Simple but logical expanations have legs

[newts]

Right. I agree.

 

Actually I was rather hoping somebody would disagree, so I could have admitted that the comparison between the Loch Ness monster and the Higgs is unfair, because it only took a quick ultrasonic scan of the loch to dispel the myth, whilst a number of billion dollar experiments have failed to shake physicists’ belief in the Higgs.

 

Isn't that simple? (sarcasm, nothing against you). IIUC (if I understand correctly) the standard model enumerates 18 elementary particles and 13 antiparticles not counting the hypothetical ones.

 

The problem for opponents of quarks, is not just that we are outnumbered, but also that we all tend to have our own theories, so it is hard to agree amongst ourselves. But if you do not have your own particle theory, a bit of constructive criticism on my quark thread would help, because if I get left alone with the physicists the criticism gets very negative and a bit dull. I have just spotted your link, I will check it out.

[mississippichem]

Actually I was rather hoping somebody would disagree, so I could have admitted that the comparison between the Loch Ness monster and the Higgs is unfair, because it only took a quick ultrasonic scan of the loch to dispel the myth, whilst a number of billion dollar experiments have failed to shake physicists’ belief in the Higgs.

 

I disagree, really with the entire thread. I don't see the value in finding "logical" explanations for scientific theories at all. Please, someone use verbal logic to tell me how long it will take a 1 kilogram ball to hit the ground after being dropped from a height of 10 meters. Use verbal logic to predict the products of any chemical reaction or interpret some spectroscopy.

 

Though logical explanations make us feel good, I admit that, they don't do much to further science or a theory's predictive value. Any conclusion reached by a "logical explanation" is subject to the language it is spoken in. This debate would be very diferent were we speaking Mandarin Chinese right now.

 

Take for example the US constitution. Two hundred and something years later, and people are already debating over what the original authors intended. Then take for example the works of Newton. He wrote everything down mathematically, though there was supporting prose, and today there is little or no ambiguity as to what Newton intended.

 

When we use logic to think about science instead of math (logic does have some part to play) we end up with silly arguments over semantics like the "ontology of time" thread we have here. People that do not understand the mathematics cannot access deep understanding of scientific theories, period. Even biological stuff like evolution and population dynamics require a large degree of quantitative analysis.

 

If we used logic as our meter stick, we would still be kicking around with Newtonian mechanics and would have no comprehension of the more modern concepts like quantum stuff, relativity, or even statistical thermodynamics.

 

Another thing, that this thread fails to realize is that mathematics is the perfect logic. Every piece of current mathematics falls apart if even one of the fundamental properties of arithmetic fails. As a result, mathematics is far more internally consistent and logical than any verbal logic can ever be.

[michel123456]

I disagree, really with the entire thread. I don't see the value in finding "logical" explanations for scientific theories at all. Please, someone use verbal logic to tell me how long it will take a 1 kilogram ball to hit the ground after being dropped from a height of 10 meters. Use verbal logic to predict the products of any chemical reaction or interpret some spectroscopy.

 

Though logical explanations make us feel good, I admit that, they don't do much to further science or a theory's predictive value. Any conclusion reached by a "logical explanation" is subject to the language it is spoken in. This debate would be very diferent were we speaking Mandarin Chinese right now.

 

Take for example the US constitution. Two hundred and something years later, and people are already debating over what the original authors intended. Then take for example the works of Newton. He wrote everything down mathematically, though there was supporting prose, and today there is little or no ambiguity as to what Newton intended.

 

When we use logic to think about science instead of math (logic does have some part to play) we end up with silly arguments over semantics like the "ontology of time" thread we have here. People that do not understand the mathematics cannot access deep understanding of scientific theories, period. Even biological stuff like evolution and population dynamics require a large degree of quantitative analysis.

 

If we used logic as our meter stick, we would still be kicking around with Newtonian mechanics and would have no comprehension of the more modern concepts like quantum stuff, relativity, or even statistical thermodynamics.

 

Another thing, that this thread fails to realize is that mathematics is the perfect logic. Every piece of current mathematics falls apart if even one of the fundamental properties of arithmetic fails. As a result, mathematics is far more internally consistent and logical than any verbal logic can ever be.

 

Ι agree and disagree simultaneously.

Maths are very important, no doubt about that. But maths do not explain anything. I mean when Newton finds that gravitation obeys a square law, and calculates the trajectories of falling objects including the planets, he makes a great step forward for science, sure, but he does not "explain" anything: he calculates. Explanation begins with language: the square law is called "universal law of gravitation" and nearly 300 years after we still don't know what gravity is. We are able to calculate, but we are (still) unable to understand.

On the other side Galileo showed first that logic alone is not enough: a heavy object does not fall faster than a light one.

IMHO logic and mathematics are complementary tools. Since Einstein's arrival, the whole scientific community has learned to accept mathematics (including experimentation and measurements) above all, and as a result logic is considered as an outdated tool that gives false conclusions.

