Perpetual Arguing or Constructive Debate?
and...@ibm.net
>
> After following this NG for a couple of years, it is pretty apparent
> that, without a radical change in approach, the same type of
> discussion and argument is likely to continue here, for the next
> umpteen centuries, without any worthwhile progress or achievement
> being made.
This is a newsgroup about relativity. It is not the physics community.
It's an open discussion forum with no rules. If you want
to make progress or achieve something, then you're not going
to get it done here. Publish something in a peer reviewed physics
journal if you want to do that.
Except for the fact that most of the people here are aware
of some physics and relativity concepts (I said most, not
all!) you might as well walk down to the corner bar and
start a discussion about relativity there.
A newsgroup is free for all discussion, not scholarship.
John Anderson
Matthew Nobes
On 27 Jun 1999, Paul Stowe wrote:
> The problem is, there are very few 'scientist' in the world, or on the
> net. Most that proport to be such, are in fact, the epitome of
> anti-science religious zealots. No more open to 'alternative' ideas
> than Catholic Clergy of the middle ages...
A quick look at the e-print archieves at LANL is enough to
demonstrate that this statment is utter nonsense.
> Most don't exibit any ability of either creative thought or an ability
> of deductive reasoning.
Yeah right, that's why physics majors tend to do soooo poorly on
the job market. You clearly have no idea what is actually invovled in
getting a physics degree.
Do you have a specific example of a physicist who, in your opinion,
exibited creative thought or deductive reasoning, in say the past fifty
years? I can name probably 50 or so off the top of my head (Witten(a
fields medalist, one would think mathmaticians can recognize deductive
reasoning), Feynman, Schwinger, 't Hooft, Dyson, Wheeler (possibly the
single most creative physicist of the past fifty), Yang, ...)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"physical discoverers have differed from barren |Matthew Nobes
speculators, not by having no metaphysics in their |c/o Theory Group
heads, but by having good metaphysics while their |TRIUMF
adversaries had bad; and by binding their metaphysics |4004 Wesbrook Mall
to their physics, instead of keeping the two asunder" |Vancouver, B.C.
William Whewell|Canada, V6T 2A3
|
www.geocities.com/CollegePark/campus/1098 |
Rabbo
that, without a radical change in approach, the same type of
discussion and argument is likely to continue here, for the next
umpteen centuries, without any worthwhile progress or achievement
its adherents refuse to listen to anyone who suggests that it might be
little more than an unfortunate distraction in the overall scheme of
physics. To put that another way, we might be all wasting our time
trying to understand a theory that is possibly wrong, incomplete or,
at least, missing a vital element. What is needed, is less squabbling
over trivia and more, conclusive, experimental backup. Mathematical
theories, like the ones asserted here, have to be backed by some kind
of evidence to be at all creditable.
With a little cooperation, as well as some experimental input, there
is no reason why NGs, like this, should not turn into something far
more practical than just a forum for light-hearted mud-slinging and
debate.
Readers of this NG, for instance, might benefit if, as well as the
FAQ, there was another far more comprehensive index of relevant
publications and web pages.
As more and more scientists discover the USENET, I fail to see why it
cannot eventually take on the role of 'the popular press' for all
scientific discovery. Ultimately, this and similar NGs might be
unofficially granted 'official status' and attract considerable
attention from research institutions, if they haven't already.
Scientific publication requires an efficient, searchable database as
well as a process that guarantees proper security and recognition and
possibly a reward for genuine inventiveness.
Paul Stowe
writes:
The problem is, there are very few 'scientist' in the world, or on the
net. Most that proport to be such, are in fact, the epitome of
anti-science religious zealots. No more open to 'alternative' ideas
than Catholic Clergy of the middle ages... Most don't exibit any
ability of either creative thought or an ability of deductive
reasoning.
Paul Stowe
S.T.L.
at least, missing a vital element. What is needed, is less squabbling
over trivia and more, conclusive, experimental backup.>>
Hello, Mr. Kook. You want conclusive, experimental backup?
* Muons produced by cosmic rays hitting molecules in the upper atmosphere don't
have "enough time" to reach the ground, but they do, thanks to Special
Relativistic time dilation.
* Special Relativity explains the fine structure (137! 137!) splitting in the
energy levels of an atom.
* Special Relativity correctly predicts that Mercury is a liquid element and
that Gold has a gold, not a silver, color.
* If Special Relativity were even marginally incorrect, the beams of protons,
antiprotons, electrons, and antielectrons in dozens of accelerators around the
world would no longer travel along their assigned paths: rather, they would
make many very neat, very expensive holes in the surrounding equipment. This
does not happen.
* Special Relativity is internally mathematically consistent, something that
crackpot theories usually lack.
* All experiments show that the speed of light is independent of the observer's
motion, which is one of SR's few required postulates.
And so forth. You, sir, are a kook, and I won't waste any more time
"perpetually arguing" with you because you won't change your mind, period.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making
them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new
generation grows up that is familiar with it" - Max Planck
That doesn't just include competent, but old, scientists. Eventually the kooks
and even the religious fanatics agree or are forced to agree. Even the Church
eventually apologized for what it did to Galileo.
You won't change, and in fact I'm guessing that you'll reply with a scathing
response, trying to overturn my arguments and discredit SR, but in 1000 years
"etherists" will be as laughable as "Flat-Earthers".
Have fun, crackpots.
-*---*-------
S.T.L. ===> STL...@aol.com <=== BLOCK RELEASED! 2^3021377 - 1 is PRIME!
Quotations: http://quote.cjb.net Main website: http://137.tsx.org MOO!
"Xihribz! Peymwsiz xihribz! Qssetv cse bqy qiftrz!" e^(i*Pi)+1=0 F00FC7C8
E-mail block is gone. It will return if I'm bombed again. I don't care, it's
an easy fix. Address is correct as is. The courtesy of giving correct E-mail
addresses makes up for having to delete junk which gets through anyway. Join
the Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search at http://entropia.com/ips/ Now my
.sig is shorter and contains 3379 bits of entropy up to the next line's end:
-*---*-------
Card-holding member of the Dark Legion of Cantorians, the Great SRian
Conspiracy, the Triple-Sigma Club, and the Union of Quantum Mechanics
Avid watcher of "World's Most Terrifying Causality Violations", "World's
Scariest Warp Accidents", and "When Tidal Forces Attack: Caught on Tape"
Patiently awaiting the launch of Gravity Probe B and the discovery of M39
Physics Commandment #2: Thou Shalt Conserve Mass/Energy In Closed Systems.
Paul Stowe
(S.T.L.) writes:
Me-thinks Simon Clark might be at it again...
Paul Stowe
Androcles
Rabbo <Ra...@hisvery.worst> wrote in message
news:3776038c...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
> After following this NG for a couple of years, it is pretty apparent
> that, without a radical change in approach, the same type of
> discussion and argument is likely to continue here, for the next
> umpteen centuries, without any worthwhile progress or achievement
> being made. It is unlikely that we will surmount the SR 'hurdle' while
> its adherents refuse to listen to anyone who suggests that it might be
> little more than an unfortunate distraction in the overall scheme of
> trying to understand a theory that is possibly wrong, incomplete or,
> at least, missing a vital element. What is needed, is less squabbling
> theories, like the ones asserted here, have to be backed by some kind
> of evidence to be at all creditable.
>
> With a little cooperation, as well as some experimental input, there
> is no reason why NGs, like this, should not turn into something far
> more practical than just a forum for light-hearted mud-slinging and
> debate.
>
> Readers of this NG, for instance, might benefit if, as well as the
> FAQ, there was another far more comprehensive index of relevant
> publications and web pages.
>
> As more and more scientists discover the USENET, I fail to see why it
> cannot eventually take on the role of 'the popular press' for all
> scientific discovery. Ultimately, this and similar NGs might be
> unofficially granted 'official status' and attract considerable
> attention from research institutions, if they haven't already.
> Scientific publication requires an efficient, searchable database as
> well as a process that guarantees proper security and recognition and
> possibly a reward for genuine inventiveness.
You are well received, but I suggest you heed John Anderson's advice also.
This forum is primarily for flaming the idiots that don't accept relativity
( or don't even understand it), glorifying the brilliant mathenaticians that
do, and one-up-manship. How often will some youngster come along with yet
another version of a spaceship on its way to Alpha Centauri ( or Tau Ceti,
it really doesn't matter) to argue over again the twin paradox, or present
their "thesis" on a web page, all in order to dispute the almighty Einstein?
Yes, experiment is called for, and that should settle the matter. Trouble
is, experiments are expensive. I have already suggested that we send a laser
beam (and a maser, in case it has a different speed) to the moon and back,
when the orbiting body is approaching to moon and when it is receding from
it. But who is going to pay, and who is going to listen, and who will
support the idea?
Androcles.
Paul Stowe
the
>> anti-science religious zealots. No more open to 'alternative' ideas
>> than Catholic Clergy of the middle ages...
>
that
>this statement is utter nonsense.
Give three specific examples of ones that support your contention.
I could have said there are very few 'scientist' in the history of the
world. But hey, let's take a number of 50,000 from 1940 to present.
Give that the population of the world has doubled from 3 to about 6
Billion in this same period the ratio of 50,000 to 6 Billion is, should
we say, very few...
>> Most don't exhibit any ability of either creative thought or an
>> ability of deductive reasoning.
>
> Yeah right, that's why physics majors tend to do soooo poorly on
>the job market. You clearly have no idea what is actually invovled in
>getting a physics degree.
OK, if one looks at the stats for graduating physics majors, where do
most end up?
>Do you have a specific example of a physicist who, in your opinion,
>exhibited creative thought or deductive reasoning, in say the past
>fifty years? I can name probably 50 or so off the top of my head
>(Witten(a fields medallist, one would think mathematicians can
>recognize deductive reasoning), Feynman, Schwinger, 't Hooft, Dyson,
>Wheeler (possibly the single most creative physicist of the past
>fifty), Yang, ...)
Fifty years goes back to 1949, so let's start there. I think
Oppenheimer was creative, as was Feynman, Wheeler, and perhaps a few
thousand more world-wide. Again taken in content to any other field of
endeavor (requiring equal mental capacity) physicians, lawyers, ...etc.
that's not a good ratio. And there is a big difference between
original creative capacity, and refining existing concepts, and in this
regard, the profession does poorly.
One does not have to look very hard to see the worst aspects of the
Ptolemic method expounded in the mainstream, the current Scientific
American's article on Proton Structure exemplifies this. The attitude
'it works, that all that matters' coupled by the bigoted 'I know
what's/I'm right by god!' attitude is the core attributes that an
anti-science demeanor. Now do not get this confused and think I'm
advocating science should not be founded upon or tested against
observations, for that most certainly isn't true. But one does not
have to read many sample posting herein to see the bigoted narrow
minded nature of MOST (on both sides) that frequent here.
Paul Stowe
DE WITTE Roland
Rabbo a écrit dans le message <3776038c...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>...
>After following this NG for a couple of years, it is pretty apparent
>that, without a radical change in approach, the same type of
>discussion and argument is likely to continue here, for the next
>umpteen centuries, without any worthwhile progress or achievement
>being made.
There is a progress, but only among a few people in the newsgroup.
Because SR needs beliefs like the Catholic religion and because it is
impossible to convince a believer that Jesus is not a God, Einstein will be
considered right for the centuries to come by the majority of the
physicists.
The scientific truth depends democratically of the number of physicists who
believe in it.
There is nothing to do, the good scientists remain always in isolation like
the philosopher is not understood by the society who has only prejudices.
>To put that another way, we might be all wasting our time
>trying to understand a theory that is possibly wrong, incomplete or,
>at least, missing a vital element.
The theory is clearly wrong due to the logical problems.
It is unbelievable that the world might not be logical. If yes, we have to
stop to try to understand it, because it would be a non-sense.
> What is needed, is less squabbling
>over trivia and more, conclusive, experimental backup. Mathematical
>theories, like the ones asserted here, have to be backed by some kind
>of evidence to be at all creditable.
For SR, the experiments seem to be in agreement with the theory, because
often one of the contradictory predictions of SR is true. It is a source of
misunderstanding, because the SRists forget the other contradictory
prediction not verified and affirm that Einstein is right.
>Readers of this NG, for instance, might benefit if, as well as the
>FAQ, there was another far more comprehensive index of relevant
>publications and web pages.
But as Einstein is loved by a lot of people, it is always about unsussesful
attemps to solve the logical problems of the theory (except me and a few).
>As more and more scientists discover the USENET, I fail to see why it
>cannot eventually take on the role of 'the popular press' for all
>scientific discovery. Ultimately, this and similar NGs might be
>unofficially granted 'official status' and attract considerable
>attention from research institutions, if they haven't already.
We see a lot of scientists here. Thus the NG is like the Solvay Congress at
the begining of the century. Fortunately, there are here a bit more
intelligent people than in the Solvay Congress where only the illogical
Einstein and a few were present. With a bit more physicists, the physics
would never have been in error for nearly one century.
It is already more than a "popular press" and the relativistic problems (not
SR or GR) will certainly be solved here and not in the static papers like
from Physical Review or others publishers.
DE WITTE Roland
http://www.ping.be/electron
S.T.L.
considered right for the centuries to come by the majority of the
physicists.>>
I will be laughing my head off when frame-dragging is found by Gravity Probe B.
Nathan Urban
> <<Einstein will be
> considered right for the centuries to come by the majority of the
> physicists.>>
> I will be laughing my head off when frame-dragging is found by Gravity Probe B
Frame dragging has already been observed in more than one way..
Edward Schaefer
>
> As more and more scientists discover the USENET, I fail to see why it
> cannot eventually take on the role of 'the popular press' for all
> scientific discovery.
USENET cannot itself take on that role. It is too open and the posts
are too easily done. Even the moderated group sci.physics.research is
used for the discussion of new ideas instead of their announcement.
> Scientific publication requires an efficient, searchable database as
> well as a process that guarantees proper security and recognition and
> possibly a reward for genuine inventiveness.
And none of that is provided by USENET. Peer review is the best means
known for providing security and recognition, and the respected journal
themselves create the database that you are referring to. Incidentally,
most (if not all) of them now have the option of doing electronic-only
subscriptions, and nowadays electronic submission is encouraged.
In short, the Internet is taking over scientific publication, but not
the corner of it known as USENET.
EMS
Simon Clark
pst...@ix.netcom.com(Paul Stowe) wrote:
Then you think incorrectly.
--
Simon Clark
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/postgrad/clarksj
ICQ: 41011046
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Rabbo
><<To put that another way, we might be all wasting our time
>trying to understand a theory [SR] that is possibly wrong, incomplete or,
>at least, missing a vital element. What is needed, is less squabbling
>over trivia and more, conclusive, experimental backup.>>
>
>Hello, Mr. Kook. You want conclusive, experimental backup?
>
>* Muons produced by cosmic rays hitting molecules in the upper atmosphere don't
>have "enough time" to reach the ground, but they do, thanks to Special
>Relativistic time dilation.
Didn't I read recently that the effect was only about half what was
expected? That could be due to v/c instead of (v/c)^2
>
>* Special Relativity explains the fine structure (137! 137!) splitting in the
>energy levels of an atom.
>
>* Special Relativity correctly predicts that Mercury is a liquid element and
>that Gold has a gold, not a silver, color.
>
>* If Special Relativity were even marginally incorrect, the beams of protons,
>antiprotons, electrons, and antielectrons in dozens of accelerators around the
>world would no longer travel along their assigned paths: rather, they would
>make many very neat, very expensive holes in the surrounding equipment. This
>does not happen.
Mass obviously appears to increase with velocity. That could be due to
something totally unrelated to SR.
>
>* Special Relativity is internally mathematically consistent, something that
>crackpot theories usually lack.
Consistent if you accept the prior assumptions.
>
>* All experiments show that the speed of light is independent of the observer's
>motion, which is one of SR's few required postulates.
That's because it is always based on two-way light speed.
>
>And so forth. You, sir, are a kook, and I won't waste any more time
>"perpetually arguing" with you because you won't change your mind, period.
I haven't made up my mind. Even if SR is found to be faulty or
incomplete, it is still important because it has emphasized a basic
philosophical question.
>"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making
>them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new
>generation grows up that is familiar with it" - Max Planck
>
>That doesn't just include competent, but old, scientists. Eventually the kooks
>and even the religious fanatics agree or are forced to agree. Even the Church
>eventually apologized for what it did to Galileo.
>
>You won't change, and in fact I'm guessing that you'll reply with a scathing
>response, trying to overturn my arguments and discredit SR, but in 1000 years
>"etherists" will be as laughable as "Flat-Earthers".
I am not an Aetherist. I am quite content to accept that I don't know
the answer.
>Have fun, crackpots.
You are the epitome of a crackpot.
>
>
>
Rabbo
>Rabbo wrote:
>>
>> After following this NG for a couple of years, it is pretty apparent
>> that, without a radical change in approach, the same type of
>> discussion and argument is likely to continue here, for the next
>> umpteen centuries, without any worthwhile progress or achievement
>> being made.
>
>This is a newsgroup about relativity. It is not the physics community.
>It's an open discussion forum with no rules. If you want
>to make progress or achieve something, then you're not going
>to get it done here. Publish something in a peer reviewed physics
>journal if you want to do that.
>
>Except for the fact that most of the people here are aware
>of some physics and relativity concepts (I said most, not
>all!) you might as well walk down to the corner bar and
>start a discussion about relativity there.
>
>A newsgroup is free for all discussion, not scholarship.
>
>John Anderson
Once again, Mr. John 'personality' Anderson contributes his boring
words of wisdom.
Paul Stowe
writes:
>In article <7l43vu$2...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
> pst...@ix.netcom.com(Paul Stowe) wrote:
>
>> In <19990626224459...@ng-fs1.aol.com> stl...@aol.com
>> (S.T.L.) writes:
>>
>> Me-thinks Simon Clark might be at it again...
>
>Then you think incorrectly.
Good, my apologies. However you must admit, the demeanor is, should we
say ... familiar :>
Paul Stowe
Rabbo
wrote:
>
>You are well received, but I suggest you heed John Anderson's advice also.
>This forum is primarily for flaming the idiots that don't accept relativity
>( or don't even understand it), glorifying the brilliant mathenaticians that
>do, and one-up-manship. How often will some youngster come along with yet
>another version of a spaceship on its way to Alpha Centauri ( or Tau Ceti,
>it really doesn't matter) to argue over again the twin paradox, or present
>their "thesis" on a web page, all in order to dispute the almighty Einstein?
>Yes, experiment is called for, and that should settle the matter. Trouble
>is, experiments are expensive. I have already suggested that we send a laser
>beam (and a maser, in case it has a different speed) to the moon and back,
>when the orbiting body is approaching to moon and when it is receding from
>it. But who is going to pay, and who is going to listen, and who will
>support the idea?
>Androcles.
>
>
I have suggested a very simple experiment in another thread (something
just doesn't add up). It involves measuring one-way light speed with
clock with resolution of about 10^-11secs.
In the following experiment, source S emits a light pulse at point O,
produced by a short electric discharge. S has set up a line of
light-sensitive distance detectors, positioned along his line of
movement wrt O. Each has a clock which records the time of arrival of
the wave front.
<------- ct--><--- ct-------->
|---------------O-S-------------|
A B
|----------------|--S-------------|
|vt |
After time t, the light has moved a equal distance, ct, from O, to
points A and B. In that time, S moves vt.
S's detectors show the distances SA and SB as being (c+v)t and
(c-v)t, which are not equal. S clearly does not see a sphere of light.
You can fiddle with t and v as much as you like and it will make no
difference.
---------------------------------
This analysis also suggests a very simple way of measuring our
velocity through absolute space.
Clocks set 1km apart should do this easily. What we would be looking
for is a cyclic change in OWLS as the earth rotates.
Simon Clark
pst...@ix.netcom.com(Paul Stowe) wrote:
> In <7l6elh$22r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> Simon Clark <cla...@my-deja.com>
> writes:
> >
> >In article <7l43vu$2...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
> > pst...@ix.netcom.com(Paul Stowe) wrote:
> >
> >> In <19990626224459...@ng-fs1.aol.com> stl...@aol.com
> >> (S.T.L.) writes:
> >>
> >> Me-thinks Simon Clark might be at it again...
> >
> >Then you think incorrectly.
>
> Good, my apologies. However you must admit, the demeanor is, should
> we say ... familiar :>
No. However he did have the phrase "Great SRian Conspiracy" in his
signature.
S.T.L.
signature.>>
So I did. I thought it was great, so I put it in my .sig.
I am not "Simon Clark", nor anyone else. Online I *always* use STL137. I've
never been accused of being anyone else before. Hm.
I also need to work the phrase "GRian" somewhere in there. Great GRian
Conspiracy sounds redundant....
-*---*-------
S.T.L. ===> STL...@aol.com <=== BLOCK RELEASED! 2^3021377 - 1 is PRIME!
Quotations: http://quote.cjb.net Main website: http://137.tsx.org MOO!
"Xihribz! Peymwsiz xihribz! Qssetv cse bqy qiftrz!" e^(i*Pi)+1=0 F00FC7C8
E-mail block is gone. It will return if I'm bombed again. I don't care, it's
an easy fix. Address is correct as is. The courtesy of giving correct E-mail
addresses makes up for having to delete junk which gets through anyway. Join
the Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search at http://entropia.com/ips/ Now my
.sig is shorter and contains 3379 bits of entropy up to the next line's end:
-*---*-------
Card-holding member of the Dark Legion of Cantorians, the Great SRian
Conspiracy, the Triple-Sigma Club, and the Union of Quantum Mechanics
Avid watcher of "World's Most Terrifying Causality Violations", "World's
Scariest Warp Accidents", and "When Tidal Forces Attack: Caught on Tape"
Patiently awaiting the launch of Gravity Probe B and the discovery of M39
Physics Commandment #3: Thou Shalt Conserve Baryon Number.
DJMenCk
>> of deductive reasoning.
>
> Yeah right, that's why physics majors tend to do soooo poorly on
>the job market. You clearly have no idea what is actually invovled in
>getting a physics degree.
>
>years? I can name probably 50 or so off the top of my head (Witten(a
>reasoning), Feynman, Schwinger, 't Hooft, Dyson, Wheeler (possibly the
>single most creative physicist of the past fifty), Yang, ...
"One could not be a successful scientist without realizing that, in
contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and
mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only
narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid."
-- J. D. Watson _The Double Helix_
DJMenCk
><<No. However he did have the phrase "Great SRian Conspiracy" in his
>signature.>>
>
>So I did. I thought it was great, so I put it in my .sig.
>
>I am not "Simon Clark", nor anyone else. Online I *always* use STL137. I've
>never been accused of being anyone else before. Hm.
>
>I also need to work the phrase "GRian" somewhere in there. Great GRian
>Conspiracy sounds redundant....
Dennis: I think most etherists go by Tolstoy's motto: "Never attribute to
conspiracy that which is easily explainable by ignorance."
And speaking of conspiracies, how about that conspiracy of Mother Nature's
henchman to endow one of the fundamental forces of nature with dozens of media
characteristics. This allows all the ignorant etherists of the past to just
happen on the right equations of EM--and make predictions, based on the idea of
the ether, that just luckily happen to be true.
--Dennis McCarthy
DJMenCk
>considered right for the centuries to come by the majority of the
>physicists.>>
>
>I will be laughing my head off when frame-dragging is found by Gravity Probe
Dennis: I think it's probably even more amusing to see someone who doesn't
realize that "frame"-dragging or "spacetime"-dragging is an obvious ether
quality.
Endowing space with special qualities is describing the characteristics of
the ether.
--Dennis
ca31...@bestweb.net
In a debate, there is a winner and a looser.
Perhaps you meant 'constructive dialogue' ?
In this case they all win.
ca31...@bestweb.net
stl...@aol.com (S.T.L.) wrote:
> <<To put that another way, we might be all wasting our time
> trying to understand a theory [SR] that is possibly wrong, incomplete
or,
> at least, missing a vital element. What is needed, is less squabbling
> over trivia and more, conclusive, experimental backup.>>
>
> Hello, Mr. Kook. You want conclusive, experimental backup?
>
> * Muons produced by cosmic rays hitting molecules in the
> upper atmosphere don't have "enough time" to reach the ground,
> but they do, thanks to Special Relativistic time dilation.
According to the classical observer on the ground it didn't
have enough time.
According to the classical observer on the muon it didn't have
enough space.
Which is it ?
Richard M. Talcott
rt
Matthew Nobes
On 27 Jun 1999, Paul Stowe wrote:
> In <Pine.SGI.3.95.990626233159.28377A-100000@fraser> Matthew Nobes
> <man...@sfu.ca> writes:
> >
> >
> >On 27 Jun 1999, Paul Stowe wrote:
> >
> >> The problem is, there are very few 'scientist' in the world, or on
> >> the
> >> net. Most that purport to be such, are in fact, the epitome of
> >> anti-science religious zealots. No more open to 'alternative' ideas
> >> than Catholic Clergy of the middle ages...
> >
> > A quick look at the e-print archives at LANL is enough to demonstrate
> > that
> > this statement is utter nonsense.
>
> Give three specific examples of ones that support your contention.
The recent deluge of papers on the AdS/CFT correspondance, current
work on TeV scale quantum gravity, and loop quantum gravity. My point is
that physicists will consider pretty much anything _so long as it has
not been ruled out by experiment, and is mathmatically consistent.
A good example, Brans-Dicke theory, which is an alternate theory
of gravity, is usually considered along with GR when making experimental
tests. The results support GR, therefore most physicists do too. But
peopl take B-D theory seriously as an alternative.
> I could have said there are very few 'scientist' in the history of the
> world. But hey, let's take a number of 50,000 from 1940 to present.
> Give that the population of the world has doubled from 3 to about 6
> Billion in this same period the ratio of 50,000 to 6 Billion is, should
> we say, very few...
>
Your statement was that most people who do physics are
"anti-science relgious zealots". That is what is nonsense. The number of
physiscists in the world is of no consequence.
> >> Most don't exhibit any ability of either creative thought or an
> >> ability of deductive reasoning.
> >
> > Yeah right, that's why physics majors tend to do soooo poorly on
> >the job market. You clearly have no idea what is actually invovled in
> >getting a physics degree.
>
> OK, if one looks at the stats for graduating physics majors, where do
> most end up?
The high tech job market, where thier creative thinking and
deductive reasoning skills are in demand.
> >Do you have a specific example of a physicist who, in your opinion,
> >exhibited creative thought or deductive reasoning, in say the past
> >fifty years? I can name probably 50 or so off the top of my head
> >(Witten(a fields medallist, one would think mathematicians can
> >recognize deductive reasoning), Feynman, Schwinger, 't Hooft, Dyson,
> >Wheeler (possibly the single most creative physicist of the past
> >fifty), Yang, ...)
>
> Fifty years goes back to 1949, so let's start there. I think
> Oppenheimer was creative, as was Feynman, Wheeler, and perhaps a few
> thousand more world-wide. Again taken in content to any other field of
> endeavor (requiring equal mental capacity) physicians, lawyers, ...etc.
> that's not a good ratio. And there is a big difference between
> original creative capacity, and refining existing concepts, and in this
> regard, the profession does poorly.
I would dispute that. not all physicists are going to radically
alter the fundemental concepts. But working within those concepts
requires a high degree of skill and thinking ablity. A good example is
provided by lattice QCD (LQCD). The theory is well established, but
actually efficiently carrying out calculations requires alot of creative
work, within the theory.
> One does not have to look very hard to see the worst aspects of the
> Ptolemic method expounded in the mainstream, the current Scientific
> American's article on Proton Structure exemplifies this. The attitude
> 'it works, that all that matters' coupled by the bigoted 'I know
> what's/I'm right by god!' attitude is the core attributes that an
> anti-science demeanor.
Well I haven't seen that one (which issue, it's not June 99 I just
checked). But I highly doubt that that is the attitude. The proton
sturcture has been extensivly investigated by the DESY experiments. QCD
has been confirmed to high accuracy. There are some referances to all
this in D. Lamb's recent posts on s.p.particle.
> Now do not get this confused and think I'm
> advocating science should not be founded upon or tested against
> observations, for that most certainly isn't true. But one does not
> have to read many sample posting herein to see the bigoted narrow
> minded nature of MOST (on both sides) that frequent here.
No, there is a serious differance. Those who argue for the
prevailing thoeries have thousands of experiments to back them up. Those
who argue for alternatives usually have made errors in mathmatics, or
produce theories which disagree with experiment. I'll consider any
alternative theory that isn't the problem. What is the problem is that
any alternate theory I've ever seen contains one (or both) of the problems
listed above. When you point this out to the "theorist" he (or she)
continually refuses to acknowledge that the mainstream view is correct and
that their theory isn't worth much. That is a narrow minded view.
and...@ibm.net
[snip]
> A good example, Brans-Dicke theory, which is an alternate theory
> of gravity, is usually considered along with GR when making experimental
> tests. The results support GR, therefore most physicists do too. But
> peopl take B-D theory seriously as an alternative.
>
Sorry, but has anyone taken Brans-Dicke theory seriously
since the mid 1970's? Unless it rose from the dead since
then, it was shown to be inconsistent with experiments
done at that time.
John Anderson
Paul Stowe
<man...@sfu.ca> writes:
>
>
>On 27 Jun 1999, Paul Stowe wrote:
>
>> In <Pine.SGI.3.95.990626233159.28377A-100000@fraser> Matthew Nobes
>> <man...@sfu.ca> writes:
>> >
>> >
>> >On 27 Jun 1999, Paul Stowe wrote:
>> >
>> >> The problem is, there are very few 'scientist' in the world,
>> >> or on the net. Most that purport to be such, are in fact,
>> >> the epitome of anti-science religious zealots. No more open
>> >> to 'alternative' ideas than Catholic Clergy of the middle
>> >> ages...
>> >
>> > A quick look at the e-print archives at LANL is enough to
>> > demonstrate that this statement is utter nonsense.
>>
>> Give three specific examples of ones that support your
>> contention.
>
> The recent deluge of papers on the AdS/CFT correspondance,
> current work on TeV scale quantum gravity, and loop quantum
>gravity. My point is that physicists will consider pretty much
>anything _so long as it has not been ruled out by experiment, and
>is mathmatically consistent.
ROFL... LET (Lorentz Ether/Electron Theory) alone, falsifies this
claim.
> A good example, Brans-Dicke theory, which is an alternate
>theory of gravity, is usually considered along with GR when making
>experimental tests. The results support GR, therefore most
>physicists do too. But people take B-D theory seriously as an
>alternative.
Nope, I don't know of any who consider this a viable contender.
>> I could have said there are very few 'scientist' in the history
>> of the world. But hey, let's take a number of 50,000 from 1940
>> to present. Give that the population of the world has doubled
>> from 3 to about 6 Billion in this same period the ratio of
>> 50,000 to 6 Billion is, should we say, very few...
>
> Your statement was that most people who do physics are
>"anti-science relgious zealots".
No, really read what I said above. I said:
"The problem is, there are very few 'scientist' in the world,
or on the net."
Now that is, a complete stand alone sentence. Then I said:
"Most that purport to be such, are in fact, the epitome of anti-science
religious zealots. No more open to 'alternative' ideas
than Catholic Clergy of the middle ages..."
Which is saying, both. And I stand by that statement. However, the
term most certainly cannot be construed as 'all'.
>That is what is nonsense. The number of physiscists in the world
>is of no consequence.
OK, but it sure does limit the populational variations.
>> >> Most don't exhibit any ability of either creative thought or
>> >> an ability of deductive reasoning.
>> >
>> > Yeah right, that's why physics majors tend to do soooo
>> > poorly on the job market. You clearly have no idea what is
>> > actually involved in getting a physics degree.
>>
>> OK, if one looks at the stats for graduating physics majors,
>> where do most end up?
>
> The high tech job market, where their creative thinking and
>deductive reasoning skills are in demand.
Again, only a small percentage work at pure theoretical physics.
>> >Do you have a specific example of a physicist who, in your
>> >opinion, exhibited creative thought or deductive reasoning, in
>> >say the past fifty years? I can name probably 50 or so off the
>> >top of my head (Witten(a fields medallist, one would think
>> >mathematicians can recognize deductive reasoning), Feynman,
>> >Schwinger, 't Hooft, Dyson, Wheeler (possibly the single most
>> >creative physicist of the past fifty), Yang, ...)
>>
>> Fifty years goes back to 1949, so let's start there. I think
>> Oppenheimer was creative, as was Feynman, Wheeler, and perhaps a
>> few thousand more world-wide. Again taken in content to any
>> other field of endeavor (requiring equal mental capacity)
>> physicians, lawyers, ...etc. that's not a good ratio. And there
>> is a big difference between original creative capacity, and
>> refining existing concepts, and in this regard, the profession
>> does poorly.
>
> I would dispute that. not all physicists are going to radically
>alter the fundamental concepts. But working within those concepts
>requires a high degree of skill and thinking ability. A good
>example is provided by lattice QCD (LQCD). The theory is well
>established, but actually efficiently carrying out calculations
>requires alot of creative work, within the theory.
So did using Ptolemy's Epicycles, and they're both the same exact
process.
>> One does not have to look very hard to see the worst aspects of
>> the Ptolemic method expounded in the mainstream, the current
>> Scientific American's article on Proton Structure exemplifies
>> this. The attitude 'it works, that all that matters' coupled by
>> the bigoted 'I know what's/I'm right by god!' attitude is the
>> core attributes that an anti-science demeanor.
>
> Well I haven't seen that one (which issue, it's not June 99 I
>just checked). But I highly doubt that that is the attitude. The
>proton structure has been extensively investigated by the DESY
>experiments. QCD has been confirmed to high accuracy. There are
>some referances to all this in D. Lamb's recent posts on
>s.p.particle.
Yeah, just throw in enough epicycles (oops, should have said 'virtual'
quarks) and we'll make it fit ...:>
>> Now do not get this confused and think I'm
>> advocating science should not be founded upon or tested against
>> observations, for that most certainly isn't true. But one does
>> not have to read many sample posting herein to see the bigoted
>> narrow minded nature of MOST (on both sides) that frequent here.
>
> No, there is a serious difference. Those who argue for the
>prevailing theories have thousands of experiments to back them up.
>Those who argue for alternatives usually have made errors in
>mathematics, or produce theories which disagree with experiment.
Many times true, but not always. But you always have an out, if an
alternate theory matches all observations, but doesn't distinguish
itself by predicting something new, and is just an unpopular way of
conceptualizing an already accepted theory, you can claim its "not
even wrong".
>I'll consider any alternative theory that isn't the problem.
Oh, I doubt that.
>What is the problem is that any alternate theory I've ever seen
>contains one (or both) of the problems listed above. When you
>point this out to the "theorist" he (or she) continually refuses
>to acknowledge that the mainstream view is correct and that their
>theory isn't worth much. That is a narrow minded view.
No different that mainstream, it's a case of the pot calling the kettle
black...
Paul Stowe
Aaron Bergman
>In <Pine.SGI.3.95.990628130908.26847B-100000@fraser> Matthew Nobes
><man...@sfu.ca> writes:
>>
>>
>>On 27 Jun 1999, Paul Stowe wrote:
>>
>>> In <Pine.SGI.3.95.990626233159.28377A-100000@fraser> Matthew Nobes
>>> <man...@sfu.ca> writes:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >On 27 Jun 1999, Paul Stowe wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> The problem is, there are very few 'scientist' in the world,
>>> >> or on the net. Most that purport to be such, are in fact,
>>> >> the epitome of anti-science religious zealots. No more open
>>> >> to 'alternative' ideas than Catholic Clergy of the middle
>>> >> ages...
>>> >
>>> > A quick look at the e-print archives at LANL is enough to
>>> > demonstrate that this statement is utter nonsense.
>>>
>>> Give three specific examples of ones that support your
>>> contention.
>>
>> The recent deluge of papers on the AdS/CFT correspondance,
>> current work on TeV scale quantum gravity, and loop quantum
>>gravity. My point is that physicists will consider pretty much
>>anything _so long as it has not been ruled out by experiment, and
>>is mathmatically consistent.
>
>ROFL... LET (Lorentz Ether/Electron Theory) alone, falsifies this
>claim.
It's not a viable theory. It doesn't replicate any of the
predictions of QED and completely fails to explain why the rest of
the the standard model is also predicated on Lorentz invariance.
It's a valid theory for the classical propogation of light and
that's basically it.
Now, of course, you can call the quantum vacuum an ether (and this
has been done by Frank Wilczek), but this does not resemble
Lorentz's theory in any way I can discern.
>
>> A good example, Brans-Dicke theory, which is an alternate
>>theory of gravity, is usually considered along with GR when making
>>experimental tests. The results support GR, therefore most
>>physicists do too. But people take B-D theory seriously as an
>>alternative.
>
>Nope, I don't know of any who consider this a viable contender.
That's because in all the tests GR comes out the winner. The
point, however, is that people still test GR against other
theories.
>>>
>>> OK, if one looks at the stats for graduating physics majors,
>>> where do most end up?
>>
>> The high tech job market, where their creative thinking and
>>deductive reasoning skills are in demand.
>
>Again, only a small percentage work at pure theoretical physics.
So?
[...]
>> I would dispute that. not all physicists are going to radically
>>alter the fundamental concepts. But working within those concepts
>>requires a high degree of skill and thinking ability. A good
>>example is provided by lattice QCD (LQCD). The theory is well
>>established, but actually efficiently carrying out calculations
>>requires alot of creative work, within the theory.
>
>So did using Ptolemy's Epicycles, and they're both the same exact
>process.
This statement demonstrates your ignorance of both epicycles and
QCD. For one, epicycles are trivially easy to calculate with.
There is no difficulty at all: all you do is measure a bunch of
numbers and draw some circles. QCD, on the other hand, we have a
reasonably well defined theory that is very difficult to
calculate with in the low energy limit. We have a pretty good
idea what the theory should be, but direct attacks simply haven't
worked. Thus, one has to use approximations to the real theory.
These simplifications (chiral symmetry breaking, the parton
model, lattice QCD, etc.) make certain problems tractable and
give approximations to the real results. With Ptolemaic epicycles,
there is no approximation going on at all -- the theory is fully
defined with a whole lot of free parameters.
So, in other words, you have no idea what you are talking about.
>>> One does not have to look very hard to see the worst aspects of
>>> the Ptolemic method expounded in the mainstream, the current
>>> Scientific American's article on Proton Structure exemplifies
>>> this. The attitude 'it works, that all that matters' coupled by
>>> the bigoted 'I know what's/I'm right by god!' attitude is the
>>> core attributes that an anti-science demeanor.
>>
>> Well I haven't seen that one (which issue, it's not June 99 I
>>just checked). But I highly doubt that that is the attitude. The
>>proton structure has been extensively investigated by the DESY
>>experiments. QCD has been confirmed to high accuracy. There are
>>some referances to all this in D. Lamb's recent posts on
>>s.p.particle.
>
>Yeah, just throw in enough epicycles (oops, should have said 'virtual'
>quarks) and we'll make it fit ...:>
Virtual quarks arise naturally in the perturbation theory of
quantum field theory. It is a calculational technique. No one
puts them in -- they appear naturally in the calculations.
No one is making anything fit. Essentially what you are doing is
expanding something in a power series. This turns your path
integral into something that we know how to calculate. The
technique is called wick contraction. One can organize this
graphically with lines connecting the various terms one is
contracting. It turns out that you end up with pictures that look
like an interaction. The internal lines in this diagram are
called virtual particles. What they are really, however, is just
something that shows up in a perturbation expansion.
Again, you are discoursing on subjects that you don't fully
understand. Virtual particles are presented often in
popularizations of quantum field theory because they can, at
times, give ways to visualize certain processes. These
presentations might lead you to think that they are simply some
ad hoc device made up to get the right answers, but this is
demonstrably incorrect. Quantum field theory (a la Schwinger)
came first -- virtual particles came later with Feynman.
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman
<http://www.princeton.edu/~abergman/>
Matthew Nobes
On 2 Jul 1999, Paul Stowe wrote:
> In <Pine.SGI.3.95.990628130908.26847B-100000@fraser> Matthew Nobes
> <man...@sfu.ca> writes:
> >
> >
> >On 27 Jun 1999, Paul Stowe wrote:
> >
> >> In <Pine.SGI.3.95.990626233159.28377A-100000@fraser> Matthew Nobes
> >> <man...@sfu.ca> writes:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >On 27 Jun 1999, Paul Stowe wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> The problem is, there are very few 'scientist' in the world,
> >> >> or on the net. Most that purport to be such, are in fact,
> >> >> the epitome of anti-science religious zealots. No more open
> >> >> to 'alternative' ideas than Catholic Clergy of the middle
> >> >> ages...
> >> >
> >> > A quick look at the e-print archives at LANL is enough to
> >> > demonstrate that this statement is utter nonsense.
> >>
> >> Give three specific examples of ones that support your
> >> contention.
> >
> > The recent deluge of papers on the AdS/CFT correspondance,
> > current work on TeV scale quantum gravity, and loop quantum
> >gravity. My point is that physicists will consider pretty much
> >anything _so long as it has not been ruled out by experiment, and
> >is mathmatically consistent.
>
> ROFL... LET (Lorentz Ether/Electron Theory) alone, falsifies this
> claim.
Umm, LET makes the same predicitions as SR, but involves
additional assumptions. I don't think many physicists would argue that
LET couln't be right, jsut that it's a whole lot less appealing from the
point of needless hypothesis. Also, GR reduces in a nice clean way to SR,
not LET.
>
> > A good example, Brans-Dicke theory, which is an alternate
> >theory of gravity, is usually considered along with GR when making
> >experimental tests. The results support GR, therefore most
> >physicists do too. But people take B-D theory seriously as an
> >alternative.
>
> Nope, I don't know of any who consider this a viable contender.
It's in all the textbooks, and the few experimental papers I've
seen which summerize the current state of gravtitational data. I.e.
statements like "this agrees with the predictions of GR, or (insert
alternate theory here) if (insert free parameters here) are taken to be
(insert values here)." B-D theory is quite often cited in this regard.
> >> I could have said there are very few 'scientist' in the history
> >> of the world. But hey, let's take a number of 50,000 from 1940
> >> to present. Give that the population of the world has doubled
> >> from 3 to about 6 Billion in this same period the ratio of
> >> 50,000 to 6 Billion is, should we say, very few...
> >
> > Your statement was that most people who do physics are
> >"anti-science relgious zealots".
>
> No, really read what I said above. I said:
>
> "The problem is, there are very few 'scientist' in the world,
> or on the net."
>
> Now that is, a complete stand alone sentence. Then I said:
>
> "Most that purport to be such, are in fact, the epitome of anti-science
> religious zealots. No more open to 'alternative' ideas
> than Catholic Clergy of the middle ages..."
>
> Which is saying, both. And I stand by that statement. However, the
> term most certainly cannot be construed as 'all'.
Fine am I right in assumming that you consider _most_ practicing
phsyicists to be "anti-science reigious zealots."
[snip]
> >> >> Most don't exhibit any ability of either creative thought or
> >> >> an ability of deductive reasoning.
> >> >
> >> > Yeah right, that's why physics majors tend to do soooo
> >> > poorly on the job market. You clearly have no idea what is
> >> > actually involved in getting a physics degree.
> >>
> >> OK, if one looks at the stats for graduating physics majors,
> >> where do most end up?
> >
> > The high tech job market, where their creative thinking and
> >deductive reasoning skills are in demand.
>
> Again, only a small percentage work at pure theoretical physics.
That doesn't matter. You stated that (again I am assuming most)
scientists lack creative thinking and deductive reasoning skills. My
point is that people who aquire an education in physics find themsleves in
high demand precisily because their degree is, to employers, a indication
that they indeed posess these skills.
>
> >> >Do you have a specific example of a physicist who, in your
> >> >opinion, exhibited creative thought or deductive reasoning, in
> >> >say the past fifty years? I can name probably 50 or so off the
> >> >top of my head (Witten(a fields medallist, one would think
> >> >mathematicians can recognize deductive reasoning), Feynman,
> >> >Schwinger, 't Hooft, Dyson, Wheeler (possibly the single most
> >> >creative physicist of the past fifty), Yang, ...)
> >>
> >> Fifty years goes back to 1949, so let's start there. I think
> >> Oppenheimer was creative, as was Feynman, Wheeler, and perhaps a
> >> few thousand more world-wide. Again taken in content to any
> >> other field of endeavor (requiring equal mental capacity)
> >> physicians, lawyers, ...etc. that's not a good ratio. And there
> >> is a big difference between original creative capacity, and
> >> refining existing concepts, and in this regard, the profession
> >> does poorly.
> >
> > I would dispute that. not all physicists are going to radically
> >alter the fundamental concepts. But working within those concepts
> >requires a high degree of skill and thinking ability. A good
> >example is provided by lattice QCD (LQCD). The theory is well
> >established, but actually efficiently carrying out calculations
> >requires alot of creative work, within the theory.
>
> So did using Ptolemy's Epicycles, and they're both the same exact
> process.
No, epicycles change the theory, not work within it. First you
had Aristotle, "the planets moving in perfect circles around the Earth."
Then that didn't work, so you had to tack on a statement like "the planets
move in little perfect circles, whose centres move on large perfect
circles around the earth." Everytime you add a new epicycle you are
effectivly adding a new assumption to the theory. My example, lattice
QCd, is very different. Here you know the theory, but the calculations
are too difficult to do by hand. You are trying to do a complicated many
body problem. Solving this, figuring out what approximations to make, how
to speed your computation, etc is hard. But, you _never_ change the basic
theory. you are adding no new assumptions, there's a big difference
there.
>
> >> One does not have to look very hard to see the worst aspects of
> >> the Ptolemic method expounded in the mainstream, the current
> >> Scientific American's article on Proton Structure exemplifies
> >> this. The attitude 'it works, that all that matters' coupled by
> >> the bigoted 'I know what's/I'm right by god!' attitude is the
> >> core attributes that an anti-science demeanor.
> >
> > Well I haven't seen that one (which issue, it's not June 99 I
> >just checked). But I highly doubt that that is the attitude. The
> >proton structure has been extensively investigated by the DESY
> >experiments. QCD has been confirmed to high accuracy. There are
> >some referances to all this in D. Lamb's recent posts on
> >s.p.particle.
>
> Yeah, just throw in enough epicycles (oops, should have said 'virtual'
> quarks) and we'll make it fit ...:>
What's wrong with virtual quarks? QCD says they should be there.
As a first approximation people ignored them, that was the simpliest most
ovious thing to do. but it was wrong. So you use a more complicated
approximation. But you never changed the theory, just your approxiamtion
to it. I'll repeat this: there is a big difference between refining your
approxiations to a theory and adding a new axiom. The two are not the
same.
>
> >> Now do not get this confused and think I'm
> >> advocating science should not be founded upon or tested against
> >> observations, for that most certainly isn't true. But one does
> >> not have to read many sample posting herein to see the bigoted
> >> narrow minded nature of MOST (on both sides) that frequent here.
> >
> > No, there is a serious difference. Those who argue for the
> >prevailing theories have thousands of experiments to back them up.
> >Those who argue for alternatives usually have made errors in
> >mathematics, or produce theories which disagree with experiment.
>
> Many times true, but not always.
I have not been here for all that long, but I have yet to see an
alternative theory that is mathematically consistent and agrees with
experiment. As for LET, although it is identical with SR, it says nothing
about GR. Since GR smoothly reduces to SR far away from a large mass and
not LET this, in my mind, makes the decision between the two.
> But you always have an out, if an alternate theory matches all
> observations, but doesn't distinguish itself by predicting something
> new, and is just an unpopular way of conceptualizing an already accepted
> theory, you can claim its "not even wrong".
Nope, each would have an equal claim to correctness. However, if
one theory ivovled fewer axioms, and/or was easier to work with it would
be regarded as superior. I have yet to see an alternative to any
currently aceppted theory of physics, that is both correct, and invovles
few assumptions. If such a theory exsisted it would likely be published
in a journal, not one the web anyway.
> >I'll consider any alternative theory that isn't the problem.
>
> Oh, I doubt that.
Like I said, I will _consider_ any alternative theory. Most
contain such elementary errors, that they are not worth more than a
moments consideration though. An excellent example is provided by Ken
Seto's doppler relativity. When I first started lurking here I noticed
his stuff, and the total lack of predicitons. I considered it, quickly,
and realized that doppler relativity was wrong.
>
> >What is the problem is that any alternate theory I've ever seen
> >contains one (or both) of the problems listed above. When you
> >point this out to the "theorist" he (or she) continually refuses
> >to acknowledge that the mainstream view is correct and that their
> >theory isn't worth much. That is a narrow minded view.
>
> No different that mainstream, it's a case of the pot calling the kettle
> black...
Most physicists I know are quick to acknowledge when theve made an
error. The cranks that post here rarley do.
Paul Stowe
(Aaron Bergman) writes:
>
>In article <7lhh6q$b...@dfw-ixnews19.ix.netcom.com>, Paul Stowe wrote:
>>In <Pine.SGI.3.95.990628130908.26847B-100000@fraser> Matthew Nobes
>><man...@sfu.ca> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>On 27 Jun 1999, Paul Stowe wrote:
>>>
>>>> In <Pine.SGI.3.95.990626233159.28377A-100000@fraser> Matthew Nobes
>>>> <man...@sfu.ca> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >On 27 Jun 1999, Paul Stowe wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> The problem is, there are very few 'scientist' in the world,
>>>> >> or on the net. Most that purport to be such, are in fact,
>>>> >> the epitome of anti-science religious zealots. No more open
>>>> >> to 'alternative' ideas than Catholic Clergy of the middle
>>>> >> ages...
>>>> >
>>>> > A quick look at the e-print archives at LANL is enough to
>>>> > demonstrate that this statement is utter nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> Give three specific examples of ones that support your
>>>> contention.
>>>
>>>gravity. My point is that physicists will consider pretty much
>>>anything _so long as it has not been ruled out by experiment, and
>>>is mathmatically consistent.
>>
>>ROFL... LET (Lorentz Ether/Electron Theory) alone, falsifies this
>>claim.
>
>It's not a viable theory. It doesn't replicate any of the
>predictions of QED and completely fails to explain why the rest of
>the the standard model is also predicated on Lorentz invariance.
>that's basically it.
This response is EXACTLY demonstrates the point I'm making. This
statement is evidence of bias, since LET was developed and presented
long before the 'standard model' was even known. Further, if you want
to make this claim, specifically show or reference an example where LET
predicts a behavior or property that is contrary to observation.
>Now, of course, you can call the quantum vacuum an ether (and this
>has been done by Frank Wilczek), but this does not resemble
>Lorentz's theory in any way I can discern.
How about some specifics, reference back to his work perhaps???
>>> A good example, Brans-Dicke theory, which is an alternate
>>>theory of gravity, is usually considered along with GR when making
>>>experimental tests. The results support GR, therefore most
>>>physicists do too. But people take B-D theory seriously as an
>>>alternative.
>>
>>Nope, I don't know of any who consider this a viable contender.
>
>That's because in all the tests GR comes out the winner. The
>point, however, is that people still test GR against other
>theories.
Yeah but there ARE viable other contenders, Whitehead's as an example.
Now, before citing MTW [(Ref. Pages 430, 1049, 1124) in which of course
they cite Will (1971b)] saying that this theory is disproven, be
advised that this refernce contains no such 'proof'. A colleague,
going back and reviewing Will's work (which of course references
others), found that his objection (galactic tides) is questionable at
best, and almost certainly false. But, at this point, I'm 'taking' his
word on that.
>>>> OK, if one looks at the stats for graduating physics majors,
>>>> where do most end up?
>>>
>>> The high tech job market, where their creative thinking and
>>>deductive reasoning skills are in demand.
>>
>>Again, only a small percentage work at pure theoretical physics.
>
>So?
>
>[...]
A larger percentage, I understand, work in the insurance industry :>
>>> I would dispute that. not all physicists are going to radically
>>>alter the fundamental concepts. But working within those concepts
>>>requires a high degree of skill and thinking ability. A good
>>>example is provided by lattice QCD (LQCD). The theory is well
>>>established, but actually efficiently carrying out calculations
>>>requires alot of creative work, within the theory.
>>
>>So did using Ptolemy's Epicycles, and they're both the same exact
>>process.
>
>This statement demonstrates your ignorance of both epicycles and
>QCD. For one, epicycles are trivially easy to calculate with.
Really? I think quadratic equations 'are trivally easy' but the
majority of the world's population would disagree. Point is, in the
time it was in use, this process was considered far from 'trival'.
>There is no difficulty at all: all you do is measure a bunch of
>numbers and draw some circles. QCD, on the other hand, we have a
>reasonably well defined theory that is very difficult to
>calculate with in the low energy limit.
Again, we started QCD with three quarks and three colors (thus the term
Chromodynamics) but when we went to the lab and attempted to confirm
the model, guess what, it didn't fit. So, we started adding other
'stuff' to 'make it fit', just like adding Epicycles to make orbital
data 'fit' the 'pattern'.
>We have a pretty good idea what the theory should be,
Evidence of bias...
>but direct attacks simply haven't worked. Thus, one has to use
>approximations to the real theory. These simplifications (chiral
>symmetry breaking, the parton model, lattice QCD, etc.) make certain
>problems tractable and give approximations to the real results. With
>Ptolemaic epicycles, there is no approximation going on at all -- the
>theory is fully defined with a whole lot of free parameters.
