Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
Is that a rhetorical question? Because if you are asking me - I am not the one railing - I just thought his approach was funny and quit entertaining and informative.
Regarding the gold atom collision picture - I think he answers your point begining at 8:10 of the video. They are not traces of particles created by the collision. In the previous video (#7) I think he talks about the elctromagnetic 'ropes' that converge on each atom.
FWIIW - I did not say I believed any of what he was saying - just found it intreging  |
It's not entirely rhetorical, as he's taken the time to make the video, you've taken the time to find and post the video, and then I took the time to watch it. I guess the question for you is "why did you find this challenging?" There are certainly areas of physics that are still being developed and are without lots of experimental evidence, but QM and SR are well established and don't have any major experimental inconsistencies.
As for him answering my point, he does not at any time address it. Ordinary scientists claim the picture comes from the subatomic particles created from the energy of two gold atoms colliding.
He refutes this by saying, "If what you are staring at is the total number of particles that you can detect from such a collision we should see no more than 1400 particles", which is not what particle physicists claim. They understand that many secondary particles and antiparticles are created in the collision, and certainly don't expect to see any unbound quarks. The total number of particles is not conserved according to accepted theory, yet he claims that they are in order to show the theory is wrong.
An analogy to his line of arguments would be someone arguing against evolution by saying, "Evolutionists believe that at some point a monkey gave birth to a human, so since this clearly cannot happen evolution must be wrong."
Even if there were a need for a better explanation of the RHIC experiments, his description is flawed. The RHIC pictures looks like lots of threads, but he clearly has no idea how that picture was generated, doesn't describe why the threads interact with the detector but not anything else, and doesn't explain why some of the tracks are curved.
The only reason I post anything is so that someone who doesn't yet understand the basics of QM and SR looks at these videos and believes this guy, simply because it's a bit easier to understand than science that's been experimentally verified.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
