It's official! I'm a crackpot!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: 3D shapes of the Prime Number Sums - 3D_solids.JPG (0/1)
Next: Quantum Gravity 395.3: 2-Time Memory Generalization of Riccati Differential Equations
From: Y on 30 May 2010 12:43 On May 29, 12:32 am, "Bill Miller" <kt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > "Benj" <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote in message > > news:57e8c99b-8351-446f-8c6f-841dbd82981c(a)e2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > > I'm sure this will come as no surprise to any of the regulars here, > > but I just thought that you needed to know that now I'm "officially" a > > crackpot! There's nothing like having REAL "credentials" to prove > > your competence. I mean that's what college degrees are all about, no? > > Benj... Congratulations! > > And cheer up. > > If you had criticized the high-priest of Quetzelraincoatl (the Toltec god of > feathered rainwear) your chastisement would have included a quick bout of > open-heart surgery followed by a tumble down the stairs that would have made > the special effects director for Gone With The Wind weep with despair. > > Or, if you had criticized papal authority in 15th Century Spain, you would > have been invited to imbibe a liquid lead flagon in a farewell toast to your > beliefs. > > Of course, we live in a more enlightened age wherein cricism of the high > priests -- Ummm... Professors -- of physics simply banish heretical > accolytes from their presence. > > An associate of mine made the following comments regarding the current state > of physics: > > "1. Quantum gravity has been an active area of study for about 60 years. > That 60 years and a buck will get you a cup of coffee. > > 2. Quantum computing dates back to the 1970s and with a huge effort, the > number of useful products is zero. > > 3. Quantum entanglement has been around since about 1935; the number of > useful products is zero. Let's see, that is 75 years. > > 4. The Many Worlds concept has been around for about 40 years. The number of > useful products is zero. > > 5. The string theory concept has been around for about 40 years. The number > of useful products is zero." > > There are other examples, but this should be sufficient to show that physics > has been mostly spinning its wheels for a half-century. > > There's an old saying regarding problem solving: "If you find yourself in a > hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging." > > Perhaps it might be useful to go back to the point where things came unstuck > and re-examine the problem. Is it possible that the double slit experiment > that led us into wave-particle duality, entanglement, a moon that doesn't > exist until we look at it, and infinities that we must "normalize away" > *might* have some sensible alternative explanations? > > Or should we just keep digging? > > Bill (un-official crackpot) Miller great post, best i've read in this forum. cheers.
From: Y on 30 May 2010 12:45 On May 29, 12:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 28, 9:32 am, "Bill Miller" <kt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > "Benj" <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote in message > > >news:57e8c99b-8351-446f-8c6f-841dbd82981c(a)e2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > > > I'm sure this will come as no surprise to any of the regulars here, > > > but I just thought that you needed to know that now I'm "officially" a > > > crackpot! There's nothing like having REAL "credentials" to prove > > > your competence. I mean that's what college degrees are all about, no? > > > Benj... Congratulations! > > > And cheer up. > > > If you had criticized the high-priest of Quetzelraincoatl (the Toltec god of > > feathered rainwear) your chastisement would have included a quick bout of > > open-heart surgery followed by a tumble down the stairs that would have made > > the special effects director for Gone With The Wind weep with despair. > > > Or, if you had criticized papal authority in 15th Century Spain, you would > > have been invited to imbibe a liquid lead flagon in a farewell toast to your > > beliefs. > > > Of course, we live in a more enlightened age wherein cricism of the high > > priests -- Ummm... Professors -- of physics simply banish heretical > > accolytes from their presence. > > > An associate of mine made the following comments regarding the current state > > of physics: > > > "1. Quantum gravity has been an active area of study for about 60 years.. > > That 60 years and a buck will get you a cup of coffee. > > > 2. Quantum computing dates back to the 1970s and with a huge effort, the > > number of useful products is zero. > > > 3. Quantum entanglement has been around since about 1935; the number of > > useful products is zero. Let's see, that is 75 years. > > > 4. The Many Worlds concept has been around for about 40 years. The number of > > useful products is zero. > > > 5. The string theory concept has been around for about 40 years. The number > > of useful products is zero." > > > There are other examples, but this should be sufficient to show that physics > > has been mostly spinning its wheels for a half-century. > > Hmmm. Mendelian genetics has been around since 1863. The work was > completely ignored for 50 years, and it didn't have any impact on > everyday life for a hundred years. > Newton's universal law of gravity has been around since 1687. The > first notable new prediction it made was the discovery of Neptune in > 1846. The first practical implication of it was the launching of > artificial satellites in the 1950s. > > You seem to believe that the metric for the value of science is how > fast it can generate consumer devices. > > There is a difference between R & D, and there is a good reason for > both. Research is done without necessarily keeping an eye on practical > development. Development is taking the result of research and > developing it into practical applications. > > I understand that you value D and not R, and you would rather see all > investment removed from R and moved to D. I think most people who are > active in either side of R&D would disagree with you. > > > > > There's an old saying regarding problem solving: "If you find yourself in a > > hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging." > > > Perhaps it might be useful to go back to the point where things came unstuck > > and re-examine the problem. Is it possible that the double slit experiment > > that led us into wave-particle duality, entanglement, a moon that doesn't > > exist until we look at it, and infinities that we must "normalize away" > > *might* have some sensible alternative explanations? > > > Or should we just keep digging? > > > Bill (un-official crackpot) Miller nice reply. not sure what use, multiple world theories could ever have (appart from art), but nice reply.
From: Benj on 1 Jun 2010 01:54 On May 30, 10:28 am, "HVAC" <mr.h...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > There's many more kooks where you came from....... But none with the quality of kookosity that I represent! > PS- Hey BJ... Do you believe in ghosts? Hey, ACDC, what does "believe" have to do with science? Those like you who base their "science" on what you "believe" really aren't going to get very far. Now if you wanted to ask what EVIDENCE there was suggesting ghosts that is a different question. Obviously, the apparent properties of ghosts are related to a possible existence of more dimensions than the physical 3. Hence while ghosts and hyper-dimensionality are two seemingly different questions, the two are intimately related. I'm sure anything that involves intimacy will interest you...
From: Bill Miller on 1 Jun 2010 12:48 "Timo Nieminen" <timo(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:e2a8b2d8-8894-477c-be9e-b54eac29ba09(a)z15g2000prh.googlegroups.com... On May 29, 12:32 am, "Bill Miller" <kt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > An associate of mine made the following comments regarding the current > state > of physics: > > "1. Quantum gravity has been an active area of study for about 60 years. > That 60 years and a buck will get you a cup of coffee. > > 2. Quantum computing dates back to the 1970s and with a huge effort, the > number of useful products is zero. > > 3. Quantum entanglement has been around since about 1935; the number of > useful products is zero. Let's see, that is 75 years. > > 4. The Many Worlds concept has been around for about 40 years. The number > of > useful products is zero. > > 5. The string theory concept has been around for about 40 years. The > number > of useful products is zero." > > There are other examples, but this should be sufficient to show that > physics > has been mostly spinning its wheels for a half-century. This might not be true for 2 and 3. It's true that it hasn't gone usefully commercial, but quantum computers have been built. Application-oriented proof-of-principle tests have been done for both quantum computing and entanglement in communication. The funding in these fields is there because the funders smell real results. But these are certainly not sufficient examples to show that physics has been mostly spinning its wheels for a half-century. Example 4 isn't even science, and it can be argued that 5 isn't physics, so this list says very little about physics. The biggest part of physics is solid-state/condensed matter/materials physics, with a very strong experimental part, with plenty of useful products, commercial products, useful results, etc. Optics and photonics (the laser just turned 50!) and biophysics as they are now are have grown or re-grown almost entirely within that last half-century of supposedly spinning wheels. Thoughtful comments all, Timo. But your exposition also contains an explanation for the progress that we *have* made. You said, in part, ..."The biggest part of physics is solid-state/condensed matter/materials physics, *with a very strong experimental part, * (Emphasis Mine) with plenty of useful products, commercial products, useful results, etc." I agree completely. How much further ahead would we be if, instead of having to derive products based on *experiments,* we could do so on the basis of *calculations?* That's especially true if the calculations are based on well-understood principles rather than on equations derived from "curve fitting." All the best, Bill Miller
From: PD on 1 Jun 2010 13:25
On Jun 1, 11:48 am, "Bill Miller" <kt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Thoughtful comments all, Timo. But your exposition also contains an > explanation for the progress that we *have* made. You said, in part, ..."The > biggest part of physics is > solid-state/condensed matter/materials physics, > > *with a very strong experimental part, * (Emphasis Mine) > > with plenty of useful products, commercial > products, useful results, etc." > > I agree completely. > > How much further ahead would we be if, instead of having to derive products > based on *experiments,* we could do so on the basis of *calculations?* They typically are. But first you have to verify that the calculations are reliable, and this is where experiments come in. > > That's especially true if the calculations are based on well-understood > principles rather than on equations derived from "curve fitting." First of all, I'm not sure what kinds of things you think come from "curve fitting". Secondly, it depends on what you mean by "well-understood principles". For example, it is known already that the well-understood principle of Newtonian mechanics does not work in all cases, and in those cases, other principles have to be applied. Same goes for electronics. Same goes for a lot of things. > > All the best, > > Bill Miller |