This is an introduction for a new theory that eliminates many of the paradoxes in modern physics
I ended up spending decades on this collection of ideas – trying hard to go back to the truly verified basics. It starts with an extended discussion aimed at highlighting a variety of basic errors that are often taken as solid givens. Prime among them is the over dependence on, and overconfidence in mathematics. It does take awhile to get to the new concepts – but, by then, hopefully everyone is on the same basic page. This part may seem overdone to some, especially in our 30-second sound bite world, but there are reasons for everything that is presented. Because the primary problems are mostly conceptual – the presentation is kept on a mostly conceptual plane.
I start by looking at some very familiar concepts for clues and then take a giant leap that identifies some concepts that could be right before our eyes, and yet persistently hidden from view. It then first looks at field forms and the composition of the photon. Along the way, the conjectured true composition of the photon enables an understanding of such things as the source of quantization in quantum mechanics and how the wave particle duality of both photons and particles can make easily comprehensible, logical sense. It also then addresses how the single and dual slit systems work – even when there is only one photon at a time traversing the slits.
It also address relativity, with an entirely new interpretation of the cause, which does not end up distorting time, changing distance, or increasing mass in incomprehensible ways. It also addresses redshift and the cosmic microwave background radiation with a picture that does not involve the “Big Bang”. It covers other ideas and areas as well – but I have covered enough for this entry.
All of these are outgrowths of the same basic concepts – where the intent is to show that it truly results in a cohesive, coherent, logical, comprehensible picture of energy matter and reality. It is not a short read – it is about 400 pages. It is a sincere attempt to present the rather interactive concepts in a reasonably understandable manner. It is available for download at the following website:
tbbon.net
If after reading it you have questions or comments, it has a link for e-mailing me on the website.
If you are really interested in understanding many of the currently confusing areas of modern physics, and not afraid of some very novel and different ideas – this should be a compelling read for you.
Hope you find it interesting,
T. B. Bon
QUOTE (T. B. Bon+Sep 15 2009, 05:07 AM)
This is an introduction for a new theory that eliminates many of the paradoxes in modern physics
I ended up spending decades on this collection of ideas – trying hard to go back to the truly verified basics. It starts with an extended discussion aimed at highlighting a variety of basic errors that are often taken as solid givens. Prime among them is the over dependence on, and overconfidence in mathematics. It does take awhile to get to the new concepts – but, by then, hopefully everyone is on the same basic page. This part may seem overdone to some, especially in our 30-second sound bite world, but there are reasons for everything that is presented. Because the primary problems are mostly conceptual – the presentation is kept on a mostly conceptual plane.
I start by looking at some very familiar concepts for clues and then take a giant leap that identifies some concepts that could be right before our eyes, and yet persistently hidden from view. It then first looks at field forms and the composition of the photon. Along the way, the conjectured true composition of the photon enables an understanding of such things as the source of quantization in quantum mechanics and how the wave particle duality of both photons and particles can make easily comprehensible, logical sense. It also then addresses how the single and dual slit systems work – even when there is only one photon at a time traversing the slits.
It also address relativity, with an entirely new interpretation of the cause, which does not end up distorting time, changing distance, or increasing mass in incomprehensible ways. It also addresses redshift and the cosmic microwave background radiation with a picture that does not involve the “Big Bang”. It covers other ideas and areas as well – but I have covered enough for this entry.
All of these are outgrowths of the same basic concepts – where the intent is to show that it truly results in a cohesive, coherent, logical, comprehensible picture of energy matter and reality. It is not a short read – it is about 400 pages. It is a sincere attempt to present the rather interactive concepts in a reasonably understandable manner. It is available for download at the following website:
tbbon.net
If after reading it you have questions or comments, it has a link for e-mailing me on the website.
If you are really interested in understanding many of the currently confusing areas of modern physics, and not afraid of some very novel and different ideas – this should be a compelling read for you.
Hope you find it interesting,
T. B. Bon
Maybe you should post it in bite-sized pieces one at a time on this forum. Discussing one concept at a time would probably be easier and more constructive than trying to have everyone discuss everything on 400 pages at the same time.
I for one and definitely looking forward to low-math, conceptual propositions, as I'm sure are many others who understand a lot about physics without being experts at calculus.
I ended up spending decades on this collection of ideas – trying hard to go back to the truly verified basics. It starts with an extended discussion aimed at highlighting a variety of basic errors that are often taken as solid givens. Prime among them is the over dependence on, and overconfidence in mathematics. It does take awhile to get to the new concepts – but, by then, hopefully everyone is on the same basic page. This part may seem overdone to some, especially in our 30-second sound bite world, but there are reasons for everything that is presented. Because the primary problems are mostly conceptual – the presentation is kept on a mostly conceptual plane.
I start by looking at some very familiar concepts for clues and then take a giant leap that identifies some concepts that could be right before our eyes, and yet persistently hidden from view. It then first looks at field forms and the composition of the photon. Along the way, the conjectured true composition of the photon enables an understanding of such things as the source of quantization in quantum mechanics and how the wave particle duality of both photons and particles can make easily comprehensible, logical sense. It also then addresses how the single and dual slit systems work – even when there is only one photon at a time traversing the slits.
It also address relativity, with an entirely new interpretation of the cause, which does not end up distorting time, changing distance, or increasing mass in incomprehensible ways. It also addresses redshift and the cosmic microwave background radiation with a picture that does not involve the “Big Bang”. It covers other ideas and areas as well – but I have covered enough for this entry.
All of these are outgrowths of the same basic concepts – where the intent is to show that it truly results in a cohesive, coherent, logical, comprehensible picture of energy matter and reality. It is not a short read – it is about 400 pages. It is a sincere attempt to present the rather interactive concepts in a reasonably understandable manner. It is available for download at the following website:
tbbon.net
If after reading it you have questions or comments, it has a link for e-mailing me on the website.
If you are really interested in understanding many of the currently confusing areas of modern physics, and not afraid of some very novel and different ideas – this should be a compelling read for you.
Hope you find it interesting,
T. B. Bon
Maybe you should post it in bite-sized pieces one at a time on this forum. Discussing one concept at a time would probably be easier and more constructive than trying to have everyone discuss everything on 400 pages at the same time.
I for one and definitely looking forward to low-math, conceptual propositions, as I'm sure are many others who understand a lot about physics without being experts at calculus.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 15 2009, 06:53 AM)
I for one and definitely looking forward to low-math, conceptual propositions, as I'm sure are many others who understand a lot about physics without being experts at calculus.
Such people might think they 'understand a lot of physics' but they don't. They can only arrive at conclusions other people. who have done the quantitative stuff, tell them because they have no logical way of combing results.
For instance, knowing magnetic fields affect charged particles as they move through them doesn't tell you by how much or how to build anything based on that principle. Superficial, qualitative knowledge is fine, I wish people had more of it, but don't for a second think it give you a good grasp of physics.
The original poster unfortunately seems to be thinking the opposite.
Such people might think they 'understand a lot of physics' but they don't. They can only arrive at conclusions other people. who have done the quantitative stuff, tell them because they have no logical way of combing results.
For instance, knowing magnetic fields affect charged particles as they move through them doesn't tell you by how much or how to build anything based on that principle. Superficial, qualitative knowledge is fine, I wish people had more of it, but don't for a second think it give you a good grasp of physics.
The original poster unfortunately seems to be thinking the opposite.
QUOTE (T. B. Bon+Sep 15 2009, 06:53 AM)
that eliminates many of the paradoxes in modern physics
There aren't many, if any. The information paradox is the only one I can think of.
QUOTE (T. B. Bon+Sep 15 2009, 06:53 AM)
Prime among them is the over dependence on, and overconfidence in mathematics.
Let me guess, you were never very good at maths in school.
QUOTE (T. B. Bon+Sep 15 2009, 06:53 AM)
which does not end up distorting time, changing distance, or increasing mass in incomprehensible ways.
Space-time distortion isn't 'incomprehensible'. It would be if you utter avoid or are incapable of doing any mathematics but that doesn't mean it's incomprehensible and should be thrown out. I can't speak Japanese but I don't try to convince all Japanese people to speak English so they are comprehensible.
QUOTE (T. B. Bon+Sep 15 2009, 06:53 AM)
If you are really interested in understanding many of the currently confusing areas of modern physics
Sounds like you're another person who didn't like the fact there was something other people could understand and he couldn't so you've decided to convince yourself you don't need to learn such things and infact you've got all the answers. It's a common crank delusion.
Why don't you point me to your work where you derive the following things :
1. Precession of Mercury
2. Zeeman splitting of emission spectra in Hydrogen
3. Differential cross section of electron-positron to muon-antimuon, to within 10%.
If you can't provide me with those things or a method by which I can immediately set about calculating them then you don't have any right to claim you've got a new physics.
Why don't you point me to your work where you derive the following things :
1. Precession of Mercury
2. Zeeman splitting of emission spectra in Hydrogen
3. Differential cross section of electron-positron to muon-antimuon, to within 10%.
If you can't provide me with those things or a method by which I can immediately set about calculating them then you don't have any right to claim you've got a new physics.
Pardon me, I apologize for the oversight. In trying to keep my entry from getting too long, I guess that I forgot to mention a few things.
First of all – I am an actual physicist. I have worked with physics and engineering my entire career. I do understand the math, however, I also understand very well that when someone asks “WHY”, and the person standing up to answer that question writes down an equation – he hasn’t answered “WHY”, only how we figure out “HOW MUCH”. Mathematics is a modeling tool, and can be a very good one, but only if it is used correctly, which, unfortunately is not always the case. If we have very good equations that accurately tell us how much, but we do not really understand correctly why they work, if we don’t have a fairly good and accurately correct picture of the physical phenomenon behind the interaction – we haven’t really got it right.
As I have reviewed much of what has developed, I have finally reached the conclusion that there seems to have been a bit too much dependence, for some time now, on mathematics alone – as if it were the one superlative super-tool that could somehow guarantee that we would always get it right. NONE of the tools that we have are reliable enough, all on their own, to be depended on too heavily or completely. Mathematics is no exception. As a result, I believe that we have gotten a bit off track, conceptually at least, from the truth. Much of the math is good (sometimes exceptionally good!), in so far as it enables us to make accurate predictions, but many of the concepts behind that math appear to be somewhat strange and befuddled to say the least.
This is not meant to fault the many herculean efforts that have been pursued over the last hundred years or so. It’s just that when so many areas become counterintuitive and then remain so as even more conundrums develop; it just seems that we must have missed something basic somewhere. However, if we truly have, it would also seem rather logical that it would not likely be very obvious – whatever it was.
Whomever it is that thinks that there are no significant paradoxes in physics must certainly have never taken any of the classes that I did, nor have they followed much of the various discussions and developments over the years. I suppose that it is also possible that they are so thoroughly satisfied by the mathematical predictions that they tend to dismiss those paradoxes and conundrums as so much drivel – expounded by (what they must think are not) good physicists (such as I) who simply do not feel that the capability to come up with a good number is really enough. To such, I think we should just recognize that we obviously do not agree with each other. I believe that there are some very serious problems in physics today, and I believe that an honest read of what I have written would show that I am not just full of “crank delusions”.
The treatise is primarily conceptual for a reason – the problems are not necessarily reflected in the math – if they were, they would likely have been recognized and corrected long ago. For example, the mathematics behind relativity, especially some of the basic equations are extremely good – excellent even. However, the ways that those equations were interpreted, right from the beginning, have created a variety of conundrums that have yet to be properly resolved by the mainstream physics community. They are just accepted as an unavoidable dilemma that must somehow be a part of “nature”. I very deeply believe that Reality, once we have it correct and have had time to considerate long enough, will prove to be imminently comprehensible and logical. Since the answers are good and produce excellent numbers that have been very well verified, math absolutely CANNOT be used to adequately resolve the problem. Whatever concepts come out of any such reevaluation would ultimately have to produce equations and answers that were ultimately mathematically equivalent to what we already have.
I suppose that another way to put it is that I am stating unequivocally that understanding the mathematics alone will also NOT truly give one a good grasp of physics. Many seem to have thought that it can – but it has been very obvious to me that we have missed something crucial somewhere. Until we develop a good grasp of both the concepts AND the math – we do not really have a good grasp of Reality. If we did, physics would not be nearly as disjointed in the ways that we must treat things as it is.
I sincerely appreciate the comments about the “bite-size” pieces, but Reality is highly integrated in the ways that it works. I do not believe that bite-size pieces would be adequate for the task at hand. Some of the ideas, when first presented will surely seem to be quite a leap from anything that they have seen before. Remember, the premise is that we would need to be identifying factors that would be anything but obvious (or it would likely have been resolved long ago). Therefore, the follow through to show how it all works and fits together is every bit as important as are the initial concepts.
