 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » Is physics a science?... |
|
Page 1 of 23 Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| John Kennaugh... |
 Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In a science you have a theory, devise an experiment to test that theory
and if you get the wrong result your theory has failed.
Obviously you may be able to come up with a fix for that theory as
Lorentz did when the MMX gave a result contrary to Maxwell's
predictions.
Now suppose there is absolutely no constraints on what constitutes an
*acceptable* fix. i.e. no rules of discipline under which physicist need
operate. Quite simply no theory (no matter how wrong) need fail.
In trying to get the "standard model" to work a problem emerged. One
particle needed to be both massless and massive. Now one might suggest
that the physicists go back to the drawing board and try again.
Particles can't both have mass and not have mass can they? That is
silly. But physics allows 'silly' they claim they are not wrong but
nature which is at fault for being 'weird' so with something straight
out of Hogwarts, one might call it the "let it have mass" spell (they
actually called it a Higgs field) a massless particle can be magic'd
into a massive particle.
Now physics cannot even explain what an EM field IS, it used to map an
altered state in the aether but now the aether is forbidden it has no
invisible means of support and no one has yet decided what it consists
of if it is not. That being the case one might think that it would be
sensible to resolve that before inventing new 'fields'.
It is argued (by PD actually) that even the inclusion of fairies as part
of a theory is acceptable if it leads to testable prediction - it is
then (according to PD) still science. If the Higgs field exists then
predictions which can be tested follow. One consequence is prediction of
the existence of the Higgs-Boson.
So £4,400,000,000 or £14.7c has been spent - not to find the answer to
the ultimate question of life the universe and everything (we know that
is 42) but to find the Higgs-Boson. Having spent that much one might
expect a conclusive result. Either the Higgs-Boson exists or it doesn't
and if it doesn't then it is back to the drawing board on lots of things
- the standard model included.
Well one might think that but as I say there is absolutely no
constraints on what constitutes an *acceptable* fix. No theory need
fail.
"Theoretical physicists Holger Nielsen, from Denmark, and Masao
Ninomiya, from Japan, have concluded that the discovery of the
Higgs-Boson could be so "abhorrent to nature" that they are coming back
through time to stop their own creation. They have outlined their
thoughts in a series of papers with titles like "Test of Effect From
Future in Large Hadron Collider: a Proposal" and "Search for Future
Influence From LHC."
The pair's hypothesis centres around the Higgs Boson, a mysterious tiny
particle and building block of life that it is hoped the LHC will
discover. They have come up with a theory that it will "ripple backward
through time" and stop the collider before it could make one, like a
time traveller who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.
'It must be our prediction that all Higgs producing machines shall have
bad luck,' Dr. Nielsen said. He said that his theories may even provide
a "model for God" who "rather hates Higgs particles, and attempts to
avoid them".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6318034/Could-the-Large-H
adron-Collider-be-held-back-by-its-own-future.html
So there you have it. A new 'fix' waiting in the wings. Now if Holger
Nielsen, and Ninomiya had come up with their theory sooner £14.7c could
have been save and used to buy up the rain forests and protect them or
to provide flood defences to stop millions dying when sea level rises.
Even without Nielsen, and Ninomiya it is foreseeable that the money has
been wasted because in the end it doesn't matter whether the LCD finds
the Higgs Boson or not; Physics will find an excuse to carry on as if it
had.
--
John Kennaugh they're coming to take me away, Ho ho, hee hee, ha ha,
To the funny farm Where Life is Beautiful all the time And I'll be happy to
see Those Nice Young Men In their Clean White Coats And they're coming ... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Juan R." González-Álvarez... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Kennaugh wrote on Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:55:03 +0100:
The answer to your question is "Yes".
[quote]In a science you have a theory, devise an experiment to test that theory
and if you get the wrong result your theory has failed.
Obviously you may be able to come up with a fix for that theory as
Lorentz did when the MMX gave a result contrary to Maxwell's
predictions.
Now suppose there is absolutely no constraints on what constitutes an
*acceptable* fix. i.e. no rules of discipline under which physicist need
operate. Quite simply no theory (no matter how wrong) need fail.
In trying to get the "standard model" to work a problem emerged. One
particle needed to be both massless and massive. Now one might suggest
that the physicists go back to the drawing board and try again.
Particles can't both have mass and not have mass can they? That is
silly. But physics allows 'silly' they claim they are not wrong but
nature which is at fault for being 'weird' so with something straight
out of Hogwarts, one might call it the "let it have mass" spell (they
actually called it a Higgs field) a massless particle can be magic'd
into a massive particle.
Now physics cannot even explain what an EM field IS, it used to map an
altered state in the aether but now the aether is forbidden it has no
invisible means of support and no one has yet decided what it consists
of if it is not. That being the case one might think that it would be
sensible to resolve that before inventing new 'fields'.
It is argued (by PD actually) that even the inclusion of fairies as part
of a theory is acceptable if it leads to testable prediction - it is
then (according to PD) still science. If the Higgs field exists then
predictions which can be tested follow. One consequence is prediction of
the existence of the Higgs-Boson.
So £4,400,000,000 or £14.7c has been spent - not to find the answer to
the ultimate question of life the universe and everything (we know that
is 42) but to find the Higgs-Boson. Having spent that much one might
expect a conclusive result. Either the Higgs-Boson exists or it doesn't
and if it doesn't then it is back to the drawing board on lots of things
- the standard model included.
Well one might think that but as I say there is absolutely no
constraints on what constitutes an *acceptable* fix. No theory need
fail.
"Theoretical physicists Holger Nielsen, from Denmark, and Masao
Ninomiya, from Japan, have concluded that the discovery of the
Higgs-Boson could be so "abhorrent to nature" that they are coming back
through time to stop their own creation. They have outlined their
thoughts in a series of papers with titles like "Test of Effect From
Future in Large Hadron Collider: a Proposal" and "Search for Future
Influence From LHC."
The pair's hypothesis centres around the Higgs Boson, a mysterious tiny
particle and building block of life that it is hoped the LHC will
discover. They have come up with a theory that it will "ripple backward
through time" and stop the collider before it could make one, like a
time traveller who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.
'It must be our prediction that all Higgs producing machines shall have
bad luck,' Dr. Nielsen said. He said that his theories may even provide
a "model for God" who "rather hates Higgs particles, and attempts to
avoid them".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6318034/Could-the-Large-H
adron-Collider-be-held-back-by-its-own-future.html
So there you have it. A new 'fix' waiting in the wings. Now if Holger
Nielsen, and Ninomiya had come up with their theory sooner £14.7c could
have been save and used to buy up the rain forests and protect them or
to provide flood defences to stop millions dying when sea level rises.
Even without Nielsen, and Ninomiya it is foreseeable that the money has
been wasted because in the end it doesn't matter whether the LCD finds
the Higgs Boson or not; Physics will find an excuse to carry on as if it
had.
[/quote]
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 20, 1:55 pm, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]In a science you have a theory, devise an experiment to test that theory
and if you get the wrong result your theory has failed.
Obviously you may be able to come up with a fix for that theory as
Lorentz did when the MMX gave a result contrary to Maxwell's
predictions.
Now suppose there is absolutely no constraints on what constitutes an
*acceptable* fix. i.e. no rules of discipline under which physicist need
operate. Quite simply no theory (no matter how wrong) need fail.
[/quote]
Of course there is. There needs to be a *testable* prediction from the
theory that distinguishes it from other theories. But notice the
nature of this difference. The difference is NOT in the underlying
nature of the theory ("is it material-based?" "is it deterministic?"
"is it time-ordered"), and it is NOT in the comfort level of the
explanation in the theory. It is in something that is objectively and
unambiguously determined by *measurement*. Where two theories disagree
on what is going on, then the only way scientifically to ferret that
out is to find the place where the two theories will disagree on the
value of a measured property under certain set circumstances. Then
nature becomes the arbiter -- not logic, not intuition, not
philosphical framework, not simplicity or elegance -- by simply
telling you with the value of that property which of the two (if any)
is right.
[quote]
In trying to get the "standard model" to work a problem emerged. One
particle needed to be both massless and massive.
