Why should proponents of alternative theories learn accepted science first?

[rah]

In that case, I still don't understand why contradicting "what you would find in a text book" (except models that are not believed to be realised in nature) necessarily implies that a theory does not match nature well. Why do you believe that must be the case?

 

 

You stated

if you have a theory of classical gravity that is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity ... then your theory is unlikely to be viewed as a "good theory"

This is a discussion of people's views, not reasons why a theory must necessarily not match nature.

Edited December 17, 2012 by rah

[ajb]

In that case, I still don't understand why contradicting "what you would find in a text book" (except models that are not believed to be realised in nature) necessarily implies that a theory does not match nature well. Why do you believe that must be the case?

Because, typically, the models in the text book would have been examined by the physics community closely and found to be good models of nature. I don't know how else to put it to you.

[swansont]

In that case, I still don't understand why contradicting "what you would find in a text book" (except models that are not believed to be realised in nature) necessarily implies that a theory does not match nature well. Why do you believe that must be the case?

 

Because if it's in a textbook as an accepted theory, it matches nature well. We've been over this.

 

I have to say that the apparent level of obtuse-ness being displayed here is almost unprecedented.

[rah]

Because, typically, the models in the text book would have been examined by the physics community closely and found to be good models of nature. I don't know how else to put it to you.

Why does the fact that the physics community has closely examined the models in text books and found them to be "good" models of nature, necessarily imply that a model which contradicts them does not match nature well?

 

What do you mean by "good" when you say "good models of nature"?

 

[ajb]

Why does the fact that the physics community has closely examined the models in text books and found them to be "good" models of nature, necessarily imply that a model which contradicts them does not match nature well?

This is almost a tautology. Assume we have some theory that predicts something that is just not seen, or fails to predict something that is seen. Also assume that we have a theory, lets us say can be found in a text book, that does not have these failings. Moreover, the agreement with nature of this text book theory is good, I'll say more in a moment.

 

Then, by our assumptions, your theory does not match the accepted theory in its predictions and hence does not agree well with nature.

What do you mean by "good" when you say "good models of nature"?

This is subtle. By "good theory" we mean a mathematical model that one can preform calculations of physical observables, and the predicted values of these physical observables is acceptability close to the measured valued of these physical observables, taking into account the domain of validity of the theory and experimental accuracy.

 

The issue here is the words "acceptability close", we have do decide if a theory is close enough to nature or not. The domain of validity is also very important here, one does not necessarily expect a theory to match nature well for all possible values of the parameters in the theory.

 

For example classical mechanics gives us a good framework to consider mechanical systems as long as we are not on scales near the atomic scale, where quantum mechanics is a better framework.

Edited December 17, 2012 by ajb

[Ringer]

Why does the fact that the physics community has closely examined the models in text books and found them to be "good" models of nature, necessarily imply that a model which contradicts them does not match nature well?

 

What do you mean by "good" when you say "good models of nature"?

I have to ask, are you trying to go into the 'why' stage of child questioning for a purpose. Every single person interacting in this thread has had no problems interpreting what has been said except for you. So either you are being purposefully obtuse or you are not explaining your questions very well because they have been answered multiple times.

[rah]

Assume we have some theory ...

Assume we have some theory that correctly predicts the behaviour of nature at the macro and atomic scales. The theory contradicts classical mechanics, quantum mechanics and relativity in some extremely subtle and hithertofore unobserved ways and also completely undermines the underlying world view of these theories. It makes the standard model look like phlogiston theory.

 

This is a theory that contradicts "what is found in text books". You've stated that such a theory "will not match nature"; this is, it cannot possibly exist. Why do you believe that?

[proximity1]

I have to ask, are you trying to go into the 'why' stage of child questioning for a purpose. Every single person interacting in this thread has had no problems interpreting what has been said except for you. So either you are being purposefully obtuse or you are not explaining your questions very well because they have been answered multiple times.

 

Uh, no. On several occasions I've found the "why" 's posed by rah perfectly pertinent. I don't know why you'd simply assume that just because no one else posed a "why," that no other reader/participants questioned the comments in the same or a similar way.

 

E.g. : in posts 4, 8, 10 (especially), and 72.

Edited December 17, 2012 by proximity1

[ajb]

Assume we have some theory that correctly predicts the behaviour of nature at the macro and atomic scales.

Okay.

The theory contradicts classical mechanics, quantum mechanics and relativity in some extremely subtle and hithertofore unobserved ways and also completely undermines the underlying world view of these theories. It makes the standard model look like phlogiston theory.

As classical mechanics, quantum mechanics and relativity are all well tested and established theories (I'd rather say mathematical frameworks, but okay) within their domains of applicability, I would expect any theory that you assume exists here will not exactly contradict established theory, but rather would give phenomenology for a wider domain of applicability.

 

In particular, I would expect established physics to emerge as some limits in this theory. If not then it would be hard to understand why our models have worked so well so far.

 

This is a theory that contradicts "what is found in text books". You've stated that such a theory "will not match nature"; this is, it cannot possibly exist. Why do you believe that?

See above.

[rah]

I would expect any theory that you assume exists here will not exactly contradict established theory

The hypothetical situation is that it does contradict.

 

I would expect established physics to emerge as some limits in this theory. If not then it would be hard to understand why our models have worked so well so far.

In our hypothetical situation, the reason they've worked so well is because the differences between the models and nature (and so the differences between the models and our new, more accurate and more general model) are: subtle and hithertofore unobserved.

 

 

Up until now, you have stated that such a theory cannot exist. Now you're using words like "I would expect" and "it would be hard to understand why". Of course it is difficult to envision new physics and new ways of looking at the universe but the issue at hand isn't how easy or difficult it is for us to get our minds around such a revolution in thinking. The issue is whether such a revolution is possible in principle.

 

You have stated that it is not possible. You've stated that any theory that contradicts what is in text books must necessarily not match nature. Do you still maintain that this must be the case?

Edited December 17, 2012 by rah

[swansont]

The hypothetical situation is that it does contradict.

 

That would be a problem, because your hypothesis is self-contradictory. If an established theory accurately predicts nature and a new model disagrees with that prediction, the new model will not accurately predict nature. You have proposed two things which cannot simultaneously be true.

[rah]

If an established theory accurately predicts nature ...

You have proposed two things which cannot simultaneously be true.

I did not propose as part of my hypothetical situation that any established theory accurately predicts nature.

[Ringer]

 

Uh, no. On several occasions I've found the "why" 's posed by rah perfectly pertinent. I don't know why you'd simply assume that just because no one else posed a "why," that no other reader/participants questioned the comments in the same or a similar way.

 

E.g. : in posts 4, 8, 10 (especially), and 72.

Note that I said interacting, I went back through to skim all the responses. I only saw multiple answers to his whys. Since those interacting were answering the questions, it would be a pretty good assumption that they knew what he was talking about. Why would I think otherwise?

 

So I'm not misunderstood, I didn't mean to say that why questions are bad. In fact they can be very helpful, thus why there were so many people answering wholeheartedly to his first couple questions, myself included. But I don't see how one word questions can be pertinent or helpful, let alone when it seems to be purposefully obtuse by not explaining what he is having difficulty with other than a connotation that is extremely common. Now if his first language is not English this could be understandable, but since that has not been said, I can't assume that. So rah either doesn't know common usages of words for some reason, or he is being purposefully obtuse.

[mooeypoo]

 

There's some telling words here. There are a great number of non-trivial assumptions littered through this post and many of them seem to be unconscious. However, I won't go into them because I'm still waiting for an answer from ajb.

... So, wait, I took the time to explain and answer but you dismiss my post out of some 'hidden unconscious telling assumptions' you refuse to elaborate on, and *that* should let us believe you're a better science person than the rest of us who studied the mainstream theories?

 

You're not doing a good job showing your own prejudices, rah.

 

 

 

 

[edit]

 

So, you got your answer from ajb, which you seem to insist on beatin around the bush with, stating things like "define [randomg word in the sentence]" and trying to pwn without substance. Do you mind answering my post, and those of people who try to explain your (quite valid, actually) question, or are you just here to say "you're wrong!" regardless of people's explanations?

 

C'mon now. At the very least, show some respect to people who take time to discuss this with you.

 

~mooey

[swansont]

I did not propose as part of my hypothetical situation that any established theory accurately predicts nature.

 

As this is demonstrably false, of what value is it? Various parts of quantum theory have been shown to agree with nature to some pretty impressive accuracy. Relativity enables GPS. As ajb already pointed out, Newtonian gravity got us to the moon. Are those simply happy accidents?

[proximity1]

Note that I said interacting, I went back through to skim all the responses. I only saw multiple answers to his whys. Since those interacting were answering the questions, it would be a pretty good assumption that they knew what he was talking about. Why would I think otherwise?

 

So I'm not misunderstood, I didn't mean to say that why questions are bad. In fact they can be very helpful, thus why there were so many people answering wholeheartedly to his first couple questions, myself included. But I don't see how one word questions can be pertinent or helpful, let alone when it seems to be purposefully obtuse by not explaining what he is having difficulty with other than a connotation that is extremely common. Now if his first language is not English this could be understandable, but since that has not been said, I can't assume that. So rah either doesn't know common usages of words for some reason, or he is being purposefully obtuse.

 

I'll quote you again,

 

" Every single person interacting in this thread has had no problems interpreting what has been said except for you. "

 

How, I wonder, can you possibly assert this as a fact? You've stated categorically that each and every one of those interacting in this thread --that would include me, as I, too, have "interacted" in it-- "has had no problems interpreting what has been said except for you." ("you" referring to rah)

 

You assert as a blanket fact that no one "interacting" "has had any problems interpreting what has been said" --those are your words.

 

Then, you try to back-pedal with this, which is completely irrelevant to your assertion: "Since those interacting were answering the questions, it would be a pretty good assumption that they knew what he was talking about."

 

What, though about others interacting? Not everyone "interacting" here is also among "those interacting were answering the question." But you conveniently ignore them--uh, me, for example.

 

But, as I said above, you're mistaken since I have had "problems interpreting (some) of what has been said" --by others here, not, however, particularly by rah--though, in fact, as his reply comment to my comment shows, I didn't exactly correctly interpret every aspect of his meanings, either. But that wasn't my point. My point was that you are simply mistaken to claim what you've claimed--as I've twice explained--about no others (except rah ) having had any problems interpreting what has been said (i.e. written).

 

(ETA):

 

Re: "So rah either doesn't know common usages of words for some reason, or he is being purposefully obtuse."

 

That's your opinion. But, again, you don't exhaust the possibilities with those two alternatives. There's the possibility that he posed the questions, "Why?" to elicit more information and because he found the responses inadequate for one reason or another. That would make those questions, as I have argued, completely pertinent. But you don't even admit that among the possibilities.

 

P.S. by the way, English is my native tongue.

Edited December 17, 2012 by proximity1

[Ringer]

After looking back through the thread and a conversation with proximity1 I realize I was mistaken about no one else having problems interpreting what was said. I was incorrect and apologize for the misunderstanding.

[proximity1]

Ringer,

 

thank you. I appreciate your giving it more consideration and your acknowledgement here.

[rah]

... So, wait, I took the time to explain and answer but you dismiss my post out of some 'hidden unconscious telling assumptions' you refuse to elaborate on

I haven't dismissed your post and I haven't refused to elaborate on the assumptions I noted, I'm simply focussing on a different task before I return to that.

 

and *that* should let us believe you're a better science person than the rest of us who studied the mainstream theories?

I'm not sure what you mean by "a better science person" but this almost seems like you're putting forward the argument from authority!

 

So, you got your answer from ajb

I don't have my answer from ajb yet; the discussion has stalled after I asked ajb to confirm whether he still maintains that it is not possible for a theory to match nature while contradicting what is found in text books.

 

Do you mind answering my post, and those of people who try to explain your (quite valid, actually) question, or are you just here to say "you're wrong!" regardless of people's explanations?

Yes, I do mind. My purpose in coming here was to understand why ajb made his original statement, "you are better off learning about more accepted ideas". My question was to ajb. I'm willing to follow short side discussions with others but to be blunt my primary concern is with ajb's reasoning and nobody else's.