T. B. Bon
First of all – I am an actual physicist. I have worked with physics and engineering my entire career. I do understand the math, however, I also understand very well that when someone asks “WHY”, and the person standing up to answer that question writes down an equation – he hasn’t answered “WHY”, only how we figure out “HOW MUCH”. Mathematics is a modeling tool, and can be a very good one, but only if it is used correctly, which, unfortunately is not always the case. If we have very good equations that accurately tell us how much, but we do not really understand correctly why they work, if we don’t have a fairly good and accurately correct picture of the physical phenomenon behind the interaction – we haven’t really got it right.
As I have reviewed much of what has developed, I have finally reached the conclusion that there seems to have been a bit too much dependence, for some time now, on mathematics alone – as if it were the one superlative super-tool that could somehow guarantee that we would always get it right. NONE of the tools that we have are reliable enough, all on their own, to be depended on too heavily or completely. Mathematics is no exception. As a result, I believe that we have gotten a bit off track, conceptually at least, from the truth. Much of the math is good (sometimes exceptionally good!), in so far as it enables us to make accurate predictions, but many of the concepts behind that math appear to be somewhat strange and befuddled to say the least.
This is not meant to fault the many herculean efforts that have been pursued over the last hundred years or so. It’s just that when so many areas become counterintuitive and then remain so as even more conundrums develop; it just seems that we must have missed something basic somewhere. However, if we truly have, it would also seem rather logical that it would not likely be very obvious – whatever it was.
Whomever it is that thinks that there are no significant paradoxes in physics must certainly have never taken any of the classes that I did, nor have they followed much of the various discussions and developments over the years. I suppose that it is also possible that they are so thoroughly satisfied by the mathematical predictions that they tend to dismiss those paradoxes and conundrums as so much drivel – expounded by (what they must think are not) good physicists (such as I) who simply do not feel that the capability to come up with a good number is really enough. To such, I think we should just recognize that we obviously do not agree with each other. I believe that there are some very serious problems in physics today, and I believe that an honest read of what I have written would show that I am not just full of “crank delusions”.
The treatise is primarily conceptual for a reason – the problems are not necessarily reflected in the math – if they were, they would likely have been recognized and corrected long ago. For example, the mathematics behind relativity, especially some of the basic equations are extremely good – excellent even. However, the ways that those equations were interpreted, right from the beginning, have created a variety of conundrums that have yet to be properly resolved by the mainstream physics community. They are just accepted as an unavoidable dilemma that must somehow be a part of “nature”. I very deeply believe that Reality, once we have it correct and have had time to considerate long enough, will prove to be imminently comprehensible and logical. Since the answers are good and produce excellent numbers that have been very well verified, math absolutely CANNOT be used to adequately resolve the problem. Whatever concepts come out of any such reevaluation would ultimately have to produce equations and answers that were ultimately mathematically equivalent to what we already have.
I suppose that another way to put it is that I am stating unequivocally that understanding the mathematics alone will also NOT truly give one a good grasp of physics. Many seem to have thought that it can – but it has been very obvious to me that we have missed something crucial somewhere. Until we develop a good grasp of both the concepts AND the math – we do not really have a good grasp of Reality. If we did, physics would not be nearly as disjointed in the ways that we must treat things as it is.
I sincerely appreciate the comments about the “bite-size” pieces, but Reality is highly integrated in the ways that it works. I do not believe that bite-size pieces would be adequate for the task at hand. Some of the ideas, when first presented will surely seem to be quite a leap from anything that they have seen before. Remember, the premise is that we would need to be identifying factors that would be anything but obvious (or it would likely have been resolved long ago). Therefore, the follow through to show how it all works and fits together is every bit as important as are the initial concepts.
T. B. Bon
Mr. T. B. Bon,
"While 14 billion years may seem like endless eternities to us, is it really long enough for everything about us to arise......without an intelligence to drive it?"
That's from your The Theory of Field Interaction.
Do you want to explain that. And is that drivel that light in the tunnel posted on another part of this site also from your book?
"While 14 billion years may seem like endless eternities to us, is it really long enough for everything about us to arise......without an intelligence to drive it?"
That's from your The Theory of Field Interaction.
Do you want to explain that. And is that drivel that light in the tunnel posted on another part of this site also from your book?
I missed where you actually answered my request.
I'm sure there's a very good psychoanalytic explanation for why mathematicians desire to exclude those who circumvent the math from learning and using what they have learned in the form that they know it. It probably has to do with some adolescent need that was resolved by gaining prestige for mathematics ability.
Instead of trying to shut me out of a discussion for expressing happiness that someone has written something more conceptual than mathematical, why can't you just say, "ok, bring the concepts," and then poke holes in them where holes are due, based on your math knowledge, conceptual knowledge, or a combination of both?
I am not arrogant enough to think that there is no math knowledge that would make my physics better if I would master it. However, I am not a professional physicist. This is a hobby for me. I know enough about physics to understand much of what I read, and I have the ability to ask questions and express creative ideas. When these are wrong, I welcome learning why, because that improves my knowledge.
Math is unquestionably useful in defining practical applications and making predictions, probably also in theorizing. I use simple math, and concepts from the higher math I understand, for all sorts of applications, so I understand the relevance AND my own shortcomings. Still, I don't think that I deserve to be continually bullied about it OR be told to butt out of discussions.
Mostly what I am doing on this website is learning, but discussing helps my learning process and makes it more interesting. If you don't want to support my learning, no one says you have to.
Instead of trying to shut me out of a discussion for expressing happiness that someone has written something more conceptual than mathematical, why can't you just say, "ok, bring the concepts," and then poke holes in them where holes are due, based on your math knowledge, conceptual knowledge, or a combination of both?
I am not arrogant enough to think that there is no math knowledge that would make my physics better if I would master it. However, I am not a professional physicist. This is a hobby for me. I know enough about physics to understand much of what I read, and I have the ability to ask questions and express creative ideas. When these are wrong, I welcome learning why, because that improves my knowledge.
Math is unquestionably useful in defining practical applications and making predictions, probably also in theorizing. I use simple math, and concepts from the higher math I understand, for all sorts of applications, so I understand the relevance AND my own shortcomings. Still, I don't think that I deserve to be continually bullied about it OR be told to butt out of discussions.
Mostly what I am doing on this website is learning, but discussing helps my learning process and makes it more interesting. If you don't want to support my learning, no one says you have to.
QUOTE (T. B. Bon+Sep 15 2009, 05:07 AM)
Prime among them is the over dependence on, and overconfidence in mathematics. It does take awhile to get to the new concepts – but, by then, hopefully everyone is on the same basic page. T. B. Bon
Do you also propose music without notes?
And you won't have anyone else on the same page as you if you get rid of mathematics. It's the only universal language.
And certainty only looks and feels like accuracy.
If you want converts do something other than talk. Invent something based on your theories.
Do you also propose music without notes?
And you won't have anyone else on the same page as you if you get rid of mathematics. It's the only universal language.
And certainty only looks and feels like accuracy.
If you want converts do something other than talk. Invent something based on your theories.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 17 2009, 12:43 AM)
I'm sure there's a very good psychoanalytic explanation for why mathematicians desire to exclude those who circumvent the math from learning and using what they have learned in the form that they know it. It probably has to do with some adolescent need that was resolved by gaining prestige for mathematics ability.
Or maybe they don't like people talking giberish.
Or maybe they don't like people talking giberish.
Actually I play by ear, yes, because I never learned to read notes. Another hobby, not my profession. I find my music greatly inferior to what I hear people do by reading music, but I have vastly more skill and tonality than someone who avoids playing instruments or singing altogether. So there are shades of grey.
Why do you keep implying that mathematics is somehow under threat of elimination? It's like listening to the pouting girl who baits compliments by whining about how no one thinks she's pretty.
As for its universality; yes, wonderful, I agree. The problem is that scientific concepts about reality cannot be expressed in maths alone. Fascinating pure concepts, yes. Logic, probably, yes. But there are many concepts and phenomena that require words. Plus, words can be very conceptually precise when used well.
Why do you keep implying that mathematics is somehow under threat of elimination? It's like listening to the pouting girl who baits compliments by whining about how no one thinks she's pretty.
As for its universality; yes, wonderful, I agree. The problem is that scientific concepts about reality cannot be expressed in maths alone. Fascinating pure concepts, yes. Logic, probably, yes. But there are many concepts and phenomena that require words. Plus, words can be very conceptually precise when used well.
If you want converts do something other than talk. Invent something based on your theories.
I apply physics and other science in daily practice all the time. It's not inventing something, in the sense that you mean it I think, but it does allow me to approach things with more than recipe knowledge. You probably don't know anything about everyday practical engineering, though, because you probably just have other people do everything for you and spend your time doing research and writing papers - not that there's anything wrong with that if you do, but it would prevent you from having the chance to apply science in practical applications.
I love it. We can't calculate anything and we can't measure anything.
(How convenient). 
So let's just talk about it. Physicists! Abandon your research and and book time on The View instead!
The mathematics of GR are good, as already verified by the precession of the orbit of Mercury. That is not in question, so repeating the calculation would not reveal anything new. However, just because we now know how to accurately calculate it does not mean in any way that we really and truly understand the concepts behind WHY the mathematics work so very well. That is one of the most tricky aspects of what I have tried to put together - if the mathematics work, but also introduce major conceptual problems, can we identify an approach which would reduce ultimately to the same mathematics but resolve those conceptual questions? Any such effort would, of necessity, have to focus on the conceptual explanations rather than on the math.
The situation with Zeeman splitting is essentially identical. The question is not in the math. In this particular case, the concepts generally also hold up pretty good, although there are a few hiccups as well. Here, the application is more of a follow-up to some of the other aspects of the theory - showing that it actually clarifies some of the concepts better than before. Again - no math is questioned, therefore, none need be involved at this point.
With the matter-antimatter, once again, the actual math is not in question, so a math demonstration is not warranted. Hoewever, the need for virtual particles most certainly is. There is a far better conceptual basis for what is going on, and that is what I have tried to elucidate in the book.
Try reading it through - you might just find it enlightening.
T. B. Bon
If you're so all-fired sure that a non-technical explanation will make sense to the uneducated like me, why are you arguing with AlphaNumeric instead of teaching your point of view?
I have not visited your website, not at least because anyone who posts here claiming 'great strides' in physics is almost surely a crackpot...
Why don't you pad your post count with something substantive, i.e. your subject matter, instead of sniping with someone whose achievements are substantial?
Or better yet, move your focus to the Creation/Evolution threads, where you're more likely to find an audience of your peers...
Intelligent design is the math intelligent mathematicians find like Einsteins relativity. This is not faith but observation. The creation of the universe by intelligence is a question of faith. Science needs to rely on observations not faith for answers to scientific unknowns. Unless of course a much higher intelligence comes to give us all the answers. That would be no fun. Its the struggle that brings satisfaction in learning about the unknown.
An
Its accurate to say if you are on the Earth and throw a ball up unless it lands on something it will fall back down. You are being precise and accurate when you add the 9.8 m/s/s to the return trip at sea level on Earth. But this does not add much knowledge as to: why does the ball return? Precision has not answered why gravity attracts.
Math will not tell us why. This is where we need concepts to go with the math. Math is necessary to put concepts together. For instance I could say dilation follows gravity in mathematics. Gravity and dilation might have the same ratio and affect at the same distances (the inverse square of the distance). So we might be able to say dilation could be a contender for the mechanism that causes gravity. The math for the two are already worked out we just need to show where they fit or do not fit as to the attractive part of mass. (my opinion.)
I picked those three in particular because you can't do them using pre-1900 mainstream physics, so any crank building their own theory of Newtonian mechanics isn't going to manage to answer them. Further more, they are results which are not well known or common place in mainstream education, unless you get to the latter years of a physics degree and so many cranks, who work by seeing what common systems physicists consider and explicitly come up with some BS to explain them, have never heard of the phenomena I mention and it throws them out of wack.
A theory of everything should model everything. I have provided 3 phenomena out of billions. If the original poster can't predict the same physical results are mainstream work in those areas then he's wrong, because the phenomena are ones which are already very very accurately modelled by current theories, which I happen to know and so I can tell if the provided answers are right or wrong. This isn't "Replicate the results of my favourite theories", it's "Replicate the results of Nature, which my favourite theories just happen to do too so I can check easily if you're right or not".