[/quote]
What on earth gave you THAT idea?
That's not AT ALL what happened.
What was true is that the theory prior to the Higgs mechanism was
KNOWN not to represent reality completely, because it did not have any
mechanism by which particles could be massive. However, it got enough
other things right that it showed some promise, and this warranted
further work. This eventually led to the realization that IF another
field existed, then masses could be accounted for, and then the
standard model would have a chance of really representing reality.
Now, perhaps you are whining that the moment the gauge theory had no
accounting for mass, it should have been dropped without further work.
To this I respond that if you look at Newton's 2nd law and apply it in
a case of 2D projectile motion, where the force acting is mg on the
projectile, then you get some very nice properties of the result and
something close to being right. But of course, it doesn't get the
range right at all. Is that a sufficient reason to shun Newton's 2nd
law? Of course not! Because you KNOW you've not included something --
air drag and air lift. And if you don't know yet that air drag has a
v^2 dependence, does this mean that you should give up and say it's
all hocus pocus because you have to account for air resistance but
don't know exactly how to yet?
[quote]Now one might suggest
that the physicists go back to the drawing board and try again.
Particles can't both have mass and not have mass can they? That is
silly. But physics allows 'silly' they claim they are not wrong but
nature which is at fault for being 'weird' so with something straight
out of Hogwarts, one might call it the "let it have mass" spell (they
actually called it a Higgs field) a massless particle can be magic'd
into a massive particle.
[/quote]
It appears you don't know what the Higgs field does. What it does NOT
do is make particles massive and massless at the same time.
[quote]
Now physics cannot even explain what an EM field IS, it used to map an
altered state in the aether but now the aether is forbidden it has no
invisible means of support and no one has yet decided what it consists
of if it is not.
[/quote]
And the thing is, you can make certain predictions about what ANY
aether would do, as long as it has certain basic properties, and test
those -- WITHOUT knowing exactly what the aether is.
Likewise, we knew a lot about atomic physics just by knowing there
were some very small constituents involved, without having any idea
whether those constituents were fundamental or composite. You do NOT
have to know everything about an object or a substance to be able to
rule out a whole class of candidates.
[quote]That being the case one might think that it would be
sensible to resolve that before inventing new 'fields'.
[/quote]
I disagree on the priority. Both of them can be put forward and the
same time, with no preference or priority given to either.
[quote]
It is argued (by PD actually) that even the inclusion of fairies as part
of a theory is acceptable if it leads to testable prediction - it is
then (according to PD) still science.
[/quote]
Yes, indeed.
[quote]If the Higgs field exists then
predictions which can be tested follow. One consequence is prediction of
the existence of the Higgs-Boson.
So £4,400,000,000 or £14.7c has been spent - not to find the answer to
the ultimate question of life the universe and everything (we know that
is 42) but to find the Higgs-Boson.
[/quote]
And what price is maximal for fundamental research? How much money is
justified?
And how do you determine that?
Note that $4.4B is *small* compared to some military R&D projects that
don't lead to any deployed system. Scrap ONE of those projects in the
bud, and you've got PLENTY of money to do fundamental research.
[quote]Having spent that much one might
expect a conclusive result. Either the Higgs-Boson exists or it doesn't
and if it doesn't then it is back to the drawing board on lots of things
- the standard model included.
Well one might think that but as I say there is absolutely no
constraints on what constitutes an *acceptable* fix. No theory need
fail.
"Theoretical physicists Holger Nielsen, from Denmark, and Masao
Ninomiya, from Japan, have concluded that the discovery of the
Higgs-Boson could be so "abhorrent to nature" that they are coming back
through time to stop their own creation. They have outlined their
thoughts in a series of papers with titles like "Test of Effect From
Future in Large Hadron Collider: a Proposal" and "Search for Future
Influence From LHC."
The pair's hypothesis centres around the Higgs Boson, a mysterious tiny
particle and building block of life that it is hoped the LHC will
discover. They have come up with a theory that it will "ripple backward
through time" and stop the collider before it could make one, like a
time traveller who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.
'It must be our prediction that all Higgs producing machines shall have
bad luck,' Dr. Nielsen said. He said that his theories may even provide
a "model for God" who "rather hates Higgs particles, and attempts to
avoid them".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6318034/Could-the-Lar...
adron-Collider-be-held-back-by-its-own-future.html
[/quote]
Yes, and notice that you're reading from a NEWSPAPER. It might by
useful to see what the scientific community thinks of this conjecture.
In particular, one might say that IF this conjecture were true, then
it should have some OTHER independent testable consequence, by which
to tell if that's what's really going on. Of course, you'll not find
that in most newspaper snippets about it.
[quote]
So there you have it. A new 'fix' waiting in the wings. Now if Holger
Nielsen, and Ninomiya had come up with their theory sooner £14.7c could
have been save and used to buy up the rain forests and protect them or
to provide flood defences to stop millions dying when sea level rises.
Even without Nielsen, and Ninomiya it is foreseeable that the money has
been wasted because in the end it doesn't matter whether the LCD finds
the Higgs Boson or not; Physics will find an excuse to carry on as if it
had.
[/quote]
Fundamental research will carry on -- that is, research that has no
particular eye to application but to just knowing how the universe
works. If you don't like fundamental research at all and want it all
devoted to applications, then by all means focus your attention on
engineering rather than science.
[quote]
--
John Kennaugh they're coming to take me away, Ho ho, hee hee, ha ha,
To the funny farm Where Life is Beautiful all the time And I'll be happy to
see Those Nice Young Men In their Clean White Coats And they're coming ....[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Juan R." González-Álvarez... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
PD wrote on Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:52:05 -0700:
(...)
[quote]"Theoretical physicists Holger Nielsen, from Denmark, and Masao
Ninomiya, from Japan, have concluded that the discovery of the
Higgs-Boson could be so "abhorrent to nature" that they are coming back
through time to stop their own creation. They have outlined their
thoughts in a series of papers with titles like "Test of Effect From
Future in Large Hadron Collider: a Proposal" and "Search for Future
Influence From LHC."
The pair's hypothesis centres around the Higgs Boson, a mysterious tiny
particle and building block of life that it is hoped the LHC will
discover. They have come up with a theory that it will "ripple backward
through time" and stop the collider before it could make one, like a
time traveller who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.
'It must be our prediction that all Higgs producing machines shall have
bad luck,' Dr. Nielsen said. He said that his theories may even provide
a "model for God" who "rather hates Higgs particles, and attempts to
avoid them".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6318034/Could-the-Lar...
adron-Collider-be-held-back-by-its-own-future.html
Yes, and notice that you're reading from a NEWSPAPER. It might by useful
to see what the scientific community thinks of this conjecture.
[/quote]
It is being labelled as crackpot stuff in several specialized blogs.
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Kennaugh wrote:
[snip all, unread]
Yes. Now piss off. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Juan R." González-Álvarez... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Kennaugh wrote on Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:01:22 +0100:
[quote]Juan R. González-Ãlvarez wrote:
PD wrote on Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:52:05 -0700:
(...)
"Theoretical physicists Holger Nielsen, from Denmark, and Masao
Ninomiya, from Japan, have concluded that the discovery of the
Higgs-Boson could be so "abhorrent to nature" that they are coming
back through time to stop their own creation. They have outlined
their thoughts in a series of papers with titles like "Test of Effect
From Future in Large Hadron Collider: a Proposal" and "Search for
Future Influence From LHC."
The pair's hypothesis centres around the Higgs Boson, a mysterious
tiny particle and building block of life that it is hoped the LHC
will discover. They have come up with a theory that it will "ripple
backward through time" and stop the collider before it could make
one, like a time traveller who goes back in time to kill his
grandfather.
'It must be our prediction that all Higgs producing machines shall
have bad luck,' Dr. Nielsen said. He said that his theories may even
provide a "model for God" who "rather hates Higgs particles, and
attempts to avoid them".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6318034/Could-the-Lar...
adron-Collider-be-held-back-by-its-own-future.html
Yes, and notice that you're reading from a NEWSPAPER. It might by
useful to see what the scientific community thinks of this conjecture.
