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

Dear Phobos, Janus, and Self Adjoint

  1. Aug 5, 2005 #1

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Can you explain why an idea is so dangerous that it must be suppressed? Specifically the concept that the Pauli exclusion principle may be able to explain why the self-gravitation of the quantum vacuum has not yet collapsed the diameter of the universe to a few thousand kilometers (and may be in such fine dynamical balance with the gravitational-energy equivalence of the vacuum to keep the universe stable?)

    I have come to expect the suppression of ideas in this forum, the tolerance of personally insulting posts (including name-calling and disparaging statements), and the offhand dismissal of non-mainstream ideas, no matter how compelling and logical. If Einstein, Dirac, or Feynman had posted in this venue, they would have been called names and their ideas would be vilified. I in no way wish to equate myself with these fine people, but wish to point out that each of them stood alone at some point and articulated a vision for the advancement of physics.

    It would be instructive to all of us idiots who employ logic if you could list the "forbidden" subjects. Your call. Thanks
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 6, 2005 #2

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Do you think a 'math optional' theory of anything [much less everything] is going to be taken seriously here? I don't. That's not science, it's philosophy. Frankly, I doubt any of your other 'critics' will reply to your complaint.
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2005
  4. Aug 6, 2005 #3

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well, Einstein's GR started as a "thought experiment", and it took him a decade to work out the math, with help. If he had not pursued his intuition, physics would be a much different field today. As for math, you were once fond of needling posters like myself with the phrase "show me the math", yet in those criticisms, you yourself never offer mathematical arguments to support your statements. It is very easy to snipe at others, it is quite another thing to offer guidance and direction.

    The fine-tuning problem is the biggest puzzle in quantum cosmology. If you can explain why the expansive pressure of the quantum vacuum and the compressive force of its gravitational equivalence are fine-tuned to 120 OOM so that the universe can exist without collapsing or exploding, you will go meet the king of Sweden. Have at it.

    One rule: Since you are so sure that I am wrong, you must solve the puzzle without invoking the Pauli exclusion principle and you must ignore the fermionic nature of the virtual particles of the vacuum. Good luck.
     
  5. Aug 6, 2005 #4

    EnumaElish

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Where can I read more about this puzzle?
     
  6. Aug 6, 2005 #5

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There are fora where a 'handwaving' discussion of topics such as this might be welcome (or at least tolerated), for example Alternative Theories in Universe Today, and Against the mainstream in BadAstronomy (the latter has some good advice for folk who want to discuss alternative ideas in BA).

    I'm not sure if you saw the announcement of Physics Forum's new Independent Research forum, so here is a key part of that (dated 4 July, 2005; note that the name was changed from "Outside the Mainstream"):
    For the avoidance of doubt, let me add that I for one am very interested in challenges to the mainstream. However, I personally am very critical of proponents of ideas that sound great when expressed in word pictures, but who never seem to get around to doing anything with the idea (other than vocally promoting it, extolling its compelling logic, comparing it to some historical work of certain scientists, ...), and specifically, can't even advance it to broad OOM calculation stage.

    I join with Phobos, Janus, and SelfAdjoint in inviting you to keep working with your idea, and submit it to the Independent Research forum when you're ready.
     
  7. Aug 6, 2005 #6

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Here
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Dear Phobos, Janus, and Self Adjoint
  1. Phobos shines! (Replies: 9)

  2. Phobos and Deimos (Replies: 3)

  3. Phobos & Deimos (Replies: 2)

Loading...