ALTERNATIVE Comet Rendezvous Missions
mce...@cnsvax.uwec.edu
ALTERNATIVE Comet Rendezvous Mission
The two proposed NASA comet rendezvous and sample return
missions are expected to cost BILLIONS of dollars, take
nearly 20 years from now to complete, and could FAIL in
DOZENS of ways!
Therefore, I believe that NASA, the United States, and
the project scientists and engineers, should all SWALLOW
THEIR PRIDE and ask the Russians for help. The Russians have
some equipment that could complete a MANNED comet rendezvous
and sample return mission, ROUND TRIP, in a matter of only a
couple of MONTHS! In spite of their economic and political
problems, they are FAR AHEAD in space, militarily and
scientifically.
Most of the following information came from the late Dr.
Peter David Beter, a well respected Washington, DC attorney,
Doctor of Jurisprudence, and expert and consultant in
international law, finance, and intelligence, who received
most of his information from many associates in the CIA and
other intelligence groups of other countries who disapproved
of many of the things happening or being planned behind the
scenes. [See especially the 2-7-80, 5-14-81, 5-21-81, 5-27-
82, and 10-14-82 back-issues of WISCONSIN REPORT newspaper,
P.O. Box 45, Brookfield, WI 53005.]
The Russians have spacecraft called "COSMOSPHERES",
which were originally built and used for "Star Wars" defense.
They are spherical in shape, INvisible to radar beyond about
50 miles away, atomic-powered [possibly Migma fUsion],
electro-gravitic (can hover against gravity), and equipped
with "Psycho-energetic Range Finding" (PRF) which tunes-in to
the actual atomic signature of an object or target.
The 3rd-generation JUMBO Cosmospheres occupy more volume
than the Hindenburg blimp, and are ELECTRO-MAGNETICALLY
PROPELLED (can accelerate continuously and rapidly, and make
it to Saturn in three WEEKS!). [Many of them are armed with
charged-particle beam weapons, neutron beam weapons, and/or
microwave brain-scrambling equipment!]
I would not be surprised if the Russians have already
COMPLETED a comet rendezvous and sample return mission and
have data and samples to share.
AIR BOOMS, 1977-78
I wish to add that the 1st-generation COSMOSPHERES were
deployed beginning in the Fall of 1977. In late 1977 and
early 1978, there was a strange rash of giant AIR BOOMS along
the East Coast of the U.S and elsewhere. The AIR BOOMS were
never satifactorily explained, by either the government or
news media. They could NOT be positively identified with any
particular SST or other aircraft, and indeed were much louder
than aircraft sonic booms.
The giant AIR BOOMS were actually caused by Russia
COSMOSPHERES firing CHARGED-PARTICLE BEAMS down into the
atmosphere in a DE-focused mode (spread out) for the purpose
of announcing their presence to the WAR-MONGERS in the U.S.
Pentagon.
The 3rd-generation JUMBO COSMOSPHERES were first
deployed in April 1981, in parallel with the first U.S. Space
Shuttle Mission. They significantly INTERFERED with that
mission, in ways which were successfully COVERED-UP by NASA
using techniques similar to those shown in the movie
"Capricorn I".
CREDIBILITY of Dr. Beter
I wish to give some additional information supporting
Dr. Beter's credibility, and that of his informers.
Dr. Beter predicted the bombing of the Marines in Beirut
A FULL YEAR BEFORE IT HAPPENED. He warned that the U.S.
Pentagon and the Israeli Mossad were CONSPIRING to
DELIBERATELY ARRANGE IT in order to try to get Americans
angry at the Arabs. (It was NO SURPRISE to me when it
happened!)
Dr. Beter predicted the assassination of Anwar Saddat
SIX DAYS BEFORE IT HAPPENED.
Dr. Beter predicted what he called the "RETIREMENT" of
Leonid Brezhnev ONE WEEK BEFORE Brezhnev "died". [Note that
the word "retirement" was used for the TERMINATION OF
REPLICANTS in the 1982 movie "Blade Runner".] He also
predicted that Brezhnev would be quickly replaced with
Andropov, which occurred ONLY THREE DAYS after the "death" of
Brezhnev, to the SURPRISE of all government and media
analysts.
[I KNOW that we are all supposed to LAUGH at the word
"conspiracy". That is what the various government, military,
political, media, banking, and corporate CONSPIRATORS have
successfully PROGRAMMED most of us to do. ]
ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PROPULSION
I indicated that the Russian 3rd-generation "JUMBO
COSMOSPHERES" are ELECTRO-MAGNETICALLY PROPELLED.
I heard of that concept long before 1981, in connection
with UFO's and unorthodox inventors, but I never was able to
find out how or why they work, or how they are constructed.
I found a possible clue about why they might work on
pages 112-113 of the book "BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER", by
the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson, which describes part of
Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical
universe. I quote one paragraph:
"As indicated in the preceding chapter, the development
of the theory of the universe of motion arrives at a totally
different concept of the nature of electrical resistance.
The electrons, we find, are derived from the environment. It
was brought out in Volume I [Larson's book "NOTHING BUT
MOTION"] that there are physical processes in operation which
produce electrons in substantial quantities, and that,
although the motions that constitute these electrons are, in
many cases, absorbed by atomic structures, the opportunities
for utilizing this type of motion in such structures are
limited. It follows that there is always a large excess of
free electrons in the material sector [material half] of the
universe, most of which are uncharged. In this uncharged
state the electrons cannot move with respect to extension
space, because they are inherently rotating units of space,
and the relation of space to space is not motion. In open
space, therefore, each uncharged electron remains permanently
in the same location with respect to the natural reference
system, in the manner of a photon. In the context of the
stationary spatial reference system the uncharged electron,
like the photon, is carried outward at the speed of light by
the progression of the natural reference system. All
material aggregates are thus exposed to a flux of electrons
similar to the continual bombardment by photons of radiation.
Meanwhile there are other processes, to be discussed later,
whereby electrons are returned to the environment. The
electron population of a material aggregate such as the earth
therefore stabilizes at an equilibrium level."
Note that in Larson's Theory, UNcharged electrons are
also massLESS, and are basically photons of light of a
particular frequency (above the "unit" frequency) spinning
around one axis at a particular rate (below the "unit" rate).
("Unit velocity" is the speed of light, and there are
vibrational and rotational equivalents to the speed of light,
according to Larson's Theory.) [I might have the "above" and
"below" labels mixed up.]
Larson is saying that outer space is filled with mass-
LESS UN-charged electrons flying around at the speed of
light!
If this is true, then the ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PROPULSION
fields of the Russian JUMBO COSMOSPHERES might be interacting
with these electrons, or other particles in space, perhaps
GIVING them a charge (and mass) and shooting them toward the
rear to achieve propulsion. (In Larson's Theory, an
electrical charge is a rotational vibration of a particular
frequency (above the "unit" frequency) superimposed on the
rotation of the particle.)
The paragraph quoted above might also give a clue to
confused meteorologists about how lightning is generated in
clouds.
UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.
Robert E. McElwaine
B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
John C. Baez
acronyms, book titles and section headings. We also have a few blatant
errors of fact, a claimed "GENERAL UNIFIED" theory of physics (Larson's)
without any testable predictions thereof that I can see, and warnings
about nasty conspiracies.
I will be generous and say 1 obvious error of fact, namely, that the
Russians have electrogravitically propelled "cosmospheres" equipped with
"psycho-energetic range finding" (PRF) and armed with all sorts of nasty
weapons. If I were in a bad mood I would count this as many obvious
errors of fact.
So we get:
-5 credit + 5 x 77 capitalized words + 30 x 1 revolutionary theory +
20 x 1 conspiracies.
(I forget if I put it in but conspiracies count 20 points.)
This gives a crackpot rating of 425 points if I did the math right.
Quite high I'd say, despite my massive generosity.
John C. Baez
should be, I think it's time to develop a crackpot index.
I think the simplest system is to add points for various indications of
kookiness.
Some proposals:
0) 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
1) 2 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
2) 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful
correction.
3) 30 points for each posting that claims a revolutionary theory but
gives no concrete testable predictions.
4) 10 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Einstein, or
claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided
(without good evidence).
5) 10 points for each claim the quantum mechanics is fundamentally
misguided (without good evidence).
6) 20 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Newton
claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without
evidence).
7) 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for posters
with defective keyboards).
9) 10 points for every use of science fiction works as if they were
fact.
In my next post I'll test this out.
We should also give everyone a credit of -5 for each post, since we all
make mistakes.
John C. Baez
gr-qc, since this has come up so often, but someone I like asked me
so I will post the recipe and save it in a file so I never have to type this
again.
To get things from hep...@xxx.lanl.gov if you know the preprint number:
Send a message to hep...@xxx.lanl.gov with subject header
get (preprint number)
and no message body.
The same sort of thing works for a number of preprint lists:
alg-...@publications.math.duke.edu (algebraic geometry)
astr...@babbage.sissa.it (astrophysics)
cond...@babbage.sissa.it (condensed matter)
func...@babbage.sissa.it (functional analysis)
hep...@ftp.scri.fsu.edu (computational and lattice physics)
hep...@xxx.lanl.gov (high energy physics phenomenological)
hep...@xxx.lanl.gov (high energy physics theoretical)
lc...@alcom-p.cwru.edu (liquid crystals, optical materials)
gr...@xxx.lanl.gov (general relativity, quantum cosmology)
If you *don't* know the preprint number, or want to get preprints regularly,
or want other information, send a message with subject header
help
and no message body.
If you screw up the system will punish you.
James Jennings
Have you seen Martin Gardner's 5 ways to tell a crackpot? They're listed
in his "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science". (page 12,13 of the
Dover edition) Briefly, they are:
1) He considers himself a genius.
2) He regards his colleagues...as ignorant blockheads
3) He believes himself unjustly persecuted.
4) He has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest
scientists and the best-established theories.
5) He often has a tendency to write in complex jargon, in many cases
making use of terms and phrases he himself has coined.
Most of the items in your crackpot index can be reduced to one of these.
Perhaps Mr Gardner's experience is similar to yours. ;-)
My favorite of these is (5), which is sometimes written, "He thinks that
by nameing something, he understands it."
James
Marc Paul Jozef
: Okay, since not everyone is posting to alt.physics.new-theories who
: should be, I think it's time to develop a crackpot index.
: 3) 30 points for each posting that claims a revolutionary theory but
: gives no concrete testable predictions.
I take it that the loop-approach is not revolutionary
or it makes a testable prediction :-)
But more seriously, where is Hannu?
I miss her. Sci.physics is just no fun without her!
SCOTT I CHASE
>Okay, since not everyone is posting to alt.physics.new-theories who
>should be, I think it's time to develop a crackpot index.
I think that comparing oneself to Galileo is far more egregious than comparison
to either Einstein or Newton, and probably warrants a 40 point hit as a sure
sign of a crackpot.
Claiming to deserve the Nobel prize is a 20 (unless you really do, in which
case it's only a 5 for arrogance.).
-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase "It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SIC...@CSA2.LBL.GOV although I have no right to say so, having
been a single cell so long ago myself that I
have no memory at all of that stage of my
life." - Lewis Thomas
Cameron Randale Bass
Is obvious chagrin that the appropriate Nobel committee left said
word unrecognized worth an 'Einstein' or a 'Newton'?
dale bass
--
C. R. Bass cr...@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia (804) 924-7926
John C. Baez
>jb...@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>: Okay, since not everyone is posting to alt.physics.new-theories who
>: should be, I think it's time to develop a crackpot index.
>:
>: 3) 30 points for each posting that claims a revolutionary theory but
>: gives no concrete testable predictions.
> I take it that the loop-approach is not revolutionary
> or it makes a testable prediction :-)
The former. Far from being revolutionary, it is the most conservative
approach devsied so far in that it attempts to adhere to the principles
of both quantum mechanics (Hilbert space/operator formalism etc.) and
general relativity (Einstein's equations, general covariance etc.).
But the real point is that what matters is not whether a theory IS
revolutionary but whether it is CLAIMED to be, in the absence of
concrete testable predictions. Who knows, loop variables or Abian's
principles might prove to be revolutionary! But claiming so at this
point deserves 30 points.
Hopefully the present article gets a 0 crackpot index since my 5-point
credit cancels my use of caps.
John C. Baez
>In article <1992Oct14....@galois.mit.edu>, jb...@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes...
>>Okay, since not everyone is posting to alt.physics.new-theories who
>>should be, I think it's time to develop a crackpot index.
>
>I think that comparing oneself to Galileo is far more egregious than comparison
>to either Einstein or Newton, and probably warrants a 40 point hit as a sure
>sign of a crackpot.
>
>Claiming to deserve the Nobel prize is a 20 (unless you really do, in which
>case it's only a 5 for arrogance.).
I agree with these and will put them in. Abian seems to be the latest
offender. Also, 50 for claiming to be God unless you are. :-)
Matt Austern
> >Claiming to deserve the Nobel prize is a 20 (unless you really do, in which
> >case it's only a 5 for arrogance.).
>
> I agree with these and will put them in. Abian seems to be the latest
> offender. Also, 50 for claiming to be God unless you are. :-)
Another entry for the Crackpot Index: defending yourself by bringing
up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to past theories. ("Everyone
laughs at me, but don't forget: they all laughed at Edison. They all
laughed at Columbus. They all laughed at Bozo the Clown.")
--
Matthew Austern Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618 crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
aus...@lbl.bitnet faction, an army! If you don't have any
ma...@physics.berkeley.edu solutions, become a part of the problem!
Mcirvin
>7) 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for posters
>with defective keyboards).
>9) 10 points for every use of science fiction works as if they were
>fact.
WHAT is NUMBER 8?????!!!! Has it been REMOVED by CENSORS FROM
THE BIG G????????? or MICROWAVE BRAIN-scrambling EQUIPMENT??????
I second the proposal to include comparisons to Galileo as an
extra bonus, particularly if it makes specific reference to the
Inquisition. We ought to keep track of speed records for the
appearance of the first Galileo comparison. If it comes up in
the subject's first posting, it should count double.
--
Matt McIrvin, posting nonsense again
Benjamin Weiner
>Okay, since not everyone is posting to alt.physics.new-theories who
>should be, I think it's time to develop a crackpot index.
>
>I think the simplest system is to add points for various indications of
>kookiness.
Although I like this idea (which reminds me of other useful numerical
indices, like the "Fog Factor" which expresses the muddiness of one's
paragraphs), it's a lot of work.
Frankly, when you said "crackpot index" I was hoping for a sort of
master list of crackpots who post to sci.physics, with brief
descriptions of their "theories" or sins against Orthodox Physics (TM)
and explanations of why they were wrong, or at least heretical.
It could be posted periodically, saving the labor of refuting
McElwaine, Abian et al every time they post silliness ...
On the other hand this sounds too much like an enemies list.
Forget it, let's go with the numbers (typical physicist behavior).
J. Lewis
crackpots (wholepots?!) seem to be outnumbered at present; the newsgroup
has become a veritable zoo of lunacy.
Perhaps the group should be renamed "sci.physics.crackpot" :-) That
would offend the true crackpots and they would stay away, leaving
those who do not believe themselves to be
God|Galileo|Newton|Darwin|Einstein to get on with the discussions.
John Lewis
Physics
Memorial Univ. of Nfld.
John C. Baez
>The former. Far from being revolutionary, it is the most conservative
>approach devised so far in that it attempts to adhere to the principles
>of both quantum mechanics (Hilbert space/operator formalism etc.) and
>general relativity (Einstein's equations, general covariance etc.).
>
>But the real point is that what matters is not whether a theory IS
>revolutionary but whether it is CLAIMED to be, in the absence of
>concrete testable predictions. Who knows, loop variables or Abian's
>principles might prove to be revolutionary! But claiming so at this
>point deserves 30 points.
>
>Hopefully the present article gets a 0 crackpot index since my 5-point
>credit cancels my use of caps.
The above article has a crackpot rating of 6, since it has 2 capitalized
words and one error of fact.
John C. Baez
>jb...@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>>7) 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for posters
>>with defective keyboards).
>>9) 10 points for every use of science fiction works as if they were
>>fact.
>WHAT is NUMBER 8?????!!!! Has it been REMOVED by CENSORS FROM
>THE BIG G????????? or MICROWAVE BRAIN-scrambling EQUIPMENT??????
Yes, the math department microwave oven has a "brain-scrambling" setting
and the secretaries tend to set it on that whenever I come by for some
coffee. It's part of the global conspiracy to make me seem
absent-minded.
By the way, your posting rates a measly 75 on the following (updated)
Richter scale:
0) A -5 point starting credit.
1) 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
2) 2 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
3) 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful
correction.
4) 30 points for each posting that claims a revolutionary theory but
gives no concrete testable predictions.
5) 10 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Einstein, or
claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided
(without good evidence).
6) 10 points for each claim the quantum mechanics is fundamentally
misguided (without good evidence).
7) 20 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Newton
claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without
evidence).
8) 40 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Galileo,
claims that the Inquisition is hard at work on ones case, etc..
9) 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
10) 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for posters
with defective keyboards).
11) 10 points for every use of science fiction works as if they were
fact.
12) 20 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is
engaged
in a "conspiracy" to prevent ones work from gaining its well-deserved
fame, or suchlike.
13) 10 points for pointing out that one has gone to school, as if this
were evidence of sanity.
14) 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results
of a widely accepted real experiment.
>I second the proposal to include comparisons to Galileo as an
>extra bonus, particularly if it makes specific reference to the
>Inquisition. We ought to keep track of speed records for the
>appearance of the first Galileo comparison. If it comes up in
>the subject's first posting, it should count double.
See above.
John C. Baez
>In article <1992Oct14....@galois.mit.edu> jb...@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>
>> >Claiming to deserve the Nobel prize is a 20 (unless you really do, in which
>> >case it's only a 5 for arrogance.).
>>
>> I agree with these and will put them in. Abian seems to be the latest
>> offender. Also, 50 for claiming to be God unless you are. :-)
I meant to add: in which case it's only a 5 for arrogance.
>Another entry for the Crackpot Index: defending yourself by bringing
>up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to past theories. ("Everyone
>laughs at me, but don't forget: they all laughed at Edison. They all
>laughed at Columbus. They all laughed at Bozo the Clown.")
Hear, hear! This is a very good test. I think it is a 20-point
indicator. Of course, some decent scientists do this, but that merely
goes to show that we all have a crackpot in us eager to burst out, solve
all the world's problems, and win a Nobel prize.
RING, DAVID WAYNE
>gr-qc, since this has come up so often, but someone I like asked me
>so I will post the recipe and save it in a file so I never have to type this
>again.