The original poster hasn't been able to demonstrate he can aqctually model any physical system and so he has nothing worth retorting, he just vwas hundreds of pages of waffle and no actual results.
He's basing his critique on the assumption that science should explain workings of the physical universe. If a theory fails to do so, the theory fails. It doesn't matter whether it's internally consistent or not, if it doesn't relate to the physical universe, it's a piece of fiction.
QUOTE
And you won't have anyone else on the same page as you if you get rid of mathematics. It's the only universal language.
Why do you keep implying that mathematics is somehow under threat of elimination? It's like listening to the pouting girl who baits compliments by whining about how no one thinks she's pretty.
As for its universality; yes, wonderful, I agree. The problem is that scientific concepts about reality cannot be expressed in maths alone. Fascinating pure concepts, yes. Logic, probably, yes. But there are many concepts and phenomena that require words. Plus, words can be very conceptually precise when used well.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And you won't have anyone else on the same page as you if you get rid of mathematics. It's the only universal language. |
Why do you keep implying that mathematics is somehow under threat of elimination? It's like listening to the pouting girl who baits compliments by whining about how no one thinks she's pretty.
As for its universality; yes, wonderful, I agree. The problem is that scientific concepts about reality cannot be expressed in maths alone. Fascinating pure concepts, yes. Logic, probably, yes. But there are many concepts and phenomena that require words. Plus, words can be very conceptually precise when used well.
If you want converts do something other than talk. Invent something based on your theories.
I apply physics and other science in daily practice all the time. It's not inventing something, in the sense that you mean it I think, but it does allow me to approach things with more than recipe knowledge. You probably don't know anything about everyday practical engineering, though, because you probably just have other people do everything for you and spend your time doing research and writing papers - not that there's anything wrong with that if you do, but it would prevent you from having the chance to apply science in practical applications.
Orestis
Looks to me like you are just trying to pick at things that you may not like without really reading through the book. You will not get a valid understanding or impression of what is there with such tactics. That particular quote was only included as a question which relates to many of the assumptions which have been made and incorporated into our current physics dogma without any real substantiation. It is purely a rhetorical question for the reader to consider for themselves.
As for the quote by light in the tunnel, it was the text of my original posting.
AlphaNumeric
If what you mean by “answering your request” is for me to address the specific questions that you listed at the bottom, they have nothing whatever to do with what is covered by the book, so of course, they are not addressed. As far as all of your other less-than-complimentary comments, I do believe that they were adequately addressed. It is quite clear that there are a number of areas where we disagree – but that does not indicate that I am inept.
buttershug
At no point have I said that mathematics is expendable – it is an absolutely critical part of physics, science, engineering, and etc. However, it is not truly the “universal language” that many seem to think that it is. Just like all of our other tools, it too has its imperfections and it can be misused. We have a number of tools available to us, and all of them are needed, none of them are expendable, nor are any of them reliable enough to be used in isolation or as a final arbiter.
Anyone who may be interested
What I have tried to do is to provide a reasonable opportunity for reasonably intelligent and interested people to take a sincere look at some ideas and perspectives that I sincerely believe approach some of the truths of the Reality that lies all about us. Most of the mathematical equations that we already have generally provide numerically valid or equivalent answers; however, there is a great deal of disjointedness in modern physics, which I believe, reflects some serious conceptual questions. If the math already gives us the correct numeric answers (where we can test them) – then a mathematical approach could not provide any basis for differentiation. In such a case, we need to rely instead on our other tools – but in the end, there will also need to eventually be a mathematical evaluation to confirm that the results are indeed mathematically equivalent. But that is beyond the scope of this initial treatise.
To take lots of potshots at what I have provided as introductory comments, and not read what is contained in the referenced book, is a bit disingenuous. It seems clear that some have already decided that I must be inept. They are welcome to their opinion. However, I do believe that anyone who is truly interested in understanding how the world and universe around us work would at least find that the ideas that are presented would at least provide some novel concepts to consider. There are some suggested tests presented therein that could be made, which might possibly corroborate or disprove what is presented – naturally, we would need to wait for such results to be made available by someone who has the resources to perform them.
If you are truly interested, I suggest that you read the book through before you write it off as so much drivel.
Best regards,
T. B. Bon
Looks to me like you are just trying to pick at things that you may not like without really reading through the book. You will not get a valid understanding or impression of what is there with such tactics. That particular quote was only included as a question which relates to many of the assumptions which have been made and incorporated into our current physics dogma without any real substantiation. It is purely a rhetorical question for the reader to consider for themselves.
As for the quote by light in the tunnel, it was the text of my original posting.
AlphaNumeric
If what you mean by “answering your request” is for me to address the specific questions that you listed at the bottom, they have nothing whatever to do with what is covered by the book, so of course, they are not addressed. As far as all of your other less-than-complimentary comments, I do believe that they were adequately addressed. It is quite clear that there are a number of areas where we disagree – but that does not indicate that I am inept.
buttershug
At no point have I said that mathematics is expendable – it is an absolutely critical part of physics, science, engineering, and etc. However, it is not truly the “universal language” that many seem to think that it is. Just like all of our other tools, it too has its imperfections and it can be misused. We have a number of tools available to us, and all of them are needed, none of them are expendable, nor are any of them reliable enough to be used in isolation or as a final arbiter.
Anyone who may be interested
What I have tried to do is to provide a reasonable opportunity for reasonably intelligent and interested people to take a sincere look at some ideas and perspectives that I sincerely believe approach some of the truths of the Reality that lies all about us. Most of the mathematical equations that we already have generally provide numerically valid or equivalent answers; however, there is a great deal of disjointedness in modern physics, which I believe, reflects some serious conceptual questions. If the math already gives us the correct numeric answers (where we can test them) – then a mathematical approach could not provide any basis for differentiation. In such a case, we need to rely instead on our other tools – but in the end, there will also need to eventually be a mathematical evaluation to confirm that the results are indeed mathematically equivalent. But that is beyond the scope of this initial treatise.
To take lots of potshots at what I have provided as introductory comments, and not read what is contained in the referenced book, is a bit disingenuous. It seems clear that some have already decided that I must be inept. They are welcome to their opinion. However, I do believe that anyone who is truly interested in understanding how the world and universe around us work would at least find that the ideas that are presented would at least provide some novel concepts to consider. There are some suggested tests presented therein that could be made, which might possibly corroborate or disprove what is presented – naturally, we would need to wait for such results to be made available by someone who has the resources to perform them.
If you are truly interested, I suggest that you read the book through before you write it off as so much drivel.
Best regards,
T. B. Bon
QUOTE (T. B. Bon+Sep 17 2009, 06:34 AM)
However, I do believe that anyone who is truly interested in understanding how the world and universe around us work would at least find that the ideas that are presented would at least provide some novel concepts to consider. There are some suggested tests presented therein that could be made, which might possibly corroborate or disprove what is presented – naturally, we would need to wait for such results to be made available by someone who has the resources to perform them.
If you are truly interested, I suggest that you read the book through before you write it off as so much drivel.
Best regards,
T. B. Bon
I'm your target audience. I have limited math skills beyond everyday needs. I also have a lifelong fascination with the exact questions you're trying to address and/or discuss. It's why I'm here. I even have some concepts/ideas that I believe are novel.
But, I'm not going to read your book unless you give me a reason to do so. A quality summarization might do that. Of course, it might also give others here lots of ammunition to shoot your theories down. Perhaps that's why you don't summarize?
If you are truly interested, I suggest that you read the book through before you write it off as so much drivel.
Best regards,
T. B. Bon
I'm your target audience. I have limited math skills beyond everyday needs. I also have a lifelong fascination with the exact questions you're trying to address and/or discuss. It's why I'm here. I even have some concepts/ideas that I believe are novel.
But, I'm not going to read your book unless you give me a reason to do so. A quality summarization might do that. Of course, it might also give others here lots of ammunition to shoot your theories down. Perhaps that's why you don't summarize?
QUOTE (T. B. Bon+Sep 17 2009, 02:34 AM)
Orestis
Looks to me like you are just trying to pick at things that you may not like without really reading through the book. You will not get a valid understanding or impression of what is there with such tactics. That particular quote was only included as a question which relates to many of the assumptions which have been made and incorporated into our current physics dogma without any real substantiation. It is purely a rhetorical question for the reader to consider for themselves.
As for the quote by light in the tunnel, it was the text of my original posting.
I really don't give a damn what it looks like to you. Five pages of "physics is wrong, read my book," sent me scanning. Somewhere between page 300 and 305 you implied that 14 billion years is not enough time for the universe to be what it is without "intelligence to guide it."
What did you do with light in the tunnel? Send her out to prepare the way for you?
Link your book and let it speak for itself. Let the people who know the language and math check it out for you. If you cant do it have your disciple do it.
Looks to me like you are just trying to pick at things that you may not like without really reading through the book. You will not get a valid understanding or impression of what is there with such tactics. That particular quote was only included as a question which relates to many of the assumptions which have been made and incorporated into our current physics dogma without any real substantiation. It is purely a rhetorical question for the reader to consider for themselves.
As for the quote by light in the tunnel, it was the text of my original posting.
I really don't give a damn what it looks like to you. Five pages of "physics is wrong, read my book," sent me scanning. Somewhere between page 300 and 305 you implied that 14 billion years is not enough time for the universe to be what it is without "intelligence to guide it."
What did you do with light in the tunnel? Send her out to prepare the way for you?
Link your book and let it speak for itself. Let the people who know the language and math check it out for you. If you cant do it have your disciple do it.
Once Orestis said he scanned it, I decided to take a look, but when I went to the website it says I have to download it.
No offense, but I am very cautious with what I download. Why don't you put it in an html window so it can be viewed as text directly on your website without having to import it into my hard drive?
If you do that, I would take a look. I don't know if that would lower the hurdle for others or not.
No offense, but I am very cautious with what I download. Why don't you put it in an html window so it can be viewed as text directly on your website without having to import it into my hard drive?
If you do that, I would take a look. I don't know if that would lower the hurdle for others or not.
Alphanumerica: Your mention of item 3 as a helpful shared observation, let me try to "fold" this to your comments to T.Bon's 400 pages, of which I quickly scanned, noting his what I consider T. Bon's basic pictorial model, concentric circles that move to the right show that the circles originally of increasing diameter, end up with their horizontal right wall touching together as they move close to the speed of light from their original velocity= zero.
"3. Differential cross section of electron-positron to muon-antimuon, to within 10%."
[comments: rm: if the e-p is viewed as two flat equal lateral triangle, 2-felt, one three negative 1/3 charged, drawn towards three positive 1/3 charged felts, but with opposite magnetic spins, something like the Pauli Exculsions Principle, and comparing this with T. Bon's concentric circles=>nearer to C limit, I conclude T. Bon's would have to supply near infinite energy to the inner former central concentric photon, or point particle.
So, consider that instead of concentric circle model, like a drop of water onto a still flat water surface, substitute "bunje cord" gravity strings, thus as theformer concentric point particle is made to move to the right nearer to the C limit to light, ... let confusion set in, and we might end up in Albert Einstein's free falling elevator, and have to rethink the 400 pages.
Personally "not by words alone", physics needs the mathematics, bare bones. The author T. Bon does end with the math that shows infinite energy required, that means the whole bundle of all universes, unless you think about infinte powers of infinity, leaves a little more wiggle room for a chat.
Best, rm]
[comments to other "bloggeers: Reading each additional reply, that is a dialog between myself and the writer at that time, but to be timely, with the half dozen or so writers, talking about visual models of which aspects can be done with mathematics, and my own recognition that those who appear to have 'mastered' that math within the profession of groups of mathematicians, the social networking, I am pleased to read what has been written, the "negative name calling" shows me, when I do feel that urge, that my confusion has increased, so I alter the visual model, connect to the linear, type away.
Best, rm]
"3. Differential cross section of electron-positron to muon-antimuon, to within 10%."
[comments: rm: if the e-p is viewed as two flat equal lateral triangle, 2-felt, one three negative 1/3 charged, drawn towards three positive 1/3 charged felts, but with opposite magnetic spins, something like the Pauli Exculsions Principle, and comparing this with T. Bon's concentric circles=>nearer to C limit, I conclude T. Bon's would have to supply near infinite energy to the inner former central concentric photon, or point particle.
So, consider that instead of concentric circle model, like a drop of water onto a still flat water surface, substitute "bunje cord" gravity strings, thus as theformer concentric point particle is made to move to the right nearer to the C limit to light, ... let confusion set in, and we might end up in Albert Einstein's free falling elevator, and have to rethink the 400 pages.
