Is physics a science?
John Kennaugh
and if you get the wrong result your theory has failed.
Obviously you may be able to come up with a fix for that theory as
Lorentz did when the MMX gave a result contrary to Maxwell's
predictions.
Now suppose there is absolutely no constraints on what constitutes an
*acceptable* fix. i.e. no rules of discipline under which physicist need
operate. Quite simply no theory (no matter how wrong) need fail.
In trying to get the "standard model" to work a problem emerged. One
particle needed to be both massless and massive. Now one might suggest
that the physicists go back to the drawing board and try again.
Particles can't both have mass and not have mass can they? That is
silly. But physics allows 'silly' they claim they are not wrong but
nature which is at fault for being 'weird' so with something straight
out of Hogwarts, one might call it the "let it have mass" spell (they
actually called it a Higgs field) a massless particle can be magic'd
into a massive particle.
Now physics cannot even explain what an EM field IS, it used to map an
altered state in the aether but now the aether is forbidden it has no
invisible means of support and no one has yet decided what it consists
of if it is not. That being the case one might think that it would be
sensible to resolve that before inventing new 'fields'.
It is argued (by PD actually) that even the inclusion of fairies as part
of a theory is acceptable if it leads to testable prediction - it is
then (according to PD) still science. If the Higgs field exists then
predictions which can be tested follow. One consequence is prediction of
the existence of the Higgs-Boson.
So �4,400,000,000 or �14.7c has been spent - not to find the answer to
the ultimate question of life the universe and everything (we know that
is 42) but to find the Higgs-Boson. Having spent that much one might
expect a conclusive result. Either the Higgs-Boson exists or it doesn't
and if it doesn't then it is back to the drawing board on lots of things
- the standard model included.
Well one might think that but as I say there is absolutely no
constraints on what constitutes an *acceptable* fix. No theory need
fail.
"Theoretical physicists Holger Nielsen, from Denmark, and Masao
Ninomiya, from Japan, have concluded that the discovery of the
Higgs-Boson could be so "abhorrent to nature" that they are coming back
through time to stop their own creation. They have outlined their
thoughts in a series of papers with titles like "Test of Effect From
Future in Large Hadron Collider: a Proposal" and "Search for Future
Influence From LHC."
The pair's hypothesis centres around the Higgs Boson, a mysterious tiny
particle and building block of life that it is hoped the LHC will
discover. They have come up with a theory that it will "ripple backward
through time" and stop the collider before it could make one, like a
time traveller who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.
'It must be our prediction that all Higgs producing machines shall have
bad luck,' Dr. Nielsen said. He said that his theories may even provide
a "model for God" who "rather hates Higgs particles, and attempts to
avoid them".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6318034/Could-the-Large-H
adron-Collider-be-held-back-by-its-own-future.html
So there you have it. A new 'fix' waiting in the wings. Now if Holger
Nielsen, and Ninomiya had come up with their theory sooner �14.7c could
have been save and used to buy up the rain forests and protect them or
to provide flood defences to stop millions dying when sea level rises.
Even without Nielsen, and Ninomiya it is foreseeable that the money has
been wasted because in the end it doesn't matter whether the LCD finds
the Higgs Boson or not; Physics will find an excuse to carry on as if it
had.
--
John Kennaugh they're coming to take me away, Ho ho, hee hee, ha ha,
To the funny farm Where Life is Beautiful all the time And I'll be happy to
see Those Nice Young Men In their Clean White Coats And they're coming ...
PD
wrote:
> In a science you have a theory, devise an experiment to test that theory
> and if you get the wrong result your theory has failed.
>
> Obviously you may be able to come up with a fix for that theory as
> Lorentz did when the MMX gave a result contrary to Maxwell's
> predictions.
>
> Now suppose there is absolutely no constraints on what constitutes an
> *acceptable* fix. i.e. no rules of discipline under which physicist need
> operate. Quite simply no theory (no matter how wrong) need fail.
Of course there is. There needs to be a *testable* prediction from the
theory that distinguishes it from other theories. But notice the
nature of this difference. The difference is NOT in the underlying
nature of the theory ("is it material-based?" "is it deterministic?"
"is it time-ordered"), and it is NOT in the comfort level of the
explanation in the theory. It is in something that is objectively and
unambiguously determined by *measurement*. Where two theories disagree
on what is going on, then the only way scientifically to ferret that
out is to find the place where the two theories will disagree on the
value of a measured property under certain set circumstances. Then
nature becomes the arbiter -- not logic, not intuition, not
philosphical framework, not simplicity or elegance -- by simply
telling you with the value of that property which of the two (if any)
is right.
>
> In trying to get the "standard model" to work a problem emerged. One
> particle needed to be both massless and massive.
What on earth gave you THAT idea?
That's not AT ALL what happened.
What was true is that the theory prior to the Higgs mechanism was
KNOWN not to represent reality completely, because it did not have any
mechanism by which particles could be massive. However, it got enough
other things right that it showed some promise, and this warranted
further work. This eventually led to the realization that IF another
field existed, then masses could be accounted for, and then the
standard model would have a chance of really representing reality.
Now, perhaps you are whining that the moment the gauge theory had no
accounting for mass, it should have been dropped without further work.
To this I respond that if you look at Newton's 2nd law and apply it in
a case of 2D projectile motion, where the force acting is mg on the
projectile, then you get some very nice properties of the result and
something close to being right. But of course, it doesn't get the
range right at all. Is that a sufficient reason to shun Newton's 2nd
law? Of course not! Because you KNOW you've not included something --
air drag and air lift. And if you don't know yet that air drag has a
v^2 dependence, does this mean that you should give up and say it's
all hocus pocus because you have to account for air resistance but
don't know exactly how to yet?
> Now one might suggest
> that the physicists go back to the drawing board and try again.
> Particles can't both have mass and not have mass can they? That is
> silly. But physics allows 'silly' they claim they are not wrong but
> nature which is at fault for being 'weird' so with something straight
> out of Hogwarts, one might call it the "let it have mass" spell (they
> actually called it a Higgs field) a massless particle can be magic'd
> into a massive particle.
It appears you don't know what the Higgs field does. What it does NOT
do is make particles massive and massless at the same time.
>
> Now physics cannot even explain what an EM field IS, it used to map an
> altered state in the aether but now the aether is forbidden it has no
> invisible means of support and no one has yet decided what it consists
> of if it is not.
And the thing is, you can make certain predictions about what ANY
aether would do, as long as it has certain basic properties, and test
those -- WITHOUT knowing exactly what the aether is.
Likewise, we knew a lot about atomic physics just by knowing there
were some very small constituents involved, without having any idea
whether those constituents were fundamental or composite. You do NOT
have to know everything about an object or a substance to be able to
rule out a whole class of candidates.
> That being the case one might think that it would be
> sensible to resolve that before inventing new 'fields'.
I disagree on the priority. Both of them can be put forward and the
same time, with no preference or priority given to either.
>
> It is argued (by PD actually) that even the inclusion of fairies as part
> of a theory is acceptable if it leads to testable prediction - it is
> then (according to PD) still science.
Yes, indeed.
> If the Higgs field exists then
> predictions which can be tested follow. One consequence is prediction of
> the existence of the Higgs-Boson.
>
> So £4,400,000,000 or £14.7c has been spent - not to find the answer to
> the ultimate question of life the universe and everything (we know that
> is 42) but to find the Higgs-Boson.
And what price is maximal for fundamental research? How much money is
justified?
And how do you determine that?
Note that $4.4B is *small* compared to some military R&D projects that
don't lead to any deployed system. Scrap ONE of those projects in the
bud, and you've got PLENTY of money to do fundamental research.
> Having spent that much one might
> expect a conclusive result. Either the Higgs-Boson exists or it doesn't
> and if it doesn't then it is back to the drawing board on lots of things
> - the standard model included.
>
> Well one might think that but as I say there is absolutely no
> constraints on what constitutes an *acceptable* fix. No theory need
> fail.
>
> "Theoretical physicists Holger Nielsen, from Denmark, and Masao
> Ninomiya, from Japan, have concluded that the discovery of the
> Higgs-Boson could be so "abhorrent to nature" that they are coming back
> through time to stop their own creation. They have outlined their
> thoughts in a series of papers with titles like "Test of Effect From
> Future in Large Hadron Collider: a Proposal" and "Search for Future
> Influence From LHC."
>
> The pair's hypothesis centres around the Higgs Boson, a mysterious tiny
> particle and building block of life that it is hoped the LHC will
> discover. They have come up with a theory that it will "ripple backward
> through time" and stop the collider before it could make one, like a
> time traveller who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.
>
> 'It must be our prediction that all Higgs producing machines shall have
> bad luck,' Dr. Nielsen said. He said that his theories may even provide
> a "model for God" who "rather hates Higgs particles, and attempts to
> avoid them".
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6318034/Could-the-Lar...
> adron-Collider-be-held-back-by-its-own-future.html
Yes, and notice that you're reading from a NEWSPAPER. It might by
useful to see what the scientific community thinks of this conjecture.
In particular, one might say that IF this conjecture were true, then
it should have some OTHER independent testable consequence, by which
to tell if that's what's really going on. Of course, you'll not find
that in most newspaper snippets about it.
>
> So there you have it. A new 'fix' waiting in the wings. Now if Holger
> Nielsen, and Ninomiya had come up with their theory sooner £14.7c could
> have been save and used to buy up the rain forests and protect them or
> to provide flood defences to stop millions dying when sea level rises.
> Even without Nielsen, and Ninomiya it is foreseeable that the money has
> been wasted because in the end it doesn't matter whether the LCD finds
> the Higgs Boson or not; Physics will find an excuse to carry on as if it
> had.
Fundamental research will carry on -- that is, research that has no
particular eye to application but to just knowing how the universe
works. If you don't like fundamental research at all and want it all
devoted to applications, then by all means focus your attention on
engineering rather than science.
Juan R.
The answer to your question is "Yes".
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
eric gisse
[snip all, unread]
Yes. Now piss off.
Juan R.
(...)
>> "Theoretical physicists Holger Nielsen, from Denmark, and Masao
>> Ninomiya, from Japan, have concluded that the discovery of the
>> Higgs-Boson could be so "abhorrent to nature" that they are coming back
>> through time to stop their own creation. They have outlined their
>> thoughts in a series of papers with titles like "Test of Effect From
>> Future in Large Hadron Collider: a Proposal" and "Search for Future
>> Influence From LHC."
>>
>> The pair's hypothesis centres around the Higgs Boson, a mysterious tiny
>> particle and building block of life that it is hoped the LHC will
>> discover. They have come up with a theory that it will "ripple backward
>> through time" and stop the collider before it could make one, like a
>> time traveller who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.
>>
>> 'It must be our prediction that all Higgs producing machines shall have
>> bad luck,' Dr. Nielsen said. He said that his theories may even provide
>> a "model for God" who "rather hates Higgs particles, and attempts to
>> avoid them".
>>
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6318034/Could-the-Lar...
>> adron-Collider-be-held-back-by-its-own-future.html
>
> Yes, and notice that you're reading from a NEWSPAPER. It might by useful
> to see what the scientific community thinks of this conjecture.
It is being labelled as crackpot stuff in several specialized blogs.
Inertial
"John Kennaugh" <JK...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Y7ygEiTH...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
John Kennaugh
Which two theories is the LHC trying to decide between? Who is
championing and developing the alternative theory?
>> In trying to get the "standard model" to work a problem emerged. One
>> particle needed to be both massless and massive.
>
>What on earth gave you THAT idea?
>That's not AT ALL what happened.
>What was true is that the theory prior to the Higgs mechanism was
>KNOWN not to represent reality completely, because it did not have any
>mechanism by which particles could be massive. However, it got enough
>other things right that it showed some promise, and this warranted
>further work. This eventually led to the realization that IF another
>field existed, then masses could be accounted for, and then the
>standard model would have a chance of really representing reality.
>
>Now, perhaps you are whining that the moment the gauge theory had no
>accounting for mass, it should have been dropped without further work.
>
>To this I respond that if you look at Newton's 2nd law and apply it in
>a case of 2D projectile motion, where the force acting is mg on the
>projectile, then you get some very nice properties of the result and
>something close to being right. But of course, it doesn't get the
>range right at all. Is that a sufficient reason to shun Newton's 2nd
>law? Of course not! Because you KNOW you've not included something --
>air drag and air lift. And if you don't know yet that air drag has a
>v^2 dependence, does this mean that you should give up and say it's
>all hocus pocus because you have to account for air resistance but
>don't know exactly how to yet?
Your analogy doesn't work for me - sorry!
>
>> Now one might suggest
>> that the physicists go back to the drawing board and try again.
>> Particles can't both have mass and not have mass can they? That is
>> silly. But physics allows 'silly' they claim they are not wrong but
>> nature which is at fault for being 'weird' so with something straight
>> out of Hogwarts, one might call it the "let it have mass" spell (they
>> actually called it a Higgs field) a massless particle can be magic'd
>> into a massive particle.
>
>It appears you don't know what the Higgs field does. What it does NOT
>do is make particles massive and massless at the same time.
No it makes it massive when it enters a Higgs field - Magic!
>
>>
>> Now physics cannot even explain what an EM field IS, it used to map an
>> altered state in the aether but now the aether is forbidden it has no
>> invisible means of support and no one has yet decided what it consists
>> of if it is not.
>
>And the thing is, you can make certain predictions about what ANY
>aether would do, as long as it has certain basic properties, and test
>those -- WITHOUT knowing exactly what the aether is.
If you say there is an aether and a field is an altered state in the
aether but you are not sure what the aether is - I'm happy with that if
you also express the hope that one day we may know more about the
aether. In a sense 'the aether' is then a 'place holder' implying that
something exists vital to your theory but which is otherwise an unknown.
I might not agree with it. I might prefer some other explanation but I
can respect your point of view. If OTOH you claim there is no aether,
that space is devoid of such things but it can still store energy that
to me is a contradiction. You cannot store energy in nothing so if space
itself has no substance - no aether then the energy must be in some
other form than an altered state. Some sort of material stuff which
needs its place in the grand order of substances. e.g. the standard
model. I don't respect your theory if it relies on a field and you do
not care what a field is because it works mathematically.
I insist on the physical reality of the physical world.
>
>Likewise, we knew a lot about atomic physics just by knowing there
>were some very small constituents involved, without having any idea
>whether those constituents were fundamental or composite. You do NOT
>have to know everything about an object or a substance to be able to
>rule out a whole class of candidates.
I never claimed you did.
>
>> That being the case one might think that it would be
>> sensible to resolve that before inventing new 'fields'.
>
>I disagree on the priority. Both of them can be put forward and the
>same time, with no preference or priority given to either.
The EM field has been a part of physics for more than a century. One can
measure it. A Higgs field is simply an idea to solve a problem.
>> It is argued (by PD actually) that even the inclusion of fairies as part
>> of a theory is acceptable if it leads to testable prediction - it is
>> then (according to PD) still science.
>
>Yes, indeed.
>
>> If the Higgs field exists then
>> predictions which can be tested follow. One consequence is prediction of
>> the existence of the Higgs-Boson.
>>
>> So �4,400,000,000 or �14.7c has been spent - not to find the answer to
>> the ultimate question of life the universe and everything (we know that
>> is 42) but to find the Higgs-Boson.
>
>And what price is maximal for fundamental research? How much money is
>justified?
You might contemplate where the money for such projects comes from and
who ultimately has to approve that expenditure. You might find
ultimately that if at some point the public start to ask questions that
my way of thinking is likely to prevail. At present it is a con trick.
The public believe that those really clever physicist know what they are
doing and that it is far too difficult for them to understand - so they
don't try. At some point they will question what is going on and ask
physicists to explain it to them. Physics has developed its own language
and its own way of thinking and is in my view incapable of communicating
with those who fund it.
>And how do you determine that?
The general public may ask "what do we get out of it" or at the very
least "how much can we afford" and "what are our priorities on limited
funds". Can you show the social and economic benefits of such research?
>
>Note that $4.4B is *small* compared to some military R&D projects that
>don't lead to any deployed system. Scrap ONE of those projects in the
>bud, and you've got PLENTY of money to do fundamental research.
Or PLENTY of money to develop an anti malarial vaccine say. Much of
physics funding has been on the back of military R&D. We have now
developed enough ways to efficiently kill each other and found that in
practice we cannot use them and are back to hand to hand shooting type
wars. Funding physics on the grounds that it might come up with
something new to zap people with is starting to look like a rather old
fashioned idea. The only thing left is a countries prestige and that in
turn depends on physics remaining credible and worthy of respect.
A well respected newspaper - yes.
>It might by
>useful to see what the scientific community thinks of this conjecture.
That is my entire point. What possible objection, what principle, what
self exposed discipline would entitle any physicist to reject their
'theory'? There is no rule book. "You cannot impose your rules on
nature" you said or something similar. If you decided rules, guidelines
or whatever which allowed you to reject their theory they would have to
be applied to existing theories. The only grounds for rejecting the idea
is if the physicists concerned lack enough status.
>In particular, one might say that IF this conjecture were true, then
>it should have some OTHER independent testable consequence, by which
>to tell if that's what's really going on. Of course, you'll not find
>that in most newspaper snippets about it.
But don't you see this is a never ending story. You have a particle
which sometimes requires to have mass, and sometimes doesn't - so you
invent a 'magic' field which allows that - that is accepted because it
has testable consequences. You test those consequences and if it fails
you come up with another bit of magic which is acceptable if it predicts
testable consequences - if that fails you come up with a theory as to
why that failed - so long as it has testable consequences ......
Now lets suppose the "standard model" is wrong - who is working on that
possibility? Dare anyone even suggest it?
>> So there you have it. A new 'fix' waiting in the wings. Now if Holger
>> Nielsen, and Ninomiya had come up with their theory sooner �14.7c could
>> have been save and used to buy up the rain forests and protect them or
>> to provide flood defences to stop millions dying when sea level rises.
>> Even without Nielsen, and Ninomiya it is foreseeable that the money has
>> been wasted because in the end it doesn't matter whether the LCD finds
>> the Higgs Boson or not; Physics will find an excuse to carry on as if it
>> had.
>
>Fundamental research will carry on -- that is, research that has no
>particular eye to application but to just knowing how the universe
>works. If you don't like fundamental research at all and want it all
>devoted to applications, then by all means focus your attention on
>engineering rather than science.
Technology is certainly more cost effective. As a well informed, and
very reasonable layman I would say that in funding Fundamental physics
research the public purse is funding expensive fantasy based upon
recreational mathematics which has no quality assurance criteria to
ensure that anything it comes up with is in any way meaningful.
It has just added "back to the future" and "Terminator 2" to its source
material.
--
John Kennaugh "... even in science, what at its beginnings is recognised as a
speculation, with greater or less plausibility, develops with time into a
compulsory dogma, which whosoever disbelieves thereby brands himself as an
ignorant fool." Dingle
John Kennaugh
I suspect that if the LHC fails to detect the Higgs-Boson it will become
more popular :o) What is the highest status physicist who has condemned
it as "crackpot stuff" and what criteria has he used to condemn it? I
suspect the big guns are keeping a low profile.
My point over several years is that Physics has no quality assurance
criteria. It cannot dismiss any 'crackpot' idea as it has no criteria it
can apply. Having decided that physics cannot be wrong and it is Nature
which is weird there is no way you can reject any idea on the grounds
that "nature is weird but it can't be THAT weird". If it does come up
with quality assurance criteria it would have to apply them to existing
theory.
--
John Kennaugh
Juan R.
I am not sure about that.
> What is the highest status physicist who has condemned
> it as "crackpot stuff" and what criteria has he used to condemn it? I
> suspect the big guns are keeping a low profile.
Pretty irrelevant, just as the rest of your post.
> My point over several years is that Physics has no quality assurance
> criteria.
Physics is one science.
(...)
PD
wrote:
Popularity has nothing to do with it. If the LHC fails to detect the
Higgs boson, there are a half-dozen well-formed ideas already
available that would compete as to what's going on. All of them have
would have to have some independent way (other than lack of Higgs
bosons) to test whether this or that one is more likely right.
I get the feeling that you believe the money should not have been
spent unless finding the Higgs boson was a sure thing. If it were a
sure thing, why would we have to run an experiment to see if it's
really right? Experiments are designed to test what we're not sure
about, not to collect what we're sure about.
> What is the highest status physicist who has condemned
> it as "crackpot stuff" and what criteria has he used to condemn it? I
> suspect the big guns are keeping a low profile.
Physics really doesn't operate on a status hierarchy. It's not like
the business world, or for that matter, like engineering.
>
> My point over several years is that Physics has no quality assurance
> criteria. It cannot dismiss any 'crackpot' idea as it has no criteria it
> can apply.
I've already told you this is wrong and told you what the QA criteria
are.
> Having decided that physics cannot be wrong and it is Nature
> which is weird there is no way you can reject any idea on the grounds
> that "nature is weird but it can't be THAT weird".
That's certainly true. That is NOT good grounds for dismissal of an
idea.
PD
wrote:
There are LOTS that are competing. And physicists are championing the
alternative theories.
>
> >> In trying to get the "standard model" to work a problem emerged. One
> >> particle needed to be both massless and massive.
>
> >What on earth gave you THAT idea?
> >That's not AT ALL what happened.
> >What was true is that the theory prior to the Higgs mechanism was
> >KNOWN not to represent reality completely, because it did not have any
> >mechanism by which particles could be massive. However, it got enough
> >other things right that it showed some promise, and this warranted
> >further work. This eventually led to the realization that IF another
> >field existed, then masses could be accounted for, and then the
> >standard model would have a chance of really representing reality.
>
> >Now, perhaps you are whining that the moment the gauge theory had no
> >accounting for mass, it should have been dropped without further work.
>
> >To this I respond that if you look at Newton's 2nd law and apply it in
> >a case of 2D projectile motion, where the force acting is mg on the
> >projectile, then you get some very nice properties of the result and
> >something close to being right. But of course, it doesn't get the
> >range right at all. Is that a sufficient reason to shun Newton's 2nd
> >law? Of course not! Because you KNOW you've not included something --
> >air drag and air lift. And if you don't know yet that air drag has a
> >v^2 dependence, does this mean that you should give up and say it's
> >all hocus pocus because you have to account for air resistance but
> >don't know exactly how to yet?
>
> Your analogy doesn't work for me - sorry!
Why not? It's the same thing.
>
>
>
> >> Now one might suggest
> >> that the physicists go back to the drawing board and try again.
> >> Particles can't both have mass and not have mass can they? That is
> >> silly. But physics allows 'silly' they claim they are not wrong but
> >> nature which is at fault for being 'weird' so with something straight
> >> out of Hogwarts, one might call it the "let it have mass" spell (they
> >> actually called it a Higgs field) a massless particle can be magic'd
> >> into a massive particle.
>
> >It appears you don't know what the Higgs field does. What it does NOT
> >do is make particles massive and massless at the same time.
>
> No it makes it massive when it enters a Higgs field - Magic!
No, that is NOT correct. It might help if you read a little more
deeply about what the Higgs mechanism is.
>
>
> >> Now physics cannot even explain what an EM field IS, it used to map an
> >> altered state in the aether but now the aether is forbidden it has no
> >> invisible means of support and no one has yet decided what it consists
> >> of if it is not.
>
> >And the thing is, you can make certain predictions about what ANY
> >aether would do, as long as it has certain basic properties, and test
> >those -- WITHOUT knowing exactly what the aether is.
>
> If you say there is an aether and a field is an altered state in the
> aether but you are not sure what the aether is - I'm happy with that if
> you also express the hope that one day we may know more about the
> aether. In a sense 'the aether' is then a 'place holder' implying that
> something exists vital to your theory but which is otherwise an unknown.
At some point, you have to ask what the general properties of the
aether are.
If you claim that it is made of constituents that in principle can be
tracked in time, then this broad class of aethers have been ruled out
by a variety of experiments.
If you claim that the aether is simply that which bears fields, then
this has no functional distinction from spacetime itself.
>
> I might not agree with it. I might prefer some other explanation but I
> can respect your point of view. If OTOH you claim there is no aether,
> that space is devoid of such things but it can still store energy that
> to me is a contradiction.
And that's where we run into a problem. You are DEFINING space to be
that which has no physical properties, and by that definition
(literally "nothing") you derive a contradiction. But the problem is
that scientists do not use that definition for space. Space can indeed
bear physical properties, because it appears that nature in places
where there is no matter still bears physical properties. Your
recourse is to say, "What you call space, then, I label 'aether'
because only 'something' can bear physical properties and I've defined
space to be 'nothing' and not 'something'."
Then it's just a matter of semantics.
Now, if you FURTHER believe that only *matter* can have physical
properties, then this is a claim that can be put to experimental test,
because the presence of matter would imply certain other consequences
expected of matter.
If you wish to back away from those consequences by supposing that
there is a *new form* of matter that does NOT have those general
properties of matter, and it is THIS you want to label as "aether",
then again you are just making new definitions of words to suit your
prejudices that anything that has physical properties should be
labeled as matter.
> You cannot store energy in nothing so if space
> itself has no substance - no aether then the energy must be in some
> other form than an altered state. Some sort of material stuff which
> needs its place in the grand order of substances. e.g. the standard
> model. I don't respect your theory if it relies on a field and you do
> not care what a field is because it works mathematically.
I *do* care what a field is. I just don't demand that it has a
material basis, and furthermore I don't insist that I don't understand
what it is if it doesn't have a material basis.
> I insist on the physical reality of the physical world.
>
>
>
> >Likewise, we knew a lot about atomic physics just by knowing there
> >were some very small constituents involved, without having any idea
> >whether those constituents were fundamental or composite. You do NOT
> >have to know everything about an object or a substance to be able to
> >rule out a whole class of candidates.
>
> I never claimed you did.
>
>
>
> >> That being the case one might think that it would be
> >> sensible to resolve that before inventing new 'fields'.
>
> >I disagree on the priority. Both of them can be put forward and the
> >same time, with no preference or priority given to either.
>
> The EM field has been a part of physics for more than a century. One can
> measure it. A Higgs field is simply an idea to solve a problem.
Note that the EM field wasn't measured at the time of Maxwell. Hertz
did it in very rough form first.
Same thing was true for the neutrino. It was an idea to solve a
problem, but if the idea was right, then it would have other testable
consequences, which were in fact tested a couple of decades later.
Same thing is true for the Higgs. It's an idea to solve a problem, but
if the idea is right, then it would have other testable consequences,
which are being tested imminently.
What's the issue?
>
> >> It is argued (by PD actually) that even the inclusion of fairies as part
> >> of a theory is acceptable if it leads to testable prediction - it is
> >> then (according to PD) still science.
>
> >Yes, indeed.
>
> >> If the Higgs field exists then
> >> predictions which can be tested follow. One consequence is prediction of
> >> the existence of the Higgs-Boson.
>
> >> So £4,400,000,000 or £14.7c has been spent - not to find the answer to
> >> the ultimate question of life the universe and everything (we know that
> >> is 42) but to find the Higgs-Boson.
>
> >And what price is maximal for fundamental research? How much money is
> >justified?
>
> You might contemplate where the money for such projects comes from and
> who ultimately has to approve that expenditure. You might find
> ultimately that if at some point the public start to ask questions that
> my way of thinking is likely to prevail. At present it is a con trick.
> The public believe that those really clever physicist know what they are
> doing and that it is far too difficult for them to understand - so they
> don't try. At some point they will question what is going on and ask
> physicists to explain it to them. Physics has developed its own language
> and its own way of thinking and is in my view incapable of communicating
> with those who fund it.
I completely disagree. You have certain elected custodians of your
contributions to public funds. It is those custodians that have the
charge of wisely appropriating public funds. Physics is, in the US,
largely funded by those public funds, via the DoE and NSF. The elected
custodians appoint people to those federal offices at the DoE and NSF
to make recommendations about, and to manage, the spending of those
funds. Those people have physics background but are government
employees and are not involved in active research. It is their job to
review grant applications and to monitor satisfactory productivity
with dispensed funds. Nobody is pulling anything over on anyone.
I get the feeling that you feel somewhat disenfranchised and powerless
because of all those intermediaries and you would like greater control
of how your individual tax dollars are spent. For example, you would
like more money spent on applied work and less on fundamental physics,
or at least that less of YOUR dollars go to fundamental research. I
sympathize, but you're barking up the wrong tree. If you have a
problem with the system that dispenses public funds, then you take it
up with the system. It's pointless to whine to the beneficiaries of
the system that dispenses public funds.
>
> >And how do you determine that?
>
> The general public may ask "what do we get out of it" or at the very
> least "how much can we afford" and "what are our priorities on limited
> funds". Can you show the social and economic benefits of such research?
>
Fundamental research is not done with an eye for application and
improving the quality of everyday life. Yet it always does in the end.
People can argue endlessly whether it was Maxwell or Edison that
really provided the impact on everyday life with electricity. The real
answer is that it's BOTH. That's why it's called R&D and not just D.
Those people involved in the D side of R&D usually know that without
R, the D will eventually dry up. Likewise, those people in R know that
eventually D will have to kick in to make the work done in R seem
worthwhile. But the people who favor the D side generally sign up to
do work on the D side, and likewise for the R side. It's pointless to
ask R people to be more D, or D people to bear the burden of doing R.
>
>
> >Note that $4.4B is *small* compared to some military R&D projects that
> >don't lead to any deployed system. Scrap ONE of those projects in the
> >bud, and you've got PLENTY of money to do fundamental research.
>
> Or PLENTY of money to develop an anti malarial vaccine say. Much of
> physics funding has been on the back of military R&D.
Not for the last 40 years, pal.
> We have now
> developed enough ways to efficiently kill each other and found that in
> practice we cannot use them and are back to hand to hand shooting type
> wars. Funding physics on the grounds that it might come up with
> something new to zap people with is
There is zero military application to the work being done at Fermilab.
On the other hand, Fermilab's work was instrumental in the creation of
proton therapy protocols and was the principal driver behind
facilities like the Loma Linda proton therapy accelerator.
You have some rather old-fashioned ideas about physics being an
extension of the military-industrial complex.
That has a target audience that is not interested in full scientific
consideration.
>
> >It might by
> >useful to see what the scientific community thinks of this conjecture.
>
> That is my entire point. What possible objection, what principle, what
> self exposed discipline would entitle any physicist to reject their
> 'theory'? There is no rule book. "You cannot impose your rules on
> nature" you said or something similar. If you decided rules, guidelines
> or whatever which allowed you to reject their theory they would have to
> be applied to existing theories. The only grounds for rejecting the idea
> is if the physicists concerned lack enough status.
And that's ridiculous. Status has nothing to do with it. I told you
what the criteria are: independent, testable predictions that
distinguish one model from another.
Pre-vetting ideas on the basis of "can't be TOO crazy" or "well, who
is it that's suggesting the idea?" is just not how science works or
should work.
>
> >In particular, one might say that IF this conjecture were true, then
> >it should have some OTHER independent testable consequence, by which
> >to tell if that's what's really going on. Of course, you'll not find
> >that in most newspaper snippets about it.
>
> But don't you see this is a never ending story. You have a particle
> which sometimes requires to have mass, and sometimes doesn't
No, I already told you this is not what the Higgs mechanism does.
> - so you
> invent a 'magic' field which allows that - that is accepted because it
> has testable consequences. You test those consequences and if it fails
> you come up with another bit of magic which is acceptable if it predicts
> testable consequences - if that fails you come up with a theory as to
> why that failed - so long as it has testable consequences ......
And of course, those testable consequences have to be tested.
>
> Now lets suppose the "standard model" is wrong - who is working on that
> possibility? Dare anyone even suggest it?
There are LOTS of those models flying around, and people ARE working
on it. There ARE lots of people working on the notion that the Higgs
mechanism is just plain wrong. You just don't find newspapers writing
stories about it, because there aren't enough people like you that are
concerned whether that's the case in their reading audience. But there
ARE people in physics that are concerned about it.
It's like Barnes & Noble. If you go to Barnes and Noble in the science
shelves, you see a lot of books written by theorists and a lot of
books written about colorful personalities like Sagan and Feynman and
Einstein and Randall. And so people come away with the impression that
physics is being driven and dominated by theorists with colorful
personalities, and ask why the contributions of engineers and applied
scientists and technicians and computer scientists who do a huge
amount of work at real laboratories are not more recognized. And the
reason for that is that Barnes & Noble is trying to sell books, not
represent the scientific community accurately. And books about far-out
ideas and colorful personalities sell better than books about people
that actually are a representative slice through the community. It's
not the *purpose* of Barnes & Noble books to give an accurate view of
how science actually is done.
>
> >> So there you have it. A new 'fix' waiting in the wings. Now if Holger
> >> Nielsen, and Ninomiya had come up with their theory sooner £14.7c could
> >> have been save and used to buy up the rain forests and protect them or
> >> to provide flood defences to stop millions dying when sea level rises.
> >> Even without Nielsen, and Ninomiya it is foreseeable that the money has
> >> been wasted because in the end it doesn't matter whether the LCD finds
> >> the Higgs Boson or not; Physics will find an excuse to carry on as if it
> >> had.
>
> >Fundamental research will carry on -- that is, research that has no
> >particular eye to application but to just knowing how the universe
> >works. If you don't like fundamental research at all and want it all
> >devoted to applications, then by all means focus your attention on
> >engineering rather than science.
>
> Technology is certainly more cost effective.
Effective for WHAT? If you mean the timely production of technology
that changes quality of life for people, then fundamental research is
not funded for that purpose. It doesn't make sense to apply a success
metric to an area that isn't intended to satisfy that metric.
John Kennaugh
>On Oct 21, 5:01�am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
>wrote:
I beg to differ. You surely must admit that physicist are human and have
normal human ambition. They are unlikely to get public acclaim as the
public haven't a clue about what modern physics is about. The only
avenue for gaining status is within the ranks of physics itself, within
the ranks of the believers. It is a completely closed order. One can
only gain status by the approval of those with more status than oneself.
One gains status by having ones papers published in high status journals
which are refereed by the elite who do not have to identify themselves
nor to give a reason for rejecting a paper. One only has to look at
Dingle to see how heretics are treated. A life's work as a highly
respected physicist does not entitle you to question the one true faith.
>> ďż˝ My point over several years is that Physics has no quality assurance
>> criteria. It cannot dismiss any 'crackpot' idea as it has no criteria it
>> can apply.
>
>I've already told you this is wrong and told you what the QA criteria
>are.
That there must be a testable prediction - in this case that the
Higgs-Boson will not be found :o)
>
>> Having decided that physics cannot be wrong and it is Nature
>> which is weird there is no way you can reject any idea on the grounds
>> that "nature is weird but it can't be THAT weird".
>
>That's certainly true. That is NOT good grounds for dismissal of an
>idea.
So what Nielsen, & Ninomiya have produced cannot reasonably be labelled
"crackpot stuff", as the poster suggests. There are no criteria you can
apply.
PD
wrote:
> PD wrote:
> >On Oct 21, 5:01 am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
> >wrote:
This is ridiculous. It implies that becoming engaged in education in a
subject means implicitly that you will end up agreeing with the status
quo, and then complaining that those who do not want to remain
skeptical about the status quo are being excluded from proper
knowledge of the subject.
If you want to know what modern physics is about, then you ENGAGE in
those activities that are explicitly structured to provide you with
that knowledge. This does NOT require that you sign any contract that
says you will agree with everything that is shown to you.
And in fact, the proper training of a scientist involves teaching them
how to skeptically and objectively determine whether an idea has
scientific merit, regardless of what the idea is. It is less about
what the ideas are than about how to investigate the ideas; however,
it is useful to thoroughly go over thoroughly investigated ideas to
learn how those investigations are conducted.
> One can
> only gain status by the approval of those with more status than oneself.
That is nonsense.
> One gains status by having ones papers published in high status journals
> which are refereed by the elite who do not have to identify themselves
> nor to give a reason for rejecting a paper.
What purpose does identifying a reviewer serve?
> One only has to look at
> Dingle to see how heretics are treated. A life's work as a highly
> respected physicist does not entitle you to question the one true faith.
>
> >> My point over several years is that Physics has no quality assurance
> >> criteria. It cannot dismiss any 'crackpot' idea as it has no criteria it
> >> can apply.
>
> >I've already told you this is wrong and told you what the QA criteria
> >are.
>
> That there must be a testable prediction - in this case that the
> Higgs-Boson will not be found :o)
No sir. That is not sufficient! This model that suggest that the Higgs
boson will not be found must have a SEPARATE implication that makes it
distinguishable from OTHER models that say it won't be found. And it
is the SEPARATE implication that is the true test.
>
>
>
> >> Having decided that physics cannot be wrong and it is Nature
> >> which is weird there is no way you can reject any idea on the grounds
> >> that "nature is weird but it can't be THAT weird".
>
> >That's certainly true. That is NOT good grounds for dismissal of an
> >idea.
>
> So what Nielsen, & Ninomiya have produced cannot reasonably be labelled
> "crackpot stuff", as the poster suggests. There are no criteria you can
> apply.
Yes, there is, and I've already told you what the criteria are.
Nielsen and Ninomiya's idea must have a separate and testable
prediction of a measurable consequence other than the lack of a Higgs
boson. Notice how different this is than the criterion of "too crazy"
that you would like to apply.
eric gisse
[...]
> This is ridiculous. It implies that becoming engaged in education in a
> subject means implicitly that you will end up agreeing with the status
> quo, and then complaining that those who do not want to remain
> skeptical about the status quo are being excluded from proper
> knowledge of the subject.
That's why he's a crank.
I thought this was clear?
[...]
John Kennaugh
>On Oct 21, 10:25�ｿｽam, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> PD wrote:
>> >On Oct 21, 5:01�ｿｽam, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
>> >wrote:
At the end of that education if you still expressed doubts what would
your chances of a career in physics? Nil. As Dingle showed you are not
even allowed to express doubts after a life as a distinguished
physicist.
>And in fact, the proper training of a scientist involves teaching them
>how to skeptically and objectively determine whether an idea has
>scientific merit, regardless of what the idea is. It is less about
>what the ideas are than about how to investigate the ideas; however,
>it is useful to thoroughly go over thoroughly investigated ideas to
>learn how those investigations are conducted.
>
>> One can
>> only gain status by the approval of those with more status than oneself.
>
>That is nonsense.
>
>> One gains status by having ones papers published in high status journals
>> which are refereed by the elite who do not have to identify themselves
>> nor to give a reason for rejecting a paper.
>
>What purpose does identifying a reviewer serve?
What purpose is served by a reviewer remaining anonymous, able to
prevent the publication of something without stating a reason? The case
of Wallace adequately shows the problem. He found a sympathetic referee
who thought his paper worthy of publication with a few amplifications -
which Wallace was happy to do. When re-submitted with those
modifications the editor sent it to a different referee who claimed it
had no merit.
You would no doubt tell students that they shouldn't take anything they
read seriously unless it appears in a properly referred journal.
Articles which support the status quo and Articles which attack it are
both refereed by people who's reputation is built on the status quo.
>
>> One only has to look at
>> Dingle to see how heretics are treated. A life's work as a highly
>> respected physicist does not entitle you to question the one true faith.
>>
>> >> �ｿｽ My point over several years is that Physics has no quality assurance
>> >> criteria. It cannot dismiss any 'crackpot' idea as it has no criteria it
>> >> can apply.
>>
>> >I've already told you this is wrong and told you what the QA criteria
>> >are.
>>
>> That there must be a testable prediction - in this case that the
>> Higgs-Boson will not be found :o)
>
>No sir. That is not sufficient! This model that suggest that the Higgs
>boson will not be found must have a SEPARATE implication that makes it
>distinguishable from OTHER models that say it won't be found. And it
>is the SEPARATE implication that is the true test.
>> >> Having decided that physics cannot be wrong and it is Nature
>> >> which is weird there is no way you can reject any idea on the grounds
>> >> that "nature is weird but it can't be THAT weird".
>>
>> >That's certainly true. That is NOT good grounds for dismissal of an
>> >idea.
>>
>> So what Nielsen, & Ninomiya have produced cannot reasonably be labelled
>> "crackpot stuff", as the poster suggests. There are no criteria you can
>> apply.
>
>Yes, there is, and I've already told you what the criteria are.
OK suppose that that 'separate' implication went along the lines of "In
500 years time it will be obvious that ......." i.e. it is testable but
not immediately. Would that do?
Me I think it is "crackpot stuff" but that applies to a great deal more
than N&N but then I have a very old fashioned idea of what is good
science.
--
John Kennaugh
"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist sufficiently
strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." Dr Scott Murray
Vern
wrote:
Hey John, I know a new post should probably be started for this, but
anything goes in this group anyway, so I'll just post here.
In the post entitled, "Wang/Sagnac" Tom Roberts posted on Oct 20 and
21 about experimental evidence that shows that emission theory cannot
be correct. I'm curious on your take; did you see the post?
Thanks,
Vern
PD
wrote:
> PD wrote:
> >On Oct 21, 10:25 am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >> PD wrote:
> >> >On Oct 21, 5:01 am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
> >> >wrote:
Quite good, actually. There are lots of people very active in the
field who have been proposing crazy ideas for a long time. It also
helps to have produced several ideas that have turned out to be right.
> As Dingle showed you are not
> even allowed to express doubts after a life as a distinguished
> physicist.
No, it just shows that a life as a distinguished physicist is not a
guarantee that all your ideas are sound. It also shows that some
scientists, after a productive life, get a little sloppy with their
work, and it shows. This even happens to Nobelists.
>
> >And in fact, the proper training of a scientist involves teaching them
> >how to skeptically and objectively determine whether an idea has
> >scientific merit, regardless of what the idea is. It is less about
> >what the ideas are than about how to investigate the ideas; however,
> >it is useful to thoroughly go over thoroughly investigated ideas to
> >learn how those investigations are conducted.
>
> >> One can
> >> only gain status by the approval of those with more status than oneself.
>
> >That is nonsense.
>
> >> One gains status by having ones papers published in high status journals
> >> which are refereed by the elite who do not have to identify themselves
> >> nor to give a reason for rejecting a paper.
>
> >What purpose does identifying a reviewer serve?
>
> What purpose is served by a reviewer remaining anonymous, able to
> prevent the publication of something without stating a reason? The case
> of Wallace adequately shows the problem. He found a sympathetic referee
> who thought his paper worthy of publication with a few amplifications -
> which Wallace was happy to do. When re-submitted with those
> modifications the editor sent it to a different referee who claimed it
> had no merit.
Yes, this happens sometimes. Submission to a journal is no guarantee
of perfect process, anymore than a jury of peers sends all the right
people to prison and lets all the right people go free. It's also true
that novelists get turned down by one publisher and then go to another
who then finds it's a bestseller.
However, what some people do is submit to several journals, until one
editor decides to pick it up.
> You would no doubt tell students that they shouldn't take anything they
> read seriously unless it appears in a properly referred journal.
> Articles which support the status quo and Articles which attack it are
> both refereed by people who's reputation is built on the status quo.
You obviously have not read the content of journals. There are crazy
ideas published in every single issue, straying far from the status
quo.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> One only has to look at
> >> Dingle to see how heretics are treated. A life's work as a highly
> >> respected physicist does not entitle you to question the one true faith.
>
> >> >> My point over several years is that Physics has no quality assurance
> >> >> criteria. It cannot dismiss any 'crackpot' idea as it has no criteria it
> >> >> can apply.
>
> >> >I've already told you this is wrong and told you what the QA criteria
> >> >are.
>
> >> That there must be a testable prediction - in this case that the
> >> Higgs-Boson will not be found :o)
>
> >No sir. That is not sufficient! This model that suggest that the Higgs
> >boson will not be found must have a SEPARATE implication that makes it
> >distinguishable from OTHER models that say it won't be found. And it
> >is the SEPARATE implication that is the true test.
You see?
> >> >> Having decided that physics cannot be wrong and it is Nature
> >> >> which is weird there is no way you can reject any idea on the grounds
> >> >> that "nature is weird but it can't be THAT weird".
>
> >> >That's certainly true. That is NOT good grounds for dismissal of an
> >> >idea.
>
> >> So what Nielsen, & Ninomiya have produced cannot reasonably be labelled
> >> "crackpot stuff", as the poster suggests. There are no criteria you can
> >> apply.
>
> >Yes, there is, and I've already told you what the criteria are.
>
> OK suppose that that 'separate' implication went along the lines of "In
> 500 years time it will be obvious that ......." i.e. it is testable but
> not immediately. Would that do?
Not really. The burden is on the theorist to search for a
distinguishing signal which could be feasibly in the foreseeable
future, although that number may be 20-40 years. Not 500.
>
> Me I think it is "crackpot stuff" but that applies to a great deal more
> than N&N but then I have a very old fashioned idea of what is good
> science.
Not just old-fashioned. Off the mark right off the get-go.
Androcles
"Vern" <vtho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8a29ff7a-9588-4e12...@r36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
Thanks,
Vern
=========================================
Roberts is lying. Although he is correct that there is no phase
shift at the beamsplitter, the apparatus doesn't measure it there.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacRing.JPG
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/MechModel.gif
John Kennaugh
No. In the analogy each of the modifications are identifiable and
testable. You can define what you mean by air. You can independently
test the interaction between air and the projectile.
It is actually a good example for defining the difference between
science and technology.
You could have a gun accurately calibrated to give accurate range
without knowing anything about Newton. - that is technology. You could
empirically work out a formula which gave you accurate results - that is
a mathematical model. If you *understand* what is going on and construct
your maths based on that understanding - that is science.
"This eventually led to the realization that IF another
field existed, then masses could be accounted for"
Alchemy might be a better analogy where the Higgs field = The
philosopher's stone except that the philosopher's stone only had to
transmute one metal into another not transmute something with no mass to
something with mass - which would appear to require an entirely new
definition of mass. Again in your analogy you were not changing what had
been established but building on it.
>> >> Now one might suggest
>> >> that the physicists go back to the drawing board and try again.
>> >> Particles can't both have mass and not have mass can they? That is
>> >> silly. But physics allows 'silly' they claim they are not wrong but
>> >> nature which is at fault for being 'weird' so with something straight
>> >> out of Hogwarts, one might call it the "let it have mass" spell (they
>> >> actually called it a Higgs field) a massless particle can be magic'd
>> >> into a massive particle.
>>
>> >It appears you don't know what the Higgs field does. What it does NOT
>> >do is make particles massive and massless at the same time.
>>
>> No it makes it massive when it enters a Higgs field - Magic!
>
>No, that is NOT correct. It might help if you read a little more
>deeply about what the Higgs mechanism is.
Why? It is whatever physics wants it to be.
>
>>
>>
>> >> Now physics cannot even explain what an EM field IS, it used to map an
>> >> altered state in the aether but now the aether is forbidden it has no
>> >> invisible means of support and no one has yet decided what it consists
>> >> of if it is not.
>>
>> >And the thing is, you can make certain predictions about what ANY
>> >aether would do, as long as it has certain basic properties, and test
>> >those -- WITHOUT knowing exactly what the aether is.
>>
>> If you say there is an aether and a field is an altered state in the
>> aether but you are not sure what the aether is - I'm happy with that if
>> you also express the hope that one day we may know more about the
>> aether. In a sense 'the aether' is then a 'place holder' implying that
>> something exists vital to your theory but which is otherwise an unknown.
>
>At some point, you have to ask what the general properties of the
>aether are.
>If you claim that it is made of constituents that in principle can be
>tracked in time, then this broad class of aethers have been ruled out
>by a variety of experiments.
>If you claim that the aether is simply that which bears fields, then
>this has no functional distinction from spacetime itself.
OK let us apply your own criteria of acceptability to Maxwell/Lorentz's
aether. The general properties are that a field maps an altered state in
the aether (analogous to a stress pattern). This accounts for action at
a distance due for example to the interaction of the two 'stress'
patterns caused by charge. As with any medium a 'stress' may propagate
at a characteristic speed which - from the measured properties of the
aether - permeability and permittivity - that speed can be determined as
c. When the theory is properly applied (by Lorentz) - taking into
account the action at a distance role of the aether and that all
physical object (e.g. measurement apparatus) is held together by action
at a distance force - one concludes that the MMX was incapable of
detecting motion w.r.t the aether. This is constantly being
mis-represented as "it is impossible to detect the aether" The only
thing one cannot detect is ones *absolute* speed w.r.t the aether. There
are at least two testable predictions w.r.t the aether hypothesis. The
first is that if you change the speed of the source there will be no
change in the measured speed of light because the speed of propagation
is controlled by the aether. The second is that if you change your speed
there will be an immediate change in frequency due to Doppler. In other
words while you cannot measure your absolute speed w.r.t the aether you
can detect a change in speed relative to the aether.
What makes you think that Maxwell/Lorentz aether is in any way ruled
out? You believe in fields, in action at a distance force, energy
propagation, source independence and Doppler shift all explained by the
aether. On what basis can you label it "crackpot-stuff". AFAICS compared
to much which is accepted in modern physics it would seem totally sane.
If now you take SR which replaced it then that is purely a mathematical
model - an identical mathematical model. It *assumes* source
independence but makes no attempt to explain why speed should be
independent of motion of the source. Neither does it explain why the
speed of light appears constant to every observer and fails totally to
explain why, when I change my speed the frequency changes instantly.
There is only one Doppler equation in SR. Whether the source changes its
speed or I am the one that changes mine. The maths assume in both cases
that the change in frequency is due to a different wavelength being
generated at the source so my change of speed has to affect the past -
light leaving the source before I changed speed. Maths has no problem
with that physics ought to have.
To me LET it a far better theory and equally successful.
>> I might not agree with it. I might prefer some other explanation but I
>> can respect your point of view. If OTOH you claim there is no aether,
>> that space is devoid of such things but it can still store energy that
>> to me is a contradiction.
>
>And that's where we run into a problem. You are DEFINING space to be
>that which has no physical properties, and by that definition
>(literally "nothing") you derive a contradiction. But the problem is
>that scientists do not use that definition for space. Space can indeed
>bear physical properties, because it appears that nature in places
>where there is no matter still bears physical properties. Your
>recourse is to say, "What you call space, then, I label 'aether'
>because only 'something' can bear physical properties and I've defined
>space to be 'nothing' and not 'something'."
>
>Then it's just a matter of semantics.
Exactly - you have renamed the aether "space".
>
>Now, if you FURTHER believe that only *matter* can have physical
>properties, then this is a claim that can be put to experimental test,
>because the presence of matter would imply certain other consequences
>expected of matter.
define "matter"
>If you wish to back away from those consequences by supposing that
>there is a *new form* of matter that does NOT have those general
>properties of matter, and it is THIS you want to label as "aether",
>then again you are just making new definitions of words to suit your
>prejudices that anything that has physical properties should be
>labeled as matter.
Physical change involves physical process. Physical process involves
something physical to take part in that process. It is a function of
physics to try and relate all which is physical within the universe.
>
>> You cannot store energy in nothing so if space
>> itself has no substance - no aether then the energy must be in some
>> other form than an altered state. Some sort of material stuff which
>> needs its place in the grand order of substances. e.g. the standard
>> model. I don't respect your theory if it relies on a field and you do
>> not care what a field is because it works mathematically.
>
>I *do* care what a field is. I just don't demand that it has a
>material basis, and furthermore I don't insist that I don't understand
>what it is if it doesn't have a material basis.
Define "material"
>
>> I insist on the physical reality of the physical world.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Likewise, we knew a lot about atomic physics just by knowing there
>> >were some very small constituents involved, without having any idea
>> >whether those constituents were fundamental or composite. You do NOT
>> >have to know everything about an object or a substance to be able to
>> >rule out a whole class of candidates.
>>
>> I never claimed you did.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> That being the case one might think that it would be
>> >> sensible to resolve that before inventing new 'fields'.
>>
>> >I disagree on the priority. Both of them can be put forward and the
>> >same time, with no preference or priority given to either.
>>
>> The EM field has been a part of physics for more than a century. One can
>> measure it. A Higgs field is simply an idea to solve a problem.
>
>Note that the EM field wasn't measured at the time of Maxwell. Hertz
>did it in very rough form first.
>
>Same thing was true for the neutrino. It was an idea to solve a
>problem, but if the idea was right, then it would have other testable
>consequences, which were in fact tested a couple of decades later.
I would be interested if you would elaborate or point me to a reference.
I am always willing to increase my knowledge.
As they are elected then what is considered 'wise' is strongly
influenced by the electorate. That is democracy.
> Physics is, in the US,
>largely funded by those public funds, via the DoE and NSF. The elected
>custodians appoint people to those federal offices at the DoE and NSF
>to make recommendations about, and to manage, the spending of those
>funds. Those people have physics background but are government
>employees and are not involved in active research. It is their job to
>review grant applications and to monitor satisfactory productivity
>with dispensed funds. Nobody is pulling anything over on anyone.
The budget allocated is approved by elected representatives of the
people. They and those who elect them have very little understanding of
physics. While the perception is that physicists are very clever and are
doing important work they will continue to fund it. If they actually
start to ask questions then are they going to be convinced? Can physics
communicate what it is about to the tax payers? If cuts are needed to
pay for other things what difference would it make to the public if the
Physics budget was cut?
>
>I get the feeling that you feel somewhat disenfranchised and powerless
>because of all those intermediaries and you would like greater control
>of how your individual tax dollars are spent.
I don't pay tax in dollars
> For example, you would
>like more money spent on applied work and less on fundamental physics,
>or at least that less of YOUR dollars go to fundamental research. I
>sympathize, but you're barking up the wrong tree. If you have a
>problem with the system that dispenses public funds, then you take it
>up with the system. It's pointless to whine to the beneficiaries of
>the system that dispenses public funds.
I was responding to your question:
"And what price is maximal for fundamental research? How much money is
justified?". You have a situation (Nielsen, and Ninomiya) which physics
may be forced to take seriously being lampooned by the media. It would
not be at all difficult to put together a program which would make
physics look exceedingly silly in the mind of the general public - the
tax payers.
>> >And how do you determine that?
>>
>> The general public may ask "what do we get out of it" or at the very
>> least "how much can we afford" and "what are our priorities on limited
>> funds". Can you show the social and economic benefits of such research?
>>
>
>Fundamental research is not done with an eye for application and
>improving the quality of everyday life. Yet it always does in the end.
>People can argue endlessly whether it was Maxwell or Edison that
>really provided the impact on everyday life with electricity. The real
>answer is that it's BOTH. That's why it's called R&D and not just D.
>Those people involved in the D side of R&D usually know that without
>R, the D will eventually dry up. Likewise, those people in R know that
>eventually D will have to kick in to make the work done in R seem
>worthwhile. But the people who favor the D side generally sign up to
>do work on the D side, and likewise for the R side. It's pointless to
>ask R people to be more D, or D people to bear the burden of doing R.
You are talking in the historical context.
>
>>
>>
>> >Note that $4.4B is *small* compared to some military R&D projects that
>> >don't lead to any deployed system. Scrap ONE of those projects in the
>> >bud, and you've got PLENTY of money to do fundamental research.
>>
>> Or PLENTY of money to develop an anti malarial vaccine say. Much of
>> physics funding has been on the back of military R&D.
>
>Not for the last 40 years, pal.
>
>> We have now
>> developed enough ways to efficiently kill each other and found that in
>> practice we cannot use them and are back to hand to hand shooting type
>> wars. Funding physics on the grounds that it might come up with
>> something new to zap people with is
>
>There is zero military application to the work being done at Fermilab.
>On the other hand, Fermilab's work was instrumental in the creation of
>proton therapy protocols and was the principal driver behind
>facilities like the Loma Linda proton therapy accelerator.
And the moon landing program gave us the none stick frying pan!
I think it was 60 years between the first powered flight and the moon
landing. We now have more computing power in a mobile phone than they
had at mission control. Such is the march of technology. While we look
at out interactive digital flat screen muti- channel widescreen colour
TV it is sobering to think that while physics is spending billions
looking for the god particle it has no greater understanding of what it
is which travels from the transmitter to our TV aerial than it did a
century ago. The phenomena is dealt with by two different branches of
physics in different ways and the best chance of unifying them is said
to be string theory which requires that the universe has 10 or 26
dimensions and even if one of the many versions of string theory
succeeds no one is claiming that strings actually exist and if they do
they are certainly undetectable.
The general public might have difficulty deciding where serious physics
ends and lunacy begins.
>> >In particular, one might say that IF this conjecture were true, then
>> >it should have some OTHER independent testable consequence, by which
>> >to tell if that's what's really going on. Of course, you'll not find
>> >that in most newspaper snippets about it.
>>
>> But don't you see this is a never ending story. You have a particle
>> which sometimes requires to have mass, and sometimes doesn't
>
>No, I already told you this is not what the Higgs mechanism does.
"The weak nuclear force is a short range force, behaving as if the
gauge bosons are very heavy. In order to make a gauge invariant theory
work for the weak nuclear force, theorists had to come up with a way to
make heavy gauge bosons in a way that wouldn't destroy the consistency
of the quantum theory.
The method they came up with is called spontaneous symmetry breaking,
where massless gauge bosons acquire mass by interacting with a scalar
field called the Higgs field."
OK so you are called before a congressional committee (or whatever) and
asked "why do you think fundamental physics research should be funded by
the public tax payer?" what would you respond?
You might reply "To increase our knowledge about Nature"
Suppose the response was "To increase YOUR knowledge - but will it
increase MY knowledge or the tax payers knowledge? Would they understand
any of it?"
If they can't understand it then it isn't of any importance to them. If
it isn't important to them why should they pay for it?
>It doesn't make sense to apply a success
>metric to an area that isn't intended to satisfy that metric.
...isn't intended to be successful! Perhaps you should try rephrasing
that.
John Kennaugh
No. I missed that one. I am sure that Sagnac is consistent with emission
theory. Waldron said it was but is a little short on detail. My point is
that emission theory has never been seriously developed by physics. One
in fact may ask "what theory is it which Roberts claims has been
disproved"
Newton's corpuscular theory? - rather short on detail.
Ritz emission theory - untouched and subject to no development for a 100
years. Published 1908 Ritz died 1909.
Waldron's (who?) Ballistic theory? Waldron was a maths lecturer not a
physicists and hardly any physicist has studied it. Roberts certainly
hasn't. It would in any case be unreasonable to expect one man to come
up with a water tight theory in his spare time but his ideas are
certainly radical and a definite starting point
Henri's BaT theory - Well at least he is trying - who else is?
Total neglect of a theory which the experimental evidence pointed to
quite clearly and which according to Fox had not been disproved before
1964 - when Fox claims he did.
Without someone championing the theory and trying to make it work there
is no way it can be dismissed. If an accepted theory 'fails' it appears
that any means can be used to fix it including a hypothesis of ghosts
from the future. I rather doubt that anything so extreme would be needed
to make emission theory work but we won't know unless someone with the
necessary ability tries. I do not claim to have that ability although I
have had a little success pointing out some of Roberts errors.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_thread/thr
ead/10780cf53003ee23?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q
--
John Kennaugh
John Kennaugh
>On Oct 22, 3:09�am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> PD wrote:
>> >On Oct 21, 10:25�am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
>> >wrote:
>> >> PD wrote:
>> >> >On Oct 21, 5:01�am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> Juan R. Gonz�lez-�lvarez wrote:
>> >> >> >PD wrote on Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:52:05 -0700:
>>
>> >> >> >(...)
>>
>> >> >> >>> "Theoretical physicists Holger Nielsen, from Denmark, and Masao
>> >> >> >>> Ninomiya, from Japan, have concluded that the discovery of the
>> >> >> >>> Higgs-Boson could be so "abhorrent to nature" that they are
>> >> >> >>>coming back
>> >> >> >>> through time to stop their own creation. They have outlined their
>> >> >> >>> thoughts in a series of papers with titles like "Test of
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Influence From LHC."
>>
>> >> >> >>> The pair's hypothesis centres around the Higgs Boson, a
>> >> >> >>>mysterious tiny
>> >> >> >>> particle and building block of life that it is hoped the LHC will
>> >> >> >>> discover. They have come up with a theory that it will "ripple
>> >> >> >>>backward
>> >> >> >>> through time" and stop the collider before it could make
>> >> >> >>>
>>
>> >> >> >>> 'It must be our prediction that all Higgs producing machines
>> >> >> >>>shall have
>> >> >> >>> bad luck,' Dr. Nielsen said. He said that his theories may
>> >> >> >>>even provide
>> >> >> >>> a "model for God" who "rather hates Higgs particles, and
>> >> >> >>>
The attacks on Dingle were not even rational. Those attacking him could
not even agree as to why he was wrong. I think Dingle's arguments were
perfectly rational - but I don't expect you to agree.
>> >And in fact, the proper training of a scientist involves teaching them
>> >how to skeptically and objectively determine whether an idea has
>> >scientific merit, regardless of what the idea is. It is less about
>> >what the ideas are than about how to investigate the ideas; however,
>> >it is useful to thoroughly go over thoroughly investigated ideas to
>> >learn how those investigations are conducted.
>>
>> >> One can
>> >> only gain status by the approval of those with more status than oneself.
>>
>> >That is nonsense.
>>
>> >> One gains status by having ones papers published in high status journals
>> >> which are refereed by the elite who do not have to identify themselves
>> >> nor to give a reason for rejecting a paper.
>>
>> >What purpose does identifying a reviewer serve?
>>
>> What purpose is served by a reviewer remaining anonymous, able to
>> prevent the publication of something without stating a reason? The case
>> of Wallace adequately shows the problem. He found a sympathetic referee
>> who thought his paper worthy of publication with a few amplifications -
>> which Wallace was happy to do. When re-submitted with those
>> modifications the editor sent it to a different referee who claimed it
>> had no merit.
>
>Yes, this happens sometimes. Submission to a journal is no guarantee
>of perfect process, anymore than a jury of peers sends all the right
>people to prison and lets all the right people go free.
The major difference is that it is considered a basic human right that a
man knows the case against him, and who is condemning him and it is not
permissible to change the jury just because it looks as if it might
bring in the "wrong" verdict.
>> You would no doubt tell students that they shouldn't take anything they
>> read seriously unless it appears in a properly referred journal.
>> Articles which support the status quo and Articles which attack it are
>> both refereed by people who's reputation is built on the status quo.
>
>You obviously have not read the content of journals. There are crazy
>ideas published in every single issue, straying far from the status
>quo.
>> >> One only has to look at
>> >> Dingle to see how heretics are treated. A life's work as a highly
>> >> respected physicist does not entitle you to question the one true faith.
>>
>> >> >> ďż˝ My point over several years is that Physics has no quality assurance
PD
You seem unaware of this.
Precisely. And you can independently test for the Higgs. The presence
of the Higgs has specific, testable implications that are *different*
than the particles just having mass. It's those implications that are
on the agenda to be tested at LHC (and at FNAL).
>
> It is actually a good example for defining the difference between
> science and technology.
> You could have a gun accurately calibrated to give accurate range
> without knowing anything about Newton. - that is technology. You could
> empirically work out a formula which gave you accurate results - that is
> a mathematical model. If you *understand* what is going on and construct
> your maths based on that understanding - that is science.
>
> "This eventually led to the realization that IF another
> field existed, then masses could be accounted for"
And IF that field exists, then it is testable by other independent
methods, which should be pursued. (And are.)
>
> Alchemy might be a better analogy where the Higgs field = The
> philosopher's stone except that the philosopher's stone only had to
> transmute one metal into another not transmute something with no mass to
> something with mass - which would appear to require an entirely new
> definition of mass.
Why would it require a new definition of mass? Are you under the
impression that mass is conserved? Wherever did you get that idea?
> Again in your analogy you were not changing what had
> been established but building on it.
>
> >> >> Now one might suggest
> >> >> that the physicists go back to the drawing board and try again.
> >> >> Particles can't both have mass and not have mass can they? That is
> >> >> silly. But physics allows 'silly' they claim they are not wrong but
> >> >> nature which is at fault for being 'weird' so with something straight
> >> >> out of Hogwarts, one might call it the "let it have mass" spell (they
> >> >> actually called it a Higgs field) a massless particle can be magic'd
> >> >> into a massive particle.
>
> >> >It appears you don't know what the Higgs field does. What it does NOT
> >> >do is make particles massive and massless at the same time.
>
> >> No it makes it massive when it enters a Higgs field - Magic!
>
> >No, that is NOT correct. It might help if you read a little more
> >deeply about what the Higgs mechanism is.
>
> Why? It is whatever physics wants it to be.
Nonsense. It's pretty well set. It certainly isn't what YOU think it
is.
>
>
>
> >> >> Now physics cannot even explain what an EM field IS, it used to map an
> >> >> altered state in the aether but now the aether is forbidden it has no
> >> >> invisible means of support and no one has yet decided what it consists
> >> >> of if it is not.
>
> >> >And the thing is, you can make certain predictions about what ANY
> >> >aether would do, as long as it has certain basic properties, and test
> >> >those -- WITHOUT knowing exactly what the aether is.
>
> >> If you say there is an aether and a field is an altered state in the
> >> aether but you are not sure what the aether is - I'm happy with that if
> >> you also express the hope that one day we may know more about the
> >> aether. In a sense 'the aether' is then a 'place holder' implying that
> >> something exists vital to your theory but which is otherwise an unknown.
>
> >At some point, you have to ask what the general properties of the
> >aether are.
> >If you claim that it is made of constituents that in principle can be
> >tracked in time, then this broad class of aethers have been ruled out
> >by a variety of experiments.
> >If you claim that the aether is simply that which bears fields, then
> >this has no functional distinction from spacetime itself.
>
> OK let us apply your own criteria of acceptability to Maxwell/Lorentz's
> aether. The general properties are that a field maps an altered state in
> the aether (analogous to a stress pattern). This accounts for action at
> a distance due for example to the interaction of the two 'stress'
> patterns caused by charge.
Note it accounts for ONE interaction at a distance. Not several.
> As with any medium a 'stress' may propagate
> at a characteristic speed which - from the measured properties of the
> aether - permeability and permittivity - that speed can be determined as
> c. When the theory is properly applied (by Lorentz) - taking into
> account the action at a distance role of the aether and that all
> physical object (e.g. measurement apparatus) is held together by action
> at a distance force - one concludes that the MMX was incapable of
> detecting motion w.r.t the aether. This is constantly being
> mis-represented as "it is impossible to detect the aether" The only
> thing one cannot detect is ones *absolute* speed w.r.t the aether. There
> are at least two testable predictions w.r.t the aether hypothesis. The
> first is that if you change the speed of the source there will be no
> change in the measured speed of light because the speed of propagation
> is controlled by the aether.
And notice that this is not a DISTINGUISHING prediction.
> The second is that if you change your speed
> there will be an immediate change in frequency due to Doppler. In other
> words while you cannot measure your absolute speed w.r.t the aether you
> can detect a change in speed relative to the aether.
And notice again that this is not a DISTINGUISHING prediction.
>
> What makes you think that Maxwell/Lorentz aether is in any way ruled
> out? You believe in fields, in action at a distance force, energy
> propagation, source independence and Doppler shift all explained by the
> aether. On what basis can you label it "crackpot-stuff". AFAICS compared
> to much which is accepted in modern physics it would seem totally sane.
>
> If now you take SR which replaced it then that is purely a mathematical
> model - an identical mathematical model. It *assumes* source
> independence but makes no attempt to explain why speed should be
> independent of motion of the source.
Yes it does. The structure of spacetime explains it. Einstein didn't
use it as a postulate in his first paper because he didn't think of
it. Minkowski did. Minkowski was the one that provided the underlying
physical basis for Einstein's postulate.
> Neither does it explain why the
> speed of light appears constant to every observer and fails totally to
> explain why, when I change my speed the frequency changes instantly.
On the contrary, again the structure of spacetime explains the former,
and relativistic Doppler shift is EASILY derived from that.
>
> There is only one Doppler equation in SR. Whether the source changes its
> speed or I am the one that changes mine. The maths assume in both cases
> that the change in frequency is due to a different wavelength being
> generated at the source so my change of speed has to affect the past
Not at all! This is a simple misconception on your part. There is no
implication that the observer has causally reached through time to
alter the source.
> -
> light leaving the source before I changed speed. Maths has no problem
> with that physics ought to have.
>
> To me LET it a far better theory and equally successful.
How can it be a "far better theory" if it makes the same predictions?
>
> >> I might not agree with it. I might prefer some other explanation but I
> >> can respect your point of view. If OTOH you claim there is no aether,
> >> that space is devoid of such things but it can still store energy that
> >> to me is a contradiction.
>
> >And that's where we run into a problem. You are DEFINING space to be
> >that which has no physical properties, and by that definition
> >(literally "nothing") you derive a contradiction. But the problem is
> >that scientists do not use that definition for space. Space can indeed
> >bear physical properties, because it appears that nature in places
> >where there is no matter still bears physical properties. Your
> >recourse is to say, "What you call space, then, I label 'aether'
> >because only 'something' can bear physical properties and I've defined
> >space to be 'nothing' and not 'something'."
>
> >Then it's just a matter of semantics.
>
> Exactly - you have renamed the aether "space".
Well, spacetime. And so you see there is nothing different between
your aether theory and relativity other than terminology that makes
you feel better.
There is no testable difference. New terminology does not a superior
theory make.
>
>
>
> >Now, if you FURTHER believe that only *matter* can have physical
> >properties, then this is a claim that can be put to experimental test,
> >because the presence of matter would imply certain other consequences
> >expected of matter.
>
> define "matter"
Matter is that which has mass and occupies volume. You can look that
up.
>
> >If you wish to back away from those consequences by supposing that
> >there is a *new form* of matter that does NOT have those general
> >properties of matter, and it is THIS you want to label as "aether",
> >then again you are just making new definitions of words to suit your
> >prejudices that anything that has physical properties should be
> >labeled as matter.
>
> Physical change involves physical process.
Well, let's talk about that. Galileo made the observation that if you
drop a ball from the top of a ship's mast, then the real physical
trajectory of that ball will be a straight line, as observed from the
deck. But as observed from the shore, the real physical trajectory of
the ball is a parabola. Now, was there a physical process involved in
turning a straight path into a curved one? After all, the ball only
dropped once.
Likewise, an 18th century physicist knew that the kinetic energy of an
object would be zero in one reference frame and nonzero in another
reference frame, even though the two observers did NOTHING to the
object to change the kinetic energy from one value to another.
So how is it these real physical properties manage to change without
there being a physical process that changes them?
> Physical process involves
> something physical to take part in that process. It is a function of
> physics to try and relate all which is physical within the universe.
Not sure what you mean by "physical". To a physicist a field in empty
space is physical.
>
>
>
> >> You cannot store energy in nothing so if space
> >> itself has no substance - no aether then the energy must be in some
> >> other form than an altered state. Some sort of material stuff which
> >> needs its place in the grand order of substances. e.g. the standard
> >> model. I don't respect your theory if it relies on a field and you do
> >> not care what a field is because it works mathematically.
>
> >I *do* care what a field is. I just don't demand that it has a
> >material basis, and furthermore I don't insist that I don't understand
> >what it is if it doesn't have a material basis.
>
> Define "material"
Consisting of matter. See above for definition of matter.
>
>
>
> >> I insist on the physical reality of the physical world.
>
> >> >Likewise, we knew a lot about atomic physics just by knowing there
> >> >were some very small constituents involved, without having any idea
> >> >whether those constituents were fundamental or composite. You do NOT
> >> >have to know everything about an object or a substance to be able to
> >> >rule out a whole class of candidates.
>
> >> I never claimed you did.
>
> >> >> That being the case one might think that it would be
> >> >> sensible to resolve that before inventing new 'fields'.
>
> >> >I disagree on the priority. Both of them can be put forward and the
> >> >same time, with no preference or priority given to either.
>
> >> The EM field has been a part of physics for more than a century. One can
> >> measure it. A Higgs field is simply an idea to solve a problem.
>
> >Note that the EM field wasn't measured at the time of Maxwell. Hertz
> >did it in very rough form first.
>
> >Same thing was true for the neutrino. It was an idea to solve a
> >problem, but if the idea was right, then it would have other testable
> >consequences, which were in fact tested a couple of decades later.
>
> I would be interested if you would elaborate or point me to a reference.
> I am always willing to increase my knowledge.
For what? The neutrino? Try reading the Nobel lecture on the Nobel
site for the guys that experimentally verified the existence of the
neutrino. It's aimed at the general public.
>
>
>
> >Same thing is true for the Higgs. It's an idea to solve a problem, but
> >if the idea is right, then it would have other testable consequences,
> >which are being tested imminently.
>
> >What's the issue?
Hmmmm??
>
> >> >> It is argued (by PD actually) that even the inclusion of fairies as part
> >> >> of a theory is acceptable if it leads to testable prediction - it is
> >> >> then (according to PD) still science.
>
> >> >Yes, indeed.
This still seems to bother you, but you can't articulate why?
>
> >> >> If the Higgs field exists then
> >> >> predictions which can be tested follow. One consequence is prediction of
> >> >> the existence of the Higgs-Boson.
>
> >> >> So £4,400,000,000 or £14.7c has been spent - not to find the answer to
> >> >> the ultimate question of life the universe and everything (we know that
> >> >> is 42) but to find the Higgs-Boson.
>
> >> >And what price is maximal for fundamental research? How much money is
> >> >justified?
>
> >> You might contemplate where the money for such projects comes from and
> >> who ultimately has to approve that expenditure. You might find
> >> ultimately that if at some point the public start to ask questions that
> >> my way of thinking is likely to prevail. At present it is a con trick.
> >> The public believe that those really clever physicist know what they are
> >> doing and that it is far too difficult for them to understand - so they
> >> don't try. At some point they will question what is going on and ask
> >> physicists to explain it to them. Physics has developed its own language
> >> and its own way of thinking and is in my view incapable of communicating
> >> with those who fund it.
>
> >I completely disagree. You have certain elected custodians of your
> >contributions to public funds. It is those custodians that have the
> >charge of wisely appropriating public funds.
>
> As they are elected then what is considered 'wise' is strongly
> influenced by the electorate. That is democracy.
Yes, of course. Do you now have a problem with that?
>
> > Physics is, in the US,
> >largely funded by those public funds, via the DoE and NSF. The elected
> >custodians appoint people to those federal offices at the DoE and NSF
> >to make recommendations about, and to manage, the spending of those
> >funds. Those people have physics background but are government
> >employees and are not involved in active research. It is their job to
> >review grant applications and to monitor satisfactory productivity
> >with dispensed funds. Nobody is pulling anything over on anyone.
>
> The budget allocated is approved by elected representatives of the
> people. They and those who elect them have very little understanding of
> physics.
But the people that those custodians hire to help make recommendations
and manage that budget DO have a good understanding of physics, even
though they are not pursuing research.
> While the perception is that physicists are very clever and are
> doing important work they will continue to fund it. If they actually
> start to ask questions then are they going to be convinced? Can physics
> communicate what it is about to the tax payers?
More importantly, do they HAVE to make it all clear and accessible to
the taxpayers?
Consider medical research, which is also federally funded. Do you
understand all that is going on with medical research? Do you feel
cheated that you don't?
What about the FAA? Do you understand in intimate detail how the air
traffic control system works? Do you feel cheated that you don't?
What about banking regulations? Do you understand in intimate detail
the regulatory code? Do you feel cheated that you don't?
Those that want to become better acquainted with physics have a very
simple option: an education. You'll note that education is government-
subsidized.
> If cuts are needed to
> pay for other things what difference would it make to the public if the
> Physics budget was cut?
Well, for one thing, the R that fuels D in R&D would dry up in that
arena.
>
>
>
> >I get the feeling that you feel somewhat disenfranchised and powerless
> >because of all those intermediaries and you would like greater control
> >of how your individual tax dollars are spent.
>
> I don't pay tax in dollars
Then what is your personal complaint?
>
> > For example, you would
> >like more money spent on applied work and less on fundamental physics,
> >or at least that less of YOUR dollars go to fundamental research. I
> >sympathize, but you're barking up the wrong tree. If you have a
> >problem with the system that dispenses public funds, then you take it
> >up with the system. It's pointless to whine to the beneficiaries of
> >the system that dispenses public funds.
>
> I was responding to your question:
>
> "And what price is maximal for fundamental research? How much money is
> justified?". You have a situation (Nielsen, and Ninomiya) which physics
> may be forced to take seriously being lampooned by the media. It would
> not be at all difficult to put together a program which would make
> physics look exceedingly silly in the mind of the general public - the
> tax payers.
Oh, you don't have to worry too much about that. The work of these two
guys is not being dismissed out of hand, but it certainly isn't being
seized as any huge insight either.
>
> >> >And how do you determine that?
>
> >> The general public may ask "what do we get out of it" or at the very
> >> least "how much can we afford" and "what are our priorities on limited
> >> funds". Can you show the social and economic benefits of such research?
>
> >Fundamental research is not done with an eye for application and
> >improving the quality of everyday life. Yet it always does in the end.
> >People can argue endlessly whether it was Maxwell or Edison that
> >really provided the impact on everyday life with electricity. The real
> >answer is that it's BOTH. That's why it's called R&D and not just D.
> >Those people involved in the D side of R&D usually know that without
> >R, the D will eventually dry up. Likewise, those people in R know that
> >eventually D will have to kick in to make the work done in R seem
> >worthwhile. But the people who favor the D side generally sign up to
> >do work on the D side, and likewise for the R side. It's pointless to
> >ask R people to be more D, or D people to bear the burden of doing R.
>
> You are talking in the historical context.
?? This is how R&D works in general, all the time.
>
>
>
> >> >Note that $4.4B is *small* compared to some military R&D projects that
> >> >don't lead to any deployed system. Scrap ONE of those projects in the
> >> >bud, and you've got PLENTY of money to do fundamental research.
>
> >> Or PLENTY of money to develop an anti malarial vaccine say. Much of
> >> physics funding has been on the back of military R&D.
>
> >Not for the last 40 years, pal.
>
> >> We have now
> >> developed enough ways to efficiently kill each other and found that in
> >> practice we cannot use them and are back to hand to hand shooting type
> >> wars. Funding physics on the grounds that it might come up with
> >> something new to zap people with is
>
> >There is zero military application to the work being done at Fermilab.
> >On the other hand, Fermilab's work was instrumental in the creation of
> >proton therapy protocols and was the principal driver behind
> >facilities like the Loma Linda proton therapy accelerator.
>
> And the moon landing program gave us the none stick frying pan!
There's a good example of people feeling that pure exploration for the
sake of exploration and without material improvement to life was worth
it.
I see that you disagree. Perhaps you have issue with national art
museums as well.
>
> I think it was 60 years between the first powered flight and the moon
> landing. We now have more computing power in a mobile phone than they
> had at mission control. Such is the march of technology. While we look
> at out interactive digital flat screen muti- channel widescreen colour
> TV it is sobering to think that while physics is spending billions
> looking for the god particle it has no greater understanding of what it
> is which travels from the transmitter to our TV aerial than it did a
> century ago.
Well, that's certainly not true. QED is a huge jump in the
understanding of that process and it wasn't around until 1950.
> The phenomena is dealt with by two different branches of
> physics in different ways and the best chance of unifying them is said
> to be string theory which requires that the universe has 10 or 26
> dimensions and even if one of the many versions of string theory
> succeeds no one is claiming that strings actually exist and if they do
> they are certainly undetectable.
That's wrong. If string theory succeeds, then strings will certainly
be claimed to exist. AND what will be required for that theory to be
called successful is PRECISELY an experimental verification of a
unique signature of the theory. You have a goofball idea about how
science works.
It's pretty easy to point the general public to the experimental
results which determine what is crazy and what is not.
>
> >> >In particular, one might say that IF this conjecture were true, then
> >> >it should have some OTHER independent testable consequence, by which
> >> >to tell if that's what's really going on. Of course, you'll not find
> >> >that in most newspaper snippets about it.
>
> >> But don't you see this is a never ending story. You have a particle
> >> which sometimes requires to have mass, and sometimes doesn't
>
> >No, I already told you this is not what the Higgs mechanism does.
>
> "The weak nuclear force is a short range force, behaving as if the
> gauge bosons are very heavy. In order to make a gauge invariant theory
> work for the weak nuclear force, theorists had to come up with a way to
> make heavy gauge bosons in a way that wouldn't destroy the consistency
> of the quantum theory.
> The method they came up with is called spontaneous symmetry breaking,
> where massless gauge bosons acquire mass by interacting with a scalar
> field called the Higgs field."
This is a crappy oversimplification that does not convey what is
really going on. Where did you fetch it?
>
>
>
> >> - so you
> >> invent a 'magic' field which allows that - that is accepted because it
> >> has testable consequences. You test those consequences and if it fails
> >> you come up with another bit of magic which is acceptable if it predicts
> >> testable consequences - if that fails you come up with a theory as to
> >> why that failed - so long as it has testable consequences ......
>
> >And of course, those testable consequences have to be tested.
>
> and if it fails you come up with another bit of magic which is
> acceptable if it predicts testable consequences - if that fails you come
> up with a theory as to why that failed - so long as it has testable
> consequences ......
It DOES converge. Go back to the Newton's 2nd law for 2D projectile
motion where the same process is involved.
You apply F=ma where the force on the left is gravity, and you
discover that it misses the experimental result for where the
projectile lands.
So you realize that you've left out a force due to air resistance, and
you add a term for drag that is proportional to velocity. This does
much better, but still doesn't provide perfect results.
So you realize that there is also a smaller v^2 term in the air
resistance. This does much better, but now the projectile is still
landing to one side.
So you realize that the Earth is turning underneath the projectile,
and so you need to include the Coriolis effect. This does much better,
but it still doesn't work well for dimpled golf balls.
So you realize that there is a *lift* contribution from a spinning
ball. This does much better, but not perfectly, and by now the
inclusion of all these terms is making it work pretty darned well for
a large class of objects...
>
>
>
> >> Now lets suppose the "standard model" is wrong - who is working on that
> >> possibility? Dare anyone even suggest it?
>
> >There are LOTS of those models flying around, and people ARE working
> >on it. There ARE lots of people working on the notion that the Higgs
> >mechanism is just plain wrong. You just don't find newspapers writing
> >stories about it, because there aren't enough people like you that are
> >concerned whether that's the case in their reading audience. But there
> >ARE people in physics that are concerned about it.
>
> >It's like Barnes & Noble. If you go to Barnes and Noble in the science
> >shelves, you see a lot of books written by theorists and a lot of
> >books written about colorful personalities like Sagan and Feynman and
> >Einstein and Randall. And so people come away with the impression that
> >physics is being driven and dominated by theorists with colorful
> >personalities, and ask why the contributions of engineers and applied
> >scientists and technicians and computer scientists who do a huge
> >amount of work at real laboratories are not more recognized. And the
> >reason for that is that Barnes & Noble is trying to sell books, not
> >represent the scientific community accurately. And books about far-out
> >ideas and colorful personalities sell better than books about people
> >that actually are a representative slice through the community. It's
> >not the *purpose* of Barnes & Noble books to give an accurate view of
> >how science actually is done.
