New Scientist article: Anti-gravity research on the rise
Linc Davis
that the phenomenon of anti-gravity is not just science fiction.
"Most respected physicists still scoff at the idea that experimental
equipment can reduce gravity, but several groups have been working on it
independently and are coming to the same conclusion: it might just be
true."
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992611
--
Linc Davis
The reply address is temporary and may expire at any time.
Bruce Scott TOK
In article <aipr95$16fer3$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de>,
Dirk Bruere <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Posted this on sci.physics, but nobody there seems to have the wit to
>understand or comment on the following links to theories by Modanese et al.
>http://www.inetarena.com/~noetic/pls/References/netpapers.html
>
>These are no doubt not comprehensive but I would some qualified opinion as
>to the likelihood of them being correct, or at least not trivially wrong.
Frankly, I understand your interest and desire but the fact is that most
of us can't be arsed now. When it first came out people checked into
it, found the university disowned it, and the elusiveness of the guy
basically convinced us it isn't real.
>This whole thing has the smell of Cold Fusion Mk2 but at least this time
>there appears to be some theory up front. Again, it's something that is
>going to have $millions thrown at it because the potential payoff is
>staggering.
Most of us think it is indeed crazy stuff by someone who is rather
desperate to be a hero. Many people will be fooled by the money thrown
at it, but remember that CF got 11 million dollars from a corporation
that had a billion or two to burn.
Don't forget there was theory for CF too... there was that guy (from
MIT?) who put of four PRL's in one go... we were looking at them and
discussing them here. There was a _lot_ of effort in that first year.
The basic idea was on the surface much more plausible than this
antigravity thing. Only after people dug and probed a bit did it emerge
how bad the science being performed by the CF'ers really was.
It is _much_ more smelly in this case. This isn't really any different
from the "Dean Drive" of the 1950s.
>For once I'd like to see some critique 'up front' - it's not as if you
>people have nothing to work with beyond a vague claim from Podkletnov. IMO
>this is one of the reasons sci.physics.research exists, unless you'd all
>rather wait until post mortem time and the mass media and/or the
>military/industrial complex have had their say depending on how the
>experiments pan out.
It's just not worth the effort... sorry.
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
Dirk Bruere
"ZapperZ" <zappe...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aiurlc$hdn$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> Bob Park is one of the few physicists (the only one to be this upfront
> from what I can see) to take on stuff like this and willing to stake
> his reputation on the line. He has done this for years and had even a
> "front row" seat to many similar debacle, including the Fleishmann and
> Pons'. Besides, what possible motive he would have to want to bring
> down this thing if it is true?
A couple of points. First, he will be remembered for his failures (if any).
And since he's taking on 'biggies' any failure on his part will be of
historic proportions.
As for motives, I have no idea. I don't see him having much effect on the
sale of newspapers for example, nor on whether scientists try to replicate
such claims.
> The Podkletnov effect has a long and dubious history since it was
> first reported in Physica B (1993?). Since then, even when there were
> several groups around the world working to reproduce this effect
> (which, in the original paper, claims to be "obvious"), there isn't
> any! In fact, Modanese et al. had to retract a paper sent for
> publication to Physics Letters for some unexplained reason.
Several groups... well, the only reputable ones I am familiar with are NASA
and Boeing. What others?
Besides, this is not a purely scientific matter given the nature of the
claim. Like I said, if correct it's the basis for a trillion dollar industry
which is (in my cynical opinion) grounds for withholding positive results.
[Moderator's note: further discussion of conspiracy theories
is not suitable for sci.physics.research; we're all members here
anyway. - jb]
> As someone whose research area is in the field of high-Tc
> superconductivity, it is to my advantage if this effect is proven to
> be valid. However, having followed it as closely as I have, I have all
> the doubt in the world that it is. I don't see a sound foundation in
> either the experimental claim, nor the theoretical explanation (for
> example, why is this claimed to only work for the cuprates and not the
> conventional superconductor? The correlation asserted with the order
> parameter is almost comical!]
Which paper are you talking about?
Also bear in mind that lasers could have been build in the 1800s and would
have been subject to much the same criticism.
There are two areas relevent to this discussion.
The experimental, where only time will tell.
And the theoretical which I have been trying to get people to discuss in
some manner more detailed than the above. In fact, the papers I am referring
to are the *only* things people here can discuss with any competence unless
we have some of the Boeing/NASA or 'other' experimentalists listening in who
are willing to provide details.
Dirk
Uncle Al
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:aiue78$ssv$1...@news.state.mn.us...
> > Dirk Bruere wrote:
> > > Posted this on sci.physics, but nobody there seems to have the wit to
> > > understand or comment on the following links to theories by Modanese et
> > > al. http://www.inetarena.com/~noetic/pls/References/netpapers.html
[snip]
> > 5) Stipulated, that Podkletnov can vary the gravitational
> > potential energy of a mass by 0.3% at will. We immediately design a
> > First law-violating electrical generator - a spring-loaded massive
> > vertical piston mechanically coupled to the usual hardware. This is
> > not supportive commentary.
>
> That rather depends on whether the machine absorbs energy when external work
> is done, doesn't it?
Doesn't work. The experiment has already been performed and has
failed miserably - what about the tonnes of building directly above
the apparatus? Are steel and concrete sufficiently dense? If indeed
Podkletnov obtains the minimal 0.3% claimed he should have suffered an
immense surge when the effect took hold. Overlying atmosphere is
equal in mass to nearly a meter thickness of lead. If the moon is in
just the right position... does Tampere University suddenly plunge
toward absolute zero 1.2 (or 2.4) seconds later? Or immediately?
> > 6) The maths of electromagnetism and gravitation don't have much
> > overlap in four dimensions (e.g., Kaluza-Kein treatments in five
> > dimensions). Conservation of charge doesn't impose the same
> > restrictions as conservation of mass plus conservation of linear and
> > angular momenta. Globally, General Relativity can pull a fast one
> > without blinking. Locally, it looks like Newton.
> OK. Here is the crux of this part of the thread.
> I posted a reference to a whole load of theoretical work that seemingly
> backs the experimental results. Comments on that?
See above. Where are the inevitable inescapable sequelae? Science is
self-consistent.
[Moderator's note: I have taken the liberty of deleting a
somewhat less polite sentence following the above. Let's
keep it cool here. - jb]
[snip]
> If I had what he claims I most definately would not invite anyone to confirm
> it. I'd put in a basic claim to get my name 'on the record' and then
> obfuscate while I turned it into hard engineering all the while hoping that
> nobody was replicating what I had done. It's a trillion dollar discovery if
> he is correct.
>
> Anyway care for a wager? I bet $10 that within 18months (by Xmas 2003)
> anomolous interactions between em/gravity in superconductorss will be
> replicated by at least two reputable groups.
>
> Over to you!
Twelve bottles of Lagavulin single malt scotch. I suggest purchase at
Trader Joe's when you make good on your losses:
1) Eight bottles say Podkletnov cannot beam "anti-gravity" 45
degrees off vertical to a 5 meters distant mass if it exists at all.
Specs following.
2) Four bottles say there is no reproducible switchable external
anomalous gravitational effect within 3 sigma experimental uncertainty
at the 0.3% effect level or greater under any circumstances by 2359
hrs 31 December 2003.
A Scotsman late one night is running through rough country with a
bottle of new poteen in each arm. He trips and suffers a nasty fall.
As he is laying on the ground a warm trickle runs from his crotch down
his inner thigh. "Oh, Lord, please, let it be blood."
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Terry Pinnell
Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>Dirk Bruere wrote:
>> That rather depends on whether the machine absorbs energy when external work
>> is done, doesn't it?
>Doesn't work. The experiment has already been performed and has
>failed miserably - what about the tonnes of building directly above
>the apparatus? Are steel and concrete sufficiently dense? If indeed
>Podkletnov obtains the minimal 0.3% claimed he should have suffered an
>immense surge when the effect took hold. Overlying atmosphere is
>equal in mass to nearly a meter thickness of lead. If the moon is in
>just the right position... does Tampere University suddenly plunge
>toward absolute zero 1.2 (or 2.4) seconds later? Or immediately?
Bafflement at the apparent absence of such consequences was my (lay)
reaction too. But it was closely followed by wondering how on earth
Boeing could fly in the face of this obvious objection and still go
ahead and invest millions?
Leaving the actual science completely aside, I'd have thought that
this apparent contradiction would itself have proved eminently
newsworthy! Yet, as far as I can see, not one word about it in last
Sunday Times, for example.
Are there any generally-accepted modern examples of a physics
experiment being prima facie 'nonsense' (in sense of contradicting
established fundamentals), yet subsequently being proved valid?
Terry, West Sussex, UK
Steve Carlip
> Bafflement at the apparent absence of such consequences was my (lay)
> reaction too. But it was closely followed by wondering how on earth
> Boeing could fly in the face of this obvious objection and still go
> ahead and invest millions?
According to Bob Park's August 9 ``What's New'' column
(http://www.aps.org/WN/), Boing denies funding any
antigravity research.
Steve Carlip
Matt McIrvin
Terry Pinnell <terr...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> Bafflement at the apparent absence of such consequences was my (lay)
> reaction too. But it was closely followed by wondering how on earth
> Boeing could fly in the face of this obvious objection and still go
> ahead and invest millions?
Boeing says they aren't involved in antigravity research at all:
http://www.eastsidejournal.com/sited/story/html/101074
--
Matt McIrvin http://world.std.com/~mmcirvin/
Terry Pinnell
>Boeing says they aren't involved in antigravity research at all:
>
>http://www.eastsidejournal.com/sited/story/html/101074
Thank you. A salutory reminder that you can't even believe what you
read in the 'quality' press!
So that leaves NASA, with no successful duplication of the results
after, what, a couple of years?
Terry, West Sussex, UK
Dirk Bruere
> > > > al. http://www.inetarena.com/~noetic/pls/References/netpapers.html
>
> [snip]
>
> > > 5) Stipulated, that Podkletnov can vary the gravitational
> > > potential energy of a mass by 0.3% at will. We immediately design a
> > > First law-violating electrical generator - a spring-loaded massive
> > > vertical piston mechanically coupled to the usual hardware. This is
> > > not supportive commentary.
> >
> > That rather depends on whether the machine absorbs energy when external
work
> > is done, doesn't it?
>
> Doesn't work. The experiment has already been performed and has
> failed miserably - what about the tonnes of building directly above
> the apparatus? Are steel and concrete sufficiently dense? If indeed
How much did they move? energy = force x distance
Besides, I thought he was claiming that he was getting a 'gravity-like'
force, not necessarily a shielding either. There are two factors here, his
results and his interpretation of the results - and that's assuming he's not
a plain liar.
> > OK. Here is the crux of this part of the thread.
> > I posted a reference to a whole load of theoretical work that seemingly
> > backs the experimental results. Comments on that?
>
> See above. Where are the inevitable inescapable sequelae? Science is
> self-consistent.
Hardly a critique of the theories presented.
Care to comment on Chiao's theoretical work if Modanese is too 'far out'? He
was claiming his theory indicates a 25% conversion efficiency between grav
and em radiation. Some people feel he is slightly less than a crank or liar
when it comes to physics...
> > Anyway care for a wager? I bet $10 that within 18months (by Xmas 2003)
> > anomolous interactions between em/gravity in superconductorss will be
> > replicated by at least two reputable groups.
> >
> > Over to you!
>
> Twelve bottles of Lagavulin single malt scotch. I suggest purchase at
> Trader Joe's when you make good on your losses:
Well, I don't drink much in the way of alcohol, so that's out.
> 1) Eight bottles say Podkletnov cannot beam "anti-gravity" 45
> degrees off vertical to a 5 meters distant mass if it exists at all.
> Specs following.
>
> 2) Four bottles say there is no reproducible switchable external
> anomalous gravitational effect within 3 sigma experimental uncertainty
> at the 0.3% effect level or greater under any circumstances by 2359
> hrs 31 December 2003.
I see you are wavering in your unbelief!
My bet was a fairly wide one, with Podkletnov simply being one player.
However, on my original wager I'll raise the bet to $100 if it will make you
happy.
Meanwhile, having already done one version of the Woodwards expt I'm going
to try an updated version. Naturally I'll be making one or two assumptions
and trying a different engineering approach. I can't afford his experimental
setup.
By Cramer:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/pdf/Cramer-JPC.pdf
and Woodwards new results
http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/staif2000.pdf
Any comments about this from SPR people? There was very little of any value
when I raised this topic a year or two back.
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
news:j3tnlusmla8riqch9...@4ax.com...
One for, one against.
Hardly decisive I would have thought.
Are there no other (known) groups checking this?
I suppose a lot will hinge on the results Chiao gets. If his are positive it
would tip the balance massively in favour of Podkletnov's claims.
Dirk
Greg Kuperberg
>Are there any generally-accepted modern examples of a physics
>experiment being prima facie 'nonsense' (in sense of contradicting
>established fundamentals), yet subsequently being proved valid?
The most telling kind of nonsense defies logic rather than fundamentals.
In these cases you can conclude that no matter what the experiment does,
the interpretation can't possibly be sound. Or, in Pauli's words, it's
"not even wrong".
Personally I would like the crackpots to find more creative ways to be
"not even wrong". For instance, why not claim that you invented a
machine that can bend lines of latitude, so that they are no longer
perpendicular to meridians. Who knows, maybe a box made out of the
right kind of plastic has a "cartographic Meissner effect".
Podkletnov's "gravity shield" is ultimately no better than that; it's
just less original.
Richard Saam
>
> One for, one against.
> Hardly decisive I would have thought.
> Are there no other (known) groups checking this?
>
> I suppose a lot will hinge on the results Chiao gets. If his are positive it
> would tip the balance massively in favour of Podkletnov's claims.
>
> Dirk
There has to be a good characterization of the superconductor to establish
reproducibility.
Given the de Broglie velocity relationship
v = (hbar/m) (pi/B)
Now for YBCO insert reasonable values of effective mass (m) and coherence
dimension B with volumes on the order of B^3, then one obtains current
densities on the order of 10^8 cm/sec^2.
Existing bulk YBCO has current densities on the order of 10^5 cm/sec^2. The
question remains whether Podkletnov with his rather brute force HF incidence
and intensive Helium cooling and heat dissipation procedure was able to induce
10^8 cm/sec^2 critical current and gravitational effects that as of yet have
not been reproducible in less energetic experiments.
Chiao, operating in the microwave region may do it.
Richard Saam
Uncle Al
Read Uncle Al's lips, "laundry rings."
How does one anomalously manipulate the shape of spacetime? A Type II
supernova (SN1987a) satisfactorily evolves according to physics'
expectations despite extraordinary mass concentrations, gradients, and
electromagnetic field values. The Hulse-Taylor pulsar (PSR1913+16)
has orbital precession and decay consonant with General Relativity and
gravitational radiation emission,
http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/courses/astro201/psr1913.htm
It is not expected that application of negligible laboratory fields by
the book will exhibit any anomalous macroscopic effect at all.
0) Gravitation is a conservative field - no free lunches.
1) Observation is accurate, particle accelerators to astronomy and
cosmology. Any incremental anomaly will be to the right of
contemporary decimal places. That puts any new non-random effect on
the scale of thermal vibration of apparatus' constituent atoms and
therefore requires some sort of phase lock or FT summation to tease a
signal out from the noise.
2) Physics is self-consistent. Any fundamental anomaly with major
output must operate at the unexpected postulate level to exploit a
loophole, rather than amplify a known footnote to orthodox physics.
Podkletnov claims macroscopic anomalies, local and remote, from an ad
hoc apparatus. (Electrical discharges from a rotating superconducting
ceramic electrode are accompanied by the emission of radiation that
exerts a repulsive force on objects along the propagation axis
proportional to the mass of the objects and independent of their
composition.) NASA has spent $2 million in futile pursuit of
duplication. Podkeltnov cannot display his effects using his own
apparatus before a learned audience.
Podkletnov does *not* report major Hell breaking loose for/from all
the mass located above his apparatus (the building and the
atmosphere), all of which is held in dynamic elastic compression in
the Earth's gravitational field. (Force)(distance)=energy, mgh. If
ten tonnes of masonry and steel suddenly relax a millimeter center of
mass, the 98 joules must come from somewhere. If he switches the
thing on and it brews up over 100 msec, that is a kilowatt surge. Do
your houselights dim when your laundry iron cycles?
Raymond Chiao presented theory and claims that are reducible to
practice. Chiao proposes a superconductor can reflect an incoming
electromagnetic wave as an outgoing gravitational wave.
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0204012
Giorgio Fontana (U of Trento, Italy) has proposed that d- to s-wave
coversion therein emits gravitons.
http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0110042
It is predicted that insurmountable unfolding experimental subtleties
(more studies needed) will always place the desired observation just
out of reach (as with controlled hot fusion).
Uncle Al proposes that a direct assault upon the Equivalence Principle
(EP), founding postulate of General Relativity, based upon symmetry
arguments (discrete geometric parity vs general covariance) be
evaluated in existing qualified apparatus using accredited academic
personnel and employing commercial materals calcuated to maximally
exhibit the anomaly. Results will be unambiguous null or non-null.
Incommensurable test mass geometry is a natural and obvious test of
spacetime geometry. Eric Adelberger at U/Wash has published an Eotvos
experiment contrasting nickel stainless steel with concrete (null
result). Parity pair single crystal tellurium test masses are not
less elegant than that, nor can their observed output be less
interesting.
A definitive answer does not promise extended funding (unless it
works). There is only one remaining physical variable evolved from a
mathematical symmetry through Noether's theorem that has never been
evaluated as an EP test - parity. The next experiment seems kidna
obvious to Uncle Al (himself alone).
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physcis)
Paul R. Chernoff
Greg Kuperberg <gr...@math.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>
>The most telling kind of nonsense defies logic rather than fundamentals.
>In these cases you can conclude that no matter what the experiment does,
>the interpretation can't possibly be sound. Or, in Pauli's words, it's
>"not even wrong".
>
>Personally I would like the crackpots to find more creative ways to be
>"not even wrong". For instance, why not claim that you invented a
>machine that can bend lines of latitude, so that they are no longer
>perpendicular to meridians. Who knows, maybe a box made out of the
>right kind of plastic has a "cartographic Meissner effect".
>
>Podkletnov's "gravity shield" is ultimately no better than that; it's
>just less original.
>
>
As with very many basic ideas in science fiction, the "gravity shield"
was invented by H.G. Wells in his novel "The first men in the moon" (1901),
where it is dubbed "Cavourite" after its fictional discoverer.
I was slightly disturbed to hear part of the NPR program "Fresh Air"
last week, in which the man being interviewed claimed quite seriously
that the US military had been engaged in secret anti-gravity research
since the 1950s. My unhappiness was that this was being taken quite
seriously by Terry Gross, who is often very good, but was way out of
her depth in this instance.
-----
--
# Paul R. Chernoff cher...@math.berkeley.edu #
# Department of Mathematics # 3840 #
# University of California "Against stupidity, the gods themselves #
# Berkeley, CA 94720-3840 struggle in vain." -- Schiller #
Dirk Bruere
news:3D63A0C9...@att.net...
> > I suppose a lot will hinge on the results Chiao gets. If his are
positive it
> > would tip the balance massively in favour of Podkletnov's claims.
>
> reproducibility.
>
> Given the de Broglie velocity relationship
>
> v = (hbar/m) (pi/B)
>
> Now for YBCO insert reasonable values of effective mass (m) and coherence
> dimension B with volumes on the order of B^3, then one obtains current
> densities on the order of 10^8 cm/sec^2.
>
> Existing bulk YBCO has current densities on the order of 10^5 cm/sec^2.
The
> question remains whether Podkletnov with his rather brute force HF
incidence
> and intensive Helium cooling and heat dissipation procedure was able to
induce
> 10^8 cm/sec^2 critical current and gravitational effects that as of yet
have
> not been reproducible in less energetic experiments.
>
> Chiao, operating in the microwave region may do it.
Does anyone have a timescale for the Chiao experiments?
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
> > I suppose a lot will hinge on the results Chiao gets. If his are
positive it
> > would tip the balance massively in favour of Podkletnov's claims.
>
> Read Uncle Al's lips, "laundry rings."
...
> It is not expected that application of negligible laboratory fields by
> the book will exhibit any anomalous macroscopic effect at all.
Well, radical experimental results often precede 'the book', or at least its
latest revision.
> Podkletnov does *not* report major Hell breaking loose for/from all
> the mass located above his apparatus (the building and the
> atmosphere), all of which is held in dynamic elastic compression in
> the Earth's gravitational field. (Force)(distance)=energy, mgh. If
> ten tonnes of masonry and steel suddenly relax a millimeter center of
> mass, the 98 joules must come from somewhere. If he switches the
> thing on and it brews up over 100 msec, that is a kilowatt surge. Do
> your houselights dim when your laundry iron cycles?
Well, if you want to go into the details we must start with a section
through the building about 30cm diameter (the dia of the SC disc). That does
not amount to tonnes - more likely tens of kg. As for the atmosphere above
the disc, that would weigh less than one tonne. So we knock off an order of
magnitude immediately. How much would you expect the atmospheric mass to
move?
> Raymond Chiao presented theory and claims that are reducible to
> practice. Chiao proposes a superconductor can reflect an incoming
> electromagnetic wave as an outgoing gravitational wave.
>
> http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0204012
>
> Giorgio Fontana (U of Trento, Italy) has proposed that d- to s-wave
> coversion therein emits gravitons.
>
> http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0110042
>
> It is predicted that insurmountable unfolding experimental subtleties
> (more studies needed) will always place the desired observation just
> out of reach (as with controlled hot fusion).
Maybe. But that is why people do experiments.
Dirk
Steve Carlip
Paul R. Chernoff <cher...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> I was slightly disturbed to hear part of the NPR program "Fresh Air"
> last week, in which the man being interviewed claimed quite seriously
> that the US military had been engaged in secret anti-gravity research
> since the 1950s. My unhappiness was that this was being taken quite
> seriously by Terry Gross, who is often very good, but was way out of
> her depth in this instance.
Minor point: it wasn't Terry Gross, but Barbara Bogaev filling in
for her.
Steve Carlip
zirkus
> >Are there any generally-accepted modern examples of a physics
> >experiment being prima facie 'nonsense' (in sense of contradicting
> >established fundamentals), yet subsequently being proved valid?
There are many such examples, perhaps the most famous being the
Michelson-Morley experiment.
Greg Kuperberg <gr...@math.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message news:
> The most telling kind of nonsense defies logic rather than
fundamentals.
> In these cases you can conclude that no matter what the experiment does,
> the interpretation can't possibly be sound. Or, in Pauli's words, it's
> "not even wrong".
"For any speculation which does not at first glance look crazy, there
is no hope!" - Freeman Dyson
"Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Einstein
Physics does not really advance via logic - if it did then physicists
would still be thinking like Plato. A logician at Harvard and MIT once
told me his opinion of (current) theoretical physics - "Physics!? Oh,
they just make that up as they go along." But this is the way it has
to be.
Since physicists don't really understand QG nor high temperature
superconductivity it may be premature to rule out some potential low
energy consequences of QG or a possibly non-trivial connection between
gravity and superconductivity.
Btw, there are different degrees of "nonsense", e.g. QG is nonsense in
the sense that no one can really make sense of it, but this does not
mean that QG is nonsense that is false or ridiculous (my favorite kind
of nonsense).
Jeffery
Of course physics has to be logical otherwise it's useless. It's logic
that enabled to progress beyond Plato. Of course, it takes
imagination. Anyone can imagine something that's not logical, but it
takes a real feat of imagination to think up a totally new solution to
a problem that at the same time is totally logical. Einstein for
instance had the imagination to think up totally new solutions that
were perfectly logical. Any crackpot can imagine anything they want
but it's not physics because it's not logical.
Jeffery Winkler
Vic Stenger
cosmos, isn't it at least in principle possible to build an
antigravity device. All you need is some material with P < -rho/3. I
undertand from Carl Wieman that bose condensates can have negative
pressure.
As I understand it, a lot of the current antigravity claims are
connected to the notion that free energy can be extracted from the
vacuum. That free energy has P = -rho. Of course, that is totally
impractical. I calculated that you would have to have two 200 km by
200 km sheets separated by one micron to light a 100W lightbulb for
one second.
zirkus
jeffery...@hotmail.com (Jeffery) wrote in message news:
> Of course physics has to be logical otherwise it's useless. It's logic
> that enabled to progress beyond Plato. Of course, it takes
> imagination. Anyone can imagine something that's not logical, but it
> takes a real feat of imagination to think up a totally new solution to
> a problem that at the same time is totally logical.
I did not say that physics is "illogical", but rather implied that
physics does not, by its fundamental nature, advance mainly via logic.
Instead there is supposed to be an ongoing process which should be
empirically falsifiable, and there have been many important
discoveries in science which involved chance or accident rather than
some arid logical resolve.
> Any crackpot can imagine anything they want
> but it's not physics because it's not logical.
You might want to consider the foundations of logic and how they might
relate to physical reality. This is a tough question which has been
discussed before in this newsgroup. You might also check out
physically related ideas based on the work of G. Chaitin (sp?) and the
nature of quantum information theory (including quantum computation).
But this is not a topic I want to discuss now, only because I'm too
busy with other things.
Richard Saam
> In article <akbqol$l90$1...@glue.ucr.edu>,
> Greg Kuperberg <gr...@math.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Personally I would like the crackpots to find more creative ways to be
> >"not even wrong". For instance, why not claim that you invented a
> >machine that can bend lines of latitude, so that they are no longer
> >perpendicular to meridians. Who knows, maybe a box made out of the
> >right kind of plastic has a "cartographic Meissner effect".
> >
Your "cartographic Meissner effect" is precisely the hypothesis presented by
Podkletnov with his impulse device. The goal is to emit a gravitational
influence of some type to alter the apparent cartography of the earth in terms
of the reference positions of the GPS satellites. This surely would pique the
interest of military/civil authorities. Whether it is true or not would
warrant millions USD/Rubles in expenditure for empirical/theoretical
study/experimentation despite the crackpot nature of the hypothesis.
>
> I was slightly disturbed to hear part of the NPR program "Fresh Air"
> last week, in which the man being interviewed claimed quite seriously
> that the US military had been engaged in secret anti-gravity research
> since the 1950s.
It sounds like something the military would be interested in. Note the GPS
modification paradigm above. Also note the current defense "star wars" shield
program. It does not seem to concern the scientists/technicians involved that
there is a limit to target trajectory information gathering and processing rate
that is bounded by the speed of light. This puts an absolute limit on accuracy
of weapon to target aiming. There must be a way to overcome this "speed of
light" law of nature. So the program goes on.
There is hope for success. After all, Glenn Seaborg's planchet of plutonium
was industrially scaled to producing tons.
When asked at the news conference at Crawford about resources to war against
Iraq, the first word out of his mouth, after some Texas conjuring, was
"technology". Maybe there are some new gadgets available.
Richard Saam
Dirk Bruere
news:akdqjo$1hkhjl$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de...
>
> Does anyone have a timescale for the Chiao experiments?
I was just reading:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0204012
"A simple, Hertz-like experiment has been performed to test these ideas, and
preliminary results will be reported. (PACS nos.: 03.65.Ud, 04.30.Db,
04.30.Nk, 04.80.Nn, 74.60-w, 74.72.Bk) "
Have they been reported?
How do I find out?
Dirk
Greg Kuperberg
zirkus <zir...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I did not say that physics is "illogical", but rather implied that
>physics does not, by its fundamental nature, advance mainly via logic.
The way I would put it is that physics is a marriage of logic (theory)
and observation (experiment). Theory is not just a wild outside influence
on experiment, or an afterthought to experiment, or even merely the sum
of those two. Experiment is worthless without theory.
Any description of observation, such as the words "gravity" and "shield",
is framed in the language of theory. If you take the current theoretical
meanings of those two words, the notion of a "gravity shield" defies
logic. It's on par with the notion of a "meridian Meissner effect".
Show me how to bend the Earth's meridian lines, and I will show you a
gravity shield.
Someone else in this discussion suggested repulsive gravity as a
theoretically allowed version of a gravity shield. First off, it isn't
theoretically allowed under terrestrial conditions. (And it's only
allowed under any conditions by stretching the notion of repulsion.)
Second, changing the sign of a force is not the same thing as "shielding"
that force. Reversing the north and south poles of a magnet do not make
it a "magnetic shield". Confusing shielding with sign change -
I'll allow that they are related - is a good example of bad theory.
Now, charitably, Podkletnov could have some totally different
understanding of "gravity" that is better than everyone else's. If so,
he hasn't shared that understanding. Then again, he hasn't shared his
experiments either. Whatever his experiments do, there is no reason
to believe that his interpretation of them holds water.
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *
Dirk Bruere
"Greg Kuperberg" <gr...@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:akr3pg$76t$1...@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu...
> The way I would put it is that physics is a marriage of logic (theory)
> and observation (experiment). Theory is not just a wild outside influence
> on experiment, or an afterthought to experiment, or even merely the sum
> of those two. Experiment is worthless without theory.
Not at all.
Experiment without theory can at least create technology.
Theory without experiment is totally worthless - it might as well fall under
the heading of 'religion', or if we are being charitable, 'philosophy'.
> Any description of observation, such as the words "gravity" and "shield",
> is framed in the language of theory. If you take the current theoretical
> meanings of those two words, the notion of a "gravity shield" defies
> logic. It's on par with the notion of a "meridian Meissner effect".
> Show me how to bend the Earth's meridian lines, and I will show you a
> gravity shield.
Well, how about the notion that something real has been discovered, but
misnamed?
Are you going to throw away experimental results/claims because they have
been given the wrong theoretical nomenclature?
...
> Now, charitably, Podkletnov could have some totally different
> understanding of "gravity" that is better than everyone else's. If so,
> he hasn't shared that understanding. Then again, he hasn't shared his
> experiments either. Whatever his experiments do, there is no reason
> to believe that his interpretation of them holds water.
Quite so.
There is also no reason to dismiss them on the grounds that he has given
them a catchy PR name.
Time will tell, no doubt.
Also, since I posted this question some time ago and have not received a
rejection or seen it posted; in Chiao's paper he claimed that experiments
had been done. Where are the results? Where would they be published? Have
they been published?
Dirk
zirkus
> "A simple, Hertz-like experiment has been performed to test these ideas, and
> preliminary results will be reported. (PACS nos.: 03.65.Ud, 04.30.Db,
> 04.30.Nk, 04.80.Nn, 74.60-w, 74.72.Bk) "
>
> Have they been reported?
> How do I find out?
First, I think you should view Chiao's more recent paper on this subject:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0208024
If this doesn't have what you are looking for then try his website or emailing him.
Uncle Al
"Superconductors are predicted to be macroscopic quantum gravitational
antennas and transducers, which can directly convert upon reflection a
beam of quadrupolar electromagnetic radiation into gravitational
radiation, and vice versa, and thus serve as both sources and
receivers of gravitational waves. An estimate of the transducer
conversion efficiency on the order of unity comes out of the
Ginzburg-Landau theory..."
One has a bad feeling about this.
"...I have performed a first attempt at this experiment with Walt
Fitelson using YBCO at liquid nitrogen temperature."
What a man! We can't argue with that!
"Unfortunately, we did not detect any observable signal inside the
second Faraday cage, down to a limit of more than 70 dB below the
microwave power source of around -10 dBm at 12 GHz,"
Then the waffling begins. He argues that for YBCO it would "be
necessary to cool the superconductor down to very low temperatures
before the normal electron component freezes out sufficiently to
achieve such an extreme impedance matching process." In other words,
the theory is OK but it cannot be realized in practice.
"in its normal state, one would need a Boltzmann factor of the order
of e^(-100) in order to freeze out the dissipation due to the normal
electrons down to an impedance level comparable to ZG. This would
imply that temperatures around a Kelvin should suffice. However,
there exist unexplained residual microwave and far-infrared losses..."
Going to a classical BCS supercon, a temp of millikelvins or lower is
predicted required.
http://physics.berkeley.edu/research/chiao/
http://physics.berkeley.edu/research/chiao/research.html
I fail to see how Chiao and Podkletnov can both be correct. If
extreme low temps are real world necessary, Podkletnov craps out. If
Podkletnov works, then why doesn't Chiao see anything with expected
"transducer conversion efficiency on the order of unity"?
It all looks like a lot of fun, both on paper and in the lab. I would
lend it no credence whatsoever until it produces some suitably
astonishing empirical results. I harbor grave suspicians about
research that is always just out of reach - controlled hot fusion,
cold fusion, climate prediction, economics, psychology, laundry rings,
"over unity" energy generation, magnetic hernia trusses...
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
zirkus
gr...@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu (Greg Kuperberg) wrote in message news:
> The way I would put it is that physics is a marriage of logic (theory)
> and observation (experiment). Theory is not just a wild outside influence
> on experiment, or an afterthought to experiment, or even merely the sum
> of those two. Experiment is worthless without theory.
Overall, I agree with what you are saying, but experiments without
theory can be much more than "worthless" if they point the way to
something new. Here are some brief examples to illustrate this point,
including one which should be relevant for the topic of this thread:
In the Middle Ages, natural philosphers believed that life could only
exist if it was visible to the naked eye, which seemed "logical" at
the time, but the invention of the microscope opened up a whole new
empirical reality (somewhat similarly with the advent of the
telescope).
The "Ether" hypothesis once seemed "logical", but the Michelson-Morley
experiment and other experiments from the early 1900s seemed
"illogical" and without theory until people like Einstein came up with
radical new theories, i.e. GTR and QM.
In the early 1990s,
experiments found that the mass of the cooper
pair in a rotating superconductor ring is
greater than predicted by theory (i.e., the
London moment flux). See Tate, J., et al., Phys
Rev B 42, 7885 and Phys Rev Lett 62, 845.
If these Tate experiments are valid then theorists have only two
options:
1) Adapt their theories to include this new finding.
2) Discard their theories in favor of a new and more accurate one.
My knowledge of history suggests that important new discoveries in
math or physics can come in three ways:
1) Someone accidentally discovers something and then they or another
person soon or eventually realize its significance.
2) Building upon previous work (perhaps an example would be Wiles'
proof of FLT).
3) People invent something fundamentally new that seems more
radically or inexplicablly derived than type (2). This could include
discoveries by people like Gauss, Riemann, Fermat, Einstein, Ramanujan
etc.
p.ki...@ic.ac.uk
Dirk Bruere <di...@neopax.com> wrote:
> Experiment without theory can at least create technology.
> Theory without experiment is totally worthless - it might as well
> fall under the heading of 'religion', or if we are being charitable,
> 'philosophy'.
You are taking a rather perversely narrow view here. The research
community has many theorists producing theoretical work, and the
work is neither religious or philosophical. What the many pure
theory papers do is create a collection of knowledge and skills which
may inform other theorists, and can, in either a direct or indirect
way, produce subsequent work with testable predictions, or better and
more useful experiments.
Some of my theory work, for example, has been included in textbooks.
Under your definition it is apparently worthless -- even though it
may help people understand some concepts better, whereupon they
may (I hope) understand something better, and hence perform some
experiment you might consider worthwhile. If something facilitates a
worthwhile action, can it _really_ be considered worthless?
--
---------------------------------+---------------------------------
Dr. Paul Kinsler
Department of Physics (QOLS) (ph) +44-20-75947520
Imperial College, (fax) +44-20-75947714
Prince Consort Road, Dr.Paul...@physics.org
London SW7 2BW, United Kingdom. http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/
Public Key: http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/key/work-key-2002a
Charles Francis
In article <al6hv1$1niv6j$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de>, Dirk Bruere
<di...@neopax.com> writes
>"Greg Kuperberg" <gr...@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
>news:akr3pg$76t$1...@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu...
>>Experiment is worthless without theory.
>
>Not at all.
>Experiment without theory can at least create technology.
Actually experiment cannot even make sense in the absence of theory, let
alone create anything. Before I interpret the results of experiment I
need some theories about how those results are to be taken and how they
are to be interpreted. I need at the very least to have a theory that
the behaviour of matter is always and everywhere the same, otherwise I
may as well assume that all the results of experiment are random, and I
need to have a theory that the definition of basic physical quantities,
such as the second and the metre, actually makes sense. In fact basic
assumptions of this sort, which I have to make prior to observation, are
sufficient to establish a substantial body of theory, including the
validity of local Lorentz transformation.
>Theory without experiment is totally worthless - it might as well fall under
>the heading of 'religion', or if we are being charitable, 'philosophy'.
Likewise, if I am being charitable, I would describe your position on
the subject as "philosophy". But what sort of philosophy is it that says
we do not need a philosophy. Reductio ad absurdum, a denial of the need
to think, and bound to be wrong I should have thought..
Regards
--
Charles Francis
Dirk Bruere
<p.ki...@ic.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:oa5ala...@delillo.lsr.ph.ic.ac.uk...
>
> Dirk Bruere <di...@neopax.com> wrote:
> > Experiment without theory can at least create technology.
> > Theory without experiment is totally worthless - it might as well
> > fall under the heading of 'religion', or if we are being charitable,
> > 'philosophy'.
>
> You are taking a rather perversely narrow view here. The research
> community has many theorists producing theoretical work, and the
> work is neither religious or philosophical. What the many pure
> theory papers do is create a collection of knowledge and skills which
> may inform other theorists, and can, in either a direct or indirect
> way, produce subsequent work with testable predictions, or better and
> more useful experiments.
That is the hope, ultimately.
However if nothing testable ever comes out of the work I do not see how it
can be considered science.
What is a TOE that beautifully integrates QM and GTR but is not testable in
any way? Something to 'believe in'?
> Some of my theory work, for example, has been included in textbooks.
> Under your definition it is apparently worthless -- even though it
> may help people understand some concepts better, whereupon they
> may (I hope) understand something better, and hence perform some
> experiment you might consider worthwhile. If something facilitates a
> worthwhile action, can it _really_ be considered worthless?
In that particular case, no.
But it still does not fall under the heading of 'science' IMO.
It is an educational aid.
Dirk
[Moderator's note: This is getting dangerously close to a theorists
vs. experimentalists argument. I'd just like to remind everyone to
keep it civil and free of personal attacks. -- KS]
Charles Cagle
[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <akr3pg$76t$1...@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu>, Greg Kuperberg
<gr...@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> In article <8c7d34cb.02082...@posting.google.com>,
> zirkus <zir...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >I did not say that physics is "illogical", but rather implied that
> >physics does not, by its fundamental nature, advance mainly via logic.
>
> The way I would put it is that physics is a marriage of logic (theory)
> and observation (experiment). Theory is not just a wild outside influence
> on experiment, or an afterthought to experiment, or even merely the sum
> of those two. Experiment is worthless without theory.
Well, that's not entirely correct. Experiment may reveal a property
such as superconduction that is useful in technology yet
superconduction doesn't need to have a theory for it to work and for it
to be usefully employed in a technological application. One only needs
to know how to induce the property (superconduction) not how to
'explain' it. We learn to tweak and fiddle using experiments and when
we're finished tweaking and fiddling we may have learned how to run
electrons through electronic gates in such precise ways that we end up
having a working cell phone in our hand but to build a cell phone we
don't necessarily need to understand the nature of an electron but only
how to make it do the things we want it to do upon our command.
Charles Cagle
zirkus
> In the early 1990s,
> experiments found that the mass of the cooper
> pair in a rotating superconductor ring is
> greater than predicted by theory (i.e., the
> London moment flux). See Tate, J., et al., Phys
> Rev B 42, 7885 and Phys Rev Lett 62, 845.
Hey Uncle Al, this might interest you:
The London moment equation for a superconductor with an angular
velocity reminded me of the Sagnac effect. It seems that the Sagnac
effect cannot be derived from rotating frame (as opposed to lab frame)
using a local Lorentz frame approach:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0206033
I keep getting the impression that physical reality might be close to
being infinitely complicated. Perhaps the universe is stranger than we
*can* imagine or, to paraphrase Shakespeare, there is more to heaven
and Earth than dreamt of in our philosophies.
Uncle Al, Uncle Al, will you read us the story about how time is an
illusion rising from time?
Ralph E. Frost
Dirk Bruere <di...@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:ald7ce$1pdslk$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de...
I propose a truce between the warring factions. Science consists of both
aspects, doesn't it? Hypotheses and tests? Descriptions and experiments?
Game theories and games?
The useful education aid likely must thread its way along a curvy razor's
edge, slicing and re-connecting disparate regions of thinking and
experimentation into a more unified, albeit, simplified synthesis.
Learning styles, cultures and people being what they are, it's most likley
that one skilled in theory building and the abstract maths du jour may not
have the same sort of physical intuition as a technican sub-sisting in the
sub-sub-basement of some physics lab somewhere. However, if the
technician awakens from long ineffable funk and dreams up a way to
articulate a useful linguistic expression that conveys physical intuition
more directly than with other "educational aids", MUST this new expression
also pre-exist in the theorists' bags of tricks before the finding can be
discussed? Isn't it more likely that the new imagery would NOT pre-exist
or be known within the more abstract linguistic expressions of the
theorists?
However, to make forward progress, surely such an improved abstract
linguistic expression certainly would NEED to come into existence -- ASAP --
if it is possible.
Thus, a truce might make a lot of sense, rather than carp about the "lack
of theory", or "unexplainable" results, in a truce situation, the parties
could begin to stop the name-calling and merely sit with the uncomfortable
propositions, understanding that at some point the matter would become more
clear to everyone.
Truce?
- Ralph Frost
http://www.refrost.com
Use more robust symbols
Seek a thought worthy of speech.
Charles Francis
In article <080920021418274193%pro...@singtech.com>, Charles Cagle
<pro...@singtech.com> writes
>
>In article <akr3pg$76t$1...@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu>, Greg Kuperberg
><gr...@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>
>> In article <8c7d34cb.02082...@posting.google.com>,
>> zirkus <zir...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >I did not say that physics is "illogical", but rather implied that
>> >physics does not, by its fundamental nature, advance mainly via logic.
I am profoundly suspicious of this claim. Einstein's contributions were
certainly mainly down to logic, as was the Dirac equation, Newton's laws
would be worthless without the logical ability to use them, as would
Maxwell's equations. On the other hand quantum mechanics certainly
seemed, if not illogical, certainly irrational to its creators. Even
going back to the days before we had much in the way of theory,
Aristotle for one thought the logical thing to do was observe.
>> The way I would put it is that physics is a marriage of logic (theory)
>> and observation (experiment). Theory is not just a wild outside influence
>> on experiment, or an afterthought to experiment, or even merely the sum
>> of those two. Experiment is worthless without theory.
>
>Well, that's not entirely correct. Experiment may reveal a property
>such as superconduction that is useful in technology yet
>superconduction doesn't need to have a theory for it to work and for it
>to be usefully employed in a technological application. One only needs
>to know how to induce the property (superconduction) not how to
>'explain' it.
Are you really suggesting that we could have run experiments to discover
superconduction without both a theory of electromagnetism and a theory
of heat?
> We learn to tweak and fiddle using experiments and when
>we're finished tweaking and fiddling we may have learned how to run
>electrons through electronic gates in such precise ways that we end up
>having a working cell phone
And are you really suggesting that we could design a cell phone without
a theory of logic gates?
Regards
--
Charles Francis
Kevin A. Scaldeferri
Dirk Bruere <di...@neopax.com> wrote:
>
>
><p.ki...@ic.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:oa5ala...@delillo.lsr.ph.ic.ac.uk...
>
>However if nothing testable ever comes out of the work I do not see how it
>can be considered science.
>What is a TOE that beautifully integrates QM and GTR but is not testable in
>any way? Something to 'believe in'?
Perhaps, but I don't see how something can be considered science which
is logically inconsistent. That is the problem currently. We have
two theories, both successful in their respective regimes, but
incompatible with one another. Getting to the regime where the
problems occur is "just" an engineering task.
This ought to be worrisome to experimentalists and engineers too.
Their work depends on extrapolation of the known. Tinkering around
blindly sometimes produces something exceptional, but more often it
produces a useless hunk of metal. If one can be informed by the
well-known and familiar, one can proceed with more confidence, if,
perhaps, less excitement.
--
======================================================================
Kevin Scaldeferri Calif. Institute of Technology
The INTJ's Prayer:
Lord keep me open to others' ideas, WRONG though they may be.
Greg Kuperberg
zirkus <zir...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The "Ether" hypothesis once seemed "logical", but the Michelson-Morley
>experiment and other experiments from the early 1900s seemed
>"illogical" and without theory until people like Einstein came up with
>radical new theories, i.e. GTR and QM.
>
>In the early 1990s, experiments found that the mass of the cooper pair
>in a rotating superconductor ring is greater than predicted by theory
>(i.e., the London moment flux). See Tate, J., et al., Phys Rev B 42,
>7885 and Phys Rev Lett 62, 845.
When I said that experiment is worthless without theory, I was not
referring to experiments that contradict established theory. Those of
course are among the best experiments, not the worst. Rather, I was
referring to experiments that are devoid of a rational theoretical
context. Those really are worthless. There is really nothing to gain
from taking data without logical motivation or, crucially, logical
analysis afterwards.
It is true that Michelson could not offer a theoretical explanation of
his results. Still, he understood prior theory very well and he never ran
roughshod over it. His only mistake was that he was too loyal to the old
thinking. Einstein didn't run roughshod over Newtonian physics either.
Rather, he understood it better than everyone else and he augmented it
with relativity.
A good example of experimental research that has impoverished of rational
theory is all of the epidemiology of whether cell phones cause cancer.
(Podkletnov is another good example.) If the people clamoring for
that research really understood physics, they would know that it's
like asking whether hats cause heart disease. Sure, you can ask, but
endless medical surveys without theoretical guidance are NOT the
path to answers.
Ralph E. Frost
Dirk Bruere <di...@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:ald7ce$1pdslk$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de...
> That is the hope, ultimately.
> However if nothing testable ever comes out of the work I do not see how it
> can be considered science.
> What is a TOE that beautifully integrates QM and GTR but is not testable
in
> any way? Something to 'believe in'?
Probably not.
Let's say there was an elegant TOE that poked up through the sands of time
that did as you suggest. And in doing, FIT, the prior data and imagery even
BETTER than the prior, bifurcated imagery.
Now, in that situation, isn't it that what folks were _previously_
holding onto, those folks were just holding on to "something to believe
in", too?
The new fangled thing, fitting with the data BETTER that the prior imagery,
replaces the prior thing. Folks more from the old trial theory, to the
improved one. So, it is the OLD trial theory that gets ~falsified.
...in exactly the ways it can get falisified.
That seems to be part of the discussion that folks don't want to get down
to. When a new model emerges, they immediately demand, "reveal how this new
thing can be falisfied", rather than noticing that it has something helpful
to reveal about the prior trial theory.
Just a thought.
--
Ralph Frost
http://flep.refrost.com
Dirk Bruere
"Greg Kuperberg" <gr...@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:ald3is$8af$1...@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu...
>
> When I said that experiment is worthless without theory, I was not
> referring to experiments that contradict established theory. Those of
> course are among the best experiments, not the worst. Rather, I was
> referring to experiments that are devoid of a rational theoretical
> context. Those really are worthless. There is really nothing to gain
> from taking data without logical motivation or, crucially, logical
> analysis afterwards.
That is a really silly statement.
If everyone believed that then superconductivity would not have been
discovered.
Why keep testing conductivity at lower and lower temperatures? What is the
theoretical rationale?
In fact the whole history of low temp physics lacked a theoretical rationale
in the early days when the major discoveries were made.
Dirk
Ralph E. Frost
Kevin A. Scaldeferri <ke...@its.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:alis9v$9mr$1...@sue.its.caltech.edu...
> In article <ald7ce$1pdslk$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de>,
> Dirk Bruere <di...@neopax.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> ><p.ki...@ic.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >news:oa5ala...@delillo.lsr.ph.ic.ac.uk...
> >
> >That is the hope, ultimately.
> >However if nothing testable ever comes out of the work I do not see how
it
> >can be considered science.
> >What is a TOE that beautifully integrates QM and GTR but is not testable
in
> >any way? Something to 'believe in'?
>
> Perhaps, but I don't see how something can be considered science which
> is logically inconsistent. That is the problem currently. We have
> two theories, both successful in their respective regimes, but
> incompatible with one another. Getting to the regime where the
> problems occur is "just" an engineering task.
>
> This ought to be worrisome to experimentalists and engineers too.
> Their work depends on extrapolation of the known. Tinkering around
> blindly sometimes produces something exceptional, but more often it
> produces a useless hunk of metal. If one can be informed by the
> well-known and familiar, one can proceed with more confidence, if,
> perhaps, less excitement.
I'm wondering if you might try to be a bit more explicit and less vague?
Also, in you saying it's just an engineering task to find the common
denominator that QM and GR share, you seem to be saying, "yes, well, both
sets of theorists have done a bang-up error-free job. Not it is just a
matter of cleaning up a few rough edges".
I suppose, of course that is true, in one sense. All the heavy lifting has
been done and roughly, things have been split into sort of the right
compartments.
However, The other possible is both of those initial attempts very well
could be flawed beyond salvaging and that is it might be easier to skate
along from above and notice how the two are hung inside out and backwards,
like mis-shapened, twisted saddle bags slung over a tin-horn's horse
backsides.
As for excitement, the quest in science to find the really boring
ubiquitous stuff is not the exciting part. What is exciting is trying to
think of ANY way to make essentially one universal hum-drum pattern become
interesting.
Uncle Al
Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
> "Greg Kuperberg" <gr...@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
> news:ald3is$8af$1...@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu...
> If everyone believed that then superconductivity would not have been
> discovered.
> Why keep testing conductivity at lower and lower temperatures? What is the
> theoretical rationale?
>
> In fact the whole history of low temp physics lacked a theoretical rationale
> in the early days when the major discoveries were made.
The vast bulk of discovery is serendipitous or flat out erroneous.
Consider nuclear fission, Gunn diodes, or cosmic background
radiation. "It does WHAT?" Your microwave oven owes its core to a
WWII British chap fascinated by whistles.
H. Kamerlingh-Ohnes wanted to explore the limits of electrical
resistivity vs. temp in the purest metal possible. Mercury could be
chemically purified (tumble in air, filter, dribble through nitric
acid) and then serialy vacuum evaporated to eight or more 9s clean,
even in the early 1900s. He had recently liquefied helium (discovered
thanks to the accumulation dewar being jostled by a bored onlooker).
When he ran the experiment... he spent a lot of time looking for the
short circuit.
Discovery doesn't fit into a PERT chart. There is no way of managing
it. There is no business model. The safe sure professional route is
to repeatedly publish the smallest possible dollops of incremental
knowledge. Industrial folk polish their alb bneches and make
PowerPoint presentations. If it weren't for GUI interfaces the big
lab supply business would be selling vernier dials.
Discovery is routinely achieved by undeserving bastards. The
polymerase chain reaction got Kary B. Mullis, the 1993 Nobel Prize in
chemistry. Mullis is an acknowledged flake. He did the "work" while
driving his car and letting his mind wander. Who would fund that?
Cohen (1986 Nobel) and Boyer invented recombinant DNA technology on a
cocktail napkin in a Hawaiian delicatessan in 1972. Should we be
designing "better" cocktail napkins? Seymour Cray did his design
cogitation while digging a tunnel under his Wisconsin farm. The
tunnel didn't go anywhere in particular.
The largest waste of R&D money in the history of the world was
Reagan's "Star Wars" defense. For all that ridiculous slobber and
drool, I bet the spin-offs have already paid back the investment. If
you want to go where no man has gone before, you start by going where
you haven't already been.
Uncle Al
"The author challenges anyone to derive the Sagnac effect from the
rotating frame using the local
Lorentz frame approach." Thank you for the reference! Derivation of
the Sagnac general case is a highly estimable feat.
Juggling axial and polar vectors; chirality/spin and helicity/torsion;
and the manifest excrescences of parity have routinely resulted in
unanticipated physics whose existence has been enthusiastically denied
before the fact. It is an especially fine universe that has linear
polarization rotation subtract on reversal of its chiral path and add
on reversal of its Faraday effect path. I have a quick 2100 words
suggesting what next observation should be executed,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.pdf
Douglas Adams "There is a theory which states that if ever anybody
discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will
instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and
inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has
already happened."
Recursion, Cf.: recursion.
Charles Cagle
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <aljbpn$mqu$1...@sue.its.caltech.edu>, Charles Francis
<cha...@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <080920021418274193%pro...@singtech.com>, Charles Cagle
> <pro...@singtech.com> writes
<snip>
> >Well, that's not entirely correct. Experiment may reveal a property
> >such as superconduction that is useful in technology yet
> >superconduction doesn't need to have a theory for it to work and for it
> >to be usefully employed in a technological application. One only needs
> >to know how to induce the property (superconduction) not how to
> >'explain' it.
>
> Are you really suggesting that we could have run experiments to discover
> superconduction without both a theory of electromagnetism and a theory
> of heat?
Not at all, sir. I am suggesting only that it is not necessary for us
to understand superconduction for us to make use of it in a
technological device.
> > We learn to tweak and fiddle using experiments and when
> >we're finished tweaking and fiddling we may have learned how to run
> >electrons through electronic gates in such precise ways that we end up
> >having a working cell phone
>
> And are you really suggesting that we could design a cell phone without
> a theory of logic gates?
Again, I think you strain the point. I stated my conclusion which was
that it is not necessary for us to understand the essence of an
electron to usefully employ its properties to our bidding.
But the point perhaps needs more labor. Were we to have a full
understanding of superconduction we might likewise have to have a full
understanding of the universe. "To make an apple pie from scratch",
said Sagan, "one must first invent the universe".
However, I entertain the notion that should someone fully comprehend
gravity and electrodynamics and electrons and protons and neutrons that
one could proactively predict previously unpredicted phenomena and
rightly explain well know phenomena and engineer presently unknown
technology. For example, for one who truly understands the universe
the question of whether or not a working nuclear fusion reactor
(meaning one that puts out more power than it consumes and stays in an
ignited state mode) can be built would not be a matter of speculation.
Knowledge, true knowledge, has a value index which is linked to
survival. That alone makes it a worthwhile pursuit.
Consequently, exactly the techniques which should be employed in a
successful pursuit are of vital interest. Deductive logic, I believe
is more important to that process than a posteriori reasoning which
presently dominates 'scientific thinking' these days.
CC.
Charles Francis
>What is a TOE that beautifully integrates QM and GTR but is not testable in
>any way? Something to 'believe in'?
Is it not a fundamental assumption that the universe is self consistent?
Then a vital test of scientific theory is that it be consistent, so a
unification theory will, by definition, satisfy this test while QM and
GTR fail it.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
Kevin A. Scaldeferri
Ralph E. Frost <ref...@dcwi.com> wrote:
>
>Kevin A. Scaldeferri <ke...@its.caltech.edu> wrote in message
>news:alis9v$9mr$1...@sue.its.caltech.edu...
>> In article <ald7ce$1pdslk$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de>,
>> Dirk Bruere <di...@neopax.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >That is the hope, ultimately.
>> >However if nothing testable ever comes out of the work I do not see how
>it
>> >can be considered science.
>> >What is a TOE that beautifully integrates QM and GTR but is not testable
>in
>> >any way? Something to 'believe in'?
>>
>> Perhaps, but I don't see how something can be considered science which
>> is logically inconsistent. That is the problem currently. We have
>> two theories, both successful in their respective regimes, but
>> incompatible with one another. Getting to the regime where the
>> problems occur is "just" an engineering task.
>>
>> This ought to be worrisome to experimentalists and engineers too.
>> Their work depends on extrapolation of the known. Tinkering around
>> blindly sometimes produces something exceptional, but more often it
>> produces a useless hunk of metal. If one can be informed by the
>> well-known and familiar, one can proceed with more confidence, if,
>> perhaps, less excitement.
>
>I'm wondering if you might try to be a bit more explicit and less vague?
If you'll be more explicit about what you want me to be more explicit
about :-)
>Also, in you saying it's just an engineering task to find the common
>denominator that QM and GR share
No, I said it was "just" an engineering task to test the regime where
both gravity and quantum mechanics are important. That's different
from what you just said in two important ways.
>However, The other possible is both of those initial attempts very well
>could be flawed beyond salvaging
Perhaps, but I doubt it.
Charles Francis
This is a different point altogether. Science does not tell us what an
electron is, but it attempts to tell us what an electron does. I doubt
whether the essence of an electron is a knowable quantity, but we have
to know what an electron does if we want to employ its properties to our
bidding
>However, I entertain the notion that should someone fully comprehend
>gravity and electrodynamics and electrons and protons and neutrons that
>one could proactively predict previously unpredicted phenomena and
>rightly explain well know phenomena and engineer presently unknown
>technology. For example, for one who truly understands the universe
>the question of whether or not a working nuclear fusion reactor
>(meaning one that puts out more power than it consumes and stays in an
>ignited state mode) can be built would not be a matter of speculation.
Actually we know that such a thing can be built. All you have to do is
take a gas cloud in space and wait for it to collapse under its own
gravity ;-)
Seriously though, this is not a question of needing to know more about
the behaviour of matter, it is a question of whether we can calculate
based on the behaviours of matter which we know. Calculations on the
scale required are digital approximations and cannot be perfect, so we
would actually still have to build a working fusion reactor to be quite
sure of the result.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
Charles Francis
In article <almma7$1reoa2$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de>, Dirk Bruere
<di...@neopax.com> writes
>
>If everyone believed that then superconductivity would not have been
>discovered.
>Why keep testing conductivity at lower and lower temperatures? What is the
>theoretical rationale?
The systematic investigation of the properties of matter under different
conditions has always been a central part of empirical science, and
requires no more rationale than that. The rationale is that if we do not
know and we can find out, then we should find out. But do observe also
that you could not even carry out these experiments without a pretty
good theory of temperature as kinetic motions on an atomic scale, and
that if you do have a theory of temperature as kinetic motions on an
atomic scale then it is pretty rational to ask "what happens when the
motions due to heat are low enough that collisions due to them cease to
be a factor". It is also pretty rational to think that under such
circumstances there is nothing to take energy from an electron moving
under a p.d.f. and hence that resistivity should fall of to zero.
Now I do not know what was in the minds of the first experimentalists
studying super conductivity. It is the way of scientific publishing to
report on their hard empirical results, not on the theoretical
speculations which motivated them. But I am certainly prepared to assume
that they were not stupid, and that they were expert in their field. It
seems extremely unlikely therefore that they would have failed to think
about what they were doing before they did it, which is what you seem to
suggest.
I would respectfully suggest therefore that if you think something silly
it may be because you cannot see the reason for it, by dint of the fact
that you know less than those you are calling silly. Please don't do
that, it can upset people.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
Charles Cagle
<cha...@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <090920022324044406%pro...@singtech.com>, Charles Cagle
> <pro...@singtech.com> writes
> >[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
> > the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
> >
> >In article <aljbpn$mqu$1...@sue.its.caltech.edu>, Charles Francis
> ><cha...@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <080920021418274193%pro...@singtech.com>, Charles Cagle
> >> <pro...@singtech.com> writes
> >Again, I think you strain the point. I stated my conclusion which was
> >that it is not necessary for us to understand the essence of an
> >electron to usefully employ its properties to our bidding.
>
> This is a different point altogether. Science does not tell us what an
> electron is, but it attempts to tell us what an electron does. I doubt
> whether the essence of an electron is a knowable quantity, but we have
> to know what an electron does if we want to employ its properties to our
> bidding.
I think that is the devil's advocate position. The word science comes
from the Latin 'Scientia' which meant certain knowledge. The most
important questions in science are in the 'what is it?' category. We
know what gravity does (or we think we know everything that it does by
relying upon a theory that outlines what the writer of the theory
thought gravity did) but we don't know what it is (unless we also
accept the notions of Einstein who also wanted to answer the 'what is
it? question about gravity.). So, in reality, 'what' is a very big
part of science. You may think that you will never understand the
ontological nature of an electron, that is, what causes an electron to
be but to me that is far more important than merely knowning what it
does. Now I maintain this position because I think that the business
of discovering what electrons do and why they do them would be much
simplified if we knew what they were in the first place. Robert
Dynes, an experimentalist at UCSD has been quoted as saying "The
confusion over superconductivity betrays a serious gap in
physicists' understanding of the most basic properties of matter." We
lack that understanding because we don't have the answers to the "what
is it?" questions. Now it seems that it is becoming ever more popular
for people to back away from the 'what is it?' questions like you are
doing and to declare that answering such questions is not the function
of science. That sounds like a person who has failed and brings to
mind Aesop's tail of the fox and the grapes. After many failed
attempts at jumping up to get a mouthful of the delicious looking
grapes the fox decides that they must be sour anyway which was his way
of justifying or (accomodating his failure to his psyche).
If we knew what gravity was then we could predict properties of
gravity that are presently unknown (if it has properties that are
presently unknown). If we understood the nature of an electron then I
suspect that we'd be able to predict properties of electrons that we
only have discovered serendipitously. (Actually, it would be
'post-dict', I guess but nevertheless it would be a property that we
didn't just run into one day but rather one we could logically deduce
which makes the post diction acceptable as science.
> >However, I entertain the notion that should someone fully comprehend
> >gravity and electrodynamics and electrons and protons and neutrons that
> >one could proactively predict previously unpredicted phenomena and
> >rightly explain well know phenomena and engineer presently unknown
> >technology. For example, for one who truly understands the universe
> >the question of whether or not a working nuclear fusion reactor
> >(meaning one that puts out more power than it consumes and stays in an
> >ignited state mode) can be built would not be a matter of speculation.
>
> Actually we know that such a thing can be built. All you have to do is
> take a gas cloud in space and wait for it to collapse under its own
> gravity ;-)
You're suggesting what is merely theory is a known fact. It is
strongly believed by many people but not substantiated by observation
of the putative processes itself.
> Seriously though, this is not a question of needing to know more about
> the behaviour of matter, it is a question of whether we can calculate
> based on the behaviours of matter which we know. Calculations on the
> scale required are digital approximations and cannot be perfect, so we
> would actually still have to build a working fusion reactor to be quite
> sure of the result.
I disagree. I think it is exactly because we don't actually understand
what things are that we are unable to precisely predict what they can
do. We're always playing catch up ball. And when it comes right down
to it then we can't differentiate ourselves (when we take that
approach) from any ordinary clever pathological liar who is always able
to provide an explanation for any deviation at the drop of a hat. We
see a phenomenon that no one predicted and then we see specialists
scrambling to be the first to explain it. They give away Nobel prizes
for what people think are good "explanations". They did this in the
matter of superconduction to Bardeen, Cooper, and Schaeffer but now
most people in the field are abandoning the BCS theory because in the
words of Phillip Anderson (A Nobelist) it "has been a catalog of
failure".
Einstein's explanation of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury is a
post diction even if people believe that it is accurate to 1 part in a
thousand or better. People knew of the advance of the perihelion of
Mercury long before Einstein sought an explanation. Because Einstein
was able to predict the apparent bending of starlight to what theorists
claim is an accuracy of .1 percent doesn't mean that his explanation is
correct. It is a well known phenomenon that experimental results tend
to cluster closely around the answer which is believed to be correct.
CC.
Dirk Bruere
news:nHdU2UA9Stf9Ewg$@clef.demon.co.uk...
> In article <ald7ce$1pdslk$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de>, Dirk Bruere
> <di...@neopax.com> writes
> >What is a TOE that beautifully integrates QM and GTR but is not testable
in
> >any way? Something to 'believe in'?
>
> Is it not a fundamental assumption that the universe is self consistent?
Well, there are quite a few assumptions built into modern science.
Another would be assumption that mathematics can model physical reality at
all levels..
> Then a vital test of scientific theory is that it be consistent, so a
> unification theory will, by definition, satisfy this test while QM and
> GTR fail it.
OTOH, maybe the mathematics involved will be subject to Godel
Incompleteness, or maybe (Penrose) use uncomputable numbers. There are a
number of possible unpleasant surprises that may be lurking in a TOE.
However, I think part of the problem with this thread is that we have not
delineated 'theory' from 'scientific theory'.
IMO a theory is simply a data compression algorithm, whereas a scientific
theory is one amenable to *practical* falsification experimentally.
Dirk