Personally "not by words alone", physics needs the mathematics, bare bones. The author T. Bon does end with the math that shows infinite energy required, that means the whole bundle of all universes, unless you think about infinte powers of infinity, leaves a little more wiggle room for a chat.
Best, rm]
[comments to other "bloggeers: Reading each additional reply, that is a dialog between myself and the writer at that time, but to be timely, with the half dozen or so writers, talking about visual models of which aspects can be done with mathematics, and my own recognition that those who appear to have 'mastered' that math within the profession of groups of mathematicians, the social networking, I am pleased to read what has been written, the "negative name calling" shows me, when I do feel that urge, that my confusion has increased, so I alter the visual model, connect to the linear, type away.
Best, rm]
Uaafanblog had a good idea, so I have put the following synopsis together for anyone who may be interested.
Theory of Field Interaction Synopsis
This will not be a true synopsis of the Theory of Field Interaction – because, since there is so very much involved, a true synopsis would be impractical. However, it is reasonable to present a sampling of some of the more salient concepts that are covered in the book. Note also that, as a conceptual presentation, when a “WHY”, “WHAT”, of “HOW” is discussed, it is not a typical presentation of what types of results a suitable equation might produce, but instead – a true consideration of the phenomenological causes behind the outcome.
Following then is a summary listing of many of the most salient concepts that are addressed in the book. These topics are not necessarily listed in order of presentation, according to priority, or the amount of attention that is paid to them – but they are all areas that are addressed in the book.
Salient Points Covered:
• Why math is not as reliable of a “universal language” or as a final arbiter of truth or correctness as is often thought – yet no other single technique or approach is either. Thus, why we must use all of the available techniques and approaches together, in concert with each other.
• Measurement limitations – we cannot expect to be able to measure everything about Reality that we might wish.
• Inertia and momentum – what are the true phenomena behind them (it is more than just mass and motion).
• Fields – they do not entail action at a distance
_o There is significantly more to the picture than meets the eye.
_o How forces are manifest at significant distances from the source of the field.
_o Momentum and energy transfer mechanism through a field.
__ “Virtual” particles – are they truly real?
_o The underlying cause of the inverse square law for field strengths.
• Quantization – What the underlying cause is for both photons and particles
_o What truly gives rise to the particle/wave duality of photons and particles.
_o Determinism at quantum scales.
_o Significance of the quantum wave functions – what they are, and what they aren’t.
• Photons – their structure and interactions – once again, there is more to the picture than is readily apparent.
_o Why a photon MUST be more than just an electromagnetic wave, and why it is that we do not directly see all that is there.
_o How photons can carry momentum even though they have zero mass.
_o How photons interact with index of refraction changes – why they act as they do.
_o The nature of polarization interactions – down to the single photon level.
_o Dual slit interference – once again, down to the single photon level.
• Particle structure – NOT like a billiard ball (and NOT a point!) – how it differs from photons.
_o What the truly “elementary” particles are, and why.
__ Non elementary particles and why they decay
_o Neutrinos – what are they, and why do they act as they do?
__ Do they really have any mass?
• Uncertainty – where does uncertainty truly arise from, and what does it really mean to us?
• Relativity – what is the true cause and nature of the observed phenomena at relativistic speeds? (Hint: It’s NOT time, distance, and mass, nor is it just a matter of frames of reference.)
_o What is really going on with particles at relativistic speeds.
_o What constitutes the true frame of reference for Reality – is it truly totally relative to who is doing the measuring?
• Matter and antimatter – what is the difference between them?
_o Why “matter” predominates over “antimatter” in the Universe.
• Atoms and molecules – their structure and basic interactions
_o Electron structure and interactions inside the atom.
_o Particles in the nucleus.
_o Strong and weak forces – why their ranges are so highly limited (it’s not what you may think).
_o Atomic decay
• Complex matter structures and corresponding submicroscopic bulk and surface characteristics.
• Quantum tunneling – what is really happening and why.
• Cosmological redshift – it is primarily NOT Doppler or Doppler-like.
_o What do we really know (what have we truly measured)?
_o What is the primary cause for the long-range cosmological redshift?
• Cosmological microwave background – what does it really mean? (It is NOT the residual from the “Big Bang”)
• The true nature of gravity
• What is the true extent of the Universe?
_o The true significance of Einstein’s cosmological constant.
• Do we really know the age of the Universe?
I hope that the above list gives you a better idea of what is covered in the book. If you are truly interested in any of the above, I hope you find it to be an interesting read.
T. B. Bon
Theory of Field Interaction Synopsis
This will not be a true synopsis of the Theory of Field Interaction – because, since there is so very much involved, a true synopsis would be impractical. However, it is reasonable to present a sampling of some of the more salient concepts that are covered in the book. Note also that, as a conceptual presentation, when a “WHY”, “WHAT”, of “HOW” is discussed, it is not a typical presentation of what types of results a suitable equation might produce, but instead – a true consideration of the phenomenological causes behind the outcome.
Following then is a summary listing of many of the most salient concepts that are addressed in the book. These topics are not necessarily listed in order of presentation, according to priority, or the amount of attention that is paid to them – but they are all areas that are addressed in the book.
Salient Points Covered:
• Why math is not as reliable of a “universal language” or as a final arbiter of truth or correctness as is often thought – yet no other single technique or approach is either. Thus, why we must use all of the available techniques and approaches together, in concert with each other.
• Measurement limitations – we cannot expect to be able to measure everything about Reality that we might wish.
• Inertia and momentum – what are the true phenomena behind them (it is more than just mass and motion).
• Fields – they do not entail action at a distance
_o There is significantly more to the picture than meets the eye.
_o How forces are manifest at significant distances from the source of the field.
_o Momentum and energy transfer mechanism through a field.
__ “Virtual” particles – are they truly real?
_o The underlying cause of the inverse square law for field strengths.
• Quantization – What the underlying cause is for both photons and particles
_o What truly gives rise to the particle/wave duality of photons and particles.
_o Determinism at quantum scales.
_o Significance of the quantum wave functions – what they are, and what they aren’t.
• Photons – their structure and interactions – once again, there is more to the picture than is readily apparent.
_o Why a photon MUST be more than just an electromagnetic wave, and why it is that we do not directly see all that is there.
_o How photons can carry momentum even though they have zero mass.
_o How photons interact with index of refraction changes – why they act as they do.
_o The nature of polarization interactions – down to the single photon level.
_o Dual slit interference – once again, down to the single photon level.
• Particle structure – NOT like a billiard ball (and NOT a point!) – how it differs from photons.
_o What the truly “elementary” particles are, and why.
__ Non elementary particles and why they decay
_o Neutrinos – what are they, and why do they act as they do?
__ Do they really have any mass?
• Uncertainty – where does uncertainty truly arise from, and what does it really mean to us?
• Relativity – what is the true cause and nature of the observed phenomena at relativistic speeds? (Hint: It’s NOT time, distance, and mass, nor is it just a matter of frames of reference.)
_o What is really going on with particles at relativistic speeds.
_o What constitutes the true frame of reference for Reality – is it truly totally relative to who is doing the measuring?
• Matter and antimatter – what is the difference between them?
_o Why “matter” predominates over “antimatter” in the Universe.
• Atoms and molecules – their structure and basic interactions
_o Electron structure and interactions inside the atom.
_o Particles in the nucleus.
_o Strong and weak forces – why their ranges are so highly limited (it’s not what you may think).
_o Atomic decay
• Complex matter structures and corresponding submicroscopic bulk and surface characteristics.
• Quantum tunneling – what is really happening and why.
• Cosmological redshift – it is primarily NOT Doppler or Doppler-like.
_o What do we really know (what have we truly measured)?
_o What is the primary cause for the long-range cosmological redshift?
• Cosmological microwave background – what does it really mean? (It is NOT the residual from the “Big Bang”)
• The true nature of gravity
• What is the true extent of the Universe?
_o The true significance of Einstein’s cosmological constant.
• Do we really know the age of the Universe?
I hope that the above list gives you a better idea of what is covered in the book. If you are truly interested in any of the above, I hope you find it to be an interesting read.
T. B. Bon
So you cover the electron structure of atoms and how they interact, you cover quantum processes involving matter and antimatter and you cover 'the true nature of gravity' and yet you have no reply for my 3 questions :
1. Precession of Mercury
2. Zeeman splitting of emission spectra in Hydrogen
3. Differential cross section of electron-positron to muon-antimuon, to within 10%.
Those are homework questions for 2nd~4th years at uni doing physics. Can't you manage such simple problems?
1. Precession of Mercury
2. Zeeman splitting of emission spectra in Hydrogen
3. Differential cross section of electron-positron to muon-antimuon, to within 10%.
Those are homework questions for 2nd~4th years at uni doing physics. Can't you manage such simple problems?
QUOTE
• Why math is not as reliable of a “universal language” or as a final arbiter of truth or correctness as is often thought – yet no other single technique or approach is either. Thus, why we must use all of the available techniques and approaches together, in concert with each other.
• Measurement limitations – we cannot expect to be able to measure everything about Reality that we might wish.
• Measurement limitations – we cannot expect to be able to measure everything about Reality that we might wish.
I love it. We can't calculate anything and we can't measure anything.
(How convenient). So let's just talk about it. Physicists! Abandon your research and and book time on The View instead!
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 23 2009, 07:40 AM)
So you cover the electron structure of atoms and how they interact, you cover quantum processes involving matter and antimatter and you cover 'the true nature of gravity' and yet you have no reply for my 3 questions :
1. Precession of Mercury
2. Zeeman splitting of emission spectra in Hydrogen
3. Differential cross section of electron-positron to muon-antimuon, to within 10%.
Those are homework questions for 2nd~4th years at uni doing physics. Can't you manage such simple problems?
The way to interrogate this person's knowledge/ideas is not to subject him to literacy tests based on relatively arbitrary homework questions assigned to students at your university.
The way to do this is to start with a single proposition and subject it to critical discourse to figure out where it doesn't hold up. The worse his theory and ideas, the quicker you should be able to find the holes.
You can't poke holes in something, though, if all you're capable of doing is assigning homework problems as preconditions for taking your poker out of your pocket-protector.
The poster could facilitating a constructive critical discourse on his ideas by actually posting on single section or proposition on this website as a discussion thread. This would get the ball rolling faster than expecting people to navigate to a website and download a large file that could potentially be infected with who knows what kind of software.
I hope these suggestions will help raise the maturity level of the stand-off between author and critics that has ensued so far.
1. Precession of Mercury
2. Zeeman splitting of emission spectra in Hydrogen
3. Differential cross section of electron-positron to muon-antimuon, to within 10%.
Those are homework questions for 2nd~4th years at uni doing physics. Can't you manage such simple problems?
The way to interrogate this person's knowledge/ideas is not to subject him to literacy tests based on relatively arbitrary homework questions assigned to students at your university.
The way to do this is to start with a single proposition and subject it to critical discourse to figure out where it doesn't hold up. The worse his theory and ideas, the quicker you should be able to find the holes.
You can't poke holes in something, though, if all you're capable of doing is assigning homework problems as preconditions for taking your poker out of your pocket-protector.
The poster could facilitating a constructive critical discourse on his ideas by actually posting on single section or proposition on this website as a discussion thread. This would get the ball rolling faster than expecting people to navigate to a website and download a large file that could potentially be infected with who knows what kind of software.
I hope these suggestions will help raise the maturity level of the stand-off between author and critics that has ensued so far.
You talk about trying to find holes in their claims quickly, I'm doing just that.
The three things I talk about are three phenomena which were central to the development of modern physics because they were things which could not be explained by the previous set of ideas and which required a new approach to solve.
1. Precession of Mercury. It was long known that, even when you take into account all planets and bigger moons, that Newtonian gravity didn't predict the right amount of precession seen in the orbit of Mercury. GR did and it was this evidence which helped turn over all our understanding of gravity.
2. Zeeman emission splittiing. In the 1910s and 1920s it was realised that the colour of emissions of heated elements (elements as in elements of the periodic table) seemed to follow patterns, with definite frequencies coming from each element. Not only that but when you put the heated material into a magnetic field you get differernt colours again, more colours! This is known as Zeeman splitting and it took the development of the electron shell structure of the atom via quantum mechanics to understand. Classical electromagnetism can't explain it.
3. Antimatter is fundamentally a quantum field theory concept, you need both quantum mechanics and special relativity (it was his development of QFT which lead Dirac to predict the existence of antimatter). The interaction between matter and antimatter also requires you to be able to describe virtual particle production, as they contribute to answers.
Anyone who has a masters in particle physics can provide the answer to all of these, they are now standard results. As such anyone claiming to have a new physics, a replacement for current understanding must best current understanding and to do that they must show they are at least as good. If someone can't answer these questions with their 'new theory of everything' then their claims are lies and nothing more needs to be said.
The original poster made pretty big claims. I'm asking him to back them up. Yes, it involves doing a bit of algebra but too many people fail to realise physics isn't just about what a system does, it's about precisely how it does it. Saying "I have a theory of gravity, if you throw a ball up it'll come down" isn't enough, you have to be able to answer "If I throw a ball straight up at 10m/s how long till it comes down?". Is that a simple enough example for you or do we need to break out the crayons and a couple of circles of paper?
The three things I talk about are three phenomena which were central to the development of modern physics because they were things which could not be explained by the previous set of ideas and which required a new approach to solve.
1. Precession of Mercury. It was long known that, even when you take into account all planets and bigger moons, that Newtonian gravity didn't predict the right amount of precession seen in the orbit of Mercury. GR did and it was this evidence which helped turn over all our understanding of gravity.
2. Zeeman emission splittiing. In the 1910s and 1920s it was realised that the colour of emissions of heated elements (elements as in elements of the periodic table) seemed to follow patterns, with definite frequencies coming from each element. Not only that but when you put the heated material into a magnetic field you get differernt colours again, more colours! This is known as Zeeman splitting and it took the development of the electron shell structure of the atom via quantum mechanics to understand. Classical electromagnetism can't explain it.
3. Antimatter is fundamentally a quantum field theory concept, you need both quantum mechanics and special relativity (it was his development of QFT which lead Dirac to predict the existence of antimatter). The interaction between matter and antimatter also requires you to be able to describe virtual particle production, as they contribute to answers.
Anyone who has a masters in particle physics can provide the answer to all of these, they are now standard results. As such anyone claiming to have a new physics, a replacement for current understanding must best current understanding and to do that they must show they are at least as good. If someone can't answer these questions with their 'new theory of everything' then their claims are lies and nothing more needs to be said.
The original poster made pretty big claims. I'm asking him to back them up. Yes, it involves doing a bit of algebra but too many people fail to realise physics isn't just about what a system does, it's about precisely how it does it. Saying "I have a theory of gravity, if you throw a ball up it'll come down" isn't enough, you have to be able to answer "If I throw a ball straight up at 10m/s how long till it comes down?". Is that a simple enough example for you or do we need to break out the crayons and a couple of circles of paper?
I tried your suggestions about using crayons, but I ended up having to wipe of my screen and using the keyboard to respond.
While I have to give you that you had better than arbitrary reasons for selecting the qualifying questions you did, all you are doing is shifting the burden of defense of this person's theories so that he has to respond to the theories you revere, instead of defending his own content.
If you come to me with a theory of the relationship between economic waste and environmental unsustainability, and I tell you that you first have to explain worker alienation and its relationship to the complacency among proletians, because Marx is an important social economists who came before you, it's going to significantly deter you from the project you have been engaged in so far, in the terms you have engaged it.
This is not to say that a theorist/researcher can't spend some energy comparing and/or integrating their ideas into others' ideas that address the same issues and phenomena. It's just that it is not necessary for a new theory to address existing theories or their problems to put forth relevant propositions that can be critically discussed in their own right. It may be that you can borrow from existing theories for ideas about how to poke holes in a new theory, but the burden of critical-approach is on the critic - the critic shouldn't expect the theorist to respond to existing theory as a prerequisite to creating theory or propositions in the first place.
Your approach would effectively censor the possibility of thought outside of orthodox theory-development. That is an unnecessary and artificial constraint to place on science.
I disagree. " if you throw a ball up it'll come down" is a theory of gravity that withstands critical scrutiny better than the proposition "if you throw a ball up it'll go into orbit." Quantization and measurement may be helpful techniques for poking holes in hypotheses and theories, but they are only one tool, and not always necessarily the right one for the job or the most useful.
If you can take a qualitative physical proposition and design an experiment or way of measuring observable phenomena to prove or disprove it, you will have achieved something noteworthy from a scientific perspective. But so would someone who designs a qualitative thought-experiment or a logical or other analytic tool that addresses a theory or hypothesis.
The value of scientific methods is determined in practice, according to results. You cannot place value on a method in abstraction, outside of its application in a specific problem. Methods can be taught this way, but to have practical value they must be applied, no?
While I have to give you that you had better than arbitrary reasons for selecting the qualifying questions you did, all you are doing is shifting the burden of defense of this person's theories so that he has to respond to the theories you revere, instead of defending his own content.
If you come to me with a theory of the relationship between economic waste and environmental unsustainability, and I tell you that you first have to explain worker alienation and its relationship to the complacency among proletians, because Marx is an important social economists who came before you, it's going to significantly deter you from the project you have been engaged in so far, in the terms you have engaged it.
This is not to say that a theorist/researcher can't spend some energy comparing and/or integrating their ideas into others' ideas that address the same issues and phenomena. It's just that it is not necessary for a new theory to address existing theories or their problems to put forth relevant propositions that can be critically discussed in their own right. It may be that you can borrow from existing theories for ideas about how to poke holes in a new theory, but the burden of critical-approach is on the critic - the critic shouldn't expect the theorist to respond to existing theory as a prerequisite to creating theory or propositions in the first place.
Your approach would effectively censor the possibility of thought outside of orthodox theory-development. That is an unnecessary and artificial constraint to place on science.
QUOTE
too many people fail to realise physics isn't just about what a system does, it's about precisely how it does it. Saying "I have a theory of gravity, if you throw a ball up it'll come down" isn't enough, you have to be able to answer "If I throw a ball straight up at 10m/s how long till it comes down?"
I disagree. " if you throw a ball up it'll come down" is a theory of gravity that withstands critical scrutiny better than the proposition "if you throw a ball up it'll go into orbit." Quantization and measurement may be helpful techniques for poking holes in hypotheses and theories, but they are only one tool, and not always necessarily the right one for the job or the most useful.
If you can take a qualitative physical proposition and design an experiment or way of measuring observable phenomena to prove or disprove it, you will have achieved something noteworthy from a scientific perspective. But so would someone who designs a qualitative thought-experiment or a logical or other analytic tool that addresses a theory or hypothesis.
The value of scientific methods is determined in practice, according to results. You cannot place value on a method in abstraction, outside of its application in a specific problem. Methods can be taught this way, but to have practical value they must be applied, no?
This is the only historical instance of a solar eclipse having indubitably caused great changes in a native’s life; moreover, the precise date on which those changes took place is known. Eddington required several months to measure his photographs, and it wasn’t until 9/27/1919 that Einstein received word that Eddington’s measurements had indeed confirmed his theory; and then it took until 11/7/1919 for the press and general public to learn that Newton’s laws had been overthrown. On this latter date Einstein went from obscurity to worldwide fame overnight (date from Einstein – the Life and Times by Ronald W. Clark). Thus the “target date” which we wish to derive from the eclipse chart is 11/7/1919.
Reference: Some google I just did.
Reference: Some google I just did.
T.B. Bon, Today @ 5:18AM [I take issue with this "dot" item]:
{{
• Fields – they do not entail action at a distance
_o There is significantly more to the picture than meets the eye.
_o How forces are manifest at significant distances from the source of the field.
_o Momentum and energy transfer mechanism through a field.
__ “Virtual” particles – are they truly real?
_o The underlying cause of the inverse square law for field strengths.
}}
A G-string, takes two point masses (vertexes) connected by Higgs Universal Gravity Strings (HUGS) to all other point masses in the universe of your choice and to all others. This may satisfy the Newton Models for inverse square law force with the decrease of the string cross section with length.
"Action at a distance" if it means "instantly" means the speed of electro-magnetic force may well exceed locally the "C" value. Might dependent upon the extent of the distance between any two point masses, so "all" other points do have an effect upon each point, noise give uncertainty, saves the former mathematical laws.
Visually, the force of gravity travels longitudinally, the EM transversely.
I like the "iron reinforcing rod" (irr) model: hit one end squarely with, say a hammer, the rod, I imagine, will bulge and transmit a slug shaped bulge; with some special hammer, to give a transverse "hit" and some combination of transverse and longitudinal movement, a helical, maybe rotating shape so Maxwell's and Newton maths are respected--all locally along the G-string.
AlphaNumeric, Today at &:40 AM: Good set of three question, precession of Mercury, I read Albert Einstein reported he felt and heard a "crack" sound in his head upon getting this thought on the Hg precession to connect. Zeeman splitting of emission, that we can send down some of the sets of g-string in the G-string Matrix equations, should this discussion go further. I like that, since I associate the individual g-string frequencies given off, pulses shaped as "slugs" to be many frequencies that someway are associated with the source "point mass". Forgive words here, math I am working on learning how to express.
"Differential Cross Sections of electrons-positron to muon-antimuon to with 10%", maybe, if take the leptons to be electron, positron, dual and triple sub-quark, 1/3 charge vertexes, Hugged by mutual spin of their same 1/3 charge quarks. An electron is "Down-strange-bottom", all -1/3 charged, and seems that the can compact itself, the neutrino, separated by the Pauli principal.
Glibness is right and left handed?
True, I was teaching against a blackboard, I'd have to construct or look up actual doable problems.
Thanks, rm.
=========================
light in the tunnel Posted today @ 3;29 PM
Agree, and I would add some hands on lab or desktop construction or sketching.
=========================
AlphaNumeric, posted today @ 3:43PM: I have to balance my own self confidence in what I believe against my petty prejudices, and the issue it seems to be is to get a visual local mechanism that can track the "quantum" (discrete).
Off the hook with heuristics?
Thanks, rm
========================
light in the tunnel Posted today @ 4:45PM:
Q: What if we throw a ball up in the elevator Albert Einstein imagined he was free falling down?
You have until it hits the Earth to answer that question, feel not sense of urgency, only humor.
Best, rm
======================
Beer w/Straw, posted today @ 5:58PM
I made a time line vertical for Albert Einstein's general relatively, the results horizontal, were compared with unity, first high, then oscillating around unity, and leveling to unity. Damped by understand through science sharing.
The oscillations (06jan05 Notebook), three of them, took some 14 years. Five years between measures.
Knowledge then takes time to get understood so as to improve measurements.
Best, rm
{{
• Fields – they do not entail action at a distance
_o There is significantly more to the picture than meets the eye.
_o How forces are manifest at significant distances from the source of the field.
_o Momentum and energy transfer mechanism through a field.
__ “Virtual” particles – are they truly real?
_o The underlying cause of the inverse square law for field strengths.
}}
A G-string, takes two point masses (vertexes) connected by Higgs Universal Gravity Strings (HUGS) to all other point masses in the universe of your choice and to all others. This may satisfy the Newton Models for inverse square law force with the decrease of the string cross section with length.
"Action at a distance" if it means "instantly" means the speed of electro-magnetic force may well exceed locally the "C" value. Might dependent upon the extent of the distance between any two point masses, so "all" other points do have an effect upon each point, noise give uncertainty, saves the former mathematical laws.
Visually, the force of gravity travels longitudinally, the EM transversely.
I like the "iron reinforcing rod" (irr) model: hit one end squarely with, say a hammer, the rod, I imagine, will bulge and transmit a slug shaped bulge; with some special hammer, to give a transverse "hit" and some combination of transverse and longitudinal movement, a helical, maybe rotating shape so Maxwell's and Newton maths are respected--all locally along the G-string.
AlphaNumeric, Today at &:40 AM: Good set of three question, precession of Mercury, I read Albert Einstein reported he felt and heard a "crack" sound in his head upon getting this thought on the Hg precession to connect. Zeeman splitting of emission, that we can send down some of the sets of g-string in the G-string Matrix equations, should this discussion go further. I like that, since I associate the individual g-string frequencies given off, pulses shaped as "slugs" to be many frequencies that someway are associated with the source "point mass". Forgive words here, math I am working on learning how to express.
"Differential Cross Sections of electrons-positron to muon-antimuon to with 10%", maybe, if take the leptons to be electron, positron, dual and triple sub-quark, 1/3 charge vertexes, Hugged by mutual spin of their same 1/3 charge quarks. An electron is "Down-strange-bottom", all -1/3 charged, and seems that the can compact itself, the neutrino, separated by the Pauli principal.
Glibness is right and left handed?
True, I was teaching against a blackboard, I'd have to construct or look up actual doable problems.
Thanks, rm.
=========================
light in the tunnel Posted today @ 3;29 PM
Agree, and I would add some hands on lab or desktop construction or sketching.
