Does anyone here understand Theory Development?

[Doctordick]

This morning I made a post in the thread I had started a while ago. That would be "Why you should like my perspective!" I was moved to make that post because of the rather cavalier attitude of the amateur theorists making posts on this forum. In that post, I made the following comment.

If you are to come up with a theory which is to be seen as reasonable, then you must come up with a specific detailed procedure for deducing exactly the observed facts from that theory. It must agree with the known facts! And it must be consistent with all facts known: i.e., it must not require ignoring any specific facts. And, in addition, you better point out a flaw in the theory you are trying to replace!

This is why very few professional physicists come up with new theories! It is not a trivial endeavor.

During the day, I thought about it. Chi Meson had pointed out a fact very pertinent to the very issue I had in my mind.

A lot of folks avoid this sub-forum because it quickly gets nasty. This is not a forum exclusively for "crackpots," but it is nice that there is a place where anybody can say anything. If it were twenty years ago "string theory" discussions would have been found in this sub-forum, but as it has gained acceptance, it has its very own forum.

I have a Ph.D. in theoretical physics and have taught physics at several colleges and universities during my adventurous life. During that period I have had the opportunity to know a rather large number of theoretical physicists active in the field.

For the most part, theoretical physicists earn their bread by being experts in the current accepted theories. They spend their research time looking for specific issues which will either confirm or deny the validity of a current theory. Very rarely does a theoretical physicist actually propose a new theory. There is a very good reason for this. Even among professional physicists, the act of proposing an new theory is usually met with derision.

Actually, that derision is very justified. To be viable, a theory must agree with all the known facts! It is very rare that any scientist is familiar with "all the known facts!" I am sure that every mentor on this forum is well aware of the fact that every theory proposed on this forum is easily dismissed by the fact that it is inconsistent with things already known. The forum gets the title "crackpots are us" because of the pervading ignorance of the great majority of the posters.

All of you should stop posting theories and start learning physics and math; unless, of course, it is your goal to entertain the rest of us. If you cannot follow the mathematics I have posted here, you certainly do not have sufficient understanding of physics to even think about explaining the phenomena observed in the experimental laboratory.

Even with regard to the string theorists mentioned by Chi Meson, their accomplishments have been very limited. The only reason they have managed to penetrate that barrier of acceptability is the fact that the mechanisms they use (resonance modes of constrained systems) has been so successful at explaining other phenomena. The central issue of string theory is the additional dimensions they propose.

Now we have a lot of brilliant educated people considering the consequences of string theory and, to date, there is very little evidence that the approach is correct. Time will tell, perhaps they are right but that is no defense of not learning physics or math.

Unless I find a few people who are interested in understanding the universe and capable of following mathematics, I am afraid I will forget about trying to educate anyone.

Have fun, thinking isn't really all that great anyway -- Dick

 

[laserblue]

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s3-06/3-06.htm

The first published reference to Einstein's special theory of relativity appeared in a short note by Walter Kaufmann reporting on his experimental results involving the deflection of electrons in an electromagnetic field. Kaufmann's work was intended as an experimentum crucis for distinguishing between the three leading theories of the electron, those of Abraham, Bucherer, and Lorentz. In his note of 30 November 1905, Kaufmann wrote

In addition there is to be mentioned a recent publication of Mr. A. Einstein on the theory of electrodynamics which leads to results which are formally identical with those of Lorentz's theory. I anticipate right away the general result of the measurements to be described in the following: the results are not compatible with the Lorentz-Einstein fundamental assumptions.

Kaufmann's results were originally accepted by most physicists as favoring the Abraham theory, but gradually people began to have doubts. Although the results disagreed with the Lorentz-Einstein model, the agreement with Abraham's theory was not particularly good either. This troubled Planck, so he conducted a careful analysis of Kaufmann's experiment and his analysis of the two competing theories. It was an interesting example of scientific "detective work" by Planck.

 

[laserblue]

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s3-06/3-06.htm

When asked what he would have done if the eclipse observations had disagreed with the prediction of general relativity for the bending of light, Einstein replied "Then I would have felt sorry for the dear lord, because the theory is correct."

Please forgive my contrariness.The above quote seemd quite funny considering your post. I would certainly like to know more about theory development. Why is it, for example, that some johnny come lately to a field can make a discovery overlooked by the seasoned professionals?
How does one actually develop a theory? You seem to be saying that there is no need to even try to develop a model of one's own since there are lots of good candidate theories already. Sure, Riemann's theory of electromagnetism was out to lunch on many points, and maybe Planck was right about Einstein's photon idea being a mistake. Lorentz sure missed the antimatter boat. Schrodinger was just going in circles with his little zitterbewegung idea and wasting what he called a life. But as Poincare said, there may still be some good in the ruins.
It currently takes what? A decade or more? just to get up to speed on the latest officially accepted theories (and the numerous advanced mathematical formalisms they employ) and out to the frontier of modern physics.
Does knowing Newtonian Mechanics help or hinder the movement out to the frontier? Maybe it creates habits like procedural programming does that makes the movement to object oriented programming more difficult than it needs to be.
I admit that some of the ideas posted are pretty far fetched and maybe even outright crankish. It takes a knowlwdge of a lot of physics and mathematics just to make such a judgement. Who knows though, what new idea might be triggered by these outlandish ideas that are often cooked up in ignorance of known physics? Would we have Maxwell's laws of Electromagnetism if some former bookbinder and lab demonstration assistant didn't draw funny little pictures of iron filings around magnets? Why invent the idea of a field when Newtonian Mechanics worked so well?
"
"Unfortunately my hypothesis of the flattening of electrons is in contradiction with Kaufmann's results, and I must abandon it. I am, therefore, at the end of my Latin."

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

This morning I made a post in the thread I had started a while ago. That would be "Why you should like my perspective!" I was moved to make that post because of the rather cavalier attitude of the amateur theorists making posts on this forum. In that post, I made the following comment.

During the day, I thought about it. Chi Meson had pointed out a fact very pertinent to the very issue I had in my mind.
I have a Ph.D. in theoretical physics and have taught physics at several colleges and universities during my adventurous life. During that period I have had the opportunity to know a rather large number of theoretical physicists active in the field.

For the most part, theoretical physicists earn their bread by being experts in the current accepted theories. They spend their research time looking for specific issues which will either confirm or deny the validity of a current theory. Very rarely does a theoretical physicist actually propose a new theory. There is a very good reason for this. Even among professional physicists, the act of proposing an new theory is usually met with derision.

Actually, that derision is very justified. To be viable, a theory must agree with all the known facts! It is very rare that any scientist is familiar with "all the known facts!" I am sure that every mentor on this forum is well aware of the fact that every theory proposed on this forum is easily dismissed by the fact that it is inconsistent with things already known. The forum gets the title "crackpots are us" because of the pervading ignorance of the great majority of the posters.

All of you should stop posting theories and start learning physics and math; unless, of course, it is your goal to entertain the rest of us. If you cannot follow the mathematics I have posted here, you certainly do not have sufficient understanding of physics to even think about explaining the phenomena observed in the experimental laboratory.

Even with regard to the string theorists mentioned by Chi Meson, their accomplishments have been very limited. The only reason they have managed to penetrate that barrier of acceptability is the fact that the mechanisms they use (resonance modes of constrained systems) has been so successful at explaining other phenomena. The central issue of string theory is the additional dimensions they propose.

Now we have a lot of brilliant educated people considering the consequences of string theory and, to date, there is very little evidence that the approach is correct. Time will tell, perhaps they are right but that is no defense of not learning physics or math.

Unless I find a few people who are interested in understanding the universe and capable of following mathematics, I am afraid I will forget about trying to educate anyone.

Have fun, thinking isn't really all that great anyway -- Dick

Your math appears to be terminally stuck in the 1960's and earlier. Is it hard for old dogs to learn new tricks?

 

[AWolf]

History is littered with theorists who, in an attempt to further the frontiers of science, have been ridiculed by their peers to the detrement of their careers and their person lives. And all because they proposed ideas that disputed accepted theories.

One of the most recent being the battle between the 10 and 11 dimensional camps.
At first String Theory ruled with 10 dimensions, and the 11 dimensional camp took a beating. Then as String Theory encountered problems, the 11 dimensional camp came to the fore.

With this environment of potential ridicule, who in their right mind would risk their career to publish. Maybe before ridiculing the amateur community, the professional community should put its own house in order and become more open to non-mainstream theories, then maybe we would see some real progress.

It may be that such forums as this is where you will find the next great step forward, then again, you may not - who knows.

One thing's for sure, those posting on this forum have a passion for science which should be encouraged. At least they are willing to ask what if.

