Why are there so many unsolved problems in physics?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: SERC: Forests are growing faster, climate change appears to driving accelerated growth
Next: 'Marshall' is a disgusting troll
From: Paul Stowe on 5 Feb 2010 13:43 On Feb 4, 9:44 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PaulStowewrote: > > On Feb 3, 6:06 pm, Urion <blackman_...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Here is a list of unsolved problems in modern physics from wikipedia: > > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics > > >> Why are so many problems? Don't you think there is something seriously > >> wrong with our understanding of physics and the universe or are we > >> just overcomplicating things? > > > Short answer, yes there is something seriously wrong with our current > > approach and models. Not so much in the narrow model domains, but in > > understanding the overall integrated interplay and system. It's like > > the tale of the three blind men groping and trying to describe an > > Elephant. GR & SR don't describe nature they describe certain > > behavioral characteristics 'of' nature with no attempt to understand > > what brings that behavior about. Likewise, QM, QED, QCD do the same. > > General relativity and quantum theory exactly - to all available precision - > describe their respective domains of applicability. You can scream all you > want about how the map is not the territory, and the people who actually > know this stuff will mutter "duh" and move on to actually figuring stuff > out. Good luck with the current paradigm.... > > It is my opinion that the current crop of physicists are too arrogant > > and set in their convictions that they 'know' and have the proper > > answers (like the Big Bang Hypothesis) to be even willing to rethink > > fundamental premises. > > While you are the model of zen-like contemplation who always considers > opinions that aren't his own? Both descriptions are completely wrong. > > Physicists routinely test their hypotheses, otherwise it wouldn't be > science. Selective testing, yes. and many results lack uniqueness. It's ok, really, go ahead, 'believe' what you want, and I shall also. That's the beauty of a free society, we can all do that. Time will tell the tale, if that same society can stave off its own self-destruction. Odd favor that it cannot however and self-destruction is inevitable, and most likely soon. I agree with H.G. Wells on that. > Let's focus on the big bang theory, since you rail on it constantly. > > Have you read the papers that discuss how the CMBR is shown to be of higher > temperature at higher redshifts in a manner that exactly corresponds with > orthodox theory? Interesting Freudian slip, 'orthodox theory'. See, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/orthodox for the standard definition of the word orthodox... However, you cannot separate frequencies and then there are the 'other' unanswered questions' like are the constants constant? Perhaps you have an on-line public reference to the paper you cite? > Have you read the papers that describe how the expansion hypothesis has been > directly tested by observing the falloff in luminosity as a function of > redshift? Oh, did Dark Energy go away??? That would be a step in the right direction... > Have you read any papers on the subject recently? At all? Or are you content > in your opinion as well as your own arrogance? If arrogance is considering this topic still open, and other options, then yup, that's me. Especially given the Dark matter/energy/fluid... you name it nonsense necessary to prop up the current paradigm. I'm pretty sure that these things are all indicators that something stinks in the current paradigm. > Let's see if you can name one aspect of the big bang theory that has not > been tested. The problem isn't testing, its uniqueness and biases... > > And, that is precisely what will be required to > > begin to answer most of those questions. For example, the Pioneer > > Effect is correctly and precisely predicted by a well known > > alternative model of gravity. > > Ah, and which 'alternative model of gravity' would that be? > > And would the effect be the one of Anderson et.al., or the one that survives > 1/3 smaller with approximate thermal modeling for a portion of the trip done > by Turyshev, et.al. ? > > If any of this is news to you, perhaps you aren't nearly as interested in > learning about the world we live in as you wish us to believe. It's not news, nor new. JPL consider that a long time ago. You have a case of dueling experts. That's why the anomaly remains. > > Good luck in getting any cogent answer here. > > Probably because this is a USENET newsgroup that has no requirement for its' > participants to be educated in the subjects they wish to rant and scream > about. The actual record shows that your demeanor certainly fits the profile of rants and screaming more so than most, or mine. > Case in point - have you formally studied physics? Yup... specifically, in the context of nuclear science program. But, I have to say my school years are long behind me now. For the record, I have no interesting in endless arguing Eric, as you say, this is a newsgroup and everyone is able, and entitled to, voice their views herein. In the fifteen years I've been here you are fully aware of mine. Paul Stowe
From: PD on 5 Feb 2010 17:45 On Feb 3, 8:06 pm, Urion <blackman_...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Here is a list of unsolved problems in modern physics from wikipedia: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics > > Why are so many problems? Don't you think there is something seriously > wrong with our understanding of physics and the universe or are we > just overcomplicating things? This is actually a GOOD thing. When science has no open questions and it thinks it has everything figured out, then it has gone dead. We are far from that state, and it's a lovely thing that there are so many open questions.
