rewebster Posted October 17, 2006 Posted October 17, 2006 Would you consider that to be sufficient evidence? Well, it could be evidence. --just like the string theory could be viable.
elas Posted October 22, 2006 Posted October 22, 2006 rewebster Thanks for your reply, sorry about the delay in replying, but for several days I have not been able to access SFN, I presume there has been a problem. Meanwhile I have discovered that a (professional) group studying gravity, have found mathematical sollutions and theoretical interpretations similar to those in my proposal for particles. This, I hope, will lead to serious consideration of my submission. I will keep you updated, but remember these things take time, I am not expecting any development this month. elas
SyedAmeen Posted January 20, 2007 Posted January 20, 2007 jan.19.2007 IGNORONS QUANTUM FIELD THEORY This theory deals with the faster than velovity of light particles,and describes the real true Nature and Origin of photon.Ignoron,are named for faster than c entities and assumed be omnipresent.They do not interact with usual matter,but show specific affinity to freed or liberated charge particle .When charged particle is encountered by ignorons,this union creates an ENTANGLED QUANTUM STATE of two particle system,which is in actuallity known as PHOTON,the electromagnetic radiation. The mechanism is a phenomenon resulting from a "forged forced fermion to BOSON transformation.This entangled quantum state ,is also responsible for imposing an energy momentumtensors induced "LEVITATION EFFECTS",which makes the photon appear MASSLESS.This is due to the specific coupling of the magnetic fields of charge(like e-)and ignorons.The spin of this entangled state(the photon = 1)due to spin 1/2 of ignoron + spin 1/2 of charge. The real nature and origin of Photon remained elusive to Einstein and scientists of that era. Feynman and Schwinger's works and sum-over paths remained unexplained since there are "VIRTUAL PARTICLES",which were left over for their very fast transient property.But Ignoron quantum field brings forth the real nature and origin of photon,assuming the existence of faster than velocity of light particles or entities.It also explains the mechanisms of many pheonomena,for example lightening in the skies etc. The recent discovery of heavier NEUTRINOS showed the existence of OSCILLATIONS .The neutrinos were also elusive entities for long time.This discovery of heavy neutrinos are explained by ignorons quantum field theory,as the three kind of lepton(fermion),the electron,muon and tau ,when encountered by omnipresnt ignorons,produce instantaneous entangled Quantum states.That is what gives birth to heavier neutrino,with masses.Ignorons theory predicts these Oscillations of heavier neutrinos are analogous to entanglements with electron neutrino,muon neutrino,and tau neutrino. Ignorons quantum field theory is completely compatiable with Maxwell's Electrodynamics. Remember the special theory of relativity has'nt been proved in reality,only twisted interpretation emerge with equations which have many such solutions.Even Dirac's relativistic approach is questionable. On this ignorons theory a paper was submitt in 2003 SPIES International Conference,in San Jose.Then many postings appeared in discussion forum of http://www.superstringtheory.com For more links see: http://mywebpage.netscape.com/drsyedameen1/index.html http://www.geocities.com/photonrediscovery/ignorons.html http://www.geocities.com/syedameen2006/index.html http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nonlinearopticsquantumdynamic http://groups.yahoo.com/group/quantumdynamicsnonlinearoptic http://www.worldcrossing.com/
Klaynos Posted January 20, 2007 Posted January 20, 2007 Hello SyedAmeen, did you read the first post in this thread? http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=201216&postcount=1 If not please do so.
SyedAmeen Posted January 24, 2007 Posted January 24, 2007 Hi Elas,I understand your position. There is a fear that nameta9 broaches upon in that because the current 'theories' = hypotheses are so complicated no-one can question them and if you do you are on your own! Rather than rabbit on about my own theories I will address your points. Please let me rebuke you a little. People are entitled to question you and me for that matter. We all enjoy the intellectual masochistic sparring don't we? Now Complex Quantum Mechanics which I sent away in 1999 does meet all your criteria and more. It resolves the problems of Conventional Quantum Mechanics but unfortunately for me there is not a level playing field. The current theories are NOT good in their predictions. Try and tell me the position of any electron at this moment! Sorry, I sound a little too scolding! Lets return to a placid state. Now how about your comment that: "If we look at the energy (Hamiltonian) of an electron in an electromagnetic field, we find that there is a contribution from the interaction of the electron's angular momentum and the magnetic field. For an orbital angular momentum" Now to be fair I admit I do not know everything not certainly not the specifics you refer to but I can make a comment. Is it proven that these contributions come from the momentum and the field? It is worth bearing in mind that you can interpret mathematics in more ways than one. In 2000 I challenged anyone to prove my theories wrong. In 6 years I have had only 1 criticism and that is that I am being 'too complicated'. Anyone else want to take up the gauntlet? Now I hope you will take this in good spirit perhaps if your question had been worded a bit less like a defence of Conventional Quantum Mechanics I would not sound so disapproving. In fact I have very little to disapprove of and I am just setting out where I stand. Anyone who wants to carry on the discussion. Please write rather than email me or post a thread. Best wishes, Mr Alexander Ross BSc(Hons) AMIMA Dip. Int. Trd. 7, Midland Street Accrington Lancashire United Kingdom BB5 2AX Telephone: +44 (0) 1254 237482 Fax: 01254 237482 Email: alexross53@hotmail.com _______________________________ jan.23.2007 Recent experiments in attosecond Laser pulses interacting with electron field by Hansch brought Nobel prize.There is Oscillations due to that. My own theory: IGNORONS QUANTUM FIELD THEORY,had described the Rediscovery of photon deals with REAL NATURE AND ORIGIN of photon,which were elusive to Einstein et.al. The new research shows tha photons is noy one particle but a two particle system.Igonorons are faster than velocity of light and omnipresent. When ignorons encounter ny freed charge particle ,an ENTANGLEMENT occurs ,thus an new entangled quantum state is created. The mechanism is a forged forced fermion to boson transformation. The recent neutrino experiments showed heavy neutrinos.That validates Ignoron quantum field theory. Photon = liberated Charge particle + ignoron The magnetic fields of faster than C and charge(e-) Oscillate The Ignoron quantum field is analogous to WAVE (Field)and e- (charge)is particle.The entanglement is particle embedded in this ignorons field.This is what is Wave -particle DUALITY principle. see my blog an click listed links for more detail at: http://www.myspace.com/syedameen http://mywebpage.netscape.com/drsyedameen1/index.html
foodchain Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 Yes. I think what is studied in say the physics is the accumulation or amplification of the laws that operate within atomic structures. Moreover, I think that understanding an atom internally, and then relating that externally would reveal a whole lot about everything actually, from gravity, to time and space and just about everything inbetween.
KaiduOrkhon Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 From: RascalPuff (Kaiduorkhon) 12:51 am To: ALL (1 of 1) 3.1 Professor Paul Dirac's proposed anti-particle (electric charge, referred to as a 'particle') and its proposed explosion upon contact with a conventional 'particle' (electric charge) may be an ongoing event constituting the status quo of reality as we experience it... Consider a sphere such as a macrocosmic planet, the sun, or a microcosmic system such as an electron 'particle' (electromagnetic charge). Each generates an electromagnetic field, wherein the magnetic portion of that field emanates in a northerly direction from the north pole of the issued sphere, loops around it in a circular motion which suddenly is traveling in a southerly direction upon reaching and passing the ecliptic middle of the issued sphere. Whereupon the continuing loop completes a full circle around the planet, sun or electron that generates, maintains and sustains it, said magnetic field then entering the southern pole of it's given system of origin to resume a northerly direction through the axial center of and relative to the polar system at issue. This described dynamic represents an ongoing cyle of magnetism generated by and emanating from, around, and back into the system that generates, maintains and sustains it. The sphere itself, en toto, is stablized by a magnetic field which is constantly moving in opposite directions - northerly out of, then looping around to a southerly course, and back into and through the issued spherical entity, ad infinitum. The reverse of directions - from north to south - occurs at the ecliptic (equatorial bisection) of the issued, spherical electron, planet or star Each given system is also emitting electrical energy at right angles from the system that the magnetic field is parallel to. These directional reversals and discharges may correspond to the occurrence of quantum emissions. In the four dimensional setting that Einstein has assigned to all material systems, these two hemispheres are oppositely interacting with each other ('as anti-particles'), resulting in the Dirac-predicted explosion, constituting nothing less than the omnidirectional expansion of 4-D systems; not excluding the consideration that mass increases with velocity. (This is an unprecedented explanation of the combined work of Planck, Dirac and Einstein. More will be said about this later. Copyright by K.B.Robertson 2/2007 and 12/'79). Further info accessible at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie
swansont Posted April 10, 2007 Posted April 10, 2007 Recent discussion has been moved here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=25902
merlin wood Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 You have a speculation which may or may not be true. Many speculations can actually be true. This does not make it a theory or anything. Darwin's The Origin of the Species contained no maths at all. Does that makes his account of evolution speculation?
