Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #372669 > unrolled thread

Re: Particles and Theory

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-24 05:00 +0100
    Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-24 05:31 -0800
      Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-24 12:33 -0600
      Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-24 20:01 +0100

#372669 — Re: Particles and Theory

Am 25.09.2015 17:56, schrieb Tom Roberts:
> On 9/25/15 9/25/15 - 12:34 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 11.09.2015 20:50, schrieb Tom Roberts:
>>>> Physicist use an unevaluated assumption.
>>> Wherever did you get that notion? It is blatantly wrong. We physicists
>>> evaluate all of our theories via experiments.
>>
>> There are several people, who claim, that 'mathematics is the language of
>> physics' or 'shut up and calculate..'.
>
> But WHAT do they calculate? -- they use theories which have been tested
> against experiments and been found accurate. So that's no "unevaluated
> assumption".


If these theories match the mechanisms acting in the real world exactly, 
the model and the real world's behaviour should match.

But the problem occurs, that a model and what this model tries to 
emulate, that are different things, since models are abstract 
descriptions about far more complex things.

A model about a naturally occurring phenomenon will gain somehow similar 
results. But to create such a model is a difficult task.

The other question is, if the assumed mechanisms are actually present in 
that phenomenon.

Certainty things in nature happen after entirely different principles 
than physicists use in models, to predict the outcome of experiments.


We could, nevertheless, try to understand natural behaviour, but most 
likely at the expense, that we cannot utilise such methods in somehow 
useful models.

But more important is: such mechanisms are not known. We only assume the 
validity of certain assumptions about the fundamental principles, that 
are acting in the foundations of nature.

Even if these principles are understood (what they are not), this would 
not necessarily help to predict something, since we simply cannot use 
such long timespans and so many participants, as are present in natural 
'experiments'.

> CLEARLY you don't understand the provenance of 'shut up
> and calculate', or what it actually means. It is intended
> to mean "don't worry about theoretical uncertainties in
> the abstract foundations of the theory, because the theory
> has been solidly tested; go ahead and use it because we
> have already verified that it gives accurate results".
>

You again claim, that the 'tested theory' is actually validated 
knowledge about real behaviour of observed phenomena.

The problem is, such knowledge does not exist and models are only 
models, not the 'real thing'.

>> In my eyes 'string theory' is intentional blunder, to keep physics
>> student in a
>> mild state of trance (and entertain the general public a little bit
>> with voodoo
>> magic).
>
> You CLEARLY don't have a clue. Your FANTASY here is just plain wrong.

There is also the possibility of 'intentional cheating'.

I mean, it could be, that physicist intentionally lie to the public, 
since they try to hide something.

If this would be the case, they would need some sort of 'elaborated 
blunder', to keep people away from what shall be hidden.

There are generally four kinds of powers, which belong to the 'usual 
suspects':

- churches of some sort
- governments and politicians
- banks and large corporations
- military and other security agencies

So, physicists should be independent of either of these groups, unless 
you want to think, their finding is wanted by such powers.

But blunder of some kind had always been generated in these realms. 
Actually scientific blunder was not created by - say - politicians, but 
they have hired scientific personal for this kind of work.

And if that is stupid and confusing enough, this blunder is force-fed to 
the next generation of 'scientists'.

The really weird things are honoured. And if it's really far out, it 
gets published in paperbacks and will become a bestseller.


> String theory is a legitimate and serious effort to examine and consider
> what might underlie GR and the standard model. It's just that to date it
> has not produced any testable predictions (a lack that string theorists
> are working to correct).

First problem would be, why the assumption is held, that strings of some 
kind occur in nature.

(I would say, it does not even remotely sound like a promising idea.)

But maybe I'm wrong and on very small we are composed of tiny strings.

This is actually a testable prediction: there are tiny strings.

So string theorist should show evidence for at least one of these strings.


TH

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#372678

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 9:00:20 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> [Many words that strongly imply that TH is extremely suspicious, and
> overly so]
>
> Am 25.09.2015 17:56, schrieb Tom Roberts:
> > 
> > String theory is a legitimate and serious effort to examine and consider
> > what might underlie GR and the standard model. It's just that to date it
> > has not produced any testable predictions (a lack that string theorists
> > are working to correct).
> 
> First problem would be, why the assumption is held, that strings of some 
> kind occur in nature.