From: Paul Stowe on 5 Feb 2010 18:04 On Feb 5, 11:01 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Paul Stowe wrote: > > On Feb 4, 9:44 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Paul Stowe wrote: > >> > On Feb 3, 6:06 pm, Urion <blackman_...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> Here is a list of unsolved problems in modern physics from wikipedia: > > >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics > > >> >> Why are so many problems? Don't you think there is something seriously > >> >> wrong with our understanding of physics and the universe or are we > >> >> just overcomplicating things? > > >> > Short answer, yes there is something seriously wrong with our current > >> > approach and models. Not so much in the narrow model domains, but in > >> > understanding the overall integrated interplay and system. It's like > >> > the tale of the three blind men groping and trying to describe an > >> > Elephant. GR & SR don't describe nature they describe certain > >> > behavioral characteristics 'of' nature with no attempt to understand > >> > what brings that behavior about. Likewise, QM, QED, QCD do the same. > > >> General relativity and quantum theory exactly - to all available > >> precision - describe their respective domains of applicability. You can > >> scream all you want about how the map is not the territory, and the > >> people who actually know this stuff will mutter "duh" and move on to > >> actually figuring stuff out. > > > Good luck with the current paradigm.... > > You don't seem at all concerned with how two mutually incompatible theories > can describe reality so well. No, because they're not incompatible. If so, nature would, by your definition, be incompatible with itself. But, to 'understand' how the apparent incompatibility resolves you need something fundamental that the current paradigm lacks. And you really do need to understand that GR/SR are but results 'of' other properties which 'result' in the mathematically described behavior. Quantum behavior, ditto... It is down, underneath, these that compatibility lies. What created quantum behavior also creates GR/SR behavior. The challenge then is to figure out the processes that 'cause' both to occur. Once you do that the rest will follow. I'll go on record here to say that I doubt that the Higgs will be found 'as predicted'. Why do I put the last in quotes? Because, if the trend continues what will happen is that there will be a redefinition of the Higgs, not abandonment. > >> > It is my opinion that the current crop of physicists are too arrogant > >> > and set in their convictions that they 'know' and have the proper > >> > answers (like the Big Bang Hypothesis) to be even willing to rethink > >> > fundamental premises. > > >> While you are the model of zen-like contemplation who always considers > >> opinions that aren't his own? Both descriptions are completely wrong. > > >> Physicists routinely test their hypotheses, otherwise it wouldn't be > >> science. > > > Selective testing, yes. and many results lack uniqueness. It's ok, > > really, go ahead, 'believe' what you want, and I shall also. That's > > the beauty of a free society, we can all do that. Time will tell the > > tale, if that same society can stave off its own self-destruction. > > Odds favor that it cannot however and self-destruction is inevitable, > > and most likely soon. I agree with H.G. Wells on that. > > So basically rather than argue you just fart and say "well that's your > opinion". That's fine - if you could do better, you wouldn't be posting to > USENET about it. Some of the specific ideas I've provided have been adopted by others. It's on the record, so if time proves me right... If not, so what??? > >> Let's focus on the big bang theory, since you rail on it constantly. > > >> Have you read the papers that discuss how the CMBR is shown to be of > >> higher temperature at higher redshifts in a manner that exactly > >> corresponds with orthodox theory? > > > Interesting Freudian slip, 'orthodox theory'. See, > > >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/orthodox > > > for the standard definition of the word orthodox... > > > However, you cannot separate frequencies and then there are the > > 'other' unanswered questions' like are the constants constant? > > *sigh* > > Your concerns have been answered in the literature. Perhaps you should do a > literature search? > > > Perhaps you have an on-line public reference to the paper you cite? > > "Redshift Dependence of the Cosmic Microwave Temperature from Sonyaev- > Zeldovich Measurements", G. Luzzi et.al., Astrophysical Journal 705 > 1122-1128 Yeah, here... http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0909/0909.2815v1.pdf > >> Have you read the papers that describe how the expansion hypothesis has > >> been directly tested by observing the falloff in luminosity as a function > >> of redshift? > > > Oh, did Dark Energy go away??? That would be a step in the right > > direction... > > Why, because you don't like it or because its' predictions do not match > observation? Because it is solely ad hoc! > >> Have you read any papers on the subject recently? At all? Or are you > >> content in your opinion as well as your own arrogance? > > > If arrogance is considering this topic still open, and other options, > > then yup, that's me. Especially given the Dark matter/energy/fluid.... > > you name it nonsense necessary to prop up the current paradigm. I'm > > pretty damned sure that these things are all indicators that something stinks > > in the current paradigm. > > Ah, yes. You are "pretty sure". I'm not the only one... > Well that's almost as good as having studied the subject and come to a > conclusion based on the evidence as opposed to your feelings and prejudices. > I> >> Let's see if you can name one aspect of the big bang theory that has not > >> been tested. > > > The problem isn't testing, its uniqueness and biases... > > ...and the professional calvinball player moves the goalposts to the other > side of the field. > > >> > And, that is precisely what will be required to > >> > begin to answer most of those questions. For example, the Pioneer > >> > Effect is correctly and precisely predicted by a well known > >> > alternative model of gravity. > > >> Ah, and which 'alternative model of gravity' would that be? > > >> And would the effect be the one of Anderson et.al., or the one that > >> survives 1/3 smaller with approximate thermal modeling for a portion of > >> the trip done by Turyshev, et.al. ? > > >> If any of this is news to you, perhaps you aren't nearly as interested in > >> learning about the world we live in as you wish us to believe. > > > It's not news, nor new. JPL consideedr that a long time ago. > > Really, JPL did the thermal modeling? Or made a rough guess? > > > You have a case of dueling experts. That's why the anomaly remains. Anderson discusses this in his papers and IIRC they did an analysis of the thermal emissions. > >> > Good luck in getting any cogent answer here. > > >> Probably because this is a USENET newsgroup that has no requirement for > >> its' participants to be educated in the subjects they wish to rant and > >> scream about. > > > The actual record shows that your demeanor certainly fits the profile > > of rants and screaming more so than most, or mine. > > Yet I am formally educated in the subject and actually know what I'm talking > about. Minor difference. Rude behavior speaks more to you person, not education. > >> Case in point - have you formally studied physics? > > > Yup... specifically, in the context of nuclear science program. But, > > I have to say my school years are long behind me now. For the record, > > I have no interesting in endless arguing Eric, as you say, this is a > > newsgroup and everyone is able, and entitled to, voice their views > > herein. In the fifteen years I've been here you are fully aware of > > mine. > > Ah, so you just wish to vent your opinions without challenge? Not at all, but, in this thread, nothing specific was even mentioned by me. Paul Stowe
From: eric gisse on 5 Feb 2010 19:14 Paul Stowe wrote: > On Feb 5, 11:01 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Paul Stowe wrote: >> > On Feb 4, 9:44 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Paul Stowe wrote: >> >> > On Feb 3, 6:06 pm, Urion <blackman_...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> Here is a list of unsolved problems in modern physics from >> >> >> wikipedia: >> >> >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics >> >> >> >> Why are so many problems? Don't you think there is something >> >> >> seriously wrong with our understanding of physics and the universe >> >> >> or are we just overcomplicating things? >> >> >> > Short answer, yes there is something seriously wrong with our >> >> > current approach and models. Not so much in the narrow model >> >> > domains, but in understanding the overall integrated interplay and >> >> > system. It's like the tale of the three blind men groping and >> >> > trying to describe an Elephant. GR & SR don't describe nature they >> >> > describe certain behavioral characteristics 'of' nature with no >> >> > attempt to understand what brings that behavior about. Likewise, >> >> > QM, QED, QCD do the same. >> >> >> General relativity and quantum theory exactly - to all available >> >> precision - describe their respective domains of applicability. You >> >> can scream all you want about how the map is not the territory, and >> >> the people who actually know this stuff will mutter "duh" and move on >> >> to actually figuring stuff out. >> >> > Good luck with the current paradigm.... >> >> You don't seem at all concerned with how two mutually incompatible >> theories can describe reality so well. > > No, because they're not incompatible. I guess the 3 generations of physicists who have been trying to unite them were just what...too burdened by actually knowing what they were talking about? > If so, nature would, by your > definition, be incompatible with itself. The map is not the territory. Neither QM or GR are the final answers - this is well known, but apparently not by you. > But, to 'understand' how the > apparent incompatibility resolves you need something fundamental that > the current paradigm lacks. And you really do need to understand that > GR/SR are but results 'of' other properties which 'result' in the > mathematically described behavior. Quantum behavior, ditto... It is > down, underneath, these that compatibility lies. What created quantum > behavior also creates GR/SR behavior. The challenge then is to figure > out the processes that 'cause' both to occur. Once you do that the > rest will follow. ....and is this little speil the result of actual studies you have done, or just another wild assed guess? > I'll go on record here to say that I doubt that the > Higgs will be found 'as predicted'. Why do I put the last in quotes? > Because, if the trend continues what will happen is that there will be > a redefinition of the Higgs, not abandonment. Which gives you plenty of wiggle room to escape if it is found. Everything else from the standard model has been found, why is the Higgs so special? > >> >> > It is my opinion that the current crop of physicists are too >> >> > arrogant and set in their convictions that they 'know' and have the >> >> > proper answers (like the Big Bang Hypothesis) to be even willing to >> >> > rethink fundamental premises. >> >> >> While you are the model of zen-like contemplation who always considers >> >> opinions that aren't his own? Both descriptions are completely wrong. >> >> >> Physicists routinely test their hypotheses, otherwise it wouldn't be >> >> science. >> >> > Selective testing, yes. and many results lack uniqueness. It's ok, >> > really, go ahead, 'believe' what you want, and I shall also. That's >> > the beauty of a free society, we can all do that. Time will tell the >> > tale, if that same society can stave off its own self-destruction. >> > Odds favor that it cannot however and self-destruction is inevitable, >> > and most likely soon. I agree with H.G. Wells on that. >> >> So basically rather than argue you just fart and say "well that's your >> opinion". That's fine - if you could do better, you wouldn't be posting >> to USENET about it. > > Some of the specific ideas I've provided have been adopted by others. Really? Which ones have you had published? Have you published _anything_? Or is it more like 'some of the things I have ranted about are tangentially related to what more prominent physicists started saying, so they agree with me!'? > It's on the record, so if time proves me right... If not, so what??? > >> >> Let's focus on the big bang theory, since you rail on it constantly. >> >> >> Have you read the papers that discuss how the CMBR is shown to be of >> >> higher temperature at higher redshifts in a manner that exactly >> >> corresponds with orthodox theory? >> >> > Interesting Freudian slip, 'orthodox theory'. See, >> >> >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/orthodox >> >> > for the standard definition of the word orthodox... >> >> > However, you cannot separate frequencies and then there are the >> > 'other' unanswered questions' like are the constants constant? >> >> *sigh* >> >> Your concerns have been answered in the literature. Perhaps you should do >> a literature search? >> >> > Perhaps you have an on-line public reference to the paper you cite? >> >> "Redshift Dependence of the Cosmic Microwave Temperature from Sonyaev- >> Zeldovich Measurements", G. Luzzi et.al., Astrophysical Journal 705 >> 1122-1128 > > Yeah, here... http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0909/0909.2815v1.pdf Throw in P. Molaro, et.al., "The cosmic microwave background radiation temperature at $\vec{z}_\mathsf{abs} = \mathsf$ toward QSO 0347-3819", Astronomy & Astrophysics 381, L64 too just for good measure. Using C-II emissions in the quasar Q0347-3819, the CMB was measured to be 12.6 +1.7/-3.2K at z=3.025, consistent with the predictions of the Big Bang theory. Now, what again do you consider not satisfactorily tested? > >> >> Have you read the papers that describe how the expansion hypothesis >> >> has been directly tested by observing the falloff in luminosity as a >> >> function of redshift? >> >> > Oh, did Dark Energy go away??? That would be a step in the right >> > direction... >> >> Why, because you don't like it or because its' predictions do not match >> observation? > > Because it is solely ad hoc! So your dislike of the model is purely emotional? Try to keep your complaint about it being 'ad hoc' in mind when you think about the theory that 'predicts' the Pioneer anomaly. Did you know that quantum theory predicts the existence of a nonzero background of vacuum energy? Not so ad-hoc now, is it? > >> >> Have you read any papers on the subject recently? At all? Or are you >> >> content in your opinion as well as your own arrogance? >> >> > If arrogance is considering this topic still open, and other options, >> > then yup, that's me. Especially given the Dark matter/energy/fluid... >> > you name it nonsense necessary to prop up the current paradigm. I'm >> > pretty damned sure that these things are all indicators that something >> > stinks in the current paradigm. >> >> Ah, yes. You are "pretty sure". > > I'm not the only one... Reality isn't subject to vote. Finding like minded individuals on here who want to tear down modern physics doesn't make them - or you - right. The only and *final* arbiter of science is observation. Not "but I don't like it..." > >> Well that's almost as good as having studied the subject and come to a >> conclusion based on the evidence as opposed to your feelings and >> prejudices. >> > I> >> Let's see if you can name one aspect of the big bang theory that > has not >> >> been tested. >> >> > The problem isn't testing, its uniqueness and biases... >> >> ...and the professional calvinball player moves the goalposts to the >> other side of the field. >> >> >> > And, that is precisely what will be required to >> >> > begin to answer most of those questions. For example, the Pioneer >> >> > Effect is correctly and precisely predicted by a well known >> >> > alternative model of gravity. >> >> >> Ah, and which 'alternative model of gravity' would that be? >> >> >> And would the effect be the one of Anderson et.al., or the one that >> >> survives 1/3 smaller with approximate thermal modeling for a portion >> >> of the trip done by Turyshev, et.al. ? >> >> >> If any of this is news to you, perhaps you aren't nearly as interested >> >> in learning about the world we live in as you wish us to believe. >> >> > It's not news, nor new. JPL consideedr that a long time ago. >> >> Really, JPL did the thermal modeling? Or made a rough guess? >> >> > You have a case of dueling experts. That's why the anomaly remains. > > Anderson discusses this in his papers and IIRC they did an analysis of > the thermal emissions. Anderson only establishes that thermal emissions can't take care of the entire anomaly - just a pretty damn large part of it. You'll also note there are a handful of other systemics that are more physically likely than an error in our understanding of gravitation that doesn't show up anywhere else. > >> >> > Good luck in getting any cogent answer here. >> >> >> Probably because this is a USENET newsgroup that has no requirement >> >> for its' participants to be educated in the subjects they wish to rant >> >> and scream about. >> >> > The actual record shows that your demeanor certainly fits the profile >> > of rants and screaming more so than most, or mine. >> >> Yet I am formally educated in the subject and actually know what I'm >> talking about. Minor difference. > > Rude behavior speaks more to you person, not education. Respect is earned. People who have been posting for years on subjects they know nothing about do not deserve respect. > >> >> Case in point - have you formally studied physics? >> >> > Yup... specifically, in the context of nuclear science program. But, >> > I have to say my school years are long behind me now. For the record, >> > I have no interesting in endless arguing Eric, as you say, this is a >> > newsgroup and everyone is able, and entitled to, voice their views >> > herein. In the fifteen years I've been here you are fully aware of >> > mine. >> >> Ah, so you just wish to vent your opinions without challenge? > > Not at all, but, in this thread, nothing specific was even mentioned > by me. > > Paul Stowe
From: Sam Wormley on 5 Feb 2010 23:39
On 2/3/10 8:06 PM, Urion wrote: > Here is a list of unsolved problems in modern physics from wikipedia: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics > > Why are so many problems? Don't you think there is something seriously > wrong with our understanding of physics and the universe or are we > just overcomplicating things? Heaven forbid we would know all the answers! Reminds me of what happened to the Greeks... The answers became more important than the questions. |