View Single Post
Andrew Mason
#32
Sep28-04, 07:20 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 6,654
Quote Quote by ZapperZ
But I can ask you the same thing: what evidence do you have that the valid EM laws simply break down at a certain scale? While EM laws that we have are known to work, your guess work hasn't.
But EM laws do break down at the atomic level, which is why we have quantum theory. So the question is not whether they break down. The question is: at what point are they no longer valid?
So the "burden of proof" (something YOU should know about) is in your court. It is up to you to show that there ARE evidence to suggest that your idea might be valid.
At this stage I am cross-examining the evidence. I don't have to come up with a valid theory at this stage to test the prosecution's case.

But you already stated that you ARE questioning the validity of QCD. Maybe I am simply a foolish person, but if I were to question the validity of something, I would want to make sure I have understood as much as I can about that thing. So these simply aren't just "questions" out of curiousity.
In an ideal world I would have read and understood text books on quantum theory, tensor analysis, and general relativity and know how to develop Schrodinger's equation from first principles. I don't live in an ideal world.



The validity of EM and QED. On the other hand, what evidence do YOU have that Maxwell equation and/or QED do not work down to the "surface of the proton"?
But IF <A=the existence of the strong nuclear force> is in some part based on the assumption that <B=the EM field equations apply down to the surface of the proton>, and IF <C=EM field equations are known to break down at some point at the atomic level> THEN the onus would be on the proponent of A to show B is true. I don't have to lead evidence for a verdict of 'not proven'.

Andrew Mason