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: 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.
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 |