Merlin Wood's hypothesis (split from Dark Matter Question)

[merlin wood]

Well, what do you mean by 'fill-ins'...cosmic inflation could be wrong, we just have no way of knowing.

 

Actually, I've developed what I think is a quite well argued hypothesis that, from th observable natural evidence and (non-inflationary) Big Bang theory, gives a wide range of reasons to consider that a cause acts non-locally on the astronomical scale in addition to the forces, and which derives from a non-local hidden variables interpretation of quantum mechanics.

 

My account is not (yet) supported by any measurements, calculation or mathematical formulae I'm afraid, but I have been able to illustrate the action of a nonlocal cause using diagrams.

 

So I assume to start with that the indeterminate Copenhagen type interpretation of quantum mechanics is wrong, whereas a causal Bohmian mechanics interpretation is at least essentially right. Quantum objects in motion are both laterally extended waves and particles each with a single definite trajectory. And the quantum wave has definite causal properties, with the wave behaviour of objects in motion being of a particular continuous form. Bohmian mechanics is a detailed and well developed theory that is consistent with a wide range of experimental ervidence, and decribes an additional cause called the quantum potential, as well as ridding quantum theory of the paradoxes arising from the Copenhagen interpretation.

 

One can reasonably propose, therefore, that standard model quantum theory, which assumes the action of the forces alone, predicts everying but fundamentally explains nothing about how the form and organisation of matter is possible. So one may ask Could this be also be true of any cosmological theory that just assumes the action of the forces?

 

My own conclusion is that a detailed and systematic theory can be developed that sufficiently justifies and describes details of a cause that acts nonlocally both on the small and cosmic scale. While a universal property of this cause can be described as material form conserving. This cause thus acting so as to conserve the forms and organisation of both atoms and molecules despite the action of the forces as well as, in particular, spiral galaxies, but also galaxy clusters and cosmic voids.

Edited June 8, 2008 by merlin wood
typo

[merlin wood]

Without maths you don't really have anything :|

 

But without any maths, did Charles Darwin really have nothing in his theory that explained the origin of the species? And although Darwn's theory is biological, this would also be true, in part, of a full general theory of a nonlocal cause and its effects. While all successful scientific theories have begun with a non-mathematical hypothesis.

 

I've found that it is in the nature of a non-local form conserving causal theory that it can be developed in a lot of detail in words and diagrams without any measurement and calculation, and this theory could not be developed otherwise. While, strictly speaking, the diagrams I've devised could be called mathematical. So the definition of mathematics in my book reads: 'A branch of science concerned with number, quantity and space'. But this doesn't mean that measurement and calculation could not be used to support this causal theory, just as this has been done in the develpment of the evolutionary theory of living organisms.

 

So one could ask: if a cause acts just so as to conserve the form of atoms and molecules despite the action of all the forces, how could you describe such a cause by measurement and calculation? And that there can be no such mathematical description is a fundamental reason why physicists don't think there's any cause acting in addition to the forces that could explan the natural organisation of matter or how it can remain in its forms as they resist the action of the forces.

 

Physicists have become so obsessed with the idea that theories need to be mathematical that they can believe in string theory because it is mathematically complex, and even though it can't be tested by any experiment and its equations have myriads of solutions.

Edited June 8, 2008 by merlin wood
typo

[antimatter]

But without any maths, did Charles Darwin really have nothing in his theory that explained the origin of the species? And although Darwn's theory is biological, this would also be true, in part, of a full general theory of a nonlocal cause and its effects. While all successful scientific theories have begun with a non-mathematical hypothesis.

 

I say it is in the nature of a non-local form conserving causal theory that it can be developed in a lot of detail in words and diagrams without any measurement and calculation. While, strictly speaking, the diagrams I've devised could be called mathematical. So the definition of mathematics in my book in reads: 'a branch of science concerned with number, quantity and space'. But this doesn't mean that measurement and calculation could not be used to support this causal theory, just as this has been done in the develpment of the evolutionary theory of living organisms.

