Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Need help with a debunk

  1. Jan 5, 2007 #1
    First, I have no idea where to post something like this so I apologize if it's in the wrong forum.

    Second, Hello.

    Third, I was wondering if someone could give me a little guidance regarding what seems like a very dubious claim for the existence of the universe.

    Basically the person is trying to overwhelm me with math. Math is not my strong suit, but the equations look dodgy.

    His basic claim is that before the Big Bang the universe existed as an uncharged pion which spun off into two charged pions and then the universe was created. (I've already explained the orders of magnitude difference between a pion and the estimated mass of the universe. He's sticking by his proof.)

    I guess the best way to explain what he's trying to explain is to post it.

    I can't make heads or tails of what he's trying to show and he's trying to use that as some sort of vindication of his hypothesis.

    Again, I apologize if this is the improper forum. Any help would be appreciated.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 5, 2007 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This is "math salad." It contains absolutely no meaning to anyone -- probably not even the moron who wrote it.

    First of all, pions are particles composed of two of the lightest quarks. They have a mass density somewhat similar to that of an atomic nucleus, if you can even meaningfully speak of their 'density' at all. Certainly they don't even approach the Planck density!

    If this person is using the word 'pion' in its accepted scientific sense, his words make no sense. If he's using the word 'pion' in some new way that he has not defined, he's a moron for choosing an existing word, using it a new way, and not defining it.

    Futhermore, pions don't decay into other pions, as this would violate a number of conservation laws, including the one which everyone knows about, the conservation of mass.

    The mathematics portion of his "proof" is garbage. There's really no better way to describe it. I have no idea what he thinks Einstein's equation is, but that ain't it... at all. Einstein's equation is a tensorial equation, the basis of his theory of general relativity, and this is just... meaningless symbols strung together.

    I also have no idea what some of his variables even mean (r is certainly not a scale factor, since he seems to be implying it's equal to c/H, with units of distance, whatever the hell that means).

    From what I can tell, this person's highest intellectual achievement might be grade-school algebra.

    - Warren
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2007
  4. Jan 5, 2007 #3


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The short verson of warren's post is that you can't just take two equations and combine them because they both have the same letter in them. That's not how it works.
  5. Jan 5, 2007 #4
    Thanks, that's what I suspected.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Need help with a debunk
  1. Debunking Debunkers (Replies: 27)

  2. Debunking the debunkers (Replies: 24)