The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: The dark ages of physics  (Read 21521 times)

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #50 on: 19/09/2006 22:30:08 »
I have skimmed through your papers and they do have some attractive features to them and I do not think that you are totally alone in your approach.  there remains a very critical requirement, are there any observations that could be made to verify this hypotesis ot distinguish it from the currently favoured dark matter dark energy approach to cosmology and a theory of everything?

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
 

Offline Nieuwenhove

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
    • http://http://home.online.no/~avannieu/darkmatter/
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #51 on: 20/09/2006 07:15:00 »
quote:
Originally posted by Soul Surfer

I have skimmed through your papers and they do have some attractive features to them and I do not think that you are totally alone in your approach.  there remains a very critical requirement, are there any observations that could be made to verify this hypotesis ot distinguish it from the currently favoured dark matter dark energy approach to cosmology and a theory of everything?



No, I can not think of such observations. One problem is that it is very difficult to have a unique interpretation of astronomical observations. The "vacuum bubble" which I mentioned would cause a kind a lensing effect (around galaxies) very similar to dark matter.
A second problem is that my main occupation is (unfortunately) not in cosmology but in reactor instrumentation so that I have not so much time to work on these things. So, the main "argument" which I have is that such a theory is more beautifull (in my view).
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #52 on: 20/09/2006 10:45:06 »
I agree we are going through a rather untidy phase in fundamental physics.  Over the years I have experienced several of these.  The most notable was the chaos of subatomic particles before the quark theory of baryon and meson structure became established.  Everone thought how wonderfully simple, protons, neutrons and electrons made everything until they got down to trying to understand why a lot of positively charged protons and neutral neutrons could stick together to form a nucleus and started to find hundreds of new unstable particles as the accelerators got more powerful.  They also found that a lot of precious "conservation" laws  were violated.  Eventually work started on guage theories symmetry groups and gradually the pattern emerged and we had quarks with fractional charges something that was totally rejected as ridiculous to start with.



Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
 

Offline ghh

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #53 on: 20/09/2006 21:38:35 »
I agree with Rudi.
The pursuit of the exotic in Physics has reached ridiculous proportions: Dark matter, dark energy, wimps, inflation, separate "force carrying bosons" for every effect, 18 dimensional strings, and so on.
and yet, since energy and mass are apparently interchangeable the idea of the Energy quantum being also the gravitational quantum is apparently inconcievable!
see my post in new theories
Graham
 

Offline Nieuwenhove

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
    • http://http://home.online.no/~avannieu/darkmatter/
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #54 on: 18/09/2006 20:22:10 »
quote:
Originally posted by Soul Surfer

You seem to have a totally negative attitude Nieuwenove all the theories you mention have been proposed to deal with anomalies in observations and our models of the universe.  To return to your original premise that scientists are following them like sheep.  If you read the litereaure you will understand that they most definitely do not do this because there are almost as many theories as there are people working on them so unless you can offer something more positive I suggest that you go away and occupy your mind with a subject more to your tase towards which you may be able to propose positive contributions.



You should understand that I really care about physics and that I devoted a great deal of effort to it. I wish nothing more than that physics advances as fast as possible. My positive contribution I hoped to achieve(through my negative remarks) is that maybe some physicists don't lose their energy on the wrong tracks. I'll hereby end this topic.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #55 on: 18/09/2006 23:19:43 »
OK then I will pose a final question, if you think that they are totally on the wrong track would you be prepared to suggest what might be the right track.

I myself consider that some of the suggestions are inelegant and probably wrong but I do believe that there is an honest effort to design experiments to validate all the significant theories. For example, the August issue of Astronomy and Geophysics has a long and thorough review of experimental techniques to provide independant verification and measurement of the effects of dark energy by several independant methods.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
« Last Edit: 18/09/2006 23:20:29 by Soul Surfer »
 

Offline bostjan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #56 on: 19/09/2006 08:52:37 »
Ok, here is my question:

A graviton is low energy, so you say there must be tons of them if they exist, yet you base this on Plank's constant for a photon, or am I misunderstanding you?  I do not follow this argument to well.

As far as I know, gravity is a weak force compared to umm, any other fundamental force.  So that suggests a small energy compared to a photon, or say a W-boson.

So how would you go about observing a graviton, if you were to believe they existed?  They should be plentiful, because of the abundance of gravitational fields, as far as I understand.  They should eventually interact with anything that has mass, right?

I don't say that they must exist, but I don't see how it is that they are forbidden to exist, either.

 

Offline Nieuwenhove

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
    • http://http://home.online.no/~avannieu/darkmatter/
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #57 on: 19/09/2006 17:22:15 »
quote:
Originally posted by Soul Surfer

OK then I will pose a final question, if you think that they are totally on the wrong track would you be prepared to suggest what might be the right track.

I myself consider that some of the suggestions are inelegant and probably wrong but I do believe that there is an honest effort to design experiments to validate all the significant theories. For example, the August issue of Astronomy and Geophysics has a long and thorough review of experimental techniques to provide independant verification and measurement of the effects of dark energy by several independant methods.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!



I have no doubt about the honest effort of scientists to validate their various theories and I'm confident that the "truth" will emerge eventually. My concern is only about the time scale.

So, one your question on what the right track is. I do not claim to be more intelligent than other scientist. On the contrary, I know there are many scientists which are 100 x cleverer than me and who have much better mathematical skills. What I consider the right track is summarised very briefly on my website : http://home.online.no/~avannieu/darkmatter/ [nofollow]
Very recently, I submitted two new articles to complement and extend this (in a more rigurous way) and I'm awaiting the reactions of the referees.
Some basic ideas :
1) Physics should be based on the structure and on the properties of the vacuum and not on so-called elementary particles (they are actually some special modifications of the vacuum)
2) One should not think of spacetime in general relativity  as something abstract. In mathematics, this is acceptible, but not in physics. Instead, I believe that spacetime has actually a complicated underlying structure (like a network ; see my website) and that the Einstein Field equations should be seen like some kind of macroscopic description of this underlying microscopic structure.
While the concept of the ether has been abandoned by most physicists, I believe it is nevertheless there in some special form.
3) Dark matter does not exist (see website) ; it is an illusion
4) The so-called cosmological term should not be included in the Einstein field equations. It was indeed a very big mistake (the reason why is explained in my recently submitted paper).Cosmological models which are based on this are wrong. If present observations seem to contradict this, then my attitude is that there must be something wrong with the observations or the models. Models with a mix of so many barionic matter, so many (%) dark matter and so many dark energy energy are absolutely wrong. This looks more like medieval alchemy (of course I know that there are some logical reasons to do so).

I have of course no proof for most of these statements. They are based on intuition (or something else) which falls outside of scientific reason. In this sence you can call me unscientific. Nevertheless, I believe that many beautyfull theories were initially guided by some intuition or feeling and that the mathematical formulations came only in second place. What eventually remains in the articles and textbooks looks entirely logical reasoning while the "unscientific" guiding drive remains completely hidden.
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3826
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #58 on: 19/09/2006 19:25:12 »
When I was an electronic technician working in the printing trade I sometimes got to argue with genuine scientist who could dash off general relativity equations on the back of a cigarette package.
They held me in contempt for believing in things like Mr Hoyles continuous creation theory and the Šther but I am glad to see that in some form an Šther is almost respectable again.  



syhprum
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #59 on: 19/09/2006 22:30:08 »
I have skimmed through your papers and they do have some attractive features to them and I do not think that you are totally alone in your approach.  there remains a very critical requirement, are there any observations that could be made to verify this hypotesis ot distinguish it from the currently favoured dark matter dark energy approach to cosmology and a theory of everything?

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
 

Offline Nieuwenhove

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
    • http://http://home.online.no/~avannieu/darkmatter/
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #60 on: 20/09/2006 07:15:00 »
quote:
Originally posted by Soul Surfer

I have skimmed through your papers and they do have some attractive features to them and I do not think that you are totally alone in your approach.  there remains a very critical requirement, are there any observations that could be made to verify this hypotesis ot distinguish it from the currently favoured dark matter dark energy approach to cosmology and a theory of everything?



No, I can not think of such observations. One problem is that it is very difficult to have a unique interpretation of astronomical observations. The "vacuum bubble" which I mentioned would cause a kind a lensing effect (around galaxies) very similar to dark matter.
A second problem is that my main occupation is (unfortunately) not in cosmology but in reactor instrumentation so that I have not so much time to work on these things. So, the main "argument" which I have is that such a theory is more beautifull (in my view).
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #61 on: 20/09/2006 10:45:06 »
I agree we are going through a rather untidy phase in fundamental physics.  Over the years I have experienced several of these.  The most notable was the chaos of subatomic particles before the quark theory of baryon and meson structure became established.  Everone thought how wonderfully simple, protons, neutrons and electrons made everything until they got down to trying to understand why a lot of positively charged protons and neutral neutrons could stick together to form a nucleus and started to find hundreds of new unstable particles as the accelerators got more powerful.  They also found that a lot of precious "conservation" laws  were violated.  Eventually work started on guage theories symmetry groups and gradually the pattern emerged and we had quarks with fractional charges something that was totally rejected as ridiculous to start with.



Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
 

Offline ghh

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #62 on: 20/09/2006 21:38:35 »
I agree with Rudi.
The pursuit of the exotic in Physics has reached ridiculous proportions: Dark matter, dark energy, wimps, inflation, separate "force carrying bosons" for every effect, 18 dimensional strings, and so on.
and yet, since energy and mass are apparently interchangeable the idea of the Energy quantum being also the gravitational quantum is apparently inconcievable!
see my post in new theories
Graham
 

Offline ScouseLad

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #63 on: 25/09/2006 11:34:42 »
You know what?.. i dont really understand any of this electrons radiatons or any of that above GCSE level lol. because i didn't really try in school, but science still interests me... But the thing that scientists really do want to explain is how we are here now. What made the bing bang go bang? I watched a programme on this the other day and do you know what they said?
There was one more mattor molicule than there was antimator. thats all it boiled down 2. Scientists make up all sorts of AHEM just to try and explain something that they know they really dont understand anyway in an attempt to sound intelligent.. its bullAHEM..most of them arent true logical scientists there just maths and thats why theorys like that are comin out because its the 'dark age' and people can't think of anything better to come out with.. but on the Gravitations particles or whatever. Gravity is here in a physical form. because we are in the physical world, so gravity is a physical thing, and it does exist. theres no denyin that... There will be little 'particles' in the air holding everything down, its just that we cant see them, but you cant see breath if you blow onto your hand can u lol unless its a cold day.. we just need 2 realise how 2 see gravity like every1 can with their breath b4 they can see it. simple as.
 

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
The dark ages of physics
« Reply #64 on: 17/05/2009 14:38:25 »
I have no question this time, I just want to express my opinion on the present situation in physics. In many respects we are really living in the "dark ages" (or middle ages) of physics.

Some examples :

Dark matter : invented to solve some problems with galaxy rotation curves - never observed - everybody seems to believe in it
Dark energy : invented to solve the apparant expansion of the universe - never understood, never demonstrated
Higgs particle : Supposed to give mass to particles - never observed
gravitons : Particles supposed to mediate the gravitational force - an absurd invention and never observed
sterile neutrons : a newcomer with absurd properties - never observed
string theory : Many dimensions, nothing proven
I could go on for a while here.

Despite that these dubious concepts have no solid basis at all, most scientists seem to follow these ideas as stupid sheep.

So, we are not much better off now then assuming that everything is composed of earth, water, fire, air.

Let us hope things get better.


Rudi Van Nieuwenhove

PS : check also http://home.online.no/~avannieu/darkmatter/

You are absolutely right.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) controls the budgets of the federal research agencies and has used that control to create "fudge factors" to support the illusion of:

1. A universe filled with Hydrogen from an imaginary Big Bang.

2. A universe filled with balls of Hydrogen (stars).

3. Hydrogen-fusion as the energy source that powers the cosmos.

4. Hydrogen-fusion as the energy source that heats planet Earth and sustains life here.

However, truths are recorded in isotopes of elements in different parts of the solar system and in the rest masses of the 3,000 different types of atoms that comprise the entire visible universe [Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69, number 11, pp. 1847-1856 (Nov 2006); Yadernaya Fizika 69, number 11, (Nov 2006); PAC: 96.20.Dt; DOI: 10.1134/S106377880611007X; http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509 ]

1. Neutron-neutron interactions are repulsive.

2. Repulsive neutron-neutron interactions power the Sun and the cosmos.

3. The Sun and other ordinary stars are layers of elements: A Hydrogen veneer, covering an Iron-rich interior, encasing an energetic, neutron-rich core.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
The dark ages of physics
« Reply #65 on: 18/05/2009 16:11:35 »
I suspect that we are in the dark ages of physics. But it is not because we haven't discovered many great things and produced theories that work to predict the outcome of experiments. It is the philosophical underpinnings that are presently flawed. When we work out the real nature of superposition and such, then we might emerge from the dark.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
The dark ages of physics
« Reply #66 on: 18/05/2009 23:37:18 »
something funny has happened to this topic there is a repeated section dated between 18/09/06 20:22 and  20/09/06 21:38

 

Offline questioner

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
The dark ages of physics
« Reply #67 on: 31/12/2009 04:27:49 »
I,m 99% sure your all wrong. Thank God we're all still looking for answers.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

The dark ages of physics
« Reply #67 on: 31/12/2009 04:27:49 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length