Claus (which is basically an electron) exists and you've been a good girl that year, b) Your parents tried to buy your happiness with lies and consumer products, c) A black hole opened in your living room during the night and materialized matter (the presents), just like your beloved "electrons" appear and disappear from nowhere.

Mainstream academia, since Einstein, has been pushing you to believe that it was Santa Claus, or these imaginary particle friends of yours called "electrons". Bullcrap. Electrons are a contradiction on themselves, and to the entire knowledge of physics that we have.


Then, I will not repeat over and over the same answer. If you don't get it, then it's not for you. I can understand why you don't get it, you were brainwashed to believe that everything needed to have a particle behind to exist, so you can't think out of that box. Advise: start reading the big minds of field theory before Einstein came around, and add Tesla, that will help.


Then, the way you phrase your questions is illogical. "ENERGY TRACES OF WHAT?", you ask. Energy traces of ENERGY!... What else would leave energy traces if not energy?... Energy! The mainstream model is so ridiculous that it can't define what energy is, where it comes from, or even what a field is. Academia is totally lost.

Therefore, starting to answer question regarding the wrong predictions they arrive to with their failed model it's utterly useless, a huge waste of time. What I will tell you (but actually for other people reading), it's that, as confirmed by recent experiments, matter is made of light. Hydrogen is a form of hard light. Matter is Energy. Where does Energy come from, then?

www.bnl.gov...

That's the question that the entire world of physics were asking themselves before the silly mathematician called Einstein with his nonsensical theories became the head honcho in this science, due to all his media attention. Einstein made Physics "popular" and that meant a lot of money for academia.

The question about Energy is what led to all the major discoveries during the 19th and early 20th centuries. It led Nikola Tesla, for example, to create the technology that even today is in 85% of al the electronic devices that we use; he even created wi-fi over 100 years go. Tesla, as most of the old big minds of field theory, abhorred Einstein's ideas.

Since Einstein, the world of physics became obsessed with matter (particles) and stupid math games. Since then, their model has been failing over and over, and we have had no major breakthroughs in the field, and it's all "dark" and lies.

a reply to: ltrz2025

You are a riot.

Energy traces of energy? Having fun or what?

So energy comes from nothing? Yup just some causeless energy being detected again. It doesn't mean there was anything there, it just means there was something being detected.

You do realize you posted a link to an experiment that used photon COLLIOSIONS to produce energy.

The primary finding is that pairs of electrons and positrons—particles of matter and antimatter—can be created directly by colliding very energetic photons, which are quantum “packets” of light.

Do you agree with it now your informative link says electrons exist? We're they not creating electrons and positrons?

And it doesn't exactly disprove the higgs-mechanism when other energic collisions are shown to create particles from the energy of the collision. Doesn't confirm it either. Different experiments. But how can you use one colliders findings to dispute another colliders findings? So the one with less energy using photon collisions results are valid? but the LHC one using proton collisions findings are bunk?

You are really bad at this. Or good at this, I cant tell.

On that, go back for the "for fun" one.

Do you believe photons exist?

a reply to: Degradation33

Again, you seem to be completely unable to understand basic logic. The fact that they call the phenomena "electrons", doesn't validate the nonsensical theory you subscribed to. The people who made the experiment are mainstream physicist still, but the results of the experiment is correct and independent of the concept of electrons (if you manage to do the abstraction). But well, as said, you are a good platform to detect and explain misinterpretations and wrongful thinking. Thank you for that, you are of great service.


If I tell you that I see traces of an airplane in the sky, what do you think that left those traces? A bicycle?... Traces of energy are left by energy. Is it really that hard to understand?... The issue is that your question was wrong and illogical, you failed to phrase a simple question. No issue, you can try again.


The fact that we cannot detect the source of the Energy that created the matter we see in the universe and animates it, doesn't mean that such source doesn't exist, just that you can't detect it. You think this way as a consequence of your materialistic mind, which was brainwashed that way. This problem showed up when mathematicians took over the field of physics. Math only works with things which it can measure, that it can count, 1 + 1. It doesn't work with that which cannot be detected or counted. Which is why Math is a childish and limited game that only leads you to a dead end. This is why the mainstream model is so ridiculous, because is based and focused on Math, on counting matter, particles (even some that don't exist and they fantasize with).

There has been several theories regarding the source of the energy in the universe, of course. You probably never heard about them (obviously, mainstream academia loves to keep you in the dark). All these theories, however, are unconfirmed because we don't have a way to detect that source and measure that energy. This invisible source/energy is linked to that ridiculous thing that the mainstream clowns call "dark energy", which rips their model completely apart every time that they bring it up. That's why they have not been talking about it during the last 5 or so years.


We have a similar problem when work with magnetism. A magnet is not a physical object, but something that is a no-thing. If you take a magnet (which has a positive and negative pole) and you chop it into 1 million pieces, you don't end up with 1 million pieces of a magnet (like when chopping anything else). You end up with 1 million individual magnets, each one with a positive and a negative pole. It's literally a "magical" object, because it operates in a way that we don't understand and can't measure.

Where is the source of the magnet's energy? The source of magnetism? No one knows. When you look at a magnet through a magnetic film, you see that at its very core there is NOTHING. We call this nothing zero-point energy, because it is an undetectable energy source. Sadly, in the last few years the Quantum clowns have taken over the concept zero-point energy and manipulated it, because they don't want people learning the true meaning of the concept.

Just to show the world HOW RIDICULOUS the mainstream physicist are, this is a video of Richard Feynman (the father of Quantum) "trying" to answer what magnetism is. This is mainstream physics at its best, funny as hell:

youtu.be...

a reply to: ltrz2025

No you can't do that. You're leading again. Stop going into a tangent to avoid owning the rambling incoherence of the position that uses studies on electron/positron creation from light collisions to dispute their existence.

Stop redirecting.

And please don't start with magnetism. Those non-existent electrons carrying non-existent charges creating nonexistent electromagnetic fields might get in the way.

Awaiting your total revision of particle physics.

a reply to: Degradation33

How can they define that what they detect are electrons, when they have never seen an electron to begin with? When they put names on these things, they are simply repeating what they were taught to say. Even if your whole family promises you that Santa Claus is real, that still doesn't make Santa real. Got it? Or do you need me to draw you a picture?

Magnetism is KEY in all this, because it's the opposite to electricity/energy. Electricity/Energy is what comes out of the zero point energy source, Magnetism is the way leading back to it. The "duality" (which is actually an illusion) at its core. But, I doubt you will ever get this, or anything of what I wrote. I write this for the unfathomable symphony that we call the universe! Because the music is not in the notes, but in the empty space between the notes.

Night night.

a reply to: ltrz2025

Magnetism is KEY in all this, because it's the opposite to electricity/energy. Electricity/Energy is what comes out of the zero point energy source

Now that's a revision.

Electricity and magnetism are essentially two aspects of the same thing, because a changing electric field creates a magnetic field, and a changing magnetic field creates an electric field. (This is why physicists usually refer to "electromagnetism" or "electromagnetic" forces together, rather than separately.)

Yes, your view seems to be a lot of empty space between the musical notes.

I think this has passed the event horizon of the intellectual black hole.

Good luck rewriting the standard model!

a reply to: ltrz2025 and Degradation33

You two really have hijacked the thread, haven't you? We were talking about something specific, something of great interest to people who understand physical cosmology, and you have dragged it back to an argument about basic physics between two people whose positions on the fundamentals are fundamentally incompatible. You could argue forever and never advance one step towards mutual understanding, let alone agreement. What an exercise in futility!

ltrz2025, is this your revenge on me for having debated you in your own thread? Why are you trying to argue a subject of which you know (as is obvious from your posts above) absolutely nothing? It's quite clear that you don't even understand what the topic is. You're like someone advising Julia Child how to bake a cake based on their knowledge of dog training, or the odds on last year's Indy 500.

If you disagree with the basic premises of modern physics, start a thread about that. You'll find people to argue with you to your heart's content. But on this thread, we're talking about stuff you need at least a basic knowledge of advanced physics even to understand. You don't even know the basics. You need to butt out.

Degradation33, you're a bit off topic, but you say some interesting things all the same. See my next post below for more on that. But please, for heaven's sake, stop encouraging trz2025. You're not making yourself look very intelligent, you know, debating at that level. There'd be more to interest us in your posts if you ignore that poster and raise your game.

Yes, I know I'm not a moderator and I have no right to tell anyone what to do. This is not an attempt to give anyone orders; I'm just begging the two of you to take your quarrel elsewhere and leave my poor little thread alone.

a reply to: Degradation33

I just described electricity and magnetism being opposite sides of the same thing (the duality, which is illusory). It's the same thing that you posted, but said differently. It really amazes me how you manage to be always wrong, It's like a talent you have, incredible, LOL.

Thanks for the laugh before bedtime.

Much love

a reply to: Astyanax

Not at all a "revenge" of any kind man. I'm not like that at all. LOL. You must really confuse internet and real life quite a lot to say something like this. "Revenge" over letters on the internet? LOL, no way, too childish and ridiculous. I simply love physics and metaphysics. Your post was one of the few interesting ones here, so I joined.

