QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 17 2007, 09:19 PM)
Look, people need to stop saying particles are waves, like the waves of the sea. They're not the same thing.
A particle wave, is merely a particle vibrating in opposite directions, whilst moving forward. This combination of forward movement, along with the vibration, makes it appear as though the particle is moving in a wave-like fashion.
Debate that with the string theorists.
It's rather infantile to assume that these vague and abstract constructs have real meaning in relation to the sublime nature of Reality. Particle? Wave? Foam?
It's purely a matter of perspective.
Could it also be possible that the medium has a background which naturally vibrates at c, allowing the translation of 'light' (not heavy) energy across vast distances at an incredible velocity?
Or as Nick would put it:
"Light Falls"
A particle wave, is merely a particle vibrating in opposite directions, whilst moving forward. This combination of forward movement, along with the vibration, makes it appear as though the particle is moving in a wave-like fashion.
Debate that with the string theorists.
It's rather infantile to assume that these vague and abstract constructs have real meaning in relation to the sublime nature of Reality. Particle? Wave? Foam?
It's purely a matter of perspective.
Could it also be possible that the medium has a background which naturally vibrates at c, allowing the translation of 'light' (not heavy) energy across vast distances at an incredible velocity?
Or as Nick would put it:
"Light Falls"
QUOTE (N O M+Jul 17 2007, 08:31 AM)
I thought of that in dud1's thread, but I wasn't going to help that retard out. Especially since it annoys the hellheck out of him 
Hehehe. Yeah, I know what you mean, N O M, it's hard to empathise with someone like dadl.....who lives in some sort of 'science-less' Bible-Disney Land.
But it's good exercise trying to 'get inside' his (ahem) thought processes, hehehe.
Cheers!
RC.
.
Hehehe. Yeah, I know what you mean, N O M, it's hard to empathise with someone like dadl.....who lives in some sort of 'science-less' Bible-Disney Land.
But it's good exercise trying to 'get inside' his (ahem) thought processes, hehehe.
Cheers!
RC.
.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 17 2007, 06:52 PM)
Rather than "arose" the correct verb is "remains." The original coordinates go singular at both R=2GM/c2 and at R=0.
where f[r] = 1 - 2GM/(c2r) ; which is 0 at R=2GM/c2 and infinite at R=0 and M != 0
ds2 = 1/f[r] dr2 + r2 ( d?2 + sin2? d?2) - c2 f[r] dt2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric
where f[r] = 1 - 2GM/(c2r) ; which is 0 at R=2GM/c2 and infinite at R=0 and M != 0
ds2 = 1/f[r] dr2 + r2 ( d?2 + sin2? d?2) - c2 f[r] dt2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric
QUOTE (RC+)
Before anything else, I'd like to state categorically that I don't think of you as a potential (sexual) 'mate', hehehe!
Perhaps a "Yank" in the 1940s would. But it's nearly as dated a reference a Londoner mentioning Rationing or The Blitz or The Hun or Gelignite or Farthings or Blue Police Boxes ... like that one that ... just appeared ... on my front lawn. Ahem! Any hope of "Buddy" surviving to the 21th century was brutally killed by an advertising campaign selling an oversized doll to boys: Google on "My Buddy" A don't know what killed "Pal" -- perhaps the Germans with PAL?
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pal (English since 17th century)
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=buddy (Quite possibly American)
I nearly never distinguish between the two, because the various ways of summing the forces are only a metaphysical difference and should make no difference to the physics. From Newton's F = ma, you can generalize as ma = ?F , but since trivially (i.e. by symmetry) a = 0, since no direction is preferred, then it's just metaphysical to speculate what terms might cancel out to give a = 0. An example is 0 = ln(1/2) + 1 - 1/2 + 1/3 - 1/4 .... But if you try and divide it into positive and negative terms, both are infinite in magnitude and can't be operated on. If vacuum weren't the majority of the world we live in, it would make sense to generalize Newton's F = GMm/r2 as F = Gm*??/r2 dr3 where ?? is the density difference relative to the average. A universe of completely uniform matter density has zero acceleration in any direction and zero tidal forces.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AlternatingHarmonicSeries.html
Faraday measured what the numbers of the universe were and built up an empirical picture of what worked. Maxwell wrote in the language of mathematics. Einstein assumed Maxwell's math was true and proved that Newton's math could not also be true. Experiment shows Maxwell and Einstein are more correct than Newton.
Hehehe! You've been watching the new "Doctor Who", I presume? Say hello for me next time....or should that be "last time" or....oh oh...paradox ahead, Captain Kirk!
Yeah, I know what you're explaining, but I was thinking more of the PRESENCE of the frame-curving effect that relativity says attends any matter.
Unless of course the matter is INFINITELY CONTIGUOS so as to not have any 'frame' AT ALL existing in that 'uniformly matter-filled' universe extent with no 'edge' for the 'frame' to 'contract' to?
Or unless the 'frame' is 'subsumed' within the nature/properties of the contiguous matter itself?
And doesn't your scenario imply that there is no 'strucutre/gradient' WITHIN the matter concept itself....like saying that there is 'no frame' to BE curved within the proton?
You get the drift of what is the ambiguity in such a scenario as you described? (at least for me, anyway....but that's not unusual, hehehe).
Catch up with you tomorrow, mate!
PS: Yeah, also like what happened to the word 'gay' in the last century (originally meaning happy/carefree). What WOULD a yank say NOW instead of "buddy" or "pal"..........."Bro"?.....or....."Sista"?.....or...."Friend"???
RC.
.
By my opinion, the foam concept is the simplest physical explanation of the particle-wave duality at all. Therefore, if we would really follow the Occam's razor criterion strictly, we would reach the foam model simply by exclusion method.
The question is, why the people didn't considered such concept already. Even more interesting question is, why the people doesn't considering this concept even after it was explained in depth here.
Because it doesn't work. Background media concepts were considered in depth and even the die-hards gave up in the 1920's. The simplest explanation of superficial attributes doesn't stand up to the subtle details. That's what experiments are for! Read Experimental Basis and understand how that categorically rules out any kind of "aether". Any such theory will either be
not the simplest way to express it, by a long shot; or
unable to explain the experimental results.
As for the subject of this thread, which is what we are really talking about here, you illustrate one aspect and hint at a second. You illustrate the delusions of grandeur that only you really have it right and nobody else can come up with something that works, even after spending a career at it.
The near miss, which might be supposed in a quick reading but doesn't stand up in a more careful reading, is the paranoid conspiracy that professional science seeks to keep the status quo and covers up outside ideas. You are actually more measured, and to some degree some individuals behave as you lament. Rather, it is still relating to the first point: you are unable to comprehend that someone else got it right, and did so decades ago.
Perhaps a "Yank" in the 1940s would. But it's nearly as dated a reference a Londoner mentioning Rationing or The Blitz or The Hun or Gelignite or Farthings or Blue Police Boxes ... like that one that ... just appeared ... on my front lawn. Ahem! Any hope of "Buddy" surviving to the 21th century was brutally killed by an advertising campaign selling an oversized doll to boys: Google on "My Buddy" A don't know what killed "Pal" -- perhaps the Germans with PAL?
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pal (English since 17th century)
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=buddy (Quite possibly American)
I nearly never distinguish between the two, because the various ways of summing the forces are only a metaphysical difference and should make no difference to the physics. From Newton's F = ma, you can generalize as ma = ?F , but since trivially (i.e. by symmetry) a = 0, since no direction is preferred, then it's just metaphysical to speculate what terms might cancel out to give a = 0. An example is 0 = ln(1/2) + 1 - 1/2 + 1/3 - 1/4 .... But if you try and divide it into positive and negative terms, both are infinite in magnitude and can't be operated on. If vacuum weren't the majority of the world we live in, it would make sense to generalize Newton's F = GMm/r2 as F = Gm*??/r2 dr3 where ?? is the density difference relative to the average. A universe of completely uniform matter density has zero acceleration in any direction and zero tidal forces.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AlternatingHarmonicSeries.html
Faraday measured what the numbers of the universe were and built up an empirical picture of what worked. Maxwell wrote in the language of mathematics. Einstein assumed Maxwell's math was true and proved that Newton's math could not also be true. Experiment shows Maxwell and Einstein are more correct than Newton.
Hehehe! You've been watching the new "Doctor Who", I presume? Say hello for me next time....or should that be "last time" or....oh oh...paradox ahead, Captain Kirk!
Yeah, I know what you're explaining, but I was thinking more of the PRESENCE of the frame-curving effect that relativity says attends any matter.
Unless of course the matter is INFINITELY CONTIGUOS so as to not have any 'frame' AT ALL existing in that 'uniformly matter-filled' universe extent with no 'edge' for the 'frame' to 'contract' to?
Or unless the 'frame' is 'subsumed' within the nature/properties of the contiguous matter itself?
And doesn't your scenario imply that there is no 'strucutre/gradient' WITHIN the matter concept itself....like saying that there is 'no frame' to BE curved within the proton?
You get the drift of what is the ambiguity in such a scenario as you described? (at least for me, anyway....but that's not unusual, hehehe).
Catch up with you tomorrow, mate!
PS: Yeah, also like what happened to the word 'gay' in the last century (originally meaning happy/carefree). What WOULD a yank say NOW instead of "buddy" or "pal"..........."Bro"?.....or....."Sista"?.....or...."Friend"???
RC.
.
An interesting point Solid State " Could it also be possible that the medium has a background which naturally vibrates at c, allowing the translation of 'light' (not heavy) energy across vast distances at an incredible velocity? " Light is so strange :)
Sometimes i think (well it happens, it does :) that we would only need to get our heads 'turned' (Castaneda style kind of:) just to a slight degree, and then everything will fall into place. The way light moves in spacetime is so irritating. Its 'contained' in the universe's spacetime although being in itself time less. And, would we exchange it with a object of rest mass it would never come to exist in our Universe's time. At an absolute motion of 'C' the universe would disappear 'instantly' (that's how i believe it too be :) if you were riding it. So being without rest mass allow photons to do this very strange feat it seems. Maybe there are a alternative way to treat spacetime without violating its 'laws' and properties?
Sometimes i think (well it happens, it does :) that we would only need to get our heads 'turned' (Castaneda style kind of:) just to a slight degree, and then everything will fall into place. The way light moves in spacetime is so irritating. Its 'contained' in the universe's spacetime although being in itself time less. And, would we exchange it with a object of rest mass it would never come to exist in our Universe's time. At an absolute motion of 'C' the universe would disappear 'instantly' (that's how i believe it too be :) if you were riding it. So being without rest mass allow photons to do this very strange feat it seems. Maybe there are a alternative way to treat spacetime without violating its 'laws' and properties?
Perhaps now that people have realised that the speed of light is variable the symbol symbol C used to denote the speed of light is inapropriate to the subjects of Quantum-temperture etc.
Also given the understanding that c in the spelling of various surnames around the wourls is often a roman c that like DNA~AND~HOURGLASS is a genetic biological characteristic of direct male bloodline physique that doesn't change much in thousands of years. The stength of my premiss c is not only DNA charater identity of hourglass physique that can hold the heaviest sword it has the DNA qualities youthfull apearance regardless of being ten years older than what people guess your age is.
AND it's not some sort of small characteristic. I could prove that by postioumously grabing at youe heart until there you-know go back in the bottle (attempt to straeghten youselves/eachother out with some time/concentration in the can/bottle)
Also given the understanding that c in the spelling of various surnames around the wourls is often a roman c that like DNA~AND~HOURGLASS is a genetic biological characteristic of direct male bloodline physique that doesn't change much in thousands of years. The stength of my premiss c is not only DNA charater identity of hourglass physique that can hold the heaviest sword it has the DNA qualities youthfull apearance regardless of being ten years older than what people guess your age is.
AND it's not some sort of small characteristic. I could prove that by postioumously grabing at youe heart until there you-know go back in the bottle (attempt to straeghten youselves/eachother out with some time/concentration in the can/bottle)
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 18 2007, 05:42 AM)
Look, people need to stop saying particles are waves, like the waves of the sea. They're not the same thing.
The AWT concept of Aether foam is illustrating such difference clearly. The energy spreading through foam is making such foam more dense, by the same way. like the shaking of the foam inside closed vessel. Therefore each energy wave passing through such foam has a character of less or more pronounced density blob, i.e. the particle.
By my opinion, the foam concept is the simplest physical explanation of the particle-wave duality at all. Therefore, if we would really follow the Occam's razor criterion strictly, we would reach the foam model simply by exclusion method.
The question is, why the people didn't considered such concept already. Even more interesting question is, why the people doesn't considering this concept even after it was explained in depth here. One explanation is relevant mostly for layman people and it can sound, the common people are really liking the secrets and eeriness. They're deeply religious by their true nature despite of years of scientific pedagogy.
The another explanation is related to the specialists on this area, i.e. the scientists, instead. They're preferring to refute every concept, which can impeach their well established paradigms or even credibility. For example, the black hole model universe was proposed by the group of official well respected scientists and presented in peer-reviewed journal, not by some cranks. Despite of this, such insight is ignored by the rest of mainstream scientists in quiet for many years, simply because it doesn't fits well their disbelief in Aether concept. It's evident, if some expert writes some article or even textbook about successful "refusal of Aether hypothesis", it becomes personally truly unacceptable for him to revise such stance.
From this point of view, we should simply wait at least for one generation of scientists, which won't become compromised by such way, before we can expect some apparent progress in this field.
The AWT concept of Aether foam is illustrating such difference clearly. The energy spreading through foam is making such foam more dense, by the same way. like the shaking of the foam inside closed vessel. Therefore each energy wave passing through such foam has a character of less or more pronounced density blob, i.e. the particle.
By my opinion, the foam concept is the simplest physical explanation of the particle-wave duality at all. Therefore, if we would really follow the Occam's razor criterion strictly, we would reach the foam model simply by exclusion method.
The question is, why the people didn't considered such concept already. Even more interesting question is, why the people doesn't considering this concept even after it was explained in depth here. One explanation is relevant mostly for layman people and it can sound, the common people are really liking the secrets and eeriness. They're deeply religious by their true nature despite of years of scientific pedagogy.
The another explanation is related to the specialists on this area, i.e. the scientists, instead. They're preferring to refute every concept, which can impeach their well established paradigms or even credibility. For example, the black hole model universe was proposed by the group of official well respected scientists and presented in peer-reviewed journal, not by some cranks. Despite of this, such insight is ignored by the rest of mainstream scientists in quiet for many years, simply because it doesn't fits well their disbelief in Aether concept. It's evident, if some expert writes some article or even textbook about successful "refusal of Aether hypothesis", it becomes personally truly unacceptable for him to revise such stance.
From this point of view, we should simply wait at least for one generation of scientists, which won't become compromised by such way, before we can expect some apparent progress in this field.
I'd argue against the foam simply because bubbles pop and protons do not.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Jul 18 2007, 02:42 AM)
It's rather infantile to assume that these vague and abstract constructs have real meaning in relation to the sublime nature of Reality. Particle? Wave? Foam?
It's purely a matter of perspective.
I suspect that you are wary of theories regarding particles, because scientists do not know for sure what particles are composed of (Other than more particles).
One may argue that at the moment of creation, only fundamental particles were created, and that it was only through various combinations of these particles, that higher forms of matter came into existence.
So when we talk about particles such as photons, protons, electrons, etc. Then we are talking about different combinations of perhaps thousands, tens of thousands, or more, fundamental particles, simply to compose a particle as small as as photon, for example.
Of course, it's only abstract in regards to fundamental particles, because they have never been observed, and personally I don't think that they ever will be, because all of them will have combined into higher forms by now, and then those higher forms into even higher forms. It is just a shame that only the power of a singularity is able to break down photons, because I would very much like to see them broken down in a lab, if not just to shake mainstream physics up a little.
It's purely a matter of perspective.
I suspect that you are wary of theories regarding particles, because scientists do not know for sure what particles are composed of (Other than more particles).
One may argue that at the moment of creation, only fundamental particles were created, and that it was only through various combinations of these particles, that higher forms of matter came into existence.
So when we talk about particles such as photons, protons, electrons, etc. Then we are talking about different combinations of perhaps thousands, tens of thousands, or more, fundamental particles, simply to compose a particle as small as as photon, for example.
Of course, it's only abstract in regards to fundamental particles, because they have never been observed, and personally I don't think that they ever will be, because all of them will have combined into higher forms by now, and then those higher forms into even higher forms. It is just a shame that only the power of a singularity is able to break down photons, because I would very much like to see them broken down in a lab, if not just to shake mainstream physics up a little.
Suppose... for a moment... that you can not break down light because it exists not as an interacting particle, but an interaction between particles.
Either way you'd still see the same results, but one situation requires an aether while the other does not.
Either way you'd still see the same results, but one situation requires an aether while the other does not.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Jul 18 2007, 03:04 PM)
Suppose... for a moment... that you can not break down light because it exists not as an interacting particle, but an interaction between particles.
Yes but what is the physical nature of an 'interaction' between particles, if not even smaller particles which comprise that interaction? Such as the particles which comprise the interaction between two objects with static electricity (electrons) , in which there is a transfer of electrons. This is an interaction over a space, and it demonstrates that such interactions are particle based.
Yes but what is the physical nature of an 'interaction' between particles, if not even smaller particles which comprise that interaction? Such as the particles which comprise the interaction between two objects with static electricity (electrons) , in which there is a transfer of electrons. This is an interaction over a space, and it demonstrates that such interactions are particle based.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Jul 18 2007, 04:07 PM)
I'd argue against the foam simply because bubbles pop and protons do not.
At first, the Aether foam is very dynamic, because the Aether is shaken well all the time. So we can say, the bubbles of Aether foam are popping by the nearly same speed, as they're creating. From more general point of view it even seems, the Aether foam creates new bubbles by slightly higher speed, then they're popping out.
Furthermore, the Aether foam is not typical soap foam, it's similar to the cellular network of density fluctuations, which is formed by supercritical vapor, where the "gaseous" and "liquid" phases differs very slightly by its density. The foam of vacuum is rather organized network of density gradients, I'm using the foam concept for the explanation of its particular properties, by the same way, like the gas or fluid character of such mixture can become useful in another particular explanations.
The Aether concept is simply nothing for schematically thinking people, the mathematicians in particular, which are usually requiring fixed set of attributes for description of particular concept. After all, this is why the supercritical vapor condensation geometry was left undescriben by theoretical models so far. The formal math doesn't work well with heavily parallelized multi-components systems. The statistical math is describing the bulk attributes, but no geometry. The differential math is describing the geometry, but no bulk attributes.
At first, the Aether foam is very dynamic, because the Aether is shaken well all the time. So we can say, the bubbles of Aether foam are popping by the nearly same speed, as they're creating. From more general point of view it even seems, the Aether foam creates new bubbles by slightly higher speed, then they're popping out.
Furthermore, the Aether foam is not typical soap foam, it's similar to the cellular network of density fluctuations, which is formed by supercritical vapor, where the "gaseous" and "liquid" phases differs very slightly by its density. The foam of vacuum is rather organized network of density gradients, I'm using the foam concept for the explanation of its particular properties, by the same way, like the gas or fluid character of such mixture can become useful in another particular explanations.
The Aether concept is simply nothing for schematically thinking people, the mathematicians in particular, which are usually requiring fixed set of attributes for description of particular concept. After all, this is why the supercritical vapor condensation geometry was left undescriben by theoretical models so far. The formal math doesn't work well with heavily parallelized multi-components systems. The statistical math is describing the bulk attributes, but no geometry. The differential math is describing the geometry, but no bulk attributes.
Zephir? Would you say that someday it may be possible to design an propulsion system that would work by sucking in your aether bubble at the front of your spacecraft then projecting them in an analogous system to trust. That would enable spacecraft travel fast than people measure as the speed of light because removing Aether(whatever it's made of) from the front of the spacecraft would remove space from in-front of your spacecraft, to put that in another way sunshine, moving the Aether behind you would remove the distance to the destination your trying to arrive at?
Does my premise sound logical?
Does my premise sound logical?
QUOTE (Soultechs+Jul 18 2007, 06:57 PM)
Does my premise sound logical?
Such concept of time traveling was proposed already with using of kinda giant Aether centrifuge. I.e. the long heavy cylinder, rotating with high speed - the frame dragging effect inside of cylinder hole would lead to less dense Aether here and it would allow to move towards time arrow (well, by just slight way). Because some of black holes are considered to behave like rotating toruses, it's possible, even the Nature has created such time machines already.
Such concept of time traveling was proposed already with using of kinda giant Aether centrifuge. I.e. the long heavy cylinder, rotating with high speed - the frame dragging effect inside of cylinder hole would lead to less dense Aether here and it would allow to move towards time arrow (well, by just slight way). Because some of black holes are considered to behave like rotating toruses, it's possible, even the Nature has created such time machines already.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 17 2007, 09:19 PM)
Look, people need to stop saying particles are waves, like the waves of the sea. They're not the same thing.
A particle wave, is merely a particle vibrating in opposite directions, whilst moving forward. This combination of forward movement, along with the vibration, makes it appear as though the particle is moving in a wave-like fashion.
It is not the same as a sea wave, which is a wave where the medium is the sea and air.
So in regards to your comment, there are no characteristics 'inherent' to the propagation of light, other than the particle vibrating up/down, whilst moving forward. Nothing at all, in any of this, requires any medium whatsoever.
A particle moving through space has a wave-like nature, but it is not because it is moving up and down like a carousel horse as it moves forward. What's changing is called "phase" and it is an internal property.
The mathematics and intuition and visualization of many examples of periodic functions are similar to each other. Simple harmonic motion is "just like" rotation seen edge-on.
A particle wave, is merely a particle vibrating in opposite directions, whilst moving forward. This combination of forward movement, along with the vibration, makes it appear as though the particle is moving in a wave-like fashion.
It is not the same as a sea wave, which is a wave where the medium is the sea and air.
So in regards to your comment, there are no characteristics 'inherent' to the propagation of light, other than the particle vibrating up/down, whilst moving forward. Nothing at all, in any of this, requires any medium whatsoever.
A particle moving through space has a wave-like nature, but it is not because it is moving up and down like a carousel horse as it moves forward. What's changing is called "phase" and it is an internal property.
The mathematics and intuition and visualization of many examples of periodic functions are similar to each other. Simple harmonic motion is "just like" rotation seen edge-on.
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 18 2007, 08:07 AM)
Could it also be possible that the medium has a background which naturally vibrates at c,
No. See Experimental Results and conclusions. The speed of light is an innate feature of Lorentz symmetry, not because of any "stiffness" of a medium.
On the other hand, the speed of light can be calculated based on Maxwell's equations based on two dimensionless parameters. Those values are what they are for empty space, and they are the same everywhere. So that is what naturally allows the electromagnetic wave to propagate at the speed it does. BUT, it is not really a medium since no value is changing or moving as in density waves (sound), displacement waves (water surface), etc.
You can also show due via Energy/wavelength and momentum/frequency relations that a massless particle must travel at c.
No. See Experimental Results and conclusions. The speed of light is an innate feature of Lorentz symmetry, not because of any "stiffness" of a medium.
On the other hand, the speed of light can be calculated based on Maxwell's equations based on two dimensionless parameters. Those values are what they are for empty space, and they are the same everywhere. So that is what naturally allows the electromagnetic wave to propagate at the speed it does. BUT, it is not really a medium since no value is changing or moving as in density waves (sound), displacement waves (water surface), etc.
You can also show due via Energy/wavelength and momentum/frequency relations that a massless particle must travel at c.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 18 2007, 11:41 AM)
By my opinion, the foam concept is the simplest physical explanation of the particle-wave duality at all. Therefore, if we would really follow the Occam's razor criterion strictly, we would reach the foam model simply by exclusion method.
The question is, why the people didn't considered such concept already. Even more interesting question is, why the people doesn't considering this concept even after it was explained in depth here.
Because it doesn't work. Background media concepts were considered in depth and even the die-hards gave up in the 1920's. The simplest explanation of superficial attributes doesn't stand up to the subtle details. That's what experiments are for! Read Experimental Basis and understand how that categorically rules out any kind of "aether". Any such theory will either be
not the simplest way to express it, by a long shot; or
unable to explain the experimental results.
As for the subject of this thread, which is what we are really talking about here, you illustrate one aspect and hint at a second. You illustrate the delusions of grandeur that only you really have it right and nobody else can come up with something that works, even after spending a career at it.
The near miss, which might be supposed in a quick reading but doesn't stand up in a more careful reading, is the paranoid conspiracy that professional science seeks to keep the status quo and covers up outside ideas. You are actually more measured, and to some degree some individuals behave as you lament. Rather, it is still relating to the first point: you are unable to comprehend that someone else got it right, and did so decades ago.
QUOTE (LearmSceince+Jul 19 2007, 12:27 AM)
..Because it doesn't work. ...background media concepts were considered in depth and even the die-hards gave up in the 1920's....
"Because it doesn't work" is not logical argument, relevant the less. You should explain, WHY do you think so. The fact, nobody was flying into space over last two thousands of years doesn't means, such flying is impossible. Only the matter of fact arguments, why the background media concept cannot work should be considered here, not some less or more obsolete stance, parroted from textbooks.
In the sparse particle system the energy spreads in longitudinal waves and the energy motion is related to the environment motion. While in the dense particle system the situation is completely symmetric. Even the simple computer simulation reveals this.
The energy aways spreads along density gradients. In dense particle system these gradients have the character of foam membranes with negative curvature, not blobs with positive curvature. And the energy spreads along surface of these waves in transversal waves. In the very dense particle system these gradient will be very thin - the motion of background media won't affect the energy spreading at all. But it doesn't means, such media cannot exist at all. For example, the spreading of the tiny capillary waves at the water surface isn't affected by the underwater motion as well - does it means, the water cannot exist?
Of course not, you just cannot use the surface water waves for the determination of the absolute reference frame of water - no less, no more. It seems, this depth wasn't sufficient...
The people apparently have developed the math, but they forget the trivial physics.
A particle moving through space has a wave-like nature, but it is not because it is moving up and down like a carousel horse as it moves forward. What's changing is called "phase" and it is an internal property.
Well, the way I suggested, makes perfect sense to me, and I can even explain why the particle vibrates to begin with.
Your suggestion of 'phase', is unknown to me, it sounds pretty ambiguous. Unless of course, you wish to clarify?
I dare you to tell me those don't look like clouds.
In regards to virtual particles, I bring them up simply because they spontaneously create themselves from vacuum energy. Therefore the vacuum must have an inherent order or structure. That is the aether to which I refer. The mythical 'background'. The laws of physics apply even in the vacuum of space.
And to strengthen the Aether Cloud debate:
.jpg)
Hurricane = Galaxy?
Coincidence?
I think not.
If you take the time to look at it, the parallels between theology and science are quite striking. It reminds me very much of the recent announcement by the Pope that the only true salvation is through the Catholic church , all other factions are abberant and irredeemable, and the return of the Latin Mass. Meaning the "word of god" is only known to those who "speak the language".
No judgement either way on my part but it does make one wish for a balanced approach to our understanding of the laws of the universe and the meaning of life. Assuming that information, like mankind, intrinsically wishes to be free and that the restriction of the very discussion leads to inherant conflict and distrust.
Just one man's observation.
"Because it doesn't work" is not logical argument, relevant the less. You should explain, WHY do you think so. The fact, nobody was flying into space over last two thousands of years doesn't means, such flying is impossible. Only the matter of fact arguments, why the background media concept cannot work should be considered here, not some less or more obsolete stance, parroted from textbooks.
In the sparse particle system the energy spreads in longitudinal waves and the energy motion is related to the environment motion. While in the dense particle system the situation is completely symmetric. Even the simple computer simulation reveals this.
The energy aways spreads along density gradients. In dense particle system these gradients have the character of foam membranes with negative curvature, not blobs with positive curvature. And the energy spreads along surface of these waves in transversal waves. In the very dense particle system these gradient will be very thin - the motion of background media won't affect the energy spreading at all. But it doesn't means, such media cannot exist at all. For example, the spreading of the tiny capillary waves at the water surface isn't affected by the underwater motion as well - does it means, the water cannot exist?
Of course not, you just cannot use the surface water waves for the determination of the absolute reference frame of water - no less, no more. It seems, this depth wasn't sufficient...
The people apparently have developed the math, but they forget the trivial physics.QUOTE (LearmSceince+Jul 19 2007, 12:27 AM)
...Read Experimental Basis and understand how that categorically rules out any kind of "aether". ....
The Aether concept doesn't violates the relativity at all - on the contrary. Just the Aether theory can explain the Lorentz symmetry and other relativity postulates on the background of Newtonian mechanics. Don't you know, how the Maxwell's theory of light was derived from Aether concept? Well, and just from Maxwell's equation the Lorentz invariance can be derived easily.
Therefore not just empiric physics, but even the math logic is supporting the Aether concept. The theorists simply have no vindication for their misunderstanding of Aether concept, only their schematic thinking, politic and religion. Even the Einstein, who understood the Aether meaning in 1921 sacrificed such understanding to politics.
The Aether concept doesn't violates the relativity at all - on the contrary. Just the Aether theory can explain the Lorentz symmetry and other relativity postulates on the background of Newtonian mechanics. Don't you know, how the Maxwell's theory of light was derived from Aether concept? Well, and just from Maxwell's equation the Lorentz invariance can be derived easily.
Therefore not just empiric physics, but even the math logic is supporting the Aether concept. The theorists simply have no vindication for their misunderstanding of Aether concept, only their schematic thinking, politic and religion. Even the Einstein, who understood the Aether meaning in 1921 sacrificed such understanding to politics.
QUOTE (LearmSceince+)
A particle moving through space has a wave-like nature, but it is not because it is moving up and down like a carousel horse as it moves forward. What's changing is called "phase" and it is an internal property.
Well, the way I suggested, makes perfect sense to me, and I can even explain why the particle vibrates to begin with.
Your suggestion of 'phase', is unknown to me, it sounds pretty ambiguous. Unless of course, you wish to clarify?
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 18 2007, 03:14 PM)
Yes but what is the physical nature of an 'interaction' between particles, if not even smaller particles which comprise that interaction? Such as the particles which comprise the interaction between two objects with static electricity (electrons) , in which there is a transfer of electrons. This is an interaction over a space, and it demonstrates that such interactions are particle based.
The interaction would obviously involve a duality. Hence why string theory makes some sense. A vibrating string has two ends.
Electron-positron annihilation is one of our most basic examples of this interacting duality that produces 'light energy'. Positronium forms as the electron and positron 'pair off' and annihilate, giving off 'light energy'. This pairing is mirrored in the vacuum of space as 'virtual pairs'.
The vast sea of 'virtual pairs' that must surround any and all matter and extend infinitely into the Universe would seem to be the most likely candidate for the transmission of light.
No 'real' particle needed, just virtual ones that are created and annihilated at the speed of light.
They would also serve as the basis for Maxwell's field lines, previous to Oliver Heaviside's reinterpretation.
Energy passed between virtual pairs would also be the most likely candidate for gravity's carrier as well.
But if you'd rather not call the sea of virtual pairs that extends through-out all of reality an 'aether'.... then you'll just have to invent a new word for it. But it does appear to exist.
Personally, I'd think aether clouds would be more appropriate than aether 'foam'.
The interaction would obviously involve a duality. Hence why string theory makes some sense. A vibrating string has two ends.
Electron-positron annihilation is one of our most basic examples of this interacting duality that produces 'light energy'. Positronium forms as the electron and positron 'pair off' and annihilate, giving off 'light energy'. This pairing is mirrored in the vacuum of space as 'virtual pairs'.
The vast sea of 'virtual pairs' that must surround any and all matter and extend infinitely into the Universe would seem to be the most likely candidate for the transmission of light.
No 'real' particle needed, just virtual ones that are created and annihilated at the speed of light.
They would also serve as the basis for Maxwell's field lines, previous to Oliver Heaviside's reinterpretation.
Energy passed between virtual pairs would also be the most likely candidate for gravity's carrier as well.
But if you'd rather not call the sea of virtual pairs that extends through-out all of reality an 'aether'.... then you'll just have to invent a new word for it. But it does appear to exist.
Personally, I'd think aether clouds would be more appropriate than aether 'foam'.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Jul 19 2007, 01:06 AM)
I'd think aether clouds would be more appropriate than aether 'foam'.
I don't think, the Aether concept prefers the positive curvature over the negative one. But in our world the positive curvature is connected to the relatively low energy densities (or the rather high, like the elementary particles curvature), so that the positive curvature phenomena are much less apparent for energy spreading through vacuum, then the negative ones. The foam concept is able to explain both relativity, both quantum mechanics phenomena, so I'm using it in explanations more often. But it's evident, the Aether can be formed by density gradients without preferred curvature.
The state of Aether foam is of certain significance regarding the evolution of complexity inside of Universe. Only the foam can become more dense after absorption of energy and such dense blob is able to focus another waves into it while the behavior of less dense places inside the foam is exactly as opposite. The question, whether the Aether foam evolution is completely symmetric is quite interesting question. We can expect some generalization of CPT invariance violation here, therefore I don't think, the evolution of Universe can ever become completelly symmetric from the global perspective.
I don't think, the Aether concept prefers the positive curvature over the negative one. But in our world the positive curvature is connected to the relatively low energy densities (or the rather high, like the elementary particles curvature), so that the positive curvature phenomena are much less apparent for energy spreading through vacuum, then the negative ones. The foam concept is able to explain both relativity, both quantum mechanics phenomena, so I'm using it in explanations more often. But it's evident, the Aether can be formed by density gradients without preferred curvature.
The state of Aether foam is of certain significance regarding the evolution of complexity inside of Universe. Only the foam can become more dense after absorption of energy and such dense blob is able to focus another waves into it while the behavior of less dense places inside the foam is exactly as opposite. The question, whether the Aether foam evolution is completely symmetric is quite interesting question. We can expect some generalization of CPT invariance violation here, therefore I don't think, the evolution of Universe can ever become completelly symmetric from the global perspective.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Jul 18 2007, 10:06 PM)
Electron-positron annihilation is one of our most basic examples of this interacting duality that produces 'light energy'. Positronium forms as the electron and positron 'pair off' and annihilate, giving off 'light energy'. This pairing is mirrored in the vacuum of space as 'virtual pairs'.
The vast sea of 'virtual pairs' that must surround any and all matter and extend infinitely into the Universe would seem to be the most likely candidate for the transmission of light.
No 'real' particle needed, just virtual ones that are created and annihilated at the speed of light.
But if you'd rather not call the sea of virtual pairs that extends through-out all of reality an 'aether'.... then you'll just have to invent a new word for it. But it does appear to exist.
The positron and electron are themselves particles. The combination of these particles creates the two gamma ray photons (Which are themselves particles), as we know. The electron and positron lack the mass/energy to create the next largest particle(s), and so rather than just create themselves again, they 'demote' themselves to the next best thing, which are two photons of much lower mass than that of the two electrons, however the differential-loss in mass, is expressed by the high energy of the photons (gamma rays) which are extremely high energy. Hence, the mass of the electron and positron, has transformed mostly into vibrational energy of the photons, rather than create many photons (To equal the same amount of mass as that of the electron & positron), whilst having relatively low vibrational energies
I'm sure you know all this, of course. Do you agree with the above?
Hence, when you talk about this sea of 'virtual pairs' (such as electrons and positrons), you are not talking about an aether. You are merely talking about a plasma.
Tbh, I don't even know why you jumped from talking about particles, to talking about some mythical underlying 'fabric' of space. There's no clear line of logic here.
The vast sea of 'virtual pairs' that must surround any and all matter and extend infinitely into the Universe would seem to be the most likely candidate for the transmission of light.
No 'real' particle needed, just virtual ones that are created and annihilated at the speed of light.
But if you'd rather not call the sea of virtual pairs that extends through-out all of reality an 'aether'.... then you'll just have to invent a new word for it. But it does appear to exist.
The positron and electron are themselves particles. The combination of these particles creates the two gamma ray photons (Which are themselves particles), as we know. The electron and positron lack the mass/energy to create the next largest particle(s), and so rather than just create themselves again, they 'demote' themselves to the next best thing, which are two photons of much lower mass than that of the two electrons, however the differential-loss in mass, is expressed by the high energy of the photons (gamma rays) which are extremely high energy. Hence, the mass of the electron and positron, has transformed mostly into vibrational energy of the photons, rather than create many photons (To equal the same amount of mass as that of the electron & positron), whilst having relatively low vibrational energies
I'm sure you know all this, of course. Do you agree with the above?
Hence, when you talk about this sea of 'virtual pairs' (such as electrons and positrons), you are not talking about an aether. You are merely talking about a plasma.
Tbh, I don't even know why you jumped from talking about particles, to talking about some mythical underlying 'fabric' of space. There's no clear line of logic here.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 19 2007, 01:23 AM)
when you talk about this sea of 'virtual pairs' (such as electrons and positrons), you are not talking about an aether...
Electrons and positrons aren't the virtual particles, but the real ones. The virtual particles are simply density fluctuations of Aether. Even the water surface exhibits the virtual particles: they're result of the Brownian motion of water molecules. They can even be detected experimentally, for example by laser fountain experiment.
Electrons and positrons aren't the virtual particles, but the real ones. The virtual particles are simply density fluctuations of Aether. Even the water surface exhibits the virtual particles: they're result of the Brownian motion of water molecules. They can even be detected experimentally, for example by laser fountain experiment.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 18 2007, 10:34 PM)
Electrons and positrons aren't the virtual particles, but the real ones. The virtual particles are simply density fluctuations of Aether. Even the water surface exhibits the virtual particles: they're result of the Brownian motion of water molecules. They can even be detected experimentally, for example by laser fountain experiment.
I don't understand then, why he added 'virtual particles' into the equation, without a clear line of logic.
We were talking about what the interaction between particles could be, such as in the case of the 'strong' force, or other such quantum forces, and so I suggested to him that these interactions can be particle-based. He then talks about electron/positron annihilation, for some unconnected reason, and then adds 'virtual pairs', with no clear line of logic how he got to that.
I just don't know what this discussion is about anymore, really.
Is it about what quantum interactions are? or is it about particle annihilation?
I don't understand then, why he added 'virtual particles' into the equation, without a clear line of logic.
We were talking about what the interaction between particles could be, such as in the case of the 'strong' force, or other such quantum forces, and so I suggested to him that these interactions can be particle-based. He then talks about electron/positron annihilation, for some unconnected reason, and then adds 'virtual pairs', with no clear line of logic how he got to that.
I just don't know what this discussion is about anymore, really.
Is it about what quantum interactions are? or is it about particle annihilation?
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 19 2007, 02:00 AM)
...why he added 'virtual particles' into the equation, without a clear line of logic....
The concept of virtual particles can explain many statistical phenomena. For example, the blue haze of daylight sky or ocean water is the result of Rayleigh dispersion on the density fluctuations of atmosphere or the water.
By the same way, the gamma ray dispersion by vacuum or photon-photon interactions can be explained by the existence of virtual particles. You can simply imagine, the photons are transformed into particle-antiparticle pairs temporarily for short periods of time. At this rare moment, when both the photons are formed by fermion-antifermion pair, the light rays can interfere mutually like particles.
We should realize, the density fluctuations in vacuum aren't the exact equivalent of density fluctuations in the air, because these fluctuations are short-living and considerably smaller, then the wavelength of common light. The common light is focused by vacuum fluctuations instead of dispersion due their energy density dependence. The light makes the vacuum more dense, so it's autofocused by it, instead. The vacuum behaves like sort of metamaterial with respect of the light waves. The metamaterial is formed by density fluctuations, too - but these fluctuations are much more smaller and dense, then the density fluctuations of atmosphere (compare the animation on the right) with respect of the wavelength size. From this their specific behavior follows - note the "photons artifacts" formation in the central part of animation - the light wave doesn't spreads through dense field of such fluctuations like the wave, but like group of less or more regular wave packets.
The concept of virtual particles can explain many statistical phenomena. For example, the blue haze of daylight sky or ocean water is the result of Rayleigh dispersion on the density fluctuations of atmosphere or the water.
By the same way, the gamma ray dispersion by vacuum or photon-photon interactions can be explained by the existence of virtual particles. You can simply imagine, the photons are transformed into particle-antiparticle pairs temporarily for short periods of time. At this rare moment, when both the photons are formed by fermion-antifermion pair, the light rays can interfere mutually like particles.
We should realize, the density fluctuations in vacuum aren't the exact equivalent of density fluctuations in the air, because these fluctuations are short-living and considerably smaller, then the wavelength of common light. The common light is focused by vacuum fluctuations instead of dispersion due their energy density dependence. The light makes the vacuum more dense, so it's autofocused by it, instead. The vacuum behaves like sort of metamaterial with respect of the light waves. The metamaterial is formed by density fluctuations, too - but these fluctuations are much more smaller and dense, then the density fluctuations of atmosphere (compare the animation on the right) with respect of the wavelength size. From this their specific behavior follows - note the "photons artifacts" formation in the central part of animation - the light wave doesn't spreads through dense field of such fluctuations like the wave, but like group of less or more regular wave packets.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 18 2007, 11:17 PM)
By the same way, the gamma ray dispersion by vacuum or photon-photon interactions can be explained by the existence of virtual particles. You can simply imagine, the photons are transformed into particle-antiparticle pairs temporarily for short periods of time. At this rare moment, when both the photons are formed by fermion-antifermion pair, the light rays can interfere mutually like particles.
I don't see why two gamma ray photons with the same vibrational energy of those created in a photon/positron annihilation, cannot reform together into an electron and a positron. Obviously for this to occur, requires two or more photons, with enough mass/energy to form the mass/energy of the electron and positron. It may further be possible for many high-energy photons to combine into even higher forms of matter, such as a proton. Albeit, I do not know how many gamma rays it would take, in order to do this, or what conditions must be present, for this to occur, ie. Would all of the photons need to collide simultaneously, or would they be able to combine piece by piece, into a higher form. It also raises the question about whether only using photons, is possible to create all known higher forms of matter. There may be more complex formulas and conditions, for creating these higher forms, than we know of.
Would you agree?
I don't see why two gamma ray photons with the same vibrational energy of those created in a photon/positron annihilation, cannot reform together into an electron and a positron. Obviously for this to occur, requires two or more photons, with enough mass/energy to form the mass/energy of the electron and positron. It may further be possible for many high-energy photons to combine into even higher forms of matter, such as a proton. Albeit, I do not know how many gamma rays it would take, in order to do this, or what conditions must be present, for this to occur, ie. Would all of the photons need to collide simultaneously, or would they be able to combine piece by piece, into a higher form. It also raises the question about whether only using photons, is possible to create all known higher forms of matter. There may be more complex formulas and conditions, for creating these higher forms, than we know of.
Would you agree?
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 19 2007, 02:37 AM)
don't see why two gamma ray photons ... cannot reform together into an electron and a positron
Because the electron and positron are metastable, they're attracting mutually under spontaneous anihillation.
Because the electron and positron are metastable, they're attracting mutually under spontaneous anihillation.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Jul 18 2007, 06:06 PM)
The interaction would obviously involve a duality. Hence why string theory makes some sense. A vibrating string has two ends.
Electron-positron annihilation is one of our most basic examples of this interacting duality that produces 'light energy'. Positronium forms as the electron and positron 'pair off' and annihilate, giving off 'light energy'. This pairing is mirrored in the vacuum of space as 'virtual pairs'.
The vast sea of 'virtual pairs' that must surround any and all matter and extend infinitely into the Universe would seem to be the most likely candidate for the transmission of light.
SSU, two 3d planes can rotate along a single axis if they are in 4d space.
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As-wYmFYb3I<
At 4:53. See the double "flying saucers"? That is the phenomenon. (Well, this is not "exploding ufo", it's from NASA!)
Also, at 4:22, from the left, the "pulsating" of the "flying saucer". We know that it may be reflected light, certainly, but it is pulsating! We don't know why these objects are **never** in focus. It's because they are a natural phenomenon of vision into the atom. This one saucer goes off camera briefly and the cameraman moves twice to get a better view, and we realize that the object has changed direction and soon becomes a "double", pulsing as the others on the right side.
At 5:11 an object crosses the tether and if you follow its path from there on you realize that it is a parabolic movement --as are in fact a lot of the others too.
If when we zoom out the object turns sideways we are looking at an atomic process because the closer we zoom into atoms -even if only with mathematics- the more they become turned outside of space -in fact they seem to lose a dimension. Also, the single notches on the bottom of most of the objects on-screen turn into double polka dots on top after they pass the middle of the screen.
But still, many things remains unexplained. One of them is that the left side of the "pulsars" doesn't pulse at all, just the right side. As far as I understand it, if it moves smoothly it's the nucleus, if it pulses it's electronic. Since the right side is the pulsating one, that is the electronic part of a single atom. My suspicion is that the right side built of... a single spiral. That explanation is, of course, invented out of thin air.
Uh, what was it that you were talking about?
Hey, the name of the thread is "Ivan's Psyche" and I want all the attention I can get! Don't complain!
Electron-positron annihilation is one of our most basic examples of this interacting duality that produces 'light energy'. Positronium forms as the electron and positron 'pair off' and annihilate, giving off 'light energy'. This pairing is mirrored in the vacuum of space as 'virtual pairs'.
The vast sea of 'virtual pairs' that must surround any and all matter and extend infinitely into the Universe would seem to be the most likely candidate for the transmission of light.
SSU, two 3d planes can rotate along a single axis if they are in 4d space.
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As-wYmFYb3I<
At 4:53. See the double "flying saucers"? That is the phenomenon. (Well, this is not "exploding ufo", it's from NASA!)
Also, at 4:22, from the left, the "pulsating" of the "flying saucer". We know that it may be reflected light, certainly, but it is pulsating! We don't know why these objects are **never** in focus. It's because they are a natural phenomenon of vision into the atom. This one saucer goes off camera briefly and the cameraman moves twice to get a better view, and we realize that the object has changed direction and soon becomes a "double", pulsing as the others on the right side.
At 5:11 an object crosses the tether and if you follow its path from there on you realize that it is a parabolic movement --as are in fact a lot of the others too.
If when we zoom out the object turns sideways we are looking at an atomic process because the closer we zoom into atoms -even if only with mathematics- the more they become turned outside of space -in fact they seem to lose a dimension. Also, the single notches on the bottom of most of the objects on-screen turn into double polka dots on top after they pass the middle of the screen.
But still, many things remains unexplained. One of them is that the left side of the "pulsars" doesn't pulse at all, just the right side. As far as I understand it, if it moves smoothly it's the nucleus, if it pulses it's electronic. Since the right side is the pulsating one, that is the electronic part of a single atom. My suspicion is that the right side built of... a single spiral. That explanation is, of course, invented out of thin air.
Uh, what was it that you were talking about?
Hey, the name of the thread is "Ivan's Psyche" and I want all the attention I can get! Don't complain!
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 18 2007, 11:41 PM)
Because the electron and positron are metastable, they're attracting mutually under spontaneous anihillation.
Has it been experimentally verified that two gamma ray photons which collide with eachother with the same (or more) energy as two gamma rays created during an electron/positron annihilation, cannot reform into an electron & positron?
If so, what is lacking from this?
Has it been experimentally verified that two gamma ray photons which collide with eachother with the same (or more) energy as two gamma rays created during an electron/positron annihilation, cannot reform into an electron & positron?
If so, what is lacking from this?
I dare you to tell me those don't look like clouds.
In regards to virtual particles, I bring them up simply because they spontaneously create themselves from vacuum energy. Therefore the vacuum must have an inherent order or structure. That is the aether to which I refer. The mythical 'background'. The laws of physics apply even in the vacuum of space.
And to strengthen the Aether Cloud debate:
Hurricane = Galaxy?
Coincidence?
I think not.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Jul 19 2007, 01:02 AM)
In regards to virtual particles, I bring them up simply because they spontaneously create themselves from vacuum energy. Therefore the vacuum must have an inherent order or structure. That is the aether to which I refer. The mythical 'background'. The laws of physics apply even in the vacuum of space.
I know you are referring to the Casmir Effect, but realise that this is not sufficient evidence for the existence of vacuum energy, since it has not been proven that vacuum energy exists, nor that this is what is being detected with the Casmir Effect.
I know you are referring to the Casmir Effect, but realise that this is not sufficient evidence for the existence of vacuum energy, since it has not been proven that vacuum energy exists, nor that this is what is being detected with the Casmir Effect.
QUOTE
I don't go out of my way to learn mainstream physics, because it's largely theoretical and may not reflect reality. I do, however, think it's a good thing to try and learn Physics up to a 'certain extent', and then to separate from it.
What I find, is that the more of mainstream physics, which one learns, the harder one finds it to question 'core' theories/beliefs. It is essentially as if by learning mainstream physics, that they have become unable to 'think outside the box'.
Sure, not all ppl who study physics are like this, but there does seem to be a tendency for such narrow-mindedness and limited thought, in those who learn such things.
For instance; I see people talk about space-time as if it's 'matter of fact'. As if space-time is a 'real' and 'proven' thing.
So, for someone like me to come along and question the validity of such a thing, is like I'm speaking an alien language, or that I have insulted them in some way.
Time dilation is a classic example, because I merely proposed the 'possibility' that it 'may' be wrong, and suddenly I get a tirade of abuse and ad hominem attacks, as well as neg feedback.
It's like, these people couldn't even be civil with me, and even discuss the possibility.
I'm all for dialogue, but these people are not, and if I may conclude; I believe the reason for this, has been the brainwashing they received by learning mainstream physics, but failing to learn it with any humility for the fact that alot of it may be wrong.
What I find, is that the more of mainstream physics, which one learns, the harder one finds it to question 'core' theories/beliefs. It is essentially as if by learning mainstream physics, that they have become unable to 'think outside the box'.
Sure, not all ppl who study physics are like this, but there does seem to be a tendency for such narrow-mindedness and limited thought, in those who learn such things.
For instance; I see people talk about space-time as if it's 'matter of fact'. As if space-time is a 'real' and 'proven' thing.
So, for someone like me to come along and question the validity of such a thing, is like I'm speaking an alien language, or that I have insulted them in some way.
Time dilation is a classic example, because I merely proposed the 'possibility' that it 'may' be wrong, and suddenly I get a tirade of abuse and ad hominem attacks, as well as neg feedback.
It's like, these people couldn't even be civil with me, and even discuss the possibility.
I'm all for dialogue, but these people are not, and if I may conclude; I believe the reason for this, has been the brainwashing they received by learning mainstream physics, but failing to learn it with any humility for the fact that alot of it may be wrong.
If you take the time to look at it, the parallels between theology and science are quite striking. It reminds me very much of the recent announcement by the Pope that the only true salvation is through the Catholic church , all other factions are abberant and irredeemable, and the return of the Latin Mass. Meaning the "word of god" is only known to those who "speak the language".
No judgement either way on my part but it does make one wish for a balanced approach to our understanding of the laws of the universe and the meaning of life. Assuming that information, like mankind, intrinsically wishes to be free and that the restriction of the very discussion leads to inherant conflict and distrust.
Just one man's observation.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 19 2007, 02:19 AM)
I know you are referring to the Casmir Effect, but realise that this is not sufficient evidence for the existence of vacuum energy, since it has not been proven that vacuum energy exists, nor that this is what is being detected with the Casmir Effect.
It was enough for Stephen Hawking to try to prove that black holes evaporate.
It was enough for Stephen Hawking to try to prove that black holes evaporate.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Jul 19 2007, 03:34 AM)
It was enough for Stephen Hawking to try to prove that black holes evaporate.
How can we test empty space without introducing matter?
Could it be we are seeing particles generated out of the immediate field energy of matter?
Mitch raemsch -- Ligh love --
How can we test empty space without introducing matter?
Could it be we are seeing particles generated out of the immediate field energy of matter?
Mitch raemsch -- Ligh love --
To Euler and Alphanumeric,
I come to this forum about every month or so to read. And I'd like to wish you both a future of delight and bliss in discussions on this forum with people you genuinely respect for their knowledge of physics and their insight into our universe. I'm still trying to understand - after all this time - why you spend so much effort with people who have nothing but undeveloped and unsubstantiated ideas to offer. In any case, I look forward to reading about your unbounded curiosity and unlimited ideas about physics. If you're looking for a model on this forum for depth of discussion, may I point out the "Quantum Mechanics: Problem with the two slit experiment: observing later" forum? It has captured my interest for the longest time.
Best regards to all on this forum,
Jim
I come to this forum about every month or so to read. And I'd like to wish you both a future of delight and bliss in discussions on this forum with people you genuinely respect for their knowledge of physics and their insight into our universe. I'm still trying to understand - after all this time - why you spend so much effort with people who have nothing but undeveloped and unsubstantiated ideas to offer. In any case, I look forward to reading about your unbounded curiosity and unlimited ideas about physics. If you're looking for a model on this forum for depth of discussion, may I point out the "Quantum Mechanics: Problem with the two slit experiment: observing later" forum? It has captured my interest for the longest time.
Best regards to all on this forum,
Jim
QUOTE (Euler+Jul 9 2007, 08:01 PM)
I joined this forum about 9 months ago, after hearing stories from a friend who told me about people with zero knowledge of physics chatting to each other about topics like "chaos", "renormalisation", "black holes", "solitons"... the list went on......
In 1905 Einstein was the common crank (because of the SR).
Today he is not - today he is the great physicist.
It is obvious that today all mainstream theories associated with the structures and spaces have problems with the initial conditions. For example:
-what is internal structure of the gravitational field and origin of it?
-how from gravity to derive the not fundamental initial condition c=const. (i.e. the foundation of the SR)?
-how from quantized geometry to derive the THEORETICAL value of the gravitational constant G?
-how explain that m(inertial)=m(gravitational) i.e. the foundation of the GR on base of the genesis of the gravity?
-what is origin of the superstrings?
-what is internal structure of the neutrinos?
-why in very energetic collisions of ions we do not observe the almost free quarks?
-where is the energy about 10^120 greater than observed (calculated within the QM)?
And so on.
Maybe only the SR, GR, QM, and the theory of scattering describe the real nature?
Maybe the authors of the loop quantum gravity, vibrating strings, quark theory, inflationary models, and the ad hoc selected diagrams are the common cranks?
I claim that the last sentence is true because the truly initial conditions should result from the equations which tie the quantized geometry with the small and large elementary structures i.e. there MUST be in existence new mathematical/physical constant which ties geometry with structures and spaces - and it is in my theory (also the answers to the listed questions). And, what is most important, I described the two experiments to prove that the QCD is FALSIFIED. First is realized - in the very energetic collisions of ions we see the liquid-like substance, not the almost free quarks. The second experiment leads to conclusion that, for example, for sample containing 100% of protons we should obtain <e^2>=0.25, not 0.33.
Can you see the relativity of the words: 'common cranks'?
In 1905 Einstein was the common crank (because of the SR).
Today he is not - today he is the great physicist.
It is obvious that today all mainstream theories associated with the structures and spaces have problems with the initial conditions. For example:
-what is internal structure of the gravitational field and origin of it?
-how from gravity to derive the not fundamental initial condition c=const. (i.e. the foundation of the SR)?
-how from quantized geometry to derive the THEORETICAL value of the gravitational constant G?
-how explain that m(inertial)=m(gravitational) i.e. the foundation of the GR on base of the genesis of the gravity?
-what is origin of the superstrings?
-what is internal structure of the neutrinos?
-why in very energetic collisions of ions we do not observe the almost free quarks?
-where is the energy about 10^120 greater than observed (calculated within the QM)?
And so on.
Maybe only the SR, GR, QM, and the theory of scattering describe the real nature?
Maybe the authors of the loop quantum gravity, vibrating strings, quark theory, inflationary models, and the ad hoc selected diagrams are the common cranks?
I claim that the last sentence is true because the truly initial conditions should result from the equations which tie the quantized geometry with the small and large elementary structures i.e. there MUST be in existence new mathematical/physical constant which ties geometry with structures and spaces - and it is in my theory (also the answers to the listed questions). And, what is most important, I described the two experiments to prove that the QCD is FALSIFIED. First is realized - in the very energetic collisions of ions we see the liquid-like substance, not the almost free quarks. The second experiment leads to conclusion that, for example, for sample containing 100% of protons we should obtain <e^2>=0.25, not 0.33.
Can you see the relativity of the words: 'common cranks'?
QUOTE (Nick+Jul 19 2007, 03:49 AM)
How can we test empty space without introducing matter?
Could it be we are seeing particles generated out of the immediate field energy of matter?
Mitch raemsch -- Ligh love --
To answer your questions we first should define the 'matter' and 'energy'. We know that energy of photon is defined by frequency. But there is following problem: Frequency of what? I claim that energy MUST be associated with either only inertial mass (it is beyond the General theory of Relativity) or inertial and gravitational masses (it is described by the GR). Gravitational mass can be measured via the gravitational field but mathematical objects (which have only shapes - they do not emit some objects) cannot create curved space - they have only inertial mass which manifest itself only in direct collisions of these shapes.
It means that energy is always associated with inertial mass or particles having inertial mass equal to the gravitational mass. Energy is defined by motions of these masses (linear speeds, rotations, vibrations, and so on).
But never can be created matter (i.e. masses) only from energy (i.e. from MOTIONS). Spaces are composed of either only inertial masses (for example the gravitational field is composed of objects having only inertial mass - only inertial masses lead to the superposition theorem) or particles having inertial mass equal to the gravitational mass. It means that always the electromagnetic energy MUST be associated with gravitational mass. My theory says that the gravitational mass of the elementary photon is equal to 6.6 . 10^-67 kg. It means that for the visible elementary photon the energy of it is about 10^31 times greater than the rest mass - such mass cannot be today measured.
It means that there is not in existence an 'empty space' (i.e. composed only of MOTIONS) without inertial masses. Objects which have only inertial masses (i.e. the mathematical objects) cannot be observed directly because to observe something we must create a stream composed of smaller objects than the observed one. It is obvious that creation of streams composed of mathematical objects (i.e. of objects having only inertial mass) is impossible. We can only guess that such objects are in existence on base of my equations which tie the small and large structures and which lead to the best theoretical values for the physical quantities. It means that only indirectly we can 'see' such objects.
Could it be we are seeing particles generated out of the immediate field energy of matter?
Mitch raemsch -- Ligh love --
To answer your questions we first should define the 'matter' and 'energy'. We know that energy of photon is defined by frequency. But there is following problem: Frequency of what? I claim that energy MUST be associated with either only inertial mass (it is beyond the General theory of Relativity) or inertial and gravitational masses (it is described by the GR). Gravitational mass can be measured via the gravitational field but mathematical objects (which have only shapes - they do not emit some objects) cannot create curved space - they have only inertial mass which manifest itself only in direct collisions of these shapes.
It means that energy is always associated with inertial mass or particles having inertial mass equal to the gravitational mass. Energy is defined by motions of these masses (linear speeds, rotations, vibrations, and so on).
But never can be created matter (i.e. masses) only from energy (i.e. from MOTIONS). Spaces are composed of either only inertial masses (for example the gravitational field is composed of objects having only inertial mass - only inertial masses lead to the superposition theorem) or particles having inertial mass equal to the gravitational mass. It means that always the electromagnetic energy MUST be associated with gravitational mass. My theory says that the gravitational mass of the elementary photon is equal to 6.6 . 10^-67 kg. It means that for the visible elementary photon the energy of it is about 10^31 times greater than the rest mass - such mass cannot be today measured.
It means that there is not in existence an 'empty space' (i.e. composed only of MOTIONS) without inertial masses. Objects which have only inertial masses (i.e. the mathematical objects) cannot be observed directly because to observe something we must create a stream composed of smaller objects than the observed one. It is obvious that creation of streams composed of mathematical objects (i.e. of objects having only inertial mass) is impossible. We can only guess that such objects are in existence on base of my equations which tie the small and large structures and which lead to the best theoretical values for the physical quantities. It means that only indirectly we can 'see' such objects.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Jul 19 2007, 03:34 AM)
It was enough for Stephen Hawking to try to prove that black holes evaporate.
What does that have to do with the Casmir Effect? Furthermore, Hawking did not 'prove' that black holes evaporate.
What does that have to do with the Casmir Effect? Furthermore, Hawking did not 'prove' that black holes evaporate.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 19 2007, 11:34 AM)
What does that have to do with the Casmir Effect? Furthermore, Hawking did not 'prove' that black holes evaporate.
Via Euler and AlphaN's beloved math, he did.
It was enough to consider attempting the creation of black holes in a lab.
But like your computer simulations and Hawking's math, sometimes our expectations do not match up with reality.
Via Euler and AlphaN's beloved math, he did.
It was enough to consider attempting the creation of black holes in a lab.
But like your computer simulations and Hawking's math, sometimes our expectations do not match up with reality.
QUOTE (Evidence of Virtual Particles+)
The Coulomb force between electric charges. It is caused by exchange of virtual photons. In symmetric 3-dimensional space this exchange results in inverse square law for force.
The so-called near field of radio antennas, where the magnetic effects of the current in the antenna wire and the charge effects of the wire's capacitative charge are detectable, but both of which effects disappear with increasing distance from the antenna much more quickly than do the influence of conventional electromagnetic waves, for which E is always equal to cB, and which are composed of real photons.
The strong nuclear force between quarks - it is the result of interaction of virtual gluons. The residual of this force outside of quark triplets (neutron and proton) holds neutrons and protons together in nuclei, and is due to virtual mesons such as the pi meson and rho meson.
The weak nuclear force - it is the result of exchange by virtual W bosons.
The spontaneous emission of a photon during the decay of an excited atom or excited nucleus; such a decay is prohibited by ordinary quantum mechanics and requires the quantization of the electromagnetic field for its explanation.
The Casimir effect, where the ground state of the quantized electromagnetic field causes attraction between a pair of electrically neutral metal plates.
The van der Waals force, which is partly due to the Casimir effect between two atoms,
Vacuum polarization, which involves pair production or the decay of the vacuum, which is the spontaneous production of particle-antiparticle pairs (such as electron-positron).
Lamb shift of positions of atomic levels.
Hawking radiation, where the gravitational field is so strong that it causes the spontaneous production of photon pairs (with black body energy distribution) and even of particle pairs.
The so-called near field of radio antennas, where the magnetic effects of the current in the antenna wire and the charge effects of the wire's capacitative charge are detectable, but both of which effects disappear with increasing distance from the antenna much more quickly than do the influence of conventional electromagnetic waves, for which E is always equal to cB, and which are composed of real photons.
The strong nuclear force between quarks - it is the result of interaction of virtual gluons. The residual of this force outside of quark triplets (neutron and proton) holds neutrons and protons together in nuclei, and is due to virtual mesons such as the pi meson and rho meson.
The weak nuclear force - it is the result of exchange by virtual W bosons.
The spontaneous emission of a photon during the decay of an excited atom or excited nucleus; such a decay is prohibited by ordinary quantum mechanics and requires the quantization of the electromagnetic field for its explanation.
The Casimir effect, where the ground state of the quantized electromagnetic field causes attraction between a pair of electrically neutral metal plates.
The van der Waals force, which is partly due to the Casimir effect between two atoms,
Vacuum polarization, which involves pair production or the decay of the vacuum, which is the spontaneous production of particle-antiparticle pairs (such as electron-positron).
Lamb shift of positions of atomic levels.
Hawking radiation, where the gravitational field is so strong that it causes the spontaneous production of photon pairs (with black body energy distribution) and even of particle pairs.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Jul 19 2007, 02:04 PM)
Via Euler and AlphaN's beloved math, he did.
It was enough to consider attempting the creation of black holes in a lab.
But like your computer simulations and Hawking's math, sometimes our expectations do not match up with reality.
I don't even know how we got onto this topic about black hole dissipation in the first place. It's like you changed topic every reply you made
I normally have no problem following a discussion, but this one has gone off on such a tangent that the topic is not even something I'd usually talk about.
But ssu, there is no proof that zero-point energy exists, just like there is no proof that black holes dissipate. I mean, I personally believe that black holes do dissipate, but there's just no evidence for it. The only kind of evidence I'd really agree with, would be experimental verification. So any 'math' on it's own, is just not going to be good enough.
My original computer representation of space, was presented as a way to demonstrate how one could envision space without a medium, as well as a space which was infinite in size, within which matter could exist and also move as an event.
I personally think that the representation demonstrates this quite aptly.
It was enough to consider attempting the creation of black holes in a lab.
But like your computer simulations and Hawking's math, sometimes our expectations do not match up with reality.
I don't even know how we got onto this topic about black hole dissipation in the first place. It's like you changed topic every reply you made
I normally have no problem following a discussion, but this one has gone off on such a tangent that the topic is not even something I'd usually talk about.
But ssu, there is no proof that zero-point energy exists, just like there is no proof that black holes dissipate. I mean, I personally believe that black holes do dissipate, but there's just no evidence for it. The only kind of evidence I'd really agree with, would be experimental verification. So any 'math' on it's own, is just not going to be good enough.
My original computer representation of space, was presented as a way to demonstrate how one could envision space without a medium, as well as a space which was infinite in size, within which matter could exist and also move as an event.
I personally think that the representation demonstrates this quite aptly.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 9 2007, 08:52 PM)
I don't go out of my way to learn mainstream physics, because it's largely theoretical and may not reflect reality.
I wasn't going to respond to this post from page 1 since it's so very old. But, it displays several common misconceptions.
Faraday, it is agreed, was a great experimentalist. But science isn't about history or memorization of a table of numbers from experiments X, Y and Z. The value of multiple repeatable experiments is that the phenomena of nature can be generalized. Small rocks fall, Big rocks fall, Bigger rocks fall, Galileo's telescopic observation of the moon means we have no reason to believe it is not very big and very-rock-like, so in conceptual generalization we expect it to fall. Other, more mathematical considerations, means that the simplest possible generalization of observations is F = dp/dt = GMm/r^2. That's Newton's theory of Universal Gravitation. To a high degree of precision, Newton's theory matches and thus generalizes (nearly!) every experiment or observation we have about gravity. Testing has shown that inertial mass and gravitational mass are very, very close to each other. Testing has shown that the exponent on r is very close to -2. Testing has shown that the same expression is valid for the distant planets at a distance of 6 trillion meters and terrestrial objects closer to each other than 1 mm. But, Mercury, the fastest planet and the planet closest to the Sun, doesn't quite behave as Newton predicts, so F = GMm/r^2 cannot be the whole story, but just the initial step. Generalization tells us which experimental results add trivially to our knowledge of the universe and which experimental results merit further investigation. Unless you know the theory, you can't even know if an experiment gives the expected result or not, and unless you find experiments which give unexpected results you have no physical reason to seek a better theory.
Newton thought light was made up of particles (bullets) like his theory described so well. Under Newton's theory, light has to speed up in a transparent medium to account for refraction. When asked to explain polarization, Newton though his particles had to have shape, and he guessed they were cube-like. Not being a mathematical theory, this was a very fuzzy theory -- mostly good for proving light traveled in straight lines. Nowadays we know many experiments that Newton's bullet-light could not possibly pass. Conjecture and fuzzy thinking has no place in physics, even from the figure who single-handed created the field.
Maxwell, generalized the observations of Faraday and many others. Electricity and Magnetism were no longer considered two separate things, but two aspects of electromagnetism. The theory encompassed the whole of the observations and contained a prediction that light was also electromagnetism.
(I'll be back with more.)
I wasn't going to respond to this post from page 1 since it's so very old. But, it displays several common misconceptions.
Faraday, it is agreed, was a great experimentalist. But science isn't about history or memorization of a table of numbers from experiments X, Y and Z. The value of multiple repeatable experiments is that the phenomena of nature can be generalized. Small rocks fall, Big rocks fall, Bigger rocks fall, Galileo's telescopic observation of the moon means we have no reason to believe it is not very big and very-rock-like, so in conceptual generalization we expect it to fall. Other, more mathematical considerations, means that the simplest possible generalization of observations is F = dp/dt = GMm/r^2. That's Newton's theory of Universal Gravitation. To a high degree of precision, Newton's theory matches and thus generalizes (nearly!) every experiment or observation we have about gravity. Testing has shown that inertial mass and gravitational mass are very, very close to each other. Testing has shown that the exponent on r is very close to -2. Testing has shown that the same expression is valid for the distant planets at a distance of 6 trillion meters and terrestrial objects closer to each other than 1 mm. But, Mercury, the fastest planet and the planet closest to the Sun, doesn't quite behave as Newton predicts, so F = GMm/r^2 cannot be the whole story, but just the initial step. Generalization tells us which experimental results add trivially to our knowledge of the universe and which experimental results merit further investigation. Unless you know the theory, you can't even know if an experiment gives the expected result or not, and unless you find experiments which give unexpected results you have no physical reason to seek a better theory.
Newton thought light was made up of particles (bullets) like his theory described so well. Under Newton's theory, light has to speed up in a transparent medium to account for refraction. When asked to explain polarization, Newton though his particles had to have shape, and he guessed they were cube-like. Not being a mathematical theory, this was a very fuzzy theory -- mostly good for proving light traveled in straight lines. Nowadays we know many experiments that Newton's bullet-light could not possibly pass. Conjecture and fuzzy thinking has no place in physics, even from the figure who single-handed created the field.
Maxwell, generalized the observations of Faraday and many others. Electricity and Magnetism were no longer considered two separate things, but two aspects of electromagnetism. The theory encompassed the whole of the observations and contained a prediction that light was also electromagnetism.
(I'll be back with more.)
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 19 2007, 05:31 PM)
(I'll be back with more.)
But Maxwell's equations, while summing up nearly every experiment with electricity and magnetism, and correctly predicting the speed of light in vacuum from two measurements previously thought to be unrelated, was not the end-all of electromagnetism. Faraday's homopolar motor, when run in reverse as a generator, i.e. unipolar induction, was a demonstration that no explanation of Maxwell's equations as a Newtonian solid rest frame was correct. But Newton's own "bullet" theory was wrong about the speed of light in water, and a dragged ether would result in different stellar aberration that was observed.
http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/outreach...218unipolar.pdf
http://www.maths.abdn.ac.uk/events/einstein/reid.html
So the successful Newtonian model contradicted the success of the the Maxwell's equations. Either one or both was proven wrong by this experiment.
Einstein saved Maxwell's equations at the expense of Newton's equations, regarding the latter as an approximation which could only apply to objects which moved slowly.
The Euclidean nature of the Galilean transforms of Newton:
Δx' = 1 Δx + v Δt
Δt' = 0 Δx + 1 Δt
Became hyperbolic Lorentz transformations (SR):
Δx' = (1/sqrt(1 - v˛/C˛)) Δx + (1/sqrt(1 - v˛/C˛)) v Δt
Δt' = (1/sqrt(1 - v˛/C˛)) (v/C˛) Δx + (1/sqrt(1 - v˛/C˛)) Δt
This is the most general linear transformation which is self-consistent. Furthermore, experiment shows C˛ is very close to c˛, the speed of light in vacuum, squared.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=204548
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf (page X-35)
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16..._appendices.pdf (page XIV-29)
Einstein's equations changed the face of physics, distancing it from its mathematical beginnings in Euclid and Egyptian land surveying. Those were basic geometric constraints which were written above in the language of algebra. In Einstein's equations, a new type of geometry was found. It was in that geometry that 11 years later, Einstein published the last of the establishing papers of his General theory of Relativity. (GR) Where SR undid the kinematics of Newton, GR revamped Newton's theory of gravity to be consistent with SR. GR is just a few principles (which strongly imply that there is such a thing as space-time) and an equation about the relation between matter and the local curvature of space-time. Numerous attempts have been made to test GR and it's competitors and the only surviving theories are those that are too close to GR to have observable differences in experiment.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=194010
But Einstein also summarized the results of experiments with a phenomenon called the photoelectric effect. Maxwell's equations and Newton's "bullet" theory both said that light had momentum. Einstein said that the photoelectric effect proved that light did have both energy and momentum, but contrary to Maxwell, it came in chunks, and contrary to Newton, these chunks (massless quantum particles) could not be modeled as "bullets" -- not even square-shaped ones. This was an important step in the path to Quantum Field Theory -- and The Standard Model which is in the enviable position of being consistent with every-known non-gravitational effect, including the color of Gold.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/qp/chap03.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/...gold_color.html
Both GR and Quantum theories are "weird" from the Newtonian viewpoint -- but there is nothing special about the Newtonian viewpoint -- that's just the viewpoint of someone who learned physics by watching nearly-man-sized objects moving at nearly-human speeds. The universe is the best teacher, but you need to look at all of it to make sure your generalizations are wide enough.
Einstein's famous successes were all in theoretical physics. He found experiments like those of Faraday and proved they were not consistent with existing theory. He then sought out a theory to replace them. Like Newton before him, Einstein was loath to try and make mechanical models of the universe, since in physics we stick to describing what we can observe and experiment. In physics, it doesn't matter why electrons and photons interact according the observed rules -- it just matters that they do. So both theory and experiment are needed.
Let me know what you think.
But Maxwell's equations, while summing up nearly every experiment with electricity and magnetism, and correctly predicting the speed of light in vacuum from two measurements previously thought to be unrelated, was not the end-all of electromagnetism. Faraday's homopolar motor, when run in reverse as a generator, i.e. unipolar induction, was a demonstration that no explanation of Maxwell's equations as a Newtonian solid rest frame was correct. But Newton's own "bullet" theory was wrong about the speed of light in water, and a dragged ether would result in different stellar aberration that was observed.
http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/outreach...218unipolar.pdf
http://www.maths.abdn.ac.uk/events/einstein/reid.html
So the successful Newtonian model contradicted the success of the the Maxwell's equations. Either one or both was proven wrong by this experiment.
Einstein saved Maxwell's equations at the expense of Newton's equations, regarding the latter as an approximation which could only apply to objects which moved slowly.
The Euclidean nature of the Galilean transforms of Newton:
Δx' = 1 Δx + v Δt
Δt' = 0 Δx + 1 Δt
Became hyperbolic Lorentz transformations (SR):
Δx' = (1/sqrt(1 - v˛/C˛)) Δx + (1/sqrt(1 - v˛/C˛)) v Δt
Δt' = (1/sqrt(1 - v˛/C˛)) (v/C˛) Δx + (1/sqrt(1 - v˛/C˛)) Δt
This is the most general linear transformation which is self-consistent. Furthermore, experiment shows C˛ is very close to c˛, the speed of light in vacuum, squared.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=204548
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf (page X-35)
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16..._appendices.pdf (page XIV-29)
Einstein's equations changed the face of physics, distancing it from its mathematical beginnings in Euclid and Egyptian land surveying. Those were basic geometric constraints which were written above in the language of algebra. In Einstein's equations, a new type of geometry was found. It was in that geometry that 11 years later, Einstein published the last of the establishing papers of his General theory of Relativity. (GR) Where SR undid the kinematics of Newton, GR revamped Newton's theory of gravity to be consistent with SR. GR is just a few principles (which strongly imply that there is such a thing as space-time) and an equation about the relation between matter and the local curvature of space-time. Numerous attempts have been made to test GR and it's competitors and the only surviving theories are those that are too close to GR to have observable differences in experiment.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=194010
But Einstein also summarized the results of experiments with a phenomenon called the photoelectric effect. Maxwell's equations and Newton's "bullet" theory both said that light had momentum. Einstein said that the photoelectric effect proved that light did have both energy and momentum, but contrary to Maxwell, it came in chunks, and contrary to Newton, these chunks (massless quantum particles) could not be modeled as "bullets" -- not even square-shaped ones. This was an important step in the path to Quantum Field Theory -- and The Standard Model which is in the enviable position of being consistent with every-known non-gravitational effect, including the color of Gold.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/qp/chap03.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/...gold_color.html
Both GR and Quantum theories are "weird" from the Newtonian viewpoint -- but there is nothing special about the Newtonian viewpoint -- that's just the viewpoint of someone who learned physics by watching nearly-man-sized objects moving at nearly-human speeds. The universe is the best teacher, but you need to look at all of it to make sure your generalizations are wide enough.
Einstein's famous successes were all in theoretical physics. He found experiments like those of Faraday and proved they were not consistent with existing theory. He then sought out a theory to replace them. Like Newton before him, Einstein was loath to try and make mechanical models of the universe, since in physics we stick to describing what we can observe and experiment. In physics, it doesn't matter why electrons and photons interact according the observed rules -- it just matters that they do. So both theory and experiment are needed.
Let me know what you think.
rpenner, I said the quoted sentence, more in regards to theoretical physics, like that of black holes, dimensions, quantum physics, general 'space-time', temporal phenomena, etc.
You know, all the kind of stuff that most scientists scratch their Einsteinian beards at.
I simply do not invest much belief in said theories of theoretical physics, because they are so very theoretical...
If you notice, I never have issues with classical physics, or other such well-established stuff. But if I ever had any alternative theories for classical phenomena, then I would not hesitate in voicing my theories.
Furthermore, just to give the quoted sentence some final context. I also said that people should learn Physics 'up to a certain point', and then stop and think for themselves. That 'stopping point', imho, should be the theoretical physics topics I mention at the top of this post.
So spare me from your criticism, even though I absolutely love getting criticism, because I get so very little
You know, all the kind of stuff that most scientists scratch their Einsteinian beards at.
I simply do not invest much belief in said theories of theoretical physics, because they are so very theoretical...
If you notice, I never have issues with classical physics, or other such well-established stuff. But if I ever had any alternative theories for classical phenomena, then I would not hesitate in voicing my theories.
Furthermore, just to give the quoted sentence some final context. I also said that people should learn Physics 'up to a certain point', and then stop and think for themselves. That 'stopping point', imho, should be the theoretical physics topics I mention at the top of this post.
So spare me from your criticism, even though I absolutely love getting criticism, because I get so very little
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 19 2007, 09:31 PM)
Let me know what you think.
Einstein was a smart cookie.
So was Newton.
But I think Maxwell was moving in the right direction.
Einstein was a smart cookie.
So was Newton.
But I think Maxwell was moving in the right direction.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 19 2007, 10:33 PM)
I simply do not invest much belief in said theories of theoretical physics, because they are so very theoretical...
The thing is, you draw the "I'll stop learning here" line before quantum mechanics and relativity. Which is, to be frank, ridicolous.
You accept electromagnetism, even though you know it's ultimately incapable of explaining all electromagnetic interactions observed. Yet you avoid quantum electrodynamics as "too theoretical" despite it explaining ALL electromagnetic interactions observed, both classical and subatomic.
You accept Newtonian dynamics, even though you know it's ultimately incapable of explaining all dynamics observed. Yet you avoid special relativity as "too theoretical" despite is having NEVER been close to falsified in an experiment. GR can't do subatomic. Standard Model has trouble with gravity. However, special relativity is consistent with both. If anything, it's the one thing which undeniably bridges the gaps between Einstein and Feynman/Dirac/etc.
Yes, string theory, loop quantum gravity and some of the more exotic notions in general relativity are tenious and perhaps might be little more than academic in nature. However, the VAST majority of GR and the SM work. This is an undeniable, unavoidable fact. The number of experiments they cover between them is vast.
You accept classical electromagnetism and classical Newtonian dynamics because "they usually work enough to ignore their short comings". Yet you don't accept the next generation of models on those areas (which are more than 80 years old now!), despite them working on more things with greater accuracy?!
Your logic is inconsistent. You deny yourself information about models with categorically work for vast amounts of physical phenomena.
The thing is, you draw the "I'll stop learning here" line before quantum mechanics and relativity. Which is, to be frank, ridicolous.
You accept electromagnetism, even though you know it's ultimately incapable of explaining all electromagnetic interactions observed. Yet you avoid quantum electrodynamics as "too theoretical" despite it explaining ALL electromagnetic interactions observed, both classical and subatomic.
You accept Newtonian dynamics, even though you know it's ultimately incapable of explaining all dynamics observed. Yet you avoid special relativity as "too theoretical" despite is having NEVER been close to falsified in an experiment. GR can't do subatomic. Standard Model has trouble with gravity. However, special relativity is consistent with both. If anything, it's the one thing which undeniably bridges the gaps between Einstein and Feynman/Dirac/etc.
Yes, string theory, loop quantum gravity and some of the more exotic notions in general relativity are tenious and perhaps might be little more than academic in nature. However, the VAST majority of GR and the SM work. This is an undeniable, unavoidable fact. The number of experiments they cover between them is vast.
You accept classical electromagnetism and classical Newtonian dynamics because "they usually work enough to ignore their short comings". Yet you don't accept the next generation of models on those areas (which are more than 80 years old now!), despite them working on more things with greater accuracy?!
Your logic is inconsistent. You deny yourself information about models with categorically work for vast amounts of physical phenomena.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 19 2007, 09:33 PM)
rpenner, I said the quoted sentence, more in regards to theoretical physics, like that of black holes, dimensions, quantum physics, general 'space-time', temporal phenomena, etc.
You probably are going to edit this post since you were creating it simultaneous with my 9:31 post, where I did mention SR, which for the first time combines space and time into a single space-time, GR which trivially predicts black holes, and quantum physics. All of these ARE Mainstream physics since about 1935.
I did not discuss dimensions other than the 4 of space-time since no mere generalization of observation requires extra dimensions. In Loop Quantum Gravity, the dimensionality of space is constructed as an approximation to a space-time continuum and in current Supersymmetric String Theories, the dimensionality is tightly constrained to be a number different than the observation at accessible low energies. Neither is an impediment to further development of these self-consistent mathematical theories, but neither have they made unique predictions which allow testing. This renders them temporally as functionally metaphysical, a situation which is desirable to amend. The Null Hypothesis is that the universe is simply untidy and unexplainable beyond a certain point -- which is satisfying to nobody.
Can you criticize someone for trying their hardest to do a job never before done and failing to do it fast enough to suit you?
I did not discuss dimensions other than the 4 of space-time since no mere generalization of observation requires extra dimensions. In Loop Quantum Gravity, the dimensionality of space is constructed as an approximation to a space-time continuum and in current Supersymmetric String Theories, the dimensionality is tightly constrained to be a number different than the observation at accessible low energies. Neither is an impediment to further development of these self-consistent mathematical theories, but neither have they made unique predictions which allow testing. This renders them temporally as functionally metaphysical, a situation which is desirable to amend. The Null Hypothesis is that the universe is simply untidy and unexplainable beyond a certain point -- which is satisfying to nobody.
Can you criticize someone for trying their hardest to do a job never before done and failing to do it fast enough to suit you?
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 19 2007, 09:33 PM)
You know, all the kind of stuff that most scientists scratch their Einsteinian beards at.
It no longer being 1960's America, I think beards are no longer pejorative, and I think most scientists don't have beards.
The thing is, you draw the "I'll stop learning here" line before quantum mechanics and relativity. Which is, to be frank, ridiculous.
Well, the last time I checked, it was still called Relativity 'Theory', not Relativity 'Fact', and as for quantum mechanics, well, I have no problem with learning about the various experiments and results in regards to it, and the same goes for Relativity Theory's experiments and results. Which is why, despite my objections towards such theories as time dilation. I still invested time, trying to research the various experiments and results. But, in the spirit of what I say above, I didn't just concede to the almighty Relativity Theory version of it. No, I decided to remain in a sceptical state, neither fully accepting it nor fully denying it.
What I personally believe, is that when it comes to theories which are highly theoretical, and scientists cannot be certain whether they truly reflect reality, then people should stop at this point, and 'think for themselves', whilst making sure to disassociate themselves from favouritism towards any one theory.
But of course, as I have now repeatedly state twice. This is what 'I personally believe', and you have every right to disagree and have your own personal beliefs as to what people should and shouldn't do.
you avoid special relativity as "too theoretical" despite is having NEVER been close to falsified in an experiment
Has it ever dawned on you that a theory can give the correct results, yet be fundamentally wrong? Such concepts as 'space-time' being tangible, for instance. This may be completely wrong and space may actually not be tangible at all! - Yet, regardless of this, relativity may still give the correct results to various experiments. I mean, I'm no expert about relativity, but I see the above, as a very real possibility, because no-where am I ever told that space-time tangibility is 'fact' due to Relativity, no-where am I referred to experiments which prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that it is tangible.
I know I'm being specific here, but tangibility is one little quibble that I found issue with recently.
You accept electromagnetism, even though you know it's ultimately incapable of explaining all electromagnetic interactions observed. Yet you avoid quantum electrodynamics as "too theoretical" despite it explaining ALL electromagnetic interactions observed, both classical and subatomic.
I accept electromagnetism from a 'grossly oversimplified' standpoint. Sometimes having simple explanations for phenomena, is useful until there is a more complete understanding available. Is this what you wanted me to concede?
I'm no expert on quantum electrodynamics. Tbh it's not a field that I specialise in. So I can't really comment on it, except from a general standpoint of something which fits into the 'highly theoretical stuff' category, which I believe people should 'stop' at.
Yes, string theory, loop quantum gravity and some of the more exotic notions in general relativity are tenious and perhaps might be little more than academic in nature.
Exactly, that's what I'm talking about. Now you're starting to get a feel for the arguement I am proposing here
You accept classical electromagnetism and classical Newtonian dynamics because "they usually work enough to ignore their short comings". Yet you don't accept the next generation of models on those areas (which are more than 80 years old now!), despite them working on more things with greater accuracy?!
Your logic is inconsistent. You deny yourself information about models with categorically work for vast amounts of physical phenomena.
Alpha, there are often so many theories about these highly theoretic fields, that one has a literal plethora of possibilities to choose from. The only thing which makes the mainstream one more important, is that it has been worked on by most scientists, but imho, this does not grant it any special status over any other theory.
I weigh all theories equal, regardless of the number of people who work on them, because this is the only way which one is able to remain objective and retain an open-mind about all possibilities in physics.
As I have shown above, the vast majority of what you call "theoretical" is actually experimental.
There are various experiments and results, I don't deny that. But they are separate from the actual theory itself; the verbal explanation.
For instance, time dilation has various experiments, such as GPS satellites and all that stuff, which I'm sure you know about. Yet the theory behind time dilation, may be inherently wrong...
(And no, I'm not getting into another bloody debate about that)
Conclusively, you may get the right results, yet still be wrong about the theory behind those results.
You probably are going to edit this post since you were creating it simultaneous with my 9:31 post, where I did mention SR, which for the first time combines space and time into a single space-time, GR which trivially predicts black holes, and quantum physics. All of these ARE Mainstream physics since about 1935.
Yup, and they're still pretty damn theoretical. Seriously, black holes? - That's about as theoretical as you get these days. There's more black hole theories out there, than I've had cooked dinners.
Can you criticize someone for trying their hardest to do a job never before done and failing to do it fast enough to suit you?
Yeah, it might prevent them slacking, before said slacking occurs.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 19 2007, 09:33 PM)
I simply do not invest much belief in said theories of theoretical physics, because they are so very theoretical...
If you notice, I never have issues with classical physics, or other such well-established stuff. But if I ever had any alternative theories for classical phenomena, then I would not hesitate in voicing my theories.
Furthermore, just to give the quoted sentence some final context. I also said that people should learn Physics 'up to a certain point', and then stop and think for themselves. That 'stopping point', imho, should be the theoretical physics topics I mention at the top of this post.
As I have shown above, the vast majority of what you call "theoretical" is actually experimental. Only a hasty generalization from a few Newtonian examples would lead you to believe that the universe is Newtonian.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...xperiments.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510072
http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/www_physics...line2260w07.pdf
http://www.physics.utoledo.edu/~ljc/bridgeq.html
http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/index.php
So I don't see your basis for a particular "stopping point." Even if you think post 1900 physics is wrong is no reason not to learn it if you desire to make coherent arguments about what it says. Creationists frequently argue against what they think Evolution says rather that the actual theory -- and it doesn't improve the dialogs.
If you notice, I never have issues with classical physics, or other such well-established stuff. But if I ever had any alternative theories for classical phenomena, then I would not hesitate in voicing my theories.
Furthermore, just to give the quoted sentence some final context. I also said that people should learn Physics 'up to a certain point', and then stop and think for themselves. That 'stopping point', imho, should be the theoretical physics topics I mention at the top of this post.
As I have shown above, the vast majority of what you call "theoretical" is actually experimental. Only a hasty generalization from a few Newtonian examples would lead you to believe that the universe is Newtonian.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...xperiments.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510072
http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/www_physics...line2260w07.pdf
http://www.physics.utoledo.edu/~ljc/bridgeq.html
http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/index.php
So I don't see your basis for a particular "stopping point." Even if you think post 1900 physics is wrong is no reason not to learn it if you desire to make coherent arguments about what it says. Creationists frequently argue against what they think Evolution says rather that the actual theory -- and it doesn't improve the dialogs.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
The thing is, you draw the "I'll stop learning here" line before quantum mechanics and relativity. Which is, to be frank, ridiculous.
Well, the last time I checked, it was still called Relativity 'Theory', not Relativity 'Fact', and as for quantum mechanics, well, I have no problem with learning about the various experiments and results in regards to it, and the same goes for Relativity Theory's experiments and results. Which is why, despite my objections towards such theories as time dilation. I still invested time, trying to research the various experiments and results. But, in the spirit of what I say above, I didn't just concede to the almighty Relativity Theory version of it. No, I decided to remain in a sceptical state, neither fully accepting it nor fully denying it.
What I personally believe, is that when it comes to theories which are highly theoretical, and scientists cannot be certain whether they truly reflect reality, then people should stop at this point, and 'think for themselves', whilst making sure to disassociate themselves from favouritism towards any one theory.
But of course, as I have now repeatedly state twice. This is what 'I personally believe', and you have every right to disagree and have your own personal beliefs as to what people should and shouldn't do.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
you avoid special relativity as "too theoretical" despite is having NEVER been close to falsified in an experiment
Has it ever dawned on you that a theory can give the correct results, yet be fundamentally wrong? Such concepts as 'space-time' being tangible, for instance. This may be completely wrong and space may actually not be tangible at all! - Yet, regardless of this, relativity may still give the correct results to various experiments. I mean, I'm no expert about relativity, but I see the above, as a very real possibility, because no-where am I ever told that space-time tangibility is 'fact' due to Relativity, no-where am I referred to experiments which prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that it is tangible.
I know I'm being specific here, but tangibility is one little quibble that I found issue with recently.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
You accept electromagnetism, even though you know it's ultimately incapable of explaining all electromagnetic interactions observed. Yet you avoid quantum electrodynamics as "too theoretical" despite it explaining ALL electromagnetic interactions observed, both classical and subatomic.
I accept electromagnetism from a 'grossly oversimplified' standpoint. Sometimes having simple explanations for phenomena, is useful until there is a more complete understanding available. Is this what you wanted me to concede?
I'm no expert on quantum electrodynamics. Tbh it's not a field that I specialise in. So I can't really comment on it, except from a general standpoint of something which fits into the 'highly theoretical stuff' category, which I believe people should 'stop' at.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
Yes, string theory, loop quantum gravity and some of the more exotic notions in general relativity are tenious and perhaps might be little more than academic in nature.
Exactly, that's what I'm talking about. Now you're starting to get a feel for the arguement I am proposing here
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
You accept classical electromagnetism and classical Newtonian dynamics because "they usually work enough to ignore their short comings". Yet you don't accept the next generation of models on those areas (which are more than 80 years old now!), despite them working on more things with greater accuracy?!
Your logic is inconsistent. You deny yourself information about models with categorically work for vast amounts of physical phenomena.
Alpha, there are often so many theories about these highly theoretic fields, that one has a literal plethora of possibilities to choose from. The only thing which makes the mainstream one more important, is that it has been worked on by most scientists, but imho, this does not grant it any special status over any other theory.
I weigh all theories equal, regardless of the number of people who work on them, because this is the only way which one is able to remain objective and retain an open-mind about all possibilities in physics.
QUOTE (rpenner+)
As I have shown above, the vast majority of what you call "theoretical" is actually experimental.
There are various experiments and results, I don't deny that. But they are separate from the actual theory itself; the verbal explanation.
For instance, time dilation has various experiments, such as GPS satellites and all that stuff, which I'm sure you know about. Yet the theory behind time dilation, may be inherently wrong...
(And no, I'm not getting into another bloody debate about that)
Conclusively, you may get the right results, yet still be wrong about the theory behind those results.
QUOTE (rpenner+)
You probably are going to edit this post since you were creating it simultaneous with my 9:31 post, where I did mention SR, which for the first time combines space and time into a single space-time, GR which trivially predicts black holes, and quantum physics. All of these ARE Mainstream physics since about 1935.
Yup, and they're still pretty damn theoretical. Seriously, black holes? - That's about as theoretical as you get these days. There's more black hole theories out there, than I've had cooked dinners.
QUOTE (rpenner+)
Can you criticize someone for trying their hardest to do a job never before done and failing to do it fast enough to suit you?
Yeah, it might prevent them slacking, before said slacking occurs.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 19 2007, 11:53 PM)
Well, the last time I checked, it was still called Relativity 'Theory', not Relativity 'Fact'
You bring up a point you have had explained to you many times, including within the last 7 days. It's the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution, the theory of electromagnetism. The best it can be is a theory. That means it's a set of scientific principles and statements which lead to a coherent, verified model of phenomena.
By your logic, no model of physics is worth learning at all. F=ma? Only a theory, not a fact.
You bring up a point you have had explained to you many times, including within the last 7 days. It's the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution, the theory of electromagnetism. The best it can be is a theory. That means it's a set of scientific principles and statements which lead to a coherent, verified model of phenomena.
By your logic, no model of physics is worth learning at all. F=ma? Only a theory, not a fact.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 19 2007, 11:53 PM)
What I personally believe, is that when it comes to theories which are highly theoretical, and scientists cannot be certain whether they truly reflect reality, then people should stop at this point, and 'think for themselves', whilst making sure to disassociate themselves from favouritism towards any one theory.
Relativity is hardly 'highly theoretical'. Every part of special relativity has been tested to incredible levels. General relativity is extensively tested in all but 'high field strength' levels and if particle accelerators end up making black holes, that'll be tested too.
You call it 'highly theoretical' because you think it's 'highly conceptual'. It's not 'highly theoretical' in the sense it's all guesses and hoped to be experimentally correct, we know it's experimentally valid!
You call it 'highly theoretical' because you think it's 'highly conceptual'. It's not 'highly theoretical' in the sense it's all guesses and hoped to be experimentally correct, we know it's experimentally valid!
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 19 2007, 11:53 PM)
Has it ever dawned on you that a theory can give the correct results, yet be fundamentally wrong? Such concepts as 'space-time' being tangible, for instance. This may be completely wrong and space may actually not be tangible at all! - Yet, regardless of this, relativity may still give the correct results to various experiments. I mean, I'm no expert about relativity, but I see the above, as a very real possibility, because no-where am I ever told that space-time tangibility is 'fact' due to Relativity, no-where am I referred to experiments which prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that it is tangible.
I know I'm being specific here, but tangibility is one little quibble that I found issue with recently.
I know I'm being specific here, but tangibility is one little quibble that I found issue with recently.
Yes, it has occured to me. But that is true of EVERY MODEL. This is precisely why nothing is called "Electromagnetism fact". Your own logic is inconsistent, again. You are singling out relativity for personal reasons, not because of a methodical line of reasoning.
You don't learn relativity because it could be an entirely incorrect conceptual framework, yet it works for experiments. Well the same applies for everything else. Electromagnetism, Newtonian gravity, quantum mechanics, etc. Every single model is but an interpretation. You can verify experimental predictions but the conceptual reasoning is another thing.
So why relativity? Why aren't you complaining about Faraday and Maxwell's electromagnetism?
You don't learn relativity because it could be an entirely incorrect conceptual framework, yet it works for experiments. Well the same applies for everything else. Electromagnetism, Newtonian gravity, quantum mechanics, etc. Every single model is but an interpretation. You can verify experimental predictions but the conceptual reasoning is another thing.
So why relativity? Why aren't you complaining about Faraday and Maxwell's electromagnetism?
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 19 2007, 11:53 PM)
I'm no expert on quantum electrodynamics. Tbh it's not a field that I specialise in. So I can't really comment on it, except from a general standpoint of something which fits into the 'highly theoretical stuff' category, which I believe people should 'stop' at.
From what I can tell, you classify "Not immediately obvious or simple" as "highly theoretical" and thus disregard anything of that kind. Not really one for scientific advancement are you?
Quantum field theory is an extension of special relativity. If yoiu accept QFT, you accept special relativity. Yes, it says some pretty weird things about the properties of the universe and the things in it but what do you expect? That the entire universe, in all ways and levels, conforms to our preconceived notions from our day to day experience? I hope not, because that's an enormously naive and silly thing to expect! Or do you instead accept that there is almost certainly going to be phenomena which are strange from an everyday viewpoint? That some phenomena might seem counter intuitive and that the models we develop to explain them might be sufficently complex as to not be immediately understandable upon first reading? But wait, that'll be "highly theoretical" by your logic and wrong.
How dare the universe be sufficently complicated that you don't immediately understand it!
You don't learn relativity because it could be an entirely incorrect conceptual framework, yet it works for experiments. Well the same applies for everything else. Electromagnetism, Newtonian gravity, quantum mechanics, etc. Every single model is but an interpretation. You can verify experimental predictions but the conceptual reasoning is another thing.
So why relativity? Why aren't you complaining about Faraday and Maxwell's electromagnetism?
From what I can tell, you classify "Not immediately obvious or simple" as "highly theoretical" and thus disregard anything of that kind. Not really one for scientific advancement are you?
Quantum field theory is an extension of special relativity. If yoiu accept QFT, you accept special relativity. Yes, it says some pretty weird things about the properties of the universe and the things in it but what do you expect? That the entire universe, in all ways and levels, conforms to our preconceived notions from our day to day experience? I hope not, because that's an enormously naive and silly thing to expect! Or do you instead accept that there is almost certainly going to be phenomena which are strange from an everyday viewpoint? That some phenomena might seem counter intuitive and that the models we develop to explain them might be sufficently complex as to not be immediately understandable upon first reading? But wait, that'll be "highly theoretical" by your logic and wrong.
How dare the universe be sufficently complicated that you don't immediately understand it!
The difference when it comes to modelling power and experimental verification of something like special relativity compared to LQG is enormous. Every one of SR's predictions have been tested and found to be correct. LQG is highly incomplete, under developed and a long way from the level of coherence of SR. SR is over a century old. It is tested billions of times every day, from GPS satellites to CERN accelerators.
You call a theory with 100 years of experimental verification in more than a dozen distinct ways to an accuracy of parts per billion and which combines with other theories to form the most powerful and verified theory created by man to be "highly theoretical". Physicists call it "physics". You whine because you don't like it's conceptual framework, that is could be wrong. You ignore that such reasoning for not learning a theory can be applied to anything of physics. This is because you don't understand the title "theory" in physics terms.
Basically, you obviously have a grudge against relativity and despite your comments about physicists avoiding favouritism, you're employing favouritism in reverse. You dislike relativity and you inconcistently apply your flawed logic in an effort to rationalise why you avoid learning it.
Very well written, should be a standalone post for all the loons that contend that relativity is either wrong or that it "might" be wrong.
The reason for their contention is that they cannot learn it since it requires hard work. So, instead of learning it, they dispute its validity nothwistanding the 100+ years of experimental testing and the thousands experiments that went on during this time.
Quantum field theory is an extension of special relativity. If yoiu accept QFT, you accept special relativity. Yes, it says some pretty weird things about the properties of the universe and the things in it but what do you expect? That the entire universe, in all ways and levels, conforms to our preconceived notions from our day to day experience? I hope not, because that's an enormously naive and silly thing to expect! Or do you instead accept that there is almost certainly going to be phenomena which are strange from an everyday viewpoint? That some phenomena might seem counter intuitive and that the models we develop to explain them might be sufficently complex as to not be immediately understandable upon first reading? But wait, that'll be "highly theoretical" by your logic and wrong.
How dare the universe be sufficently complicated that you don't immediately understand it!
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 19 2007, 11:53 PM)
Exactly, that's what I'm talking about. Now you're starting to get a feel for the arguement I am proposing here
The difference when it comes to modelling power and experimental verification of something like special relativity compared to LQG is enormous. Every one of SR's predictions have been tested and found to be correct. LQG is highly incomplete, under developed and a long way from the level of coherence of SR. SR is over a century old. It is tested billions of times every day, from GPS satellites to CERN accelerators.
You call a theory with 100 years of experimental verification in more than a dozen distinct ways to an accuracy of parts per billion and which combines with other theories to form the most powerful and verified theory created by man to be "highly theoretical". Physicists call it "physics". You whine because you don't like it's conceptual framework, that is could be wrong. You ignore that such reasoning for not learning a theory can be applied to anything of physics. This is because you don't understand the title "theory" in physics terms.
Basically, you obviously have a grudge against relativity and despite your comments about physicists avoiding favouritism, you're employing favouritism in reverse. You dislike relativity and you inconcistently apply your flawed logic in an effort to rationalise why you avoid learning it.
You call a theory with 100 years of experimental verification in more than a dozen distinct ways to an accuracy of parts per billion and which combines with other theories to form the most powerful and verified theory created by man to be "highly theoretical". Physicists call it "physics". You whine because you don't like it's conceptual framework, that is could be wrong. You ignore that such reasoning for not learning a theory can be applied to anything of physics. This is because you don't understand the title "theory" in physics terms.
Basically, you obviously have a grudge against relativity and despite your comments about physicists avoiding favouritism, you're employing favouritism in reverse. You dislike relativity and you inconcistently apply your flawed logic in an effort to rationalise why you avoid learning it.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 20 2007, 02:53 AM)
You don't learn relativity because it could be an entirely incorrect conceptual framework, yet it works for experiments. Well the same applies for everything else. Electromagnetism, Newtonian gravity, quantum mechanics, etc. Every single model is but an interpretation. You can verify experimental predictions but the conceptual reasoning is another thing.
So why relativity? Why aren't you complaining about Faraday and Maxwell's electromagnetism?
From what I can tell, you classify "Not immediately obvious or simple" as "highly theoretical" and thus disregard anything of that kind. Not really one for scientific advancement are you?
Quantum field theory is an extension of special relativity. If yoiu accept QFT, you accept special relativity. Yes, it says some pretty weird things about the properties of the universe and the things in it but what do you expect? That the entire universe, in all ways and levels, conforms to our preconceived notions from our day to day experience? I hope not, because that's an enormously naive and silly thing to expect! Or do you instead accept that there is almost certainly going to be phenomena which are strange from an everyday viewpoint? That some phenomena might seem counter intuitive and that the models we develop to explain them might be sufficently complex as to not be immediately understandable upon first reading? But wait, that'll be "highly theoretical" by your logic and wrong.
How dare the universe be sufficently complicated that you don't immediately understand it!
The difference when it comes to modelling power and experimental verification of something like special relativity compared to LQG is enormous. Every one of SR's predictions have been tested and found to be correct. LQG is highly incomplete, under developed and a long way from the level of coherence of SR. SR is over a century old. It is tested billions of times every day, from GPS satellites to CERN accelerators.
You call a theory with 100 years of experimental verification in more than a dozen distinct ways to an accuracy of parts per billion and which combines with other theories to form the most powerful and verified theory created by man to be "highly theoretical". Physicists call it "physics". You whine because you don't like it's conceptual framework, that is could be wrong. You ignore that such reasoning for not learning a theory can be applied to anything of physics. This is because you don't understand the title "theory" in physics terms.
Basically, you obviously have a grudge against relativity and despite your comments about physicists avoiding favouritism, you're employing favouritism in reverse. You dislike relativity and you inconcistently apply your flawed logic in an effort to rationalise why you avoid learning it.
Very well written, should be a standalone post for all the loons that contend that relativity is either wrong or that it "might" be wrong.
The reason for their contention is that they cannot learn it since it requires hard work. So, instead of learning it, they dispute its validity nothwistanding the 100+ years of experimental testing and the thousands experiments that went on during this time.
It seems all the books I have been reading say relativity is real. Carl Sagan said it is real. I never heard anyone say it is not real until I came to this forum. (Those who do not think it is real, please don't take it personally).
I think relativity makes it all that more interesting. It certainly has inspired some of the best sci-fi stories I read or saw in my youth.
It has been confirmed on many occasions even years after Einstein died.
Does relativity frighten people? It is not a religious problem is it (like evolutionism vs. creationism)? In my youth in the church, I heard many anti-evolution sermons but never any anti-relativity sermons. It was never actually mentioned in any of my school courses. The first I heard of it was in pulp sci-fi stories. I thought it was only fiction then, and it seemed anyone I asked thought it was just science fiction. It wasn't until I saw some PBS show about it, and I thought, "God, is this stuff actually real!?" The point is, I do not think most people know about it. It is known to physicists and sci-fi fans. Try describing warped time-space to people you know, and they look at you really weird. Funny, you'd think after 100 years it would be now mainstream.
I think relativity makes it all that more interesting. It certainly has inspired some of the best sci-fi stories I read or saw in my youth.
It has been confirmed on many occasions even years after Einstein died.
Does relativity frighten people? It is not a religious problem is it (like evolutionism vs. creationism)? In my youth in the church, I heard many anti-evolution sermons but never any anti-relativity sermons. It was never actually mentioned in any of my school courses. The first I heard of it was in pulp sci-fi stories. I thought it was only fiction then, and it seemed anyone I asked thought it was just science fiction. It wasn't until I saw some PBS show about it, and I thought, "God, is this stuff actually real!?" The point is, I do not think most people know about it. It is known to physicists and sci-fi fans. Try describing warped time-space to people you know, and they look at you really weird. Funny, you'd think after 100 years it would be now mainstream.
Virtual to me means imaginary.
What could virtual light be?
How can there be electromagnetic waves that are only temporary?
It doesn't make sense. It is an extrapolation that is going to far.
Mitch Raemsch
What could virtual light be?
How can there be electromagnetic waves that are only temporary?
It doesn't make sense. It is an extrapolation that is going to far.
Mitch Raemsch
QUOTE (Empress Palpatine+Jul 20 2007, 03:56 AM)
It seems all the books I have been reading say relativity is real. Carl Sagan said it is real. I never heard anyone say it is not real until I came to this forum. (Those who do not think it is real, please don't take it personally).
I think relativity makes it all that more interesting. It certainly has inspired some of the best sci-fi stories I read or saw in my youth.
It has been confirmed on many occasions even years after Einstein died.
Does relativity frighten people? It is not a religious problem is it (like evolutionism vs. creationism)? In my youth in the church, I heard many anti-evolution sermons but never any anti-relativity sermons. It was never actually mentioned in any of my school courses. The first I heard of it was in pulp sci-fi stories. I thought it was only fiction then, and it seemed anyone I asked thought it was just science fiction. It wasn't until I saw some PBS show about it, and I thought, "God, is this stuff actually real!?" The point is, I do not think most people know about it. It is known to physicists and sci-fi fans. Try describing warped time-space to people you know, and they look at you really weird. Funny, you'd think after 100 years it would be now mainstream.
A meter rod in curved space will be bent geometrically.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Fell --
I think relativity makes it all that more interesting. It certainly has inspired some of the best sci-fi stories I read or saw in my youth.
It has been confirmed on many occasions even years after Einstein died.
Does relativity frighten people? It is not a religious problem is it (like evolutionism vs. creationism)? In my youth in the church, I heard many anti-evolution sermons but never any anti-relativity sermons. It was never actually mentioned in any of my school courses. The first I heard of it was in pulp sci-fi stories. I thought it was only fiction then, and it seemed anyone I asked thought it was just science fiction. It wasn't until I saw some PBS show about it, and I thought, "God, is this stuff actually real!?" The point is, I do not think most people know about it. It is known to physicists and sci-fi fans. Try describing warped time-space to people you know, and they look at you really weird. Funny, you'd think after 100 years it would be now mainstream.
A meter rod in curved space will be bent geometrically.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Fell --
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 18 2007, 09:51 PM)
"Because it doesn't work" is not logical argument, relevant the less. You should explain, WHY do you think so.
See a selection at What is the Experimental Basis of Special Relativity? on the Physics FAQ. These are all given with full citations so are primary sources, not anecdotes or "popular" reports.
Experimental results trump logical arguments from proposed first principles.
and of particular note,
and of particular note,
The existing experiments put rather strong experimental constraints on any alternative theory. In particular, Zhang showed that these experimental limits essentially require that any theory based upon the existence of an ether be experimentally indistinguishable from SR, and have an ether frame which is unobservable (the only alternative is for a theory to "live in the error bars" of the experiments, which is quite difficult given the high accuracies achieved by many of these experiments).
Reference to Zhang's publications are listed in the article.
Hmm, I mentioned that in the note you are replying to. You simply ignored it and implied that I had not supplied any data or references.
See a selection at What is the Experimental Basis of Special Relativity? on the Physics FAQ. These are all given with full citations so are primary sources, not anecdotes or "popular" reports.
Experimental results trump logical arguments from proposed first principles.
QUOTE
Other than their sheer numbers, the most striking thing about these experimental tests of SR is their remarkable breadth and diversity. An important aspect of SR is its universality -- it applies to all known physical phenomena and not just to the electromagnetic phenomena it was originally invented to explain.
and of particular note,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Other than their sheer numbers, the most striking thing about these experimental tests of SR is their remarkable breadth and diversity. An important aspect of SR is its universality -- it applies to all known physical phenomena and not just to the electromagnetic phenomena it was originally invented to explain. |
and of particular note,
The existing experiments put rather strong experimental constraints on any alternative theory. In particular, Zhang showed that these experimental limits essentially require that any theory based upon the existence of an ether be experimentally indistinguishable from SR, and have an ether frame which is unobservable (the only alternative is for a theory to "live in the error bars" of the experiments, which is quite difficult given the high accuracies achieved by many of these experiments).
Reference to Zhang's publications are listed in the article.
Hmm, I mentioned that in the note you are replying to. You simply ignored it and implied that I had not supplied any data or references.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 18 2007, 09:51 PM)
The fact, nobody was flying into space over last two thousands of years doesn't means, such flying is impossible.
OK, back to the subject under discussion. This is an example of Ignoratio elenchi, also under the general term of "Red Herring". While true, it does not address the original issue, and is an attempt to divert the argument.
You also implied in your first question that I had not provided references or data but just made an empty assertion like you. That looks to me like one of the main qualities of the Common Crank, that of going to great lengths to ignore anything that contradicts him. Personally, I think that underscores most of the issues with being a crank.
OK, back to the subject under discussion. This is an example of Ignoratio elenchi, also under the general term of "Red Herring". While true, it does not address the original issue, and is an attempt to divert the argument.
You also implied in your first question that I had not provided references or data but just made an empty assertion like you. That looks to me like one of the main qualities of the Common Crank, that of going to great lengths to ignore anything that contradicts him. Personally, I think that underscores most of the issues with being a crank.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 18 2007, 09:51 PM)
The Aether concept doesn't violates the relativity at all - on the contrary. Just the Aether theory can explain the Lorentz symmetry and other relativity postulates on the background of Newtonian mechanics.
That is simply false. I don't think you would have even mentioned it if I hadn't brought it up, so it might be an example of Affirming the consequent. That is, because it (Zhang's summary) doesn't agree with your conclusions it must be wrong.
Well, the way I suggested, makes perfect sense to me, and I can even explain why the particle vibrates to begin with.
Your suggestion of 'phase', is unknown to me, it sounds pretty ambiguous. Unless of course, you wish to clarify?
Sure, but start another thread, perhaps in the Quantum Physics section rather than this "New Theories" section.
This thread is for pointing out what's wrong with your argument .
That is simply false. I don't think you would have even mentioned it if I hadn't brought it up, so it might be an example of Affirming the consequent. That is, because it (Zhang's summary) doesn't agree with your conclusions it must be wrong.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 18 2007, 09:51 PM)
The theorists simply have no vindication for their misunderstanding of Aether concept, only their schematic thinking, politic and religion.
That is an argumentum ad hominem, arguing that "they" are not right because of politic etc. But I also see it as a symptom of The Common Crank having a form of delusion, thinking that nobody else is capable of being right, understanding his theory, whatever. You simply can't accept that someone else managed to figure it out, decades ago, and that serves as a motive for all the arguments.
Your rattling on about Maxwell's equations contains element of Proof by example and Half truth. Even without the latter, suppose you found one item to support your idea. So what? It only takes one item that contradicts it to show it is wrong. Individual isolated items can support many ideas by themselves.
In fact, science works by "falsifying", by figuring out what experiment can distinguish between competing theories, thus breaking one of them.
That is an argumentum ad hominem, arguing that "they" are not right because of politic etc. But I also see it as a symptom of The Common Crank having a form of delusion, thinking that nobody else is capable of being right, understanding his theory, whatever. You simply can't accept that someone else managed to figure it out, decades ago, and that serves as a motive for all the arguments.
Your rattling on about Maxwell's equations contains element of Proof by example and Half truth. Even without the latter, suppose you found one item to support your idea. So what? It only takes one item that contradicts it to show it is wrong. Individual isolated items can support many ideas by themselves.
In fact, science works by "falsifying", by figuring out what experiment can distinguish between competing theories, thus breaking one of them.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 18 2007, 10:04 PM)
Well, the way I suggested, makes perfect sense to me, and I can even explain why the particle vibrates to begin with.
Your suggestion of 'phase', is unknown to me, it sounds pretty ambiguous. Unless of course, you wish to clarify?
Sure, but start another thread, perhaps in the Quantum Physics section rather than this "New Theories" section.
This thread is for pointing out what's wrong with your argument
.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 18 2007, 10:23 PM)
The positron and electron are themselves particles. The combination of these particles creates the two gamma ray photons
Sometimes 2, sometimes 3, in the actual annihilation event. Do you know what the difference is in the two scenarios?
It can throw off a bunch of photons leading up to the main event, too, as the system looses energy.
Sometimes 2, sometimes 3, in the actual annihilation event. Do you know what the difference is in the two scenarios?
It can throw off a bunch of photons leading up to the main event, too, as the system looses energy.
Guh. I get buried under the stupidity, I'll try and get caught up on this thread tomorrow.
QUOTE (Empress Palpatine+Jul 20 2007, 03:56 AM)
Does relativity frighten people? It is not a religious problem is it (like evolutionism vs. creationism)? In my youth in the church, I heard many anti-evolution sermons but never any anti-relativity sermons.
You bring up a good point. I think that the mindset and underlying psychological causes of evolution deniers, Holocaust deniers, relativity deniers, etc. is the same. I think it was James Randi that pointed out, based on long experience with different types of Cranks, the similarity between evolution deniers and Holocaust deniers in their mentality and behavior, as distinct from most other cranks as they are alike each other, and thus started the modern term "evolution deniers" instead of "creationist". I conjecture that is true about whatever they are denying. I read use of the term "Reality deniers" (search) that seems to wrap up the whole thing.
You bring up a good point. I think that the mindset and underlying psychological causes of evolution deniers, Holocaust deniers, relativity deniers, etc. is the same. I think it was James Randi that pointed out, based on long experience with different types of Cranks, the similarity between evolution deniers and Holocaust deniers in their mentality and behavior, as distinct from most other cranks as they are alike each other, and thus started the modern term "evolution deniers" instead of "creationist". I conjecture that is true about whatever they are denying. I read use of the term "Reality deniers" (search) that seems to wrap up the whole thing.
QUOTE (Nick+Jul 20 2007, 04:28 AM)
Virtual to me means imaginary.
What could virtual light be?
How can there be electromagnetic waves that are only temporary?
It doesn't make sense. It is an extrapolation that is going to far.
Mitch Raemsch
Short answer: Imagine yourself in the early part of the 20th century, being one of the first to plod through the mathematics of QM expressed as wave functions. Figure out the interaction between two charged particles exchanging momentum. Rearrange the symbols to gain insight into the underling mechanism rather than just verifying that it "does that". See an expression that looks just like the function for a photon except it is a bit odd, mainly in having no energy (the other weird stuff comes from having an exact energy, which happens to be zero). What do you decide it ought to be called?
Long answer: See this page in the Physics FAQ.
As for imaginary, mathematics has so-called imaginary numbers that are very useful. It's not like integers actually exist in some tangible manner, right?
What could virtual light be?
How can there be electromagnetic waves that are only temporary?
It doesn't make sense. It is an extrapolation that is going to far.
Mitch Raemsch
Short answer: Imagine yourself in the early part of the 20th century, being one of the first to plod through the mathematics of QM expressed as wave functions. Figure out the interaction between two charged particles exchanging momentum. Rearrange the symbols to gain insight into the underling mechanism rather than just verifying that it "does that". See an expression that looks just like the function for a photon except it is a bit odd, mainly in having no energy (the other weird stuff comes from having an exact energy, which happens to be zero). What do you decide it ought to be called?
Long answer: See this page in the Physics FAQ.
As for imaginary, mathematics has so-called imaginary numbers that are very useful. It's not like integers actually exist in some tangible manner, right?
QUOTE (LearmSceince+Jul 20 2007, 09:57 AM)
...You simply can't accept that someone else managed to figure it out, decades ago, and that serves as a motive for all the arguments...
...you simply cannot prove, someone managed to figure it out, by using of relevant citation, therefore your claim is complete void and dumb cranky stance without logical reasoning...
...you simply cannot prove, someone managed to figure it out, by using of relevant citation, therefore your claim is complete void and dumb cranky stance without logical reasoning...
QUOTE (LearmSceince+Jul 20 2007, 09:57 AM)
......the Aether concept doesn't violates the relativity at all - That is simply false....
Another simple, dumb cranky stance without logical reasoning. Complete waste of time to read it.
Another simple, dumb cranky stance without logical reasoning. Complete waste of time to read it.
QUOTE (LearmSceince+Jul 20 2007, 09:57 AM)
...Zhang showed that these experimental limits essentially require that any theory based upon the existence of an ether be experimentally indistinguishable from SR....
Another BS. For example, the AWT predicts the Lorentz symmetry violation for longer wavelengths of light, while the SR is based on the validity of Lorentz symmetry from its very beginning, therefore it can NEVER derive the very same results.
Another BS. For example, the AWT predicts the Lorentz symmetry violation for longer wavelengths of light, while the SR is based on the validity of Lorentz symmetry from its very beginning, therefore it can NEVER derive the very same results.
Quote: ...you simply cannot prove, someone managed to figure it out, by using of relevant citation,
Conjures up theories about the Educational hierarchy determined in term of the parametricks: (bribe, wealth ) coordinations E<=>A like the U238 chain-reaction/brain-reaction
What that judiciary that looks up every brilliant thesis/essay ever written then possible provides it to? Who? What? um sells to: submissive students they like/like to marry into their ranking positions
Plenty of people figure out thing's all time however how come up with a brilliant thesis Paytent it pre submitting it? that could comprise your ability to pay your floating-tent-rent, besides whatever your typing is probably possible to intercept at some stage?
The last time I tried to patent/tender an invention they told me they'll show my product design to there chosen manufactures as soon as i give them $5,000 upfront.
Conjures up theories about the Educational hierarchy determined in term of the parametricks: (bribe, wealth ) coordinations E<=>A like the U238 chain-reaction/brain-reaction
What that judiciary that looks up every brilliant thesis/essay ever written then possible provides it to? Who? What? um sells to: submissive students they like/like to marry into their ranking positions
Plenty of people figure out thing's all time however how come up with a brilliant thesis Paytent it pre submitting it? that could comprise your ability to pay your floating-tent-rent, besides whatever your typing is probably possible to intercept at some stage?
The last time I tried to patent/tender an invention they told me they'll show my product design to there chosen manufactures as soon as i give them $5,000 upfront.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 19 2007, 10:05 PM)
......You accept electromagnetism, even though you know it's ultimately incapable of explaining all electromagnetic interactions observed. Yet you avoid quantum electrodynamics as "too theoretical" despite it explaining ALL electromagnetic interactions observed, both classical and subatomic.....
The nature is not such complicated as it results from the Feynman QED based on the perturbation theory with renormalization. This theory gives good results because is based on mechanism which fits the theoretical values to the experimental data via the ad hoc selected diagrams. All theories based on the perturbation theory contain such mechanism. There is the proof that it is true - the systematic calculations performed for the magnetic moment of electron by M.J.Levine and J.Wright, in 1971, were in excellent agreement with experiments carried into effect in 1970 by J.C.Wesley and A.Rich. But the theoretical calculations are not in agreement with today experimental data. What made scientists? They exchanged some diagrams in the order alpha^3. In my opinion it is childish game.
Feynman claimed that the QED is mathematically not coherent because of the infinite values. For example: Infinity + 5 = infinity. Such mathematical expression cannot describe the real nature (you know, it is associated with the quantized geometry which should be the foundation of the coherent QED!).
The Feynman QED also does not take into account:
-weak interactions of the electrons with the dark energy
-that bare electron it is not a sizeless particle
-that the natural fluctuations in the background of the Universe limit the accuracy of the theoretical values and experimental data.
My New QED is consistent with the experimental data and at least 100 times shorter because it is true that the nature is simple (also mathematically). The calculations associated with the magnetic moment of electron you can find in my paper titled "Initial Conditions for the Ultimate Theory", the calculations associated with the magnetic moment of muon, with frequency 1420.4 MHz of the radiation emitted by the hydrogen atom under a change of the mutual orientation of the electron and proton spin in the ground state, and with the Lamb-Retherford shift you can find in the paper titled "New QED" - see on www.cosmology-particles.pl/files/TheUniverse.pdf
My New QED is based on the quantized geometry and takes into account the listed problems passed over in silence in the Feynman QED.
The nature is not such complicated as it results from the Feynman QED based on the perturbation theory with renormalization. This theory gives good results because is based on mechanism which fits the theoretical values to the experimental data via the ad hoc selected diagrams. All theories based on the perturbation theory contain such mechanism. There is the proof that it is true - the systematic calculations performed for the magnetic moment of electron by M.J.Levine and J.Wright, in 1971, were in excellent agreement with experiments carried into effect in 1970 by J.C.Wesley and A.Rich. But the theoretical calculations are not in agreement with today experimental data. What made scientists? They exchanged some diagrams in the order alpha^3. In my opinion it is childish game.
Feynman claimed that the QED is mathematically not coherent because of the infinite values. For example: Infinity + 5 = infinity. Such mathematical expression cannot describe the real nature (you know, it is associated with the quantized geometry which should be the foundation of the coherent QED!).
The Feynman QED also does not take into account:
-weak interactions of the electrons with the dark energy
-that bare electron it is not a sizeless particle
-that the natural fluctuations in the background of the Universe limit the accuracy of the theoretical values and experimental data.
My New QED is consistent with the experimental data and at least 100 times shorter because it is true that the nature is simple (also mathematically). The calculations associated with the magnetic moment of electron you can find in my paper titled "Initial Conditions for the Ultimate Theory", the calculations associated with the magnetic moment of muon, with frequency 1420.4 MHz of the radiation emitted by the hydrogen atom under a change of the mutual orientation of the electron and proton spin in the ground state, and with the Lamb-Retherford shift you can find in the paper titled "New QED" - see on www.cosmology-particles.pl/files/TheUniverse.pdf
My New QED is based on the quantized geometry and takes into account the listed problems passed over in silence in the Feynman QED.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 20 2007, 10:22 AM)
This theory gives good results because is based on mechanism which fits the theoretical values to the experimental data via the ad hoc selected diagrams.
I seem to remember you claiming something like this before but when I asked you about it, you didn't answer my questions.
What precisely is ad hoc about Feynman diagrams? It is NOT a case of selecting some and not others, all diagrams are computed, though due to the nature of the diagrams a great many are often equal to one another (or exactly opposite so cancel).
All possible ways of creating a certain interaction are computed, analysed and then summed together. There is nothing ad hoc about it.
Can you demonstrate otherwise. Give me an example of a process which involves saying "And we ignore this Feynman diagram" without a reason (such as it trivially being zero).
I seem to remember you claiming something like this before but when I asked you about it, you didn't answer my questions.
What precisely is ad hoc about Feynman diagrams? It is NOT a case of selecting some and not others, all diagrams are computed, though due to the nature of the diagrams a great many are often equal to one another (or exactly opposite so cancel).
All possible ways of creating a certain interaction are computed, analysed and then summed together. There is nothing ad hoc about it.
Can you demonstrate otherwise. Give me an example of a process which involves saying "And we ignore this Feynman diagram" without a reason (such as it trivially being zero).
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 20 2007, 10:22 AM)
All theories based on the perturbation theory contain such mechanism.
String theory doesn't. It just as different topologies, not different diagrams. You sum over all topologies and each topology represents a class of diagrams.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 20 2007, 10:22 AM)
But the theoretical calculations are not in agreement with today experimental data. What made scientists? They exchanged some diagrams in the order alpha^3. In my opinion it is childish game.
Can you provide evidence? The anomalous magnetic moment of the electron is the most verified quantity in all of QED.
If experiments in 1970 could only measure to an accuracy of say 0.01%, then this would only require say alpha^2 contributions and so physicists in 1971 would not need to go much further. Experiments can now go to over 0.0000001% so the inclusion of alpha^3 and alpha^4 contributions is not 'ad hoc', it's just dialing up with accuracy to which we 'round off' our predictions. The amount of work required to compute the totality of a next order contribution increases exponentially! What is one diagram at tree level might be 4 at one loop, 20 at two loop etc. I remember being in a seminar about electroweak processes and the 4 loop process required over 10,000 diagrams to be computed!
It would seem you don't grasp how QED and generally perturbation theory works.#
If experiments in 1970 could only measure to an accuracy of say 0.01%, then this would only require say alpha^2 contributions and so physicists in 1971 would not need to go much further. Experiments can now go to over 0.0000001% so the inclusion of alpha^3 and alpha^4 contributions is not 'ad hoc', it's just dialing up with accuracy to which we 'round off' our predictions. The amount of work required to compute the totality of a next order contribution increases exponentially! What is one diagram at tree level might be 4 at one loop, 20 at two loop etc. I remember being in a seminar about electroweak processes and the 4 loop process required over 10,000 diagrams to be computed!
It would seem you don't grasp how QED and generally perturbation theory works.#
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 20 2007, 10:22 AM)
Feynman claimed that the QED is mathematically not coherent because of the infinite values. For example: Infinity + 5 = infinity. Such mathematical expression cannot describe the real nature (you know, it is associated with the quantized geometry which should be the foundation of the coherent QED!).
Renormalisation is mathematically rigorous (though it wasn't till Feynman had passed away this was done properly).
Besides, it's hardly infinity + 5 = infinity. To say that demonstrates you've never done any renormalisation. I've explained the general methodology on these forums a number of times and it's quite methodical. If you are as knowledgable as you claim, I have no need to explain things like dimensional regularisation too you.
But then we both know you aren't as knowledgable as you claim.
Besides, it's hardly infinity + 5 = infinity. To say that demonstrates you've never done any renormalisation. I've explained the general methodology on these forums a number of times and it's quite methodical. If you are as knowledgable as you claim, I have no need to explain things like dimensional regularisation too you.
But then we both know you aren't as knowledgable as you claim.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 20 2007, 10:22 AM)
The Feynman QED also does not take into account:
1) weak interactions of the electrons with the dark energy
2) that bare electron it is not a sizeless particle
3) that the natural fluctuations in the background of the Universe limit the accuracy of the theoretical values and experimental data.
1) weak interactions of the electrons with the dark energy
2) that bare electron it is not a sizeless particle
3) that the natural fluctuations in the background of the Universe limit the accuracy of the theoretical values and experimental data.
1) QED never set out to model that. I specifically said electromagnetic, not electroweak. If you want to consider weak interactions then you use the extension of QED, which is electroweak theory. It's considerably more complicated due to non-abelian gauge groups and the fact it's flavour and mass eigenstates are not the same, but if someone understands QED, EW is not too bad. Obviously since you fail to understand QED, EW is too much for you to grasp.
2) Since no experimental evidence of any kind points to a size for the electron, this is not a problem.
3) QED does take into account the notion of vacuum fluctuations. Infact, it's a major concept to learn the difference between a Fock space vacuum and a physical vacuum. Feynman diagrams come into it, with the notion of connected and unconnected diagrams. The textbook "An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory" by Peskin and Schroder covers it in detail, going through the lengthy proof of how connected and disconnected diagrams factorise very nicely.
But I don't expect you to bother to learn any mainstream physics.
2) Since no experimental evidence of any kind points to a size for the electron, this is not a problem.
3) QED does take into account the notion of vacuum fluctuations. Infact, it's a major concept to learn the difference between a Fock space vacuum and a physical vacuum. Feynman diagrams come into it, with the notion of connected and unconnected diagrams. The textbook "An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory" by Peskin and Schroder covers it in detail, going through the lengthy proof of how connected and disconnected diagrams factorise very nicely.
But I don't expect you to bother to learn any mainstream physics.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 20 2007, 10:22 AM)
My New QED is consistent with the experimental data and at least 100 times shorter because it is true that the nature is simple (also mathematically).
Managed to do the electron+positron -> muon+antimuon question I asked you (and all cranks) long ago? Funny how cranks are suprised by the notion there's more to physics than computing masses.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 20 2007, 10:22 AM)
My New QED is based on the quantized geometry and takes into account the listed problems passed over in silence in the Feynman QED.
Once again, you employ crank methodology. If you don't know the answer to something from a mainstream point of view, you assume all physicists can't do it. Wrong. You should have learnt by now that you are profoundly ignorant of mainstream physics and that just because you don't know a certain mainstream result doesn't mean physicists don't.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 19 2007, 11:08 PM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 19 2007, 10:11 PM)
As I have shown above, the vast majority of what you call "theoretical" is actually experimental. Only a hasty generalization from a few Newtonian examples would lead you to believe that the universe is Newtonian.
There are various experiments and results, I don't deny that.
Technically, there is nothing -- no information content -- to deny in that sentence.
There are various experiments and results, I don't deny that.
Technically, there is nothing -- no information content -- to deny in that sentence.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 19 2007, 11:08 PM)
But they are separate from the actual theory itself; the verbal explanation.
The verbal explanation? Are you referring to some pop-physics pablum? Every fundamental theory I know starts with mathematical postulates and ends with: This class of experiment will be observed to behave mathematically consistently with these assumptions or the assumptions are wrong. That's pure empiricism.
QUOTE (Newton's Laws of Mechanics+)
- ΣF_ia = 0 → mΔv_a = 0
- ΣF_ia = m dv_a/dt
- F_ba = -F_ab
QUOTE (Maxwell's electromagnetism (short form)+)
- dJ =0 (continuity of current)
- dF = 0
- d ★F = J (in vacuum) or CF = J (in matter).
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 19 2007, 11:08 PM)
For instance, time dilation has various experiments, such as GPS satellites and all that stuff, which I'm sure you know about. Yet the theory behind time dilation, may be inherently wrong...
(And no, I'm not getting into another bloody debate about that)
Conclusively, you may get the right results, yet still be wrong about the theory behind those results.
(And no, I'm not getting into another bloody debate about that)
Conclusively, you may get the right results, yet still be wrong about the theory behind those results.
You continue to confuse metaphysics with physics. The universe is our teacher, but we are responsible for grading our own work. There are no "right" answers for any question in your world-view -- there are only answers that work "good enough to pass." Even Newton, who seemed content to respond that the "why" behind Gravitation may be God's Will, never expected God to judge his work. You know time dilation is observable in so many systems. Moreover the very concept of time dilation is unthinkable in Newtonian physics, because there is just one rate of time in Newtonian physics. Moreover, even if Einstein is wrong, we know that he is not very wrong. 300 EeV protons have been observed, a violation of Einstein's math has not yet been observed.
Einstein is more right than Newton, Quantum Field Theory is more right than Maxwell's equations, and to reject either without empirical evidence is just playing games (politics, metaphysics, untethered philosophy, etc.).
Einstein is more right than Newton, Quantum Field Theory is more right than Maxwell's equations, and to reject either without empirical evidence is just playing games (politics, metaphysics, untethered philosophy, etc.).
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 19 2007, 11:08 PM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 19 2007, 10:11 PM)
You probably are going to edit this post since you were creating it simultaneous with my 9:31 post, where I did mention SR, which for the first time combines space and time into a single space-time, GR which trivially predicts black holes, and quantum physics. All of these ARE Mainstream physics since about 1935.
Yup, and they're still pretty damn theoretical. Seriously, black holes? - That's about as theoretical as you get these days. There's more black hole theories out there, than I've had cooked dinners.
I think you mean there are more Black Hole Theorems. The first Black Hole Theorem dates back to 1784. The critical radius back then was also 2GM/c˛ (but the dynamics were different.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Ne...ore_Einstein.29
Compact objects like neutron stars and their close cousins do exist. But the theory of neutron stars requires the pressure at their center to become infinite if the mass exceeds certain limits. Such an infinite pressure seems unphysical, and barring a phenomenon completely outside of are experience, the radius must collapse for cold matter about about 3 solar masses into a black hole.
Compact objects of 1 million to a couple billion solar masses have been reliably observed by their gravitational effects. If GR is even close to right, there is no physics reason to believe these objects are not black holes.
http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/index.php
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/active/smblack.html
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=194010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Ne...ore_Einstein.29
Compact objects like neutron stars and their close cousins do exist. But the theory of neutron stars requires the pressure at their center to become infinite if the mass exceeds certain limits. Such an infinite pressure seems unphysical, and barring a phenomenon completely outside of are experience, the radius must collapse for cold matter about about 3 solar masses into a black hole.
Compact objects of 1 million to a couple billion solar masses have been reliably observed by their gravitational effects. If GR is even close to right, there is no physics reason to believe these objects are not black holes.
http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/index.php
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/active/smblack.html
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=194010
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 19 2007, 11:08 PM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 19 2007, 10:11 PM)
Can you criticize someone for trying their hardest to do a job never before done and failing to do it fast enough to suit you?
Yeah, it might prevent them slacking, before said slacking occurs.
Yeah, it might prevent them slacking, before said slacking occurs.
Ignoring evidence about the wrongness of ones position is also a form of slacking. When this information is not just available but is in fact spoon-fed to you, that's something worse.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 20 2007, 09:31 PM)
...Einstein is more right than Newton, Quantum Field Theory is more right than Maxwell's equations, and to reject either without empirical evidence is just playing games...
Empirical evidence says, the Newtonian dynamics is able to explain every more complex phenomena just by involving sufficiently complex geometry, which is the result of this dynamics as well, after all.
Empirical evidence says, the Newtonian dynamics is able to explain every more complex phenomena just by involving sufficiently complex geometry, which is the result of this dynamics as well, after all.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 20 2007, 08:45 PM)
Empirical evidence says, the Newtonian dynamics is able to explain every more complex phenomena just by involving sufficiently complex geometry, which is the result of this dynamics as well, after all.
- Newton does not postulate complex geometry but Euclidean geometry. The definitions of p = mv only work in Euclidean geometry.
- Your stated postulates of AWT are in no way Newtonian.
- The claim is not physics unless you specify the geometry and are willing to live or die by the consistency of your geometry (mathematical postulates) and experiment. Your claim that you "want to be paid" for your work before you will present the math is bogus:
- You were the one who claimed you did the math already. Therefore the amount of work we are asking for must be trivial in comparison with the effort you put in over the years to write your thousands of posts about AWT in a foreign language.
- You can't patent a law of nature, so your ideas, if true, cannot be owned.
- You can't prove that you did the work unless you show the work. So your ideas, if true, are not protected from someone else getting there first.
- I did too offer to pay you, with no response from your side. http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=231407
- No part of Newtonian physics predicts a violation of the Euclidean velocity addition law: v = v1 + v2. The Einstein velocity addition law gives immediately the experimentally measured Fizeau drag coefficient without metaphysical or ad hoc paraphernalia. http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=228191
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 20 2007, 06:31 PM)
Einstein is more right than Newton, Quantum Field Theory is more right than Maxwell's equations, and to reject either without empirical evidence is just playing games (politics, metaphysics, untethered philosophy, etc.)
I'm not calling for them to be rejected. I am just stating my opinion (Note: My 'opinion') that people should think for themselves and try to come up with their own theories, perhaps even using experiments and results which have already been conducted.
Just like those experiments and results may back-up one theory, they may alternatively back-up a different theory. There are just too many possible theories out there, to narrow-mindedly focus solely on mainstream physics.
I certainly have little respect for people who spend all their time learning mainstream physics and not coming up with anything of their own, or even thinking outside the box of mainstream physics itself. The only thing you can respect such people for, is their intelligence at being able to learn all that stuff and then reproduce it, like a sodding robot!
I'm not calling for them to be rejected. I am just stating my opinion (Note: My 'opinion') that people should think for themselves and try to come up with their own theories, perhaps even using experiments and results which have already been conducted.
Just like those experiments and results may back-up one theory, they may alternatively back-up a different theory. There are just too many possible theories out there, to narrow-mindedly focus solely on mainstream physics.
I certainly have little respect for people who spend all their time learning mainstream physics and not coming up with anything of their own, or even thinking outside the box of mainstream physics itself. The only thing you can respect such people for, is their intelligence at being able to learn all that stuff and then reproduce it, like a sodding robot!
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 20 2007, 09:26 PM)
I'm not calling for them to be rejected. I am just stating my opinion (Note: My 'opinion') that people should think for themselves and try to come up with their own theories, perhaps even using experiments and results which have already been conducted.
Just like those experiments and results may back-up one theory, they may alternatively back-up a different theory. There are just too many possible theories out there, to narrow-mindedly focus solely on mainstream physics.
I certainly have little respect for people who spend all their time learning mainstream physics and not coming up with anything of their own, or even thinking outside the box of mainstream physics itself. The only thing you can respect such people for, is their intelligence at being able to learn all that stuff and then reproduce it, like a sodding robot!
Aether Cloud Theory even sounds better.
ACT!
Just like those experiments and results may back-up one theory, they may alternatively back-up a different theory. There are just too many possible theories out there, to narrow-mindedly focus solely on mainstream physics.
I certainly have little respect for people who spend all their time learning mainstream physics and not coming up with anything of their own, or even thinking outside the box of mainstream physics itself. The only thing you can respect such people for, is their intelligence at being able to learn all that stuff and then reproduce it, like a sodding robot!
Aether Cloud Theory even sounds better.
ACT!
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Jul 20 2007, 09:30 PM)
Aether Cloud Theory even sounds better.
I fail to see how space, which is quintessentially immaterial, can take matter-based properties upon itself, such as 'clouds' or 'foam'. I personally believe one needs to step outside the limited viewpoint of matter-based properties, and instead look for unique spatial-based properties, such as complete emptiness and infiniteness. Wouldn't you agree that these are unique to space, whereas they never feature in regards to matter, since matter is always non-empty and always finite.
I fail to see how space, which is quintessentially immaterial, can take matter-based properties upon itself, such as 'clouds' or 'foam'. I personally believe one needs to step outside the limited viewpoint of matter-based properties, and instead look for unique spatial-based properties, such as complete emptiness and infiniteness. Wouldn't you agree that these are unique to space, whereas they never feature in regards to matter, since matter is always non-empty and always finite.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 21 2007, 12:09 AM)
No part of Newtonian physics predicts a violation of the Euclidean velocity addition law: v = v1 + v2.
Such violation is the general rule under the situation, the same observed wave serves from both distance and time measurement.
Such violation is the general rule under the situation, the same observed wave serves from both distance and time measurement.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 21 2007, 12:09 AM)
Newton does not postulate complex geometry but Euclidean geometry.
Newton didn't stated any geometry. The geometry of energy spreading on the sphere is Newtonian by the same way, like the geometry of the flat water surface.
Newton didn't stated any geometry. The geometry of energy spreading on the sphere is Newtonian by the same way, like the geometry of the flat water surface.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 21 2007, 12:09 AM)
Your stated postulates of AWT are in no way Newtonian.
Why? Because you told so?
Why? Because you told so?
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 21 2007, 12:09 AM)
You can't patent a law of nature, so your ideas, if true, cannot be owned
Nobody wants to patent the law of nature. The Aether idea is Rene Descartes's one. The plagiarism in the science is punished by general lost of credibility, the suspension of college and scientific degree, and so on.
Nobody wants to patent the law of nature. The Aether idea is Rene Descartes's one. The plagiarism in the science is punished by general lost of credibility, the suspension of college and scientific degree, and so on.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 21 2007, 12:09 AM)
..you can't prove that you did the work unless you show the work...
Which "work" are you talking about? I'm explaining the experiments and physical theories concepts by the Aether idea here. Everything, what I'm doing in this area is published on the web immediately.
Which "work" are you talking about? I'm explaining the experiments and physical theories concepts by the Aether idea here. Everything, what I'm doing in this area is published on the web immediately.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 21 2007, 12:09 AM)
..So your ideas, if true, are not protected from someone else getting there first...
If somebody will prove, he published ideas presented here by me at first, I can have nothing against it, on the contrary. I'll use it as a proof of scientific community ignorace, instead.
If somebody will prove, he published ideas presented here by me at first, I can have nothing against it, on the contrary. I'll use it as a proof of scientific community ignorace, instead.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 21 2007, 12:09 AM)
claim is not physics unless you specify the geometry and are willing to live or die by the consistency of your geometry
What are you babbling about? I don't care, if my claims "are physics" or not, just if they're true or not. The AWT has no particular geometry predefined, the geometry is always the result of principle of least action. My person and the ability to live has nothing to do with the true value of my claim.
Stop with demagogy and politics.
What are you babbling about? I don't care, if my claims "are physics" or not, just if they're true or not. The AWT has no particular geometry predefined, the geometry is always the result of principle of least action. My person and the ability to live has nothing to do with the true value of my claim.
Stop with demagogy and politics.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 21 2007, 01:25 AM)
I fail to see how space, which is quintessentially immaterial, can take matter-based properties upon itself, such as 'clouds' or 'foam'
This is exactly, why every space is "material" (i.e. formed by inertial environment) by AWT. The chaotic motion of inertial particles compensates their action at the distance, thus covering their inertial nature less or more pronounced way.
This is exactly, why every space is "material" (i.e. formed by inertial environment) by AWT. The chaotic motion of inertial particles compensates their action at the distance, thus covering their inertial nature less or more pronounced way.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Jul 21 2007, 01:25 AM)
Aether Cloud Theory even sounds better
Nope, the AWT model is based on gradient driven Newtonian mechanics, by the same way, like mechanical wave in inertial environment.
Nope, the AWT model is based on gradient driven Newtonian mechanics, by the same way, like mechanical wave in inertial environment.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 20 2007, 09:26 PM)
I'm not calling for them to be rejected. I am just stating my opinion (Note: My 'opinion') that people should think for themselves and try to come up with their own theories, perhaps even using experiments and results which have already been conducted.
But it's trivial to come up with worthless theories. What's needed to make progress is to first prove GR or QFT wrong. Only then will we have a (at least one) repeatable experiment which cannot be explained by older theories. Only then will we have the room to test potentially useful theories.
Say, for concreteness, that the experiment X measures a number Y which differs from the QFT expectation by 0.2%. Repeating the experiment in different ways shows that Y is really 0.2% bigger than QFT says. This is very exciting.
A new theory, QFTNGA, in order to be useful, must predict Y closer than QFT does. But it also must predict the rest of QFT's correct predictions to at least as good as QFT does. Otherwise QFTNGA could be allowed to be as ad hoc as: "QFT is exactly correct but Y is always measured 0.2% larger than QFT predicts." That's not progress, but blindness. Likewise QFTNGB could predict Y to within 1 part in 10^9, but if it says Helium-6 is a stable isotope, we know it to be wrong, and useless.
So the only way to make progress in physics is to:
You can do steps 2 and 3 in any order, but if you skip steps 1 and 2, you will not be able to do step 3.
Say, for concreteness, that the experiment X measures a number Y which differs from the QFT expectation by 0.2%. Repeating the experiment in different ways shows that Y is really 0.2% bigger than QFT says. This is very exciting.
A new theory, QFTNGA, in order to be useful, must predict Y closer than QFT does. But it also must predict the rest of QFT's correct predictions to at least as good as QFT does. Otherwise QFTNGA could be allowed to be as ad hoc as: "QFT is exactly correct but Y is always measured 0.2% larger than QFT predicts." That's not progress, but blindness. Likewise QFTNGB could predict Y to within 1 part in 10^9, but if it says Helium-6 is a stable isotope, we know it to be wrong, and useless.
So the only way to make progress in physics is to:
- Learn the current theory which we know is unsatisfactory
- Find experimental situations which contradict the existing theory
- Create a successor theory which does the job of the old one at least as well and which explains/predicts the new results also.
You can do steps 2 and 3 in any order, but if you skip steps 1 and 2, you will not be able to do step 3.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 20 2007, 09:26 PM)
Just like those experiments and results may back-up one theory, they may alternatively back-up a different theory. There are just too many possible theories out there, to narrow-mindedly focus solely on mainstream physics.
You need to learn current theory in order to prove current theory wrong, and learning current theory is a useful shortcut as opposed to trying to memorize every single experimental result ever. If you know current theory, you just need to memorize the experimental results not explained by current theory.
Rather than proving that QFTNGC makes the millions of correct predictions that QFT does, you can take the mathematical short-cut to show that under "normal" conditions QFTNGC is very closely approximated by QFT. Here is an example from this thread:
When v < c/10^6 (~ 1080 km/h), Einstein's equations:
Δx' = (1/sqrt(1 - v˛/c˛)) Δx + (1/sqrt(1 - v˛/c˛)) v Δt
Δt' = (1/sqrt(1 - v˛/c˛)) (v/c˛) Δx + (1/sqrt(1 - v˛/c˛)) Δt
Reduce to:
Δx' = (1 + 0.25×10^-12 ± 0.25×10^-12) Δx + (1 + 0.25×10^-12 ± 0.25×10^-12) v Δt = Δx'_Newton + (0.25×10^-12 ± 0.25×10^-12) Δx + (0.25×10^-12 ± 0.25×10^-12) v Δt
Δt' = (0.5×10^-6 ± 0.5×10^-6) (1/c) Δx + (1 + 0.25×10^-12 ± 0.25×10^-12) Δt = Δt'_Newton + (0.5×10^-6 ± 0.5×10^-6) (1/c) Δx + (0.25×10^-12 ± 0.25×10^-12) Δt
So at low speeds, the non-Euclidean nature of Einstein's math is very small, as the values are different from Newton's by less than 1 trillionth.
Rather than proving that QFTNGC makes the millions of correct predictions that QFT does, you can take the mathematical short-cut to show that under "normal" conditions QFTNGC is very closely approximated by QFT. Here is an example from this thread:
When v < c/10^6 (~ 1080 km/h), Einstein's equations:
Δx' = (1/sqrt(1 - v˛/c˛)) Δx + (1/sqrt(1 - v˛/c˛)) v Δt
Δt' = (1/sqrt(1 - v˛/c˛)) (v/c˛) Δx + (1/sqrt(1 - v˛/c˛)) Δt
Reduce to:
Δx' = (1 + 0.25×10^-12 ± 0.25×10^-12) Δx + (1 + 0.25×10^-12 ± 0.25×10^-12) v Δt = Δx'_Newton + (0.25×10^-12 ± 0.25×10^-12) Δx + (0.25×10^-12 ± 0.25×10^-12) v Δt
Δt' = (0.5×10^-6 ± 0.5×10^-6) (1/c) Δx + (1 + 0.25×10^-12 ± 0.25×10^-12) Δt = Δt'_Newton + (0.5×10^-6 ± 0.5×10^-6) (1/c) Δx + (0.25×10^-12 ± 0.25×10^-12) Δt
So at low speeds, the non-Euclidean nature of Einstein's math is very small, as the values are different from Newton's by less than 1 trillionth.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 20 2007, 09:26 PM)
I certainly have little respect for people who spend all their time learning mainstream physics and not coming up with anything of their own, or even thinking outside the box of mainstream physics itself.
(Adapted from an illustration originally by Okun):
Okun, L.B., 1991, Usp. Fiz. Nauk. 161, 177 [Sov. Phys. Usp. 34, 818].
(Subscription required!)
Later in Fig 1 of http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0205340
Unless you know the box, you can't find your way outside of it. The universe is real. The box (currently verified theories) appears nearly perfect except for the seam between GR and QFT.
CODE
+ The Voyage of Discovery
| GR--------STR
| |\ |\
| | \ | \ 1/c
| | ?=========QFT ^
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| NG-|-------NM | G <--+
| \ | \ | \
| \| \| h
| NQG========QM
+
| Newtonian Mechanics (NM)
| + Finite speed of light (1/c != 0)
| = Special Theory of Relativity (STR)
|
| NM + (G != 0) = Newtonian Gravity (NG)
| NM + (h != 0) = Quantum Mechanics (QM)
|
| STR + h = QM + 1/c = Quantum Field Theory
| STR + G = NG + 1/c = General Relativity
| NG + h = QM + G = Newtonian Quantum Gravity
+
| GR--------STR
| |\ |\
| | \ | \ 1/c
| | ?=========QFT ^
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| NG-|-------NM | G <--+
| \ | \ | \
| \| \| h
| NQG========QM
+
| Newtonian Mechanics (NM)
| + Finite speed of light (1/c != 0)
| = Special Theory of Relativity (STR)
|
| NM + (G != 0) = Newtonian Gravity (NG)
| NM + (h != 0) = Quantum Mechanics (QM)
|
| STR + h = QM + 1/c = Quantum Field Theory
| STR + G = NG + 1/c = General Relativity
| NG + h = QM + G = Newtonian Quantum Gravity
+
(Adapted from an illustration originally by Okun):
Okun, L.B., 1991, Usp. Fiz. Nauk. 161, 177 [Sov. Phys. Usp. 34, 818].