The alternative is that dimensionless (point) objects occur in nature.
Are you willing to maintain that fictional point objects exist?

> (I would say, it does not even remotely sound like a promising idea.)

Point objects are reasonable approximations of reality, but do you
REALLY believe in their existence?

> But maybe I'm wrong and on very small we are composed of tiny strings.
> 
> This is actually a testable prediction: there are tiny strings.
> 
> So string theorist should show evidence for at least one of these strings.
> 
> TH

Perhaps you can suggest a way to measure something with dimensions of the
Planck length.  The physics world is waiting for your brilliance.

Gary

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372696

Gary Harnagel wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> > schrieb Tom Roberts:

----snip----

> > > String theory is a legitimate and serious effort to examine and
> > > consider what might underlie GR and the standard model. It's
> > > just that to date it has not produced any testable predictions
> > > (a lack that string theorists are working to correct).
> >
> > First problem would be, why the assumption is held, that strings
> > of some kind occur in nature.
>
> The alternative is that dimensionless (point) objects occur in nature.

Wrong again, Gawy. It's *an* alternative (theoretically speaking);

> Are you willing to maintain that fictional point objects exist?

Why would anyone bother trying to substantiate *your* straw man?

> > (I would say, it does not even remotely sound like a promising idea.)
>
> Point objects are reasonable approximations of reality,

In some circumstances; not in general.

> but do you REALLY believe in their existence?

If you accept the Big Bang hypothesis you do.
Are you a Big Bang believer Gawy?

> > But maybe I'm wrong and on very small we are composed of tiny strings.
> >
> > This is actually a testable prediction: there are tiny strings.
> >
> > So string theorist should show evidence for at least one of these
> > strings.
>
> Perhaps you can suggest a way to measure something with dimensions
> of the Planck length.

That would be up to those postulating such objects, Gawy.

> The physics world is waiting for your brilliance.

Tch. Sarcasm. The lowest form of wit. And in this case
a gratuitous abuse. You should apologise to Thomas. But
being the ranting lunatic that you are, you won't: you
just can't help yourself, can you Gawy?

There *is* a cure for what ails you, you know. It can even
relieve you of that froth in the corners of your mouth.

Wouldn't that be nice?

You know, I'm thinking that Har Nagel doesn't suit you all
that well (you being such a witless wanker and all): I think
you should change your name to Fuck Knuckle.

Waddya reckon?

Gawy Fuck Knuckle. Got a nice ring to it, don'cha think?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372701

Am 24.12.2015 14:31, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 9:00:20 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> [Many words that strongly imply that TH is extremely suspicious, and
>> overly so]
>>
>> Am 25.09.2015 17:56, schrieb Tom Roberts:
>>>
>>> String theory is a legitimate and serious effort to examine and consider
>>> what might underlie GR and the standard model. It's just that to date it
>>> has not produced any testable predictions (a lack that string theorists
>>> are working to correct).
>>
>> First problem would be, why the assumption is held, that strings of some
>> kind occur in nature.
>
> The alternative is that dimensionless (point) objects occur in nature.
> Are you willing to maintain that fictional point objects exist?

I only need a certain relatively simple assumption. This is the 
assumption, that points may have features.

I use the term' elements of spacetime'. That is roughly the same as a 
point, but not of an euclidean space.

Space (usual 3d)  shall 'emerge' (like in big-bang-theory).

The idea itself is actually simple:

  Just look at this diagram:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/300px-World_line.svg.png

This a typical light-cone diagram.

OUR (!) past-light-cone is actually, what we call 'universe'.

But the 'real thing' is this plane called 'space-like'.

Since the diagram is meant as three-dimensional (2 space, 1 time), we 
need to multiply it by three (to reintroduce the missing dimension).

These three planes build kind of space, which is actually real, but 
invisible.

The 'points' there are oriented by nature. And this orientation is 
connected to the 'neighbours' in a way similar to how quaternions are 
multiplied, what could be interpreted as rotation.

This will generate 'timelike stable patterns' (actually of the 
orientation vectors) and that is, what we call matter.


I have written this 'book' about it:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

Certainly an unusual concept, but as far as I can tell, it works on a 
large number of different problems.

To my great surprise (till now) nobody had any interest in it.

Certainly it's quite amateurish, but as a matter of fact, I am an amateur.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web