Exactly what is theory all about? [Archive]

Doctordick

Aug15-04, 09:31 PM

Every theory I have ever heard is an attempt to explain something. It seems to me that the first issue is to understand the nature of an explanation. We can start with a very simple statement: all "explanations" require something which is to be explained. I don't care what it is that is to be explained, it can be categorized as information.

It follows (as the night the day) that "explanation" is something which is done to (or for) information. It follows that the first question which must be answered is, exactly what does an explanation do to (or for) information? If you cannot answer that question, you are wasting everyone's time.

It is my humble opinion that what an explanation does for information is that it provides expectations of subsets of that information. That is, it seems to me that if all the information is known, then any questions about the information can be answered (that could be regarded as the definition of "knowing"). On the other hand, if the information is understood (via that explanation we are all attempting to present), then questions about the information can be answered given only limited or incomplete knowledge of the underlying information: i.e., limited subsets of the information. What I am saying is that understanding implies it is possible to predict expectations for information not known. The explanation constitutes a method which provides one with those rational expectations for unknown information consistent with what is known. (If it isn't consistent with what is known, it is quite reasonable to egnored it without examination.)

If there is anyone out there who thinks that proposition is flawed, please let me know about it.

I am only trying to find a starting place for rational communication. If you agree with me, give me a little support :cool:.

Have fun -- Dick

Alkatran

Aug15-04, 09:37 PM

Or, in short: Some things you know, some things you don't. Find patterns to know more than you know.

Doesn't have quite the same "omph", does it?
And now I'm thinking about compression.

Great post.

DrChinese

Aug15-04, 09:41 PM

Absolutely! A theory becomes useful because we don't know everything there is to know about something. If we did, a theory would not provide any utility.

Assuming a classical scenario in which there are a large number of variables of a deterministic system and we only know few values: a theory may in some cases give answers to questions we might not otherwise be able to answer. In this case, the theory is useful. Theories that provide greater accuracy or require fewer input variables are superior to other theories.

Russell E. Rierson

Aug15-04, 10:05 PM

Michio Kaku gives some excellent guidelines for constructing a unified theory:

http://www.mkaku.org/articles/proposal_uft.shtml

What to Do If You Have a Proposal for the Unified Field Theory?
..and what not to do

By Michio Kaku

[...]

Vern

Aug16-04, 06:29 AM

I agree; great reminder ! I think Karl Popper had similar ideas.

Now if we could condense that down into a couple of sentences and hang it onto our theory making machine it would be even greater :smile:

Vern

Chronos

Aug16-04, 03:29 PM

No disagreement here. I think in terms of observation and theory, where observation is the independent variable and theory is the dependent variable. Confusion creeps in when we attempt to shoe-horn observations to fit theory. We need not drop and run from our precious theories at the first hint of contradicting observation, but, should do a better job explaining the observations that do not quite fit. It is a safe bet we will not learn much from observations that perfectly fit theory. Most, if not all new knowledge resides in the observations that don't quite fit. We have probably already found most observations that fly in the face of everything we think we know.

Doctordick

Aug16-04, 09:26 PM

Well, surprise, surprise! I have received unbelievable agreement! Apparently, everyone who has chosen to respond to my post has no serious disagreements with what I said. That (for me) is a singular achievement; however, I do note that no "mentor" has chosen to respond. How am I supposed to judge this particular fact? Either they agree (in which case, kindness would push them to say so) or they disagree (in which case, their expertise should push them to put forward their complaints). I can only conclude that I have stepped outside their expertise and they fear to comment.

Since I appear to be the "expert" on the issue under discussion, let me proceed and see if agreement can be obtained to the next level. Will you all allow me to define "An explanation", from the abstract perspective, to be a method of obtaining expectations from given known information?

From that perspective, it seems to me that any explanation must possess two fundamental components: the information to be explained and the mechanism used to generate those expectations.

Please, if any of you have disagreement with that suggestion, please let me know.

Have fun – Dick

Doctordick

Aug17-04, 05:10 PM

What? Have I exceeded everyone's attention span already?

JoeWade

Aug17-04, 06:09 PM

yes, unless you have a point, what you are musing is already "instinctual" to the human mind.

we're not seeing the reason you're fascinated with this topic.

in other words, you're providing a lot of explanation for something that doesn't need that much explanation.

not sure where that fits in your paradigm...

jcsd

Aug17-04, 06:22 PM

Theory is about, subjective statements, wild speculation and unsupported assertions. Any good theeory should contain the incorrectly spelt name of a famous physicst and the less maths and the more vague philosophizing the better.

Chronos

Aug17-04, 10:42 PM

Michio Kaku gives some excellent guidelines for constructing a unified theory:
http://www.mkaku.org/articles/proposal_uft.shtml
I entirely agree with Dr. Kaku. Good post Russ

Russell E. Rierson

Aug18-04, 12:21 AM

What? Have I exceeded everyone's attention span already?

Here is a reference thread for everyone interested Dr. D:

http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=23266

I will suggest that what an explanation does for information is that it provides expectations of subsets of that information. That is, it seems to me that if all the information is known, then any questions about the information can be answered. That could be regarded as the definition of "knowing". On the other hand, if the information is understood, then questions about the information can be answered given only limited or incomplete knowledge of the underlying information: i.e., limited subsets of the information. What I am saying is that understanding implies it is possible to predict expectations for information not known. The explanation constitutes a method which provides one with those rational expectations for unknown information consistent with what is known.

Thus I define "an explanation", from the abstract perspective, to be a method of obtaining expectations from given known information. It follows that a model of an explanation must possess two fundamental components: the information to be explained and the mechanism used to generate expectations for possible additional information.

The first fundamental component is, "what is to be explained"; thus our first problem is to find an abstract way of representing any body of information. Let "A" be what is to be explained and proceed with the following primitive definitions:

1. A is a set.

2. B is a set, defined to be an unordered finite collection of elements of A

3. C is defined to be a finite collection of sets B.

[...]

Chronos

Aug18-04, 01:32 AM

I find no flaw in what DrD said.

Russell E. Rierson

Aug18-04, 01:52 AM

I find no flaw in what DrD said.

In that same thread Dr. D derives the fundamental equation:

It follows that our model may state that the Probability of any specific B is given by

P(\vec{x},t) = \vec{\Psi}^{\dagger}(\vec{x},t)\cdot\vec{\Psi}(\ve c{x},t)dv

without introducing any limitations whatsoever on the nature of the explanation being modeled. The \vec{x} stands for the complete collection of x and \tau defining that specific B. The "dot" indicates a scalar product, \vec{\Psi} is to be properly "normalized" and "dv" is dxd\tau. Since no constraint whatsoever has been placed on the problem by this notation, it follows that absolutely any explanation may be modeled by the function \vec{\Psi}(\vec{x},t) where the argument is the collection of points which are mapped from the elements of the appropriate B (it should be understood that "B" is a reference to a specific expectation).

Dr. D appears to agree with special relativity yet he has said that general relativity is not necessarily true.

There are no tensor equations, thus no coordinate independence. Then again Dr. D states that the above equation can model any explanation.

Interesting...

DrChinese

Aug18-04, 09:02 AM

Will you all allow me to define "An explanation", from the abstract perspective, to be a method of obtaining expectations from given known information?

From that perspective, it seems to me that any explanation must possess two fundamental components: the information to be explained and the mechanism used to generate those expectations.

Have fun – Dick

I think I agree with this, tell me if my terminology is diverging...

a) A theory is a useful model of a subset of reality.
b) [Input variables] + [Theory] -> [Output Variables]
c) It is implied that there are variables on the Input side that are held constant or are unknown.
d) It is implied that there are variables on the output side that are not explained.
e) Theories can then be compared based on Input Variable requirements, scope of Output Variables, and in some cases on relative accuracy.

Am I close? :)

Doctordick

Aug18-04, 08:23 PM

I think I agree with this, tell me if my terminology is diverging...

a) A theory is a useful model of a subset of reality.I would have to agree with that 100%.
b) [Input variables] + [Theory] -> [Output Variables]
c) It is implied that there are variables on the Input side that are held constant or are unknown.I would say that the "Input variables" are either known or at least presumed.
d) It is implied that there are variables on the output side that are not explained. I would say that the "->" stands for the explanation. The "Output variables" are the prediction of the theory under the assumption that the "Input variables" are what is known.
e) Theories can then be compared based on Input Variable requirements, scope of Output Variables, and in some cases on relative accuracy. I would say, in all cases, on their relative accuracy.
Am I close? :)About as close as one can get at this point.

I am sorry but it appears that my presence on this forum is in the process of being terminated. I have already been constrained to only post on the "Theory Development sub-forum" and now the privilege of starting a thread has been rescinded. I also note that this is the only open thread started by me which has not been locked. When they lock this thread, the thing is all over. Anyone who wants to talk to me is welcome to e-mail me at "doctordick01" at yahoo.com.

The reason for this exclusion is apparently justified by the published standards:

1) Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. That is, if you have any arguments with the adequacy of those standards, go away.

2) There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. That is, those discussions must acquiesce to the present interpretation of the proper way to attack those questions.

3) Posts or threads of an overly speculative nature will be moved to the Theory Development subforum without notice, where discussion may continue in quarantine. That is, we want total control of anything that is inconsistent with the currently accepted catechism of "Physics".

4) Forum staff may choose to lock threads in the Theory Development subform when they decide the topic has run its course. What does this mean? That the mentors no longer feel adequate to the defense of positions against what is being posted?

5) Advertisements of personal theories and unfounded challenges of mainstream science will not be tolerated anywhere on the site, including the Theory Development subforum. Now this one is being used against my posts under the assumption that what I am posting is "theoretical" and thus an "unfounded challenge of mainstream science". That is, they know what is correct and they are not going to countenance any pressure to think!

6) Users may not create threads in the Theory Development subforum. Now they can officially fix it as the "Nuts are us" sub-forum!!!

With regard to the standards published, I didn't intend to be "defensive and combative". I was only trying to get a little attention to the issues from the more educated members of the forum. If you have followed very many threads on the forum, you should realize that the educational level on the "nuts are us" forum (a term used by the mentors themselves, not invented by me) is quite low. There is a strong possibility that the mentors (plus a few minority posters) are the only people with sufficient understanding of fundamental mathematics to understand what I am doing. I really have been drawn to the opinion that they are not interested in thinking but rather in getting ego boosts by pointing out the intellectual inadequacy of the people who post here.

It would appear that my efforts to reach anyone on this forum has effectively come to an end. I guess I have just pissed too many people off. I will continue to read and post to this thread until they lock it.

Have fun -- Dick

Russell E. Rierson

Aug18-04, 11:57 PM

I am sorry but it appears that my presence on this forum is in the process of being terminated. I have already been constrained to only post on the "Theory Development sub-forum" and now the privilege of starting a thread has been rescinded.

[...]

I really have been drawn to the opinion that they are not interested in thinking but rather in getting ego boosts by pointing out the intellectual inadequacy of the people who post here.

I cannot post a new topic either. But it probably is not a matter of "ego-boosts" Dr. D. It is probably a matter of worry over the possibility of being overrun by "nutz & cranks" :wink:

As far as not being able to post a new topic, I think it is unfair! I love to brainstorm! But of course, beggars can't be choosers :eek: :wink:

Now back to the question of coordinate independence Dr. D...

Eric England

Aug19-04, 12:24 AM

I had lost my ability to do anything the other day.

I was Erck, now I'm using my real name.

It is allowing me to do everything but post a new thread.

What's that all about.

As my old username I posted one of the most popular ones on the forum... "what is nothing?"

What will make me worthy of starting another thread if I want to.

What's going on here... could a moderator please explain.

chroot

Aug19-04, 01:01 AM

Russell E. Rierson

Aug19-04, 01:31 AM

We are attempting to maintain high standards of academic quality on this site. In other words, we do not permit personal theories, attacks on established science that are not immaculently in accordance with the scientific method, and so on. We encourage you to continue your discussions elsewhere. Two suggestions are the Usenet newsgroup sci.physics and the forum www.sciforums.com.

- Warren

Doctordick appears to have derived some very abstract ideas, that would meet almost anyone's criteria for "high academic standards". Yet those who would be the most qualified here at PF remain silent and quietly attempt to
brush Dr. D aside.

What's up with that???

:eek: :eek: :eek:

russ_watters

Aug19-04, 07:22 AM

Doctordick appears to have derived some very abstract ideas, that would meet almost anyone's criteria for "high academic standards". Yet those who would be the most qualified here at PF remain silent and quietly attempt to
brush Dr. D aside.

What's up with that???[emphasis added] You answered your own question. His abstract ideas, quality aside, are largely unscientific.

Doctordick

Aug19-04, 07:58 AM

You answered your own question. His abstract ideas, quality aside, are largely unscientific.I would love to see your definition of "scientific".

If you had the attention span to follow the arguments given in the presentation at:

http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm

You would understand the fact that, under the definitions of the concepts I lay down, the equation I deduce:

\left\{\sum_i\vec{\alpha_i}\,\cdot\,\vec{\nabla_i} \,+\,
\sum_{i\not=j}\beta_{ij}\delta(\vec{x_i}\,-{\vec{x_j}})\right\}
\vec{\Psi}\,\,=\,\,K\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\vec{\Psi}\,=
\,iKm\vec{\Psi}

constrained by the requirement that

\sum_i\vec{\alpha_i}\,\vec{\Psi}\,=\,\sum_{i\not=j }\beta_{ij}\,\vec{\Psi}\,
=\,0.

must yield the correct probability of any specific element of any conceivable explanation of anything! That is a fact and not an opinion. All it takes to understand the fact that it is not an opinion is sufficient care to step through the logical arguments presented.

It follows that any explanation of anything must have, in its foundation, elements which obey my fundamental equation. That is not a trivial statement. A careful examination of the solutions to that equation shows that it is an extremely powerful tool.

Nowhere have I presented anything theoretical. What I have presented is nothing more than an alternate perspective on the nature of reality; a new paradigm.

The fact that the paradigm is 100% consistent with what is known of the universe flows from two directions:

1.) The abstract proof that, under my specific definitions, the equation must be valid; it cannot be false. That proof is given at the site cited above.

2.) The solutions of the equation which I have managed to find. Which are presented starting at:

http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/reality/CHAP_II.htm

These are facts which the scientific community is, in general, ignorant of purely because of their failure to look. And there is nothing "unscientific" about my presentation. The fault lies almost completely with the non-scientific bias of the academic community.

Have fun -- Dick

Eric England

Aug19-04, 04:03 PM

chroot

Aug19-04, 04:25 PM

We reserve the right to prohibit any sort of discussion we, the staff of PF, want to prohibit. You accepted these terms when you registered. If you want to discuss personal theories, you must do it elsewhere.

- Warren

Eric England

Aug19-04, 05:35 PM

Doctordick

Aug19-04, 09:46 PM

Warren, I guess I misunderstood what "Theory Development" means.

I gather it means "Theory Analyzation"... of existing theories.

Where do people go who have personal theories and would like to disucss them?

Is there a place on this forum for such a thing?Apparently not! I would agree with everything you have said except for the statement you put forth that, with regard to the powers that be on this forum, "it means 'Theory Analyzation"... of existing theories." Replace "existing theories" with "accepted existing theories".

I hold that the truth is that they prefer to have a "nuts are us" forum which they can use to boost their egos. Not one of them has come up with a single error in the logic I present and they have utterly no interest in following my presentation at all. That's the way the world works guys.

Russell Rierson,

I certainly agree with Dr. Kaku and, were I asked the same question I would be moved to give the same answer; however, he misses a subtle but very important point. If a presentation is truly original, one runs into another problem: the journal editors just don't know what to do with you. One of their requirements is to send your entry to some referees. That requires them to make a judgement as to what the subject of the paper is. Sometimes that judgement can be more difficult than it appears.

Back in the middle 1980's, I submitted my work to a number of physics journals. Every one of them rejected the submission on the grounds that the subject was not of interest to their journal and I should try another journal. I don't think the submission ever reached a referee. The physicists said what I was doing was philosophy; the philosophers said what I was doing was mathematics and the mathematicians said it was physics.

That's why I laid it away and forgot about it. I ran across it one day about four years ago when cleaning the attic. After I read it (having not seen it for almost twenty years) I was moved to comment on its not being published to my son-in-law. He suggested I publish it on the internet. I was interested enough to translate it into html but, at this point am convinced it was really a waste of time. I don't think anyone with any decent understanding of fundamental physics reads these things.

Have fun -- Dick

russ_watters

Aug19-04, 11:11 PM

In a section called "Theory Development"... who's to say personal theories are not allowed? Who's to say what "scientific" means?

Isn't that bordering on the narrow-mindedness that new theories never spring from?

Who's to say that logic isn't the root of all inquiry? To be a little more specific than warren, the scientific method is pretty well established. In the real world, scientists have to follow if they want to be taken seriously. And who'se to say you should follow it here? Well - we are. Warren, I guess I misunderstood what "Theory Development" means.

I gather it means "Theory Analyzation"... of existing theories.

Where do people go who have personal theories and would like to disucss them?

Is there a place on this forum for such a thing? Actually, its the word "theory" that you misunderstand. People are quite welcome to discuss personal theories here. The problem is that very little that is posted here qualifies as actual theories. Most is idle speculation not based in reality.

For more, read up on The Scientific Method (http://plantphys.info/plants_human/scimeth.html). Follow it and you'll be fine here.

Russell E. Rierson

Aug20-04, 12:21 AM

I certainly agree with Dr. Kaku and, were I asked the same question I would be moved to give the same answer; however, he misses a subtle but very important point. If a presentation is truly original, one runs into another problem: the journal editors just don't know what to do with you. One of their requirements is to send your entry to some referees. That requires them to make a judgement as to what the subject of the paper is. Sometimes that judgement can be more difficult than it appears.

Back in the middle 1980's, I submitted my work to a number of physics journals. Every one of them rejected the submission on the grounds that the subject was not of interest to their journal and I should try another journal. I don't think the submission ever reached a referee. The physicists said what I was doing was philosophy; the philosophers said what I was doing was mathematics and the mathematicians said it was physics.

That's why I laid it away and forgot about it. I ran across it one day about four years ago when cleaning the attic. After I read it (having not seen it for almost twenty years) I was moved to comment on its not being published to my son-in-law. He suggested I publish it on the internet. I was interested enough to translate it into html but, at this point am convinced it was really a waste of time. I don't think anyone with any decent understanding of fundamental physics reads these things.

Have fun -- Dick

http://www.mkaku.org/articles/proposal_uft.shtml

Michio Kaku:

3) Remember that your theory will receive more credibility if your theory builds on top of previous theories, rather than making claims like “Einstein was wrong! ” For example, our current understanding of the quantum theory and relativity, although incomplete, still gives us a framework for which we have not seen any experimental deviation.

Dr. D appears to have built his theory on top of previous theories also!

Michio Kaku:

6) Most important, try to formulate an experiment that can test your idea. All science is based on reproducible results. No matter how outlandish your idea is, it must be accepted if it holds up experimentally. So try to think up an experiment which will distinguish your result from others. But remember, your theory has to explain the experiments that have already been done, which vindicate General Relativity and the quantum theory.

Is this the problem? Dr. D hasn't formulated an experimental test for his theory?

http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/reality/CHAP_II.htm

Dr. D:

I have shown that any proposed algorithm capable of answering meaningful questions about reality within my entirely general model must obey a rather simple equation. I have further shown that my model corresponds to the common picture of reality in sufficient detail to map ordinary anthropomorphic experience directly into my model: i.e., classical mechanics.

In effect, I have shown that all conceivable universes may be seen as a three dimensional space occupied by objects which are required by definition to obey classical mechanics in the classical limit. What I have shown can be taken in two different ways. One can see the result as demonstrating that our classical view of the universe (a three dimensional space occupied by objects which obey classical mechanics) is entirely general and capable of representing any conceivable universe or one can view my results as demonstrating that the fact that classical mechanics is true by definition and that no classical experiment tells us anything about the universe except perhaps that our definitions are self consistent.

With regard to the second viewpoint, if one takes the position that the job of a research scientist is to search out the rules which separate the "true" universe from all possible universes, then no classical experiment can provide any guidance on the subject whatsoever. Classical mechanics is itself a tautology.

I find the following Dr. D conclusion to be extremely interesting. It seems that there must be a way of testing this conclusion!

http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/reality/CHAP_III.htm

Dr. D:

Finally, and perhaps the single most significant result of this Chapter, is that when we used a changing speed of light (refraction) to explain general relativity, we discovered that the relativistic distortions in our geometry vanished. This implies that in my model one can define a rigid object in an accelerating system. Since almost all our experimental observations are based on measuring devices which have "rigid" components, Einstein's refusal to allow us to even define rigid objects throws a wrench into the whole field of physics.

Though reducing gravity to a pseudo force via geometric effects is a nice exercise, I would also like to point out that it does not necessarily lead to the most convenient geometry. In fact, as may be seen above, the compulsion to make the speed of light constant in all frames is actually the source of the complexity of general relativity. If we relax that constraint (which is easy as time is not a measurable variable anyway) we can attribute gravity to a refractive effect and return to a Euclidean geometry, which is probably the single most convenient geometry conceivable.

Is it mathematically possible to maintain background independence and retain a Euclidean geometry?

JoeWade

Aug20-04, 05:34 AM

DrChinese

Aug20-04, 10:03 AM

I would like to weigh in on the subject. I personally feel like I have gained from the discussions with DoctorDick presented in Theory Development. I have interacted in the past with many other people in the Theory Development forum. Most of the threads are mindless exercises in denial of known phenomena. On the other hand, DoctorDick is raising some worthy issues even if his style is somewhat unorthodox. I realize that sometimes any theory discussions seem somewhat circular. But I think these are some of the better ones I have seen.

As I see DoctorDick's essential hypothesis, time as a component should always be related to its local reference frame and calculated as such - which yields results which are identical to observations in most cases but potentially could be different in testable situations. He is exploring the relevance of this hypothesis by asking the nature and purpose of theory itself. That seems reasonable to me personally.

As long as the overall tone remains positive (I know this is sometimes on the borderline) then I hope they can continue until they have had a chance to run their course. As a comparison, the "New Theory of Light" thread has completely lost any connection to reality. At least DoctorDick is not denying (in face of counter-evidence) well tested areas of science as Andrew Gray does.

Warren, Russ, I know you have your work cut out for you when it approaches the gray area and I fully support your decisions regardless. Thanks for listening.

-DrChinese

Eric England

Aug20-04, 11:19 AM

In my previous incarnation as "Erck"... I started the "What is nothing" thread.

So far it has over 8,000 views and 400 replies.

My point being that I took theory all the way back to beyond and before any theory in existence.

I did it for a very specifice reason.

I think I broke the rules by doing it.

I think Einstein broke the rules too.

(I'm not comparing myself)

Oh well.

(sometimes forums forget that crank posts can be easily overlooked by readers... they don't do any harm... trying to keep them from happening... can)

Doctordick

Aug20-04, 12:01 PM

This is in response to an e-mail message I received from chronos. I hope he will forgive me for posting my response. I feel the issues he brings up are exactly the issues most of the people here are having trouble with. In particular, the idea that I am presenting a theory which is the wrong perspective from the word go! I am presenting straight logical deduction only!

--- chronos wrote:

> Greetings again, Dick [pardon the informality]

There is nothing wrong with informality. Formality means following a prescribed procedure and using prescribed procedures implies lack of thought and we don't want to do that!

> The short and easy part of my 'bumps in the rug'
> deal with quantum physics.
> I pretty much understand and agree with your
> thoughts on relativity. I am,
> however, vaguely uncomfortable with the quantum
> physics implications.

First, I believe you are making a mistake in your understanding of what I am doing. You are presuming I am proposing a theory which I am not! What I am proposing is a more objective picture of what theories in general are talking about.

There are three very different aspects of quantum physics (or any science for that matter). First, there is the basis of the equations brought forth as the field of quantum physics. The route by which one arrives at these equations as rational representations of reality. Second, there is the interpretation of those equations. What the various terms represent and how one is to interpret the solutions of those equations. And finally, the actual solutions of the equations and comparison of those solutions to reality.

The second two are the central issue of the experiments. Given the interpretation of the relationships implied by the equations, one can solve the equations and check to see if consistency in interpretation agrees with reality. That operation is called an experiment.

My concern is almost entirely with the first aspect: the basis of the equations themselves. From my perspective, the experiments have already been done. If you want to understand the neatness of my attack, you must understand the standard foundations behind the quantum physics approach. This is hard to find in most texts.

The best reference I can come up with is Goldstein's "Classical Mechanics". If you follow the development of Hamilton's equations of motion through to Hamilton-Jacobi theory, the foundations of standard quantum mechanics become quite obvious. When I say the foundations are obvious, I mean that the fundamental equations come directly from sophisticated problem solution procedures of classical mechanics.

In glancing at the book, I have to quote Goldstein from the opening of the chapter on "The Hamilton Equations of Motion": "Nothing new is added to the physics involved; we simply gain another (and more powerful) method of working with the physical principles already established." :smile:

That is the issue of my work: "Nothing new is added to the physics involved (that is, other than removal of the conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics); we simply gain another (and more powerful: i.e., the conflict referred to is gone) method of working with the physical principles already established".

When Maxwell came up with his equations, a new solution appeared which was not available from the known relationships available prior to his act. Just for the fun of it, think about what the situation would have been if experimentalists had already discovered the existence of the "change in \vec{E} produces \vec{B} phenomena" (that is the required effect to produce radiation) and established light as an electromagnetic phenomena. Would that have made Maxwell's equations a waste of time?

The reduction of a complex situation to a simple relationship is always of value. If you read Chapter II and on of my presentation, I show that most of the fundamental equations of modern physics are approximations to my equation under exactly the approximations used to obtain those results by the physics community. Either what I say is true or false. If it is false please show me where I have made my error. If it is true, my picture is certainly much simpler than the standard picture.

> elaborate and propose an experiment. I do that all
> the time. If I dare
> propose a weird idea, the burden of proof is on me
> to convince everyone else
> without a grant or shred of support

Now you want an experiment. Well there does happen to be one (barring a specific error in my deductions). My solution to the problem of General Relativity yields a slightly different solution for a spherically symmetric gravitational field. Einstein's solution differs from Newton's by deviating from an inverse square field by a factor proportional to \frac{2}{c^2} \phi. My solution has all the terms produced by Einstein's theory plus one more term. My solution differs from Einstein's by a deviation in apparent radial velocity proportional to that same factor. Now "apparent radial velocity" is not an easy thing to measure, not without a lot of assumptions anyway.

Now that means it will only be observable when the radial velocity is large and the radius is small; not an easy situation to see. However, a little algebra will show that the effect can be seen as an apparent non conservation of angular momentum in a Newtonian solution for a negligibly small field situation (negligible to the extent that the trajectory is approximately straight). I am thinking that the "frame dragging" experiment currently being performed might be capable of resolving that term.

I replied to your note here so others could see my answers to your excellent questions. I hope that doesn't bother you.

Have fun -- Dick

north

Aug20-04, 12:09 PM

i don't quite understand what's the point of having a theory development section at all if people can't start threads that are speculative and innovative.

thumbs down. I'll see you guys somewhere else i guess
___________________________________________

nor do i and i think this flies in the face of what the SPIRIT OF SCIENCE is about. i'm dissapointed in your attitude. on other sites i have been on if the theory is not valid or just plain too bizzare,it is ignored, it has happened to me and others, simply nobody gives comment on the subject.

yes you guys have your work cut out for you, but let the nature of the people who visit your site take its course, it will.

otherwise guys this site becomes a Galilaean Dark Ages site.after all it those who came before you,thinking the way they did that gave you what you know now.you take all that you know for granted and that to me is a critical mistake.

Newton,Einstein,Copernicus and all those that came before and after them have flied in the face of what at the time was known.even if you can't give an anwser to the questions put forward maybe someone else can and then perhaps we can ALL learn.sometimes it is quite a challenge but let the challenge motivate you not as it seems here strike fear in your understanding of things. to suppress people is NOT a good position to take.

let the people on your site the freedom to explore,fore after all THAT IS WHY THEIR HERE,to discuss theories that perhaps gets no opportunity to be seen by so many people and by these people give so many points of view wrong or right. it helps!!,really!!

i think your site here is more important than you guys give yourself credit for.

it can be if you let it, a place of Discovery!!

chroot

Aug20-04, 12:45 PM

I would like to weigh in on the subject.
Your opinion is quite valuable to us.
Most of the threads are mindless exercises in denial of known phenomena.
This is the fundamental problem -- we have a small group of habitual theory development posters who really have nothing scientific to discuss, and we'd prefer that they use another venue for their communication. On the other hand, posts that even marginally adhere to the scientific method will be welcomed here. We don't want to stifle scientific thought, just pseudoscientific thought.

We're not censoring anywhere near as strictly as sci.physics.research, let alone a peer-reviewed journal. We're just trying to clean up some of the obvious non-scientific nonsense posted here, encourage habitual posters of that kind of material to find another place to post their ideas, and improve the average quality of posts here.

- Warren

chroot

Aug20-04, 12:53 PM

nor do i and i think this flies in the face of what the SPIRIT OF SCIENCE is about. i'm dissapointed in your attitude. on other sites i have been on if the theory is not valid or just plain too bizzare,it is ignored, it has happened to me and others, simply nobody gives comment on the subject.
Theories which are not valid or just plain too bizzare are no longer welcome here. I encourage you to post instead on one of the other sites you spoke of.
otherwise guys this site becomes a Galilaean Dark Ages site.
This is of course a classic crackpot argument -- science is only advanced by freethinkers like us! Of course, it's not actually true. Science has never been advanced by people who cannot form a dimensionally-correct equation, and it never will be. There is a huge difference between a dissenting scientist and a crackpot. Few crackpots realize the enormity of this difference.
Newton,Einstein,Copernicus and all those that came before and after them have flied in the face of what at the time was known.
And all of these people provided very clear reasons why they believed their models were better than the existing models. If someone comes on PF and provides a new model along with very strong evidence that it is better than existing models they will not be censored.
let the people on your site the freedom to explore,fore after all THAT IS WHY THEIR HERE,to discuss theories that perhaps gets no opportunity to be seen by so many people and by these people give so many points of view wrong or right. it helps!!,really!!
The vast majority of regular posters are not here to discuss the personal theories of crackpots. This site is by and large a science education site, where those who are already well along in their study can help those who are just beginning. Most of our regular posters feel our theory development subforum has become a tremendous eyesore.
it can be if you let it, a place of Discovery!!
It's not a place of discovery in the sense of what you think a place of discovery should be. You should find another forum to post on. I recommend two: the Usenet newsgroup sci.physics, and the forum www.sciforums.com.

- Warren

krab

Aug20-04, 01:20 PM

...Newton,Einstein,Copernicus and all those that came before and after them have flied in the face of what at the time was known.
Here's the main point: Each one of these (and also all the other great scientists) admit they owe a debt to their predecessors. In Newton's words, "If I have seen farther than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants". OTOH, a crackpot will show no respect for the authors of current theories, is not interested in rational debate, has no patience to learn about the theories, and by implication, considers himself smarter than all those who went before.

I agree with restrictions being placed on this forum. Reading eg. Andrew Grey's posts, and realizing there are physics students who don't have enough background to understand that they are sheer nonsense, makes my hair stand on end.

russ_watters

Aug20-04, 02:14 PM

Newton,Einstein,Copernicus and all those that came before and after them have flied in the face of what at the time was known. [more on what krab said] This is a commonly cited justification of against-the-mainstream ideas/approaches (it appears several posts above as well). Trouble is, its flat-out wrong. For Einstein, people latch on to the fact that he was a patent cerk and assume that means he had no formal training or was considered a crank by the community. Nope: Einstein was a university-trained, accomplished physicist before he did his masterpiece. And his masterpiece, though revolutionary, was not considered crackpottery at the time (otherwise, it wouldn't have been accepted so fast). The physics community already knew there was a problem with the existing theory before Einstein proposed the solution.

Newton and Copernicus are a different story: since science was in its infancy when they did their work, there really wasn't a "mainstream" view to go against. Just the religious views of the church as explained by Aristotle. In that quote, Newton was probably referring to guys like Brahe and Kepler, who may not have come up with the theory of gravity, but did a lot of the observation and laid a lot of the groundwork. But both most certainly were real scientists - and their peers knew it.

Citing real scientists who did real science in an attempt to justify an unscientific approach is a pretty big logical fallacy.

north

Aug20-04, 03:04 PM

[QUOTE=krab]Here's the main point: Each one of these (and also all the other great scientists) admit they owe a debt to their predecessors. In Newton's words, "If I have seen farther than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants". OTOH, a crackpot will show no respect for the authors of current theories, is not interested in rational debate, has no patience to learn about the theories, and by implication, considers himself smarter than all those who went before.
___________________________________________

and yet for those who have,respect those who have gone before, and still question and is beyond your understanding then what? and i doubt they consider themselves "smarter" rather they just questioning what is known. besides smarter is to me a question of knowledge. and yet depth of thought is beyond smart. and maybe they have a deeper understanding than their predecessors and there rational is beyond your understanding,therefore you have no inclining of what they are talking about,after all only a hand full of people had any understanding at first of what Einstein was trying to put forth.and this took time and experiments.

chroot

Aug20-04, 03:13 PM

setAI

Aug20-04, 03:33 PM

I'm curious what the moderators/admin here think about the work/ideas of the mavericks/crackpots who actually were denounced/silenced/ignored but who essentially built the scientific/technological/philisophical foundations of modern civilization- geniusus who represent some of the greatest minds of the modern/post-modern age-

such as Nikola Tesla [his later work in ultra-frequency electromagnetism] Wilhelm Reich [who's work was burned and who died in prison as a heretic in 1950s "free" America]/ David Bohm/ Stanislav Grof/ Timothy Leary/ Dean Radin [OK he's pretty 'out there']/ Bucky Fuller/ James Lovelock/ Freeman Dyson/ Christopher Langton/ or Marvin Minsky?

or even Sir Martin Rees and his notions of the Universe being mostly artificial?

___________________________

/:set\AI transmedia laboratories

http://setai-transmedia.com

russ_watters

Aug20-04, 03:33 PM

north

Aug20-04, 03:44 PM

Einstein's theories were actually well received. No one really disputed special relativity when he first published it.

Once again, you're just trying to distort history to somehow make it seem like our little crackpot contingent here (who can't even assemble a dimensionally-correct equation) could potentially harbor the next Einstein. You're also implying that our suggestion that these people go elsewhere is somehow going to prevent them from becoming the scientific luminaries they are meant to become.

Give it up.

- Warren
___________________________________________

i'm not liking to to idea that they go else where necessarily.just let nature(people) takes its course.i find that perhaps you think that it necessary to answer to all theories that come on board.why not just ignore those that you find either ridiculous or absured and see what happens,i mean there are times when theories are put forth that the mentors have no interest,so don't respond.others on the board will but so what,just sit back and let it take its course,this is no insult to your site,not to me anyway.

i don't know i'm easy going, the universe and all thats in it is at times ............... well challenging to say the least.

north

Aug20-04, 03:53 PM

North, since you have explicitly stated in the past that you refuse to learn existing theories, you really have no room to claim you respect the people who wrote those theories. If you did respect them, you'd give them their due consideration: if you give them their due consideration, you'll have earned yours.
___________________________________________

but i did,did i not Russ, i quoted you from the "STATES OF MATTER" but you seem to ignore the quoted statement(so you think David is a crackpot? justify) and also did i not state that i'm not saying the theory(present) was wrong but that i thought we could ADD to it.

is this not true??

Locrian

Aug20-04, 03:54 PM

after all only a hand full of people had any understanding at first of what Einstein was trying to put forth.

That's completely rediculous.

