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

What's wrong with this?

  1. May 23, 2007 #1
    hi. have you ever known that someone's ideas or theories were wrong but have a hard time figuring out exactly what was wrong with them? i've run across a lot of bad sites about special relativity and General relativity. it was usually pretty obvious when there were crackpots writing them.
    well i've come across, http://www.calphysics.org
    specifically, http://www.calphysics.org/articles/gravity_arxiv.pdf

    i have absolutely no idea what they are talking about? are these people legit?
    can someone just glance at this article and can make out what they are trying to do, but more importantly, does their idea work, mathematically, at least?

    thank you
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 23, 2007 #2

    Wallace

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I don't see anything to wrong about it. It is speculative research that goes beyond established canon, but that's the point of research. As far as I can see they seem 'legit' if you want to phrase it in such terms.
     
  4. May 23, 2007 #3

    Mentz114

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    They aren't crackpots for sure, but some way off the beaten track. It will be interesting to see what the PF heavyweights think.
     
  5. May 24, 2007 #4

    pervect

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    The good news: Haisch, Puthoff, and Rueda have actually been published in respected peer reviewed journals, including Phs. Rev. A.

    The bad news: their theories don't have much (if anything) in the way of experimental support, nor are they particularly well received by the mainstream.
     
  6. May 24, 2007 #5

    Mentz114

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Thanks, Pervect. I should have recognised Puthoff, apparently he was involved in paranormal research, which is enough to put me off.
     
  7. May 24, 2007 #6

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    How does their quantum vacuum inertia hypothesis explain the geodetic and frame dragging precessions being measured by Gravity Probe B?

    Garth
     
  8. May 24, 2007 #7
    Puthoff is a quack. Search his name on Randi.org. Anything connected to Puthoff is almost certainly quackery.
     
  9. May 24, 2007 #8

    Wallace

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Is everyone either a qauck/crank or legit? Is it a simple binary classification? I think this is a false dichotomy.

    For example, without intending any offense, I'm sure there are folk over at cosmo coffee that would assume on the basis on Garth's posts that he is a crank. This would be an unreasonable assumption, but one that may be made if we want to divide everyone into cranks or 'legit' researchers on the basis of a few opinions about mainstream models.

    In this case under discussion, this research is clearly very speculative but if they are channeling it through journals rather than merely promoting it on the web then it must conform to a reasonable standard in the process, even if it turns out to be wrong.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: What's wrong with this?
Loading...