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

The physics in between

  1. Mar 28, 2003 #1
    The entities of observation not only determine physics, but also define the "deserts" between themselves. Planck scale, GUT scale, nuclear scale, atomic scale, molecular scale, biophysical scale, planetoid scale, stellar scale, planetary system scale, galactic scale, galactic cluster scale, and cosmological scale - all have interstices overlooked and unexplored. The greater part of physics has been practically ignored.

    What theory best describes the physical essence of all these "spheres of influence" while acknowledging the potential for deserts in between them?

    Would you care to predict what physics will arise from the spaces in between, the voids which conventional physics has disregarded until now?
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 28, 2003 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Physics strives to find models which correctly explain behaviors at all scales. I don't understand why you think physicists are ignoring anything.

    - Warren
  4. Mar 29, 2003 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I agree with chroot. It is not like somebody dictated that only a specific set of energy (or size) scales were to be studied, disregarding the rest. That mental image is backwards.

    We try to study all scales/energies, and names are chosen according to the phenomena they relate to. As soon as a new set of phenomena is noticed (or when new experimental techniques or technologies allow the study of a new energy range), people study it, regardless of names.

    In the process of developing models that adequately describe the "new" realm, a name for these models ("planetary physics", "QED", "QCD", "biophysics") sticks on people and becomes standard.
  5. Mar 29, 2003 #4
    So you both would say that primarily physics, and not physicists, determines what has not been observed?
  6. Mar 29, 2003 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Can we stop talking in riddles? What the hell are you talking about?

    - Warren
  7. Mar 30, 2003 #6
    I don't think there are any deserts. If you look at the history of physics you can get an idea of how it all fits together.
    A long time ago people thought things like the Universe was a series of rings with the Earth or the Sun as the center. Objects moved because there were angels beating their wings behind them. All matter was composed of little indestructable balls (well the atleast last one is closer to reality than the first two). Then people started to really look around and think and test (the last part is the key here). Once people decided to experiment things began to make sense. Now we (humans) describe the world using models (generally mathematical models). If something doesn't fit then the model has to be altered and everything retested. Basically the models evolve and grow. Every once in a while something comes along to blow everything to hell and we get a revolution. Like relativity and QM. Since the early to mid 1900s these newer ideas have since become accepted and evolved.

    Now we know all kinds of stuff about big things and all kinds of stuff about little things but somewhere things get a little unclear. The desert is more like a moving fog that really depends upon the situation that you are testing. We have this model that explains all kinds of stuff about people and cars and galaxies. Then we have this model that explains all kinds of stuff about atoms and nuclear reactions. We also have these fundamental forces that seem like they should be different aspects of the same thing but it doesn't quite work out that way. Why all the problems? No one knows yet but thats why we have all of these theories. They are all attempts to bring it all together. Now looking at some of the terms you used, I think that some of them are just different names for some of the things that are already understood. Biophysics is just a name for physics of living things but what they really are talking about is Newton's laws and QM (you need Newton's laws but don't need relativity corrections or need to consider QM when studying the effects of blood pressure on a blood vessel). Planetary physics is just a word for studying the physics of planets (duh right?), but it is still Newton's laws mostly generally again relativity corrections are not needed.

    What we have here is a failure to communicate. This is more a problem of diction than physics.
  8. Mar 30, 2003 #7
    chroot, basically I'm trying to say that undiscovered (more than ignored) physics is many orders richer than existing physics (no TOE soon), and that there are both connections between and autonomy inherent to both. As much as physics may strive, the continuum of physical reality is sampled only discretely by measurement and hypothesis. (Warren, there's no need to invoke "hell" in what should be a civil discussion.)

    FrankM, thank you for your contribution. It seems to me that intuitive physics interpolates to experimental physics interpolates to theoretical physics interpolates to mathematical physics. (Likewise, replace "interpolates" with "extrapolates.") These are another example of what I mean by the "physics in between," whatever you might call the specific subfields.
  9. Mar 31, 2003 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If it hasn't been discovered yet, how do you know how rich it is? I get the feeling you're just another anti-physics bandwagoner: the type that doesn't understand what physicists really do, and thinks they could do a better job.
    You've yet to provide any support for this assertion. Just because you keep saying it (or believing it) doesn't make it true.

    - Warren
  10. Apr 2, 2003 #9

    i think physicist is trying to find some way to understand
    the world...
    but the human brain is not perfect....
    so how can the physicist can have a perfect theory for the world...
    many things is still under discovery
    physicist is the member of this discovery teams
  11. Apr 2, 2003 #10

    Surprisingly, I do think that any professional, or worker for that matter, can always do a better job. If I were an employer, I would encourage that attitude in my employees.

    I love physics. Here I may be getting a bit too philosophical and abstract, but that is as much a part of physics as designing non-cavitating propellers.

    Take the actual "desert" between the energies of electromagnetic and GUT theory. That's something like 18 orders of ten unexplored by experiment and unexplained by theory. I am saying that this, and lesser, deserts exist that may always need further verification.

    Just as theories eventually become falsified and incorporated into more comprehensive ones, or a fractal invites an infinity of interstices, so the horizons of physics will always make room for more inquiry.
  12. Apr 2, 2003 #11
    In his excelent book The Dinosaur Heresies Robert Bakker explains how surprised he was to find that many of his discoveries had actually been discovered and ignored 1-200 years earlier. He attributed this largely to the establishment protecting its own beliefs.
    A similar thing has happened in the developement of the Standard Model (QP and Relativity)where work done at Cambridge (UK) in the 50s and 60s, and work done more recently in Japan, has been ignored because the experiments using gyroscopes (UK) and falling cylinders (Japan)cannot be explained using relativity or QP; like the measurements of galactic orbits and the expansion of the universe, they prove that the Standard Model is wrong.
    In the later case there is an attempt to bring in anti-gravity and quintessence? without any admission of error in existing interpretation.
    This is the standard procedure of modern physicist, if they cannot explain something they invent another name, introduce another entity or force and carry on creating more confusion to cover up their lack of explanation of existing entities and forces. This stuation will continue until someone insists on the application of Occam's law and demands a halt to new entities and forces until we have a full explanation of experiments and observations made to date.
  13. Apr 2, 2003 #12


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Uh, yeah... us physicists do just that -- we just invent crap to cover up our lack of explanations. *snicker* You're all fools for believing us!

    (The reason why theories like QM and GR exist in the first place is because physicists do not do that, elas.)

    - Warren
  14. Apr 4, 2003 #13
    In that case please explain why Braithwaitte was able to demonstrate that gyroscopes defy the laws of gravity, why Hideo Hayasaka et al were able to demonstrate that a spinning cylinder in a vacuum falls slower than a non-spinning cylinder when according to QP they should fall at the same rate; or why the stars in the outer regions of galaxies are observered to be orbiting at between 5 and 6 times their escape velocity?.
    Physicist are no different from other human beings and like scientist in other sciences they tend to select that data which supports their case and ignore that data that does not. Only by looking at the ignored data can we expect to find the flaws and make the improvements necessary to achieve progress.
    The early experiments to check Einstein's relativity had to be doctored in order to meet the predicted result, there was no hesitation in doing the dirty work.
    'chroot' has a rather idealistic view of scientist that sadly does not stand up to close inspection.
  15. Apr 4, 2003 #14


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'll let someone else attack the validity of your assertions, I'd rather consider the logical continuation of your conclusions!

    There is a lot of prestige (and money!) to be had by toppling modern theories.

    If your assertion is true, then every physicist and their brother should be doctoring up the data to tear down the establishment?

    However, we see near total acceptance of modern theory... how can that be?

    Even with your hugely cynical viewpoint, you have to conclude that there is either really good reason to believe modern theory (say... because of the nearly 100% agreement with experimental evidence in its domain of application), or that it's really hard to invent convincing evidence that the modern theory is wrong (say... because of the nearly 100% agreement with experimental evidence in its domain of application).

    Beyond that, there's something called peer review. Sure, there's the possibility of scientists doctoring data to fit their hypotheses... but if your hypothesis can only be supported by doctored data, then you run into a slight problem when your buddies run the same experiment. You have to be REALLY talented to doctor up your data and doctor up everyone else's data who tries your experiment.

    Modern science is robust against your cynicism; there are checks and balances in place to prevent it from being corrupted, from the tremendous prestige from tearing down established theories to the extreme difficulty to get an erroneous theory into the establishment.

  16. Apr 4, 2003 #15


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You see, quantum physics (which is what I assume you mean by QP) says nothing about how fast cylinders fall. QM (as physicists would rather you call it) has nothing to do with gravity. It's obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about. Next time, at least attempt to research your own arguments. Bravo.

    - Warren
  17. Apr 4, 2003 #16
    Braithwaite of Imperial College, London presented his work at The Royal Institution Christmas Lectures in the mid 1970's. The "anti-gravity' claimed to be present in his experiments is also known to exist in household spin driers and is referred to as the fictitious force ,it is 10 times stronger than gravity.
    Hasyasaka's work was published in the journal 'Speculation in Science and Technology' 1989.
    The galactic gravity problem is well known and mentioned in most of the popular science books, and early stage textbooks.
    The universal expansion problem has recently been in the media as well as science journals and should be well known.
  18. Apr 4, 2003 #17


    User Avatar

    Well I have not checked yet how authoritative are the references Elan makes about falling cylinders, ultra fast orbiting stars and other, but you guys here are going way astray in the opposite direction.