His studies in quantum photonics were not overly complicated. They suggested interesting new ideas, but could be repeated anywhere. They are regularly repeated in sophmore and junior physics labs.

Special relativity walked straight from the Lorentz transformation equations. It is suprisingly simple compared with other sciences of the time. The tests it suggested that could be done were, and they were successful. Doing problems in SR can be a headache if you aren't careful because it is easy to make little errors. This hardly makes it above those minds of the time. I wouldn't say SR is more difficult than an in depth course in statistical dynamics.

Your statement above shows a lack of knowledge both about history and about Einstein's theories.

chroot

Aug20-04, 04:03 PM

i'm not liking to to idea that they go else where necessarily.just let nature(people) takes its course.
Well, you don't run the place.
just sit back and let it take its course,this is no insult to your site,not to me anyway.
A forum like this one establishes credibility by doing precisely the opposite of this suggestion. There are many, many other places on the web you can go to speak about anything you want without any form of supervision. Most people stay here because they got fed up with those places.

To make an analogy, consider a classroom. Obviously no one would get anything out of the discussion if anyone could just stand up at any time and say anything he/she felt like saying. Most social situations like classrooms, courtrooms and boardrooms have protocols and rules to keep things running smoothly. This social situation, physicsforums.com, has similar protocols and rules.

If you don't agree with them, you might as well go elsewhere.

- Warren

Locrian

Aug20-04, 04:06 PM

On an entirely different note...

I already miss Yesicanread. Trolling him was endless entertainment :cry:

north

Aug20-04, 04:40 PM

To make an analogy, consider a classroom. Obviously no one would get anything out of the discussion if anyone could just stand up at any time and say anything he/she felt like saying.
___________________________________________

true,but is that not the spirit or ecessence of the "theory forum" to let people spout off ideas.because just talking about them helps to find where they went wrong or that they are on the right track.
___________________________________________
Most social situations like classrooms, courtrooms and boardrooms have protocols and rules to keep things running smoothly. This social situation, physicsforums.com, has similar protocols and rules.

If you don't agree with them, you might as well go elsewhere.
___________________________________________

but it is running smoothly.sometimes different but that is an inherent result of "theory delevopment" that is its nature to be at times challenging,if not unorthodox.

i mean look at how many questions and theories there are on your site,does this not show many people are thinking? this is a good thing.

Tom Mattson

Aug20-04, 04:49 PM

but it is running smoothly.

It most certainly was not running smoothly prior to the policy change. The Theory Development Forum required more attention from the staff than all the other Forums combined. It was becoming overrun with crackpots with agendas to push, and those crackpots require answering from dedicated, knowledgable volunteers. More often than not, those volunteers come from the staff. We are tired of it, and now it is over.

north

Aug20-04, 05:12 PM

It most certainly was not running smoothly prior to the policy change. The Theory Development Forum required more attention from the staff than all the other Forums combined. It was becoming overrun with crackpots with agendas to push, and those crackpots require answering from dedicated, knowledgable volunteers. More often than not, those volunteers come from the staff. We are tired of it, and now it is over.
___________________________________________

yes it is so it seems,shame really!! crackpots don't really need answering, therefore instead of answering they should have been ignored, would have saved you alot time.and let the people hash it out!!

chroot

Aug20-04, 05:16 PM

north,

We don't want to be the sort of environment where crackpots "hash it out."

- Warren

DrChinese

Aug20-04, 05:22 PM

A forum like this one establishes credibility by doing precisely the opposite of this suggestion. There are many, many other places on the web you can go to speak about anything you want without any form of supervision. Most people stay here because they got fed up with those places.

In my opinion, this is a great aspect of the forum - its moderators. I really appreciate the time commitment each of you (moderators) make. Certainly there are places to go where it is a free-for-all, and that is why I come here instead. People are civil (through constant monitoring, I know), and the discussions are more focused. Why, a person could actually LEARN a thing or two...

I especially like the fact that threads are moved to Theory Development when they get too weird... at least the reader knows to beware over here. Regardless of what direction you choose to go in, I will know that careful consideration has been given to making this a better place to come.

-DrChinese

anti_crank

Aug20-04, 05:29 PM

crackpots don't really need answering, therefore instead of answering they should have been ignored If crackpots don't need answering, why do you think myself, and many of the moderators, have put our energy into it? Apologizing for the bad memories this will evoke to Tom, do you remember the days of the great SR debates with ram1024 and geistkiesel, when the moderators had to keep up with a veritable barrage of anti-SR posts? If we are to keep the image of the site as a place where people can get competent answers to their physics questions, we have no choice but to defend proper physics from those that would push their own agendas. Since reasoned debate is impossible once crackpots make up their minds, the only solution is to constantly refute their attacks. Otherwise, innocent wide-eyed physics newbies can stumble here and get the impression that each of the TD "theories" is as valid as the next one. The choices are either sacrifice our reputation to allow the cranks to post, or make it clear that pseudoscientific rambling has no place here. There's plenty of Yahoo forums out there that never claim any scientific credibility; they would be perfect for our recently departed friends.

Tom Mattson

Aug20-04, 05:31 PM

yes it is so it seems,shame really!! crackpots don't really need answering, therefore instead of answering they should have been ignored, would have saved you alot time.

Of course crackpots need to be answered. We have students here, and if the garbage that gets posted in Theory Development goes unchecked and one of those students accepts it on good faith, they could end up failing exams. This is a scientific website, not a free-for-all.

and let the people hash it out!!

That's exactly what we don't want. This website is to be an organized place of scholarship, not the floor of the New York Stock Exchange.

north

Aug20-04, 05:44 PM

north,

We don't want to be the sort of environment where crackpots "hash it out."

- Warren
___________________________________________

fair enough, i understand it can be tough to sort out different thoughts. it is your right to do what you think is best. i'll leave it at that,perhaps we can move on. i just wish that the strengh(responses) of interest of a particular subject would sway you to somehow change your mind. thats all i'm getting at.for there seems to be a greater interest in some subjects than others and i thought that you would reconsider your position.

north.

chroot

Aug20-04, 05:49 PM

kurious

Aug20-04, 06:00 PM

DOCTORDICK:
I do note that no "mentor" has chosen to respond

Kurious:

Theory development would certainly benefit if
these people with more knowledge of maths and physics than the average PF member
took more time to comment on threads in theory development or to start some threads of their own.

north

Aug20-04, 06:22 PM

north,

There are many usenet newsgroups and websites chock full of crackpot dialogue. There is no shortage of interest there either, and topics go on and on for hundreds of vitriolic posts. The simple fact that you don't seem to grasp is that we don't see that sort of interest as positive -- we see it as negative. We don't want our site to be like those others.

- Warren
___________________________________________

i can understand your position and neither would i to be honest.and i have been on sites where this has happened, but they are just ignored. therefore my perspective is different,i'm use to hearing things out to the end,regardless.

and i speaking for myself had not meant any vitriol comments thats not my nature.

Doctordick

Aug20-04, 08:37 PM

Since my thread seems to have been hijacked and I no longer have any option of starting a new thread, I thought I would comment on some of the "mentors" comments. I recognize that they exist though they don't seem to accept my existence (at least I never receive a response from them).

We're just trying to clean up some of the obvious non-scientific nonsense posted here, encourage habitual posters of that kind of material to find another place to post their ideas, and improve the average quality of posts here.Perhaps I am misinterpreting but as "russ_waters" has referred to my posts as "unscientific" (to someone else, not to me) and chroot has never answered any private messages from me, I can only assume that I am one of the posters he is referring to here. If that is the case, I would like at least some indicator as to why he believes my posts are nonsense.
There is a huge difference between a dissenting scientist and a crackpot. Few crackpots realize the enormity of this difference.I would ask if you do, or are you saying that neither is welcome on your forum?
Einstein was a university-trained, accomplished physicist before he did his masterpiece. And his masterpiece, though revolutionary, was not considered crackpottery at the time.I think, if you check the facts, you will find that Einstein managed a publication through the support of a friend. In addition, I remember being told that, at the time of his publication, fewer than four people in the world understood what he presented. And, by the way, I am a university-trained and accomplished physicist (that is the standard meaning of a Ph.D. degree).
To make an analogy, consider a classroom. Obviously no one would get anything out of the discussion if anyone could just stand up at any time and say anything he/she felt like saying. Most social situations like classrooms, courtrooms and boardrooms have protocols and rules to keep things running smoothly. This social situation, physicsforums.com, has similar protocols and rules.I very much agree with this statement; however, in my humble judgment, very little thought has been put into the structure of those protocols and rules. I post on this forum because of the Latex interpretation, not because I think the protocols and rules were well thought out.
The Theory Development Forum required more attention from the staff than all the other Forums combined.Yes! And that is exactly the reason for the mentor title "Nuts are us" for the forum. If you check the posts, you will find that 99% of the mentor posts were in opposition to what can only be called "Nut" posts (mot only that but the mentors posted over and over to the same nut threads). What this means is that you do actually needed a "Nuts are us" place to move these posts then the mentors need not reply unless asked by someone why they were moved (if you make a mistake, you could always move them back). To use "Theory Development" for this purpose implies a use of subterfuge to keep these nuts posting. They only reason you might want that would be to have inferiors to push around.
Of course crackpots need to be answered. We have students here, and if the garbage that gets posted in Theory Development goes unchecked and one of those students accepts it on good faith, they could end up failing exams. This is a scientific website, not a free-for-all.What are you educating there? Idiot savants? Any college student of physics who accepts anything on good faith should end up failing his exams, to allow him to pass is too certify idiocy. The school should be teaching him how to think, not a catechism of "correct" answers! Now an argument over a half way decent piece of crackpot science is a valuable lesson to a good student; it makes him think a little.
I do note that no "mentor" has chosen to respondTheory development would certainly benefit if these people with more knowledge of maths and physics than the average PF member took more time to comment on threads in theory development or to start some threads of their own.Thank you for pointing that out; though I doubt any mentor will take notice of it.

Last but not least, is anyone here interested in discussing the thread I started?

Have fun -- Dick

Vern

Aug20-04, 09:14 PM

The powers that be have spoken and they have every right to do so. This was an interesting place to visit; maybe with the changes it will be even more so. As for crackpot ideas; I resemble that remark :smile: but I have no problem with keeping my ideas to myself.

I have sometimes wondered, what if a being from a place say 10,000 years more advanced than we were to suddenly find him or herself here and be questioned about the true nature of the universe. If they were not scientists, only avarage people but knew a smidgen of the science of the day, where would we put their replies. We would, of course IMHO, reject them out of hand and choose to remain ignorant.

But then, again, I could be wrong :smile:

Keep on chuggin !!

Vern

Russell E. Rierson

Aug21-04, 12:04 AM

What are you educating there? Idiot savants? Any college student of physics who accepts anything on good faith should end up failing his exams, to allow him to pass is too certify idiocy. The school should be teaching him how to think, not a catechism of "correct" answers! Now an argument over a half way decent piece of crackpot science is a valuable lesson to a good student; it makes him think a little.

Last but not least, is anyone here interested in discussing the thread I started?

Have fun -- Dick

Yes, are the mentors and "anti-cranks" so totally unable to think for themselves that they can't even respond to Doctordick???

Are they afraid of exposing their own physics ignorance???

Are they :redface: ?

We[everyone] can always learn new things.

Tom Mattson

Aug21-04, 01:25 AM

Tom: The Theory Development Forum required more attention from the staff than all the other Forums combined.

Doctordick: Yes! And that is exactly the reason for the mentor title "Nuts are us" for the forum. If you check the posts, you will find that 99% of the mentor posts were in opposition to what can only be called "Nut" posts (mot only that but the mentors posted over and over to the same nut threads). What this means is that you do actually needed a "Nuts are us" place to move these posts then the mentors need not reply unless asked by someone why they were moved (if you make a mistake, you could always move them back).

I have no idea of what you are talking about with the "Nuts Are Us" business, but all I know is that I, among others, felt compelled to respond to those threads that were in blatant disregard for science.

To use "Theory Development" for this purpose implies a use of subterfuge to keep these nuts posting.

We didn't use Theory Development for any purpose other than to get the pseudoscience out of the way. Since Theory Development has taken on a life of its own, it is no longer serving its purpose. Given that, it is now time to end the free-for-all that it has become.

They only reason you might want that would be to have inferiors to push around.

It must be nice to be as all-knowing as you. :rofl:

How would you like it if I said that the only reason you want to keep Theory Development as it was is that you are too incompetent to get your theory published in Physical Review Letters? You wouldn't like that very much, would you? Could it be perhaps that your main objection would be that I don't know a damned thing about you, and I am therefore not qualified to make such a judgment?

Now you know how I feel about this rubbish you've posted. :smile:

Tom: Of course crackpots need to be answered. We have students here, and if the garbage that gets posted in Theory Development goes unchecked and one of those students accepts it on good faith, they could end up failing exams. This is a scientific website, not a free-for-all.

Doctordick: What are you educating there? Idiot savants? Any college student of physics who accepts anything on good faith should end up failing his exams, to allow him to pass is too certify idiocy.

Then by all means, start a website of your own. That way, you can be King and whatever you say, goes.

Russell E. Rierson

Aug21-04, 01:53 AM

:cry: :cry: :cry:

Then again, it isn't entirely clear how a refractive model can correctly give an accounting for the motions of time-like objects, while Einstein's curved-spacetime interpretation handles all these motions very easily.

baffledMatt

Aug21-04, 05:24 AM

Yes, are the mentors and "anti-cranks" so totally unable to think for themselves that they can't even respond to Doctordick???

Are they afraid of exposing their own physics ignorance???

No. Just a sense of "been there, done that". Arguing with Dr Dick is like hitting your head against a brick wall which is mocking you because it thinks it's made of paper.

Matt

Russell E. Rierson

Aug21-04, 05:59 AM

No. Just a sense of "been there, done that". Arguing with Dr Dick is like hitting your head against a brick wall which is mocking you because it thinks it's made of paper.

Matt

Can you refute the Dr. D equation?

P(\vec{x},t) = \vec{\Psi}^{\dagger}(\vec{x},t)\cdot\vec{\Psi}(\ve c{x},t)dv

baffledMatt

Aug21-04, 06:49 AM

Can you refute the Dr. D equation?

P(\vec{x},t) = \vec{\Psi}^{\dagger}(\vec{x},t)\cdot\vec{\Psi}(\ve c{x},t)dv

No, because this is the definition of P(\vec{x},t). But that doesn't mean it has any physical relevance.

But we have discussed this at some length somewhere. The problem is that Dick refuses to acknowledge when he is making assumptions, leading him to believe that he has a perfectly logical argument. Whenever anyone tries to raise the issue they are rebutted with comments like "you just don't understand the math" and we get nowhere fast.

I think if anybody is afraid of exposing their ignorance it is him. Why else does he hide the logic of his arguments by making his written theory so incomprehensible? Why does he constantly feel the need to remind us that he has a physics PhD? Why is he always putting down the abilities of others?

I don't think someone who feels secure about their knowlede of physics would do any of these things.

Matt

DrChinese

Aug21-04, 11:50 AM

Returning to the original thread subject for a bit...

Previously from me:

a) A theory is a useful model of a subset of reality.
b) [Input variables] + [Theory] -> [Output Variables]
c) It is implied that there are variables on the Input side that are held constant or are unknown.
d) It is implied that there are variables on the output side that are not explained.
e) Theories can then be compared based on Input Variable requirements, scope of Output Variables, and in some cases on relative accuracy.

I would have to agree with that 100%.
c) I would say that the "Input variables" are either known or at least presumed.

d) I would say that the "->" stands for the explanation. The "Output variables" are the prediction of the theory under the assumption that the "Input variables" are what is known.

e) I would say, in all cases, on their relative accuracy.

To belabor a few points...

c) We take it for granted that input variables exist. What is usually assumed but is essential in some ways is that there are usually only a few input variables.

Some other variables are held constant by assumption: an example would be that the experimental setup must have a specified configuration and that configuration holds specific variables constant which would otherwise alter the outcome.

On the other hand, most possible input variables are unknown and possibly unknowable. In most experiments, for example, we don't know the exact position of every particle comprising the experimental apparatus.

That is, we are trying to extract maximum results from minimal inputs.

d) You could say something like:

[Input variables] -> [Theory] -> [Output variables]

instead of my:

[Input variables] + [Theory] -> [Output Variables]

In either case, what we really are doing is trying to explain the dynamics of how the Input variables morph into the Output variables. Either formulation has merits. I think one interesting thing is this: we are learning about the laws of physics. Yet, we also have issues explaining where the input variables come from. The Big Bang is a marvel because energy appeared (from where?) and then the laws of physics molded this "input" into our world "the output" 13.7 billion years later.

e) Output accuracy is not the only criteria for judging competing theories. If 2 theories produce equal accuracy but one requires fewer input variables, then that theory is better.

In my view, the [Theory] is like a black box in some ways. It operates "as if" it is describing reality, when it is not. It is always describing a subset of reality. It is not reality, never. Some people confuse the [Theory] with reality, especially when the [Theory] functions pretty well. But they are never the same thing. So in that sense there are no true theories - ever. Newton's theory of gravity is just as "true" as Einstein's. One has the ability to produce greater output accuracy than the other, though.

TillEulenspiegel

Aug21-04, 12:49 PM

I agree with you Dr.C the black box scenario has a place in the lexicon of physicists ( as well as others) Wave function collapse, spontaneous decoherence, counterfactuals and consistent histories. To many these may appear to be a dodge, but if we know experimentally the outcome is assured in the majority then the use of these "shortcuts" are perfectly legitimate. Contrast these approaches with an engineers flowchart. We know the inputs w/ variables and the output even when the node is viewed as a state machine and the internal workings are unknown . This is the way modeling is done, both on the blackboard and on the Sun workstation.

Where have you been? I haven't seen you on JREF for a while

DrChinese

Aug21-04, 02:03 PM

Where have you been? I haven't seen you on JREF for a while

I have been posting mostly over here lately. I think I gain more from interacting with posters here. It's a better mix, and the moderators help a lot. But I still pop in and out there. Thanks for asking...

Russell E. Rierson

Aug21-04, 04:17 PM

No, because this is the definition of P(\vec{x},t). But that doesn't mean it has any physical relevance.

But we have discussed this at some length somewhere. The problem is that Dick refuses to acknowledge when he is making assumptions, leading him to believe that he has a perfectly logical argument.

Assumptions are made about physical observables but analytic propositions are necessary truths. They are true by definition.

Please give some specific Dr. D assumptions from your previous discussions.

http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/reality/CHAP_I.htm

Doctordick:

Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that there is one basic truth which can be considered absolute:

that which is true by definition is absolutely true.

The issue of truth by definition rests on two very straight forward points:

(1.) we either agree on our definitions or communication is impossible and

(2.) no acceptable definition can contain internal contradictions.

Why else does he hide the logic of his arguments by making his written theory so incomprehensible?

Matt

Please just describe how the Doctordick equations do not have any "physical relevance". Make a point and stick to it.

Tom Mattson

Aug21-04, 05:41 PM

Please just describe how the Doctordick equations do not have any "physical relevance". Make a point and stick to it.

He did make a point, and he is right.

Can you refute the Dr. D equation?

P(\vec{x},t) = \vec{\Psi}^{\dagger}(\vec{x},t)\cdot\vec{\Psi}(\ve c{x},t)dv

The point is that this statement contains absolutely no physical information. Without knowing the dynamical field equation and boundary conditions that determine \vec{\Psi}(\vec{x},t), there is no way to argue either for or against the equation.

kurious

Aug21-04, 06:45 PM

Tom Mattson

Aug21-04, 07:21 PM

Wouldn't it have made more sense to say to people on TD that a decent theory takes a long time to develop and that people can start one new thread every month or two months or whatever? This seems to me the best way forward and could not be construed as unfair or unreasonable by anyone.

No, it wouldn't make more sense. This move was not made to reduce the volume of posts in Theory Development, it was made to maintain the scientific integrity of Physics Forums. It would not be in line with that goal to permit ill-formulated theories, no matter how infrequent.

jcsd

Aug21-04, 07:40 PM

Wouldn't it have made more sense to say to people on TD that a decent theory takes a long time to develop and that people can start one new thread every month or two months or whatever? This seems to me the best way forward and could not be construed as unfair or unreasonable by anyone.

I can't speak for the admin, but I don't see why anyone would object to the posting of any theory, that was backed up with sound physical reasoning and if necessary experimental evidence.

But nobody wants crackpot theories, except the crackpots.

kurious

Aug21-04, 08:11 PM

Stephen Hawking doesn't think the Higgs particle will be found and if it is not there is no theory to replace the Higgs for mass generation.So if the Higgs isn't found by accelerator experiments, and someone posts an alternative theory on TD,
how will you know if they are a crackpot or not when the Higgs theory which is recognised as a logical and reasonable path to follow, fails to be verified by experiment? I think that stephen Hawking could post whatever quality of material he wanted on TD and if you knew it was him you wouldn't criticise it because you
wouldn't be confident enough in yourself to challenge him and would think that
even though something seemed to be rubbish,he must know better than you.
A true story:
There was a room full of the world's greatest chess players all chatting freely
about the game of chess.Into the room walked one of the great Russian masters of chess ( can't remember his name!).Everyone stopped talking.They were scared he was going to tell them they were talking through their asses! If you can tell me that
you would have the nerve and intelligence to argue with Hawking,Witten,Higgs
or even someone who has done an unusual but highly successful bit of curve fitting as Mordechai Milgrom has done with MOND, then I would find your judgement of many of the people on TD more convincing even though it might still be wrong.