Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
March 8, 2016 at 5:45 am (This post was last modified: March 8, 2016 at 5:46 am by I_am_not_mafia.)
Quote mining again, but this time taking more time to mangle the sentences so that they are harder to google.
(March 8, 2016 at 5:02 am)Harris Wrote: Infra-red divergences are due to using UNPHYSICAL variables to describe in and out states and introduce gauge invariant, physical “dressed” states. In scattering calculations, it is a common tendency to make an assumption that the coupling constant can be set to zero at infinitely remote times. In QED this might appear reasonable while in QCD such calculations are often based on the premise of some parton-hadron duality. The results of scattering calculations are, though, plagued by infra-red (IR) divergences.
(March 8, 2016 at 5:02 am)Harris Wrote: It has long been known that the soft divergences occurring in QED can be cancelled out in transition rates or cross sections computed for detectors with finite energy resolution: the soft divergences which occur in a scattering process due to the emission of an undetected soft real photons with total energy ≤ El exactly cancel out the soft divergences due to virtual photon corrections order by order in perturbation theory. This cancellation was first shown by Bloch and Nordsieck in QED and is referred to as Bloch-Nordsieck theorem. In ordinary (commutative) Yang-Mills theories just as in QED, there exist IR (soft) divergences due to MASSLESS GLUONS. This has been guaranteed by the theorems of Kinoshita and of Lee and Nauenberg known as KLN theorem which states that the transition rates are free of the collinear and soft divergences if we sum over initial and final states. This theorem is a fundamental quantum mechanical theorem on the basis of unitarity of S-matrix.
(March 8, 2016 at 5:02 am)Harris Wrote: Field theories with space-time non-commutativity, for example, do not have a unitary S-matrix. The extra branch cuts in these theories, are developed in the loop diagrams which are responsible for the failure of the cutting rules and lack of unitary S-matrix.
(March 8, 2016 at 5:02 am)Harris Wrote: In a scattering process computed up to one-loop order, if we consider the non-commutative soft photon emission, the non-commutative logarithmic IR divergence in the vertex correction will be cancelled in the cross section. However, there are additional non-Abelian type diagrams in which their non-commutative logarithmic and quadratic divergences cannot be cancelled out using the cross section method. This non-cancellation is attributed to an important difference between soft and non-commutative IR divergences. The soft divergences are associated with the classical limit but non-commutative IR divergences are completely a quantum mechanical effect and the soft divergences that only appear in the non-planar vertex correction to be cancelled out in the physical cross section to all orders.
You're good at this! A fun game - I got something amusing for you:
With the discovery of a Higgs boson, experiments have finally probed all sectors of the
Standard Model (SM). The priority is now to measure the properties of the Higgs particle, and
to explore the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking.
Unlike in on-shell Higgs production by gluon fusion or in Higgs decays, which occur at E ∼
mh , in channels in which the Higgs is produced in association with electroweak gauge bosons,
pp → hV , V = W, Z, the invariant mass flowing into the hV V vertex is mainly limited by PDF
suppression: these channels can have enhanced sensitivity to effects growing with energy.
See what I did there?
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
(March 8, 2016 at 5:05 am)Harris Wrote: What is the purpose of this exercise? To show I am a THIEF?
Yes.
(March 8, 2016 at 5:05 am)Harris Wrote: For the sake of argument, I agree that I have STOLEN the STUFF from websites you have mentioned.
Is that all?
What about my argument that I have developed with the help of that STOLEN STUFF?
Glad you admit to it. Copying and pasting does not an argument make. It's lazy and it means that other people have to make an effort while you just generate noise.
Quote:Plagiarism
Plagiarism is not allowed. We consider plagiarism to be the act of posting another person's words and trying to pass them off as original, or failing to properly cite their source. Academic integrity is important to many of the members here, and it is only fair to give credit where it is due. When members quote from a source other than themselves, they should use citations, links, and names / references where possible.
(March 8, 2016 at 5:05 am)Harris Wrote: What about my argument that I have developed with the help of that STOLEN STUFF?
If you really understood what you were talking about you could describe it in your own words. A hallmark of a real expert is that they can explain their field quite simply to a layperson.
(March 8, 2016 at 5:05 am)Harris Wrote: My argument is
I frankly don't care what your argument is because I know that you copied and pasted text rather than explain it in your own words. How do I know that you aren't just trying to bluff people by coming up long words that you yourself don't understand?
March 8, 2016 at 5:56 am (This post was last modified: March 8, 2016 at 6:04 am by Alex K.)
-- I'll repost this if it's ok so it doesn't get buried under Harris' heap of crap
(March 7, 2016 at 8:57 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:
(March 7, 2016 at 3:05 pm)Alex K Wrote: Chad, an honest question –
Your preface is not necessary. I consider all your questions genuine. You’ve consistently demonstrated your sincerity.
(March 7, 2016 at 3:05 pm)Alex K Wrote: ...while I acknowledge that the efficacy of reason is not obviously a given and more like a working assumption which appears to yield consistent results, I still wonder, is there a coherent notion of the alternative? Could reality be unintelligible or might such a sentence be meaningless.
This is an idea I’ve been toying with lately. There seem to be two notions at play: 1) the efficacy of reason and 2) the intelligibility of reality. The first has to do with the capacity of the knowing subject. The second concerns the nature of external reality.
Just because human reason works doesn’t mean the object of inquiry (reality) is actually intelligible. Perhaps it is absurd. Perhaps it is just so. Either way, it is as it is for no reason at all. Alternatively, even if reality were intelligible that doesn’t mean the mental toolkit (reason) is valid. Reasoning could be a linguistic trick or compelling illusion. Self-evident truths only appear so to a brain functions evolved for see patterns even where none exist.
Now, I personally do not believe either of these. I believe that human reason reflects a reality that is as it is for discernable (but not necessarily obvious) reasons.
Interesting, the thought to treat the two separately never really occurred to me before. In one direction I feel it might be justified not to, because, if reason does not work, does the concept of intelligibility even survive? Isn't that a stopping point where nothing further can even be said?
In the other direction, I kind of unwittingly assumed the mind to come from the brain, and that to be part of the outside world. Thus under these conditions, in an unintelligible world I find it doubtful that reason can be generated. But I haven't given much thought to that - of course if the mind(s) are a separate thing not dependent on worldly order for their operation, there could plausibly be reason without intelligibility of the outside world. The mind would then form a small intelligible (maybe not, but an orderly and consistent one) patch of the world on its own, which communicates with the remainder somehow.
If I, as you do in an aside in your response, entertain the idea that the mind came about through evolution, my knee jerk conclusion would be that it needs a "logical" world in order to produce reliable reason.
I also wonder what it would mean for the world to be unintelligible. If quantum uncertainty is actually non-deterministic (it might be), wouldn't "unintelligibility" already creep in there? In the same vein, the perception of the arrow of time seems to be a statistical phenomenon that becomes fuzzy when looking at small subsystems and all but disappears when considering one or two particles. What criteria does the universe have to fulfil to you for the label "intelligible" to be justified?
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
You're good at this! A fun game - I got something amusing for you:
With the discovery of a Higgs boson, experiments have finally probed all sectors of the
Standard Model (SM). The priority is now to measure the properties of the Higgs particle, and
to explore the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking.
Unlike in on-shell Higgs production by gluon fusion or in Higgs decays, which occur at E ∼
mh , in channels in which the Higgs is produced in association with electroweak gauge bosons,
pp → hV , V = W, Z, the invariant mass flowing into the hV V vertex is mainly limited by PDF
suppression: these channels can have enhanced sensitivity to effects growing with energy.
See what I did there?
Ah yes, I see that it could have a useful role in constraining and discovering new physics with future high-energy and high-luminosity runs of the LHC. Assuming of course measurements with greater precision of Higgs and gauge boson production rates and kinematics.
(March 8, 2016 at 5:31 am)Harris Wrote: If I write E=mc^2 in words would that change the meaning of it? Can someone change this equation by merely changing the wording?
You have written so many things on this forum, if I find on some website that say exactly the same thing using the same words as you did, does that means you have copied something? No, that says that you are talking about one and the same thing.
