Wherefore Art Thou, Little Higgsy?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: looking
Next: FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 28 Jul 2010 12:44 On Jul 28, 1:48 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > You have a general, and unfortunate, tendency to just snip everything and ----------------------------------------------- So, I am curious about who you are and exactly what your motivations are. Apparently you are not a research physicist and you have never published a research paper. You do not start threads at sci.physics.research and so you seem not to have any ideas of your own. You do post 100s of barkings to the newsgroups every month. For some months you have posted over 600 barkings. Woofy, that's more than 20 barkings per day!!! Are you completely mad? Apparently you see your role in life as memorizing other people's conventional ideas, and then barking in a most unseemly manner at anyone you dares to challenge those conventional ideas. Sort of Woofy's Canine Inquisition. Is that the basic story of your "life in science"? If so, I see your need for cloaking your actual identity. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 28 Jul 2010 13:02 On Jul 28, 8:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Now I'm curious about what you think the order of events was. ---------------------------------------------------- Here are some facts that may enlighten you. (1) If you search arXiv.org for reseach papers with the term "magnetic monopoles" in the abstract, published in the 2005-2010 period, YOU GET 380 ENTRIES. Are all these research physicists more out-of-touch with what is going on in research physics than you, or might the reverse be true? (2) If no one ever believed that "free quarks" and magnetic monopoles existed, why were millions of dollars spent on looking for them, producing false positives (very famous one by Blas Cabrera), and then covering up the non-detection of free quarks with "confinement", and the non-detection of magnetic monoples with: "Inflation hid the ONE TRUE MM in a galaxy far, far away"? (3) Physicists in the last few decades who have won Nobel Prizes, and who have expressed dismay at various forms of intellectial and personal arrogance, as well as non-scientific attitudes, being accepted within the physics community, would include R. Feynman, S. Glashow and P. Anderson. Feel free to ask or details, RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: PD on 28 Jul 2010 13:31 On Jul 28, 12:02 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jul 28, 8:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Now I'm curious about what you think the order of events was. > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Here are some facts that may enlighten you. > > (1) If you search arXiv.org for reseach papers with the term "magnetic > monopoles" in the abstract, published in the 2005-2010 period, YOU GET > 380 ENTRIES. Are all these research physicists more out-of-touch with > what is going on in research physics than you, or might the reverse be > true? > > (2) If no one ever believed that "free quarks" and magnetic monopoles > existed, why were millions of dollars spent on looking for them, > producing false positives (very famous one by Blas Cabrera), and then > covering up the non-detection of free quarks with "confinement", and > the non-detection of magnetic monoples with: "Inflation hid the ONE > TRUE MM in a galaxy far, far away"? > > (3) Physicists in the last few decades who have won Nobel Prizes, and > who have expressed dismay at various forms of intellectial and > personal arrogance, as well as non-scientific attitudes, being > accepted within the physics community, would include R. Feynman, S. > Glashow and P. Anderson. > > Feel free to ask or details, > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw Perhaps you don't know how science works. A new theory often challenges conventional wisdom. Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism did in its day, and Feynman and Tomonaga's version later did the same thing. Likewise, the quark model also did. The way those theories are tested is that they make certain measurable predictions, and then a number of those predictions are actually put to test. If it turns out that those predictions, especially the ones that distinguish that theory from competing ones, match measurement, then this gives credence to the theory. For example, the theory of electromagnetism (without a monopole) makes a very precise prediction of the magnetic moment of the muon. As another example, the quark model makes a very precise prediction of the rate of three-jet to two- jet events in electron-positron collisions as a function of energy. Once that happens, then there is another interesting way to test the theory or to get to an even better theory, and that's to suppose that the theory is wrong in some basic way and see if you can see evidence for it being wrong. So one way is to look for magnetic monopoles, which are NOT included in electromagnetic theory. Another is to look for free quarks, which are NOT expected in quark theory; it never WAS expected; it's not like it was expected and then had to be covered up by confinement; confinement is essential to QCD to begin with. This kind of work (seeing if a theory is wrong) generates a lot of interest from scientists, because where the fun is, is in uncovering something NEW. You have this fool-headed idea that scientists generally only work on accepted theories, and so that if you see a bunch of work on free quarks and magnetic monopoles, then those must be features of the conventional wisdom or the accepted theory. You have it exactly backwards. If you think that truly exciting work is evidenced by the fact that there is only one or two lone wolves working on it, then you've just bought into the crank meme that says "Since I'm the only one that thinks it's right, it must be right, and everyone else is covering their asses." As I said, your Novel Ideas are competing with a whole bunch of other Novel Ideas. You just have to do what everyone else does to make your Novel Idea competitive.
From: Hayek on 28 Jul 2010 14:30 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jul 28, 8:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Now I'm curious about what you think the order of events was. > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Here are some facts that may enlighten you. > > (1) If you search arXiv.org for reseach papers with the term "magnetic > monopoles" in the abstract, published in the 2005-2010 period, YOU GET > 380 ENTRIES. Are all these research physicists more out-of-touch with > what is going on in research physics than you, or might the reverse be > true? > > (2) If no one ever believed that "free quarks" and magnetic monopoles > existed, why were millions of dollars spent on looking for them, > producing false positives (very famous one by Blas Cabrera), and then > covering up the non-detection of free quarks with "confinement", and > the non-detection of magnetic monoples with: "Inflation hid the ONE > TRUE MM in a galaxy far, far away"? > > (3) Physicists in the last few decades who have won Nobel Prizes, and > who have expressed dismay at various forms of intellectial and > personal arrogance, as well as non-scientific attitudes, being > accepted within the physics community, would include R. Feynman, S. > Glashow and P. Anderson. Don't forget Smolin, "The Trouble with physics" Uwe Hayek. > Feel free to ask or details, > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw -- We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion : the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history. -- Ayn Rand I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: PD on 28 Jul 2010 15:09
On Jul 28, 1:30 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > > On Jul 28, 8:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Now I'm curious about what you think the order of events was. > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > Here are some facts that may enlighten you. > > > (1) If you search arXiv.org for reseach papers with the term "magnetic > > monopoles" in the abstract, published in the 2005-2010 period, YOU GET > > 380 ENTRIES. Are all these research physicists more out-of-touch with > > what is going on in research physics than you, or might the reverse be > > true? > > > (2) If no one ever believed that "free quarks" and magnetic monopoles > > existed, why were millions of dollars spent on looking for them, > > producing false positives (very famous one by Blas Cabrera), and then > > covering up the non-detection of free quarks with "confinement", and > > the non-detection of magnetic monoples with: "Inflation hid the ONE > > TRUE MM in a galaxy far, far away"? > > > (3) Physicists in the last few decades who have won Nobel Prizes, and > > who have expressed dismay at various forms of intellectial and > > personal arrogance, as well as non-scientific attitudes, being > > accepted within the physics community, would include R. Feynman, S. > > Glashow and P. Anderson. > > Don't forget Smolin, "The Trouble with physics" Have you actually read it? > > Uwe Hayek. > > > Feel free to ask or details, > > > RLO > >www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw > |