Things to Reject in 21st Century Physics
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 11 Jul 2010 15:33 On Jul 10, 12:14 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jul 10, 11:50 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Tell me what the 3 most important successful test of QCD were. > > > I don't know that there is an acknowledged set of three. > > There are lots of examples. > > One is the 2-jet cross section as a function of transverse momentum, > > especially at FNAL. > > Another is the presence and frequency of 3-jet events, and their > > energy spectra, as far back as ISR and TASSO, but also reproduced at > > FNAL and CERN. > > Another is the signal for quark-gluon plasma at RHIC. > > -------------------------------------- > > There is much roon for debate on each of these 3 results you mention. > > (1) Was the agreement achieved by "adjustment" No. > > (2) Did QCD predict the jet phenomena BEFORE it was observed, or > "explain" it after it was discovered. > Before, yes. > (3) Could other theories explain the phenomena better? > This is ALWAYS a possibility. ANY theory could potentially be replaced with a more successful theory yet undiscovered. However, QCD is the best one presented SO FAR that has demonstrated agreement with results. This in no way suggests that all other possible theories, including ones in the future, are excluded. Demonstration that your theory does as well in all these measurements is welcomed. > It is far from cut-and-dried. It depends on who you ask and what their > bias is. > > When it comes to real predictions QCD has failed the free-quark test, I don't know what this "free quark test" is. A test is an experimental check of a theoretical prediction. I don't know of a quark theory that predicts free observation. > the Higgs boson test, The Higgs boson is not a QCD or a QED prediction. It might help if you studied a bit more about what QED and QCD actually predict. But secondly, a prediction that is not yet tested is not an experimental failure. It is NOT the case that we've had a prediction that the Higgs boson MUST lie in a particular mass range that we've explored and not found it. What's true is that PART of the predicted range has been explored. If the theory of evolution predicts a transitional fossil between hippos and whales, and the fossil is not yet found, does this mean that evolution has been proven false? > it cannot predict any properties of particles > (only fudged retrodictions), That's completely wrong. There ARE properties of many particles that have been predicted very well, thank you. Now, I know that you are looking at ONLY mass, angular momentum, and charge, and therefore if there isn't a prediction there, you think no predictions have been made. > requires 30 adjustment factors. Already addressed. Neither QED nor QCD has 30 adjustment factors. You may be confusing the Standard Model with these individual theories. > > Discrete Scale Relativity predicts a proton radius of 0.814 fermi that > is in better agreement with the new high precision measurement (and a > second previous test) than the QED-based estimate, and far, far better > than anything QCD can barf up. > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Tom Roberts on 11 Jul 2010 17:01 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > Physics can be thought of as primarily the mathematical modeling of > nature. yes. Not merely "can be", but rather "is". > Natural philosophy is the attempt to understand how nature actually > works and how nature really is. That is utterly hopeless. We humans can never know "how nature actually works" or "how nature really is". This ought to be obvious, because your mind can process only thoughts, and thoughts can at best be MODELS of "how nature actually works" or "how nature really is". So modeling is all there is. EVERYTHING you think you "know about nature" is really something you know about some personal MODEL you have of nature. Most of those models have been ingrained in your psyche since infancy, and have become so routine that it takes conscious effort to recognize they are models. Some of those models work exceedingly well, especially in our everyday lives, but some of them are quite poor, mostly in regimes far removed from our everyday lives. There is, of course, a reason why our models of everyday phenomena are so good: we humans have evolved this as our primary means of survival. > Really great scientists combine these two endeavors. No, it's just that the people you think are "really great scientists" did not recognize the above fact. Or they did and assumed it implicitly, not bothering to mention such an obvious fact of human existence. Tom Roberts
From: Thomas Heger on 11 Jul 2010 23:12 Tom Roberts schrieb: > Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: >> Physics can be thought of as primarily the mathematical modeling of >> nature. > > yes. Not merely "can be", but rather "is". > I'm an engineer and not really interested in mathematical models, but interested in the 'machinery' -or- how things function. I think about the universe as kind of large 'super-system', that functions somehow. It has to, even if we don't know how. Even if we would know how, than building a functioning mathematical model is another story, mainly because high-class mathematical skills are required for that. This is: understanding, how things work and cast that into a mathematical model. But the two things are different subjects and require different people, while the first is called physics and the second called mathematics. > >> Natural philosophy is the attempt to understand how nature actually >> works and how nature really is. > > That is utterly hopeless. Maybe hopeless for you. But don't try to steer people away of at least trying to understand. > We humans can never know "how nature actually > works" or "how nature really is". This is because 'knowing' is about things already known. Since the 'machinery of the universe' is unknown, we cannot know. But we can find out, or at least try. > This ought to be obvious, because your > mind can process only thoughts, and thoughts can at best be MODELS of > "how nature actually works" or "how nature really is". I personally prefer pictures instead of mathematical models. Illustrations have no limits, only some restrictions, mainly to be flat. But good artists can overcome this by an arsenal of tricks. > So modeling is all there is. EVERYTHING you think you "know about > nature" is really something you know about some personal MODEL you have > of nature. Most of those models have been ingrained in your psyche since > infancy, and have become so routine that it takes conscious effort to > recognize they are models. Some of those models work exceedingly well, > especially in our everyday lives, but some of them are quite poor, > mostly in regimes far removed from our everyday lives. > I'm not precisely sure, what you mean by this. Certainly theoretical physicists should have more advanced models about nature, than the average humans. And they learn in the course of their education, that things are different than they look like. So what? It's about pushing the limits a bit further. And maybe things would get easier, if the right questions are asked and answered. > There is, of course, a reason why our models of everyday phenomena > are so good: we humans have evolved this as our primary means of > survival. This is a description of a stone-age-man, misguided as a physicist. Do you really believe, they are like that? >> Really great scientists combine these two endeavors. > > No, it's just that the people you think are "really great scientists" > did not recognize the above fact. Well, yes. Great physicists didn't behave like neanderthals. That's what made them great physicists. TH
From: GogoJF on 11 Jul 2010 23:57 On Jul 3, 11:27 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > (1) Acausality - everything in nature obeys causality, except bad > mathematical physics. > > (2) Reversibility - an unacceptable Platonic over-idealization. > > (3) Strict reductionism - nature is multi-scaled and fundamentality > occurs throughout the hierarchy, which has no upper or lower bounds. > > (4) Absolute scale - within any given cosmological Scale there is > quasi-"absolute" scale, but the entire cosmological hierarchy of > Scales only has relative scale. > > (5) Non-deterministic modeling - real physical systems are fully > deterministic; it is our obsession with our mundane observational > limitations that confuses the issue, as well as the false assumption > that predictability limits mean indeterminism. > > A manifesto for the 21st century. > > RLOwww.mherst.edu/~rloldershaw How about the opposite of number 4. The entire cosmological hierarchy of Scales has only absolute scales because it does not have to depend on the limited "point of view" of man. Only, within any given cosmological Scale there is quasi-"absolute" scale- locally- and cannot rid itself of relativity.
From: Y.Porat on 12 Jul 2010 04:10
On Jul 11, 9:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 - ------------------- withthe huge development of technical advance (that mainly engineers suplied (:-) it should be done much less than a century!! yet still you have my and others predictiosn since curved space time is nonsens physics GR will never dolve anything in microcosm!!! no need tobe a genius tomake that prediction it needs to be an idiot *not to make* that prediction !!! aspace is nothing all the attaction forces are properties of mass !! not of curved space !!! even those scientists that started to examine the gravitons particles understood it gravitons are particles and not abstract magic space and even those gravitons has mass and they stem from bigger **massive** particles that are sub composed of smaller particles! that migh tpop out of yjr big particles in a sort of a 'fountain way to be recycled on and on !! the sooner you and others will get it -----the better !! ATB Y.Porat ------------------------- any attarction forceincluding gravity |