Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights
From: Ste on 18 Feb 2010 12:04
On 18 Feb, 14:47, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 8:03 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I simply disagree. Physicists *do* call "string theory" a theory.
>
> Not to each other, generally.

I simply don't accept this Paul. I've read enough academic and
scientific papers to know how the word is used. Indeed, a quick search
on Arxiv has turned up many uses of the phrase "string theory" within
the headline results.



> To laypeople, sure, because they're
> using the *conventional* and loose meaning of that word, which I
> believe is what you were *asking* physicists to do, and as a result
> there is confusion about the term, which is exactly what you buy into
> when conventional language is used.

I don't believe I did ask physicists to do any such thing. I said
experts should be ready to identify and acknowledge their specialised
meanings, such as in the case of "rotation into time". I didn't say
they couldn't use those words.



> > > > and
> > > > indeed you don't commit yourself any stronger than talking of the
> > > > "generally accepted definition". And yet, as I say, this convention is
> > > > regularly flouted, and it just becomes ludicrous to justify it in
> > > > terms of "well they are a minority", "that was a popularisation", etc.
>
> > > On the contrary, I just got through explaining to you that scientists
> > > DO use conventional language in popularizations, with full risk that
> > > it may introduce verbal ambiguity and lead to misconceptions, because
> > > the aim of popularization is not to teach but to inspire readers to
> > > read more carefully prepared materials suitable for teaching.
>
> > Rubbish. Words mean what people understand them to mean
>
> Not entirely. Words mean what people INTEND them to mean, as well.
> When there is synchronization between what people understand them to
> mean and what people intend them to mean, then there is solid
> communication. And when there is not, it is not.

Yes, I concede you are correct.

What I was getting at is that the definition of a word is the
generally employed meaning of the word (with regards to the context,
of course). People can use words outside of their generally accepted
definition, and thereby intend a meaning that is different from the
meaning actually conveyed. But that is besides the point here.

The point I'm making is that "theory" does not have a consistent
specialised meaning even *within* physics.



> > - the idea
> > that physicists "speak a different language at work", or go into some
> > sort of mode of "serious discussion" where they use only the special
> > meanings, is just ludicrous.
>
> I'm sorry, but it's true. There is a distinct difference in the
> language used in professional literature intended for intra-field
> communication and the the language used in popularizations.

I simply don't accept this.




> > > > Broadly I agree that words should be used within their correct
> > > > definitions, and this is one situation where a correction would be in
> > > > order.
>
> > > > But there is no argument that words, like "theory", should be given an
> > > > unwarranted narrower definition than their legitimate everyday
> > > > meaning, simply because one is talking to a specialist - unless, of
> > > > course, it is expressly stipulated that the narrower definition will
> > > > be used for the time being for the sake of necessary accuracy.
>
> > > I disagree. In a teaching environment, that is EXACTLY the stipulation
> > > that is made, over and over again as the terms come up in the course
> > > of study. "Momentum", "velocity", "energy", "heat", "field",
> > > "potential", "mass" are all examples of terms that are very carefully
> > > segregated from conventional usage in the context of physics.
>
> > But the point is that, within physics, words like velocity *are* used
> > very consistently in their specialised meaning, and they have a very
> > rigorous definition.
>
> Yes, although that definition is not understood by the "ordinary man",
> who would readily make the mistake of thinking that something that is
> going at a constant 20 mph has a constant velocity. Hence a mismatch.

I agree, but in this case the ordinary man must give way to the
specialised meaning, because it *does* have an accurate specialised
definition and is used consistently by experts. Not so for the word
"theory".



> > "Theory" is completely the opposite - it is
> > consistently used as loosely as the everyday meaning even amongst
> > professionals, and it's alleged specialised meaning is very ill-
> > defined.
>
> I disagree. You may not be familiar with the definition, or you may
> choose to believe that if the definition exists, it is not used in
> connotation.

I recognise a specialised definition where there is a distinction
between a mere "hypothesis", which implies that it is speculative and
to a certain extent off-the-cuff, and a "theory" which is more
substantive and systematic. The dividing line between them is blurred
and basically a matter of judgment. This is contrary to the everyday
meaning, where "hypothesis" to a certain extent may be considered
synonymous with "theory", and both may imply a high degree of
speculation and uncertainty.

Beyond that, I don't recognise any consistent specialised meaning to
the word "theory". It certainly is not used at all consistently in the
sense of "a falsifiable, quantatively-predictive theory that has
empirical evidence in its support and wide acceptance amongst the
mainstream scientific community", which I think basically sums up what
you've previously argued the word to mean.
From: Ste on 18 Feb 2010 12:13
On 18 Feb, 15:22, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> I don't hold that alternate dimensions are a real possibility, so of
> course I don't accept that theories that employ them are credible.
>
> ____________________________
>
> Well, firstly that is because you have no real idea of what a dimension is
> in physics.
>
> Also, you are not used to the mathematical representation of surfaces of
> different dimensions being equivalent to equations, so you don't easily
> "see" how dimensions pop out of Special Relativity as rotations - lets be
> frank here, your knowledge of rotation matrices is pretty slim I'm guessing.
> So you can't "see" whats going on because you are not sufficiently
> mathematically sophisticated.
>
> Secondly, SR does not postulate any additional dimensions - just the four
> normal one of three in space and on in time that probably even you have
> noticed, its just that you think you have an orthogonal view; you don't,
> your view is tilted by the speed you are going ... a fact quite easily
> demonstrated by SR and proved a thousand times a day.

I didn't say SR postulated any additional dimensions.



> If you are having trouble understanding the concepts of different
> dimensions, read Flatland by Edwin Abbott. You will be relieved to hear that
> it contains almost no mathematics in the sense you probably understand it,
> but a great deal in a sense you don't.

I laugh that you take your inspirations and arguments from a novel, a
pure work of fiction.
From: mpalenik on 18 Feb 2010 12:14
On Feb 16, 6:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The rest length of the rod is unchanged. Since this rest length is the
> length measured in only one frame (the rest frame), I'm reticent to
> call it an intrinsic property.

I just saw this post for the first time, quoted in someone else's
response. I actually disagree here, since the rest length of the rod
is the magnitude of a 4-vector. What that tells us is that we can
construct the rest length out of frame dependent measurements. It's
true that it's only measured as length in one frame but it can be
built up out of measurements that we take in another frame, which is
equivalent to accounting for the differences in simultaneity between
the two frames when we make our measurements. It's certainly an
invariant property, and it's specific to the rod, so I don't see why
it shouldn't be called intrinsic.
From: mpalenik on 18 Feb 2010 12:20
On Feb 18, 12:13 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 18 Feb, 15:22, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I don't hold that alternate dimensions are a real possibility, so of
> > course I don't accept that theories that employ them are credible.
>
> > ____________________________
>
> > Well, firstly that is because you have no real idea of what a dimension is
> > in physics.
>
> > Also, you are not used to the mathematical representation of surfaces of
> > different dimensions being equivalent to equations, so you don't easily
> > "see" how dimensions pop out of Special Relativity as rotations - lets be
> > frank here, your knowledge of rotation matrices is pretty slim I'm guessing.
> > So you can't "see" whats going on because you are not sufficiently
> > mathematically sophisticated.
>
> > Secondly, SR does not postulate any additional dimensions - just the four
> > normal one of three in space and on in time that probably even you have
> > noticed, its just that you think you have an orthogonal view; you don't,
> > your view is tilted by the speed you are going ... a fact quite easily
> > demonstrated by SR and proved a thousand times a day.
>
> I didn't say SR postulated any additional dimensions.
>
> > If you are having trouble understanding the concepts of different
> > dimensions, read Flatland by Edwin Abbott. You will be relieved to hear that
> > it contains almost no mathematics in the sense you probably understand it,
> > but a great deal in a sense you don't.
>
> I laugh that you take your inspirations and arguments from a novel, a
> pure work of fiction.

Physicists don't talk to other physicists about the book flatland
(unless it's for fun?) but it's something that we think maybe non-
physicists can relate to and which they might already have a
visualization for.

If he were talking to another physicist, he'd tell him to visualize a
spacetime cross-section with one axis representing t and the other two
representing x and y, or something like that, and the other physicist
would recognize what that physically represents.

Since we're dealing with someone hear who clearly *doesn't* understand
what that physically represents, it's useful to try to get him to
picture something in which he might have already visualized a 3
dimensional object interacting with a 2 dimensional world.