=========================
AlphaNumeric, posted today @ 3:43PM: I have to balance my own self confidence in what I believe against my petty prejudices, and the issue it seems to be is to get a visual local mechanism that can track the "quantum" (discrete).
Off the hook with heuristics?
Thanks, rm
========================
light in the tunnel Posted today @ 4:45PM:
Q: What if we throw a ball up in the elevator Albert Einstein imagined he was free falling down?
You have until it hits the Earth to answer that question, feel not sense of urgency, only humor.
Best, rm
======================
Beer w/Straw, posted today @ 5:58PM
I made a time line vertical for Albert Einstein's general relatively, the results horizontal, were compared with unity, first high, then oscillating around unity, and leveling to unity. Damped by understand through science sharing.
The oscillations (06jan05 Notebook), three of them, took some 14 years. Five years between measures.
Knowledge then takes time to get understood so as to improve measurements.
Best, rm
QUOTE (rmuldavin+Sep 23 2009, 08:37 PM)
fgsdfgtxdfbxcgfghcfgg
OMG!
Leave Britney alone!
OMG!
Leave Britney alone!
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 23 2009, 07:40 AM)
So you cover the electron structure of atoms and how they interact, you cover quantum processes involving matter and antimatter and you cover 'the true nature of gravity' and yet you have no reply for my 3 questions :
1. Precession of Mercury
2. Zeeman splitting of emission spectra in Hydrogen
3. Differential cross section of electron-positron to muon-antimuon, to within 10%.
Those are homework questions for 2nd~4th years at uni doing physics. Can't you manage such simple problems?
The mathematics of GR are good, as already verified by the precession of the orbit of Mercury. That is not in question, so repeating the calculation would not reveal anything new. However, just because we now know how to accurately calculate it does not mean in any way that we really and truly understand the concepts behind WHY the mathematics work so very well. That is one of the most tricky aspects of what I have tried to put together - if the mathematics work, but also introduce major conceptual problems, can we identify an approach which would reduce ultimately to the same mathematics but resolve those conceptual questions? Any such effort would, of necessity, have to focus on the conceptual explanations rather than on the math.
The situation with Zeeman splitting is essentially identical. The question is not in the math. In this particular case, the concepts generally also hold up pretty good, although there are a few hiccups as well. Here, the application is more of a follow-up to some of the other aspects of the theory - showing that it actually clarifies some of the concepts better than before. Again - no math is questioned, therefore, none need be involved at this point.
With the matter-antimatter, once again, the actual math is not in question, so a math demonstration is not warranted. Hoewever, the need for virtual particles most certainly is. There is a far better conceptual basis for what is going on, and that is what I have tried to elucidate in the book.
Try reading it through - you might just find it enlightening.
T. B. Bon
1. Precession of Mercury
2. Zeeman splitting of emission spectra in Hydrogen
3. Differential cross section of electron-positron to muon-antimuon, to within 10%.
Those are homework questions for 2nd~4th years at uni doing physics. Can't you manage such simple problems?
The mathematics of GR are good, as already verified by the precession of the orbit of Mercury. That is not in question, so repeating the calculation would not reveal anything new. However, just because we now know how to accurately calculate it does not mean in any way that we really and truly understand the concepts behind WHY the mathematics work so very well. That is one of the most tricky aspects of what I have tried to put together - if the mathematics work, but also introduce major conceptual problems, can we identify an approach which would reduce ultimately to the same mathematics but resolve those conceptual questions? Any such effort would, of necessity, have to focus on the conceptual explanations rather than on the math.
The situation with Zeeman splitting is essentially identical. The question is not in the math. In this particular case, the concepts generally also hold up pretty good, although there are a few hiccups as well. Here, the application is more of a follow-up to some of the other aspects of the theory - showing that it actually clarifies some of the concepts better than before. Again - no math is questioned, therefore, none need be involved at this point.
With the matter-antimatter, once again, the actual math is not in question, so a math demonstration is not warranted. Hoewever, the need for virtual particles most certainly is. There is a far better conceptual basis for what is going on, and that is what I have tried to elucidate in the book.
Try reading it through - you might just find it enlightening.
T. B. Bon
Light_in_the_tunnel, AN is talking about our universe. Not possible ones like JRR Tolkien wrote about.
And in this Universe Mercury behaves the way Einstein said not the way Newton said.
Any theory that does not explain that, does not explain this Universe.
Any theory that does not explain the precession of Mercury is not explaining this Universe.
You only played in sports tournaments where everyone got a trophy, didn't you?
And in this Universe Mercury behaves the way Einstein said not the way Newton said.
Any theory that does not explain that, does not explain this Universe.
Any theory that does not explain the precession of Mercury is not explaining this Universe.
You only played in sports tournaments where everyone got a trophy, didn't you?
QUOTE (T. B. Bon+Sep 23 2009, 03:49 PM)
The mathematics of GR are good, as already verified by the precession of the orbit of Mercury. That is not in question, so repeating the calculation would not reveal anything new. However, just because we now know how to accurately calculate it does not mean in any way that we really and truly understand the concepts behind WHY the mathematics work so very well. That is one of the most tricky aspects of what I have tried to put together - if the mathematics work, but also introduce major conceptual problems, can we identify an approach which would reduce ultimately to the same mathematics but resolve those conceptual questions? Any such effort would, of necessity, have to focus on the conceptual explanations rather than on the math.
The situation with Zeeman splitting is essentially identical. The question is not in the math. In this particular case, the concepts generally also hold up pretty good, although there are a few hiccups as well. Here, the application is more of a follow-up to some of the other aspects of the theory - showing that it actually clarifies some of the concepts better than before. Again - no math is questioned, therefore, none need be involved at this point.
With the matter-antimatter, once again, the actual math is not in question, so a math demonstration is not warranted. Hoewever, the need for virtual particles most certainly is. There is a far better conceptual basis for what is going on, and that is what I have tried to elucidate in the book.
Try reading it through - you might just find it enlightening.
T. B. Bon
If you're so all-fired sure that a non-technical explanation will make sense to the uneducated like me, why are you arguing with AlphaNumeric instead of teaching your point of view?
I have not visited your website, not at least because anyone who posts here claiming 'great strides' in physics is almost surely a crackpot...
Why don't you pad your post count with something substantive, i.e. your subject matter, instead of sniping with someone whose achievements are substantial?
Or better yet, move your focus to the Creation/Evolution threads, where you're more likely to find an audience of your peers...
Intelligent design is the math intelligent mathematicians find like Einsteins relativity. This is not faith but observation. The creation of the universe by intelligence is a question of faith. Science needs to rely on observations not faith for answers to scientific unknowns. Unless of course a much higher intelligence comes to give us all the answers. That would be no fun. Its the struggle that brings satisfaction in learning about the unknown.
An
Its accurate to say if you are on the Earth and throw a ball up unless it lands on something it will fall back down. You are being precise and accurate when you add the 9.8 m/s/s to the return trip at sea level on Earth. But this does not add much knowledge as to: why does the ball return? Precision has not answered why gravity attracts.
Math will not tell us why. This is where we need concepts to go with the math. Math is necessary to put concepts together. For instance I could say dilation follows gravity in mathematics. Gravity and dilation might have the same ratio and affect at the same distances (the inverse square of the distance). So we might be able to say dilation could be a contender for the mechanism that causes gravity. The math for the two are already worked out we just need to show where they fit or do not fit as to the attractive part of mass. (my opinion.)
QUOTE
all you are doing is shifting the burden of defense of this person's theories so that he has to respond to the theories you revere, instead of defending his own content.
No, I am asking him to demonstrate that he can describe three particular phenomena in Nature. A theory of everything should be able to do that. I picked those three in particular because you can't do them using pre-1900 mainstream physics, so any crank building their own theory of Newtonian mechanics isn't going to manage to answer them. Further more, they are results which are not well known or common place in mainstream education, unless you get to the latter years of a physics degree and so many cranks, who work by seeing what common systems physicists consider and explicitly come up with some BS to explain them, have never heard of the phenomena I mention and it throws them out of wack.
A theory of everything should model everything. I have provided 3 phenomena out of billions. If the original poster can't predict the same physical results are mainstream work in those areas then he's wrong, because the phenomena are ones which are already very very accurately modelled by current theories, which I happen to know and so I can tell if the provided answers are right or wrong. This isn't "Replicate the results of my favourite theories", it's "Replicate the results of Nature, which my favourite theories just happen to do too so I can check easily if you're right or not".
The original poster hasn't been able to demonstrate he can aqctually model any physical system and so he has nothing worth retorting, he just vwas hundreds of pages of waffle and no actual results.
Indeed, only his continuing engagement with AlphaNumeric justifies his continued existence here. But I expect more waffle and am already getting the faintly maple-flavored syrup ready.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=429076
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=429076
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 25 2009, 07:51 AM)
No, I am asking him to demonstrate that he can describe three particular phenomena in Nature. A theory of everything should be able to do that.
I picked those three in particular because you can't do them using pre-1900 mainstream physics, so any crank building their own theory of Newtonian mechanics isn't going to manage to answer them. Further more, they are results which are not well known or common place in mainstream education, unless you get to the latter years of a physics degree and so many cranks, who work by seeing what common systems physicists consider and explicitly come up with some BS to explain them, have never heard of the phenomena I mention and it throws them out of wack.
A theory of everything should model everything. I have provided 3 phenomena out of billions. If the original poster can't predict the same physical results are mainstream work in those areas then he's wrong, because the phenomena are ones which are already very very accurately modelled by current theories, which I happen to know and so I can tell if the provided answers are right or wrong. This isn't "Replicate the results of my favourite theories", it's "Replicate the results of Nature, which my favourite theories just happen to do too so I can check easily if you're right or not".
The original poster hasn't been able to demonstrate he can aqctually model any physical system and so he has nothing worth retorting, he just vwas hundreds of pages of waffle and no actual results.
You're basing your criteria for critique on the assumption that any and all science MUST be able to address the same conundrums in order to have the possibility of having any explanatory or predictive power. [Moderator: FALSE. It is T. B. Bon who in the first post claims to fix all physics from cosmology to quantum mechanics, which means such all physical observations from the large scale structure of the universe to those of sub atomic particles must be correctly explained by T. B. Bon restructured physics. That was his claim, and AlphaNumeric wants to know how T. B. Bon convinced himself and plans on convincing others. AlphaNumeric does not have an easy test of the structure of the large scale universe or the true nature of sub-atomic particles at his fingertips, but he does have some well-known observations about how the universe is put together (facts) which are in contradiction to the prediction of Newton (1687) and Maxwell (1865) when such theories are based soley on human-scale observations. These inobvious facts have to be explained and predicted if T. B. Bon has succeeded as claimed, and currently provisionally widely-accepted physical theories (GR (Einstein, 1915), QED (Schwinger, Tomonaga, Feynman, 1920s-1930s)) already treat such problems as nearly trivial and are easily available to anyone who browses the relevant textbook. So modeling such facts, where the observations have been done carefully and repeatedly, is the most trivial way to convince people fairly that one's purported theory have value in areas like cosmology (where high-precision tests are just a few years old) and fundamental theory underlying sub-atomic physics (where arguably, no observations have yet been made). If T. B. Bon had said his purported understanding was only of how certain lasers interacted with certain crystals to give certain light which was not a component of the orginal laser light, then AlphaNumeric would need somewhat less convincing. If T. B. Bon had said some statement about the economics of the paint industry, then AlphaNumeric would only want data that concerned the paint industry in more than one city, etc. So T. B. Bon set the scale of the tests that have to be checked when he chose to make claims. ]
Newtonian physics may not explain or predict certain things that other kinds of physics can, but that does not mean that it is completely devoid of scientific validity and conceptual power. [Moderator: RED HERRING. No one is saying that Newtonian physics is useless, just that it is useless in going beyond Newtonian theory. All new theories (like GR, SR, QED, etc) must act like Newtonian theory in the limit of human size and human-speed objects like Newton was most familiar with, because Newton was right about many thing, which is because Newton cared about facts. It is when you stop caring about facts that your physics goes unreliable and wonky, not when you abandon slavish loyalty to some dead English heretic.
]
If you would afford the same opportunity for any theoretical proposition to demonstrate explanatory and/or predictive power in the areas that it purports to address, then it may be possible to poke holes in it in its own terms. That is a more powerful critical strategy than subjecting it to external criteria, because by taking the external approach you never get to address what a new theory DOES purport to explain and predict. [Moderator: Try reading the thread before commenting, and I will try to read your next post before judging.]
