Things to Reject in 21st Century Physics
in [Relativity]
|
From: Thomas Heger on 9 Jul 2010 14:50 Sam Wormley schrieb: > On 7/9/10 12:13 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: >> I think General Relativity is the starting point for any realistic >> unification. >> > > Why do you think this? What's your reasoning? > > Well, what does 'confirmed' mean? Possibly an anchor point to start from. Not really the whole story, but a good point to start. TH
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 10 Jul 2010 01:05 On Jul 9, 1:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > You have an alternate figure of merit, apparently. To you, a theory > has to be judged FIRST by whether it adopts or adheres to certain > paradigms that you feel are conceptually necessary and indispensable. ------------------------------------------ No. I think that first and foremost a theory must be able to make testable predictions and pass them. Putting in 30 adjustable parameters by hand is not acceptable. Hiding the non-existence of quarks behind the invisibility cloak of "confinement" is the standard Ptolemaic dodge of "saving the phenomenon". It is not acceptable. I want to go back to the time and prediction tested traditional scientific method. I eschew the postmodern untestable pseudoscience. You? RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 10 Jul 2010 01:07 On Jul 9, 2:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > And you'd like to compare this against the hundreds of experimental > tests of QCD? -------------------------------- Tell me what the 3 most important successful test of QCD were.
From: eric gisse on 10 Jul 2010 01:47 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jul 9, 1:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> You have an alternate figure of merit, apparently. To you, a theory >> has to be judged FIRST by whether it adopts or adheres to certain >> paradigms that you feel are conceptually necessary and indispensable. > ------------------------------------------ > > No. > > I think that first and foremost a theory must be able to make testable > predictions and pass them. You mean like how you predict the wrong answers for hadron masses by a solid 50 to 500 standard deviation window? > > Putting in 30 adjustable parameters by hand is not acceptable. But that's exactly what you are doing. Besides, the speed of light, mass of the electron, etc are not 'adjustable parameters'. Could you break down the list of truly adjustable parameters in the standard model? You seem to think you are an expert on the subject, so I'd like to see it. Or a reference you deem acceptable. > > Hiding the non-existence of quarks behind the invisibility cloak of > "confinement" is the standard Ptolemaic dodge of "saving the > phenomenon". It is not acceptable. Except quarks are observed. Perhaps you meant free quarks? The standard model doesn't predict free quarks, and curiously enough free quarks are not observed. > > I want to go back to the time and prediction tested traditional > scientific method. I eschew the postmodern untestable pseudoscience. What time would that be, Robert? > > You? > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: PD on 10 Jul 2010 11:42
On Jul 10, 12:05 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jul 9, 1:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > You have an alternate figure of merit, apparently. To you, a theory > > has to be judged FIRST by whether it adopts or adheres to certain > > paradigms that you feel are conceptually necessary and indispensable. > > ------------------------------------------ > > No. > > I think that first and foremost a theory must be able to make testable > predictions and pass them. > > Putting in 30 adjustable parameters by hand is not acceptable. This is overstating the situation. There are this many parameters in the entire collection of the Standard Model, but that encompasses AT LEAST three different interactions. > > Hiding the non-existence of quarks behind the invisibility cloak of > "confinement" is the standard Ptolemaic dodge of "saving the > phenomenon". It is not acceptable. They're not invisible at all. They show up as clear as day in deep inelastic scattering. Just because one cannot be ISOLATED does not mean that they cannot be detected. > > I want to go back to the time and prediction tested traditional > scientific method. I eschew the postmodern untestable pseudoscience. I don't know why you think QED and QCD are untestable. > > You? > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |