/sci/ - Science & Math

Why the conspiratorial thinking here? Why is he assuming such bad faith and lying in what would be a total invalidation of the standard model's prediction, which would be one of the revolutionary discovery?

>>14829578
The question is: Why is the particle's spin still not reported? One answer is, "They still didn't figure it out yet." That doesn't seem like a good answer to me because no other particle's spin has taken so long to determine. That answer is so bad, I feel confident that I will not err if I remove it from further consideration. Then, it remains that this question needs an answer: Why is the particle's spin still not reported? Since the question needs an answer, I offered one as a possibility. I don't think the one I offered is conspiracy-minded because it is the only other answer I can think of after rejecting other answer.

>>14829578
The question is: Why is the particle's spin still not reported? One answer is, "They still didn't figure it out yet." That doesn't seem like a good answer to me because no other particle's spin has taken so long to determine. That answer is so bad, I feel confident that I will not err if I remove it from further consideration. Then, it remains that this question needs an answer: Why is the particle's spin still not reported? Since the question needs an answer, I offered one as a possibility. I don't think the one I offered is conspiracy-minded because it is the only other answer I can think of after rejecting the other one.

This is bonkers. A prediction (thinking) made by the physicist will influence the event that happened in the past to make it conform to what is expected?

This is an absolute antrophological fallacy. Why would the thinking or consciousness of the physicist have any influence on the event? What is the causal link? You mean to say that that somehow consciousness (or soul, as it would be more appropriate of a term in that case) somehow interact with reality to modify it?

This seems like a huge misunderstanding of Quantuum Mechanics. An observer will trigger a wavefunction collapse, but "observer" in that context simply mean anything that will interact with the system.

The cat can't be both dead and alive at the same time, the wavefunction will collapse at some point once the particle decays and it will die. Or it doesn't decay, and it is still alive.

>>14829611
This is exactly what conspiratorial thinking is.
The only thing you may claim is that the spin is still indeterminate. Everything after is pure conjecture, and that particular one is conspiracy oriented.
The most simple answer is that there isn't enough data to conclusively determine a 5\sigma conclusion and that they have decided to consider it as such for the moment.

You can argue that it's bad proof and bad practice, I don't disagree, but going any further just discredits you to the eyes of any other readers. It did to me, and the reading of picrel finally convinced me you were marginalized for a reason.

When you meet a raving lunatic, you leave him alone in his corner.

Please correct me if I am wrong or misunderstanding something, I want to believe in your good faith, and I assure you of mine.

>>14829631
Just so you can understand why it is so preposterous that you claim that the physicist's consciousness has any impact on the events in reality, you have to understand this presuppose 1) the existence of this soul/consciousness, which is unfalsifiable as of now 2)that somehow humans are so special over everything else that they have such powers. Unless you include animals in that. But then, why not include rocks? Or all matter, in fact? What is the specific difference between all of them? Then we come back to the original definition of "observer", in which it is anything that interacts with the particle/wave function and makes it collapse.

This is a fundamental departure from the Copernician Framework and a going back to an Anthropological framework with a religious/mystic tone.

>>14829631
The prediction will affect whether or not the prediction agrees with the objective events in question. I treat testing the accuracy of the prediction as the main thing going on rather than just predicting what will happen, which usually the taken as the main thing.

>This is exactly what conspiratorial thinking is.
If the question was, "Why is the pizza late?," and I called the pizza place to rule out them losing my order, I would still have answers like traffic, lost driver, delivered to wrong address, and driver abducted by aliens. If I picked aliens from those choices, that would be conspiracy-minded. If I was able to get rid of all the answers except aliens, then aliens is reasonable. Likewise, the answer in the paper which is cited as conspiratorial was the only option I could see. If you see some other options, please state them. Maybe the pizza guy got a flat tire and I missed ruling that out.

>>14830132
Except you can't possibly have ruled it out, because did you do your own analyses of the data set? That is how you rule it out scientifically.

Also, you are doing the same mistake most people do; conspirationnal thinking is not "aliens" and "lizards". Those are paranoid schizophrenics and other very suggestible persons. Conspiratorial thinking is simply that; thinking there is some sort of conspiracy (as in hidden by the people in charge) coupled with malintent usually by these people.

>I treat testing the accuracy of the prediction as the main thing going on

What do you even mean by this? That the experiment will agree with the hypothesis? Then how is it even science if the influence goes that far?
The universe doesn't care if you predict you can fly by jumping of a building, why should fundamental particle care more?

This is the reason people don't look into it more. This is preposterous on it's face. Unless you can clearly demonstrate a direct experiment to try and falsify this fundamental assumption, and present that first, everyone is gonna laugh you out. And it looks like they did.

>>14830290
>>14829611
>That doesn't seem like a good answer to me because no other particle's spin has taken so long to determine. That answer is so bad, I feel confident that I will not err if I remove it from further consideration.

>What do you even mean by this?
I disagree and do not concur.

>>14830461
That the answer is bad is just subjectivity. Is there any particular, scientific reason why the spin of the Higgs Boson should be determined in the same time span as the others?

No, it just "makes sense", "feels right", it is just an aesthetic consideration based on feelings.

You feel confident removing it, well I don't, and there is no scientific/logical basis upon which we can discuss this, only moral/subjective.

>I disagree and do not concur.

I am sincerely asking for explanation, because as of now it doesn't make sense. Are you here to try and explain your work or to troll people with a bad paper that you may not have written and assuming the role of author to piss people off by the author's stupidity/misguidance?

BTW, there is no need to read more than that of the paper. If I fundamentally disagree with the M^3 operator as described first, why would I agree with anything else following?
Unless you can make rock-solid predictions without fine-tuning the theory and even predict correctly a new result, then there is no need to read more into it for any serious physicist or interested person.

The Higg's Boson prediction is interesting, but it is not really an argument in favour of your theory in particular, just another erreor in the standard system that will need to be worked out or might have already been predicted by the Lorentz Invariance as you pointed out, and will only lead to a modification to the standard model to explain this, or validate other less recognized existing theories that are less insane.

>>14831510
I explicitly state that my feelings are the basis.

>Is there any particular, scientific reason?
It is being "labeled" as spin-0 and "called" a Higgs boson even though those properties are said to remain undetermined. Usually, physicists are zealously and notoriously reluctant to jump to conclusions, but not in this case. The labeling and calling conventions for this particle are non-standard so the deviation from the SOP should be explained. By principle of sufficient reason, I reject the following explanation: "They are calling and labeling the particle in a non-standard way because everything is normal." By the definition of "normal," this fails to explain the deviation from the SOP. By the definition of "abnormal," I have arrived at the following: "They are calling and labeling the particle in a non-standard way because something is abnormal." My conjecture for what that something is has been called conspiratorial but I dispute that characterization. As "normal" fails to provide an explanation because "non-standard" means "not normal," I have arrived at "abormal" by the method of exhaustion. My adherence to this method provides sufficient reason for an abnormal conjecture in the sense of the "scientific reason" that you asked about.

>>14831775
I see you are trying to argue the Higgs boson point. This whole thing is secondary. It is only a tipping point of why people dismiss you.

Explain to me clearly your M^3 operator.
I would be willing to let it slide if it can be proven in any way or an experiment can find good evidence in its favour. The Higgs boson thing on top of that makes rational people dismiss you entirely.

The Higgs boson thing is not really an argument in your favor, because it is not _strictly_ an argument for MCM, but also for other, more standard analysis and theories (from what I understood of what you wrote)

So, my feelings are the basis of the specific conjecture I have put forward by the basis for an abnormal conjecture is scientific (in my opinion.)

>>14831796
I see that you are MadlibArgueBot v2.0.3.

>>14831799
>I have put forward *BUT* the basis
>>14831799

>>14831809
I see you have no interest in actually explaining your theory here. Where was I mad? Why even involve politics in a scientific debate?

You have such bad faith. All I am asking for are clarification on the working of your M^3 operator, and you won't do it.

>>14832808
I see no one has any interest in using their questions to demonstrate that they read the paper.

>>14833111
Did you fucking read?!?
Read again
>>14829631
>>14829643
>>14830290
>>14831510
>>14831796

I read it up to this point, screnshotted the contentious point, and asked for clarification.
You didn't provide any, or rather, provided something here >>14830132 which is not at all any kind of in-depth explanation, and I disagreed with you here>>14830290, and you just ignored it.

>>14833151
I see.