(Subscription required!)
Later in Fig 1 of http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0205340
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 20 2007, 09:26 PM)
The only thing you can respect such people for, is their intelligence at being able to learn all that stuff and then reproduce it, like a sodding robot!
I, on the other hand, respect even engineers who never even strive to extend their knowledge beyond the Newtonian. I respect mathematicians, like Erdos, who seem uninterested in practical applications. I respect imaginative people, like Alan Moore, who still hasn't recovered from the Nixon and Thatcher administrations. I don't respect people who don't respect the universe, nor the centuries of work it took to get our present understanding of it. I don't respect engineers who don't learn from the failures of the past. I don't respect mathematical dabblers who think a column of numbers can sum up to different answers on different days. And, finally, I don't respect people who think that thinking about physics is enough. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. The only way to compare inequivalent physics theories is by testing them in the areas they give different predictions. What a waste of time it would be to propose new theories without first knowing the areas where the old theories already handle well enough.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 20 2007, 07:51 AM)
...you simply cannot prove, someone managed to figure it out, by using of relevant citation, therefore your claim is complete void and dumb cranky stance without logical reasoning...
Another simple, dumb cranky stance without logical reasoning. Complete waste of time to read it.
Another BS. For example, the AWT predicts the Lorentz symmetry violation for longer wavelengths of light, while the SR is based on the validity of Lorentz symmetry from its very beginning, therefore it can NEVER derive the very same results.
Actually, logical reasoning based on experimental evidence is logical reasoning, and is how theories are accepted or rejected. This is the closest thing to "proof" you can get in science (as opposed to real proofs in mathematics).
Saying that mathematical results are "dumb, cranky, without logical reasoning" is misunderstanding what logical reasoning is. You're simply throwing a fit, repeating "that's wrong, that's wrong, everyone else is wrong but me" without even understanding what the statement was!
So, the AWT predicts something now? I thought you refused any mention or manipulation of quantitative values, as a matter of principle. Please, show using any formal axiomatic system (that is, it doesn't have to be arithmetic, it could be euclidean geometry or whatever) what it predicts. What wavelengths, by what amount?
While you are at it, find a counterexample of Zhang's summary. That might be more palatable to you than finding the flaw in his reasoning, since he used math. Lots of other smart people checked his work before it was published.
I do agree that SR can never predict Lorentz violation, since it actually shows perfect Lorentz symmetry. To go beyond accepted physics, experimental data is needed. And the refined theory must reproduce all the correct results from the old.
So, any time you say something correct on this thread (where arguments are being analyzed) it turned out to be a Red Herring. Does this follow the pattern? Yes, I think it does. It is trivially true that a good solid theory does not predict things that are not in the theory. So what? That is not an argument to support the case that "everyone else is wrong". You use circular arguments to say that because everyone else is wrong, you cannot use literature citations to find accepted experimental results and verified-double-checked mathematical work, and anyone who gets the same result is, by your thesis, also wrong because everyone but you is wrong.
Psyche Of The Common Crank: go to extreme lengths to ignore contradictory data, delusions of conspiracy, and arguments degenerate into tantrums when cornered.
Another simple, dumb cranky stance without logical reasoning. Complete waste of time to read it.
Another BS. For example, the AWT predicts the Lorentz symmetry violation for longer wavelengths of light, while the SR is based on the validity of Lorentz symmetry from its very beginning, therefore it can NEVER derive the very same results.
Actually, logical reasoning based on experimental evidence is logical reasoning, and is how theories are accepted or rejected. This is the closest thing to "proof" you can get in science (as opposed to real proofs in mathematics).
Saying that mathematical results are "dumb, cranky, without logical reasoning" is misunderstanding what logical reasoning is. You're simply throwing a fit, repeating "that's wrong, that's wrong, everyone else is wrong but me" without even understanding what the statement was!
So, the AWT predicts something now? I thought you refused any mention or manipulation of quantitative values, as a matter of principle. Please, show using any formal axiomatic system (that is, it doesn't have to be arithmetic, it could be euclidean geometry or whatever) what it predicts. What wavelengths, by what amount?
While you are at it, find a counterexample of Zhang's summary. That might be more palatable to you than finding the flaw in his reasoning, since he used math. Lots of other smart people checked his work before it was published.
I do agree that SR can never predict Lorentz violation, since it actually shows perfect Lorentz symmetry. To go beyond accepted physics, experimental data is needed. And the refined theory must reproduce all the correct results from the old.
So, any time you say something correct on this thread (where arguments are being analyzed) it turned out to be a Red Herring. Does this follow the pattern? Yes, I think it does. It is trivially true that a good solid theory does not predict things that are not in the theory. So what? That is not an argument to support the case that "everyone else is wrong". You use circular arguments to say that because everyone else is wrong, you cannot use literature citations to find accepted experimental results and verified-double-checked mathematical work, and anyone who gets the same result is, by your thesis, also wrong because everyone but you is wrong.
Psyche Of The Common Crank: go to extreme lengths to ignore contradictory data, delusions of conspiracy, and arguments degenerate into tantrums when cornered.
QUOTE (LearmSceince+Jul 21 2007, 02:39 AM)
Actually, logical reasoning based on experimental evidence is logical reasoning, and is how theories are accepted or rejected. This is the closest thing to "proof" you can get in science.
Indeed. For example, this is how the Galileo has had proven the heliocentric model: by logic, based on experiments and observations, not by formal math.
After all, the formal math allows the infinite number of less or more complex trajectories for planetary motion. The Ptolemy's epicycles one is just one of many possible solutions here, so the formal math cannot serve for reasoning of the heliocentric model.
Indeed. For example, this is how the Galileo has had proven the heliocentric model: by logic, based on experiments and observations, not by formal math.
After all, the formal math allows the infinite number of less or more complex trajectories for planetary motion. The Ptolemy's epicycles one is just one of many possible solutions here, so the formal math cannot serve for reasoning of the heliocentric model.
QUOTE (LearmSceince+Jul 21 2007, 02:39 AM)
So, the AWT predicts something now?
Of course, for example the Lorentz symmetry violation (LSV), whole new cosmology and so on. The wavelength of light expected for LSV corresponds the wavelength, which can be derived/measured for surface water waves, simply because the Aether gradients is the same stuff, like the water surface gradient and whole the mechanism remains exactly the same.
Of course, for example the Lorentz symmetry violation (LSV), whole new cosmology and so on. The wavelength of light expected for LSV corresponds the wavelength, which can be derived/measured for surface water waves, simply because the Aether gradients is the same stuff, like the water surface gradient and whole the mechanism remains exactly the same.
QUOTE (LearmSceince+Jul 21 2007, 02:39 AM)
...find a counterexample of Zhang's summary...
The purpose of AWT is not to disprove the relativity theory, but to explain it and generalize it. Experimental base of LSV follows from COBE/WMAP observations and Thim's experiments.
But it's trivial to come up with worthless theories.
Who evaluates the worth of theories? I don't believe it's the right attitude to label all theories, other than mainstream ones, as 'worthless'.
I don't respect people who think that thinking about physics is enough.
That's just ridiculous. If it wasn't for people 'thinking' about physics, we wouldn't have physics to begin with. The very work of philosophers and great thinkers, over the millenniums, have been invaluable to physics. The old thinkers of ancient Greece, used to sit around all day debating the nature of the universe, and this is how they came up with such things as Atomism. The ancient Greeks thought it was enough, and it was often enough for the ideas they came up with, so therefore it's good enough for me or anyone else to simply think about physics. Besides, who knows. An actual scientist may read my ideas, and decide to do some math or experimentation about them. By your intolerance, such events should never occur.
The purpose of AWT is not to disprove the relativity theory, but to explain it and generalize it. Experimental base of LSV follows from COBE/WMAP observations and Thim's experiments.
QUOTE (LearmSceince+Jul 21 2007, 02:39 AM)
...you use circular arguments to say that because everyone else is wrong...
I'm not saying, everyone else is wrong at all. Such claim is just an demagogy, whose purpose is to make my claims untruthfulness.
I'm not saying, everyone else is wrong at all. Such claim is just an demagogy, whose purpose is to make my claims untruthfulness.
QUOTE (rpenner+)
But it's trivial to come up with worthless theories.
Who evaluates the worth of theories? I don't believe it's the right attitude to label all theories, other than mainstream ones, as 'worthless'.
QUOTE (rpenner+)
I don't respect people who think that thinking about physics is enough.
That's just ridiculous. If it wasn't for people 'thinking' about physics, we wouldn't have physics to begin with. The very work of philosophers and great thinkers, over the millenniums, have been invaluable to physics. The old thinkers of ancient Greece, used to sit around all day debating the nature of the universe, and this is how they came up with such things as Atomism. The ancient Greeks thought it was enough, and it was often enough for the ideas they came up with, so therefore it's good enough for me or anyone else to simply think about physics. Besides, who knows. An actual scientist may read my ideas, and decide to do some math or experimentation about them. By your intolerance, such events should never occur.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 21 2007, 12:03 AM)
Newton didn't stated any geometry. The geometry of energy spreading on the sphere is Newtonian by the same way, like the geometry of the flat water surface.
Newtonian space and time are absolute, they are Euclidean.
Newtonian space and time are absolute, they are Euclidean.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 21 2007, 12:03 AM)
Why? Because you told so?
E=mc^2 is not Newtonian. You have never derived it from Newtonian considerations. If you can't, you cannot claim it's Newtonian since no such evidence exists. If you say "But it's an axiom of my theory" then the same applies, you just state it, it is not derived from Newtonian mechanics.
It's very simple logic.
It's very simple logic.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 21 2007, 12:03 AM)
Nobody wants to patent the law of nature. .
Terry Giblin wanted to patent the electron.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 21 2007, 12:03 AM)
Which "work" are you talking about? I'm explaining the experiments and physical theories concepts by the Aether idea here. Everything, what I'm doing in this area is published on the web immediately.
Work like when you claim to have computed the number of space-time dimensions in AWT by minimising a Lagrangian. Work you never show.
Besides, you are not 'published'. The use of the term 'I'm published' implies that you have had your work reviewed by a seperate group of physicists who are knowledgable in this area and who think your work is credible and valid enough to be worth showing to other physicists. You work isn't. You constantly ignore criticism or when people point out errors. Your work is not peer reviewed, you ignore peer review. You are no more 'published' than Time Cube or Tsolkas. You're nearly as irrational though.
Besides, you are not 'published'. The use of the term 'I'm published' implies that you have had your work reviewed by a seperate group of physicists who are knowledgable in this area and who think your work is credible and valid enough to be worth showing to other physicists. You work isn't. You constantly ignore criticism or when people point out errors. Your work is not peer reviewed, you ignore peer review. You are no more 'published' than Time Cube or Tsolkas. You're nearly as irrational though.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 21 2007, 12:03 AM)
What are you babbling about? I don't care, if my claims "are physics" or not, just if they're true or not. The AWT has no particular geometry predefined, the geometry is always the result of principle of least action. My person and the ability to live has nothing to do with the true value of my claim.
Rpenner is 'babbling' about the scientific method. The notion and methodology of how to go about credible, logical research about nature. The ideals were put forward by Galileo and have been responsible for turning 'natural philosophers' from supersticious hacks into scientists and propelling science into the tour de force it is now. You ignore that. You deliberately avoid that. For all your talk about comparing yourself to Galileo, you're taking up a position precisely that of his persecutors. You don't care about science, you only care about continuing your unjustified preconceived notions.
The purpose of AWT is not to disprove the relativity theory, but to explain it and generalize it. Experimental base of LSV follows from COBE/WMAP observations and Thim's experiments.
That is a relief that you are not on some anti-relativity campaign. Perhaps some are mixing you up with those. Perhaps because of the word "aether" people are assuming you are in the anti-relativity camp.
Even the believers in relativity are still searching the vastness of space for more mysterious substances (or unsubstances) that no one yet knows about.
Maybe "aether" is just a wrong choice of word to use. Everyone thinks "aether"=19th century, outmoded, old-fashioned, even religious (The Kabbalists use that word). Everyone acts like you think the world is flat. It sounds picky, but people are really funny about words. Take the term "Intelligent Design." On the face if it, it could describe a perfectly scientific and respectable deist, even Einstein himself perhaps, or the American forefathers. Yet, this term is a hot button buzzword. When people hear the term they think strict Bible literalist fundamentalist that is on a rabid campaign to kick the teaching of evolution out of public school. What would have been an O.K. term is now ruined by some special interest group.
Well, maybe it will be hard to find a new word for it. If it sounded like something new totally new....
maybe you should find a way to get your idea in print so that it can be established that it is yours (copyright a book). Then, if you have math, etc. that goes with it, you don't have to fear to let it be known. Then the skeptics have the evidence they seek. I do not know if they can be convinced, but at least you will have a fair shot.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 21 2007, 12:03 AM)
Stop with demagogy and politics.
The eternal cry of Zephir when he knows he's beaten. Rpenner isn't appealing to 'group prejudice' or politics, he's appealing to the scientific method. You ignore it and instead cry "Demagogic!!" just as the boy cried "Wolf!!!". Noone listens anymore Zephir, noone thinks anyone is being demagogic except for you, the guy who has to list internet pages which review "The Trouble with Physics" in order to try and justify his own claims. Sounds like you're the one whose demagogic.
And a hypocrite.
And a hypocrite.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 20 2007, 11:43 PM)
The purpose of AWT is not to disprove the relativity theory, but to explain it and generalize it. Experimental base of LSV follows from COBE/WMAP observations and Thim's experiments.
That is a relief that you are not on some anti-relativity campaign. Perhaps some are mixing you up with those. Perhaps because of the word "aether" people are assuming you are in the anti-relativity camp.
Even the believers in relativity are still searching the vastness of space for more mysterious substances (or unsubstances) that no one yet knows about.
Maybe "aether" is just a wrong choice of word to use. Everyone thinks "aether"=19th century, outmoded, old-fashioned, even religious (The Kabbalists use that word). Everyone acts like you think the world is flat. It sounds picky, but people are really funny about words. Take the term "Intelligent Design." On the face if it, it could describe a perfectly scientific and respectable deist, even Einstein himself perhaps, or the American forefathers. Yet, this term is a hot button buzzword. When people hear the term they think strict Bible literalist fundamentalist that is on a rabid campaign to kick the teaching of evolution out of public school. What would have been an O.K. term is now ruined by some special interest group.
Well, maybe it will be hard to find a new word for it. If it sounded like something new totally new....
maybe you should find a way to get your idea in print so that it can be established that it is yours (copyright a book). Then, if you have math, etc. that goes with it, you don't have to fear to let it be known. Then the skeptics have the evidence they seek. I do not know if they can be convinced, but at least you will have a fair shot.
QUOTE (Empress Palpatine+Jul 20 2007, 11:54 PM)
What would have been an O.K. term is now ruined by some special interest group.
YOU FOR PRESIDENT RIGHT NOW!
The "intelligent principle" is what is responsible for evolution.
YOU FOR PRESIDENT RIGHT NOW!
QUOTE
Well, maybe it will be hard to find a new word for it. If it sounded like something new totally new....
The "intelligent principle" is what is responsible for evolution.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 21 2007, 06:46 AM)
Newtonian space and time are absolute, they are Euclidean.
The absolute space ≠Euclidean space. Even the absolute space can be deformed locally by many different ways.
The absolute space ≠Euclidean space. Even the absolute space can be deformed locally by many different ways.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 21 2007, 06:46 AM)
...E=mc^2 is not Newtonian. You have never derived it from Newtonian considerations...
This laws follows from behavior of non-Newtonian fluid, i.e. the foam. Such foam follows from condensation of supercritical vapor, i.e. the Newtonian system of dynamic particles. While the fluid is non-Newtonian, it still doesn't violate the laws of Newtonian mechanics locally, i.e. on the background.
The true is, even the single wave equation describes the non-linear and as such the non-Newtonian phenomena. It describes the undulations of mechanics pendulum, where the influence of higher derivations are always neglected and the energy density of pendulum is considered as a linear function of pendulum amplitude. This is newer quite true: we can always met with the signs of higher dimensions here.
Therefore the motion of chain of mutually connected pendulums is always chaotic, due the existence of nonlinear behavior. But this behavior is result of the Newtonian laws, not the violation of it. The Newtonian laws are much more exact, then every formal model built upon it, including the simple wave equation.
This laws follows from behavior of non-Newtonian fluid, i.e. the foam. Such foam follows from condensation of supercritical vapor, i.e. the Newtonian system of dynamic particles. While the fluid is non-Newtonian, it still doesn't violate the laws of Newtonian mechanics locally, i.e. on the background.
The true is, even the single wave equation describes the non-linear and as such the non-Newtonian phenomena. It describes the undulations of mechanics pendulum, where the influence of higher derivations are always neglected and the energy density of pendulum is considered as a linear function of pendulum amplitude. This is newer quite true: we can always met with the signs of higher dimensions here.
Therefore the motion of chain of mutually connected pendulums is always chaotic, due the existence of nonlinear behavior. But this behavior is result of the Newtonian laws, not the violation of it. The Newtonian laws are much more exact, then every formal model built upon it, including the simple wave equation.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 21 2007, 06:46 AM)
...Terry Giblin wanted to patent the electron....
The electron is not natural law and I'm not Terry Giblin. With exception of these "subtleties" the rest of your "argument" appears completely logical and as such non-demagogic...
The electron is not natural law and I'm not Terry Giblin. With exception of these "subtleties" the rest of your "argument" appears completely logical and as such non-demagogic...
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 21 2007, 06:46 AM)
...You don't care about science, you only care about continuing your unjustified preconceived notions....
Just about validity of my ideas. I don't care, if they fall into some inter-subjective methodology or not. This doesn't means, the methodology established by Galileo iw wrong, though. But the methodology of contemporary science is exactly as opposite from those, which Galileo has used. The methodology of Galileo was based on the logic of fundamental arguments, not on the coincidence of math result of Kepler's and Ptolemy's models. While for example the string theory is based on the exactly opposite approach. As Brian Greene has explained in his books, it has started by the numeric coincidence of some equations.
Just about validity of my ideas. I don't care, if they fall into some inter-subjective methodology or not. This doesn't means, the methodology established by Galileo iw wrong, though. But the methodology of contemporary science is exactly as opposite from those, which Galileo has used. The methodology of Galileo was based on the logic of fundamental arguments, not on the coincidence of math result of Kepler's and Ptolemy's models. While for example the string theory is based on the exactly opposite approach. As Brian Greene has explained in his books, it has started by the numeric coincidence of some equations.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 21 2007, 06:46 AM)
...Rpenner isn't appealing to 'group prejudice' or politics, he's appealing to the scientific method....
What the Rpenner basically says, is: "You can be even right (sic!), but you're using the methodology, which differs from the methodology of mainstream science".
While I'm saying: "Well, just because!", Just because I turned back to the Galileo methodology, I can come with the ideas and connections, which were ignored so long time by mainstream science. The rest is not important for me at all. I don't care, if some group of people are considering their methodology "sufficiently scientific" or not. This is a theological, religional question, not relevant for the validity of any theory. After all, many crucial findings and inventions were done completely accidentally, i.e. without relation to any particular methodology. This is bare fact.
Even the Galileo was noted, his methodology doesn't follow the Aristotelian and Holly Church "methodology" - but who cares about it by now, doesn't it? Therefore I don't care about Rpenner's "objections" as well.
What the Rpenner basically says, is: "You can be even right (sic!), but you're using the methodology, which differs from the methodology of mainstream science".
While I'm saying: "Well, just because!", Just because I turned back to the Galileo methodology, I can come with the ideas and connections, which were ignored so long time by mainstream science. The rest is not important for me at all. I don't care, if some group of people are considering their methodology "sufficiently scientific" or not. This is a theological, religional question, not relevant for the validity of any theory. After all, many crucial findings and inventions were done completely accidentally, i.e. without relation to any particular methodology. This is bare fact.
Even the Galileo was noted, his methodology doesn't follow the Aristotelian and Holly Church "methodology" - but who cares about it by now, doesn't it? Therefore I don't care about Rpenner's "objections" as well.
QUOTE (Empress Palpatine+Jul 21 2007, 06:54 AM)
Maybe "aether" is just a wrong choice of word to use. Everyone thinks "aether"=19th century, outmoded, old-fashioned, even religious.
Speak for yourself, I'm not "everyone". Who cares about it, if the Descartes idea is still completely right? The usage of "Aether" denomination follows from the respect to prior art of the scientific ideas. I don't care, if the mainstream science replaces the old names for old ideas by bew ones to make it more popular, or even breakthrough to achieve better grant support.
This is a cheating of the public, indeed - nothing else. We can met with such amoral approach again and again in the mainstream science. My intention is not to support such praxis. The more respect to the former ideas is exactly what, the contemporary science really requires by now.
Speak for yourself, I'm not "everyone". Who cares about it, if the Descartes idea is still completely right? The usage of "Aether" denomination follows from the respect to prior art of the scientific ideas. I don't care, if the mainstream science replaces the old names for old ideas by bew ones to make it more popular, or even breakthrough to achieve better grant support.
This is a cheating of the public, indeed - nothing else. We can met with such amoral approach again and again in the mainstream science. My intention is not to support such praxis. The more respect to the former ideas is exactly what, the contemporary science really requires by now.
QUOTE (Empress Palpatine+Jul 21 2007, 06:54 AM)
maybe you should find a way to get your idea in print so that it can be established that it is yours (copyright a book).