Every theory will have its opponents, even within the realms of the professional community.

 

[Doctordick]

Your math appears to be terminally stuck in the 1960's and earlier. Is it hard for old dogs to learn new tricks?

Is that why you can't understand it? I present it the way I do in an attempt to get it as simple as possible. I have to find some way around that great "Attention Deficit Syndrome" which seems to pervade the academic community. If it is so trivial as to not be worth looking at, why don't you just point out an error?

 

[matt grime]

there's no maths in this thread. I've pointed out an error in that other thread of yours; waiting on the reply.

 

[kurious]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

If you are to come up with a theory which is to be seen as reasonable, then you must come up with a specific detailed procedure for deducing exactly the observed facts from that theory. It must agree with the known facts! And it must be consistent with all facts known: i.e., it must not require ignoring any specific facts. And, in addition, you better point out a flaw in the theory you are trying to replace!

This is why very few professional physicists come up with new theories! It is not a trivial endeavor.

I agree with what you say. I myself do not understand the mathematics of qft or even a lot of qm and most of gr .However by coming on this forum and the google physics forum, and asking the right questions which get answered sometimes by people who do know what they are talking about, I think a relative amateur can have a pretty educated guess at a theory which people like you can either say is right or wrong.
You never know someone might just have an idea that stimulates someone like yourself
to come up with a breakthrough. I think most people on this site are genuinely interested in physics and that is a good thing .Not everyone is gifted or can learn high level mathematics but I have never seen a proof that says that they cannot therefore
gain some valuable insight into the world around them.String theorists know a lot of maths but the fact that there are so many string theories leaves me wondering how
deep their understanding of the physical world is. Feynman said that if you really understand an aspect of physics you should be able to explain it to people with limited
mathematical ability. A the end of the day maths is justs another language - it is up to people like you to translate it clearly!

 

[Doctordick]

Hi laserblue,

I enjoyed your post. You mentioned Planck

This troubled Planck, so he conducted a careful analysis of Kaufmann's experiment and his analysis of the two competing theories. It was an interesting example of scientific "detective work" by Planck.

Finding accepted catechism troubling is probably the single most effective force towards new theory. If you examine the thoughts of most professional physicists, you will find they seldom find anything in their field troubling (if they found it troubling, it would mean that they didn't understand it and that sort of strikes at their competence). Note the fight I have engendered, trying to suggest that time, as used by physicists, is a troubling issue – has anybody shown any interest in understanding why I find it troubling? No! They just hold that it is not troubling at all!

In the same vein, if you look at the posts on this forum (the "crackpots are us" forum) you will find that, for the most part, it is the experimental facts which they find troubling, not the current explanation of those facts. For the most part, the amateur theorists on this forum do not understand the current explanations of those facts – a totally different issue.

Feynman said that if you really understand an aspect of physics you should be able to explain it to people with limited mathematical ability.

I think the operative term in that sentence is "should". The problem is that the lay explanations are clear to people who understand but are often totally misunderstood by some of the members of the audience they were intended for. I can even point out myself as an example of that phenomena. In my answer to Hurkyl I explained something which happened to me.

When I was in high school (back in the early 50's), I read a popular presentation of Einstein's ideas. Of course I didn't know sufficient math to understand it very well; however, I was very impressed by the twin paradox and its resolution. What I got from the presentation was that the reading on the clock had nothing to do with whether or not he and his twin could talk.

Since one twin stayed home and the other traveled, I saw the issue as being one of going forward in time. The rest twin went forward in time at some rate (clearly defining "how fast he went into the future" was a meaningless thing – he did, that’s all). The traveling twin went into the future at a considerably faster rate. In fact, the "distance" he went into the future was a result of the combination of the reading on his clock and how far he had traveled. This led me to the conclusion that, going into the future was caused by moving.

Now Einstein had proposed that the universe was a four dimensional continuum where the fourth dimension was time. Well that made sense; time was what we read on the clock. So my mental image of the universe was a four dimensional space (Euclidian because that's all I knew at the time). When we thought we were standing still, we were actually moving in this fourth dimension: i.e. we could neglect our motion in the observable three dimensions. (And certainly setting everybody's clock to read the same was a ridiculous idea.) Furthermore, the dimension would have to be projected out (the readings on the clocks had nothing to do with being able to interact). When I was in high school I saw no need for a mechanism to yield the projection, it just was that's all.

Well, I used that mental image of the circumstance and it always gave me the right answers. When I began to study relativity, it became very clear that my mental image was not at all what Einstein had in mind and I was quite surprised that it always gave the correct answers to any relativistic problem I was given.

Sometimes, in the history of the world, it is a simple misinterpretation which leads to new way of looking at things.

Who knows though, what new idea might be triggered by these outlandish ideas that are often cooked up in ignorance of known physics?

It happens! No physicist would ever have dreamt of looking at things the way I did because they are firmly convinced that "clocks define time" and that there is utterly no other way of looking at the situation.

If all the laws of physics are covariant with respect to a single set of velocity transformations (whether they are of the form (1) or (2) or any other), then by definition physics is completely relativistic.

This is a very valid statement which is also missed by many professional physicists. I noticed it in my second year of graduate school (my noticing it was probably due to my rather odd perspective). An immediate consequence is the fact that, if one allows nothing but contact interactions all the laws of physics are covariant with respect to a single set of velocity transformations. That was what initially led my interest in a universal Dirac function interaction.

After all, quantum exchange interactions give rise to forces all over the place an how to calculate those forces is well understood. Even the people who think "field theory" is the solution of their problems are trying to fit their results into virtual quantum exchange effects (what do you think a graviton is all about?). In my head, it seemed much more reasonable to consider exchange effects as basic and field theories as rough macroscopic approximations to what is. But after all, I have a strange confusing perspective.

Einstein was fond of saying that "a theory should be as simple as the facts allow - but no simpler".

I really think I have the edge on him there.

When asked what he would have done if the eclipse observations had disagreed with the prediction of general relativity for the bending of light, Einstein replied "Then I would have felt sorry for the dear lord, because the theory is correct."

The academy seems to agree with him. My question is, if they really believe that, why do they still call it a theory? Because, underneath it, they know they cannot prove it. My real break through occurred when I realized I could prove my fundamental equation was correct! (And, via the same parametric transformation I have already explained, prove Einstein was correct.)

That is, except for one small troubling factor! He and I get slightly different results in the general relativistic solution. One of us has made an error and I personally am not sure who has done it. At the moment, the difference is far too small to detect experimentally so agreement with experiment is no solution.

{Continued below}

 

[Doctordick]

Why is it, for example, that some johnny come lately to a field can make a discovery overlooked by the seasoned professionals?

I think I have made my opinion on that issue clear above.

How does one actually develop a theory?

The first thing is to obtain a through understanding of both the experimental results and the theoretical explanation. If you don't understand them, you are wasting your time theorizing. Most of the ideas the amateur comes up with have already been thought about and rejected by the professionals long ago. Particularly when the amateurs ideas are based on the popular presentations of current theory.

Now my case was quite different (I would say that my perspective was correct only by shear luck and coincidence). I was aware of my alternate perspective and tested it against known results for some thirty years (including learning all I could about the subject) before I finally decided it was actually better than what the academy was using.

You seem to be saying that there is no need to even try to develop a model of one's own since there are lots of good candidate theories already.

No, what I am saying is, don't be so cock sure you understand what you are talking about. The physics community is not really short of theories and most of what they have are far better thought out than what the amateur presents.

Sure, Riemann's theory of electromagnetism was out to lunch on many points, and maybe Planck was right about Einstein's photon idea being a mistake. Lorentz sure missed the antimatter boat. Schrodinger was just going in circles with his little zitterbewegung idea and wasting what he called a life. But as Poincare said, there may still be some good in the ruins.

Note that all the people you mentioned had an excellent grounding in physics and math; far above anything I have seen on this forum.

It currently takes what? A decade or more? just to get up to speed on the latest officially accepted theories (and the numerous advanced mathematical formalisms they employ) and out to the frontier of modern physics.
Does knowing Newtonian Mechanics help or hinder the movement out to the frontier?

I have been around for a lot of years and watched the system work. One of the problems in the educational system is that "intelligence" as we generally use the term, is not a measurable thing. Accumulated knowledge, on the other hand is. As a consequence, advancement in academics is based on accumulated knowledge and not on intelligence. Idiot savants have a definite advantage in such a system.

I hate to say it but most of the "scientific nerds" in my day were often seen as very knowledgeable but lacking in common sense. When I reached the peak of the academic community, I found everyone there to be extremely limited in ability to use what they knew.

I have a sign over my desk (which I have displayed prominently for over twenty years) which says in large letters "Knowledge is Power" and then in smaller letters says "The single most popular abuse of that power is to hide stupidity". Intelligence is a question of what you can do with what you know. The problem with people who know a lot is that they can seldom do much with it at all.

I have a joke I sometimes tell: When we are young, we know nothing and must think everything out; as we mature and begin to learn more about how things work, we are able to do many things without thinking at all; and eventually, if we work hard at it, we can learn enough that it is completely unnecessary to think. That final terminal stage is called senility.

Knowing is not near as important as understanding. Most people just don't like to think, they like to know! It's a much more satisfying position to be in. That is why they don't like math and physics. There is far too much to "know" it all, the only possibility of success is to understand it. Then you have the ability to think anything out.

It takes a knowledge of a lot of physics and mathematics just to make such a judgement.

Not really; what it takes is understanding of exactly what is being said. One of the problems on this forum is that everybody wants to skip understanding the basics; they just want to know the "correct" answers.

Why invent the idea of a field when Newtonian Mechanics worked so well?

Actually, Newton was the inventor of the "force field". What do you think his theory of gravity was? The force was given by an inverse square "field". I always found it somewhat funny that Newton himself said (and I paraphrase him) even though action at a distance is clearly impossible, an inverse square gravitational field seems to explain things quite well. I always wondered what he had in mind when he said that. And why no scientist I have ever met took the issue seriously.

History is littered with theorists who, in an attempt to further the frontiers of science, have been ridiculed by their peers to the detrement of their careers and their person lives. And all because they proposed ideas that disputed accepted theories.

Back in the early seventy's when the physics community first experienced unemployment (prior to that a physics degree was a meal ticket – in the sixties physicists were courted with call girls believe it or not) there was a "Physics Today" editorial which bemoaned the unemployment situation. In it, the editor said that the physics community needed to make physics more "relevant".

I thought about that for a while and came to the conclusion that he was dead wrong. Physics, which is one of the most successful sciences around, owes its success to the fact that it is almost totally irrelevant. Human beings are very strange in that they are usually more concerned with "knowing" the answer than they are with the correctness of the answer. I think the single most difficult thing for a human being to say is "I don't know".

And once they have an answer, fighting that answer is the most difficult thing which can be done. Physics succeeded because it was irrelevant. Who cared what the mass of an electron was? One could think about it and discuss aspects of the problem without ever worrying about raising opposition.

{and one more section}

 

[Doctordick]

But today it is a different world. Whether Einstein is right or wrong is not irrelevant at all. Many people earn large incomes because they know the right answers. If there is an error in their perspective, do you think they are going to allow that error to become a serious issue? What happens to their expertise if they are wrong? It's a very relevant issue in a modern economy.

Reminds me of another funny story. My wife and I went on the Adkins diet about three months ago. Now we have been on various diets on and off for many many years. This was the strangest diet I have ever been on. First, I wasn't hungry at all (never had any urge to eat). Quite often we would just forget it was meal time and were not bothered by it at all. At this point, I am almost convinced that carbohydrates are slow poison. Now I am not saying I am right, I am just reporting my impressions.

A few weeks ago we had dinner with another couple where the woman was a professional dietitian. Since it affected what we ordered, we mentioned the diet and made a few comments on the impact it seemed have. Boy did she react negatively. From her perspective it was a ridiculous diet and she didn't even want to discuss any aspects of it. It was a subject totally off limits. I told my wife afterwards that the reason for her reaction was that the issue impacted her competence. Her income depended on being an authority and, having the rules change, was not to her benefit. A microcosm of the whole scientific profession.

With this environment of potential ridicule, who in their right mind would risk their career to publish. Maybe before ridiculing the amateur community, the professional community should put its own house in order and become more open to non-mainstream theories, then maybe we would see some real progress.

I think not. Real progress only occurs when one gets some intelligent people in the field who consider the benefits of being a scientist irrelevant: i.e., they would rather think about what troubles them than get the respect of their peers.

One thing's for sure, those posting on this forum have a passion for science which should be encouraged. At least they are willing to ask what if.

Willingness to ask "what if" is not the problem. Being able to deduce the consequences of "what if" is what is important. It doesn't even begin to be a theory if one cannot deduce the consequences.

Not everyone is gifted or can learn high level mathematics but I have never seen a proof that says that they cannot therefore
gain some valuable insight into the world around them.String theorists know a lot of maths but the fact that there are so many string theories leaves me wondering how deep their understanding of the physical world is. Feynman said that if you really understand an aspect of physics you should be able to explain it to people with limited mathematical ability. A the end of the day maths is justs another language - it is up to people like you to translate it clearly!

Two comments. First, I think anyone can learn a high level of mathematics if they take it one step at a time. The biggest problem is that most people want to "know" mathematics, not understand it. Secondly, mathematics is not "just another language"; it is a very special language designed around consistency and logic. Seriously, English (or any of the other human languages) is vague and inconsistent. Making a clear and unambiguous translation of some of the important concepts expressed in mathematics is often more difficult than teaching the student mathematics. A lot of people don't realize that because they don't have the imagination to see how what they are saying can be misinterpreted.

Being a theoretician, my thesis was in the realm of number crunching. Now this was back in the days before programming classes existed. As a result, all the programming I have ever done was learned through manuals. (And I am a pretty good programmer if I have to say so myself.) Computer manuals are written by people who just don't understand communication. My favorite comment on them is, "you can understand what they mean if you know what they are trying to say!"

Communication itself is the single most difficult task in the universe.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[kurious]

I have often found that an idea I thought was uniquely mine has already been thought of by other people and tested.There are plenty of ideas out there but it seems to me that no-one has a general picture of the physical world, perhaps because as you said
it takes years to learn one area of physics properly and there may just not be anyone who has a full enough understanding to put all the areas together.I myself by trial and error created an equation that predicts the rest masses of 6 quarks and two new ones and submitted it to physical review D to see what they would say.The editor did not dispute the accuracy of the equation as concerns the up down charm strange top and bottom quarks, but said that the decay width of the z boson meant it was unlikely that there were two new quarks.However I noticed that if I made a proton out of my two new quarks, and assumed that the total rest mass of a quark trio is proportional to
the mass of the proton the trio makes,my quarks, if as abundant as the up and down quarks in the universe as a whole, could account for 95 per cent of its mass.I also noticed that if I made a proton from the masses my equation predicted for two charm quarks and a strange quark, and compared this proton's mass to that of a normal proton,the ratio was 206:1.So I concluded this was the mass of the heavy electron the muon!I resubmitted to physical review D but they didn't think I had found anything interesting.But I bet that if I had been able to derive my original equation for quark rest masses instead of doing it by trial and error, the editor of physical review D would have shown a lot more interest.So even if my conclusions are right, because I haven't got a physical explanation supported by an appropriate mathematical derivation, no one will ever know.However I can guess why my equation works:
quarks are made from spheres of partial charges which get compressed in particle accelerator beams - work is done against the mutual repulsion of the charges and this somehow creates a rest mass which reduces in size when the force compressing the sphere is removed.
Not the kind of explanation physical review D wants!
But then it can take decades to prove something is right - I suppose you've got to have faith in your theory and work on it.

 

[Doctordick]

There are plenty of ideas out there but it seems to me that no-one has a general picture of the physical world, perhaps because as you said it takes years to learn one area of physics properly and there may just not be anyone who has a full enough understanding to put all the areas together.

No, I don't think it is so much that but rather, physicists tend to compartmentalize their thinking. Essentially, when they do that, they are assuming peripheral areas are as they are described by current theory.

Sometimes real focused thinking is like thinking with blinders on. When I was a graduate student I read Gamow's Mr. Tompkins series. It is a story of several trips by Mr. Tompkins. Essentially Mr. Tompkins goes to different universes where the fundamental physical constants are different and Gamow describes what the world looks like in this alternate universe. Today, I think Gamow was completely wrong. If you take everything into account, the world would look just as it does.

However, when I was a graduate student, I didn't understand what I understand now. At that time the only one that bothered me was his trip to quantum land where Plank's constant was a large number. I didn't know where Gamow had made his error but I certainly knew he had made one somewhere as the description was totally bogus.

At the time I was moved to see what the world would really look like if Plank's constant were a large number. I messed with the problem quite a while until I became convinced that the number is arrived at by circular reasoning. The problem is that the number comes into so many calculations that I could not find any place to start my reasoning. Changing Plank's constant changes the sizes of chemical elements, thus the sizes of molecules, and thus the sizes of rulers. It changes the energies of photons of fixed frequency, it changes clock times of transition defined times. In graduate school, I eventually gave up on the issue.

However, when I finally solved that equation I call my fundamental equation, Plank's constant became a factorable component which very definitely means it is circularly defined. So, as far as I am concerned, the physics community thinks it is a fundamental constant. It isn't at all! It is no more than a consequence of defining some things twice.

I myself by trial and error created an equation that predicts the rest masses of 6 quarks and two new ones and submitted it to physical review D to see what they would say.The editor did not dispute the accuracy of the equation as concerns the up down charm strange top and bottom quarks, but said that the decay width of the z boson meant it was unlikely that there were two new quarks.

What you are talking about is creating a phenomenological equation. When you know what the results of an experiment are, there are some straight forward methods of creating an equation which will yield the same results. When I was a graduate student, we studied such things (at least the theoretical students did; I presume experimentalists did also but I never thought about it).

In many respects, that is exactly what string theory is about. They know that vibrating entities have fundamental modes of vibration which are eigan states of energy (or rest mass) and are trying to design the proper string so that the vibration modes will be exactly the observed mass spectrum. So far, there success has been very limited. If they do succeed, I will bet money it will fit into my representation.

In my representation, the only thing I can't reproduce is the mass spectrum of the fundamental particles. I am curious about the form of your expression. Perhaps it will give me a clue as to how it should be done. Go read the Latex information on putting equations on this forum and let us all know your result.

I'll give you my opinion as to why it works.

Looking to hear from you again -- Dick

 

[UltraPi1]

DocDick

Awfully pretentious!


yoozgotsonebighead!

Come back when yer - famous.
Then you can rub our noses in it, which would be par for the course from the angle you present yourself from, and you can refer to yourself no less than 28 times, like you did in the post before this one.

Cheers.

 

[Doctordick]

DocDick

Awfully pretentious!


yoozgotsonebighead!

Come back when yer - famous.
Then you can rub our noses in it, which would be par for the course from the angle you present yourself from, and you can refer to yourself no less than 28 times, like you did in the post before this one.

Cheers.

Thanks for your vote of confidence! -- When I am right and they are wrong, it tends to give one a big head! Have fun -- Dick

 

[AWolf]

I think not. Real progress only occurs when one gets some intelligent people in the field who consider the benefits of being a scientist irrelevant: i.e., they would rather think about what troubles them than get the respect of their peers.

Unfortunately in this materialistic world, what appears to trouble most scientists is whether they can get tenure, often based upon the quantity rather than quality of publications.

I know this makes me either a cynic, a realist or just really cynical.

One question I have to ask is why a person of your calibre, according to your profile, is posting on a forum such as this rather than producing a paper for a peer review publication ?

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

Unfortunately in this materialistic world, what appears to trouble most scientists is whether they can get tenure, often based upon the quantity rather than quality of publications.

I know this makes me either a cynic, a realist or just really cynical.

One question I have to ask is why a person of your calibre, according to your profile, is posting on a forum such as this rather than producing a paper for a peer review publication ?

Dr. D quotes:

Dr. D:

First let me say that I do not at all feel that Einstein's perspective should be laid aside.

[...]

However, to regard his representation as the only possible way to represent the relativistic phenomena is very short sighted. There are many mathematical representations of phenomena which provide easy proof of what may otherwise be a difficult problem. Such things should not be taken as evidence that there are no other useful representations.

One example is the many "dualities" in M-Theory. Different representations become equivalent ways of looking at the same thing.

Also, Heisenberg's matrix mechanics and Schrodinger's wave equation.

Dr. D:
When it comes to understanding the physical universe, I believe my representation is greatly superior to the conventional perspective introduced by Einstein

A "bold" statement.

Dr. D:

for the following specific reasons.

I. The geometry has a Euclidian metric with four "spatial" axes and thus many phenomena are much easier to mentally visualize in this presentation than they are in Einstein's perspective (Though it takes a little practice to get a few of the subtle issues straight).

Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry could also be two different ways of modeling the real world. A "dual" perspective.

Dr. D:

II. The representation is fundamentally more symmetric than Einstein's representation as all four coordinates are totally equivalent. The axis is a spatial axis completely equivalent to x, y and z. The only thing which sets off as different is that the great majority of important entities exist in momentum quantized states in the direction. One could just as easily work with entities which were momentum quantized in any direction. That is, the asymmetry is a result of the problem being solved, not the geometry.

This is very interesting also.

Dr. D:

III. Time, being path length along the trajectories of the relevant events, is once more a parameter of motion and not a coordinate. This effect makes laying out valid quantum mechanical representation of phenomena straight forward.


IV. All possible lines within the geometry are legitimate possibilities for trajectories of entities of interest. Under Einstein's geometry, entities can not follow any space-time line elements along which Einstein's invariant interval is real; i.e., they must follow time like space-time lines as the invariant interval must be time like in the instantaneous rest frame of the entity ( must be real). Relaxing this external constraint (external to the geometry) leads to the idea of tachyons and time reversed actions (neither of which have ever been seen).

Tachyons:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html

http://www.physics.gmu.edu/~e-physics/bob/tachyons.htm

NEWS RELEASE ABOUT TACHYONS:


Robert Ehrlich, a George Mason University professor of physics, claims to have possible experimental evidence for the existence of tachyons, hypothetical faster-than-light subatomic particles first proposed in 1962 by Bilaniuk, Deshpande, and Sudarshan. The evidence, published in several articles in the Physical Review D during June and October 1999 consists of an explanation of certain properties of the high energy cosmic rays bombarding the Earth from space. Interestingly, such faster-than-light particles seem to be required by current 12 dimensional theories developed by physicists to unify all the forces of nature.

[...]

[...]

Dr. D:

VIII. Finally, the extension of quantum mechanics to general relativity is rather straight forward in my perspective (which is a quantum mechanical perspective from the get go) while an equivalent result from Einstein's perspective has yet to be accomplished.

On the other hand, quantum mechanics[which has its own problems] could also be explained completely in terms of an extension of general relativity[IMHO]:

http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/space.html

Roger Penrose on quantum theory and space-time:

The great physical theories of the 20th century have been quantum theory, special relativity, general relativity and quantum field theory. These theories are not independent of each other: general relativity was built on special relativity, and quantum field theory has special relativity and quantum theory as inputs. It has been said that quantum field theory is the most accurate physical theory ever, being accurate to about one part in about 1011. However, I would like to point out that general relativity has, in a certain clear sense, now been tested to be correct to one part in 1014 and this accuracy has apparently been limited merely by the accuracy of clocks on Earth). I am speaking of the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar PSR 1913 + 16,a pair of neutron stars orbiting each other, one of which is a pulsar. General relativity predicts that this orbit will slowly decay (and the period shorten) because energy is lost through the emission of gravitational waves.

Dr. D:

I also think Einstein's perspective is fundamentally invalid as it does not constitute the correct constraint on what can and cannot be seen. First, there exist solutions in his perspective which have never been seen. Now there are those who believe this is not a problem (people who think in compartmentized fashion); however, I hold that any answer to a question which gives the wrong result when pushed to the limit of definition is the wrong answer. And, secondly, it is, as yet, incomplete: i.e., no method has of yet been conceived of which can cast general relativistic quantum mechanics into his representation.

You will have an extremely difficult time explaining what "space" is, strictly in terms of quantum mechanics...

Dr. D:
Furthermore, if anyone is interested, I can deduce my perspective from first principles and demonstrate that it is universally applicable to all possible universes.

Please proceed.

 

[kurious]

EQUATION THAT PREDICTS PARTICLE REST MASSES

The following equation generates the masses, in Gev, associated with the six quarks:
Down, up, strange, charm, bottom, top and predicts the masses of two new quarks labelled X1 and X2.


M = 12.50 x 10 ^ [3pi (n – 5) / 2 0] x ( n – 4 )^ 2 x 10^39 [( n – 3 ) / 2] x
10^57 x q^n

M = f (n) q n

Where n is an odd numbered integer and q is the magnitude of the electric charge associated with the mass. The equation was based on the idea that
mass = constant x q ^ n and that the constant depends on n and is different for each quark pair - the pairs are next to each other in the table.



QUARK CHARGE (x1.6x10-19C) N MASS (Gev) )

DOWN - 1/3 -1 0.0088

UP + 2/3 -1 0.0044

X1 -1/3 +1 0.084

X2 +2/3 +1 0.16

STRANGE -1/3 +3 0.21

CHARM +2/3 +3 1.72

BOTTOM -1/3 +5 5.20

TOP +2/3 +5 167.25

Is it possible that the rest mass of the strange quark is so uncertain - up to 50 per cent error according to some physicists - because sometimes X1 and X2 are being mistaken for the strange?
I used a principle quantum number ,n, to generate a non-continuous distribution.
But other values of n could generate W bosons, for example, if they were made from quarks too!

THE WEAK INTERACTION IN BETA RADIOACTIVITY

A down quark becomes an up quark because the up quark in a W0 particle is kicked out and replaced by the down quark .The W particle changes from +2/3, -1/3, -1/3
to –1/3, -1/3, -1/3 .A W0 particle is in fact a heavy neutron !
Its quarks are generated in the region of Q^1 to Q^3 in the equation.

I had a go at producing the equation because I realized by looking at the
masses people gave on the internet for quarks that one mass could be transformed into another approximately by cubing the electric charge or raising it to the power of five and so on.
Didn't fancy my chances of latexing my equation!
I am a chemistry graduate so don't get too technical with your reply-
I do not understand the mathematics of advanced particle physics.

 

[Doctordick]

One question I have to ask is why a person of your calibre, according to your profile, is posting on a forum such as this rather than producing a paper for a peer review publication ?

Why, I thought that was quite obvious! I have no peer!

No, honestly. It's a long story and not really worth telling. I tried to publish it about twenty years ago and failed to even get a nibble. My son-in-law got me into surfing the web and I just do this for the fun of it. The world's not interested in my thoughts anyway and it isn't worth the trouble to fight the "crackpot" battle. But, if I do get some interest … At least it keeps an old man's mind working.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Doctordick]

A "bold" statement.

What can I say? I am confident that I am correct. Either you will end up agreeing with me or I have established myself as a "crackpot". You all put me in that category anyway so what difference does it make? I might as well tell you what I think!

On the other hand, quantum mechanics[which has its own problems] could also be explained completely in terms of an extension of general relativity[IMHO]:

I think the most important word in that sentence is "could". Until it can, they should hold their piece! I say I can. I just don't have the "authority" your references have. Look to John Duns who was a great "authority" opposing the new ideas of renaissance thought.

You will have an extremely difficult time explaining what "space" is, strictly in terms of quantum mechanics...

Not at all, that issue is right down the road.

Please proceed.

Ok, the first thing you need to understand is exactly what I am doing. Many many years ago I was told that the only way to solve a problem was to ask the right question.

The first thing to ask is, just exactly how do we go about coming up with a good theory: i.e., a good explanation of the universe? Well how do we come up with a good explanation of anything and just what is an explanation anyway?

When I was a graduate student I asked, "how do we know what is true?" The answer I was given was that physics wasn't about "truth", philosophy was about truth. Physics was about explaining things. Ok, so what is an explanation? Isn't it the ability to answer questions?

I will also point out that an explanation presumes the ideas necessary to that explanation are understood by the listener. This gets into the issue of communication and leads quite quickly down to the question, how can we be sure we know what is meant by a particular word? Fundamentally, we are talking about a very deep problem here. Scientists avoid confronting this problem by assuming they already know the answers to all the peripheral questions. They just stick these thoughts into "philosophy" and forget it. (And that is why I am not a publishing scientist!)

Let's get down to the fundamentals of the problem. If I understand you, then that means that I am not surprised by anything you say. In other words, I have expectations as to what you are going to say and what you actually say conforms to my expectations. So understanding has to do with coming up with these expectations. Understanding the universe is exactly the same problem.

Now I could go on and on in this way but I don't think it serves any purpose. I am only trying to get your mind set to accept my abstract representation of the problem. The universe provides us with all the answers but we don't know what the answers mean. Abstractly speaking, the problem is to come up with a method of creating expectations about an unknown thing given that we have some information to go on but not everything!

The unknown thing is A , C is the information we have and B is the subset of C about which we need to create expectations in order to defend our position that we understand A.

The first thing you have to do is get your head around that problem. Convince me you understand what I am saying and I will move on to the next step.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Doctordick]

Where n is an odd numbered integer and q is the magnitude of the electric charge associated with the mass. The equation was based on the idea that
mass = constant x q ^ n and that the constant depends on n and is different for each quark pair - the pairs are next to each other in the table.

You need to do two things. First, you need to learn how to generate latex code for equations so you can express your equations clearly. I don't think you meant what you put down; you are raising things to powers and then using that result as an exponent. Secondly, you need to look at the idea of generating phenomenological equations.

In order for a phenomenological equation to be valuable, the number of parameters in the equation should be considerably fewer than the number of things it accurately calculates. Otherwise one could just use the table of the results as a functional representation. You have eight parameters in your basic equation as written (12.50, 3, 5, 20, 4, 2 x 10^39, 3 and 2).

Your other comment, "the constant depends on n and is different for each quark pair" sounds very much like this is a simple data fitting equation.

I would still like to see it in latex form together with the actual number of masses it correctly predicts.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[kurious]

Your other comment, "the constant depends on n and is different for each quark pair" sounds very much like this is a simple data fitting equation

It was a data fitting equation.But it was only after I got it to "fit" quark masses experimentally obtained that I realized it could predict the mass of the muon - as one
other physicist on here said "to 0.1 per cent".I have never done that calculation accurately myself so I'll take their word for it! As for latex: can't be bothered with it-physical review D accept Word!If my equation is right and I think it is, the variation of the constant shows why it has been so hard to predict particle masses.Why does the constant vary? Because work is done compressing spheres of partial charge-work done = force x distance moved - work done / c^2 = mass generated.The spheres stick approximately with standard coulomb force law kqq/r^2. So mass generated = integral of kqq/r^2 dr = kqq/ r. Since q in trial and error equation will always be in reality q^2 from integral equation, terms like q^5 must be cancelled
by division by q^3 to yield q^2 in integral.Constant term in trial and error equation does this cancellation.If we have two quarks in the same family it is only natural that
there is something that makes them different from another family - hence different quark families have different constants - constants change because the force law must be changing as the spheres get compressed - I have found how qft works at this scale!
mass of quark = integral of ( k q 2 / r 2 c 2 ) d r yields radii of quark spheres for quarks with charge - 1/3 as
10^ -18,10^-19,10^ -20 and 10^-21 metres.Given the resolving power of accelerators at the moment these radii are possible.

sci.physics.relativity -usenet is a little uncivilised but now and then you get some sensible people on there .

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

What can I say? I am confident that I am correct. Either you will end up agreeing with me or I have established myself as a "crackpot". You all put me in that category anyway so what difference does it make? I might as well tell you what I think!

From my perspective, there are no "crackpots". Go to usenet-sci.physics.relativity, and read some of the ad-homenem flame wars posted there over the years. This forum is a huge leap in civilized behaviour, compared to them. Also, I don't appreciate being lumped into the category "you all".

I think the most important word in that sentence is "could". Until it can, they should hold their piece! I say I can. I just don't have the "authority" your references have. Look to John Duns who was a great "authority" opposing the new ideas of renaissance thought.

I began studying physics in an attempt to answer the question "what is space?" To me, that is the most important question, ergo, I study Einstein's relativity for the most part.

Ok, the first thing you need to understand is exactly what I am doing. Many many years ago I was told that the only way to solve a problem was to ask the right question.

Answer my question Dr. D, if, you can...

There is a problem with trying to explain the world strictly in terms of discrete quanta.

Say that the world can be explained in terms of a most fundamental unit completely integral in nature. What separates two fundamental units then?

How can there be communication between them?
what is the causal connection?

The unknown thing is A , C is the information we have and B is the subset of C about which we need to create expectations in order to defend our position that we understand A.

The first thing you have to do is get your head around that problem. Convince me you understand what I am saying and I will move on to the next step.

Have fun -- Dick

If A is a complete unknown, then it cannot be defined as a set, even though a "set" cannot really be defined.

 

[geistkiesel]

My Exile to the Development Forum

This morning I made a post in the thread I had started a while ago. That would be "Why you should like my perspective!" I was moved to make that post because of the rather cavalier attitude of the amateur theorists making posts on this forum. In that post, I made [some following comments].

Now we have a lot of brilliant educated people considering the consequences of string theory and, to date, there is very little evidence that the approach is correct. Time will tell, perhaps they are right but that is no defense of not learning physics or math.

Unless I find a few people who are interested in understanding the universe and capable of following mathematics, I am afraid I will forget about trying to educate anyone.

Have fun, thinking isn't really all that great anyway -- Dick

Geistkiesel responds to Doctordick AKA Dick thus:

I have no problem with all you say, and I agree with most, though there may be some sticky items though nothing worth bringing up. Likewise, please consider this post as categorically focussed on Theory Development, exclusively. This is why I am here.

