The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?  (Read 19516 times)

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #25 on: 18/10/2010 11:57:52 »
This topic does seem like a good candidate for the New Theories section. Stay tuned!

Move it there. We can then ignore the tight-rope walking necessary not to offend the BS advocates. Physics is truly in a sad state.

Does it bother anyone that we are not allowed to question the BS?

I would be embarrassed for someone to think that I signed on to the mainstream BS. Especially since future students will see our tracks and wonder how we could be so stupid.

« Last Edit: 18/10/2010 12:10:39 by Vern »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #26 on: 18/10/2010 12:39:40 »
Movie script presentation went very well. Many re-writes will come before production, however.

Producers want more ridicule of mainstream. They smell raw meat.
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #27 on: 18/10/2010 13:28:03 »
It was November of 1991 that I found the square-of-shells relationship that predicted the dynamics and strength of the strong nuclear reaction. It showed it to clearly be electromagnetic.

I thought the combining of the strong and EM forces, plus the weak force were already mathematically described by the Quantum Field Theory.  What need is there to reinvent this view?
 

Offline SuperPrincipia

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #28 on: 18/10/2010 13:44:09 »
I thought the combining of the strong and EM forces, plus the weak force were already mathematically described by the Quantum Field Theory.  What need is there to reinvent this view?
Peppercorn, the physics community is fooling you, if you think that those concepts are fully understood; they are not! Currently those concepts are so marred in complexity that no high school teacher could explain those concepts to their students. All we know about the "Strong Force" is that it keep protons in the nucleus from flying apart. How does this mechanism work? They invent "Gluons" to make this work. As far as I am aware, no Gluon has ever been detected. The "Weak Force" allows for a heavy nucleus, one with many protons and neutrons, to spontaneously emit or releases a "Beta Particle" which is basically a Helium Atom without the electons. An ionized helium atom. What is the mechanism that makes this work?
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #29 on: 18/10/2010 13:59:02 »
Peppercorn, the physics community is fooling you, if you think that those concepts are fully understood; they are not! Currently those concepts are so marred in complexity that no high school teacher could explain those concepts to their students.

Why should it be that the maths has to be simple enough for a "high school teacher could explain those concepts to their students"?
I vaguely recollect some of the maths needed for 'standard' quantum mechanics from 'Solid state electronics', 2nd yr Electronic Eng BSc - That made my head spin at the time & I it's lost in the mists now!

Strong force is adequately described by QCD - to the point that is it's self consistent, fits with experiment and can be combined with the other two shorter-range forces.  That doesn't seem too bad for a start!
 

Offline SuperPrincipia

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #30 on: 18/10/2010 14:38:39 »
Why should it be that the maths has to be simple enough for a "high school teacher could explain those concepts to their students"?
I vaguely recollect some of the maths needed for 'standard' quantum mechanics from 'Solid state electronics', 2nd yr Electronic Eng BSc - That made my head spin at the time & I it's lost in the mists now!

This is exactly my point. The physics was made so complex that you no longer remember, and except it by faith! When you study all of the great physicists throughout history, those that we still discuss today. They all state that the concepts and mathematics of nature should be simple. I believe that this is a fundamental principle for nature and the universe that the origin of all things and beauty are simple.


Strong force is adequately described by QCD [nofollow] - to the point that is it's self consistent, fits with experiment and can be combined with the other two shorter-range forces.  That doesn't seem too bad for a start!

Most physicist assume that if the physics works then there is only one way to describe that phenomena. I would like to add to Isaac Newton's Scientific Method by adding this to the method. If a theory work there should be at least, and at a minimum three ways to calculate and formulate that physics phenomena. If you ever pick up one of my books, you will see that I include five to ten "different" calculations for calculating the same thing. Most physicist present one equation and state that they have solved the problem. I believe that at least three different equations, are required, but when I write I include many more. And this is the proof that the math works, when you can solve the same problem at least three ways. For example the number nine (9) can be calculated many ways: (3*3) = (6+3) = (18/2) = 9.....

What other short range forces are you describing? I believe this is called Guage Theory, and becoming Super Symmetry (SUSY) theory?
« Last Edit: 18/10/2010 14:41:14 by SuperPrincipia »
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #31 on: 18/10/2010 15:42:57 »
This is exactly my point. The physics was made so complex that you no longer remember, and except it by faith!
But I knew it once! - faith in one's self is about as good as it gets in terms of direct evidence!

All of the great physicists throughout history... state that the concepts and mathematics of nature should be simple.
Really? Give me [only] three referenced examples then.

I believe that this is a fundamental principle for nature and the universe that the origin of all things and beauty are simple.

Believe what you like! Since the time of the QM revolution physics has looked anything but simple or especially beautiful.  The beauty of equations and fundamental ideas is aesthetically pleasing and any logical explanation of nature (or anything) should not be any more complex than necessary; that does not however lead to mean that complex maths is 'naturally' wrong - how arrogant to suppose it does!

Most physicist present one equation and state that they have solved the problem. I believe that at least three different equations, are required, but when I write I include many more. And this is the proof that the math works, when you can solve the same problem at least three ways. For example the number nine (9) can be calculated many ways: (3*3) = (6+3) = (18/2) = 9.

This (3*3) = (6+3) = (18/2) = 9  is called (something like) equivalence.  '6+3 = 9' barely counts as an equation as (unlike x+3 = 9) there's nothing to solve. You can write it a dozen ways to Sunday it's still says nothing new and not really a great selling point for your 'book'.

If an equation is proved consistent by writing it in one form, writing it repeatedly in further forms adds nothing.   Maybe you are getting confused with repeating an experiment (the other half of empirical science).  Obviously the more an experiment is reproduced by independent teams, the more solid its findings become.
« Last Edit: 18/10/2010 16:08:44 by peppercorn »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #32 on: 18/10/2010 16:37:53 »
This topic does seem like a good candidate for the New Theories section. Stay tuned!

Move it there. We can then ignore the tight-rope walking necessary not to offend the BS advocates. Physics is truly in a sad state.

Does it bother anyone that we are not allowed to question the BS?

I would be embarrassed for someone to think that I signed on to the mainstream BS. Especially since future students will see our tracks and wonder how we could be so stupid.



Vern,

You may not refer to a theory that happens to contradict your ideas a "BS". At least, not on this forum.
 

Offline SuperPrincipia

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #33 on: 18/10/2010 17:57:30 »
Really? Give me [only] three referenced examples then.

I am a very humble person, but my physics training and skills makes it hard for me to be bullied by anyone!

What I wanted to say is, I will answer you, when you answer me. I asked you, What other short range forces are you describing? But, I will answer your question anyway!

1) Quote from Einstein - "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html [nofollow]

2) Quote from Isaac Newton - Many scientists have adopted or reinvented Occam's Razor, as in Leibniz's "identity of observables" and Isaac Newton stated the rule: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is
"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/General/occam.html [nofollow]

3)Quote Johannes Kepler - proves that the golden ratio is the limit of the ratio of consecutive Fibonacci numbers and describes the golden ratio as a "precious jewel": "Geometry has two great treasures: one is the Theorem of Pythagoras, and the other the division of a line into extreme and mean ratio; the first we may compare to a measure of gold, the second we may name a precious jewel." These two treasures are combined in the Kepler triangle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio [nofollow]

I hope that answers your question, and maybe you will humble yourself and answer me.
« Last Edit: 18/10/2010 18:00:37 by SuperPrincipia »
 

Offline Ethos

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #34 on: 18/10/2010 19:13:17 »
Excellent reply SuperP..........At least my hat is off to you sir.

And BTW,........when man thought the earth was flat and popular authority was convinced, it took a much simpler idea a very long time to overcome that belief. It is a fact that the earth is a sphere and that, my friends, is much simpler than this flat earth being perched on the back of a giant elephant or turtle, which ever myth one chooses to reference.

....................Ethos
« Last Edit: 18/10/2010 19:16:17 by Ethos »
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #35 on: 18/10/2010 19:16:37 »
What other short range forces are you describing?

Sorry. Missed that bit:
Strong, Weak & EM - all combined mathematically in QFD.


Thanks for the 3 quotes - haven't the time to read them at present.
Can you respond to the rest of my post also, please?
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #36 on: 18/10/2010 19:18:32 »
Excellent reply SuperP..........At least my hat is off to you sir.

And BTW,........when man thought the earth was flat and popular authority was convinced, it took a much simpler idea a very long time to overcome that belief. It is a fact that the earth is a sphere and that, my friends, is much simpler than this flat earth being perched on the back of a giant elephant or turtle, which ever myth one chooses to reference.

....................Ethos

There was no maths supporting the argument the world was flat though!
- & It pre-dated empirical study.
 

Post by Vern click to view.

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #37 on: 18/10/2010 20:51:59 »
Shrunk
Quote from: Geezer
Vern,

You may not refer to a theory that happens to contradict your ideas a "BS". At least, not on this forum.

I mentioned no theory.
« Last Edit: 18/10/2010 21:15:40 by Vern »
 

Post by Ethos click to view.

Offline Ethos

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #38 on: 18/10/2010 23:39:43 »
Shrunk
Quote from: Geezer
Vern,

You may not refer to a theory that happens to contradict your ideas a "BS". At least, not on this forum.

I mentioned no theory.
And BTW, who's to say what "BS" may stand for at any particular time in history?? I'm on your side my friend, things are getting a bit too testy around here lately IMHO!!
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #39 on: 19/10/2010 10:43:25 »
Quote from: SuperPrincipia
Really? Give me [only] three referenced examples then.
I am a very humble person, but my physics training and skills makes it hard for me to be bullied by anyone!
If you take trying to get some usable definition out of what you're writing as 'bullying', there's not much I can do about that. But I'm sorry you feel that way.

Quote from: SuperPrincipia
1)Quote from Einstein - [Reiterating the spirit of Occam's Razor]
2)Quote from Isaac Newton - [Reiterating the spirit of Occam's Razor]
3)Quote Johannes Kepler - [Irrelevant quote with no mention of how nature should be 'simple' or 'beautiful']
I hope that answers your question, and maybe you will humble yourself and answer me.
In terms of supporting your assertion:
All of the great physicists throughout history... state that the concepts and mathematics of nature should be simple.
It fails.  If you had stated that 'describing nature in the simplest form possible, was key motivator of science I would have agreed with you. In fact I did: "any logical explanation of nature (or anything) should not be any more complex than necessary". But it quite clear to anyone that it isn't what you wrote.

Since you were arguing that generations of scientists somehow support your case that the modern 'standard model' should be thrown out on the grounds of over-complexity then this is extremely important.


Most physicist present one equation and state that they have solved the problem. I believe that at least three different equations, are required, but when I write I include many more. And this is the proof that the math works, when you can solve the same problem at least three ways. For example the number nine (9) can be calculated many ways: (3*3) = (6+3) = (18/2) = 9.
This (3*3) = (6+3) = (18/2) = 9  is called (something like) equivalence.  '6+3 = 9' barely counts as an equation as (unlike x+3 = 9) there's nothing to solve. You can write it a dozen ways to Sunday it's still says nothing new and not really a great selling point for your 'book'.

If an equation is proved consistent by writing it in one form, writing it repeatedly in further forms adds nothing.   Maybe you are getting confused with repeating an experiment (the other half of empirical science).  Obviously the more an experiment is reproduced by independent teams, the more solid its findings become.
Do you fancy responding to this as well while you're at it?
 

Offline SuperPrincipia

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #40 on: 19/10/2010 14:49:08 »
It fails.  If you had stated that 'describing nature in the simplest form possible, was key motivator of science I would have agreed with you.
Since you were arguing that generations of scientists somehow support your case that the modern 'standard model' should be thrown out on the grounds of over-complexity then this is extremely important.
This is what I call bullying, you appear to be arguing for the sake of arguing, and do not appear to be seeking intelligent discussion or understanding.  What I stated is, When you study all of the great physicists throughout history, those that we still discuss today. They all state that the concepts and mathematics of nature should be simple. I believe that this is a fundamental principle for nature and the universe that the origin of all things and beauty are simple.

I am not arguing that the "Standard Model" should be thrown out, in fact I agree with most of it. What I am arguing or adding to the Isaac Newton Scientific Method, is that for a scientific theory to be valid at least three different methods are required to be tested for true validity; mathematical or experimental. And if one of the three turns out to be simpler or displays some sort of beauty, the simple more beautiful one has preeminence or the other two. The other two results are still correct they are not to be discarded; but I believe that over time the simpler on is the one that will move forward in time!

Maybe you are getting confused with repeating an experiment (the other half of empirical science).

No, this is bigger than repeating the experiment. For example consider Galileo's uniform acceleration experiment; rolling balls down incline planes, and dropping balls off of the leaning tower of Pisa. Then forty four (44) years later Newton validated this experiment with his Universal Gravitation Theory. Then some three hundred (300) years later, we put satellites in orbit to validate this experiment even more. Three different experiments which predict the same thing; and hence three slightly different mathematics can be used to calculate those things.

And please do not ask me to provide the mathematics, I believe that you get my point! I do not want to continue along these reasonings!

Obviously the more an experiment is reproduced by independent teams, the more solid its findings become.
Your statements validate my point. This is my point of an additional requirement to the Scientific Method.
« Last Edit: 19/10/2010 14:53:03 by SuperPrincipia »
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #41 on: 19/10/2010 15:16:02 »
It fails.  If you had stated that 'describing nature in the simplest form possible, was key motivator of science I would have agreed with you.
Since you were arguing that generations of scientists somehow support your case that the modern 'standard model' should be thrown out on the grounds of over-complexity then this is extremely important.
This is what I call bullying, you appear to be arguing for the sake of arguing, and do not appear to be seeking intelligent discussion or understanding.

Not at all.  - To point out that you failed to support your original assertion is not bullying. It isn't my fault your quotes were not supportive of the statement that 'nature should be simple'.
I do, however, apologies if I made the incorrect assumption about you dumping the Standard Model in its completeness.

"I believe that this is a fundamental principle for nature and the universe that the origin of all things and beauty are simple." - You can have this belief if you want, but where's the evidence?
NB. Be very careful, here - I don't see the point in another anecdote along the lines of Occam's Razor. There is no overwhelming evidence anywhere that at nature's very heart lays simplicity.  Sure many of the greatest leaps in understanding the physical world through science's history have come about by some truly beautiful equations, but this doesn't prove your belief.
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #42 on: 19/10/2010 15:37:03 »
Maybe you are getting confused with repeating an experiment (the other half of empirical science).
No, this is bigger than repeating the experiment. For example consider Galileo's uniform acceleration experiment; rolling balls down incline planes, and dropping balls off of the leaning tower of Pisa. Then forty four (44) years later Newton validated this experiment with his Universal Gravitation Theory. Then some three hundred (300) years later, we put satellites in orbit to validate this experiment even more. Three different experiments which predict the same thing; and hence three slightly different mathematics can be used to calculate those things.
I think you are confused about the meanings and process of validation.
The most powerful think about the scientific method is its ability to fine-tune our understanding of reality.  Previous to this approach theorems fell into favour with no particular need to include what was already 'known'.  What about the four Greek elements - utterly arbitrary and with no way to test or measure or predict.
Jumping forward... By the time of Newton's theories he wasn;t so much validating Galileo's work as encompassing it in a more exact mathematical model.  Validation of a theory happens by it's testing with experiment - ideally as many times as possible (done well).   If you're saying (& excuse me if I misunderstand) that writing you equations (proofs) in several different ways adds some solidity to them - you are mistaken.  If they are valid first in the written form - they are always.  Of course,they may be 'spun around' to apply them better to a certain problem, but this changes them not.

Obviously the more an experiment is reproduced by independent teams, the more solid its findings become.
Your statements validate my point. This is my point of an additional requirement to the Scientific Method.
No it doesn;t. See above.
 

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #43 on: 20/10/2010 15:33:30 »
This thread has moved away from the main issue. Do you think that any explanation of matter would also explain what created the matter and why times arrow is one directional?
 

Offline Ethos

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #44 on: 20/10/2010 16:54:05 »
This thread has moved away from the main issue. Do you think that any explanation of matter would also explain what created the matter and why times arrow is one directional?
I agree Ron..........
I've had a thought about matter creation for many years now that I can't seem to get an answer for.

If one is to believe in the Big Bang, and that all the forces of nature were all rolled up into one superforce before they split off into the four we now recognize, one has to accept that gravity along with the other 3 were present before the formation of matter. According to present understanding, one must have an accumulation of matter to activate the force of gravity.

So here is my question:

With no matter present shortly after the Big Bang, how could gravity have existed?

My speculation:

Maybe it's the other way around. Maybe gravity, which must be part of the universal field, creates matter?

...............Ethos
« Last Edit: 20/10/2010 16:55:46 by Ethos »
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #45 on: 20/10/2010 17:14:01 »
With no matter present shortly after the Big Bang, how could gravity have existed?

I thought the only reason no matter existed directly after the BB was because the energy state of universe was far too high for matter to coalesce.   The gravitational force certainly does not cease to exist just because there is nothing for it to act on.
 

Post by Ethos click to view.

Offline Ethos

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #46 on: 20/10/2010 17:16:21 »
Shrunk
With no matter present shortly after the Big Bang, how could gravity have existed?

I thought the only reason no matter existed directly after the BB was because the energy state of universe was far too high for matter to coalesce.   The gravitational force certainly does not cease to exist just because there is nothing for it to act on.
Then you agree, gravity creates matter???????
 

Post by peppercorn click to view.

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #47 on: 20/10/2010 17:24:13 »
Shrunk
With no matter present shortly after the Big Bang, how could gravity have existed?

I thought the only reason no matter existed directly after the BB was because the energy state of universe was far too high for matter to coalesce.   The gravitational force certainly does not cease to exist just because there is nothing for it to act on.
Then you agree, gravity creates matter???????
Does it look like I agree?!
 

Post by Ethos click to view.

Offline Ethos

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #48 on: 20/10/2010 17:25:51 »
Shrunk
Yes,,,,,,it looks like you agree!
 

Post by Ethos click to view.

Offline Ethos

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #49 on: 20/10/2010 17:31:27 »
Shrunk
With no matter present shortly after the Big Bang, how could gravity have existed?

I thought the only reason no matter existed directly after the BB was because the energy state of universe was far too high for matter to coalesce.   The gravitational force certainly does not cease to exist just because there is nothing for it to act on.
Then you agree, gravity creates matter???????
Does it look like I agree?!
Would you care to commit, one way or the other my friend?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #49 on: 20/10/2010 17:31:27 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums