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: Bill Miller on 1 Jun 2010 14:08 "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote in message news:htp94q129b2(a)news1.newsguy.com... > Nearly 100 years elapsed between the Navier-Stokes Equations and the > Wright Flyer, and nearly 200 before there was enough computing power > available to solve them for complex flowfields, so I guess that science > "spun its wheels" for most of that time. > > Everything doesn't have immediate, instantaneous practical application, > and the stuff that brings about the major changes generally takes a long > time to assimilate. I'm "lumping" J Clarke's comments together with PD's since they both seem to have a similar theme: It took the classicists decades or centuries to go from basic discoveries to doing something useful. Therefore we should not be in the least bit disturbed if -- in the modern day -- it *also* takes decades with very little to show for it. C'mon folks! During "classical" times, you could count on the fingers of your hand the number of folks that were working on (or could even understand!) many of the issues that we now acknowledge as "basic science." It is only natural that it took decades or centuries.to go from basic concepts to useful products. Ever since the 1930s, there have been thousands (Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands?) of researchers that have been collectively working on the remainder of the EM and gavitational issues. The result Should Have Been a complete set of solutions that precisely describe the electrons, protons, neutrons and whatever additional bits and pieces go to make up our world. We should have closed form solutions for all of this. We should have explanations for the strong and weak forces. We should completely uinderstand the relationships between EM and Gravitation. We have none of the above. I'm reminded of the old joke. A cop finds a drunk on hands and knees feverishly searching the ground under a streetlamp. He asks the drunk what he's doing. The drunk replies that he's looking for his lost watch. "Where," asks the cop, "did you lose it?" "Over there." The drunk points to a dark alley. "Why aren't you looking for it over there? asked the cop. "The light's bettter here," the drunk explained. Substiute "physicist" for "drunk." Physicists are looking under the quantum streetlamp. That's not where the lost watch is to be found. All the best, Bill Miller
From: Androcles on 1 Jun 2010 14:22 "Bill Miller" <kt4ye(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:86l0e8FgpoU1(a)mid.individual.net... | | "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote in message | news:htp94q129b2(a)news1.newsguy.com... | > Nearly 100 years elapsed between the Navier-Stokes Equations and the | > Wright Flyer, and nearly 200 before there was enough computing power | > available to solve them for complex flowfields, so I guess that science | > "spun its wheels" for most of that time. | > | > Everything doesn't have immediate, instantaneous practical application, | > and the stuff that brings about the major changes generally takes a long | > time to assimilate. | | I'm "lumping" J Clarke's comments together with PD's since they both seem to | have a similar theme: | | It took the classicists decades or centuries to go from basic discoveries to | doing something useful. Therefore we should not be in the least bit | disturbed if -- in the modern day -- it *also* takes decades with very | little to show for it. | | C'mon folks! During "classical" times, you could count on the fingers of | your hand the number of folks that were working on (or could even | understand!) many of the issues that we now acknowledge as "basic science." | | It is only natural that it took decades or centuries.to go from basic | concepts to useful products. | | Ever since the 1930s, there have been thousands (Tens of thousands? Hundreds | of thousands?) of researchers that have been collectively working on the | remainder of the EM and gavitational issues. The result Should Have Been a | complete set of solutions that precisely describe the electrons, protons, | neutrons and whatever additional bits and pieces go to make up our world. We | should have closed form solutions for all of this. We should have | explanations for the strong and weak forces. We should completely | uinderstand the relationships between EM and Gravitation. | | We have none of the above. | | I'm reminded of the old joke. A cop finds a drunk on hands and knees | feverishly searching the ground under a streetlamp. He asks the drunk what | he's doing. The drunk replies that he's looking for his lost watch. | "Where," asks the cop, "did you lose it?" | "Over there." The drunk points to a dark alley. | "Why aren't you looking for it over there? asked the cop. | "The light's bettter here," the drunk explained. | | Substiute "physicist" for "drunk." | | Physicists are looking under the quantum streetlamp. That's not where the | lost watch is to be found. | | All the best, | | Bill Miller | It's only natural for unthinking sheep to follow the leader. 'Some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion in their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of their having received it from some person who has their entire confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever to get it out of their heads.'- Galileo Galilei
From: Bill Miller on 1 Jun 2010 15:07 "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:5591eae8-4b27-44df-a385-078d51fc6220(a)k31g2000vbu.googlegroups.com... On Jun 1, 11:48 am, "Bill Miller" <kt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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. We agree here. But when we attempt to apply QM/QED calculations to real life, we find numerous instances where the calculations "blow up" or the results are nonsensical. > > 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". Here are a couple of thoughts to help you: ""Scattering of Light by Free Electrons as a Test of Quantum Theory": "Is Quantum Theory a System of Epicycles? Today, Quantum Mechanics (QM) and Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) have great pragmatic success -- small wonder, since they were created, like epicycles, by empirical trial-and-error guided by just that requirement. "For example, when we advanced from the hydrogen atom to the helium atom, no theoretical principle told us whether we should represent the two electrons by two wave functions in ordinary 3-d space, or one wave function in a 6-d configuration space; only trial-and-error showed which choice leads to the right answers. Then to account for the effects now called 'electron spin', no theoretical principle told Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck how this should be incorporated into the mathematics. The expedient that finally gave the right answers depended on Pauli's knowing about the two-valued representations of the rotation group, discovered by Cartan in 1913." If this isn't enough to make the point in a chat session, I suspect I could find a few more. It seems that Jaynes views QM and QED in much the same way that Galileo understood epicycles: Emperically built. Mostly gives correct results. Dead wrong. 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. Yes. Well... Newtonian celestial mechanics, Relativity, and Mendelian genetics (mentioned earlier) are physical theories, because their mathematics was developed by reasoning out the consequences of clearly stated physical principles which constrained the possibilities. QM/QED concepts simply do not fit this definition. Also, please look at Jefimenko's "Gravitation and Cogravitation" for an example of how one can build on an established (Newton's gravity) concept and fill in the blanks based on reasoning rather than curve fitting. All the best, Bill Miller
From: Bill Miller on 1 Jun 2010 15:08 "Y" <yanarchi(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:e7e91853-2f42-425e-930d-a309b1dbbc85(a)k17g2000pro.googlegroups.com... 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. #Blush# Bill
From: Androcles on 1 Jun 2010 15:22
"Bill Miller" <kt4ye(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:86l3vfF7cnU1(a)mid.individual.net... | | "Y" <yanarchi(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message | news:e7e91853-2f42-425e-930d-a309b1dbbc85(a)k17g2000pro.googlegroups.com... | 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. | | #Blush# | | Bill What does he mean, half a century? It's been 228 years since an 18-year-old kid with a wooden telescope decided Algol was a double star and everyone nodded and patted him on the back. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm Always jump at the first explanation, no matter how ridiculous. |