Leaderboard

Can you not see that you are going down a very slippery slope here? You are now starting with a conclusion (‘photons must be waves‘), and try to force available data to fit that predetermined solution. This is the opposite of the scientific method. The correct explanation is already given in the experiment which I linked - the rest of your post is just wild speculation that doesn’t even seem to be related to the specifics of the LHC setup, or even to any established particle physics. To be honest, I think we’re done here.

Please, let us not each tell what the other "really means".

That is pretty much the point, actually. The models often do not take behavioral aspects into account. I was asked at various point to predict likely infection rates and I tend to point to things like large gatherings, mask mandates and similar factors rather than exclusively detection rates.

+1 for another well thought out and balanced assessment. (Background sounding of Copland's "fanfare for the common man") You have advanced the cause of rational thinking by "non experts" substantially. More so in my opinion that the subject of this thread, even though I have little symapthy for him. Hi MigL, I am going to both agree with you and disagree with you. Yes I agree that I find current Psychology , as a Science, at about the level of Physics in the time of Francis Bacon. They are just beginning to find their way by feeling for the variables/parameters to observe and consider. As such they have yet to develop any really effective tools, just as mechanics was before Gallileo and Newton. Today we know a lot more about mechanics (who would be brave/foolish enough to say we know everything ?). In particular I am suprised at your declaration of repeatabilty. Yes it is a desirable outcome, but not always attainable, even in mechanics. We know of at least three factors that mitigate against the possibility of repeatabilty. 1) Statistical variation, leading to the development of limit state theory amongst other techniques. 2) Chaos theory leading to multiple (unrepeatable) outcomes. 3) Catastrophe theory, leading to uncertainty of timing of a mechanical outcome.

Thank you CharonY that is a very interesting assessment. In part I agree with some of your comments. To begin with I cannot comment on the biology side, this is my weakest subject in the sciences,(to be honest, my least interest, even though it is in some ways the most exciting and intriguing) though i wasn't convinced by JP's lobster example either . I think though in his defence, there can be different methods of teaching, lecturing, studying and experimenting, especially dependent on your audience. For example, when faced with Uni students or other scientists over the general public. To gain public interest you often have to use stories and anecdotes so people can relate to, or at least find an easier understanding. You see this quite often with popular scientists, even great well respected scientists like Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking... used this technique and many still do today. Unfortunately, these stories often promote sensationalism, inaccuracies or even exaggerate facts... knowledgeable and professional scientists like yourself will easily pick these apart, and most likely not use this technique to teach your students. I'm not saying you are wrong to do so, JP does appear to have some of his "facts" out of place or lacking some credibility mainly in areas outside his expertise. I also agree that some of his arguments are vague and open to interpretation. I mentioned in my previous post that I think he often uses the wrong language and sometimes appears overly paranoid or dramatic. I'm not sure whether this is intended for reaction, or just a failing in his explanation and communication skills. I have seen him veer off at times, this can be annoying, agreed. But I think sometimes if you look beyond this, try and interpret the points he is attempting to make, they are quite often on the right track, or at least food for thought. He is obviously intelligent and does perform well in debates, but isn't that a strength rather than a weakness? If he failed in his debates then he wouldn't gain the interest he does, and not ever be taken seriously, he would be totally dismissed by all as a fool, crackpot or worse, as he already often is by his opposition. I think his "misleading" comes from jumping around a bit/lot in his discussion/debates from subject to subject/context to context and maybe not being fully clear on the details, again maybe lacking in communication skills. He also dips his toe in areas that he lacks expertise in, though I have not seen him make any wild claims in such subjects . I don't feel he has any intentional sales tactics, rather its just the way his mind operates. One of my work colleagues operates in the same way, which is definitely not intentional but sometimes rather annoying. Regarding the data, I don't agree with you. I think (in most arguments, but not all) he actually cites creditable data from many scientific studies taken, takes the data and forms a considerate opinion or idea. Also as MigL pointed out,

Yes it does. That's one reason I prefer to use a particle model* when that model predicts how light behaves. You seem to move backwars; trying to use older models even when they fail to match observations . Why? *) And of course I would use a wave model when that is appropriate. And to explain for instance the phenomenon of spontaneous emission I would study quantum electrodynamics and fields rather than the earlier models.

The Territory of Heard Island and McDonald Islands[1][2] (HIMI[3]) is an Australian external territory comprising a volcanic group of mostly barren Antarctic islands, about two-thirds of the way from Madagascar to Antarctica. The group's overall size is 372 km2 (144 sq mi) in area and it has 101.9 km (63 mi) of coastline. Discovered in the mid-19th century, the islands have been an Australian territory since 1947 and contain the country's two active volcanoes. The summit of one, Mawson Peak, is higher than any mountain on the Australian mainland. The islands lie on the Kerguelen Plateau in the Indian Ocean. The islands are among the most remote places on Earth: They are located about 4,099 km (2,547 mi) southwest of Perth,[4] 3,845 km (2,389 mi) southwest of Cape Leeuwin, Australia, 4,200 km (2,600 mi) southeast of South Africa, 3,830 km (2,380 mi) southeast of Madagascar, 1,630 km (1,010 mi) north of Antarctica, and 450 km (280 mi) southeast of the Kerguelen Islands.[5] The islands are currently uninhabited. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heard_Island_and_McDonald_Islands

I, OTOH, see a difference. It seems as if most, if not all, of German society ( excluding of course, the persecuted and exterminated ) was ready to follow their leader's ideology, even sending their kids fo fight in the war. Italian Fashists, not so much; they simply went along for the ride until the tides of war changed, then they switched sides. Even the US, over the past 5 years, although heading in the wrong direction, it is still only a minority that support MAGA/Trump. If half the eligible voters ( 240 million ), voted in the 2016 election, and roughly half of those voted for D Trump, that gives roughly 1/6-1/5 of the total US population supporting D Trump; almost a fringe element ( although it increased slightly in the 2020 election ). You seem to think these kind of things ( totalitarian, auhoritanianism ) only happens in fashist/capitalist states. Tell me how equal were/are people under Communism ? Or do you want to compare the number of people that their ideologies have killed ? ( just Mao Zedong killed more people than the NAZIs in WW2, don't even need Stalin and Pol Pot's numbers ) Ideology can be a dangerous thing; all people who have one, are convinced it is right, and will do whatever it takes to acheive that end.

You would have thought the Russians would have learnt the lesson from the Chinese missile exercise some years ago. Some people are just thick... you can't fix stupid.

From the link: Those bastards are insane. https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/15/politics/russia-anti-satellite-weapon-test-scn/index.html

The science I'm familiar with tests for repeatability. A Psychologist can take any two subjects, and the same stimulus will produce differing results. The best outcome expected is a statistical correlation ( because it is almost impossible to isolate other variables ).

watch out for Joigus. He says he is a liar, and then, tells you he's lying. Next thing you know, smoke is coming out of your ears.

Very, very big of your. Pass. I'm content with my minuscule status.

You: we've found a Witch, may we burn her? Me: how do you know she's a witch. You: she looks like one... she's got a wort...

Just trying to be helpful and thought you might be big enough to accept your error.

Just as means an instant exchange of quantum information and instant is not a speed. This is consistent with SR except for Einstein's 2nd postulate about the speed of light. The value of c in not a speed but a dimensional constant as it appears in Maxwell's equations where c=1/√μo ϵo. The permeability and permittivity of the vacuum limits our ability to observe events at a distance instantly. The NOW here is not the same as the NOW somewhere else. Our observation of distant events is always limited by separation of distance AND time at the constant ratio of one second for every 300,000 km of distance. This observation applies to all observers independent of their individual velocities because it is a constant ratio and not a speed. It is impossible to travel faster than c because c is a ratio and not a speed. Just as you can never travel faster than 1.6 kilometers per mile. Can you give a brief explanation of how the experiment works with particles rather than waves for comparison?

This is looking at the same problem from more than a single point of view. The alternative starts with the conclusion that photons exist and they are particle like. The article explains the results but the part I saw didn't explain the method. The conventional explanation involves the creation of virtual electron-positron particle pairs as I explained and these particles are the source the observed scatter. I explained how it works without the assumption that photons are involved. This is from wiki with the assumption that photons are the actors but whether or not photons are involved, the gamma gamma's observed can be traced directly back to a multi-particle origin. Photon to electron and positron. For photons with high photon energy (MeV scale and higher), pair production is the dominant mode of photon interaction with matter. These interactions were first observed in Patrick Blackett's counter-controlled cloud chamber, leading to the 1948 Nobel Prize in Physics.