It is being labelled as crackpot stuff in several specialized blogs.
I suspect that if the LHC fails to detect the Higgs-Boson it will become
more popular  )
[/quote]
I am not sure about that.
[quote]What is the highest status physicist who has condemned
it as "crackpot stuff" and what criteria has he used to condemn it? I
suspect the big guns are keeping a low profile.
[/quote]
Pretty irrelevant, just as the rest of your post.
[quote]My point over several years is that Physics has no quality assurance
criteria.
[/quote]
Physics is one science.
(...)
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Yes .. it is. What a stupid question.
"John Kennaugh" <JKNG at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Y7ygEiTHeg3KFwrI at (no spam) kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
[quote]In a science you have a theory, devise an experiment to test that theory
and if you get the wrong result your theory has failed.
Obviously you may be able to come up with a fix for that theory as Lorentz
did when the MMX gave a result contrary to Maxwell's predictions.
Now suppose there is absolutely no constraints on what constitutes an
*acceptable* fix. i.e. no rules of discipline under which physicist need
operate. Quite simply no theory (no matter how wrong) need fail.
In trying to get the "standard model" to work a problem emerged. One
particle needed to be both massless and massive. Now one might suggest
that the physicists go back to the drawing board and try again. Particles
can't both have mass and not have mass can they? That is silly. But
physics allows 'silly' they claim they are not wrong but nature which is
at fault for being 'weird' so with something straight out of Hogwarts, one
might call it the "let it have mass" spell (they actually called it a
Higgs field) a massless particle can be magic'd into a massive particle.
Now physics cannot even explain what an EM field IS, it used to map an
altered state in the aether but now the aether is forbidden it has no
invisible means of support and no one has yet decided what it consists of
if it is not. That being the case one might think that it would be
sensible to resolve that before inventing new 'fields'.
It is argued (by PD actually) that even the inclusion of fairies as part
of a theory is acceptable if it leads to testable prediction - it is then
(according to PD) still science. If the Higgs field exists then
predictions which can be tested follow. One consequence is prediction of
the existence of the Higgs-Boson.
So £4,400,000,000 or £14.7c has been spent - not to find the answer to the
ultimate question of life the universe and everything (we know that is 42)
but to find the Higgs-Boson. Having spent that much one might expect a
conclusive result. Either the Higgs-Boson exists or it doesn't and if it
doesn't then it is back to the drawing board on lots of things - the
standard model included.
Well one might think that but as I say there is absolutely no constraints
on what constitutes an *acceptable* fix. No theory need fail.
"Theoretical physicists Holger Nielsen, from Denmark, and Masao Ninomiya,
from Japan, have concluded that the discovery of the Higgs-Boson could be
so "abhorrent to nature" that they are coming back through time to stop
their own creation. They have outlined their thoughts in a series of
papers with titles like "Test of Effect From Future in Large Hadron
Collider: a Proposal" and "Search for Future Influence From LHC."
The pair's hypothesis centres around the Higgs Boson, a mysterious tiny
particle and building block of life that it is hoped the LHC will
discover. They have come up with a theory that it will "ripple backward
through time" and stop the collider before it could make one, like a time
traveller who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.
'It must be our prediction that all Higgs producing machines shall have
bad luck,' Dr. Nielsen said. He said that his theories may even provide a
"model for God" who "rather hates Higgs particles, and attempts to avoid
them".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6318034/Could-the-Large-H
adron-Collider-be-held-back-by-its-own-future.html
So there you have it. A new 'fix' waiting in the wings. Now if Holger
Nielsen, and Ninomiya had come up with their theory sooner £14.7c could
have been save and used to buy up the rain forests and protect them or to
provide flood defences to stop millions dying when sea level rises. Even
without Nielsen, and Ninomiya it is foreseeable that the money has been
wasted because in the end it doesn't matter whether the LCD finds the
Higgs Boson or not; Physics will find an excuse to carry on as if it had.
--
John Kennaugh they're coming to take me away, Ho ho, hee hee, ha ha,
To the funny farm Where Life is Beautiful all the time And I'll be happy
to
see Those Nice Young Men In their Clean White Coats And they're coming ...
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 5:01 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
PD wrote on Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:52:05 -0700:
(...)
"Theoretical physicists Holger Nielsen, from Denmark, and Masao
Ninomiya, from Japan, have concluded that the discovery of the
Higgs-Boson could be so "abhorrent to nature" that they are coming back
through time to stop their own creation. They have outlined their
thoughts in a series of papers with titles like "Test of Effect From
Future in Large Hadron Collider: a Proposal" and "Search for Future
Influence From LHC."
The pair's hypothesis centres around the Higgs Boson, a mysterious tiny
particle and building block of life that it is hoped the LHC will
discover. They have come up with a theory that it will "ripple backward
through time" and stop the collider before it could make one, like a
time traveller who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.
'It must be our prediction that all Higgs producing machines shall have
bad luck,' Dr. Nielsen said. He said that his theories may even provide
a "model for God" who "rather hates Higgs particles, and attempts to
avoid them".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6318034/Could-the-Lar....
adron-Collider-be-held-back-by-its-own-future.html
Yes, and notice that you're reading from a NEWSPAPER. It might by useful
to see what the scientific community thinks of this conjecture.
It is being labelled as crackpot stuff in several specialized blogs.
I suspect that if the LHC fails to detect the Higgs-Boson it will become
more popular )
[/quote]
Popularity has nothing to do with it. If the LHC fails to detect the
Higgs boson, there are a half-dozen well-formed ideas already
available that would compete as to what's going on. All of them have
would have to have some independent way (other than lack of Higgs
bosons) to test whether this or that one is more likely right.
I get the feeling that you believe the money should not have been
spent unless finding the Higgs boson was a sure thing. If it were a
sure thing, why would we have to run an experiment to see if it's
really right? Experiments are designed to test what we're not sure
about, not to collect what we're sure about.
[quote]What is the highest status physicist who has condemned
it as "crackpot stuff" and what criteria has he used to condemn it? I
suspect the big guns are keeping a low profile.
[/quote]
Physics really doesn't operate on a status hierarchy. It's not like
the business world, or for that matter, like engineering.
[quote]
My point over several years is that Physics has no quality assurance
criteria. It cannot dismiss any 'crackpot' idea as it has no criteria it
can apply.
[/quote]
I've already told you this is wrong and told you what the QA criteria
are.
[quote]Having decided that physics cannot be wrong and it is Nature
which is weird there is no way you can reject any idea on the grounds
that "nature is weird but it can't be THAT weird".
[/quote]
That's certainly true. That is NOT good grounds for dismissal of an
idea.
[quote]If it does come up
with quality assurance criteria it would have to apply them to existing
theory.
--
John Kennaugh[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Kennaugh... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
PD wrote:
[quote]On Oct 20, 1:55 pm, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
In a science you have a theory, devise an experiment to test that theory
and if you get the wrong result your theory has failed.
Obviously you may be able to come up with a fix for that theory as
Lorentz did when the MMX gave a result contrary to Maxwell's
predictions.
Now suppose there is absolutely no constraints on what constitutes an
*acceptable* fix. i.e. no rules of discipline under which physicist need
operate. Quite simply no theory (no matter how wrong) need fail.
Of course there is. There needs to be a *testable* prediction from the
theory that distinguishes it from other theories. But notice the
nature of this difference. The difference is NOT in the underlying
nature of the theory ("is it material-based?" "is it deterministic?"
"is it time-ordered"), and it is NOT in the comfort level of the
explanation in the theory. It is in something that is objectively and
unambiguously determined by *measurement*. Where two theories disagree
on what is going on, then the only way scientifically to ferret that
out is to find the place where the two theories will disagree on the
value of a measured property under certain set circumstances. Then
nature becomes the arbiter -- not logic, not intuition, not
philosphical framework, not simplicity or elegance -- by simply
telling you with the value of that property which of the two (if any)
is right.
[/quote]
Which two theories is the LHC trying to decide between? Who is
championing and developing the alternative theory?
