Crime CERN Scientist: "Physics Built By Men - Not By Invitation" [He's Gone and Einstein's Right...Again.]

[NoDak]

You mean you can't actually argue that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics aren't the most fundamental aspects of physics, I batted away your attempts to distract from the point, and now you wish I'd leave. Too bad.

They don't exist in a vacuum sans the foundational (i.e. fundamental) cornerstones laid by classical mechanics and electrodynamics. At present, they're certainly the most accurate models for describing the physical world.

So then we've established that your own criteria are inconsistent and post hoc? Because the reasoning you provided for why.

See above. I don't let people waste my time with "that failed, let me try this!" because then it will never end. You tried criteria, including listing people with less fundamental contributions, which failed, then claiming the Nobel, which failed. And you failed. It's not a spaghetti-to-the-wall game.

The point (matrix mechanics) remains the same.

Except that it's currently the accepted understanding of one of the two most fundamental aspects of physics.

It's an expression of spirit that has nothing to do with interpreting the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics developed in two iterations by Heisenberg and Schrödinger, demonstrated to be equivalent by Dirac who unified QM with SR to form the basis of QFT.

It's cute that you try to posture yourself as intelligent when you actually got introduced to very basic aspects of thinking, including what "fundamental" actually means and the difference between precision and accuracy, and all you actually contributed was to try parrot other information that was off-topic and then apologizing for your own stupid attempts at direct argument (Nobel Prize).

This is why I like to dare people like you, who make threats of knowledge, to actually try to argue. Your failure mode is fun to observe.

It's cute you believe a universal physical constant at the center of quantum mechanics conceived as direct result of the work in which quantum theory originates is "random information". You take it as posturing myself as intelligent because you're thunderously stupid and don't have a clue about the history of the topic being discussed.

There we go, lose that composure. Just like an enraged caged monkey.

Rawr. What was all this about?

The majority of advancements in physics came not from white people in general, but from Jewish men.

 

[NoDak]

Uh, no I'm not.

You dirty misogynist. This is a perfect anthem for you.

 

[ocfightfan]

And sandwiches are built by women. (I keed, I keed).

Look, if a woman can produce a worthwhile work product in a given field then I'm all for her having all the opportunities she can earn.

But I'm not for setting up a system that artificially promotes vaginas, regardless of accomplishment or lack there of, or treats men as though they are on double secret probation just because they have a penis.

 

[EGarrett]

They don't exist in a vacuum sans the foundational (i.e. fundamental) cornerstones laid by classical mechanics and electrodynamics. At present, they're certainly the most accurate models for describing the physical world.

And there you go. Accurate and from which we are able to derive many earlier results.

The point (matrix mechanics) remains the same.

But the amount of time and post hoc attempts you've made to save your argument have increased.

It's an expression of spirit that has nothing to do with interpreting the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics developed in two iterations by Heisenberg and Schrödinger, demonstrated to be equivalent by Dirac who unified QM with SR to form the basis of QFT.

Continued attempts to impress with precision while having demonstrated a lack of accuracy aren't gaining you anything.

Keep in mind also, of course, that we didn't even touch on the contribution of Jewish physicists in relation to population, which blows this whole topic away.

It's cute you believe a universal physical constant at the center of quantum mechanics conceived as direct result of the work in which quantum theory originates is "random information".

No, random information would be unpredictable. I knew you were going to try that when you tried to "threaten me" with your great knowledge of the history of physics. It was quite predictable, but it was inaccurate. It missed the point completely.

You take it as posturing myself as intelligent because you're thunderously stupid and don't have a clue about the history of the topic being discussed.

You can say that all you want. Every time I dissect someone like this, they get angry and then try to claim they're smart as a way to regain their ego. It's a common part of people's failure mode. I just like to see it with people who were under delusions about their mental ability.

Rawr. What was all this about?

It was about me making a fool out of you and watching you fall apart. By the end of it, you ended up doing the same thing that any random nincompoop ends up doing, telling yourself you're smart out loud while having failed repeatedly on simple parts of the discussion and having no other way left to dispute the point.

And repeating one's assertion while attempting to ignore the entire discussion is also a common part of people's failure modes.

 

[NoDak]

And there you go. Accurate and from which we are able to derive many earlier results.

But the amount of time and post hoc attempts you've made to save your argument have increased.

Continued attempts to impress with precision while having demonstrated a lack of accuracy aren't gaining you anything.

Keep in mind also, of course, that we didn't even touch on the contribution of Jewish physicists in relation to population, which blows this whole topic away.

No, random information would be unpredictable. I knew you were going to try that when you tried to "threaten me" with your great knowledge of the history of physics. It was quite predictable, but it was inaccurate. It missed the point completely.

You can say that all you want. Every time I dissect someone like this, they get angry and then try to claim they're smart as a way to regain their ego. It's a common part of people's failure mode. I just like to see it with people who were under delusions about their mental ability.

It was about me making a fool out of you and watching you fall apart. By the end of it, you ended up doing the same thing that any random nincompoop ends up doing, telling yourself you're smart out loud while having failed repeatedly on simple parts of the discussion and having no other way left to dispute the point.

And repeating one's assertion while attempting to ignore the entire discussion is also a common part of people's failure modes.

Yea, I shouldn't of wasted time illustrating the importance of pre-20th century physics to a mong. I'm simplifying this down to short sentences based on your own goal post qualifier (GR/QM) and you're still incapable of addressing anything as it pertains to the actual topic.

Based on your 'in a vacuum' logic, Quantum Mechanics was created by Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrödinger, period. Einstein also has no mathematical description of General Relativity without the differential geometry of Bernhard Riemann. That's why listing those mathematicians was relevant, doofus.

And you are aware that Bohr obtained his formula for the energy levels of the hydrogen atom using Planck's constant, right? His most significant contribution to physics was based on Planck's quantum theory of radiation. You know, where that whole "quantum thing" has its origins?

Don't name drop "guys like Bohr" if you don't know 1) what his (obsolete) contributions were or 2) on which work it was based. Only to then turn around and disregard the second as being "random information" or "not fundamental" when it couldn't be more relevant or fundamental to your own 'point', nevermind the discussion itself?

You came ITT babbling demonstrably false drivel on a topic you don't have the first clue about. You got your card pulled and couldn't handle it so decided to double down and act the childish cunt you are, with a laughably condescending attitude and personal insults from the jump which I actually tolerated over several posts and now it isn't working out so well for you, is it?

This is what your argument boils down to, dude:

"Jewish men are responsible for the majority of advancements in physics if we completely ignore the advancements made by non-Jewish men." - EGarrett

 

[NoDak]

Image of Isaac Newton:

Reality of Isaac Newton:

Isaac Newton probably would've been strung up as a heretic in a Catholic country.

He is known as a scientist, but he was also an occultist and an alchemist whose views on religion greatly differed from the norms. Luckily for him, at that time, the nobility were becoming more open to such ideas.

It is unknown whether he was a part of any secret societies, such as the Rosicrucians, but he was most certainly influenced by their ideas.

MF: Sir Isaac Newton, 17th Century London's Dirty Harry

Back in 1695, England’s Royal Mint discovered a serious problem: A massive portion of the circulating currency was phony. As counterfeiting methods grew increasingly clever, the Mint turned to England’s brightest mind for a solution.

Isaac Newton was appointed Master of the Mint, a one-man army who waded through London’s underbelly to restore the currency’s integrity. Most counterfeiters were easy prey for Newton, but William Chaloner, a shadowy kingpin, kept eluding his grasp.

Chaloner had trained as a nail maker’s apprentice, but he found a more lucrative application for molten metals: coining 30,000 guineas. The counterfeiter’s self-made wealth enabled him to pose as a gentleman and gave him an ego to match his intellect.

Newton wanted nothing more than to destroy Chaloner, and the feeling was mutual.

Chaloner appeared before a parliamentary committee, where he insinuated that Newton was incompetent and blamed Mint employees for the epidemic of phony coins. Enraged, Newton intensified his efforts.

When Chaloner set up a coining facility in Egham, 20 miles outside of London, Newton sensed an opening. He began studying Chaloner’s sophisticated casting method—which involved pouring molten metal into brass molds before filing down the molds’ faces, resulting in much sharper images on the phony coins.

By September 1697, Newton had enough evidence to lock Chaloner up—but not for long. Working through intermediaries inside the prison and out, Chaloner bribed the prosecution’s star witness into fleeing to Scotland. Chaloner was released and accused Newton of framing an innocent man.

This attack on Newton’s integrity was the last straw. If Chaloner was going to play dirty, then so was Newton. Acting more the grizzled sheriff than an esteemed scientist, Newton bribed crooks for information. He started making threats. He leaned on the wives and mistresses of Chaloner’s crooked associates. In short, he became the Dirty Harry of 17th-century London.

After nearly two more years of relentless pursuit, Newton’s extreme measures had gathered enough evidence to put Chaloner away for good. This time, the charges stuck. On March 3, 1699, the counterfeiter was found guilty of high treason. The next day he was sentenced to hang. In the days before the execution, Chaloner wrote Newton a long, rambling letter proclaiming his innocence. The condemned counterfeiter begged his old rival for mercy, writing, “O dear Sir nobody can save me but you.”

Newton felt no pity. He snubbed his rival by not attending the hanging. As Newton had written during Chaloner’s first trial, the counterfeiter had formed “a confederacy against the Warden.” Chaloner could have lived a long, honest life had he “let the money & Government alone.”

With Chaloner dispatched, Newton torched the records of his investigation, likely to cover up the murky steps he took to help save the pound. In 1703, he gave up crime fighting and returned to academia as president of the Royal Society. England’s currency was once again safe from scoundrels like Chaloner, and criminals and thinkers alike had learned a valuable lesson: You don’t mess with Isaac Newton.

 

[uppercutbus]

MF: Sir Isaac Newton, 17th Century London's Dirty Harry

Back in 1695, England’s Royal Mint discovered a serious problem: A massive portion of the circulating currency was phony. As counterfeiting methods grew increasingly clever, the Mint turned to England’s brightest mind for a solution.

Isaac Newton was appointed Master of the Mint, a one-man army who waded through London’s underbelly to restore the currency’s integrity. Most counterfeiters were easy prey for Newton, but William Chaloner, a shadowy kingpin, kept eluding his grasp.

Chaloner had trained as a nail maker’s apprentice, but he found a more lucrative application for molten metals: coining 30,000 guineas. The counterfeiter’s self-made wealth enabled him to pose as a gentleman and gave him an ego to match his intellect.

Newton wanted nothing more than to destroy Chaloner, and the feeling was mutual.

Chaloner appeared before a parliamentary committee, where he insinuated that Newton was incompetent and blamed Mint employees for the epidemic of phony coins. Enraged, Newton intensified his efforts.

When Chaloner set up a coining facility in Egham, 20 miles outside of London, Newton sensed an opening. He began studying Chaloner’s sophisticated casting method—which involved pouring molten metal into brass molds before filing down the molds’ faces, resulting in much sharper images on the phony coins.

By September 1697, Newton had enough evidence to lock Chaloner up—but not for long. Working through intermediaries inside the prison and out, Chaloner bribed the prosecution’s star witness into fleeing to Scotland. Chaloner was released and accused Newton of framing an innocent man.

This attack on Newton’s integrity was the last straw. If Chaloner was going to play dirty, then so was Newton. Acting more the grizzled sheriff than an esteemed scientist, Newton bribed crooks for information. He started making threats. He leaned on the wives and mistresses of Chaloner’s crooked associates. In short, he became the Dirty Harry of 17th-century London.

After nearly two more years of relentless pursuit, Newton’s extreme measures had gathered enough evidence to put Chaloner away for good. This time, the charges stuck. On March 3, 1699, the counterfeiter was found guilty of high treason. The next day he was sentenced to hang. In the days before the execution, Chaloner wrote Newton a long, rambling letter proclaiming his innocence. The condemned counterfeiter begged his old rival for mercy, writing, “O dear Sir nobody can save me but you.”

Newton felt no pity. He snubbed his rival by not attending the hanging. As Newton had written during Chaloner’s first trial, the counterfeiter had formed “a confederacy against the Warden.” Chaloner could have lived a long, honest life had he “let the money & Government alone.”

With Chaloner dispatched, Newton torched the records of his investigation, likely to cover up the murky steps he took to help save the pound. In 1703, he gave up crime fighting and returned to academia as president of the Royal Society. England’s currency was once again safe from scoundrels like Chaloner, and criminals and thinkers alike had learned a valuable lesson: You don’t mess with Isaac Newton.

I rarely read stories but this was lol.

 

[NoDak]

@EGarrett

Every earlier scientific breakthrough is just as consequential despite only providing a partial solution. Negating the triumph of Newtonian mechanics just because of general and special relativity is flat-out intellectually dishonest. The whole basis of your argument is that the runner who reaches the finish line deserves all the accolades, you're disregarding the other runners who handed off the baton, and in this case you've disregarded the very progression of knowledge.

This is the false premise of your argument. Calling these previous works "superfluous" is impressively wrong, they crucially transformed the very direction of Western Civilization. Their impact on industrialization, scientific inquiry, philosophy, exploration, military, health and governance cannot be understated. The fact you're even shameless enough to make such an argument when you are clearly intelligent enough to understand this distinction really says a lot about you. You aren't in the business of argument to ascertain the truth, you are in the business of argument for the sake of argument.

The entire back and forth has been bogged down over a defense of classical mechanics and electrodynamics (absurd), why Planck's constant is incontrovertibly fundamental as the quantum of action (expressed as units of energy multiplied by time, units of momentum multiplied by length, or units of angular momentum) and him blathering on repeatedly about "pseudo intellectualism" and "psychological phenomena" that has nothing to do with the topic.

He disregarded JJ Thomson's discovery of the first subatomic particle (electron), Max Planck's solution for black body radiation and discovery of energy quanta, as well as Ernest Rutherford's of the atomic nucleus - and James Chadwick's of the neutron for good measure - as non-fundamental contributions to the advancement of physics whilst clamoring over what Einstein and Bohr did, aside from not seeming to know or saying anything about what they did.

The obvious problem here (and there are many): the whole point and edifice of QM is rooted on describing nature at the subatomic level, Einstein's biggest contribution to it was expanding on Planck's energy quanta and Bohr's was a short lived model of how electrons orbit an atomic nucleus based on Planck's quantum theory of radiation, obtaining his formula for the energy levels of the hydrogen atom using Planck's constant.

Ironically, Bohr's model was rendered 'superfluous' BY the establishment of QM. And I don't mean on some Sir Isaac Newton shit that stood tall for fucking centuries and served as a cornerstone of modern civilization, but like dust binned within a decade. Schrödinger's wave mechanics corrected its failure to predict transition probabilities, and it was also in violation of the Uncertainty Principle (Heisenberg).

There's still more than plenty to appreciate about it and the other discoveries it led to, but that also takes some grasp of science as the enterprise of cumulative knowledge. It's as if he's just looking to argue for the sake of it with no interest in any kind of civil - or factual - discussion.

I enjoy talking about this stuff, not arguing over it and there's really no debate here. Now it's moved again to Jewish men being overrepresented relative to population, something already acknowledged pages ago because - shocker - I have no problem with Jewish people.

 

[NoDak]

I rarely read stories but this was lol.

 

[EGarrett]

Yea, I shouldn't of wasted time illustrating the importance of pre-20th century physics to a mong. I'm simplifying this down to short sentences based on your own goal post qualifier (GR/QM) and you're still incapable of addressing anything as it pertains to the actual topic.

Another thing you don't understand. There's a big difference between simplicity and efficiency. It's good to write clearly because it is efficient for communication. Not just because it's dumbing down. Much like the difference between precision and accuracy, it's a common mistake that pseudo-intelligent people like yourself make and need help understanding.

Based on your 'in a vacuum' logic, Quantum Mechanics was created by Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrödinger, period.

Still trying, eh? You failed multiple times already and got schooled on basic principles. I already told you the spaghetti game doesn't work with me.

Einstein also has no mathematical description of General Relativity without the differential geometry of Bernhard Riemann. That's why listing those mathematicians was relevant, doofus.

Except that Einstein is and was obviously the primary contributor to Relativity as we use it today. By a long shot.

And you are aware that Bohr obtained his formula for the energy levels of the hydrogen atom using Planck's constant, right? His most significant contribution to physics was based on Planck's quantum theory of radiation. You know, where that whole "quantum thing" has its origins?

You're arguing against your own stupid logic. Which was "Nobel Prize = He did it." Bohr received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. It's funny though, as I stated, that you can't keep your own criteria straight because you're not actually very intelligent and were just trying to repeat random facts in hopes that you would look impressive and correct.

That didn't work.

Don't name drop "guys like Bohr" if you don't know 1) what his (obsolete) contributions were or 2) on which work it was based. Only to then turn around and disregard the second as being "random information" or "not fundamental" when it couldn't be more relevant or fundamental to your own 'point', nevermind the discussion itself?

You're not throwing any more spaghetti against the wall. You didn't understand what a fundamental contribution was, you tried to propose a Nobel Prize as the objective measure, then abandoned it, then you idiotically tried to use precision to make yourself look smart while being wildly inaccurate to the discussion.

3 strikes you're out. Stupid.

You came ITT babbling demonstrably false drivel on a topic you don't have the first clue about. You got your card pulled and couldn't handle it so decided to double down and act the childish cunt you are, with a laughably condescending attitude and personal insults from the jump which I actually tolerated over several posts and now it isn't working out so well for you, is it?

It's fun to see you falling apart when I don't let you attempt more desperate arguments. It won't work. That's the danger of dealing with someone who will put the headshot in you at the first mistake and not let you run away or try again.

This is what your argument boils down to, dude:

Ooh, let's see, "dude."

"Jewish men are responsible for the majority of advancements in physics if we completely ignore the advancements made by non-Jewish men." - EGarrett

Nice, so you proposed that we discuss what was actually an advancement, providing the definition of fundamental, then when you got whupped on it, you tried to ignore that whole topic.

Every time I dissect someone and make them look like a fool, they try to ask me to stop and posture to present themselves as intelligent. It won't work. You've been exposed as being a pseudo-intellect who took some physics classes and thought that you meant you understood actual concepts, but you don't. You can just repeat random things and get dropped by people with better minds. Sorry, I know it's awkward for you.

Just kidding, I'm not sorry.

 

[NoDak]

@EGarrett

Every earlier scientific breakthrough is just as consequential despite only providing a partial solution. Negating the triumph of Newtonian mechanics just because of general and special relativity is flat-out intellectually dishonest. The whole basis of your argument is that the runner who reaches the finish line deserves all the accolades, you're disregarding the other runners who handed off the baton, and in this case you've disregarded the very progression of knowledge.

This is the false premise of your argument. Calling these previous works "superfluous" is impressively wrong, they crucially transformed the very direction of Western Civilization. Their impact on industrialization, scientific inquiry, philosophy, exploration, military, health and governance cannot be understated. The fact you're even shameless enough to make such an argument when you are clearly intelligent enough to understand this distinction really says a lot about you. You aren't in the business of argument to ascertain the truth, you are in the business of argument for the sake of argument.

Lol, this thread was a lot of fun.

 

[NoDak]

Some background on Professor Strumia.

He joined the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN)'s theory division as a fellow in 2000,[1] and as a member of the CMS Collaboration, he was a credited co-author on the paper which announced the Higgs boson discovery; his primary affiliation was Estonia's National Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics.[7] Along with Joseph Lykken and other collaborators, he later proposed the "modified naturalness" hypothesis for the Higgs boson's mass.[8]

After the discovery of the Higgs boson, he computed the probability that the Higgs vacuum undergoes quantum tunnelling, finding that the universe is in a critical state which will eventually end in a cosmic collapse.[4]

After the OPERA experiment reported an observation of neutrinos apparently traveling faster than light, Strumia in collaboration with Gian Giudice and Sergey Sibiryakov showed that superluminal neutrinos would imply some anomalies in the velocities of electrons and muons as a result of quantum-mechanical effects. Such anomalies could be already ruled out from existing data on cosmic rays, thus contradicting the OPERA results.[5][6]

 

[Stoic1]

Stop. My brain. This is a karate forum. Not mensa. Most people can't even use apostrophe's's''es here.

 

[InternetHero]

Stop. My brain. This is a karate forum. Not mensa. Most people can't even use apostrophe's's''es here.

I guarantee you there are some brilliant physicists who take pride in not being able to use them properly. Such is the nature of knowledge.

In fact, when one becomes an expert in language they start to deconstruct and reconstruct the language for meaning and resonance. Same with music, the arts, et al.

We capture the basic discipline, and train it to be something different whether adjusting the laws of thought or meaning. Apostrophe's are well and good, but being pedantic about them is to forget the reason they exist. To give structure to a growing, dynamic concept.

RIP Homer, RIP.

 

[NoDak]

Stop. My brain. This is a karate forum. Not mensa. Most people can't even use apostrophe's's''es here.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

A person who works at CERN was at my New Year's party last night.

It was pretty rad. Very approachable about it too.

 

[NoDak]

A person who works at CERN was at my New Year's party last night.

It was pretty rad. Very approachable about it too.

Did this person attend the workshop in Geneva on gender and.... high energy physics?

 

[NoDak]

Oh, come on @Lead. CRIME was a great tag.

 

[Lead]

Oh, come on @Lead. CRIME was a great tag.

Prefixes aren't for comedic effect

 

[NoDak]

Prefixes aren't for comedic effect