Exactly what is theory all about?

[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.