Over-complication of science
Discussion
money's in the post...I think my purposeful discarding of the Platonistic ideal for the purposes of lively debate is much maligned as are my attempts to jolt readers into re-evaluating what they are simply told in the media which is simplified too much, the LCD here is higher than the general audience of TV programmes so a greater truth or insight can be exposed and discussed or questioned. But I realise that where ever I pitch the LCD of this site will leave me open to criticism.
I'm fairly robust.
MiseryStreak said:
...
Are you serious? You haven't heard of Gene Vincent, how old are you, 12? It might be a huge coincidence but I very much doubt 'our' Gene Vincent has the same name as one of the pioneers of Rock and Roll.
...
Are you serious? You haven't heard of Gene Vincent, how old are you, 12? It might be a huge coincidence but I very much doubt 'our' Gene Vincent has the same name as one of the pioneers of Rock and Roll.
...
Hence why I used the words:
"Is Gene Vincent your real name?"
and
"Of course I may have your name wrong."
I reiterate:
Gene, I would be grateful if you could post a link to just one (any one) of your research papers.
Kenzle said:
Hence why I used the words:
"Is Gene Vincent your real name?"
and
"Of course I may have your name wrong."
I reiterate:
Gene, I would be grateful if you could post a link to just one (any one) of your research papers.
Kenzle said:
I have searched both SPIRES and the Arxiv (hep-th, gr-qc, hep-ph etc) for Gene Vincent, G. Vincent, Eugene Vincent, E. Vincent
Which seemed a bit silly to me. Anyway, enough of this boring rubbish, let's get back to the Science! GV has been asked a number of times and clearly wants to maintain a modicum of unanimity, as do we all*, so please drop it.*actually I don't, my username was my real name for 6 years, but then I'm stupid and naive.
Bedazzled said:
MiseryStreak said:
...until someone actually calls him out on something in any of the many threads that he has been involved with then I will continue to learn from what he tells me regardless of whether it seems counter intuitive at first or not.
I like reading GV's contributions and his contrary thinking adds a lot of value imo, but even with my limited knowledge I've seen him make some basic mistakes and he has an articulate knack of glossing over them. Take anything anyone says on here with a pinch of salt, and just use it as a prompt to read up on a topic further. Bedazzled said:
...I've seen him make some basic mistakes and he has an articulate knack of glossing over them.
I do gloss over some things, but they are not usually mistakes, usually I will do so because the deeper underlying truth would embroil us all in a morass of misunderstanding.Take the simple concept of the point of no further dissection, the matter of the (non)existence of quarks, for me this is simple, the concept of residual behaviour is nothing too hard to grasp but it has caused a bit of consternation and misunderstanding.
There is 'reason' to my starting threads in the order I have done to date, this thread stumbled into a conceptualisation too far for some and this subject should really have come up in my projected QFT thread...
MiseryStreak said:
Until someone actually calls him out on something in any of the many threads that he has been involved with...
On the speed of light thread I proved him wrong via experiment. What more do you want? I'm also very sure that he's wrong about the LHC being completely different from cosmic rays. I judge this based on doing the energy calculation and reading various CERN documents.I'm not sure about the 'realness' of quarks argument any more as I'm not even sure what he's arguing. If something acts in every way as if it's made of quarks and we can scatter electrons off these quarks inside the thing then, for me, 'quarks exist'. I freely admit that this is the limit of my knowledge though - I am not a particle physicist.
MiseryStreak said:
...
Anyway, enough of this boring rubbish, let's get back to the Science! GV has been asked a number of times and clearly wants to maintain a modicum of unanimity, as do we all*, so please drop it.
*actually I don't, my username was my real name for 6 years, but then I'm stupid and naive.
MS, I am very keen to get back to the science.Anyway, enough of this boring rubbish, let's get back to the Science! GV has been asked a number of times and clearly wants to maintain a modicum of unanimity, as do we all*, so please drop it.
*actually I don't, my username was my real name for 6 years, but then I'm stupid and naive.
I do however take issue with people who proclaim to have authority on the subject of theoretical physics without backing up their claims and who state things that are incorrect.
I have not read every one of GV's posts on the Science forum on PH (and don't intend to), but from a quick scan of the posts I have read, I have found at least three things he's said which are wrong. I'll state them:
1. That time passes not smoothly, but in tiny jumps the size of the Planck time (stated by GV on the Time thread). There is no evidence that time has any sort of discrete structure like this whatsoever (GV, please provide a reference if I am mistaken). There are some hypotheses such as loop quantum gravity and others which toy with these kinds of ideas, but to state this as fact is ludicrous.
2. That cosmic ray collisions occurring in the atmosphere are in some way inherently different from those particle collisions that occur in accelerators other than the fact that accelerators are providing a controlled environment and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of detector in the right place (stated in this thread).
