Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at
 atomiic level.
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2025 23:37:16 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <cbc5359fcb5cdb9574fc4d16674089e1@www.novabbs.com>
References: <0d509b1635259917c7b4407251adcf31@www.novabbs.com> <3a42db544af628ec3969d6b80f1122b7@www.novabbs.com> <vn2oco$2qkg6$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1150464"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="OjDMvaaXMeeN/7kNOPQl+dWI+zbnIp3mGAHMVhZ2e/A";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$8lNPKwTfQNYdLVIiFdDACeN3zFHJMi2Z9HqXl1u8YaX1ORraDvmIu
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 26080b4f8b9f153eb24ebbc1b47c4c36ee247939
Bytes: 8222
Lines: 148

On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 13:21:59 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

> Den 25.01.2025 05:46, skrev rhertz:
>> Curiously, ChatGPT is trained to give a lot of excuses for the fact that
>> relativity (any) breaks down at depths lower than 10^-09 m (1 nm), but
>> it's also trained to validate GR up to the limit of the visible universe
>> (about 13.5 bly classical radius or 46 bly relativistic radius).
>
> Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is based on SR, not NM.
> SR doesn't break down at depths lower than 10^-09 m
>
>>
>> It represents a domain of applicability with a ratio of upper and lower
>> limits of 5 x 10^35. Cosmologists apply time dilation formulae to
>> galaxies 10 bly far away, which are captured as a few pixels with Hubble
>> Ultra Deep Field resolution, which takes almost 11 days to collect
>> photons for a 16 pixels pic, and still use it to gather information
>> about speed of recession, speculate about shape, etc.
>
> You have claimed that we can do without relativity (SR and GR)
> because Newtonian mechanics can correctly predict everything
> that SR/GR can predict.
> (If the predictions are different, you claim NM is right.)
>
>
> Can NM "explain" any of the phenomena listed below?
>
> Do you think it is a weakness of SR that it can't "explain"
> these phenomena?
>
>>
>> But not a single relativist can explain the behavior of two atoms (like
>> Ag) that act as emitter and receiver of photons in the visible range,
>> separated by a distance of 1 mm, for example.
>
> Since all physicists accept SR and GR as valid theories, you are
> claiming that no physicist can "explain" the above.
> That's wrong.
> This is about interaction photon - electron,
> and can be "explained" by QED. (Based on SR, not NM)
> (That doesn't necessarily mean that someone has done it, though.)
>
>>
>> Like the phenomenon of sonoluminescence, in which atoms in water are
>> excited by sound waves and generate blobs of high luminescence and
>> extreme temperature, within a glass container.
>>
>> The physics behind how sound waves are transformed into light in the
>> blue-violet part of the spectrum is not understood, even when it was
>> discovered almost 90 years ago.
>
>
>> Not to mention if TIME, as known in the macroworld, apply equally in the
>> quantum world. Or what the speed of light really is in the atomic and
>> subatomic realm.
>
> Remember that in current physics, "photon" is defined in QED.
> Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is based on SR.
> So TIME is the same in the quantum world as in SR.
> And the speed of light is invariant c in the atomic realm.

Explanations about QED being based on SR have the same value as
explanations about Sagnac effect based on SR, as desperate relativists
try to find alternate explanations of a simple non-relativistic
phenomenon.

Your comment about that QED is based on SR because Dirac's equation of
for electrons incorporates SR at velocities near c is far from true.
Dirac QF theory (1928) came after Heisenberg (1925) matrix QM and
Schrödinger (1926) wave QM. Both theories, HIGHLY relevant even today,
ARE NOT RELATIVISTIC AT ALL.

Previous efforts (1913-1925) to find theories to explain the behavior of
H atoms were based in Newtonian celestial mechanics, with electrons
performing elliptic orbits around the nucleus (hence the universal
symbol of the atom). ALL the physicists of that period (Bohr,
Sommerfeld, Born, etc.) were dedicated to enhance the original 1913
Bohr's model. In 1925, Max Born finished his book about this theory
(250+ pages), just to throw it away in the same year when the young and
disturbed Heisenberg came with his Matrix Mechanics theory, under the
guidance of Bohr (even when he was a Born's protégée). NO RELATIVITY
HERE.

In 1926, and out of the blue, came Schrödinger with his NON RELATIVISTIC
wave theory, which captured the imagination of most physicists, Dirac
included (due to the poor formation of most of them with matrix theory).
Born changed the interpretation of the distribution of energy amplitudes
for orbital electrons from DETERMINISTIC to PROBABILISTIC, which defined
QM SINCE THEN as a statistical theory (opening the door to a lot of
weird results).

Dirac was triggered by many deficiencies of QM, in particular the
impossibility to explain the creation and absorption of photons by
atoms, and started to work in an extension of Schrödinger equation TO
INCLUDE SPECIAL RELATIVITY, for uses at electron speeds close to c,
which he obtained in 1928. After that achievement, Dirac started to
develop a theory based on fields, not waves (QFT), in which photons
appeared and disappeared in his fields, without the need of atoms (which
led to the development of the Cassimir effect).

Dirac equation for electrons was so complex that only could be used in H
atoms. His QFT was also so complex that it was buried in history until
WWII finished and Feynman, Schwinger, and Shinichirō created the basis
of QED (1947).

QED is a theory that provided very few practical results, because it was
plagued by inconsistencies and contradictions (like infinities, the need
of "virtual photons" that didn't verify Planck's E=hf, lack of domains
of applicability, etc.). Even when Feyman's diagrams provided a graphic
means for calculations of interactions between charged particles and
photons, QED was widely known as the "SHUT UP AND CALCULATE" theory. The
enormous amount of defects of QED was buried by FORGED/FORCED results
thanks to the CRAP of virtual photons (what?). They didn't exist at all,
but being taken as "carrier forces", allowed some crappy explanations
about forces between electrons and nuclei and within atoms nuclei.

The myriad of short lived particles that started to emerge from
accelerators found in QED the necessary ground TO INVENT INTERACTIONS.
The final result, after 15 years, was the "unproven existence" of
hundred of quasi-particles, which made almost EVERYONE be crazy about
how to put order in such scenario.

By 1962, entered Gell-Man in the scenario of elementary particles. He
started to clean up the garbage of hundred of pseudo-particles, and
began to design the framework of the STANDARD MODEL OF ELEMENTARY
PARTICLES, which has resisted the reviews of the last 60 years. QED?
R.I.P.

For EVERY QED affirmation about WHATEVER, there are several NON-QED, NON
RELATIVISTIC THEORIES that bring the same result. Yet, QED is hailed by
relativists AS THE MOST PRECISE THEORY OF PHYSICS THAT EVER EXISTED.


Not going to continue with this post, because it doesn't worth it.

I only post here a link ABOUT THE VALUE OF RESULTS OF QED. There are
HUNDRED of them:


Does QED have any real-world applications?

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-qed-have-any-real-world-applications.559356/

Relativists are willing to KILL to impose relativity as the only valid
theory.

PHYSICS DOESN'T WORK VERY WELL AT QUANTUM LEVEL. THE AMOUNT OF
INCONSISTENCIES, CONTRADICTIONS AND PLAIN LIES IS OVERWHELMING. But they
own publishing houses, media, academia and gov.