Yeah, like the three blind men groping an elephant. But, the procedure
was/is the same.
>So, in other words, you have no idea what you are talking about.
>
>>>> One does not have to look very hard to see the worst aspects of
>>>> the Ptolemic method expounded in the mainstream, the current
>>>> Scientific American's article on Proton Structure exemplifies
>>>> this. The attitude 'it works, that all that matters' coupled by
>>>> the bigoted 'I know what's/I'm right by god!' attitude is the
>>>> core attributes that an anti-science demeanor.
>>>
>>> Well I haven't seen that one (which issue, it's not June 99 I
>>>just checked). But I highly doubt that that is the attitude. The
>>>proton structure has been extensively investigated by the DESY
>>>experiments. QCD has been confirmed to high accuracy. There are
>>>some referances to all this in D. Lamb's recent posts on
>>>s.p.particle.
>>
>>Yeah, just throw in enough epicycles (oops, should have said
>>'virtual' quarks) and we'll make it fit ...:>
>
>Virtual quarks arise naturally in the perturbation theory of
>quantum field theory. It is a calculational technique. No one
>puts them in -- they appear naturally in the calculations.
Now let's see, in the aforementioned Scientific American article ("The
Mystery of Nuclear Spin" July 1999) we see an illustration (bottom left
page 59), which begs the question, just how many quarks does it take to
make a proton? The answer; three permanent, and as many virtual ones
as 'I need' to match observations, well sort of...
>No one is making anything fit. Essentially what you are doing is
>expanding something in a power series. This turns your path
>integral into something that we know how to calculate. The
>technique is called wick contraction. One can organize this
>graphically with lines connecting the various terms one is
>contracting. It turns out that you end up with pictures that look
>like an interaction. The internal lines in this diagram are
>called virtual particles. What they are really, however, is just
>something that shows up in a perturbation expansion.
Just listen to yourself, this IS my whole point. I'll simply have to
agree with Einstein, physics at its foundation, isn't this complicated.
As Weinberg says, we're on the wrong track.
>Again, you are discoursing on subjects that you don't fully
>understand. Virtual particles are presented often in
>popularizations of quantum field theory because they can, at
>times, give ways to visualize certain processes. These
>presentations might lead you to think that they are simply some
>ad hoc device made up to get the right answers, but this is
>demonstrably incorrect. Quantum field theory (a la Schwinger)
>came first -- virtual particles came later with Feynman.
I stand in good stead, since, as the article says:
"... Unfortunately, no one has succeeded with the
analogous computations for the quark and gluons
that make up protons and neutrons."
But hey, QCD was never the point of this discussion, the bias and
arrogance evidenced by the fervor of believers defending the 'faith'
was. You're proving my point for me.
You see, true science doesn't NEED such behavior, it stands solely on
how well one can describe and predict physical processes.
Paul Stowe
Aaron Bergman
>In <slrn7nojj5....@tree0.Stanford.EDU> aber...@princeton.edu
>(Aaron Bergman) writes:
[Lorentz Ether Theory]
>>
>>It's not a viable theory. It doesn't replicate any of the
>>predictions of QED and completely fails to explain why the rest of
>>the the standard model is also predicated on Lorentz invariance.
>>It's a valid theory for the classical propagation of light and
>>that's basically it.
>
>This response is EXACTLY demonstrates the point I'm making. This
>statement is evidence of bias, since LET was developed and presented
>long before the 'standard model' was even known. Further, if you want
>to make this claim, specifically show or reference an example where LET
>predicts a behavior or property that is contrary to observation.
Time dilation in decays of relativistic particles. The lorentz
invariance of forces other than electromagnetism. How's that?
>
>>Now, of course, you can call the quantum vacuum an ether (and this
>>has been done by Frank Wilczek), but this does not resemble
>>Lorentz's theory in any way I can discern.
>
>How about some specifics, reference back to his work perhaps???
There was an article in the Times a while back, but that's not
the point -- there is no "work". All he's doing is calling the
QFT vacuum an "ether". There's nothing new -- it's just a
changing of words.
>
>>>> A good example, Brans-Dicke theory, which is an alternate
>>>>theory of gravity, is usually considered along with GR when making
>>>>experimental tests. The results support GR, therefore most
>>>>physicists do too. But people take B-D theory seriously as an
>>>>alternative.
>>>
>>>Nope, I don't know of any who consider this a viable contender.
>>
>>That's because in all the tests GR comes out the winner. The
>>point, however, is that people still test GR against other
>>theories.
>
>Yeah but there ARE viable other contenders, Whitehead's as an example.
And GR is continually being tested. What is your point?
>
>>>> I would dispute that. not all physicists are going to radically
>>>>alter the fundamental concepts. But working within those concepts
>>>>requires a high degree of skill and thinking ability. A good
>>>>example is provided by lattice QCD (LQCD). The theory is well
>>>>established, but actually efficiently carrying out calculations
>>>>requires alot of creative work, within the theory.
>>>
>>>So did using Ptolemy's Epicycles, and they're both the same exact
>>>process.
>>
>>This statement demonstrates your ignorance of both epicycles and
>>QCD. For one, epicycles are trivially easy to calculate with.
>
>Really? I think quadratic equations 'are trivally easy' but the
>majority of the world's population would disagree. Point is, in the
>time it was in use, this process was considered far from 'trival'.
>
>>There is no difficulty at all: all you do is measure a bunch of
>>numbers and draw some circles. QCD, on the other hand, we have a
>>reasonably well defined theory that is very difficult to
>>calculate with in the low energy limit.
>
>Again, we started QCD with three quarks and three colors (thus the term
>Chromodynamics)
Again, you demonstrate your ignorance. QCD started as an SU(3)
gauge theory with three flavors of quarks (the GIM mechanism
predicted a fourth, IIRC).
Being a gauge theory, it necessarily had, from the beginning,
virtual everything, gauge boson, called gluons and all the stuff
you are whining about.
> but when we went to the lab and attempted to confirm
>the model, guess what, it didn't fit. So, we started adding other
>'stuff' to 'make it fit', just like adding Epicycles to make orbital
>data 'fit' the 'pattern'.
No. You are simply wrong. Period.
For one, you don't have any idea who the predictions of a
quantum field theory are constrained. For another
science works by replacing theories that don't work. That's what
you're supposed to do. It only becomes non-falsifiable when you
have too many free parameter -- something you have not
demonstrated (and is, of course, false) about QCD.
>>We have a pretty good idea what the theory should be,
>
>Evidence of bias...
>
>>but direct attacks simply haven't worked. Thus, one has to use
>>approximations to the real theory. These simplifications (chiral
>>symmetry breaking, the parton model, lattice QCD, etc.) make certain
>>problems tractable and give approximations to the real results. With
>>Ptolemaic epicycles, there is no approximation going on at all -- the
>>theory is fully defined with a whole lot of free parameters.
>
>Yeah, like the three blind men groping an elephant. But, the procedure
>was/is the same.
Non sequitory. And you're full of shit. Proof by assertion
doesn't cut it here.
>>Virtual quarks arise naturally in the perturbation theory of
>>quantum field theory. It is a calculational technique. No one
>>puts them in -- they appear naturally in the calculations.
>
>Now let's see, in the aforementioned Scientific American article ("The
>Mystery of Nuclear Spin" July 1999) we see an illustration (bottom left
>page 59), which begs the question, just how many quarks does it take to
>make a proton? The answer; three permanent, and as many virtual ones
>as 'I need' to match observations, well sort of...
>
I haven't seen that issue of SA. Regardless, as I explain later,
one of the hazards of the virtual particle type populartrization
is that it can lead to misunderstandings. Virtual particles
aren't "put in" -- they're always there.
>>No one is making anything fit. Essentially what you are doing is
>>expanding something in a power series. This turns your path
>>integral into something that we know how to calculate. The
>>technique is called wick contraction. One can organize this
>>graphically with lines connecting the various terms one is
>>contracting. It turns out that you end up with pictures that look
>>like an interaction. The internal lines in this diagram are
>>called virtual particles. What they are really, however, is just
>>something that shows up in a perturbation expansion.
>
>Just listen to yourself, this IS my whole point. I'll simply have to
>agree with Einstein, physics at its foundation, isn't this complicated.
This is complicated? It's actually rather simple. It's simple
perturbation theory, not terribly different from what one would
do in a classical theory. The ideas aren't all that complicated,
but calculating things can be a pain in the neck. Just try to
calculate the motion of a three-body system system in Newtonian
gravity, for example, and you'll see what I mean.
>As Weinberg says, we're on the wrong track.
Weinberg does this sort of stuff in his sleep.
>
>>Again, you are discoursing on subjects that you don't fully
>>understand. Virtual particles are presented often in
>>popularizations of quantum field theory because they can, at
>>times, give ways to visualize certain processes. These
>>presentations might lead you to think that they are simply some
>>ad hoc device made up to get the right answers, but this is
>>demonstrably incorrect. Quantum field theory (a la Schwinger)
>>came first -- virtual particles came later with Feynman.
>
>I stand in good stead, since, as the article says:
>
> "... Unfortunately, no one has succeeded with the
> analogous computations for the quark and gluons
> that make up protons and neutrons."
Non sequitor. What are you talking about? You've given no
context here at all. I don't see any point. What the quote no
doubt refers to is the fact that QCD is Hard. It is difficult to
do calculations with it, but then, the same is true for
Newtonian gravity, so I hardly see this as a knock on the
theory.
>
>But hey, QCD was never the point of this discussion, the bias and
>arrogance evidenced by the fervor of believers defending the 'faith'
>was. You're proving my point for me.
I'm demonstrating your ignorance. If it's not clear to you,
atleast it's hopefully clear to the onlookers. You're
tendentious, obfuscatory and usually just plain wrong. You're
working from a perception of a popularization. You have no idea
what really goes on and how things really work. And it shows.
>
>You see, true science doesn't NEED such behavior, it stands solely on
>how well one can describe and predict physical processes.
And QCD does. It's just your perception of it that fails.
Matthew Nobes
On 2 Jul 1999, Paul Stowe wrote:
> In <slrn7nojj5....@tree0.Stanford.EDU> aber...@princeton.edu
> (Aaron Bergman) writes:
> >
> >In article <7lhh6q$b...@dfw-ixnews19.ix.netcom.com>, Paul Stowe wrote:
> >>In <Pine.SGI.3.95.990628130908.26847B-100000@fraser> Matthew Nobes
> >><man...@sfu.ca> writes:
> >>>
> >>> The recent deluge of papers on the AdS/CFT correspondence,
> >>> current work on TeV scale quantum gravity, and loop quantum
> >>>gravity. My point is that physicists will consider pretty much
> >>>anything _so long as it has not been ruled out by experiment, and
> >>>is mathmatically consistent.
> >>
> >>ROFL... LET (Lorentz Ether/Electron Theory) alone, falsifies this
> >>claim.
> >
> >It's not a viable theory. It doesn't replicate any of the
> >predictions of QED and completely fails to explain why the rest of
> >the the standard model is also predicated on Lorentz invariance.
> >It's a valid theory for the classical propagation of light and
> >that's basically it.
>
> This response is EXACTLY demonstrates the point I'm making.
Then you must have a reading problem.
> This statement is evidence of bias, since LET was developed and
> presented long before the 'standard model' was even known.
So what, Newtonian mechanics was developed and presented long
before quantum mechanics. That doesn't change the fact that one agrees
with more experiments than the other.
> Further, if you want to make this claim, specifically show or reference
> an example where LET predicts a behavior or property that is contrary to
> observation.
Well, Mr. Bergman answered that one, already. Did you read what
he wrote? Plus as I pointed out GR reduces to SR for a sufficently small
region of space. It doesn't reduce to LET.
> >>> A good example, Brans-Dicke theory, which is an alternate
> >>>theory of gravity, is usually considered along with GR when making
> >>>experimental tests. The results support GR, therefore most
> >>>physicists do too. But people take B-D theory seriously as an
> >>>alternative.
> >>
> >>Nope, I don't know of any who consider this a viable contender.
> >
> >That's because in all the tests GR comes out the winner. The
> >point, however, is that people still test GR against other
> >theories.
>
> Yeah but there ARE viable other contenders, Whitehead's as an example.
> Now, before citing MTW [(Ref. Pages 430, 1049, 1124) in which of course
> they cite Will (1971b)] saying that this theory is disproven, be
> advised that this refernce contains no such 'proof'. A colleague,
> going back and reviewing Will's work (which of course references
> others), found that his objection (galactic tides) is questionable at
> best, and almost certainly false. But, at this point, I'm 'taking' his
> word on that.
Well, they seem to cite a few others as well. But the point was
that many other theories are considered, not just GR. I.e. there is no
orthodoxy imposing a unchanging set of beliefs. If the calculation in
Will's paper is incorrect, why don't you or your colleague write it up and
submit it to a physics journal. If you are correct, it will undoubtablely
be published.
[snip]
> >There is no difficulty at all: all you do is measure a bunch of
> >numbers and draw some circles. QCD, on the other hand, we have a
> >reasonably well defined theory that is very difficult to
> >calculate with in the low energy limit.
>
> Again, we started QCD with three quarks and three colors (thus the term
> Chromodynamics) but when we went to the lab and attempted to confirm
> the model, guess what, it didn't fit. So, we started adding other
> 'stuff' to 'make it fit', just like adding Epicycles to make orbital
> data 'fit' the 'pattern'.
Nope, nothing about the structure of QCD has changed fundementally
since it's introduction. New quark flavours have been added as they were
discovered, but in the context of work on the proton they can safely be
ignored. I.e. when studying the proton you use the same QCD that has been
around for over 25 years.
BTW adding new quarks does not fundementally alter QCD (unless you
get above a certain limit (which is definatly above ten)). It would
change the hadron spectrum at high energies. I concure with Mr. Bergman
though, you are writing this stuff from a deep misunderstanding of QCD and
how one works with it.
> >We have a pretty good idea what the theory should be,
>
> Evidence of bias...
No, it's evidence of beliveing all sorts of high energy
experiments. How exactly would you propose to explain Bjorken scaling (and
violations of it), hadron jet production, three jet events (evidence for
gluons), asymtotic freedom, the heavy quarkonia spectrum, ...
These are all successful predictions of QCD that have been
confirmed by measurement. Would you propose that we ignore them all?
> >but direct attacks simply haven't worked. Thus, one has to use
> >approximations to the real theory. These simplifications (chiral
> >symmetry breaking, the parton model, lattice QCD, etc.) make certain
> >problems tractable and give approximations to the real results. With
> >Ptolemaic epicycles, there is no approximation going on at all -- the
> >theory is fully defined with a whole lot of free parameters.
>
> Yeah, like the three blind men groping an elephant. But, the procedure
> was/is the same.
No it is not. Let me try a slightly differant tack. Say that we
knew (from some other bunch of measurements) that Newtonian gravity was
100% correct. It has successfull predicted a wide range of phenmena, and
we believe it. But... there are certain problems that cannot be solved
exactly, like the exact motion of the planets. SO we have to make an
approximation, let's use epicyles. As a first approximation we assume
that the planets move in perfect circles around the sun. This fails to
descibe the situation (analogy: the first attempts to model the proton
spin useing an approximation to QCD). So we take our "epicycle expansion"
out to further levels of approximation. Eventually we get to a point
where the expansion aggrees with current observations. Then we stop.
Can you see how this is different from Polotomic epicycles. In
one case you are making an approximation to a well known, and tested,
theory. In the second you are adding a new free parameter (essentially a
new assumption/axiom) to the theory every time you add a new epicycle.
There is a big differance. If you acutally knew QCD you'd realize that it
is the former situation not the latter which applies.
> >>> Well I haven't seen that one (which issue, it's not June 99 I
> >>>just checked). But I highly doubt that that is the attitude. The
> >>>proton structure has been extensively investigated by the DESY
> >>>experiments. QCD has been confirmed to high accuracy. There are
> >>>some referances to all this in D. Lamb's recent posts on
> >>>s.p.particle.
> >>
> >>Yeah, just throw in enough epicycles (oops, should have said
> >>'virtual' quarks) and we'll make it fit ...:>
> >
> >Virtual quarks arise naturally in the perturbation theory of
> >quantum field theory. It is a calculational technique. No one
> >puts them in -- they appear naturally in the calculations.
>
> Now let's see, in the aforementioned Scientific American article ("The
> Mystery of Nuclear Spin" July 1999) we see an illustration (bottom left
> page 59), which begs the question, just how many quarks does it take to
> make a proton? The answer; three permanent, and as many virtual ones
> as 'I need' to match observations, well sort of...
Virtual quark-antiquark pairs popping in and out of the vacuum
have _always_ been a prediction of QCD. To a first approximation people
ignored them, this turned out to give shitty results. So they included
them, then the results agreed with experiment. But (and I stress this
strongly yet again, it has been said several times, you just don't seem
to get it (relgious devotion?)) _nobody ever changed the underlying
theory_
>
> >No one is making anything fit. Essentially what you are doing is
> >expanding something in a power series. This turns your path
> >integral into something that we know how to calculate. The
> >technique is called wick contraction. One can organize this
> >graphically with lines connecting the various terms one is
> >contracting. It turns out that you end up with pictures that look
> >like an interaction. The internal lines in this diagram are
> >called virtual particles. What they are really, however, is just
> >something that shows up in a perturbation expansion.
>
> Just listen to yourself, this IS my whole point. I'll simply have to
> agree with Einstein, physics at its foundation, isn't this complicated.
Why because you cannot understand it? I'm sure if he took the
time, Einstein could have understood QCD easily (wether he would have
liked it is another matter).
> As Weinberg says, we're on the wrong track.
>
About what. Surely your not claiming Weinberg doesn't beleive in
QCD? If so I'll need a few referances. BTW Weinberg is a fairly active
promoter of Superstring theory, which is IMHO *WAY* more complicated than
QCD.
> >Again, you are discoursing on subjects that you don't fully
> >understand. Virtual particles are presented often in
> >popularizations of quantum field theory because they can, at
> >times, give ways to visualize certain processes. These
> >presentations might lead you to think that they are simply some
> >ad hoc device made up to get the right answers, but this is
> >demonstrably incorrect. Quantum field theory (a la Schwinger)
> >came first -- virtual particles came later with Feynman.
>
> I stand in good stead, since, as the article says:
>
> "... Unfortunately, no one has succeeded with the
> analogous computations for the quark and gluons
> that make up protons and neutrons."
I fail to see how this quote (which is basically saying that QCD
is really hard) puts you in good stead with anything. If anything such an
admission demonstrates the general willigness of physcists to point out
areas which have not been sufficently explored.
> But hey, QCD was never the point of this discussion, the bias and
> arrogance evidenced by the fervor of believers defending the 'faith'
> was. You're proving my point for me.
How is he proving your point? He's defending a theory which is
backed up by thousands of experiments. Again I recommend looking a D.
Lamb's posts of s.p.particle on the DESY experiments. These ongoing
experiments have confirmed QCD in detail. You seem to have this
impression that Mr. Bergman and myself are arguing about a theory which we
have blind faith in. In my case (and I very *strongly* suspect his as
well) that is not true, the agruement carries with it the backing of
hundreds of precise experiments. You OTOH seem to be argueing from a
misinterpreation of things discussed in a popular article.
> You see, true science doesn't NEED such behavior, it stands solely on
> how well one can describe and predict physical processes.
Which QCD has done very very well.
Gerry Quinn
>In article <7limud$6...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, Paul Stowe wrote:
>>In <slrn7nojj5....@tree0.Stanford.EDU> aber...@princeton.edu
>>(Aaron Bergman) writes:
>
>[Lorentz Ether Theory]
>>>
>>>It's not a viable theory. It doesn't replicate any of the
>>>predictions of QED and completely fails to explain why the rest of
>>>the the standard model is also predicated on Lorentz invariance.
>>>It's a valid theory for the classical propagation of light and
>>>that's basically it.
>>
>>This response is EXACTLY demonstrates the point I'm making. This
>>statement is evidence of bias, since LET was developed and presented
>>long before the 'standard model' was even known. Further, if you want
>>to make this claim, specifically show or reference an example where LET
>>predicts a behavior or property that is contrary to observation.
>
>Time dilation in decays of relativistic particles. The lorentz
>invariance of forces other than electromagnetism. How's that?
>>
LET is easily extended to all known interactions, by the simple
postulate that the fundamental carriers of all forces (and indeed,
all fundamental particles) are massless.
You will note the deep connection between this version of extended-LET
and modern ideas such as QED. It is my belief that a future successful
quantum theory of gravity must also be based on such a foundation.
- Gerry Quinn
DJMenCk
Dennis: 1) Incorrect. The only assumption needed to recover the LT's is that
light is a media process that results in the Lorentz contractions. All other
Lorentz-equations are derivable through classical wave analyses while using EM
based instruments.
2) Since the LT's can also be recovered for sound on say a planet for the
blind who use sound-based instruments, would you also consider the atmosphere
of that planet a "needless" hypothesis.
3) SR gets a pass on many predictions of ether theory that are observed, but
that SR would not predict: Like the fact that light waves. Why does light wave
according to SR?
One understands why SR demands relativisitic Doppler as opposed to classical
Doppler--but why does it predict a Doppler at all? Etc.
4) If you think Lorentzian ether theories are incompatible with predictions of
GR, then you should check theories like that of Ilja's and maybe Van
Flandern's. I'm not sure where Stowe's falls in this....
Anyway, GR is essentially an ether theory. That's why you have predictions
like "frame"-dragging.
Paul Stowe
On 27 Jun 1999, Paul Stowe (PS) wrote:
>>> >> >> The problem is, there are very few 'scientist' in the world,
>>> >> >> or on the net. Most that purport to be such, are in fact,
>>> >> >> the epitome of anti-science religious zealots. No more open
>>> >> >> to 'alternative' ideas than Catholic Clergy of the middle
>>> >> >> ages...
To which First Matthew Nobes (MN), then Aron Berman (AB) responded
taking the position that the above statement is incorrect. The debate
then revolved around LET, QCD, and theories of Gravity.
To get back on track to the 'original' topic, I propose then follow
blind study:
That one or more psychology department(s) develop a scientific idea
that mets the following criteria and perform the following study:
1. Ensure the idea/concept does not contradict any known experiment
within the constraints of its 'domain'
2. Cast this same concept be presented in two flavors, using the
current paradigm and accepted terminology, and then using
an infavorable terminology, such as for physics, the term ether.
3. Coming in off the steet, present (randomly selecting the 'flavor')
the idea to experts of this topic.
4. Record the experts demeanor and receptiveness to the presentation.
The results will be quite predictable, and has nothing to do with
science, and everything to do with human nature.
I'm certain that the results of such a study will support the original
statement.
Nuff Said on this...
Paul Stowe
Chris Hillman
On 3 Jul 1999, Paul Stowe wrote:
> The results will be quite predictable, and has nothing to do with
> science, and everything to do with human nature.
I hate to break the news, but science as we know it is just one more human
activity. As I often say, if you want to communicate widely, it makes good
sense to use the language employed in the current research literature,
which will be largely that of up-to-date textbooks, rather than some
private language in which "ether" might stand for some notion which might
make sense to the experts, if the author had only expressed himself more
clearly--- which means, in part, because physics and math are cumulative
edifices, that the author use the language and concepts which have been
established in the field because they work. This is for the same reason
that if you want to write a book about baseball, and you want your book to
sell, it is advisable not to title it "The story of flibberball", or to
call bases "goalplaces" or the pitching mound "the hump".
Think this stern injunction, "speak the language of the experts if you
want to be heard", rules out any hope of a paradigm shift? If so, check
back with Einstein's papers from 1905, and observe that they were written
using notation and terminology in common use at the time. These papers
were comprehensible to leading experts, and they were not slow to
recognize the extraordinary importance and originality of Einstein's
innovations. Planck, the leading physicist in the world in 1905,
acknowledged within months of publication of Einstein's electrodynamics
paper that AE had completely solved one of the major puzzles of physics,
initiating in the process a conceptual revolution.
Chris Hillman
Home Page: http://www.math.washington.edu/~hillman/personal.html
Todd Desiato
Chris Hillman <hil...@math.washington.edu> wrote ...
>
> I hate to break the news, but science as we know it is just one more human
> activity. As I often say, if you want to communicate widely, it makes good
> sense to use the language employed in the current research literature,
> which will be largely that of up-to-date textbooks, rather than some
> private language in which "ether" might stand for some notion which might
But the textbooks ARE written by the experts, and they HAVE redefined
commonly used words to mean something else. So in fact physicists DO have a
private language, for if you don't read their texts you can easily
misunderstand what they mean. How many ways can you define the following
words? Event, Space, Time, Vacuum, Ether, Particle, Wave, Fluid, etc... The
common usage of these words for laymen is not the same as for a physicist,
and that leads to a whole lot of arguments on this group.
Take Wald for example. He says that the spacetime manifold is the set of all
events. To me "events" meant that there is some*thing* happening there that
can be observed to obtain information about that location. Tom R. showed me
that in GR an "event" was simply a point on the manifold, and need not be
observed to know it is there. In an information theoretic interpretation
that would be considered pre-knowledge, i.e., an assumption. Since no
information has been obtained from that actual location, what "events" may
be occurring there are unknown. I got flamed twice because I took Wald's use
of the word event in its more common definition. You do the same thing when
I speak of a Vacuum in QED and you think of a Vacuum in GR.
Todd D.
Aaron Bergman
>In article <slrn7nq33c....@tree0.Stanford.EDU>, aber...@princeton.edu (Aaron Bergman) wrote:
>>>In <slrn7nojj5....@tree0.Stanford.EDU> aber...@princeton.edu
>>>(Aaron Bergman) writes:
>>
>>[Lorentz Ether Theory]
>>>>
>>>>It's not a viable theory. It doesn't replicate any of the
>>>>predictions of QED and completely fails to explain why the rest of
>>>>the the standard model is also predicated on Lorentz invariance.
>>>>It's a valid theory for the classical propagation of light and
>>>>that's basically it.
>>>
>>>This response is EXACTLY demonstrates the point I'm making. This
>>>statement is evidence of bias, since LET was developed and presented
>>>long before the 'standard model' was even known. Further, if you want
>>>to make this claim, specifically show or reference an example where LET
>>>predicts a behavior or property that is contrary to observation.
>>
>>Time dilation in decays of relativistic particles. The lorentz
>>invariance of forces other than electromagnetism. How's that?
>>>
>
>postulate that the fundamental carriers of all forces (and indeed,
>all fundamental particles) are massless.
What energy scale do you believe that your predicted substructure
for the various known massive particle will appear?
Note follow-ups.
Tom Roberts
> But the textbooks ARE written by the experts, and they HAVE redefined
> commonly used words to mean something else.
Certainly. This has been going on since time immemorial. It is essential.
> So in fact physicists DO have a
> private language, for if you don't read their texts you can easily
> misunderstand what they mean.
It's not private at all, and is accessible to anyone who is interested.
> How many ways can you define the following
> words? Event, Space, Time, Vacuum, Ether, Particle, Wave, Fluid, etc...
However many ways one needs to, in different theories.
> The
> common usage of these words for laymen is not the same as for a physicist,
> and that leads to a whole lot of arguments on this group.
Right. but it is inevitbale, as different participants in this ng have
considerably different knowledge of physics and of its language. Its
_current_ language.
Bottom line: idiots who think they can have an impact on modern physics
without reading the modern literature of physics are just that -- IDIOTS.
Historically, I know of no major advance in physics which was initiated by
someone who was not an expert in the then-current theories of physics and
also quite knowledgable about the current experiments. Anyone reading this
who really wants to influence modern physics in any way should go right out
and learn all they can about modern physics and experiments.... I know I am.
There are several frequent contributors around here who insist on
not learning anything since 1905 or so (because they apparently
think it is 'tainted'). The "Perpetual Arguing" here should show
them that this is hopeless -- they simply do not speak the language,
and their writings will be ignored because of this. If the true
"theory of everything" were published today in Swahilli in some
crackpot journal, it would have no impact on physics at all.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Paul Stowe
writes:
You've proving my original point, in spades ...:>
Paul Stowe
Matthew Nobes
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Gerry Quinn wrote:
> In article <slrn7nq33c....@tree0.Stanford.EDU>, aber...@princeton.edu (Aaron Bergman) wrote:
> >In article <7limud$6...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, Paul Stowe wrote:
> >>In <slrn7nojj5....@tree0.Stanford.EDU> aber...@princeton.edu
> >>(Aaron Bergman) writes:
> >
> >[Lorentz Ether Theory]
> >>>
> >>>It's not a viable theory. It doesn't replicate any of the
> >>>predictions of QED and completely fails to explain why the rest of
> >>>the the standard model is also predicated on Lorentz invariance.
> >>>It's a valid theory for the classical propagation of light and
> >>>that's basically it.
> >>
> >>This response is EXACTLY demonstrates the point I'm making. This
> >>statement is evidence of bias, since LET was developed and presented
> >>long before the 'standard model' was even known. Further, if you want
> >>to make this claim, specifically show or reference an example where LET
> >>predicts a behavior or property that is contrary to observation.
> >
> >Time dilation in decays of relativistic particles. The lorentz
> >invariance of forces other than electromagnetism. How's that?
> >>
>
> LET is easily extended to all known interactions, by the simple
> postulate that the fundamental carriers of all forces (and indeed,
> all fundamental particles) are massless.
Okay, then how does it account fo rthe massive W and Z bosons? If
they have to be massless for LET to be true then I retract my earlier
statement that it is equivalent to SR.
> You will note the deep connection between this version of extended-LET
> and modern ideas such as QED.
And the complete lack of connection with the (extermly sucessful)
GWS electroweak theory.
> It is my belief that a future successful
> quantum theory of gravity must also be based on such a foundation.
What LET? What about GR?
Matthew Nobes
On 3 Jul 1999, DJMenCk wrote:
> I wrote:
> >
> >
> >On 2 Jul 1999, Paul Stowe wrote:
> >
> > Umm, LET makes the same predicitions as SR, but involves
> >additional assumptions. I don't think many physicists would argue that
> >LET couln't be right, jsut that it's a whole lot less appealing from the
> >point of needless hypothesis.
>
> Dennis:
> 1) Incorrect. The only assumption needed to recover the LT's is that
> light is a media process that results in the Lorentz contractions. All
> other Lorentz-equations are derivable through classical wave analyses
> while using EM based instruments.
Exactly, no such medium is introduced in SR.
> 2) Since the LT's can also be recovered for sound on say a planet for
> the blind who use sound-based instruments, would you also consider the
> atmosphere of that planet a "needless" hypothesis.
No because the exsitence of an atmosphere can be verified by other
means (i.e. atmospheric pressure).
> 3) SR gets a pass on many predictions of ether theory that are
> observed, but that SR would not predict: Like the fact that light waves.
> Why does light wave according to SR?
Light "waves" because that is what is predicted by QED in the
large photon number limit. Light waves are classical constructs which
arise only in the proper limit of QED. They are not fundemental (that's
not to say photons nescessarly are either, but they're more fundemental
than classcial light waves).
> One understands why SR demands relativisitic Doppler as opposed to classical
> Doppler--but why does it predict a Doppler at all? Etc.
Because it falls out of the math.
> 4) If you think Lorentzian ether theories are incompatible with predictions of
> GR, then you should check theories like that of Ilja's and maybe Van
> Flandern's. I'm not sure where Stowe's falls in this....
Well I don't know about Ilja, but van Flandern's "theories" are
worthless (see the long compliation of posts on Chris Hillman's web page
for ample proof of this).
> Anyway, GR is essentially an ether theory.
Bullshit.
> That's why you have predictions like "frame"-dragging.
Tha's got nothing to do with an ether.
Matthew Nobes
On 3 Jul 1999, Paul Stowe wrote:
> Getting back on the original topic...
I.e. moving the discussion away from an ongoing demonstration of
your profound ignorance of QCD.
> On 27 Jun 1999, Paul Stowe (PS) wrote:
>
> >>> >> >> The problem is, there are very few 'scientist' in the world,
> >>> >> >> or on the net. Most that purport to be such, are in fact,
> >>> >> >> the epitome of anti-science religious zealots. No more open
> >>> >> >> to 'alternative' ideas than Catholic Clergy of the middle
> >>> >> >> ages...
Notice your words "anti-science reigious zealots". This has a
very strong meaning. If you said scientist are resistent to change, or
perhaps "conservative" then your proposed study below might prove your
point.
> To which First Matthew Nobes (MN), then Aron Berman (AB) responded
> taking the position that the above statement is incorrect. The debate
> then revolved around LET, QCD, and theories of Gravity.
The statement is incorrect becuase it pictures scientists as
"religous zealots". A glance at the history of science over the past
fifty years reveals this to be nonsense. One example... parity violation,
when it was first proposed it was a very radical idea, but it is now
accepted. Why? Because of the feature of the scientific method, and
scientists, that you ignore, the reliance on experiment. When experiments
show something, scientists believe it (usually at least).
> To get back on track to the 'original' topic, I propose then follow
> blind study:
>
> That one or more psychology department(s) develop a scientific idea
> that mets the following criteria and perform the following study:
>
> 1. Ensure the idea/concept does not contradict any known experiment
> within the constraints of its 'domain'
>
> 2. Cast this same concept be presented in two flavors, using the
> current paradigm and accepted terminology, and then using
> an infavorable terminology, such as for physics, the term ether.
Oh nonsense, it's not just a matter of terminology, ether theory
requires an additional postulate, _not_ required by SR. It's not just a
matter of terminology.
>
> 3. Coming in off the steet, present (randomly selecting the 'flavor')
> the idea to experts of this topic.
>
> 4. Record the experts demeanor and receptiveness to the presentation.
>
> The results will be quite predictable, and has nothing to do with
> science, and everything to do with human nature.
>
> I'm certain that the results of such a study will support the original
> statement.
No, the results of such an experiment would show that, on average,
scientist are a conservative lot. But there is a big differance between
conservative and "religious zealot".
Paul Stowe
<man...@sfu.ca> writes:
>
>
>On 3 Jul 1999, Paul Stowe wrote:
>
>> Getting back on the original topic...
>
> I.e. moving the discussion away from an ongoing demonstration of
>your profound ignorance of QCD.
Profound ignorance of QCD. If you mean that I do not make a living
doing QCD and thus am not involved in using it, you're correct. If you
mean that I had no formal training or exposure to QCD, you're
incorrect. However, my formal exposure to this topic was circa 1975,
and at that time, it was considered (at least by those who were
teaching the nuclear physic courses) as 'esoteric' and not really
relevant to the subject, and thus only a cursory overview was provided.
As I stated earlier, and have since verified, at that time (i.e. as it
was first developed) QCD consisted of 3 quarks and 3 colors. The
quarks were up, down, strange, and could come in three 'flavors' red,
green, or blue. If you wish to debate this, see "The Physics Handbook,
Fundamental and Key Equations", C. Poole, Jr, John Wiley & Sons 1998
Chapter 26 "Elementary Particles", Section 4 (Three Quark Model) page
385. Now I also acknowledged that (and used it as an example of
Ptolemic Method) that this had been changed, since it was quickly shown
to be inadequate. Others quarks were added (See section 7 of the same
reference).
Sidebar: This reference is a great up to date compendium
on physics, and a great addition to anyone's
reference library…
Such demeanor however is a classical example of 'zealot' behavior. You
are again, just proving this point. Since this or any other example are
not the issue of this topic, issue' was/is the behavior of physicists
to those that might challenge or take a different view of things. That
is, just HOW such people respond to same. Thanks for the
demonstration.
>> On 27 Jun 1999, Paul Stowe (PS) wrote:
>>
>> >>> >> >> The problem is, there are very few 'scientist' in the
>> >>> >> >> world, or on the net. Most that purport to be such, are
>> >>> >> >> in fact, the epitome of anti-science religious zealots.
>> >>> >> >> No more open to 'alternative' ideas than Catholic Clergy
>> >>> >> >> of the middle ages...
>
> Notice your words "anti-science reigious zealots". This has a
>very strong meaning. If you said scientist are resistent to change,
>or perhaps "conservative" then your proposed study below might prove
>your point.
Yes it does, and again actions speak much louder than mere words. I
would love to be proven wrong, but alas, that just won't happen.
>> To which First Matthew Nobes (MN), then Aron Berman (AB) responded
>> taking the position that the above statement is incorrect. The
>> debate then revolved around LET, QCD, and theories of Gravity.
>
> The statement is incorrect becuase it pictures scientists as
>"religous zealots". A glance at the history of science over the past
>fifty years reveals this to be nonsense. One example... parity
>violation, when it was first proposed it was a very radical idea, but
>it is now accepted. Why? Because of the feature of the scientific
>method, and scientists, that you ignore, the reliance on experiment.
>When experiments show something, scientists believe it (usually at
>least).
>
>> To get back on track to the 'original' topic, I propose then follow
>> blind study:
>>
>> That one or more psychology department(s) develop a scientific idea
>> that mets the following criteria and perform the following study:
>>
>> 1. Ensure the idea/concept does not contradict any known experiment
>> within the constraints of its 'domain'
>>
>> 2. Cast this same concept be presented in two flavors, using the
>> current paradigm and accepted terminology, and then using
>> an infavorable terminology, such as for physics, the term
>> ether.
>
> Oh nonsense, it's not just a matter of terminology, ether theory
>requires an additional postulate, _not_ required by SR. It's not
>just a matter of terminology.
Really, please specify both the postulates required for SR, and those
of an ether equivalent. Be through if you really want to debate this,
since this statement can be falsified.
>> 3. Coming in off the street, present (randomly selecting the
>> 'flavor') the idea to experts of this topic.
>>
>> 4. Record the experts demeanor and receptiveness to the
> presentation.
>>
>> The results will be quite predictable, and has nothing to do with
>> science, and everything to do with human nature.
>>
>> I'm certain that the results of such a study will support the
>> original statement.
>
> No, the results of such an experiment would show that, on average,
>scientist are a conservative lot. But there is a big differance
>between conservative and "religious zealot".
That is what the evaluators of such a study would have to determine.
I assure you, it would make a great psyche project...:>
Paul Stowe
Gerry Quinn
>On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Gerry Quinn wrote:
>>
>> LET is easily extended to all known interactions, by the simple
>> postulate that the fundamental carriers of all forces (and indeed,
>> all fundamental particles) are massless.
>
> Okay, then how does it account fo rthe massive W and Z bosons? If
>they have to be massless for LET to be true then I retract my earlier
>statement that it is equivalent to SR.
>
They don't have to be massless - they have to be composite. In a
particular sense; what I mean is that they cannot be little massive
balls of stuff flying through empty space. They must interact with the
space through which they travel, or else they must contain things that
do.
I cannot claim to be well up on particle physics, but my understanding
is that these particles are said to gain their mass by an interaction
with the Higgs boson, an as-yet-unobserved 'constituent' of the active
vacuum in which all particles swim.
This interaction slows them, whereas their congener the photon is
unaffected and travels at the correct speed for a massless particle. We
may then say that the mass of the W and Z bosons is 'located' in that of
the ghostly Higgs particles (the old word 'resonance' is more evocative)
that they conjure from the vacuum. So long as the Higgs bosons are
massive enough to feel the Lorentz effects, this will impart the effects
in like measure to any phenomena governed by weak interactions. So it
is the Higgs boson we should expect to be composite. Not much is known
about the Higgs.
Nothing in the above rules out the possibility of a substructure for the
W and Z, but it is not essential so long as their mass comes from an
interaction with vacuum constituents.
I refer only to my version of extended-LET. The original Lorentz ether
theory was based on the Maxwell equations, and recognised only the
electromagnetic force. As we now know, the weak nuclear force is also
subject to the Lorentz effects.
>> You will note the deep connection between this version of extended-LET
>> and modern ideas such as QED.
>
> And the complete lack of connection with the (extermly sucessful)
>GWS electroweak theory.
>
It doesn't directly connect, but it's reasonable in context.
>> It is my belief that a future successful
>> quantum theory of gravity must also be based on such a foundation.
>
> What LET? What about GR?
What indeed? Do you LIKE singularities, Godel solutions, wormhole
solutions etc.?
- Gerry Quinn
Aaron Bergman
>
>As I stated earlier, and have since verified, at that time (i.e. as it
>was first developed) QCD consisted of 3 quarks and 3 colors. The
>quarks were up, down, strange, and could come in three 'flavors' red,
>green, or blue. If you wish to debate this, see "The Physics Handbook,
>Fundamental and Key Equations", C. Poole, Jr, John Wiley & Sons 1998
>Chapter 26 "Elementary Particles", Section 4 (Three Quark Model) page
>385. Now I also acknowledged that (and used it as an example of
>Ptolemic Method) that this had been changed, since it was quickly shown
>to be inadequate. Others quarks were added (See section 7 of the same
>reference).
Because they were discovered. This is not related to any issues
of virtual quarks -- they were always there.
Aaron Bergman
>
>I cannot claim to be well up on particle physics, but my understanding
>is that these particles are said to gain their mass by an interaction
>with the Higgs boson, an as-yet-unobserved 'constituent' of the active
>vacuum in which all particles swim.
The Higgs field is just another field. It is important because it
develops a vacuum expectation value and spontaneously breaks the
electroweak symmetry.
>
>This interaction slows them, whereas their congener the photon is
>unaffected and travels at the correct speed for a massless particle. We
>may then say that the mass of the W and Z bosons is 'located' in that of
>the ghostly Higgs particles (the old word 'resonance' is more evocative)
>that they conjure from the vacuum.
The mass of the W & Z bosons is different from that of other
particles. It is the breaking of the symmetry that gives them
masses.
DJMenCk
>> words? Event, Space, Time, Vacuum, Ether, Particle, Wave, Fluid, etc...
>
Dennis; The problem is there's only one underlying objective reality, right?
So the theories should be 1) consilient and 2) hopefully explainable to some
degrees to interested layman.
This obviously favors the use of the same definitions of words--and one that is
most closely associated with everyday usage. It's obviously asinine to have two
different definitions of "inertial," one for SR and one for GR as Roberts
claims.
Moreover, Stowe's point was obviously not semantic. Experts aren't
antagonistic to ideas simply because of different terminology. Stowe's point
is that experts will show hostility toward a viewpoint if they feel that it
contradicts some idea that they have memorized, recited, taken delight in
teaching, and have garnered esteem for understanding.
Anyone who knows the history of science knows that to be true. Anyone who
reads these boards also must have an inkling of that as well....
--Dennis McCarthy
DJMenCk
>On 3 Jul 1999, DJMenCk wrote:
>
>> I wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >On 2 Jul 1999, Paul Stowe wrote:
>> >
>> > Umm, LET makes the same predicitions as SR, but involves
>> >additional assumptions. I don't think many physicists would argue that
>> >LET couln't be right, jsut that it's a whole lot less appealing from the
>> >point of needless hypothesis.
>>
>> Dennis:
>> 1) Incorrect. The only assumption needed to recover the LT's is that
>> light is a media process that results in the Lorentz contractions. All
>> other Lorentz-equations are derivable through classical wave analyses
>> while using EM based instruments.
>
Dennis: 1) You had argued that LET used an additional hypothesis. Actually SR
uses two postulates (plus extra assumptions that suggest light waves), while
LET just assumes that EM media results in Lorentz contraction.
2) Given that the LT's are media-based equations and work for sound,
relativists have to assume that this is yet another coincidence, and develop a
completely different explanation as to why the LT's work for EM. That's not
simpler.
D:>> 2) Since the LT's can also be recovered for sound on say a planet for
>> the blind who use sound-based instruments, would you also consider the
>> atmosphere of that planet a "needless" hypothesis.
>
Nobes: No because the exsitence of an atmosphere can be verified by other
>means (i.e. atmospheric pressure).
Dennis: According to relativists, that would be caused by the matterless
pressure "field"--just as the push of magnets is caused, in their minds, by a
matterless magnetic field. Who needs a material medium, when matterless fields
that are described by equations can push objects around? True: Both magnetism
and pressure can be predicted by media equations--but that's not evidence of a
media process, right?
Thus, I repeat, on a planet of the blind who use sound-based instruments, you
would also consider the atmosphere of that planet a "needless" hypothesis,
right?
D:>> 3) SR gets a pass on many predictions of ether theory that are
>> observed, but that SR would not predict: Like the fact that light waves.
>> Why does light wave according to SR?
>
Nobes: > Light "waves" because that is what is predicted by QED in the
>large photon number limit.
Dennis: 1) So light "waves" because of a theoretical prediction?
2) The central equation of Quantum mechanics--and particularly Schrodinger's
equation and theory--are based completely and entirely on classical media
analyses.
3) I asked why light waves according to SR--which was developed in 1905.
D: >> One understands why SR demands relativisitic Doppler as opposed to
>classical
>> Doppler--but why does it predict a Doppler at all? Etc.
>
Nobes: > Because it falls out of the math.
Dennis:1) Nothing physically happens simply because it "falls out of the
math." Math describes, it doesn't cause.
2) Could you show me how Doppler falls out of the math when starting with
Einstein's first 2 postulates?
Certainly, one understands how SR (or LET) gets relativisitic Doppler from
classical Doppler--but one predicts classical Doppler only based on the notion
that light is a media-process. LET's covered. But why does SR predict light
will experience Doppler at all? Please show the math originating from the
original postulates.
D: >> 4) If you think Lorentzian ether theories are incompatible with
predictions
>of
>> GR, then you should check theories like that of Ilja's and maybe Van
>> Flandern's. I'm not sure where Stowe's falls in this....
>
Nobes: > Well I don't know about Ilja, but van Flandern's "theories" are
>worthless (see the long compliation of posts on Chris Hillman's web page
>for ample proof of this).
Dennis: And see Van Flandern's rebuttals.
Ilja's is easy to find by the way.
D: >> Anyway, GR is essentially an ether theory.
>
> Bullshit.
Dennis: Hmmmmm. Would you take Einstein's word on this?
D: >> That's why you have predictions like "frame"-dragging.
>
Nobes: > Tha's got nothing to do with an ether.
Dennis: Of course not. The empty spacetime of imaginary rest frames is what is
being "dragged." And its empty spacetime that curves as well, donchyaknow?
Just because the vacuum of spacetime has all these wonderful qualities doesn't
suggest something material, right? It's been shown many times that nothingness
can be loaded to bursting with abilities and powers....
--Dennis McCarthy
Aaron Bergman
> Moreover, Stowe's point was obviously not semantic. Experts aren't
>antagonistic to ideas simply because of different terminology. Stowe's point
>is that experts will show hostility toward a viewpoint if they feel that it
>contradicts some idea that they have memorized, recited, taken delight in
>teaching, and have garnered esteem for understanding.
> Anyone who knows the history of science knows that to be true. Anyone who
>reads these boards also must have an inkling of that as well....
OK. Without making any reference to your beliefs about special
relativity vs. ether, give a citation for the above.
DJMenCk
>In article <19990704142815...@ng-cb1.aol.com>, DJMenCk wrote:
>
>> Moreover, Stowe's point was obviously not semantic. Experts aren't
>>antagonistic to ideas simply because of different terminology. Stowe's
>point
>>is that experts will show hostility toward a viewpoint if they feel that it
>>contradicts some idea that they have memorized, recited, taken delight in
>>teaching, and have garnered esteem for understanding.
>> Anyone who knows the history of science knows that to be true. Anyone who
>>reads these boards also must have an inkling of that as well....
>
>relativity vs. ether, give a citation for the above.
Dennis: Surely. I'll show the complete prejudice of experts against theories
that challenge conventional wisdom--using the origination of theories that we
accept as true today.
1) Waterston couldn't even get the kinetic theory of matter published. One
referree remarked that is paper was utterly without merit, "unfit for reading
before the royal society." Waterston died unknown.
2) Herapath couldn't get a similar paper published either.
3) Wegener was openly mocked and ostracized.
4) Wilson's sociobiology was considered fascist crankery in the 70's.
5) Every hear of Westermarck? He had the correct evolutionary psychological
reason for incest taboos at the beginning of the century.
6) Galileo couldn't get the professors of Padua to look through his telescope.
7) Salk's dead vaccine was dismissed without adequate review, no matter how
loud he screamed--and many children died as a result.
Etc....etc..etc...
Instead of reading biographies, it occasionaly becomes useful to read the
actual opinions of the our greatest scientist themselves.
One simply could not read the work of someone who came up with an original
insight that challenged conventional wisdom without developing a pessimistic
view of fairness of scientific experts.
Read Salk. Read Watson. Read Huxley. Read Waterston. Read Wegener. Read
Wilson.
You think Stowe was harsh?
These geniuses have such a low opinion of the lemming-like way the average
intellectual and scientist will follow the herd--and resist obviously true but
challenging ideas--that I even cringe.
--Dennis McCarthy
Aaron Bergman
[snip various stuff]
Just a few things -- let's ignore the fuzzy scientists. For the
others, you'll note that science has this wonderfully
self-correcting quality. None of the things you mentioned (and
I'm not all that familiar with some of them) lasted more than a
generation.
[...]
> These geniuses have such a low opinion of the lemming-like way the average
>intellectual and scientist will follow the herd--and resist obviously true but
>challenging ideas--that I even cringe.
This is naive in the opposite direction. There are sociological
aspects of science, certainly, but calling scientists a bunch of
lemmings is outright silly. For one, an easy way to earn quite a
name for one's self is to disprove someone else's theory. Now,
there are always the story of the person who loses funding, etc.,
but that is the exception rather than the rule, IMO.
In the end, hard data wins. And, in the end, the point that Paul
Stowe cannot seem to grasp is that QCD is overwhelmingly
supported by the evidence. His chronology of the "addition" of
virtual particles into the theory demonstrates an ignorance of
just what goes on in attempting to do QCD calculations. His
comparison to epicylcles evinces both a misunderstanding of the
flaw in the Ptolemaic theory and in the process of forming models
in science. This has been explained to him quite clearly from
just about every angle I can imagine, but he does not and quite
possibly cannot respond to such arguments, instead dismissing
them as zealotry and "proving his point".
If he were to look, there are things that one can attack as
non-falsifiable in modern physics. Inflation is frequently
mentioned as such a theory. Of course, this issue is debated
within the physics and astro community. I admit to be unaware of
all the details involved and where the verdict, if there is one,
ultimately lies, but nonetheless, the debate exists.
I'll also note that QCD was not the only candidate theory for the
strong force. Another, for example, was string theory, which
ultimately proved to be not very applicable (new research in that
direction not-withstanding.) QCD predicts very precise deviations
from Bjorken scaling at high energies and other such things. Its
predictions have been verified by experiment and this is why QCD
is accepted as the theory of the strong force.
The proton spin crisis was thought to maybe be a problem with
QCD as the effects that resolve it are somewhat counterintuitive.
This does not change the fact, however, that the problem with
proton spin was a problem in an _approximation_ to QCD, not in
the full theory (which is presently intractable in most
complicated situations). More detailed _approximations_ including
more of the effects of the full theory eventually resolved the
spin crisis.
Frankly, these days the entire high energy physics community would
be overjoyed to discover an effect that goes beyond the standard
model. It's incredibly boring when one has a theory that appears
to describe everything out there (give or take recent e'/e
measurements) to as many decimal places as we can measure.
Measurements that contradicted the standard model (once verified
and replicated) would be hailed and promulgated, not supressed
like the religious zealots we supposedly are.
This is getting too long, so I'll end on the note that on this
particular case (QCD), Paul is incontrovertibly incorrect. He
misunderstands the situation and by his refusal to accept any
criticism along these lines, he damages his credibility. If one
wishes to criticize the process of modern science, one better
understand how it actually works. I can gurantee you that there
are plenty of young turks studying physics and looking for some
flaw or another. They have the possibility of something to say.
Paul's inability to admit his error on this particular instance
strongly discounts the possibility that he has any positive
contribution to make.
Gerry Quinn
Care to explain precisely what you mean by the above? The symmetry
breaking, as I understand it, happened quite a long time ago. What's
the difference today between a W and a photon, in this part of the
universe? (And how come the Higgs doesn't get dignified by the
description 'particle' - isn't the E&M just another field too?)
- Gerry Quinn
Aaron Bergman
>In article <slrn7nv5j4....@tree0.Stanford.EDU>, aber...@princeton.edu (Aaron Bergman) wrote:
>>In article <QdMf3.1598$C4....@news.indigo.ie>, Gerry Quinn wrote:
>>>
>>>I cannot claim to be well up on particle physics, but my understanding
>>>is that these particles are said to gain their mass by an interaction
>>>with the Higgs boson, an as-yet-unobserved 'constituent' of the active
>>>vacuum in which all particles swim.
>>
>>The Higgs field is just another field. It is important because it
>>develops a vacuum expectation value and spontaneously breaks the
>>electroweak symmetry.
>>>
>>>This interaction slows them, whereas their congener the photon is
>>>unaffected and travels at the correct speed for a massless particle. We
>>>may then say that the mass of the W and Z bosons is 'located' in that of
>>>the ghostly Higgs particles (the old word 'resonance' is more evocative)
>>>that they conjure from the vacuum.
>>
>>The mass of the W & Z bosons is different from that of other
>>particles. It is the breaking of the symmetry that gives them
>>masses.