3. That scientific theories can be proven to be correct. (Stated in the Time thread).
GV is clearly very knowledgeable about physics. My concern is that he has no humility about the limits of his knowledge and refuses to accept any sort of critical expression about his posts.
hairykrishna said:
MiseryStreak said:
Until someone actually calls him out on something in any of the many threads that he has been involved with...
On the speed of light thread I proved him wrong via experiment. What more do you want? I'm also very sure that he's wrong about the LHC being completely different from cosmic rays. I judge this based on doing the energy calculation and reading various CERN documents.hairykrishna said:
I'm not sure about the 'realness' of quarks argument any more as I'm not even sure what he's arguing. If something acts in every way as if it's made of quarks and we can scatter electrons off these quarks inside the thing then, for me, 'quarks exist'. I freely admit that this is the limit of my knowledge though - I am not a particle physicist.
I'm no particle physicist either but I know they don't scatter electrons off quarks! The clue is in the name - Large HADRON collider. They accelerate beams of protons, types of hadron (produced easily by ionising hydrogen), to about 3m/s short of c in counter rotating trajectories and set them to collide within the detector. Then they look at traces of particles that exist for tiny fractions of a second, before they transmute into other, more stable, particles.There is not at any point a direct observation of a quark, or a Higgs boson.
If the quarks do actually exist, like three little particles inside a Hadron skin, then why can a Top Quark (with a mass much greater than that the Proton itself!) be produced when colliding them? It's not there waiting to come out! It is created, fleetingly, by the energies of the interaction.
ETA: I don't agree with GV's idea of scientific theories being fact, but then I don't work in his field so respect his greater and far more current experience of this subject.
Edited by MiseryStreak on Monday 3rd September 12:10
MiseryStreak said:
...
ETA: I don't agree with GV's idea of scientific theories being fact, but then I don't work in his field so respect his greater and far more current experience of this subject.
My bold above indicates precisely what you have assumed, and I am trying to establish.ETA: I don't agree with GV's idea of scientific theories being fact, but then I don't work in his field so respect his greater and far more current experience of this subject.
Edited by MiseryStreak on Monday 3rd September 12:10
Kenzle said:
1. That time passes not smoothly, but in tiny jumps the size of the Planck time (stated by GV on the Time thread). There is no evidence that time has any sort of discrete structure like this whatsoever (GV, please provide a reference if I am mistaken). There are some hypotheses such as loop quantum gravity and others which toy with these kinds of ideas, but to state this as fact is ludicrous.
2. That cosmic ray collisions occurring in the atmosphere are in some way inherently different from those particle collisions that occur in accelerators other than the fact that accelerators are providing a controlled environment and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of detector in the right place (stated in this thread).
3. That scientific theories can be proven to be correct. (Stated in the Time thread).
1/. Everything we have found to date is, in the final analysis, incremental in nature, even quantum fields behave better with incremental time rather than some sort infinite structure with no increment, this also applies to the manner in which cause/effect merge at the micro level, continual flow mitigates against the maths there too. It doesn't have structure, it is an effect, a by-product. But what produces it at every turn is something that does obey the Planck limits, it would be rather foolish to think that what happens at Planckian measures somehow don't obey a planckian form of time considering that time is coincident to motion.2. That cosmic ray collisions occurring in the atmosphere are in some way inherently different from those particle collisions that occur in accelerators other than the fact that accelerators are providing a controlled environment and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of detector in the right place (stated in this thread).
3. That scientific theories can be proven to be correct. (Stated in the Time thread).
2/. They don't produce the same results... because Cosmic rays live in the 'now' and are conditioned by the environment of 'now', an accelerator replicates the conditions of the very distant past for a short duration and is designed to preserve it for as long as possible, sufficient for us to look back in time, Cosmic rays can't do this, it is really very simple and I thought clearly understood across the world. But not, it seems, you.
3/. We constantly prove equivalence, we constantly look at disproving it, because of its resilience we use it to verify our own work at the coal face, if our Eqs don't Eq, we don't generally think... 'Einstein was wrong' (unless we need publicity for more money) we go back and find what we've missed... always. Eq works in and out of Black holes, bare space and us humans.
TheSpoof said:
Basel, Switzerland - Physicists working at the CERN Laboratory in Switzerland have just discovered another dreadful mistake made by Albert Einstein. The 20th Century genius was proven wrong last week after it was discovered neutrino particles can travel faster than the speed of light. Now, Einsteins most famous equation - E=MC² - has also been proven to be completely wrong.
