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

[merlin wood]

No-one has convinced me that you can adequately describe the property of atraction by using vectors. As you say, a vector's an abstract representation. So as such, it fails to represent the pull that is felt as the result of an attractive force.

 

You may consider what I've said about quantum entanglement as speculation, snail, I don't. Still, don't worry, I won't post anything more that's off topic on this thread.

[Klaynos]

[math]

 

\mathbf{F}_{12} =

- G {m_1 m_2 \over {\vert \mathbf{r}_{12} \vert}^2}

\, \mathbf{\hat{r}}_{12}

[/math]

where

 

[math] \mathbf{F}_{12} [/math] is the force applied on object 2 due to object 1

[math] G [/math] is the gravitational constant

[math] m_1 [/math] and [math] m_2 [/math] are respectively the masses of objects 1 and 2

[math] \vert \mathbf{r}_{12} \vert \ = \vert \mathbf{r}_2 - \mathbf{r}_1 \vert [/math] is the distance between objects 1 and 2

[math] \mathbf{\hat{r}}_{12} \ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\ \frac{\mathbf{r}_2 - \mathbf{r}_1}{\vert\mathbf{r}_2 - \mathbf{r}_1\vert} [/math] is the [[unit vector]] from object 1 to 2

 

An example of attraction using vectors.

[merlin wood]

An example of attraction using vectors.

 

Still doesn't describe essentially what a force of attraction is: as something that pulls on objects at a distance.

 

But, as requested above, back to the thread topic question of dark matter.

 

So, since the appropriate type(s) of dark matter have not been directly detected and identified in any of a lot of purpose built or other experiments (why should it not be detectable in bubble chambers?), this hypothetical stuff, which theoretically needs to comprise some 90% of all matter in the cosmos, can still be regarded as the phlogiston of modern science.

 

Also, although MOND doesn't make sense in terms of existing basic principles of space, time and relativity and you can still ask why there should be this peculiar variation in Newton's law, it does explain spiral galaxy rotation curves more accurately than any dark matter explanation.

 

And MOND shows that the variation in the law is just governed by a particular orbital acceleration rate and not by the density of the visible matter or the distance from galactic centre as would be expected by the extra gravity produced by any invisible matter.

 

And then there is the very close measured relationship between the MOND orbital acceleration rate and the the rate of accelerated expansion of the universe, and which neither dark matter nor MOND can explain.

 

Also, neither MOND nor dark matter can solve the spiral galaxy winding problem, where the galactic arms should wind ever tighter and disappear as the galaxy rotates.

 

My own hypothesis finds reasons to think that the rotational behaviour of spiral galaxies can be explained as, essentially, a quantum effect on the astronomical scale.

Edited June 12, 2008 by merlin wood
typos

[D H]

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.

 

Doing physics without math is a form of self abuse. It is even worse than doing *shudder* philosophy. Physics is not biology. If you are afraid of or incapable of doing math stop trying to pretend you are doing physics. You are not.

 

Newton? Invoking the great minds in physics without cause scores high on the crackpot index. Claiming that "I can't do the math but I know I am right" scores very high on the crackpot index. And please. Newton invented the math that physicists use every day. It is called calculus.

 

Physicists still have non-quantitative insights to this day. It is an important part of discovery. The insights become real only after they are expressed mathematically.

[insane_alien]

Still doesn't describe essentially what a force of attraction is: as something that pulls on objects at a distance.

 

yes it does, the direction of the forces tells you if a force is a force of attraction or a force of repulsion. vectors allow you to not only calculate the magnitude of the force but also its direction which will tell you if it is attractive or repulsive.

[Klaynos]

Still doesn't describe essentially what a force of attraction is: as something that pulls on objects at a distance.

 

It's a simple bit of maths, interoperating it into English shows you that it is something that pulls and object at a distance.

 

But, as requested above, back to the thread topic question of dark matter.

 

So, since the appropriate type(s) of dark matter have not been directly detected and identified in any of a lot of purpose built or other experiments (why should it not be detectable in bubble chambers?),

 

Because of how weakly they interact with EM. Same reason it's a ***** to detect nutrinos... And what purpose built detectors do we have for say WIMPs?

 

this hypothetical stuff, which theoretically needs to comprise some 90% of all matter in the cosmos, can still be regarded as the phlogiston of modern science.

 

Also, although MOND doesn't make sense in terms of existing basic principles of space, time and relativity and you can still ask why there should be this peculiar variation in Newton's law, it does explain spiral galaxy rotation curves more accurately than any dark matter explanation.

 

That's quite alot of things it doesn't explain though, you've got to ask yourself which answers more questions and makes less assumptions...

 

And MOND shows that the variation in the law is just governed by a particular orbital acceleration rate and not by the density of the visible matter or the distance from galactic centre as would be expected by the extra gravity produced by any invisible matter.

 

And then there is the very close measured relationship between the MOND orbital acceleration rate and the the rate of accelerated expansion of the universe, and which neither dark matter nor MOND can explain.

 

Also, neither MOND nor dark matter can solve the spiral galaxy winding problem, where the galactic arms should wind ever tighter and disappear as the galaxy rotates.

 

My own hypothesis finds reasons to think that the rotational behaviour of spiral galaxies can be explained as, essentially, a quantum effect on the astronomical scale.

 

Your hypothesis so, a thread hijack... Got any self consistent mathematics?

[merlin wood]

Doing physics without math is a form of self abuse. It is even worse than doing *shudder* philosophy. Physics is not biology. If you are afraid of or incapable of doing math stop trying to pretend you are doing physics. You are not.

 

Mere biass reflecting the usual physicists' attempt to argue for the superiority of physics over other sciences. Basically, like nearly all other physicists I've come across, you fail to understand the basic conception of a hypothesis that would explain the natural organisation of matter and the energy it radiates, including quantum wave and entanglement behaviour on terms of a nonlocal cause and it's effects. This needs to be unlike any previous hypothesis or theory in physics.

 

The fact is that, while physicists admire the mathematical complexity and ingenuity of string theory, if you apply Occam's razor to all it's unproven assumptions, plus the fact that no experimental test can prove it right or wrong, given that it's equations have myriads of solutions, you can reasonably conclude that there is nothing more unscientific in orthodox academic science than this so-called theory of everything.

Newton? Invoking the great minds in physics without cause scores high on the crackpot index. Claiming that "I can't do the math but I know I am right" scores very high on the crackpot index. And please. Newton invented the math that physicists use every day. It is called calculus.

 

If you read Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics you can reasonably conclude that string theory has developed into a crackpot cult where the construction of a priori mathematical models is considered more scientific than testability by experiment and observation, and which has almost taken over the discpline of theoretical physics.

 

 

Physicists still have non-quantitative insights to this day. It is an important part of discovery. The insights become real only after they are expressed mathematically.

 

In my hypothesis from the evidence of quantum physics I have carefully justified clear diagrammatic models of how a cause could act nonlocally in addition to the forces so as to produce wave and entanglement behaviour, which actually, according to my dictionary, could be called mathematical representation. I then find I can support this represention by considering observable natural evidence.

Edited June 12, 2008 by merlin wood
clarification

[Royston]

Mere biass reflecting the usual physicists' attempt to argue for the superiority of physics over other sciences.

 

Physics is applied math, observation and experiment. If you miss out any of these facets, it's not physics. I'm not sure about physics isn't biology, they may seem distinct fields, but as with most scientific fields there's always cross overs, use of logistic and quadratic maps for example are used both in physics and biology, and this is nothing new. Biology is a completely different beast from the days of Darwin.

 

Basically, like nearly all other physicists I've come across, you fail to understand the basic conception of a hypothesis that would explain the natural organisation of matter and the energy it radiates, including quantum wave and entanglement behaviour.

 

You have a very strange idea of what a hypothesis is, judging by that statement.

 

If you read Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics you can reasonably concluded that string theory has developed into a crackpot cult where the construction of a priori mathematical models is considered more scientific than testability by experiment and observation.

 

I've read the book twice, A appeal to authority, B it's one mans opinion, it's a good book, but don't take it as gospel. You, and neither do I understand string theory enough to formulate an opinion on the subject.

 

In my hypothesis from the evidence of quantum physics I have carefully justified clear diagrammatic models of how a cause could act nonlocally in addition to the forces so as to produce wave and entanglement behaviour, which actually, according to my dictionary, could be called mathematical representation. I then find I can support this represention by considering observable natural evidence.

 

Diagrams, just don't cut it, unless you're willing to put the work in, and base your hypothesis on already established math that has held up to experiment and observation, you're not doing physics...like it or not.

Edited June 12, 2008 by Snail

[merlin wood]

Doing physics without math is a form of self abuse. It is even worse than doing *shudder* philosophy. Physics is not biology. If you are afraid of or incapable of doing math stop trying to pretend you are doing physics. You are not.

 

Mere biass reflecting the usual physicists' attempt to argue for the superiority of physics over other sciences. Basically, like nearly all other physicists I've come across, you fail to understand the basic conception of a hypothesis that would explain the natural organisation of matter and the energy it radiates, including quantum wave and entanglement behaviour.

 

While physicists admire the mathematical complexity and ingenuity of string theory, if you apply Occam's razor to all it's unproven assumptions, plus the fact that no experimental test can prove it right or wrong, given that it's equations have myriads of solutions, you can reasonably conclude that there is nothing more unscientific in orthodox academic science than this so-called theory of everything.

 

Newton? Invoking the great minds in physics without cause scores high on the crackpot index. Claiming that "I can't do the math but I know I am right" scores very high on the crackpot index. And please. Newton invented the math that physicists use every day. It is called calculus.

 

If you read Lee Smolin's book The Trouble with Physics you can reasonably concluded that string theory has developed into a crackpot cult where the construction of a priori mathematical models is considered more scientific than testability by experiment and observation.

 

Physicists still have non-quantitative insights to this day. It is an important part of discovery. The insights become real only after they are expressed mathematically.

 

In my hypothesis from the evidence of quantum physics I have carefully justified clear diagrammatic models of how a cause could act nonlocally in addition to the forces so as to produce wave and entanglement behaviour, which actually, according to my dictionary, could be called mathematical representation. I then find I can support this represention by considering observable natural evidence.

[Phi for All]

Merlin Wood's hypothesis and replies have been split from the Dark Matter Question thread and moved to Speculations. You may reply to Merlin Wood without being off-topic.

[merlin wood]

It's called Dark because we don't know what it is.... so it's therefore exotic, it's quite unusual (read bloody odd) for massive matter to not be visible at any wavelength therefore I think it counts really as exotic... Although there was some talk of it being caused by neutrinos, current thoughts are I believe that there's just not enough of them to make up the mass and certainly the distribution required....

 

 

 

Diagrams without calculations or maths are meaningless.

 

 

 

Work from just the maths not the interpretation, it removes many difficulties and misunderstandings...

 

 

 

Without maths you don't really have anything :|

 

But then there is maths involved in my account therefore I do have something.

[Royston]

But then there is maths involved in my account therefore I do have something.

 

Is hijacking threads a hobby of yours ?

 

As I said in the previous thread, prove your hypothesis, diagrams are a guide you use to visualize the math you're using. However they're useless, unless you can explain how one quantity relates to another...therefore you need to come up with an equation.

 

Not only that, and with all due respect, but you don't seem to know what you're talking about.

[merlin wood]

Physics is applied math, observation and experiment. If you miss out any of these facets, it's not physics. I'm not sure about physics isn't biology, they may seem distinct fields, but as with most scientific fields there's always cross overs, use of logistic and quadratic maps for example are used both in physics and biology, and this is nothing new. Biology is a completely different beast from the days of Darwin..

 

Well in my hypothesis I don'tmiss out on any of these facets. In fact,

 

(1) unike any Copenhagen type indeterminate interpretation of quantum mechanics, Bomian mechanics, which is required to to justify the hypothesis of a nonlocally acting cause and its effects, is a systematic mathematically justified argument describing, without paradox, the determinate behaviour of quantum objects beyond the observable evidence and so that this is entirely consistent with a wide range of experimental results,

 

and

 

(2) unlike string theory, my hypothesis is totally dependent for its justfication upon careful consideration of a wide range of directly observable large scale natural evidence as well as the observable and measurable experimental evidence of quatum mechanics.

 

You have a very strange idea of what a hypothesis is, judging by that statement...

 

Do I? Please explain how so.

 

I've read the book twice, A appeal to authority, B it's one mans opinion, it's a good book, but don't take it as gospel. You, and neither do I understand string theory enough to formulate an opinion on the subject.

 

But then it's not just Smolin's opinion, because there's also Peter Woit's book Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law for Unity in Physical Law which is even more damning about string theory. And you may have noticed quotes from several reputable physicists in Smolin's book who give reasons to doubt string theory, and there are more such quotes in Woit's book

 

Diagrams, just don't cut it, unless you're willing to put the work in, and base your hypothesis on already established math that has held up to experiment and observation, you're not doing physics...like it or not.

 

But then as I say, there's the mathematics of Bohmian mechanics which is the only quantum interpretation that accounts for the experimental results in terms of the mathematically described variable behaviour of quantum objects in motion. And then there's the mathematically quantified relationship between the orbital acceleration in spiral galaxies and the acceleration in the universal expansion which no existing theory has explained, and which Smolin points out in Ch 13 of his book. He also mentions there that the measured anomolous acceleration rate in the pioneer 10 and 11 space probes is quite close to the universal rate as well.

 

So that I'd say that if my hypothesis is speculative then any threads on string theory, at least, should be relegated to this subforum too.

Edited June 12, 2008 by merlin wood
added sentence

[Klaynos]

But then there is maths involved in my account therefore I do have something.

 

Can you show us?

[merlin wood]

Can you show us?

 

See above at post #38 re Bomian mechanics and galaxy rotation.

[Klaynos]

In my half asleep state I can't say I see any maths?

[merlin wood]

In my half asleep state I can't say I see any maths?

 

Nope. If you care to enquire about Bohmian mechanics, eg here, as well as for the astronomical evidence, the maths has already been done by others.

Edited June 13, 2008 by merlin wood
multiple post merged

[Klaynos]

So what are you adding?

[merlin wood]

So what are you adding?

 

Ah well, as I think I've already said that's up to competant physicists - who are prepared to take this hypothesis seriously by carefully considering all the natural and experiemental evidence I've already cited in my blog hypothesis - to work out for themselves. As I've already said and as open minded individuals can see at my blog, a well reasoned hypothesis for a theory of anonlocal cause and its effects can be argued quite convincingly without any mathematical calculations. But then where are there such open minded physicists on the internet? I ask myself.

[mooeypoo]

Ah well, as I think I've already said that's up to competant physicists - who are prepared to take this hypothesis seriously by carefully considering all the natural and experiemental evidence I've already cited in my blog hypothesis - to work out for themselves. As I've already said and as open minded individuals can see at my blog, a well reasoned hypothesis for a theory of anonlocal cause and its effects can be argued quite convincingly without any mathematical calculations. But then where are there such open minded physicists on the internet? I ask myself.

So if these so called "Competent Physicists" work it out and find you wrong, your theory is dead in the water?

 

 

Where are these proofs of yours, and who would you call a competent physicist..?

[Klaynos]

So nothing posted here. I might look at your blog tomorrow...

 

But do you know WHY physicists like maths?

 

It allows falsifiable, predictions unlike anything else. It allows you to say "if x happens y will happen" without any doubt about what x and y are. It allows you to accurately model the way the universe works as opposed to the "energy is carried by little invisible pixies" approach which sounds nice, but makes no predictions and is not testable....

 

Oh and how do you create your new diagrams without maths?

[merlin wood]

So if these so called "Competent Physicists" work it out and find you wrong, your theory is dead in the water?

 

It would indeed be.

 

 

Where are these proofs of yours, and who would you call a competent physicist..?

 

Um proofs? Didn't say anything about proofs here. A competent physicist, I'd guess, would not need to have outstanding mathematic abilities but rather good imaginative insight and a quite thorough knowledge of astronomy and cosmology.

 

Oh and how do you create your new diagrams without maths?

 

Their just visual diagrams that are justified verbally from the evidence of quatum wave behaviour and entanglement. Anf there's no way that the properties of the cause of quantum entanglement can be justified described by mathematical calculation. Except, that is, from Bell inequality experiments where the effect has been measured to occur at faster that the speed of light.

Edited June 13, 2008 by merlin wood
clarification

[mooeypoo]

Um proofs? Didn't say anything about proofs here. A competent physicist, I'd guess, would not need to have outstanding mathematic abilities but rather good imaginative insight and a quite thorough knowledge of astronomy and cosmology.

Very few people define "competent physicists" this way, I hope you know that.

 

And, yes, proofs -- how do you expect a theory to stand on anything or be even partially valid without any proof or substantiation? If you suggest replacing an existing theory (that works and explains things quite well, btw) - you need to give a reason as to why your alternative is better than the existing ones. And show that your theory is more realistic..

 

hence proof.

 

Their just visual diagrams that are justified verbally from the evidence of quatum wave behaviour and entanglement. Anf there's no way that the properties of the cause of quantum entanglement can be justified described by mathematical calculation. Except, that is, from Bell inequality experiments where the effect has been measured to occur at faster that the speed of light.

 

That's not science, though, it's art.

 

~moo

[Jacques]

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

Do you have any references ?

Always thaught that it was Darwin

Wiki say Darwin....

[merlin wood]

Very few people define "competent physicists" this way, I hope you know that.

Einstein actually wasn't an outstanding mathematician, what he had that so many physicists lack, these days especially it seems, was an outstanding independent imagination

 

And, yes, proofs -- how do you expect a theory to stand on anything or be even partially valid without any proof or substantiation? If you suggest replacing an existing theory (that works and explains things quite well, btw) - you need to give a reason as to why your alternative is better than the existing ones. And show that your theory is more realistic..

 

hence proof.

 

Proof is about logic and mathematics. Newton didn't prove his laws of gravity he demonstrated them from the observable findings. Empirical science is about support from the experimental and/or natural evidence. If you don't have that then it's not science.

 

That's not science, though, it's art.

 

Biology and medicine could not do without verbally justified diagrams.

Edited June 14, 2008 by merlin wood
added sentence