>
>Care to explain precisely what you mean by the above?
Actually, thinking about it, it's probably not true -- ignore it.
There are some differences, but they're not that big of a deal.
> The symmetry
>breaking, as I understand it, happened quite a long time ago. What's
>the difference today between a W and a photon, in this part of the
>universe? (And how come the Higgs doesn't get dignified by the
>description 'particle' - isn't the E&M just another field too?)
Everything is a field. Free field theories and weak perturbations
thereof also can be interepreted in terms of particles. The issue
gets more difficult with strongly interacting theories.
Matthew Nobes
On 4 Jul 1999, DJMenCk wrote:
> >
> >On 3 Jul 1999, DJMenCk wrote:
> >
> >> I wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >On 2 Jul 1999, Paul Stowe wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Umm, LET makes the same predicitions as SR, but involves
> >> >additional assumptions. I don't think many physicists would argue that
> >> >LET couln't be right, jsut that it's a whole lot less appealing from the
> >> >point of needless hypothesis.
> >>
> >> Dennis:
> >> 1) Incorrect. The only assumption needed to recover the LT's is that
> >> light is a media process that results in the Lorentz contractions. All
> >> other Lorentz-equations are derivable through classical wave analyses
> >> while using EM based instruments.
> >
> Nobes: Exactly, no such medium is introduced in SR.
>
> Dennis: 1) You had argued that LET used an additional hypothesis.
> Actually SR uses two postulates (plus extra assumptions that suggest
> light waves), while LET just assumes that EM media results in Lorentz
> contraction.
Then how does that explain why a theory like QCD is Lorentz
invariant? SR's two postulates apply to all physical situations, to make
LET work for the strong force you'd have to make up a "colour media". Of
course then you'd need a "W boson media". and...
> 2) Given that the LT's are media-based equations and work
> for sound, relativists have to assume that this is yet another
> coincidence, and develop a completely different explanation as to why
> the LT's work for EM. That's not simpler.
See my comments below, you seem to think that "light waves" have
some meaning outside of a statistical phenomena associated with a very
large number of photons.
>
> D:>> 2) Since the LT's can also be recovered for sound on say a planet for
> >> the blind who use sound-based instruments, would you also consider the
> >> atmosphere of that planet a "needless" hypothesis.
> >
> Nobes: No because the exsitence of an atmosphere can be verified by other
> means (i.e. atmospheric pressure).
>
> Dennis: According to relativists, that would be caused by the matterless
> pressure "field"--just as the push of magnets is caused, in their minds,
> by a matterless magnetic field. Who needs a material medium, when
> matterless fields that are described by equations can push objects
> around? True: Both magnetism and pressure can be predicted by media
> equations--but that's not evidence of a media process, right?
Not if you understand the statistical nature of both processes.
Both pressure and magnetism are explained in this way.
> Thus, I repeat, on a planet of the blind who use sound-based
> instruments, you would also consider the atmosphere of that planet a
> "needless" hypothesis, right?
Not if the residents of the planet new anything about statistical
mechanics, or needed to comsume oxygen to live.
>
> D:>> 3) SR gets a pass on many predictions of ether theory that are
> >> observed, but that SR would not predict: Like the fact that light waves.
> >> Why does light wave according to SR?
> >
> Nobes: > Light "waves" because that is what is predicted by QED in the
> large photon number limit.
>
> Dennis: 1) So light "waves" because of a theoretical prediction?
No classical light waves arise because the nearly infinite number
of photons emmitted from a source behave as if they are a continous wave.
But, they are not, a classical light wave is merely a collection of
photons behaving according to a statistical law. This is indeed predicted
by QED, do you really want to dispute the experimental evidence behind
QED?
> 2) The central equation of Quantum mechanics--and particularly
> Schrodinger's equation and theory--are based completely and entirely on
> classical media analyses.
Schrodinger's version of QM might be based on media analyses, but
Heisenberg's is most certainly not. Secondly, whatever the basis for
there development, they are now know to be probablistic laws.
> 3) I asked why light waves according to SR--which was developed in 1905.
SR doesn't tell you why light waves, QED does. DO you really
think physics hasn't progressed in nearly 100 years?
>
> D: >> One understands why SR demands relativisitic Doppler as opposed to
> >classical
> >> Doppler--but why does it predict a Doppler at all? Etc.
> >
> Nobes: > Because it falls out of the math.
>
> Dennis:1) Nothing physically happens simply because it "falls out of the
> math." Math describes, it doesn't cause.
The precession of Mercury's perhilion fall's out of the math of
GR. The cuase is the curvature of spacetime caused by the sun. Likewise
the doppler effect falls out of SR because it's a consequence of the
geometry of spacetime.
> 2) Could you show me how Doppler falls out of the math when starting with
> Einstein's first 2 postulates?
Probably, but I have better things to do.
> Certainly, one understands how SR (or LET) gets relativisitic Doppler
> from classical Doppler--but one predicts classical Doppler only based on
> the notion that light is a media-process. LET's covered. But why does
> SR predict light will experience Doppler at all? Please show the math
> originating from the original postulates.
Get a textbook.
> D: >> 4) If you think Lorentzian ether theories are incompatible with
> predictions
> >of
> >> GR, then you should check theories like that of Ilja's and maybe Van
> >> Flandern's. I'm not sure where Stowe's falls in this....
> >
> Nobes: > Well I don't know about Ilja, but van Flandern's "theories" are
> >worthless (see the long compliation of posts on Chris Hillman's web page
> >for ample proof of this).
>
> Dennis: And see Van Flandern's rebuttals.
Which further demonstrate his ignorance of GR.
> Ilja's is easy to find by the way.
>
> D: >> Anyway, GR is essentially an ether theory.
> >
> > Bullshit.
>
> Dennis: Hmmmmm. Would you take Einstein's word on this?
Ahh yes the Einstein quote that ether people always parade out.
Correct me if I'm way off, but doesn't it go something like
"spacetime has som properties, so, in this sense, there exsists an
ether"?
If so I would direct your attention to the "in this sense" part.
Another point. The use of this quote is simliar to the often heard
creationist story that Darwin recanted evolution on his deathbed.
Ingoring the historic question of whether or not it is true, does it
really matter what Darwin said? Of course not, the truth of his theory is
independant of his later beliefs about it. Likewise, if Einstein somehow
decided that GR was an ehter theory, that doesn't make it true.
>
> D: >> That's why you have predictions like "frame"-dragging.
> >
> Nobes: > Tha's got nothing to do with an ether.
>
> Dennis: Of course not. The empty spacetime of imaginary rest frames is
> what is being "dragged." And its empty spacetime that curves as well,
> donchyaknow? Just because the vacuum of spacetime has all these
> wonderful qualities doesn't suggest something material, right? It's been
> shown many times that nothingness can be loaded to bursting with
> abilities and powers....
It's not a vacuum, there's a big rotating mass there. It's called
the Kerr solution.
Todd Desiato
Matthew Nobes wrote ...
>
> Then how does that explain why a theory like QCD is Lorentz
> invariant?
Lorentz invariance arises in Quantum theories from the invariance of total
probability =1. This requirement leads directly to contraction of the
probability density, i.e., the length of a ruler when the coordinates are
transformed.
> SR's two postulates apply to all physical situations, to make
> LET work for the strong force you'd have to make up a "colour media". Of
> course then you'd need a "W boson media". and...
All Quantum fields have zero-point fields. Fermions have electrons, muons
and quarks. Bosons have photons, gluons, W's and Z's. The medium is already
there.
Todd D.
Matthew Nobes
On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Todd Desiato wrote:
>
> Matthew Nobes wrote ...
> >
> > Then how does that explain why a theory like QCD is Lorentz
> > invariant?
>
> Lorentz invariance arises in Quantum theories from the invariance of total
> probability =1.
No it most certainly does not. That statment doesn't even make
sense unless you specific what the total probablity is suppoedly invariant
under.
> This requirement leads directly to contraction of the
> probability density, i.e., the length of a ruler when the coordinates are
> transformed.
Wait, are you saying that lorentz invariance aries in QFT from the
lorentz invariance of the total probablity? If so that's both wrong and
nonsense.
> > SR's two postulates apply to all physical situations, to make
> > LET work for the strong force you'd have to make up a "colour media". Of
> > course then you'd need a "W boson media". and...
>
> All Quantum fields have zero-point fields. Fermions have electrons, muons
> and quarks. Bosons have photons, gluons, W's and Z's. The medium is already
> there.
my point was that LET is about electromagnetism, so to extend it
to the strong force you'd have to assume some newe property about the QCD
vacuum (i.e. is behaves in such and such a way so as to mock up Lorentz
invariance in QCD). With SR the Lorentz invariance is built into your
theory becuase the stage on which your QFT is set is Minkowski space
(unless you enjoy painful cacluations).
Todd Desiato
Aaron Bergman <aber...@princeton.edu> wrote ...
> Todd Desiato wrote:
> >
> >Matthew Nobes wrote ...
> >>
> >> invariant?
> >
total
> >probability =1.
>
Then you didn't think about it very hard. In QM say, you have a probability
amplitude Psi(x) in one dimension x, which is a wave function describing the
probable outcome of an event. Meaning an observable, got by an operator,
operating on the wave function at some point along x. The probability
density,
Psi(x)*Psi(x),
is the probability per unit length, where Psi* is the Hermitian conjugate of
the wave function. The total probability is normalized to one, meaning that
the event must happen somewhere along x. So integrating over all x gives the
total probability,
integral_-infy ^infy [Psi*Psi]dx = 1
Now if you conduct a Lorentz transformation from the coordinate x, to the
coordinate x', then the integral, being the total probability must remain
invariant since the event must still happen somewhere along x'. That forces
an observable length contraction or expansion along x of the probability
density, inversely to the transformation from x to x' such that total
probability remains invariant.
So do you see now? Lorentz invariance is enforced by time dilation and
length contraction of the probability densities in relativistic quantum
theory because total probability is a scalar invariant.
Todd D.
Todd Desiato
Matthew Nobes <man...@sfu.ca> wrote ...
>
> On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Todd Desiato wrote:
>
> >
> > Matthew Nobes wrote ...
> > >
> > > invariant?
> >
total
> > probability =1.
>
> sense unless you specific what the total probablity is suppoedly invariant
> under.
Yea, I should've been more specific.
> > This requirement leads directly to contraction of the
> > probability density, i.e., the length of a ruler when the coordinates
are
> > transformed.
>
> Wait, are you saying that lorentz invariance aries in QFT from the
> lorentz invariance of the total probablity? If so that's both wrong and
> nonsense.
>
No it's not. See my reply to Aaron B.
> > > SR's two postulates apply to all physical situations, to make
> > > LET work for the strong force you'd have to make up a "colour media".
Of
> > > course then you'd need a "W boson media". and...
> >
> > All Quantum fields have zero-point fields. Fermions have electrons,
muons
> > and quarks. Bosons have photons, gluons, W's and Z's. The medium is
already
> > there.
>
> my point was that LET is about electromagnetism, so to extend it
> to the strong force you'd have to assume some newe property about the QCD
> vacuum (i.e. is behaves in such and such a way so as to mock up Lorentz
> invariance in QCD).
In most all branches of QFT you are dealing with the interpretation that the
wave function is a probability amplitude. So my argument holds in all of
them, that Lorentz invariance within the theory is the result of the Lorentz
invariance of total probability.
> With SR the Lorentz invariance is built into your
> theory becuase the stage on which your QFT is set is Minkowski space
> (unless you enjoy painful cacluations).
This brings up a question I have. In an arbitrary coordinate system, denoted
by the vector x^v the action can be written,
S(p,x) = p^u g_uv x^v
where p^u, and x^v are contravariant four vectors for momentum and position,
and g_uv is a metric for an arbitrary well behaved patch on a manifold. If
used in an arbitrary wave function,
Psi(p,x) = |Psi|exp[(-i/hbar)*S(p,x)]
Then this wave function is for an arbitrary metric in an arbitrary
coordinate system. Right? Since the coordinate system of x^v and g_uv are
left unspecified. Is this considered "background free"?
Thanks,
Todd D.
DJMenCk
Dennis: Well, the stuff that was deleted was requested for examples of isolated
or non-isolated intellectuals who had the correct scientific viewpoint but
could not get it published--or could not get it accepted due to an
extraordinary bias against thoughts that bucked the notions of authority
figures. I offered 7 prominent examples off the top of my head--and forgot to
mention that in almost every case the evidence was overwhelmingly on behalf of
the revolutionary.
>
Bergman: >Just a few things -- let's ignore the fuzzy scientists. For the
>others, you'll note that science has this wonderfully
>self-correcting quality.
Dennis: Yes. Science advances through the hard-fought battles of its
revolutionaries--most of whom were the subject of scorn and contempt of the
mainstream scientists of his day. Thus, mainstream scientists of today enjoy a
sort of respect-though-association to these maverick scientists whom their
counterparts of the past had ostracized.
Bergman: None of the things you mentioned (and
>I'm not all that familiar with some of them) lasted more than a
>generation.
Dennis; The kinetic/atomic theory of matter was first posited in 400 BC. It
wasn't completly accepted to the beginning of the twentieth. Copernicus died
unknown. Waterston died unknown. Evolutionary psychology took a century to
become accepted. Huygens wave theory of light took a century as well.
>[...]
>
D: >> These geniuses have such a low opinion of the lemming-like way the
average
>>intellectual and scientist will follow the herd--and resist obviously true
>but
>>challenging ideas--that I even cringe.
>
Bergman: This is naive in the opposite direction. There are sociological
>aspects of science, certainly, but calling scientists a bunch of
>lemmings is outright silly.
Dennis: Well, that's their opinion of course, and I'm sure its overstated. They
are probably bitter over their difficulty in getting obvious truths published
or accepted.
Bergman: For one, an easy way to earn quite a
>name for one's self is to disprove someone else's theory.
Dennis: The easiest way to become ostracized--and lose academic standing and
make it difficult to get published is to challenge authority. This is just as
true today as it was over the last three thousand years.
Bergman: Now,
>there are always the story of the person who loses funding, etc.,
>but that is the exception rather than the rule, IMO.
Dennis: Well, I offered 7 obvious examples
There are many others--and there really haven't been that many scientific
revolutions. It seems almost as all scientific revolutions were started by
people who had a tough time finding acceptance--and often had to retreat into
isolation and even died unknown. Einstein is somewhat of an exception...
Bergman: >In the end, hard data wins.
Dennis: Waterston had all the equations. so did Copernicus and Kepler. Yet,
the data can always be interpreted in various ways.
And the fact that your theory will eventually be accepted by future generations
is probably not much solace.
Bergman: And, in the end, the point that Paul
>Stowe cannot seem to grasp is that QCD is overwhelmingly
>supported by the evidence. His chronology of the "addition" of
>virtual particles into the theory demonstrates an ignorance of
>just what goes on in attempting to do QCD calculations. His
>comparison to epicylcles evinces both a misunderstanding of the
>flaw in the Ptolemaic theory and in the process of forming models
>in science. This has been explained to him quite clearly from
>just about every angle I can imagine, but he does not and quite
>possibly cannot respond to such arguments, instead dismissing
>them as zealotry and "proving his point".
Dennis: Although I despise the phrase "virtual particles," I'm not prepared to
claim that virtual particles is an example of epicycles. I am however,
prepared to argue that the contemporary explanations of Sagnac are
Ptolemaic--and so to with repeated attempts to save Big Bang...
Bergman: >If he were to look, there are things that one can attack as
>non-falsifiable in modern physics. Inflation is frequently
>mentioned as such a theory. Of course, this issue is debated
>within the physics and astro community.
Dennis: Only recently have the people who have been criticizing Big Bang for
decades been finding any sort of respect.
Bergman: I admit to be unaware of
Dennis: Ask Nodland and Ralston how psyched they were to discover rotations in
the polarization of light. Oh, right they were just cranks who made a
statistical error, right? What about Anderson and the discovery of the
anomalous acceleration of the Pioneers? Oh, right: That was just waste-heat
output.
Ask Arp about his discovery of anomalies in redshift data involving quasars
and nearby galaxies. Oh, right: those quasars are not really associated with
the nearby galaxies.
Lately, whenever anyone seems to find an effect that undermines standard
theory, the very first explanation, no matter how dubious, is quickly
accepted--and the discovery is deemed irrelevant.
Borge and Nodland were enraged at their treatment--and still contest the
statistical analysis. Arp felt the same way about the way he was treated.
Anderson et al, have refuted the waste-heat output theory--and are still
looking for an explanation.
Paul Stowe
(Aaron Bergman) writes:
>
>In the end, hard data wins. And, in the end, the point that Paul
>Stowe cannot seem to grasp is that QCD is overwhelmingly
>supported by the evidence. His chronology of the "addition" of
>virtual particles into the theory demonstrates an ignorance of
>just what goes on in attempting to do QCD calculations. His
>comparison to epicylcles evinces both a misunderstanding of the
>flaw in the Ptolemaic theory and in the process of forming models
>in science. This has been explained to him quite clearly from
>just about every angle I can imagine, but he does not and quite
>possibly cannot respond to such arguments, instead dismissing
>them as zealotry and "proving his point".
>
>non-falsifiable in modern physics. Inflation is frequently
>mentioned as such a theory. Of course, this issue is debated
>particular case (QCD), Paul is incontrovertibly incorrect. He
>misunderstands the situation and by his refusal to accept any
>criticism along these lines, he damages his credibility. If one
>wishes to criticize the process of modern science, one better
>understand how it actually works. I can gurantee you that there
>are plenty of young turks studying physics and looking for some
>flaw or another. They have the possibility of something to say.
>Paul's inability to admit his error on this particular instance
>strongly discounts the possibility that he has any positive
>contribution to make.
Well Aaron, as mention many times QCD was just an example to in a
discussion of the bias of physicists. But your comments need be
addressed. So, I went back and retreived a post in the thread "THe
Proton Spin Crisis" to which I was responding to James Carr. It has
relevence to this, here it is:
====================================================================
In <7koe92$ajl$1...@news.fsu.edu> j...@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
writes:
>
>
> ... note followups to particle physics newsgroup ...
>
>
>In <slrn7m6jpi....@tree0.Stanford.EDU>
>aber...@princeton.edu (Aaron Bergman) writes:
>}
>} In article <7jugln$h19$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>} min...@alum.calberkeley.org wrote:
>} [snip other quotes]
>} >So my understanding is that no combined model current predicts the
>} >proton-spin effect. There is a good chance that such a method will
>} >be developed.
>}
>} You misundersand. A fundamental point is that QCD is Hard. Very
>} hard. Except in very high energy situations, the standard
>} perturbation theory treatments in QFT don't work. One has to be
>} more creative. That's what these various models are -- various
>} approximations to try and make the QCD calculations tractable. ....
>
>In article <7k0fd9$k...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
>pst...@ix.netcom.com(Paul Stowe) writes:
>>
>>It doesn't seem that he misunderstands to me.
>
> Then perhaps you also misunderstand.
What?
>>His original point seemed to be that the 'prediction' of quark
>>behavior didn't match observations. Then it seems that the model was
>>'massaged' to bring it somewhat in line but we really don't really
>>understood, thus the original point.
>
> Which overlooks the important detail that the prediction was made
> with a method that is not applicable at low energies, and that it
> is quite correct to "massage" a model that was constructed by
> making uncontrolled approximations to a theory.
Really, and this is done only 'after' the original assumed predictions
fail to materialize??? So, why wasn't this known 'before the fact'?
Not much predictablity then was there?
>>And it seems to me that what you say above smacks of the Ptolemy's
>>epicyclic method to science...
>
> As it should, since that is how one builds good models. There is
> nothing wrong with using epicycles if you don't know how to solve
> Newton's equations.
At least I'm glad to see someone honest enough to admit this 'fact'.
Newton's gravitational equation isn't any different. In fact, much of
so called modern physics is not any different. The only difference I
see is in denial and thinking one 'knows' physics based upon such
foundationless correlations. If the Ptolemic method is used, it simply
cannot be extended to explain the correlated process, which is
precisely why Newton refused to do so with the gravitational equation!
Paul Stowe
======================================================================
Nuff said...
Paul Stowe
Aaron Bergman
>
>Dennis; The kinetic/atomic theory of matter was first posited in 400 BC.
The atomic theory of Lucretius, Democritus and Epicurus (?) was
basically philosophy. It's also pretty much wrong. Only the idea
that atoms exist was sort of correct.
> It
>wasn't completly accepted to the beginning of the twentieth.
When the evidence began piling up.
> Copernicus died unknown.
This, I'm fairly sure is false. In fact, IIRC, the Copernican
theory was accepted almost in advance of the evidence. For
obvious reasons, epicycles actually fit some of the data better
than circles. Kuhn harps on that point a lot, IIRC.
> Waterston died unknown. Evolutionary psychology took a century to
>become accepted. Huygens wave theory of light took a century as well.
Huh? There was debate for centuries on the particulate vs. wave
theory of light.
>
>Bergman: >In the end, hard data wins.
>
>Dennis: Waterston had all the equations. so did Copernicus and Kepler.
And outside of the Roman Catholic church, Copernicus and Kepler
were believed.
[...]
>Dennis: Although I despise the phrase "virtual particles," I'm not prepared to
>claim that virtual particles is an example of epicycles. I am however,
>prepared to argue that the contemporary explanations of Sagnac are
>Ptolemaic--and so to with repeated attempts to save Big Bang...
Sagnac was given as a problem on one of the general exams here.
It's really not that much of a big deal.
>
>Bergman: >If he were to look, there are things that one can attack as
>>non-falsifiable in modern physics. Inflation is frequently
>>mentioned as such a theory. Of course, this issue is debated
>>within the physics and astro community.
>
>Dennis: Only recently have the people who have been criticizing Big Bang for
>decades been finding any sort of respect.
There are all sorts of people who criticize the big bang for all
the wrong reasons -- they've been ignored. It's inflation that
some people have problems with.
[...]
>>
>>Measurements that contradicted the standard model (once verified
>>and replicated) would be hailed and promulgated, not supressed
>>like the religious zealots we supposedly are.
>
>Dennis: Ask Nodland and Ralston how psyched they were to discover rotations in
>the polarization of light. Oh, right they were just cranks who made a
>statistical error, right?
No, they were just scientists who made an honest mistake. Stats
can be tricky. I don't know if they ever retracted, however.
> What about Anderson and the discovery of the
>anomalous acceleration of the Pioneers? Oh, right: That was just waste-heat
>output.
That's still being debated, AFAIK. Neither of these were
supressed in any way, I note. They were debated in journals and
on lanl. Lots of ideas have been thrown forth. The anomalous
acceleration in Pioneer is very interesting, but it's
unfortunately more likely to be something mechanical than new
physics because it does not seem to affect the planets in any
way. Of course that doesn't mean it's not new physics -- one just
has to be creative. One can hope.
> Ask Arp about his discovery of anomalies in redshift data involving quasars
>and nearby galaxies. Oh, right: those quasars are not really associated with
>the nearby galaxies.
Ask about this one in sci.astro -- not my field.
Aaron Bergman
[mega-snip]
>
>Well Aaron, as mention many times QCD was just an example to in a
>discussion of the bias of physicists. But your comments need be
>addressed. So, I went back and retreived a post in the thread "THe
>Proton Spin Crisis" to which I was responding to James Carr. It has
>relevence to this, here it is:
[...]
>
>Nuff said...
You'll have to talk nice and slow for me -- I fail to see any
relevance. Unless you're referring to Jim's point about epicycles
and model-building. I'm not sure what he's getting at there, but
it is quite easy to see that epicycles can model any orbital
behavious and thus are only descriptive and not predictive.
You can't overconstrain an epicyclic model.
Paul Stowe
(Aaron Bergman) writes:
>
>In article <7lovb5$1...@dfw-ixnews21.ix.netcom.com>, Paul Stowe wrote:
>
>[mega-snip]
>>
>>discussion on the bias of physicists. But your comments need be
>>addressed. So, I went back and retreived a post in the thread "THe
>>Proton Spin Crisis" to which I was responding to James Carr. It has
>>relevence to this, here it is:
>
>[...]
>>
>>Nuff said...
>
>You'll have to talk nice and slow for me -- I fail to see any
>relevance. Unless you're referring to Jim's point about epicycles
>and model-building. I'm not sure what he's getting at there, but
>it is quite easy to see that epicycles can model any orbital
>behavious and thus are only descriptive and not predictive.
>
>You can't overconstrain an epicyclic model.
Yes, it may well be that we are in fact, talking 'past' each other. So
to be clear on what I mean when I compare Ptolemy's method to QCD, I
mean explicitly the following:
1. The both are simple correlations, that is to say, attempts to 'fit'
a preconceived pattern premised on a set of preconceived
assumptions.
2. Neither have a foundational process model like, for example,
Maxwell's model.
3. As has been stated, this is a gauge theory, and as such by it very
nature is rather arbitrary, due to the built-in gauge symmetries.
To be clear, I understand the terms gauge theory and gauge symmetry to
mean:
Gauge Theory - a field theory based on the use of a field that
possesses one or more gauge symmetries.
Gauge Symmetry - abstract mathematical symmetry of a field related to
the freedom to re-gauge or re-scale certain quantities
in the theory (potentials) without affecting the
values of the observable field quantities.
Thus, as I see it, a blind man's grope. But hey, that NOT a bad or
unscientific thing. But attempting to presume to 'know' the underlying
nature from said process is.
Now, I've been wrong before, and could be incorrect now, but to
convince me of this, someone need to clearly show this. It's not hard,
others have convinced me that I was wrong before. Just be logical and
concise about it.
But I don't change my mind without good reason, but am always open to
such.
Paul Stowe
Aaron Bergman
>
>Yes, it may well be that we are in fact, talking 'past' each other. So
>to be clear on what I mean when I compare Ptolemy's method to QCD, I
>mean explicitly the following:
>
>1. The both are simple correlations, that is to say, attempts to 'fit'
> a preconceived pattern premised on a set of preconceived
> assumptions.
Isn't everything? If the number of free parameters is less than
the number of data points (loosely) the theory works; if not,
then you go back to the drawing board.
>
>2. Neither have a foundational process model like, for example,
> Maxwell's model.
You mean Maxwell's ether? The issue of "foundational processes"
to me seems to be a red herring at best and misleading at worst.
The quantum world is just too weird to describe in terms of
things that correspond to out perception of reality. Stuff like
the single photon two-slit experiment, the Aharanov-Bohm effect
and countless other examples of quantum weirdness quickly destroy
any preconceived notions of naive realism.
>3. As has been stated, this is a gauge theory, and as such by it very
> nature is rather arbitrary, due to the built-in gauge symmetries.
I'll mention that Maxwell's equations constitute a U(1) classical
gauge theory. Thus, it's not terribly unreasonable to expect that
the other forces might be described by gauge theories. There are
also some fairly deep theorems due to t'Hooft and others that
seem to say that non-Abelian gauge theories are the only game in
town QFTwise.
>
>To be clear, I understand the terms gauge theory and gauge symmetry to
>mean:
>
> Gauge Theory - a field theory based on the use of a field that
> possesses one or more gauge symmetries.
>
>Gauge Symmetry - abstract mathematical symmetry of a field related to
> the freedom to re-gauge or re-scale certain quantities
> in the theory (potentials) without affecting the
> values of the observable field quantities.
In a more modern viewpoint, the gauge transformation is somewhat
like a change of coordinates in general relativity.
I really want to make it very clear that the whole idea of gauge
theories comes from Maxwell's equation which, as is shown in any
text on E&M, have a gauge symmetry where one can modify the
scalar and vector potentials without changing the E&B fields.
For a long time, I think, most people thought of the potentials
as mere mathematical abstractions without any physical reality.
The Aharanov-Bohm effect shattered this view by showing that the
potential can cause physical effects.
Another example where the data overturned the prevailing
viewpoint, by the way.
>
>Thus, as I see it, a blind man's grope.
Everything is a blind man's grope. We are the blind man seeking
to figure out how nature works -- when we find a theory that
makes correct predictions about how the world works, that's a
success. The theory is an approximation to how the world really
works. There may at some point be an ultimate theory -- maybe
not -- but in the meantime, we get successively better and better
approximations. As a theory, the standard model predicts all the
small scale behavior we observe. The theory is overconstrained so
it is falsifiable. It has passed every test thrown at it. We're
still throwing more, however, to see what the next level looks
like.
> But hey, that NOT a bad or
>unscientific thing. But attempting to presume to 'know' the underlying
>nature from said process is.
Here's where one probably ought to retreat to a nice
instrumentalist position. I won't go quite that far, except to
say that the best one can hope for when dealing with things that
are not directly perceivable with one's own senses is to
correctly predict the outcome of experiments. Farther than that
and this devolves into a tireless discussion of the philosophy of
science and I really don't want to start talking about Quine,
Popper and Positivism....
>
>Now, I've been wrong before, and could be incorrect now, but to
>convince me of this, someone need to clearly show this. It's not hard,
>others have convinced me that I was wrong before. Just be logical and
>concise about it.
I still don't see what your point is, really. However, epicycles
seem to be a bad comparison because their flaw is that you can
always add another epicycle. This situation does not exist in QCD.
Whatever flaw you are trying to illustrate above does not seem in
any way analogous to the flaw in epicyclic theories and thus
causes much confusion.
Aaron Bergman
>> invariant?
>
>probability =1.
Huh? This makes no sense.
Aaron
DJMenCk
>things that correspond to out perception of reality.
Dennis: I'll take "Oft-repeated Fallacies Throughout History" for a 1000, Alex.
And the answer is: "This new phenomena we're studying in ________(pick a
century) is so bizarre that it cannot possibly reduce to comprehensible
Material analyses."
Bergman: "Stuff like
>the single photon two-slit experiment, the Aharanov-Bohm effect
>and countless other examples of quantum weirdness quickly destroy
>any preconceived notions of naive realism. " --1999
"The human body is too complicated to be reducible too chemistry. Stuff like
consciousness and desire destroy any preconceived notions of comprehensible
materialism." 1930
"The brain can never understand the mind."
1915
"Organisms on this Earth are too complicated to be explainable by natural
selection. Altruism and culture destroy any preconceived notions of
comprehensible materialism."
--1867
"Meteorology is too strange to be reducible to billiard balls colliding. Rain,
tornadoes, droughts destroy any preconceived notions of comprehensible
materialism."
--1720
"The oceans are too complicated to be understandable by Materialistic
processes. Whirlpools and undertows prove its a strange new universe where the
old rules don't apply."
--1540
"Volcanoes are far too strange to be...." etc...
Everytime, without exception, that people start studying a new phenomenon
or peer at the next level of phenomena they assume its too strange, alien,
complicated, etc. to reduce to orderly material systems.
Everytime, without exception, they have proved wrong.
Anyone who thinks qm is really, really strange has never considered what the
macroscopic world looked like--with its evaporations and lightning strikes and
earthquakes and strokes--to ancient peoples.
In 500 BC, there were no realistic material solutions to any phenomena.
Now, we have just 4 forces left. So who's really being naive here?
--Dennis McCarthy
DJMenCk
>In article <19990704202340...@ng-cb1.aol.com>, DJMenCk wrote:
>>
>>Dennis; The kinetic/atomic theory of matter was first posited in 400 BC.
>
>basically philosophy. It's also pretty much wrong. Only the idea
>that atoms exist was sort of correct.
Dennis: "The only idea"?
1) First of all, that's a rather large idea--and from it we have all of
chemistry, the periodic table, etc.
2) We've also kept the ideas of evaporation, condensation, the conservation of
matter (sort of), the theory of the atmosphere, meteorology, etc.
Practically all historians of science comment on how much of modern science
is based on their work.
As Lederman wrote in "The God Particle:"
"Leon Lederman: And you came up with this idea in the fifth century-BC.
Greece?
Democritus: Yes, why? Your ideas today are so much different?
Lederman: Well, actually, they’re pretty much the same. We just hate the fact
that you published first.”
A fictional conversation between the Ancient Greek philosopher, Democritus,
and the twentieth century Noble Laureate Leon Lederman as imagined by Lederman
in his physics book, The God Particle.
Dennis: >> It
>>wasn't completly accepted to the beginning of the twentieth.
>
>When the evidence began piling up.
Dennis: Materialists understood 1000's of years ago that the phenomena of
evaporation (where water seems to disappear in a void) and aroma and sound and
the ivisible push of wind was an example of evidence piling up. You need
underlying material mechanisms for this. That's where the atomic theory came
from.
>> Copernicus died unknown.
>
Bergman; >This, I'm fairly sure is false.
Dennis: His work wasn't even published until the year he died--by an
underground Lutheran printer.
Bergman: In fact, IIRC, the Copernican
>theory was accepted almost in advance of the evidence. For
>obvious reasons, epicycles actually fit some of the data better
>than circles. Kuhn harps on that point a lot, IIRC.
Dennis: I've seen estimates in science tomes that there weren't 10 Copernicans
in the world--this number includes Kepler--until the time of Galileo's
arguments.
>> Waterston died unknown. Evolutionary psychology took a century to
>>become accepted. Huygens wave theory of light took a century as well.
>
Bergman: >Huh? There was debate for centuries on the particulate vs. wave
>theory of light.
Dennis: . The point is that in the 1700's the wave theory was rejected by
mainstream scientists. Obviously, there's always a vocal minority debating the
point.
There were debates for centuries over the atmosphere as well. Mainstream
scientists didn't start accepting it until the 1700's and full acceptance
didn't come until the early part of the 20th.
You would have thought that wind would have clued even the most dense of
people to the notion that a material medium surrounds you, wouldn't you?
Alas, I think the same thing about magnetism as well.
>>Bergman: >In the end, hard data wins.
>>
>>Dennis: Waterston had all the equations. so did Copernicus and Kepler.
>
Bergman: >And outside of the Roman Catholic church, Copernicus and Kepler
>were believed.
Dennis: You are talking about all those educated astronomers who worked outside
of religious universities in the 1500's?
Again, I've seen estimates in science tomes that there weren't 10 Copernicans
in the world in the 1500's and early 1600's.
>[...]
>
>>Dennis: Although I despise the phrase "virtual particles," I'm not prepared
>to
>>claim that virtual particles is an example of epicycles. I am however,
>>prepared to argue that the contemporary explanations of Sagnac are
>>Ptolemaic--and so to with repeated attempts to save Big Bang...
>
Bergman: >Sagnac was given as a problem on one of the general exams here.
>It's really not that much of a big deal.
Dennis: Hopefully, you didn't give the naive SR explanation and properly
implemented your spacetime helix. Also, do you happen to remember whether you
determined the one-way Sagnac effect between two points? The reason for the
Sagnac effect around a rotating table according to a rim observer? The
stationary ring gyro Sagnac effect? Or the cause of the sound Sagnac effect?
Because right now, relativists use 4 different explanations for these 4
manifestations of the same effect.
That's got to be considered Ptolemaic compared to the Lorentzian use of just 1
explanation that is derivable by freshmen in highschool.
>>
>>Bergman: >If he were to look, there are things that one can attack as
>>>non-falsifiable in modern physics. Inflation is frequently
>>>mentioned as such a theory. Of course, this issue is debated
>>>within the physics and astro community.
>>
>>Dennis: Only recently have the people who have been criticizing Big Bang for
>>decades been finding any sort of respect.
>
Bergman: >There are all sorts of people who criticize the big bang for all
>the wrong reasons -- they've been ignored.
Dennis: When people claim that somone got the right answer for "the wrong
reasons," they are claiming they're lucky to be right. Like Maxwell, Huygens,
Lorentz, Fizeau, Schrodinger, etc. were lucky to be right.
When we eventually return to the ether for qm--and explain Lorentzian
equations in terms of media processes, the same weak statement will be
maintained: "Oh, yes there's a medium, but not for the reasons that etherists
were claiming. They were just lucky to be right."
I keep suggesting to people that they should be etherists just on the basis
of how lucky we are.
--Dennis McCarthy
Gerry Quinn
>
>You mean Maxwell's ether? The issue of "foundational processes"
>to me seems to be a red herring at best and misleading at worst.
>The quantum world is just too weird to describe in terms of
>things that correspond to out perception of reality. Stuff like
>the single photon two-slit experiment, the Aharanov-Bohm effect
>and countless other examples of quantum weirdness quickly destroy
>any preconceived notions of naive realism.
>
The problem, as I see it, is that a lot of people panicked early this
century, and threw out the realism as well as the naivety! It's only
slowly coming back now.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
I'll take it that you are withdrawing your objection to my conception of
the matter.
Regarding the mass of the electroweak bosons, it is my understanding
that the Higgs field is supposed to explain only that, and not (for
example) the mass of quarks. Ultimately, however, all mass must have
a single explanation.
What I'm thinking, in essence, is that all mass derives from massless
fundamental particles being slowed by the vacuum (or ether as I prefer
to call it - vacuum seems an ungracious term for such a vital, active
and complex entity). That's _precisely_ why I think that SR, which
accounts for some of the mass we seem to observe, is an obstacle to
proper understanding of the situation and needs to be replaced by an
extended LET-like model.
By the way - isn't it nice that if mass comes from a particle-ether
interaction, we don't have to worry about 'space curvature' caused by
the vacuum energy any more? The vacuum creates gravity but doesn't feel
it.
- Gerry Quinn
Aaron Bergman
>In article <slrn7nvrf8....@tree0.Stanford.EDU>, aber...@princeton.edu
(Aaron Bergman) wrote:
>I'll take it that you are withdrawing your objection to my conception of
>the matter.
No -- I was just withdrawing my distinction between how the gauge
bosons gain mass vs. how everything else gains mass.
>
>Regarding the mass of the electroweak bosons, it is my understanding
>that the Higgs field is supposed to explain only that, and not (for
>example) the mass of quarks. Ultimately, however, all mass must have
>a single explanation.
This is dogmatic, but regardless, everything in the standard
model gains mass through its interaction with the Higgs field.
Whether this is actually correct, we don't know as we've never
seen the Higgs. I sort of hope it isn't.
>
>What I'm thinking, in essence, is that all mass derives from massless
>fundamental particles being slowed by the vacuum (or ether as I prefer
>to call it - vacuum seems an ungracious term for such a vital, active
>and complex entity).
This doesn't make any sense. The mass arises as the Higgs field
develops a vacuum expectation value. Being "slowed" by the vacuum
doesn't really make much sense.
>That's _precisely_ why I think that SR, which
>accounts for some of the mass we seem to observe,
Huh?
Aaron Bergman
>Bergman: >The quantum world is just too weird to describe in terms of
>>things that correspond to out perception of reality.
>
Yawn. More dogmaticism.
OK. You try an explain the two-slit experiment. Have fun.
Aaron Bergman
>>
>>In article <19990704202340...@ng-cb1.aol.com>, DJMenCk wrote:
>>>
>>>Dennis; The kinetic/atomic theory of matter was first posited in 400 BC.
>>
>Bergman: The atomic theory of Lucretius, Democritus and Epicurus (?) was
>>basically philosophy. It's also pretty much wrong. Only the idea
>>that atoms exist was sort of correct.
>
>Dennis: "The only idea"?
>1) First of all, that's a rather large idea--and from it we have all of
>chemistry, the periodic table, etc.
Except for the fact that they didn't believe there were different
types of atoms.
>2) We've also kept the ideas of evaporation, condensation, the conservation of
>matter (sort of), the theory of the atmosphere, meteorology, etc.
> Practically all historians of science comment on how much of modern science
>is based on their work.
Whatever.
>As Lederman wrote in "The God Particle:"
>
>"Leon Lederman: And you came up with this idea in the fifth century-BC.
>Greece?
>
>Democritus: Yes, why? Your ideas today are so much different?
>
>Lederman: Well, actually, they’re pretty much the same. We just hate the fact
>that you published first.”
> A fictional conversation between the Ancient Greek philosopher, Democritus,
>and the twentieth century Noble Laureate Leon Lederman as imagined by Lederman
>in his physics book, The God Particle.
Lederman's full of shit. It's nice to believe that these ancient
greeks discovered the secrets to the universe, but it simply isn't
true. Go read Lucretius or something.
[...various assertions...]
>
>>> Waterston died unknown. Evolutionary psychology took a century to
>>>become accepted. Huygens wave theory of light took a century as well.
>>
>Bergman: >Huh? There was debate for centuries on the particulate vs. wave
>>theory of light.
>
>Dennis: . The point is that in the 1700's the wave theory was rejected by
>mainstream scientists. Obviously, there's always a vocal minority debating the
>point.
I'm not aware of the details here, but Newton certainly believed
in the particulate theory. Others believed in a wave theory. As
we know now, both are correct. The particle theory went away when
Maxwell discovered the wavelike solutions to his equations (or
was the Hertz?). It came back with experiments that could detect
single photons.
[...]
>>>Bergman: >In the end, hard data wins.
>>>
>>>Dennis: Waterston had all the equations. so did Copernicus and Kepler.
>>
>Bergman: >And outside of the Roman Catholic church, Copernicus and Kepler
>>were believed.
>
>Dennis: You are talking about all those educated astronomers who worked outside
>of religious universities in the 1500's?
>Again, I've seen estimates in science tomes that there weren't 10 Copernicans
>in the world in the 1500's and early 1600's.
That differs from what I heard in my philosophy of science
[...yawn...Sagnac...]
Aaron Bergman
>
>Now if you conduct a Lorentz transformation from the coordinate x, to the
>coordinate x', then the integral, being the total probability must remain
>invariant since the event must still happen somewhere along x'. That forces
>an observable length contraction or expansion along x of the probability
>density, inversely to the transformation from x to x' such that total
>probability remains invariant.
As far as I can tell, this is either tautologous or nonsense. I
can't tell which.
Todd Desiato
Aaron Bergman wrote ...
> Todd Desiato wrote:
> >
> >Now if you conduct a Lorentz transformation from the coordinate x, to the
> >coordinate x', then the integral, being the total probability must remain
> >invariant since the event must still happen somewhere along x'. That
forces
> >an observable length contraction or expansion along x of the probability
> >density, inversely to the transformation from x to x' such that total
> >probability remains invariant.
>
> As far as I can tell, this is either tautologous or nonsense. I
> can't tell which.
Duh! It's cause and effect. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Can
you think of a case where you would define a total probability of an event
to not be equal to 1? Events are independent of the coordinate system.
Lorentz invariance arises naturally as the result of the wave-like
probability functions that describe the physically observable properties of
matter and energy. You're a grad student for Peat's sake! That's such a
simple integral! Read what I wrote and think about it. It's obviously
correct.
Think about the opposite effect. If the probability density of an event
varied from location to location as it is parallel transported from one
location to the next, yet the total probability remains invariant, what does
that do to your coordinate system?
Todd D.
Matthew Nobes
On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Todd Desiato wrote:
>
> Matthew Nobes <man...@sfu.ca> wrote ...
> >
> > On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Todd Desiato wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Matthew Nobes wrote ...
> > > >
> > > > Then how does that explain why a theory like QCD is Lorentz
> > > > invariant?
> > >
> > > Lorentz invariance arises in Quantum theories from the invariance of
> > > total
> > > probability =1.
> >
> > No it most certainly does not. That statment doesn't even make
> > sense unless you specific what the total probablity is suppoedly invariant
> > under.
>
> Yea, I should've been more specific.
The statement is still untrue. Lorentz invariance is an
assumption of the theory, it doesn't arise from anywhere. The Lorentz
invariance of the total probablity is a consequence of this.
>
> > > This requirement leads directly to contraction of the
> > > probability density, i.e., the length of a ruler when the coordinates
> > > are
> > > transformed.
> >
> > Wait, are you saying that lorentz invariance aries in QFT from the
> > lorentz invariance of the total probablity? If so that's both wrong and
> > nonsense.
> >
>
> No it's not. See my reply to Aaron B.
It's still incorrect. The Lorentz invariance of the action is
what insures that the probablity is Lorentz invariant.
>
> > > > SR's two postulates apply to all physical situations, to make
> > > > LET work for the strong force you'd have to make up a "colour media".
> > > > Of
> > > > course then you'd need a "W boson media". and...
> > >
> > > All Quantum fields have zero-point fields. Fermions have electrons,
> > > muons
> > > and quarks. Bosons have photons, gluons, W's and Z's. The medium is
> > > already
> > > there.
> >
> > my point was that LET is about electromagnetism, so to extend it
> > to the strong force you'd have to assume some newe property about the QCD
> > vacuum (i.e. is behaves in such and such a way so as to mock up Lorentz
> > invariance in QCD).
>
> In most all branches of QFT you are dealing with the interpretation that
> the wave function is a probability amplitude. So my argument holds in
> all of them, that Lorentz invariance within the theory is the result of
> the Lorentz invariance of total probability.
That doesn't realy adress my point. But again your main point is
incorrect, the Lorentz invariance of the theory is ensured because you are
quantizing a Lorentz invariant classical wave equation. It's an
assumption of the theory from the very start. It's the relativity
postualte "all laws of physics are the same in every interial frame" at
work.
>
> > With SR the Lorentz invariance is built into your
> > theory becuase the stage on which your QFT is set is Minkowski space
> > (unless you enjoy painful cacluations).
>
> This brings up a question I have. In an arbitrary coordinate system,
> denoted by the vector x^v the action can be written,
>
> S(p,x) = p^u g_uv x^v
Huh?
What sort of action is this?
Where's the kinetic term?
Weren't we talking about QFT?
Where are the fields?
> where p^u, and x^v are contravariant four vectors for momentum and position,
> and g_uv is a metric for an arbitrary well behaved patch on a manifold. If
> used in an arbitrary wave function,
>
> Psi(p,x) = |Psi|exp[(-i/hbar)*S(p,x)]
>
> Then this wave function is for an arbitrary metric in an arbitrary
> coordinate system. Right? Since the coordinate system of x^v and g_uv are
> left unspecified. Is this considered "background free"?
Well, I'm no expert but I'll take a stab. The answer is no.
First of all this is not going to give you a quantum theory of gravity.
If you started with a proper action (like say the Mazwell action) then
made it generally covariant (replace all minkowski metrics by some other
metric, say Anti-DeSitter space to make this specific, and somewhat
current, then change all derivatives to generally covariant ones) you
would have a generally covariant action. If you then stuffed it into a
path integral over _only_ the quantum fields, you would be doing Quantum
field theory on curved spacetime.
The reason that this is not background independant should be
clear, you are implicitly assumeing a background, the metric g_{uv}. The
fact that you leave it unspecified doesn't matter, it's still a fixed
stage where the action of the QFT takes place. This is what is know as
QFT on curved spacetime. The standard referance here is Wald, "Quantum
field theory in curved spacetime and black hole thermodynamics", if you
are really feeling masocistic.
Now, if you include the metric in the list of fields to be path
integrated over, that's a whole different story...
Todd Desiato
Matthew Nobes wrote ...
>
> On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Todd Desiato wrote:
>
> >
> > Matthew Nobes <man...@sfu.ca> wrote ...
> > >
> > > On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Todd Desiato wrote:
> > >
> > Yea, I should've been more specific.
>
> The statement is still untrue. Lorentz invariance is an
> assumption of the theory, it doesn't arise from anywhere. The Lorentz
> invariance of the total probablity is a consequence of this.
and...
> It's still incorrect. The Lorentz invariance of the action is
> what insures that the probablity is Lorentz invariant.
The word "probability" as you use it is ill defined. "Total Probablity" is
Lorentz invariant because it is a scalar.
> > In most all branches of QFT you are dealing with the interpretation that
> > the wave function is a probability amplitude. So my argument holds in
> > all of them, that Lorentz invariance within the theory is the result of
> > the Lorentz invariance of total probability.
>
> That doesn't realy adress my point. But again your main point is
> incorrect, the Lorentz invariance of the theory is ensured because you are
> quantizing a Lorentz invariant classical wave equation. It's an
> assumption of the theory from the very start. It's the relativity
> postualte "all laws of physics are the same in every interial frame" at
> work.
Why postulate it when you can derive it from first principles? Special
Relativity is a theory of Lorentz invariance, and Lorentz invariance is an
observed behavior in the physical world. That behavior is described quantum
mechanically by probability wave functions, and statistics. The total
probability is "by definition" a scalar quantity normalized to unity. As a
scalar it must be constant in all inertial frames of reference, just like c,
so it is Lorentz invariant. If your coordinate system is transformed this
MUST result in a change in the probability density **because** the total
probability integral is a scalar, so its value is unaffected by the
tranformation.
Before you can have a theory you need observations, and then you need to
describe what it is you are observing. Those observations turn out to be
statistical in nature at the quantum scale, and are described by wave-like
probability distributions for observing particles. This particle-wave
duality in nature which we observe results in observations which support,
and have lead to the theory of Relativity and QM. The wave-like behavior of
matter and energy is not the result of the theory, the theory is the result
of the observations of this behavior.
I'm saying that the scalar nature of total probability is the cause of
Lorentz invariance, definitely not the other way around. That would not make
sense! The wave-like Dispersion property (expansion or contraction) of the
probability density enforces Lorentz invariance on all observers by changing
the rulers and clocks they use to measure intervals of space and time
relative to moving frames of reference...Rulers and clocks which themselves
are made of matter that obeys the probabilistic theory of QM first, and has
resulted in the classical theory of Special Relativity.
Unrelated question....
> Weren't we talking about QFT?
Sorry, it was late I was too lazy to start another thread. But I have now.
Thank you for a good answer. It showed me just how non-linear the problem
really is.
Todd D.
Tom Roberts
> Bergman: >Sagnac was given as a problem on one of the general exams here.
> >It's really not that much of a big deal.
> Dennis: Hopefully, you didn't give the naive SR explanation and properly
How silly. All _measurable_ aspects of the Sagnac effect can easily be computed in
SR from the theorem that the speed of light is isotropically c in any inertial
frame.
I guess after >1 year of self-delusion DJMenCk still doesn't understand either the
Sagnac effect or SR and its application to it. Of course he tends to concentrate
on _unmeasurable_ aspects....
Aaron Bergman is right, it's "not that much of a big deal".
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> [about Paul Stowe's repeat of an earlier article on "Proton Spin Crisis"]
> You'll have to talk nice and slow for me -- I fail to see any
> relevance.
Right. His repeated article seemes merely to confirm your claim of science as a
self-correcting adventure. The initial calculations of QCD did not match the
experimental data. Rather than scrap QCD and look for another theory, physicists
looked for and found errors in the initial computations; correcting these brought
the theoretical computations in line with observations.
In other words: business as usual. Scientists are human and make mistakes, and
physical theories are complicated and subtle. So knowledge is increased, and
the adventure continues....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> Lorentz invariance arises in Quantum theories from the invariance of total
> probability =1.
Hmmm. Please prove that from Schroedinger's equation. Or better, from Heisenberg's
formulation of QM.
> [about a medium for W bosons, etc.]
> All Quantum fields have zero-point fields. Fermions have electrons, muons
> and quarks. Bosons have photons, gluons, W's and Z's. The medium is already
> there.
Let's limit this to QED for concreteness. In QED the zero point field in no
way acts as a "medium" for the propagation of real or virtual photons (using
"medium" in the sense of a substrate which supports a wave). The ZPF virtual
electrons interact with a propagating real photon, but in no way "support" it.
A propagating photon needs no "support".
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Matthew Nobes
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999, Todd Desiato wrote:
>
> Matthew Nobes wrote ...
> >
> > On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Todd Desiato wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Matthew Nobes <man...@sfu.ca> wrote ...
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Todd Desiato wrote:
> > > >
> > > Yea, I should've been more specific.
> >
> > The statement is still untrue. Lorentz invariance is an
> > assumption of the theory, it doesn't arise from anywhere. The Lorentz
> > invariance of the total probablity is a consequence of this.
>
> and...
>
> > It's still incorrect. The Lorentz invariance of the action is
> > what insures that the probablity is Lorentz invariant.
>
> The word "probability" as you use it is ill defined. "Total Probablity" is
> Lorentz invariant because it is a scalar.
Energy is a scalar, but it is not Lorentz invariant. But, you're
right, I meant totel probablity both times.
>
> > > In most all branches of QFT you are dealing with the interpretation that
> > > the wave function is a probability amplitude. So my argument holds in
> > > all of them, that Lorentz invariance within the theory is the result of
> > > the Lorentz invariance of total probability.
> >
> > That doesn't realy adress my point. But again your main point is
> > incorrect, the Lorentz invariance of the theory is ensured because you are
> > quantizing a Lorentz invariant classical wave equation. It's an
> > assumption of the theory from the very start. It's the relativity
> > postualte "all laws of physics are the same in every interial frame" at
> > work.
>
> Why postulate it when you can derive it from first principles? Special
> Relativity is a theory of Lorentz invariance, and Lorentz invariance is
> an observed behavior in the physical world. That behavior is described
> quantum mechanically by probability wave functions, and statistics. The
> total probability is "by definition" a scalar quantity normalized to
> unity. As a scalar it must be constant in all inertial frames of
> reference, just like c, so it is Lorentz invariant. If your coordinate
> system is transformed this MUST result in a change in the probability
> density **because** the total probability integral is a scalar, so its
> value is unaffected by the tranformation.