I'm sure you see the problem with how information is provided to the
public.
>
> >> >> So there you have it. A new 'fix' waiting in the wings. Now if Holger
> >> >> Nielsen, and Ninomiya had come up with their theory sooner £14.7c could
> >> >> have been save and used to buy up the rain forests and protect them or
> >> >> to provide flood defences to stop millions dying when sea level rises.
> >> >> Even without Nielsen, and Ninomiya it is foreseeable that the money has
> >> >> been wasted because in the end it doesn't matter whether the LCD finds
> >> >> the Higgs Boson or not; Physics will find an excuse to carry on as if it
> >> >> had.
>
> >> >Fundamental research will carry on -- that is, research that has no
> >> >particular eye to application but to just knowing how the universe
> >> >works. If you don't like fundamental research at all and want it all
> >> >devoted to applications, then by all means focus your attention on
> >> >engineering rather than science.
>
> >> Technology is certainly more cost effective.
>
> >Effective for WHAT? If you mean the timely production of technology
> >that changes quality of life for people, then fundamental research is
> >not funded for that purpose.
>
> OK so you are called before a congressional committee (or whatever) and
> asked "why do you think fundamental physics research should be funded by
> the public tax payer?" what would you respond?
>
> You might reply "To increase our knowledge about Nature"
>
> Suppose the response was "To increase YOUR knowledge - but will it
> increase MY knowledge or the tax payers knowledge? Would they understand
> any of it?"
Certainly. If they avail themselves of an education. Which is also
government subsidized.
Of course, if that knowledge is never increased, then no amount of
education would help, would it?
>
> If they can't understand it then it isn't of any importance to them. If
> it isn't important to them why should they pay for it?
This is how a federal, representative government works. The people
don't ask to have direct expertise on every decision that is to be
made or every operation that is to be funded. They put people in place
that they entrust to be informed custodians, or they put custodians in
place who will staff up with people who are informed and can make
informed recommendations to the custodians. If it appears those
custodians have not conducted their charge properly, then they are
replaced.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for the public to become versed in every aspect of
federally supported activity. To do so would require that people
become experts in every field from economics to medicine to law to
chemistry. If a member of the public takes an interest in a particular
area of activity, then an education is available.
PD
wrote:
> PD wrote:
> >On Oct 22, 3:09 am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >> PD wrote:
> >> >On Oct 21, 10:25 am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> PD wrote:
> >> >> >On Oct 21, 5:01 am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
> >> >> >wrote:
Sorry, but this is different. No liberties are being abridged here,
and that's what fundamental rights are in place to protect.
A journal is a *private* enterprise -- for profit.
Physicists *use* them as a vehicle to disseminate work effectively.
But editors of journals, just like editors of novels, have the right
to use whatever means they think is in their best business interests
to decide what to publish and what not.
If a novelist gets turned down by a dozen publishers, with only a "no
thanks" letter from each one, then the novelist has had no liberties
abridged, even if it seems that the novelist's ability to earn a
living is at risk.
>
>
>
> >> You would no doubt tell students that they shouldn't take anything they
> >> read seriously unless it appears in a properly referred journal.
> >> Articles which support the status quo and Articles which attack it are
> >> both refereed by people who's reputation is built on the status quo.
>
> >You obviously have not read the content of journals. There are crazy
> >ideas published in every single issue, straying far from the status
> >quo.
> >> >> One only has to look at
> >> >> Dingle to see how heretics are treated. A life's work as a highly
> >> >> respected physicist does not entitle you to question the one true faith.
>
doug
John Kennaugh wrote:
> Vern wrote:
>
>> On Oct 20, 2:55 pm, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hey John, I know a new post should probably be started for this, but
>> anything goes in this group anyway, so I'll just post here.
>>
>> In the post entitled, "Wang/Sagnac" Tom Roberts posted on Oct 20 and
>> 21 about experimental evidence that shows that emission theory cannot
>> be correct. I'm curious on your take; did you see the post?
>
>
> No. I missed that one. I am sure that Sagnac is consistent with emission
> theory. Waldron said it was but is a little short on detail.
Waldron was a crank. Emission theory has been ruled out by experiments.
My point is
> that emission theory has never been seriously developed by physics. One
> in fact may ask "what theory is it which Roberts claims has been disproved"
You have not studied the history of emission theories.
>
> Newton's corpuscular theory? - rather short on detail.
>
> Ritz emission theory - untouched and subject to no development for a 100
> years. Published 1908 Ritz died 1909.
Ritz's theory has been disproved.
>
> Waldron's (who?) Ballistic theory? Waldron was a maths lecturer not a
> physicists and hardly any physicist has studied it. Roberts certainly
> hasn't. It would in any case be unreasonable to expect one man to come
> up with a water tight theory in his spare time but his ideas are
> certainly radical and a definite starting point
Waldron's theory has been disproved.
>
> Henri's BaT theory - Well at least he is trying - who else is?
Henri (ralph) is a fool who just makes things up as he goes. He
is one of the lowest cranks here.
>
> Total neglect of a theory which the experimental evidence pointed to
> quite clearly and which according to Fox had not been disproved before
> 1964 - when Fox claims he did.
>
The evidence shows emission theory is wrong. Get over it. Your paranoia
is not very useful.
> Without someone championing the theory and trying to make it work there
> is no way it can be dismissed.
Sure it can. If the basic premise of the theory is wrong, then the
theory is wrong.
If an accepted theory 'fails' it appears
> that any means can be used to fix it including a hypothesis of ghosts
> from the future. I rather doubt that anything so extreme would be needed
> to make emission theory work but we won't know unless someone with the
> necessary ability tries. I do not claim to have that ability although I
> have had a little success pointing out some of Roberts errors.
>
That is a pretty funny statement. You looked very ignorant in trying
to take on Roberts.
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_thread/thr
> ead/10780cf53003ee23?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q
This is where you admit that you do not know science or math. You then
proceed to give your philosophical feelings and prejudices and then
proceed to make a number of completely wrong statements. Roberts pointed
out your ignorance of QED which you ignored. You then made various lies
about Maxwell's equations and demonstrated your ignorance of what
the experiments showed. You really should try to hide this thread since
you look very bad in it.
PD
wrote:
> ead/10780cf53003ee23?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q
> --
> John Kennaugh
I appreciate the idealized sentiment, I really do.
If I understand you correctly, you observe that the Standard Model has
undergone numerous patches over the course of several decades, with
literally hundreds of people working on it to fix it up and give it
tender loving care as a theory. And you do not see equivalent effort
on emission theory, which you acknowledge is in pretty rough shape in
its present form but is also lacking in comparable effort to patch it
up and make it look better.
You are right that it is difficult to convey to the public the
subtleties of why, when two theories on the surface both could be said
to smell a little bad, one of them is worth giving up on and the other
one worth more work. There IS an element of totting up how promising a
theory looks vs how problematic the remaining holes are. I can tell
you it isn't just a matter of counting a list.
It is true, moreover, that there isn't some affirmative-action program
for underprivileged theories whereby certain numbers of physicists are
allocated to work on theory A and certain numbers on theories B, C,
and D. Physicists do self-optimize to work on those things that seem
to hold the most promise. For the most part, there are always
sufficient numbers of physicists who are interested in working on
bigger gambles, because the payoff would be larger. I don't believe
that driving the status quo is an overwhelming quasher of ideas.
Smolin may disagree with me on the matter of quantum gravity, for
which there are at least 4 major approaches in play, but where most
people have opted to work on trying to make string theory a theory.
What IS true, however, is that the work of the people you've mentioned
above is of seriously deficient quality. I do hear your trumpet call,
"Well, then let's get some better people working on it then!" But to
lift up "Henri Wilson" as an example of someone who is earnest and
just needs a little help is counterproductive, as Henri is a shameless
liar and is far more interested in making things up as he goes along
rather than doing any real work.
PD
glird
>
><Fundamental research will carry on -- that is, research that has no particular eye to application but to just knowing how the universe works. >
If you want to know HOW - which is Metaphysics - read "The Universe"
by G Lebau.
<If you don't like fundamental research at all and want it all devoted
to applications, then by all means focus your attention on engineering
rather than science. >
If you only want to know how much - which is Physics - then focus
your attention on the results of present "fundamental research".
glird
John Kennaugh
The standard model was by way of and example. Many theories in physics
have undergone similar "development" the BB theory for example.
> And you do not see equivalent effort
>on emission theory, which you acknowledge is in pretty rough shape in
>its present form but is also lacking in comparable effort to patch it
>up and make it look better.
Make it viable rather than 'look better'.
>
>You are right that it is difficult to convey to the public the
>subtleties of why, when two theories on the surface both could be said
>to smell a little bad, one of them is worth giving up on and the other
>one worth more work. There IS an element of totting up how promising a
>theory looks vs how problematic the remaining holes are. I can tell
>you it isn't just a matter of counting a list.
I never suggested it was. I suggest that emission theory was neglected
because of blind prejudice and the unfortunate demise of Ritz. It was by
far the simpler theory and ticked all the boxes without the need to
ditch 3 long established and apparently sensible axioms of physics. Had
it been accepted as Occam's razor suggests it should and had it become
the established theory it would by Fox's reckoning not have been
seriously challenged until 1964. Had that happened we would now have a
different physics. Maybe better, maybe worse - but different. I am
interested to know which.
>It is true, moreover, that there isn't some affirmative-action program
>for underprivileged theories whereby certain numbers of physicists are
>allocated to work on theory A and certain numbers on theories B, C,
>and D. Physicists do self-optimize to work on those things that seem
>to hold the most promise.
The most promise for their career.
>For the most part, there are always
>sufficient numbers of physicists who are interested in working on
>bigger gambles, because the payoff would be larger.
Not if their work suggested that the rest of the physics community had
been wasting their time for a century the pay off would be ridicule if
not a lynching. Look what happened to Dingle. They would not be
acknowledged in their own life time.
>I don't believe
>that driving the status quo is an overwhelming quasher of ideas.
I do and I think the evidence is there.
>Smolin may disagree with me on the matter of quantum gravity, for
>which there are at least 4 major approaches in play, but where most
>people have opted to work on trying to make string theory a theory.
>
>What IS true, however, is that the work of the people you've mentioned
>above is of seriously deficient quality. I do hear your trumpet call,
>"Well, then let's get some better people working on it then!"
Yes. Any sort of search for the truth or the best way forward is to have
an opposition. That's why a parliament works better with an opposition.
That is why in a court of law you have defence as well as prosecution.
In physics you cannot have double blind tests as in medicine to prevent
your prejudice and expectations affecting the results. Is there any
funded research where someone who actually believes that relativity is
wrong is funded to try and prove it? I think the answer is no.
http://bourabai.kz/wallace/farce05.htm
Documents the case of Ruggero M. Santilli
"Sidney Coleman, Shelly Glashow, Steven Weinberg, and other
senior physicists at Harvard opposed my studies to such a
point of preventing my drawing a salary from my own grant for
almost one academic year...... when the case was just about to explode
in law suits, I finally received authorization to draw my salary from
my own grant as a member of the Department of Mathematics of Harvard
University.
But, Sidney Coleman, Shelly Glashow and Steven Weinberg and
possibly others had declared to the Department of Mathematics
that my studies "had no physical value." This created
predictable problems in the mathematics department which lead
to the subsequent, apparently intended, impossibility of
continuing my research at Harvard."
>But to
>lift up "Henri Wilson" as an example of someone who is earnest and
>just needs a little help is counterproductive, as Henri is a shameless
>liar and is far more interested in making things up as he goes along
>rather than doing any real work.
Then obviously someone better is clearly needed. If you exclude him then
you have Ritz and Waldron. Have you studied Waldron?
--
John Kennaugh
John Kennaugh
[bit of pruning]
So it is just a "magazine" which clearly knows what its readers want to
read and what would upset them.
Well that's got that sorted out.
>> >> You would no doubt tell students that they shouldn't take anything they
>> >> read seriously unless it appears in a properly referred journal.
>> >> Articles which support the status quo and Articles which attack it are
>> >> both refereed by people who's reputation is built on the status quo.
--
John Kennaugh
John Kennaugh
!!!!!!? Why don't you stick with reality. Einstein ASSUMED source
independence from Maxwell's theory which says that the speed of light is
controlled by the aether so the sources movement cannot affect it.
Einstein interpreted the MMX, in terms of Maxwell's theory as showing
that for some reason an observer is always stationary w.r.t the aether.
He totally ignored the fact that light is particulate and that Maxwell's
wave in aether theory was seriously compromised. He produced the same
maths as Lorentz.
The maths are based on the assumption of source independence and
observer independence. Those maths were taken by Minkowski who
reproduced them in diagrammatic form. And you are saying that that
diagram predicts source independence and observer independence? Doh!
Unless Minkowski did his maths wrong it is bound to. It is completely
circular. I appreciate that it is a better way of presenting it to some
naive student than saying that Einstein's second postulate describes
what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would experience. I am not
a naive student and neither are you. Are you a lecturer in physics by
any chance?
> Einstein didn't
>use it as a postulate in his first paper because he didn't think of
>it. Minkowski did. Minkowski was the one that provided the underlying
>physical basis for Einstein's postulate.
>
>> Neither does it explain why the
>> speed of light appears constant to every observer and fails totally to
>> explain why, when I change my speed the frequency changes instantly.
>
>On the contrary, again the structure of spacetime explains the former,
>and relativistic Doppler shift is EASILY derived from that.
Derived maybe. Explained no.
>> There is only one Doppler equation in SR. Whether the source changes its
>> speed or I am the one that changes mine. The maths assume in both cases
>> that the change in frequency is due to a different wavelength being
>> generated at the source so my change of speed has to affect the past
>
>Not at all! This is a simple misconception on your part. There is no
>implication that the observer has causally reached through time to
>alter the source.
Suppose you are 1 ly from a source. I am happy to accept that what I do
cannot affect what happened at the source 1 year ago - on the grounds of
causality. I'm not sure on what grounds you rule it out :o)
If I change my speed then I am clearly changing my relationship with the
light in transit. i.e. that light which left the source 1 year
previously. What is the physical nature of that change of relationship?
Let us make it clearer. Forget frequency consider sets of two short
busts of light sent out by the source with a fixed interval at regular
(or irregular) intervals. I can in theory measure the distance between
them. If two photo detectors are placed that distance apart they will
give an O/P simultaneously. I can measure that distance with a ruler. I
can also measure the time between the two pulses. If I increase my speed
in the direction they are coming from then the time between is shorter -
a first order effect dependent on v/c.
Emission theory says that the physical distance between the busts hasn't
changed, I have changed my speed w.r.t the light so the time between one
pulse and the other changes. Same distance - higher speed - shorter
time.
LET says the same thing except that it says in addition that if I
measure the speed of light it will *appear* not to have changed.
SR says my speed w.r.t the light pulses hasn't changed. I conclude
therefore that SR says my change in speed has somehow changed the
physical spacing between the two pulses of light.
To me that is physically absurd which means as far as I am concerned
Doppler is a DISTINGUISHING prediction of LETs aether.
Perhaps you have a different physical explanation. Note I am looking for
a physical explanation not a mathematical one. A physical theory not a
mathematical model.
>
>> -
>> light leaving the source before I changed speed. Maths has no problem
>> with that physics ought to have.
>>
>> To me LET it a far better theory and equally successful.
>
>
>How can it be a "far better theory" if it makes the same predictions?
How can it be an inferior theory it makes the same predictions. It also
has with it a theoretical structure which Einstein objected to but
failed to better. He failed to come up with any theoretical structure at
all. Apart from which a theory is supposed to stand until it is
invalidated - LET has not been invalidated. What DISTINGUISHING
predictions did SR make which LET did not which would justify it
replacing LET?
If that is the accepted definition then what you say about me is wrong.
Mass is a property which some physical stuff has, as is charge. I
certainly don't rule out the possible existence of physical stuff which
has no mass.
>> >If you wish to back away from those consequences by supposing that
>> >there is a *new form* of matter that does NOT have those general
>> >properties of matter, and it is THIS you want to label as "aether",
>> >then again you are just making new definitions of words to suit your
>> >prejudices that anything that has physical properties should be
>> >labeled as matter.
>>
>> Physical change involves physical process.
>
>Well, let's talk about that. Galileo made the observation that if you
>drop a ball from the top of a ship's mast, then the real physical
>trajectory of that ball will be a straight line, as observed from the
>deck. But as observed from the shore, the real physical trajectory of
>the ball is a parabola. Now, was there a physical process involved in
>turning a straight path into a curved one? After all, the ball only
>dropped once.
>
>Likewise, an 18th century physicist knew that the kinetic energy of an
>object would be zero in one reference frame and nonzero in another
>reference frame, even though the two observers did NOTHING to the
>object to change the kinetic energy from one value to another.
>
>So how is it these real physical properties manage to change without
>there being a physical process that changes them?
A physical change is involved. If I measure the kinetic energy of a
bullet and then CHANGE my speed w.r.t the bullet there is a change in
its kinetic energy caused by my CHANGE of speed and the CHANGE of my
speed relative to the bullet.
>> Physical process involves
>> something physical to take part in that process. It is a function of
>> physics to try and relate all which is physical within the universe.
>
>Not sure what you mean by "physical". To a physicist a field in empty
>space is physical.
Is it a property of the space - in which case space isn't empty or is it
some sort of physical stuff occupying space - in which case where does
it fit in our understanding of physical entities or is it simply a
description of the effect of one object on another which cannot exist
where there is no object to cause it?
I think these are reasonable questions. I do not accept that "a
field just is" is a scientific answer although "we don't know" might be
and "we don't care" definitely isn't.
Ah - by "verified" you mean the detector which detected less than a
quarter of the neutrinos it should have done and worked on the basis
that what it detected couldn't be anything else.
>> >Same thing is true for the Higgs. It's an idea to solve a problem, but
>> >if the idea is right, then it would have other testable consequences,
>> >which are being tested imminently.
>>
>> >What's the issue?
>
>Hmmmm??
>
>>
>> >> >> It is argued (by PD actually) that even the inclusion of
>> >> >>fairies as part
>> >> >> of a theory is acceptable if it leads to testable prediction - it is
>> >> >> then (according to PD) still science.
>>
>> >> >Yes, indeed.
>
>This still seems to bother you, but you can't articulate why?
I can but only a physicist or a child would require an explanation.
No. Do you?
>> > Physics is, in the US,
>> >largely funded by those public funds, via the DoE and NSF. The elected
>> >custodians appoint people to those federal offices at the DoE and NSF
>> >to make recommendations about, and to manage, the spending of those
>> >funds. Those people have physics background but are government
>> >employees and are not involved in active research. It is their job to
>> >review grant applications and to monitor satisfactory productivity
>> >with dispensed funds. Nobody is pulling anything over on anyone.
>>
>> The budget allocated is approved by elected representatives of the
>> people. They and those who elect them have very little understanding of
>> physics.
>
>But the people that those custodians hire to help make recommendations
>and manage that budget DO have a good understanding of physics, even
>though they are not pursuing research.
They can only manage after the elected representatives have set the
budget.
>> While the perception is that physicists are very clever and are
>> doing important work they will continue to fund it. If they actually
>> start to ask questions then are they going to be convinced? Can physics
>> communicate what it is about to the tax payers?
>
>More importantly, do they HAVE to make it all clear and accessible to
>the taxpayers?
The tax payer has a right to insist on it if he feels there are better
things his money could be spent on.
>Consider medical research, which is also federally funded. Do you
>understand all that is going on with medical research? Do you feel
>cheated that you don't?
I can understand the aim of medical research and year by year see the
benefits.
>What about the FAA? Do you understand in intimate detail how the air
>traffic control system works?
I can understand that it is essential. I can understand what it achieves
and I can understand the basics of how it operates.
>Do you feel cheated that you don't?
I am in total wonderment that it works as well as it does.
>What about banking regulations? Do you understand in intimate detail
>the regulatory code? Do you feel cheated that you don't?
I feel cheated that some arseholes have screwed up my pension fund by
making the basic mistake of lending money to people who could not
reasonably afford to pay it back. I am not a "qualified" banker drawing
a salary I couldn't dream of yet I wouldn't have made that very basic
error. I don't care in the least about the intimate detail of the
regulatory code - It didn't work. It is perhaps an example of a
community of intelligent people where a silly idea became accepted
because enough people accepted it. I see parallels in physics.
>
>Those that want to become better acquainted with physics have a very
>simple option: an education. You'll note that education is government-
>subsidized.
On my side of the pond it is getting increasingly difficult to find
people willing to teach physics or pupils wanting to take it.
>> If cuts are needed to
>> pay for other things what difference would it make to the public if the
>> Physics budget was cut?
>
>Well, for one thing, the R that fuels D in R&D would dry up in that
>arena.
No. Research with specific development in mind would be funded as always
by those likely to profit from the development. Physics funded on that
basis would be very different.
It was nothing to do with 'pure exploration for the sake of
exploration'. It was done to beat the Russians to it because America was
peeved because the Russians beat them at getting sputnik an other
satellites in orbit. Once it had been done the program was cut short
because the tax payers were getting bored.
You might have cited the Hubble telescope or the various probes which
are justified on the basis of pure curiosity - but at least the tax
payer has some interesting photos to look at and understands that a moon
of Saturn might be capable of supporting life.
>I see that you disagree. Perhaps you have issue with national art
>museums as well.
Hasn't everybody :o)
>> I think it was 60 years between the first powered flight and the moon
>> landing. We now have more computing power in a mobile phone than they
>> had at mission control. Such is the march of technology. While we look
>> at out interactive digital flat screen muti- channel widescreen colour
>> TV it is sobering to think that while physics is spending billions
>> looking for the god particle it has no greater understanding of what it
>> is which travels from the transmitter to our TV aerial than it did a
>> century ago.
>
>Well, that's certainly not true. QED is a huge jump in the
>understanding of that process and it wasn't around until 1950.
>
>> The phenomena is dealt with by two different branches of
>> physics in different ways and the best chance of unifying them is said
>> to be string theory which requires that the universe has 10 or 26
>> dimensions and even if one of the many versions of string theory
>> succeeds no one is claiming that strings actually exist and if they do
>> they are certainly undetectable.
>
>That's wrong. If string theory succeeds, then strings will certainly
>be claimed to exist. AND what will be required for that theory to be
>called successful is PRECISELY an experimental verification of a
>unique signature of the theory. You have a goofball idea about how
>science works.
I have listened to string theorists on TV admitting that strings may not
exist but insisting that the mathematics is so elegant that "it must
mean something".
http://superstringtheory.com/experm/exper2a.html
That is an explanation dating back to when physics *was* a science :o)
>> >> Now lets suppose the "standard model" is wrong - who is working on that
>> >> possibility? Dare anyone even suggest it?
>>
>> >There are LOTS of those models flying around, and people ARE working
>> >on it. There ARE lots of people working on the notion that the Higgs
>> >mechanism is just plain wrong. You just don't find newspapers writing
>> >stories about it, because there aren't enough people like you that are
>> >concerned whether that's the case in their reading audience. But there
>> >ARE people in physics that are concerned about it.
>>
>> >It's like Barnes & Noble. If you go to Barnes and Noble in the science
>> >shelves, you see a lot of books written by theorists and a lot of
>> >books written about colorful personalities like Sagan and Feynman and
>> >Einstein and Randall. And so people come away with the impression that
>> >physics is being driven and dominated by theorists with colorful
>> >personalities, and ask why the contributions of engineers and applied
>> >scientists and technicians and computer scientists who do a huge
>> >amount of work at real laboratories are not more recognized. And the
>> >reason for that is that Barnes & Noble is trying to sell books, not
>> >represent the scientific community accurately. And books about far-out
>> >ideas and colorful personalities sell better than books about people
>> >that actually are a representative slice through the community. It's
>> >not the *purpose* of Barnes & Noble books to give an accurate view of
>> >how science actually is done.
>
>I'm sure you see the problem with how information is provided to the
>public.
I am not aware of Barnes & Noble or Randall. I think I have come across
Sagan but found him superficial. He tended to make lots of statements
without justification if he is the right guy. I have a book by Feynmen
which I haven't read. I got as far as chapter 3 and decided that he
hadn't actually said anything. Why Einstein is considered a genius I
cannot fathom. Einstein simply interpreted the MMX, in terms of
Maxwell's theory as showing that for some reason an observer is always
stationary w.r.t the aether. The second postulate simply describes that.
He produced the same maths as Lorentz and took the credit. He totally
ignored the fact that light is particulate and that Maxwell's wave in
aether theory was seriously compromised.
PD
What upsets you?
You just need to find a better source of information.
John Kennaugh
>On Oct 24, 6:35�am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> PD wrote:
>> >On Oct 23, 4:54�am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
>> >wrote:
>> >> PD wrote:
>>
>> [bit of pruning]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >> One gains status by having ones papers published in high status
>> >> >> >>journals
>> >> >> >> which are refereed by the elite who do not have to identify
>> >> >> >>
I was under the impression that 'prestigious' journals claimed to have
'integrity'. OK so you have put me right. They will publish what their
readers want to hear - balanced or not.
>You just need to find a better source of information.
>
>>
>> Well that's got that sorted out.
>>
>> >> >> You would no doubt tell students that they shouldn't take anything they
>> >> >> read seriously unless it appears in a properly referred journal.
>> >> >> Articles which support the status quo and Articles which attack it are
>> >> >> both refereed by people who's reputation is built on the status quo.
>>
>> --
>> John Kennaugh
>
--
John Kennaugh
eric gisse
That's not even close to how it works but there is no reason to expect you
to know or understand this.
Why don't you pick a new hobby? Like Sudoku, competitive eating, or
skydiving?
PD
I don't know where you got the idea that "integrity" in a journal
means that everyone gets to publish in it.
Where does this entitlement come from in a free-market enterprise?
PD
wrote:
> PD wrote:
[some parts snipped for brevity]
>
> >> No. In the analogy each of the modifications are identifiable and
> >> testable. You can define what you mean by air. You can independently
> >> test the interaction between air and the projectile.
>
> >Precisely. And you can independently test for the Higgs. The presence
> >of the Higgs has specific, testable implications that are *different*
> >than the particles just having mass. It's those implications that are
> >on the agenda to be tested at LHC (and at FNAL).
You understand this now?
>
> >> It is actually a good example for defining the difference between
> >> science and technology.
> >> You could have a gun accurately calibrated to give accurate range
> >> without knowing anything about Newton. - that is technology. You could
> >> empirically work out a formula which gave you accurate results - that is
> >> a mathematical model. If you *understand* what is going on and construct
> >> your maths based on that understanding - that is science.
>
> >> "This eventually led to the realization that IF another
> >> field existed, then masses could be accounted for"
>
> >And IF that field exists, then it is testable by other independent
> >methods, which should be pursued. (And are.)
You see?
>
> >> Alchemy might be a better analogy where the Higgs field = The
> >> philosopher's stone except that the philosopher's stone only had to
> >> transmute one metal into another not transmute something with no mass to
> >> something with mass - which would appear to require an entirely new
> >> definition of mass.
>
> >Why would it require a new definition of mass? Are you under the
> >impression that mass is conserved? Wherever did you get that idea?
Well?
>
>
> >> OK let us apply your own criteria of acceptability to Maxwell/Lorentz's
> >> aether. The general properties are that a field maps an altered state in
> >> the aether (analogous to a stress pattern). This accounts for action at
> >> a distance due for example to the interaction of the two 'stress'
> >> patterns caused by charge.
>
> >Note it accounts for ONE interaction at a distance. Not several.
You see this?
>
> >> As with any medium a 'stress' may propagate
> >> at a characteristic speed which - from the measured properties of the
> >> aether - permeability and permittivity - that speed can be determined as
> >> c. When the theory is properly applied (by Lorentz) - taking into
> >> account the action at a distance role of the aether and that all
> >> physical object (e.g. measurement apparatus) is held together by action
> >> at a distance force - one concludes that the MMX was incapable of
> >> detecting motion w.r.t the aether. This is constantly being
> >> mis-represented as "it is impossible to detect the aether" The only
> >> thing one cannot detect is ones *absolute* speed w.r.t the aether. There
> >> are at least two testable predictions w.r.t the aether hypothesis. The
> >> first is that if you change the speed of the source there will be no
> >> change in the measured speed of light because the speed of propagation
> >> is controlled by the aether.
>
> >And notice that this is not a DISTINGUISHING prediction.
>
> >> The second is that if you change your speed
> >> there will be an immediate change in frequency due to Doppler. In other
> >> words while you cannot measure your absolute speed w.r.t the aether you
> >> can detect a change in speed relative to the aether.
>
> >And notice again that this is not a DISTINGUISHING prediction.
And you see these too?
>
> >> What makes you think that Maxwell/Lorentz aether is in any way ruled
> >> out? You believe in fields, in action at a distance force, energy
> >> propagation, source independence and Doppler shift all explained by the
> >> aether. On what basis can you label it "crackpot-stuff". AFAICS compared
> >> to much which is accepted in modern physics it would seem totally sane.
>
> >> If now you take SR which replaced it then that is purely a mathematical
> >> model - an identical mathematical model. It *assumes* source
> >> independence but makes no attempt to explain why speed should be
> >> independent of motion of the source.
>
> >Yes it does. The structure of spacetime explains it.
>
> !!!!!!? Why don't you stick with reality. Einstein ASSUMED source
> independence from Maxwell's theory which says that the speed of light is
> controlled by the aether so the sources movement cannot affect it.
> Einstein interpreted the MMX, in terms of Maxwell's theory as showing
> that for some reason an observer is always stationary w.r.t the aether.
> He totally ignored the fact that light is particulate and that Maxwell's
> wave in aether theory was seriously compromised. He produced the same
> maths as Lorentz.
> The maths are based on the assumption of source independence and
> observer independence. Those maths were taken by Minkowski who
> reproduced them in diagrammatic form. And you are saying that that
> diagram predicts source independence and observer independence? Doh!
The Minkowski structure DOES predict source and observer independence,
yes. Regardless of the circuitous path taken to arrive at it.
>
> Unless Minkowski did his maths wrong it is bound to. It is completely
> circular.
No it is not. It is INDUCTIVE.
This seems to be a place where you get consistently bogged down. When
scientist figure out an explanation, what happens is that they notice
a regularity in the behavior of nature, and they inductively infer
*later* a basis for that regularity. It is not the case that the
observed regularity is the conceptual basis or underlying explanation
in the theory, it is the inductively inferred statements. Likewise, if
a model asserts a couple of unsupported postulates, and further
examination of the postulates allows you to *later infer* a conceptual
basis for the postulates, then it is not the postulates that remain
the conceptual explanation in the model, it is the later inferred
basis.
Science works from back to front.
> I appreciate that it is a better way of presenting it to some
> naive student than saying that Einstein's second postulate describes
> what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would experience. I am not
> a naive student and neither are you. Are you a lecturer in physics by
> any chance?
>
> > Einstein didn't
> >use it as a postulate in his first paper because he didn't think of
> >it. Minkowski did. Minkowski was the one that provided the underlying
> >physical basis for Einstein's postulate.
Just as I described above.
>
> >> Neither does it explain why the
> >> speed of light appears constant to every observer and fails totally to
> >> explain why, when I change my speed the frequency changes instantly.
>
> >On the contrary, again the structure of spacetime explains the former,
> >and relativistic Doppler shift is EASILY derived from that.
>
> Derived maybe. Explained no.
If it is a necessary consequence of that conceptual framework then
this is an explanation.
>
> >> There is only one Doppler equation in SR. Whether the source changes its
> >> speed or I am the one that changes mine. The maths assume in both cases
> >> that the change in frequency is due to a different wavelength being
> >> generated at the source so my change of speed has to affect the past
>
> >Not at all! This is a simple misconception on your part. There is no
> >implication that the observer has causally reached through time to
> >alter the source.
>
> Suppose you are 1 ly from a source. I am happy to accept that what I do
> cannot affect what happened at the source 1 year ago - on the grounds of
> causality. I'm not sure on what grounds you rule it out :o)
>
> If I change my speed then I am clearly changing my relationship with the
> light in transit. i.e. that light which left the source 1 year
> previously. What is the physical nature of that change of relationship?
A change in reference frame.
Here, let's take a classical example to make it more sensible to you.
Let's take a bullet in flight, AFTER it has left the gun. It is going
to collide with a tree stump and leave a certain amount of energy in
the stump. We could, if we wish, use information from sensors attached
to the tree stump to measure the energy deposited in the stump and use
that to deduce the kinetic energy of the bullet.
Now, you and I both know that kinetic energy is frame dependent. In
one reference frame, the kinetic energy of the bullet will be
different than what it is in another reference frame. Gathering
information from the sensors in the stump, however, I have to
correctly get the kinetic energy value that is appropriate to THAT
reference frame. That is, just by choosing which reference frame in
which I will gather measurements about the collision of the bullet and
the stump, I will get different values for the bullet's kinetic energy
before the collision. Now, I did NOTHING as an observer to influence
the gun or the bullet in flight. Yet the kinetic energy is a frame-
dependent quantity, even as it is consistent with measurements taken
in the stump.
If this does not make sense to you, then the locus of your
misunderstanding is not with special relativity but with CLASSICAL
mechanics.
>
> Let us make it clearer. Forget frequency consider sets of two short
> busts of light sent out by the source with a fixed interval at regular
> (or irregular) intervals. I can in theory measure the distance between
> them. If two photo detectors are placed that distance apart they will
> give an O/P simultaneously. I can measure that distance with a ruler. I
> can also measure the time between the two pulses. If I increase my speed
> in the direction they are coming from then the time between is shorter -
> a first order effect dependent on v/c.
>
> Emission theory says that the physical distance between the busts hasn't
> changed, I have changed my speed w.r.t the light so the time between one
> pulse and the other changes. Same distance - higher speed - shorter
> time.
>
> LET says the same thing except that it says in addition that if I
> measure the speed of light it will *appear* not to have changed.
>
> SR says my speed w.r.t the light pulses hasn't changed. I conclude
> therefore that SR says my change in speed has somehow changed the
> physical spacing between the two pulses of light.
Yes. Distance (spacing) is also frame dependent.
>
> To me that is physically absurd
Why? You didn't know that distance is also frame-dependent? Or were
you trying to find an inconsistency in SR by provisionally accepting
one part and ignoring another?
> which means as far as I am concerned
> Doppler is a DISTINGUISHING prediction of LETs aether.
No, it isn't. It is just a flag about the parts of the explanation
that you are not willing to conceptually accept. Not being willing to
accept part of an explanation is in NO WAY a distinguishing
prediction. A distinguishing prediction is one where two models make
differing predictions about the *value* of a *measurement*. The result
of an actual *measurement* is not contestable. That's what makes it
such a powerful arbiter.
>
> Perhaps you have a different physical explanation. Note I am looking for
> a physical explanation not a mathematical one. A physical theory not a
> mathematical model.
Yes, it appears you need a better education on the PHYSICAL basis of
relativity.
>
>
>
> >> -
> >> light leaving the source before I changed speed. Maths has no problem
> >> with that physics ought to have.
>
> >> To me LET it a far better theory and equally successful.
>
> >How can it be a "far better theory" if it makes the same predictions?
>
> How can it be an inferior theory it makes the same predictions.
It ISN'T, on that metric.
> It also
> has with it a theoretical structure which Einstein objected to but
> failed to better. He failed to come up with any theoretical structure at
> all. Apart from which a theory is supposed to stand until it is
> invalidated - LET has not been invalidated. What DISTINGUISHING
> predictions did SR make which LET did not which would justify it
> replacing LET?
It didn't make any distinguishing predictions on the basis of
electromagnetic interactions. None at all. And in the scope of
electromagnetic interactions, the two models are on par and neither is
ruled out.
However, LET doesn't make any firm predictions about the other
interactions at all, since it was fundamentally a theory about
electromagnetic interactions. However, SR made the firm commitment
that ALL interactions had to exhibit Lorentz invariance, because the
reasons don't have to do with the interaction at all, but with the
structure of spacetime.
This is where there is a key difference. Lorentz said the invariance
comes about because of something going on in the interaction, and had
nothing to do with the nature of space and time. Einstein said it has
something to do with the structure of space and time, and has nothing
to do with the details of the interaction. Thus, when you have four
interactions that exhibit the same Lorentz invariance, your beloved
Ockham's razor would suggest that you consider the one that offers a
single structural account of why that is, rather than four independent
ones that happen to exhibit the same behavior.
I said "IF". I'm glad we've sorted that out. Now, you still haven't
defined what "substantial" and "physical" means to you.
>
> >> >If you wish to back away from those consequences by supposing that
> >> >there is a *new form* of matter that does NOT have those general
> >> >properties of matter, and it is THIS you want to label as "aether",
> >> >then again you are just making new definitions of words to suit your
> >> >prejudices that anything that has physical properties should be
> >> >labeled as matter.
>
> >> Physical change involves physical process.
>
> >Well, let's talk about that. Galileo made the observation that if you
> >drop a ball from the top of a ship's mast, then the real physical
> >trajectory of that ball will be a straight line, as observed from the
> >deck. But as observed from the shore, the real physical trajectory of
> >the ball is a parabola. Now, was there a physical process involved in
> >turning a straight path into a curved one? After all, the ball only
> >dropped once.
>
> >Likewise, an 18th century physicist knew that the kinetic energy of an
> >object would be zero in one reference frame and nonzero in another
> >reference frame, even though the two observers did NOTHING to the
> >object to change the kinetic energy from one value to another.
>
> >So how is it these real physical properties manage to change without
> >there being a physical process that changes them?
>
> A physical change is involved. If I measure the kinetic energy of a
> bullet and then CHANGE my speed w.r.t the bullet there is a change in
> its kinetic energy caused by my CHANGE of speed and the CHANGE of my
> speed relative to the bullet.
But no physical change is required. I can have two observers that are
making measurements of the bullet AT THE SAME TIME. And then there are
two values of kinetic energy of that bullet AT THE SAME TIME, with no
change involved whatsoever. Kinetic energy is a frame-dependent
quantity with NO PHYSICAL CHANGE required anywhere. Same thing is true
for Galileo's observation.
>
> >> Physical process involves
> >> something physical to take part in that process. It is a function of
> >> physics to try and relate all which is physical within the universe.
>
> >Not sure what you mean by "physical". To a physicist a field in empty
> >space is physical.
>
> Is it a property of the space - in which case space isn't empty
What do you mean by "empty"? To a physicist this means devoid of
persistent matter. It does NOT mean devoid of physical properties.
> or is it
> some sort of physical stuff occupying space - in which case where does
> it fit in our understanding of physical entities or is it simply a
> description of the effect of one object on another which cannot exist
> where there is no object to cause it?
It is a property of space.
And this is where I've pointed out to you that you want to replace ONE
entity (space with physical properties) with TWO (space with no
properties, and some nonmaterial stuff that does have properties but
properties different than material stuff). Why is yours simpler again?
Yes. The fact that the number was different than what they expected
was a bonus that led to further development. This did not compromise
the statement that the detected signature was unique to neutrinos!
> and worked on the basis
> that what it detected couldn't be anything else.
>
> >> >Same thing is true for the Higgs. It's an idea to solve a problem, but
> >> >if the idea is right, then it would have other testable consequences,
> >> >which are being tested imminently.
>
> >> >What's the issue?
>
> >Hmmmm??
Still pondering on this one?
>
> >> >> >> It is argued (by PD actually) that even the inclusion of
> >> >> >>fairies as part
> >> >> >> of a theory is acceptable if it leads to testable prediction - it is
> >> >> >> then (according to PD) still science.
>
> >> >> >Yes, indeed.
>
> >This still seems to bother you, but you can't articulate why?
>
> I can but only a physicist or a child would require an explanation.
Please try.
That's not the case. Those who manage the budget make recommendations
on what the next budget should be and why.
>
> >> While the perception is that physicists are very clever and are
> >> doing important work they will continue to fund it. If they actually
> >> start to ask questions then are they going to be convinced? Can physics
> >> communicate what it is about to the tax payers?
>
> >More importantly, do they HAVE to make it all clear and accessible to
> >the taxpayers?
>
> The tax payer has a right to insist on it if he feels there are better
> things his money could be spent on.
I'm sorry, but no. That is PROVIDED by the vehicle of government-
subsidized education, and you certainly have that available to you.
The government is NOT obligated to provide you this detailed and
accessible explanation in a vehicle of your choosing.
>
> >Consider medical research, which is also federally funded. Do you
> >understand all that is going on with medical research? Do you feel
> >cheated that you don't?
>
> I can understand the aim of medical research and year by year see the
> benefits.
That's not what I asked you. I asked you if you understand all that is
going on with the research.
>
> >What about the FAA? Do you understand in intimate detail how the air
> >traffic control system works?
>
> I can understand that it is essential. I can understand what it achieves
> and I can understand the basics of how it operates.
>
> >Do you feel cheated that you don't?
>
> I am in total wonderment that it works as well as it does.
>
> >What about banking regulations? Do you understand in intimate detail
> >the regulatory code? Do you feel cheated that you don't?
>
> I feel cheated that some arseholes have screwed up my pension fund by
> making the basic mistake of lending money to people who could not
> reasonably afford to pay it back.
Which of course has nothing to do with the wisdom of investing in
fundamental research, but instead with the wisdom of investing in
derivatives and failing to invest in sufficient regulation of those
schemes. And that, by the way, cost WAY more money than all the money
poured into fundamental research by two orders of magnitude.
