Exactly what is theory all about?

[DrChinese]

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

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

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

-DrChinese

 

[anti_crank]

crackpots don't really need answering, therefore instead of answering they should have been ignored

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

 

[quantumdude]

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

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

and let the people hash it out!

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

 

[north]

north,

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

- Warren

___________________________________________

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

north.

 

[chroot]

north,

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

- Warren

 

[kurious]

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

Kurious:

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

 

[north]

north,

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

- Warren

___________________________________________

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

and i speaking for myself had not meant any vitriol comments that's not my nature.

 

[Doctordick]

The subject of this thread seems to have changed.

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

We're just trying to clean up some of the obvious non-scientific nonsense posted here[/color], encourage habitual posters of that kind of material to find another place to post their ideas, and improve the average quality of posts here[/color].

Perhaps I am misinterpreting but as "russ_waters" has referred to my posts as "unscientific" (to someone else, not to me) and chroot has never answered any private messages from me, I can only assume that I am one of the posters he is referring to here. If that is the case, I would like at least some indicator as to why he believes my posts are nonsense.

There is a huge difference between a dissenting scientist and a crackpot. Few crackpots realize the enormity of this difference.

I would ask if you do, or are you saying that neither is welcome on your forum?

Einstein was a university-trained, accomplished physicist before he did his masterpiece. And his masterpiece, though revolutionary, was not considered crackpottery at the time.

I think, if you check the facts, you will find that Einstein managed a publication through the support of a friend. In addition, I remember being told that, at the time of his publication, fewer than four people in the world understood what he presented. And, by the way, I am a university-trained and accomplished physicist (that is the standard meaning of a Ph.D. degree).

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

I very much agree with this statement; however, in my humble judgment, very little thought has been put into the structure of those protocols and rules. I post on this forum because of the Latex interpretation, not because I think the protocols and rules were well thought out.

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

Yes! And that is exactly the reason for the mentor title "Nuts are us" for the forum. If you check the posts, you will find that 99% of the mentor posts were in opposition to what can only be called "Nut" posts (mot only that but the mentors posted over and over to the same nut threads). What this means is that you do actually needed a "Nuts are us" place to move these posts then the mentors need not reply unless asked by someone why they were moved (if you make a mistake, you could always move them back). To use "Theory Development" for this purpose implies a use of subterfuge to keep these nuts posting. They only reason you might want that would be to have inferiors to push around.

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

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

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

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

Thank you for pointing that out; though I doubt any mentor will take notice of it.

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

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Vern]

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

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

But then, again, I could be wrong

Keep on chuggin !

Vern

 

[PFanalog57]

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

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

Have fun -- Dick

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

Are they afraid of exposing their own physics ignorance?

Are they ?

We[everyone] can always learn new things.

 

[quantumdude]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[PFanalog57]

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

 

[baffledMatt]

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

Are they afraid of exposing their own physics ignorance?

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

Matt

 

[PFanalog57]

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

Matt

Can you refute the Dr. D equation?

<br /> P(\vec{x},t) = \vec{\Psi}^{\dagger}(\vec{x},t)\cdot\vec{\Psi}(\vec{x},t)dv<br />​

 

[baffledMatt]

Can you refute the Dr. D equation?

<br /> P(\vec{x},t) = \vec{\Psi}^{\dagger}(\vec{x},t)\cdot\vec{\Psi}(\vec{x},t)dv<br />​

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

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

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

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

Matt

 

[DrChinese]

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

Previously from me:

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

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

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

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

To belabor a few points...

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

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

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

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

d) You could say something like:

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

instead of my:

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

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

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

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

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

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

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

 

[DrChinese]

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

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

 

[PFanalog57]

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

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

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

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


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

Doctordick:

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

that which is true by definition is absolutely true.

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

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

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

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

Matt

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

 

[quantumdude]

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

He did make a point, and he is right.

Can you refute the Dr. D equation?

<br /> P(\vec{x},t) = \vec{\Psi}^{\dagger}(\vec{x},t)\cdot\vec{\Psi}(\vec{x},t)dv<br />​

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

 

[kurious]

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

 

[quantumdude]

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

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

 

[jcsd]

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

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

But nobody wants crackpot theories, except the crackpots.

 

[kurious]

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

 

[jcsd]

Kurious, physics forum is hardly has the most rigourous standars on the net, compoare the the modreate newsgroup here , infact I know of another physics bulketin board that won't accept any personal theory unless it has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal.

if I do not have enough physicla knowledge to evalute a theory I don't evalute it, it's as simple as that. As I said that any theory that can be reasonably justifed will not annoy people, but you must relaize that the neraly all theories in TD are compet wastes of time and it is highly theory devlopent will ever produce a single useful theory.

 

[kurious]

I agree that it is unlikely that TD will produce a single useful theory because
even professional physicists with decades of experience struggle to do that.
But you could raise the standard on TD to any level you wanted and only accept
posts from posters with Professorships at Harvard,Oxford,Stanford etc. and still never get a single useful theory.

 

[bino]

im going to have to agree with jcsd. if someone is able to back up what they say then should be aloud to post it.

 

[bino]

think of how many scientist were consitered crackpots before they proved their theory.