[quote]In trying to get the "standard model" to work a problem emerged. One
particle needed to be both massless and massive.
What on earth gave you THAT idea?
That's not AT ALL what happened.
What was true is that the theory prior to the Higgs mechanism was
KNOWN not to represent reality completely, because it did not have any
mechanism by which particles could be massive. However, it got enough
other things right that it showed some promise, and this warranted
further work. This eventually led to the realization that IF another
field existed, then masses could be accounted for, and then the
standard model would have a chance of really representing reality.
Now, perhaps you are whining that the moment the gauge theory had no
accounting for mass, it should have been dropped without further work.
To this I respond that if you look at Newton's 2nd law and apply it in
a case of 2D projectile motion, where the force acting is mg on the
projectile, then you get some very nice properties of the result and
something close to being right. But of course, it doesn't get the
range right at all. Is that a sufficient reason to shun Newton's 2nd
law? Of course not! Because you KNOW you've not included something --
air drag and air lift. And if you don't know yet that air drag has a
v^2 dependence, does this mean that you should give up and say it's
all hocus pocus because you have to account for air resistance but
don't know exactly how to yet?
[/quote]
Your analogy doesn't work for me - sorry!
[quote]
Now one might suggest
that the physicists go back to the drawing board and try again.
Particles can't both have mass and not have mass can they? That is
silly. But physics allows 'silly' they claim they are not wrong but
nature which is at fault for being 'weird' so with something straight
out of Hogwarts, one might call it the "let it have mass" spell (they
actually called it a Higgs field) a massless particle can be magic'd
into a massive particle.
It appears you don't know what the Higgs field does. What it does NOT
do is make particles massive and massless at the same time.
[/quote]
No it makes it massive when it enters a Higgs field - Magic!
[quote]
Now physics cannot even explain what an EM field IS, it used to map an
altered state in the aether but now the aether is forbidden it has no
invisible means of support and no one has yet decided what it consists
of if it is not.
And the thing is, you can make certain predictions about what ANY
aether would do, as long as it has certain basic properties, and test
those -- WITHOUT knowing exactly what the aether is.
[/quote]
If you say there is an aether and a field is an altered state in the
aether but you are not sure what the aether is - I'm happy with that if
you also express the hope that one day we may know more about the
aether. In a sense 'the aether' is then a 'place holder' implying that
something exists vital to your theory but which is otherwise an unknown.
I might not agree with it. I might prefer some other explanation but I
can respect your point of view. If OTOH you claim there is no aether,
that space is devoid of such things but it can still store energy that
to me is a contradiction. You cannot store energy in nothing so if space
itself has no substance - no aether then the energy must be in some
other form than an altered state. Some sort of material stuff which
needs its place in the grand order of substances. e.g. the standard
model. I don't respect your theory if it relies on a field and you do
not care what a field is because it works mathematically.
I insist on the physical reality of the physical world.
[quote]
Likewise, we knew a lot about atomic physics just by knowing there
were some very small constituents involved, without having any idea
whether those constituents were fundamental or composite. You do NOT
have to know everything about an object or a substance to be able to
rule out a whole class of candidates.
[/quote]
I never claimed you did.
[quote]
That being the case one might think that it would be
sensible to resolve that before inventing new 'fields'.
I disagree on the priority. Both of them can be put forward and the
same time, with no preference or priority given to either.
[/quote]
The EM field has been a part of physics for more than a century. One can
measure it. A Higgs field is simply an idea to solve a problem.
[quote]It is argued (by PD actually) that even the inclusion of fairies as part
of a theory is acceptable if it leads to testable prediction - it is
then (according to PD) still science.
Yes, indeed.
If the Higgs field exists then
predictions which can be tested follow. One consequence is prediction of
the existence of the Higgs-Boson.
So £4,400,000,000 or £14.7c has been spent - not to find the answer to
the ultimate question of life the universe and everything (we know that
is 42) but to find the Higgs-Boson.
And what price is maximal for fundamental research? How much money is
justified?
[/quote]
You might contemplate where the money for such projects comes from and
who ultimately has to approve that expenditure. You might find
ultimately that if at some point the public start to ask questions that
my way of thinking is likely to prevail. At present it is a con trick.
The public believe that those really clever physicist know what they are
doing and that it is far too difficult for them to understand - so they
don't try. At some point they will question what is going on and ask
physicists to explain it to them. Physics has developed its own language
and its own way of thinking and is in my view incapable of communicating
with those who fund it.
[quote]And how do you determine that?
[/quote]
The general public may ask "what do we get out of it" or at the very
least "how much can we afford" and "what are our priorities on limited
funds". Can you show the social and economic benefits of such research?
[quote]
Note that $4.4B is *small* compared to some military R&D projects that
don't lead to any deployed system. Scrap ONE of those projects in the
bud, and you've got PLENTY of money to do fundamental research.
[/quote]
Or PLENTY of money to develop an anti malarial vaccine say. Much of
physics funding has been on the back of military R&D. We have now
developed enough ways to efficiently kill each other and found that in
practice we cannot use them and are back to hand to hand shooting type
wars. Funding physics on the grounds that it might come up with
something new to zap people with is starting to look like a rather old
fashioned idea. The only thing left is a countries prestige and that in
turn depends on physics remaining credible and worthy of respect.
[quote]Having spent that much one might
expect a conclusive result. Either the Higgs-Boson exists or it doesn't
and if it doesn't then it is back to the drawing board on lots of things
- the standard model included.
Well one might think that but as I say there is absolutely no
constraints on what constitutes an *acceptable* fix. No theory need
fail.
"Theoretical physicists Holger Nielsen, from Denmark, and Masao
Ninomiya, from Japan, have concluded that the discovery of the
Higgs-Boson could be so "abhorrent to nature" that they are coming back
through time to stop their own creation. They have outlined their
thoughts in a series of papers with titles like "Test of Effect From
Future in Large Hadron Collider: a Proposal" and "Search for Future
Influence From LHC."
The pair's hypothesis centres around the Higgs Boson, a mysterious tiny
particle and building block of life that it is hoped the LHC will
discover. They have come up with a theory that it will "ripple backward
through time" and stop the collider before it could make one, like a
time traveller who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.
'It must be our prediction that all Higgs producing machines shall have
bad luck,' Dr. Nielsen said. He said that his theories may even provide
a "model for God" who "rather hates Higgs particles, and attempts to
avoid them".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6318034/Could-the-Lar...
adron-Collider-be-held-back-by-its-own-future.html
Yes, and notice that you're reading from a NEWSPAPER.
[/quote]
A well respected newspaper - yes.
[quote]It might by
useful to see what the scientific community thinks of this conjecture.
[/quote]
That is my entire point. What possible objection, what principle, what
self exposed discipline would entitle any physicist to reject their
'theory'? There is no rule book. "You cannot impose your rules on
nature" you said or something similar. If you decided rules, guidelines
or whatever which allowed you to reject their theory they would have to
be applied to existing theories. The only grounds for rejecting the idea
is if the physicists concerned lack enough status.
[quote]In particular, one might say that IF this conjecture were true, then
it should have some OTHER independent testable consequence, by which
to tell if that's what's really going on. Of course, you'll not find
that in most newspaper snippets about it.
[/quote]
But don't you see this is a never ending story. You have a particle
which sometimes requires to have mass, and sometimes doesn't - so you
invent a 'magic' field which allows that - that is accepted because it
has testable consequences. You test those consequences and if it fails
you come up with another bit of magic which is acceptable if it predicts
testable consequences - if that fails you come up with a theory as to
why that failed - so long as it has testable consequences ......
Now lets suppose the "standard model" is wrong - who is working on that
possibility? Dare anyone even suggest it?
[quote]So there you have it. A new 'fix' waiting in the wings. Now if Holger
Nielsen, and Ninomiya had come up with their theory sooner £14.7c could
have been save and used to buy up the rain forests and protect them or
to provide flood defences to stop millions dying when sea level rises.
Even without Nielsen, and Ninomiya it is foreseeable that the money has
been wasted because in the end it doesn't matter whether the LCD finds
the Higgs Boson or not; Physics will find an excuse to carry on as if it
had.