 

So one could ask: if a cause acts just so as to conserve the form of atoms and molecules despite the action of all the forces, how could you describe such a cause by measurement and calculation? And that there can be no such mathematical description is a fundamental reason why physicists don't think there's any cause acting in addition to the forces that could explan the natural organisation of matter or how it can remain in its forms as they resist the action of the forces.

 

Physicists have become so obsessed with the idea that theories need to be mathematical that they can believe in string theory because it is mathematically complex, and even though it can't be tested by any experiment and its equations have myriads of solutions.

 

Evolution and Astrophysics are two very different fields...

[merlin wood]

Evolution and Astrophysics are two very different fields...

 

Not in a general theory of a nonlocal cause and its effects that explains how the universe that includes life on Earth has become, and can be and remain in its material forms despite the action of the forces.

[Klaynos]

Modern physics is NOT biology in the 1800's... Sucks I know but that's life... well science...

[merlin wood]

Modern physics is NOT biology in the 1800's... Sucks I know but that's life... well science...

 

But then plenty of physicists have had lots of things to say about consciousness. And one could conclude physics gets theoretically nowhere because it does not consider the natural organisation of matter with regard to living organisms as well as atoms and molecules.

 

I say atoms, living organisms and spiral galaxies (the winding problem can't be solved even given dark matter) all have in common that they can remain in these forms and organisation despite the action of the forces.

 

While no successful universal theory, cosmology or "theory of everything" will ever be developed unless such evidence is examined together, and physicists give up the assumption that the known forces are the only universal causes.

Edited June 8, 2008 by merlin wood
typos

[merlin wood]

Dark matter (that is suitable to explain galaxy rotation, comic lensing effects etc) is the phlogiston of modern science. How could such stuff avoid direct detection in any experiment while comprising some 90% of all matter in the universe?

 

The universe both on the small and large scale is of a particular organised natural form, does it really make any sense to assume that this is the merely result of the push or pull causes that are the known forces?

 

Trouble is, to clearly show that and how a non-push-or-pull cause acts universally in addition to the forces to explain how the universe is in its organised form requires the development of a theory that can be thought too revolutionary and wide rainging for any physicist to contemplate.

[Klaynos]

Dark matter (that is suitable to explain galaxy rotation, comic lensing effects etc) is the phlogiston of modern science. How could such stuff avoid direct detection in any experiment while comprising some 90% of all matter in the universe?

 

WIMPs...

 

The universe both on the small and large scale is of a particular organised natural form, does it really make any sense to assume that this is the merely result of the push or pull causes that are the known forces?

 

Have you got experimental evidence that suggests otherwise?

 

Trouble is, to clearly show that and how a non-push-or-pull cause acts universally in addition to the forces to explain how the universe is in its organised form requires the development of a theory that can be thought too revolutionary and wide rainging for any physicist to contemplate.

 

Not really, but it does have to be mathematical, match ALL the current experimental evidence better than current theories AND be falsifiable. If it doesn't have all of those things it wont be contemplated by any physicist.

 

Well the baryonic matter or hydrogen discovered could account for some of the massive amounts of matter missing from the universe. I wonder if the hydrogen has taken on any kind of a weird allotrope, that being said I wonder what is bonder with it even in a minor amounts. I know that complex organic molecules have been found in space along with combinations of carbon and titanium, titanium being physiologically inert(?) though as far as we understand does not appear promising though.

 

As for the dark matter I don’t know why this is not all the rave. Simply put if it exists it points to new physics as far as I am concerned simply because it does not interact with what is standard save gravity.

 

Not all particles interact with the 4 fundamental forces in the same way, infact many particles don't interact with 1 or more of the 4.

 

A monitored or observed collision of galactic clusters supposedly revealed massive amounts of dark matter, that upon impact simply kept going I guess. I think this was the bullet cluster? I think this data is also on the Nasa website.

 

Simply put you have normal matter which is standard model stuff, yet dark matter is not standard model stuff, thus why I think its exotic and a pointer to new stuff.

 

We know the standard model is incomplete already as it doesn't allow for neutrino masses, which the must have because they change in flight.

[merlin wood]

WIMPs...

Have you got experimental evidence that suggests otherwise?

 

Plenty, if you accept the nonlocal hidden variables interpretation of quantum physics which the theory clearly supports. And, unlike the Copenhagen type interpretation that describes superposition of states and the collapse of the wave function, such a determinate account as Bohmian mechanics has been systematically worked out in mathematical detail, eliminates the paradoxes in any indeterminate interpretation and describes a distinct cause acting in addition to the forces called the quantum potential.

 

Not really, but it does have to be mathematical, match ALL the current experimental evidence better than current theories AND be falsifiable. If it doesn't have all of those things it wont be contemplated by any physicist.

 

Um... not really? You mean such a theory would not really be considered too revolutionary for physicists to contemplate? How do you know?

 

Why should this theory need to "match ALL the current experimental evidence better thancurrent theories"? Why shouldn't such a theory, like Bohmian mechanics, just need to as consistent with the experimental evidence as other theories, but derive its additional validity by being clearly supportable when considering other, observable large scale natural evidence, and where other theories could not be so supported?

 

The theory could be if not falsified then seriously undermined and then disregarded if the right kind(s) of dark matter were to be directly detected and identified. I consider that the cosmological theory could be supported by measurement and mathematical calculation and be found to clearly explain more observational evidence than existing theory, and also have considered means by which by which the theory could be tested experimentally,

[foodchain]

Plenty, if you accept the nonlocal hidden variables interpretation of quantum physics which the theory clearly supports. And, unlike the Copenhagen type interpretation that describes superposition of states and the collapse of the wave function, such a determinate account as Bohmian mechanics has been systematically worked out in mathematical detail, eliminates the paradoxes in any indeterminate interpretation and describes a distinct cause acting in addition to the forces called the quantum potential.

 

 

 

Um... not really? You mean such a theory would not really be considered too revolutionary for physicists to contemplate? How do you know?

 

Why should this theory need to "match ALL the current experimental evidence better thancurrent theories"? Why shouldn't such a theory, like Bohmian mechanics, just need to as consistent with the experimental evidence as other theories, but derive its additional validity by being clearly supportable when considering other, observable large scale natural evidence, and where other theories could not be so supported?

 

The theory could be if not falsified then seriously undermined and then disregarded if the right kind(s) of dark matter were to be directly detected and identified. I consider that the cosmological theory could be supported by measurement and mathematical calculation and be found to clearly explain more observational evidence than existing theory, and also have considered means by which by which the theory could be tested experimentally,

 

 

 

Being a layperson of physics I don’t know how much weight my words have but its fun to talk about such so who cares.

 

I don’t know how well bohmian mechanics describes quantum mechanics. I think if it worked it would be used really in its place. I don’t however think that quantum mechanics is the GUT if you will for physics. Simply put there is still a division I think as to if say the classical world emerged from QM, if that’s the case what is the how past the standard model? I have lots of questions, for instance QM is nondeterministic or has that statistical basis right such as Schrödinger equation and uncertainty principal? Yet quanta for what its worth in regards to Planck seem hardly nondeterministic, so what does that mean? Does a BEC state only apply to a small clump of rubidium atoms, why not the universe giving the standard model? What does entanglement hold in store for accelerating universe? Can accelerating universe or big rip defeat gluons?

 

I also have odd theories which makes things even worse like my biased as in personal and speculative view puts the universe as somewhat a continuum of stuff or at least infinite in existence with form being what changes and form being energy, matter or what not and its mechanics. This places me somewhere away from the standard community, but for the sake of fun I do have such.

 

Most all of the above though is speculation on my behalf.

[Klaynos]

Plenty, if you accept the nonlocal hidden variables interpretation of quantum physics which the theory clearly supports. And, unlike the Copenhagen type interpretation that describes superposition of states and the collapse of the wave function, such a determinate account as Bohmian mechanics has been systematically worked out in mathematical detail, eliminates the paradoxes in any indeterminate interpretation and describes a distinct cause acting in addition to the forces called the quantum potential.