Assumeing that the total probablity must be a Lorentz invariant
scalar, then working out that the theory as a whole must be Lorentz
invariant is just as much of an assumption as assuming that the theory as
a whole must be Lorentz invariant then deriving the fact that the total
probablity is a Lorentz scalar. The lattter though is easier to work
with. It's also much easier to work out deviations from Lorentz
invariance from that starting point. If you assumed that your theory had
a small interaction which violated Lorentz invariance you could work out
what effect that would have on the total prob. I seriously doubt you
could work out the effect on the action by assuming the total prob. was
not Lorentz invariant. You certianly couldn't do it uniquly.
> Before you can have a theory you need observations, and then you need to
> describe what it is you are observing. Those observations turn out to be
> statistical in nature at the quantum scale, and are described by
> wave-like probability distributions for observing particles. This
> particle-wave duality in nature which we observe results in observations
> which support, and have lead to the theory of Relativity and QM. The
> wave-like behavior of matter and energy is not the result of the theory,
> the theory is the result of the observations of this behavior.
Thank you but I'm quite familier with QM and QFT.
> I'm saying that the scalar nature of total probability is the cause of
> Lorentz invariance, definitely not the other way around. That would not
> make sense!
Why not? Assuming the probablity must be one is one assumption.
Assuming that the theory is Lorentz invariant is another.
> The wave-like Dispersion property (expansion or contraction) of the
> probability density enforces Lorentz invariance on all observers by changing
> the rulers and clocks they use to measure intervals of space and time
> relative to moving frames of reference...Rulers and clocks which themselves
> are made of matter that obeys the probabilistic theory of QM first, and has
> resulted in the classical theory of Special Relativity.
Nope, the fact that any sufficently small region of spacetime can
be considered Minkowski space results in the classical theory of SR. It
is also the reason that QFT's are Lorentz invariant. Minkowski space is
the stage.
Tom Roberts
> In article <8nYf3.12459$tb6.1...@newsr1.san.rr.com>, Todd Desiato wrote:
> >Now if you conduct a Lorentz transformation from the coordinate x, to the
> >coordinate x', then the integral, being the total probability must remain
> >invariant since the event must still happen somewhere along x'. That forces
> >an observable length contraction or expansion along x of the probability
> >density, inversely to the transformation from x to x' such that total
> >probability remains invariant.
>
> As far as I can tell, this is either tautologous or nonsense. I
> can't tell which.
It is both -- it's tautologous in that _any_ coordinate transform with unit
Jacobian will do this, not merely Lorentz transforms (of course in his simplistic
example the only coordinate transform with unit Jacobian is the identity). It's
nonsense in that the Lorentz transforms intermix the x and t axes and he has not
included the time-dependence of his amplitudes; the change in simultaneity
affects the amplitude projected onto different coordinates such that a time-
independent amplitude in the original coordinates can have time dependence in
others.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
DJMenCk
>
>In article <19990705042601...@ng-da1.aol.com>, DJMenCk wrote:
>>Bergman: >The quantum world is just too weird to describe in terms of
>>>things that correspond to out perception of reality.
>>
>>Dennis: I'll take "Oft-repeated Fallacies Throughout History" for a 1000,
>Alex.
>
>Yawn. More dogmaticism.
Dennis: You are confusing a straightforward inductive logic argument for
"dogmaticism." My argument is of the same logical format as, say, the
inductive argument against witchcraft.
>
Bergman: >OK. You try an explain the two-slit experiment. Have fun.
Dennis: Try to explain disease, volcanoes or the variety of species in 300 BC.
But they all have succumbed to material analyses, right?
Anyway, the two slit experimental results also occur for sound waves--for
purely material reasons, right?
--Dennis
Todd Desiato
Matthew Nobes <man...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.SGI.3.95.990705154705.633A-100000@fraser...
>
> On Mon, 5 Jul 1999, Todd Desiato wrote:
>
> >
> > If your coordinate
> > system is transformed this MUST result in a change in the probability
> > density **because** the total probability integral is a scalar, so its
> > value is unaffected by the tranformation.
>
> Assumeing that the total probablity must be a Lorentz invariant
> scalar, then working out that the theory as a whole must be Lorentz
> invariant is just as much of an assumption as assuming that the theory as
> a whole must be Lorentz invariant then deriving the fact that the total
> probablity is a Lorentz scalar.
I don't think that's true in this case. Assuming a theory is Lorentz
invariant has nothing to do with classical statistical analysis, where total
probability has always been a constant, conserved and normalized to unity.
It is a definition from statistics, not an assumption from relativity. Even
using the Schrodenger equation, which is not manifestly invariant, and not
relativistic, total probability is interpreted in the same way. One need
only assume that total probability means that the event occured, or was
observed to occur. It doesn't matter who observed it, or from where. It is
independent of the relative comoving coordinates of the observer.
> If you assumed that your theory had
> a small interaction which violated Lorentz invariance you could work out
> what effect that would have on the total prob. I seriously doubt you
> could work out the effect on the action by assuming the total prob. was
> not Lorentz invariant. You certianly couldn't do it uniquly.
I wouldn't want to! The fact that it is Lorentz invariant works for me in
two ways. It shows that the tools used to measure space and time, rulers and
clock are themselves just probability distributions of particles, and that
their probability density changes relative to moving observers. So a Lorentz
Boost is the same as dispersion of the probability density. It also shows
that if the probability density varies as a function of the coordinate
location, then the spacetime manifold may appear to be curved, where the
coordinates change such that total probabiltiy remains constant.
> > ......The
> > wave-like behavior of matter and energy is not the result of the theory,
> > the theory is the result of the observations of this behavior.
>
> Thank you but I'm quite familier with QM and QFT.
Sorry I don't know your background.
> > I'm saying that the scalar nature of total probability is the cause of
> > Lorentz invariance, definitely not the other way around. That would not
> > make sense!
>
> Why not? Assuming the probablity must be one is one assumption.
> Assuming that the theory is Lorentz invariant is another.
The conservation of total probability is not an assumption in statistics, it
is required by definition to be constant and normalized to unity.
> Nope, the fact that any sufficently small region of spacetime can
> be considered Minkowski space results in the classical theory of SR. It
> is also the reason that QFT's are Lorentz invariant. Minkowski space is
> the stage.
Nope, any region of spactime can only be measured by observations of
physical objects, like particles or waves, or rulers and clocks. Minkowski
spacetime is the result of our interpretation of those observations. If for
example the probability density were invariant, and not total probability,
then I can garuntee Minkowski spacetime would not fit our observations, so
there would be no theory of Relativity.
Todd D.
Gerald L. O'Barr
djm...@aol.com (DJMenCk)
Ref: <slrn7nvcpd....@tree0.Stanford.EDU>
>
>In <19990704142815...@ng-cb1.aol.com>
DJMenCk wrote:
>
>> Moreover, Stowe's point was obviously not semantic.
>> Experts aren't antagonistic to ideas simply because of
>> different terminology. Stowe's point is that experts
>> will show hostility toward a viewpoint if they feel
>> that it contradicts some idea that they have memorized,
>> recited, taken delight in teaching, and have garnered
>> esteem for understanding. Anyone who knows the history
>> of science knows that to be true. Anyone who reads
>> these boards also must have an inkling of that as
>> well....
>
Bergman wrote:
>OK. Without making any reference to your beliefs about
> special relativity vs. ether, give a citation for the
> above.
Dennis: Surely. I'll show the complete prejudice of
experts against theories that challenge conventional
wisdom--using the origination of theories that
We accept as true today.
1) Waterston couldn't even get the kinetic theory of
matter published. One referee remarked that his paper was
utterly without merit, "unfit for reading before the royal
society." Waterston died unknown.
2) Herapath couldn't get a similar paper published either.
3) Wegener was openly mocked and ostracized.
4) Wilson's sociobiology was considered fascist crankery
in the 70's.
5) Every hear of Westermarck? He had the correct
evolutionary psychological reason for incest taboos at the
beginning of the century.
6) Galileo couldn't get the professors of Padua to look
through his telescope.
7) Salk's dead vaccine was dismissed without adequate
review, no matter how loud he screamed--and many children
died as a result.
Etc....etc..etc...
Instead of reading biographies, it occasionally becomes
useful to read the actual opinions of the our greatest
scientist themselves.
One simply could not read the work of someone who came
up with an original insight that challenged conventional
wisdom without developing a pessimistic view of fairness
of scientific experts.
Read Salk. Read Watson. Read Huxley. Read Waterston.
Read Wegener. Read Wilson.
You think Stowe was harsh?
These geniuses have such a low opinion of the lemming-
like way the average intellectual and scientist will
follow the herd--and resist obviously true But challenging
ideas--that I even cringe.
--Dennis McCarthy
O'Barr comments:
I have no idea about how things really are today. I no
longer care so much about what others think. But back a
few decades ago, you could take almost any of our very
best national science publications, and survey their top
articles over any one year's time. And if the year for
this survey were several years past in time, it was most
funny to me that a large percentage of these `top'
articles were later rejected as meaningful science. Very
often, those articles that still represented accepted
science were less than 50%. It seemed to me that anyone
that just picked articles by random chance could have done
as well. Well I am not sure of the total logic in all
this, but it really did seem to me that those who got to
published were those who had a reputation and not really
because of the actual science that was being accomplished.
I wonder what a similar analysis would produce today?
--
Gerald L. O'Barr fl...@access1.net
Read: http://www.access1.net/flaco
Read Pete Brown's Aether FAQ at:
http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/aeth_faq.htm
Read Jan 99 issue of Physics Today about the ether!
Aaron Bergman
> Anyway, the two slit experimental results also occur for sound waves--for
>purely material reasons, right?
No, they most certainly do not occur for sound waves. That's the whole
point.
The whole point is that we now have instruments that can detect single
photons. For example, there is a famous experiment where a light was
shown on something that clicked whenever it received a photon. If light
was purely a wave, one would expect that as one dimmed it, the number of
clicks would remain the same, but the clicks would get softer. Instead,
the clicks get less frequent.
As for the two slit experiments, there are cameras which will register
the hits of single photons. When you shine a light at it, one can see the
image being built out of single dots. When you shine light through a pair
of slits into the camera, one again sees an image being formed slowly out
of single points. These single points eventually take the shape of the
standard diffraction pattern that one would expect from waves, but this
diffraction pattern was being formed _one point at a time_.
So, what the hell was going on with the photons? Remember, these photons
can be sent in essentially one at a time. They have no way to "talk" to
eachother and yet, somehow, if you get enough of them, they form a
diffraction pattern that would require knowledge of the existence of both
slits.
This behavior simply cannot and does not happen with sound waves. This is
the beginning of all sorts of quantum weirdness out there. There is even
weirder stuff. Take the following setup:
Detector 1
|
** *|
/---------------------/----- Detector 2
| |
| |
| |
|* |
Source ----------/---------------------/ **
The '/'s labelled with a '*' are beam-splitters and the '/'s labelled
with '**" are mirrors. Now, when we turn on the source, something very
strange happens. We don't see anything at detector 1. All the light seems
to arrive at detector 2. If we take away one of the mirrors, however,
then we again get 50/50 at detectors 1 and 2. Again, this happens for
_each individual photon_.
There are a whole bunch of these in some of Penrose's books. I like the
bomb-testing one in _Shadows..._ a lot, but I forget the details.
Todd Desiato
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote ..
> Aaron Bergman wrote:
> > Todd Desiato wrote:
> > >........such that total probability remains invariant.
> >
> > As far as I can tell, this is either tautologous or nonsense. I
> > can't tell which.
>
> It is both -- it's tautologous in that _any_ coordinate transform with
unit
> Jacobian will do this, not merely Lorentz transforms (of course in his
simplistic
> example the only coordinate transform with unit Jacobian is the identity).
It's
> nonsense in that the Lorentz transforms intermix the x and t axes and he
has not
> included the time-dependence of his amplitudes; the change in simultaneity
> affects the amplitude projected onto different coordinates such that a
time-
> independent amplitude in the original coordinates can have time dependence
in
> others.
It works in four dimensions the same way. The probability wave function is a
function of the four-vector x^u, and the probability density is integrated
over the four-volume to get total probability. In any case total probability
is a constant.
>Todd Desiato wrote:
>> Lorentz invariance arises in Quantum theories from the invariance of
total
>> probability =1.
> Hmmm. Please prove that from Schroedinger's equation. Or better, from
Heisenberg's
> formulation of QM.
Prove what? That total probability means only that the particle must be
observed somewhere if it is observed at all?
From a statistical point of view, total probability is constant, and
conserved by definition. That the observed event must happen in order to be
observed is a given.
From a Schrodenger equation point of view, total probability is a constant;
integral_-infy ^infy P(x)dx = 1
where P(x) is the probability density, which is the squared magnitude of the
probability wave amplitude;
P(x) = |Psi(x)|^2.
And from a Dirac equation point of view, total probability is still a
constant;
integral_-infy ^infy P(x^u)dV = 1
Where if you Lorentz transform V to V', then you must also transform P(x^u)
to P'(x'^u).
That this is true is fundamental. It is a statistical requirement of the
probabilistic interpretation of the wave function!
Rulers and clocks depend on the probability distributions of wavelengths and
frequencies that make up their constituent particles as physical objects. It
is these objects that we use to measure space and time. If one argues that
total probability is constant, then transformations of the coordinate system
naturally result in transformations of length and time intervals measured as
probability densities. This has the obvious result of imposing Lorentz
invariance and a Minkowski spacetime manifold on the physical world, (where
curvature is neglected).
Todd D.
Matthew Nobes
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999, Todd Desiato wrote:
>
> Matthew Nobes <man...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SGI.3.95.990705154705.633A-100000@fraser...
> >
> > On Mon, 5 Jul 1999, Todd Desiato wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > If your coordinate
> > > system is transformed this MUST result in a change in the probability
> > > density **because** the total probability integral is a scalar, so its
> > > value is unaffected by the tranformation.
> >
> > Assumeing that the total probablity must be a Lorentz invariant
> > scalar, then working out that the theory as a whole must be Lorentz
> > invariant is just as much of an assumption as assuming that the theory as
> > a whole must be Lorentz invariant then deriving the fact that the total
> > probablity is a Lorentz scalar.
>
> I don't think that's true in this case. Assuming a theory is Lorentz
> invariant has nothing to do with classical statistical analysis, where
> total probability has always been a constant, conserved and normalized
> to unity. It is a definition from statistics, not an assumption from
> relativity.
What I'm saying is that the definition from statistics (which
most, if not all people find perfectly reasonable) is an axiom of the
theory. Likewise the postulate of relativity is an axiom (which seems
reasonable to most people). Both are assumptions about how the world
behaves.
> Even using the Schrodenger equation, which is not manifestly invariant,
> and not relativistic, total probability is interpreted in the same way.
> One need only assume that total probability means that the event
> occured, or was observed to occur. It doesn't matter who observed it, or
> from where. It is independent of the relative comoving coordinates of
> the observer.
Since you din't respond to it in Tom Robert's post, I'll bring it
back up here. The total probablity is an integral over all spacetime
coordinates. This is invariant under _any_ transformation with unit
Jacobian. The fact that Lorentz transformations form a part of this set
of transformations is really nice, and it insures that the total prob.
will remain one, but it is not fundemental. If you could say that the
Lorentz invariance of a QFT resulted from the invariance of the total
prob. then you would be forced to assume that the QFT is invariant under
any other transformation which leaves the total prob. invariant, even if
it isn't a Lorentz transformation. That's a problem.
> > If you assumed that your theory had
> > a small interaction which violated Lorentz invariance you could work out
> > what effect that would have on the total prob. I seriously doubt you
> > could work out the effect on the action by assuming the total prob. was
> > not Lorentz invariant. You certianly couldn't do it uniquly.
>
> I wouldn't want to!
I don't care, that's not the point. The point is that it's easier
to work with if you start from Lorentz invariance.
> The fact that it is Lorentz invariant works for me in two ways. It shows
> that the tools used to measure space and time, rulers and clock are
> themselves just probability distributions of particles,
Huh? Clocks and rulers are made of particles _obeying_ a
probablity distribution, they are not (and neither is a single particle)
probablity distributions.
> and that their probability density changes relative to moving observers.
> So a Lorentz Boost is the same as dispersion of the probability density.
Then what happens if you make a non-Lorentz transformation with
unit Jacobian?
> It also shows that if the probability density varies as a function of
> the coordinate location, then the spacetime manifold may appear to be
> curved,
The probality denity should vary from place to place. This in no
way implies that spacetime is curved.
> where the coordinates change such that total probabiltiy remains
> constant.
Again you've got to deal with non-Lorentz transformations with
unit Jacobian. Isn't it easier just to accept the postualtes of SR and
construct a Lorentz invariant theory from the start?
> > > ......The
> > > wave-like behavior of matter and energy is not the result of the theory,
> > > the theory is the result of the observations of this behavior.
> >
> > Thank you but I'm quite familier with QM and QFT.
>
> Sorry I don't know your background.
Read my .sig there's a hint there. (I'm an M.Sc. student)
>
> > > I'm saying that the scalar nature of total probability is the cause of
> > > Lorentz invariance, definitely not the other way around. That would not
> > > make sense!
> >
> > Why not? Assuming the probablity must be one is one assumption.
> > Assuming that the theory is Lorentz invariant is another.
>
> The conservation of total probability is not an assumption in
> statistics, it is required by definition to be constant and normalized
> to unity.
That's still an axiom. Granted it's one that seems self evident,
but that doesn't make it any less of an axiom.
> > Nope, the fact that any sufficently small region of spacetime can
> > be considered Minkowski space results in the classical theory of SR. It
> > is also the reason that QFT's are Lorentz invariant. Minkowski space is
> > the stage.
>
> Nope, any region of spactime can only be measured by observations of
> physical objects, like particles or waves, or rulers and clocks. Minkowski
> spacetime is the result of our interpretation of those observations. If for
> example the probability density were invariant, and not total probability,
> then I can garuntee Minkowski spacetime would not fit our observations, so
> there would be no theory of Relativity.
If the probablity denstity were invariant the total probablity
would be as well. Even if not, that doesn't make it fundemental, just a
happy consequence. I would recommend reading some stuff on relativistic
QFT (try Peskin and Schroeder, Mandel and Shaw, or Wienberg if you want
the full treatment).
Question: Can you show, starting with the assumption that the total
probablity must be invariant under some tranformations, can
you show: 1) that the only transformations that leave the total
probablity invariant are Lorentz transformations
2) this Lorentz invariance implies that the action
_must_ be Lorentz invariant? If you are unable
to show (1) (you won't be able to) can you
classify the effects that a non-lorentz
transformation, that leaves the total probality
invariant, will have on the action.
Unless you can do this, your contention is not useful. The total
probablity must be invariant _only_ under Lorentz transformations for your
idea to work. Since it is invariant under _any_ transformation with unit
Jacobian the idea that Lorentz invariance in QFT arises from these
considerations must be put to rest.
Todd Desiato
Matthew Nobes wrote ...
>
> On Mon, 5 Jul 1999, Todd Desiato wrote:
> >
..about total probability...
> What I'm saying is that the definition from statistics (which
> most, if not all people find perfectly reasonable) is an axiom of the
> theory. Likewise the postulate of relativity is an axiom (which seems
> reasonable to most people). Both are assumptions about how the world
> behaves.
Agreed. It is an axiom of the theory. It is a requirement of the
interpretation of the wave function as a probability amplitude.
> Since you din't respond to it in Tom Robert's post, I'll bring it
> back up here. The total probablity is an integral over all spacetime
> coordinates.
Yes.
> This is invariant under _any_ transformation with unit
> Jacobian. The fact that Lorentz transformations form a part of this set
> of transformations is really nice, and it insures that the total prob.
> will remain one, but it is not fundemental.
Agreed, I think.
> If you could say that the
> Lorentz invariance of a QFT resulted from the invariance of the total
> prob. then you would be forced to assume that the QFT is invariant under
> any other transformation which leaves the total prob. invariant, even if
> it isn't a Lorentz transformation. That's a problem.
Why would you be "forced to assume" that? I am speaking of transformations
of the coordinate system only. When you speak of "other transforms", you are
being too general for me to understand what they might be. Are you referring
to guage transformations? I thought QFT was a guage theory, meaning it was
invariant under guage tranformations. What possible transformation, other
than re-normalizing the total probability to some value other than 1, could
change total probability to be something else?
> > > If you assumed that your theory had
> > > a small interaction which violated Lorentz invariance you could work
out
> > > what effect that would have on the total prob. I seriously doubt you
> > > could work out the effect on the action by assuming the total prob.
was
> > > not Lorentz invariant. You certianly couldn't do it uniquly.
> >
> > I wouldn't want to!
>
> I don't care, that's not the point. The point is that it's easier
> to work with if you start from Lorentz invariance.
Perhaps, but for me it is less intuitive, and bassakwards. Lorentz
invariance, and the theory of Relativity are the end result of the wave-like
behavior of matter, which allows dispersion of the probability density as a
function of the coordinates.
> > The fact that it is Lorentz invariant works for me in two ways. It shows
> > that the tools used to measure space and time, rulers and clock are
> > themselves just probability distributions of particles,
>
> Huh? Clocks and rulers are made of particles _obeying_ a
> probablity distribution, they are not (and neither is a single particle)
> probablity distributions.
Right. Well said. But the proability densities are not fixed, and are not
invariant so neither are the length of their measured intervals.
> > and that their probability density changes relative to moving observers.
> > So a Lorentz Boost is the same as dispersion of the probability density.
>
> Then what happens if you make a non-Lorentz transformation with
> unit Jacobian?
The total probability will remain constant. The probability density and the
coordinate system representation of it will vary in such a way to make that
so.
> > It also shows that if the probability density varies as a function of
> > the coordinate location, then the spacetime manifold may appear to be
> > curved,
>
> The probality denity should vary from place to place. This in no
> way implies that spacetime is curved.
That's not what I meant. If you have many identical particles, say hydrogen
atoms, distributed across non-local distances. Then by making identical
observations of each of them from the same location, say by observing their
radiation spectrum to determine their energy transition probabilities, then
if you measure red or blue shifts you will determine that globally spacetime
is curved.
......
> . I would recommend reading some stuff on relativistic
> QFT (try Peskin and Schroeder, Mandel and Shaw, or Wienberg if you want
> the full treatment).
Right now I'm reading QFT by Ryder.
> Question: Can you show, starting with the assumption that the total
> probablity must be invariant under some tranformations, can
> you show: 1) that the only transformations that leave the total
> probablity invariant are Lorentz transformations
No, and that would be foolish to think so. Any transformations that do not
prevent the event from occuring or its observation will leave the total
probability invariant. That is obvious. Like I said the total probability
only means the event took place, or was observed to take place. Like all
total probability, it is normalized to 1. You could normalize to something
else, but that changes nothing.
> 2) this Lorentz invariance implies that the action
> _must_ be Lorentz invariant?
First and foremost, the constancy of total probability results in the fact
that probability density is not invariant and depends on the coordinate
system, it is observer dependent. Second, the probability density of
particles in the ruler determine its length, so length is not a Lorentz
invariant either, just as Relativity requires. Third, if you use rulers and
clocks whose particles are described by probability waves and probability
densities, then they are not Lorentz invariant. But all of your measurements
of space and time will be Lorentz invariant BECAUSE probability densities,
along with rulers and clocks depend on the coordinate system. Not because of
Lorentz invariance, but because of the total probability is constant.
Constancy of total probability is more fundamental, and leads directly to
Lorentz invariance. It probably leads to guage invariance too, but I haven't
gotten that far yet. :0/
> If you are unable
> to show (1) (you won't be able to) can you
> classify the effects that a non-lorentz
> transformation, that leaves the total probality
> invariant, will have on the action.
I answerd this above. The total probability will remain constant. The
probability density and/or the coordinate system representation of it will
vary in such a way to make that so.
> Unless you can do this, your contention is not useful. The total
> probablity must be invariant _only_ under Lorentz transformations for your
> idea to work. Since it is invariant under _any_ transformation with unit
> Jacobian the idea that Lorentz invariance in QFT arises from these
> considerations must be put to rest.
I'll think about it if you will. Our only real point of disagreement here is
that I am interpreting QM in such a way as to explain the reason for the
theory of Relativity. I chose to place cause at the quantum level, and
effect at the observation level. Relativity was put into QM, but the
resulting wave-like description can be interpreted to intuitively describe
why Relativity is required in the first place.
Todd Desiato
Matthew Nobes
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999, Todd Desiato wrote:
>
> Matthew Nobes wrote ...
> >
> > On Mon, 5 Jul 1999, Todd Desiato wrote:
> > >
> > > Matthew Nobes wrote ...
>
> ..about total probability...
[snip agreement]
>
> > Since you din't respond to it in Tom Robert's post, I'll bring it
> > back up here. The total probablity is an integral over all spacetime
> > coordinates.
>
> Yes.
>
> > This is invariant under _any_ transformation with unit
> > Jacobian. The fact that Lorentz transformations form a part of this set
> > of transformations is really nice, and it insures that the total prob.
> > will remain one, but it is not fundemental.
>
> Agreed, I think.
>
> > If you could say that the
> > Lorentz invariance of a QFT resulted from the invariance of the total
> > prob. then you would be forced to assume that the QFT is invariant under
> > any other transformation which leaves the total prob. invariant, even if
> > it isn't a Lorentz transformation. That's a problem.
>
> Why would you be "forced to assume" that? I am speaking of
> transformations of the coordinate system only. When you speak of "other
> transforms", you are being too general for me to understand what they
> might be.
Sorry I assumed you knew what a Jacobian was. I was refering to
transformations of the coordinates. The total probablility integral is
invariant under transformations, that are not Lorentz transformations.
This means in effect you are saying the Lorentz invariance of the total
probability is what causes the QFT to be Lorentz invariant, but the
invariance of the total probablity under coordinate transformations with
unit jacobian has no effect on the invariance of the theory. This is not
a very tenable position.
> Are you referring to guage transformations?
No, but the total probablity better be invariant under those as
well (well, at least the ones that are the symmetries of the theory).
> I thought QFT was a guage theory, meaning it was invariant under guage
> tranformations.
Most are, there might be QFT's with no gauge symmetry (Fermi's
theory of weak decays has no local gauge symmetry for example).
> What possible transformation, other than re-normalizing the total
> probability to some value other than 1, could change total probability
> to be something else?
I'm not talking about changing the probability. I'm saying that
there are coordinate transformations, that are not Lorentz transformations
which leave the total probablity unity. This is a problem if you are
postulating that the invariances to the total prob. somehow affect the
invariances of the action. Whereas if you assume the action is
Lorentz invariant, you cannot make these tranformations.
> > > > If you assumed that your theory had
> > > > a small interaction which violated Lorentz invariance you could work
> > > > out
> > > > what effect that would have on the total prob. I seriously doubt you
> > > > could work out the effect on the action by assuming the total prob.
> > > > was
> > > > not Lorentz invariant. You certianly couldn't do it uniquly.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't want to!
> >
> > I don't care, that's not the point. The point is that it's easier
> > to work with if you start from Lorentz invariance.
>
> Perhaps, but for me it is less intuitive, and bassakwards. Lorentz
> invariance, and the theory of Relativity are the end result of the
> wave-like behavior of matter, which allows dispersion of the probability
> density as a function of the coordinates.
I would definitatly say that that is wrong.
> > > The fact that it is Lorentz invariant works for me in two ways. It shows
> > > that the tools used to measure space and time, rulers and clock are
> > > themselves just probability distributions of particles,
> >
> > Huh? Clocks and rulers are made of particles _obeying_ a
> > probablity distribution, they are not (and neither is a single particle)
> > probablity distributions.
>
> Right. Well said. But the proability densities are not fixed, and are not
> invariant so neither are the length of their measured intervals.
>
> > > and that their probability density changes relative to moving observers.
> > > So a Lorentz Boost is the same as dispersion of the probability density.
> >
> > Then what happens if you make a non-Lorentz transformation with
> > unit Jacobian?
>
> The total probability will remain constant. The probability density and the
> coordinate system representation of it will vary in such a way to make that
> so.
Ya, I know _that_ but what will it say about the action of the
QFT? If invariance under Lorentz transformations implies that the action
is Lorentzx invariant, invariance under some other non-Lorentz
transformation should imply that the action is invariant under some
non-Lorentz transformation. Unless of course you want to add another
axiom ("the only transformations that can be applied to the total
probability are Lorentz transformations").
>
> > > It also shows that if the probability density varies as a function of
> > > the coordinate location, then the spacetime manifold may appear to be
> > > curved,
> >
> > The probality denity should vary from place to place. This in no
> > way implies that spacetime is curved.
>
> That's not what I meant. If you have many identical particles, say hydrogen
> atoms, distributed across non-local distances. Then by making identical
> observations of each of them from the same location, say by observing their
> radiation spectrum to determine their energy transition probabilities, then
> if you measure red or blue shifts you will determine that globally spacetime
> is curved.
How would you measure red and blue shifts if you and the atoms
were stationary?
>
> ......
> > . I would recommend reading some stuff on relativistic
> > QFT (try Peskin and Schroeder, Mandel and Shaw, or Wienberg if you want
> > the full treatment).
>
> Right now I'm reading QFT by Ryder.
don't know that one. I highly recommend P&S though, it's very
good. Also K. Huang has a new intro out. I haven't seen it, but his more
advanced book _Quarks Leptons and Gauge Fields" was excellent.
>
> > Question: Can you show, starting with the assumption that the total
> > probablity must be invariant under some tranformations, can
> > you show: 1) that the only transformations that leave the total
> > probablity invariant are Lorentz transformations
>
> No, and that would be foolish to think so. Any transformations that do not
> prevent the event from occuring or its observation will leave the total
> probability invariant. That is obvious. Like I said the total probability
> only means the event took place, or was observed to take place. Like all
> total probability, it is normalized to 1. You could normalize to something
> else, but that changes nothing.
See above, you are basically saying that the action must therefore
have extra symmetries under non-Lorentz coordinate transformations. Do
you really want to say that?
>
> > 2) this Lorentz invariance implies that the action
> > _must_ be Lorentz invariant?
>
> First and foremost, the constancy of total probability results in the
> fact that probability density is not invariant and depends on the
> coordinate system, it is observer dependent. Second, the probability
> density of particles in the ruler determine its length, so length is not
> a Lorentz invariant either, just as Relativity requires. Third, if you
> use rulers and clocks whose particles are described by probability waves
> and probability densities, then they are not Lorentz invariant. But all
> of your measurements of space and time will be Lorentz invariant BECAUSE
> probability densities, along with rulers and clocks depend on the
> coordinate system. Not because of Lorentz invariance, but because of the
> total probability is constant.
I'm well aware that lengths, prob. amplitudes etc. are not Lorentz
invariant, but the action (possibly the single most important thing in
QFT) IS (if it wasn't your theory would violate (amoung other things)
momentum conservation). I asked how the Lorentz invariance of the total
probability implies (a mathmatical proof would be nice) the Lorentz
invariance of the action. It's easy to show the converse.
> Constancy of total probability is more fundamental, and leads directly to
> Lorentz invariance. It probably leads to guage invariance too, but I haven't
> gotten that far yet. :0/
I would recommend studying QFT very _very_ carfully (i.e. at the
Weinberg level) before trying to modify it. It's an incredably well
constraned thing, there isn't much elbow room. Assumed symmetries
basically force the form of the theory on you.
>
> > If you are unable
> > to show (1) (you won't be able to) can you
> > classify the effects that a non-lorentz
> > transformation, that leaves the total probality
> > invariant, will have on the action.
>
> I answerd this above. The total probability will remain constant. The
> probability density and/or the coordinate system representation of it will
> vary in such a way to make that so.
Again I know that.
>
> > Unless you can do this, your contention is not useful. The total
> > probablity must be invariant _only_ under Lorentz transformations for your
> > idea to work. Since it is invariant under _any_ transformation with unit
> > Jacobian the idea that Lorentz invariance in QFT arises from these
> > considerations must be put to rest.
>
> I'll think about it if you will.
I have thought about this extensivly (2 grad courses, 1 ugrad
course, hours of self study). I would not claim to be anywhere near an
expert (it's a huge subject) but I can identify the error you are making.
> Our only real point of disagreement here is that I am interpreting QM in
> such a way as to explain the reason for the theory of Relativity. I
> chose to place cause at the quantum level, and effect at the observation
> level. Relativity was put into QM, but the resulting wave-like
> description can be interpreted to intuitively describe why Relativity is
> required in the first place.
That is incorrect in light of what I've said above.
Gerry Quinn
>In article <19990705191046...@ng-da1.aol.com>, DJMenCk wrote:
>
>> Anyway, the two slit experimental results also occur for sound waves--for
>>purely material reasons, right?
>
>No, they most certainly do not occur for sound waves. That's the whole
>point.
>
Of course they do!
The point you have made below regarding photons is equally valid for
phonons, which are single quanta of sound energy.
- Gerry Quinn
DJMenCk
>In article <19990705050013...@ng-da1.aol.com>, DJMenCk wrote:
>>>
>>>In article <19990704202340...@ng-cb1.aol.com>, DJMenCk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Dennis; The kinetic/atomic theory of matter was first posited in 400 BC.
>>>
>>Bergman: The atomic theory of Lucretius, Democritus and Epicurus (?) was
>>>basically philosophy. It's also pretty much wrong. Only the idea
>>>that atoms exist was sort of correct.
>>
>>Dennis: "The only idea"?
>>1) First of all, that's a rather large idea--and from it we have all of
>>chemistry, the periodic table, etc.
>
>types of atoms.
Dennis: And they were right. The "atoms" in their terminology referred to the
ultimate base particle, the various motion and configurations of which resulted
in the different kinds of atoms and matter we know about today. This
explanation helped develop all of chemistry and the periodic table--which
started with a base particle Hydrogen--or later a proton--and then built the
other elements. It also helped elucidate "color" which turned out not to be
based on an inherent quality, but simply different kinds of motion. Same
thing with sound and aroma.
Etherists still believe it will come down not to different inherent qualities
but a single type of base particle.
>>2) We've also kept the ideas of evaporation, condensation, the conservation
>of
>>matter (sort of), the theory of the atmosphere, meteorology, etc.
>> Practically all historians of science comment on how much of modern
>science
>>is based on their work.
>
>Whatever.
>
>>As Lederman wrote in "The God Particle:"
>>
>>"Leon Lederman: And you came up with this idea in the fifth century-BC.
>>Greece?
>>
>>Democritus: Yes, why? Your ideas today are so much different?
>>
>>Lederman: Well, actually, they’re pretty much the same. We just hate the
>fact
>>that you published first.”
>> A fictional conversation between the Ancient Greek philosopher,
Democritus,
>>and the twentieth century Noble Laureate Leon Lederman as imagined by
>Lederman
>>in his physics book, The God Particle.
>
Bergman: >Lederman's full of shit. It's nice to believe that these ancient
>greeks discovered the secrets to the universe, but it simply isn't
>true.
Dennis: It's not simply Lederman, but the importance of their arguments is
described in detail by practically everyone who has ever studied science. They
*were* the first scientists and came up with many explanations that we still
use today, ie, for aroma, evaporation, wind, condensations, erosion, etc.
Bergman: Go read Lucretius or something.
Dennis: I have--and so have many competent historians of science. And most
believe the history of science is incomplete without detailing its influence on
(and even describing it as the foundation of) modern scientific thought.
According to Henry A. Boorse and Lloyd Motz, the editors of the colossal
physics anthology, The World of the Atom: “De Rerum Natura had the most
profound effect on the thought of Western Scholars some seventeen centuries
later, when experimental science was reborn. In England the atomic idea taught
by De Rerum Natura was especially fruitful: it greatly influenced Boyle, the
founder of modern Chemistry, and Newton, the father of mathematical physics.”
David Boorstin, in his stately tome, The Discoverers, explains that “The
Church Fathers, committed to the Christian afterlife, attacked Lucretius, and
he was ignored or forgotten during the Middle Ages but became one of the most
influential figures in the Renaissance.”
In A History of Science, W.C. Dampier writes, “Whatever be its value in
philosophy, in science the Democritean atomic theory is nearer to the views now
held than any of the systems which preceded or replaced it, and its virtual
suppression under the destructive criticisms of Plato and Aristotle must, from
the scientific standpoint, be counted as a misfortune. Platonism in its
various forms was left to represent Greek thought to later ages, a fact which
was one of the reasons why the scientific spirit vanished from the Earth for a
thousand years.”
But I suppose they could be "full of shit" as well.
Bergman: >[...various assertions...]
Dennis: I assume these "assertions" are even less challengeable than the
assertion of the importance of the works of the Greek atomists.
>>>> Waterston died unknown. Evolutionary psychology took a century to
>>>>become accepted. Huygens wave theory of light took a century as well.
>>>
>>Bergman: >Huh? There was debate for centuries on the particulate vs. wave
>>>theory of light.
>>
>>Dennis: . The point is that in the 1700's the wave theory was rejected by
>>mainstream scientists. Obviously, there's always a vocal minority debating
>the
>>point.
>
Bergman: >I'm not aware of the details here, but Newton certainly believed
>in the particulate theory. Others believed in a wave theory. As
>we know now, both are correct. The particle theory went away when
>Maxwell discovered the wavelike solutions to his equations (or
>was the Hertz?). It came back with experiments that could detect
>single photons.
>
>[...]
>
>>>>Bergman: >In the end, hard data wins.
>>>>
>>>>Dennis: Waterston had all the equations. so did Copernicus and Kepler.
>>>
>>Bergman: >And outside of the Roman Catholic church, Copernicus and Kepler
>>>were believed.
>>
>>Dennis: You are talking about all those educated astronomers who worked
>outside
>>of religious universities in the 1500's?
>>Again, I've seen estimates in science tomes that there weren't 10
>Copernicans
>>in the world in the 1500's and early 1600's.
>
Bergman: >That differs from what I heard in my philosophy of science
Dennis: It's uncontested that his work wasn't published till the year he
died--and then only in secret by a small sect of Lutherans. It is also
uncontested that Tycho Brahe, a follower of Ptolemy, was the most influential
of astronomers afterward. It is also uncontested that 100 years later when
Galileo published his agreement with the underground theory that the vast
majority of science professors of the day disagreed with him, and that
Galileo's work was suppressed.
Thus, if you want an example of a scientist who was on the right track but
couldn't get his work accepted by the academic and scientific
authorities--Copernicus and Galileo--do spring to mind. And the suppression of
their ideas lasted more than just a generation.
Bergman: >[...yawn...Sagnac...]
Dennis: A "yawn" usually suggests in a condescending fashion that what someone
is writing is well-known and irrelevant. Obviously, since I claimed that SR
explanations of Sagnac are somewhat Ptolemaic (especially when compared to the
ether view)--and since you seemed to rebut that statement, my counter argument
was relevant. Are you accepting my claims--or is your "yawn" simply a way of
dismissing it in a vague way that leaves no chance for analysis?
Here's my argument again:
The SR theory gives 4 different explanations for 1) one-way Sagnac effect
between two points 2) the reason for the Sagnac effect around a rotating table
according to a rim observer 3) the
stationary ring gyro Sagnac effect, and 4) the cause of the sound Sagnac
effect.
That's got to be considered Ptolemaic compared to the Lorentzian use of just 1
explanation that is derivable by freshmen in highschool.
--Dennis McCarthy
Todd Desiato
Matthew Nobes wrote ...
>
> On Mon, 5 Jul 1999, Todd Desiato wrote:
>
> > Why would you be "forced to assume" that? I am speaking of
> > transformations of the coordinate system only. When you speak of "other
> > transforms", you are being too general for me to understand what they
> > might be.
>
> Sorry I assumed you knew what a Jacobian was.
I do.
> I was refering to
> transformations of the coordinates.
Such as from Cartesian to Spherical-polar?
> The total probablility integral is
> invariant under transformations, that are not Lorentz transformations.
Agreed.
> This means in effect you are saying the Lorentz invariance of the total
> probability is what causes the QFT to be Lorentz invariant, but the
> invariance of the total probablity under coordinate transformations with
> unit jacobian has no effect on the invariance of the theory. This is not
> a very tenable position.
Are you saying that the Action of QFT depends on the observers choice of
coordinate system? If so, why would it be Lorentz invariant? I not, then why
would it care what coordinate transformation is used? That's why I don't
understand what sort of coordinate transforms you are referring to.
> > > I don't care, that's not the point. The point is that it's easier
> > > to work with if you start from Lorentz invariance.
> >
> > Perhaps, but for me it is less intuitive, and bassakwards. Lorentz
> > invariance, and the theory of Relativity are the end result of the
> > wave-like behavior of matter, which allows dispersion of the probability
> > density as a function of the coordinates.
>
> I would definitatly say that that is wrong.
Have you ever worked with a dispersion diagram?
> > The total probability will remain constant. The probability density and
the
> > coordinate system representation of it will vary in such a way to make
that
> > so.
>
> Ya, I know _that_ but what will it say about the action of the
> QFT? If invariance under Lorentz transformations implies that the action
> is Lorentzx invariant, invariance under some other non-Lorentz
> transformation should imply that the action is invariant under some
> non-Lorentz transformation. Unless of course you want to add another
> axiom ("the only transformations that can be applied to the total
> probability are Lorentz transformations").
OK, I see your point. I apreciate you taking this much time to get through
to me. Could you give me an example of such a transformation acting on a
wave function? One where total probability will be invariant, but the action
will not.
> > That's not what I meant. If you have many identical particles, say
hydrogen
> > atoms, distributed across non-local distances. Then by making identical
> > observations of each of them from the same location, say by observing
their
> > radiation spectrum to determine their energy transition probabilities,
then
> > if you measure red or blue shifts you will determine that globally
spacetime
> > is curved.
>
> How would you measure red and blue shifts if you and the atoms
> were stationary?
Sorry, I mean **gravitational red shift**, as a function of the other matter
and energy in the region. That allows the curvature to be measured.
Thanks for the recommendations.
Todd D.
DJMenCk
>DJMenCk wrote:
>> Bergman: >Sagnac was given as a problem on one of the general exams here.
>> >It's really not that much of a big deal.
>> Dennis: Hopefully, you didn't give the naive SR explanation and properly
>> implemented your spacetime helix. [...]
>
be
>computed in
>SR from the theorem that the speed of light is isotropically c in any
>inertial
>frame.
Dennis: What are you talking about? Have you even glanced at Rizzi and
Tartaglia's paper, or do you dispute it? The simple explanation which subsumes
the use of Galilean velocities in non-inertial frames leads to theoretical
problems.
This is why Einstein used GR.
This is why new explanations--and problems with the old "naive" ones keep
getting reviewed and published in mainstream journals.
Did you not understand any of that at all?
Roberts: >I guess after >1 year of self-delusion DJMenCk still doesn't
understand
>either the
>Sagnac effect or SR and its application to it. Of course he tends to
>concentrate
>on _unmeasurable_ aspects....
>
>Aaron Bergman is right, it's "not that much of a big deal".
Dennis: Well, here's R and T explaining the effect:
**************************************
Rizzi and Tartaglia: “When we start from event S (0) and move along the rim
of the platform, the simultaneity procedure as defined in K (S) is transported,
step by step, along the rim. As a result, the set of events taking place on
the rim and simultaneous to S in K is mapped, in the (3-dimensional Euclidean)
plot of the (2+1) Minkowskian space-time, into a spacelike helical curve s,
starting from S (0) and everywhere orthogonal to the timelike helix S (“history
of the point S at rest on the disk”), whose tangent vector forms a constant
angle a with respect to the x axis of K.... “The main issue is that the
“circumference” is not a circumference ta all, but an open spacelike curve,
whose end-point S ( ) belongs to the future starting point S (0). The time
distance between S (0).and S ( ) along S as measured by clock C is the time
lag...” (Complicated Equations Deleted)“The Sagnac effect is “totally
due” to a “time-lag” arising in synchronizing clocks around the rim, because
of rotation...”
************************************
Also here's Throop's answer to my question involving four different
manifestation of this exact same effect:
************************************
D: 1) what is the cause of the one-way Sagnac effect between two points?
Throop: Use of unsynchronized clocks.
D:: 2) what is the cause of the Sagnac effect around a rotating table
: according to a rim observer?
Throop: The light course in any inertial frame differs between spinwards and
antispinwards. For the rim observer, this would be the light course in
the tangent inertial frame, which would be two different spiral shapes.
D: 3) what is the cause of a stationary ring gyro Sagnac effect?
Throop:Differing light path lengths, no doubt.
(Could you describe the experiment in more detail?)
D: 4) what is the cause of a sound Sagnac effect?
Throop: The air.
*********************************************
Dennis: Now, that may be no "big deal," but well, it certainly can't be
considered as simple as the ether use of one simple explanation that is
understandable by all.
Indeed, one could even say the SR explanation is "Ptolemaic" in comparison.
DJMenCk
>On 4 Jul 1999, DJMenCk wrote:
>
>> >
>> >On 3 Jul 1999, DJMenCk wrote:
>> >
>> >> I wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >On 2 Jul 1999, Paul Stowe wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Umm, LET makes the same predicitions as SR, but involves
>> >> >additional assumptions. I don't think many physicists would argue that
>> >> >LET couln't be right, jsut that it's a whole lot less appealing from
>the
>> >> >point of needless hypothesis.
>> >>
>> >> Dennis:
>> >> 1) Incorrect. The only assumption needed to recover the LT's is that
>> >> light is a media process that results in the Lorentz contractions. All
>> >> other Lorentz-equations are derivable through classical wave analyses
>> >> while using EM based instruments.
>> >
>> Nobes: Exactly, no such medium is introduced in SR.
>>
>> Dennis: 1) You had argued that LET used an additional hypothesis.
>> Actually SR uses two postulates (plus extra assumptions that suggest
>> light waves), while LET just assumes that EM media results in Lorentz
>> contraction.
>
Nobes: > Then how does that explain why a theory like QCD is Lorentz
>invariant? SR's two postulates apply to all physical situations, to make
>LET work for the strong force you'd have to make up a "colour media". Of
>course then you'd need a "W boson media". and...
Dennis: 1) What experiment suggests that the strong force is Lorentz invariant.
2) The strong force is most certainly caused by pressure of the ether
system--thus there it will undergo Lorentzian effects due to an ether wind.
D: >> 2) Given that the LT's are media-based equations and work
>> for sound, relativists have to assume that this is yet another
>> coincidence, and develop a completely different explanation as to why
>> the LT's work for EM. That's not simpler.
>
Nobes: > See my comments below, you seem to think that "light waves"
have
>some meaning outside of a statistical phenomena associated with a very
>large number of photons.
Dennis: Well, if you are claiming that interference effects are physical
manifestations of "probabilities" intefering, then well...we have a slight
difference in opinion on what equations are and how the universe works. If you
are claiming its due to a sea of particles interfering, then we are agreed.
>> D:>> 2) Since the LT's can also be recovered for sound on say a planet
>for
>> >> the blind who use sound-based instruments, would you also consider the
>> >> atmosphere of that planet a "needless" hypothesis.
>> >
>> Nobes: No because the exsitence of an atmosphere can be verified by other
>> means (i.e. atmospheric pressure).
>>
>> Dennis: According to relativists, that would be caused by the matterless
>> pressure "field"--just as the push of magnets is caused, in their minds,
>> by a matterless magnetic field. Who needs a material medium, when
>> matterless fields that are described by equations can push objects
>> around? True: Both magnetism and pressure can be predicted by media
>> equations--but that's not evidence of a media process, right?
>
Nobes: > Not if you understand the statistical nature of both processes.
>Both pressure and magnetism are explained in this way.
Dennis: That point I missed. Why would you think a common aspect in the
explanation of pressure and magnetism, would suggest a material medium for
pressure but not for magnetism? Let me repeat: If you believe matterless
fields can push objects around, then you would have believed (as many
scientists like Mach believed) that pressure or heat or statistcal mechanics
of, say, gasses or sound or wind were not evidence of a material medium.
D: >> Thus, I repeat, on a planet of the blind who use sound-based
>> instruments, you would also consider the atmosphere of that planet a
>> "needless" hypothesis, right?
>
> Not if the residents of the planet new anything about statistical
>mechanics,
Dennis: See above. And please be clear about how "statistical mechanics"
suggests that a material medium exists.
Nobes: or needed to comsume oxygen to live.
Dennis: We need EM energy to survive as well, but you don't think that's
material, right?
D
>>
>> D:>> 3) SR gets a pass on many predictions of ether theory that are
>> >> observed, but that SR would not predict: Like the fact that light waves.
>
>> >> Why does light wave according to SR?
>> >
>> Nobes: > Light "waves" because that is what is predicted by QED in the
>> large photon number limit.
>>
>> Dennis: 1) So light "waves" because of a theoretical prediction?
>
Nobes: > No classical light waves arise because the nearly infinite
number
>of photons emmitted from a source behave as if they are a continous wave.
>But, they are not, a classical light wave is merely a collection of
>photons behaving according to a statistical law. This is indeed predicted
>by QED, do you really want to dispute the experimental evidence behind
>QED?
Dennis; Why would I want to dispute the experimental evidence supporting a
theory based on classical wave analyses?
>> 2) The central equation of Quantum mechanics--and particularly
>> Schrodinger's equation and theory--are based completely and entirely on
>> classical media analyses.
>
Nobes: > Schrodinger's version of QM might be based on media analyses,
but
>Heisenberg's is most certainly not.
Dennis: And? The point is that experimental evidence for QM is not evidence
against a classical media analysis. Indeed, just the opposite.
Nobes: Secondly, whatever the basis for
>there development, they are now know to be probablistic laws.
Dennis: Oh, we now "know" that "probability" waves are interfereing? Hmmm.
>> 3) I asked why light waves according to SR--which was developed in 1905.
>
> SR doesn't tell you why light waves, QED does.
Dennis: Well, then LET seems to have the advantage over SR in this case, right?
DJMenCk
>In article <slrn7o2ff8....@tree0.Stanford.EDU>,
>aber...@princeton.edu (Aaron Bergman) wrote:
>>In article <19990705191046...@ng-da1.aol.com>, DJMenCk wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway, the two slit experimental results also occur for sound waves--for
>>>purely material reasons, right?
>>
>>No, they most certainly do not occur for sound waves. That's the whole
>>point.
>>
>
>The point you have made below regarding photons is equally valid for
>phonons, which are single quanta of sound energy.
>
Dennis: Right. And this was Bergman's quintessential example of the fact that
no imagined comprehensible material analysis could explain the effect. This is
just too bizarre to lead to such understanding, he thinks. It's a weird, new
universe after all.
One may now understand why people were so superstitious in the past. If
Bergman thinks the two-slit experiment is beyond material understanding--what
do you think he would have felt about disease or rain 500 years ago. How about
a lightning strike? Or life?
Those also seemed like incomprehensible new universes in the past. Yet,
where there was once mystery and wonder, there are now comprehensible material
explanations.
DJMenCk
>
>In article <slrn7o2ff8....@tree0.Stanford.EDU>,
>aber...@princeton.edu (Aaron Bergman) wrote:
>>In article <19990705191046...@ng-da1.aol.com>, DJMenCk wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway, the two slit experimental results also occur for sound waves--for
>>>purely material reasons, right?
>>
>>No, they most certainly do not occur for sound waves. That's the whole
>>point.
>>
>
>
>The point you have made below regarding photons is equally valid for
>phonons, which are single quanta of sound energy.
>
D: Exactly.
I guess the question is pick any century of the last 2400 years and ask the
question who is more naive?
The ones who believed the new phenomenon of study, say, pressure or disease
was part of a "whole, new universe" that can't be explained through material
methods?
Or the ones who thought that material explanations were still possible?
Aaron Bergman
>>
>>In article <slrn7o2ff8....@tree0.Stanford.EDU>,
>>aber...@princeton.edu (Aaron Bergman) wrote:
>>>In article <19990705191046...@ng-da1.aol.com>, DJMenCk wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anyway, the two slit experimental results also occur for sound waves--for
>>>>purely material reasons, right?
>>>
>>>No, they most certainly do not occur for sound waves. That's the whole
>>>point.
>>>
>>
>>The point you have made below regarding photons is equally valid for
>>phonons, which are single quanta of sound energy.
>
>no imagined comprehensible material analysis could explain the effect.
Actually, even if the phonon comparison made sense (and I can't
imagine offhand how it might, but you never know, I suppose), the
same thing applies. Quantized phonons display all the bizarre
behavior of quantum theories and thinking of them as simple
normal modes of vibration in a lattice simply will lead you to
to misunderstandings.
[...]
> Those also seemed like incomprehensible new universes in the past. Yet,
>where there was once mystery and wonder, there are now comprehensible material
>explanations.
I'm not saying that these things are incomprehensible -- I'm just
saying that your naive realism is just that: naive. Nature has no
obligation to make the universe work according to your
prejudices. It is a remarkable act of faith that you believe it
does so.
Aaron Bergman
>In article <slrn7o2ff8....@tree0.Stanford.EDU>, aber...@princeton.edu (Aaron Bergman) wrote:
>>In article <19990705191046...@ng-da1.aol.com>, DJMenCk wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway, the two slit experimental results also occur for sound waves--for
>>>purely material reasons, right?
>>
>>No, they most certainly do not occur for sound waves. That's the whole
>>point.
>
>
>The point you have made below regarding photons is equally valid for
>phonons, which are single quanta of sound energy.
Phonons are normal modes of vibrations in a lattice -- I'm not
even sure what it would be to formulate the two slit experiment
in terms of phonons.