The result is that the Internet is full of people convinced that "Einstein is wrong". That is because logic don't seem to work.

 

What really happens IMHO is that the gap between rigourous maths and simple logic is very pleasing to the scientific community. This gap is a protective system, like a moat around a castle. Scientists are not obliged anymore to make their explanations comprehensible to the mass. The common point of vue is "do the math and you will understand" or "if you can't do the math you will never understand". What has become clear to me is that even after doing the math, it is still incomprehensible. Like Gravity, you can calculate, you can even anticipate, but you cannot understand.

 

You wrote

I don't see the value in finding "logical" explanations for scientific theories at all.

I do.

 

And then

Please, someone use verbal logic to tell me how long it will take a 1 kilogram ball to hit the ground after being dropped from a height of 10 meters.

That is measurement and calculation. Do you claim that after calculating, you understand the logic behind Gravity? Is it logical at all that gravity is an attractive force, the main force acting at long distances between planets stars and galaxies? and that our current observations consist at measuring exacting the contrary, an expanding and accelerating universe? Here the gap between mathematical rigour and logic is wider than the Grand Canyon. Rigourous scientists invent repulsive gravity and calculate unexisting things. The gap is wider than the atlantic ocean.

 

Worse: when an intelligent individual comes and proposes some kind of reconciliation between logic and maths, he is considered as a clown, exactly as if the gap was holy. Scientists smile , exactly the same way they smile when they try to explain things they do not understand.

 

Oops, this answer belongs to another thread about verbal logic, sorry.

 

What do you have against simplicity?

Edited July 28, 2011 by michel123456

[mississippichem]

What do you have against simplicity?

 

I have nothing against simplicity. Simplicity is a beautiful thing, and when scientists get a simple answer for a complex question we almost piss ourselves in happiness. I do have a big problem when simplicity becomes more valued than having a theory that actually models reality. Fact of the matter is the universe is not simple. There are facets of it that operate under some limit like Newtonian mechanics and these things are simpler.

 

Here is the heart of my argument:

 

Science has advanced to the point where the things that are being analyzed are usually far removed from our daily experience. Even basic first year undergrad quantum mechanics can be highly counterintuitive in my opinion. For example it is very hard to understand, with logic and intuition, how a fermion can be delocalized on both sides of a solid barrier. It simply doesn't make "logical" sense to people like you and me. When I throw a ball against a wall, it bounces back. It never tunnels through the wall a begins to oscillate on the other side. So by that experience/logic/memory, objects are not allowed to tunnel through barriers. However, one quick inspection of the Shroedinger equation and the position operator shows that said particle can in fact tunnel through that wall. Once the classical physics and mathematics are in place (some calculus, diff. equations, and linear algebra), this tunneling becomes blatantly obvious!

 

Once a student gets to things like general relativity or relativistic quantum mechanics, intuition goes totally out the window and we are forced to rely solely on mathematics. True, math does not "explain" anything, as you stated. However, thats all we have to work with when talking about zillions of tiny wave/particle like things whizzing around at near the speed of light in a gravitational field that is really just a dent in space-time as far as we know. Take that last sentence as an example, that was incredibly cumbersome, no? And it didn't really even give you that much information about the scenario. That same situation can be succinctly and completely (within the HUP) described by mathematics in a manner that is consistent and unambiguous.

 

Logic tells us that the earth is a near spherical object and should appear as such no matter how fast we are moving of which direction we are coming from. This is simply not the case. We must then use mathematics to describe a situation that is becoming increasingly more complex as we analyze further.

 

So I end the answer to your question with another question. Surprise!

 

What do you have against complexity if said complexity is a necessary evil to get to the truth of the matter?

 

What really happens IMHO is that the gap between rigourous maths and simple logic is very pleasing to the scientific community. This gap is a protective system, like a moat around a castle. Scientists are not obliged anymore to make their explanations comprehensible to the mass. The common point of vue is "do the math and you will understand" or "if you can't do the math you will never understand". What has become clear to me is that even after doing the math, it is still incomprehensible. Like Gravity, you can calculate, you can even anticipate, but you cannot understand.

 

Said like a true outsider. Why does everyone come to the accusatory conclusion that science is complicated by design to prevent the common man from understanding? Do you not realize how much money science foundations donate to help children better understand science? Why the hell do all these experts (of which I am by far the least) take their time to try and explain this seriously complicated stuff to random people on the internet? Because scientists love it when society understands their plight. Better public understanding of science leads to more research money. More research money leads to more good science. More good science leads to public interest. Public interest leads to better public understanding of science and the cycle continues.

 

So as you can see it is the opposite of what you claim. We love it when the public can understand science in all of its nerdish glory. Trying to obfuscate the truth from the public would really be "shooting one's self in the foot". One caveat though, we will not compromise the truth value of theories in the name of being easier to understand. If you think someone made all this up in order to "protect the system" then you have neither mathematics nor logic on your side.