Fundamental research will carry on -- that is, research that has no
particular eye to application but to just knowing how the universe
works. If you don't like fundamental research at all and want it all
devoted to applications, then by all means focus your attention on
engineering rather than science.
[/quote]
Technology is certainly more cost effective. As a well informed, and
very reasonable layman I would say that in funding Fundamental physics
research the public purse is funding expensive fantasy based upon
recreational mathematics which has no quality assurance criteria to
ensure that anything it comes up with is in any way meaningful.
It has just added "back to the future" and "Terminator 2" to its source
material.
--
John Kennaugh "... even in science, what at its beginnings is recognised as a
speculation, with greater or less plausibility, develops with time into a
compulsory dogma, which whosoever disbelieves thereby brands himself as an
ignorant fool." Dingle |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Kennaugh... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
[quote]PD wrote on Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:52:05 -0700:
(...)
"Theoretical physicists Holger Nielsen, from Denmark, and Masao
Ninomiya, from Japan, have concluded that the discovery of the
Higgs-Boson could be so "abhorrent to nature" that they are coming back
through time to stop their own creation. They have outlined their
thoughts in a series of papers with titles like "Test of Effect From
Future in Large Hadron Collider: a Proposal" and "Search for Future
Influence From LHC."
The pair's hypothesis centres around the Higgs Boson, a mysterious tiny
particle and building block of life that it is hoped the LHC will
discover. They have come up with a theory that it will "ripple backward
through time" and stop the collider before it could make one, like a
time traveller who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.
'It must be our prediction that all Higgs producing machines shall have
bad luck,' Dr. Nielsen said. He said that his theories may even provide
a "model for God" who "rather hates Higgs particles, and attempts to
avoid them".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6318034/Could-the-Lar...
adron-Collider-be-held-back-by-its-own-future.html
Yes, and notice that you're reading from a NEWSPAPER. It might by useful
to see what the scientific community thinks of this conjecture.
It is being labelled as crackpot stuff in several specialized blogs.
[/quote]
I suspect that if the LHC fails to detect the Higgs-Boson it will become
more popular ) What is the highest status physicist who has condemned
it as "crackpot stuff" and what criteria has he used to condemn it? I
suspect the big guns are keeping a low profile.
My point over several years is that Physics has no quality assurance
criteria. It cannot dismiss any 'crackpot' idea as it has no criteria it
can apply. Having decided that physics cannot be wrong and it is Nature
which is weird there is no way you can reject any idea on the grounds
that "nature is weird but it can't be THAT weird". If it does come up
with quality assurance criteria it would have to apply them to existing
theory.
--
John Kennaugh |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 4:47 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]PD wrote:
On Oct 20, 1:55 pm, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
In a science you have a theory, devise an experiment to test that theory
and if you get the wrong result your theory has failed.
Obviously you may be able to come up with a fix for that theory as
Lorentz did when the MMX gave a result contrary to Maxwell's
predictions.
Now suppose there is absolutely no constraints on what constitutes an
*acceptable* fix. i.e. no rules of discipline under which physicist need
operate. Quite simply no theory (no matter how wrong) need fail.
Of course there is. There needs to be a *testable* prediction from the
theory that distinguishes it from other theories. But notice the
nature of this difference. The difference is NOT in the underlying
nature of the theory ("is it material-based?" "is it deterministic?"
"is it time-ordered"), and it is NOT in the comfort level of the
explanation in the theory. It is in something that is objectively and
unambiguously determined by *measurement*. Where two theories disagree
on what is going on, then the only way scientifically to ferret that
out is to find the place where the two theories will disagree on the
value of a measured property under certain set circumstances. Then
nature becomes the arbiter -- not logic, not intuition, not
philosphical framework, not simplicity or elegance -- by simply
telling you with the value of that property which of the two (if any)
is right.
Which two theories is the LHC trying to decide between? Who is
championing and developing the alternative theory?
[/quote]
There are LOTS that are competing. And physicists are championing the
alternative theories.
[quote]
In trying to get the "standard model" to work a problem emerged. One
particle needed to be both massless and massive.
What on earth gave you THAT idea?
That's not AT ALL what happened.
What was true is that the theory prior to the Higgs mechanism was
KNOWN not to represent reality completely, because it did not have any
mechanism by which particles could be massive. However, it got enough
other things right that it showed some promise, and this warranted
further work. This eventually led to the realization that IF another
field existed, then masses could be accounted for, and then the
standard model would have a chance of really representing reality.
Now, perhaps you are whining that the moment the gauge theory had no
accounting for mass, it should have been dropped without further work.
To this I respond that if you look at Newton's 2nd law and apply it in
a case of 2D projectile motion, where the force acting is mg on the
projectile, then you get some very nice properties of the result and
something close to being right. But of course, it doesn't get the
range right at all. Is that a sufficient reason to shun Newton's 2nd
law? Of course not! Because you KNOW you've not included something --
air drag and air lift. And if you don't know yet that air drag has a
v^2 dependence, does this mean that you should give up and say it's
all hocus pocus because you have to account for air resistance but
don't know exactly how to yet?
Your analogy doesn't work for me - sorry!
[/quote]
Why not? It's the same thing.
[quote]
Now one might suggest
that the physicists go back to the drawing board and try again.
Particles can't both have mass and not have mass can they? That is
silly. But physics allows 'silly' they claim they are not wrong but
nature which is at fault for being 'weird' so with something straight
out of Hogwarts, one might call it the "let it have mass" spell (they
actually called it a Higgs field) a massless particle can be magic'd
into a massive particle.
It appears you don't know what the Higgs field does. What it does NOT
do is make particles massive and massless at the same time.
No it makes it massive when it enters a Higgs field - Magic!
[/quote]
No, that is NOT correct. It might help if you read a little more
deeply about what the Higgs mechanism is.
[quote]
Now physics cannot even explain what an EM field IS, it used to map an
altered state in the aether but now the aether is forbidden it has no
invisible means of support and no one has yet decided what it consists
of if it is not.
And the thing is, you can make certain predictions about what ANY
aether would do, as long as it has certain basic properties, and test
those -- WITHOUT knowing exactly what the aether is.
If you say there is an aether and a field is an altered state in the
aether but you are not sure what the aether is - I'm happy with that if
you also express the hope that one day we may know more about the
aether. In a sense 'the aether' is then a 'place holder' implying that
something exists vital to your theory but which is otherwise an unknown.
[/quote]
At some point, you have to ask what the general properties of the
aether are.
If you claim that it is made of constituents that in principle can be
tracked in time, then this broad class of aethers have been ruled out
by a variety of experiments.
If you claim that the aether is simply that which bears fields, then
this has no functional distinction from spacetime itself.
[quote]
I might not agree with it. I might prefer some other explanation but I
can respect your point of view. If OTOH you claim there is no aether,
that space is devoid of such things but it can still store energy that
to me is a contradiction.
[/quote]
And that's where we run into a problem. You are DEFINING space to be
that which has no physical properties, and by that definition
(literally "nothing") you derive a contradiction. But the problem is
that scientists do not use that definition for space. Space can indeed
bear physical properties, because it appears that nature in places
where there is no matter still bears physical properties. Your
recourse is to say, "What you call space, then, I label 'aether'
because only 'something' can bear physical properties and I've defined
space to be 'nothing' and not 'something'."
Then it's just a matter of semantics.
Now, if you FURTHER believe that only *matter* can have physical
properties, then this is a claim that can be put to experimental test,
because the presence of matter would imply certain other consequences
expected of matter.
If you wish to back away from those consequences by supposing that
there is a *new form* of matter that does NOT have those general
properties of matter, and it is THIS you want to label as "aether",
then again you are just making new definitions of words to suit your
prejudices that anything that has physical properties should be
labeled as matter.
[quote]You cannot store energy in nothing so if space
itself has no substance - no aether then the energy must be in some
other form than an altered state. Some sort of material stuff which
needs its place in the grand order of substances. e.g. the standard
model. I don't respect your theory if it relies on a field and you do
not care what a field is because it works mathematically.
