Limits of Theoretical Physics(?)

[syscode]

Hi,

 

I am attempting to consider theoretical physics from an artistic point of view, i.e. can processes used in theoretical physics be applicable to art, and if so - how.

 

With the above in mind, I was wondering if someone could help me understand the focus of theoretical physics. As far as I understand it:

 

Theoretical physics applies to general aspects which can be applicable to various instances. Or is it the case that if one can, for example, describe a totally new and independent material/phenomena that it's related laws are applicable only to itself and only in a very particular situation?

 

How limited theoretical physics is to the already known? There are theories about, for example, dark matter/energy which in itself wasn't yet encountered but other observations point at the possibility of its existance. However, if one completely invented a material with no observational evidence for what-so-ever, other than the theoretician's will for that material to be considered via their theory - would that still be theoretical physics, or simply fictional physics..?

 

Many thanks for any reflections on this.

[IM Egdall]

A theoretical physicist generates a theory in mathematical terms about how something in nature behaves. She/he makes specific detailed predictions with numbers on the results of certain experiments or observations. When a physicist (preferably someone else) conducts the actual experiment and comes up with measurements which give good agreement with the orignal prediction, then the theory is said to be supported experimentally.

 

This is the process, sort of, but it does not capture the wonder, beauty, and majesty of great discoveries on how our universe works. That, I think, has more to do with the imagination and artistry of the human being(s) involved in the search.

[sacscale]

Hi,

 

I am attempting to consider theoretical physics from an artistic point of view, i.e. can processes used in theoretical physics be applicable to art, and if so - how.

 

With the above in mind, I was wondering if someone could help me understand the focus of theoretical physics. As far as I understand it:

 

Theoretical physics applies to general aspects which can be applicable to various instances. Or is it the case that if one can, for example, describe a totally new and independent material/phenomena that it's related laws are applicable only to itself and only in a very particular situation?

 

How limited theoretical physics is to the already known? There are theories about, for example, dark matter/energy which in itself wasn't yet encountered but other observations point at the possibility of its existance. However, if one completely invented a material with no observational evidence for what-so-ever, other than the theoretician's will for that material to be considered via their theory - would that still be theoretical physics, or simply fictional physics..?

 

Many thanks for any reflections on this.

 

Theoretical physics is limited by agreement with observation. There are many observations that are asthetically interesting (such as those by Hubble) but you might be interested in the planet Vulcan.

[elas]

Theoretical physics is limited by agreement with observation. There are many observations that are asthetically interesting (such as those by Hubble) but you might be interested in the planet Vulcan.

 

Correct, but until the LCH start up the observation were were limited to those results that closely matched prediction. Each experiment gave about 80,000 results, a computer programme selected the two or three nearest to the predicted result; the remaining 79,997 were abandoned. Now that all results are being examined the validity of the prediction (Higg's particle) is being questioned.

[alpha2cen]

Theoretical physics is limited by agreement with observation.

 

What is the knowledge?

We are doing every efforts to approach the truth.

All of our modern knowledge are not truth, they are middle step creatures to go to the absolute truth.

Our present knowledge is based on the past knowledge.

When the more advanced observation tools are developed, some of our present knowledge will be modified.

[DrRocket]

Hi,

 

I am attempting to consider theoretical physics from an artistic point of view, i.e. can processes used in theoretical physics be applicable to art, and if so - how.

 

With the above in mind, I was wondering if someone could help me understand the focus of theoretical physics. As far as I understand it:

 

Theoretical physics applies to general aspects which can be applicable to various instances. Or is it the case that if one can, for example, describe a totally new and independent material/phenomena that it's related laws are applicable only to itself and only in a very particular situation?

 

How limited theoretical physics is to the already known? There are theories about, for example, dark matter/energy which in itself wasn't yet encountered but other observations point at the possibility of its existance. However, if one completely invented a material with no observational evidence for what-so-ever, other than the theoretician's will for that material to be considered via their theory - would that still be theoretical physics, or simply fictional physics..?

 

Many thanks for any reflections on this.

 

Theoretical physics is the development of mathematical models that describe the behavior of nature, through a minimal number of basic assumptions.

 

It requires imagination, which is applicable to art. It also requires rigor and logical constraints that may not be applicable. Good theories have, thus far, been beautiful, so in some sense theoretical physics, and more so mathematics, can be considered to be art forms. It takes a good deal of knowledge and aptitude to appreciate the asthetics of mathematics and of physical law..

 

Theoretical physics is not at all limited to what is known. Rather it is constrained by what is known -- a theory that is contradicted by what is known is not a valid theory. A theory that can only predict what is already known is no better than existing theory. The power of a new theory is measured by its ability topredict new phenomena which are subsequently verified by experiment.

 

A theory that predicts something new is provisional, neither fact nor fiction, until experiment either verifies the new phenomenon or shows that it does not exist. In the former case the validity of the theory is supported. In the latter case the theory is falsified and discarded.

 

"To summarize , I would use the words of Jeans, who said that ‘the Great Architect seems to be a mathematician’. To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature. C.P. Snow talked about two cultures. I really think that those two cultures separate people who have and people who have not had this experience of understanding mathematics well enough to appreciate nature once." – Richard P. Feynman in The Character of Physical Law

 

 

[elas]

DrRocket repeats the long accepted truth that much of current theory is well proven, but also true and completely overlook is the fact that until the LHC programme started, it was based on an analysis of just 0.0025% of the experimental results (that is the results within the possible error margins of the predicted result).

Now that all results are being examined the flaws in the current model are becomming obvious; it is not that the current model is wrong, it is that that a vast amount of the results do not fit within the mathematical restrictions of the current model. A new theory will be required that will embrace all the observed results including those of the current model.

This is what happens when the search for scientific truth (i.e. a fully 'causal' theory) is replaced by the development of a 'non-causal' mathematical prediction theory.

[swansont]

DrRocket repeats the long accepted truth that much of current theory is well proven, but also true and completely overlook is the fact that until the LHC programme started, it was based on an analysis of just 0.0025% of the experimental results (that is the results within the possible error margins of the predicted result).

Now that all results are being examined the flaws in the current model are becomming obvious; it is not that the current model is wrong, it is that that a vast amount of the results do not fit within the mathematical restrictions of the current model. A new theory will be required that will embrace all the observed results including those of the current model.

This is what happens when the search for scientific truth (i.e. a fully 'causal' theory) is replaced by the development of a 'non-causal' mathematical prediction theory.

 

Where are the papers being published that show these new results that do not fit within the current model?

 

I'd also appreciate a link to the CERN analysis statement; your claim implies that they are cherry-picking the data. I'd like to know what the unfiltered statement is.

[elas]

Where are the papers being published that show these new results that do not fit within the current model?

 

There is an article in Science on the doubts arising over the prediction of the Higgs particle. There are of course, no papers on the panic at the top, but I am aware that there is a major effort being made to preserve reputations, salaries, pensions and future funding. I am not prepared to give the source of my imformation except to say that the source works on a particle collider project; that leaves you free to deny or deride my statement without any reply from me. As far as my own view goes, it is that we are about to see a major change in particle physics over the next five to ten years. The change will not elimate QT, but QT will be only a small part of a new classical theory; in short we are about to return to the real world of causal science.

 

As an analogy, we are in a position where we have used the 1, 3, and 7 multiplication tables to predict the existance of the number 15 multiplication table without realising that we have missed the multication tables that ly between these discoveries.

 

I'd also appreciate a link to the CERN analysis statement; your claim implies that they are cherry-picking the data. I'd like to know what the unfiltered statement is.

 

Sometime ago, in a reply to you; I repeated the explanation given by one of five professors on a BBC programme titled 'Atom', explaining how the experiments were run. Briefly a computer programme was set up to select the two or (rarely) three results out of 80,000 that came close to the predicted result the rest were deleted. You did not comment on that at that time. I do recall that the professor concerned was from Cambridge (UK) and actively involved in the construction of the LHC.

Edited March 29, 2011 by elas

[swansont]

There is an article in Science on the doubts arising over the prediction of the Higgs particle. There are of course, no papers on the panic at the top, but I am aware that there is a major effort being made to preserve reputations, salaries, pensions and future funding. I am not prepared to give the source of my imformation except to say that the source works on a particle collider project; that leaves you free to deny or deride my statement without any reply from me. As far as my own view goes, it is that we are about to see a major change in particle physics over the next five to ten years. The change will not elimate QT, but QT will be only a small part of a new classical theory; in short we are about to return to the real world of causal science.

 

As an analogy, we are in a position where we have used the 1, 3, and 7 multiplication tables to predict the existance of the number 15 multiplication table without realising that we have missed the multication tables that ly between these discoveries.

 

The Higgs does not represent "a vast amount of the results" of particle physics.

 

 

Sometime ago, in a reply to you; I repeated the explanation given by one of five professors on a BBC programme titled 'Atom', explaining how the experiments were run. Briefly a computer programme was set up to select the two or (rarely) three results out of 80,000 that came close to the predicted result the rest were deleted. You did not comment on that at that time. I do recall that the professor concerned was from Cambridge (UK) and actively involved in the construction of the LHC.

 

Yes, I recall this coming up before, but I couldn't find an exchange where you answered this (the search function with this new forum software is disappointing, but Google doesn't show one either). I did find where another poster briefly explained it. The signature for which the scientists are looking doesn't happen in every collision. Most of the time you get more common particles in the collisions, so there's no point in looking at those collisions. It's like if you were investigating coins landing on their edge, and you filmed a series of coin flips. You would discard all of the footage where the coin landed heads or tails. Taking time to investigate interactions that you already know won't contain what you're looking for is a waste of time and resources.

[elas]

The Higgs does not represent "a vast amount of the results" of particle physics.

 

Sorry if I failed to make the point which is the realisation that the Higgs particle, even if found; will not solve the problem of the origin of mass.

 

If only 2 or 3 coins out of 80,000 land on their edge, then what percentage of the whole structure is derived from a theory based on particles that are observed in only in one position? That is the point of my analogy, it is not what we know; it is what has been overlooked. Somewhat belatedly, considering the equipment available. LHC workers work in 3D and most importantly check all results. The workers are discovering events not predicted by current theory and that makes the search for Higgs look like a side show.

 

History shows that physicist do not remain depressed for very long and given the number of people working on the new data we can be confident that a new order will soon appear out of this observed jungle, most likely sooner rather than later. I just hope it will be in my lifetime.

Edited March 29, 2011 by elas

[swansont]

Sorry if I failed to make the point which is the realisation that the Higgs particle, even if found; will not solve the problem of the origin of mass.

 

If only 2 or 3 coins out of 80,000 land on their edge, then what percentage of the whole structure is derived from a theory based on particles that are observed in only in one position? That is the point of my analogy, it is not what we know; it is what has been overlooked. Somewhat belatedly, considering the equipment available. LHC workers work in 3D and most importantly check all results. The workers are discovering events not predicted by current theory and that makes the search for Higgs look like a side show.

 

Again, where are the articles reporting these "events not predicted by current theory?"

[elas]

Again, where are the articles reporting these "events not predicted by current theory?"

 

This comes from trying to ensure that I do not mention my work on this forum. In December 99 a retired Professor of Sociology who in his student days had also won a first class degree in physics and one or two of his friends undertook to find someone suitably qualified to comment on my proposal. I had long ago given up any hope of hearing further from them; but this month one found a suitable person when attending a conference in South America and another found a suitable person at a meeting in Europe. One is a member of a particle collider team and my comments come from the conversation he had with my contact. I would have thought that you would be well aware of the pessimism pervading those working on the early LHC results.

 

My very first submission of my proposal to this forum before I became aware of composite fermions, contained a table listing all known charged elementary particles in terms of wavelength fractions; one of the reasons you gave for transfering the submission to 'Speculations' was that the table contained to many gaps. I hope that the comments relayed to me mean that the gaps are being filled in, I might be wrong on that point; but should this prove to be the case it means that the interpretation (not the mathematics) of QT is wrong.

 

Regardless of who is right or wrong what really bugs me is that if an uneducated outsider like me can hear about the inner doubts of the real experts, why is it that in the educational field 'experts' talk about QT as if there is nothing else to consider when in fact it seems that QT is about to become a small part of a much larger picture? Students need to know that there are exciting prospects ahead and particles physics is not a closed field with little scope for theoretical (as against technical) developement.

 

The BBC now has another Cambridge professor whose latest programme dealt with light, but no one has question the obvious flaw in his explanation as to why negative particles are dominant. I was expecting a host of questions, but no, students are drilled in what question are not to be asked and whose work is not to be questioned and that is the flaw of our (UK) educational system play safe if you want to qualify is the order of the day. We do not have students with the courage to challenge, no one has the determination and initiative to be the next Einstein.

Edited March 30, 2011 by elas

[SMF]

Elas. It seems to me to be a little bit hasty, and bordering on conspiracy theory, to accuse a significant area of science and a whole education system of hiding scientific evidence when you can only provide gossip and no verifiable evidence to support your assertions. SM

[alpha2cen]

I am curious about this. Are the same amount of mass and anti-mass produced after proton-proton collision at the LHC?

Is this equation proved experimentally?

very high energy ---------> m1 mass particles + m2 anti-matter particles

Is 'm1 = m2 ' proved experimentally?

The moment is a mass creating point.

[swansont]

There is no anti-mass.

 

Mass is not conserved; the whole point of colliding the particles at high energy is so you can create more massive particles than you started with.

[IM Egdall]

Regardless of who is right or wrong what really bugs me is that if an uneducated outsider like me can hear about the inner doubts of the real experts, why is it that in the educational field 'experts' talk about QT as if there is nothing else to consider when in fact it seems that QT is about to become a small part of a much larger picture? Students need to know that there are exciting prospects ahead and particles physics is not a closed field with little scope for theoretical (as against technical) developement.

 

The BBC now has another Cambridge professor whose latest programme dealt with light, but no one has question the obvious flaw in his explanation as to why negative particles are dominant. I was expecting a host of questions, but no, students are drilled in what question are not to be asked and whose work is not to be questioned and that is the flaw of our (UK) educational system play safe if you want to qualify is the order of the day. We do not have students with the courage to challenge, no one has the determination and initiative to be the next Einstein.

 

History is full of examples of new scientific ideas fighting for recognition. Einstein's relativity and his proposal that light behaves like a particle as well as a wave were not accepted until there was supporting evidence. His general relativity was almost completely ignored at first. Gamow's work on the big bang theory was pretty much forgetten until the discovery of the cosmic microwave background that he predicted. Zwicky was ignored when he first proposed "dark matter". And so on. I don't know if it's better or worse now than in the past, but new theories are generally suspect until evidence is found which supports their unique predictions.

[DrRocket]

DrRocket repeats the long accepted truth that much of current theory is well proven, but also true and completely overlook is the fact that until the LHC programme started, it was based on an analysis of just 0.0025% of the experimental results (that is the results within the possible error margins of the predicted result).

Now that all results are being examined the flaws in the current model are becomming obvious; it is not that the current model is wrong, it is that that a vast amount of the results do not fit within the mathematical restrictions of the current model. A new theory will be required that will embrace all the observed results including those of the current model.

This is what happens when the search for scientific truth (i.e. a fully 'causal' theory) is replaced by the development of a 'non-causal' mathematical prediction theory.

 

Much of the current theory IS well-proved. But the current theory is not, an no one has claimed otherwise, the final word. It is well known that there are shortcomings to the standard model, and there have been attempts, so far unsuccessful to extend it. Physics remains a vibrant research subject.

 

Nevertheless, the standard model has been very successful within its domain of validity and any successor theory will of necessity extend and refine the standard model, not overthrow it.

 

I suspect that you are confusing "causal" with "deterministic". That is not surprising as Wiki is similarly confused. QM predicts a deterministic and causal evolution of the state function. Only the results of specific measurements are stochastic -- in other words QM describes a deterministic and causal evolution of probability measures. This may not satisfy you, but experimental evidence shows that it describes nature. And THAT is scientific truth -- whether you like it or not.

 

Perhaps in the future some new theory will replace the current quantum field theories. But that theory will have to explain the experiments in which the same initial conditions do not always result in the same outcome, although the frequencies of outcomes in many trials do conform to predicted probabilities.

 

No one has been brain washed or is just reciting dogma. Rather the body of evidence has been considered, and that body of evidence fully supports the current theory, within limits. The limits are known, and research is in progress to extend the frontiers of knowledge.

Real scientists are pursuing real research with real expertise and real imagination. Crackpots need not apply.

Edited April 6, 2011 by DrRocket

[elas]

Much of the current theory IS well-proved. But the current theory is not, an no one has claimed otherwise, the final word. It is well known that there are shortcomings to the standard model, and there have been attempts, so far unsuccessful to extend it. Physics remains a vibrant research subject.

 

Nevertheless, the standard model has been very successful within its domain of validity and any successor theory will of necessity extend and refine the standard model, not overthrow it.

 

As I said.

 

I suspect that you are confusing "causal" with "deterministic". That is not surprising as Wiki is similarly confused. QM predicts a deterministic and causal evolution of the state function. Only the results of specific measurements are stochastic -- in other words QM describes a deterministic and causal evolution of probability measures. This may not satisfy you, but experimental evidence shows that it describes nature. And THAT is scientific truth -- whether you like it or not.

 

Perhaps in the future some new theory will replace the current quantum field theories. But that theory will have to explain the experiments in which the same initial conditions do not always result in the same outcome, although the frequencies of outcomes in many trials do conform to predicted probabilities.

 

No confusion, to be causal a theory must explain how and why QT does neither that is why the correct classification of QT is that it is a Non Causal Mathematical Prediction Theory

 

No one has been brain washed or is just reciting dogma. Rather the body of evidence has been considered, and that body of evidence fully supports the current theory, within limits. The limits are known, and research is in progress to extend the frontiers of knowledge.

Real scientists are pursuing real research with real expertise and real imagination. Crackpots need not apply.

 

In order to create a mathematical theory that fits the observations some assumptions have been made such as the allocation of quark fractional charge values; there are others easily found on the web.

 

The latest report from Fermilab states that unpredicted particles have been found and attempts are being made to extend QT to include an additional layer. These particles can be and were predicted using classical theory as I have shown. The only 'expert?' comment was: "well anyway, it's only speculation" which must say something about the quality of those who classify themselves as experts.

Edited April 7, 2011 by elas

[swansont]

The latest report from Fermilab states that unpredicted particles have been found and attempts are being made to extend QT to include an additional layer. These particles can be and were predicted using classical theory as I have shown. The only 'expert?' comment was: "well anyway, it's only speculation" which must say something about the quality of those who classify themselves as experts.

 

Where, exactly, did you predict this particle?

[IM Egdall]

The latest report from Fermilab states that unpredicted particles have been found and attempts are being made to extend QT to include an additional layer.

 

Do you have a link to this report?

[imatfaal]

Do you have a link to this report?

 

I presume this is the one referred to - the pre-print at arxiv , and a few pop-sci articles from New Scientist and Scientific American

[elas]

Where, exactly, did you predict this particle?

 

Not "this particle" but a list of particles in my first post on this topic, the one that you transferred to 'Speculations'. Due to the table length only about the first 80 or so were included the submission, for the remainder a reference was made to the full table still available on:

http://69.5.17.59/tables.pdf

Submission was dated 3 Nov 2008

My original paper (since much developed on this forum) is on:

http://elasticity2.tripod.com/eps.htm

Although I have not modified this submission, only a recent ‘modification date’ is given, I have no idea as to why because I stopped using ‘elasticity2’ long before I made any submissions to this forum.

The current paper is in ‘Speculations’.

Composite Fermions theory and my use of atomic electrons creates fractions from compression in two dimensions, but the table refers to ‘compaction’ meaning compression in all three dimensions, hence mr = G/2 is the equation of compaction. Combining fractional sequence (wave structure) and the equation gives the elementary particles in quantum order.

Extending the table ‘upwards’ would give an expansion that would include what we refer to as gravitons, but as with all charged particles they are simply different compaction states of a single charged elementary particle.

Gravitons are not neutral, but graviton fields appear neutral for exactly the same reason as atoms appear neutral, that is because on any composite field radial charged particles are arranged in a pos/neg. shell chains of equal charge (±1) particles. The allocation of fractional charge to quarks is not correct; each radial of a proton carries one half charge of the central particle (±1/2) and two half charges of an outer (shell) particle (± 1) Hence the theoretical charge of the central quark is 1/3 of the baryon radial charge and the charge of the shell quark is 2/3 of the baryon radial charge. The reality being that each proton is the root of a pos/neg. charge 1 chain of particles and quarks are (like all particles) compactions of the single elementary particle state.

 

Note: on my computer control click does not open the sites referred to above, copy address and paste it into the address panel if you have the same problem.

 

I ME

Posted Yesterday, 10:43 PM

View Postelas, on 7 April 2011 - 06:51 AM, said:

The latest report from Fermilab states that unpredicted particles have been found and attempts are being made to extend QT to include an additional layer.

Do you have a link to this report?

 

 

I presume this is the one referred to - the pre-print at arxiv , and a few pop-sci articles from New Scientist and Scientific American

 

I found the papers and articles referred to by imatfaal, but I also found the source, an article in a joint publication issued by Fermilab and CERN; I have tried to refind the article without success, hopefully someone will know something about this publication and help me out on this one.

Edited April 8, 2011 by elas

[swansont]

Not "this particle" but a list of particles in my first post on this topic, the one that you transferred to 'Speculations'.

 

IOW, you did not predict this particle. Correct?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

 

 

. INTERESTING

 

 

.