[pantheory]

mississippichem,

 

I have nothing against simplicity. Simplicity is a beautiful thing, and when scientists get a simple answer for a complex question we almost piss ourselves in happiness. I do have a big problem when simplicity becomes more valued than having a theory that actually models reality. Fact of the matter is the universe is not simple. There are facets of it that operate under some limit like Newtonian mechanics and these things are simpler.

 

Here is the heart of my argument:

 

Science has advanced to the point where the things that are being analyzed are usually far removed from our daily experience. Even basic first year undergrad quantum mechanics can be highly counterintuitive in my opinion. For example it is very hard to understand, with logic and intuition, how a fermion can be delocalized on both sides of a solid barrier. It simply doesn't make "logical" sense to people like you and me. When I throw a ball against a wall, it bounces back. It never tunnels through the wall a begins to oscillate on the other side. So by that experience/logic/memory, objects are not allowed to tunnel through barriers. However, one quick inspection of the Shroedinger equation and the position operator shows that said particle can in fact tunnel through that wall. Once the classical physics and mathematics are in place (some calculus, diff. equations, and linear algebra), this tunneling becomes blatantly obvious!

I think you are making sense in your above statements which means you are logical My opinion is that you should not believe any of the above non-logical aspects of Quantum Theory. One might start by understanding that there are reasons why these assertions have been made. Eventually I think everything related to Quantum Theory will be replaced because they are simply wrong. The only thing that will be left will be the QM which is strictly mathematical and statistical. I think the explanations of it all will be totally replaced once it is realized that there is a physical background field which can explain everything observed with great simplicity.

 

...What do you have against complexity if said complexity is a necessary evil to get to the truth of the matter?

As for me, I have nothing against complexity other than that in many cases, I believe, it is created unnecessarily

 

In my opinion reality is not well understood today at any level. If it were properly revealed, I think, it would have a simplicity that could easily be explained. In my opinion most standard theoretical models today do not look for underlying simplicities but instead prefer to keep rephrasing the wrong explanations in ever increasing epicycles. As an example, I believe there is nothing in Quantum Theory that cannot be simply and correctly explained by alternative possibilities concerning a background field. Quantum Theory I think is a prime example of a complicated theory whereby I said and believe that "the more complicated a theory, the more likely that it is wrong"-- which is the subject of this thread.

Edited July 29, 2011 by pantheory

[michel123456]

(...)

What do you have against complexity if said complexity is a necessary evil to get to the truth of the matter?

(...)

 

Mathematics are complex. But mathematics are about 1+1=2. From that simple "evidence", the set of real numbers arise immediately. Multiplication arises as a tool and division introduces fractions. Squared are a simple deduction and square root introduce the first aberrations. Zero arises after a few thoughts (thousands of years actually), then negative numbers, imaginary numbers and so on. Complexity is the product of elaboration upon a very simple statement. The same goes for binary systems in computers. The universe is an incredibly complex machine, we have to find its 1+1=2.

 

As a remark, 1+1=2 is based upon a simple everyday logic we call common sense. what you called "the perfect logic". So at this point we all agree that logic and maths coincide. I hope this will happen in physics one day too.

 

--------------------------------

as for explanations from scientists to common people, it is very rare IMHO to find genuine ones.

 

 

for example in my previous post I said

 

On the other side Galileo showed first that logic alone is not enough: a heavy object does not fall faster than a light one.

 

 

That is because most explanations in verbal logic are misleading: in this case most often half of the truth is explained.

When a scientist explains that it is also more difficult to put in motion a heavy weight, and that corresponds to common sense too, the other half of the explanation appears clearly. The thing that will make coincide maths & logic consists simply in explaining that the physical law that rules inertia is the one and same law that rules attraction, and that in the case of a falling body, the logic that says a heavy body should fall faster cancels exactly the other logic that says a heavy body is more difficult to put in motion. Everything can be explained in terms of logic. The first question is, do we have the knowledge to do so? The second question is: do we want to do so?

 

You say of course scientists want to explain their knowledge in terms of logic. I have a serious doubt.

Edited July 29, 2011 by michel123456

[mississippichem]

mississippichem,

 

 

I think you are making sense in your above statements which means you are logical My opinion is that you should not believe any of the above non-logical aspects of Quantum Theory. One might start by understanding that there are reasons why these assertions have been made. Eventually I think everything related to Quantum Theory will be replaced because they are simply wrong. The only thing that will be left will be the QM which is strictly mathematical and statistical. I think the explanations of it all will be totally replaced once it is realized that there is a physical background field which can explain everything observed with great simplicity.

 

Bold text added by me for clarity without quote mining

 

But the example I gave you is straight quantum mechanics, no interpretations involved at all. Scanning Tunneling Electron microscopy is completely dependent on the existence of tunneling currents to work, and it does work. Google it.

 

How can you say I should not believe in tunneling? It is observed! You should really do some reading about quantum mechanics and theory before you attempt to replace it or deny it. You aren't in a position to criticize it if you don't understand it, which it is becoming apparent that you don't. I don't mean this in an insulting or condescending way either. I'm just being honest. You don't know what you are talking about. What is your level of math skill? I can recommend books for you to read as I do want you to come to an understanding. I think your intent is good but you are just plain wrong.

 

michel123456:

 

Short on time for the moment. I've read your comments and will return to them later today when I have time. My apologies.

[newts]

as for explanations from scientists to common people, it is very rare IMHO to find genuine ones.

Perhaps the worst case of this is e=mc².

 

The idea that energy has mass, was actually formulated by Hendrik Lorentz. He realised that the faster an object moves through space, the heavier it must become, because of the extra energy carrying it along. He came up with the formula 1/sqrt(1-v²), to describe how the mass of a moving object varies, where ‘v’ is the speed of the object expressed as a fraction of the speed of light.

 

Particle physicists measure both energy and mass in terms of electron volts. So they are in effect using the equation e=m. In other physics, energy is measured in joules or kg m²/s², whilst mass is measured in kilograms. The sole function of e=mc², is to transfer between these different units.

 

All e=mc² does, is express the mathematical relationship between the definition of the energy unit kg m²/s², and the actual mass of energy attached to a slow moving object, as given by Lorentz’s mass dilation formula 1/sqrt(1-v²).

 

Yet people who call themselves physicists, sell books which they claim are intended to educate the general public; and these books say what the symbols mean, they tell the reader how much of a genius Einstein was, they paint the universe as a mysterious place, but they fail to mention that e=mc² is actually a meaningless parasite. Indeed the only thing e=mc² really tells us about nature, is that rather than trying to make things simple, physicists prefer to obfuscate and make a meal out of a molehill.

[michel123456]

Perhaps the worst case of this is e=mc².

 

The idea that energy has mass, was actually formulated by Hendrik Lorentz. He realised that the faster an object moves through space, the heavier it must become, because of the extra energy carrying it along. He came up with the formula 1/sqrt(1-v²), to describe how the mass of a moving object varies, where ‘v’ is the speed of the object expressed as a fraction of the speed of light.

 

Particle physicists measure both energy and mass in terms of electron volts. So they are in effect using the equation e=m. In other physics, energy is measured in joules or kg m²/s², whilst mass is measured in kilograms. The sole function of e=mc², is to transfer between these different units.

 

All e=mc² does, is express the mathematical relationship between the definition of the energy unit kg m²/s², and the actual mass of energy attached to a slow moving object, as given by Lorentz’s mass dilation formula 1/sqrt(1-v²).

 

Yet people who call themselves physicists, sell books which they claim are intended to educate the general public; and these books say what the symbols mean, they tell the reader how much of a genius Einstein was, they paint the universe as a mysterious place, but they fail to mention that e=mc² is actually a meaningless parasite. Indeed the only thing e=mc² really tells us about nature, is that rather than trying to make things simple, physicists prefer to obfuscate and make a meal out of a molehill.

 

I don't understand your argument. Maybe you should rephrase to make it clearer. Thanks.

[mississippichem]

Perhaps the worst case of this is e=mc²...

 

...Yet people who call themselves physicists, sell books which they claim are intended to educate the general public; and these books say what the symbols mean, they tell the reader how much of a genius Einstein was, they paint the universe as a mysterious place, but they fail to mention that e=mc² is actually a meaningless parasite. Indeed the only thing e=mc² really tells us about nature, is that rather than trying to make things simple, physicists prefer to obfuscate and make a meal out of a molehill.

 

You are obviously not aware of mass deficit. The sum of all the masses of all the nucleons in the nucleus is greater than the measured mass of the nucleus. So we can say that for this situation:

 

[math] \Delta E = (\Delta m)c^{2} [/math]

 

It has been observed that the "missing" mass is given by simply solving for [math] \Delta m [/math]:

 

[math] \frac {E_{radiated}}{c^{2}}= \Delta m [/math]

 

A few citations where mass defect is used:

 

On the Mass Defect of Helium, Phys. Rev. 43, 252–257 (1933)

On the Yield of Nuclear Reactions with Heavy Elements, Phys. Rev. 57, 472–485 (1940)

 

There are more current articles available upon request. I wanted to get some older stuff where the mass deficit is discussed more as it was then in those times relatively new science.

 

So mass energy equivalence does have relevance. You would be advised to some reading before you go on a rant about how one of the most useful and insightful expressions in modern physics is only for unit convention.

 

Any of you have yet to give one example of one physicist obfuscating the truth from the general public. Your claims are baseless, if you want to have a real argument bring some real evidence. I'm growing tired of these personal anecdotes and rhetorical style speeches.

 

If you want to make radical claims, then let's have a citation and LaTeX war. Count me in.

 

I'm not a physicist so any of you physics types out there feel free to chime in and/or correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Mathematics are complex. But mathematics are about 1+1=2. From that simple "evidence", the set of real numbers arise immediately. Multiplication arises as a tool and division introduces fractions. Squared are a simple deduction and square root introduce the first aberrations. Zero arises after a few thoughts (thousands of years actually), then negative numbers, imaginary numbers and so on. Complexity is the product of elaboration upon a very simple statement. The same goes for binary systems in computers. The universe is an incredibly complex machine, we have to find its 1+1=2.

 

As a remark, 1+1=2 is based upon a simple everyday logic we call common sense. what you called "the perfect logic". So at this point we all agree that logic and maths coincide. I hope this will happen in physics one day too.

 

Logic and math do coincide. But there is a reason we use the mathematical logic instead of the verbal logic. The verbal logic is confined to our everyday experience, is subject to semantic disagreement, and is in general not precise enough to convey the level of detail needed to discuss physical science.

 

People here keep saying that certain theories aren't logical. Why? If math is founded in logic and physics is founded in math then what is the problem? It is so incredibly ignorant to hold the view that the universe must obey human English language logic. It is also intellectually lazy.

 

Do you really think that physicists would spend all this time learning all this frustrating and laborious advanced mathematics if it wasn't totally necessary? Let's look at philosophers, men of formal verbal logic. What have they brought us in the last hundred years? I'll answer that for you...nothing.

 

Regardless of your opinions on how the universe should work, relativity and quantum physics work. Period. It is up to you guys to produce evidence that it does not. You can try to do that without mathematics but I'll go ahead and warn you that it is not going to happen. You won't be able to make any quantifiable testable predictions and we will not accept hand waiving as proof. Pony up the math or citations to prove that all these things are illogical or stop it already.

 

It should be easy if all this physics is so illogical. Stop hand waiving and prove it.

[michel123456]

(...)Any of you have yet to give one example of one physicist obfuscating the truth from the general public. Your claims are baseless, if you want to have a real argument bring some real evidence. I'm growing tired of these personal anecdotes and rhetorical style speeches.

(...)

 

Here an example of what I mean.

 

Does mass change with velocity?

 

1. at the end of this long explanation, where is the answer? (you have to read it all)

 

Is it so difficult to say "No, invariant mass does not change with velocity" and put an end to an endless waiste of time discussing over the Net impossible effects of an unexisting phenomena?

 

And besides, as mentioned in the link, why continuing mentioning the term "rest mass" when the term "invariant mass" is clear like fresh water and leaves no doubt? Note that the question becomes silly:"does something invariant change?" No of course.

Edited July 29, 2011 by michel123456

[uncool]

Here an example of what I mean.

 

Does mass change with velocity?

 

1. at the end of this long explanation, where is the answer? (you have to read it all)

 

Is it so difficult to say "No, invariant mass does not change with velocity" and put an end to an endless waiste of time discussing over the Net impossible effects of an unexisting phenomena?

 

And besides, as mentioned in the link, why continuing mentioning the term "rest mass" when the term "invariant mass" is clear like fresh water and leaves no doubt? Note that the question becomes silly:"does something invariant change?" No of course.

Most people don't even know the word "invariant". Rest mass clearly shows the idea of the mass of an object when it's at rest, which works better than invariant mass because an object at rest is always the same, and it makes just as little sense to ask whether the rest mass changes.

=Uncool-

 

Perhaps the worst case of this is e=mc².

 

The idea that energy has mass, was actually formulated by Hendrik Lorentz. He realised that the faster an object moves through space, the heavier it must become, because of the extra energy carrying it along. He came up with the formula 1/sqrt(1-v²), to describe how the mass of a moving object varies, where ‘v’ is the speed of the object expressed as a fraction of the speed of light.

 

Particle physicists measure both energy and mass in terms of electron volts. So they are in effect using the equation e=m. In other physics, energy is measured in joules or kg m²/s², whilst mass is measured in kilograms. The sole function of e=mc², is to transfer between these different units.

 

All e=mc² does, is express the mathematical relationship between the definition of the energy unit kg m²/s², and the actual mass of energy attached to a slow moving object, as given by Lorentz’s mass dilation formula 1/sqrt(1-v²).

 

Yet people who call themselves physicists, sell books which they claim are intended to educate the general public; and these books say what the symbols mean, they tell the reader how much of a genius Einstein was, they paint the universe as a mysterious place, but they fail to mention that e=mc² is actually a meaningless parasite. Indeed the only thing e=mc² really tells us about nature, is that rather than trying to make things simple, physicists prefer to obfuscate and make a meal out of a molehill.

It's not meaningless at all. It's a statement that mass itself intrinsically has energy. That's one of the things that separates special relativity from classical mechanics, and it was one of the earliest tests of special relativity.

 

It also provides one of the assumptions of QFT - that all external lines are on-shell, which means that E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4. This actually does a lot more than you might think. However, the main reason it's so touted is because it by itself, it was a revolutionary idea - that mass does intrinsically have energy.

=Uncool-

Edited July 29, 2011 by uncool

[pantheory]

Bold text added by me for clarity without quote mining

 

But the example I gave you is straight quantum mechanics, no interpretations involved at all. Scanning Tunneling Electron microscopy is completely dependent on the existence of tunneling currents to work, and it does work. Google it.

 

How can you say I should not believe in tunneling? It is observed! You should really do some reading about quantum mechanics and theory before you attempt to replace it or deny it. You aren't in a position to criticize it if you don't understand it, which it is becoming apparent that you don't. I don't mean this in an insulting or condescending way either. I'm just being honest. You don't know what you are talking about. What is your level of math skill? I can recommend books for you to read as I do want you to come to an understanding. I think your intent is good but you are just plain wrong.

Of course you should believe in what has been observed and what technology uses such as quantum tunneling. I just suggested that you should not necessarily believe in any explanations of it that does not seem logical to you.

 

I do not think I can explain my point as well as giving examples: Quantum tunneling: As EM radiation of certain frequencies are focused at what would seem to be a solid barrier some photons from time to time can get through. This is a know fact called quantum tunneling. We know that ordinary solids block light and most other EM radiation below X-ray frequencies. In lower frequencies it is still know that for "thin" material, some photons can get through. How? In quantum theory they just say they tunnel through, end of story This is not so bad as giving some kind of bogus explanation for tunneling like explanations concerning the double slit experiment.

 

A logical explanation would be that the background field is made up of elementary particles such as dark matter, gravitons, Higg's particles, quantum sand, quantum foam, quantum strings/ springs, etc. etc. to name a few of the possibilities. So when EM radiation is produced it consists of both particles and waves. The particles "surf" the waves. An atom is almost entirely space. Some of these waves of EM radiation pass through the atom in wave form even though the photons are stopped by the vortex the atom creates by its spin. As these waves pass through they pick up a few pieces/ strands of field material on the other side of the matter "barrier" which show up as photons using a scintillation counter. This leads scientists to think that the photons have somehow tunneled when in fact they have not.

 

The simplest example is the double slit experiment. The classical Quantum Theory interpretation is that a single photon passes through both slits at the same time and then interferes with itself. The same explanation is given for electrons. Does this make logical sense? A very simple, logical explanation is that photons "surfing" a physical wave are produced. The wave goes through both slits while a single photon goes through just one slit. The waves travel through both slits and interfere with the path of the photon creating the interference wave patterns we observe. This is a very simple explanation, the one preferred by De Broglie and Shroedinger to name just a few.

 

The bottom line is this hypothesis: there is always a relatively simple, valid explanation consistent with common logic, for everything observed even if such explanations have not been recognized or discovered by mainstream theorists. If valid, this principle would be considered another simplicity principle like Ocamm's. A logical implication of this principle would be that everything in reality is relatively simple and totally logical.

/

uncool,

 

......It's a statement that mass itself intrinsically has energy. That's one of the things that separates special relativity from classical mechanics, and it was one of the earliest tests of special relativity.

Or better, that matter (instead of mass) intrinsically has energy. This has been known for maybe 70 years that atoms and atomic particles have spin. It is now called angular momentum because they mistakenly, in my opinion, choose not to recognize it as real spin since real spin might violate present assertions of Quantum Theory. This spin, I believe, is the expression of the internal energy that matter must overtly express and is one of the primary causes of changes in the universe that we describe as time.

Edited July 30, 2011 by pantheory

[newts]

I don't understand your argument. Maybe you should rephrase to make it clearer. Thanks.

 

Sorry, from the responses nobody else understood my argument either. The point I am trying to make, is forget about the c², just tell people that energy has mass. A moving electron has extra mass because the energy that is carrying it along has mass. Photons have mass, because they contain energy. Introduce an electron to a proton, a photon is emitted, and the resulting hydrogen atom has a lower mass than the combined mass of the original particles; lower by exactly the mass of the photon.

[michel123456]

(...) The bottom line is this hypothesis: there is always a relatively simple, valid explanation consistent with common logic, for everything observed even if such explanations have not been recognized or discovered by mainstream theorists. If valid, this principle would be considered another simplicity principle like Ocamm's. A logical implication of this principle would be that everything in reality is relatively simple and totally logical.

/

 

 

I agree 100%

 

 

Or better, that matter (instead of mass) intrinsically has energy. This has been known for maybe 70 years that atoms and atomic particles have spin. It is now called angular momentum because they mistakenly, in my opinion, choose not to recognize it as real spin since real spin might violate present assertions of Quantum Theory. This spin, I believe, is the expression of the internal energy that matter must overtly express and is one of the primary causes of changes in the universe that we describe as time.

 

At least someone who links "intrisically" with "time".

Because IMHO nothing is "intrinsic". When the word "intrinsic" is used, it means there is a terrible lack of explanation.

 

Most people don't even know the word "invariant". Rest mass clearly shows the idea of the mass of an object when it's at rest, which works better than invariant mass because an object at rest is always the same, and it makes just as little sense to ask whether the rest mass changes.

=Uncool-

(...)

What is the problem with "invariant"? It means what it means, point.

Nothing is really "at rest", everything is in state of motion. The "at rest" concept is a medieval idea linked to the geocentric model. This concept is still used today to describe a coincidence of Frame Of Reference but is IMHO a very bad use of scientific language. A photon is never at rest and stating that the rest mass of a photon is null can only induce questions.

[uncool]

What is the problem with "invariant"? It means what it means, point.

My only specific problem with invariant is that it's a term that few people know - generally, only people who specifically study physics or math actually ever use it.

Nothing is really "at rest", everything is in state of motion. The "at rest" concept is a medieval idea linked to the geocentric model. This concept is still used today to describe a coincidence of Frame Of Reference but is IMHO a very bad use of scientific language.

How so? It has a specific meaning and is very, very clearly defined. What do you think is wrong with it?

A photon is never at rest and stating that the rest mass of a photon is null can only induce questions.

Now here, I would have to agree with you; stating that a photon has rest mass of 0 implies that it can be at rest. However, with nearly every other statement involving mass, it is correct to say photon has a mass of 0.

=Uncool-

[michel123456]

How so? It has a specific meaning and is very, very clearly defined. What do you think is wrong with it?

 

Because as I stated before everything is moving. I am afraid this interesting thread will derail. I think we both made our points clear, lets continue disagreeing , is that so important anyway?

[pantheory]

Since "invariant" has a somewhat different meaning as an adjective than as a noun, I thought I'd see if this could add clarification.

 

Noun: A function, quantity, or property that remains unchanged when a specified transformation is applied.

 

Adjective: Never changing.

 

As a noun "invariant," is a characteristic of something whereby a mathematical description of it, by quantity, set, or function, does not change during mathematical transformation, such as a set inverse or Lorenz transformation for instance. Some simple examples would be the speed of light according to Special Relativity; an electron as a point particle, according to the standard model; the original Big Bang entity, according to the BB model; quarks, according to some quark models, etc.

 

http://en.wikipedia....t_%28physics%29

 

As an adjective, invariant means in common language "not changing."

Edited July 30, 2011 by pantheory

[mississippichem]

I am afraid this interesting thread will derail. I think we both made our points clear, lets continue disagreeing , is that so important anyway?

 

If anyone wold like the "invariant" part of this thread split for further discussion I'll be glad to get it split for you. Just let me know.

Edited July 30, 2011 by mississippichem

[pantheory]

If anyone wold like the "invariant" part of this thread split for further discussion I'll be glad to get it split for you. Just let me know.

Thanks mississippichem, I think "invariance" will fly in this thread . It might be too small of a subject to put it in its own category, but that's just my opinion. Also in what forum would the thread go and who would be the author of such a thread; Does there have to be an author for such a thread? I'm new and do not know all the possibilities yet As to my opinion, spit it off if you deem such a move appropriate

Edited July 30, 2011 by pantheory

[michel123456]

I agree totally, and believe 1 is an excellent number concerning the least possible individual types of entities in reality which seemingly should also should have the least number of characteristics possible to explain observed reality.

 

To put the thread on tracks.

 

"the least number of characteristics possible to explain observed reality"

 

That has to do with the way humans analyze reality. You can have a single object, say a wooden ball like one of these Galileo used in his experiment on falling bodies. It is a single reality, but the physicist will see a weight, a speed, an acceleration. The geometer will see a radius, a circumference, a volume. The biologist will see an amount of cells. The chemist an amount of molecules. The carpenter will see an wooden specie, an essence. A child will see a toy and a humorist will see Galileo's balls.

So I guess indeed a single one entity can have more than 1 characteristic, although at first sight, logic tells me the real 1 elementary particle, if exists, should have only 1 characteristic. I am really balanced.

Edited July 31, 2011 by michel123456

[pantheory]

michel123456,

 

....So I guess indeed a single one entity can have more than 1 characteristic, although at first sight, logic tells me the real 1 elementary particle, if exists, should have only 1 characteristic. I am really balanced.

I agree with your logic. In my model the beginning single entity only had the single characteristic of substance, with a single internal unwinding force that perpetuates time and ultimately is the source of particle spin. Accordingly nothing else exists in the entire universe but one fundamental particle with one internal force. To discuss further details of this might be better accomplished in the "alternative to BB thread." To continue discussing the logic or lack thereof concerning theories in general is the purpose of this thread.

 

We seem to have a lot of parallel thinking

.

Edited July 31, 2011 by pantheory

[pantheory]

Michel123456,

 

...........IIUC (if I understand correctly) the standard model enumerates 18 elementary particles and 13 antiparticles not counting the hypothetical ones.

From what we know there are primarily only two stable free ranging particles that entirely dominate the observable universe. These are the atomic fermions protons and electrons. Neutrons exist withing atoms but only last about 11 minutes when outside nuclei. Although a few of the other particles are presently believed to have a funtion, non have longevity other than electron neutrinos, and photons are in a class of there own. I think the standard model places too much importance concerning particles that last a couple of billionths of a second or less. I think these might even be called something different other than particles. We have virtual particles that seem of little consequence, why not "ephemeral particles" which would simply be one step above virtual particles but a step below long lived particles, and atomic particles in particular.

Edited August 7, 2011 by pantheory

[pantheory]

Simple but logical explanations have legs

 

 

I think one of the best and simple, logical explanations and theory of all times was Darwin's theory of natural selection. It is now more than a century and a half old and it made sense from the start, based upon Darwin's evidence which was very well documented. We have learned about many details of genetics unknown to Darwin, and have a lot more evidence, information and theory concerning evolution since Darwin, but natural selection still stands tall as being the primary contributor to speciation. His was a logical, common sense theory that had legs

/

Edited August 10, 2011 by pantheory

[pantheory]

I disagree, really with the entire thread. I don't see the value in finding "logical" explanations for scientific theories at all. Please, someone use verbal logic to tell me how long it will take a 1 kilogram ball to hit the ground after being dropped from a height of 10 meters. Use verbal logic to predict the products of any chemical reaction or interpret some spectroscopy.

Your comment misses the point. The point of this thread is that after a long time of observation one can develop an equation to exactly predict the motion and exact timing of the tides. This is entirely functional knowledge; from this we could never have knowledge concerning how the moon relates to the process and would not have a clue of how reality works or functions. I believe much of what we have in science concerning today's theories, is based upon a similar lack of understanding concerning how reality works. The prime example given of this is Quantum Theory, which is generally devoid of common logic. Logic should not always come first, but I think it should never be totally discarded. I think we should very seriously question all models that do not logically make sense, or those models that must necessarily contain many ad hoc hypothesis such as the Big Bang model and Inflation, dark matter, and dark energy.

 

Though logical explanations make us feel good, I admit that, they don't do much to further science or a theory's predictive value. Any conclusion reached by a "logical explanation" is subject to the language it is spoken in. This debate would be very different were we speaking Mandarin Chinese right now.

In some cases language may add to the problem of understanding, granted, but don't underestimate Mandarin Wǒ shuō língxīng zhōngwon kě wǒ shuō da bu hǎo (I speak a little Mandarin but don't speak it well)

 

Take for example the US constitution. Two hundred and something years later, and people are already debating over what the original authors intended. Then take for example the works of Newton. He wrote everything down mathematically, though there was supporting prose, and today there is little or no ambiguity as to what Newton intended.

He also had much writing concerning his reasoning. Quantum theory on the other hand has little logical reasoning. It's very much like my example concerning the tides.

 

When we use logic to think about science instead of math (logic does have some part to play) we end up with silly arguments over semantics like the "ontology of time" thread we have here. People that do not understand the mathematics cannot access deep understanding of scientific theories, period. Even biological stuff like evolution and population dynamics require a large degree of quantitative analysis.

Mathematics alone, and math was my major in college, gives you little or no insight into what is happening. What would be the logical basis for SR, GR, or QM if there was an aether made up of dark matter, for instance.

 

If we used logic as our meter stick, we would still be kicking around with Newtonian mechanics and would have no comprehension of the more modern concepts like quantum stuff, relativity, or even statistical thermodynamics.

Again, a better predictive capability via equations, may be totally unrelated to a better understanding of reality, as in the "tides" example. Improved equations can also result in a degradation of understanding concerning reality, as in Ptolemy's epicycles.

 

Another thing, that this thread fails to realize is that mathematics is the perfect logic. Every piece of current mathematics falls apart if even one of the fundamental properties of arithmetic fails. As a result, mathematics is far more internally consistent and logical than any verbal logic can ever be.

As you stated, mathematics has its own system of logic that requires internal consistency, amongst other criteria. No type of mathematical physics can be proven, only shown to be consistent within a certain tolerance range, concerning observations. Theories of Physics which include logical verbiage, can be either proven or disproved, such as the Earth-is-round theory, the sun-is-the-center-of-solar-system theory, or Ptolemy's epicycles

/

Edited August 15, 2011 by pantheory