Klaynos Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 Darwin's The Origin of the Species contained no maths at all. Does that makes his account of evolution speculation? A few points, this is on a physics section, therefore the boundaries will be different for it than for biology, although from most of the papers I've seen they seem to be moving more and more to requiring maths. The origin of species was written a long time ago, science has changed since then. There has been significantly more work done on evolution and natural selection since then, how mathematical this is I'm unsure but I'd suspect it to be highly dependent on some nice statistics... Also reading the quote (I've not read his thread) he doesn't say it needs maths to be a theory, but it DOES need to be predictive which in the context of physics always (to the best of my knowledge) requires mathematics.
merlin wood Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 A few points, this is on a physics section, therefore the boundaries will be different for it than for biology, although from most of the papers I've seen they seem to be moving more and more to requiring maths. The origin of species was written a long time ago, science has changed since then. There has been significantly more work done on evolution and natural selection since then, how mathematical this is I'm unsure but I'd suspect it to be highly dependent on some nice statistics... Also reading the quote (I've not read his thread) he doesn't say it needs maths to be a theory, but it DOES need to be predictive which in the context of physics always (to the best of my knowledge) requires mathematics. My point is that it's not essential to all explanatory accounts of the natural evidence that they need to be expressed mathematically for them to deserve the status of scientific theories, or that all accounts that are non-mathematical deserve to be called speculations, which is what JustSuit was arguing. So the nature of evolutionary theory is such the it can't even make precise or reliable predictions, and this also true of plate techtonics theory in predicting earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. And it's not their predictive power that makes either of these theories acceptable. Also, evolution was generally recognised as a scientific theory for over century before any statistics were introduced, and largely because of mounting geological and paleontological evidence that backed it up, Whereas measurement and calculation are criteria that physicists often impose by their opinions upon scientific explanations in general, and when applied to physics itself can lead to inadequately justified acceptance of mathematically complex accounts such as string theory, which is not supported by any direct evidence and makes no predictions at all. Also, there are many instances of notions in physics that can be mathematically expressed but by no means need describe anything in the world at all, such as magnetic monopoles, wormholes in space and, in string theory, compacted small-scale extra dimensions of space. And according to Lee Smolin in The Trouble with Physics, because the mathematics in string theory leads to myriads of different sub-theories, there are several eminent physicists who have come to accept the highly unscientific idea of the many worlds anthropic principle, while others, like David Deutsch, embrace the multiverse just in virtue Everett's interpretation of quantum mechanics. Whereas I'd say that what is and has been essential to any truly scientific theory is just that it is clearly and unambiguously describable account of natural cause and effect that accounts for a range of directly observable or detectable and consistently confirmable findings, and makes unique and conceivable predictions that are consistent with its cause and effect principles. Now I suggest that there can be developed such a universal theory of natural cause and effect that, like the theory of biological evolution, is in the first instance and fot the most part is of necessity non-mathematical, but like most existing theories can be expresed using diagrams and is founded in a particular causal interpretation of quantum mechanics. And as long as it has not been developed mathematically except in the existing quantum interpretation it may not be regarded as a full blown theory, but nor could it justly be called speculative. But rather I'd say such an account could be called a general scientific hypothesis.
KaiduOrkhon Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 Date: 2007-04-12 T20:47:08 NEW CLUES ABOUT THE NATURE OF DARK MATTER: Einstein May Have Been Right After All: The good news from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope is that Einstein was right — maybe. A strange form of energy called "dark energy" is looking a little more like the repulsive force that Einstein theorized in an attempt to balance the universe against its own gravity. Even if Einstein turns out to be wrong, the universe's dark energy probably won't destroy the universe any sooner than about 30 billion years from now, say Hubble researchers. "Right now we're about twice as confident than before that Einstein's cosmological constant is real, or at least dark energy does not appear to be changing fast enough (if at all) to cause an end to the universe anytime soon," says Adam Riess of the Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore. Riess used Hubble to find nature's own "weapons of mass destruction" — very distant supernovae that exploded when the universe was less than half its current age. The apparent brightness of a certain type of supernova gives cosmologists a way to measure the expansion rate of the universe at different times in the past. Riess and his team joined efforts with the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey (GOODS) program, the largest deep galaxy survey attempted by Hubble to date, to turn the Space Telescope into a supernova search engine on an unprecedented scale. In the process, they discovered 42 new supernovae in the GOODS area, including 6 of the 7 most distant known. Cosmologists understand almost nothing about dark energy even though it appears to comprise about 70 percent of the universe. They are desperately seeking to uncover its two most fundamental properties: its strength and its permanence. In a paper to be published in the Astrophysical Journal, Riess and his collaborators have made the first meaningful measurement of the second property, its permanence. Currently, there are two leading interpretations for the dark energy as well as many more exotic possibilities. It could be an energy percolating from empty space as Einstein's theorized "cosmological constant," an interpretation which predicts that dark energy is unchanging and of a prescribed strength. An alternative possibility is that dark energy is associated with a changing energy field dubbed "quintessence." This field would be causing the current acceleration — a milder version of the inflationary episode from which the early universe emerged. When astronomers first realized the universe was accelerating, the conventional wisdom was that it would expand forever. However, until we better understand the nature of dark energy—its properties—other scenarios for the fate of the universe are possible. If the repulsion from dark energy is or becomes stronger than Einstein's prediction, the universe may be torn apart by a future "Big Rip," during which the universe expands so violently that first the galaxies, then the stars, then planets, and finally atoms come unglued in a catastrophic end of time. Currently this idea is very speculative, but being pursued by theorists. At the other extreme, a variable dark energy might fade away and then flip in force such that it pulls the universe together rather then pushing it apart. This would lead to a "big crunch" where the universe ultimately implodes. "This looks like the least likely scenario at present," says Riess. Understanding dark energy and determining the universe's ultimate fate will require further observations. Hubble and future space telescopes capable of looking more than halfway across the universe will be needed to achieve the necessary precision. The determination of the properties of dark energy has become the key goal of astronomy and physics today. CONTACT Don Savage NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC (Phone: 202-358-1547; E-mail: dsavage@hq.nasa.gov) Ray Villard Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD (Phone: 410-338-4514; E-mail: villard@stsci.edu) Adam Riess Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD (Phone: 410-338-4509; E-mail: ariess@stsci.edu)
elas Posted April 23, 2007 Posted April 23, 2007 lucaspa In reply to your question on fractional charge (FQHE) My article has been updated with an appendix that shows how my proposal is related to the fractions found by FQHE. I would appreciate comments or criticisms, in preparation for the next revision. http://elasticity2.tripod.com/
lucaspa Posted April 23, 2007 Posted April 23, 2007 My point is that it's not essential to all explanatory accounts of the natural evidence that they need to be expressed mathematically for them to deserve the status of scientific theories, or that all accounts that are non-mathematical deserve to be called speculations, which is what JustSuit was arguing. So the nature of evolutionary theory is such the it can't even make precise or reliable predictions, and this also true of plate techtonics theory in predicting earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. And it's not their predictive power that makes either of these theories acceptable. Merlin, "prediction" in science does NOT mean "predict the future". It means "predict knowledge/observations that should be there if the theory is true." That is, observations that have not yet been made. An example of this in evolution is the following: "For example, scorpionflies (Mecoptera) and true flies (Diptera) have enough similarities that entomologists consider them to be closely related. Scorpionflies have four wings of about the same size, and true flies have a large front pair of wings but the back pair is replaced by small club-shaped structures. If Diptera evolved from Mecoptera, as comparative anatomy suggests, scientists predicted that a fossil fly with four wings might be found—and in 1976 this is exactly what was discovered." Teaching about Evolution and Science, National Academy of Science Chapter 5 Frequently Asked Questions About Evolution and the Nature of Science http://books.nap.edu/catalog/5787.html You will find that paleontological papers and papers on population genetics are very mathematical. As far as I can see, your "theory" doesn't make any predictions. But physics is about describing the natural world by mathematical equations. If your "theory" can't do that, then no one is going to consider it valid. It's fine to have an English description of the math, but you MUST have the equations. Whereas measurement and calculation are criteria that physicists often impose by their opinions upon scientific explanations in general, and when applied to physics itself can lead to inadequately justified acceptance of mathematically complex accounts such as string theory, which is not supported by any direct evidence and makes no predictions at all. 1. String Theory does make predictions in the scientific sense. In fact, it is the failure to turn up the evidence that ST predicts that has ST in trouble: Kaku M, Testing string theory. Discover August 2005 http://www.discover.com/issues/aug-05/cover/ 2. ST's equations had to describe the physical universe we see. If you look at the history of ST you will find that early versions of ST were falsified because the equations did NOT give the physical universe we already observe. That's why we need to see equations in your "theory". So far your "theory" is so vague that we can't tell whether it matches up, in detail, with the universe and observations that have already been made.
lucaspa Posted April 23, 2007 Posted April 23, 2007 lucaspa In reply to your question on fractional charge (FQHE) My article has been updated with an appendix that shows how my proposal is related to the fractions found by FQHE. I would appreciate comments or criticisms, in preparation for the next revision. http://elasticity2.tripod.com/ Send it to a physics journal. At least send it to http://www.arXiv.org. I'm a biologist, not a physicist. Therefore I can offer a criticism of only the most glaring of errors. If you really think this is a valid scientific hypothesis, then put it up for criticism of professional physicists, don't peddle it on various internet boards of amateurs. You notice I don't put my theories on adult stem cells on this board. I send them to professional journals to be reviewed by my peers who are experts in the fields of stem cells and tissue engineering! You need to do the same.
swansont Posted April 23, 2007 Posted April 23, 2007 Also, evolution was generally recognised as a scientific theory for over century before any statistics were introduced, and largely because of mounting geological and paleontological evidence that backed it up, I think Gregor Mendel would disagree with that statement.
elas Posted April 23, 2007 Posted April 23, 2007 lucaspa Send it to a physics journal. At least send it to http://www.arXiv.org. If only it were that simple. My paper is Classical not Quantum, physics (there is no interpretation to Quantum Theory). Quantum theory owes its origin to the fact that no one could explain certain experimental results in classical terms, it gradually became accepted, and is now firmly established, that a classical solution is impossible. Every reviewer is a Quantum Physicist firmly convinced that a classical particle physics interpretation is a non-starter. arXiv.org requires a sponsor to be provided by the author; what hope has an amateur classical physicist of finding a sponsor? In view of my latest discovery (a mathematical link with FQHE) I am going to revise my paper and try a different branch of science (scientific philosophy) not that I am happy to do so, but it might be the only way ahead. Your development of existing work is more readily acceptable mainly because you are dealing with a visible entity where results can be clearly seen to be correct or otherwise; it is, of course, still a great achievement. I am merely pointing out that there is a clearer path in most branches of science, than there is in the weird world of particle physics where, generally speaking; the mathematicians have taken over from the scientists. regards elas
lucaspa Posted April 24, 2007 Posted April 24, 2007 lucaspa Send it to a physics journal. At least send it to http://www.arXiv.org. If only it were that simple. My paper is Classical not Quantum, physics (there is no interpretation to Quantum Theory). Quantum theory owes its origin to the fact that no one could explain certain experimental results in classical terms, it gradually became accepted, and is now firmly established, that a classical solution is impossible. 1. QM "owes its origin" to the observation that many phenomena happened in discreet bundles (quanta) and were not continuous! 2. Later data showed that pure determinism did not operate at the quantum level. 3. Classical physics is still very much present in Relativity. Therefore: Every reviewer is a Quantum Physicist firmly convinced that a classical particle physics interpretation is a non-starter. is wrong. What they are convinced of, by the data, is that strict determinism does not work. It is up to you to convince them. After all, at one time all physicists were strict determinists. They were able to be convinced that they were wrong. Most importantly, what you are confusing is whether your paper gets published and whether it gets critiqued properly. I'm going for the second. You are providing excuses to avoid that. Not good. You are so convinced that your paper is correct that you won't submit it to find out where you might be wrong. That is not being a good scientist. arXiv.org requires a sponsor to be provided by the author; what hope has an amateur classical physicist of finding a sponsor? arXiv.org has a section on classical physics: http://www.arxiv.org/list/physics.class-ph/recent And, no, you do not need to have a sponsor. All you need to do is register. Registration is here: http://arxiv.org/help/registerhelp and all you need is a name and e-mail address! Submission is here: http://arxiv.org/help/submit Nothing about a sponsor, but only the form your paper has to take. Elas, you are trying to feed us BS excuses why you don't submit. But we can check whether you are telling us the truth. If your paper has similar quality, no wonder you don't want to submit. Your development of existing work is more readily acceptable mainly because you are dealing with a visible entity where results can be clearly seen to be correct or otherwise; it is, of course, still a great achievement. It wasn't "existing" when I started 15 years ago. I remember presenting data at one meeting and having a prominent scientist come up afterward and announce dogmatically "the only stem cell in adults is the hematopoietic stem cell!" weird world of particle physics where, generally speaking; the mathematicians have taken over from the scientists. The language of physics IS mathematics and so mathematicians have always dominated physics. Newton was a mathematician, remember. Inventor of calculus. The English in the text of papers is just translations of the math. And those translations cause some trouble. What is clear in the math is not always easily said in English. That you are avoiding the math simply means that you aren't doing physics. As you said, you might be doing philosophy. But here the philosophy is not going to work unless you have the physics to back it. So, submit to arXiv.org (since your excuses for not doing so are not valid), and look at the criticisms you get. If you can answer the criticisms, then do so. If you cannot answer the criticisms reasonably, then be a mensch and admit your theory is wrong.
Martin Posted April 24, 2007 Posted April 24, 2007 ... And, no, you do not need to have a sponsor. All you need to do is register.,. I was under the impression that sometime around 2004 they changed the system at arXiv so that you needed sponsors. I may be wrong. It is not a quality guarantee thing, in effect IIRC they 'grandfathered in' whoever had already been submitting stuff---even tho it was well-known that plenty of stuff being posted was worthless. the aim of arxiv is to open and not (very) selective. it is just preprints, and they often get revised several times before publication (you see several versions on arxiv). the real selection process comes later. but there are limits. they didnt want the system to get completely overloaded so they put in this "sponsor" requirement. It is a very very low hurdle. there are a huge number of "gate-keepers"----all those people who were uncritically grandfathered-in. BTW this is just my impression. lucaspa may be right and there might not be a sponsorship requirement In case I am right, however, here is how to find a sponsor: look at the abstract of some paper in your area of interest, maybe one you like. one of the links on the abstract page will say (which of the authors of this paper is a sponsor?) click on that. if it is a paper by somebody who has been writing to arxiv for some long time then he may be a potential sponsor, this gives the name of a designated person who can sponsor, so then find out the email of that person and write to them saying that you need a sponsor for your paper
merlin wood Posted April 24, 2007 Posted April 24, 2007 You will find that paleontological papers and papers on population genetics are very mathematical I was talking about the findings of paleontology, and which do not need to be described mathematically to back up the theory of evolution. And I didn't mention population genetics above at all. As far as I can see, your "theory" doesn't make any predictions. The hypothesis on my blog does indeed make one prediction, concerning the detection of solar neutrinos and which is testable at least in principle and no doubt it could make others if developed into a full blown theory. But physics is about describing the natural world by mathematical equations. If your "theory" can't do that, then no one is going to consider it valid. But then physics is by no means justabout describing the natural world by mathematical equations. There are no papers in physics that only contain equations and the verbal argument is just as essential as the maths. Also, there are essential properties in physics that can't, just as such, be described mathematically, the attraction of a force, for example. And above I said: "I suggest that there can be developed such a universal theory of natural cause and effect that, like the theory of biological evolution, is in the first instance and for the most partof necessity non-mathematical...And as long as it has not been developed mathematically except in the existing quantum interpretation it may not be regarded as a full blown theory, but nor could it justly be called speculative. But rather I'd say such an account could be called a general scientific hypothesis." So I'm not saying that a full general theory of natural organisation could not contain measurement, calculation and mathematical formulae. And I suggest if you carefully read the hypthesis on my blog you'll find that it is not vague at all, and I think the diagrams I have used - which are essential to my argument - while rather crude, are quite clear illustrations of the extradimentinal properties of a universal non-locally acting cause. String Theory does make predictions in the scientific sense. Actually I meant to say it doesn't make testable predictions.
merlin wood Posted April 24, 2007 Posted April 24, 2007 Then I could just add that, of course, there are many mathematical equations in the Bohmian quantum mechanics that my quantum hypothesis is fully consistent with. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation
lucaspa Posted April 25, 2007 Posted April 25, 2007 I was talking about the findings of paleontology, and which do not need to be described mathematically to back up the theory of evolution. Yes, they do. Look up "cladistics" and you will find that it is always described in terms of mathematics. The summary is a translation of the math to English, but you must describe the cladistics mathematically. Read some original papers. The hypothesis on my blog does indeed make one prediction, concerning the detection of solar neutrinos and which is testable at least in principle and no doubt it could make others if developed into a full blown theory. Theories are not "grown-up" or expanded or more certain hypotheses. Basically, hypothesis and theory are interchangeable terms. Both are statements about the physical universe. Generally, hypotheses are more specific statements while theories are more general statements. So, since you think there are other predictions to make, then make them. But then physics is by no means justabout describing the natural world by mathematical equations. There are no papers in physics that only contain equations and the verbal argument is just as essential as the maths. Also, there are essential properties in physics that can't, just as such, be described mathematically, the attraction of a force, for example. The attractions of a force are described mathematically. Let's face it, gravity is a force of attraction and the equations describing it are well known! The problem with your paper is not that it contains equations and no text, but that it contains text and no equations! Your hypothesis should lead to equations that describe the physical universe. As it is, what you claim is that your hypothesis just leads to Bohmian equations, but you don't demonstrate that, you simply assert it. Translate your hypothesis to mathematics and then walk people thru the mathematical steps that end with the Bohmian equations. Of course, getting the Bohmian equations doesn't really help you. A real problem with them is they have particles following a wave path. But to do that the wave has to move thru a medium, but there is no medium. So I'm not saying that a full general theory of natural organisation could not contain measurement, calculation and mathematical formulae. Then where are those mathematical formulae? And I suggest if you carefully read the hypthesis on my blog you'll find that it is not vague at all, and I think the diagrams I have used - which are essential to my argument - while rather crude, are quite clear illustrations of the extradimentinal properties of a universal non-locally acting cause. I disagree. The hypothesis is very vague and the diagrams are useless. If you think they are "essential" to the argument, then the argument is worthless. Diagrams should be illustrations of equations. You have no underlying equations to give you the diagrams. They are merely attempted visual representations of unfounded assertions. Actually I meant to say it doesn't make testable predictions. Then you are still wrong. ST does indeed make testable predictions. The reason ST is in trouble is that it is failing those tests. Read the article I cited. Those "rolled-up" dimensions are supposed to have consequences that can be measured. Physics has gotten to the measurement scales and not found the consequences. So far, ST has been avoiding falsification by modifying the theory to make the consequences once again below detection level. But detection is getting better and better and the consequences are not there.
lucaspa Posted April 25, 2007 Posted April 25, 2007 I was under the impression that sometime around 2004 they changed the system at arXiv so that you needed sponsors. I may be wrong. Martin, simply go to the webpages I posted. On the page on submission requirements, it says simply that you have to be registered to submit. It then goes on to lay out the format the submission must be in. No mention of a sponsor. Go to the registration page and all it says you need to register is a name and e-mail address! I can't find mention of a "sponsor" anywhere. If you can, please let me know. the aim of arxiv is to open and not (very) selective. it is just preprints, and they often get revised several times before publication (you see several versions on arxiv). the real selection process comes later. That's right. Open but not selective. It puts the paper out there where people can make critical comments on it. Which is the whole point for elas/ merlin wood (either I'm getting the 2 of them confused or they are the same person with 2 different names). Get some competent critical review from physicists. But this critical review is being avoided. Instead, I get criticism of my critical review, which is then taken by elas/merlin wood that the paper is valid. The point is NOT to argue the theory/paper with those of us on sciencforums.net but to argue the paper to professional physicists. Those are the people that must be convinced, but those are the very people that are being avoided.
lucaspa Posted April 25, 2007 Posted April 25, 2007 Merlin wood/elas: From your webpage http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com/ "Then given our hypothesis we could reason that if this spherical vortex was reflected as a causation off at least one additional dimension of space, it would be universalised so as to pervade all 3D space as spherical causal vortices. Since the energy density of the cosmos would reduce as it expands this would explain how the energy of radiation decreases as its wave length increases. " There are equations describing the relationship of the energy of electromagnetic radiation as a function of wavelength. They are: lambda x nu = c Or, wavelength x frequency = c. The there is: E = h x nu. or Energy = Planck's constant x frequency. nu = c/lamba. So, the relationship of Energy to wavelength is E = h x c/lambda. What you need to do is start from the hypothetical "spherical vortex" and show how to derive that equation. You state that you can do so. So do it!. That is just one example out of dozens, but it gives you a place to start. BTW, notice that the equation E = h x c/lambda has nothing to do with the expansion of space. At any given instant (when space is not expanding since expansion involves time), the relationship of energy to wavelength holds. So your "cause" should also reduce to the equation above when delta t = 0 (where change in time = 0 and therefore there is no expansion of space occuring).
merlin wood Posted April 25, 2007 Posted April 25, 2007 Yes, they do. Look up "cladistics" and you will find that it is always described in terms of mathematics. The summary is a translation of the math to English, but you must describe the cladistics mathematically. Read some original papers. Just your opinion whereas one could maintain that all you need for a strong enough argument is a verbal account with reference to photographic images, dating measurements and anatomical diagrams of such evidence as the evolution from the hyracotherium to the modern horse and how this could have occurred as the result of enviromental conditions. Theories are not "grown-up" or expanded or more certain hypotheses. Basically, hypothesis and theory are interchangeable terms. Both are statements about the physical universe. Generally, hypotheses are more specific statements while theories are more general statements. "In common usage in the 21st century, a hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit needs evaluation. For proper evaluation, the framer of a hypothesis needs to define specifics in operational terms. A hypothesis requires more work by the researcher in order to either confirm or disprove it. In due course, a confirmed hypothesis may become part of a theory or occasionally may grow to become a theory itself." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis So, since you think there are other predictions to make, then make them. I'd say it's enough for my hypothesis to make one testable prediction and up to others to find more. As it is, the hypothesis finds, with the aid of clearly explained diagrams, a direct relationship between the quantum evidence and the mind and consciousness and a plausible alternative to dark natter and energy and cosmic inflation. none of which have been supported by any experimentation. The attractions of a force are described mathematically. Let's face it, gravity is a force of attraction and the equations describing it are well known!. Go on then, describe the property of attraction by mathematics. The problem with your paper is not that it contains equations and no text, but that it contains text and no equations! Your hypothesis should lead to equations that describe the physical universe. This is merely your opinion again. My hypothesis is both based upon a mathematically expressed quantum interpretation and also strongly supports this account, and thus equations that describe the physical universe are essential to my hypothetical argument. As it is, what you claim is that your hypothesis just leads to Bohmian equations, but you don't demonstrate that, you simply assert it. Translate your hypothesis to mathematics and then walk people thru the mathematical steps that end with the Bohmian equations. Again merely your opinion, I don't see why I personally need to give any more than a visualised account of quantum behaviour that is consistent with Bohmian mechanics Of course, getting the Bohmian equations doesn't really help you. A real problem with them is they have particles following a wave path. But to do that the wave has to move thru a medium, but there is no medium. Prove this please I disagree. The hypothesis is very vague and the diagrams are useless. If you think they are "essential" to the argument, then the argument is worthless. Diagrams should be illustrations of equations. You have no underlying equations to give you the diagrams. They are merely attempted visual representations of unfounded assertions. Again your opinion against mine. The wave and entanglement diagrama are, in effect, visual representations of existing equations. One crucisl point in my argument is just that the standard quantum mechanics does not provide an account of quantum behaviour as partices and waves that can be visualised and is thus crucially limited in this repect, whereas Bohm's and my account do so. I think it could help if I added the diagrams that have been produced from Bohmian mechanics though, eg: http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/BohmFig2.gif and http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/BohmFig3.gif Then you are still wrong. ST does indeed make testable predictions. The reason ST is in trouble is that it is failing those tests. Read the article I cited. Those "rolled-up" dimensions are supposed to have consequences that can be measured. Physics has gotten to the measurement scales and not found the consequences. So far, ST has been avoiding falsification by modifying the theory to make the consequences once again below detection level. But detection is getting better and better and the consequences are not there. See reviews on books by the physicists Lee Smolin (Trouble with Physics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin and Peter Woit (Not Even Wrong) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article672464.ece and here is a quote by the physics Nobel laureate Gerard ‘t Hooft (from his book In Search of the Ultimate Building Blocks): Actually, I would not even be prepared to call string theory a “theory", rather a “model" or not even that: just a hunch. After all, a theory should come together with instructions on how to deal with it to identify the things one wishes to describe, in our case the elementary particles, and one should, at least in principle, be able to formulate the rules for calculating the properties of these particles, and how to make new predictions for them. Imagine that I give you a chair, while explaining that the legs are still missing, and that the seat, back and armrest will perhaps be delivered soon; whatever I did give you, can I still call it a chair? Superstring theory being a prime example of where you can give a convincing mathematical argument in physics and call it a theory of everything but need not describe anything in the world at all. Although from reading Smolin's book myself it seems that the idea of particles as vibrating strings works but not compacted extra dimensions of space since this leads to equations with myriads of solution. But then Smolin points out that that string theory satisfactorily finds solutions to only one of five crucial problems in theoretical physics that it could be expected to resolve.
Recommended Posts