 

Most physicists are quite happy pretty much ignoring the interpretations and just concentrating on the maths.... Which doesn't change. I think you'd do well to take up this approach.

 

Um... not really? You mean such a theory would not really be considered too revolutionary for physicists to contemplate? How do you know?

 

Physicists tend to like big revolutions, all those new shiney things to work on....

 

Why should this theory need to "match ALL the current experimental evidence better thancurrent theories"? Why shouldn't such a theory, like Bohmian mechanics, just need to as consistent with the experimental evidence as other theories,

 

Because you're replacing the way people work, they wont change unless what they're changing to is better. Else what's the point?

 

but derive its additional validity by being clearly supportable when considering other, observable large scale natural evidence, and where other theories could not be so supported?

 

If it's experimental evidence it counts, if it's NOT then it's not evidence at all and doesn't matter.

 

The theory could be if not falsified

 

Falsifiability is a requirement of a scientific theory.

 

then seriously undermined and then disregarded if the right kind(s) of dark matter were to be directly detected and identified. I consider that the cosmological theory could be supported by measurement and mathematical calculation and be found to clearly explain more observational evidence than existing theory, and also have considered means by which by which the theory could be tested experimentally,

 

Show how it can then mathematically.

[merlin wood]

Most physicists are quite happy pretty much ignoring the interpretations and just concentrating on the maths.... Which doesn't change. I think you'd do well to take up this approach.

 

It's impossible to ignore the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Concepts like the superposition of states is built inton quantum theory. And these intepretations are absolutely crucial. So with the Copenhagen account it's imppossible, in principle, to develop any theory by considering other natural evidence: quantum behaviour is indeterminate and that's it.

 

Physicists tend to like big revolutions, all those new shiney things to work on.....

 

 

Not a revolution as big as this, unless one or, preferably, more physicists of some standing decide, at least provisionally, to accept this theory and find a way of significantly developing the cosmology, especially by measurement and mathematical calculation but also by finding other observations to support it..

 

Because you're replacing the way people work, they wont change unless what they're changing to is better. Else what's the point?

 

Don't understand. I'm saying that, unlike any other quantum theory or interprtation a nonlocal hidden variables interpretation like bohmian mechanics is clearly supportable from large scale observable natural evidence of where a nonlocal cause can also be considered to act (given the appropriate develpment into a causal quantum hypothesis). Thatis, just like other scientific theories (like gravity and electromagnetism) have been developed by considering a wider range of evidence of where a natural cause acts

 

If it's experimental evidence it counts, if it's NOT then it's not evidence at all and doesn't matter.

 

There is such as evidence by observation and measurement, you know?, as in astronomical findings. So you can't actually experiment with the orbital motion of stars or planets.. And anyway, as I said above, I have considered means by which the theory could be tested experimentally,

 

Falsifiability is a requirement of a scientific theory.

 

You can't actually falsify dark matter theory, other than by developinng a superior theory, and which need not itself actually falsify the theory but only undermine it. And this is how much scientific theory has progressed

 

Show how it can then mathematically.

 

As I say, I'm waiting, quite forlornly it seems, for a physicist to be open minded enough to attempt to develop the cosmological theory mathematically. The point is that, having been trained in orthodox quantum theory, no modern physicist is likely to see how the development of this theory is possible or, necessarily, get my theoretical argument without careful consideration.

Edited June 9, 2008 by merlin wood

[Klaynos]

It's impossible to ignore the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Concepts like the superposition of states is built inton quantum theory. And these intepretations are absolutely crucial. So with the Copenhagen account it's imppossible, in principle, to develop any theory by considering other natural evidence: quantum behaviour is indeterminate and that's it.

 

I'm on the side of the maths... not the interpretation

 

Not a revolution as big as this, unless one or, preferably, more physicists of some standing decide, at least provisionally, to accept this theory and find a way of significantly developing the cosmology, especially by measurement and mathematical calculation but also by finding other observations to support it..

 

Without maths you can't say it's supported by anything.

 

Don't understand. I'm saying that, unlike any other quantum theory or interprtation a nonlocal hidden variables interpretation like bohmian mechanics is clearly supportable from large scale observable natural evidence of where a nonlocal cause can also be considered to act (given the appropriate develpment into a causal quantum hypothesis). Thatis, just like other scientific theories (like gravity and electromagnetism) have been developed by considering a wider range of evidence of where a natural cause acts

 

Without maths you can't say that any of this evidence supports it. Gravitation theories and EM are both fundamentally mathematical theories.

 

There is such as evidence by observation and measurement, you know?, as in astronomical findings.

 

Without maths you can't make that claim.

 

So you can't actually experiment with the orbital motion of stars or planets..

 

Yes you can. You can make predictions of things, and then go and see if those predictions hold true.

 

And anyway, as I said above, I have considered means by which the theory could be tested experimentally,

 

You can't actually falsify dark matter theory,

 

Dark matter in itself is not a theory, it is a postulate to explain missing mass.

 

other than by developinng a superior theory, and which need not itself actually falsify the theory but only undermine it. And this is how much scientific theory has progressed

 

You have not proposed a theory, without maths it is mere random speculation.

 

As I say, I'm waiting, quite forlornly it seems, for a physicist to be open minded enough to attempt to develop the cosmological theory mathematically. The point is that, having been trained in orthodox quantum theory, no modern physicist is likely to see how the development of this theory is possible or, necessarily, get my theoretical argument without careful consideration.

 

Maybe they see the holes you don't? You've actually pretty much presented nothing, physicists don't like things without maths much because they are untestable and meaningless.

[merlin wood]

I'm on the side of the maths... not the interpretation

 

 

 

Without maths you can't say it's supported by anything.

 

 

 

Without maths you can't say that any of this evidence supports it. Gravitation theories and EM are both fundamentally mathematical theories.

 

 

 

Without maths you can't make that claim.

 

 

 

Yes you can. You can make predictions of things, and then go and see if those predictions hold true.

 

 

 

Dark matter in itself is not a theory, it is a postulate to explain missing mass.

 

 

 

You have not proposed a theory, without maths it is mere random speculation.

 

 

 

Maybe they see the holes you don't? You've actually pretty much presented nothing, physicists don't like things without maths much because they are untestable and meaningless.

 

Why do I bother? I ask myself when I get so many self opiniated arseholes on the internet? There seems to be endless numbers of such people who profess to be physicists especially. It's no wonder theoretical physics has been in sucjh a dire state for the past 30 years (see especially Lee Smolin - The Trouble with Physics )

 

Try falsifying the existence of gravity or the theory of biological evolution, for which Darwin needed no maths at all for it to be accepted amongst the scientific community and form the basis for all subsequent developments in evolutionary theory.

 

PS Only for those who are more interested in others' theories than their own opinions, see http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com for a reasonably justified general hypothesis for a nonlocal cause and its effects in addition to the forces.

Edited June 9, 2008 by merlin wood
multiple post merged

[insane_alien]

Try falsifying the existence of gravity or the theory of biological evolution, for which Darwin needed no maths at all for it to be accepted amongst the scientific community.

 

Darwin did not create a theory of evolution. Newton did, and he had maths.

 

also, darwinian evolution did not require maths as it was qualitative rather than quantitative. now that we have discovered genetics and such, there is a fair bit of maths to it.

[merlin wood]

Darwin did not create a theory of evolution. Newton did,.

 

I've nowhere suggested otherwise.

 

also, darwinian evolution did not require maths as it was qualitative rather than quantitative. now that we have discovered genetics and such, there is a fair bit of maths to it.

 

So? I say, just like Darwin's theory, I have developed at

 

http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com

 

a non-quantitative general hypothesis (or theory) that can be subsequently supported by quantative calculations.

 

And, in fact, I could add that there is already a measured quantified relationship between the orbital acceleration of stars in spiral galaxies and the acceleration rate of the universe as a whole, which supports this theory(see Smolin's The Trouble with Physics ch 13 'Surprises from the real world').

Edited June 9, 2008 by merlin wood

[Klaynos]

I've nowhere suggested otherwise.

 

 

 

So? I say, just like Darwin's theory, I have developed at

 

http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com

 

a non-quantitative general hypothesis (or theory) that can be subsequently supported by quantative calculations.

 

It's not a theory.

 

And, in fact, I could add that there is already a measured quantified relationship between the orbital acceleration of stars in spiral galaxies and the acceleration rate of the universe as a whole, which supports this theory(see Smolin's The Trouble with Physics ch 13 'Surprises from the real world').

 

It can't support your idea, because your idea would require maths to predict it, and it doesn't.

 

Why do I bother? I ask myself when I get so many self opiniated arseholes on the internet? There seems to be endless numbers of such people who profess to be physicists especially. It's no wonder theoretical physics has been in sucjh a dire state for the past 30 years (see especially Lee Smolin - The Trouble with Physics )

 

Try falsifying the existence of gravity or the theory of biological evolution, for which Darwin needed no maths at all for it to be accepted amongst the scientific community and form the basis for all subsequent developments in evolutionary theory.

 

PS Only for those who are more interested in others' theories than their own opinions, see http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com for a reasonably justified general hypothesis for a nonlocal cause and its effects in addition to the forces.

 

Ignoring the personal attack. Both newtons theory of gravity and general relativity are testable and falsifiable, infact both have been shown to be incomplete, general relativity adds to newtonian gravity and as for solving the problems with general relativity that is still being worked on.

 

I'm sorry that you are offended that science require evidence and falsifiability and resort to personal attacks. And as I've commented before modern physics is NOT biology in the 1800's... Sucks I know but that's life... well science...

[blike]

My account is not (yet) supported by any measurements, calculation or mathematical formulae I'm afraid, but I have been able to illustrate the action of a nonlocal cause using diagrams.

Why do I bother? I ask myself when I get so many self opiniated arseholes on the internet?

Why do you bother? You're presenting a physics-related concept to a graduate physics student. He, like most other physicists, is going to ask you for the math. If that's too much to ask you're dabbling in the wrong discipline. I hardly think he should be called a self opiniated [sic] asshole for demanding a high standard of evidence. Consider that your warning.

[merlin wood]

It's not a theory.

 

 

 

It can't support your idea, because your idea would require maths to predict it, and it doesn't.

 

Look, Klaynos, http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com

is a non-quantative hypothesis, right? Although, as well as being supported by a wide range of natural evidence in virtue of a diagrammatic method of representing a nonlocally acting cause, it is supported by a mathematically justified interpretation of quantum physics called Bohmian mechanics and an already mathematically quantified relationship between spiral galaxy behaviour and the expansion of the Cosmos. And, as such. I leave it up to more open minded and, probably, better qualified individuals than you to see whether they can find further mathematical support for the cosmological hypothesis, OK?

 

Why do you bother? You're presenting a physics-related concept to a graduate physics student. He, like most other physicists, is going to ask you for the math. If that's too much to ask you're dabbling in the wrong discipline. I hardly think he should be called a self opiniated [sic] asshole for demanding a high standard of evidence. Consider that your warning.

 

All I can say is, blike, read http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com very carefully yourself to see whether it makes sense to you.

Edited June 9, 2008 by merlin wood
multiple post merged

[foodchain]

Look, Klaynos, http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com

is a non-quantative hypothesis, right? Although, as well as being supported by a wide range of natural evidence in virtue of a diagrammatic method of representing a nonlocally acting cause, it is supported by a mathematically justified interpretation of quantum physics called Bohmian mechanics and an already mathematically quantified relationship between spiral galaxy behaviour and the expansion of the Cosmos. And, as such. I leave it up to more open minded and, probably, better qualified individuals than you to see whether they can find further mathematical support for the cosmological hypothesis, OK?

 

 

 

All I can say is, blike, read http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com very carefully yourself to see whether it makes sense to you.

 

the best philosophy can be wrong, so can the best maths, the best hypothesis or in general contemporary human thought on any subject could be temporary and flawed, its the experiment really or the continuous application of such that really wins the day for understanding things. I don’t want to lampoon string theory but for physics its a perfect example that you cant just do math, you also cant just do reason or philosophy either.

 

While my opinion is that the human species does not know everything yet, that’s all such a statement would mean really. Classical mechanics was to be taken as an end all, save for the real world would not allow for such, evolution to many people seems to complex to occur giving their understanding, the real world however does not care about this. So its really about just trying to keep it real that counts, and honestly that’s the reason I like science over just about ever other human institution on earth for the simple fact that I could care less to live in a "fantasy" land akin to politics or some other idea. With that said I don’t look upon humanity as flawed because we are not all scientific robots looking to test everything, just that to claim something as a fact or something as wrong should take experiment really, or you should have to prove it. I mean if science was like politics, then it would not matter if classical mechanics could not explain everything, it would just be classical mechanics if the majority really wanted it to be that way, what a horrible reality that would be, more or less say hello to a work much like Nazi Germany.

Edited June 10, 2008 by foodchain
removed one word, added two more

[merlin wood]

the best philosophy can be wrong, so can the best maths, the best hypothesis or in general contemporary human thought on any subject could be temporary and flawed, its the experiment really or the continuous application of such that really wins the day for understanding things. I don’t want to lampoon string theory but for physics its a perfect example that you cant just do math, you also cant just do reason or philosophy either.

 

Totally agree. Physicists tend to hold mathematics to be essential for discovering the truth. While they forget that biological discoveries just as much concern the truth but, at most, only secondarily involve mathematical description. While even in physics mathematical description by itself makes no sense at all and, in fact, crucial features like the attract or repel directions effect of the forces can't mathematically described at all. So Newton could never have made his discovery without the initial non-quantitive insight that gravity is force of attraction.

 

Scientists with the idea that mathematics is a primary means of describing nature can develop illusory a priori mathematical ideas about the world. Like Keplers's geometrical notion about the distances of the planets to the sun. While you can find just such a priori mathematical notions in string theory.

 

Also, I've concluded that this attitude led, perhaps inevitably, to what will be seen as greatest mistake in modern science, which is the Copenhagen interpretation.

 

While my opinion is that the human species does not know everything yet, that’s all such a statement would mean really. Classical mechanics was to be taken as an end all, save for the real world would not allow for such, evolution to many people seems to complex to occur giving their understanding, the real world however does not care about this. So its really about just trying to keep it real that counts, and honestly that’s the reason I like science over just about ever other human institution on earth for the simple fact that I could care less to live in a "fantasy" land akin to politics or some other idea. With that said I don’t look upon humanity as flawed because we are not all scientific robots looking to test everything, just that to claim something as a fact or something as wrong should take experiment really, or you should have to prove it. I mean if science was like politics, then it would not matter if classical mechanics could not explain everything, it would just be classical mechanics if the majority really wanted it to be that way, what a horrible reality that would be, more or less say hello to a work much like Nazi Germany.

 

Although if you read Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics, you find that, once divorced from the essential scientific stipulation that theory should be supported by experiment and/or observed facts, string theory turned into, if not politics then, as Smolin says, a matter of sociology.

[insane_alien]

in fact, crucial features like the attract or repel directions effect of the forces can't mathematically described at all

 

you obviously have never encountered vectors then.

 

Physicists tend to hold mathematics to be essential for discovering the truth.

 

no, observations are required for that. mathematics is essential for creating the model.

 

While they forget that biological discoveries just as much concern the truth but, at most, only secondarily involve mathematical description

 

biology and pure physics have many many differences that make mathematical models of similar makeup to the physics models impractical for our current level of technology. this is not to say mathematical models are never constructed but they tend to be far more rule of thumb than anything. the main issue in biology is the extraordinary number of factors and unknown process which require further investigation before more accurate models can be constructed.

[merlin wood]

you obviously have never encountered vectors then.

 

OK then, the properties of attraction and repulsion just as directions of effect can't be described by measurement and calculation. And then do vectors adequately desribe these properties? So suppose you lived in a gravity free environment, could you make sense of what vectors represent? Attraction just as an unmeasured pull at a distance upon objects is essentially a property that you can only feal to make sense of it.

 

no, observations are required for that. mathematics is essential for creating the model.

 

Is it though, necessarily? So I've often found physicists saying that quantum entanglement is an effect without a cause, and presumably because nothing can be quantified as a cause of an effect that can only be measured as a correlation. And nor can you describe the vector of such a cause.

 

You can, however, insist that to make sense of this effect you need at least to say there needs to be something in addition to quantum objects that maintains their entangled correlation, just as you need to describe the property of the attraction of a force. And this could make a general sense of how atoms and molecules can be and remain in their subatomic organization as described by the exclusion principle, and which no properties of the forces can be described to explain.

 

Then I say you can develop a workable causal hypothesis that can be supported by large scale matural evidence, and just by representing the action of such a cause by means of simple diagrams (which I suppose in its broadest sense could be called a mathematical representation, but this can't involve any measurement or calculation).

Edited June 10, 2008 by merlin wood

[insane_alien]

OK then, the properties of attraction and repulsion just as directions of effect can't be described by measurement and calculation.

 

yes they can. i can measure the magnitude of a force and i can measure the direction of a force. having the positions of two objects i can calculate a magnitude and direction. this is not hard and the average highschool student is taught this. i often need to use vector math to calculate both magnitude and direction.

 

I can only assume from this your math skills are severely lacking.

 

And then do vectors adequately desribe these properties? So suppose you lived in a gravity free environment, could you make sense of what vectors represent?

 

vectors are an abstract concept. through physical theories they can be applied. mainly when you are dealing with a system that has more than one dimension. Gravity is not the only thing vectors apply to, motion, electromagnetism, fluid dynamics and lots more depend on them. the presence or lack thereof of gravitational fields is irrelevant. also, if there were no such thing as gravity how would we have theories of it?

 

Attraction just as an unmeasured pull at a distance upon objects is essentially a property that you can only feal to make sense of it.

 

??? i can measure the force of attraction of an object towards another object. its very easy, do you have a set of scales in your bathroom? go stand on them. this will give you the magnitude of attraction between you and the earth. the direction(from your frame) is down.

 

Is it though, necessarily? So I've often found physicists saying that quantum entanglement is an effect without a cause, and presumably because nothing can be quantified as a cause of an effect that can only be measured as a correlation.

 

i have to admit i do not know enough of quantum entanglement to provide a meaningful reply here, i suspect that neither do you.

 

And nor can you describe the vector of such a cause.

 

vectors are not the be all and end all of physical modeling.

 

Then I say you can develop a workable causal hypothesis that can be supported by large scale matural evidence, and just by representing the action of such a cause by means of simple diagrams (which I suppose in its broadest sense could be called a mathematical representation, but this can't involve any measurement or calculation).

 

and why can't it involve any measurement or calculation. if you have no measurements then you have NO evidence you have an abstract concept. as such there is no guarantee it has anything to do with reality.

[Royston]

OK then, the properties of attraction and repulsion just as directions of effect can't be described by measurement and calculation.

 

Did you mean to say 'can' ?

 

And then do vectors adequately desribe these properties?

 

Yes, considering they've been tested via experiment, and hold up to the predictions of vector equations.

 

So suppose you lived in a gravity free environment, could you make sense of what vectors represent?

 

I could use vectors to describe the electrostatic force, and ignore gravity, because it's effects are negligible if that's what you mean. There's no such thing as a gravity free environment, A. because it's range (not it's potential) is infinite, B. gravity (according to GR) is the geometry, or shape of space, how can space be free of shape.

 

Attraction just as an unmeasured pull at a distance upon objects is essentially a property that you can only feal to make sense of it.

 

So we should drop all the advancements in measuring phenomena, that have refined our understanding of nature, and resort to dropping apples on our head ?

 

I can't make much sense of the rest of your post, no offense.

 

Also, you've hijacked a thread that was specifically about dark matter. There's a sub-forum for speculations.

 

EDIT: meh IA has faster typing skills