The fallacies of speculations

[swansont]

You may have seen some mention of this paper which came out recently in Phys. Rev Letters.

 

How Stable is the Photon?

 

http://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.021801

 

Basically, the author assumed the photon had mass, which would allow it to decay to something less massive. He applied this to the CMB. If photons were decaying, it would affect the frequency distribution of the light we observe, which puts a constraint on the lifetime of the photon — 3 years in its rest frame (if it has mass, it has a rest frame) but owing to time dilation, it's 10^18 years in our frame. Which limits how much mass a photon could possibly have.

 

Contained within this one paper are some lessons for anyone posting a new theory or complaint about mainstream physics, in speculations.

 

Complaints that physics is dogma, or that anyone challenging the mainstream can't get published are falsified. The truth is that papers with test like this, that test the validity of mainstream physics, get published all the time. (I'm an author on one from earlier this year; we tested GR)

 

What the author did in this case, that speculations threads never seem to do, is he compared his model to data that already exists, and was able to constrain the scope of his model, as opposed to de rigueur of crackpottery which is to oblivious of any experiment that disagrees with the pet theory being proposed. You see, models have ramifications; you absolutely have to test what those ramification are, and you don't get to ignore ones that are inconvenient to your model.

 

Oh, and there's the fact that it contains a model, and math and all that.

 

 

[Unity+]

You may have seen some mention of this paper which came out recently in Phys. Rev Letters.

 

How Stable is the Photon?

 

http://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.021801

 

Basically, the author assumed the photon had mass, which would allow it to decay to something less massive. He applied this to the CMB. If photons were decaying, it would affect the frequency distribution of the light we observe, which puts a constraint on the lifetime of the photon — 3 years in its rest frame (if it has mass, it has a rest frame) but owing to time dilation, it's 10^18 years in our frame. Which limits how much mass a photon could possibly have.

 

Contained within this one paper are some lessons for anyone posting a new theory or complaint about mainstream physics, in speculations.

 

Complaints that physics is dogma, or that anyone challenging the mainstream can't get published are falsified. The truth is that papers with test like this, that test the validity of mainstream physics, get published all the time. (I'm an author on one from earlier this year; we tested GR)

 

What the author did in this case, that speculations threads never seem to do, is he compared his model to data that already exists, and was able to constrain the scope of his model, as opposed to de rigueur of crackpottery which is to oblivious of any experiment that disagrees with the pet theory being proposed. You see, models have ramifications; you absolutely have to test what those ramification are, and you don't get to ignore ones that are inconvenient to your model.

 

Oh, and there's the fact that it contains a model, and math and all that.

 

 

How did a crackpot paper get published on a credible publisher(unless of course it isn't)?

 

Also, isn't it obvious that a photon cannot have mass because of the Higgs field(which has recently been confirmed) and how it reacts with other particles within the Higgs field? If the photon did have mass that would ruin the whole point of what the Higgs field partially was trying to explain.

[studiot]

 

Also, isn't it obvious that a photon cannot have mass because of the Higgs field(which has recently been confirmed) and how it reacts with other particles within the Higgs field? If the photon did have mass that would ruin the whole point of what the Higgs field partially was trying to explain.

 

 

I haven't seen the paper that swans refers to but he mentions the word 'model'. This idea is all to often forgotten or ignored.

 

It is a philosophical question "Is mass a fundamntal property?".

 

From the model point of view it can be regarded as simple a necessary constant in a model equation. As such there is more than one possible source of 'mass'.

A rough rider's guide is that there is what we observe as the inertial mass model but there is also mass due to the (currrent) energy of the particle. A photon is allowed zero inertial mass, therefore any mass due to any other source eg motion is appreciable.

[swansont]

How did a crackpot paper get published on a credible publisher(unless of course it isn't)?

 

Also, isn't it obvious that a photon cannot have mass because of the Higgs field(which has recently been confirmed) and how it reacts with other particles within the Higgs field? If the photon did have mass that would ruin the whole point of what the Higgs field partially was trying to explain.