    Peer-reviewing, Hurkyl, can be an extremely unsatisfactory tool: because of the secrecy involved in the whole mechanism, I have seen many peer reviewer being one of the authors of the article itself in more than one occasion. I have seen data adapted to mainstream theories or to expectation several times as well. Not everybody does it but I was always blamed for this idealistic position of mine. And by the way who is checking out there in particular when funding is involved?

    Warren/chroot I can bet your experimental activity is either limited or you have done little work to link it to coursework theory: you are idealizing science; you are also forgetting that new physics has been always discovered in little 'unimportant' unexplained phenomena such as black body radiation or photoelectric effect... By the way QM and gravity can be simply related in phase interferece experiments present in fundamental textbooks like Sakurai's.

    Please consider how would a new Galileo perform in the current academic arena. Is Aristotelian-style scientist a memory of the past? Well I would reconsider your scientific faith in the light of how easily would you recognize a new Galileo today in particular when its work could create funding problems to some big guy or infringe a classified technology.

    By the way have you guys seen many publications recently by freeelance researcher on important journals?

    Science is Business... to say the least!, Dario
  19. Apr 5, 2003 #18
    New Scientist dated 8 feb 2003 carries an interview with Joao Mageuijo, member of the Physics Group at Imperial College, London and of The Royal Society (just like Braithwaite). He is the author of "Faster than the speed of light".
    In reply to a question about peer review he said-

    "Peer review doesn't mean anything.The system has been disintergrating for years:you should see what passes for refereeing reports. It boils down to persal reactions to papers. Either referees know you and like you or they know you and dont like you, if they dont know you then it depends on which institute you are at. It has become really corrupt in this respect."

    and much more.

    My arguement is that the oppurtunity to make another leap forward has been around since 1983 when the publication of Electron Binding Energy Tables made it possible to discover the Elasticity of the Elements.This shows why it is impossible to create elements above No.92, but physicist have wasted billions of pounds trying to do just that without success.
    If that money had been spent developing the work of Braithwaite et al we would by now understand gravity and able to make artificial gravity fields (not anti-gravity machines). Such fields are seperate from the encompassing fields (of planets and stars) and therefore appear weightless within the encompassing field. It is all a question of high speed rotation creating a spiral structure (artificial gravity) out of the corpuscular quantum strucure of nature. Simple and efficient as demonstrated by more than one leading physicist all of whom have been confined to the scrap heap of history because their work did not 'fit in' with that of the establishment.
    Like Magueijo I think the establishments view on light is a load of crap and as they themselves admit, current theory does not explain the cause of events, a major flaw in our knowledge which should have been tackled long ago. I am placing my ideas on causes my web site. (see 'user cp' for details.
  20. Apr 6, 2003 #19


    User Avatar

    Joao personally is very bitter towards the scientific establishment. Maybe he has a right to be. But his personal emotional feelings towards the processes of science is not relevant as a judge of whether the mechanism is successful. I would say that one, no matter how flawed is better than none. Besides, if you read his objection fully, he objects to the dilution of the system by readers who are not willing to understand, who barely read at all. He would like to have a replacement system, perhaps using the internet instead.

    Would you say you can predict the future? Pure science has always been an undirected effort, based on the fickle ideas of individuals than some shady administration saying- thou shall study that! And scientific progress is scarcely reliable. You cannot say - if only we have studied that because you just don't know. I guess if newton studied Relativity we would be colonising Andromeda by now...

    I wouldn't say science is so grim today. Unlike what we had for so many centuries, we have a science that encourages (by means of Nobel prizes etc) people to think differently. We have no inquisition, only the demand for scientific, objective eividence. We have competing theories at last. We have a global interchange system where ideas can mix and share. We have a thriving, free scientific community larger than ever, exploring the wider range than before. What would Galileo have given to have the facilities we have?

    I think therefore it is does not apply to physics. You cannot say "I think it is a load of crap", and expect things to happen. We know all theories are almost certainly wrong. The impetus is to find a better one. Care to try?
  21. Apr 6, 2003 #20
    In the matter of gene reproduction was not the original paper ignored for twenty years until the writer himself was in a position to influence those who allocate the funds?
    Do you think the money spent on trying to create new elements was wisely spent?
    Twice we have had leading scientist demonstrate that gravity can be manipulated, their work was peer reviewed and published, how many demonstrations are necessary before you accept the value of there work?
    Finally, I do put forward my own ideas on a web site, its on the members list. So far no one has commented on my ideas on elasticity or my interpretation of the Fractional Quantum Hall Experiment or my proposals for the structure of sub-atomic particles, these are the three fundamentals on which I base the more speculative pages.
    Not on site at present (although it was on the last revision) is the case I presented for a fundamental universal wave structure. This is being revised and will be back on site soon.
    I do not have any quarel with current Quantum theory as such I simply feel we could add an explanation of thecauses amd simplify the existing explanations with a rigid application of the law of economy. That is to say that we could be a lot further on than we are at present.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?