[/quote]
I *do* care what a field is. I just don't demand that it has a
material basis, and furthermore I don't insist that I don't understand
what it is if it doesn't have a material basis.
[quote]I insist on the physical reality of the physical world.
Likewise, we knew a lot about atomic physics just by knowing there
were some very small constituents involved, without having any idea
whether those constituents were fundamental or composite. You do NOT
have to know everything about an object or a substance to be able to
rule out a whole class of candidates.
I never claimed you did.
That being the case one might think that it would be
sensible to resolve that before inventing new 'fields'.
I disagree on the priority. Both of them can be put forward and the
same time, with no preference or priority given to either.
The EM field has been a part of physics for more than a century. One can
measure it. A Higgs field is simply an idea to solve a problem.
[/quote]
Note that the EM field wasn't measured at the time of Maxwell. Hertz
did it in very rough form first.
Same thing was true for the neutrino. It was an idea to solve a
problem, but if the idea was right, then it would have other testable
consequences, which were in fact tested a couple of decades later.
Same thing is true for the Higgs. It's an idea to solve a problem, but
if the idea is right, then it would have other testable consequences,
which are being tested imminently.
What's the issue?
[quote]
It is argued (by PD actually) that even the inclusion of fairies as part
of a theory is acceptable if it leads to testable prediction - it is
then (according to PD) still science.
Yes, indeed.
If the Higgs field exists then
predictions which can be tested follow. One consequence is prediction of
the existence of the Higgs-Boson.
So £4,400,000,000 or £14.7c has been spent - not to find the answer to
the ultimate question of life the universe and everything (we know that
is 42) but to find the Higgs-Boson.
And what price is maximal for fundamental research? How much money is
justified?
You might contemplate where the money for such projects comes from and
who ultimately has to approve that expenditure. You might find
ultimately that if at some point the public start to ask questions that
my way of thinking is likely to prevail. At present it is a con trick.
The public believe that those really clever physicist know what they are
doing and that it is far too difficult for them to understand - so they
don't try. At some point they will question what is going on and ask
physicists to explain it to them. Physics has developed its own language
and its own way of thinking and is in my view incapable of communicating
with those who fund it.
[/quote]
I completely disagree. You have certain elected custodians of your
contributions to public funds. It is those custodians that have the
charge of wisely appropriating public funds. Physics is, in the US,
largely funded by those public funds, via the DoE and NSF. The elected
custodians appoint people to those federal offices at the DoE and NSF
to make recommendations about, and to manage, the spending of those
funds. Those people have physics background but are government
employees and are not involved in active research. It is their job to
review grant applications and to monitor satisfactory productivity
with dispensed funds. Nobody is pulling anything over on anyone.
I get the feeling that you feel somewhat disenfranchised and powerless
because of all those intermediaries and you would like greater control
of how your individual tax dollars are spent. For example, you would
like more money spent on applied work and less on fundamental physics,
or at least that less of YOUR dollars go to fundamental research. I
sympathize, but you're barking up the wrong tree. If you have a
problem with the system that dispenses public funds, then you take it
up with the system. It's pointless to whine to the beneficiaries of
the system that dispenses public funds.
[quote]
And how do you determine that?
The general public may ask "what do we get out of it" or at the very
least "how much can we afford" and "what are our priorities on limited
funds". Can you show the social and economic benefits of such research?
[/quote]
Fundamental research is not done with an eye for application and
improving the quality of everyday life. Yet it always does in the end.
People can argue endlessly whether it was Maxwell or Edison that
really provided the impact on everyday life with electricity. The real
answer is that it's BOTH. That's why it's called R&D and not just D.
Those people involved in the D side of R&D usually know that without
R, the D will eventually dry up. Likewise, those people in R know that
eventually D will have to kick in to make the work done in R seem
worthwhile. But the people who favor the D side generally sign up to
do work on the D side, and likewise for the R side. It's pointless to
ask R people to be more D, or D people to bear the burden of doing R.
[quote]
Note that $4.4B is *small* compared to some military R&D projects that
don't lead to any deployed system. Scrap ONE of those projects in the
bud, and you've got PLENTY of money to do fundamental research.
Or PLENTY of money to develop an anti malarial vaccine say. Much of
physics funding has been on the back of military R&D.
[/quote]
Not for the last 40 years, pal.
[quote]We have now
developed enough ways to efficiently kill each other and found that in
practice we cannot use them and are back to hand to hand shooting type
wars. Funding physics on the grounds that it might come up with
something new to zap people with is
[/quote]
There is zero military application to the work being done at Fermilab.
On the other hand, Fermilab's work was instrumental in the creation of
proton therapy protocols and was the principal driver behind
facilities like the Loma Linda proton therapy accelerator.
You have some rather old-fashioned ideas about physics being an
extension of the military-industrial complex.
[quote]starting to look like a rather old
fashioned idea. The only thing left is a countries prestige and that in
turn depends on physics remaining credible and worthy of respect.
Having spent that much one might
expect a conclusive result. Either the Higgs-Boson exists or it doesn't
and if it doesn't then it is back to the drawing board on lots of things
- the standard model included.
Well one might think that but as I say there is absolutely no
constraints on what constitutes an *acceptable* fix. No theory need
fail.
"Theoretical physicists Holger Nielsen, from Denmark, and Masao
Ninomiya, from Japan, have concluded that the discovery of the
Higgs-Boson could be so "abhorrent to nature" that they are coming back
through time to stop their own creation. They have outlined their
thoughts in a series of papers with titles like "Test of Effect From
Future in Large Hadron Collider: a Proposal" and "Search for Future
Influence From LHC."
The pair's hypothesis centres around the Higgs Boson, a mysterious tiny
particle and building block of life that it is hoped the LHC will
discover. They have come up with a theory that it will "ripple backward
through time" and stop the collider before it could make one, like a
time traveller who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.
'It must be our prediction that all Higgs producing machines shall have
bad luck,' Dr. Nielsen said. He said that his theories may even provide
a "model for God" who "rather hates Higgs particles, and attempts to
avoid them".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6318034/Could-the-Lar....
adron-Collider-be-held-back-by-its-own-future.html
Yes, and notice that you're reading from a NEWSPAPER.
A well respected newspaper - yes.
[/quote]
That has a target audience that is not interested in full scientific
consideration.
[quote]
It might by
useful to see what the scientific community thinks of this conjecture.
That is my entire point. What possible objection, what principle, what
self exposed discipline would entitle any physicist to reject their
'theory'? There is no rule book. "You cannot impose your rules on
nature" you said or something similar. If you decided rules, guidelines
or whatever which allowed you to reject their theory they would have to
be applied to existing theories. The only grounds for rejecting the idea
is if the physicists concerned lack enough status.
[/quote]
And that's ridiculous. Status has nothing to do with it. I told you
what the criteria are: independent, testable predictions that
distinguish one model from another.
Pre-vetting ideas on the basis of "can't be TOO crazy" or "well, who
is it that's suggesting the idea?" is just not how science works or
should work.
[quote]
In particular, one might say that IF this conjecture were true, then
it should have some OTHER independent testable consequence, by which
to tell if that's what's really going on. Of course, you'll not find
that in most newspaper snippets about it.
But don't you see this is a never ending story. You have a particle
which sometimes requires to have mass, and sometimes doesn't
[/quote]
No, I already told you this is not what the Higgs mechanism does.
[quote]- so you
invent a 'magic' field which allows that - that is accepted because it
has testable consequences. You test those consequences and if it fails
you come up with another bit of magic which is acceptable if it predicts
testable consequences - if that fails you come up with a theory as to
why that failed - so long as it has testable consequences ......
[/quote]
And of course, those testable consequences have to be tested.
[quote]
Now lets suppose the "standard model" is wrong - who is working on that
possibility? Dare anyone even suggest it?
[/quote]
There are LOTS of those models flying around, and people ARE working
on it. There ARE lots of people working on the notion that the Higgs
mechanism is just plain wrong. You just don't find newspapers writing
stories about it, because there aren't enough people like you that are
concerned whether that's the case in their reading audience. But there
ARE people in physics that are concerned about it.
It's like Barnes & Noble. If you go to Barnes and Noble in the science
shelves, you see a lot of books written by theorists and a lot of
books written about colorful personalities like Sagan and Feynman and
Einstein and Randall. And so people come away with the impression that
physics is being driven and dominated by theorists with colorful
personalities, and ask why the contributions of engineers and applied
scientists and technicians and computer scientists who do a huge
amount of work at real laboratories are not more recognized. And the
reason for that is that Barnes & Noble is trying to sell books, not
represent the scientific community accurately. And books about far-out
ideas and colorful personalities sell better than books about people
that actually are a representative slice through the community. It's
not the *purpose* of Barnes & Noble books to give an accurate view of
how science actually is done.
[quote]
So there you have it. A new 'fix' waiting in the wings. Now if Holger
Nielsen, and Ninomiya had come up with their theory sooner £14.7c could
have been save and used to buy up the rain forests and protect them or
to provide flood defences to stop millions dying when sea level rises.
Even without Nielsen, and Ninomiya it is foreseeable that the money has
been wasted because in the end it doesn't matter whether the LCD finds
the Higgs Boson or not; Physics will find an excuse to carry on as if it
had.
Fundamental research will carry on -- that is, research that has no
particular eye to application but to just knowing how the universe
works. If you don't like fundamental research at all and want it all
devoted to applications, then by all means focus your attention on
engineering rather than science.
Technology is certainly more cost effective.
[/quote]
Effective for WHAT? If you mean the timely production of technology
that changes quality of life for people, then fundamental research is
not funded for that purpose. It doesn't make sense to apply a success
metric to an area that isn't intended to satisfy that metric.
[quote]As a well informed, and
very reasonable layman I would say that in funding Fundamental physics
research the public purse is funding expensive fantasy based upon
recreational mathematics which has no quality assurance criteria to
ensure that anything it comes up with is in any way meaningful.
It has just added "back to the future" and "Terminator 2" to its source
material.
--
John Kennaugh "... even in science, what at its beginnings is recognised as a
speculation, with greater or less plausibility, develops with time into a
compulsory dogma, which whosoever disbelieves thereby brands himself as an
ignorant fool." Dingle[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 10:25 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]PD wrote:
On Oct 21, 5:01 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
PD wrote on Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:52:05 -0700:
(...)
"Theoretical physicists Holger Nielsen, from Denmark, and Masao
Ninomiya, from Japan, have concluded that the discovery of the
Higgs-Boson could be so "abhorrent to nature" that they are coming back
through time to stop their own creation. They have outlined their
thoughts in a series of papers with titles like "Test of Effect From
Future in Large Hadron Collider: a Proposal" and "Search for Future
Influence From LHC."
The pair's hypothesis centres around the Higgs Boson, a mysterious tiny
particle and building block of life that it is hoped the LHC will
discover. They have come up with a theory that it will "ripple backward
through time" and stop the collider before it could make one, like a
time traveller who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.
'It must be our prediction that all Higgs producing machines shall have
bad luck,' Dr. Nielsen said. He said that his theories may even provide
a "model for God" who "rather hates Higgs particles, and attempts to
avoid them".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6318034/Could-the-Lar...
adron-Collider-be-held-back-by-its-own-future.html
Yes, and notice that you're reading from a NEWSPAPER. It might by useful
to see what the scientific community thinks of this conjecture.
It is being labelled as crackpot stuff in several specialized blogs.
I suspect that if the LHC fails to detect the Higgs-Boson it will become
more popular )
Popularity has nothing to do with it. If the LHC fails to detect the
Higgs boson, there are a half-dozen well-formed ideas already
available that would compete as to what's going on. All of them have
would have to have some independent way (other than lack of Higgs
bosons) to test whether this or that one is more likely right.
I get the feeling that you believe the money should not have been
spent unless finding the Higgs boson was a sure thing. If it were a
sure thing, why would we have to run an experiment to see if it's
really right? Experiments are designed to test what we're not sure
about, not to collect what we're sure about.
What is the highest status physicist who has condemned
it as "crackpot stuff" and what criteria has he used to condemn it? I
suspect the big guns are keeping a low profile.
Physics really doesn't operate on a status hierarchy. It's not like
the business world, or for that matter, like engineering.
I beg to differ. You surely must admit that physicist are human and have
normal human ambition. They are unlikely to get public acclaim as the
public haven't a clue about what modern physics is about. The only
avenue for gaining status is within the ranks of physics itself, within
the ranks of the believers. It is a completely closed order.
[/quote]
This is ridiculous. It implies that becoming engaged in education in a
subject means implicitly that you will end up agreeing with the status
quo, and then complaining that those who do not want to remain
skeptical about the status quo are being excluded from proper
knowledge of the subject.
If you want to know what modern physics is about, then you ENGAGE in
those activities that are explicitly structured to provide you with
that knowledge. This does NOT require that you sign any contract that
says you will agree with everything that is shown to you.
And in fact, the proper training of a scientist involves teaching them
how to skeptically and objectively determine whether an idea has
scientific merit, regardless of what the idea is. It is less about
what the ideas are than about how to investigate the ideas; however,
it is useful to thoroughly go over thoroughly investigated ideas to
learn how those investigations are conducted.
[quote]One can
only gain status by the approval of those with more status than oneself.
[/quote]
That is nonsense.
[quote]One gains status by having ones papers published in high status journals
which are refereed by the elite who do not have to identify themselves
nor to give a reason for rejecting a paper.
[/quote]
What purpose does identifying a reviewer serve?
[quote]One only has to look at
Dingle to see how heretics are treated. A life's work as a highly
respected physicist does not entitle you to question the one true faith.
My point over several years is that Physics has no quality assurance
criteria. It cannot dismiss any 'crackpot' idea as it has no criteria it
can apply.
I've already told you this is wrong and told you what the QA criteria
are.
That there must be a testable prediction - in this case that the
Higgs-Boson will not be found )
[/quote]
No sir. That is not sufficient! This model that suggest that the Higgs
boson will not be found must have a SEPARATE implication that makes it
distinguishable from OTHER models that say it won't be found. And it
is the SEPARATE implication that is the true test.
[quote]
Having decided that physics cannot be wrong and it is Nature
which is weird there is no way you can reject any idea on the grounds
that "nature is weird but it can't be THAT weird".
That's certainly true. That is NOT good grounds for dismissal of an
idea.
So what Nielsen, & Ninomiya have produced cannot reasonably be labelled
"crackpot stuff", as the poster suggests. There are no criteria you can
apply.
[/quote]
Yes, there is, and I've already told you what the criteria are.
Nielsen and Ninomiya's idea must have a separate and testable
prediction of a measurable consequence other than the lack of a Higgs
boson. Notice how different this is than the criterion of "too crazy"
that you would like to apply.
[quote]
If it does come up
with quality assurance criteria it would have to apply them to existing
theory.
--
John Kennaugh[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Kennaugh... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
PD wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 5:01 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
PD wrote on Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:52:05 -0700:
(...)
"Theoretical physicists Holger Nielsen, from Denmark, and Masao
Ninomiya, from Japan, have concluded that the discovery of the
Higgs-Boson could be so "abhorrent to nature" that they are coming back
through time to stop their own creation. They have outlined their
thoughts in a series of papers with titles like "Test of Effect From
Future in Large Hadron Collider: a Proposal" and "Search for Future
Influence From LHC."
The pair's hypothesis centres around the Higgs Boson, a mysterious tiny
particle and building block of life that it is hoped the LHC will
discover. They have come up with a theory that it will "ripple backward
through time" and stop the collider before it could make one, like a
time traveller who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.
'It must be our prediction that all Higgs producing machines shall have
bad luck,' Dr. Nielsen said. He said that his theories may even provide
a "model for God" who "rather hates Higgs particles, and attempts to
avoid them".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6318034/Could-the-Lar...
adron-Collider-be-held-back-by-its-own-future.html
Yes, and notice that you're reading from a NEWSPAPER. It might by useful
to see what the scientific community thinks of this conjecture.
It is being labelled as crackpot stuff in several specialized blogs.
I suspect that if the LHC fails to detect the Higgs-Boson it will become
more popular )
Popularity has nothing to do with it. If the LHC fails to detect the
Higgs boson, there are a half-dozen well-formed ideas already
available that would compete as to what's going on. All of them have
would have to have some independent way (other than lack of Higgs
bosons) to test whether this or that one is more likely right.
I get the feeling that you believe the money should not have been
spent unless finding the Higgs boson was a sure thing. If it were a
sure thing, why would we have to run an experiment to see if it's
really right? Experiments are designed to test what we're not sure
about, not to collect what we're sure about.
What is the highest status physicist who has condemned
it as "crackpot stuff" and what criteria has he used to condemn it? I
suspect the big guns are keeping a low profile.
Physics really doesn't operate on a status hierarchy. It's not like
the business world, or for that matter, like engineering.
[/quote]
I beg to differ. You surely must admit that physicist are human and have
normal human ambition. They are unlikely to get public acclaim as the
public haven't a clue about what modern physics is about. The only
avenue for gaining status is within the ranks of physics itself, within
the ranks of the believers. It is a completely closed order. One can
only gain status by the approval of those with more status than oneself.
One gains status by having ones papers published in high status journals
which are refereed by the elite who do not have to identify themselves
nor to give a reason for rejecting a paper. One only has to look at
Dingle to see how heretics are treated. A life's work as a highly
respected physicist does not entitle you to question the one true faith.
[quote] My point over several years is that Physics has no quality assurance
criteria. It cannot dismiss any 'crackpot' idea as it has no criteria it
can apply.
I've already told you this is wrong and told you what the QA criteria
are.
[/quote]
That there must be a testable prediction - in this case that the
Higgs-Boson will not be found )
[quote]
Having decided that physics cannot be wrong and it is Nature
which is weird there is no way you can reject any idea on the grounds
that "nature is weird but it can't be THAT weird".
That's certainly true. That is NOT good grounds for dismissal of an
idea.
[/quote]
So what Nielsen, & Ninomiya have produced cannot reasonably be labelled
"crackpot stuff", as the poster suggests. There are no criteria you can
apply.
[quote]
If it does come up
with quality assurance criteria it would have to apply them to existing
theory.
[/quote]
--
John Kennaugh |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
PD wrote:
[...]
[quote]This is ridiculous. It implies that becoming engaged in education in a
subject means implicitly that you will end up agreeing with the status
quo, and then complaining that those who do not want to remain
skeptical about the status quo are being excluded from proper
knowledge of the subject.
[/quote]
That's why he's a crank.
I thought this was clear?
[...] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Kennaugh... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
PD wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 10:25 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 21, 5:01 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
PD wrote on Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:52:05 -0700:
(...)
"Theoretical physicists Holger Nielsen, from Denmark, and Masao
Ninomiya, from Japan, have concluded that the discovery of the
Higgs-Boson could be so "abhorrent to nature" that they are
coming back
through time to stop their own creation. They have outlined their
thoughts in a series of papers with titles like "Test of Effect From
Future in Large Hadron Collider: a Proposal" and "Search for Future
Influence From LHC."
The pair's hypothesis centres around the Higgs Boson, a
mysterious tiny
particle and building block of life that it is hoped the LHC will
discover. They have come up with a theory that it will "ripple
backward
through time" and stop the collider before it could make one, like a
time traveller who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.
'It must be our prediction that all Higgs producing machines
shall have
bad luck,' Dr. Nielsen said. He said that his theories may
even provide
a "model for God" who "rather hates Higgs particles, and attempts to
avoid them".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6318034/Could-the-Lar...
adron-Collider-be-held-back-by-its-own-future.html
Yes, and notice that you're reading from a NEWSPAPER. It might
by useful
to see what the scientific community thinks of this conjecture.
It is being labelled as crackpot stuff in several specialized blogs.
I suspect that if the LHC fails to detect the Higgs-Boson it will become
more popular )
Popularity has nothing to do with it. If the LHC fails to detect the
Higgs boson, there are a half-dozen well-formed ideas already
available that would compete as to what's going on. All of them have
would have to have some independent way (other than lack of Higgs
bosons) to test whether this or that one is more likely right.
I get the feeling that you believe the money should not have been
spent unless finding the Higgs boson was a sure thing. If it were a
sure thing, why would we have to run an experiment to see if it's
really right? Experiments are designed to test what we're not sure
about, not to collect what we're sure about.
What is the highest status physicist who has condemned
it as "crackpot stuff" and what criteria has he used to condemn it? I
suspect the big guns are keeping a low profile.
Physics really doesn't operate on a status hierarchy. It's not like
the business world, or for that matter, like engineering.
I beg to differ. You surely must admit that physicist are human and have
normal human ambition. They are unlikely to get public acclaim as the
public haven't a clue about what modern physics is about. The only
avenue for gaining status is within the ranks of physics itself, within
the ranks of the believers. It is a completely closed order.
This is ridiculous. It implies that becoming engaged in education in a
subject means implicitly that you will end up agreeing with the status
quo, and then complaining that those who do not want to remain
skeptical about the status quo are being excluded from proper
knowledge of the subject.
If you want to know what modern physics is about, then you ENGAGE in
those activities that are explicitly structured to provide you with
that knowledge. This does NOT require that you sign any contract that
says you will agree with everything that is shown to you.
[/quote]
At the end of that education if you still expressed doubts what would
your chances of a career in physics? Nil. As Dingle showed you are not
even allowed to express doubts after a life as a distinguished
physicist.
[quote]And in fact, the proper training of a scientist involves teaching them
how to skeptically and objectively determine whether an idea has
scientific merit, regardless of what the idea is. It is less about
what the ideas are than about how to investigate the ideas; however,
it is useful to thoroughly go over thoroughly investigated ideas to
learn how those investigations are conducted.
One can
only gain status by the approval of those with more status than oneself.
That is nonsense.
One gains status by having ones papers published in high status journals
which are refereed by the elite who do not have to identify themselves
nor to give a reason for rejecting a paper.
What purpose does identifying a reviewer serve?
[/quote]
What purpose is served by a reviewer remaining anonymous, able to
prevent the publication of something without stating a reason? The case
of Wallace adequately shows the problem. He found a sympathetic referee
who thought his paper worthy of publication with a few amplifications -
which Wallace was happy to do. When re-submitted with those
modifications the editor sent it to a different referee who claimed it
had no merit.
You would no doubt tell students that they shouldn't take anything they
read seriously unless it appears in a properly referred journal.
Articles which support the status quo and Articles which attack it are
both refereed by people who's reputation is built on the status quo.
[quote]
One only has to look at
Dingle to see how heretics are treated. A life's work as a highly
respected physicist does not entitle you to question the one true faith.
My point over several years is that Physics has no quality assurance
criteria. It cannot dismiss any 'crackpot' idea as it has no criteria it
can apply.
I've already told you this is wrong and told you what the QA criteria
are.
That there must be a testable prediction - in this case that the
Higgs-Boson will not be found )
No sir. That is not sufficient! This model that suggest that the Higgs
boson will not be found must have a SEPARATE implication that makes it
distinguishable from OTHER models that say it won't be found. And it
is the SEPARATE implication that is the true test.
Having decided that physics cannot be wrong and it is Nature
which is weird there is no way you can reject any idea on the grounds
that "nature is weird but it can't be THAT weird".
That's certainly true. That is NOT good grounds for dismissal of an
idea.
So what Nielsen, & Ninomiya have produced cannot reasonably be labelled
"crackpot stuff", as the poster suggests. There are no criteria you can
apply.
Yes, there is, and I've already told you what the criteria are.
[/quote]
OK suppose that that 'separate' implication went along the lines of "In
500 years time it will be obvious that ......." i.e. it is testable but
not immediately. Would that do?
Me I think it is "crackpot stuff" but that applies to a great deal more
than N&N but then I have a very old fashioned idea of what is good
science.
--
John Kennaugh
"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist sufficiently
strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." Dr Scott Murray |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:36 am
|
|