I have a matter that Doctordick may be useful in offering some correctivel guidance. I have not burst upon the scene with a new theory demanding my moment in the sun. I agree with you that your form for challenging the prevailing view is basically correct, but any challenge to QT and SR/GR will never be allowed a foot on the beach under the prevailing conditions.

I think I have a unique sitiuation. I do not challenge QT from any doctrinal position and am perfectly willing to grant QT it's rightful place, and acknolwedge the "predictive power" QT has expressed.. What does one do, however, when looking back at some original experimental results that were either not analyzed or were ignored when QT was being formulated circa 1926? For instance, where a series of experiments were improperly analyzed, or incompletely analyzed, or incompetently analyzed and these analytic results form the bed rock basis of QT, then pointing out the misused results in any QT discussion, the author is exiled to here, the Development Forum.

Just as an aside, I would think that theorists would wlecome the exercise in exploring the wilderness, as long as it isn'y obsessive, but looking through the mirror can be instructive as some little girls have been described.

Anyway, that is what I .did I looked at some Stern-Gerlach spin-1 transition experiments as summarized by Fynman in "Lectures on Physics" VOL III Chapter 5. This was a perfect source and refernce as the chapter is popular in these modern times. How can I say it? Feynman screwed up, royally. I "challenge" the "developers" here to look at ch 5 and closely follow every step he makes. To give it all away, Feynman equates the results of a +S particle transitioning through obstructed and unobstructed Sytern-Gerlach segments to justify using an "interference amplitude " statement. This isn't a casual misstatement of a fact. There is more, but this is the first crack in the dike. The manner in which he does this is also instructive.

I spent many lonely hours looking for a way out for Feynman all to no avail. You are correct though that "thinking isn't all that great, but in my case here, the thinking got me obsessively addicted to following this thread to its natural conclusion. For what its worth, I'm a quantum theorist tar baby.

The result is I discovered a straight forward system for analyzing the transitions that were, for the most part, "classical". There are, of course, some Bohmian like implications and taking JS Bell at his wiord that Quantum Models that do not include "nonlocal forces" are incomplete, I maintained athat thread of thought as a guide post. After a bit the matter became too openly simple to attempt to describe the model in any but the simplest terms. So I assembled the results in a coherent form. which isn't a model as such, just an anlysisi of experiments showing Feynman's errors that would be embarrasssing to him were he here to defend his position. Actually, RF is just a composite of everyone of us who skimmed through all the "chapter 5s". thatwe came across.

I have a webpage that is http://frontiernet.net/~mgh1/ that explains it all.

Basically, a particle transitioning through a doubly obstructed Stren-Gerlach S segment and exits in a +S base state (the '0' and '-' channels obstructed) will retain that state after transitioning through an unobstructed T segment (T is rotated around the direction of travel of the particle, which is the ONLY experimental condition that distinguishes S and T segments - magnetic field and gradient directions) after being temporarily polarized in one of three T states during transit. Insert obstructions in two T channels and repeat the experiment, then the particle exits in a +T base state assuming the lower two channels were obstructed. Here 2/3 of the beam are lost to collisions with the obstructions. All particles survive the unobstruted transitions through T segments. in the +S base state (defined as produced in a doubly obstructed S segment). A +S particle will always transit through an S segment in the + channel , the S segment the segment producing the poalrized +S particle. originally. If that channel is obstructed, the +S particle will strike the obstruction. These experimetnal result are described much more elaborately by Feynman, though RF then corrupts the information, but the simple results should be considered gospel as a literature search will confirm.

There is much more, but the thumbnail sketch here seems to me as a kick in the knees of QT, which I am not necessarily pleased to deliver even though no Quantum Theorist has been anything like kind to me in my endeavors. But, I am this far, and I need only to have someone poiint to a crucial flaw in reasoning or assesment of experimental results, which I agree with Feynman, 100%. Any crucial argument or statement directed at the conclusions I have come to other than "it is blatant heresy", which I have recoognized in a number of instances, will be gracefully accepted. Well , I'll kick and scream fro a whwile, but my cool head will 'gracefully back down. Actually, I recall JS Bell using the word 'heresy' without any serious repercussions, but then he was JS Bell and I, poor Geistkiest.

I returned to physics after a rather prolonged delay, the moment in my life seemed to call me forth. So I have no professional reoputation to either make or defend. I was interested, I looked and I gave it some deep and serious amalysis, but it didn't go away as much as I would have liked it to just "go away".

The paper is in the form of a tutorial and anyone familiar with Stern-Gerlach transitions should have no difficulty following the thread. I also included a brief outline answering the rhetorical question used by those explaining two-hole diffraction: "Does the particle pick the hole it is going to go through before it gets to the hole?" Well, yes it does and you will see why on the first page of the 'Two Hole Diffraction Section'. At least you will see a rational physical model that explains how the electron lnows. Why didn't I think of that?

Just point to any errors and Iwill remove myself from the battlefield. I do have one steadfast "theoretical attitude". It should be clear that the analysis takes a direction other than that taken circa 1926 and thereafter, In this sense using Quantum Theory to argue againt the tutorial is not really responsive. I make the unambniguous assertion, which I faithfully and slavisly follow, namely that the model is experimental results driven, purely. Then, I am an unobjective analyst for my own effort, aten't I?

There are events occurring that cannot be scrutinized directly, which showa a consistency with QT, and these I denote as unobserved, or nonlocal events, though the affects of these events are unambiguously inferred, which unambiguously locate the nature of the nonlocal elements. When Bell used the words, "nonlocal forces" he was saying a mouthful.


I oftened wondered why Bell did not see the whole cloud light up. I concluded that he was lost, like we all were, in the restrictions of QT and he attempted to break out by tunneling through the discrepencies as he found them, Bohm likewise, though Bohm attempted a restructuring of QT. from the get go. He should have looked at the experimetnal results. The industry basically ignored them and even the Bellian followers now congealing around Quantum Computations are still on the misguided, translated as "incomplete" track.


If you got this far then I thank you for your patience and your time.

Geistkiesel
AKA Mike

 

[kurious]

GEISTKIESEL

I went to your website.
The idea you have of reflecting electric field in two slit experiments sounds very logical. It reminds me of a flux of particles that can be reflected from a mass in le Sage's pushing gravity theory.Many people refer to a cloud of mass and charge approaching the slits in two slit explanations ?Is it possible that there could be a compromise in which the charge passes through one slit and a cloud-like mass through two? We always assume charge and mass are at the same point in space.Interference phenomena are frustrating because you can't help feeling that a correct explanation of them would advance physics considerably.I can accept the counter-intuitive arguments of relativity but not those of QM.Mainly because I don't like magic and instantaneous action at a distance for example smacks of it.

 

[Doctordick]

From my perspective, there are no "crackpots". Go to usenet-sci.physics.relativity, and read some of the ad-homenem flame wars posted there over the years. This forum is a huge leap in civilized behaviour, compared to them. Also, I don't appreciate being lumped into the category "you all".

I apologize for lumping you into that group; however, sometimes it is very difficult to tell the difference between "common Troll ridicule" and honest misunderstanding.

I began studying physics in an attempt to answer the question "what is space?" To me, that is the most important question, ergo, I study Einstein's relativity for the most part.

You are assuming that question can be answered from your current perspective.

This gets into the issue of communication and leads quite quickly down to the question, how can we be sure we know what is meant by a particular word? Fundamentally, we are talking about a very deep problem here. Scientists avoid confronting this problem by assuming they already know the answers to all the peripheral questions.

You yourself are avoiding confrontation of this very problem by assuming your personal answers to the peripheral questions underpinning your question are the correct answers. My point is that all your problems stem from that assumption. And I will show you the truth of that statement if I can talk you into dropping all those peripheral assumptions for the sake of this discussion.

Answer my question Dr. D, if, you can...

I can, but not in terms you could understand from your current perspective. Not in terms of those assumptions. It is very analogous to trying to explain probability to an astrologer such that he can deduce it from the positions of the stars.

There is a problem with trying to explain the world strictly in terms of discrete quanta.

So don't presume the explanation requires discrete quanta.

Say that the world can be explained in terms of a most fundamental unit completely integral in nature. What separates two fundamental units then?

I don't know, I wouldn't even know how to begin constructing such an explanation. On top of that, the idea strikes me as a waste of time.

How can there be communication between them?
what is the causal connection?

I have no idea! This is your mental construction; you tell me! No, don't bother, please.

If A is a complete unknown, then it cannot be defined as a set, even though a "set" cannot really be defined.

Well then don't call it a set! Call it what ever you want. It is whatever it is. All that is really important is that you don't know all about it! C is what you know! All you have to admit to allow me to move on is that, no matter what it is that you know or think you know, it amounts to a finite amount of information.

