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 7 Jul 2010 13:44 On Jul 7, 12:21 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jul 7, 9:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Again, I don't know what you mean by "event". > > You MIGHT mean a system in a particular state > > that is completely characterized by a set of > > physical parameters {P1, P2, ... , PN). In this > > case, it is not experimentally supported that > > all of those parameters can be strictly determined > > by the values of the same parameters in an earlier state. > > ------------------------------------ > > In relativistic physics one deals with spacetime events and light- > cones. Anything whatsoever that happens in the real physical world is > directly due to, and totally the result of, completely causal > phenomena in the relevant light-cone. Show me any NON-theoretical > example,i.e., wherein actual physical phenomena occur, that violates > this form of universal causality. There are several experimental tests of QED which are measurements to exquisitely high precision. The match between theory and experiment is dependent on the inclusion of contributions of processes by which particles travel backwards in time. There are no competing models that feature strict, time-ordered determinism that have exhibited the same success in predicting the results of precision measurements. You are welcome to demonstrate that you have a candidate that does show that success. > ------------------------------------------------- > > > I have no idea what you mean by a "cosmological paradigm". > > It may mean something similar to what I referred to as a > > "mental structure" of the universe. > > -------------------------------------- > > The Ptolemaic paradigm was a cosmological paradigm, as was the > Galilean-Newtonian paradigm. They are completely different ways of > thinking about the cosmos. Then I think there is a match between "cosmological paradigm" and "mental structure". Scientists in the late 19th century and early 20th century included in their mental structure of the universe both a principle of locality (to which Einstein was a subscriber) and a principle of strict, time- ordered determinism (which, for example, Lord Kelvin strenuously advocated). Those had to be revisited. There were a number of the more staid generation who could not tolerate these being revisited. It was their position that to abandon these principles was to abandon any coherent understanding of nature at all. The newer generation proved that it was certainly possible to generate a new mental structure of reality that was demonstrably successful, where the demonstrated success took the form of accurately modeling real behavior observed in the laboratory that was completely unaccountable in the older mental structure. Thus began a transition from the older mental structure to a newer, replacement mental structure. Those who were of the older generation could not let go of the older structure and complained, even in the face of demonstrated success, that any successes were superficial only and could not possibly represent a new understanding. The vanguard between the generations confessed the difficulty of letting go of the old and trying to envision a new mental structure, and a number of the proponents (such as Feynman and Gell-Mann and Bohr) took the approach of "Shut up and calculate", which is effectively a suggestion to "Fake it til you make it." However, the later generation was less burdened by the baggage of the older mental state, and it was rather easy for them to put together a clear and consistent mental structure of the universe that also supported the calculational success. > > Discrete Scale Relativity would involve a change in cosmological > paradigms that is as radical and fundamental as the change from the > Ptolemaic to the Galilean-Newtonian paradigm. The transition to a new mental structure is driven by operational success, as described above. That is, there is virtually ZERO motivation to adopt a new mental structure for the universe, unless it is driven by calculational and observational success where the older mental structure clearly fails. This is how science weighs new mental structures in the first place, and it is the only clear signal for favoring one proposal over another, and for driving against the inertia of the prevailing mental structure. What this means for you is "Shut up and calculate." When you have a model that will support doing calcultions that can be compared to observational measurements, and that comparison favors your model over the prevailing model, then and ONLY THEN will there be incentive to consider the new paradigm. If you'd like the paradigm considered on its own abstract appeal, then this is the domain of metaphysics and not physics. Metaphysics does not require the test just described, where physics does. If you are not willing to pursue that test, then you are posting to the wrong group.
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 8 Jul 2010 00:10 On Jul 7, 1:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > There are several experimental tests of QED which are measurements to > exquisitely high precision. The match between theory and experiment is > dependent on the inclusion of contributions of processes by which > particles travel backwards in time. There are no competing models that > feature strict, time-ordered determinism that have exhibited the same > success in predicting the results of precision measurements. You are > welcome to demonstrate that you have a candidate that does show that > success. ----------------------------------------------------- Read the latest issue of Nature [8 July 2010}. QED-based predictions = 0.877 to 0.9 fermi for proton radius New High Precision Measurement = 0.84 fermi for proton radius Discrete Scale Relativity = 0.814 fermi for proton radius Discrete Scale Relativity beats QED on this one, my friend. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Sam Wormley on 8 Jul 2010 00:16 On 7/7/10 11:10 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > > Read the latest issue of Nature [8 July 2010}. > > QED-based predictions = 0.877 to 0.9 fermi for proton radius > > New High Precision Measurement = 0.84 fermi for proton radius > > Discrete Scale Relativity = 0.814 fermi for proton radius > > Discrete Scale Relativity beats QED on this one, my friend. > http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/60990/title/The_incredible_shrinking_proton "Nothing is immune to downsizing in these tough economic times � not even subatomic particles. New measurements published in the July 8 Nature suggest that the proton has a radius about 4 percent smaller than previously thought".
From: eric gisse on 8 Jul 2010 00:57 Sam Wormley wrote: [...] > "Nothing is immune to downsizing in these tough economic times ? not > even subatomic particles. New measurements published in the July 8 > Nature suggest that the proton has a radius about 4 percent smaller than > previously thought". That's too much. Either the previous experiments were overestimating the proton radius due to some unknown systematic, or this one is underestimating for the same reason. We'll find out which over the next few months/years as the particle physics professionals slug it out. Cosmology is more my camp, so I just kinda sit back and watch with mild interest.
From: Benj on 8 Jul 2010 01:28
On Jul 7, 1:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > What this means for you is "Shut up and calculate." When you have a > model that will support doing calcultions that can be compared to > observational measurements, and that comparison favors your model over > the prevailing model, then and ONLY THEN will there be incentive to > consider the new paradigm. > > If you'd like the paradigm considered on its own abstract appeal, then > this is the domain of metaphysics and not physics. Metaphysics does > not require the test just described, where physics does. If you are > not willing to pursue that test, then you are posting to the wrong > group. This statement is not only misleading but also completely wrong. The idea that metaphysics is somehow "religion" or "myth" is completely incorrect. This idea is, however, a paradigm of Social Darwinist theory. The truth, of course, is that metaphysics considers topics that "official" physics deems unworthy of study. There is no rule in metaphysics that states that principles and theories of metaphysics do not require confirmation by observational measurements. Au contraire. The problem is that physics currently just rejects all such data and measurements out of hand as "nonsense". And the persons making the measurements as deluded and misguided no matter what their proven ability in science. Hence the difference between physics and metaphysics is not one of confirmation by experiment. That assertion is totally false. The difference is that physics is a religion that limits activities to ONLY those issues where dogma is not challenged. Metaphysics on the other hand is TRUE and ADVANCED science that demands the FREEDOM to investigate ANY topic and test it against reality. However, often the subjects of metaphysics are very complex, little understood and sometimes apparently random which makes their study exceedingly difficult. But difficult is not the same word as "impossible". A fine point that traditional physics has chosen to totally ignore. |