Things to Reject in 21st Century Physics
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 11 Jul 2010 00:38 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jul 10, 4:32 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> > What has it successfully predicted or retrodicted without Ptolemaic >> > fudging? >> >> Top quark. > ----------------------- > > Never directly observed. What would it take for an observation of a sub-atomic particle to be 'direct' in your eyes, Robert? > > Only very indirectly INFERRED, using questionable assumptions. The 2008 Nobel prize in physics was to Kobayashi and Maskawa for the prediction of the top quark. I love it when armchair physicists slam work that has earned folks Nobel prizes.
From: Y.Porat on 11 Jul 2010 04:27 On Jul 9, 8:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 9, 12:07 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > > > > > Robert L. Oldershaw schrieb: > > > > On Jul 8, 5:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Thanks for this. > > > >> I do find your statement that hadrons are characterized by mass, > > >> charge, and spin to be a bit odd. If that were true, then there would > > >> be no support for the various selection rules and branching ratios for > > >> hadron interactions and decays. Moreover, this model seems to neglect > > >> the information available since the 1960's regarding deep inelastic > > >> scattering results, including all the tests of QCD at hadron > > >> accelerators since the late 1970s. > > > ---------------------------------- > > > > Right! > > > > We need to retain all the empirical HEP results of the last 50 years. > > > > Then throw away ALL of the theoretical HEP rubbish. > > > > Then completely redo theoretical HEP using the principles and new > > > dynamics of Discrete Scale Relativity. > > > > Yes, it is a big job, but it must be done sooner or later. > > > I would agree, but I'm not sure whether or not the basic principle > > should be your theory. But possibly something near to it. Anyhow, GR > > seems to be confirmed, so that should be merged into our understanding > > of the microcosm as well and from the beginning. > > Since QM is known to be incompatible with GR, it could be possible, that > > QM is not the right idea. > > I don't know that it is known that quantum mechanics is fundamentally > incompatible with GR. > > What is true is that there is no quantum mechanical theory of gravity > that works. ----------------- idiot parrot!! WHY IS IT SO LONG THAT 'THERE IS NO QUANTUM MECHANICS THEORY OF GRAVITY ""??? (while millons of scientists deal with it ?? during a whole century with all the robast technology that Engineers (:-) supply them ??) do you sometimes for a change -operate the *straw* in your parrots skull ?? or the straw you** eat** and **feed others* !!!?? dont you have the slightest shame or scruples or doubts - or hesitations !!?? Y.Porat --------------------------
From: PD on 11 Jul 2010 15:11 On Jul 11, 3:27 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 9, 8:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 12:07 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > > > > Robert L. Oldershaw schrieb: > > > > > On Jul 8, 5:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Thanks for this. > > > > >> I do find your statement that hadrons are characterized by mass, > > > >> charge, and spin to be a bit odd. If that were true, then there would > > > >> be no support for the various selection rules and branching ratios for > > > >> hadron interactions and decays. Moreover, this model seems to neglect > > > >> the information available since the 1960's regarding deep inelastic > > > >> scattering results, including all the tests of QCD at hadron > > > >> accelerators since the late 1970s. > > > > ---------------------------------- > > > > > Right! > > > > > We need to retain all the empirical HEP results of the last 50 years. > > > > > Then throw away ALL of the theoretical HEP rubbish. > > > > > Then completely redo theoretical HEP using the principles and new > > > > dynamics of Discrete Scale Relativity. > > > > > Yes, it is a big job, but it must be done sooner or later. > > > > I would agree, but I'm not sure whether or not the basic principle > > > should be your theory. But possibly something near to it. Anyhow, GR > > > seems to be confirmed, so that should be merged into our understanding > > > of the microcosm as well and from the beginning. > > > Since QM is known to be incompatible with GR, it could be possible, that > > > QM is not the right idea. > > > I don't know that it is known that quantum mechanics is fundamentally > > incompatible with GR. > > > What is true is that there is no quantum mechanical theory of gravity > > that works. > > ----------------- > idiot parrot!! > WHY IS IT SO LONG THAT > 'THERE IS NO QUANTUM MECHANICS THEORY OF GRAVITY ""??? > (while millons of scientists deal with it ?? Actually, the number of scientists working on quantum gravity is quite small, a community of a couple hundred. How long do you think it SHOULD take for a theory to be found? > during a whole century with all the robast technology that Engineers > (:-) supply them ??) > > do you sometimes for a change -operate the *straw* in your > parrots skull ?? > or the straw you** eat** and **feed others* !!!?? > dont you have the slightest shame or scruples > or doubts - or hesitations !!?? > > Y.Porat > --------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 11 Jul 2010 15:13 On Jul 10, 12:04 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jul 10, 11:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > I don't know why you think QED and QCD are untestable. > > ------------------------------------------ > > Well, take QCD. > > What has it successfully predicted or retrodicted without Ptolemaic > fudging? Quite a bit. The omega minus particle, the charmed quark, the Z->dijet/Z->ee ratio, and so forth and so on. I've suggested that you do a simple literature search on experimental tests of QCD, and I've listed more than a handful myself. Why are you incapable of following up on that? > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: PD on 11 Jul 2010 15:16
On Jul 10, 9:59 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jul 10, 4:32 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > What has it successfully predicted or retrodicted without Ptolemaic > > > fudging? > > > Top quark. > > ----------------------- > > Never directly observed. > > Only very indirectly INFERRED, using questionable assumptions. Lots of particles are inferred from decay products, mass resonances, constrained quantum numbers. No one has held a neutral pion, for example, but its existence is very firmly established. I don't know what you think is questionable, or what you think constitutes solid evidence for a particle. |