News Flash 24 May 1543 - Copernicus Proved Wrong!

[robinpike]

Physicists describe Copernicus’s Theory ‘On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres’ as complete rubbish…

Physicists summarised the theory’s failings by pointing out that, if the Earth really was flying around the sun, then there would be a great wind as the Earth rushed through the air.

The physicists continued, “All you need is one failure of a model to prove that it is false, but if you want more…”

1. If the Earth really was spinning on its axis (as required in Copernicus’s heliocentric theory to explain the diurnal motion of the sky), then why don't objects fly off the spinning Earth?

Since things do not fly off, the theory is obviously false.

2. If the Earth really was in motion around the sun, then why don’t birds flying in the air get left behind?

Since birds do not get left behind, the theory is visibly false.

3. If the Earth really was in orbit around the sun, then why isn't a parallax effect observed on the stars in the sky? That is, the stars should appear to change their position with respect to other stars as the Earth moves in its orbit? (Just as viewing an object first with one eye, and then the other, causes the apparent position of the object to change with respect to its background.)

As the parallax effect isn't observed, the theory is patently false.

And the physicists continued…

The method that Copernicus has used to produce his theory is incorrect: Copernicus has used Astronomy to postulate about Physics, rather than beginning with the accepted principles of Physics to determine things about Astronomy.

And what is more, Copernicus has neither read nor understood the arguments of Physics.

In essence, Copernicus is deficient in the sciences of physics and logic. It is stupid of Copernicus to contradict an opinion accepted by everyone, over a long period of time, for the strongest of reasons. If he does, then Copernicus must use more powerful and implicit demonstrations and completely dissolve the opposed reasons. But Copernicus does none of these.

End of news flash

==========================================================

Yes, lighthearted (and not a criticism of anyone), it is a fantastic example of how a speculative theory can be proven to be absolutely and undoubtedly wrong, only later for it to be realised that it is correct and lead to a great leap in understanding.

Copernicus assumed the motion of the Earth, but offered no physical theory whereby one would deduce this motion. At the time, physicists did not realise that the investigation into Copernicus’s ideas would result in a re-thinking of the entire field of physics.

It took many years before physicists realised that the objections above were false, this began when Newton introduced the concept of gravity, Kepler the elliptical motion of planets around the sun, and then when astronomers pointed out that stars were at enormous distances from the Earth.

It strikes me that when someone posts a speculative theory, the discussion should follow a less absolute line of reasoning than is sometimes produced.

For example, “This is proof as to why your theory cannot be true”, or “This is proof as to why the Standard Model must be correct”, cannot necessarily be assured. For as Donald Rumsfeld said: “But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don’t know”.

And what we don’t know means that any impeccable line of reasoning could be missing something and be invalid.

[Bignose]

robinpike, on 18 Apr 2013 - 07:57, said:

It strikes me that when someone posts a speculative theory, the discussion should follow a less absolute line of reasoning than is sometimes produced.

 

For example, “This is proof as to why your theory cannot be true”, or “This is proof as to why the Standard Model must be correct”, cannot necessarily be assured. For as Donald Rumsfeld said: “But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don’t know”.

 

And what we don’t know means that any impeccable line of reasoning could be missing something and be invalid.

That's why no decent scientist would say "this is proof the standard model must be correct"

 

What they should say is: the standard model makes the best predictions that agree with known measured results today.

 

Agreement between prediction and measurement is almost completely all of the scientific currency. It is ultimately all that matters. Usefulness of a model is determined by how good its predictions are.

 

What you are confusing with your word choice in the quote above is that all too often when someone posts a speculation, the results of their idea makes predictions that are at odds with a known result.

 

Let me use a recent example.

 

Someone speculates that they hate quarks, and have a new idea of the internal structure of atomic particles. Great. How does that speculative model yield predict results like Briedenbach's classic 3-point-like-bodies found in a neutron? Whether you want to call them quarks, tutus, or bananas.... when you bombard a neutron with electrons, the electrons scatter just like there are 3 bodies inside the neutron.

 

That fact is undeniable. It has been repeated and reverified 1000s of times. So any model that supposed to replace quarks, MUST MUST MUST be able to demonstrate how electron scattering acts as if there are 3 point like bodies. The mainstream today is that there are three point-like bodies in there, and we call them quarks.

 

So, again, not decent scientist would say that anything is "proof" for the current model. But they would say that evidences W, X, Y, and Z all support the predictions made by the current model.

 

Far, far, far too often, the speculators want to ignore, decry, or otherwise put blinders on to the evidence that is out there today. But that cannot be done.

 

That's why people say "your speculation is wrong because of ...". Because there is known measurements out there, and if the speculation cannot predict that measurement, why would be dump the model that can make that prediction for one that can't? Science is not in the business of supporting less useful models.

 

So, ultimately, it is the same thing I repeat over and over: if someone wants to show their speculation has value, show how it makes better predictions that the current model. Make a graph... plot current measurements, the predictions made by the mainstream model, and the predictions made by your model. If your model makes better predictions, then it will get attention. If it makes no predictions or worse predictions, it will be justifiably ignored as less useful. It really is a simple hurdle that has to be jumped... make more useful predictions than the other guys.

[swansont]

What physics was there to contradict? This was before Newton. There was no physics model for planetary orbits, much less something tested and confirmed. There was philosophy, and conventional wisdom. There's a huge difference between contradicting philosophy or conventional wisdom (or even a model, as there might be loopholes) and contradicting actual experimental results as Bignose has pointed out.

 

And now, because we have so many experiments that directly confirm models, and more advanced experiments that depend on the model being right, that it's quicker just to say that the new proposal contradicts an established model. Some might see that as the same as contradicting the conventional wisdom, but it's really an ignorance of the weight of experimental evidence behind the theory.

[robinpike]

What you are confusing with your word choice in the quote above is that all too often when someone posts a speculation, the results of their idea makes predictions that are at odds with a known result.

 

Let me use a recent example.

 

Someone speculates that they hate quarks, and have a new idea of the internal structure of atomic particles. Great. How does that speculative model yield predict results like Briedenbach's classic 3-point-like-bodies found in a neutron? Whether you want to call them quarks, tutus, or bananas.... when you bombard a neutron with electrons, the electrons scatter just like there are 3 bodies inside the neutron.

 

That fact is undeniable. It has been repeated and reverified 1000s of times. So any model that supposed to replace quarks, MUST MUST MUST be able to demonstrate how electron scattering acts as if there are 3 point like bodies. The mainstream today is that there are three point-like bodies in there, and we call them quarks.

 

You see, this is where I think we have to be careful.

 

The facts of your example above, are the results of the electron scattering experiment - which is undeniable - and the conclusion is that the neutron has three quarks inside it - and it is this part that could be challenged.

 

If someone proposes an alternative explanation of the electron scattering from a neutron that has not been considered before, must their hypothesis have to include mathematics?

 

What if it is difficult to convert their hypothesis into mathematics. For example, what if their hypothesis uses compound particles at the level of the electron, proton, or photon, and therefore requires the mathematics (and engine) of 3D modelling?

 

How would they have the resources to develop such a mathematical model?

 

 

What physics was there to contradict?

 

In that case, why did it take 100 years before Copernicus's explanation was accepted? What were they arguing about?

 

What about the physics of being thrown off a spinning Earth - that conclusion came about through the then known physics of a spinning body (but without the knowledge of gravity)? And then there was the parallax problem, which was only overcome 3 centuries later.

 

 

I made this post because I would like to have a discussion on the hypothesis that the electron, proton and photon are made of the same substance.

 

But I have a feeling that responses to such a post will simply be: there is no experimental evidence that supports such a hypothesis - there is nothing to discuss?

[swansont]

You see, this is where I think we have to be careful.

 

The facts of your example above, are the results of the electron scattering experiment - which is undeniable - and the conclusion is that the neutron has three quarks inside it - and it is this part that could be challenged.

 

If someone proposes an alternative explanation of the electron scattering from a neutron that has not been considered before, must their hypothesis have to include mathematics?

 

You are free to try it without. I can see how a single-target, hard-sphere model might be done qualitatively, but once you go beyond that I have difficulty seeing how you distinguish between models without math. But, again, anyone is free to try it.

 

What if it is difficult to convert their hypothesis into mathematics. For example, what if their hypothesis uses compound particles at the level of the electron, proton, or photon, and therefore requires the mathematics (and engine) of 3D modelling?

 

How would they have the resources to develop such a mathematical model?

 

That's too bad for them, then. There's a whole bunch of research that doesn't get done because there's no funding for it.

 

 

In that case, why did it take 100 years before Copernicus's explanation was accepted? What were they arguing about?

 

My guess would be because the coin of the realm wasn't science back then, it was ideology and philosophy (when that didn't contradict the ideology). If your idea contradicted the Bible, or Plato or Aristotle, it was a tough sell, because they weren't doing science, as we understand it — they weren't free to do it to the extent they were capable, and they weren't capable to the extent later scientists were, because there was no underlying model.

 

 

What about the physics of being thrown off a spinning Earth - that conclusion came about through the then known physics of a spinning body (but without the knowledge of gravity)? And then there was the parallax problem, which was only overcome 3 centuries later.

 

That's the point about conventional wisdom vs actual experiment. There's no data that backed up the idea of throwing someone off the earth, or of parallax.

 

 

I made this post because I would like to have a discussion on the hypothesis that the electron, proton and photon are made of the same substance.

 

But I have a feeling that responses to such a post will simply be: there is no experimental evidence that supports such a hypothesis - there is nothing to discuss?

 

If there are ramifications you can discuss — you have a model that has testable predictions — there might be things to discuss. If the model is contradicted by experiments that have already been done, the discussion will be short. But without the model, i.e. if this is just an exercise in mental masturbation, then there's no point.

[Bignose]

robinpike, on 18 Apr 2013 - 13:36, said:

You see, this is where I think we have to be careful.

 

The facts of your example above, are the results of the electron scattering experiment - which is undeniable - and the conclusion is that the neutron has three quarks inside it - and it is this part that could be challenged.

 

If someone proposes an alternative explanation of the electron scattering from a neutron that has not been considered before, must their hypothesis have to include mathematics?

 

What if it is difficult to convert their hypothesis into mathematics. For example, what if their hypothesis uses compound particles at the level of the electron, proton, or photon, and therefore requires the mathematics (and engine) of 3D modelling?

 

How would they have the resources to develop such a mathematical model?

Having the resources is a very different problem than trying to replace a model.

 

As I've written many times, the hurdle to replace a model is very easy... it must be demonstrated that the new model makes better predictions than the old one. If it does, then the new model replaces the old one, simply because the new one is more useful.

 

And, math isn't a 100% necessity, but math has the ability to objectively compare two models. I.e. if model A makes predictions with a 0.12% error and model B makes predictions with a 48% error, model A is clearly superior. You need math to calculate error percentages like those...

 

There is nothing in defining the hurdle that is to be jump about how to jump that hurdle.

 

As swansont writes above, there are many research projects that don't get funding. And as fallible humans, there are often unworthy or doomed-for-failure projects that are funded. This is where less objective measures come in... the more renowned scientist will often get more funding. The more charismatic scientist will often get more funding. Younger scientists often find it hard to compete with more established scientists for funding. And yes, funding for string theory is more abundant than other alternatives at the moment.

 

Is this completely fair? No. But it is what it is.

 

None of that changes the end result, however, that the more useful model (in terms of quantity and quality of predictions) becomes the one adopted, however. Science is ultimately about the most accurate predictions possible.

 

Regarding the electron scattering off of the quarks, that was done via math. The trajectories of the scattered electrons were measured, and the math shows that it is acting just as if there were 3 bodies inside the neutron. If you want to argue that there are really 1000 bodies in there (a real speculation that has been posted here), you need to demonstrate how the data from the experiment actually fits your idea better. I don't see how you do this without math, because the original data used math, both in the data gathering and the data analysis. Again, math is awfully nice since it is very objective. There is no need to argue over logic, or aesthetics, or smell or any other subjective measure when the math demonstrates that one prediction is significantly ore accurate than another.

 

robinpike, on 18 Apr 2013 - 13:36, said:

I made this post because I would like to have a discussion on the hypothesis that the electron, proton and photon are made of the same substance.

 

But I have a feeling that responses to such a post will simply be: there is no experimental evidence that supports such a hypothesis - there is nothing to discuss?

Again, I am in agreement with swansont. If you have predictions based on such a model, post them. Demonstrate how well the predictions made with such a model compare with the current predictions and the best known measurements.

 

If you don't have predictions, then really, it isn't much of a scientific discussion and belongs more in a story telling to philosophy discussion.

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

 

Physicists describe Copernicus’s Theory ‘On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres’ as complete rubbish…

Physicists summarised the theory’s failings by pointing out that, if the Earth really was flying around the sun, then there would be a great wind as the Earth rushed through the air.

The physicists continued, “All you need is one failure of a model to prove that it is false, but if you want more…”

1. If the Earth really was spinning on its axis (as required in Copernicus’s heliocentric theory to explain the diurnal motion of the sky), then why don't objects fly off the spinning Earth?

Since things do not fly off, the theory is obviously false.

2. If the Earth really was in motion around the sun, then why don’t birds flying in the air get left behind?

Since birds do not get left behind, the theory is visibly false.

3. If the Earth really was in orbit around the sun, then why isn't a parallax effect observed on the stars in the sky? That is, the stars should appear to change their position with respect to other stars as the Earth moves in its orbit? (Just as viewing an object first with one eye, and then the other, causes the apparent position of the object to change with respect to its background.)

As the parallax effect isn't observed, the theory is patently false.

And the physicists continued…

The method that Copernicus has used to produce his theory is incorrect: Copernicus has used Astronomy to postulate about Physics, rather than beginning with the accepted principles of Physics to determine things about Astronomy.

And what is more, Copernicus has neither read nor understood the arguments of Physics.

In essence, Copernicus is deficient in the sciences of physics and logic. It is stupid of Copernicus to contradict an opinion accepted by everyone, over a long period of time, for the strongest of reasons. If he does, then Copernicus must use more powerful and implicit demonstrations and completely dissolve the opposed reasons. But Copernicus does none of these.

End of news flash

==========================================================

 

What would hade happen if Copernicus came in this forum with his idea?

 

 

Objection1:

Use your common sense – not what a crazy cop… your told.

Simply watch the sun an entire day standing still. Who is moving? Every kid can see what happens. That is reality!

 

Objection 2: (User cuthroth, posting 103)

The experiment has been done. Lots of space crafts have been launched into space, some of them towards and more of them away from the sun.

The effect which this new idea predicts would have been noticed.

Not least, because space craft designers are very careful.

 

Since no such effect was found we can rule out this idea.

 

If someone's idea does not agree with reality, it is not because reality has made a mistake.

 

 

Objection 3:

I searched only a minute and found enough prove your idea is mumbo jumbo.

Nobody agrees with you. There is even a video, what shows clearly you are wrong.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co8Kf36WtiA

 

Objection 4: Do you thing all the highly respected celebrities from the church are all wrong?

 

Objection 5:

Where are your credentials?

 

Objection 6: Do you have prove? Show us your numbers.

 

Objection 7: The sun is nothing, but a hot gas bubble, the earth is solid and heavier than gas and has to stay in the center.

Objection 8: You are wrong because you are wrong.

 

Objection 9: Do you have ever seen that many horses, which can pull the entire earth?

Objection 10: You are new here and want tell us what we can’t see– a new history making idea? Make first at least 1000 postings and learn our logic. We have highly respected moderators with 22 000 postings saying your theory is mumbo jumbo. We are reality and you are the only one in denial of reality.

 

You want more? Look in wikipedia

Edited April 19, 2013 by Wolfhart Willimczik

[robinpike]

Thanks for all your points. Just to make sure I understand the principles of the Standard Model correctly...

 

Is the current understanding this:

 

The electron, up quark, down quark and photon are elementary particles and each of these are made of a different substance to the others?

 

If this is not correct, please post the correct understanding, thanks.

[swansont]

I doubt many physicists would characterize electrons, quarks and photons as being "made up of a substance". But they are distinct particles, as they have to be to call them fundamental particles.

[robinpike]

I doubt many physicists would characterize electrons, quarks and photons as being "made up of a substance". But they are distinct particles, as they have to be to call them fundamental particles.

 

Thanks Swansont, that is a key point.

 

If the Standard Model has the fundamental particles as not made of a substance, doesn't that make the Standard Model more of a hypothesis than a theory?

[swansont]

Thanks Swansont, that is a key point.

 

If the Standard Model has the fundamental particles as not made of a substance, doesn't that make the Standard Model more of a hypothesis than a theory?

 

No. The standard model makes successful predictions about how these particles interact, and there is much data confirming this. That's what a theory does.

[robinpike]

No. The standard model makes successful predictions about how these particles interact, and there is much data confirming this. That's what a theory does.

 

So the Standard Model does not predict what the elementary particles are made of.

 

So, if someone suggests that the elementary particles are made of the same substance, then they cannot be contradicting the Standard Model, since the Standard Model has no opinion about what elementary particles are made of.

[swansont]

So the Standard Model does not predict what the elementary particles are made of.

 

The standard model says they are fundamental particles. In that sense, they are not "made of" anything, because of they were, they would not be fundamental. In another sense, what they are "made of" is metaphysics, and not science. We can test what properties they have. If being made of something gives them some measurable attribute, then it can be tested, but if it can't be tested, it's not science.

 

So, if someone suggests that the elementary particles are made of the same substance, then they cannot be contradicting the Standard Model, since the Standard Model has no opinion about what elementary particles are made of.

 

See above. It's not that simple.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

The standard model says they are fundamental particles. In that sense, they are not "made of" anything, because of they were, they would not be fundamental. In another sense, what they are "made of" is metaphysics, and not science. We can test what properties they have.

 

What happens when electron and positron, any particle and its antiparticle collide/intersect? There is made >= 2 gamma photons. Then gamma photon can be absorbed by some particle and emitted lower energetic photon, and at completely other time, particle that absorbed photon, can emit it. From gamma photon with frequency f0 now we have two photons with frequencies f1 and f2, where f0=f1+f2. It can go on and on. And instead of f.e. photon with 1 GHz we can have 1000 photons with 1 MHz (just an example)..

 

Apparently "fundamental" has completely different meaning in our languages..

 

If being made of something gives them some measurable attribute, then it can be tested, but if it can't be tested, it's not science.

 

Their attributes are well known and tested.

Frequency for example.

Just model of transformation from one set of particles to another set of particles, like photons <-> e+ & e- was not addressed properly (or rather completely ignored).

[robinpike]

The standard model says they are fundamental particles. In that sense, they are not "made of" anything, because of they were, they would not be fundamental. In another sense, what they are "made of" is metaphysics, and not science. We can test what properties they have. If being made of something gives them some measurable attribute, then it can be tested, but if it can't be tested, it's not science.

 

Since a fundamental particle cannot be divided any further (by definition), shouldn't that be a fundamental particle cannot be "made up" of anything smaller, rather than cannot be "made of" anything? The difference between the two meanings is huge.

 

If you did mean cannot be "made up" of anything smaller, is that confirmation that they are made of something?

 

However, if you did mean that a fundamental particle is not made of anything - can you elaborate how that works?

 

For example, how does a particle made of nothing distinguish itself from another, different type of particle made of nothing, and how are the properties of say, electric charge, mass, movement, etc produced?

Edited April 19, 2013 by robinpike

[swansont]

Apparently "fundamental" has completely different meaning in our languages..

 

In the language of physics it means not having any internal structure and not comprised of other particles. If you wish to discuss the subject, that's the definition you should use.

 

 

Just model of transformation from one set of particles to another set of particles, like photons <-> e+ & e- was not addressed properly (or rather completely ignored).

 

The standard model most certainly does not ignore pair production.

 

Since a fundamental particle cannot be divided any further (by definition), shouldn't that be a fundamental particle cannot be "made up" of anything smaller, rather than cannot be "made of" anything? The difference between the two meanings is huge.

 

If you did mean cannot be "made up" of anything smaller, is that confirmation that they are made of something?

 

However, if you did mean that a fundamental particle is not made of anything - can you elaborate how that works?

 

Science doesn't address the question, since it's not testable. If the particle is fundamental, you can't break it down, or open, to see what's inside. So if an electron is really some piece of fluff in a hard candy shell, it doesn't matter — all we know about it is that it has one unit of charge, a certain mass, and spin 1/2, etc.

 

Contrast that with a composite particle like a proton or neutron, where we can see what's inside by scattering particles off of it, or mesons, which spontaneously break up, which allow us to discern their structure. If you want to claim a particle is made of something, you have to be able to do some kind of test of the properties of that "stuff".

 

 

For example, how does a particle made of nothing distinguish itself from another, different type of particle made of nothing, and how are the properties of say, electric charge, mass, movement, etc produced?

 

Mass comes from an interaction with the Higgs field. Charge? I don't know. It's a property we observe to exist.

[robinpike]

Science doesn't address the question, since it's not testable. If the particle is fundamental, you can't break it down, or open, to see what's inside. So if an electron is really some piece of fluff in a hard candy shell, it doesn't matter — all we know about it is that it has one unit of charge, a certain mass, and spin 1/2, etc.

 

Without drifting off topic, is there any experiment that shows that the electron is not fundamental?

 

What about when an electron emits a photon or absorbs a photon?

Edited April 19, 2013 by robinpike

[swansont]

Without drifting off topic, is there any experiment that shows that the electron is not fundamental?

 

What about when an electron emits a photon or absorbs a photon?

 

No, not that I'm aware of. It would be pretty big news.

 

Free electrons cannot emit or absorb photons, they can only scatter them, which is what you'd expect for a system with no internal structure.

[robinpike]

Free electrons cannot emit or absorb photons, they can only scatter them, which is what you'd expect for a system with no internal structure.

 

True, but electrons can absorb and emit photons - for example photocells and electric light bulbs.

 

How does the electron do this if it is a fundamental particle... where does the photon go / appear from?

[swansont]

True, but electrons can absorb and emit photons - for example photocells and electric light bulbs.

 

How does the electron do this if it is a fundamental particle... where does the photon go / appear from?

 

Those are composite systems i.e. atoms and molecules, and photons are created when systems change energy states. For the incandescent light bulb, photons are created when charges are accelerated. Not from a transition in any internal state of the electron.