> I am not a "qualified" banker drawing
> a salary I couldn't dream of yet I wouldn't have made that very basic
> error. I don't care in the least about the intimate detail of the
> regulatory code - It didn't work. It is perhaps an example of a
> community of intelligent people where a silly idea became accepted
> because enough people accepted it. I see parallels in physics.
>
>
>
> >Those that want to become better acquainted with physics have a very
> >simple option: an education. You'll note that education is government-
> >subsidized.
>
> On my side of the pond it is getting increasingly difficult to find
> people willing to teach physics or pupils wanting to take it.
It is still available, you'll note.
>
> >> If cuts are needed to
> >> pay for other things what difference would it make to the public if the
> >> Physics budget was cut?
>
> >Well, for one thing, the R that fuels D in R&D would dry up in that
> >arena.
>
> No. Research with specific development in mind would be funded as always
> by those likely to profit from the development. Physics funded on that
> basis would be very different.
I'm sorry, but it's plain you have no understanding of how R feeds D.
You apparently believe that D can continue and sustain itself forever
just fine without R.
You see?
>
> >> >> >Note that $4.4B is *small* compared to some military R&D projects that
> >> >> >don't lead to any deployed system. Scrap ONE of those projects in the
> >> >> >bud, and you've got PLENTY of money to do fundamental research.
>
> >> >> Or PLENTY of money to develop an anti malarial vaccine say. Much of
> >> >> physics funding has been on the back of military R&D.
>
> >> >Not for the last 40 years, pal.
>
> >> >> We have now
> >> >> developed enough ways to efficiently kill each other and found that in
> >> >> practice we cannot use them and are back to hand to hand shooting type
> >> >> wars. Funding physics on the grounds that it might come up with
> >> >> something new to zap people with is
>
> >> >There is zero military application to the work being done at Fermilab.
> >> >On the other hand, Fermilab's work was instrumental in the creation of
> >> >proton therapy protocols and was the principal driver behind
> >> >facilities like the Loma Linda proton therapy accelerator.
>
> >> And the moon landing program gave us the none stick frying pan!
>
> >There's a good example of people feeling that pure exploration for the
> >sake of exploration and without material improvement to life was worth
> >it.
>
> It was nothing to do with 'pure exploration for the sake of
> exploration'. It was done to beat the Russians to it because America was
> peeved because the Russians beat them at getting sputnik an other
> satellites in orbit.
And why, except for pride in exploring, would this be an issue?
> Once it had been done the program was cut short
> because the tax payers were getting bored.
> You might have cited the Hubble telescope or the various probes which
> are justified on the basis of pure curiosity - but at least the tax
> payer has some interesting photos to look at and understands that a moon
> of Saturn might be capable of supporting life.
>
> >I see that you disagree. Perhaps you have issue with national art
> >museums as well.
>
> Hasn't everybody :o)
I don't. Do you?
>
> >> I think it was 60 years between the first powered flight and the moon
> >> landing. We now have more computing power in a mobile phone than they
> >> had at mission control. Such is the march of technology. While we look
> >> at out interactive digital flat screen muti- channel widescreen colour
> >> TV it is sobering to think that while physics is spending billions
> >> looking for the god particle it has no greater understanding of what it
> >> is which travels from the transmitter to our TV aerial than it did a
> >> century ago.
>
> >Well, that's certainly not true. QED is a huge jump in the
> >understanding of that process and it wasn't around until 1950.
You were perhaps aware of this?
>
> >> The phenomena is dealt with by two different branches of
> >> physics in different ways and the best chance of unifying them is said
> >> to be string theory which requires that the universe has 10 or 26
> >> dimensions and even if one of the many versions of string theory
> >> succeeds no one is claiming that strings actually exist and if they do
> >> they are certainly undetectable.
>
> >That's wrong. If string theory succeeds, then strings will certainly
> >be claimed to exist. AND what will be required for that theory to be
> >called successful is PRECISELY an experimental verification of a
> >unique signature of the theory. You have a goofball idea about how
> >science works.
>
> I have listened to string theorists on TV admitting that strings may not
> exist but insisting that the mathematics is so elegant that "it must
> mean something".
When they tell you that strings may not exist, they must have been
trying to convey that it may turn out that string theory is wrong
after all. It does NOT mean that it is right but that strings wouldn't
exist even if it were considered right.
This is the kind of stuff that happens when you get your understanding
of physics from the TV and newspaper stories.
>
>
> >> "The weak nuclear force is a short range force, behaving as if the
> >> gauge bosons are very heavy. In order to make a gauge invariant theory
> >> work for the weak nuclear force, theorists had to come up with a way to
> >> make heavy gauge bosons in a way that wouldn't destroy the consistency
> >> of the quantum theory.
> >> The method they came up with is called spontaneous symmetry breaking,
> >> where massless gauge bosons acquire mass by interacting with a scalar
> >> field called the Higgs field."
>
> >This is a crappy oversimplification that does not convey what is
> >really going on. Where did you fetch it?
>
> http://superstringtheory.com/experm/exper2a.html
Exactly. A crappy, oversimplified explanation. ANY one-page
explanation of a deep physical model can be taken to be crappy and
oversimplified.
And you'll notice that it follows EXACTLY the same kind of iteration
that is being employed with the Standard Model. Thank you for making
my point for me.
You read Barnes & Noble books by Feynman. Or didn't read them, as the
case may be.
Thanks, you've made my point.
You see?
PD
Yes, this is true.
>
> > And you do not see equivalent effort
> >on emission theory, which you acknowledge is in pretty rough shape in
> >its present form but is also lacking in comparable effort to patch it
> >up and make it look better.
>
> Make it viable rather than 'look better'.
I agree. Presently it's not viable.
>
>
>
> >You are right that it is difficult to convey to the public the
> >subtleties of why, when two theories on the surface both could be said
> >to smell a little bad, one of them is worth giving up on and the other
> >one worth more work. There IS an element of totting up how promising a
> >theory looks vs how problematic the remaining holes are. I can tell
> >you it isn't just a matter of counting a list.
>
> I never suggested it was. I suggest that emission theory was neglected
> because of blind prejudice and the unfortunate demise of Ritz. It was by
> far the simpler theory and ticked all the boxes without the need to
> ditch 3 long established and apparently sensible axioms of physics. Had
> it been accepted as Occam's razor suggests
You have the mistaken impression that Occam's razor favors the
familiar over the new.
We've already discussed this. You have simply gone back to repeating
yourself.
As for the claim that it just died because of the death of a proponent
and blindness elsewhere, I doubt that. I think it was worked on for
quite a while past Ritz.
> it should and had it become
> the established theory it would by Fox's reckoning not have been
> seriously challenged until 1964. Had that happened we would now have a
> different physics. Maybe better, maybe worse - but different. I am
> interested to know which.
>
> >It is true, moreover, that there isn't some affirmative-action program
> >for underprivileged theories whereby certain numbers of physicists are
> >allocated to work on theory A and certain numbers on theories B, C,
> >and D. Physicists do self-optimize to work on those things that seem
> >to hold the most promise.
>
> The most promise for their career.
Well, yes, but that does not mean hoeing to the status quo,
necessarily. It's a matter of risk assessment. Physicists make that
call all the time -- which topics look sufficiently promising to
warrant time working on them? Some of them are pretty outlandish and
are very likely wrong, but if right might make a huge impact. Some of
them are pretty safe but don't advance the needle much. Neither of
those are particularly attractive to physicists. It's the boundary
layer in between where individual judgment is required.
A good physicist will work on a mix of things in that boundary layer
-- some things that are pretty much a sure thing but still need to be
done for completeness, and other things that are just crazy ideas but
are worth exploring.
>
> >For the most part, there are always
> >sufficient numbers of physicists who are interested in working on
> >bigger gambles, because the payoff would be larger.
>
> Not if their work suggested that the rest of the physics community had
> been wasting their time for a century the pay off would be ridicule if
> not a lynching.
Nonsense. No physicist would suffer a loss of pride at having the
conventional wisdom being shown wrong. It's precisely the GOAL of a
physicist to disrupt the conventional wisdom with something that turns
out to be both revolutionary and right. Most of the Nobel prizes have
been given for work that disrupted the conventional wisdom. Tenure is
granted to those who show individual contributions that are
*different* from the rest of the herd.
> Look what happened to Dingle. They would not be
> acknowledged in their own life time.
>
> >I don't believe
> >that driving the status quo is an overwhelming quasher of ideas.
>
> I do and I think the evidence is there.
Really? Take a look at the list of Nobel Prizes in physics and tell me
which ones there were for promotion of the status quo.
>
> >Smolin may disagree with me on the matter of quantum gravity, for
> >which there are at least 4 major approaches in play, but where most
> >people have opted to work on trying to make string theory a theory.
>
> >What IS true, however, is that the work of the people you've mentioned
> >above is of seriously deficient quality. I do hear your trumpet call,
> >"Well, then let's get some better people working on it then!"
>
> Yes. Any sort of search for the truth or the best way forward is to have
> an opposition. That's why a parliament works better with an opposition.
> That is why in a court of law you have defence as well as prosecution.
But to mandate it through regulation of who works on what? Really???
> In physics you cannot have double blind tests as in medicine to prevent
> your prejudice and expectations affecting the results. Is there any
> funded research where someone who actually believes that relativity is
> wrong is funded to try and prove it? I think the answer is no.
Yes, of course. You need a list of well-funded people who are being
funded for their counter-culture work? Look at Kostolecky, look at
Smolin, look at Randall.
>
> http://bourabai.kz/wallace/farce05.htm
>
> Documents the case of Ruggero M. Santilli
> "Sidney Coleman, Shelly Glashow, Steven Weinberg, and other
> senior physicists at Harvard opposed my studies to such a
> point of preventing my drawing a salary from my own grant for
> almost one academic year...... when the case was just about to explode
> in law suits, I finally received authorization to draw my salary from
> my own grant as a member of the Department of Mathematics of Harvard
> University.
> But, Sidney Coleman, Shelly Glashow and Steven Weinberg and
> possibly others had declared to the Department of Mathematics
> that my studies "had no physical value." This created
> predictable problems in the mathematics department which lead
> to the subsequent, apparently intended, impossibility of
> continuing my research at Harvard."
>
> >But to
> >lift up "Henri Wilson" as an example of someone who is earnest and
> >just needs a little help is counterproductive, as Henri is a shameless
> >liar and is far more interested in making things up as he goes along
> >rather than doing any real work.
>
> Then obviously someone better is clearly needed. If you exclude him then
> you have Ritz and Waldron. Have you studied Waldron?
Somebody better than Waldron is needed too.
John Kennaugh
Other points to be dealt with in another post time permitting.
You did not answer my question as to whether you are in fact a physics
lecturer. It seems more likely from that reply. That is a standard
"put-down". It is intended to put a student in his place by belittling
him when he has in fact made an intelligent comment. It is CRAP, and I
believe that you are intelligent enough to know it is CRAP which means
you are dishonest. For the sake of any student who has been put down in
this way I say the following.
If I change my "Frame of reference" all I have done is change my
VELOCITY i.e. I have accelerated for a period. My VELOCITY has changed
w.r.t other objects in the universe. The "Frame of reference" is a
mathematical abstraction and is totally unnecessary in describing what
is happening in the circumstance under discussion. It is introduced to
obscure.
OK I have changed my VELOCITY relative to other objects. If I am making
observations on other objects then some of the parameters I observe are
VELOCITY dependent. For example if my VELOCITY relative to a stream of
bullets changes (let us assume I have decided to drive away which
reduces relative VELOCITY) then the momentum of each bullet will be less
BECAUSE momentum is a function of VELOCITY and I have changed the
relative VELOCITY between me and the bullets.
Again the time interval between one impact and the next will have
increased because this too is a function of VELOCITY. It is the same
effect as timing the interval between mile posts. If you change your
VELOCITY (relative to the road) the time between one and the next will
change.
If I am listening to a sound wave and I start moving, my VELOCITY
relative to the wave changes this causes a frequency change which is
called Doppler shift. This is exactly the same mechanism as the change
in the time interval of the bullets and the difference in how long it
takes to go between mile posts. It is expressed differently because
frequency is the reciprocal of time. If you travel faster towards the
source then you shorten the interval between wave-peaks (as with mile
posts) which is the same as increasing the frequency (reciprocal of
time).
The rule is that if you change your VELOCITY relative to something and a
parameter you are measuring is VELOCITY dependent then that parameter
will change.
OK if I change my VELOCITY (what a relativist will describe as changing
my frame of reference) then I change my VELOCITY w.r.t every *object* in
the universe but according to SR I do not change my VELOCITY w.r.t light
pulses. Yet if I replace a stream of bullets with a stream of light
pulses and if, as I did with the bullets I drive away from the source
then the time interval between them increases - just as happens with the
bullets and the energy content of each pulse of light is reduced - just
as with the bullets.
The evidence therefore is that I have changed my VELOCITY w.r.t the
light pulses. Lorentz's theory says just that. I have changed my
VELOCITY w.r.t the light pulses and that is why the interval has
increased. Lorentz's theory goes on to say that despite the fact I
clearly have changed my VELOCITY w.r.t the light, if I measure the
VELOCITY of light the properties of the aether are such to make it
*appear* that I haven't.
I should point out that Doppler shift is not some exotic "relativistic"
effect taking place at VELOCITIES way beyond our experience it is an
effect regularly used to measure speeds of 20mph. Any theory which
cannot explain it should be dead in the water and yet SR cannot.
What SR says is whether I change my velocity, or the source changes its
velocity the result is the same - the source has changed its velocity
relative to my reference frame and the frequency change is due to the
different wavelength produced. In my example it says that the spatial
separation of the pulses depends on the sources speed relative to me.
This can be illustrated as follows
Me S->v a pulse is generated
c<-*
Me S->v
c<-* * next pulse is generated
| ct |vt|
Pulse separation is t(c + v)
However if the source is 1 light year away and the source changes it's
speed there is a 1 year delay before the new separation reaches me while
if I change my speed the change is instantaneous. The Doppler equation
Einstein derived simply takes the steady state. It is clear that when I
change my speed the fact that I have changed my relationship with the
source is irrelevant. I am observing light pulses which left the source
a year previously. Light pulses generated a year before my relationship
with the source changed so the explanation used to derive the maths is
not physically feasible and SR has no alternate explanation.
This is where the mysticism of relativity comes into play. The magic
words are "It is a different frame of reference therefore......"
Prefaced with these words *anything* is allowed they want to allow and
they get so used to doing it they actually believe it. They will claim
that you move from one FoR which had a specific relationship with the
source to another FoR which has another specific relationship with the
source *and always had*. Each FoR is perceived as capable of supporting
its own physical reality and that what you are doing is changing from
one existing reality to another. I say again a FoR is a mathematical
abstraction not a parallel universe capable of supporting a different
version of reality. All you have done is change your speed. That has
changed your relationship with the pulses of light in a way that SR is
unable to explain.
--
John Kennaugh
doug
John Kennaugh wrote:
You are just demonstrating your stupidity. PD was making a specific
point about your understanding. You would do well to study.
>
> If I change my "Frame of reference" all I have done is change my
> VELOCITY i.e. I have accelerated for a period. My VELOCITY has changed
> w.r.t other objects in the universe. The "Frame of reference" is a
> mathematical abstraction and is totally unnecessary in describing what
> is happening in the circumstance under discussion. It is introduced to
> obscure.
See, you are demonstrating your ignorance right there. You say that
the frame is unnecessary and then you go on below to use it.
And SR has been very well tested in this and has passed it quite
well.
>
> What SR says is whether I change my velocity, or the source changes its
> velocity the result is the same - the source has changed its velocity
> relative to my reference frame and the frequency change is due to the
> different wavelength produced.
Here is some more of your ignorance coming in. You are about to say
that relativity claims that when the source velocity is changed, then
the light immediately changes at your position. It does not say that
and your ignorance is getting in your way again.
In my example it says that the spatial
> separation of the pulses depends on the sources speed relative to me.
>
> This can be illustrated as follows
>
> Me S->v a pulse is generated
> c<-*
>
> Me S->v
> c<-* * next pulse is generated
> | ct |vt|
>
>
> Pulse separation is t(c + v)
>
> However if the source is 1 light year away and the source changes it's
> speed there is a 1 year delay before the new separation reaches me while
> if I change my speed the change is instantaneous. The Doppler equation
> Einstein derived simply takes the steady state. It is clear that when I
> change my speed the fact that I have changed my relationship with the
> source is irrelevant. I am observing light pulses which left the source
> a year previously. Light pulses generated a year before my relationship
> with the source changed so the explanation used to derive the maths is
> not physically feasible and SR has no alternate explanation.
That conclusion did not follow.
>
> This is where the mysticism of relativity comes into play.
Not mysticism, experimental facts. Do you want to ignore
reality as well?
The magic
> words are "It is a different frame of reference therefore......"
> Prefaced with these words *anything* is allowed they want to allow and
> they get so used to doing it they actually believe it. They will claim
> that you move from one FoR which had a specific relationship with the
> source to another FoR which has another specific relationship with the
> source *and always had*. Each FoR is perceived as capable of supporting
> its own physical reality and that what you are doing is changing from
> one existing reality to another. I say again a FoR is a mathematical
> abstraction not a parallel universe capable of supporting a different
> version of reality.
Sorry but what you want the universe to be is not going to have
any effect on it.
All you have done is change your speed. That has
> changed your relationship with the pulses of light in a way that SR is
> unable to explain.
No, your ignorance of SR notwithstanding, SR does just fine.
You admit you are neither a scientist nor a mathematician yet
you seem to feel that your prejudices should determine how the
universe works and how science must describe it. You feel that
if you do not understand or like something, then it must change.
That will not happen so you would be better served to learn what
SR and classical mechanics actually say and accept that.
PD
It is not crap, it is not even relativistic physics. It is CLASSICAL
physics, which is the point I was trying to make to you.
A given physical process and set of events is something that takes
place in multiple reference frames at the same time. There is no need
for a single observer to change motion to move from one reference
frame to another. The principle of relativity is about a comparison of
those events as described in multiple reference frames at the same
time. This is a CLASSICAL physics concept.
As I said earlier, if you are having problem with classical physics,
let's straighten that out first before you further the confusion in
relativity.
[rest of boondoggle having to do with change of one observer from one
reference frame to another snipped]
PD
John Kennaugh
>On Oct 24, 3:04�pm, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> PD wrote:
>
>[some parts snipped for brevity]
>
>>
>> >> No. In the analogy each of the modifications are identifiable and
>> >> testable. You can define what you mean by air. You can independently
>> >> test the interaction between air and the projectile.
>>
>> >Precisely. And you can independently test for the Higgs. The presence
>> >of the Higgs has specific, testable implications that are *different*
>> >than the particles just having mass. It's those implications that are
>> >on the agenda to be tested at LHC (and at FNAL).
>
>You understand this now?
I understand what you are *saying*.
>
>>
>> >> It is actually a good example for defining the difference between
>> >> science and technology.
>> >> You could have a gun accurately calibrated to give accurate range
>> >> without knowing anything about Newton. - that is technology. You could
>> >> empirically work out a formula which gave you accurate results - that is
>> >> a mathematical model. If you *understand* what is going on and construct
>> >> your maths based on that understanding - that is science.
>>
>> >> "This eventually led to the realization that IF another
>> >> field existed, then masses could be accounted for"
>>
>> >And IF that field exists, then it is testable by other independent
>> >methods, which should be pursued. (And are.)
>
>You see?
>
>>
>> >> Alchemy might be a better analogy where the Higgs field = The
>> >> philosopher's stone except that the philosopher's stone only had to
>> >> transmute one metal into another not transmute something with no mass to
>> >> something with mass - which would appear to require an entirely new
>> >> definition of mass.
>>
>> >Why would it require a new definition of mass? Are you under the
>> >impression that mass is conserved? Wherever did you get that idea?
>
>Well?
Mass/energy is conserved surely.
>> >> OK let us apply your own criteria of acceptability to Maxwell/Lorentz's
>> >> aether. The general properties are that a field maps an altered state in
>> >> the aether (analogous to a stress pattern). This accounts for action at
>> >> a distance due for example to the interaction of the two 'stress'
>> >> patterns caused by charge.
>>
>> >Note it accounts for ONE interaction at a distance. Not several.
>
>You see this?
No. Explain.
>
>>
>> >> As with any medium a 'stress' may propagate
>> >> at a characteristic speed which - from the measured properties of the
>> >> aether - permeability and permittivity - that speed can be determined as
>> >> c. When the theory is properly applied (by Lorentz) - taking into
>> >> account �the action at a distance role of the aether and that all
>> >> physical object (e.g. measurement apparatus) is held together by action
>> >> at a distance force - one concludes that the MMX was incapable of
>> >> detecting motion w.r.t the aether. This is constantly being
>> >> mis-represented as "it is impossible to detect the aether" The only
>> >> thing one cannot detect is ones *absolute* speed w.r.t the aether. There
>> >> are at least two testable predictions w.r.t the aether hypothesis. The
>> >> first is that if you change the speed of the source there will be no
>> >> change in the measured speed of light because the speed of propagation
>> >> is controlled by the aether.
>>
>> >And notice that this is not a DISTINGUISHING prediction.
>>
>> >> The second is that if you change your speed
>> >> there will be an immediate change in frequency due to Doppler. In other
>> >> words while you cannot measure your absolute speed w.r.t the aether you
>> >> can detect a change in speed relative to the aether.
>>
>> >And notice again that this is not a DISTINGUISHING prediction.
>
>And you see these too?
I don't accept that. I don't accept that there is a physical explanation
consistent with SR with believable causality. I do not accept your
convoluted semantics trying to muddy the water.
>> >> What makes you think that Maxwell/Lorentz aether is in any way ruled
>> >> out? You believe in fields, in action at a distance force, energy
>> >> propagation, source independence and Doppler shift all explained by the
>> >> aether. On what basis can you label it "crackpot-stuff". AFAICS compared
>> >> to much which is accepted in modern physics it would seem totally sane.
>>
>> >> If now you take SR which replaced it then that is purely a mathematical
>> >> model - an identical mathematical model. It *assumes* source
>> >> independence but makes no attempt to explain why speed should be
>> >> independent of motion of the source.
>>
>> >Yes it does. The structure of spacetime explains it.
Space time is a mathematical construct. It does not have a physical
structure. It is built assuming source independence you cannot turn
around and claim it is the cause.
>>
>> !!!!!!? Why don't you stick with reality. Einstein ASSUMED source
>> independence from Maxwell's theory which says that the speed of light is
>> controlled by the aether so the sources movement cannot affect it.
>> Einstein interpreted the MMX, in terms of Maxwell's theory as showing
>> that for some reason an observer is always stationary w.r.t the aether.
>> He totally ignored the fact that light is particulate and that Maxwell's
>> wave in aether theory was seriously compromised. He produced the same
>> maths as Lorentz.
>> The maths are based on the assumption of source independence and
>> observer independence. Those maths were taken by Minkowski who
>> reproduced them in diagrammatic form. And you are saying that that
>> diagram predicts source independence and observer independence? Doh!
>
>The Minkowski structure DOES predict source and observer independence,
>yes. Regardless of the circuitous path taken to arrive at it.
It was BUILT on that assumption. How can it possibly NOT predict source
and observer independence!
>> Unless Minkowski did his maths wrong it is bound to. It is completely
>> circular.
>
>No it is not. It is INDUCTIVE.
Oh a new bit of semantics
>
>This seems to be a place where you get consistently bogged down.
No it is a place where you and others live with the mathematical model
so long it seems 'real' to you and you cease to see it for what it is.
> When
>scientist figure out an explanation, what happens is that they notice
>a regularity in the behavior of nature, and they inductively infer
>*later* a basis for that regularity. It is not the case that the
>observed regularity is the conceptual basis or underlying explanation
>in the theory, it is the inductively inferred statements. Likewise, if
>a model asserts a couple of unsupported postulates, and further
>examination of the postulates allows you to *later infer* a conceptual
>basis for the postulates, then it is not the postulates that remain
>the conceptual explanation in the model, it is the later inferred
>basis.
It translates to "If the original justification for the postulates is
acutely embarrassing and you wrap it up in sophisticated looking maths
you can claim those maths as the origin and avoid the embarrassment. The
second postulate is in effect saying every observer is stationary w.r.t
the aether - and empirical interpretation of the MMX.
>
>Science works from back to front.
you like to re-write history.
>
>> I appreciate that it is a better way of presenting it to some
>> naive student than saying that Einstein's second postulate describes
>> what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would experience. I am not
>> a naive student and neither are you. Are you a lecturer in physics by
>> any chance?
You didn't answer?
>>
>> > Einstein didn't
>> >use it as a postulate in his first paper because he didn't think of
>> >it. Minkowski did. Minkowski was the one that provided the underlying
>> >physical basis for Einstein's postulate.
>
>Just as I described above.
No it is as I described. Einstein ignored the fact that light is
particulate and the implications that has on the suitability of
Maxwell's theory as a foundation on which to build. He interpreted the
MMX as showing that every observer is stationary w.r.t the aether - that
is what the second postulate is describing. He took from the aether
those properties he needed to do the maths - to reproduce Lorentz's
maths. Minkowski's diagram is simply a more sophisticated way of
representing the same maths but is considered a sacred revelation by
relativists.
>> >> Neither does it explain why the
>> >> speed of light appears constant to every observer and fails totally to
>> >> explain why, when I change my speed the frequency changes instantly.
>>
>> >On the contrary, again the structure of spacetime explains the former,
>> >and relativistic Doppler shift is EASILY derived from that.
>>
>> Derived maybe. Explained no.
>
>If it is a necessary consequence of that conceptual framework then
>this is an explanation.
Interpretation - Physics has redefined "explained"
See other post
>> Let us make it clearer. Forget frequency consider sets of two short
>> busts of light sent out by the source with a fixed interval at regular
>> (or irregular) intervals. I can in theory measure the distance between
>> them. If two photo detectors are placed that distance apart they will
>> give an O/P simultaneously. I can measure that distance with a ruler. I
>> can also measure the time between the two pulses. If I increase my speed
>> in the direction they are coming from then the time between is shorter -
>> a first order effect dependent on v/c.
>>
>> Emission theory says that the physical distance between the busts hasn't
>> changed, I have changed my speed w.r.t the light so the time between one
>> pulse and the other changes. Same distance - higher speed - shorter
>> time.
>>
>> LET says the same thing except that it says in addition that if I
>> measure the speed of light it will *appear* not to have changed.
>>
>> SR says my speed w.r.t the light pulses hasn't changed. I conclude
>> therefore that SR says my change in speed has somehow changed the
>> physical spacing between the two pulses of light.
>
>Yes. Distance (spacing) is also frame dependent.
Not first order it isn't. Doppler is a first order effect.
>> To me that is physically absurd
>
>Why? You didn't know that distance is also frame-dependent?
> Or were
>you trying to find an inconsistency in SR by provisionally accepting
>one part and ignoring another?
I do not provisionally accept anything but I am discussing this within
the confines of SR. It does not claim distance is frame dependent to
first order of v/c it does not give a physical explanation of second
order variations either but lets stick to Doppler.
>> which means as far as I am concerned
>> Doppler is a DISTINGUISHING prediction of LETs aether.
>
>No, it isn't. It is just a flag about the parts of the explanation
>that you are not willing to conceptually accept. Not being willing to
>accept part of an explanation is in NO WAY a distinguishing
>prediction. A distinguishing prediction is one where two models make
>differing predictions about the *value* of a *measurement*. The result
>of an actual *measurement* is not contestable. That's what makes it
>such a powerful arbiter.
>> Perhaps you have a different physical explanation. Note I am looking for
>> a physical explanation not a mathematical one. A physical theory not a
>> mathematical model.
>
>Yes, it appears you need a better education on the PHYSICAL basis of
>relativity.
SR is a principle theory, a mathematical model defined by Einstein thus:
"Along with this most important class of
theories there exists a second, which I will
call "principle-theories." These employ the
analytic, not the synthetic, method. The elements
which form their bases and starting-point are not
hypothetically constructed but empirically
discovered ones, general characteristics of
natural processes, principles that give rise to
mathematically formulated criteria which these
separate processes or the theoretical
representations of them have to satisfy.
The theory of relativity belongs to [this]
class. In order to grasp its nature, one needs
first of all to become acquainted with the
principles on which it is based."
Found in: "What is the Theory of Relativity?",
Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, Three Rivers
Press, p. 228-9.
"The elements which form their bases and starting-point are not
hypothetically constructed but empirically discovered ones" like the
fact that every observer appears to be stationary w.r.t the aether IF
you interpret the MMX in terms of Maxwell and if you ignore the fact
that light is particulate and if you ignore more obvious possibilities,
that may be interpreted as an empirically discovered "physical basis" of
SR.
>> >> light leaving the source before I changed speed. Maths has no problem
>> >> with that physics ought to have.
>>
>> >> To me LET it a far better theory and equally successful.
>>
>> >How can it be a "far better theory" if it makes the same predictions?
>>
>> How can it be an inferior theory it makes the same predictions.
>
>It ISN'T, on that metric.
>
>> It also
>> has with it a theoretical structure which Einstein objected to but
>> failed to better. He failed to come up with any theoretical structure at
>> all. Apart from which a theory is supposed to stand until it is
>> invalidated - LET has not been invalidated. What DISTINGUISHING
>> predictions did SR make which LET did not which would justify it
>> replacing LET?
>
>It didn't make any distinguishing predictions on the basis of
>electromagnetic interactions. None at all. And in the scope of
>electromagnetic interactions, the two models are on par and neither is
>ruled out.
Why replace a theory which has a theoretical structure and is successful
with one which doesn't, comes later and brings nothing additional with
it?
>However, LET doesn't make any firm predictions about the other
>interactions at all, since it was fundamentally a theory about
>electromagnetic interactions. However, SR made the firm commitment
>that ALL interactions had to exhibit Lorentz invariance, because the
>reasons don't have to do with the interaction at all, but with the
>structure of spacetime.
Semantic garbage. If you just accept it as "just is" and don't attempt
to explain it, it is simpler.
>This is where there is a key difference. Lorentz said the invariance
>comes about because of something going on in the interaction, and had
>nothing to do with the nature of space and time.
On the contrary he said it was because the nature of space is the same
as Maxwell's aether. You seem rather ambivalent as to what you mean by
"space" other than its postulated properties.
> Einstein said it has
>something to do with the structure of space and time, and has nothing
>to do with the details of the interaction.
No he didn't. He suggested a different type of aether without the
immobility of Lorentz's. Space-time came from Minkowsky's diagrammatic
representation of Einstein's maths which Einstein didn't initially like.
Einstein said that SR "puts forward no specific hypothesis" he describes
is as a "principle theory" based on "empirical starting points". It is
therefore an empirical theory. It does not try to explain anything in
terms of "structure of space and time". That is modern spin an a
euphemism for "the maths sez"..
> Thus, when you have four
>interactions that exhibit the same Lorentz invariance, your beloved
>Ockham's razor would suggest that you consider the one that offers a
>single structural account of why that is, rather than four independent
>ones that happen to exhibit the same behavior.
One which gives no explanation rather than one which does? The question
is about trying to understand nature. Oh I forgot. Physics doesn't try
to understand nature it only make models of it - ref Tom Roberts.
You have been bringing in red herrings for such a long time I can no
longer remember the context. I don't recall using the word "substantial"
at all. Remind me.
Definitions:
Physical process 1/ something which results in an observable change
which science tries to understand.
Physical substance - something which can take part in a physical process
which is an acknowledged part of our understanding of nature. i.e. not
"something else - and we don't have to say how it fits with other
physical substances"
Cause - something which initiates a physical process
Effect - the result of a physical process initiated by a cause
Physical process 2 - that series of events/changes involving physical
substances which links cause and effect.
They can both measure its speed. I don't believe they can both measure
the energy of the same bullet.
>And then there are
>two values of kinetic energy of that bullet AT THE SAME TIME, with no
>change involved whatsoever. Kinetic energy is a frame-dependent
>quantity with NO PHYSICAL CHANGE required anywhere. Same thing is true
>for Galileo's observation.
OK lets think this through. There is an object travelling through space
what is its kinetic energy? Or two objects travelling through space
collide involving a certain amount of kinetic energy which object
possessed the kinetic energy? Meaningless question. Kinetic energy is
not a property of an object. Talking in terms of Frames of reference
always muddies the water because you are then giving a mathematical
description. If a bullet hits me that is a bullet/me interaction. A
bullet/you interaction is a different interaction. If you change your
speed (run away) the next bullet/you interaction will be different
because you have changed your speed.
>>
>> >> Physical process involves
>> >> something physical to take part in that process. It is a function of
>> >> physics to try and relate all which is physical within the universe.
>>
>> >Not sure what you mean by "physical". To a physicist a field in empty
>> >space is physical.
>>
>> Is it a property of the space - in which case space isn't empty
>
>What do you mean by "empty"? To a physicist this means devoid of
>persistent matter. It does NOT mean devoid of physical properties.
Even if space were inherently empty in accordance with my definition,
then if it had light passing through it then it would not at that time
be empty because it contains light which is a real physical entity. If
you are confining 'Matter' to physical stuff with *mass* then you seem
to be making up the rules. I don't believe that Lorentz considered his
aether to have mass but I could be wrong.
Does your 'Space' contain Physical substance - something which can take
part in a physical process which is an acknowledged part of our
understanding of nature. i.e. not "something else - and we don't have to
say how it fits with other physical substances"
>> or is it
>> some sort of physical stuff occupying space - in which case where does
>> it fit in our understanding of physical entities or is it simply a
>> description of the effect of one object on another which cannot exist
>> where there is no object to cause it?
>
>It is a property of space.
>
>And this is where I've pointed out to you that you want to replace ONE
>entity (space with physical properties) with TWO (space with no
>properties, and some nonmaterial stuff that does have properties but
>properties different than material stuff). Why is yours simpler again?
No. The aether hypothesis said that aether filled all of space including
the space between atoms. The aether hypothesis said there was no space
without aether. Essentially both theories are identical. Both says that
space consists of physical stuff which has physical properties. You have
simply renamed the aether "space". Which in itself is not a problem.
What is a problem is sneering at others who openly talk about the aether
implying it is an incredibly silly idea and refusing to accept that the
physical stuff of space must be a part of a general classification of
physical stuff if it is to be a part of a physical theory.
Yeh! right. The failure of the BB theory was a bonus because it
predicted the existence of dark energy and dark matter. Any experiment
which fails is a bonus because it is not taken as suggesting a theory is
wrong merely an opportunity to add yet another layer of complexity to
reinstate it. Physics need never accept it is wrong it can just get more
and more and more complicated - which it is, and in order to keep it
going physicists will have to get more and more imaginative and their
ideas will have to get more and more bizarre - which they are.
Einstein described his personal prejudice as his "formal point of view"
well my "formal point of view" is that there is no reason to assume
nature is bizarre and weird and that when we get it right everything
will start to fit and it will all become simpler and make sense. From
that PoV while physics adds yet more layers it is indicative that it has
gone seriously wrong. Why even admit the possibility that you might be
wrong if you enjoy building castles in the air. You have pinched so many
ideas from fantasy and science fiction that authors can no longer come
up with anything more fanciful than you present as "serious science".
>
>> and worked on the basis
>> that what it detected couldn't be anything else.
>>
>> >> >Same thing is true for the Higgs. It's an idea to solve a problem, but
>> >> >if the idea is right, then it would have other testable consequences,
>> >> >which are being tested imminently.
>>
>> >> >What's the issue?
>>
>> >Hmmmm??
>
>Still pondering on this one?
>
>>
>> >> >> >> It is argued (by PD actually) that even the inclusion of
>> >> >> >>fairies as part
>> >> >> >> of a theory is acceptable if it leads to testable prediction - it is
>> >> >> >> then (according to PD) still science.
>>
>> >> >> >Yes, indeed.
>>
>> >This still seems to bother you, but you can't articulate why?
>>
>> I can but only a physicist or a child would require an explanation.
>
>Please try.
We only have our senses and our intellect to work with. We can invent
fantasy for our amusement and entertainment and children have difficulty
telling the difference between that and reality but they usually work it
out by the age of 10. They then read fantasy and science fiction for
entertainment in the sure knowledge that it isn't intended to represent
the real universe it being merely there to entertain and show how
imaginative the human can be. As I say above there is no idea which
physics hasn't pinched from fantasy and science fiction leaving authors
in great difficulty in coming up with anything more fanciful than you
present as "serious science". As I say physics is adding more and more
layers and in order to avoid stopping, going back and investigating a
different route it has to get more and more imaginative in its
solutions. We now have an apparently serious suggestion that results may
be affected by something coming back from the future. We already have
parallel universes, and magical strings, hyperspace virtual particles
etc. What you say about this game of fantasy is that anything is OK so
long as you play by the simple rule - your contribution must promote the
continuation of the game.
That doesn't mean that it will be accepted. You always submit a budget
which is more than you expect and settle for something less than you
would like. If the taxpayer get disillusioned by physics and if there
are more pressing needs then that budget may be cut to pay for
technology to alleviate sea level rise say. No one is going to die if
you decide not to look for "son of Higgs-boson" which has been
postulated to explain why the results to find Higgs-boson were not quite
as predicted.
>> >> While the perception is that physicists are very clever and are
>> >> doing important work they will continue to fund it. If they actually
>> >> start to ask questions then are they going to be convinced? Can physics
>> >> communicate what it is about to the tax payers?
>>
>> >More importantly, do they HAVE to make it all clear and accessible to
>> >the taxpayers?
>>
>> The tax payer has a right to insist on it if he feels there are better
>> things his money could be spent on.
>
>I'm sorry, but no. That is PROVIDED by the vehicle of government-
>subsidized education, and you certainly have that available to you.
>The government is NOT obligated to provide you this detailed and
>accessible explanation in a vehicle of your choosing.
This may be a semantic problem. On this side of the pond "the tax payer"
does not refer to an individual payer of taxes but tax payers in general
i.e. on mass. If it got around that physics is getting more and more
absurd in what it claimed to be "serious science" then the idea could
easily spread. If enough tax payers question what they are subsidising
they have the power to change the government. Something which is known
to concentrate the minds of politicians quite magically. Ultimately
physics would have to persuade 'the tax payer' that they are not wasting
their money.
>> >Consider medical research, which is also federally funded. Do you
>> >understand all that is going on with medical research? Do you feel
>> >cheated that you don't?
>>
>> I can understand the aim of medical research and year by year see the
>> benefits.
>
>That's not what I asked you. I asked you if you understand all that is
>going on with the research.
I believe that I could understand it to the level I need to appreciate
the point. No tax payer is going to object to research where the
benefits can be demonstrated.
>> >What about the FAA? Do you understand in intimate detail how the air
>> >traffic control system works?
>>
>> I can understand that it is essential. I can understand what it achieves
>> and I can understand the basics of how it operates.
>>
>> >Do you feel cheated that you don't?
>>
>> I am in total wonderment that it works as well as it does.
>>
>> >What about banking regulations? Do you understand in intimate detail
>> >the regulatory code? Do you feel cheated that you don't?
>>
>> I feel cheated that some arseholes have screwed up my pension fund by
>> making the basic mistake of lending money to people who could not
>> reasonably afford to pay it back.
>
>Which of course has nothing to do with the wisdom of investing in
>fundamental research,
you brought up banking regulations, not me.
> but instead with the wisdom of investing in
>derivatives and failing to invest in sufficient regulation of those
>schemes. And that, by the way, cost WAY more money than all the money
>poured into fundamental research by two orders of magnitude.
>
>> I am not a "qualified" banker drawing
>> a salary I couldn't dream of yet I wouldn't have made that very basic
>> error. I don't care in the least about the intimate detail of the
>> regulatory code - It didn't work. It is perhaps an example of a
>> community of intelligent people where a silly idea became accepted
>> because enough people accepted it. I see parallels in physics.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Those that want to become better acquainted with physics have a very
>> >simple option: an education. You'll note that education is government-
>> >subsidized.
>>
>> On my side of the pond it is getting increasingly difficult to find
>> people willing to teach physics or pupils wanting to take it.
>
>It is still available, you'll note.
So are courses in all sorts of alternative medicine. Homeopathy, Crystal
healing and aroma therapy for example.
>> >> If cuts are needed to
>> >> pay for other things what difference would it make to the public if the
>> >> Physics budget was cut?
>>
>> >Well, for one thing, the R that fuels D in R&D would dry up in that
>> >arena.
>>
>> No. Research with specific development in mind would be funded as always
>> by those likely to profit from the development. Physics funded on that
>> basis would be very different.
>
>I'm sorry, but it's plain you have no understanding of how R feeds D.
>You apparently believe that D can continue and sustain itself forever
>just fine without R.
I was an R and D manager. Let us take electronics. The first break
through was the invention of the thermionic diode. This was an accident.
Light bulbs tended to get dimmer because the filament shed carbon
particles which coated the inside of the envelope. Knowing that
electrostatic charge will collect dust someone thought they could
collect the soot particles with an anode next to the filament and
discovered that current flowed. The triode followed.
Shockley was trying to do the same thing with semiconductors. i.e. vary
the flow of current by applying a voltage. trans = change 'ister =
resistor. The principle was later successfully achieved in what is
called the field effect transistor. What Shockley produced by accident
is a bipolar transistor and the word "transistor" was not really a good
name. Only after it had been invented did physics attempt to explain how
it worked. The first major breakthrough was the planar process - using
photographic techniques. The technology was developed to make cheaper
transistors but actually produced far better transistors. Better
chemistry and optics allowed circuits rather than individual transistors
to be produced. The limiting factor was the purity of the silicon. The
early microprocessors were limited because if you made them any bigger
(more sophisticated) the chances of making a wafer in which all failed
because each had a fault in the silicon became unacceptably high.
Improved silicon, and better optics means you get more sophisticated
chips - the improved optics means you can make smaller transistors (more
in an area of silicon) and better silicon means that you can use a
bigger area without yield falling. Getting computers to work ever more
quickly is down to engineers. Prominent in this field is Ivor Catt who
considers standard electromagnetic theory as totally useless. Wrote his
own text book. The main area where physics has made a contribution is
the laser.
Faraday is my kind of chap. His contribution was enormous but Physics
likes to give the credit to Maxwell as he had a university education and
was primarily a mathematician.
--
John Kennaugh
glird
>
>< If you *understand* what is going on and your math is based on that understanding - that is science. >
It may be science, but it is NOT physics.
In physics, the math is based on masuements of nobody undeerstamds
what, other than by an undefined wod such as "force, "mass", "light',
etc. As a result, most of the present "laws of nature' - i.e.
equations of physics - are false.
If you don't believe me, name some and i will prove to you! that
most of them are false.
glird
PD
wrote:
> PD wrote:
> >On Oct 24, 3:04 pm, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >> PD wrote:
>
> >[some parts snipped for brevity]
>
> >> >> No. In the analogy each of the modifications are identifiable and
> >> >> testable. You can define what you mean by air. You can independently
> >> >> test the interaction between air and the projectile.
>
> >> >Precisely. And you can independently test for the Higgs. The presence
> >> >of the Higgs has specific, testable implications that are *different*
> >> >than the particles just having mass. It's those implications that are
> >> >on the agenda to be tested at LHC (and at FNAL).
>
> >You understand this now?
>
> I understand what you are *saying*.
>
And you doubt that it is happening with the Higgs?
>
>
> >> >> It is actually a good example for defining the difference between
> >> >> science and technology.
> >> >> You could have a gun accurately calibrated to give accurate range
> >> >> without knowing anything about Newton. - that is technology. You could
> >> >> empirically work out a formula which gave you accurate results - that is
> >> >> a mathematical model. If you *understand* what is going on and construct
> >> >> your maths based on that understanding - that is science.
>
> >> >> "This eventually led to the realization that IF another
> >> >> field existed, then masses could be accounted for"
>
> >> >And IF that field exists, then it is testable by other independent
> >> >methods, which should be pursued. (And are.)
>
> >You see?
You see?
>
> >> >> Alchemy might be a better analogy where the Higgs field = The
> >> >> philosopher's stone except that the philosopher's stone only had to
> >> >> transmute one metal into another not transmute something with no mass to
> >> >> something with mass - which would appear to require an entirely new
> >> >> definition of mass.
>
> >> >Why would it require a new definition of mass? Are you under the
> >> >impression that mass is conserved? Wherever did you get that idea?
>
> >Well?
>
> Mass/energy is conserved surely.
Energy is. Mass is not.
>
> >> >> OK let us apply your own criteria of acceptability to Maxwell/Lorentz's
> >> >> aether. The general properties are that a field maps an altered state in
> >> >> the aether (analogous to a stress pattern). This accounts for action at
> >> >> a distance due for example to the interaction of the two 'stress'
> >> >> patterns caused by charge.
>
> >> >Note it accounts for ONE interaction at a distance. Not several.
>
> >You see this?
>
> No. Explain.
There are four exhibited interactions and they are all fundamentally
different. The coupling constants are different, the coupling charges
on fermions are all independent of each other, they have different
gauge symmetries, and their intermediate bosons are all dramatically
different beasts.
The effect of the Lorentz mechanism would have to appear in each of
them independently and identically, but because the structure of the
interactions are all different, the mechanism that makes this happen
would have to be different for each one, all conspiring to just happen
to produce a similar effect. There is a paper from the mid-1970's that
explains this, but I can't remember the author off the top of my head.
>
>
>
> >> >> As with any medium a 'stress' may propagate
> >> >> at a characteristic speed which - from the measured properties of the
> >> >> aether - permeability and permittivity - that speed can be determined as
> >> >> c. When the theory is properly applied (by Lorentz) - taking into
> >> >> account the action at a distance role of the aether and that all
> >> >> physical object (e.g. measurement apparatus) is held together by action
> >> >> at a distance force - one concludes that the MMX was incapable of
> >> >> detecting motion w.r.t the aether. This is constantly being
> >> >> mis-represented as "it is impossible to detect the aether" The only
> >> >> thing one cannot detect is ones *absolute* speed w.r.t the aether. There
> >> >> are at least two testable predictions w.r.t the aether hypothesis. The
> >> >> first is that if you change the speed of the source there will be no
> >> >> change in the measured speed of light because the speed of propagation
> >> >> is controlled by the aether.
>
> >> >And notice that this is not a DISTINGUISHING prediction.
>
> >> >> The second is that if you change your speed
> >> >> there will be an immediate change in frequency due to Doppler. In other
> >> >> words while you cannot measure your absolute speed w.r.t the aether you
> >> >> can detect a change in speed relative to the aether.
>
> >> >And notice again that this is not a DISTINGUISHING prediction.
>
> >And you see these too?
>
> I don't accept that. I don't accept that there is a physical explanation
> consistent with SR with believable causality. I do not accept your
> convoluted semantics trying to muddy the water.
It's not convoluted. It's really quite simple.
Predictions are of the following form:
Given circumstances C, you will observe measurable outcome X in
quantity Q.
Another model distinguishes itself by making a distinctive measurable
prediction:
Given circumstances C, you will observe measurable outcome X' in
quantity Q'.
or possibly just
Given circumstances C, you will observe measurable outcome X in
quantity Q'.
Then it is really easy to test which one is right.
1. Find or create a system where circumstances C prevail
2. Make the observation to see if X or X' is the outcome.
3. If X is the outcome, see if it is in quantity Q or Q'.
This is not convoluted semantics. This is PRECISELY how science works.
The result is unambiguous and you can tell right away which model is
favored.
>
> >> >> What makes you think that Maxwell/Lorentz aether is in any way ruled
> >> >> out? You believe in fields, in action at a distance force, energy
> >> >> propagation, source independence and Doppler shift all explained by the
> >> >> aether. On what basis can you label it "crackpot-stuff". AFAICS compared
> >> >> to much which is accepted in modern physics it would seem totally sane.
>
> >> >> If now you take SR which replaced it then that is purely a mathematical
> >> >> model - an identical mathematical model. It *assumes* source
> >> >> independence but makes no attempt to explain why speed should be
> >> >> independent of motion of the source.
>
> >> >Yes it does. The structure of spacetime explains it.
>
> Space time is a mathematical construct. It does not have a physical
> structure.
That's incorrect, according to physicists. You have DECLARED that your
DEFINITION of spacetime does not permit it to have physical structure.
Physicists on the other hand say that what it is that actually exists
in nature when you remove matter from that region in space and time is
what we *call* spacetime, and yes of course it has measurable physical
properties.
The rest is semantics. You are insisting that physicists are
mislabeling that thing that actually exists in nature, because the
label doesn't meet YOUR definition of "spacetime", which YOU insist
can have no physical properties by YOUR definition.
> It is built assuming source independence you cannot turn
> around and claim it is the cause.
>
>
>
> >> !!!!!!? Why don't you stick with reality. Einstein ASSUMED source
> >> independence from Maxwell's theory which says that the speed of light is
> >> controlled by the aether so the sources movement cannot affect it.
> >> Einstein interpreted the MMX, in terms of Maxwell's theory as showing
> >> that for some reason an observer is always stationary w.r.t the aether.
> >> He totally ignored the fact that light is particulate and that Maxwell's
> >> wave in aether theory was seriously compromised. He produced the same
> >> maths as Lorentz.
> >> The maths are based on the assumption of source independence and
> >> observer independence. Those maths were taken by Minkowski who
> >> reproduced them in diagrammatic form. And you are saying that that
> >> diagram predicts source independence and observer independence? Doh!
>
> >The Minkowski structure DOES predict source and observer independence,
> >yes. Regardless of the circuitous path taken to arrive at it.
>
> It was BUILT on that assumption. How can it possibly NOT predict source
> and observer independence!
No sir. It was INFERRED from them. It is the deeper structure that
ACCOUNTS for those assumptions.
This is what I'm telling you.
We INFER deeper structures that account for assumptions, and we make
that inference chronologically AFTER the assumptions are made. This
does not mean that the deeper structures follow FROM the assumptions.
Just the reverse -- the assumptions are explained because of the
inferred deeper structure.
What you are saying is akin to saying that Newton's universal law of
gravity ASSUMES Kepler's laws and uses Kepler's laws as a conceptual
foundation. It does not. Newton's law of gravity EXPLAINS Kepler's
laws, even though it was discovered AFTER Kepler laid out his laws.
>
> >> Unless Minkowski did his maths wrong it is bound to. It is completely
> >> circular.
>
> >No it is not. It is INDUCTIVE.
>
> Oh a new bit of semantics
Not at all. It is how science works. Frankly, I'm astonished you
didn't know this.
>
>
>
> >This seems to be a place where you get consistently bogged down.
>
> No it is a place where you and others live with the mathematical model
> so long it seems 'real' to you and you cease to see it for what it is.
>
> > When
> >scientist figure out an explanation, what happens is that they notice
> >a regularity in the behavior of nature, and they inductively infer
> >*later* a basis for that regularity. It is not the case that the
> >observed regularity is the conceptual basis or underlying explanation
> >in the theory, it is the inductively inferred statements. Likewise, if
> >a model asserts a couple of unsupported postulates, and further
> >examination of the postulates allows you to *later infer* a conceptual
> >basis for the postulates, then it is not the postulates that remain
> >the conceptual explanation in the model, it is the later inferred
> >basis.
>
> It translates to "If the original justification for the postulates is
> acutely embarrassing and you wrap it up in sophisticated looking maths
> you can claim those maths as the origin and avoid the embarrassment. The
> second postulate is in effect saying every observer is stationary w.r.t
> the aether - and empirical interpretation of the MMX.
>
>
>
> >Science works from back to front.
>
> you like to re-write history.
I'm sorry, but this is how science works. See my comment above.
>
>
>
> >> I appreciate that it is a better way of presenting it to some
> >> naive student than saying that Einstein's second postulate describes
> >> what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would experience. I am not
> >> a naive student and neither are you. Are you a lecturer in physics by
> >> any chance?
>
> You didn't answer?
Why is that relevant? Let's stick to the physics content.
>
>
>
> >> > Einstein didn't
> >> >use it as a postulate in his first paper because he didn't think of
> >> >it. Minkowski did. Minkowski was the one that provided the underlying
> >> >physical basis for Einstein's postulate.
>
> >Just as I described above.
>
> No it is as I described. Einstein ignored the fact that light is
> particulate and the implications that has on the suitability of
> Maxwell's theory as a foundation on which to build. He interpreted the
> MMX as showing that every observer is stationary w.r.t the aether - that
> is what the second postulate is describing. He took from the aether
> those properties he needed to do the maths - to reproduce Lorentz's
> maths. Minkowski's diagram is simply a more sophisticated way of
> representing the same maths but is considered a sacred revelation by
> relativists.
I'm sorry, but I disagree. It is an INFERRED underlying explanation.
>
> >> >> Neither does it explain why the
> >> >> speed of light appears constant to every observer and fails totally to
> >> >> explain why, when I change my speed the frequency changes instantly.
>
> >> >On the contrary, again the structure of spacetime explains the former,
> >> >and relativistic Doppler shift is EASILY derived from that.
>
> >> Derived maybe. Explained no.
>
> >If it is a necessary consequence of that conceptual framework then
> >this is an explanation.
>
> Interpretation - Physics has redefined "explained"
I don't think so. Darwin explained evolution in terms of heritable
traits, as did Mendel, even though neither of them knew what DNA (or
for that matter, a gene) was.
I'm curious what YOU think "explained" means.
I responded to you on that.
>
> >> Let us make it clearer. Forget frequency consider sets of two short
> >> busts of light sent out by the source with a fixed interval at regular
> >> (or irregular) intervals. I can in theory measure the distance between
> >> them. If two photo detectors are placed that distance apart they will
> >> give an O/P simultaneously. I can measure that distance with a ruler. I
> >> can also measure the time between the two pulses. If I increase my speed
> >> in the direction they are coming from then the time between is shorter -
> >> a first order effect dependent on v/c.
>
> >> Emission theory says that the physical distance between the busts hasn't
> >> changed, I have changed my speed w.r.t the light so the time between one
> >> pulse and the other changes. Same distance - higher speed - shorter
> >> time.
>
> >> LET says the same thing except that it says in addition that if I
> >> measure the speed of light it will *appear* not to have changed.
>
> >> SR says my speed w.r.t the light pulses hasn't changed. I conclude
> >> therefore that SR says my change in speed has somehow changed the
> >> physical spacing between the two pulses of light.
>
> >Yes. Distance (spacing) is also frame dependent.
>
> Not first order it isn't. Doppler is a first order effect.
??? Distance is frame-dependent, period. How you *calculate* the
dependency using an expansion is IRRELEVANT.
>
> >> To me that is physically absurd
>
> >Why? You didn't know that distance is also frame-dependent?
> > Or were
> >you trying to find an inconsistency in SR by provisionally accepting
> >one part and ignoring another?
>
> I do not provisionally accept anything but I am discussing this within
> the confines of SR. It does not claim distance is frame dependent to
> first order of v/c it does not give a physical explanation of second
> order variations either but lets stick to Doppler.
>
> >> which means as far as I am concerned
> >> Doppler is a DISTINGUISHING prediction of LETs aether.
>
> >No, it isn't. It is just a flag about the parts of the explanation
> >that you are not willing to conceptually accept. Not being willing to
> >accept part of an explanation is in NO WAY a distinguishing
> >prediction. A distinguishing prediction is one where two models make
> >differing predictions about the *value* of a *measurement*. The result
> >of an actual *measurement* is not contestable. That's what makes it
> >such a powerful arbiter.
> >> Perhaps you have a different physical explanation. Note I am looking for
> >> a physical explanation not a mathematical one. A physical theory not a
> >> mathematical model.
>
> >Yes, it appears you need a better education on the PHYSICAL basis of
> >relativity.
>
> SR is a principle theory, a mathematical model defined by Einstein thus:
It is a principle theory and this is why it provides a deeper
explanation of why all four interactions have to have the same Lorentz
symmetry.
But it DOES. You just don't accept it.
> comes later
What does THAT have to do with it?
> and brings nothing additional with
> it?
It DOES. See the four fundamental interactions.
>
> >However, LET doesn't make any firm predictions about the other
> >interactions at all, since it was fundamentally a theory about
> >electromagnetic interactions. However, SR made the firm commitment
> >that ALL interactions had to exhibit Lorentz invariance, because the
> >reasons don't have to do with the interaction at all, but with the
> >structure of spacetime.
>
> Semantic garbage. If you just accept it as "just is" and don't attempt
> to explain it, it is simpler.
Sorry, but it's not "just is". You have to see how the structure
explains it.
>
> >This is where there is a key difference. Lorentz said the invariance
> >comes about because of something going on in the interaction, and had
> >nothing to do with the nature of space and time.
>
> On the contrary he said it was because the nature of space is the same
> as Maxwell's aether. You seem rather ambivalent as to what you mean by
> "space" other than its postulated properties.
>
> > Einstein said it has
> >something to do with the structure of space and time, and has nothing
> >to do with the details of the interaction.
>
> No he didn't.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong about that.
> He suggested a different type of aether without the
> immobility of Lorentz's. Space-time came from Minkowsky's diagrammatic
> representation of Einstein's maths which Einstein didn't initially like.
> Einstein said that SR "puts forward no specific hypothesis" he describes
> is as a "principle theory" based on "empirical starting points". It is
> therefore an empirical theory. It does not try to explain anything in
> terms of "structure of space and time". That is modern spin an a
> euphemism for "the maths sez"..
>
> > Thus, when you have four
> >interactions that exhibit the same Lorentz invariance, your beloved
> >Ockham's razor would suggest that you consider the one that offers a
> >single structural account of why that is, rather than four independent
> >ones that happen to exhibit the same behavior.
>
> One which gives no explanation rather than one which does? The question
> is about trying to understand nature. Oh I forgot. Physics doesn't try
> to understand nature it only make models of it - ref Tom Roberts.
Models ARE explanations. What distinguishes in your mind a model from
an explanation? Be as precise as you can.
YOU brought up that term in the definition of the aether! You can't
search on your own posts.
>
> Definitions:
>
> Physical process 1/ something which results in an observable change
> which science tries to understand.
OK, so let's take the two observers looking at the same ball's kinetic
energy at the same time. They come up with different numbers. Is that
an observable change in the ball's kinetic energy? What process was in
involved in that.
>
> Physical substance - something which can take part in a physical process
> which is an acknowledged part of our understanding of nature. i.e. not
> "something else - and we don't have to say how it fits with other
> physical substances"
That is the crappiest definition of physical substance I've ever seen!
>
> Cause - something which initiates a physical process
See earlier comment about ball's kinetic energy.
>
> Effect - the result of a physical process initiated by a cause
See earlier comment about ball's kinetic energy.
>
> Physical process 2 - that series of events/changes involving physical
> substances which links cause and effect.
And again this is the crappiest definition I've ever seen.
WHAAAAATTT? You really believe that?
May I suggest you need to step back and learn a little classical
physics?
Galileo understood this better than you.
>
> >And then there are
> >two values of kinetic energy of that bullet AT THE SAME TIME, with no
> >change involved whatsoever. Kinetic energy is a frame-dependent
> >quantity with NO PHYSICAL CHANGE required anywhere. Same thing is true
> >for Galileo's observation.
>
> OK lets think this through. There is an object travelling through space
> what is its kinetic energy?
As measured in a particular frame, and at reasonably low speeds, it's
(1/2)mv^2.
> Or two objects travelling through space
> collide involving a certain amount of kinetic energy which object
> possessed the kinetic energy? Meaningless question. Kinetic energy is
> not a property of an object.
Precisely my point. It is a frame-dependent quantity, with NO
existence in the object independent of the frame of reference.
However, it is very measurable in any frame of reference and is
therefore real.
> Talking in terms of Frames of reference
> always muddies the water because you are then giving a mathematical
> description. If a bullet hits me that is a bullet/me interaction. A
> bullet/you interaction is a different interaction.
The bullet hits the SAME block of wood, as observed by two different
observers. They will extract from that interaction two different
initial KE's of the bullet.
Catch up on classical mechanics.
> If you change your
> speed (run away) the next bullet/you interaction will be different
> because you have changed your speed.
>
>
>
> >> >> Physical process involves
> >> >> something physical to take part in that process. It is a function of
> >> >> physics to try and relate all which is physical within the universe.
>
> >> >Not sure what you mean by "physical". To a physicist a field in empty
> >> >space is physical.
>
> >> Is it a property of the space - in which case space isn't empty
>
> >What do you mean by "empty"? To a physicist this means devoid of
> >persistent matter. It does NOT mean devoid of physical properties.
>
> Even if space were inherently empty in accordance with my definition,
> then if it had light passing through it then it would not at that time
> be empty because it contains light which is a real physical entity.
> If
> you are confining 'Matter' to physical stuff with *mass* then you seem
> to be making up the rules.
Sorry, that's the definition of matter used by physicists. If you wish
to make up new definitions of terms to suit your sensibilities, then
you're going to risk objections.
> I don't believe that Lorentz considered his
> aether to have mass but I could be wrong.
> Does your 'Space' contain Physical substance
Not as YOU defined it -- as something that is like other acknowledged
substances. But then again, that's a crappy definition.
> - something which can take
> part in a physical process which is an acknowledged part of our
> understanding of nature. i.e. not "something else - and we don't have to
> say how it fits with other physical substances"
>
> >> or is it
> >> some sort of physical stuff occupying space - in which case where does
> >> it fit in our understanding of physical entities or is it simply a
> >> description of the effect of one object on another which cannot exist
> >> where there is no object to cause it?
>
> >It is a property of space.
>
> >And this is where I've pointed out to you that you want to replace ONE
> >entity (space with physical properties) with TWO (space with no
> >properties, and some nonmaterial stuff that does have properties but
> >properties different than material stuff). Why is yours simpler again?
>
> No. The aether hypothesis said that aether filled all of space including
> the space between atoms. The aether hypothesis said there was no space
> without aether.
Exactly. Two entities that cannot be separated from each other, with
the PAIR somehow bearing those physical properties.
As opposed to ONE entity, bearing the physical properties.
Sorta.
> Any experiment
> which fails
It didn't fail! It demonstrated the unambiguous existence of
neutrinos. How is that a failure?
> is a bonus because it is not taken as suggesting a theory is
> wrong merely an opportunity to add yet another layer of complexity to
> reinstate it. Physics need never accept it is wrong it can just get more
> and more and more complicated - which it is, and in order to keep it
> going physicists will have to get more and more imaginative and their
> ideas will have to get more and more bizarre - which they are.
See my 2D trajectory example, which follows EXACTLY the same pattern,
and which you said was an example of physics being done RIGHT!
>
> Einstein described his personal prejudice as his "formal point of view"
> well my "formal point of view" is that there is no reason to assume
> nature is bizarre and weird
There is no reason to ASSUME that it's NOT bizarre and weird, if a
model that has bizarre and weird elements gets the data right.
Nature is BY DEFINITION not bizarre. It is what it is.
It's our job to match our mental mitts around what it is. If there is
a clash between our expectations and what nature really is, then it is
OUR expectations that are by definition the bizarre things that need
to be modified. Even if it seemed to work just fine up until that
point. Aristotle and two millenia of followers thought it was the most
natural and intuitive thing in the world that things in the absence of
a force will stop moving. The fact that this is wrong, and exactly the
opposite is true, is not bizarre. It is FACT, and two millenia of
folks thinking otherwise -- THOSE folks were bizarre.
> and that when we get it right everything
> will start to fit and it will all become simpler and make sense. From
> that PoV while physics adds yet more layers it is indicative that it has
> gone seriously wrong. Why even admit the possibility that you might be
> wrong if you enjoy building castles in the air. You have pinched so many
> ideas from fantasy and science fiction that authors can no longer come
> up with anything more fanciful than you present as "serious science".
>
>
>
> >> and worked on the basis
> >> that what it detected couldn't be anything else.
>
> >> >> >Same thing is true for the Higgs. It's an idea to solve a problem, but
> >> >> >if the idea is right, then it would have other testable consequences,
> >> >> >which are being tested imminently.
>
> >> >> >What's the issue?
>
> >> >Hmmmm??
>
> >Still pondering on this one?
Well?
That's fine. That's what the advisers do. I'm not opposed to this
process at all.
It seems to be working just fine. Fundamental research gets funded at
an appropriate level, whether the taxpayers understand it all or not.
>
> >> >> While the perception is that physicists are very clever and are
> >> >> doing important work they will continue to fund it. If they actually
> >> >> start to ask questions then are they going to be convinced? Can physics
> >> >> communicate what it is about to the tax payers?
>
> >> >More importantly, do they HAVE to make it all clear and accessible to
> >> >the taxpayers?
>
> >> The tax payer has a right to insist on it if he feels there are better
> >> things his money could be spent on.
>
> >I'm sorry, but no. That is PROVIDED by the vehicle of government-
> >subsidized education, and you certainly have that available to you.
> >The government is NOT obligated to provide you this detailed and
> >accessible explanation in a vehicle of your choosing.
>
> This may be a semantic problem. On this side of the pond "the tax payer"
> does not refer to an individual payer of taxes but tax payers in general
> i.e. on mass. If it got around that physics is getting more and more
> absurd in what it claimed to be "serious science" then the idea could
> easily spread. If enough tax payers question what they are subsidising
> they have the power to change the government. Something which is known
> to concentrate the minds of politicians quite magically. Ultimately
> physics would have to persuade 'the tax payer' that they are not wasting
> their money.
Maybe. I doubt it. The federated system works pretty well.
>
> >> >Consider medical research, which is also federally funded. Do you
> >> >understand all that is going on with medical research? Do you feel
> >> >cheated that you don't?
>
> >> I can understand the aim of medical research and year by year see the
> >> benefits.
>
> >That's not what I asked you. I asked you if you understand all that is
> >going on with the research.
>
> I believe that I could understand it to the level I need to appreciate
> the point.
But DO you?
> No tax payer is going to object to research where the
> benefits can be demonstrated.
But that's not all that supported. There is fundamental research (with
no eye to application) that is funded as well.
And this prevents you from getting a physics education how?
>
> >> >> If cuts are needed to
> >> >> pay for other things what difference would it make to the public if the
> >> >> Physics budget was cut?
>
> >> >Well, for one thing, the R that fuels D in R&D would dry up in that
> >> >arena.
>
> >> No. Research with specific development in mind would be funded as always
> >> by those likely to profit from the development. Physics funded on that
> >> basis would be very different.
>
> >I'm sorry, but it's plain you have no understanding of how R feeds D.
> >You apparently believe that D can continue and sustain itself forever
> >just fine without R.
>
> I was an R and D manager. Let us take electronics. The first break
> through was the invention of the thermionic diode.
That is D, not R.
Yes it was and he is duly celebrated. He had skills that Maxwell did
not, as well as insights that Maxwell did not.
Paul Stowe
> On Oct 28, 10:43 am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
> wrote:
[some parts snipped for brevity]
> > >> >> No. In the analogy each of the modifications are identifiable and
> > >> >> testable. You can define what you mean by air. You can independently
> > >> >> test the interaction between air and the projectile.
>
> > >> >Precisely. And you can independently test for the Higgs. The presence
> > >> >of the Higgs has specific, testable implications that are *different*
> > >> >than the particles just having mass. It's those implications that are
> > >> >on the agenda to be tested at LHC (and at FNAL).
>
> > >You understand this now?
>
> > I understand what you are *saying*.
>
> And you doubt that it is happening with the Higgs?
I'd say talk when you have something to talk about...
> > >> >> Alchemy might be a better analogy where the Higgs field = The
> > >> >> philosopher's stone except that the philosopher's stone only had to
> > >> >> transmute one metal into another not transmute something with no mass to
> > >> >> something with mass - which would appear to require an entirely new
> > >> >> definition of mass.
>
> > >> >Why would it require a new definition of mass? Are you under the
> > >> >impression that mass is conserved? Wherever did you get that idea?
>
> > >Well?
>
> > Mass/energy is conserved surely.
>
> Energy is. Mass is not.
Then E != mc^2... and/or the dimensions of energy isn't mass speed
squared... Are you saying the current conservation laws aren't true?
> > >> >> OK let us apply your own criteria of acceptability to Maxwell/Lorentz's
> > >> >> aether. The general properties are that a field maps an altered state in
> > >> >> the aether (analogous to a stress pattern). This accounts for action at
> > >> >> a distance due for example to the interaction of the two 'stress'
> > >> >> patterns caused by charge.
>
> > >> > Note it accounts for ONE interaction at a distance. Not several.
>
> > >You see this?
>
> > No. Explain.
>
> There are four exhibited interactions and they are all fundamentally
> different. The coupling constants are different, the coupling charges
> on fermions are all independent of each other, they have different
> gauge symmetries, and their intermediate bosons are all dramatically
> different beasts.
>
> The effect of the Lorentz mechanism would have to appear in each of
> them independently...
Why?
> ... and identically, ...
Yes, if the source is the same, who 'you' expect different outcomes?
> ... but because the structure of the
> interactions are all different, the mechanism that makes this happen
> would have to be different for each one, ...
Not really...
> ... all conspiring to just happen
> to produce a similar effect. There is a paper from the mid-1970's that
> explains this, but I can't remember the author off the top of my head.
>
> > >> >> As with any medium a 'stress' may propagate
> > >> >> at a characteristic speed which - from the measured properties of the
> > >> >> aether- permeability and permittivity - that speed can be determined as
> > >> >> c. When the theory is properly applied (by Lorentz) - taking into
> > >> >> account the action at a distance role of theaetherand that all
> > >> >> physical object (e.g. measurement apparatus) is held together by action
> > >> >> at a distance force - one concludes that the MMX was incapable of
> > >> >> detecting motion w.r.t theaether. This is constantly being
> > >> >> mis-represented as "it is impossible to detect theaether" The only
> > >> >> thing one cannot detect is ones *absolute* speed w.r.t theaether. There
> > >> >> are at least two testable predictions w.r.t theaetherhypothesis. The
> > >> >> first is that if you change the speed of the source there will be no
> > >> >> change in the measured speed of light because the speed of propagation
> > >> >> is controlled by theaether.
>
> > >> >And notice that this is not a DISTINGUISHING prediction.
>
> > >> >> The second is that if you change your speed
> > >> >> there will be an immediate change in frequency due to Doppler. In other
> > >> >> words while you cannot measure your absolute speed w.r.t the aether you
> > >> >> can detect a change in speed relative to the aether.
>
> > >> > And notice again that this is not a DISTINGUISHING prediction.
>
> > > And you see these too?
>
> > I don't accept that. I don't accept that there is a physical explanation
> > consistent with SR with believable causality. I do not accept your
> > convoluted semantics trying to muddy the water.
>
> It's not convoluted. It's really quite simple.
> Predictions are of the following form:
> Given circumstances C, you will observe measurable outcome X in
> quantity Q.
> Another model distinguishes itself by making a distinctive measurable
> prediction:
> Given circumstances C, you will observe measurable outcome X' in
> quantity Q'.
> or possibly just
> Given circumstances C, you will observe measurable outcome X in
> quantity Q'.
Ah, if only that were true... Model A says given circumstances C, but
model B says the very same thing but also extends to other
circumstances D, E, & F. Now other models also cover D, E, & F but
are not integrated.
> Then it is really easy to test which one is right.
> 1. Find or create a system where circumstances C prevail
> 2. Make the observation to see if X or X' is the outcome.
> 3. If X is the outcome, see if it is in quantity Q or Q'.
>
> This is not convoluted semantics. This is PRECISELY how science works.
> The result is unambiguous and you can tell right away which model is
> favored.
That's back to what I told you earlier (and refernced Feynman's little
tale) about the recent dumbing down of standards... John doesn't have
to accept that any more than I do. Science isn't a social club or a
religion, majority doesn't always rule.
> > >> >> What makes you think that Maxwell/Lorentza ether is in any way ruled
> > >> >> out? You believe in fields, in action at a distance force, energy
> > >> >> propagation, source independence and Doppler shift all explained by the
> > >> >>aether. On what basis can you label it "crackpot-stuff". AFAICS compared
> > >> >> to much which is accepted in modern physics it would seem totally sane.
>
> > >> >> If now you take SR which replaced it then that is purely a mathematical
> > >> >> model - an identical mathematical model. It *assumes* source
> > >> >> independence but makes no attempt to explain why speed should be
> > >> >> independent of motion of the source.
>
> > >> >Yes it does. The structure of spacetime explains it.
It does not...
> > Space time is a mathematical construct. It does not have a physical
> > structure.
>
> That's incorrect, according to physicists. You have DECLARED that your
> DEFINITION of spacetime does not permit it to have physical structure.
> Physicists on the other hand say that what it is that actually exists
> in nature when you remove matter from that region in space and time is
> what we *call* spacetime, and yes of course it has measurable physical
> properties.
WHAT GIVE IT THOSE QUANTITIES? That's what John is talking about.
Your dancing around the issue not withstanding!
> The rest is semantics. You are insisting that physicists are
> mislabeling that thing that actually exists in nature, because the
> label doesn't meet YOUR definition of "spacetime", which YOU insist
> can have no physical properties by YOUR definition.
No, they just accept it as 'that's just the way it is...'!
> > It is built assuming source independence you cannot turn
> > around and claim it is the cause.
>
> > >> !!!!!!? Why don't you stick with reality. Einstein ASSUMED source
> > >> independence from Maxwell's theory which says that the speed of light is
> > >> controlled by the aether so the sources movement cannot affect it.
> > >> Einstein interpreted the MMX, in terms of Maxwell's theory as showing
> > >> that for some reason an observer is always stationary w.r.t theaether.
> > >> He totally ignored the fact that light is particulate and that Maxwell's
> > >> wave inaethertheory was seriously compromised. He produced the same
> > >> maths as Lorentz.
> > >> The maths are based on the assumption of source independence and
> > >> observer independence. Those maths were taken by Minkowski who
> > >> reproduced them in diagrammatic form. And you are saying that that
> > >> diagram predicts source independence and observer independence? Doh!
>
> > >The Minkowski structure DOES predict source and observer independence,
> > >yes. Regardless of the circuitous path taken to arrive at it.
The problem is, for Minkowski's structure you NEED! the aether's
behavior. It is a result, not a cause. Tell us how you can get there
without finite c and source speed independence.
> > It was BUILT on that assumption. How can it possibly NOT predict source
> > and observer independence!
>
> No sir. It was INFERRED from them.
He's right, you're wrong. You cannot even get Minkowski space WITHOUT
the behavior. Saying its inferred is circular...
It is the deeper structure that
> ACCOUNTS for those assumptions.
> This is what I'm telling you.
> We INFER deeper structures that account for assumptions, and we make
> that inference chronologically AFTER the assumptions are made. This
> does not mean that the deeper structures follow FROM the assumptions.
> Just the reverse -- the assumptions are explained because of the
> inferred deeper structure.
Circular logic...
> What you are saying is akin to saying that Newton's universal law of
> gravity ASSUMES Kepler's laws and uses Kepler's laws as a conceptual
> foundation. It does not. Newton's law of gravity EXPLAINS Kepler's
> laws, even though it was discovered AFTER Kepler laid out his laws.
The above is a direct mathematical resultant, if A then B...
> > >> Unless Minkowski did his maths wrong it is bound to. It is completely
> > >> circular.
>
> > >No it is not. It is INDUCTIVE.
>
> > Oh a new bit of semantics
>
> Not at all. It is how science works. Frankly, I'm astonished you
> didn't know this.
For John, PD is in love with inductive logic and tends to discount
superior qualities of deductive logic.
> > >This seems to be a place where you get consistently bogged down.
>
> > No it is a place where you and others live with the mathematical model
> > so long it seems 'real' to you and you cease to see it for what it is.
>
> > > When
> > >scientist figure out an explanation, what happens is that they notice
> > >a regularity in the behavior of nature, and they inductively infer
> > >*later* a basis for that regularity. It is not the case that the
> > >observed regularity is the conceptual basis or underlying explanation
> > >in the theory, it is the inductively inferred statements. Likewise, if
> > >a model asserts a couple of unsupported postulates, and further
> > >examination of the postulates allows you to *later infer* a conceptual
> > >basis for the postulates, then it is not the postulates that remain
> > >the conceptual explanation in the model, it is the later inferred
> > >basis.
>
> > It translates to "If the original justification for the postulates is
> > acutely embarrassing and you wrap it up in sophisticated looking maths
> > you can claim those maths as the origin and avoid the embarrassment. The
> > second postulate is in effect saying every observer is stationary w.r.t
> > theaether- and empirical interpretation of the MMX.
>
> > >Science works from back to front.
>
> > you like to re-write history.
>
> I'm sorry, but this is how science works. See my comment above.
The history actually says otherwise, look at Whittaker's book...
> > >> I appreciate that it is a better way of presenting it to some
> > >> naive student than saying that Einstein's second postulate describes
> > >> what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would experience. I am not
> > >> a naive student and neither are you. Are you a lecturer in physics by
> > >> any chance?
>
> > You didn't answer?
>
> Why is that relevant? Let's stick to the physics content.
John this whole line is a red-herring strawman argument sinces mediums
are Lorentxz invariant to their internal fields. In the end, you are
probably wasting your time trying to make PD think in terms of
physical processes. Ask him to provide any evidence that is in
conflict with the behavior of the medium model, even one.
Inertial
source independence and lorentz transforms etc etc.
You don't make a better explanation by having non-minkowski spacetime with
the addition of an aether that compresses all objects and all types of field
and slows all types of processes by just the right amounts so that you get
the same measurement as you would with minkowski spacetime.
You seem to feel that saying space time is 3D with time as independent and
with galilean transforms does NOT need to be explained, but space time where
spatial and temporal dimensions are not completely independent and with
lorentz transforms DOES need to be explained. You have double standards wrt
the geometry of reality.
Paul Stowe
> Space-time being as modeled by minkowski gives light speed being c and
> source independence and lorentz transforms etc etc.
>
> You don't make a better explanation by having non-minkowski spacetime with
> and slows all types of processes by just the right amounts so that you get
> the same measurement as you would with minkowski spacetime.
>
> You seem to feel that saying space time is 3D with time as independent and
> with galilean transforms does NOT need to be explained, but space time where
> spatial and temporal dimensions are not completely independent and with
> lorentz transforms DOES need to be explained. You have double standards wrt
> the geometry of reality.
Who is 'you'?
Inertial
"Paul Stowe" <theaet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:87a1b82c-4221-49b0...@w37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
You
Paul Stowe
> "PaulStowe" <theaether...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > Who is 'you'?
>
> You
OK, noted...
> >> Space-time being as modeled by minkowski gives light speed being c
> >> and source independence and lorentz transforms etc etc.
Not true. Certainly c must be finite and must be independent such
that information/perturbations satisfies,
(ct)^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
this results in the Minkowski Metric.
> >> You don't make a better explanation by having non-minkowski spacetime
> >> with the addition of ana ether that compresses all objects and all types
> >> of field and slows all types of processes by just the right amounts so
> >> that you get the same measurement as you would with minkowski spacetime.
There is no non-minkowski spacetime in the aether medium model. In
that model it is the medium's properties that creates/results-in the
characteristics of c being finite, locally uniform, and independent of
emitter/receiver speed which demands the condition above. This isn't
unique to aether, it's true for all fluid mediums. As yourself a
question, from the medium internal how can it be anything but (ct)^2 =
dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2? Likewise ALL! internal fields must conform to
this, there is no mystery here.
> >> You seem to feel that saying space time is 3D with time as independent
> >> and with galilean transforms does NOT need to be explained,
Not true! In fact, it is the fact that for all other mediums (other
than aether which is primal) there exist measuring elements that ARE
independent of its internal conditions. They are not subject to the
medium's own restriction (ct)^2 = ds^2. Under those conditions
measurements become Galilean, not the medium's fields.
> >> but space time where spatial and temporal dimensions are not completely
> >> independent...
In any situation where disturbances/information transfer is restricted
to a propagation limit (c) (ct)^2 = ds^2 is true. This has nothing to
do with time or space, just the fields and structures created
therefrom of a medium.
> >> ... and with lorentz transforms DOES need to be explained. You
> >> have double standards wrt the geometry of reality.
What other explanation is necessary?
eric gisse
[....]
> There is no non-minkowski spacetime in the aether medium model. In
> that model it is the medium's properties that creates/results-in the
> characteristics of c being finite, locally uniform, and independent of
> emitter/receiver speed which demands the condition above. This isn't
> unique to aether, it's true for all fluid mediums.
This is ridiculously wrong. "all fluid mediums" my left asscheek.
> As yourself a
> question, from the medium internal how can it be anything but (ct)^2 =
> dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2? Likewise ALL! internal fields must conform to
> this, there is no mystery here.
You've written tens of thousands of words on the subject but you can't quite
get to the point where you'll write up the proof.
>
>> >> You seem to feel that saying space time is 3D with time as independent
>> >> and with galilean transforms does NOT need to be explained,
>
> Not true! In fact, it is the fact that for all other mediums (other
> than aether which is primal) there exist measuring elements that ARE
> independent of its internal conditions. They are not subject to the
> medium's own restriction (ct)^2 = ds^2. Under those conditions
> measurements become Galilean, not the medium's fields.
You speak with remarkably certainty about a subject which you know little
and which have even less evidence.
Where are the equations for hydrodynamics? Where's the Naiver-Stokes
equation? Where's anything but SR and a lot of words that don't mean what
you think they mean?
>
>> >> but space time where spatial and temporal dimensions are not
>> >> completely independent...
>
> In any situation where disturbances/information transfer is restricted
> to a propagation limit (c) (ct)^2 = ds^2 is true. This has nothing to
> do with time or space, just the fields and structures created
> therefrom of a medium.
Bullllllllllshit. Mediums don't work that way.
>
>> >> ... and with lorentz transforms DOES need to be explained. You
>> >> have double standards wrt the geometry of reality.
>
> What other explanation is necessary?
Why you won't shut the fuck up about the aether? That's a start.
You have no evidence and no compelling reason beyond this insane belief that
there's a special magical medium out there that manages to exactly mimic
special relativity without showing up anywhere else.
John Kennaugh
Still crap. And you are intelligent enough to realise it. All the
CLASSICAL physics concepts you can quote are the result of a change in
speed. What you are trying to do is to say that because some things are
frame dependent anything you choose can be frame dependent. Classical
Physics can EXPLAIN why the things which are frame dependent in
classical physics ARE frame dependent
The rule is that if you change your VELOCITY relative to something and a
parameter you are measuring is VELOCITY dependent then that parameter
will change.
That explanation does NOT work with SR Doppler shift because SR denies
that your velocity w.r.t the light pulses HAS changed. The time between
pulses cannot change because you have changed your speed w.r.t the light
pulses.
I know where you are trying to get to. The idea that I am changing from
one FoR which has one relationship w.r.t the source and always had, to
another with a different relationship w.r.t. the source which it always
had. This means that the physical spacing between the light pulses has
an infinite number of values in the same physical space; that one FoR
can magically support a different physical reality than another FoR.
That an infinite number of physical realities simultaneously exist.
A FoR does not physically exist so it cannot support a separate physical
reality. You are thinking in purely mathematical terms where a FoR can
do what it likes. It is an absurdity but you have been doing it so long
you cannot see it. The spacing between two bursts of energy CANNOT have
an infinite number of different values in the same physical space
therefore SR fails where LET succeeds. LET simply says that your speed
w.r.t the light HAS changed so you measure a different interval. The
different interval is direct evidence that your real speed w.r.t the
light has changed.
You are locked in to thinking of the maths and confusing that with what
is happening physically. I challenge you to explain SR Doppler in
physical terms without mentioning frames which do not physically exist.
>
>[rest of boondoggle having to do with change of one observer from one
>reference frame to another snipped]
WHY? If it doesn't make sense point out the error.
--
John Kennaugh
John Kennaugh
>On Oct 28, 10:43�am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> PD wrote:
>> >On Oct 24, 3:04�pm, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
>> >wrote:
>> >> PD wrote:
>>
>> >[some parts snipped for brevity]
>>
>> >> >> No. In the analogy each of the modifications are identifiable and
>> >> >> testable. You can define what you mean by air. You can independently
>> >> >> test the interaction between air and the projectile.
>>
>> >> >Precisely. And you can independently test for the Higgs. The presence
>> >> >of the Higgs has specific, testable implications that are *different*
>> >> >than the particles just having mass. It's those implications that are
>> >> >on the agenda to be tested at LHC (and at FNAL).
>>
>> >You understand this now?
>>
>> I understand what you are *saying*.
>>
>
>And you doubt that it is happening with the Higgs?
I predict that if the LHC doesn't discover H-B it will not be seen to
disprove anything and will merely generate "Son of Higgs-Boson" - the
sequel.
No it is how PHYSICS works. Do not bring respectable sciences into it.
Physics has now a very Limited definition of what is acceptable. One
theory gives a simple explanation of EM Doppler the other requires that
the distance between two pulses at the same point in space has an
infinite number of values which is physically impossible. LET's
prediction is believable RS's isn't. That DISTINGUISHES the sufficiently
for me.
>The result is unambiguous and you can tell right away which model is
>favored.
Neither on a purely mathematical basis (They are mathematically
identical). On Physical grounds one is impossible.
I take it that you are then.
If we lived on a planet with constant cloud cover we might be unaware of
the existence of the moon. It doesn't mean we could not produce a
mathematical model predicting the tides. Searching for an explanation of
why the model works might lead us to discover the existence of the moon.
I could produce a model to predict train time tables. The input
parameters would be known data. (the starting points would be
empirically discovered). The model may not mention "rails" at all but
just because we can do the maths and get accurate predictions without
any mention of rails does not mean that rails do not exist.
I might suggest that a model is not an explanation of what is going on
and that an explanation required other things including rails. You would
claim that rails are unnecessary if you postulate that it is in the
nature of trains that they always travel on a fixed route.
>> >> >> >> I might not agree with it. I might prefer some other
>> >> >> >>explanation but I
>> >> >> >> can respect your point of view. If OTOH you claim there is
>> >> >> >>
no. Neither observer has observed a change.
> What process was in
>involved in that.
so no process is involved.
>
>>
>> Physical substance - something which can take part in a physical process
>> which is an acknowledged part of our understanding of nature. i.e. not
>> "something else - and we don't have to say how it fits with other
>> physical substances"
>
>That is the crappiest definition of physical substance I've ever seen!
Calling it crappy is just an avoiding tactic. If you wish to debate
explain why you think it is crappy.
>> Cause - something which initiates a physical process
>
>See earlier comment about ball's kinetic energy.
See earlier response.
>> Effect - the result of a physical process initiated by a cause
>
>See earlier comment about ball's kinetic energy.
See earlier response.
>
>>
>> Physical process 2 - that series of events/changes involving physical
>> substances which links cause and effect.
>
>And again this is the crappiest definition I've ever seen.
See earlier response
It is not important but I would have thought to measure the energy of
the bullet you would have to remove at least some of its energy in the
process of measurement. Having done so another observer cannot measure
the same energy of the same bullet. Perhaps you can explain how you
would measure the energy of a bullet without in any way changing its
energy. Note the word was 'measure' not 'calculate' or 'inferr'.
>
>>
>> >And then there are
>> >two values of kinetic energy of that bullet AT THE SAME TIME, with no
>> >change involved whatsoever. Kinetic energy is a frame-dependent
>> >quantity with NO PHYSICAL CHANGE required anywhere. Same thing is true
>> >for Galileo's observation.
>>
>> OK lets think this through. There is an object travelling through space
>> what is its kinetic energy?
>
>As measured in a particular frame, and at reasonably low speeds, it's
>(1/2)mv^2.
>
>> Or two objects travelling through space
>> collide involving a certain amount of kinetic energy which object
>> possessed the kinetic energy? Meaningless question. Kinetic energy is
>> not a property of an object.
>
>Precisely my point. It is a frame-dependent quantity, with NO
>existence in the object independent of the frame of reference.
>However, it is very measurable in any frame of reference and is
>therefore real.
>
>> Talking in terms of Frames of reference
>> always muddies the water because you are then giving a mathematical
>> description. If a bullet hits me that is a bullet/me interaction. A
>> bullet/you interaction is a different interaction.
>
>The bullet hits the SAME block of wood, as observed by two different
>observers. They will extract from that interaction two different
>initial KE's of the bullet.
In which case they are fools. It is a bullet/block of wood interaction
with a total energy dependent on the relative speeds between the bullet
and the block of wood. It is meaningless to ask whether it is the block
of wood or the bullet which has the kinetic energy.
>
>Catch up on classical mechanics.
Try thinking outside the box.
Because it puts you in an illogical position. If something has physical
properties and takes part in physical processes it is made of physical
stuff. Why should that physical stuff be "something else" totally apart
from and different to all other physical stuff? What you want to be able
to say is that space has physical properties and takes part in physical
processes but does not contain physical stuff - which is illogical.
>
>> - something which can take
>> part in a physical process which is an acknowledged part of our
>> understanding of nature. i.e. not "something else - and we don't have to
>> say how it fits with other physical substances"
>>
>> >> or is it
>> >> some sort of physical stuff occupying space - in which case where does
>> >> it fit in our understanding of physical entities or is it simply a
>> >> description of the effect of one object on another which cannot exist
>> >> where there is no object to cause it?
>>
>> >It is a property of space.
>>
>> >And this is where I've pointed out to you that you want to replace ONE
>> >entity (space with physical properties) with TWO (space with no
>> >properties, and some nonmaterial stuff that does have properties but
>> >properties different than material stuff). Why is yours simpler again?
>>
>> No. The aether hypothesis said that aether filled all of space including
>> the space between atoms. The aether hypothesis said there was no space
>> without aether.
>
>Exactly. Two entities that cannot be separated from each other, with
>the PAIR somehow bearing those physical properties.
>As opposed to ONE entity, bearing the physical properties.
Nasty habit my friend. replying before the explanation and then ignoring
the explanation.
>
>> �Essentially both theories are identical. Both says that
>> space consists of physical stuff which has physical properties. You have
>> simply renamed the aether "space". Which in itself is not a problem.
>> What is a problem is sneering at others who openly talk about the aether
>> implying it is an incredibly silly idea and refusing to accept that the
>> physical stuff of space must be a part of a general classification of
>> physical stuff if it is to be a part of a physical theory.
>>
>> >> I think these are reasonable questions. I do not accept that "a
>> >> field just is" is a scientific answer although "we don't know" might be
>> >> and "we don't care" definitely isn't.
>>
>> >> >> >> You cannot store energy in nothing so if space
>> >> >> >> itself has no substance - no aether then the energy must be in some
>> >> >> >> other form than an altered state. Some sort of material stuff which
>> >> >> >> needs its place in the grand order of substances. e.g. the standard
>> >> >> >> model. I don't respect your theory if it relies on a field
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> not care what a field is because it works mathematically.
>>
>> >> >> >I *do* care what a field is. I just don't demand that it has a
>> >> >> >material basis, and furthermore I don't insist that I don't understand
>> >> >> >what it is if it doesn't have a material basis.
>>
>> >> >> Define "material"
>>
>> >> >Consisting of matter. See above for definition of matter.
>>
>> >> >> >> I insist on the physical reality of the physical world.
>>
>> >> >> >> >Likewise, we knew a lot about atomic physics just by knowing there
>> >> >> >> >were some very small constituents involved, without having any idea
>> >> >> >> >whether those constituents were fundamental or composite.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >have to know everything about an object or a substance to
>> >> >> >> >
That didn't include parallel universes and things coming back from the
future to affect results. The point is that if nothing is too weird to
be acceptable it is a way of avoiding ever accepting that physics is
wrong.
>> Einstein described his personal prejudice as his "formal point of view"
>> well my "formal point of view" is that there is no reason to assume
>> nature is bizarre and weird
>
>There is no reason to ASSUME that it's NOT bizarre and weird, if a
>model that has bizarre and weird elements gets the data right.
>
>Nature is BY DEFINITION not bizarre. It is what it is.
>It's our job to match our mental mitts around what it is. If there is
>a clash between our expectations and what nature really is, then it is
>OUR expectations that are by definition the bizarre things that need
>to be modified.
Or maybe we have just got it badly wrong and need to rebuild? If we have
it wrong our view of the world would get more and more complicated and
our explanations more and more "way-out".
>Even if it seemed to work just fine up until that
>point. Aristotle and two millenia of followers thought it was the most
>natural and intuitive thing in the world that things in the absence of
>a force will stop moving. The fact that this is wrong, and exactly the
>opposite is true, is not bizarre. It is FACT, and two millenia of
>folks thinking otherwise -- THOSE folks were bizarre.
I don't agree that it was bizarre. It didn't seem bizarre to Aristotle
and once it is explained it ceased to be bizarre to later people. In
fact it made everything simpler you no longer needed angels pushing the
moon across the heavens - the sign that one has corrected an error of
thinking is simplification. The overthrow of the geocentric theory is
another example. The maths got a lot simpler.
Oersted/Ampere/Faraday/Maxwell combined 3 branches of physics and ended
up with a single aether rather than 3 simplifying our understanding. The
next breakthrough was with Planck/Einstein who showed that light is
particulate, there is no need for an aether at all and the speed of
light is simply constant w.r.t the source. That is where it started to
go wrong. That was ignored and in order to make things fit it all got
seriously complicated and has been getting ever more complicated ever
since. Two branches of physics dealing with light in two different ways
which need unifying.
>> and that when we get it right everything
>> will start to fit and it will all become simpler and make sense. From
>> that PoV while physics adds yet more layers it is indicative that it has
>> gone seriously wrong. Why even admit the possibility that you might be
>> wrong if you enjoy building castles in the air. You have pinched so many
>> ideas from fantasy and science fiction that authors can no longer come
>> up with anything more fanciful than you present as "serious science".
>>
>>
>>
>> >> and worked on the basis
>> >> that what it detected couldn't be anything else.
>>
>> >> >> >Same thing is true for the Higgs. It's an idea to solve a problem, but
>> >> >> >if the idea is right, then it would have other testable consequences,
>> >> >> >which are being tested imminently.
>>
>> >> >> >What's the issue?
>>
>> >> >Hmmmm??
>>
>> >Still pondering on this one?
>
>Well?
Answered elsewhere.
You understand this now?
>>
>> >> >> >> You might contemplate where the money for such projects
>> >> >> >>comes from and
>> >> >> >> who ultimately has to approve that expenditure. You might find
>> >> >> >> ultimately that if at some point the public start to ask
>> >> >> >>questions that
>> >> >> >> my way of thinking is likely to prevail. At present it is a
>> >> >> >>
Better understanding of such matters is likely to be useful and have
future applications. I can't see any benefit arising from the discovery
of the god-particle.
I won't take a course in homeopathy because I don't believe it is
soundly based and therefore would be a waste of time. Physics is the
same. You are trying and so far failing to convince me that it is
soundly based.
>> >> >> If cuts are needed to
>> >> >> pay for other things what difference would it make to the public if the
>> >> >> Physics budget was cut?
>>
>> >> >Well, for one thing, the R that fuels D in R&D would dry up in that
>> >> >arena.
>>
>> >> No. Research with specific development in mind would be funded as always
>> >> by those likely to profit from the development. Physics funded on that
>> >> basis would be very different.
>>
>> >I'm sorry, but it's plain you have no understanding of how R feeds D.
>> >You apparently believe that D can continue and sustain itself forever
>> >just fine without R.
>>
>> I was an R and D manager. Let us take electronics. The first break
>> through was the invention of the thermionic diode.
>
>That is D, not R.
That was serendipity!
>
>> This was an accident.
>> Light bulbs tended to get dimmer because the filament shed carbon
>> particles which coated the inside of the envelope. Knowing that
>> electrostatic charge will collect dust someone thought they could
>> collect the soot particles with an anode next to the filament and
>> discovered that current flowed. The triode followed.
>>
>> Shockley was trying to do the same thing with semiconductors. i.e. vary
>> the flow of current by applying a voltage. trans = change 'ister =
>> resistor. The principle was later successfully achieved in what is
>> called the field effect transistor. What Shockley produced by accident
>> is a bipolar transistor and the word "transistor" was not really a good
>> name.
Is that research, development, or serendipity!
PD
Really? Explain that to electric and magnetic fields.
Bzzzt. Try again.
You've just touted the Henri Wilson Foolishness.
"Those physical quantities that have equations that involve velocity
in them are OBVIOUSLY frame-dependent, and those that don't OBVIOUSLY
aren't."
Pffft.
Paul Stowe
> Paul Stowe wrote:
>
> [....]
>
> > There is no non-minkowski spacetime in the aether medium model. In
> > that model it is the medium's properties that creates/results-in the
> > characteristics of c being finite, locally uniform, and independent of
> > emitter/receiver speed which demands the condition above. This isn't
> > unique to aether, it's true for all fluid mediums.
>
> This is ridiculously wrong. "all fluid mediums" my left asscheek.
And right one... You've seen for yourself but instead of accepting a
standard physics reference you claimed instead that MIT professor Karl
Uno Ingard and Dr. Condon had to have published the wrong
expressions. Now how is that for 'crankish' behavior.
> > As yourself a
> > question, from the medium perspective how can it be anything but (ct)^2 =
> > dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2? Likewise ALL! internal fields must conform to
> > this, there is no mystery here.
>
> You've written tens of thousands of words on the subject but you can't quite
> get to the point where you'll write up the proof.
Why do I need to reinvent the wheel. The Minkowski Metric is quite
good enough. It is no accident that GR is well known as a
hydrodynamical expression.
> >> >> You seem to feel that saying space time is 3D with time as independent
> >> >> and with galilean transforms does NOT need to be explained,
>
> > Not true! In fact, it is the fact that for all other mediums (other
> > than aether which is primal) there exist measuring elements that ARE
> > independent of its internal conditions. They are not subject to the
> > medium's own restriction (ct)^2 = ds^2. Under those conditions
> > measurements become Galilean, not the medium's fields.
>
> You speak with remarkably certainty about a subject which you know little
> and which have even less evidence.
Perhaps because I've bothered to look into the matter.
> Where are the equations for hydrodynamics? Where's the Naiver-Stokes
> equation? Where's anything but SR and a lot of words that don't mean what
> you think they mean?
See http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-4/
I'm not the one in frantic denial here, ... he, he :)
> >> >> but space time where spatial and temporal dimensions are not
> >> >> completely independent...
>
> > In any situation where disturbances/information transfer is restricted
> > to a propagation limit (c) (ct)^2 = ds^2 is true. This has nothing to
> > do with time or space, just the fields and structures created
> > therefrom of a medium.
>
> Bullllllllllshit. Mediums don't work that way.
Let's use Uncle Al's favor phrase, Idiot!
> >> >> ... and with lorentz transforms DOES need to be explained. You
> >> >> have double standards wrt the geometry of reality.
>
> > What other explanation is necessary?
>
> Why you won't shut the fuck up about the aether? That's a start.
>
> You have no evidence and no compelling reason beyond this insane belief that
> there's a special magical medium out there that manages to exactly mimic
> special relativity without showing up anywhere else.
You do sound frantically desparate, don't you. I'm not the one in
denial here, keep this up and you're heading for a nervous breakdown
John Kennaugh
>On Oct 29, 7:13�am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> PD wrote:
>> >On Oct 27, 6:43�am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
>> >wrote:
>> >> PD wrote:
>> >> >On Oct 24, 3:04�pm, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> PD wrote:
>>
>> >> Other points to be dealt with in another post time permitting.
>>
>> >> >> >> Neither does it explain why the
>> >> >> >> speed of light appears constant to every observer and fails
>> >> >> >>
Distance is not first order frame dependent.
--
John Kennaugh
Paul Stowe
Measured distances are, indeed, frame dependent. One meter @ 0.95c is
not the same as one meter @ 0.011c.
PD
Got an answer for this one?
>
> >Bzzzt. Try again.
>
> >You've just touted the Henri Wilson Foolishness.
> >"Those physical quantities that have equations that involve velocity
> >in them are OBVIOUSLY frame-dependent, and those that don't OBVIOUSLY
> >aren't."
> >Pffft.
>
> Distance is not first order frame dependent.
And we discussed this too.
It is frame-dependent, period. Whether the dependency is *calculated*
using an expansion method and whether that *calculational choice*
makes it appear in first order or second order is IRRELEVANT.
PD
The *shape* of a trajectory through space is frame-dependent. The
momentum of an object is frame-dependent. The electric field of a
charged wire is frame-dependent.
Physics has a catalog of properties that are involved in physical
laws, some of them frame-dependent and some of them frame-independent.
Which ones are which are determined by observation, and not by some
axiomatic dictum.
In Galilean/Newtonian physics, there was a certain categorization of
that catalog. Newton in fact made as an ASSUMPTION that certain of
them (such as duration and inertia) were frame-independent. It turns
out that assignation was wrong. We've learned about certain NEW frame-
independent quantities (like momenergy and interval) and learned that
some of the ones we thought were frame-independent are in fact frame-
dependent. There's nothing horrible about that at all.
PD
Paul Stowe
> On Oct 29, 10:32 am, PaulStowe<theaether...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Distance is not first order frame dependent.
>
> > not the same as one meter @ 0.011c.
>
> The *shape* of a trajectory through space is frame-dependent. The
> momentum of an object is frame-dependent. The electric field of a
> charged wire is frame-dependent.
>
> Physics has a catalog of properties that are involved in physical
> laws, some of them frame-dependent and some of them frame-independent.
> Which ones are which are determined by observation, and not by some
> axiomatic dictum.
For Einstein's first and second postulates to be true, distance must
be frame dependent. What is 'measured' by local observers is their
local values and what those same values are when moving at speed x
'relative' to local can be computed and are NOT the same as local
values What is true is, a meter is a meter and will be, by
definition, the same value to all local observers regardless of their
speed. It will NOT! have the same value in frames moving relative to
the local. The question remains open as to whether we can actually
observe the distortion since no system big enough to be actually
observed has gone fast enough to test.
> In Galilean/Newtonian physics, there was a certain categorization of
> that catalog. Newton in fact made as an ASSUMPTION that certain of
> them (such as duration and inertia) were frame-independent. It turns
> out that assignation was wrong. We've learned about certain NEW frame-
> independent quantities (like momenergy and interval) and learned that
> some of the ones we thought were frame-independent are in fact frame-
> dependent. There's nothing horrible about that at all.
You're rambling on about something not even related to my comment
above...
PD
> On Oct 28, 2:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 28, 10:43 am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> [some parts snipped for brevity]
>
> > > >> >> No. In the analogy each of the modifications are identifiable and
> > > >> >> testable. You can define what you mean by air. You can independently
> > > >> >> test the interaction between air and the projectile.
>
> > > >> >Precisely. And you can independently test for the Higgs. The presence
> > > >> >of the Higgs has specific, testable implications that are *different*
> > > >> >than the particles just having mass. It's those implications that are
> > > >> >on the agenda to be tested at LHC (and at FNAL).
>
> > > >You understand this now?
>
> > > I understand what you are *saying*.
>
> > And you doubt that it is happening with the Higgs?
>
> I'd say talk when you have something to talk about...
I'm talking about the performing of independent tests to test for the
existence of the Higgs, that are independent of nonzero masses of the
other particles. This independent test is part and parcel of doing
science. The original claim was that no tests like this are done, and
that the Higgs is *accepted* by virtue of it solving the particle mass
problem, when this is simply not the case.
Do you doubt that those independent tests are being performed?
>
> > > >> >> Alchemy might be a better analogy where the Higgs field = The
> > > >> >> philosopher's stone except that the philosopher's stone only had to
> > > >> >> transmute one metal into another not transmute something with no mass to
> > > >> >> something with mass - which would appear to require an entirely new
> > > >> >> definition of mass.
>
> > > >> >Why would it require a new definition of mass? Are you under the
> > > >> >impression that mass is conserved? Wherever did you get that idea?
>
> > > >Well?
>
> > > Mass/energy is conserved surely.
>
> > Energy is. Mass is not.
>
> Then E != mc^2... and/or the dimensions of energy isn't mass speed
> squared... Are you saying the current conservation laws aren't true?
Oh good heavens, what idiocy. You've quoted a relationship for REST
mass, which is ONE kind of energy. Energy conservation is a statement
about the *sum* of energy of all types in a closed system. I can also
write down that E=mv^2/2. This implies neither that mass is conserved
nor that kinetic energy is conserved. Please, take a quarter and buy
yourself a clue.
Take the masses of 6 protons and 6 neutrons and six electrons and add
them up. Now compare that to the mass of a carbon atom and tell me
that mass is conserved.
>
> > > >> >> OK let us apply your own criteria of acceptability to Maxwell/Lorentz's
> > > >> >> aether. The general properties are that a field maps an altered state in
> > > >> >> the aether (analogous to a stress pattern). This accounts for action at
> > > >> >> a distance due for example to the interaction of the two 'stress'
> > > >> >> patterns caused by charge.
>
> > > >> > Note it accounts for ONE interaction at a distance. Not several.
>
> > > >You see this?
>
> > > No. Explain.
>
> > There are four exhibited interactions and they are all fundamentally
> > different. The coupling constants are different, the coupling charges
> > on fermions are all independent of each other, they have different
> > gauge symmetries, and their intermediate bosons are all dramatically
> > different beasts.
>
> > The effect of the Lorentz mechanism would have to appear in each of
> > them independently...
>
> Why?
>
> > ... and identically, ...
>
> Yes, if the source is the same, who 'you' expect different outcomes?
But the source is NOT the same. The interactions are completely
different! Unless you have a UNIFIED model of the four fundamental
interactions that is based on a kinetic aether....
Stop handwaving.
>
> > ... but because the structure of the
> > interactions are all different, the mechanism that makes this happen
> > would have to be different for each one, ...
>
> Not really...
Prove that.
You doubt my description of distinguishing experimental predictions as
the discriminator?
>
> > Then it is really easy to test which one is right.
> > 1. Find or create a system where circumstances C prevail
> > 2. Make the observation to see if X or X' is the outcome.
> > 3. If X is the outcome, see if it is in quantity Q or Q'.
>
> > This is not convoluted semantics. This is PRECISELY how science works.
> > The result is unambiguous and you can tell right away which model is
> > favored.
>
> That's back to what I told you earlier (and refernced Feynman's little
> tale) about the recent dumbing down of standards... John doesn't have
> to accept that any more than I do. Science isn't a social club or a
> religion, majority doesn't always rule.
Well, you see, if you want to know what science does, you ask a
scientist. If you're not a plumber, it's really not advisable to tell
a plumber that what he does isn't really plumbing, and that what YOU
think he should be doing should be considered plumbing.
>
> > > >> >> What makes you think that Maxwell/Lorentza ether is in any way ruled
> > > >> >> out? You believe in fields, in action at a distance force, energy
> > > >> >> propagation, source independence and Doppler shift all explained by the
> > > >> >>aether. On what basis can you label it "crackpot-stuff". AFAICS compared
> > > >> >> to much which is accepted in modern physics it would seem totally sane.
>
> > > >> >> If now you take SR which replaced it then that is purely a mathematical
> > > >> >> model - an identical mathematical model. It *assumes* source
> > > >> >> independence but makes no attempt to explain why speed should be
> > > >> >> independent of motion of the source.
>
> > > >> >Yes it does. The structure of spacetime explains it.
>
> It does not...
Of COURSE it does. Have you not read anything? Or do you dismiss
anything as an explanation that doesn't meet your criteria?
>
> > > Space time is a mathematical construct. It does not have a physical
> > > structure.
>
> > That's incorrect, according to physicists. You have DECLARED that your
> > DEFINITION of spacetime does not permit it to have physical structure.
> > Physicists on the other hand say that what it is that actually exists
> > in nature when you remove matter from that region in space and time is
> > what we *call* spacetime, and yes of course it has measurable physical
> > properties.
>
> WHAT GIVE IT THOSE QUANTITIES? That's what John is talking about.
> Your dancing around the issue not withstanding!
Why is momentum for a massive object related to the mass and the
velocity, and not some other thing? It's ESSENTIAL for kinetic theory
and yet you have no answer for that either.
>
> > The rest is semantics. You are insisting that physicists are
> > mislabeling that thing that actually exists in nature, because the
> > label doesn't meet YOUR definition of "spacetime", which YOU insist
> > can have no physical properties by YOUR definition.
>
> No, they just accept it as 'that's just the way it is...'!
I disagree. On the other hand, you say, "well it doesn't meet my
presumption that all explanations MUST invoke time-ordered
deterministic causality, and therefore it is not counted as an
explanation."
Hence the impasse. And it IS an impasse. Because you INSIST on
something be true of nature that other people simply do not
necessarily hold nature to. As long as you do that, then whatever is
produced (and which actually works) without your presumption is simply
removed from your catalog of physical explanations.
>
> > > It is built assuming source independence you cannot turn
> > > around and claim it is the cause.
>
> > > >> !!!!!!? Why don't you stick with reality. Einstein ASSUMED source
> > > >> independence from Maxwell's theory which says that the speed of light is
> > > >> controlled by the aether so the sources movement cannot affect it.
> > > >> Einstein interpreted the MMX, in terms of Maxwell's theory as showing
> > > >> that for some reason an observer is always stationary w.r.t theaether.
> > > >> He totally ignored the fact that light is particulate and that Maxwell's
> > > >> wave inaethertheory was seriously compromised. He produced the same
> > > >> maths as Lorentz.
> > > >> The maths are based on the assumption of source independence and
> > > >> observer independence. Those maths were taken by Minkowski who
> > > >> reproduced them in diagrammatic form. And you are saying that that
> > > >> diagram predicts source independence and observer independence? Doh!
>
> > > >The Minkowski structure DOES predict source and observer independence,
> > > >yes. Regardless of the circuitous path taken to arrive at it.
>
> The problem is, for Minkowski's structure you NEED! the aether's
> behavior.
Nonsense.
> It is a result, not a cause. Tell us how you can get there
> without finite c and source speed independence.
In a universe exhibiting hyperbolic geometry, the structure is
completely determined by the fact that there are two signs available
to the (hyperbolic) interval. This feature is completely absent in
Euclidean geometry where there is only one sign to the interval, and
in that case you DO need to have a mechanism that limits speed.
However, in the hyperbolic case, this limit comes out naturally, and
the value for the slope of the boundary (which is recognized as a
speed) is 1. It is of course a finite number, and the most natural
nonzero finite number is 1. That boundary between the two signs of the
interval then creates a natural limit for speed, which is completely
absent in Euclidean geometry WITHOUT an ADDED medium to impose that
limit. The source speed independence comes DIRECTLY from the way that
changing reference frames in a universe with hypberbolic geometry
works. If you apply it to any worldline that has a slope less than 1,
then you find that that speed changes, which is familiar to us. If you
apply it to a worldline with slope 1, you find that the slope remains
1 in a completely natural way. In a universe with Euclidean geometry,
you then have to impose some special constraints on the *dynamics* of
the medium to get source speed independence. This is the famous
fiddling of the electromagnetic interaction that Lorentz did to
produce LET.
So let's recap:
If the universe happens to be one that has hyperbolic geometry with
connected space and time dimensions, then a limiting speed of 1 and
the frame-independence of unity-slope worldlines come DIRECTLY and
NATURALLY from that fact.
If the universe happens to be one that has Euclidean spatial geometry
and an independent time dimension, then there is no limiting speed
unless you ADD a medium that provides a way to limit worldline slopes,
and there is no frame-independence of that maximal worldline slope
unless you impose an ADDITIONAL constraint on the dynamics of the
interaction mediated by that medium.
To you, the latter seems more intuitive and therefore better.
>
> > > It was BUILT on that assumption. How can it possibly NOT predict source
> > > and observer independence!
>
> > No sir. It was INFERRED from them.
>
> He's right, you're wrong. You cannot even get Minkowski space WITHOUT
> the behavior. Saying its inferred is circular...
>
> It is the deeper structure that
>
> > ACCOUNTS for those assumptions.
> > This is what I'm telling you.
> > We INFER deeper structures that account for assumptions, and we make
> > that inference chronologically AFTER the assumptions are made. This
> > does not mean that the deeper structures follow FROM the assumptions.
> > Just the reverse -- the assumptions are explained because of the
> > inferred deeper structure.
>
> Circular logic...
Sorry, but no.
>
> > What you are saying is akin to saying that Newton's universal law of
> > gravity ASSUMES Kepler's laws and uses Kepler's laws as a conceptual
> > foundation. It does not. Newton's law of gravity EXPLAINS Kepler's
> > laws, even though it was discovered AFTER Kepler laid out his laws.
>
> The above is a direct mathematical resultant, if A then B...
>
> > > >> Unless Minkowski did his maths wrong it is bound to. It is completely
> > > >> circular.
>
> > > >No it is not. It is INDUCTIVE.
>
> > > Oh a new bit of semantics
>
> > Not at all. It is how science works. Frankly, I'm astonished you
> > didn't know this.
>
> For John, PD is in love with inductive logic and tends to discount
> superior qualities of deductive logic.
Inductive logic is how the scientific method WORKS. And that is what
is done HISTORICALLY.
PD
> On Oct 29, 9:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 29, 10:32 am, PaulStowe<theaether...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Distance is not first order frame dependent.
>
> > > Measured distances are, indeed, frame dependent. One meter @ 0.95c is
> > > not the same as one meter @ 0.011c.
>
> > The *shape* of a trajectory through space is frame-dependent. The
> > momentum of an object is frame-dependent. The electric field of a
> > charged wire is frame-dependent.
>
> > Physics has a catalog of properties that are involved in physical
> > laws, some of them frame-dependent and some of them frame-independent.
> > Which ones are which are determined by observation, and not by some
> > axiomatic dictum.
>
> For Einstein's first and second postulates to be true, distance must
> be frame dependent. What is 'measured' by local observers is their
> local values and what those same values are when moving at speed x
> 'relative' to local can be computed and are NOT the same as local
> values
But those computed values better be equal to what is *measured* by
observers local to it.
This is precisely the point. If you have an object at rest in one
frame and being measured by an observer also at rest in that frame,
that same object can be measured by another observer at rest in a
different frame. The computation tells you what the relationship is
between those two *measurements*.
> What is true is, a meter is a meter and will be, by
> definition, the same value to all local observers regardless of their
> speed. It will NOT! have the same value in frames moving relative to
> the local. The question remains open as to whether we can actually
> observe the distortion since no system big enough to be actually
> observed has gone fast enough to test.
It's actually been measured indirectly, by virtue of rapidity
segmentation in calorimeters and the distribution of secondaries from
particle collisions, where the very same process is measured in two
different reference frames.
It's not really up for dispute. Length contraction is experimentally
verified.
eric gisse
> On Oct 28, 7:31 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Paul Stowe wrote:
>>
>> [....]
>>
>> > There is no non-minkowski spacetime in the aether medium model. In
>> > that model it is the medium's properties that creates/results-in the
>> > characteristics of c being finite, locally uniform, and independent of
>> > emitter/receiver speed which demands the condition above. This isn't
>> > unique to aether, it's true for all fluid mediums.
>>
>> This is ridiculously wrong. "all fluid mediums" my left asscheek.
>
> And right one... You've seen for yourself but instead of accepting a
> standard physics reference you claimed instead that MIT professor Karl
> Uno Ingard and Dr. Condon had to have published the wrong
> expressions. Now how is that for 'crankish' behavior.
Paul, I love it how you think a handbook of physics reference saves you from
the embarrassing fact that you are completely unable to substantiate the
claim.
Can you explain the logic behind the derivation? No.
Can you explain the derivation? No.
Can you even show that it is a derivation instead of an assertion taken out
of context? No.
I could look up the reference, I'm only a few blocks from UW now. But it
isn't worth my time because I already know the answer.
>
>> > As yourself a
>> > question, from the medium perspective how can it be anything but (ct)^2
>> > =
>> > dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2? Likewise ALL! internal fields must conform to
>> > this, there is no mystery here.
>>
>> You've written tens of thousands of words on the subject but you can't
>> quite get to the point where you'll write up the proof.
>
> Why do I need to reinvent the wheel. The Minkowski Metric is quite
> good enough. It is no accident that GR is well known as a
> hydrodynamical expression.
Given that I've actually studied GR, and you have not, I find this statement
to be amusing given how wrong it is.
But wait, you claim to have studied MTW. Why don't you point out where it
says - and supports the claim - that GR is 'well known as a hydrodynamical
expression'.
>
>> >> >> You seem to feel that saying space time is 3D with time as
>> >> >> independent and with galilean transforms does NOT need to be
>> >> >> explained,
>>
>> > Not true! In fact, it is the fact that for all other mediums (other
>> > than aether which is primal) there exist measuring elements that ARE
>> > independent of its internal conditions. They are not subject to the
>> > medium's own restriction (ct)^2 = ds^2. Under those conditions
>> > measurements become Galilean, not the medium's fields.
>>
>> You speak with remarkably certainty about a subject which you know little
>> and which have even less evidence.
>
> Perhaps because I've bothered to look into the matter.
Then you should be able to write down some literature references that
confirm the existence of the aether.
>
>> Where are the equations for hydrodynamics? Where's the Naiver-Stokes
>> equation? Where's anything but SR and a lot of words that don't mean what
>> you think they mean?
>
> See http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-4/
Uh, Paul, that doesn't mean what you think it does. That's hydrodynamics on
top of a specific manifold. Completely irrelevant to 'aether'.
>
> I'm not the one in frantic denial here, ... he, he :)
You are firing scattershot in an attempt to validate your wild ass claims
about the aether. Here you are referencing work on relativistic
hydrodynamics, which is completely irrelevant.
>
>> >> >> but space time where spatial and temporal dimensions are not
>> >> >> completely independent...
>>
>> > In any situation where disturbances/information transfer is restricted
>> > to a propagation limit (c) (ct)^2 = ds^2 is true. This has nothing to
>> > do with time or space, just the fields and structures created
>> > therefrom of a medium.
>>
>> Bullllllllllshit. Mediums don't work that way.
>
> Let's use Uncle Al's favor phrase, Idiot!
Fine: Idiot.
>
>> >> >> ... and with lorentz transforms DOES need to be explained. You
>> >> >> have double standards wrt the geometry of reality.
>>
>> > What other explanation is necessary?
>>
>> Why you won't shut the fuck up about the aether? That's a start.
>>
>> You have no evidence and no compelling reason beyond this insane belief
>> that there's a special magical medium out there that manages to exactly
>> mimic special relativity without showing up anywhere else.
>
> You do sound frantically desparate, don't you. I'm not the one in
> denial here, keep this up and you're heading for a nervous breakdown
Well I guess a failed attempt at psychology is a lot more effective than
"No, here's some literature references showing the existence of the
aether..."
Paul Stowe
doug
Paul Stowe wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 28, 10:43 am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>
>
> [some parts snipped for brevity]
>
>
>>>>>>>No. In the analogy each of the modifications are identifiable and
>>>>>>>testable. You can define what you mean by air. You can independently
>>>>>>>test the interaction between air and the projectile.
>>
>>>>>>Precisely. And you can independently test for the Higgs. The presence
>>>>>>of the Higgs has specific, testable implications that are *different*
>>>>>>than the particles just having mass. It's those implications that are
>>>>>>on the agenda to be tested at LHC (and at FNAL).
>>
>>>>You understand this now?
>>
>>>I understand what you are *saying*.
>>
>>And you doubt that it is happening with the Higgs?
>
>
> I'd say talk when you have something to talk about...
So you were just babbling.
He just explained that. Read it.
>
>
>>... and identically, ...
>
>
> Yes, if the source is the same, who 'you' expect different outcomes?
>
>
>>... but because the structure of the
>>interactions are all different, the mechanism that makes this happen
>>would have to be different for each one, ...
>
>
> Not really...
So just a random dismissal with no justification other than your
ignorance/prejudice.
You did not understand what PD said. Try again. Both models
will cover all choices.
>
>
>>Then it is really easy to test which one is right.
>>1. Find or create a system where circumstances C prevail
>>2. Make the observation to see if X or X' is the outcome.
>>3. If X is the outcome, see if it is in quantity Q or Q'.
>>
>>This is not convoluted semantics. This is PRECISELY how science works.
>>The result is unambiguous and you can tell right away which model is
>>favored.
>
>
> That's back to what I told you earlier (and refernced Feynman's little
> tale) about the recent dumbing down of standards... John doesn't have
> to accept that any more than I do. Science isn't a social club or a
> religion, majority doesn't always rule.
You do not like how science works but that will keep you
ignorant. You are not required to accept reality. You
are welcome to your delusions.
>
>
>>>>>>>What makes you think that Maxwell/Lorentza ether is in any way ruled
>>>>>>>out? You believe in fields, in action at a distance force, energy
>>>>>>>propagation, source independence and Doppler shift all explained by the
>>>>>>>aether. On what basis can you label it "crackpot-stuff". AFAICS compared
>>>>>>>to much which is accepted in modern physics it would seem totally sane.
>>
>>>>>>>If now you take SR which replaced it then that is purely a mathematical
>>>>>>>model - an identical mathematical model. It *assumes* source
>>>>>>>independence but makes no attempt to explain why speed should be
>>>>>>>independent of motion of the source.
>>
>>>>>>Yes it does. The structure of spacetime explains it.
>
>
> It does not...
Sure it does. You just do not understand/like it. Your personal
prejudices do not constitute a requirement for the universe
or science.
>
>
>>>Space time is a mathematical construct. It does not have a physical
>>>structure.
>>
>>That's incorrect, according to physicists. You have DECLARED that your
>>DEFINITION of spacetime does not permit it to have physical structure.
>>Physicists on the other hand say that what it is that actually exists
>>in nature when you remove matter from that region in space and time is
>>what we *call* spacetime, and yes of course it has measurable physical
>>properties.
>
>
> WHAT GIVE IT THOSE QUANTITIES? That's what John is talking about.
> Your dancing around the issue not withstanding!
There is no dancing around. You do not like the answers so you
want to move the questions to an area you like better. However
your aether explains nothing more. You cannot explain the speed
of light. You hide by saying you have derived it from mu and
epsilon. It is rather that mu and epsilon come from the speed
of light. They are just units conversions.
>
>
>>The rest is semantics. You are insisting that physicists are
>>mislabeling that thing that actually exists in nature, because the
>>label doesn't meet YOUR definition of "spacetime", which YOU insist
>>can have no physical properties by YOUR definition.
>
>
> No, they just accept it as 'that's just the way it is...'!
See, you are just trying to bluster your prejudices to acceptance.
That is not going to happen.
>
>
>>>It is built assuming source independence you cannot turn
>>>around and claim it is the cause.
>>
>>>>>!!!!!!? Why don't you stick with reality. Einstein ASSUMED source
>>>>>independence from Maxwell's theory which says that the speed of light is
>>>>>controlled by the aether so the sources movement cannot affect it.
>>>>>Einstein interpreted the MMX, in terms of Maxwell's theory as showing
>>>>>that for some reason an observer is always stationary w.r.t theaether.
>>>>>He totally ignored the fact that light is particulate and that Maxwell's
>>>>>wave inaethertheory was seriously compromised. He produced the same
>>>>>maths as Lorentz.
>>>>>The maths are based on the assumption of source independence and
>>>>>observer independence. Those maths were taken by Minkowski who
>>>>>reproduced them in diagrammatic form. And you are saying that that
>>>>>diagram predicts source independence and observer independence? Doh!
>>
>>>>The Minkowski structure DOES predict source and observer independence,
>>>>yes. Regardless of the circuitous path taken to arrive at it.
>
>
> The problem is, for Minkowski's structure you NEED! the aether's
> behavior. It is a result, not a cause. Tell us how you can get there
> without finite c and source speed independence.
Minkowski's structure gives us a finite ca and source speed
independence.
>
>
>>>It was BUILT on that assumption. How can it possibly NOT predict source
>>>and observer independence!
>>
>>No sir. It was INFERRED from them.
>
>
> He's right, you're wrong. You cannot even get Minkowski space WITHOUT
> the behavior. Saying its inferred is circular...
No, you are also ignorant of logic.
>
> It is the deeper structure that
>
>>ACCOUNTS for those assumptions.
There is no deeper structure. You are just trying to divert
attention here.
>>This is what I'm telling you.
>>We INFER deeper structures that account for assumptions, and we make
>>that inference chronologically AFTER the assumptions are made. This
>>does not mean that the deeper structures follow FROM the assumptions.
>>Just the reverse -- the assumptions are explained because of the
>>inferred deeper structure.
>
>
> Circular logic...
Which is what you are doing and trying to project on science.
>
>
>>What you are saying is akin to saying that Newton's universal law of
>>gravity ASSUMES Kepler's laws and uses Kepler's laws as a conceptual
>>foundation. It does not. Newton's law of gravity EXPLAINS Kepler's
>>laws, even though it was discovered AFTER Kepler laid out his laws.
>
>
> The above is a direct mathematical resultant, if A then B...
You are not being consistent in your reasoning.
>
>
>>>>>Unless Minkowski did his maths wrong it is bound to. It is completely
>>>>>circular.
>>
>>>>No it is not. It is INDUCTIVE.
>>
>>>Oh a new bit of semantics
>>
>>Not at all. It is how science works. Frankly, I'm astonished you
>>didn't know this.
>
>
> For John, PD is in love with inductive logic and tends to discount
> superior qualities of deductive logic.
John does not know any science either and really, really wants
his prejudices to get accepted. That will not happen either.
He would, as you would be better served learning something
about the real world of science.
Yes, you are wasting your time getting any scientist to accept your
personal prejudices and desire to go back to the science of the last
century for no reason. Have you learned yet why the aether was
abandoned? Or are you afraid to look? Or do you just like being
ignorant?
eric gisse
[...]
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.4652v2.pdf
Moderately interesting but doesn't help you at all. Matter gravitates, so
you'll have to invoke some more increasingly contrived explanations as to
why the medium doesn't collapse in on itself. Or how to handle quantum
mechanics, or if the approximation holds up for v ~ c interactions, or any
number of things you aren't discussing.
doug
John Kennaugh wrote:
Yes, we realize that your comments are all crap.
All the
> CLASSICAL physics concepts you can quote are the result of a change in
> speed. What you are trying to do is to say that because some things are
> frame dependent anything you choose can be frame dependent. Classical
> Physics can EXPLAIN why the things which are frame dependent in
> classical physics ARE frame dependent
>
> The rule is that if you change your VELOCITY relative to something and a
> parameter you are measuring is VELOCITY dependent then that parameter
> will change.
You are putting in your prejudices here.
>
> That explanation does NOT work with SR Doppler shift because SR denies
> that your velocity w.r.t the light pulses HAS changed. The time between
> pulses cannot change because you have changed your speed w.r.t the light
> pulses.
See, you do not understand this at all.
>
> I know where you are trying to get to. The idea that I am changing from
> one FoR which has one relationship w.r.t the source and always had, to
> another with a different relationship w.r.t. the source which it always
> had. This means that the physical spacing between the light pulses has
> an infinite number of values in the same physical space; that one FoR
> can magically support a different physical reality than another FoR.
> That an infinite number of physical realities simultaneously exist.
>
> A FoR does not physically exist so it cannot support a separate physical
> reality. You are thinking in purely mathematical terms where a FoR can
> do what it likes. It is an absurdity but you have been doing it so long
> you cannot see it. The spacing between two bursts of energy CANNOT have
> an infinite number of different values in the same physical space
> therefore SR fails where LET succeeds. LET simply says that your speed
> w.r.t the light HAS changed so you measure a different interval. The
> different interval is direct evidence that your real speed w.r.t the
> light has changed.
>
> You are locked in to thinking of the maths and confusing that with what
> is happening physically. I challenge you to explain SR Doppler in
> physical terms without mentioning frames which do not physically exist.
You are locked into wanting an explanation which fits your prejudices.
The universe does not care what you want.
>
>
>>
>> [rest of boondoggle having to do with change of one observer from one
>> reference frame to another snipped]
>
>
> WHY? If it doesn't make sense point out the error.
You have been ignoring your errors for a long time.
>
John Kennaugh
>On Oct 29, 10:18�am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> PD wrote:
>> >On Oct 29, 7:13�am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
>> >wrote:
>> >> PD wrote:
>> >> >On Oct 27, 6:43�am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> PD wrote:
>> >> >> >On Oct 24, 3:04�pm, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
>> >> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >> PD wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Other points to be dealt with in another post time permitting.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Neither does it explain why the
>> >> >> >> >> speed of light appears constant to every observer and fails
>>
>> >> >> >> >> explain why, when I change my speed the frequency changes
>> >> >> >> >>instantly.
>>
>> >> >> >> >On the contrary, again the structure of spacetime explains
>> >> >> >> >
>>
>> >> >> >> Derived maybe. Explained no.
>>
>> >> >> >If it is a necessary consequence of that conceptual framework then
>> >> >> >this is an explanation.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> There is only one Doppler equation in SR. Whether the source
>> >> >> >> >>changes its
>> >> >> >> >> speed or I am the one that changes mine. The maths assume in
>> >> >> >> >>both cases
>> >> >> >> >> that the change in frequency is due to a different
>> >> >> >> >>wavelength being
>> >> >> >> >> generated at the source so my change of speed has to
>> >> >> >> >>affect the past
>>
>> >> >> >> >Not at all! This is a simple misconception on your part.
>> >> >> >> >
Einstein wrote in 1905:
" Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet
and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the
relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary
view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the
one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in
motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of
the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a
current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if
the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field
arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we
find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy, but which gives rise assuming equality of relative
motion in the two cases discussed to electric currents of the same path
and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former
case."
As a matter of interest how do you teach that these days? Einstein
pointed out it was absurd but I'm not sure I was taught any different 60
years later.
>
>>
>> >Bzzzt. Try again.
>>
>> >You've just touted the Henri Wilson Foolishness.
>> >"Those physical quantities that have equations that involve velocity
>> >in them are OBVIOUSLY frame-dependent, and those that don't OBVIOUSLY
>> >aren't."
>> >Pffft.
>>
>> Distance is not first order frame dependent.
>
>And we discussed this too.
>It is frame-dependent, period.
Is it? I don't accept that it is. According to Essen an expert on both
time and measurement theory Einstein broke a cardinal rule. Measurement
involves units and your set of units all interrelate. You have
fundamental units and derived units. Which you choose as fundamental is
a matter of choice but nor arbitrary. There must no duplication i.e. a
unit cannot be defined two or more contradictory ways. Einstein had the
fundamental units of length and time. Speed is a derived unit and is
whatever is measured using your fixed units of distance (m) and time
(s). On that basis distance and time are not frame dependent *by
definition*.
By *defining* c as a constant Einstein broke the cardinal rule of
measurement. To be fair to young Albert measurement theory was not as
well understood then as it is now, but he duplicated units. According to
Essen all Einstein did was to define a new unit of length which varies
with v^2/c^2 and a unit of time which varies with v^2/c^2 so that if you
measure the speed of light using those new units it is always c. He says
that while one may get it to work it serves no useful purpose.
Put simply the fixed value for the speed of light is not a property of
nature but has been made so *by definition*. With that definition length
and time are frame dependent. If *by definition* you make length and
time constant then the speed of light is frame dependent. Basically you
cannot make sense of any measurement unless you are clear what your
units are.
You cannot by definition make length vary sometimes by v^2/c^2 and
whenever you feel like it vary by v/c.
>Whether the dependency is *calculated*
>using an expansion method and whether that *calculational choice*
>makes it appear in first order or second order is IRRELEVANT.
I'm not interested in what you *calculate*. I want to know the physical
process which causes the interval between two burst of light to change
when I change my speed. The only thing I have changed is my speed and
the obvious explanation is that I am now travelling at a different speed
w.r.t the light - as predicted by both LET and emission theory.
John Kennaugh
>On Oct 28, 6:54�pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 28, 2:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Well, you see, if you want to know what science does, you ask a
>scientist.
Well if I ask a *scientist* - lets say a biologist what his science does
he would say that they have mapped the DNA molecule and know what
elements of it does. Their studies are aimed at working out more of what
does what and how it does it. Many of the physical processes are
understood many partially understood. He will talk of chemical
messengers and cell division and many other *physical* processes. He
will tell you that the tip of a growing branch sends chemical messengers
back down the branch which inhibit other nodes growing into branches and
if you cut the end of a branch those messages cease and other nodes grow
instead. Gardeners have known this for years - that is technology -
science tries to explain WHY and how.
Yes if you want to know what science does, you ask a scientist - but not
a physicist - he will only tell you what physics does. He would tell you
that
".. it should be QUITE CLEAR that the most that human beings can aspire
to is to make models of the world -- we can never actually "know" what
Nature herself is really doing. We can only make
models and test them." Tom Roberts
In an earlier post which you have not responded to you asked
>Models ARE explanations. What distinguishes in your mind a model from
>an explanation? Be as precise as you can.
If we lived on a planet with constant cloud cover we might be unaware of
the existence of the moon. It doesn't mean we could not produce a
mathematical model predicting the tides. Searching for an explanation of
why the model works might lead us to discover the existence of the moon.
I could produce a model to predict train time tables. The input
parameters would be known data. (the starting points would be
empirically discovered). The model may not mention "rails" at all but
just because we can do the maths and get accurate predictions without
any mention of rails does not mean that rails do not exist.
I might suggest that a model is not an explanation of what is going on
and that an explanation required other things including rails. You would
claim that rails are unnecessary if you postulate that it is in the
nature of trains that they always travel on a fixed route.
Do you understand that now?
--
John Kennaugh
doug
John Kennaugh wrote:
Denying reality has no effect on reality.
According to Essen an expert on both
> time and measurement theory Einstein broke a cardinal rule.
Essen was an anti relativity crank.
Measurement
> involves units and your set of units all interrelate. You have
> fundamental units and derived units. Which you choose as fundamental is
> a matter of choice but nor arbitrary. There must no duplication i.e. a
> unit cannot be defined two or more contradictory ways. Einstein had the
> fundamental units of length and time. Speed is a derived unit and is
> whatever is measured using your fixed units of distance (m) and time
> (s). On that basis distance and time are not frame dependent *by
> definition*.
Except, of course, this is wrong. Time and distance are what we
measure. This has been known for a long time.
>
> By *defining* c as a constant Einstein broke the cardinal rule of
> measurement.
No, c is MEASURED to be a constant. Therefore you attempts to
change that have to fail.
To be fair to young Albert measurement theory was not as
> well understood then as it is now, but he duplicated units.
Of course this statement is wrong.
According to
> Essen all Einstein did was to define a new unit of length which varies
> with v^2/c^2 and a unit of time which varies with v^2/c^2 so that if you
> measure the speed of light using those new units it is always c. He says
> that while one may get it to work it serves no useful purpose.
Except that it represents reality. You seem to not like reality at all.
>
> Put simply the fixed value for the speed of light is not a property of
> nature but has been made so *by definition*.
No, by MEASUREMENT.
With that definition length
> and time are frame dependent.
Which is shown true by measurement.
If *by definition* you make length and
> time constant then the speed of light is frame dependent. Basically you
> cannot make sense of any measurement unless you are clear what your
> units are.
Yes, the measurements are what we make and use.
>
> You cannot by definition make length vary sometimes by v^2/c^2 and
> whenever you feel like it vary by v/c.
We do not do this. We use our clocks and rulers.
>
>
>> Whether the dependency is *calculated*
>> using an expansion method and whether that *calculational choice*
>> makes it appear in first order or second order is IRRELEVANT.
>
>
> I'm not interested in what you *calculate*.
Yes, we know you are not interested in reality.
I want to know the physical
> process which causes the interval between two burst of light to change
> when I change my speed. The only thing I have changed is my speed and
> the obvious explanation is that I am now travelling at a different speed
> w.r.t the light - as predicted by both LET and emission theory.
Yet they have been shown to be wrong by experiments so that is not
an explanation.
PD
wrote:
> PD wrote:
> >On Oct 28, 6:54 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 28, 2:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Well, you see, if you want to know what science does, you ask a
> >scientist.
>
> Well if I ask a *scientist* - lets say a biologist what his science does
> he would say that they have mapped the DNA molecule and know what
> elements of it does. Their studies are aimed at working out more of what
> does what and how it does it. Many of the physical processes are
> understood many partially understood. He will talk of chemical
> messengers and cell division and many other *physical* processes. He
> will tell you that the tip of a growing branch sends chemical messengers
> back down the branch which inhibit other nodes growing into branches and
> if you cut the end of a branch those messages cease and other nodes grow
> instead. Gardeners have known this for years - that is technology -
> science tries to explain WHY and how.
Interesting to note that neither Darwin nor Mendel had any idea of DNA
or the physical basis for "heritable traits". However, they developed
highly successful models of how genetics and evolution work -- and in
Mendel's case, quite quantitative models -- even though the notion of
"heritable trait" was abstract and unexplained in physical terms. This
no doubt would have displeased you greatly.
And in fact, biologists STILL don't know how proteins fold or what it
is exactly about the nature of protein folding that gives them the
functions they have. But they have good *models* of protein function
based on some abstract properties. This no doubt displeases you
greatly.
Now, of course, we have a bit better idea how nondeterministic quantum
mechanical wavefunctions drive the chemistry that powers both protein
folding and DNA encoding of heritable traits. Thus, the UNDERLYING
explanation of Darwin's and Mendel's abstract "heritable traits" turns
out to be something that is perhaps surprising in its nature, but
nevertheless does provide explanatory power.
I'm sure you can see the parallels between "heritable traits" and
Einstein's postulates, and between the quantum mechanical basis for
biochemistry and the physical properties of spacetime.
Paul Stowe
> On Oct 31, 5:49 am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
> > >Well, you see, if you want to know what science does, you ask a
> > >scientist.
>
> > Well if I ask a *scientist* - lets say a biologist what his science does
> > he would say that they have mapped the DNA molecule and know what
> > elements of it does. Their studies are aimed at working out more of what
> > does what and how it does it. Many of the physical processes are
> > understood many partially understood. He will talk of chemical
> > messengers and cell division and many other *physical* processes. He
> > will tell you that the tip of a growing branch sends chemical messengers
> > back down the branch which inhibit other nodes growing into branches and
> > if you cut the end of a branch those messages cease and other nodes grow
> > instead. Gardeners have known this for years - that is technology -
> > science tries to explain WHY and how.
>
> Interesting to note that neither Darwin nor Mendel had any idea of DNA
> or the physical basis for "heritable traits". However, they developed
> highly successful models of how genetics and evolution work -- and in
> Mendel's case, quite quantitative models -- even though the notion of
> "heritable trait" was abstract and unexplained in physical terms. This
> no doubt would have displeased you greatly.
Simply incomplete, needing further explanation. Now, if two concepts
existed one which say's 'well, that's just the nature of biology is'
and another that says 'it has to be the result of some molecular
structure and processes' I'll take the later as being better 'science'
every time. The prefix 'We don't know yet but, ...' is applied to
both in that historical context. BTW, arguing science is what
scientist do is like saying Catholicism is what Priest, Clerics, and
Cardinals do Or the law is what police do. It's political and based
on faulty logic. Science is well defined and independent of practices
and/or behavior. Science is the systematic pursuit of gaining the
most complete and cogent understanding of topic, period! It has
NOTHING! to do with personal or social practices. If it were based
solely upon 'what scientist do' Galileo, Kepler and others would have
been rightly banned from presenting their ideas.
> And in fact, biologists STILL don't know how proteins fold or what it
> is exactly about the nature of protein folding that gives them the
> functions they have. But they have good *models* of protein function
> based on some abstract properties. This no doubt displeases you
> greatly.
>
> Now, of course, we have a bit better idea how nondeterministic quantum
> mechanical wavefunctions
That statement is an oxymoron...
> ... drive the chemistry that powers both protein
> folding and DNA encoding of heritable traits. Thus, the UNDERLYING
> explanation of Darwin's and Mendel's abstract "heritable traits" turns
> out to be something that is perhaps surprising in its nature, but
> nevertheless does provide explanatory power.
Ignorance is never a good foundation in science. Understanding what
gives rise to the resulting equation (NOT! the equations themselves)
is the true pursuit of knowledge. It's not random or acausal, for if
that were be no repeatable patterns. Out of so-called chaos comes
order, such as fractal behavior. And, as you should know by now,
fractals aren't acausal.
> I'm sure you can see the parallels between "heritable traits" and
> Einstein's postulates, and between the quantum mechanical basis for
> biochemistry and the physical properties of spacetime.
No, I cannot. Now when a perfectly good explanation exists that given
the foundational basis FOR! the characteristics of c, which is the
sole basis for those postulates.
> > Yes if you want to know what science does, you ask a scientist - but not
> > a physicist - he will only tell you what physics does. He would tell you
> > that
> > ".. it should be QUITE CLEAR that the most that human beings can aspire
> > to is to make models of the world -- we can never actually "know" what
> > Nature herself is really doing. We can only make
> > models and test them." Tom Roberts
>
> > In an earlier post which you have not responded to you asked
>
> > >Models ARE explanations. What distinguishes in your mind a model from
> > >an explanation? Be as precise as you can.
>
> > If we lived on a planet with constant cloud cover we might be unaware of
> > the existence of the moon. It doesn't mean we could not produce a
> > mathematical model predicting the tides. Searching for an explanation of
> > why the model works might lead us to discover the existence of the moon.
>
> > I could produce a model to predict train time tables. The input
> > parameters would be known data. (the starting points would be
> > empirically discovered). The model may not mention "rails" at all but
> > just because we can do the maths and get accurate predictions without
> > any mention of rails does not mean that rails do not exist.
> > I might suggest that a model is not an explanation of what is going on
> > and that an explanation required other things including rails. You would
> > claim that rails are unnecessary if you postulate that it is in the
> > nature of trains that they always travel on a fixed route.
>
> > Do you understand that now?
John, PD may understand (I don't think he's that stupid) but, is he
capable of acknowledgement, that's the real question. For example, I
do understand the concepts of 'wavefunctions' in QM but simply don't
find stopping at accepting acausal shrugs as acceptable 'science'.
That's not the basic definition of what science is defined to
accomplish. If that is what it has politically evolved to in practice
today we have simply strayed from the fundamental core definition and
values, and yes, that is a judgement, and my opinion.
I doubt John, Vern, and, I know that for myself, want nature to
conform to our wishes. Nature is what it is and we have no infulence
on that. Our job is to understand and 'describe' it processes and
properties in the simplest intergrated manner. Undefined abstractions
do not qualify, nor do equations that cannot be founded in describable
physical terms. Those simply point to current ignorance and
unfinished business and more importantly, violates the definition of
science as given above.
doug
Paul Stowe wrote:
And this is where you get into trouble. You demand the universe be
the way you want it to be. That is not going to happen.
If it were based
> solely upon 'what scientist do' Galileo, Kepler and others would have
> been rightly banned from presenting their ideas.
>
>
>>And in fact, biologists STILL don't know how proteins fold or what it
>>is exactly about the nature of protein folding that gives them the
>>functions they have. But they have good *models* of protein function
>>based on some abstract properties. This no doubt displeases you
>>greatly.
>>
>>Now, of course, we have a bit better idea how nondeterministic quantum
>>mechanical wavefunctions
>
>
> That statement is an oxymoron...
Which is paul saying he has no idea what that means. He just knows
that he does not like it.
>
>
>>... drive the chemistry that powers both protein
>>folding and DNA encoding of heritable traits. Thus, the UNDERLYING
>>explanation of Darwin's and Mendel's abstract "heritable traits" turns
>>out to be something that is perhaps surprising in its nature, but
>>nevertheless does provide explanatory power.
>
>
> Ignorance is never a good foundation in science.
Yes, and see how it has led you astray and continues to make
you look stupid in public.
Understanding what
> gives rise to the resulting equation (NOT! the equations themselves)
> is the true pursuit of knowledge. It's not random or acausal, for if
> that were be no repeatable patterns. Out of so-called chaos comes
> order, such as fractal behavior. And, as you should know by now,
> fractals aren't acausal.
>
>
>>I'm sure you can see the parallels between "heritable traits" and
>>Einstein's postulates, and between the quantum mechanical basis for
>>biochemistry and the physical properties of spacetime.
>
>
> No, I cannot. Now when a perfectly good explanation exists that given
> the foundational basis FOR! the characteristics of c, which is the
> sole basis for those postulates.
You have no explanation for c. You are moving the issue to saying
it is determined by your aether. You do not like it being set by
the geometry of space time but you are happy having to introduce
two new parameters to explain one thing. No one is going to
follow you into your ignorance.
PD has shown himself to be far more intelligent and reasonable than
you are.
For example, I
> do understand the concepts of 'wavefunctions' in QM but simply don't
> find stopping at accepting acausal shrugs as acceptable 'science'.
No, you are sayig that you do not like them. You want the universe
to change to fit your prejudices. It is not going to change.
> That's not the basic definition of what science is defined to
> accomplish. If that is what it has politically evolved to in practice
> today we have simply strayed from the fundamental core definition and
> values, and yes, that is a judgement, and my opinion.
And you are wrong. The experiments tell us how the universe is, not
your prejudices.
>
> I doubt John, Vern, and, I know that for myself, want nature to
> conform to our wishes.
Nonsense, you have just stated that you want the universe and science
to follow your prejudices.
Nature is what it is and we have no infulence
> on that. Our job is to understand and 'describe' it processes and
> properties in the simplest intergrated manner. Undefined abstractions
> do not qualify, nor do equations that cannot be founded in describable
> physical terms.
See, there is your ignorance of science again. You keep wanting it
to change to suit you.
Those simply point to current ignorance and
> unfinished business and more importantly, violates the definition of
> science as given above.
Well, no. You continue to look uninformed and prejudiced in your
willing ignorance and prejudice. But that is not science and it
will keep you mired in crankdom.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Physics will be a science. Ask science what it knows in a million
years?
When we are at 100 million who can imagine then?
Mitch Raemsch
John Kennaugh
I got a strong indication at one point that PD teaches/lectures in
physics. When asked he refused to answer but I think I hit the nail on
the head. Such a person's role is to present (sell) physics to students
not to question it. Many of his posts seem to be well honed techniques
of presentation which carefully avoid problems. Others are put-downs
intended for the more difficult student and intended to make a student
look small - as if he has made a really stupid remark - when in fact he
is thinking for himself. If that be the case then acknowledgement =
failure i.e. if he is forced to admit to his students that the subject
he is teaching is fundamentally flawed he can't do his job.
> For example, I
>do understand the concepts of 'wavefunctions' in QM but simply don't
>find stopping at accepting acausal shrugs as acceptable 'science'.
>That's not the basic definition of what science is defined to
>accomplish. If that is what it has politically evolved to in practice
>today we have simply strayed from the fundamental core definition and
>values, and yes, that is a judgement, and my opinion.
Mine too - as an outsider looking in.
>
>I doubt John, Vern, and, I know that for myself, want nature to
>conform to our wishes. Nature is what it is and we have no infulence
>on that. Our job is to understand and 'describe' it processes and
>properties in the simplest intergrated manner. Undefined abstractions
>do not qualify, nor do equations that cannot be founded in describable
>physical terms. Those simply point to current ignorance and
>unfinished business and more importantly, violates the definition of
>science as given above.
--
John Kennaugh
John Kennaugh
Not in the least. Being a science and not merely a branch of mathematics
dealing with mathematical modelling the SCIENCE of biology considered it
a legitimate and vital part of SCIENCE to try and UNDERSTAND the
physical processes driving the model. They did not claim the model
EXPLAINED what was happening and certainly not that it was an adequate
explanation.
>
>And in fact, biologists STILL don't know how proteins fold or what it
>is exactly about the nature of protein folding that gives them the
>functions they have.
> But they have good *models* of protein function
>based on some abstract properties. This no doubt displeases you
>greatly.
Not at all - they still consider it part of their SCIENCE to try and
find out why. A model which works is a reasonable starting point not an
end to itself. It was an empirical formula for black body radiation
which helped Planck come to his conclusion that light is quantized in
the days when physics was a science. The model was not 100% accurate but
the fact that it was as accurate as it was, was one clue.
>
>Now, of course, we have a bit better idea how nondeterministic quantum
>mechanical wavefunctions drive the chemistry that powers both protein
>folding and DNA encoding of heritable traits. Thus, the UNDERLYING
>explanation of Darwin's and Mendel's abstract "heritable traits" turns
>out to be something that is perhaps surprising in its nature, but
>nevertheless does provide explanatory power.
>
>I'm sure you can see the parallels between "heritable traits" and
>Einstein's postulates,
Mendel observed and came up with a set of laws to explain his
observations. Einstein did no new experiments. There was already an
explanation of the experiments whereas Mendel was original. The maths
Einstein came up with was not original. He interpreted the MMX result as
indicating that every observer is stationary w.r.t the aether - which is
what the second postulate is describing - and in so doing ignored three
things:
1/ That Lorentz had already shown mathematically that applied properly
Maxwell's theory showed that the MMX was incapable of detecting motion
w.r.t the aether
2/ That Maxwell's theory was seriously compromised because experiment
showed that light is particulate and therefore no longer a suitable
basis on which to build.
3/ That there was a simpler idea which fitted far better with the
particulate nature of light and required no aether and no need to
decimate our ideas regarding mechanics.
Mendel is a simple case of finding a law which fitted. Einstein is all
about choices of interpretation. I for one would certainly not hold up
Einstein as a good example of the way physics works. The lesson would
seem to be "ignore all the evidence and go with your hunch".
Well Do you see now?
--
John Kennaugh
Inertial
news:0R8P8FFK...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
One could have a theory where bullets fired from a gun travelled on rails,
as we know rail are required for trains. Of course, when others object that
there are no rails visible, you change the theory to say that of course, the
rails are invisible. And when others fail to detect the presence of any
rails, you change the theory so that the rails only appear under the bullet
as it travels and immediately disappear afterwards. Obviously the rail
theory of bullet flight is superior as otherwise how do we explain bullets
travelling in a straight line?
Inertial
It sounds very much that you are a failed student (most likely of physics or
math) who, rather than admit your failure, decided that it is all the fault
of the teachers, and even further, that is it the failure of a century of
science. How truly pathetic that is, that you cannot own up to your own
failures and try to get past them and learn from them.
doug
John Kennaugh wrote:
You continually repeat and demonstrate your ignorance of science
and today you feel compelled to do so again below
The maths
> Einstein came up with was not original. He interpreted the MMX result as
> indicating that every observer is stationary w.r.t the aether -
That is not what he was describing.
which is
> what the second postulate is describing - and in so doing ignored three
> things:
>
> 1/ That Lorentz had already shown mathematically that applied properly
> Maxwell's theory showed that the MMX was incapable of detecting motion
> w.r.t the aether
Lorentz had made a proposal for one way to explain the results.
>
> 2/ That Maxwell's theory was seriously compromised because experiment
> showed that light is particulate and therefore no longer a suitable
> basis on which to build.
You keep saying this as if repeating it would somehow make it
true. Maxwell's theory describes waves. That is what Einstein
was working with.
>
> 3/ That there was a simpler idea which fitted far better with the
> particulate nature of light and required no aether and no need to
> decimate our ideas regarding mechanics.
Since the MMX detects the wave nature of light, having a particulate
model is of no help for that.
We see that you are still following your prejudices and making
statements based on your ignorance of science.
doug
John Kennaugh wrote:
You are assuming that science is wrong and that teaching it is a
bad thing. You also want to be able to tell science how it should
be so you get mad when it is not that way.
Many of his posts seem to be well honed techniques
> of presentation which carefully avoid problems. Others are put-downs
> intended for the more difficult student and intended to make a student
> look small - as if he has made a really stupid remark - when in fact he
> is thinking for himself.
In your ccase, you are making stupid remarks and we are trying to
help you.
If that be the case then acknowledgement =
> failure i.e. if he is forced to admit to his students that the subject
> he is teaching is fundamentally flawed he can't do his job.
The student's refusal to learn is the problem of the student. Take
you for example.
>
>> For example, I
>> do understand the concepts of 'wavefunctions' in QM but simply don't
>> find stopping at accepting acausal shrugs as acceptable 'science'.
>> That's not the basic definition of what science is defined to
>> accomplish. If that is what it has politically evolved to in practice
>> today we have simply strayed from the fundamental core definition and
>> values, and yes, that is a judgement, and my opinion.
>
>
> Mine too - as an outsider looking in.
Your perspective is an an uneducated person who wants science and
the universe to change to fit your prejudices. That is sad.
eric gisse
[...]
>
> Mine too - as an outsider looking in.
As an outsider you have no fucking business dicking around with a subject
you refuse to learn. Name one technical field that reacts kindly to ignorant
and arrogant amateurs who think their ignorance is a form of wisdom.
One, please. We'll go from there.
[...]
Paul Stowe
> "John Kennaugh" <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:0R8P8FFK...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
> > PD wrote:
> >>On Oct 31, 5:49 am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
> >>wrote:
> >>> PD wrote:
A totally down right silly argument... This has NO! bearing on the
discussion herein!
Inertial
news:e8678da1-fe67-490f...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Oh .. it has a great bearing on it .. it shows by analogy how silly aether
theory is. Aether is like the magical invisible rails for bullets to travel
on. I'm glad you can see what nonsensical ideas both are.
maxwell
Your knowledge of the history of biology appears to be as weak as your
demonstrated ignorance of the history of physics. Darwin's theory of
natural selection was almost dead in the water within biology by 1900
because he did not have a mechanism for genetic variation; his idea of
'blended inheritance' predicted that new traits would rapidly
disappear in the genetic stream. Mendel's views were rejected by
biologists by 1870 (not unknown as is commonly taught) since plants
were not seen as relevant to explaining sexual animal inheritance.
Mathematical biologists 'rediscovered' Mendel's ideas & accepted them
as they could be fitted into their mathematical approach to
populations (not individuals).
PD, you continue to ignore JK's distinction between explanation &
'math matching' - pity; but you do represent the current majority
approach in theoretical physics.
Inertial
news:f707f806-b8ba-40af...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Physics explains a behavior by saying how it is caused by other known
behaviors. What makes the sky blue? Diffraction of light. What makes
light diffract? A change of speed of light in a medium. What makes light
change speed in a medium etc. At some stage in the chain of explanations we
must get to a fundamental that 'just is'.
Paul Stowe
> "maxwell" <s...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:f707f806-b8ba-40af...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 31, 6:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 31, 5:49 am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > PD wrote:
Wrong, "We don't know YET!" is the proper answer. 'It just is' is
never an acceptable scientific answer. The problem with SR's
spacetime is, we do have an explanation of how light speed c get its
properties, you just don't like it. And it not at all like your
stupid rail BS, the characteristics are vell well known and
demonstrable in other situations. For example,
And the other references given...
Inertial
Is there a reason why space has 3 dimensions and not 2 or 4 .. does
something force it to be that way? Does something force the shortest
distance between two points to be a straight line?
> The problem with SR's
> spacetime is, we do have an explanation of how light speed c get its
> properties, you just don't like it.
Funny.. I was going to say the same to you. The geometry of spacetime gives
light its speed. But you don't like it
> And it not at all like your
> stupid rail BS,
Its very much like it
> the characteristics are vell well known and
> demonstrable in other situations.
Nope. LET just assumes there is some aether medium involved, movement in
which has these effects (coincidentally) the same on all fields, and all
object, and all processes. That aether itself has never been detected.
Just like saying the invisible rails make the bullet fly along its path,
even though no rails have ever been detected .. but that those rails must
exist because bullets to fly along their path in the way they do, so there
MUST be something making it do that.
eric gisse
[...]
Bwahah.
Its' nice to see the "I don't understand how it can be any other way!"
argument put forth like it had merit.
doug
Paul Stowe wrote:
No, you are the one who does not like it that spacetime has
a good explanation for lights properties. You want to push
that to the aether since you like things that go bump.
Real scientists abandoned that concept last century.
Are you still refusing to find out why?
And it not at all like your
> stupid rail BS, the characteristics are vell well known and
> demonstrable in other situations. For example,
>
> http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PHESEM000022000003000318000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
>
> And the other references given...
>
Which add nothing.
Vern
> Paul Stowe wrote:
<snip>
> > John this whole line is a red-herring strawman argument sinces mediums
> > are Lorentxz invariant to their internal fields. In the end, you are
> > probably wasting your time trying to make PD think in terms of
> > physical processes. Ask him to provide any evidence that is in
> > conflict with the behavior of the medium model, even one.
>
> Yes, you are wasting your time getting any scientist to accept your
> personal prejudices and desire to go back to the science of the last
> century for no reason. Have you learned yet why the aether was
> abandoned? Or are you afraid to look? Or do you just like being
> ignorant?
I think Paul and I have adequately demonstrated that we know the
reasons the luminiferous aether concept was abandoned, so that's just
a strawman.
You say that space-time does provide a model for light wave
propagation. Please describe that model in other than mathmatical
language.
Vern
Paul Stowe
Do you really think he can do that Vern? He manifests as a one-
dimensional caricature who is without any actual knowledge of physics
or comprehension of same. I predict you'll get nowhere.
John Kennaugh
>On Nov 2, 6:55嚙窮m, Vern <vthod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 29, 8:13嚙緘m, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>>
>> > PaulStowewrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > > John this whole line is a red-herring strawman argument sinces mediums
>> > > probably wasting your time trying to make PD think in terms of
>> > > conflict with the behavior of the medium model, even one.
>>
>> > Yes, you are wasting your time getting any scientist to accept your
>> > personal prejudices and desire to go back to the science of the last
>> > century for no reason. Have you learned yet why the aether was
>> > ignorant?
>>
>> I think Paul and I have adequately demonstrated that we know the
>> reasons the luminiferous aether concept was abandoned, so that's just
>> a strawman.
>>
>> You say that space-time does provide a model for light wave
>> language.
>>
>> Vern
>
>Do you really think he can do that Vern? He manifests as a one-
>dimensional caricature who is without any actual knowledge of physics
>or comprehension of same.
> I predict you'll get nowhere.
Doug inserts comments which he hopes will irritate. He never actually
engages in meaningful discussion. That is why my computer no longer
fetches his postings and they do not appear on my computer.
He is a troll so don't feed him.
--
John Kennaugh
Paul Stowe
> "PaulStowe" <theaether...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > On Nov 1, 4:40 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "maxwell" <s...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>
> >> > demonstrated ignorance of the history of physics. Darwin's theory of
> >> > natural selection was almost dead in the water within biology by 1900
> >> > because he did not have a mechanism for genetic variation; his idea of
> >> > 'blended inheritance' predicted that new traits would rapidly
> >> > disappear in the genetic stream. Mendel's views were rejected by
> >> > biologists by 1870 (not unknown as is commonly taught) since plants
> >> > were not seen as relevant to explaining sexual animal inheritance.
> >> > Mathematical biologists 'rediscovered' Mendel's ideas & accepted them
> >> > as they could be fitted into their mathematical approach to
> >> > populations (not individuals).
> >> > PD, you continue to ignore JK's distinction between explanation &
> >> > 'math matching' - pity; but you do represent the current majority
> >> > approach in theoretical physics.
>
> >> Physics explains a behavior by saying how it is caused by other known
> >> behaviors. What makes the sky blue? Diffraction of light. What makes
> >> light diffract? A change of speed of light in a medium. What makes
> >> light change speed in a medium etc. At some stage in the chain of
> >> explanations we must get to a fundamental that 'just is'.
>
> > Wrong, "We don't know YET!" is the proper answer. 'It just is' is
> > never an acceptable scientific answer.
>
> Is there a reason why space has 3 dimensions and not 2 or 4 ..
Yes, because our 'models' created the concepts... As you know
spacetime is modeled as 4 dimensional.
> does something force it to be that way?
Force, no. But we think the model that best fits is a 3-D spacial
model.
> Does something force the shortest distance between two points to be
> a straight line?
In the GR model, is this statement true?
> > The problem with SR's
> > spacetime is, we do have an explanation of how light speed c get its
> > properties, you just don't like it.
>
> Funny.. I was going to say the same to you. The geometry of spacetime gives
> light its speed.
GREAT! Explain that, in narrative words. In other words, explain
where c comes from in,
(ct)^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
I want to know what the spacetime model says about the origin of
Einstein's two 'postulate'. Tel us what c is.
> But you don't like it
What I don't like is lack of an explanation. If you 'can' provide the
explanation of where c gets its properties that are postulated I'll
agree we have two competing models, without that though, Ockham's
Razor cuts in favor of the one that does provide the explanatory
power.
> > And it not at all like your stupid rail BS,
>
> Its very much like it
OK, fine, you think it is. Now provide us basis for, and a means of
testing, the idea. And by the way, bullets fired on Earth do not
follow straight lines...
> > the characteristics are vell well known and
> > demonstrable in other situations.
>
> Nope. LET just assumes there is some aether medium involved, movement in
> which has these effects (coincidentally) the same on all fields,
Yes, as all media behave...
> and all objects,
Which are made up of, and held together by what?
> and all processes. That aether itself has never been detected.
Yes, it has. Just look at Faraday's works. Maxwell explains this
very well, your denial not withstanding.
> Just like saying the invisible rails make the bullet fly along its path,
> even though no rails have ever been detected .. but that those rails must
> exist because bullets to fly along their path in the way they do, so there
> MUST be something making it do that.
I don't think you're as stupid as your example implies. Bullets are
influenced by windage and gravity and thus two bullets fired from
EXACTLY the same rifle in a rigid rig most likely will not impact the
same point at great distances.
> > For example,
> >http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=...
Paul Stowe
wrote:
> PaulStowewrote:
> >On Nov 2, 6:55 am, Vern <vthod...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 29, 8:13 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> >> > PaulStowewrote:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >> > > John this whole line is a red-herring strawman argument sinces mediums
> >> > > conflict with the behavior of the medium model, even one.
>
> >> > Yes, you are wasting your time getting any scientist to accept your
> >> > personal prejudices and desire to go back to the science of the last
> >> > century for no reason. Have you learned yet why the aether was
> >> > ignorant?
>
> >> I think Paul and I have adequately demonstrated that we know the
> >> reasons the luminiferous aether concept was abandoned, so that's just
> >> a strawman.
>
> >> You say that space-time does provide a model for light wave
> >> language.
>
> >> Vern
>
> >Do you really think he can do that Vern? He manifests as a one-
> >dimensional caricature who is without any actual knowledge of physics
> >or comprehension of same.
> > I predict you'll get nowhere.
>
> Doug inserts comments which he hopes will irritate. He never actually
> engages in meaningful discussion. That is why my computer no longer
> fetches his postings and they do not appear on my computer.
>
> He is a troll so don't feed him.
> --
> John Kennaugh
I know... I do not respond to his nonsense...
doug
Vern wrote:
> On Oct 29, 8:13 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul Stowe wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>John this whole line is a red-herring strawman argument sinces mediums
>>>are Lorentxz invariant to their internal fields. In the end, you are
>>>probably wasting your time trying to make PD think in terms of
>>>physical processes. Ask him to provide any evidence that is in
>>>conflict with the behavior of the medium model, even one.
>>
>>Yes, you are wasting your time getting any scientist to accept your
>>personal prejudices and desire to go back to the science of the last
>>century for no reason. Have you learned yet why the aether was
>>abandoned? Or are you afraid to look? Or do you just like being
>>ignorant?
>
>
> I think Paul and I have adequately demonstrated that we know the
> reasons the luminiferous aether concept was abandoned, so that's just
> a strawman.
>
Except that you have not or you would try to attack those reasons.
> You say that space-time does provide a model for light wave
> propagation. Please describe that model in other than mathmatical
> language.
The description is the mathematical language. Learn it. Or see PD's
description as well.
>
> Vern
doug
Paul Stowe wrote:
Says paul who is railing to have the universe change to meet his
prejudices. I predict that is not going to go well.
Have you learned why the aether concept was abandoned?
doug
John Kennaugh wrote:
> Paul Stowe wrote:
>
>> On Nov 2, 6:55 am, Vern <vthod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 29, 8:13 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > PaulStowewrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> > > John this whole line is a red-herring strawman argument sinces
>>> mediums
>>> > > are Lorentxz invariant to their internal fields. In the end, you
>>> are
>>> > > probably wasting your time trying to make PD think in terms of
>>> > > physical processes. Ask him to provide any evidence that is in
>>> > > conflict with the behavior of the medium model, even one.
>>>
>>> > Yes, you are wasting your time getting any scientist to accept your
>>> > personal prejudices and desire to go back to the science of the last
>>> > century for no reason. Have you learned yet why the aether was
>>> > abandoned? Or are you afraid to look? Or do you just like being
>>> > ignorant?
>>>
>>> I think Paul and I have adequately demonstrated that we know the
>>> reasons the luminiferous aether concept was abandoned, so that's just
>>> a strawman.
>>>
>>> You say that space-time does provide a model for light wave
>>> propagation. Please describe that model in other than mathmatical
>>> language.
>>>
>>> Vern
>>
>>
>> Do you really think he can do that Vern? He manifests as a one-
>> dimensional caricature who is without any actual knowledge of physics
>> or comprehension of same.
>> I predict you'll get nowhere.
>
>
> Doug inserts comments which he hopes will irritate.
I point out the truth. Do you find that irritating?
He never actually
> engages in meaningful discussion. That is why my computer no longer
> fetches his postings and they do not appear on my computer.
>
> He is a troll so don't feed him.
Lets see, you are the person who admits that he is not a scientist
nor a mathematician but you feel that science and the universe should
change to fit your prejudices. That seems to fit the troll definition.
doug
Paul Stowe wrote:
Yes, you do not like it when I point out that you have no
clue why the aether concept was abandoned. You do not like
it when your ignorance of the history of science is pointed
out. You do not like it when I point out that you want
the universe to change to fit your prejudices and you do
not like it when I point out that your "explanations" from
the aether amount to nothing. I see why you want to hide.
doug
Paul Stowe wrote:
So, in other words, "it just is'.
>
>
>>does something force it to be that way?
>
>
> Force, no. But we think the model that best fits is a 3-D spacial
> model.
But you keep demanding to know why. But your statement is wrong
anyway.
>
>
>>Does something force the shortest distance between two points to be
>>a straight line?
>
>
> In the GR model, is this statement true?
By your lack of an answer, we will take this as "it just is".
>
>
>>>The problem with SR's
>>>spacetime is, we do have an explanation of how light speed c get its
>>>properties, you just don't like it.
>>
>>Funny.. I was going to say the same to you. The geometry of spacetime gives
>>light its speed.
>
>
> GREAT! Explain that, in narrative words. In other words, explain
> where c comes from in,
>
> (ct)^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
>
> I want to know what the spacetime model says about the origin of
> Einstein's two 'postulate'. Tel us what c is.
PD did tell you. You did not like his answer.
>
>
>>But you don't like it
>
>
> What I don't like is lack of an explanation.
No, you do not like the explanations. You are quite happy with all
the "it just is" features of the aether but not in anything else.
Your prejudices are showing.
If you 'can' provide the
> explanation of where c gets its properties that are postulated I'll
> agree we have two competing models, without that though, Ockham's
> Razor cuts in favor of the one that does provide the explanatory
> power.
Your aether has no explanatory powers. It was abandoned a long time
ago.
PD
wrote:
> PD wrote:
> >On Oct 29, 10:18 am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >> PD wrote:
> >> >On Oct 29, 7:13 am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> PD wrote:
> >> >> >On Oct 27, 6:43 am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >> PD wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Oct 24, 3:04 pm, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
> >> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >> >> PD wrote:
>
> >> >> >> Other points to be dealt with in another post time permitting.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Neither does it explain why the
> >> >> >> >> >> speed of light appears constant to every observer and fails
>
> >> >> >> >> >> explain why, when I change my speed the frequency changes
> >> >> >> >> >>instantly.
>
> >> >> >> >> >On the contrary, again the structure of spacetime explains
>
> >> >> >> >> >and relativistic Doppler shift is EASILY derived from that.
>
> >> >> >> >> Derived maybe. Explained no.
>
> >> >> >> >If it is a necessary consequence of that conceptual framework then
> >> >> >> >this is an explanation.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> There is only one Doppler equation in SR. Whether the source
> >> >> >> >> >>changes its
> >> >> >> >> >> speed or I am the one that changes mine. The maths assume in
> >> >> >> >> >>both cases
> >> >> >> >> >> that the change in frequency is due to a different
> >> >> >> >> >>wavelength being
> >> >> >> >> >> generated at the source so my change of speed has to
> >> >> >> >> >>affect the past
>
> >> >> >> >> >Not at all! This is a simple misconception on your part.
>
> >> >> >> >> >implication that the observer has causally reached through time to
> >> >> >> >> >alter the source.
>
> >> >> >> >> Suppose you are 1 ly from a source. I am happy to accept
> >> >> >> >>that what I do
> >> >> >> >> cannot affect what happened at the source 1 year ago - on the
> >> >> >> >>grounds of
> >> >> >> >> causality. I'm not sure on what grounds you rule it out :o)
>
> >> >> >> >> If I change my speed then I am clearly changing my relationship
> >> >> >> >>with the
> >> >> >> >> light in transit. i.e. that light which left the source 1 year
> >> >> >> >> previously. What is the physical nature of that change of
> >> >> >> >>relationship?
>
> >> >> >> >A change in reference frame.
>
> >> >> >> >Here, let's take a classical example to make it more sensible to you.
>
> >> >> >> >Let's take a bullet in flight, AFTER it has left the gun. It is going
> >> >> >> >to collide with a tree stump and leave a certain amount of energy in
> >> >> >> >the stump. We could, if we wish, use information from sensors attached
> >> >> >> >to the tree stump to measure the energy deposited in the stump and use
> >> >> >> >that to deduce the kinetic energy of the bullet.
>
> >> >> >> >Now, you and I both know that kinetic energy is frame dependent. In
> >> >> >> >one reference frame, the kinetic energy of the bullet will be
> >> >> >> >different than what it is in another reference frame. Gathering
> >> >> >> >information from the sensors in the stump, however, I have to
> >> >> >> >correctly get the kinetic energy value that is appropriate to THAT
> >> >> >> >reference frame. That is, just by choosing which reference frame in
> >> >> >> >which I will gather measurements about the collision of the bullet and
> >> >> >> >the stump, I will get different values for the bullet's kinetic energy
> >> >> >> >before the collision. Now, I did NOTHING as an observer to influence
> >> >> >> >the gun or the bullet in flight. Yet the kinetic energy is a frame-
> >> >> >> >dependent quantity, even as it is consistent with measurements taken
> >> >> >> >in the stump.
>
> >> >> >> >If this does not make sense to you, then the locus of your
> >> >> >> >misunderstanding is not with special relativity but with CLASSICAL
> >> >> >> >mechanics.
>
> >> >> >> You did not answer my question as to whether you are in fact a physics
> >> >> >> lecturer. It seems more likely from that reply. That is a standard
> >> >> >> "put-down". It is intended to put a student in his place by belittling
> >> >> >> him when he has in fact made an intelligent comment. It is CRAP, and I
> >> >> >> believe that you are intelligent enough to know it is CRAP which means
> >> >> >> you are dishonest. For the sake of any student who has been put down in
> >> >> >> this way I say the following.
>
> >> >> >> If I change my "Frame of reference" all I have done is change my
> >> >> >> VELOCITY i.e. I have accelerated for a period. My VELOCITY has changed
> >> >> >> w.r.t other objects in the universe. The "Frame of reference" is a
> >> >> >> mathematical abstraction and is totally unnecessary in describing what
> >> >> >> is happening in the circumstance under discussion. It is introduced to
> >> >> >> obscure.
>
> >> >> >It is not crap, it is not even relativistic physics. It is CLASSICAL
> >> >> >physics, which is the point I was trying to make to you.
>
> >> >> >A given physical process and set of events is something that takes
> >> >> >place in multiple reference frames at the same time. There is no need
> >> >> >for a single observer to change motion to move from one reference
> >> >> >frame to another. The principle of relativity is about a comparison of
> >> >> >those events as described in multiple reference frames at the same
> >> >> >time. This is a CLASSICAL physics concept.
>
> >> >> >As I said earlier, if you are having problem with classical physics,
> >> >> >let's straighten that out first before you further the confusion in
> >> >> >relativity.
>
> >> >> Still crap. And you are intelligent enough to realise it. All the
> >> >> CLASSICAL physics concepts you can quote are the result of a change in
> >> >> speed. What you are trying to do is to say that because some things are
> >> >> frame dependent anything you choose can be frame dependent. Classical
> >> >> Physics can EXPLAIN why the things which are frame dependent in
> >> >> classical physics ARE frame dependent
>
> >> >> The rule is that if you change your VELOCITY relative to something and a
> >> >> parameter you are measuring is VELOCITY dependent then that parameter
> >> >> will change.
>
> >> >Really? Explain that to electric and magnetic fields.
>
> >Got an answer for this one?
>
> Einstein wrote in 1905:
> " Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet
> and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the
> relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary
> view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the
> one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in
> motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of
> the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a
> current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if
> the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field
> arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we
> find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
> corresponding energy, but which gives rise assuming equality of relative
> motion in the two cases discussed to electric currents of the same path
> and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former
> case."
>
> As a matter of interest how do you teach that these days? Einstein
> pointed out it was absurd but I'm not sure I was taught any different 60
> years later.
Well, first of all, it's not absurd, since it is what is actually
measured.
The way it is taught these days is very similar to the way it is
presented in the Berkeley Series books, in particular the
electrodynamics book.
Remember that when Einstein was working on it, Maxwell's equations
were pretty new and not much was understood about the properties of
electrodynamics. Quite a lot happened in the 20th century to make
better sense if it.
>
>
>
> >> >Bzzzt. Try again.
>
> >> >You've just touted the Henri Wilson Foolishness.
> >> >"Those physical quantities that have equations that involve velocity
> >> >in them are OBVIOUSLY frame-dependent, and those that don't OBVIOUSLY
> >> >aren't."
> >> >Pffft.
>
> >> Distance is not first order frame dependent.
>
> >And we discussed this too.
> >It is frame-dependent, period.
>
> Is it? I don't accept that it is.
It is! It's an experimental fact. Calorimeter segmentation in fixed
target and collider experiments is that fact embodied in design.
> According to Essen an expert on both
> time and measurement theory Einstein broke a cardinal rule. Measurement
> involves units and your set of units all interrelate. You have
> fundamental units and derived units. Which you choose as fundamental is
> a matter of choice but nor arbitrary. There must no duplication i.e. a
> unit cannot be defined two or more contradictory ways.
Nor are they. Notice that the definition of those units is done in the
local rest reference frame only.
> Einstein had the
> fundamental units of length and time. Speed is a derived unit and is
> whatever is measured using your fixed units of distance (m) and time
> (s). On that basis distance and time are not frame dependent *by
> definition*.
Nonsense. They are defined identically, locally, in all inertial
reference frames.
>
> By *defining* c as a constant Einstein broke the cardinal rule of
> measurement.
To be fair, Einstein made no such definition. This definition was not
done until almost 15 years after Einstein's death. Please catch up on
your history.
> To be fair to young Albert measurement theory was not as
> well understood then as it is now, but he duplicated units. According to
> Essen all Einstein did was to define a new unit of length which varies
> with v^2/c^2 and a unit of time which varies with v^2/c^2 so that if you
> measure the speed of light using those new units it is always c. He says
> that while one may get it to work it serves no useful purpose.
And Essen was both mistaken and misguided. His expertise
notwithstanding.
>
> Put simply the fixed value for the speed of light is not a property of
> nature but has been made so *by definition*.
No, that is not correct. If you define time to be frame-independent,
then what you learn is the that physical processes then take different
times in different reference frames, and then you have to CHOOSE which
reference frame should be the one that all of them are referenced to.
A particle that decays after a mean time of 4.8 microseconds in the
frame in which it is at rest then is OBSERVED to decay at 6.5
microseconds if it is moving in that frame. If you insist that time be
frame independent, then this means that in the frame that is moving
along with the particle (that is, the particle is at rest in that
frame), the particle is decaying after 6.5 microseconds. Then you are
left with the challenge of explaining why, if there is no discernible
difference between the circumstances of the decay in the two frames
other than their relative motion, why it decays after 4.8 microseconds
in one and after 6.5 microseconds in the other. And if there is no
discernible difference between the two frames, why was the first
chosen as the standard to tie the second one to? Moreover, you find
that if instead you reversed the referencing by setting up a clock in
the second frame by an identical procedure, then the particle would
live for 4.8 microseconds in the second frame and 6.5 microseconds in
the first frame. This is *experimentally verified*. Given this,
perhaps you can tell me how Essen would suggest getting out of that
observational box?
> With that definition length
> and time are frame dependent. If *by definition* you make length and
> time constant then the speed of light is frame dependent. Basically you
> cannot make sense of any measurement unless you are clear what your
> units are.
>
> You cannot by definition make length vary sometimes by v^2/c^2 and
> whenever you feel like it vary by v/c.
>
> >Whether the dependency is *calculated*
> >using an expansion method and whether that *calculational choice*
> >makes it appear in first order or second order is IRRELEVANT.
>
> I'm not interested in what you *calculate*. I want to know the physical
> process which causes the interval between two burst of light to change
> when I change my speed. The only thing I have changed is my speed and
> the obvious explanation is that I am now travelling at a different speed
> w.r.t the light - as predicted by both LET and emission theory.
>
> >> >> That explanation does NOT work with SR Doppler shift because SR denies
> >> >> that your velocity w.r.t the light pulses HAS changed. The time between
> >> >> pulses cannot change because you have changed your speed w.r.t the light
> >> >> pulses.
>
> >> >> I know where you are trying to get to. The idea that I am changing from
> >> >> one FoR which has one relationship w.r.t the source and always had, to
> >> >> another with a different relationship w.r.t. the source which it always
> >> >> had. This means that the physical spacing between the light pulses has
> >> >> an infinite number of values in the same physical space; that one FoR
> >> >> can magically support a different physical reality than another FoR.
> >> >> That an infinite number of physical realities simultaneously exist.
>
> >> >> A FoR does not physically exist so it cannot support a separate physical
> >> >> reality. You are thinking in purely mathematical terms where a FoR can
> >> >> do what it likes. It is an absurdity but you have been doing it so long
> >> >> you cannot see it. The spacing between two bursts of energy CANNOT have
> >> >> an infinite number of different values in the same physical space
> >> >> therefore SR fails where LET succeeds. LET simply says that your speed
> >> >> w.r.t the light HAS changed so you measure a different interval. The
> >> >> different interval is direct evidence that your real speed w.r.t the
> >> >> light has changed.
>
> >> >> You are locked in to thinking of the maths and confusing that with what
> >> >> is happening physically. I challenge you to explain SR Doppler in
> >> >> physical terms without mentioning frames which do not physically exist.
>
> >> >> >[rest of boondoggle having to do with change of one observer from one
> >> >> >reference frame to another snipped]
>
> >> >> WHY? If it doesn't make sense point out the error.
>
> --
> John Kennaugh
PD
> On Oct 31, 7:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 31, 5:49 am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
> > > >scientist.
>
> > > Well if I ask a *scientist* - lets say a biologist what his science does
> > > he would say that they have mapped the DNA molecule and know what
> > > elements of it does. Their studies are aimed at working out more of what
> > > does what and how it does it. Many of the physical processes are
> > > understood many partially understood. He will talk of chemical
> > > messengers and cell division and many other *physical* processes. He
> > > will tell you that the tip of a growing branch sends chemical messengers
> > > back down the branch which inhibit other nodes growing into branches and
> > > if you cut the end of a branch those messages cease and other nodes grow
> > > instead. Gardeners have known this for years - that is technology -
> > > science tries to explain WHY and how.
>
> > Interesting to note that neither Darwin nor Mendel had any idea of DNA
> > or the physical basis for "heritable traits". However, they developed
> > highly successful models of how genetics and evolution work -- and in
> > Mendel's case, quite quantitative models -- even though the notion of
> > "heritable trait" was abstract and unexplained in physical terms. This
> > no doubt would have displeased you greatly.
>
> existed one which say's 'well, that's just the nature of biology is'
> and another that says 'it has to be the result of some molecular
> structure and processes'
Note that Darwin nor Mendel made neither of the latter statement.
I don't know where you are getting this mantra that "That's just how
nature is". I've told you repeatedly that the *structure* of spacetime
accounts for much of the stuff that you've been told "that's just the
way it is", but you've steadfastly ignored it. Not my problem at that
point.
> I'll take the later as being better 'science'
> every time. The prefix 'We don't know yet but, ...' is applied to
> both in that historical context. BTW, arguing science is what
> scientist do is like saying Catholicism is what Priest, Clerics, and
> Cardinals do
Well, if someone who is not a Catholic says that Catholicism means
something other than what a priest says it means, then yes, there's an
issue.
> Or the law is what police do.
Not quite, since there are also lawyers and judges involved. But if
you say that the law means something other than what lawyers, judges,
and police say it means, then yes, there is a problem.
> It's political and based
> on faulty logic. Science is well defined and independent of practices
> and/or behavior.
And that is nonsense. Science is *defined* by a methodology. That's
why it's called the scientific method.
> Science is the systematic pursuit of gaining the
> most complete and cogent understanding of topic, period!
I'm sorry, but that's not the case. Otherwise philosophy and
mathematics and industrial design would be included in science. Much
as you'd like it to be broader, so that it could be deemed more
inclusive (so that you could be arguably included), it's not the case.
> It has
> NOTHING! to do with personal or social practices. If it were based
> solely upon 'what scientist do' Galileo, Kepler and others would have
> been rightly banned from presenting their ideas.
>
> > And in fact, biologists STILL don't know how proteins fold or what it
> > is exactly about the nature of protein folding that gives them the
> > functions they have. But they have good *models* of protein function
> > based on some abstract properties. This no doubt displeases you
> > greatly.
>
> > Now, of course, we have a bit better idea how nondeterministic quantum
> > mechanical wavefunctions
>
> That statement is an oxymoron...
Why?
>
> > ... drive the chemistry that powers both protein
> > folding and DNA encoding of heritable traits. Thus, the UNDERLYING
> > explanation of Darwin's and Mendel's abstract "heritable traits" turns
> > out to be something that is perhaps surprising in its nature, but
> > nevertheless does provide explanatory power.
>
> Ignorance is never a good foundation in science. Understanding what
> gives rise to the resulting equation (NOT! the equations themselves)
> is the true pursuit of knowledge.
That's right. Equations are expressions for statements that can be
said in words. If you don't know the conceptual basis behind the
equations and have gone equation-blind, thinking that the concepts ARE
the equations, then you simply need a better education in physics.
> It's not random or acausal, for if
> that were be no repeatable patterns.
First of all, I never said things were acausal. I said that *time-
ordered*, *deterministic* causality is not the only option. If you are
inclined to whine, "But the only kind of causality I even *recognize*
is the time-ordered, deterministic one," then I can't help the
limitations of your conceptual framework.
And no, randomness in some variables does NOT produce complete
nonrepeatability.
> Out of so-called chaos comes
> order, such as fractal behavior. And, as you should know by now,
> fractals aren't acausal.
>
> > I'm sure you can see the parallels between "heritable traits" and
> > Einstein's postulates, and between the quantum mechanical basis for
> > biochemistry and the physical properties of spacetime.
>
> No, I cannot. Now when a perfectly good explanation exists that given
> the foundational basis FOR! the characteristics of c, which is the
> sole basis for those postulates.
Sorry, but it is NOT the sole basis for those postulates and that's
precisely my point.
If the universe is structured with a hyperbolic spacetime geometry,
then those postulates follow directly from that structure, simply and
natively.
If the universe is structure with a Euclidean space and time geometry
(actually with independent space and time structures), THEN you need
an additional medium to generate a speed limit AND you need a
constraint on the dynamics of the medium to produce source
independence.
So there are TWO vying bases for those postulates, NOT one.
>
>
>
> > > Yes if you want to know what science does, you ask a scientist - but not
> > > a physicist - he will only tell you what physics does. He would tell you
> > > that
> > > ".. it should be QUITE CLEAR that the most that human beings can aspire
> > > to is to make models of the world -- we can never actually "know" what
> > > Nature herself is really doing. We can only make
> > > models and test them." Tom Roberts
>
> > > In an earlier post which you have not responded to you asked
>
> > > >Models ARE explanations. What distinguishes in your mind a model from
> > > >an explanation? Be as precise as you can.
>
> > > If we lived on a planet with constant cloud cover we might be unaware of
> > > the existence of the moon. It doesn't mean we could not produce a
> > > mathematical model predicting the tides. Searching for an explanation of
> > > why the model works might lead us to discover the existence of the moon.
>
> > > I could produce a model to predict train time tables. The input
> > > parameters would be known data. (the starting points would be
> > > empirically discovered). The model may not mention "rails" at all but
> > > just because we can do the maths and get accurate predictions without
> > > any mention of rails does not mean that rails do not exist.
> > > I might suggest that a model is not an explanation of what is going on
> > > and that an explanation required other things including rails. You would
> > > claim that rails are unnecessary if you postulate that it is in the
> > > nature of trains that they always travel on a fixed route.
>
> > > Do you understand that now?
>
> John, PD may understand (I don't think he's that stupid) but, is he
> capable of acknowledgement, that's the real question. For example, I
> do understand the concepts of 'wavefunctions' in QM but simply don't
> find stopping at accepting acausal shrugs as acceptable 'science'.
> That's not the basic definition of what science is defined to
> accomplish. If that is what it has politically evolved to in practice
> today we have simply strayed from the fundamental core definition and
> values, and yes, that is a judgement, and my opinion.
>
> I doubt John, Vern, and, I know that for myself, want nature to
> conform to our wishes. Nature is what it is and we have no infulence
> on that. Our job is to understand and 'describe' it processes and
> properties in the simplest intergrated manner.
Even if nature doesn't exhibit time ordered determinism everywhere?
PD
wrote:
> >every time. The prefix 'We don't know yet but, ...' is applied to
> >both in that historical context. BTW, arguing science is what
> >scientist do is like saying Catholicism is what Priest, Clerics, and
> >on faulty logic. Science is well defined and independent of practices
> >most complete and cogent understanding of topic, period! It has
> >NOTHING! to do with personal or social practices. If it were based
> >solely upon 'what scientist do' Galileo, Kepler and others would have
> >been rightly banned from presenting their ideas.
>
> >> And in fact, biologists STILL don't know how proteins fold or what it
> >> is exactly about the nature of protein folding that gives them the
> >> functions they have. But they have good *models* of protein function
> >> based on some abstract properties. This no doubt displeases you
> >> greatly.
>
> >> Now, of course, we have a bit better idea how nondeterministic quantum
> >> mechanical wavefunctions
>
> >That statement is an oxymoron...
>
> >> folding and DNA encoding of heritable traits. Thus, the UNDERLYING
> >> explanation of Darwin's and Mendel's abstract "heritable traits" turns
> >> out to be something that is perhaps surprising in its nature, but
> >> nevertheless does provide explanatory power.
>
> >Ignorance is never a good foundation in science. Understanding what
> >gives rise to the resulting equation (NOT! the equations themselves)
> >that were be no repeatable patterns. Out of so-called chaos comes
> >order, such as fractal behavior. And, as you should know by now,
> >fractals aren't acausal.
>
> >> I'm sure you can see the parallels between "heritable traits" and
> >> Einstein's postulates, and between the quantum mechanical basis for
> >> biochemistry and the physical properties of spacetime.
>
> >No, I cannot. Now when a perfectly good explanation exists that given
> >the foundational basis FOR! the characteristics of c, which is the
> >sole basis for those postulates.
>
> physics. When asked he refused to answer but I think I hit the nail on
> the head.
Why do you think it matters?
> Such a person's role is to present (sell) physics to students
> not to question it.
I'm sorry, but here I have to object. You have NO idea, obviously,
what a professor's role is in teaching students. The professor's job
is to make excellent investigators of nature, highly trained in the
best methodology obtained for that purpose -- the scientific method.
It is the full expectation that students who go on to be outstanding
investigators will make a singular mark, and you'll note that awards
and honors are given to those investigators that *break* with the
status quo. You only need look at the list of Nobel laureates and
their work to understand that. Positions of investigatory freedom and
support for such work, however, comes at the cost of demonstrating
competence with the methodology. This includes understanding how to
probe the validity of ANY idea (including time-ordered determinism)
with a well-crafted experimental test, as well as being comfortable
with the mathematical toolbox that is so useful in shorthanding
underlying concepts without excess baggage.
It is NOT the job of the professor to drum into student's head this
assertion or that assertion. It IS the job of the professor to get
students to see HOW we know those things we think we do know, as well
as those things we DON'T know and how we might go about finding the
answers to them. It is the poor student that just accepts things
without asking how we know, and it is also the poor student who just
reject things without entertaining the same.
> Many of his posts seem to be well honed techniques
> of presentation which carefully avoid problems. Others are put-downs
> intended for the more difficult student and intended to make a student
> look small - as if he has made a really stupid remark - when in fact he
> is thinking for himself. If that be the case then acknowledgement =
> failure i.e. if he is forced to admit to his students that the subject
> he is teaching is fundamentally flawed he can't do his job.
Forgive me if this sounds like sour grapes, uttered by someone who has
felt inadequate in the study of physics and finds it confusing. Might
I suggest you try again with an education in the subject, being more
selective with both your materials and your teachers?
I don't object you or anyone thinking for yourself. However, if you've
not availed yourself of the information that is pertinent to your
ponderings, then you have some work to do and that burden does lie on
you -- unless you've *paid* for the service of being guided through
it. If it your belief that you are entitled to an education that
satisfies you on Usenet, then I'm afraid I have bad news.
>
> > For example, I
> >do understand the concepts of 'wavefunctions' in QM but simply don't
> >find stopping at accepting acausal shrugs as acceptable 'science'.
Who said anything about "acausal"?
> >That's not the basic definition of what science is defined to
> >accomplish.
If it's your belief that science is defined to find the deterministic,
time-ordered, material causes for things, then I'm afraid you have
been led astray.
> If that is what it has politically evolved to in practice
> >today we have simply strayed from the fundamental core definition and
> >values, and yes, that is a judgement, and my opinion.
>
> Mine too - as an outsider looking in.
Then why don't you become better educated on the subject, so that you
don't have to consider yourself an outsider looking in?
>
>
>
> >I doubt John, Vern, and, I know that for myself, want nature to
> >conform to our wishes. Nature is what it is and we have no infulence
> >on that. Our job is to understand and 'describe' it processes and
> >properties in the simplest intergrated manner. Undefined abstractions
> >do not qualify, nor do equations that cannot be founded in describable
> >physical terms. Those simply point to current ignorance and
> >unfinished business and more importantly, violates the definition of
> >science as given above.
>
> --
> John Kennaugh
PD
wrote:> >wrote:
> >> PD wrote:
> >> >On Oct 28, 6:54 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Oct 28, 2:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >scientist.
>
> >> Well if I ask a *scientist* - lets say a biologist what his science does
> >> he would say that they have mapped the DNA molecule and know what
> >> elements of it does. Their studies are aimed at working out more of what
> >> does what and how it does it. Many of the physical processes are
> >> understood many partially understood. He will talk of chemical
> >> messengers and cell division and many other *physical* processes. He
> >> will tell you that the tip of a growing branch sends chemical messengers
> >> back down the branch which inhibit other nodes growing into branches and
> >> if you cut the end of a branch those messages cease and other nodes grow
> >> instead. Gardeners have known this for years - that is technology -
> >> science tries to explain WHY and how.
>
> >Interesting to note that neither Darwin nor Mendel had any idea of DNA
> >or the physical basis for "heritable traits". However, they developed
> >highly successful models of how genetics and evolution work -- and in
> >Mendel's case, quite quantitative models -- even though the notion of
> >"heritable trait" was abstract and unexplained in physical terms. This
> >no doubt would have displeased you greatly.
>
> dealing with mathematical modelling the SCIENCE of biology considered it
> a legitimate and vital part of SCIENCE to try and UNDERSTAND the
> physical processes driving the model. They did not claim the model
> EXPLAINED what was happening and certainly not that it was an adequate
> explanation.
Oh yes, they did! Read up on the science here!
>
>
>
> >And in fact, biologists STILL don't know how proteins fold or what it
> >is exactly about the nature of protein folding that gives them the
> >functions they have.
> > But they have good *models* of protein function
> >based on some abstract properties. This no doubt displeases you
> >greatly.
>
> Not at all - they still consider it part of their SCIENCE to try and
> find out why. A model which works is a reasonable starting point not an
> end to itself. It was an empirical formula for black body radiation
> which helped Planck come to his conclusion that light is quantized in
> the days when physics was a science. The model was not 100% accurate but
> the fact that it was as accurate as it was, was one clue.
>
I completely agree that NO theory presently is considered a
fundamental theory. There is NO model at hand presently where the
statement is made, "OK this is it, there is no deeper level, this is
just the way nature is and there is no point in looking further."
However, this does NOT mean that the deeper level will necessarily
satisfy your prejudicial belief that it must be time-ordered and
deterministic. And in fact, the remarkable thing is that you can
sometimes get at some features of an underlying theory without knowing
what the underlying theory is, exactly. This is the part I think you
don't get.
One of the remarkable things about Bell's Theorem is that it provides
a probe for whether there are ANY local hidden variables at work,
regardless of that the local hidden variables are. That is, even with
*complete ignorance* of any more fundamental mechanism underlying
quantum mechanics, you can tell whether that mechanism involves local
determinism. And the experimental test says, nope, not there.
>
>
> >Now, of course, we have a bit better idea how nondeterministic quantum
> >mechanical wavefunctions drive the chemistry that powers both protein
> >folding and DNA encoding of heritable traits. Thus, the UNDERLYING
> >explanation of Darwin's and Mendel's abstract "heritable traits" turns
> >out to be something that is perhaps surprising in its nature, but
> >nevertheless does provide explanatory power.
>
> >I'm sure you can see the parallels between "heritable traits" and
> >Einstein's postulates,
>
> Mendel observed and came up with a set of laws to explain his
> observations.
Yes, he did. They were in fact postulates. Independent assortment,
separability of traits, particulate inheritance, etc.
> Einstein did no new experiments. There was already an
> explanation of the experiments whereas Mendel was original. The maths
> Einstein came up with was not original. He interpreted the MMX result as
> indicating that every observer is stationary w.r.t the aether - which is
> what the second postulate is describing - and in so doing ignored three
> things:
>
> 1/ That Lorentz had already shown mathematically that applied properly
> Maxwell's theory showed that the MMX was incapable of detecting motion
> w.r.t the aether
>
> 2/ That Maxwell's theory was seriously compromised because experiment
> showed that light is particulate and therefore no longer a suitable
> basis on which to build.
>
> 3/ That there was a simpler idea which fitted far better with the
> particulate nature of light and required no aether and no need to
> decimate our ideas regarding mechanics.
>
> Mendel is a simple case of finding a law which fitted. Einstein is all
> about choices of interpretation. I for one would certainly not hold up
> Einstein as a good example of the way physics works. The lesson would
> seem to be "ignore all the evidence and go with your hunch".
He didn't ignore any evidence. He just entertained a notion, based on
a hunch, that was different than the *customary* conclusion one would
derive from the evidence. That is not ignoring anything.
>
>
>
> > and between the quantum mechanical basis for
> >biochemistry and the physical properties of spacetime.
>
> >> Yes if you want to know what science does, you ask a scientist - but not
> >> a physicist - he will only tell you what physics does. He would tell you
> >> that
> >> ".. it should be QUITE CLEAR that the most that human beings can aspire
> >> to is to make models of the world -- we can never actually "know" what
> >> Nature herself is really doing. We can only make
> >> models and test them." Tom Roberts
>
> >> In an earlier post which you have not responded to you asked
>
> >> >Models ARE explanations. What distinguishes in your mind a model from
> >> >an explanation? Be as precise as you can.
>
> >> If we lived on a planet with constant cloud cover we might be unaware of
> >> the existence of the moon. It doesn't mean we could not produce a
> >> mathematical model predicting the tides. Searching for an explanation of
> >> why the model works might lead us to discover the existence of the moon.
>
> >> I could produce a model to predict train time tables. The input
> >> parameters would be known data. (the starting points would be
> >> empirically discovered). The model may not mention "rails" at all but
> >> just because we can do the maths and get accurate predictions without
> >> any mention of rails does not mean that rails do not exist.
> >> I might suggest that a model is not an explanation of what is going on
> >> and that an explanation required other things including rails. You would
> >> claim that rails are unnecessary if you postulate that it is in the
> >> nature of trains that they always travel on a fixed route.
>
> >> Do you understand that now?
>
> Well Do you see now?
>
> --
> John Kennaugh
John Kennaugh
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Suppose you are 1 ly from a source. I am happy to accept
>> >> >> >> >>that what I do
>> >> >> >> >> cannot affect what happened at the source 1 year ago - on the
>> >> >> >> >>grounds of
>> >> >> >> >> causality. I'm not sure on what grounds you rule it out :o)
>>
>> >> >> >> >> If I change my speed then I am clearly changing my relationship
>> >> >> >> >>with the
>> >> >> >> >> light in transit. i.e. that light which left the source 1 year
>> >> >> >> >> previously. What is the physical nature of that change of
>> >> >> >> >>relationship?
>>
>> >> >> >> >A change in reference frame.
>>
>> >> >> >> >Here, let's take a classical example to make it more
>> >> >> >> >sensible to you.
>>
>> >> >> >> >Let's take a bullet in flight, AFTER it has left the gun.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >sensors attached
>> >> >> >> >to the tree stump to measure the energy deposited in the
>> >> >> >> >stump and use
>> >> >> >> >that to deduce the kinetic energy of the bullet.
>>
>> >> >> >> >Now, you and I both know that kinetic energy is frame dependent. In
>> >> >> >> >one reference frame, the kinetic energy of the bullet will be
>> >> >> >> >different than what it is in another reference frame. Gathering
>> >> >> >> >information from the sensors in the stump, however, I have to
>> >> >> >> >correctly get the kinetic energy value that is appropriate to THAT
>> >> >> >> >reference frame. That is, just by choosing which reference frame in
>> >> >> >> >which I will gather measurements about the collision of the
>> >> >> >> >bullet and
>> >> >> >> >the stump, I will get different values for the bullet's
>> >> >> >> >kinetic energy
>> >> >> >> >before the collision. Now, I did NOTHING as an observer to
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >dependent quantity, even as it is consistent with
>> >> >> >> >measurements taken
>> >> >> >> >in the stump.
>>
>> >> >> >> >If this does not make sense to you, then the locus of your
>> >> >> >> >misunderstanding is not with special relativity but with CLASSICAL
>> >> >> >> >mechanics.
>>
>> >> >> >> You did not answer my question as to whether you are in fact
>> >> >> >>a physics
>> >> >> >> lecturer. It seems more likely from that reply. That is a standard
>> >> >> >> "put-down". It is intended to put a student in his place by
>> >> >> >>
It is absurd if there is not a description which depends ONLY on the
relative motion of a magnet and a conductor - as Einstein pointed out.
i.e. if physics treats it as two different phenomena depending on which
is moving.
I recall an interesting discussion in Wireless World many years ago. The
question was "If you take two wires together and wind a transformer with
them and if you then connect the finish ends together and to earth and
feed a signal into one of the starts, would the signal out of the other
start be in phase or out of phase?". One of the answers given was that
it is in phase but if you are answering a question in a physics paper
say they are out of phase as most physics teachers think they are.
Many years later I had a PhD Physics student working for me in the lab
and I mentioned this correspondence. He just would not believe me when I
said they were in phase. I had to prove it by having him wind a
transformer as described.
>The way it is taught these days is very similar to the way it is
>presented in the Berkeley Series books, in particular the
>electrodynamics book.
I'm not familiar with that.
>Remember that when Einstein was working on it, Maxwell's equations
>were pretty new
Maxwell published in 1864. 41 years before 1905. If that is "new" then
I'm obviously not as old as I thought :o)
>and not much was understood about the properties of
>electrodynamics.
> Quite a lot happened in the 20th century to make
>better sense if it.
Perhaps you should read Ivor Catt's view on standard EM theory. He would
have found it exceedingly useful had it worked. He found that in
practice it didn't.
>> >> >Bzzzt. Try again.
>>
>> >> >You've just touted the Henri Wilson Foolishness.
>> >> >"Those physical quantities that have equations that involve velocity
>> >> >in them are OBVIOUSLY frame-dependent, and those that don't OBVIOUSLY
>> >> >aren't."
>> >> >Pffft.
>>
>> >> Distance is not first order frame dependent.
>>
>> >And we discussed this too.
>> >It is frame-dependent, period.
>>
>> Is it? I don't accept that it is.
>
>It is! It's an experimental fact. Calorimeter segmentation in fixed
>target and collider experiments is that fact embodied in design.
My problem is that people like you quote the conclusion of an experiment
which you are perfectly happy to accept, because it conforms to your
belief yet you rarely know any of the details of the actual experiment.
On those occasions where I have obtained details of an experiment it is
rather more complicated than the conclusion implies.
>
>> According to Essen an expert on both
>> time and measurement theory Einstein broke a cardinal rule. Measurement
>> involves units and your set of units all interrelate. You have
>> fundamental units and derived units. Which you choose as fundamental is
>> a matter of choice but nor arbitrary. There must no duplication i.e. a
>> unit cannot be defined two or more contradictory ways.
>
>Nor are they. Notice that the definition of those units is done in the
>local rest reference frame only.
NOW yes but prior to Einstein time and distance were considered
universal.
>> Einstein had the
>> fundamental units of length and time. Speed is a derived unit and is
>> whatever is measured using your fixed units of distance (m) and time
>> (s). �On that basis distance and time are not frame dependent *by
>> definition*.
>
>Nonsense. They are defined identically, locally, in all inertial
>reference frames.
Only since Einstein re-defined them as being frame dependent a function
of v^2/c^2 by the act of declaring c to be frame independent.
>> By *defining* c as a constant Einstein broke the cardinal rule of
>> measurement.
>
>To be fair, Einstein made no such definition. This definition was not
>done until almost 15 years after Einstein's death. Please catch up on
>your history.
The second postulate is what Essen is referring to. I have no idea what
you are referring to. The actual accepted value perhaps - that is down
to Essen as is the change from astronomical time to atomic clock time
and the definition of the meter in terms of wavelength - thus making the
value of c constant by definition.
>
>> To be fair to young Albert measurement theory was not as
>> well understood then as it is now, but he duplicated units. According to
>> Essen all Einstein did was to define a new unit of length which varies
>> with v^2/c^2 and a unit of time which varies with v^2/c^2 so that if you
>> measure the speed of light using those new units it is always c. He says
>> that while one may get it to work it serves no useful purpose.
>
>And Essen was both mistaken and misguided. His expertise
>notwithstanding.
An article of faith on your part.
>> Put simply the fixed value for the speed of light is not a property of
>> nature but has been made so *by definition*.
>
>No, that is not correct. If you define time to be frame-independent,
>then what you learn is the that physical processes then take different
>times in different reference frames, and then you have to CHOOSE which
>reference frame should be the one that all of them are referenced to.
Can you quote an actual experiment?
>A particle that decays after a mean time of 4.8 microseconds in the
>frame in which it is at rest then is OBSERVED to decay at 6.5
>microseconds if it is moving in that frame.
> If you insist that time be
>frame independent, then this means that in the frame that is moving
>along with the particle (that is, the particle is at rest in that
>frame), the particle is decaying after 6.5 microseconds.
Is the frame that is moving along with the particle an inertial frame?
Again rather short on detail.
>Then you are
>left with the challenge of explaining why, if there is no discernible
>difference between the circumstances of the decay in the two frames
>other than their relative motion, why it decays after 4.8 microseconds
>in one and after 6.5 microseconds in the other. And if there is no
>discernible difference between the two frames, why was the first
>chosen as the standard to tie the second one to? Moreover, you find
>that if instead you reversed the referencing by setting up a clock in
>the second frame by an identical procedure, then the particle would
>live for 4.8 microseconds in the second frame and 6.5 microseconds in
>the first frame. This is *experimentally verified*. Given this,
>perhaps you can tell me how Essen would suggest getting out of that
>observational box?
Perhaps you might look in
Essen, L. (1971) The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis,
Oxford University Press
Essen, L. (1978) "Relativity and Time Signals", Electronics and Wireless
World, Oct. 1978, p. 14;
Essen, L. (1988) "Relativity - Joke or Swindle?", Electronics and
Wireless World 94, 126 - 127.
For the answer. Essen was one of the most meticulous of people. He is
worthy of study.
>> With that definition length
>> and time are frame dependent. If *by definition* you make length and
>> time constant then the speed of light is frame dependent. Basically you
>> cannot make sense of any measurement unless you are clear what your
>> units are.
>>
>> You cannot by definition make length vary sometimes by v^2/c^2 and
>> whenever you feel like it vary by v/c.
>>
>> >Whether the dependency is *calculated*
>> >using an expansion method and whether that *calculational choice*
>> >makes it appear in first order or second order is IRRELEVANT.
>>
>> I'm not interested in what you *calculate*. I want to know the physical
>> process which causes the interval between two burst of light to change
>> when I change my speed. The only thing I have changed is my speed and
>> the obvious explanation is that I am now travelling at a different speed
>> w.r.t the light - as predicted by both LET and emission theory.
Do you understand that? The only thing I have changed is my speed. If my
speed w.r.t the light pulses hasn't changed my relationship with the
light pulses hasn't changed and therefore there can be no change in
their appearance. There is a change in their appearance the interval has
changed so I must have changed my speed w.r.t the light pulses.
"In 1946, in collaboration with A.C. Gordon-Smith, ESSEN used a
microwave cavity, of precisely known dimensions, and exploited his
expertise in time-measurement to establish the frequency for a variety
of its normal modes. As the wavelength of the modes was known from the
geometry of the cavity and from electromagnetic theory, knowledge of the
associated frequencies enabled a calculation of the speed of light.
Their result, 299,792�3 km/s, was substantially greater than the
prevailing sequence of optical measurements that had begun around the
start of the 20th century and Essen had to withstand some fierce
criticism and disbelief. Moreover, W.W. Hansen at Stanford University
had used a similar technique and obtained a measurement which was more
consistent with the conventional (optical) wisdom. However, a
combination of Essen's stubbornness, his iconoclasm and his belief in
his own skill at measurement (and a little help with calculations from
Alan Turing) inspired him to refine his apparatus and to repeat his
measurement in 1950, establishing a result of 299,792.5�1 km/s. This was
the value adopted by the 12th General Assembly of the Radio-Scientific
Union in 1957. Most subsequent measurements have been consistent with
this value. In 1983, the 17th Conf�rence G�n�rale des Poids et Mesures
adopted the standard value, 299,792.458 km/s for the speed of light."
Now how come W.W. Hansen at Stanford University got an answer "more
consistent with conventional (optical) wisdom". An obvious case where
expectations affected the result of experiment.
--
John Kennaugh