Then, you claim me to know nothing, but your "argument" against my position is just an empty personal opinion and a request to start a thread somewhere else. Clearly you don't know what arguments are, but all good. I guess you still have time to learn, you sound very young. A bit too emotional though, but well. Nobody is perfect. Self confidence is something that can be cultivated.

Then, I don't think we have been off topic with Degradation. And, in fact, it was only us two talking here, seems like the other people in ATS had absolutely no interest in participating in your thread.... which is understandable, since it was you simply sharing your emotions of anxiety over a book, a piece of paper. In fact, I think that my exchange with Degradation was the only thing worthy to read here. Cool to have helped the thread.

Sorry if you felt we "hijacked", or "kidnapped", or committed a "terrorist attack" over the thread, we were just talking about physics. I hope this didn't cause anxiety on you! You are already dealing with the anxiety of the book, yeez, I hope you are alright.

Best.

a reply to: Astyanax

Sorry, I'll retract to Hawking and the thread.

Every right to take back your thread.

I'll bow out of my flame war. Apologies again.

Back to the slightly off topic. I think originally I said String Theory has a natural answer to Hawkings problem in the form of superposition. Our universe says nothing for the universe that has totally different laws of physics where life can't form. And given infinite variation, universally speaking, we majorly lucked out.

Though I said I like field theories more, string theory is insanely interesting.

That's just speculation. Armchair mostly.

I feel the question of how perfect it was got to him. Everything was just right for biological life. Too right. Too perfect, with interactions being too goldilocks like.

There's a lot parameters that seem extra-universal. Makes sense to suggest they are a self-organized aberration.

Now on topic.

It leads to a new philosophy of physics that rejects the idea that the universe is a machine governed by unconditional laws with a prior existence, and replaces it with a view of the universe as a kind of self-organising entity in which all sorts of emergent patterns appear, the most general of which we call the laws of physics.

The benefits of reading the full article.

That is interesting.

Still hung up on a few key key points.

Critical temperature. It doesn't seem self-organizing when there is a temperature for symmetry breaking and so on. Every phase transition in every epoch seems to have a critical temperature to occur at, which still seems like a priori thing. The emergent laws still break apart at preset energy thresholds. The laws that governs the laws as it were.

That's always been my problem when retracting all the way back to the early universe. It pushes me into the default agnostic.

a reply to: Degradation33

I want to coin a new term for "panspremia" as "It-does-it-naturally-every-time-a-star-system--is-formed-from-a-condensing-cloud-of-material-spermia".

I agree with you, although I think it's too much to expect that life will develop along similar lines everywhere in the universe. Even RNA and DNA equivalents, if such are the universal building blocks of life, will differ chemically from one star system or biosphere to another.

However, to bring this line of thought back on topic, Hertog and Hawking’s paper Populating the Landscape: A Top Down Approach, which Arbitrageur linked to here, does provide a theoretical framework for limiting the number of potential cosmi to those suitable for the emergence of life. Perhaps that framework, if fully worked out, would demonstrate that life in any cosmos can emerge and evolve only in ways similar to those we know on Earth, or at least in this universe. However, it's a long haul (billions of years and uncountable parsecs) from their concept of a cosmic version of natural selection to any material prediction about the physical forms and nature of life.

maybe this is the universe where all those extra parameters line up to be perfect for this outcome?

No maybe about it. The question is whether it is the only such universe.

physics god to the rescue...string theory

As others have noted on this thread, string theory is by no means universally accepted, whatever TV 'scientists' like Kaku and Tyson would have the public believe. The Perimeter Instutue in Canada supports multiple lines of research into quantum-gravity alternatives to string theory. Lee Smolin, author of the anti-string theory bestseller The Trouble with Physics, is a faculty member there. I believe. The Institute has a chair endowed in Hawking's name, by the way.

String theory says the laws of physics are super-positional, theologians say physical laws are intelligent design. Yet the former relies on the same assertions of the latter in many ways, especially where the "preuniverse" is concerned.

I find this entire paragraph quite problematic. What does it mean to say that 'the laws of physics are super-positional'? Do you mean that the superposition of string states gives rise to multiple universes with different physical laws? Or that the laws themselves exist in superposition (whatever that means)? Could you explain, please?

I am also mystified by your assertion that the laws of physics rely on the theological presumption of intelligent design. On the contrary, the concept of intelligent design (ie of God) was originally extrapolated by primitive humans as a first draft of the laws of physics, i.e. a first attempt to explain physical phenomena. Phyics came first; God was later.

fluctuations in a zero point field can happen without cause

Yes, they give rise to virtual particles, whose existence is critical to Hawking's concept of black hole radiation. It was claimed in 2015 that vacuum energy fluctuations had been experimentally observed.

I would like to talk more with you about the possible inevitability of life in (this) universe, but this isn't the place. Care to start a thread?