cranks & loonies - give me a list
Ben Bullock
I would like a list of all the cranks, loonies and crazies on
sci.physics, so that I can save the trouble of continually having to
update a "kill" file.
Please send responses to me directly by e-mail, and I will summarise
with a full "loony" list to directly enter into a kill file.
So far my "loony list" is as follows:
*Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)*
*atla...@aol.com (Atlantur)*
*ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)*
*t...@ic.net (Tom Potter)*
*st...@fwn.rug.nl (Student Natuurkunde)*
*pr...@price.demon.co.uk (Michael Clive Price)*
*pa...@meed47.ee.man.ac.uk (Paul Floyd)*
*an3...@anon.penet.fi (Father McGlone)*
*pe...@csn.org (bert)*
*ver...@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon)*
Some of the above "loonies" may have just been making a joke or
something when I read their posts, so if they are not really loonies
someone should tell me (they can't tell me themselves because their
posts are totally exterminated from my newsreader)
--
Ben Bullock @ KEK (National Lab. for High Energy Physics)
1-1 Oho, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, JAPAN : tel. 0298 64 5401
Alexander Abian
>
>I would like a list of all the cranks, loonies and crazies on
>sci.physics, so that I can save the trouble of continually having to
>update a "kill" file.
>
>Please send responses to me directly by e-mail, and I will summarise
>with a full "loony" list to directly enter into a kill file.
Abiam answers:
Mr. Bullock, you have made a very mature, intelligent and profound
suggestion.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIME AND SPACE TOGETHER HAVE INERTIA. EQ.OF TIME-SPACE TO MASS 1/T +1/log M = 1
ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP EPIDEMICS OF CANCER, CHOLERA, AIDS, ETC.
VENUS MUST BE GIVEN A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT TO BECOME A BORN AGAIN EARTH
jke...@delphi.com
>I would like a list of all the cranks, loonies and crazies on
>sci.physics, so that I can save the trouble of continually having to
>update a "kill" file.
>
>Please send responses to me directly by e-mail, and I will summarise
>with a full "loony" list to directly enter into a kill file.
Jack Sarfatti
>
>
>I would like a list of all the cranks, loonies and crazies on
>sci.physics, so that I can save the trouble of continually having to
>update a "kill" file.
>
>Please send responses to me directly by e-mail, and I will summarise
>with a full "loony" list to directly enter into a kill file.
>
>So far my "loony list" is as follows:
>
> *Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)*
> *atla...@aol.com (Atlantur)*
> *ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)*
> *t...@ic.net (Tom Potter)*
> *st...@fwn.rug.nl (Student Natuurkunde)*
> *pr...@price.demon.co.uk (Michael Clive Price)*
> *pa...@meed47.ee.man.ac.uk (Paul Floyd)*
> *an3...@anon.penet.fi (Father McGlone)*
> *pe...@csn.org (bert)*
> *ver...@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon)*
>
>Some of the above "loonies" may have just been making a joke or
>something when I read their posts, so if they are not really loonies
>someone should tell me (they can't tell me themselves because their
>posts are totally exterminated from my newsreader)
>
>--
>Ben Bullock @ KEK (National Lab. for High Energy Physics)
> 1-1 Oho, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, JAPAN : tel. 0298 64 5401
>
Michael Clive Price is not a "loonie". I don't know about the others. The
fact that you think Price a "loonie" surprises me. I may not agree with some
of his specific points but he is imaginative and competent. For example, his
article on traversable wotmholes, though it makes some extraordinary claims
without enough explanation it is quite interesting. It needs to be up-dated
to include the Alcubierre paper on global FTL warp via controlled miniinflation
with local timelike free floast and negligible time dilation assuming "exotic"
matter.
In general name-calling any one with terms like "loonie" is counter-productive
and bad netequette. It's like Mc Carthy calling people "pink", "commie" etc.
It's a simple matter to ignore messages you find uninteresting. I only read
about 5% of posted messages. It's easy and you don't even need a kill command.
The danger of a kill command is that your judgement can be premature - also
people are not objects, they adapt, evolve, and generally improve with intelligent
feedback. Your attitude reminds me of cliques in high school, or fraternities etc.
Jack Sarfatti
>
>Ben Bullock <b...@theory1.kek.jp> writes:
>
>>I would like a list of all the cranks, loonies and crazies on
>>sci.physics, so that I can save the trouble of continually having to
>>update a "kill" file.
>>
>>Please send responses to me directly by e-mail, and I will summarise
>>with a full "loony" list to directly enter into a kill file.
>
> Enter b...@theory1.kek.jp to your list!
>
Is this an allusion to Godel's theorem? :-)
Ben Bullock
> Enter b...@theory1.kek.jp to your list!
I would do, but I didn't see any evidence of lunacy in anything I
posted to this group. However, I am probably just deluding myself - I
probably sent a few posts proving that "ben@theory1 is god" using
Maxwell's equations or something, and then forgot about it.
Anyway, mostly I post from theory2 so it would not do so much good to
kill off posts from theory1.
I am very happy to receive all suggestions, but it is best to do it by
e-mail since the volume on this group is very high, and the number of
loonies is such that there should be a very large response to this
request.
Matthew MacIntyre
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: Michael Clive Price is not a "loonie".
That's really reassuring.
Jack Sarfatti
I'm glad you feel better.
Philip Gibbs
>
> I would like a list of all the cranks, loonies and crazies on
> sci.physics, so that I can save the trouble of continually having to
> update a "kill" file.
>
> Please send responses to me directly by e-mail, and I will summarise
> with a full "loony" list to directly enter into a kill file.
>
> So far my "loony list" is as follows:
>
>
> Some of the above "loonies" may have just been making a joke or
> something when I read their posts, so if they are not really loonies
> someone should tell me (they can't tell me themselves because their
> posts are totally exterminated from my newsreader)
>
Are you sure you can tell the difference between a loony theory
and a real one? Some of those on your list aren't loonies.
If somebody posted an article claiming that the universe was a
hologram would you put them in your kill file? If so you had
better add Leonard Susskind and Gerard 't Hooft.
\cite{ gr-qc/9310026, hep-th/9409089}
You need to open your mind just a little bit more!
Phil
Ben Bullock
> If somebody posted an article claiming that the universe was a
> hologram would you put them in your kill file? If so you had
> better add Leonard Susskind and Gerard 't Hooft.
Indeed I had better, if they start posting on this group.
Let me give you some examples.
Dirac spent a large ammount of time in his later years trying to
multiply various physical constants together in order to get a
(dimensionless) number close to 1, and then claiming that it was a
result of some significance, and also saying quantum field theory was
meaningless, even despite its successful comparison with experiment.
Eddington thought that he could prove that the fine structure constant
was 1/137 using number theory. (people who don't know might like to
know that it is now measured accurately enough that we know it is not
equal to exactly 1/137 anyway)
If Dirac and Eddington posted these kind of nonsenses here, yes, I
would put them in a kill file.
Don't think that just because it comes from Gerard 't Hooft, it has
any more validity than if it comes from Ludwig Plutonium. Scientific
theories are judged by comparison with phenomena, and not by the
status of the person who creates them. Certainly they are not judged
by their creativity or imaginativeness, or else Ludwig Plutonium would
be the Nobel Prize winner of 1994.
Daryl McCullough
writes:
>
>
>I would like a list of all the cranks, loonies and crazies on
>sci.physics, so that I can save the trouble of continually having to
>update a "kill" file.
>
>Please send responses to me directly by e-mail, and I will summarise
>with a full "loony" list to directly enter into a kill file.
>
>So far my "loony list" is as follows:
>
> *atla...@aol.com (Atlantur)*
> *ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)*
> *t...@ic.net (Tom Potter)*
> *st...@fwn.rug.nl (Student Natuurkunde)*
> *pr...@price.demon.co.uk (Michael Clive Price)*
> *pa...@meed47.ee.man.ac.uk (Paul Floyd)*
> *an3...@anon.penet.fi (Father McGlone)*
> *pe...@csn.org (bert)*
> *ver...@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon)*
I object very strongly to the inclusion of Michael Clive Price on this
list. He is a very bright, articulate poster. Having unorthodox views
doesn't make him a "loony".
As a matter of fact, I don't like the whole idea of this list. Put
somebody in your kill file if *you* are pretty sure that you get
nothing out of reading their posts. Don't go asking for consensus
opinion on who should be in your kill file.
Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY
SCOTT I CHASE
>
>I am very happy to receive all suggestions, but it is best to do it by
>e-mail since the volume on this group is very high, and the number of
>loonies is such that there should be a very large response to this
>request.
The only reasonable response, IMHO, is to tell you to read the group for
yourself and decide based upon your own judgement who is worth reading
and who is not. Different people will surely have different impressions
of who knows what and who's pot is most severely cracked. It doesn't
take much to figure out who are the real loonies. Beyond that, deciding
with whom you should spend your time in conversation requires more
subtle discrimination, dependent upon your personal tastes.
Besides, the players change from week to week. No list of today's
crackpots will help you to fine tune your kill file for very long.
You need to figure it out as you go.
-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase "Mutationem motas proportionalem
SIC...@CSA2.LBL.GOV esse vi motrici impressae, et
fieri scecundum lineam rectam
qua vis illa imprimitur."
Peter Norton
>
>I would like a list of all the cranks, loonies and crazies on
>sci.physics, so that I can save the trouble of continually having to
>update a "kill" file.
This is impeccable evidence of your own looniness.
Welcome to the brotherhood!
>Please send responses to me directly by e-mail, and I will summarise
>with a full "loony" list to directly enter into a kill file.
>
>So far my "loony list" is as follows:
[deletia]
> *pr...@price.demon.co.uk (Michael Clive Price)*
IMHO Mr. Price is most definitely not a loony.
To assert otherwise is loonacy.
BTW, I would be greatly honored to be included in your kill file.
---
"Bohm + Ockham = Everett" - Mike Price
Tom Potter
Ben Bullock @ KEK (National Lab. for High Energy Physics)
1-1 Oho, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, JAPAN : tel. 0298 64 5401
>So far my "loony list" is as follows:
>
> *Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)*
> *atla...@aol.com (Atlantur)*
> *ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)*
> *t...@ic.net (Tom Potter)*
> *st...@fwn.rug.nl (Student Natuurkunde)*
> *pr...@price.demon.co.uk (Michael Clive Price)*
> *pa...@meed47.ee.man.ac.uk (Paul Floyd)*
> *an3...@anon.penet.fi (Father McGlone)*
> *pe...@csn.org (bert)*
> *ver...@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon)*
I would like to thank Ben Joe for including me on such a distinquished list.
If I quit reading the posts of Jack Sarfatti and these "loonies", I am sure
my brain would atrophy.
Tom Potter: Sake to me Ben Joe?
I just start trusting these guys and they pull a Pearl Harbor on me.
Jack Sarfatti
ph...@eurocontrol.fr (Philip Gibbs) writes:
>
>Are you sure you can tell the difference between a loony theory
>and a real one? Some of those on your list aren't loonies.
>
>If somebody posted an article claiming that the universe was a
>hologram would you put them in your kill file? If so you had
>better add Leonard Susskind and Gerard 't Hooft.
>
>\cite{ gr-qc/9310026, hep-th/9409089}
>
>You need to open your mind just a little bit more!
>
> Phil
>
>
Thanks for references. For us lazy loonies can you summarize what is
in the above papers? I was a grad student with Lenny Susskind at Cornell
in the early 60's and we worked together on the meaning of time and
phase operators with Johnny Glogower who I brought to Cornell from Flatbush
where we were at Midwood High School together. I got Phil Morrison to
sponsor Glogower as a special student. Even though he was a Westinghouse
Finalist he had nervous breakdown at Brandeis and never finished his BA.
Lenny never got a BA from CCNY but got a PhD direct from Mike Carruthers.
I got Lenny interested in the phase operator problem.
David Erwin
: I object very strongly to the inclusion of Michael Clive Price on this
: list. He is a very bright, articulate poster. Having unorthodox views
: doesn't make him a "loony".
I'd have to go along with that. Price has never struck me as being
particularly loony.
: As a matter of fact, I don't like the whole idea of this list. Put
: somebody in your kill file if *you* are pretty sure that you get
: nothing out of reading their posts. Don't go asking for consensus
: opinion on who should be in your kill file.
On the other hand, it's his right to post whatever he wants - just the same
(unfortunately ;) ) as Ludwig Plutonium.
: Daryl McCullough
: ORA Corp.
: Ithaca, NY
--
==============================================================
Dave Erwin I'd rather be doing field theory
Physics Department
University of Natal, Durban
er...@ph.und.ac.za
erw...@lourie.und.ac.za
==============================================================
Matthew MacIntyre
: >
: >Jack Sarfatti (sarf...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >
: >: Michael Clive Price is not a "loonie".
: >
: >That's really reassuring.
: I'm glad you feel better.
Jack, you will never make a good crackpot. You are too polite, too
urbane, too suave. Michael Clive [ "Reversible nanotechnology" ]
Price, by contrast, is a boor, as ill-bred as he is
ill-informed; it is easy to believe that he might at one time have
been a real professor.
Jack Sarfatti
I guess that is a left-handed compliment. Who is Father McGlone, bert, Paul
Floyd, atlantur??? Do they post in sci.physics? Must be in a parallel universe
I am taking a photograph of. "I neva hoid of da bums!" :-)
john baez
>Are you sure you can tell the difference between a loony theory
>and a real one? Some of those on your list aren't loonies.
See below. Note that talking about time travel, faster-than-light
communication, or any other subject does *not* make one into a crackpot
--- it's not what one discusses, but how, that determines how cracked
one is.
THE CRACKPOT INDEX
A simple method for rating potentially
revolutionary contributions to physics.
1) A -5 point starting credit.
2) 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
3) 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
4) 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5) 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful
correction.
6) 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results
of a widely accepted real experiment.
7) 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those
with defective keyboards).
8) 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally
misguided (without good evidence).
9) 10 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Einstein, or
claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided
(without good evidence).
10) 10 points for pointing out that one has gone to school, as if this
were evidence of sanity.
11) 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
12) 20 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Newton or
claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without
evidence).
13) 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if
they were fact.
14) 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined)
ridicule accorded to ones past theories.
15) 30 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Galileo,
claims that the Inquisition is hard at work on ones case, etc..
16) 30 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is
engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent ones work from gaining its
well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
17) 40 points for claiming one has a revolutionary theory but
giving no concrete testable predictions.
John Baez
Colin Douthwaite
: Philip Gibbs (ph...@eurocontrol.fr) wrote:
I enjoyed this posting. Thanks for a refreshing dose of commonsense.
Bye,
Colin Douthwaite
: In article <1994Sep17.1...@kekux.kek.jp>, b...@theory1.kek.jp (Ben Bullock) writes:
: > Some of the above "loonies" may have just been making a joke or
: > something when I read their posts, so if they are not really loonies
: > someone should tell me (they can't tell me themselves because their
: > posts are totally exterminated from my newsreader)
: >
: Are you sure you can tell the difference between a loony theory
: and a real one? Some of those on your list aren't loonies.
: If somebody posted an article claiming that the universe was a
: hologram would you put them in your kill file? If so you had
: better add Leonard Susskind and Gerard 't Hooft.
: You need to open your mind just a little bit more!
: Phil
But not so wide that your brains fall out :-)
Bye,
Jack Sarfatti
Another left-handed compliment! :-) This is my lucky day. Actually Price
seems like a very polite and helpful fellow. Most of his stuff is pretty
interesting even if I don't agree with all of it all of the time. His sense
of what the important questions are is pretty close to mine. "boor"? "ill-bred"?
What posts are you referring to? I only read the ones on relativity and quantum
mechanics. I haven't followed the thread with Budnik. I suppose that might get
pretty hot on both sides?
I much prefered Looney Toons and Merry Melodies to Archie Andrews. I was at one
time an unreal professor at San Diego State and I couldn't stand the real ones
so I quit.
>
Ron Maimon
|> *atla...@aol.com (Atlantur)*
|> *ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)*
|> *t...@ic.net (Tom Potter)*
|> *st...@fwn.rug.nl (Student Natuurkunde)*
|> *pr...@price.demon.co.uk (Michael Clive Price)*
|> *pa...@meed47.ee.man.ac.uk (Paul Floyd)*
|> *an3...@anon.penet.fi (Father McGlone)*
|> *pe...@csn.org (bert)*
|> *ver...@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon)*
|>
Mike Price is NOT a loony!!!
He's a respectable physicist who is adament about a _correct_ position,
that the Everett interpretation is the correct interpretation of quantum
mechanics, and that Hugh Everett III is (was) a god among men.
I am not a loony either, I'm a physics student who was confused about
quantum mechanics until I understood Everett, and am confused no longer.
You should also add Paul Budnik to your list. While he's not insane, or
particularly cranky, he's annoying to read.
--
Ron Maimon
Nowhere to collapse the lung
Breeds the doubt in everyone
Vertner Vergon
Jack Sarfatti <sarf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <35oc88$8...@deathstar.cris.com> Tpo...@deathstar.cris.com (Tom Potter) writes:
>
>>
>>b...@theory1.kek.jp (Ben Bullock) WROTE:
>>Ben Bullock @ KEK (National Lab. for High Energy Physics)
>>1-1 Oho, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, JAPAN : tel. 0298 64 5401
>>
>>>So far my "loony list" is as follows:
>>>
>>> *Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)*
>>> *atla...@aol.com (Atlantur)*
>>> *ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)*
>>> *t...@ic.net (Tom Potter)*
>>> *st...@fwn.rug.nl (Student Natuurkunde)*
>>> *pr...@price.demon.co.uk (Michael Clive Price)*
>>> *pa...@meed47.ee.man.ac.uk (Paul Floyd)*
>>> *an3...@anon.penet.fi (Father McGlone)*
>>> *pe...@csn.org (bert)*
>>> *ver...@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon)*
>>
>>I would like to thank Ben Joe for including me on such a distinquished list.
>>If I quit reading the posts of Jack Sarfatti and these "loonies", I am sure
>>my brain would atrophy.
>>
>>Tom Potter: Sake to me Ben Joe?
>>
>>I just start trusting these guys and they pull a Pearl Harbor on me.
Don't be upset, Tom. The bible says:
"Let he who is without guilt cast the first stone.
and
"Cast not thy pearls before swine.
Anyone who takes the time (and bandwidth) to toss slurs (as above)
is obviously a moron.
(I say this without seeing anything worth mentioning that he has done.)
V.V. Model Maker
david atkatz
: Thanks for references. For us lazy loonies can you summarize what is
: in the above papers? I was a grad student with Lenny Susskind at Cornell
: in the early 60's and we worked together on the meaning of time and
: phase operators with Johnny Glogower who I brought to Cornell from Flatbush
: where we were at Midwood High School together. I got Phil Morrison to
: sponsor Glogower as a special student. Even though he was a Westinghouse
: Finalist he had nervous breakdown at Brandeis and never finished his BA.
: Lenny never got a BA from CCNY but got a PhD direct from Mike Carruthers.
: I got Lenny interested in the phase operator problem.
Yeah, and you invented gravy, too. Can't you just
ask for a summary without all the name-dropping and
credit-grabbing--it's wearing a bit thin, Jack.
Ben Bullock
So any objections to this as the basic list?
> *Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)*
> *atla...@aol.com (Atlantur)*
> *ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)*
> *t...@ic.net (Tom Potter)*
> *an3...@anon.penet.fi (Father McGlone)*
> *pe...@csn.org (bert)*
> *ver...@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon)*
I really enjoyed reading all the articles and e-mail everyone sent,
especially the "rating system" was very funny (I can't add anything to
that) and the "case histories" of the "loonies" were interesting.
Unfortunately I did not get very many suggestions, and most of them
were to remove people from the list. Anyway I should say that there
are a lot of people I use a kill file on mostly because they are plain
boring (lots of irritating postings that start with pages of
>>>>>>>>>), but I don't want to start a "boring people" list since
this is more subjective (some people might even want to put ben@theory
on it)
Ben Bullock
> BTW, I would be greatly honored to be included in your kill file.
Mr. Norton: you were already entered in my kill file. (I just
temporarily entered the mailer kill-less to see if there were any more
humourous responses by someone I had killed)
I hope this makes you happy.
--
Ludwig Plutonium
b...@theory1.kek.jp (Ben Bullock) writes:
> I would like a list of all the cranks, loonies and crazies on
> sci.physics, so that I can save the trouble of continually having to
> update a "kill" file.
>
> Please send responses to me directly by e-mail, and I will summarise
> with a full "loony" list to directly enter into a kill file.
>
> So far my "loony list" is as follows:
>
> *Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)*
> *atla...@aol.com (Atlantur)*
> *ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)*
> *t...@ic.net (Tom Potter)*
> *st...@fwn.rug.nl (Student Natuurkunde)*
> *pr...@price.demon.co.uk (Michael Clive Price)*
> *pa...@meed47.ee.man.ac.uk (Paul Floyd)*
> *an3...@anon.penet.fi (Father McGlone)*
> *pe...@csn.org (bert)*
> *ver...@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon)*
>
> Some of the above "loonies" may have just been making a joke or
> something when I read their posts, so if they are not really loonies
> someone should tell me (they can't tell me themselves because their
> posts are totally exterminated from my newsreader)
>
> --
> Ben Bullock @ KEK (National Lab. for High Energy Physics)
> 1-1 Oho, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, JAPAN : tel. 0298 64 5401
Well then Ben, I see no disclaimers to KEK. So, I am at liberty and
superdetermined by our Maker to condemn not only you but your senior
Japanese officials of KEK. PLuto needs volunteers for hell, and PLuto
superdetermines me to say "go to hell" so poetically.
PU, PLuto condemns the photon and genetic soul of " Ben Bullock @
KEK (National Lab. for High Energy Physics) 1-1 Oho, Tsukuba, Ibaraki,
JAPAN : tel. 0298 64 5401 and the bosses of Ben Bullock at KEK who are
responsible and accountable to Ben's show of ignorance " to the River
Acheron. PU, PLuto, make done. ATOM
D A Rice
I don't think is actually very sane.
I can imagine the response if this was happening 90 years ago...
"What, this Einstein guy thinks light is made of particles, when we
clearly see wave phenomena??? Enter him in the crackpot killfile!!!!"
Dien Rice
Jim Carr
>
>Kill files are of course okay, but kill files for "crackpots" in physics
>I don't think is actually very sane.
They are a way of maintaining sanity and saving time. I doubt if you
read every journal in physics and the philosophy of science. One must
be selective, and some postings have more value than others.
>I can imagine the response if this was happening 90 years ago...
>
>"What, this Einstein guy thinks light is made of particles, when we
>clearly see wave phenomena??? Enter him in the crackpot killfile!!!!"
Why not go back 90 years and look at what was written and what was
said about what was written? You might discover that the paper by
Einstein presented a detailed mathematical argument constructed from
specific premises and led to predictions that agreed with particular
experimental data that were not explained by existing theory. A
typical crackpot does none of the above things.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Raw data, like raw sewage,
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac | requires some processing before
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | it can be spread around. The
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | opposite is true of theories.
Philip Gibbs
> In article <361vel$e...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>
> dar...@jupiter1.physics.monash.edu.au (D A Rice) writes:
> >
> >Kill files are of course okay, but kill files for "crackpots" in physics
> >I don't think is actually very sane.
>
> They are a way of maintaining sanity and saving time. I doubt if you
> read every journal in physics and the philosophy of science. One must
> be selective, and some postings have more value than others.
>
> >I can imagine the response if this was happening 90 years ago...
> >
> >"What, this Einstein guy thinks light is made of particles, when we
> >clearly see wave phenomena??? Enter him in the crackpot killfile!!!!"
>
> Why not go back 90 years and look at what was written and what was
> said about what was written? You might discover that the paper by
> Einstein presented a detailed mathematical argument constructed from
> specific premises and led to predictions that agreed with particular
> experimental data that were not explained by existing theory. A
> typical crackpot does none of the above things.
>
True, but there is more than that to this piece of history. The theory
was proposed by a relativiely unknown Indian physicist called Bose. He
sent a copy of his paper to Einstein and presumeably to other physicists
as well, but it was only when Einstein supported the idea that others
took it seriously. It is good to know that Einstein was prepared to
look seriously at unlikely theories that others probably dismissed as
crakpot.
Ben Bullock
extensively quotes from. The difference between a loonie and an
unknown person whose work may be taken seriously is that the loonie
does not make a rational effort to justify what he is saying and
cannot rationally respond to criticism.
In fact if you will look at the article by John Baez you will find a
very good explanation of why I call some people on this group
"loonies". It really does not have very much to do with their ideas
about physics, which I would say were "boring", "stupid" and
"ill-informed" rather than direct evidence of lunacy - there are
probably thousands of people connected to the internet who have wrong
ideas about physics, but they don't try to shove themselves down other
people's throats like the people on my list. You might like to notice
that Mr. Naturkund was removed from my loony list because he is
obviously not a psychotic of the type of Abian or Plutonium, even if
his ideas about physics are just as bad.
If Bose had behaved anything like Plutonium or Abian, every physicist,
including Einstein, would have ignored him. My opinion is that Abian,
Plutonium etc. are seeking attention, of any kind [even negative or
hostile], and the best thing is to ignore them.
I highly recommend using a kill file for this purpose.
Philip Gibbs
> The response to Phillip Gibb's article is contained in the one he
> extensively quotes from. The difference between a loonie and an
> unknown person whose work may be taken seriously is that the loonie
> does not make a rational effort to justify what he is saying and
> cannot rationally respond to criticism.
>
> In fact if you will look at the article by John Baez you will find a
> very good explanation of why I call some people on this group
> "loonies". It really does not have very much to do with their ideas
> about physics, which I would say were "boring", "stupid" and
> "ill-informed" rather than direct evidence of lunacy - there are
> probably thousands of people connected to the internet who have wrong
> ideas about physics, but they don't try to shove themselves down other
> people's throats like the people on my list. You might like to notice
> that Mr. Naturkund was removed from my loony list because he is
> obviously not a psychotic of the type of Abian or Plutonium, even if
> his ideas about physics are just as bad.
>
Just in case anybody has missinterpreted what I said, let me clarify that
I am not suggesting to anybody that they should take seriously any
loony's ravings once they have clearly identified it as such. My
point was that it is easy to throw out good with the bad if you judge
too quickly. If anybody has taken the trouble to apply John's crackpot
index to someone's theory then they will have done enough to make a judgment.
I also think it is wise for people to make their own judgments rather
than believing what others say.
Ben, your original list showed that you had been too hasty in your judgement
of some people. To your credit you made it clear that you knew the list
might contain such errors and have now removed them from your KILL file.
I think that we are now in agreement on this issue and can get back to
talking physics.
Phil
david dixon
No, just blinded by his own enthusiasm. Sound familiar?
>He's a respectable physicist who is adament about a _correct_ position,
>that the Everett interpretation is the correct interpretation of quantum
>mechanics, and that Hugh Everett III is (was) a god among men.
Wrong. If any interpretation of QM had any sort of testable consequences,
it would be a theory, and not an interpretations. The fact that
YOU like Everett doesn't make it right, and the fact that you worship
Hugh Everett III doesn't make him a god, it just makes you a little
overexcitable.
>I am not a loony either, I'm a physics student who was confused about
>quantum mechanics until I understood Everett, and am confused no longer.
Anybody who professes to understand QM is confused. Splitting the
universe at every drop of a hat doesn't answer much, plus (again),
it is as untestable as every other interpretation. Of course, you
have heard the word of the Lord God Hugh Everett III, right?
>You should also add Paul Budnik to your list. While he's not insane, or
>particularly cranky, he's annoying to read.
Uh, sound familiar? Put him in your kill file.
Dave
The purpose of society is to propagate defective genes.
Alexander Abian
In article <1994Sep26.1...@fozzie.eurocontrol.fr>
ph...@eurocontrol.fr
(Philip Gibbs) writes:
>In article <1994Sep26.1...@kekux.kek.jp>, b...@theory1.kek.jp
(Ben Bullock) writes:
>> obviously not a psychotic of the type of Abian ..........
>>
Abian answers:
Whenever I see the above way of referring to me or my theories I will post
the following:
List of crackpot theories:
Alexander Abian : Equivalence of Time and Mass 1/T + 1/log M = 1
Albert Einstein: Equivalence of Energy and Mass e = mcc
Isaac Newton: Equivalence of Force and the derivative of
Momentum w.r.t. time f = d mv/dt
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIME-SPACE HAS INERTIA. EQUIVALENCE OF TIME-SPACE AND MASS1/T+1/log M =1(ABIAN)
ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP EPIDEMICS OF CANCER, CHOLERA, AIDS, ETC.
VENUS MUST BE GIVEN A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT TO BECOME A BORN AGAIN EARTH
Sylvan Jacques
Sylvan Jacques <van...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <1994Sep26.0...@fozzie.eurocontrol.fr>,
>Philip Gibbs <ph...@galilee.eurocontrol.fr> wrote:
>>In article <362dqm$q...@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>, j...@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>>> In article <361vel$e...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>
>>> dar...@jupiter1.physics.monash.edu.au (D A Rice) writes:
>>> >
>>> >Kill files are of course okay, but kill files for "crackpots" in physics
>>> >I don't think is actually very sane.
>>>
>>> They are a way of maintaining sanity and saving time. I doubt if you
>>> read every journal in physics and the philosophy of science. One must
>>> be selective, and some postings have more value than others.
>
>or a FAQ), which near the beginning has a section titled
>
>"The Care and Feeding of Kill Files"
>
>I believe they do have a use, especially for posts that are a waste to
>even see, that you can be pretty sure are repetitive, etc. I am not going
>to post my list here--its not very large, and I first tried deleted
>any article that even mention the author's name, then changed it to
>only articles from particular articles, as the first was too restricitive.
>
>Aboout 10-15 posts a day are auto-deleted, which is about right.
--
Van (Sylvan Jacques) van...@netcom.com
Richard Herring
: So any objections to this as the basic list?
: > *Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)*
[etc.]
For what it's worth (backhanded compliment?) my crazy newsreader keeps
listing Ludwig's postings with _your_ name attached 8-)
... as in "Ben Bullock at Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH"
I have no idea why.
--
| Richard Herring | r...@gec-mrc.co.uk | Speaking for myself
| GEC-Marconi Research Centre | No, but I used to contribute to the News Quiz.
Jim Carr
|>
|> In article <361vel$e...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>
|> dar...@jupiter1.physics.monash.edu.au (D A Rice) writes:
|> >
|> >I can imagine the response if this was happening 90 years ago...
|> >
|> >"What, this Einstein guy thinks light is made of particles, when we
|> >clearly see wave phenomena??? Enter him in the crackpot killfile!!!!"
|>
|> Why not go back 90 years and look at what was written and what was
|> said about what was written? You might discover that the paper by
In article <1994Sep26.0...@fozzie.eurocontrol.fr>
ph...@galilee.eurocontrol.fr writes:
>
>True, but there is more than that to this piece of history. The theory
>was proposed by a relativiely unknown Indian physicist called Bose. He
>sent a copy of his paper to Einstein and presumeably to other physicists
>as well, but it was only when Einstein supported the idea that others
>took it seriously. It is good to know that Einstein was prepared to
>look seriously at unlikely theories that others probably dismissed as
>crakpot.
Are you saying that Bose wrote a letter to a Patent Examiner prior to 1905
that was the basis for the photoelectric effect paper and Einstein's
subsequent Nobel Prize? Is this a troll?
The work on Bose statistics came much later, and was hardly an "unlikely
theory". The work that best fits this description is that of Boltzman,
whose claim that there was a molecular basis for thermodynamics was
indeed dismissed and ignored (but it *was* published) for many years.
Piponi Mr D P D
> I object very strongly to the inclusion of Michael Clive Price on this
> list. He is a very bright, articulate poster. Having unorthodox views
> doesn't make him a "loony".
`Many worlds' is pretty mainstream these days. I'm not sure it even
qualifies as unorthodox let alone loony though it does seem to depend on
which branch of physics you happen to specialise in.
Dan
Ben Bullock
> For what it's worth (backhanded compliment?) my crazy newsreader keeps
> listing Ludwig's postings with _your_ name attached 8-)
>
> ... as in "Ben Bullock at Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH"
This is an extremely strange phenomenon. Probably it has something to
do with the "plutonium atom totality theory", (otherwise known as
"totally loony atom theory").
I think that it will benefit our minds to study harder this intruiging
theory.
Alternatively, just ruthlessly `kill' BOTH "Ludwig Plutonium" AND "Ben
Bullock" - you may destroy about 1% of sane articles, but you also
destroy about 20% of loony ones.
Alexander Abian
>In article <1994Sep20....@oracorp.com> da...@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:
>>In <1994Sep17.1...@kekux.kek.jp> b...@theory1.kek.jp (Ben Bullock)
>>writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>I would like a list of all the cranks, loonies and crazies on
>>>sci.physics, so that I can save the trouble of continually having to
>>>update a "kill" file.
>>>
>>>Please send responses to me directly by e-mail, and I will summarise
>>>with a full "loony" list to directly enter into a kill file.
>>>
>>>So far my "loony list" is as follows:
>>>
>>> *Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)*
>>> *atla...@aol.com (Atlantur)*
>>> *ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)*
Abian answers:
Every time that I see the mature, intelligent and profound list of loonies,
cranks and crackpots is posted, I will post the following:
Loonies cranks and crackpots of science
1. Alexander Abian
2. Albert Einstein
3. Isaac Newton
Matt Carey
ab...@iastate.edu writes:
>Abian answers:
>
>Every time that I see the mature, intelligent and profound list of
loonies,
>cranks and crackpots is posted, I will post the following:
>
> Loonies cranks and crackpots of science
>
> 1. Alexander Abian
> 2. Albert Einstein
> 3. Isaac Newton
Dr. Abian, this is getting old. If you want your IDEAS to be read, you
should stop putting this fluff out or we all will just ignore anything
with your name attathced to it.
Personally, if I had the great talent that you claim, I wouldn't spend as
much time as you obviously do reading the news. If you have so much to
offer, please spend your time working.
Matt Carey
Philip Gibbs
Me trolling? would I?
Your account is, of course, correct. Bose published his paper in 1924 called
"Planck's Law and the Hypothesis of Light Quanta" and sent a copy to Einstein.
Einstein then collaborated with him on the theory.
The photoelectric effect came earlier in 1905 but I raise the question: Did
Einstein conclude that "light is made of particles" in 1905 or 1925? The
photoelectric effect showed that light is absorbed in quanta but was it not
his work with Bose which led to the final conclusion? I leave this as a
question which I hope Jim Carr or somebody else who is good on the history
stuff will answer. There was a good article about the life and works of
Bose in the New Scientist not long ago but I dont have it available.
Phil
Dr S.J. Zara
>In <1994Sep17.1...@kekux.kek.jp> b...@theory1.kek.jp (Ben Bullock)
>writes:
>>
>>
>>I would like a list of all the cranks, loonies and crazies on
>>sci.physics, so that I can save the trouble of continually having to
>>update a "kill" file.
>>
>>Please send responses to me directly by e-mail, and I will summarise
>>with a full "loony" list to directly enter into a kill file.
>>
>>So far my "loony list" is as follows:
>>
>> *Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)*
>> *atla...@aol.com (Atlantur)*
>> *ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)*
>> *st...@fwn.rug.nl (Student Natuurkunde)*
>> *pr...@price.demon.co.uk (Michael Clive Price)*
>
>I object very strongly to the inclusion of Michael Clive Price on this
>list. He is a very bright, articulate poster. Having unorthodox views
>doesn't make him a "loony".
>
>somebody in your kill file if *you* are pretty sure that you get
>nothing out of reading their posts. Don't go asking for consensus
>opinion on who should be in your kill file.
>
>Daryl McCullough
>ORA Corp.
>Ithaca, NY
Absolutely! I also strongly object to the inclusion of Michael Clive Price
I disagree fundamentally with some of his views but he is a excellent
debator and argues his case with rigour and (obviously) a first-rate
knowledge of his subject.
Steve Zara
Jack Sarfatti
>
>Absolutely! I also strongly object to the inclusion of Michael Clive Price
>I disagree fundamentally with some of his views but he is a excellent
>debator and argues his case with rigour and (obviously) a first-rate
>knowledge of his subject.
>
>Steve Zara
>
I agree.
Jie Yuan
>was proposed by a relativiely unknown Indian physicist called Bose. He
>sent a copy of his paper to Einstein and presumeably to other physicists
>as well, but it was only when Einstein supported the idea that others
>took it seriously. It is good to know that Einstein was prepared to
>look seriously at unlikely theories that others probably dismissed as
>crakpot.
>
You are confused with two different theories. That was the theory of
Bose-Einstein statistics, not the theory of special relativity.
Jim Carr
>
>The photoelectric effect came earlier in 1905 but I raise the question: Did
>Einstein conclude that "light is made of particles" in 1905 or 1925? The
>photoelectric effect showed that light is absorbed in quanta but was it not
>his work with Bose which led to the final conclusion? I leave this as a
>question which I hope Jim Carr or somebody else who is good on the history
>stuff will answer. There was a good article about the life and works of
>Bose in the New Scientist not long ago but I dont have it available.
I really cannot answer that one. What Einstein had in mind is hard
to deduce from his scientific work and I am unsure of what might be
out there on this subject among his interviews and popular works.
Certainly physicists as a whole saw the Bose-Einsein work on bosons
as part of a pulling together of the threads on PE effect and Compton
scattering with quantum stat mech.
My own feeling is that, whether he thought of them as photons or not,
Einstein thought that the electromagnetic field had to obey the laws
of statistical mechanics. I say this because that is the approach he
used in deriving the solution to the PE effect, and because there are
other places where he seems to give primacy to stat mech.
Michael Clive Price
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 94 04:31:46 GMT
Organization: None
Reply-To: pr...@price.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Simple NEWS 2.0 (ka9q DIS 1.24)
Lines: 7
> Anybody who professes to understand QM is confused.
Please don't assume everybody is as ignorant or confused as you.
Mike Price pr...@price.demon.co.uk
Ron Maimon
Einstein WAS a crackpot.
He was not working as a physicist, his papers did not follow the logic of
physics papers, and his ideas about space and time were unorthodox to
say the least.
He was just a crackpot who got it right
--
Ron Maimon
Nowhere to collapse the lung
Breeds the doubt in everyone
Jason Kodish
Could Abian be right than?
Is Abian a certified crackpot?
Who is Abian anuways?
>--
>Ron Maimon
>
> Nowhere to collapse the lung
> Breeds the doubt in everyone
>
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Jason Kodish, | R - 1/2 g R =T
University of Alberta | un un un
Department of Gravitational Engineering |(Einstein Field Equation)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you ever have a world, plan ahead, don't eat it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Austern
> The photoelectric effect came earlier in 1905 but I raise the question: Did
> Einstein conclude that "light is made of particles" in 1905 or 1925? The
> photoelectric effect showed that light is absorbed in quanta but was it not
> his work with Bose which led to the final conclusion? I leave this as a
> question which I hope Jim Carr or somebody else who is good on the history
> stuff will answer.
You don't need to be particularly good at history to answer this
question; you just need to read Abraham Pais's excellent scientific
biography of Einstein, _"Subtle is the Lord"_.
I don't think that Einstein ever (whether in 1905 or 1925) used the
phrase "light is made of particles". His 1905 paper on the
photoelectric effect, however, used the phrase "light quanta".
Einstein was quite conscious that his "light quanta" explanation was a
very radical hypothesis.
(It's sort of ironic that the Nobel Prize committee was too
conservative to give Einstein the award for special relativity, but
that they did give it to him for his much more radical "light quanta"
work.)
--
--matt
Matt McIrvin
Ben Bullock <b...@theory1.kek.jp> wrote:
>
>Dirac spent a large ammount of time in his later years trying to
>multiply various physical constants together in order to get a
>(dimensionless) number close to 1, and then claiming that it was a
>result of some significance, and also saying quantum field theory was
>meaningless, even despite its successful comparison with experiment.
At least his playing with dimensionless numbers produced a falsifiable
theory of gravity (which has since been thoroughly falsified).
The business about QFT being meaningless I interpret as a general
dissatisfaction with renormalization, shared by many older physicists
of the era-- today, of course, the more usual response is to try to
put it on firmer ground, rather than tossing the baby out with the
bathwater. Also, I think Frank Wilczek has pointed out that QFT
actually had a rather disreputable status for a while, during the
1960s, until the success of electroweak theory and the discovery of
asymptotic freedom rehabilitated it; QED's field-theoretic structure
was held to be a lucky accident arising from some sort of polological
morass.
--
Matt 01234567 <-- Indent-o-Meter
McIrvin ^ Harnessing tab damage for peaceful ends!
Jack Sarfatti
>
>Jack Sarfatti (sarf...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>
>: Thanks for references. For us lazy loonies can you summarize what is
>: in the above papers? I was a grad student with Lenny Susskind at Cornell
>: in the early 60's and we worked together on the meaning of time and
>: phase operators with Johnny Glogower who I brought to Cornell from Flatbush
>: where we were at Midwood High School together. I got Phil Morrison to
>: sponsor Glogower as a special student. Even though he was a Westinghouse
>: Finalist he had nervous breakdown at Brandeis and never finished his BA.
>: Lenny never got a BA from CCNY but got a PhD direct from Mike Carruthers.
>: I got Lenny interested in the phase operator problem.
>
> Yeah, and you invented gravy, too. Can't you just
> ask for a summary without all the name-dropping and
> credit-grabbing--it's wearing a bit thin, Jack.
>
It's called history and I want to set the record straight in terms of events
I was part of. Imagine any book on history of ideas without proper names. The
fact is that I do deserve part of the credit for Susskind's phase operator
paper in 1964 and he would admit it if asked.
john baez
>In article <1994Sep20.1...@kekux.kek.jp>,
>Ben Bullock <b...@theory1.kek.jp> wrote:
>>Dirac spent a large ammount of time in his later years trying to
>>multiply various physical constants together in order to get a
>>(dimensionless) number close to 1, and then claiming that it was a
>>result of some significance, and also saying quantum field theory was
>>meaningless, even despite its successful comparison with experiment.
I doubt he spent a "large amount of time" trying to multiply various
physical constants together, to get one near 1. I'm sure doing this
took him at most a week. He was not dumb. What took him longer was
trying to come up with a possible explanation of the coincidences he
noticed.
>At least his playing with dimensionless numbers produced a falsifiable
>theory of gravity (which has since been thoroughly falsified).
>The business about QFT being meaningless I interpret as a general
>dissatisfaction with renormalization, shared by many older physicists
>of the era-- today, of course, the more usual response is to try to
>put it on firmer ground, rather than tossing the baby out with the
>bathwater.
Dirac knew a certain amount about quantum field theory, and his
complaints about it were very valid worries, shared by many people. It
is still not known whether QED or the standard model is a mathematically
consistent theory or not, despite vast efforts along these lines.
It's important to note that Dirac's successes (the Dirac equation being
one example) and theories on which the verdict is still out (magnetic
monopoles being one example --- while never found, they continue to
haunt the dreams of theorists) are due to the same curious habits of
thought that led him to his failures, like the business about gravity.
As he said:
"I think it's a peculiarity of myself that I like to play about
with equations, just looking for beautiful mathematical relations which
maybe don't have any physical meaning at all. Sometimes they do."
[from Abraham Pais' essay `Playing with equations, the Dirac way', in
_Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac_, eds. Behram N. Kursunoglu and Eugene P.
Wigner, Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge, 1987.]
Note the humility of this attitude, so unlike that typical of crackpots
who have NO successes to report, and who attempt to compensate for this
fact with bluster.
Ludwig Plutonium
ba...@guitar.ucr.edu (john baez) writes:
> `Playing with equations, the Dirac way', in
> _Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac_, eds. Behram N. Kursunoglu and Eugene P.
> Wigner, Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge, 1987.]
>
> Note the humility of this attitude, so unlike that typical of crackpots
> who have NO successes to report, and who attempt to compensate for this
> fact with bluster.
I say go to hell, poetically.
PU, PLuto, condemns the photon soul of John Baez to the River
Acheron. Atom.
You may redeem your soul John by performing the below described
experiment and posting the details to this Internet before the end of
1995. This is perhaps a first for you, since you probably never leave
your computer console and shag rug carpet wearing slippers for more
than a half hour, provided your not flying off at taxpayers expense to
another worthless GR conference. I seriously doubt that you can even
put a couple pieces of equipment together to make a physics experiment.
But your condemnation saves me the time of "never having to read
another one of your worthless posts". You do not belong in physics,
your natural calling was that of film critic or sports announcer.
I post this experiment, but I know John does not have the brains to
do it. A life of misplaced importance cannot, I suspect, pull it
together here. Besides, your free trips around the world at taxpayers
expense to GR conferences will end because this experiment shows GR is
a bunch of baloney.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 24May1994, 02:14:47 GMT sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
> The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
> In article <2rrnun$l...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>
> > In article <2rq0fl$n...@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
> > h...@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:
> >
> > > Superfluidity
> > My knowledge of this is as yet nil. But I must look into it.
>
> Or this experiment may be conducted at the locale where the current
> search for the graviton is being conducted.
> Description of the Experiment. A huge heavy and massive solid
> sphere. One diameter drilled out with a center cavity. The sphere is
> more massive than what the correct calculations and predictions of what
> GR says will hold X number of helium atoms within the central cavity.
> GR predicts that the helium in the central cavity will stay bound
> within the cavity.
>
>
> oooo$$$$$$$$$$$$oooo
> oo$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o
> oo$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o
> o$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o
> o$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> o$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o
> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> "$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>
> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> "$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> ""$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"""
> ""$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> """"$$$$$$$$$$$"""
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
EARTH'S GROUND
>
> Now replace the helium with superfluid helium. Capillarity must be
> removed. And I am sure there are excellent experimental physicists the
> world over who can device the experiment such that capillarity is
> eliminated. Then GR would predict that the superfluid helium will also
> remain in the center cavity. Because GR does not distinguish between
> nonsuperfluid helium mass and superfluid helium mass.
> Plutonium QM. Superfluidity and superconductivity is the motion of
> neutrinos. In superconductivity, the photon carriers are diffraction
> grated into neutrino carriers. In superfluidity, again, it is neutrino
> carriers resulting in zero friction and null gravity. Why null gravity?
> Because, according to my theory, gravity is neutrinos.
> According to Plutonium QM, the superfluid helium will not remain in
> the center cavity but always move out of the holes. And it matters not
> how massive the ball is. The ball can be the planet Earth where the
> center cavity would be the center of the Earth, the planet Jupiter, a
> star. The same experiment will always move the superfluid helium out of
> the center. Why? Because superfluid helium is Quantized neutrinos, i.e.
> equal to gravity. Gravity is nullified by neutrinos because gravitons
> are neutrinos.
> This experiment when done and confirmed that Plutonium QM is
> correct, then it will be the strongest experimental evidence that black
> holes, neutron stars, and other assorted exotica and figments of the
> imagination were fakeries.
> This experiment when done will imply that gravity is not a
> fundamental quantum interaction (a force) but is a statistical, and
> secondary derivative of neutrino statistics. Gravity is a neutrino
> "Casimir effect". Gravity is a secondary derivative, analogous to van
> der Waals force is a derivative. That will leave physics then with only
> 3 interactions--- strongnuclear, radioactivities, and electromagnetism.
Ron Maimon
|>
|> The business about QFT being meaningless I interpret as a general
|> dissatisfaction with renormalization, shared by many older physicists
|> of the era-- today, of course, the more usual response is to try to
|> put it on firmer ground, rather than tossing the baby out with the
|> bathwater. Also, I think Frank Wilczek has pointed out that QFT
|> actually had a rather disreputable status for a while, during the
|> 1960s, until the success of electroweak theory and the discovery of
|> asymptotic freedom rehabilitated it; QED's field-theoretic structure
|> was held to be a lucky accident arising from some sort of polological
|> morass.
well, this is reasonable.
If you want to do quantum field theory rigorously, you have to do something
equivalent to defining it on a lattice and letting the lattice size go to
zero, while keeping the measured interactions fixed.
Unfortunately, for electromagnetism, lamda phi^4 theory, and lots of other
theories without asymptotic freedom, as you let the lattice spacing go to
zero, there is an explosion of the bare coupling constant, and if you want
to keep the bare coupling constant from going up through infinity and into
negative values (so that there are no negative energy states) you get a
bound on the physical coupling constant, which goes to zero. So all the
theories people discussed until 1960's were trivial- they were really free
field theories. No wonder people were dissatisfied with the whole mess.
This doesn't show up in perturbation theory, which is renormalizable to
all orders in these theories.
In lambda phi^4 theory, a heuristic argument that leads you to expect that
this happens is the following, you sum up all the following diagrams:
\ / \ / \ /
\ / \ ___ / \ ___ ___ /
X + X___X + X___X___X + .....
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
which should give you the physical coupling constant (in some approximation)
as a function of the bare coupling constant and the cutoff, and this
is just a geometric series, and it gives
\ __ /
lambda physical = lambda bare / (1 - X__X )
/ \
which is something like
lambda physical = lambda bare/ (1 + lambda bare * log (M/p) )
where p is some momentum in the problem and M is the scale of the cutoff,
something like 1/L where L is the lattice size. As M goes to infinity,
and you keep the physical lambda constant,
lambda bare = lambda physical / ( 1- lambda physical log(M/p) )
there is a finite M where lambda bare becomes infinite, and beyond this
M, at smaller lattice spacings, lambda bare becomes negative- a disaster
for constructing a rigorous quantum field theory, there are negative
energy states.
for electromagnetism, if we are cavalier and assume the same type of
thing happens (I think it does) then when
log (pL) = -137
there is trouble, so that the accuracy of all predictions of electromagnetism
are at best right up to one part in exp(137). and there _must_ be new
physics involved beyond this point.
For theories with asymptotic freedom, the sign in the relationship between
lambda physical and lambda bare is flipped.
--
Ron Maimon
All the things I left unspoken
the ones that slipped still got me choking
hope it don't mean I'll stop laughing...
Ron Maimon
|> In article <36cimt$s...@scunix2.harvard.edu>,
|> Ron Maimon <rma...@husc9.Harvard.EDU> wrote:
|>
|> >In lambda phi^4 theory, a heuristic argument that leads you to expect that
|> >this happens is the following, you sum up all the following diagrams:
|> >
|> > \ / \ / \ /
|> > \ / \ ___ / \ ___ ___ /
|> > X + X___X + X___X___X + .....
|> > / \ / \ / \
|> > / \ / \ / \
|> >
|>
|> ever again!
|>
|> (I took it immediately *after* doing mediocrely on Gabrielse's quantum
|> mechanics final, then crashing and burning on Wilson's E&M final. All
|> three were your basic 72-hour take-home exams; I think I had a one-day
|> break between the first two. My hallmates report that around the time
|> I was supposed to be doing the calculation above, I was in fact
|> wandering around the hallways muttering about having my flesh ripped
|> by wild beasts. I was WAY out of my depth that year.)
jee, waz that your final exam?
that's not so bad- it's just one loop!
Matt McIrvin
>theories without asymptotic freedom, as you let the lattice spacing go to
>zero, there is an explosion of the bare coupling constant, and if you want
>to keep the bare coupling constant from going up through infinity and into
>negative values (so that there are no negative energy states) you get a
>bound on the physical coupling constant, which goes to zero. So all the
>theories people discussed until 1960's were trivial- they were really free
>field theories. No wonder people were dissatisfied with the whole mess.
Yep, that was apparently a large part of the reason. Also there was
the total failure of then-known perturbation theory applied to strong
interactions, and the relative success of (by today's standards)
arcane and roundabout stuff, like study of the singularity structure
of amplitudes and Regge theory. (Ever tried to read particle physics
literature from the sixties? It's in a whole other language.)
>In lambda phi^4 theory, a heuristic argument that leads you to expect that
>this happens is the following, you sum up all the following diagrams:
>
> \ / \ / \ /
> \ / \ ___ / \ ___ ___ /
> X + X___X + X___X___X + .....
> / \ / \ / \
> / \ / \ / \
>
AAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't remind me of THAT exam,
ever again!
(I took it immediately *after* doing mediocrely on Gabrielse's quantum
mechanics final, then crashing and burning on Wilson's E&M final. All
three were your basic 72-hour take-home exams; I think I had a one-day
break between the first two. My hallmates report that around the time
I was supposed to be doing the calculation above, I was in fact
wandering around the hallways muttering about having my flesh ripped
by wild beasts. I was WAY out of my depth that year.)
Michael Kagalenko
]|>
]|> The business about QFT being meaningless I interpret as a general
]|> dissatisfaction with renormalization, shared by many older physicists
]|> of the era-- today, of course, the more usual response is to try to
]|> put it on firmer ground, rather than tossing the baby out with the
]|> bathwater.
neighborhood of non-analitical point (zero) ? (I believe, A.B. Migdal in
his book on qualitative methods of QM gives simple arguments to prove this)
Given that, I am somewhat eager to empathise with older physicists. Well,
ofcourse, renormalisation has value regardless of its relation to QFT.
Ben Bullock
> It
> is still not known whether QED or the standard model is a mathematically
> consistent theory or not, despite vast efforts along these lines.
>
Can you clarify this statement?
Godel's theorem tells us that it is not in principle possible to prove
that any mathematical system is logically consistent. I do not know
of any physicist making efforts to prove whether or not QED or the
standard model are logically / mathematically consistent.
> Dirac knew a certain amount about quantum field theory, and his
> complaints about it were very valid worries, shared by many people.
Dirac's main criticism of quantum field theory was based around his
belief that nature should be described by equations of motion (such as
the Dirac equation) only. Unfortunately I don't have a reference for
this but I believe he wrote a book on the subject. This notion of
Dirac that equations of motion will suffice to describe all phenomena
is not shared by any physicist that I personally am aquainted with.
--
Ron Maimon
|> The response to Phillip Gibb's article is contained in the one he
|> extensively quotes from. The difference between a loonie and an
|> unknown person whose work may be taken seriously is that the loonie
|> does not make a rational effort to justify what he is saying and
|> cannot rationally respond to criticism.
|>
No,
the difference between a loonie and an unknown "serious" scientist is that
the loonie is wrong.
Jack Sarfatti
>
>In article <1994Sep26.1...@kekux.kek.jp>, b...@theory1.kek.jp (Ben Bullock) writes:
>|> The response to Phillip Gibb's article is contained in the one he
>|> extensively quotes from. The difference between a loonie and an
>|> unknown person whose work may be taken seriously is that the loonie
>|> does not make a rational effort to justify what he is saying and
>|> cannot rationally respond to criticism.
>|>
>
>No,
>
>the difference between a loonie and an unknown "serious" scientist is that
>the loonie is wrong.
>
>--
No, one can be a serious scientist and still be wrong. Feynman told me on
several occassions "Jack, always try to prove yourself wrong."
>
Ludwig Plutonium
essence. Just cancel a few of your all-expense-paid trips to the French
Riviera GR conferences, or Barcelona GR conferences. After you do this
experiment, well, there will no longer be any GR.
Polarization vice diffraction grating. Superconductivity is the
polarization, breaking apart of photons into component neutrinos. The
Cooper pair and the s-wave and d-wave are just different terms for what
is really going on--- neutrino carriers decomposed. Only the neutrino
can go through matter with the near-zero resistance of
superconductivity.
And, I like to repeat the picture of the ball as many times as possible
in these posts because I am confident that some physics aficionada will
see the ball, fall asleep, and wake-up in the morning with a simpler
version which can be done in a high school physics lab, caution with
the superfluid helium.
Time is of the essence, John. Make your report before the end of this
year.
Yours Truly, The King of Math and Physics, Archimedes Plutonium.
In article <36ie2n$4...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
> > neutrinos. In superconductivity, the photon carriers are XXXXXdiffraction gratedXXXX light polarizations into neutrino carriers where 1 photon = 2 neutrinos. In superfluidity, again, it is neutrino
Ludwig Plutonium
b...@theory1.kek.jp (Ben Bullock) writes:
> Dirac's main criticism of quantum field theory was based around his
> belief that nature should be described by equations of motion (such as
> the Dirac equation) only. Unfortunately I don't have a reference for
> this but I believe he wrote a book on the subject. This notion of
> Dirac that equations of motion will suffice to describe all phenomena
> is not shared by any physicist that I personally am aquainted with.
What is the progress on neutrino count in back of light polarization
by you Ben and your superiors at KEK? Time is of the essence. And I
really do not see why you would want to comment on Dirac further, when
you did not even understand earlier in your posts that the
fine-structure constant is not a constant but a variable. A variable
whose most often value is exactly 137 (inverse).
Time is of the essence. Make your neutrino counter of polarized light
experiment and post the results here before the end of 1994. BTW, who
is your boss there at KEK, as far as I know, you may be only the
janitor cleaner at KEK, Ben.
Matt McIrvin
<rma...@husc9.Harvard.EDU> wrote:
>
>jee, waz that your final exam?
>
>that's not so bad- it's just one loop!
Yes, but consider: I was barely able to calculate *anything* at the
time in any repeatable way. I had enough trouble getting first-order
decay widths out of *one vertex*!! I spent the whole second semester
of the class wondering what was going on in the first semester, and
what it had to do with quantum mechanics. It made a lot more sense
the second time around, when I sat in the next year.
I think that on that exam, that was the problem I found easiest,
actually; the hardest one, which I couldn't do at all, was some
group-theoretical thing, which involved the tensor approach to SU(3).
I remember finding that totally incomprehensible at the time. Later I
went back (out of necessity) and read the lecture in _Aspects of
Symmetry_ again, only to discover that it had spontaneously turned
into an easy-to-read exposition on a set of powerful and essential
tools, which I am in fact using right now.
I think that I would have done much better if I had previously had a
class much like the one in which I am currently a TF (Physics 145).
In my undergrad education, such esoterica as Dirac notation and four-
vectors had been introduced only in a very cursory manner; I was
nowhere near being capable of absorbing the detailed development of
QFT without much more preparation.
Jerome Graham
>janitor cleaner at KEK, Ben.
I wouldn't bash janitor cleaners. At least they get paid more, get more
excercise, and more variety that dishwashers.....
Jerome
jer...@halcyon.com
--
The Rev. David R. Graham Professor of Philosophy
Adwaitha Hermitage Sri Sathya Sai Institute
jer...@halcyon.com of Higher Learning
EADEM MUTATA RESURGO Bellevue, Washington
john baez
>> It
>> is still not known whether QED or the standard model is a mathematically
>> consistent theory or not, despite vast efforts along these lines.
>Can you clarify this statement?
>Godel's theorem tells us that it is not in principle possible to prove
>that any mathematical system is logically consistent.
That's not what Goedel's theorem says. Goedel's theorem says that any
*sufficiently strong* (e.g. stronger than Peano arithmetic) *recursively
axiomatizable* mathematical system is either inconsistent or incomplete,
and that if there is a proof within the system that it is consistent, it
must be inconsistent. But that probably doesn't matter much here.
The point is that almost every working mathematician assumes ZFC is
consistent, and then tries to study whether other axiom schemes
formalizable within ZFC are consistent or not. That's what people do
for QED and similar theories.
>I do not know
>of any physicist making efforts to prove whether or not QED or the
>standard model are logically / mathematically consistent.
There are lots, see e.g.
PCT, Spin and Statistics, and All That by R. F. Streater and A. S. Wightman,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1989,
Introduction to Axiomatic Quantum Field Theory, by N. N. Bogolubov, A.
A. Logunov and I. T. Todorov, Benjamin, Reading, 1975,
Local Quantum Physics: Fields, Particles, Algebras by Rudolf Haag,
Springer-Verlag, New York, 1992,
Quantum Physics: A Functional Integral Point of View by James Glimm and
Arthur Jaffe, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1981.
>> Dirac knew a certain amount about quantum field theory, and his
>> complaints about it were very valid worries, shared by many people.
>Dirac's main criticism of quantum field theory was based around his
>belief that nature should be described by equations of motion (such as
>the Dirac equation) only. Unfortunately I don't have a reference for
>this but I believe he wrote a book on the subject. This notion of
>Dirac that equations of motion will suffice to describe all phenomena
>is not shared by any physicist that I personally am aquainted with.
I've never heard of that being his objection. His objection as far as I
can tell concerned mathematical difficulties with renormalization. The
books I cited detail the tremendous efforts mathematicians and
physicists have gone to in trying to overcome those difficulties --- so
far without success as far as QED is concerned. Of course, we
understand the problem a lot better now, but we don't know for sure
whether QED is a mathematically consistent theory.
Ben Bullock
> I've never heard of that being his objection. His objection as far as I
> can tell concerned mathematical difficulties with renormalization.
I actually read some of Dirac's book. It's very unfortunate that I
forgot the name of the book and cannot give you a reference except to
say that it was in the "Sir James Knott" library of the physics
department of Durham University in England, and I think it was based
on lectures given by Dirac at Florida University. Definitely Dirac
wrote these statements about equations of motion. I think it was the
same book that had the stuff about multiplying numbers together to get
1. I gave up reading it when it became obvious to me that it was
about the same level of physics as the average Ludwig Plutonium
posting.
I am sorry if this gives you a bad feeling, but unfortunately it is
true. There are lots of examples: I also put Eddington in my original
list. For another example, Newton spent far more of his life in
research in Alchemy (he wrote over 1 million words on the subject)
than he did in Gravity. None of this is meant to denigrate people's
achievements, but to make the point that we should not just look at
the name that is attached. Obviously in practice it does not always
work like this!
I will have a look at your list of books about field theory. I looked
at "spin, statistics, ..." once, but it seemed a little like a
methematician's fantasy idea of what physics should look like, which
did not add anything to my knowledge.
I would definitely make the point that the problems of quantum field
theory, or of one particular formulation of quantum field theory, are
not the same thing as the problems of QED or the standard model.
Thanks for your information about Godel's theorem (& also thanks to
Terry Tao who sent me a similar e-mail).
Michael Clive Price
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 94 07:21:50 GMT
Reply-To: pr...@price.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29
Lines: 24
Ben Bullock:
>> The difference between a loonie and an unknown person
>> whose work may be taken seriously is that the loonie
>> does not make a rational effort to justify what he is
>> saying and cannot rationally respond to criticism.
Ron Maimon:
> No,
>
> the difference between a loonie and an unknown "serious"
> scientist is that the loonie is wrong.
So Lamark is a loonie and Darwin isn't? Yuk. Hindsight is a
wonderful thing.
I agree with Ben [What a shame he isn't reading this :-)] and use the
Baez crackpot index. That way I don't have to waste neurons analysing
the factual content (except for laughs) of King Achimedes or Alexander
the Great's posts, just chuckle over their paranoid rantings and move
on.
Being wrong is merely a consequence of being a crackpot.
Cheers,
From a Ben-Bullock-certified-loonie.
john baez
>I will have a look at your list of books about field theory. I looked
>at "spin, statistics, ..." once, but it seemed a little like a
>mathematician's fantasy idea of what physics should look like,...
Logically consistent, starting from clearly stated assumptions, etc.?
As a mathematician I guess this *is* my fantasy of what a physical
theory should eventually look like, when it's all figured out.
Certainly classical mechanics, quantum mechanics and general relativity
meet this description. Of course the cutting edge of physics is an
unruly, catch-as-catch-can business, and mathematical rigor is not the
point --- describing the physical world is the point. But quantum field
theory has been around for about half a century now and people have,
over time, become very curious about whether the theory makes anything
other than approximate sense, especially because throughout the course
of its development there have been many problems with infinities and the
like. I'm not saying you should worry about these things, but it's
good there are some excellent physicists who *do* worry about these
things -- Wightman, Jaffe, Bogoliubov, Todorov, Haag, Kastler, Ruelle,
Froehlich and so on are some names that come to mind.
I should add that almost anyone who looks at the books I listed will be a
little annoyed or intimidated by the high-powered mathematics they use.
It's crucial to realize that this is because all the lower-powered
approaches have failed to deal with quantum field theory in a rigorous
way.
Jim Carr
|rma...@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon) writes:
|
|>the difference between a loonie and an unknown "serious" scientist is that
|>the loonie is wrong.
You do not have to spend much time with the Physical Review to
realize that there is plenty of 'wrong' stuff published in journals
by serious scientists. My favorite is the guy who changed the name
of the model, while the only actual difference was that he had fixed
an error in the computer code.
In article <36mlqv$m...@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>
sarf...@ix.netcom.com (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>
>No, one can be a serious scientist and still be wrong. Feynman told me on
>several occassions "Jack, always try to prove yourself wrong."
Exactly. Much progress is made by looking for the holes in your own
work, and never taking a particular set of assumptions too seriously.
Ben Bullock
%%% ... quantum field
%%% theory has been around for about half a century now and people have,
%%% over time, become very curious about whether the theory makes anything
%%% other than approximate sense, especially because throughout the course
%%% of its development there have been many problems with infinities and the
%%% like.
Quantum field theory must be fairly unique in physical theories not
just for a lack of solid mathematical foundations but also for the
lack of actual practical techniques to calculate many things from it.
This is most notable in the case of quantum chromodynamics, the theory
of the binding of quarks inside the proton and neutron. A complete
theory exists, and yet there are absolutely no calculations whatsoever
of any of the properties of the proton from the theory starting from
first principles (that is, the Lagrangian density of the field theory
QCD).
Therefore apart from the mathematical foundational difficulty, there
is another even more problematic question, which is actually using
quantum field theory to do anything other than perturbative
calculations.
--
Ben Bullock @ KEK (National Laboratory for High Energy Physics)
1-1 Oho, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, JAPAN