I think this stuff deserves a place on the FAQL
Dave Ring
dwr...@zeus.tamu.edu
RING, DAVID WAYNE
>Have you seen Martin Gardner's 5 ways to tell a crackpot? They're listed
>in his "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science".
>
>by nameing something, he understands it."
Yeah, like 'force' or 'mass'. :)
Dave Ring
dwr...@zeus.tamu.edu
SCOTT I CHASE
>I can't resist:
>
>1) 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
>
>
>My score, please? }=-)>
I am tempted to give you a 5, for making a mockery of the crackpot index.
But that doesn't seem sporting, and besides, it's not in the rules.
However, I will say that you have the wierdest mutant smiley I have yet seen.
I don't know how many points that is worth.
BTW, there is a new sci.astro crackpot, who is now claiming to have discovered
that all of geology is wrong and the earthquakes are an electromagnetic
process induced by the Sun and Moon. He even capitalizes every third word.
He is, of course, prosecuted for his beliefs by closed minded scientists
who are hiding the truth to protect their careers.
I am beginning to think that there is a good sociology or psychology
thesis in this for someone who can identify the etiology of this syndrome.
SCOTT I CHASE
to me that the best way to deal with people who approach science from
a confused perspective is to respond in as straightforward and scientific
a way as possible, repeatedly if necessary. The original poster may or
may not be beyond hope. But other readers may learn from our examples
of how to deal in a scientific manner with controversial ideas.
The Crackpot Index, though amusing, is really just a way to intimidate
a certain class of people into leaving the newsgroup. Though I would be
happy if I never had to see another Dewey Larson post, I am uncomfortable
with attempts to drive anyone away.
Sorry to rain on the parade.
SCOTT I CHASE
>
>Frankly, when you said "crackpot index" I was hoping for a sort of
>master list of crackpots who post to sci.physics, with brief
>descriptions of their "theories" or sins against Orthodox Physics (TM)
>and explanations of why they were wrong, or at least heretical.
>It could be posted periodically, saving the labor of refuting
>McElwaine, Abian et al every time they post silliness ...
Actually, I have been thinking of this, for the FAQ. I think that a
real physicist's review of Larson's books, for example, would be a nice
thing to which one would be able to refer whenever Larsony raises its ugly
head. Is anyone interested in tackling Larson, or the Biological
Transmutations guy (Kervran?) in the way of a scientific book review?
SCOTT I CHASE
This is another plan that I have had in the works for a while. The last time
John posted the list I saved it with the intention of combining it with
some other information that I have to make a FAQ entry on where to find
on-line physics information. Look for it in some future edition.
Terry Bollinger
John C. Baez
Your statement is false, but not clearly so. So it is not logically
inconsistent (which would have racked up 2 points). It is also not
widely agreed on to be false. So your score is -5.
Terry Bollinger
4) 30 points for each posting that claims a revolutionary theory but
gives no concrete testable predictions.
I'll have you know that immediately after reading this rule I went out
and bought 50 pounds of high quality cement and mixed it in with 5000
copies of my favorite theory that I extracted from multiple posts in
sci.physics theory, "How The Aliens of Alpha Centari Are Controlling
Our Brains via FTL Bell Correlations." The mix set up solid as a rock,
so this particular theory has *clearly* met your criterion for concrete
testability... :)
Allan Duncan
...
> credit cancels my use of caps.
What is the point value of _underscores_ ?
Allan Duncan ACSnet a.du...@trl.oz
(+613) 253 6708 Internet a.du...@trl.oz.au
Fax 253 6664 UUCP {uunet,hplabs,ukc}!munnari!trl.oz.au!a.duncan
Telecom Research Labs, PO Box 249, Clayton, Victoria, 3168, Australia.
Terry Bollinger
In article <1992Oct16.0...@galois.mit.edu>
jb...@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
> In article <1992Oct15.1...@asl.dl.nec.com>
> te...@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger) writes:
> | The statement you are now reading is clearly false.
> Your statement is false, but not clearly so...
My hat is off to you, sir. Your innovative logic is refreshing. Most folks
would never think of breaking the unity of the assertion to arrive at a way
to break the trap. There is a curious mental habit most of us have of
setting up all sorts of little "rules" and constraints about how we should
go about solving problems -- rules that often keep us *from* solving them.
Example: I once posted a quiz on my wall and added "a really big hint is
posted right on this same wall." There were several other older quizzes,
which everyone diligiently went crazy searching through for the Hint.
(My prizes were always big bags of chocolate, the world's one and only
*truly* effective research incentive.) For a period of weeks, nary a soul
paid any attention whatsoever to my name plate, since it had been there
long before any of the quizzes. The answer to the quiz was "Bullinger."
Anywho, my expectations are now high, Dr. Baez. When may we expect you to
publish a GUT theory showing similar logical innovation, a GUT theory that
does more than just rummage through the toybox of group theory like a kid
looking for the "right" toy?
Cheers,
Terry
P.S. - Dale Bass: Grad student, hmm? Would you believe I had you pegged
mentally as a curmudgeonly 60+ year old mechanical engineering prof
out to give young whippersnappers a hard time? Nets are amazing
things -- in the absence of solid info the imagination wanders wildly.
But please don't toss out history like some old cookies. It has its
place, even in science, because the idea that we are islands to our-
selves is very much an illusion. It never hurts at least to know
where the foundation stones are a laid, even if you insist that where
they were quarried and the texture of the stone is irrelevant.
(For those curious: I am a 37 year old father of four, Masters and
Bachelors in Computer Science, a best paper award from a leading
publication in my own field, and known on occassion for gently (?)
harassing physicists. (Well, I *did* send a raspberry to a Nobel
Laureate once via the net, but how was I to know that some guy named
Schwinger was of any note? I never heard of him in *my* field. His
idea was stupid anyway, and I was right anyway, so what the heck...)
(Hey, does correcting a Laureate even when he's being assinine count
for anything on the crackpot index??)
Joseph C Fineman
It is a lot of fun to enumerate the attributes of the paranoid style. But
there is nothing in the paranoid style, or any style, the constitutes
evidence of being wrong. For that, you have to look at the world outside
the crackpot.
There is a wonderful play that makes that point beautifully: _An Enemy of
the People_, by Ibsen. The hero happens to *be* right when everyone else
is wrong, and so he naturally *thinks* he is right when everyone else is
wrong, and that inexorably turns him into a typical crackpot (toward the
end, he is comparing himself to Jesus Christ). The process is presented
comically, but I have never been able to laugh very hard at it.
Think about it.
Chris Metzler
|> Okay, since not everyone is posting to alt.physics.new-theories who
|> should be, I think it's time to develop a crackpot index.
|>
|> I think the simplest system is to add points for various indications of
|> kookiness.
|>
|>
|> 0) 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
|> 1) 2 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
|> 2) 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful
|> correction.
|> 3) 30 points for each posting that claims a revolutionary theory but
|> gives no concrete testable predictions.
|> claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided
|> (without good evidence).
|> misguided (without good evidence).
|> 6) 20 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Newton
|> claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without
|> evidence).
|> with defective keyboards).
|> 9) 10 points for every use of science fiction works as if they were
|> fact.
|>
|>
|> We should also give everyone a credit of -5 for each post, since we all
|> make mistakes.
I would make the points earned different for QM and GR -- that is, I would
either add more points to #5 or subtract points from #4. While they are
both experimentally/observationally tested theories, it is true that
QM sits on more solid footing than GR.
John C. Baez
rigorous. This can be regarded as a generalization of the Fourier
transform that is applicable to gauge theories. Just as it's ever so
handy to pop over to momentum space when working with linear PDE, it can
be nice to go from the usual "connection representation" of a gauge
theory to the "loop representation." This is especially true for
generally covariant gauge theories like Chern-Simons theory and (it
seems) quantum gravity. You could alternatively describe what I'm doing
as a first step towards making the "measure" in the path integral for
Chern-Simons theory into a real measure on some space. (Let me simply
note quite vaguely that Chern-Simons theory seems to be quite relevant to
4d quantum gravity and that Lou Crane, who is more bold than I am,
believes that the universe is in a "Chern-Simons state." It would
certainly be very charming if it were true.)
By the way, calling Schwinger "assinine" will not make you a crackpot
but it seems singularly unwise. Not that Schwinger himself can't be a
bit rude at times. According to Segal, he has said that Feynman
diagrams "brought quantum field theory to the masses".
Terry Bollinger
jb...@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
> Now I'm working on making the "loop transform" of Rovelli/Smolin more
> rigorous. This can be regarded as a generalization of the Fourier
> transform that is applicable to gauge theories. Just as it's ever so
> handy to pop over to momentum space when working with linear PDE...
What worries me a little is that I understood *some* of those first four
lines. The accumulation of "unresolved external references" (the proper
names were for the most part meaningless to me) pretty much ended my
processing. The part I did get from it is that it sounds like you are
doing a nice mix of "standard" with innovation, plus a focus on some
unifying themes and analogies to other (successful) mathematical frame-
works. Good luck on it -- and I hope you can down-translate for us when
you get a chance (as you have done so nicely before, also).
> By the way, calling Schwinger "assinine"...
Please; even jokingly, I did not (and would not) call a good physicist and
a good man like Dr. Schwinger "assinine." What I *did* say (and continue
to say was that a specific idea of his ("virtual phonons" if you must know)
was assinine. I am serious about the differences. Having never met a person
who did not do *some* assinine things now and then, it did not occur to me
that the remark might be take as a slur against his entire character and
record in physics.
Many good physicists went a little bonkers back in the heyday of the "cold
fusion" saga, and let their optimism get the best of their ability to write
apparently consistent equations. Dr. Schwinger briefly succumbed by trying
to make phonon quasiparticles behave as if they were much more fundamental
than they had any decent right to be. I merely pointed out (rudely) that
liquid helium can be viewed as being kept liquid through the effects of
"virtual phonons," and that such an interpretion of a well-known phenomenon
places severe constraints on what you can and cannot do with the nominally
theoretical concept of virtual phonons. (Comments? Can liquidity as He
is cooled be modeled using the virtual phonons concept, or not?)
> ... it seems singularly unwise.
Dr. Baez, if Dr. Schwinger is out there (and assuming he even gives a hoot
one way or the other!), I apologize to him both for the original rude net
remark a couple of years ago, and also for the more recent remark.
Cheers,
Terry Bollinger
Robert Coe
> I would make the points earned different for QM and GR -- that is, I would
> either add more points to #5 or subtract points from #4. While they are
> both experimentally/observationally tested theories, it is true that
> QM sits on more solid footing than GR.
For what it's worth, I come to exactly the opposite conclusion. It's easier
to set up experients to test QM, and those that have been conducted tend to
support it. But in terms of logical consistency and freedom from paradoxes
of causality, I think GR "sits on more solid footing" than QM.
(I'm too lazy to calculate my crackpot index for this post (with or without
Metzler's finagle), so someone else will have to do it.) :^)
___ _ - Bob
/__) _ / / ) _ _
(_/__) (_)_(_) (___(_)_(/_______________________________________ b...@1776.COM
Robert K. Coe ** 14 Churchill St, Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776 ** 508-443-3265
RING, DAVID WAYNE
>> I would make the points earned different for QM and GR -- that is, I would
>> either add more points to #5 or subtract points from #4. While they are
>> both experimentally/observationally tested theories, it is true that
>> QM sits on more solid footing than GR.
b...@1776.COM (Robert Coe) writes...
>For what it's worth, I come to exactly the opposite conclusion. It's easier
>to set up experients to test QM, and those that have been conducted tend to
^^^^^^^
>support it. But in terms of logical consistency and freedom from paradoxes
>of causality, I think GR "sits on more solid footing" than QM.
And for a third opinion:
1) 'tend to' is the understatement of the month. So the more
poorly tested GR loses here.
2) In terms of logical consistency they are tied, but GR is much more
parsimonious.
3) In terms of freedom from paradoxes, QM wins, since Cosmic Censorship
seems to be false. And there are no real paradoxes in QM, only apparent
ones.
I think the best distinction is to treat more carefully the application of
the GR criterion, for example: I would not award Tom van Flandern's posts
the big 30 points for #4 (or whatever). He's certainly not a crackpot, although
I think he occasionally picks up a point or two.
Dave Ring
dwr...@zeus.tamu.edu
Chris Metzler
|> met...@pablo.physics.lsa.umich.edu (Chris Metzler) writes:
|> > I would make the points earned different for QM and GR -- that is, I would
|> > either add more points to #5 or subtract points from #4. While they are
|> > both experimentally/observationally tested theories, it is true that
|> > QM sits on more solid footing than GR.
|>
|> For what it's worth, I come to exactly the opposite conclusion. It's easier
|> to set up experients to test QM, and those that have been conducted tend to
|> support it. But in terms of logical consistency and freedom from paradoxes
|> of causality, I think GR "sits on more solid footing" than QM.
|>
I would agree with both your second and your third sentence -- but it's because
of your second sentence that I disagree with your first one.
You're right -- it is easier to set up experiments to test QM. And that's
the whole point. Because of that, many many experiments have been done many
many times that have tested QM to a high degree of accuracy (how many
decimal places is the prediction of the Lamb shift, or the neutron magnetic
moment, correct to these days?). So many successful tests of QM have been
done, so many successful new theories based on QM have been derived, and
so many new devices or innovations based on the principles of QM have been
constructed, that while the interpretation of QM may be in question, its
predictions usually are not.
It is true that GR has been observationally tested, but to nowhere near
the accuracy that QM has, and over nowhere near the wide variety of
phenomena and sheer number of times that QM has.
It is for this reason that most of the theorists here -- in fact, most of the
theorists I have ever met -- hope that the irreconcilability of GR and QM is
a flaw or incompleteness in GR, rather than QM.
Paul Budnik
> b...@1776.COM (Robert Coe) writes...
> >... But in terms of logical consistency and freedom from paradoxes
> >of causality, I think GR "sits on more solid footing" than QM.
>
> And for a third opinion:
> 2) In terms of logical consistency they are tied, but GR is much more
> parsimonious.
> 3) In terms of freedom from paradoxes, QM wins, since Cosmic Censorship
> seems to be false. And there are no real paradoxes in QM, only apparent
> ones.
As you seem to understand a paradox is not the same thing as an inconsistency.
There are certainly paradoxes associated with causality in quantum mechanics.
What is worse about quantum mechanics is that one can only avoid absolute
contradictions by renouncing basic philosophical principles of science.
For example there are two ways to compute the correlations predicted in
test of Bell's inequality. One can collapse the singlet state wave function
first at either detector. One obtains a different state vector depending
on which choice ones make. The prediction one gets is
the same regardless of how one does the computation but the intermediate
state is different. In any other branch of science this would imply that
the underlying model is wrong. It may make correct predictions but it
obviously needs to be replaced by a model that does not have this
inconsistency in intermediate states. Note one cannot assume that
there are two equally likely decay modes here and nature randomly selects
one or the other. This would imply a temporal sequence: collapse consistent
with polarizer a, then collapse of the resulting wave function consistent with
polarizer b. The instantaneous collapse postulate and the renunciation of
conventional causality that it requires precludes such a temporal sequence.
The sequence would be different in different frames of reference.
Paul Budnik
Benjamin Weiner
:|> 4) 10 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Einstein, or
:|> claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided
:|> (without good evidence).
:|> 5) 10 points for each claim the quantum mechanics is fundamentally
:|> misguided (without good evidence).
:I would make the points earned different for QM and GR -- that is, I would
:either add more points to #5 or subtract points from #4. While they are
:both experimentally/observationally tested theories, it is true that
:QM sits on more solid footing than GR.
Yes but special relativity was included in #4. Maybe you weren't
reading this group at the time of the last flamefest with Dr. Petr
Beckmann - lucky you.
Brett McInnes
: >For what it's worth, I come to exactly the opposite conclusion. It's easier
: >to set up experients to test QM, and those that have been conducted tend to
: ^^^^^^^
: >support it. But in terms of logical consistency and freedom from paradoxes
: >of causality, I think GR "sits on more solid footing" than QM.
:
: And for a third opinion:
: 1) 'tend to' is the understatement of the month. So the more
: poorly tested GR loses here.
time I heard,it was supposed to be as good as QED.
: 2) In terms of logical consistency they are tied, but GR is much more
: parsimonious.
Nope. Nobody knows whether QED can be interpreted in such a way that it
even makes mathematical sense.
: 3) In terms of freedom from paradoxes, QM wins, since Cosmic Censorship
: seems to be false. And there are no real paradoxes in QM, only apparent
: ones.
In what sense is the failure of CC paradoxical? Some people don't like
it. Is that a paradox?
:
: I think the best distinction is to treat more carefully the application of
Marc Paul Jozef
:
: But in terms of logical consistency and freedom from paradoxes
: of causality, I think GR "sits on more solid footing" than QM.
I wouldn't know about this.
The basic object of GR, the metric, isn't even defined!
We have a lot of people telling us that the metric
describes `the structure' of spacetime.
But they don't know which structure, and they therefore
can't tell you why this metric should be unique, for instance.
(Just to be correct, there is a decent definition of the
metric in vacuum, but that definition casts doubt on the
generous list of things that the metric is supposed to
quantify).
marc.
Dave Griffiths
>Okay, since not everyone is posting to alt.physics.new-theories who
>should be, I think it's time to develop a crackpot index.
>
>I think the simplest system is to add points for various indications of
>kookiness.
>
>Some proposals:
>
>claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided
>(without good evidence).
OK, let's start by awarding Einstein 10 points for inventing a crackpot theory
that predicts SINGULARITIES. I'd love to see some "good evidence" for these
infinitely small beasties. :-)
Dave Griffiths
Adams S Lupu-Sax
confirmed prediction comes from GR not QM. I'm afraid I don't know the details
but I will track them down if no one posts back with them first. From what
I understand, GR can be used to predict the change in period of a binary
star system. The data for one particular system is so good that the GR
prediction for the change in period of that system has actually been
confirmed to a higher degree of accuracy (more sig. figs.) than the QM
prediction of the Lamb shift. I will, as I said, track down the details
from my source (my GR prof. of course!).
-Adam
(Undergrad at Columbia U.)
(please send any personal responses to a...@cuphyd.phys.columbia.edu)
Andrew Mullhaupt
>I agree with these and will put them in. Abian seems to be the latest
>offender. Also, 50 for claiming to be God unless you are. :-)
What about Nobelists who, after considering the alternatives, deduce that
despite their intuition to the contrary, they must in fact be God? (e.g.
E. Schrodinger)
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Nor do I play God on TV...
Jon J Thaler
>Actually, I believe that, currently, the most accurate experimentally
>confirmed prediction comes from GR not QM. I'm afraid I don't know the
>details
>but I will track them down if no one posts back with them first. From what
>I understand, GR can be used to predict the change in period of a binary
>star system. The data for one particular system is so good that the GR
>prediction for the change in period of that system has actually been
>confirmed to a higher degree of accuracy (more sig. figs.) than the QM
>prediction of the Lamb shift.
The measured magnetic moment of the electron agrees with the QED prediction
to a part in 10**11. I don't remember how good the pulsar numbers are.
Emory F. Bunn
Not that good, I assure you. I don't believe that either the theoretical
predictions or the experimental results on the binary pulsar are good to
more than a few significant figures. After all, the gravitational constant
itself is only known to one part in 10^4 or 10^5!
The binary pulsar results are sometimes quoted in the following way:
You generalize GR in some way, introducing new parameters, which go to
zero for standard GR. Then you use the experimental data to constrain
those parameters. It's possible that in some such formulation the
data constrain the new parameters to be less than 10^-11, and that could
be what Adam is referring to. That, however, is an extremely different
matter from measuring a nonzero constant to 11 significant figures.
-Ted
John W. Cobb
ma...@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
|>Another entry for the Crackpot Index: defending yourself by bringing
|>up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to past theories. ("Everyone
|>laughs at me, but don't forget: they all laughed at Edison.
... Until he turned the deliquent account over to a collections agency
|> They all
|>laughed at Columbus.
--- Until he discovered Ohio
They all laughed at Bozo the Clown.
*** Until experiments verified his prediction of the existence
of Bozons.
|>--
|>Matthew Austern Just keep yelling until you attract a
|>(510) 644-2618 crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
|>aus...@lbl.bitnet faction, an army! If you don't have any
|>ma...@physics.berkeley.edu solutions, become a part of the problem!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I like it. Are you perchance talking of
Rush Limbaugh?
-john w. cobb
RING, DAVID WAYNE
>> 3) In terms of freedom from paradoxes, QM wins, since Cosmic Censorship
>> seems to be false. And there are no real paradoxes in QM, only apparent
>> ones.
>
>As you seem to understand a paradox is not the same thing as an inconsistency.
>There are certainly paradoxes associated with causality in quantum mechanics.
Ok... I like this terminology better.
>What is worse about quantum mechanics is that one can only avoid absolute
>contradictions by renouncing basic philosophical principles of science.
Hmmm, If 'the observer must be considered independently of the apparatus'
is such a principle, then it should be renounced.
>For example there are two ways to compute the correlations predicted in
>test of Bell's inequality. One can collapse the singlet state wave function
>first at either detector.
I will assume you make this choice by a lorentz boost, and that a 'state'
is one of those 'state at a given time' thingys.
> One obtains a different state vector depending
>on which choice ones make. The prediction one gets is
>the same regardless of how one does the computation but the intermediate
>state is different. In any other branch of science this would imply that
>the underlying model is wrong.
If 'a state must be lorentz invariant' is a 'basic philosophical principle
of science', then it should be renounced.
Dave Ring
dwr...@zeus.tamu.edu
RING, DAVID WAYNE
>: >For what it's worth, I come to exactly the opposite conclusion. It's easier
>: >to set up experients to test QM, and those that have been conducted tend to
>: ^^^^^^^
>: >support it. But in terms of logical consistency and freedom from paradoxes
>: >of causality, I think GR "sits on more solid footing" than QM.
>:
>: poorly tested GR loses here.
> How good is the agreement between GR and the binary pulsar data? Last
>time I heard,it was supposed to be as good as QED.
But if competing theories predict things to maybe one less significant
figure, then this is not nearly as decisive a test as the Lamb shift etc
were for QED.
>: 2) In terms of logical consistency they are tied, but GR is much more
>: parsimonious.
>
>Nope. Nobody knows whether QED can be interpreted in such a way that it
>even makes mathematical sense.
Are you claiming that it is NOT consistent, or only that the mathematicians
haven't satisfied themselves yet.
It doesn't matter anyway. That is a potential problem with the model
for electrodynamics, not with quantum theory.
>: 3) In terms of freedom from paradoxes, QM wins, since Cosmic Censorship
>: seems to be false. And there are no real paradoxes in QM, only apparent
>: ones.
>In what sense is the failure of CC paradoxical? Some people don't like
>it. Is that a paradox?
In the sense that GR predicts its own demise. I.e. one can set up
a gedanken experiment which requires a new theory to make predictions.
Dave Ring
dwr...@zeus.tamu.edu
Matt Kennel
: So many successful tests of QM have been
: done, so many successful new theories based on QM have been derived, and
: so many new devices or innovations based on the principles of QM have been
: constructed, that while the interpretation of QM may be in question, its
: predictions usually are not.
I would submit that the results vast majority of experiments and
consequences of QM (spectacular things like spectra of energy levels,
superconductivity, quantum hall effect) do not depend on the controversial
issues of measurement and space-like correlations.
Apparently, actual experiments with falsifiable predictions that specifically
test the most unsettling predictions of QM are difficult and subtle.
--
-Matt Kennel m...@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-*** lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
John Flanagan
>
>What is worse about quantum mechanics is that one can only avoid absolute
>contradictions by renouncing basic philosophical principles of science.
I don't think your example demonstrates this:
>For example there are two ways to compute the correlations predicted in
>test of Bell's inequality. One can collapse the singlet state wave function
>first at either detector. One obtains a different state vector depending
>on which choice ones make. The prediction one gets is
>the same regardless of how one does the computation but the intermediate
>state is different. In any other branch of science this would imply that
>the underlying model is wrong. It may make correct predictions but it
>obviously needs to be replaced by a model that does not have this
>inconsistency in intermediate states.
What is wrong with inconsistency in intermediate states, as long at
the physical predictions are the same in either case? I don't see
what philosophical principle of science is being violated here.
Any model which makes accurate predictions can be considered equally
"true." (Think of the two different orders of collapse as
representing two different models.)
--John
--
John Flanagan ||"Pretty boys
jo...@uhheph.phys.hawaii.edu || with the sunshine faces
U. of Hawaii, Dept. of Physics & Astro.|| <mumble mumble>..."
2505 Correa Rd., Honolulu, HI 96822 || -- My Bloody Valentine
Paul Budnik
> In article <3...@mtnmath.UUCP> pa...@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
>
> What is wrong with inconsistency in intermediate states, as long at
> the physical predictions are the same in either case? I don't see
> what philosophical principle of science is being violated here.
> Any model which makes accurate predictions can be considered equally
> "true." (Think of the two different orders of collapse as
> representing two different models.)
But there are not two different models. There is a single model (quantum
mechanics) that produces two different conflicting intermediate states.
The philosophical principle being violated is that there is some correspondence
between a model and physical reality. Quantum mechanics rejects this
completely and would be full of contradictions if it did not. Science must
be guided by philosophical principles and it is open question whether
abandoning this principle was justified or is a serious mistake.
I do not expect an argument on this point to be fruitful. History will
determine if it was a serious mistake.
Paul Budnik
Freek Wiedijk
>>
>>Nobody knows whether QED can be interpreted in such a way that it
>>even makes mathematical sense.
>
>Are you claiming that it is NOT consistent, or only that the mathematicians
>haven't satisfied themselves yet.
Can someone comment on this?
Is QED well-defined? Or is it just a (meaningless) calculus?
Is the fact that the Schwinger-Dyson series diverges in QED (might
diverge, probably diverges, I believe it's not _proved_ that it
diverges) a problem, or not?
Is there a mathematically satisfactory definition of Feynman's path
integral, or is it just an expression one can formally manipulate?
Are quantum field theories with `ghosts' or `anomalies' in it even
meaningful?
In logic I know what it means when a theory is inconsistent. Does this
have _anything_ to do with a physical theory that's inconsistent?
Just a couple of questions... Anyone? Weemba?
Freek
--
Third theory of Phenomenal Dynamics: The difference between a symbol
and an object is quantitative, not qualitative.
Marko Amnell
(Freek Wiedijk) writes:
>Is QED well-defined? Or is it just a (meaningless) calculus?
>Is the fact that the Schwinger-Dyson series diverges in QED (might
>diverge, probably diverges, I believe it's not _proved_ that it
>diverges) a problem, or not? Is there a mathematically satisfactory
>definition of Feynman's path integral, or is it just an expression one
>can formally manipulate? Are quantum field theories with `ghosts' or
>`anomalies' in it even meaningful?
There is a discussion of questions just like this in a new book edited
by Harvey Brown and Rom Harre, _Philosophical Foundations of Quantum
Field Theory_ (Clarendon Paperback, 1990, originally published in 1988).
I think this is the first book to explicitly deal with the philosophical
problems surrounding QFT. I especially recommend the first essay in the
book, "A Philosopher Looks at Quantum Field Theory", by Michael Readhead.
Instead of trying to answer your technical questions about QED (which I'm
not qualified to do) let me simply list the eight `metaphysical questions'
Redhead asks about QFT (on p.9 of the book):
Q.1. Can QFT be given a particle interpretation and indeed is there a
formal underdetermination between field and particle approaches to the
so-called elementary `particles'?
Q.2. Does QFT resolve the problem of wave-particle duality in quantum
mechanics (QM)?
Q.3. What is the nature of the vacuum in QFT?
Q.4. What is the status of the so-called virtual particles?
Q.5. Does the theory of indistinguishable particles in QM necessitate a
field treatment due to the way many-particle states are weighed in
quantum statistical mechanics (QSM)?
Q.6. Does QFT allow a distinction between matter and force?
Q.7. In what sense has QFT achieved unification in the theory of elementary
`particles'?
Q.8. Can the idea of creation and annihilation of particles be incorporated
in classical mechanics as well as in QFT?
--
Marko Amnell
amn...@klaava.helsinki.fi
Graduate Student in Philosophy
David Frenkel
>In article <freek.7...@groucho.phil.ruu.nl> fr...@phil.ruu.nl
>(Freek Wiedijk) writes:
>
>>Is QED well-defined? Or is it just a (meaningless) calculus?
>
>by Harvey Brown and Rom Harre, _Philosophical Foundations of Quantum
>Field Theory_ (Clarendon Paperback, 1990, originally published in 1988).
>I think this is the first book to explicitly deal with the philosophical
>problems surrounding QFT.
Before plunging into philosophy books, I would like to remind
all concerned that the view of renormalization has drastically
evolved since 1950, under the influence of Wilson's
renormalization group ideas and subsequent work in statistical
mechanics.
While technical, once mastered, that approach significantly
demistifies the formal manipulations that go into renormalization
procedure.
The following is a reference from a recent paper by Joe
Polchinski:
`` An interesting history of the changing philosophy of
renormalization is T. Y. Cao and S. S. Schweber,
The Conceptual Foundations and Philosophical Aspects
of Renormalization Theory, 1991.
This is a rare instance where the historians are ahead
of most textbooks! "
I have not seen that reference, and I am not sure it
has been published. Schweber is a physicsist by training
(he wrote a text on quantum field theory back in the 50's,
which was popular at the time).
--
David Frenkel | e-mail: fre...@stcst1.mrl.uiuc.edu
Department of Physics, |
University of Illinois at |
Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA |
John C. Baez
>>
>>matm...@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes) writes...
>>>
>>>Nobody knows whether QED can be interpreted in such a way that it
>>>even makes mathematical sense.
>>
>>Are you claiming that it is NOT consistent, or only that the mathematicians
>>haven't satisfied themselves yet.
>
>Can someone comment on this?
>
>Is QED well-defined? Or is it just a (meaningless) calculus?
This is something I comment on periodically, so this time I will be
quite brief, even though many books have been written on this issue. No
interacting quantum field theory in 4 dimensions (e.g. QED) satisfying
the usual desiderata has been shown to be mathematically well-defined
except at the perturbative level. That is, one may use standard power
series tricks plus some extra sneaky tricks like renormalization to
calculate the answers to certain questions. If you add up the first few
terms you often get answers that look really good. However, nobody
knows whether these series converge or not. In lower dimensional toy
models they do NOT converge, but one can use resummation techniques to
obtain something that converges to answers that satisfy the usual
desiderata (Lorentz-invariance, energy positivity, causality, etc.).
The proofs that work in lower dimensions do not seem to extend. In 5
dimensions there are proofs that purport to show that many quantum field
theories do NOT make sense unless they are noninteracting. These
proofs, while rigorous, should be taken with a grain of salt when it
comes to their physical interpretation. They may simply mean that a
certain way of trying to get interacting quantum fields fails. In any
event, 4 dimensions is an exceptionally difficult borderline case, and I
would rank this as perhaps the most important unsolved applied
mathematics problem today, with P=NP coming in second.