So what you are saying is that you are the proverbial monkey who, by mindlessly striking his typewriter, has accidentally reproduced an exact copy of a paper on noncommutative quantum field theory from 10 years ago? People, it's a miracle!!!
But in all seriousness, apart from your ethically dubious behaviour which completely discredits you as a intellectually honest scholar, the more immediate problem for this forum is that you paste large amounts of text which you do not understand nor have the ability to address or discuss. This is spamming and forbidden by the rules.
All your comments were fairly confusing until I have realised what actually happened.
Usually, I prepare a separate sheet for quotes with complete reference details which after finishing my response I place in appropriate place to support my point.
Furthermore, I always preview my response and read it thoroughly before pressing post button. You can check all my previous responses and see yourself how diligent I am in providing complete reference details whenever I made use of quotes. Even I give page number from where I have picked the quote and I do not think anyone else on this forum is doing this exercise other than me.
To your response I also had prepared the reference details but unfortunately, my last three posts I have compiled on a same sheet along with all the quotes and posted them in a hurry without giving a final look.
If I have not given the references than that was not an intentional and deliberate act. However, you may not believe my reasoning therefore, I apologise for not giving the references along with the quotes.
All that said, I am firm on my argument that virtual particles are not particles at all.
(March 5, 2016 at 4:48 am)little_monkey Wrote: IOW, you have no evidence. With your point of view, anyone can start with logic and then develop any metaphysical concept. But how would you decide which metaphysical concept is true, since you have no evidence to differentiate those that are true from those that false?
Simply keep in mind that life is too short and it would not let us comprehend every single truth through scientific explorations or philosophical methods. However, our beings encompass a huge amount of data stored in our conscience, a gift of nature, which gives us the sense of right and wrong. Therefore, use logic to refine those feelings by developing logic with the help of science, philosophy, history, and any true information about the nature that you have.
The biggest hurdle in all that process of searching the truth is our ego, self-centric attitude, pleasure seeking behaviour, etc. If you are honest in searching the truth, then you should keep yourself refrain from these hurdles and I assure you that you will reach the ultimate truth within a very short time.
Your post illustrates perfectly what I was implying: since you have no way to differentiate between what is true or false, then your proposal "our beings encompass a huge amount of data stored in our conscience, a gift of nature, blah,blah...' is just another statement that has no validity. The question you should be asking: how can one differentiate a crackpot theory from the real thing? If you have no test to differentiate these two, then your theory is no more and no less valid than any other crackpot theory. So you can advance the idea that "our beings encompass a huge amount of data stored in our conscience, a gift of nature, blah, blah..."but it is no different than any other crackpot theory.
(March 8, 2016 at 5:00 am)Harris Wrote: Simply keep in mind that life is too short and it would not let us comprehend every single truth through scientific explorations or philosophical methods.
And this is why we publish and make our work relevant to the scientific literature. While one scientist may not live that long, their work becomes part of the literature and outlasts them.
(March 8, 2016 at 5:00 am)Harris Wrote: However, our beings encompass a huge amount of data stored in our conscience
Conscience? Or consciousness?
If the former then no. If the latter then what does statement this even mean? Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon and requires a working brain, body and environment which an agent can be conscious of.
(March 8, 2016 at 5:00 am)Harris Wrote: , a gift of nature, which gives us the sense of right and wrong.
A gift of evolution which has instilled a particular for of pack instinct in us as a species. Different species have different instincts.
(March 8, 2016 at 5:00 am)Harris Wrote: Therefore, use logic to refine those feelings by developing logic with the help of science, philosophy, history, and any true information about the nature that you have.
Use logic to infer from evidence to create hypotheses that can then be tested experimentally. Or to test whether a hypothesis or argument is consistent.
(March 8, 2016 at 5:00 am)Harris Wrote: The biggest hurdle in all that process of searching the truth is our ego, self-centric attitude, pleasure seeking behaviour, etc.
This is why we have the scientific method. Nothing works better.
(March 8, 2016 at 5:00 am)Harris Wrote: If you are honest in searching the truth, then you should keep yourself refrain from these hurdles and I assure you that you will reach the ultimate truth within a very short time.
How do you know that there is an ultimate truth?
What exactly is an ultimate truth?
What evidence is there to suggest that there is an ultimate truth?