Imagine you are Galileo purporting that the Earth goes around the sun. [Moderator: It was Galileo, arguing by analogy (1610-1632) and following Copernicus (1543).] Then, your ptolemeic critic insists that for you to be able to explain planetary motion, you must be able to explain why planets change direction during certain times. [Moderator: Not actually a problem for Galileo (tried in Ecclesiastical court circa 1633) or Copernicus unless they falsely asserted planets move in perfect circles at constant speeds, and correctly solved by Brahe(1572-1600)/Kepler(1602-1619). But it was Bradley (1729) who gave the Galileo case strong support that the Earth moves.] In your theory, planets never change direction, because they just keep proceeding in the same orbital direction around the sun. [Moderator: Strawman Argument, as of 1605.] However, your ptolemeic critic is so ingrained in his own theoretical developments that he cannot accept any explanation that does not address empirical observations of retrograde motion of planets in the heavens. [Moderator: Strawman Argument, as that was not the basis of the Galileo Affair.]
I picked those three in particular because you can't do them using pre-1900 mainstream physics, so any crank building their own theory of Newtonian mechanics isn't going to manage to answer them. Further more, they are results which are not well known or common place in mainstream education, unless you get to the latter years of a physics degree and so many cranks, who work by seeing what common systems physicists consider and explicitly come up with some BS to explain them, have never heard of the phenomena I mention and it throws them out of wack.
A theory of everything should model everything. I have provided 3 phenomena out of billions. If the original poster can't predict the same physical results are mainstream work in those areas then he's wrong, because the phenomena are ones which are already very very accurately modelled by current theories, which I happen to know and so I can tell if the provided answers are right or wrong. This isn't "Replicate the results of my favourite theories", it's "Replicate the results of Nature, which my favourite theories just happen to do too so I can check easily if you're right or not".
The original poster hasn't been able to demonstrate he can aqctually model any physical system and so he has nothing worth retorting, he just vwas hundreds of pages of waffle and no actual results.
You're basing your criteria for critique on the assumption that any and all science MUST be able to address the same conundrums in order to have the possibility of having any explanatory or predictive power. [Moderator: FALSE. It is T. B. Bon who in the first post claims to fix all physics from cosmology to quantum mechanics, which means such all physical observations from the large scale structure of the universe to those of sub atomic particles must be correctly explained by T. B. Bon restructured physics. That was his claim, and AlphaNumeric wants to know how T. B. Bon convinced himself and plans on convincing others. AlphaNumeric does not have an easy test of the structure of the large scale universe or the true nature of sub-atomic particles at his fingertips, but he does have some well-known observations about how the universe is put together (facts) which are in contradiction to the prediction of Newton (1687) and Maxwell (1865) when such theories are based soley on human-scale observations. These inobvious facts have to be explained and predicted if T. B. Bon has succeeded as claimed, and currently provisionally widely-accepted physical theories (GR (Einstein, 1915), QED (Schwinger, Tomonaga, Feynman, 1920s-1930s)) already treat such problems as nearly trivial and are easily available to anyone who browses the relevant textbook. So modeling such facts, where the observations have been done carefully and repeatedly, is the most trivial way to convince people fairly that one's purported theory have value in areas like cosmology (where high-precision tests are just a few years old) and fundamental theory underlying sub-atomic physics (where arguably, no observations have yet been made). If T. B. Bon had said his purported understanding was only of how certain lasers interacted with certain crystals to give certain light which was not a component of the orginal laser light, then AlphaNumeric would need somewhat less convincing. If T. B. Bon had said some statement about the economics of the paint industry, then AlphaNumeric would only want data that concerned the paint industry in more than one city, etc. So T. B. Bon set the scale of the tests that have to be checked when he chose to make claims. ]
Newtonian physics may not explain or predict certain things that other kinds of physics can, but that does not mean that it is completely devoid of scientific validity and conceptual power. [Moderator: RED HERRING. No one is saying that Newtonian physics is useless, just that it is useless in going beyond Newtonian theory. All new theories (like GR, SR, QED, etc) must act like Newtonian theory in the limit of human size and human-speed objects like Newton was most familiar with, because Newton was right about many thing, which is because Newton cared about facts. It is when you stop caring about facts that your physics goes unreliable and wonky, not when you abandon slavish loyalty to some dead English heretic.
]If you would afford the same opportunity for any theoretical proposition to demonstrate explanatory and/or predictive power in the areas that it purports to address, then it may be possible to poke holes in it in its own terms. That is a more powerful critical strategy than subjecting it to external criteria, because by taking the external approach you never get to address what a new theory DOES purport to explain and predict. [Moderator: Try reading the thread before commenting, and I will try to read your next post before judging.]
Imagine you are Galileo purporting that the Earth goes around the sun. [Moderator: It was Galileo, arguing by analogy (1610-1632) and following Copernicus (1543).] Then, your ptolemeic critic insists that for you to be able to explain planetary motion, you must be able to explain why planets change direction during certain times. [Moderator: Not actually a problem for Galileo (tried in Ecclesiastical court circa 1633) or Copernicus unless they falsely asserted planets move in perfect circles at constant speeds, and correctly solved by Brahe(1572-1600)/Kepler(1602-1619). But it was Bradley (1729) who gave the Galileo case strong support that the Earth moves.] In your theory, planets never change direction, because they just keep proceeding in the same orbital direction around the sun. [Moderator: Strawman Argument, as of 1605.] However, your ptolemeic critic is so ingrained in his own theoretical developments that he cannot accept any explanation that does not address empirical observations of retrograde motion of planets in the heavens. [Moderator: Strawman Argument, as that was not the basis of the Galileo Affair.]
Does his theory make testifiable predictions?
QUOTE
You're basing your criteria for critique on the assumption that any and all science MUST be able to address the same conundrums in order to have the possibility of having any explanatory or predictive power.
He's basing his critique on the assumption that science should explain workings of the physical universe. If a theory fails to do so, the theory fails. It doesn't matter whether it's internally consistent or not, if it doesn't relate to the physical universe, it's a piece of fiction.
Thanks to the moderator for adding flesh to my knowledge of Galileo and the discourse that developed regarding heliocentrism. I was not so much making claims about the actual historical discourse as I was trying to put forth a hypothetical example as an analogical illustration of how I saw the the approach to T Bon's theoretics unfolding.
Granted, Bon relies on hot-topics in an established physics discourse as a springboard for choosing his topics. Therefore it is not entirely unreasonable to expect him to address the existing theories to a degree considered sufficient by others knowledgeable of these theories. Still, if for whatever reason Bon is unwilling or unable to address the topics in the terms recognizable to those who subscribe to the existing theories, I propose that an alternative to discrediting him on this basis would be to follow his own logic, in his own terms, as a means of "poking holes."
The worst that could result from doing this, as far as I can see, would be discovering that T Bon's theories are tautological, i.e. that they are not testable and/or disprovable as a result of the way that he has framed his ideas. If that were the case, the fact could simply be acknowledged and his theories could be dismissed as unfalsifiable due to being untestable. This would in itself discredit his ideas to most scientists, although there could potentially be a small number of people who continue to see some merit in his thinking, and as such continue to support him developing the ideas further.
I think the thing I agreed with most in the moderator's statements was that Bon should be responsible for deducing specific sub-propositions from his own theory, if he does not want to contend with the specific canonical issues he was requested to address.
Doing this would be a form of compromise, since he would be able to avoid dealing with topics he may be unable or unwilling to address - yet the burden will still fall on him to put forth an alternative method of evaluating the explanatory and predictive power of his work.
I hope this response to the moderator's comments is sufficiently respectful to avoid getting me banned. I am really just interested to see if Bon can come up with something interesting enough to inject fresh thought into discourse, and to be able to follow the development of his theory as a result of constructive criticism. I found his initial post and his list of topics from his book engaging, as it seems others did as well, hence all the bustle surrounding it.
Granted, Bon relies on hot-topics in an established physics discourse as a springboard for choosing his topics. Therefore it is not entirely unreasonable to expect him to address the existing theories to a degree considered sufficient by others knowledgeable of these theories. Still, if for whatever reason Bon is unwilling or unable to address the topics in the terms recognizable to those who subscribe to the existing theories, I propose that an alternative to discrediting him on this basis would be to follow his own logic, in his own terms, as a means of "poking holes."
The worst that could result from doing this, as far as I can see, would be discovering that T Bon's theories are tautological, i.e. that they are not testable and/or disprovable as a result of the way that he has framed his ideas. If that were the case, the fact could simply be acknowledged and his theories could be dismissed as unfalsifiable due to being untestable. This would in itself discredit his ideas to most scientists, although there could potentially be a small number of people who continue to see some merit in his thinking, and as such continue to support him developing the ideas further.
I think the thing I agreed with most in the moderator's statements was that Bon should be responsible for deducing specific sub-propositions from his own theory, if he does not want to contend with the specific canonical issues he was requested to address.
Doing this would be a form of compromise, since he would be able to avoid dealing with topics he may be unable or unwilling to address - yet the burden will still fall on him to put forth an alternative method of evaluating the explanatory and predictive power of his work.
I hope this response to the moderator's comments is sufficiently respectful to avoid getting me banned. I am really just interested to see if Bon can come up with something interesting enough to inject fresh thought into discourse, and to be able to follow the development of his theory as a result of constructive criticism. I found his initial post and his list of topics from his book engaging, as it seems others did as well, hence all the bustle surrounding it.
Thanks to the moderator for adding flesh to my knowledge of Galileo and the discourse that developed regarding heliocentrism. I was not so much making claims about the actual historical discourse as I was trying to put forth a hypothetical example as an analogical illustration of how I saw the the approach to T Bon's theoretics unfolding.
Granted, Bon relies on hot-topics in an established physics discourse as a springboard for choosing his topics. Therefore it is not entirely unreasonable to expect him to address the existing theories to a degree considered sufficient by others knowledgeable of these theories. Still, if for whatever reason Bon is unwilling or unable to address the topics in the terms recognizable to those who subscribe to the existing theories, I propose that an alternative to discrediting him on this basis would be to follow his own logic, in his own terms, as a means of "poking holes."
The worst that could result from doing this, as far as I can see, would be discovering that T Bon's theories are tautological, i.e. that they are not testable and/or disprovable as a result of the way that he has framed his ideas. If that were the case, the fact could simply be acknowledged and his theories could be dismissed as unfalsifiable due to being untestable. This would in itself discredit his ideas to most scientists, although there could potentially be a small number of people who continue to see some merit in his thinking, and as such continue to support him developing the ideas further.
I think the thing I agreed with most in the moderator's statements was that Bon should be responsible for deducing specific sub-propositions from his own theory, if he does not want to contend with the specific canonical issues he was requested to address.
Doing this would be a form of compromise, since he would be able to avoid dealing with topics he may be unable or unwilling to address - yet the burden will still fall on him to put forth an alternative method of evaluating the explanatory and predictive power of his work.
I hope this response to the moderator's comments is sufficiently respectful to avoid getting me banned. I am really just interested to see if Bon can come up with something interesting enough to inject fresh thought into discourse, and to be able to follow the development of his theory as a result of constructive criticism. I found his initial post and his list of topics from his book engaging, as it seems others did as well, hence all the bustle surrounding it.
By the way, I was not implying that anyone found Newtonian physics useless. I used the example of Newtonian physics for the very reason that I knew that people would recognize it as a valid and useful set of theories, which nevertheless fail to deal with the kinds of issues raised by post-Newtonian thinkers. In other words, something doesn't have to explain and predict everything in order to have value in explaining and predicting some things.
Granted, Bon relies on hot-topics in an established physics discourse as a springboard for choosing his topics. Therefore it is not entirely unreasonable to expect him to address the existing theories to a degree considered sufficient by others knowledgeable of these theories. Still, if for whatever reason Bon is unwilling or unable to address the topics in the terms recognizable to those who subscribe to the existing theories, I propose that an alternative to discrediting him on this basis would be to follow his own logic, in his own terms, as a means of "poking holes."
The worst that could result from doing this, as far as I can see, would be discovering that T Bon's theories are tautological, i.e. that they are not testable and/or disprovable as a result of the way that he has framed his ideas. If that were the case, the fact could simply be acknowledged and his theories could be dismissed as unfalsifiable due to being untestable. This would in itself discredit his ideas to most scientists, although there could potentially be a small number of people who continue to see some merit in his thinking, and as such continue to support him developing the ideas further.
I think the thing I agreed with most in the moderator's statements was that Bon should be responsible for deducing specific sub-propositions from his own theory, if he does not want to contend with the specific canonical issues he was requested to address.
