Editing 1731: Wrong
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
White Hat's new topic, where he can be right, includes the {{w|quantum field theory}}, a very complicated field, which it is likely one Megan is not well versed in (inferred by the fact that she was not quite sure about the anti-quarks). So he may be raising the topic because he believes she will not understand it sufficiently to refute his correctness. Megan, however, recognizes exactly what he is trying to do, and can only sigh in response to his failed efforts. In the QFT, particles are often described as {{w|Resonance (particle physics)|resonances}} or {{w|excited state|excited states}} of the underlying physical field, in the same way as photons may be thought of as excitations in the electromagnetic field; in this way White Hat appears to be dismissing his earlier errors by implying that particles are merely an effect of something more complex, of which he can demonstrate his knowledge. Furthermore, in quantum field theory quarks do not exist in the conventional sense. | White Hat's new topic, where he can be right, includes the {{w|quantum field theory}}, a very complicated field, which it is likely one Megan is not well versed in (inferred by the fact that she was not quite sure about the anti-quarks). So he may be raising the topic because he believes she will not understand it sufficiently to refute his correctness. Megan, however, recognizes exactly what he is trying to do, and can only sigh in response to his failed efforts. In the QFT, particles are often described as {{w|Resonance (particle physics)|resonances}} or {{w|excited state|excited states}} of the underlying physical field, in the same way as photons may be thought of as excitations in the electromagnetic field; in this way White Hat appears to be dismissing his earlier errors by implying that particles are merely an effect of something more complex, of which he can demonstrate his knowledge. Furthermore, in quantum field theory quarks do not exist in the conventional sense. | ||
| β | In the title text, White Hat just remembers another thing he's right about. This demonstrates even more clearly that he is not interested in a discussion on the merits of a topic, but instead is seeking only recognition and validation for being right. This bears some similarity to [[386: Duty Calls]], in which [[Cueball]] stays up late correcting someone on the Internet | + | In the title text, White Hat just remembers another thing he's right about. This demonstrates even more clearly that he is not interested in a discussion on the merits of a topic, but instead is seeking only recognition and validation for being right. This bears some similarity to [[386: Duty Calls]], in which [[Cueball]] stays up late correcting someone on the Internet. |
White Hat may have incorrectly remembered that, while the valence quarks in a proton are all matter, quantum field theory says that protons also contain an indefinite number of "virtual" anti-quarks, quarks, and gluons. See this video ''[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LraNu_78sCwv What are Quarks?]'' about this. His final comment could be referring to the ontological debate over whether virtual particles are in some sense real or only an artefact of perturbation theory. Alternatively, he may have been confused by the fact that negatively charged quarks contribute negatively to baryon number. <nowiki><!--</nowiki> I think that that's incorrect; could you be thinking about strangeness and bottomness instead? I'm not wrong, but let's talk about something else that I'm right about instead. <nowiki>--></nowiki> | White Hat may have incorrectly remembered that, while the valence quarks in a proton are all matter, quantum field theory says that protons also contain an indefinite number of "virtual" anti-quarks, quarks, and gluons. See this video ''[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LraNu_78sCwv What are Quarks?]'' about this. His final comment could be referring to the ontological debate over whether virtual particles are in some sense real or only an artefact of perturbation theory. Alternatively, he may have been confused by the fact that negatively charged quarks contribute negatively to baryon number. <nowiki><!--</nowiki> I think that that's incorrect; could you be thinking about strangeness and bottomness instead? I'm not wrong, but let's talk about something else that I'm right about instead. <nowiki>--></nowiki> | ||
