Things to Reject in 21st Century Physics
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Deepwater Horizon BP Oil Spill - A Geophysical Theory That Needs Consideration
Next: EINSTEINIANA: THE FUNDAMENTAL NIGHTMARE
From: PD on 9 Jul 2010 13:51 On Jul 8, 11:03 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > 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. Well, YOU say it is rubbish, but it is highly successful in accurately predicting a very wide variety of experimental results. In physics, this is the figure of merit of a theory. 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. THEN, it has to meet experimental test. To a scientist, this is backwards. But to you, since the current theories do not adhere to your favored paradigms, then you want them chucked wholesale, despite their experimental success, saying that it is better to hammer away on a theory that adheres to your favored paradigm until it generates experimental success than it is to stick with an experimentally successful theory that breaks from that paradigm. > > 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. > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: PD on 9 Jul 2010 14:05 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. That says something completely different. It is well known that the Schrodinger theory is not (special) relativistic. This does not mean that quantum mechanics is incompatible with special relativity. Indeed, the Dirac equation is a fully relativistic quantum mechanical theory. It just took someone a little more time how to figure out how to make a quantum theory that was also relativistic. No one had to chuck either special relativity or quantum mechanics to do that. > (Actually I think, as QM does something well, > it should describe something. My idea would be, that QM and GR are in an > abstract way inverses to each other. Something like 'matrize' and > 'patrize' (the form and the thing cast within).) > So I would widen the range of this task to physics of our natural > environment in general. To describe it correctly, we need one and only > one proper theory, because there is only one world. > > TH- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 9 Jul 2010 14:21 On Jul 8, 11:07 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jul 8, 4:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Natural Philosophy is "metaphysics" done properly. > > > > See Democritus, Spinoza, Galileo, Faraday, Einstein,... > > > > Physics = (1) Conceptual foundation of natural philosophy + (2) > > > mathematical model to give analytical rigor to the NP foundation. > > > + (3) Application of the scientific method, including corroborated > > experimental tests of model's predictions. > > > Don't do that and it ain't science > > ----------------------------------------- > > Discrete Scale Relativity has passed more definitive retrodictions > than most currently-fashionable theories of theoretical physics. I disagree. > > It has made over 10 definitive predictions in published papers. And you'd like to compare this against the hundreds of experimental tests of QCD? What about the comparable number of experimental tests of QED? > > You might want to learn about this material. > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Sam Wormley on 9 Jul 2010 14:26 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?
From: Thomas Heger on 9 Jul 2010 14:30
PD schrieb: > 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. That says something completely different. > > It is well known that the Schrodinger theory is not (special) > relativistic. This does not mean that quantum mechanics is > incompatible with special relativity. Indeed, the Dirac equation is a > fully relativistic quantum mechanical theory. It just took someone a > little more time how to figure out how to make a quantum theory that > was also relativistic. No one had to chuck either special relativity > or quantum mechanics to do that. > I like this paper: http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0507/0507188.pdf from Peter Rowlands. TH |