 

The point is that it's not a crackpot paper, and PRL is a prestigious physics journal. The models that we have are tested all the time, either directly, as in this paper, or indirectly, when some other effect is measured which relies on the underlying model being correct. This paper tests that the experimentally determined limits on photon mass are consistent with observations in a new way.

 

The lesson is that questioning the mainstream is not where the crackpottery occurs. It's in the methods (or lack thereof) — making a model and testing it.

[DimaMazin]

Then we should see products of decay of photons from very far objects .

[Sensei]

Then we should see products of decay of photons from very far objects .

 

Photon with initial frequency f0 should decay to two (or more) photons with frequencies f1 and f2, which are sum:

f0 = f1 + f2

(energy must be conserved)

 

So we actually see decay of photons in entire Universe all the time when photon is absorbed by matter and new photons are emitted at longer wavelengths..

Fluorescence is example of this process. High energy UV light is absorbed, lower energy visible light is emitted.

But it's induced decay. By medium that's on photon path.

 

But how can you be sure whether photon emitted by galaxy f.e. 10 bln light years from us wasn't absorbed and emitted by some material between galaxies.. ?

 

Spontaneous decay the most likely won't be distinguishable from induced decay by interaction with medium..

Edited October 28, 2013 by Sensei

[DimaMazin]

 

Photon with initial frequency f0 should decay to two (or more) photons with frequencies f1 and f2, which are sum:

f0 = f1 + f2

(energy must be conserved)

 

So we actually see decay of photons in entire Universe all the time when photon is absorbed by matter and new photons are emitted at longer wavelengths..

Fluorescence is example of this process. High energy UV light is absorbed, lower energy visible light is emitted.

But it's induced decay. By medium that's on photon path.

 

But how can you be sure whether photon emitted by galaxy f.e. 10 bln light years from us wasn't absorbed and emitted by some material between galaxies.. ?

 

Spontaneous decay the most likely won't be distinguishable from induced decay by interaction with medium..

If photon has time of life then photon of very far object should have decay in vacuum.You can ensnare them and they after a while should die.

[swansont]

 

Photon with initial frequency f0 should decay to two (or more) photons with frequencies f1 and f2, which are sum:

f0 = f1 + f2

(energy must be conserved)

 

So we actually see decay of photons in entire Universe all the time when photon is absorbed by matter and new photons are emitted at longer wavelengths..

Fluorescence is example of this process. High energy UV light is absorbed, lower energy visible light is emitted.

But it's induced decay. By medium that's on photon path.

 

But how can you be sure whether photon emitted by galaxy f.e. 10 bln light years from us wasn't absorbed and emitted by some material between galaxies.. ?

 

Spontaneous decay the most likely won't be distinguishable from induced decay by interaction with medium..

 

Reactions involving a material will have a different spectrum from the thermal one. There will be frequencies preferentially removed and preferentially added. That's what they looked at in the paper, and that's the point I was making: they did an actual test of their model, comparing what one would expect vs what we actually observe.

[kristalris]

 

You may have seen some mention of this paper which came out recently in Phys. Rev Letters.

 

How Stable is the Photon?

 

http://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.021801

 

Basically, the author assumed the photon had mass, which would allow it to decay to something less massive. He applied this to the CMB. If photons were decaying, it would affect the frequency distribution of the light we observe, which puts a constraint on the lifetime of the photon — 3 years in its rest frame (if it has mass, it has a rest frame) but owing to time dilation, it's 10^18 years in our frame. Which limits how much mass a photon could possibly have.

 

Contained within this one paper are some lessons for anyone posting a new theory or complaint about mainstream physics, in speculations.

 

Complaints that physics is dogma, or that anyone challenging the mainstream can't get published are falsified. The truth is that papers with test like this, that test the validity of mainstream physics, get published all the time. (I'm an author on one from earlier this year; we tested GR)

 

What the author did in this case, that speculations threads never seem to do, is he compared his model to data that already exists, and was able to constrain the scope of his model, as opposed to de rigueur of crackpottery which is to oblivious of any experiment that disagrees with the pet theory being proposed. You see, models have ramifications; you absolutely have to test what those ramification are, and you don't get to ignore ones that are inconvenient to your model.

 

Oh, and there's the fact that it contains a model, and math and all that.

 

 

Well as a certifiable crackpot I think we have established that:

 

if it ain’t Bayes, it ain’t science

 

in the philosophy forum. Your OP ain’t compatible with Bayes because you haven’t covered the alternate explanation. Ergo in science correct you’ve proven nothing.

You say conforming to GR photons don’t have mass and exert gravity. (Learnt this from you via making a mistake I made, for which correction I duly thank you.) The alternate is they do have mass and don’t exert gravity. So your position of the former that the decay is difficult then to be – if I understand you correctly - plausible (=Bayes) is countered Because the same can be said about a group if photons traveling billions of years without clustering. No inconsistency with the Higgs field if assumed as the Bayes alternate that the photon is too fast for that field to provide a measurable amount of mass, other than the wallop of energy a photon holds.

 

Furthermore Bayes + Occam dictate that you answer a probandum by taking in ALL relevant data and answer ALL relevant questions. This in its most simple way. You haven’t done this. You pose a paradigm that you a priori know to be incorrect, because you know that GR and QM don’t add up. And subsequently in conflict with Bayes and Occam say that only mathematical modeling counts, whereas only verbal logic fits the Bayes and Occam scientific bill. Because only that way can you construct a testable alternate.

 

This proves the OP al the more so incorrect because two taboo tests based on this Bayesian given verbal logical alternate aren’t investigated.

[turionx2]

You may have seen some mention of this paper which came out recently in Phys. Rev Letters.

 

How Stable is the Photon?

 

http://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.021801

 

Basically, the author assumed the photon had mass, which would allow it to decay to something less massive. He applied this to the CMB. If photons were decaying, it would affect the frequency distribution of the light we observe, which puts a constraint on the lifetime of the photon — 3 years in its rest frame (if it has mass, it has a rest frame) but owing to time dilation, it's 10^18 years in our frame. Which limits how much mass a photon could possibly have.

 

This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass or this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rest_mass ?

 

If photons can't be stored in a container and placed on a scale, how can you be so certain that photons don't have mass?

[swansont]

This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass or this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rest_mass ?

 

If photons can't be stored in a container and placed on a scale, how can you be so certain that photons don't have mass?

Putting them on a scale isn't the only way to check rest mass. The energy-momentum relation, the conditions under which photons can create particle/antiparticle pairs and the successful theories that predict and require massless photons are three reasons that immediately come to mind.

 

The point here is that being massless is the accepted science, and yet the idea has been tested.

 

Well as a certifiable crackpot I think we have established that:

 

if it aint Bayes, it aint science

 

Um, no. Bayes is one tool of science.

[kristalris]

kristalris, on 17 Nov 2013 - 8:37 PM, said:

 

 

Well as a certifiable crackpot I think we have established that:

 

if it aint Bayes, it aint science

 

Q Swansont #11

 

Um, no. Bayes is one tool of science.

 

EQ

 

I state that your position can't be made to fit Bayes. Do you dispute this then?

Edited November 18, 2013 by kristalris

[swansont]

 

 

I state that your position can't be made to fit Bayes. Do you dispute this then?

 

I don't care enough to consider whether I should dispute it. This is entirely beside the point of the thread. The people performing the experiment tested/challenged a well-accepted idea in physics. As I said, this is a counterexample to people who claim science is dogmatic. It also shows a framework or recipe by which one could pose other challenges to mainstream science. That's all there is to it. If you want to discuss the underlying philosophy of science or details of the experiment, or anything else not covered by discussion framed in the OP, it should be in another thread.

[kristalris]

I don't care enough to consider whether I should dispute it. This is entirely beside the point of the thread. The people performing the experiment tested/challenged a well-accepted idea in physics. As I said, this is a counterexample to people who claim science is dogmatic. It also shows a framework or recipe by which one could pose other challenges to mainstream science. That's all there is to it. If you want to discuss the underlying philosophy of science or details of the experiment, or anything else not covered by discussion framed in the OP, it should be in another thread.

Well, you are correctly treading lightly concerning Bayes. Problem for you is however the Bayes point is very much on topic. It proves that your counterexample on the fallacies made by crackpots in general is a fallacy in itself (= the title of the thread), because your OP can't be made to fit Bayes.

 

Because it can't be made to fit Bayes it proves on the deepest level that science/ physics in general (which is your OP point BTW) and in your OP especially claims too much in demanding mathematics concerning problems in lieu of fundamental particles such as photons in respect to falsify (part of) GR. (= your topic)

 

The reason is simple: all tools of science – as you so aptly put it in your first reaction towards me – need ultimately to concur in the sense that they on a given question render the same result. Simple rule of logic.

 

So, if you don’t care to deal with the Bayes question, it puts you - even if the majority of science is on your side - outside science proper. Science / logic isn’t democratic. Bayes – which you evidently have given no consideration proves you physicists wrong other than using a support / secondary role in dealing with such issues as you’ve made the point in the OP.

[ydoaPs]

!

Moderator Note

Well as a certifiable crackpot I think we have established that:

if it ain’t Bayes, it ain’t science

in the philosophy forum. Your OP ain’t compatible with Bayes because you haven’t covered the alternate explanation.

The OP isn't a science topic. It's a philosophy of science topic.

And it's not analyzing how likely some conclusion is. What is is doing is using the data at hand to clarify a well-accepted distinction. He's not giving a doctoral defense with brand new experiments; he's using a clear example to illustrate a difference.

To expect this to be some Bayesian inference is to not have understood the OP at all as it isn't even intended to contain an inference at all!

Well, you are correctly treading lightly concerning Bayes. Problem for you is however the Bayes point is very much on topic. It proves that your counterexample on the fallacies made by crackpots in general is a fallacy in itself (= the title of the thread), because your OP can't be made to fit Bayes.

As I've said, the no reasonable observer would expect the OP to be a Bayesian inference, because it isn't an inference at all. Contrary to what you think, Bayes is off topic in this thread. Now stop hijacking and get on topic or get out of the thread.

[kristalris]

Dear Swansont, I'm lead to believe you posted a nonscientific philosophy of science topic in the OP.

 

I thought you were taking a logical crack at crackpots showing them an example of the correct science of physics dealing with a correctly falsified hypothesis trying to falsify part of GR in the speculation thread?

 

What do you mean to be the topic in the OP the first the latter or something else?

Edited November 18, 2013 by kristalris

[swansont]

Dear Swansont, I'm lead to believe you posted a nonscientific philosophy of science topic in the OP.

 

I thought you were taking a logical crack at crackpots showing them an example of the correct science of physics dealing with a correctly falsified hypothesis trying to falsify part of GR in the speculation thread?

 

What do you mean to be the topic in the OP the first the latter or something else?

 

a) you're wrong

b) reasonable comprehension skills would allow one to see that you have been directed to

c) take it up elsewhere

 

So please, please, please, take it up elsewhere.

 

What do you mean to be the topic in the OP the first the latter or something else?

Topic: Scientists challenge the status quo of mainstream science all the time, thus it is not (as is often claimed) dogma. They come up with hypotheses, do tests, and apply mathematical models in doing so. IOW, it is the existence of the experiment, not the details of it, that matter to the thread.

[turionx2]

Putting them on a scale isn't the only way to check rest mass. The energy-momentum relation, the conditions under which photons can create particle/antiparticle pairs and the successful theories that predict and require massless photons are three reasons that immediately come to mind.

 

The point here is that being massless is the accepted science, and yet the idea has been tested.

 

How can photons even be placed on a scale to check their rest mass? Since I understood that atoms absorb photons or emit photons when the temperature of photons(atoms?) rises; ex lightbulb.

Edited November 19, 2013 by turionx2

[swansont]

 

How can photons even be placed on a scale to check their rest mass? Since I understood that atoms absorb photons or emit photons when the temperature of photons rises; ex lightbulb.

 

They can't, but that's not a problem, since (as I said) it's not the only method to check the rest mass.