The 3 dimensional object interacting with a 2 dimensional world, to
another physicist, would be understood as a cross-section of a 4
dimensional object interacting with a 3 dimensional world. But since
you clearly don't understand what that means, to simplify, we write in
terms of a popular novel.
From: mpc755 on 18 Feb 2010 12:22
On Feb 18, 12:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 11:56 am, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 11:51 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 18, 11:47 am, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 18, 11:43 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 18, 9:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 17, 7:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 17, 12:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Feb 16, 6:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 16, 10:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Did you notice the poster you're responding to refuses to answer my
> > > > > > > > > > > question as to the validity of your 'understanding' of the behaviors
> > > > > > > > > > > in a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule is due to the future
> > > > > > > > > > > determining the past?
>
> > > > > > > > > > And you take his refusal to answer you to be assent to your claim that
> > > > > > > > > > it's absurd?
>
> > > > > > > > > Yes.
>
> > > > > > > > Good for you. You're a nutjob. Enjoy your medications.
>
> > > > > > > Of course the posters refusal to answer the question shows they think
> > > > > > > your notion of the C-60 molecule entering one or multiple slits
> > > > > > > depending upon detectors being placed at the exits or not in the
> > > > > > > future is absurd.
>
> > > > > > So if people ignore you, then they are agreeing with you?
> > > > > > Why don't you ask the poster directly, and not make any conclusion
> > > > > > until you have an answer?
> > > > > > Or do you make up answers in the absence of evidence? Why yes, yes you
> > > > > > do.
>
> > > > > > > Why wouldn't the poster simply respond with a 'yes' if they agreed
> > > > > > > with your absurd nonsense? The poster's non-answer demonstrates they
> > > > > > > suffer from delusional denial just like you do.
>
> > > > > > So a non-answer means "no"?
>
> > > > > > Nice. So if nobody responds to you at all, you'll take that as
> > > > > > implicit agreement with everything you say?
>
> > > > > > Have you had a change in medication lately?
>
> > > > > The other posters says they are ignoring my posts when it comes to
> > > > > their having to respond to the future determining the past being the
> > > > > reason for the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment with
> > > > > C-60 molecule and then the poster asks a question as to the speed of
> > > > > light with respect to objects moving with respect to the aether.
>
> > > > > Either the poster has a short term memory loss issue or the poster
> > > > > knows the future does not determine the past.
>
> > > > > > > A C-60 molecule is a particle of matter and has an associated aether
> > > > > > > displacement wave. The displacement wave enters and exits the
> > > > > > > available slits and creates interference when exiting the slits. The
> > > > > > > interference alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detectors
> > > > > > > at the exits to the slits causes decoherence of the associated
> > > > > > > displacement wave (the waves are turned into chop) and there is no
> > > > > > > interference.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > I guess the poster realizes it is absurd nonsense also.
>
> > > > > > > > > > On what basis would he realize that? You don't have a basis either.
> > > > > > > > > > You just make the empty assertion that it's "absurd, absurd, absurd,
> > > > > > > > > > just absurd nonsense". Empty assertion.
>
> > > > > > > > > If the poster agreed with you that the future determines the past why
> > > > > > > > > didn't he just respond stating so? The posters silence is deafening.
>
> > > > mpc755, I do not agree with anything you have said on this newsgroup
> > > > ever about any subject.  Based on your posts, however, I don't believe
> > > > it's possible to have a rational discussion with you, so I am not
> > > > going to.  Do not take that as a sign of my implicit agreement with
> > > > what you say.
>
> > > I'm not asking you to agree with anything I have said. But the fact
> > > that you are unwilling to say that, yes, you believe the C-60 molecule
> > > enters one slit or multiple slits depending upon their being detectors
> > > at the exits to the slits, or not, when the C-60 molecule gets there
> > > in the future speaks volumes in terms of the absurdity to which you
> > > think that is.
>
> > > You silence is deafening.
>
> > I understand quantum mechanics, PD understands quantum mechanics, you
> > clearly do not understand quantum mechanics.  And it's pointless
> > trying to discuss it in this ambiguous popular science-lingo.  I also
> > don't believe that you would properly understand any response I could
> > give you.
>
> > The presence of a detector will determine whether or not there is an
> > interference pattern.  This is due to how the wave function collapses
> > as it passes through the slits.  This determines whether the particle
> > passes through one slit or both.  There are no "aether-displacement
> > waves".  This is all I'm saying on the subject.  I'm not going to get
> > sucked into a pointless discussion.
>
> The fact that you will not answer the question speaks volumes.
>
> I asked you how it is the C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a
> single slit and how it is the C-60 molecule is able to create an
> interference pattern on the screen when the detectors are removed from
> the exits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s).
>
> Obfuscation, denial, delusion. In other words, more of the same from
> the Copenhageners.
>
> The question is very simple. The other poster believes the C-60
> molecule enters one slit or multiple slits depending on their being
> detectors at the exits, or not, in the future.
>
> Do you agree with this?
>
> Instead of posting the absurd nonsense above you could have simply
> responded with a 'yes' or 'no'.
>
> Of course that is all you are willing to say on the subject because
> you know the future does not determine the past and to think such is
> absurd nonsense.

You said, "This is due to how the wave function collapses as it passes
through the slits".

Is the 'wave-function' physically passing through one slit or multiple
slits or is the wave-function not physical and what occurs in a double
slit experiment is magic?

You do understand there is a physical C-60 molecule, a particle of
matter, traveling towards the slits, correct? And you understand there
is a physical C-60 molecule detected, correct? I am asking you what is
physically occurring during the time the C-60 molecule is interacting
with the slits. Now, if you want to use 'wave-function' drivel go
right ahead. But is the 'wave-function' physically propagating through
one slit or multiple slits?

Of course, you can't answer this because 'wave-function' has nothing
to do with what is occurring physically in nature. It is a
mathematical construct made up by those who do not understand what is
physically occurring in nature.

At least the other poster had the guts to say the 'wave-function'
physically enters one slit if there will be detectors at the exits to
the slits when 'it' gets there in the future and the 'wave-function'
enters the available slits if there are not detectors at the exits to
the slits when 'it' gets there in the future.

You won't even do this and hide behind 'wave-function collapse' like
it is some type of magic wand.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68
Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights