Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:Because increased accuracy costs more to make.

Arising_uk wrote: Because physicists are a glory seeking competitive bunch and if there was the slightest chance that one of them could prove Einstein wrong then they would just jump at the chance as it'd earn them a noble prize. Since there do not appear to be any under or graduates jumping at the chance I can only assume they've looked at such things and decided they are not worth the effort.

Louis Essen: Inventor of the atomic clock and the man responsible for the modern precise measurement of the speed of light. At first he suffered harsh criticism for his new measurements of the speed of light but it was the value adopted by the 12th General Assembly of the Radio-Scientific Union in 1957and in 1983, the 17th Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures adopted the standard value, 299,792.458 km/s for the speed of light. The atomic clock is the standard of measure throughout the world and without it the GPS system would not be possible. Why is it little known that this winner of multiple awards in physics also published a paper called “The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis”? A member of the National Physical Laboratory of the UK from which he retired in 1972 after being quietly warned not to continue his contradiction of Einstein’s theory of relativity. "No one has attempted to refute my arguments, but I was warned that if I persisted I was likely to spoil my career prospects. …the continued acceptance and teaching of relativity hinders the development of a rational extension of electromagnetic theory." - Louis Essen F.R.S., "Relativity and time signals", Wireless World, oct78, p44. ‘Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.’

Herbert Ives: First transmission (1924) of pictures by wire, resulted in first public demonstration (1927) of television, for which he was awarded (1927) the John Scott Medal. As the lead researcher of Bell Labs’ television development project, he is often known as the father of modern television. As an accomplished physicist, his knowledge and experience in the propagation of light has changed our world. He is also well known for his part in the Ives-Stillwell experiment, which is regularly listed as one of the proofs of relativity. How is it that this individual who participated in this experiment, afterwards wrote numerous papers in peer reviewed journals against relativity? “The 'principle' of the constancy of the velocity of light is not merely 'ununderstandable', it is not supported by 'objective matters of fact'; it is untenable, and, as we shall see, unnecessary. . . . Also of philosophical import is that with the abandonment of the 'principle' of the constancy of the velocity of light, the geometries which have been based on it, with their fusion of space and time, must be denied their claim to be a true description of the physical world." - Herbert E. Ives, "Revisions of the Lorentz Transformations", October 27, 1950

"...the relativity theory, by the way, is much older than its present proponents. It was advanced over 200 years ago by my illustrious countryman Boskovic, the great philospher, who, not withstanding other and multifold obligations, wrote a thousand volumes of excellent literature on a vast variety of subjects. Boskovic dealt with relativity, including the so-called time-space continuum..."

Arising_uk wrote: Still, could be wrong so why don't you post such stuff in a Physics forum and get some informed feedback as this is not philosophy of science but physics.

Arising_uk wrote:... Still, could be wrong so why don't you post such stuff in a Physics forum and get some informed feedback as this is not philosophy of science but physics.

uwot wrote:There are different aspects to any scientific idea, Cerveny and WanderingLands. In the case of Einstein's General Relativity, there is the hypothesis that the cause of gravity is the curvature of a substance called spacetime. There is also the mathematical model that is based on that hypothesis. The field equations, the maths, is so good that Apollo astronauts could hit the atmosphere of Earth at just the right spot from the distance of the moon. It's a bit like shooting a piece of paper, side on, that's a couple of miles away. Anyone who says the maths isn't pretty bloody good, is an idiot. Anyone who says the maths will never be improved, is making themselves a hostage to fortune, hence also an idiot. It does not follow from the usefulness of the model, that the substance called spacetime actually exists, though. Einstein, I think, believed it does, but most scientists are content to use the equations to do proper science and leave what the ultimate stuff of the universe is to those that care.
It is one thing to argue about the existence of spacetime, or any other substance that you believe the universe to be made of, aether, relativistic quantum field, ideas in the mind of god or whatever, that is ontology and anyone can have go at that and make up any old bollocks. But it is silly to say the maths is wrong unless you can shoot paper side on from even further away.

WanderingLands wrote:Uwot, let me tell you that I'm not in any way against mathematics, and I am always open-minded to things and skeptical to my own views, such as even that of considering Einstein and Relativity at times, even though I still like to be critical of that as well. I don't just accept things, if that's what you're thinking; for example, I may not even accept Tsolkas' theories as I may even have to examine more of his information. There's always things that I don't know for sure, so I continue to ask questions regarding scientific matters.

WanderingLands wrote:That being said, what I said about the modern scientific establishment,

WanderingLands wrote:which is now days dominated by pure mathematical

WanderingLands wrote:and theoretical speculation,

WanderingLands wrote:does indeed hold water. This is true, especially when many people have failed to unify Relativity and Quantum Mechanics,

WanderingLands wrote:and unfortunately even said that they can't think out of this crumbling paradigm of entanglement.

Cerveny wrote:I know that my English is bad (I'm dyslexic), but I've never written that math is wrong.

Cerveny wrote:But I insist that the bad is the theory of relativity. Be so kind and save therefore the "idiot" for yourself.

Cerveny wrote:I have studied physics at university, so you do not have to explain me what the theory of relativity is. But besides textbooks I also use logic and brain (obviously, I'm not alone).

Cerveny wrote:(By the way, Apollo is with theory of relativity almost unrelated, except that radio signals travel at the speed of light)

uwot wrote:Well yes. The effects of Special Relativity are negligible. But you use General Relativity to work out how much fuel to load and which way to point the rocket.

Where is this scientific establishment based? Who runs it? How is it coordinated? What is it's purpose? The thing is, you can make up any story that pleases you. And when bits of it are challenged, you can make up more to explain any difficulty. Scientists can do the same, but they have to show physical evidence for every part of their story.

Scientists who try to report scientific fraud by colleagues or bosses also can come under attack. Such reports can threaten the scientific hierarchy and throw an unsavoury light on the ethics of all scientists. Two junior researchers who discovered that Australian medical scientist William McBride had altered data in a published paper voiced their concerns to the director of the research foundation that employed them. Getting no satisfactory response, they resigned. Seven other researchers wrote a letter about the allegations; they were retrenched. In the United States, junior researcher Margot O’Toole raised questions about evidence for results published in the journal Cell; one of the co-authors of the Cell paper was Nobel prize winner David Baltimore. The scientific establishment rallied around Baltimore and O’Toole’s career was virtually destroyed.

Some scientists have little choice in their research, since they are funded to undertake certain types of studies; they are very unlikely to pursue topics that threaten the interests of their funders. Those scientists who have an opportunity to choose their research topics can also be inhibited from pursuing studies in controversial areas, since they may fear, realistically, difficulties in obtaining funding, attacks on their credibility and problems in gaining promotion or a new job. Furthermore, scientists are quite sensitive to attitudes of peers, including immediate work colleagues and others in the field. Through their long socialisation, they become attuned to what is considered acceptable and what is not. Most scientists either accept standard views without question or, if they have reservations, keep quiet about them. If researching certain areas is risky for one’s career, most scientists prefer to stay away. The ethos of the scientific community thus leads to a pervasive self-censorship. This can be by choosing to stay out or get out of certain research areas or it can be by downplaying certain results. Scientists who work in organisations where studies are vetted by superiors may unconsciously tone down or reorient their findings in order to reduce the chance of rejection. Self-censorship is the most insidious form of censorship because it is seldom recognised by the person engaging in it and it leaves no trace. Reinforcing the timidity of most scientists are the occasional dramatic cases of dismissal and serious harassment, which serve as a object lesson for others who might consider bucking the system.

For example, after the initial burst of research on cold fusion, the scientific consensus was that cold fusion did not and could not occur. Those who persisted came under attack. Mainstream researchers realised that to continue studying cold fusion was a career dead end--their chances of research funding were small, getting published would be difficult, peers would look down on them, and perhaps access to equipment would be difficult. Only those who had little or nothing to lose--some young researchers, and senior scientists who were not seeking funding, promotion or honours--were likely to persist.

Wave Structure of Matter in Spacetime

(Posted at the physics forum by OJones, 18th of November, 2007)

There are many 'crackpot' scientific theories to be found online, but when I stumbled across the site http://spaceandmotion.com/ I was horrified by the sheer scale and volume of the unscientific, unfounded, misinterpreted rubbish that the site's creator (Geoff Haselhurst) had published.

I tried to find something that would allow me to excuse this quackery - I suppose I am optimistic about peoples' nature at heart - but reading the 'published' (read FTP'd) papers on the subject on Milo Wolff's site, http://www.quantummatter.com/ just confirmed that there is no 'theory' whatsoever; speculation 'backed-up' by wave equations so general that one would be surprised if they did not appear in a discussion of fundamental physics.

The problem I have is not with the theory - any theory can be put forward for scientific scrutiny as long as it makes testable predictions and is falsifiable - but with its presentation to the public as 'absolute truth', along with Wolff's book for sale on Amazon. My question is; are such crackpot theories dangerous, and if so what action should be taken to limit the damage they do to, for instance, the education of interested beginner scientists who find them by chance?

OJones

As a high school physics teacher, I try to make sure that folks understand the difference between a true theory and a speculation.

It would help if there was a large repository page for the crackpots, and by the sheer volume of fools with wildly different ideas that contradict each other yet say the same things ("established science is full of closed-minded, dogmatic, brainwashed conspirators who refuse to believe my "theory")... what was I saying? Oh yeah, the sheer volume of crap should persuade most people to pay more attention to the standard model.

Chi Meson

From my pov, part of the problem is that even respectable scientists call each other crackpots.

I had assumed that when I finished college I would know what 'the mainstream opinion' is wrt topics in physics, but I realized that this is often not so easy to determine. When I asked a professor friend how one determines what is and isn't accepted by the mainstream scientific community, I was told to look for the frequency of the references to a paper or theory.

As a physics graduate, it took me a month to get a handle on the state of the measurement problem. Finally, it was Steve Carlip who set the record straight and explained that there is no general agreement on this issue.

...consider the war between string theorists, LQG enthusiasts, and deniers of both. How many times have we heard scientists here say that string theory isn't science? Considering the number of physicists working on this, isn't it a bit confusing to call string theorists crackpots; or at least to imply as much? The same goes for the MWT.

Ivan Seeking

This is my reply to the above posts (mainly the first post). Geoff Haselhurst

Hi Everyone,

It is obvious that there are a lot of crackpots on the internet posting their pet ideas.
However, there are also a lot of crackpot critics on the internet too.

How do we resolve this? By abiding by the rules of science.

Thus it is very interesting that in the criticism above of the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) there is a complete lack of science in the criticism. i.e. There are no reasons given for why the Wave Structure of Matter is wrong - other than to say that it makes no testable predictions.
However this is clearly not correct. In fact it is a completely bizarre thing to write given that the WSM states that an electron is a spherical standing wave in Space where the Wave Center forms the 'particle' effect of the electron (and a positron / antimatter is just the opposite phase standing wave).

Thus it is up to scientists to see if there is any difference in the behaviour of an electron and a spherical standing wave in Space. i.e. This is a definite testable theory.

Now immediately you have a simple calculation that any maths physicist can make. What happens when two spherical standing waves move relative to one another? If you apply the Doppler shifts for the spherical in and out waves you deduce exactly what is observed. i.e.
1. The de Broglie wavelength of quantum theory.
2. The relativistic mass increase of Einstein's special relativity.

Milo Wolff explains this in this video at YouTube

Any mathematician can work this out - just simple wave equations and applying Doppler shifts. So why don't people do the maths and see this is true for themselves.

And this is very remarkable, as it is the first time that these two theories have been united from one set of simple wave equations. To ignore this would be crazy.

Further, the Wave Structure of Matter is deduced as the most simple science theory for describing reality - founded on the one and only thing that we all commonly experience, Space (mind and matter are many things, space is always one thing).
This not only satisfies the central principle of Science, Occam's razor, but also explains the foundations of Metaphysics and Philosophy, that reality must be described from only one thing existing to explain the interconnection of all things in the universe.

What else does it predict / deduce.

1. Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.

2. Mach's Principle.

3. The size of our observable universe within infinite Space (thus the motion of distant galaxies will behave as if they are surrounded by matter).

4. Curvature of the space-time continuum in Einstein's general relativity.

5. That light is due to resonant coupling - and thus is discrete. i.e. The electron can only exist in discrete wave functions thus discrete energy states in an atom or molecule.

6. That the de Broglie wave is a phase wave with high velocity for low relative motion, where de Broglie phase wave has velocity c^2 / relative velocity. This provides a simple explanation for non-locality as found in the EPR experiment.

Given the nature of the above criticism I think they should provide some examples from the site where I have written something that is not true - and that they must back this up using rules of science. Perhaps a list of ten things would be good - as OJones writes;

"I was horrified by the sheer scale and volume of the unscientific, unfounded, misinterpreted rubbish that the site's creator (Geoff Haselhurst) had published."

The Wave Structure of Matter can be deduced by anyone as the most simple science theory for describing reality. As Occam's razor is a fundamental principle of science, scientists must show why this deduction is not true. Specifically;

1. Does anyone have any evidence that the space we all commonly experience existing in does not exist.

2. That all matter interactions are not wave interactions in this space.

Again - scientists must use rules of science in answering this.

Finally, are they also saying that Erwin Schrodinger and Carver Mead are crackpots?

"The quantum world is a world of waves, not particles. So we have to think of electron waves and proton waves and so on. Matter is 'incoherent' when all its waves have a different wavelength, implying a different momentum. On the other hand, if you take a pure quantum system – the electrons in a superconducting magnet, or the atoms in a laser – they are all in phase with one another, and they demonstrate the wave nature of matter on a large scale. Then you can see quite visibly what matter is down at its heart." (Carver Mead Interview, American Spectator, Sep/Oct2001, Vol. 34 Issue 7, p68)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carver_Mead

'It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth century will be characterized in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics.' (Carver Mead, Collective Electrodynamics)

'What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). ... The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. ... Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements
of quantum mechanics held today (1950s), I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody. ... I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it. ... The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists.' (Erwin Schrodinger)
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-E ... dinger.htm

In hindsight it is obvious that the 'particle' conception of matter does not work and is the cause of the the problems and paradoxes found in physics. Yet until recently no one seriously thought about a pure Wave Structure of Matter in Space. Physicists just went with the particle / wave duality and treated the wave as a 'probability' wave to determine the location of the 'particle'. And they completely ignored any explanation as to why the probability is determined by a wave function, and why the allowed energy states of electrons are discrete (the cause of light quanta) as determined by Schrodinger's wave equations.

The Wave Structure of Matter explains the particle properties of light and matter perfectly. It also explains and solves the central problems of metaphysics and philosophy by explaining how matter is interconnected across the universe.

Given the state of our world, how desperately we need to know the truth about reality as a foundation for thinking and acting wisely, well for scientists to ignore this would be gross negligence (to say the least).
But most will ignore this - as like all humans they are programmed to believe in the dogma / paradigm of their time, i.e. the Standard Model of particle physics, particle / probability wave interpretation of quantum theory, the Big Bang cosmology, ...)

There is much more. But this is a good start.

Cheers,
Geoff Haselhurst

PS - This page on censorship in physics publications is important too.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/physics-c ... ureate.htm

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. (Max Planck)

Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. But I look with confidence to the future to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality. (Charles Darwin)

I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. ...
In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. (Galileo Galilei)

Since I got no reply to my recommendation of Edmund Storms I asked him if he was willing for me to try posting his paper on the archive myself, and he agreed to this. Strictly speaking, this process was not allowed but I thought I'd try it anyway. It appeared to work: a message came back from the server saying that the paper had been deposited successfully. I was sent an id and password for the paper so I could check it would appear correctly before going public.

Then a problem became apparent: I got back a message saying I was not the owner of the paper concerned. I sent a message to enquire about this, and got back this message: The submission was removed as inappropriate for the cond-mat subject area.

A Kafkaesque correspondence followed with 'smart-alec' responses by the archive to legitimate points made by myself. For example, when I pointed out that two very distinguished physicists were of the opinion that cold fusion was probably a real phenomenon, the moderator's response was:

... we are always thrilled to hear when people find an avocation that keeps them off the streets and out of trouble.

And in regard to a discussion of a paper by Peter Hagelstein of the Research Laboratory in Electronics, in MIT's Electrical Engineering Department, the archive pronounced this opinion:

A talk in an Electrical Engineering Dept, by someone who does not have a Physics appointment, on work that is not publishable in Physics journals does not suggest that the subject matter is appropriate for this resource. We regret that we do not currently have a section for Electrical Engineering.

Thanks to TFF and Izzy for the light of rationality in the topic.

How unfortunate that the internet is saturated with half-baked ideas from unqualified people who appear to believe that they have a democratic right to claim whatever they like as the irrefutable truth. There's no place for democracy in science.

The idea that nature can be described by mathematical patterns goes back to Pythagoras. Observed departures from mathematical predictions have led to the discovery of all sorts of things. In the mid 19th century, slight departures from the prediction of Newton of where Uranus should be, gave rise to the hypothesis that the gravity from another planet was responsible. The sums were done, a telescope was pointed where the maths said the planet should be, bingo; there was Neptune. A few years later, similar anomalies in the orbit of Mercury had people looking for the planet responsible. None was found. The conclusion, that Newton's laws of gravity weren't the full picture, started the chain of events that culminated in Einstein refining our understanding of gravity with his field equations.
The situation today is that Einstein's gravity does not account for the behaviour of the observed mass of galaxies, meaning either: as in the case of Uranus, there is some cause to be discovered, which currently goes by the name of dark matter; or, as in the case of Mercury, the maths needs tweaking. Both possibilities are being explored by scientists and mathematicians. The idea that they are all in cahoots to come up with some flimflam that will suppress ideas the 'scientific establishment' finds unacceptable, is just nonsense.

"the ether concept has once more acquired a clear content. The ether in the general theory of relativity is a medium which itself is bereft of all mechanical and kinetic properties, but which has a share in determining mechanical and electromechanical occurrences." From "The Ether and the Relativity Theory"

If there is a cartel to maintain the orthodoxy, what are they theorising about?

The phase transition is going to begin somewhere in the universe and will spread outward from that point. It is very possible the collapse has already taken place somewhere right now and it is chewing its way into the rest of the universe. Maybe a collapse is in the preliminary stages right now somewhere nearby. Or it could start very far away in a hundred million years. It just is not known, stated Jens Frederik Krog.

The phase transition could happen next week or in a billion years, but the calculations performed by physicists at the University of Southern Denmark specify that the threat of the universe collapsing in on itself is much greater than was previously believed.

Most calculations and theories are predicting a phase transition, but there have been numerous qualms in the preceding calculations. Now that more precise calculations have been performed, scientists are able to theorize better about two things. The universe will most likely collapse and that collapse is closer to happening than previously considered.

Krog and his associates looked at three of the top equations which triggered the expectation of a phase change. Such things are known as beta functions and Krog’s team were mainly concerned with the roles they found between the strength of exchanges between both Higgs bosons and also quarks.

Krog’s group displayed how the three equations are able to be worked simultaneously and how the equations interrelate with one another. When all three equations are put together, the likelihood of a collapse as a result of a phase change is much more likely than when applying just one of the equations, Krog explained.

Although, the newer calculations are saying a collapse is now more probable than ever, it still is possible that it might not ever happen. There is a requirement for the phase change that the universe contains the elementary particles that scientists know of today, which includes the Higgs particle. If the universe were to also contain undiscovered elements, the entire basis of this phase change prediction disappears. That means the collapse theory is cancelled out of existence.

Physicists are keenly aware that the physical models on which GR and QM are predicated, are incompatible. That doesn't stop the mathematical models describing the behaviour of large objects and small objects respectively, very accurately. You do not need to know what is causing the phenomena to understand, measure and manipulate them. I sometimes think that perhaps the reason some scientists are so irritated by philosophers is that they keep reminding them of that fact.

There is no such paradigm.

Arising_uk wrote:Really? Surely Newton was fine and any errors were compensated with correction thrusts.

Arising_uk wrote:Now GPS guided missiles must surely use Einstein.