Markus Hanke Posted August 8, 2018 Posted August 8, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said: Ahh - it will destroy half of the Standard Model... Well, sorry... Yes it will indeed, and that is definitely a problem. To give you just one specific example of what would happen - without Lorentz invariance, particles will cease to have spin. Without spin and its relevant statistics (i.e. the Pauli exclusion principle), all atomic shells will collapse into just one single shell, which is then shared by all electrons. This will render the period table defunct, and will make it impossible for molecules to form. Macroscopic matter as we know it will cease to exist. This is evidently not what we observe in the real world. Edited August 8, 2018 by Markus Hanke
Eise Posted August 8, 2018 Posted August 8, 2018 14 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said: To give you just one specific example of what would happen - without Lorentz invariance, particles will cease to have spin. Without spin and its relevant statistics (i.e. the Pauli exclusion principle), all atomic shells will collapse into just one single shell, which is then shared by all electrons. This will render the period table defunct, and will make it impossible for molecules to form. Macroscopic matter as we know it will cease to exist. As a serious remark: I think this is a problem with all relativity-cranks. They have no idea how fundamental SR is to all of physics. They seem to think that relativity only predicts time dilation, length contraction and mass increase. This seems so absurd, that they think they can point to the 'obvious' error(s) ("Can somebody help me with the math?" is often the followup... JohnMnemonic bluffs that he has the math, but he never shows it to us). None-serious: I can answer for JohnMnemonic: MHD can explain spin much better than SR, and it does it without the inconsistencies in SR, which I have proven are there. I have the results of my calculations. 12 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said: So...? Maybe you don't know it yet, but the observable Universe in the macro-scale is a neural network... Universe works and looks like a giant brain... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.00816.pdf Classifying the Large Scale Structure of the Universe with Deep Neural Networks First I thought the article really proposed that 'the observable Universe in the macro-scale is a neural network'. But on second glance you are totally misrepresenting what the article is about. It is evaluating the possibilities to create N-body models of the universe using neural networks. I cannot judge the quality of the article, but your remark that 'the observable Universe in the macro-scale is a neural network' has definitely nothing to do with the article.
swansont Posted August 8, 2018 Posted August 8, 2018 19 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said: I know, that without gravity Universe wouldn't work. But something tells me, that if Standard Model would include MHD effect on the rotation of galaxies, we wouldn't need dark matter. Anyway, this is just another off-topic discussion ! Moderator Note Every time you have been asked to post some actual physics, you deflect. Which is a violation of the speculations rules. Meaning we're done here, and don't bring this up again Locked pending a split of this hijack into the trash
Recommended Posts