 

When I've completed the task of understanding ajb's statement, and answered the question ajb asked that I said I would respond to, I'll happily come back and respond to your post.

Edited December 18, 2012 by rah

[ajb]

Up until now, you have stated that such a theory cannot exist. Now you're using words like "I would expect" and "it would be hard to understand why".

This is all very hypothetical and, as other have pointed out is inconsistent and self-contradictory anyway.

 

You will find that, unless I am talking about pure mathematics in which one has strict theorems, I will tend to be a little more open with the language I use in physics. One would tend to avoid absolutes like "never" and "impossible" rather generally, as it is nature that decides this. This is the standard language of science as a whole.

 

If we assume the theory you suggest exists, it would indeed be difficult to understand how the physics we know today fits into this. But as this is all very hypothetical it is impossible to say much more.

You have stated that it is not possible. You've stated that any theory that contradicts what is in text books must necessarily not match nature. Do you still maintain that this must be the case?

Again, this is all very hypothetical, but I would stick to my statements.

 

 

 

My purpose in coming here was to understand why ajb made his original statement, "you are better off learning about more accepted ideas".

I don't see what the controversy is here. In order to understand more fringe ideas, good ones or bad ones, you need some grounding in what is established.

 

In the context of the original posts, the scaler wave theory of electromagnetism has little solid foundation. We have a good theory of classical electromagnetism that works very well for a wide range of phenomena, we also have a quantum theory that is just a good. In order to give a good critique of scalar wave theory you should have a reasonable knowledge of Maxwell's equations.

[rah]

You will find that, unless I am talking about pure mathematics in which one has strict theorems, I will tend to be a little more open with the language I use in physics. One would tend to avoid absolutes like "never" and "impossible" rather generally

Indeed, one would. But it is you who has made an absolute statement and that is what I am questioning you about:

Because the theory will not match nature

 

But as this is all very hypothetical it is impossible to say much more.

It is possible to say more. The issue of whether it's possible for new, accurate theories to come to light which contradict what's found in text books is an issue of epistemology. This epistemological discussion is about logic, not data. It is appropriate and rational to make statements about the logic involved.

Edited December 18, 2012 by rah

[ajb]

It is possible to say more. The issue of whether it's possible for new, accurate theories to come to light which contradict what's found in text books is an issue of ontology. This ontological discussion is about logic, not data. It is appropriate and rational to make statements about the logic involved.

We are now in the realm of philosophy.

 

Many of us here have already given our reasoning why we think such a theory is impossible. Moreover, I cannot think of a good example from modern physics of a theory like the one you suggest.

 

Physics is about adding layers to our understanding of the Universe. By adding a new layer one does not simply remove the earlier layers.

 

For instance, classical and quantum mechanics are not really competing theories that contradict each other. They have separate domains of validity and we have a good notion of the classical limit of quantum mechanics. One should not really say that quantum mechanics sweeps classical mechanics away, rather quantum mechanics adds another layer to our understanding.

[rah]

You have stated that it is not possible. You've stated that any theory that contradicts what is in text books must necessarily not match nature. Do you still maintain that this must be the case?

Let me rephrase my question and please note that this question is about what is possible, not about your beliefs or expectations:

 

Do you maintain that it is impossible for new observations to be made that contradict what is found in text books?

 

[swansont]

It is possible to say more. The issue of whether it's possible for new, accurate theories to come to light which contradict what's found in text books is an issue of epistemology. This epistemological discussion is about logic, not data. It is appropriate and rational to make statements about the logic involved.

 

This is moot. The issue is whether one should study accepted science before coming up with alternative conjecture, and whether such conjecture cannot be accurate or it is simply exceedingly unlikely to be accurate doesn't really change that.

[rah]

Many of us here have already given our reasoning why we think such a theory is impossible.

You've presented your expectations about nature, you haven't explained the logic behind your assertion that it cannot be possible.

 

Moreover, I cannot think of a good example from modern physics of a theory like the one you suggest.

What has happened in the past is not a limit on what can happen in the future.