It follows that, given sufficient time, anything you can communicate to me can be seen as a finite collection of labels attached to aspects significant to your understanding of what it is you think you know (things, ideas, concepts objects whatever). All I need to do to understand you is to establish the meanings of those things to which the labels have been attached.

We can not talk about any issues until we can establish unambiguous communications. That is what I am trying to do: establish unambiguous communications. At the moment, I have only six concepts available to me which I feel absolutely essential to achievement of unambiguous communication:

1.) @₁ $\equiv$ "I am presuming you understand"
2.) @₂ $\equiv$ "what I mean by"
3.) @₁ mathematics.
4.) @₁ @₂ A
5.) @₁ @₂ B
6.) @₁ @₂ C

If you find even these six concepts ambiguous we are just SOL! You are trying to communicate with me through the use of many more terms, a large number of which I find ambiguous. I think I am asking a lot less of you than you are of me. As long as all we are doing is trading ambiguous terms, we are essentially wasting time though, I will admit it, wasting time can be entertaining on occasion.

Think about it -- Dick

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

We can not talk about any issues until we can establish unambiguous communications. That is what I am trying to do: establish unambiguous communications. At the moment, I have only six concepts available to me which I feel absolutely essential to achievement of unambiguous communication:

1.) @₁ $\equiv$ "I am presuming you understand"
2.) @₂ $\equiv$ "what I mean by"
3.) @₁ mathematics.
4.) @₁ @₂ A
5.) @₁ @₂ B
6.) @₁ @₂ C

If you find even these six concepts ambiguous we are just SOL! You are trying to communicate with me through the use of many more terms, a large number of which I find ambiguous. I think I am asking a lot less of you than you are of me. As long as all we are doing is trading ambiguous terms, we are essentially wasting time though, I will admit it, wasting time can be entertaining on occasion.

Think about it -- Dick

Mathematics is a "meta-language". The question becomes: "Does an abstract mathematical structure exist, that has a one to one and onto correspondence to physical reality?"

Here is the definition of "algorithm":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm

"Algorithm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Broadly-defined, an algorithm is an interpretable, finite set of instructions for dealing with contingencies and accomplishing some task which can be anything that has a recognizable end-state, end-point, or result for all inputs. (contrast with heuristic). Algorithms often have steps that repeat (iterate) or require decisions (logic and comparison) until the task is completed."

DNA is an algorithm, a finite set of instructions, which can construct a carbon based life form.

The life form physically[topologically] contains the DNA and the DNA contains the life form in an "abstract" sense.

At a fundamental level of existence, it is postulated that "nature" could be constructed of tiny strings, and those strings, loops, or branes, could even be constructed of string "bits".

These bits could encode information, analogous to the universe's "DNA"? A set of instructions built into the fabric of space/time and mass/energy?

"If, then, it is true that the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented, can we ever hope to find the right way? I answer without hesitation that there is, in my opinion, a right way, and that we are capable of finding it. I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed." (Albert Einstein, 1954)

The unknown thing is A , C is the information we have and B is the subset of C about which we need to create expectations in order to defend our position that we understand A.

The first thing you have to do is get your head around that problem. Convince me you understand what I am saying and I will move on to the next step.

A is the unknown entity.

B is the abstract model, i.e. the equations.

C is the information, where information is a finite set of knowledge, and understanding of that knowledge.

Here are some more definitions of information:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information#Information_as_a_pattern

Information is any represented pattern. This view assumes neither accuracy nor directly communicating parties, but instead assumes a separation between an object and its representation, as well as the involvement of someone capable of understanding this relationship. This view seems therefore to require a conscious mind. Consider the following example: economic statistics represent an economy, however inaccurately. What is commonly referred to as data in computing, statistics, and other fields, are forms of information in this sense. The electro-magnetic patterns in a computer network and connected devices are related to something other than the pattern itself, such as text to be displayed and keyboard input. Signals, signs, and symbols are also in this category. Painting and drawing contain information to the extent that they represent something such as an assortment of objects on a table, a profile, or a landscape. In other words, when a pattern of something is transposed to a pattern of something else, the latter is information. This type of information still assumes some involvement of conscious mind, of either the entity constructing the representation, or the entity interpreting it.

Information is interpreted in different ways.

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 possesses two fundamental components: the information to be explained and the mechanism used to generate expectations for possible additional information.

 

[ram2048]

I like how you believe what you believe and have unwavering faith in that.

i'm currently in the middle of my own crackpot battle, i wish i had the math background to back it up, but i don't. so it's kinda rough.

but then again if i DID have the math background i would already be indoctrined to believe what they do and i probably would not have questioned their procedures etc in that case.

http://home.earthlink.net/~ram1024/

 

[Doctordick]

Sorry I missed this Russell, I guess I saw that it had been drawn to the top by a post by ram2048 and didn't expect two posts in less than ten minutes so I didn't look at it. I finally looked when it seemed to be descending to the bottom.

At any rate, I have already posted answers to these problem elsewhere; but I will comment here anyway.

Mathematics is a "meta-language". The question becomes: "Does an abstract mathematical structure exist, that has a one to one and onto correspondence to physical reality?"

Yes, it is a "meta-language" and the advantage it has over all the other languages is that the meanings of its terms are much better understood than any of the other languages: i.e., it is much less ambiguous than is English for instance. Thus, you should rather be asking, is it possible to construct an unambiguous internally consistent structure which has a one to one correspondence to physical reality? If you can do that, just add the structure to mathematics. If you can't do it, how can you expect to do it in an ambiguous language?

By the way, if a logical structure is internally inconsistent, the fact is usually thought of as a proof that the axioms of the structure are false! This is because, if it is inconsistent, you can get a different answer depending on the logical path you follow: i.e., it is ambiguous and thus fails to provide answers to significant questions. So let's do our best not be inconsistent or ambiguous.

A is the unknown entity.

Why do you find it necessary to add the word "entity"? And why does it have to be an "entity" anyway? A is what we want to explain; all I ask of it is that there must be a way of referring to significant aspects of A: i.e., they may be labeled as we discuss them. Essentially all you have done is added another term you have to presume I understand. And, on the surface, I certainly don't understand what you mean by an "entity" as if you mean what pops into my head, it constitutes a limit on what A can be.

In a sense, you are telling me there are things which are not to be explained! My question is, why should I presume that there are things which are not to be explained?

B is the abstract model, i.e. the equations.

No, B is neither the abstract model nor the equations! B is whatever it is that we are going to use to defend our model's validity! Mathematics and the equations I come up with are representations of the internally consistent and unambiguous logical deductions of the expectations the model generates for B.

C is the information, where information is a finite set of knowledge, and understanding of that knowledge.

The first thing I complain about here is that you want to explicitly understand C. You can't understand C if you have no model of C. All I want to say is that your model must be constructed from some part of A and that the significant aspects of C can, like A and B, be referred to: i.e., can be labeled!

Because B is what we are going to use to defend our model's validity, it is also the point were we make a serious effort to tag the significant elements with references. That is also why I define B to be a collection of elements (think significant aspects if you wish) taken from A and C is a collection of sets B.

Here are some more definitions of information:

Information is interpreted in different ways.

Exactly! What you are doing is pointing out the ambiguity of the English language! I believe linear B cuneiform has never been translated (it might be linear A, the issue makes no difference to my point). Does that mean that linear B contains no information? You are implying that information comes into existence when someone understands it. I would rather use the word to specify what it is they are trying to understand; something that exists outside their mind.

Would you say that radio noise from outer space contains no information until after it is understood? I think the whole issue behind science is trying to develop an understand information available to us which we don't understand. If you want to invent a new word for that then go ahead. All I am concerned with is the issue that A, B, and C are not understood!

We are having problems communicating because of the ambiguity of the English language!

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Doctordick]

I like how you believe what you believe and have unwavering faith in that.

i'm currently in the middle of my own crackpot battle, i wish i had the math background to back it up, but i don't. so it's kinda rough.

but then again if i DID have the math background i would already be indoctrined to believe what they do and i probably would not have questioned their procedures etc in that case.

http://home.earthlink.net/~ram1024/

Ram, I am afraid I have to stand with the others. The only rule in mathematics is that the answers to a question must yield an absolutely non-contradictory result. So long as a procedure fulfills that constraint, the procedure can be thought of and defined to be a mathematical procedure. Understanding mathematics is no more than understanding the constructs already defined by the founders of the field.

What you have to understand is exactly how those things are defined. If you do not understand the definitions, you cannot understand your misuse of the terms. That is what all the people who answer your posts are trying to tell you.

Mathematics is certainly not an intuitive thing, when it comes to mathematical deduction, intuition is worth bubcus! Neither is the field of mathematics a fixed thing. New mathematical structures are added all the time. All one has to do is define a logical structure which is not yet a part of mathematics: i.e., lay out the definitions and deductions in an absolutely consistent and unambiguous form. If you can do that, you have a new mathematical field. (But watch out, there is a lot of stuff out there which has already been done – finding a good use for it is more significant.)

For example, when I was a graduate student, I thought of something I thought was new. Just as exponents arose from the idea of multiplying the same thing by itself several times (i.e. $x^5\,=\, xxxxx$), we define $\frac{d^3}{dx^3}\,=\,\frac{d}{dx}\frac{d}{dx}\frac{d}{dx}$. Now exponentiation was extended with the idea of fractional exponents.

Why not extend the definition of differentiation to include

$$\frac{d^a}{dx^a}$$
​

where a is a fraction. I looked at the problem and came up with a way to define such a thing. Using a series expansion as the intermediate in the definition, I thought I had come up with a valid definition. (Whether or not my definition was valid is of no issue here.)

I took my definition to a Math professor and showed it to him. He reached up and pulled an old math journal off the shelf with an article discussing the definition of exactly what I was talking about. As I said there is a lot of stuff out there which has already been done. The difficult issue is to find a use for it.

What you need to do is learn some mathematics! Don't try and intuit what you think the definitions should be; they just aren’t what you think they are. Mathematics is probably the most exact science out there!

Have fun and learn a little math-- Dick

 

[ram2048]

thanks Doc, I do plan to learn more math when i have the time / resources available to do so. Was just kinda caught up into this thing and it snowballed into this.

what I'm planning on doing from here, is expand my knowledge of current accepted maths and refining my proofs and analysis as i go along, striving to break the knowledge down into logical and rational steps such that instead of just having 200 theorems in my head and knowing how to apply them, i would know how they were created and why they work.

i don't plan on being a teacher, but i do think that documentation as such could be really useful for students getting into math.

the best place to start is at the bottom right? :D

thanks again for the constructive criticism

-1k

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

Why do you find it necessary to add the word "entity"?

You said A was the unknown ..."thing". What is a thing? A thing is itself. An identity. Therefore A is an undefined variable, an identity operator, or an entity, such, that what relations can be known about A, must be necessarily true on logical or analytic grounds. If you can't mentally grasp that logical necessity, then, with all due respect, "your construction" is "SOL".

No, B is neither the abstract model nor the equations! B is whatever it is that we are going to use to defend our model's validity!

B is a subset of C about which we need to create "expectations", ...your words. Make up your mind Doc. You can't have yer cake and eat it too

I am perfectly willing to provide you with ...entertainment, iff, I can learn something new. Hopefully ..."you", will find zero ambiguity, in that statement.

Exactly! What you are doing is pointing out the ambiguity of the English language! I believe linear B cuneiform has never been translated (it might be linear A, the issue makes no difference to my point). Does that mean that linear B contains no information? You are implying that information comes into existence when someone understands it. I would rather use the word to specify what it is they are trying to understand; something that exists outside their mind.

Thanks for the clarification Dr. D. Yes, I wasn't completely sure about what you ment by saying "C is the information we have", and I assumed it was a set of known/understood quantities. You are correct IMHO, information can exist without understanding.

 

[laserblue]

Doctordick wrote:

"For the most part, theoretical physicists earn their bread by being experts in the current accepted theories. They spend their research time looking for specific issues which will either confirm or deny the validity of a current theory. Very rarely does a theoretical physicist actually propose a new theory. There is a very good reason for this. Even among professional physicists, the act of proposing an new theory is usually met with derision. Actually, that derision is very justified. To be viable, a theory must agree with all the known facts! It is very rare that any scientist is familiar with "all the known facts!" I am sure that every mentor on this forum is well aware of the fact that every theory proposed on this forum is easily dismissed by the fact that it is inconsistent with things already known. The forum gets the title "crackpots are us" because of the pervading ignorance of the great majority of the posters.
All of you should stop posting theories and start learning physics and math; unless, of course, it is your goal to entertain the rest of us. If you cannot follow the mathematics I have posted here, you certainly do not have sufficient understanding of physics to even think about explaining the phenomena observed in the experimental laboratory."

The admonition by Doctordick to start learning physics and math reminded me of a paper by Dr. David Hestenes entitled "Modeling Games in the Newtonian WOrld".In this paper Dr. Hestenes pointed out how crucial Newton's technical proficiency was to his being able to create a viable theory or system of design principles for modeling the physical world.Dr. Hestenes also pointed out that Mavericks rarely win the modeling game because only those who are masters of the rules know where the shoe pinches most and can break the rules.

http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/ModelingIsTheName_DH93.pdf

http://modelingnts.la.asu.edu/pdf/ModelingGames.pdf

http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/ModelingMeth-jul98.pdf

http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/SecretsGenius.pdf

What Doctordick wrote about professional physicists basically reveals that
professional physicists don't have much experience with creating theories.Probably because the hierarchical structure of the working world discourages independent thought and theory creation and reserves it for the principal investigator.
Yet,at the same time, many people including some physicists gain an understanding of a subject only by seeking to make it their own and working out the possibilities of a personal theory.Of course, some professional or colleague will point out that one is wasting one's time because so and so made the discovery years before but that really only serves to corroborate the reasoning that one went through in aquiring an understanding. I'm thinking of an example given in DISCOVERING by Robert Scott Root-Bernstein where one character, IMP comes up with an idea which another character, RICHTER, derisively points out was known long before. There are similar examples given in this forum.
Maybe the derision isn't justified at all. It's a short sighted depth-first kind of thinking that is quick to judge. Edward DeBono claims in his many writings on thinking that it is very easy for an intelligent person to choose a position and defend it. Maybe it would be better if one did not know all the facts.
"Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily in high schools."
Should agreement with all the known facts be given as high a priority as Doctordick desires? Abstraction is at the core of a lot of physics and while one wants to account for as many facts as possible at least in the final version of a theory, any proposed model is going to have limitations. In "Modeling Games in the Newtonian World" at the bottom of page 12 of the .pdf version, Dr. Hestenes points out that "...Kepler's [model] could not fit the more accurate data collected with telescopes rather than the naked eye,..." and goes on to write that,

"It is no small irony that Newton's law of gravitation would undoubtedly have been more difficult to discover if Kepler's model had been quickly invalidated by more accurate data."

Perhaps, this same kind of thing is involved with theories that seem inadequate at one point in an investigation and then are resurrected many years later in a slightly altered form.

 

[Doctordick]

Perhaps, this same kind of thing is involved with theories that seem inadequate at one point in an investigation and then are resurrected many years later in a slightly altered form.

Yes, I think this is quite true. Breakthroughs almost always occur in areas most professionals believe to be a waste of time to look at. If they didn't think it was a waste of time to look there, they would have looked and discovered it for themselves. A closed mind is a closed mind no matter what the reason for the closure is.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

HOW to BECOME a GOOD THEORETICAL PHYSICIST

An interesting web page:


http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html

HOW to BECOME a GOOD THEORETICAL PHYSICIST

by Gerard 't Hooft

This is a website (still under construction, at the very initial stage) for young students - and anyone else - who are (like me) thrilled by the challenges posed by real science, and who are - like me - determined to use their brains to discover new things about the physical world that we are living in. In short, it is for all those who decided to study theoretical physics, in their own time.

It so often happens that I receive mail - well-intended but totally useless - by amateur physicists who believe to have solved the world. They believe this, only because they understand totally nothing about the real way problems are solved in Modern Physics.

[...]


It should be possible, these days, to collect all knowledge you need from the internet. Problem then is, there is so much junk on the internet. Is it possible to weed out those very rare pages that may really be of use? I know exactly what should be taught to the beginning student. The names and topics of the absolutely necessary lecture courses are easy to list, and this is what I have done below.

[...]


I can tell you of my own experiences. I had the extreme luck of having excellent teachers around me. That helps one from running astray. It helped me all the way to earn a Nobel Prize. But I didn't have internet. I am going to try to be your teacher. It is a formidable task. I am asking students, colleagues, teachers to help me improve this site. It is presently set up only for those who wish to become theoretical physicists, not just ordinary ones, but the very best, those who are fully determined to earn their own Nobel Prize. If you are more modest than that, well, finish those lousy schools first and follow the regular routes provided by educators and specialized -gogues who are so damn carefully chewing all those tiny portions before feeding them to you. This is a site for ambitious people. I am sure that anyone can do this, if one is gifted with a certain amount of intelligence, interest and determination.