Doing this would be a form of compromise, since he would be able to avoid dealing with topics he may be unable or unwilling to address - yet the burden will still fall on him to put forth an alternative method of evaluating the explanatory and predictive power of his work.
I hope this response to the moderator's comments is sufficiently respectful to avoid getting me banned. I am really just interested to see if Bon can come up with something interesting enough to inject fresh thought into discourse, and to be able to follow the development of his theory as a result of constructive criticism. I found his initial post and his list of topics from his book engaging, as it seems others did as well, hence all the bustle surrounding it.
By the way, I was not implying that anyone found Newtonian physics useless. I used the example of Newtonian physics for the very reason that I knew that people would recognize it as a valid and useful set of theories, which nevertheless fail to deal with the kinds of issues raised by post-Newtonian thinkers. In other words, something doesn't have to explain and predict everything in order to have value in explaining and predicting some things.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 25 2009, 07:31 PM)
You're basing your criteria for critique on the assumption that any and all science MUST be able to address the same conundrums in order to have the possibility of having any explanatory or predictive power.
So you're saying that a theory of everything, an accurate theory of everything, doesn't have to model things, accurately or otherwise?
If a theory of physics contains no physics, is it still physics? You're claiming that someone doesn't need to describe Nature to be able to claim they can describe all of Nature?!
If the original poster said "I've got a new description for some physics" and made no mention of electrons or planetary orbits then I'd not be asking him those questions. But he has said he's addressed those areas of physics so he should be able to model them. But he can't. So his work is at best a liar and at worst worthless crap.
So you're saying that a theory of everything, an accurate theory of everything, doesn't have to model things, accurately or otherwise?
If a theory of physics contains no physics, is it still physics? You're claiming that someone doesn't need to describe Nature to be able to claim they can describe all of Nature?!
If the original poster said "I've got a new description for some physics" and made no mention of electrons or planetary orbits then I'd not be asking him those questions. But he has said he's addressed those areas of physics so he should be able to model them. But he can't. So his work is at best a liar and at worst worthless crap.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 25 2009, 10:52 PM)
So you're saying that a theory of everything, an accurate theory of everything, doesn't have to model things, accurately or otherwise?
If a theory of physics contains no physics, is it still physics? You're claiming that someone doesn't need to describe Nature to be able to claim they can describe all of Nature?!
If the original poster said "I've got a new description for some physics" and made no mention of electrons or planetary orbits then I'd not be asking him those questions. But he has said he's addressed those areas of physics so he should be able to model them. But he can't. So his work is at best a liar and at worst worthless crap.
If I told you I had a new method of playing soccer that involved wearing skis, you would think I was foolish. If I started insisting that it was possible to shoot goals, pass, make corner kicks, defend, and keep goal - all with skis on, then you might say that I have to prove it. If you make me prove it in the world cup tournament, I might lose but that wouldn't prove that I couldn't play soccer in skis, just that I couldn't do it well enough to keep up in the most difficult matches.
So, while I agree that you're right, that he has to model specific physical events, I'm willing to let him pick which, and see how he does with the ones he chooses. It still might turn out eventually that his physics is "worthless crap" but I think it's interesting to see what he can do with it before he gets to the point of theory-failure.
I don't think what you are doing is bad. If nothing else, this person deserves to know what problems he is eventually going to have to face to gain credibility by physicists like you. If he is still willing to pursue his own theories using his own data, though, I'm interested in it and I'm interested to see if others can constructively criticize him in a way that keeps him developing.
Think of it like having an Alternative-Physics Idol TV program:)
If a theory of physics contains no physics, is it still physics? You're claiming that someone doesn't need to describe Nature to be able to claim they can describe all of Nature?!
If the original poster said "I've got a new description for some physics" and made no mention of electrons or planetary orbits then I'd not be asking him those questions. But he has said he's addressed those areas of physics so he should be able to model them. But he can't. So his work is at best a liar and at worst worthless crap.
If I told you I had a new method of playing soccer that involved wearing skis, you would think I was foolish. If I started insisting that it was possible to shoot goals, pass, make corner kicks, defend, and keep goal - all with skis on, then you might say that I have to prove it. If you make me prove it in the world cup tournament, I might lose but that wouldn't prove that I couldn't play soccer in skis, just that I couldn't do it well enough to keep up in the most difficult matches.
So, while I agree that you're right, that he has to model specific physical events, I'm willing to let him pick which, and see how he does with the ones he chooses. It still might turn out eventually that his physics is "worthless crap" but I think it's interesting to see what he can do with it before he gets to the point of theory-failure.
I don't think what you are doing is bad. If nothing else, this person deserves to know what problems he is eventually going to have to face to gain credibility by physicists like you. If he is still willing to pursue his own theories using his own data, though, I'm interested in it and I'm interested to see if others can constructively criticize him in a way that keeps him developing.
Think of it like having an Alternative-Physics Idol TV program:)
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 25 2009, 09:05 PM)
Think of it like having an Alternative-Physics Idol TV program:)
In other words: no talent, no originality and mediocre judging with no authority?
In other words: no talent, no originality and mediocre judging with no authority?
I thought that I had answered AlphaNumeric’s questions adequately in my response on September 23, but apparently, what I provided was not sufficiently clear to be understood properly. I apologize.
First of all, as to whether I have ever made any of those particular calculations – no, I have not. They may be a regular part of physics class or homework calculations now, but they had not attained such a status when I graduated in physics many decades ago (we were still using slide rules back then). I am sure that I could likely go look them up and then regurgitate them, but that would really prove nothing, and would be beside the point. I am indeed familiar with the cited phenomena, and I have always been agreement with the outcome, so I have never felt the need to repeat the calculations. I have had a long career working with both physics and engineering, and am quite capable and knowledgeable. As I stated before, I have no argument with the mathematics for the specific cases given, nor with much of the other mathematics associated with the points covered in my book. Where they can be verified, it is clear that they have had some very thorough confirmation.
As I have tried to convey before, the math behind many of these topics is very good, in many cases outstanding. However, as I have studied much of what has been advanced and proposed as an interpretation of the mathematics, I have seen – and many other leading physicists have also seen and acknowledged – that there were some very significant conceptual conundrums associated with many of those concepts. Thus, partly as a result, many of those topics have remained as separate areas of application within physics – because NO ONE knew how to properly bring them together. I, too, was stymied, bewildered, and frustrated by the situation.
I do have a tendency to focus on concepts a lot. I have never been satisfied with just knowing how to calculate something, and that perspective has served me well throughout my career. I have seen many cases where that extra bit of understanding provided the critical key for enabling me to ferret out a solution where other very good engineers and scientists around me were somewhat lost because they did not have a good feel for the concepts that lie behind the math.
In my treatise, I focused on the concepts because:
1st) The mathematics were largely good – they were not really in question, but the interpretation of them was, as substantiated by the extensive on-going debate that has continued to this day. If the math is largely good, then it does not warrant much attention.
2nd) Until we get the concepts right, we really do not properly and fully understand what the math really means – we do not really know or understand how Reality works, and we don’t really know what to even look for next. The natural result of that is that our future progress is stymied somewhat and our progress frustrated relative to what it might otherwise be.
I looked first to make sure that I understood what had really been verified in what is commonly taught and accepted, and encountered more than a few surprises. I then looked at the full spectrum of physics to look for clues of some sort that might indicate what we might have conceptually missed. I looked down a number of blind alleys. Then one clue led to a rather unique set of connections that seemed to be a bit of a stretch – especially at first. They were certainly ideas that were significantly unlike anything that I had been exposed to before. Then I proceeded to test them conceptually to see if they fit with the rest of the picture. If they did not fit, that would have been a sure indication that I was likely off track. I was surprised at how well they scaled from the submicroscopic quantum realm to the rapid realm of Relativity and even ultimately to the cosmic scale. The consistency to me was a very positive indicator.
I put the book together in an effort to allow others to consider the concepts that are presented therein.
Yes, by the way, I do also understand the importance of testing and verification. I do not have access to the types of resources that would be needed, but I did present several approaches for tests that I believe would provide for the corroboration or disproof of at least some of the concepts that I presented in the book (in contrast with the currently promoted interpretations of the concepts behind the math). Wherever I could conceive of any such test, I presented it for consideration.
Hopefully, this time my answer is more clear.
Best regards,
T. B. Bon
First of all, as to whether I have ever made any of those particular calculations – no, I have not. They may be a regular part of physics class or homework calculations now, but they had not attained such a status when I graduated in physics many decades ago (we were still using slide rules back then). I am sure that I could likely go look them up and then regurgitate them, but that would really prove nothing, and would be beside the point. I am indeed familiar with the cited phenomena, and I have always been agreement with the outcome, so I have never felt the need to repeat the calculations. I have had a long career working with both physics and engineering, and am quite capable and knowledgeable. As I stated before, I have no argument with the mathematics for the specific cases given, nor with much of the other mathematics associated with the points covered in my book. Where they can be verified, it is clear that they have had some very thorough confirmation.
As I have tried to convey before, the math behind many of these topics is very good, in many cases outstanding. However, as I have studied much of what has been advanced and proposed as an interpretation of the mathematics, I have seen – and many other leading physicists have also seen and acknowledged – that there were some very significant conceptual conundrums associated with many of those concepts. Thus, partly as a result, many of those topics have remained as separate areas of application within physics – because NO ONE knew how to properly bring them together. I, too, was stymied, bewildered, and frustrated by the situation.
I do have a tendency to focus on concepts a lot. I have never been satisfied with just knowing how to calculate something, and that perspective has served me well throughout my career. I have seen many cases where that extra bit of understanding provided the critical key for enabling me to ferret out a solution where other very good engineers and scientists around me were somewhat lost because they did not have a good feel for the concepts that lie behind the math.
In my treatise, I focused on the concepts because:
1st) The mathematics were largely good – they were not really in question, but the interpretation of them was, as substantiated by the extensive on-going debate that has continued to this day. If the math is largely good, then it does not warrant much attention.
2nd) Until we get the concepts right, we really do not properly and fully understand what the math really means – we do not really know or understand how Reality works, and we don’t really know what to even look for next. The natural result of that is that our future progress is stymied somewhat and our progress frustrated relative to what it might otherwise be.
I looked first to make sure that I understood what had really been verified in what is commonly taught and accepted, and encountered more than a few surprises. I then looked at the full spectrum of physics to look for clues of some sort that might indicate what we might have conceptually missed. I looked down a number of blind alleys. Then one clue led to a rather unique set of connections that seemed to be a bit of a stretch – especially at first. They were certainly ideas that were significantly unlike anything that I had been exposed to before. Then I proceeded to test them conceptually to see if they fit with the rest of the picture. If they did not fit, that would have been a sure indication that I was likely off track. I was surprised at how well they scaled from the submicroscopic quantum realm to the rapid realm of Relativity and even ultimately to the cosmic scale. The consistency to me was a very positive indicator.
I put the book together in an effort to allow others to consider the concepts that are presented therein.
Yes, by the way, I do also understand the importance of testing and verification. I do not have access to the types of resources that would be needed, but I did present several approaches for tests that I believe would provide for the corroboration or disproof of at least some of the concepts that I presented in the book (in contrast with the currently promoted interpretations of the concepts behind the math). Wherever I could conceive of any such test, I presented it for consideration.
Hopefully, this time my answer is more clear.
Best regards,
T. B. Bon
You idolize yourself and are a practitioner of cargo cult physics and philosophy?
Bon: You should sell used cars or get into politics.
[Moderator: Spam cut and pasted from http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...019530.aspx?p=1 deleted. User suspended 10 days.]
I'd like to add my vote to the discussion above:
Uniform drops into center of bucket,
wavelets move concentric over edge,
give average constant bucket volume,
vary the drop rate observe maximium,
standing wave heights depend upon,
displacement from bucket center.
That T.B. Bon figures no standing waves,
in response to drops moving to the right,
if wavelets go over the edge are repalced,
"content" a foamy universe dark matter?
Consider musical bongo resonance instead,
back to the drawing bored without discontent.
The perfect Model of a Major Generalization.
Best rm
Uniform drops into center of bucket,
wavelets move concentric over edge,
give average constant bucket volume,
vary the drop rate observe maximium,
standing wave heights depend upon,
displacement from bucket center.
That T.B. Bon figures no standing waves,
in response to drops moving to the right,
if wavelets go over the edge are repalced,
"content" a foamy universe dark matter?
Consider musical bongo resonance instead,
back to the drawing bored without discontent.
The perfect Model of a Major Generalization.
Best rm
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.