Physicists around the world are still recovering from shock, now that the speed of light has been broken by neutrinos. The discovery has made them reconsider everything Einstein ever did--and the results have been disastrous. NASA's chief astronomer Dr. Karl Saygun explained the dilemma to the press:
"Energy equals mass times the square of the speed of light (E=MC²) is the cornerstone of modern physics. Because the speed of light is no longer important, energy simply equals mass (E=M). The whole Theory of Relativity is wrong." said Dr. Saygun.
The realization that E=MC² was wrong caused many strange things to happen. Fission and fusion became no longer possible, and all nuclear power plants around the world began to shut down. Astronomers noted that the sun was becoming very dim, and appeared to be going out.
Dr. Saygun glanced outside his window and watched the midday sky turn jet black. The sun had stopped shining, as well as every star in the Universe.
"This is really a sad day for science, now that Einstein is proven wrong." said Dr. Saygun as he began to freeze to death.
I liked that.Physicists around the world are still recovering from shock, now that the speed of light has been broken by neutrinos. The discovery has made them reconsider everything Einstein ever did--and the results have been disastrous. NASA's chief astronomer Dr. Karl Saygun explained the dilemma to the press:
"Energy equals mass times the square of the speed of light (E=MC²) is the cornerstone of modern physics. Because the speed of light is no longer important, energy simply equals mass (E=M). The whole Theory of Relativity is wrong." said Dr. Saygun.
The realization that E=MC² was wrong caused many strange things to happen. Fission and fusion became no longer possible, and all nuclear power plants around the world began to shut down. Astronomers noted that the sun was becoming very dim, and appeared to be going out.
Dr. Saygun glanced outside his window and watched the midday sky turn jet black. The sun had stopped shining, as well as every star in the Universe.
"This is really a sad day for science, now that Einstein is proven wrong." said Dr. Saygun as he began to freeze to death.
MiseryStreak said:
I'm no particle physicist either but I know they don't scatter electrons off quarks! The clue is in the name - Large HADRON collider. They accelerate beams of protons, types of hadron (produced easily by ionising hydrogen), to about 3m/s short of c in counter rotating trajectories and set them to collide within the detector. Then they look at traces of particles that exist for tiny fractions of a second, before they transmute into other, more stable, particles.
Thank you. I know what the LHC does.Read about deep inelastic scattering. Specifically the work leading up to the nobel prize for work on the structure of the proton at SLAC.
Edited by hairykrishna on Monday 3rd September 12:42
Gene Vincent said:
1/. Everything we have found to date is, in the final analysis, incremental in nature, even quantum fields behave better with incremental time rather than some sort infinite structure with no increment, this also applies to the manner in which cause/effect merge at the micro level, continual flow mitigates against the maths there too. It doesn't have structure, it is an effect, a by-product. But what produces it at every turn is something that does obey the Planck limits, it would be rather foolish to think that what happens at Planckian measures somehow don't obey a planckian form of time considering that time is coincident to motion.
...
Really? The Planck limits? At every turn? What can you possibly be basing this statement on?...
Gene, what's the Planck mass?
Kenzle said:
Gene Vincent said:
1/. Everything we have found to date is, in the final analysis, incremental in nature, even quantum fields behave better with incremental time rather than some sort infinite structure with no increment, this also applies to the manner in which cause/effect merge at the micro level, continual flow mitigates against the maths there too. It doesn't have structure, it is an effect, a by-product. But what produces it at every turn is something that does obey the Planck limits, it would be rather foolish to think that what happens at Planckian measures somehow don't obey a planckian form of time considering that time is coincident to motion.
...
Really? The Planck limits? At every turn? What can you possibly be basing this statement on?...
Gene, what's the Planck mass?
Gene Vincent said:
Kenzle said:
Gene Vincent said:
1/. Everything we have found to date is, in the final analysis, incremental in nature, even quantum fields behave better with incremental time rather than some sort infinite structure with no increment, this also applies to the manner in which cause/effect merge at the micro level, continual flow mitigates against the maths there too. It doesn't have structure, it is an effect, a by-product. But what produces it at every turn is something that does obey the Planck limits, it would be rather foolish to think that what happens at Planckian measures somehow don't obey a planckian form of time considering that time is coincident to motion.
...
Really? The Planck limits? At every turn? What can you possibly be basing this statement on?...
Gene, what's the Planck mass?
What's that supposed to mean?
Either you stand by your statement that everything is, in the final analysis, incremental in nature, including time. Or you don't.
Mass clearly isn't.
The human recommended daily amount of Vitamin B12 is almost an order of magnitude less than the Planck Mass!
Gene, do you see why your posts can be misleading to people who aren't physicists and don't know any better? There isn't a shred of evidence that time is discrete and jumps in units of the Planck time. But you state it as though it is hard fact.
Not educating people is bad, mis-educating them is far worse.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff