New physics at old Tevatron

[Chris Coles]

Re: New physics at old Tevatron

Chris,

This is all interesting, if at times difficult to comprehend (at least for me). Let me point out, however, that the extraordinary success of conventional physics is based on its predictive power, which, in turn, relies on the ability to express the stated truths in the language of mathematics. For example, (Newtonian) gravitational force between two objects of mass m1 and m2 is expressed as -G m1 m1/r^2, where r is the distance between these objects. This formula works beautifully. It predicts Keplerian orbits of planets just as easily as the fall of a person walking off a cliff, or a formation of a galaxy--well, actually, the last one requires supercomputers to simulate the dynamics, nonetheless it works very well. Now, you talk about 'attachment force' between protons. Care to produce an equation/formula that expresses such force as a function of distance? Other parameters? It cannot be electrostatic since it acts as q1 q2/r^2, and is repulsive for same charges, whereas the 'attachment force' you postulate appears to be attractive.

To summarize my take on the subject: without hard math behind, words in physics are just fluff. Can you produce math to support your understanding of reality expressed in words above?

Jam, wonderful, except that no one fully understands gravity and particularly how it works. Again, I am not placing any doubt on the existing mathematics; NONE! But all I have done is describe a new theory which stands upon the thought that the underlying logic regarding what causes gravity is deeply flawed. Yes, what a wonderful foil, "words in physics are just fluff", wow! and that is "IT". No need to think, words are rubbish, so pay no attention to them.

But within any solid mass object there is no need for Inverse Square Law when there is no distance involved. Again, almost every gravity experiment involves swinging mass alongside another mass and thus the gravity is measured as a sideways force field. But if the force is an attachment force, normal to the surface of the planet; then once the point where one takes the observation moves sideways, away from the surface of the mass, the only force it can detect is that of the gas molecule beside that point. That is why gravity drops off so rapidly in such experiments.

What I have done is set out a deep logical argument that gas molecules cannot detach from each other or from mass. Not based upon supposition; but observation. The only way to create a detailed mathematical proof will be to set out a detailed program of experiments, from which the mathematics will stem. I have set out such a set of detailed experiments, but as no one will discuss the debate, supposedly upon the basis that, as you say, "words in physics are just fluff", then nothing gets done.

You may be the highest regarded physicist on the planet, but right now, you lost your credibility with me with that statement, "words in physics are just fluff".

Garbage in and garbage out. Modern physics is awash with wonderful mathematics that work perfectly, except they do not stand on a solid foundation of logical debate, words, with regard to static forces in equilibrium.

Everyone admits they do not fully understand gravity; but at one and the same time, not one wants to debate any other theory.

What a desperate thing, fear of being proven wrong must be; that men of science will not open their minds to new thinking.

words in physics are just fluff - Bah! Humbug.

And I am not sorry being so derisory. I have listened to such rubbish for more than a decade. True thinkers are always open to debate and have no fear of being proven wrong. Indeed, failure is the most important element in the purpose of innovation and invention. Failure forces a change of direction, new thinking, new ideas to be expressed. Inventors face failure every day of their lives. But somehow, science has become so afraid of failure of debate that today, no one wants to open their minds to new thinking and have, at every twist and turn; a quick derisory phrase, to show themselves just how wonderful their mathematics are. Total and utter rubbish in and total and utter rubbish out.

What everyone is going to have to learn to understand is that Newton, and almost everyone that followed, stepped over the most basic aspect of the debate regarding forces, static forces in equilibrium; simply because the higher mathematics of moving bodies was so much more interesting. All those wonderful challenges of the planets and stars moving across the night sky. So what happened was, off the cuff, explanations for the most simple aspects were cast to one side; Oh! Yes! we understand, move along, much more exciting things to do than debate a static object.

Yes, you can quote off the cuff great and well understood Keplerian equations that explain those moving objects ..... but still, centuries later, cannot offer a detailed explanation of what actually causes the most simple, static force, gravity. Well, sorry, but the words have to be inserted into the debate for an understanding to be developed and the mathematics will have to follow.

words in physics are just fluff

[ASH]

Re: New physics at old Tevatron

except that no one fully understands gravity and particularly how it works.

You're not a fan of general relativity?

[Jam]

Re: New physics at old Tevatron

words in physics are just fluff

Clearly, I touched a nerve here. Let me reiterate then what I actually said:
without hard math behind, words in physics are just fluff
and emphasize again
without hard math behind, words in physics are just fluff

To state it in a different way, I do not dismiss words in physics on the basis of them being words. If fact, I think words play an important and complementary role in understanding reality in general, and physics in particular. It is often difficult to convey intuitive understanding with formulas and equations alone--prose plays an essential role in such understanding. Indeed, without words, physical theory would be just math. Having said that, I don't think practicing physics without math, but only with words, makes sense. You need both: without hard math behind, words in physics are just fluff, and without words, it is just math.

If words is all you had to offer, I am not at all surprised that your hypotheses were dismissed by professionals. Here is why: Like it or not, natural language lacks the precision and rigor required of a physical theory. The present discussion is actually a good illustration of this point: I tried to convey importance of hard math in physics--that it is mathematics that gives words precision and rigor required for clear understanding of physical reality, and you took it as me dismissing words in physics altogether--I don't. But, give me the precision of math so I can deconstruct your 'theory' and tell you why it is all rubbish or nominate you for the Nobel prize (in physics, not literature).

Let me illustrate the point using another example taken literally from what you said

[...] within any solid mass object there is no need for Inverse Square Law when there is no distance involved.

'any solid mass' consists of atoms and molecules. Most mass of an atom is concentrated in its nucleus, which occupies only a very small fraction of the volume taken by the atom itself--and, I mean, really small fraction, some 10^-15. As a result, if you pick a point 'within any solid mass' that point most likely will lie a finite distance from any of the nuclei, therefore, a finite distance from mass. So, how should your statement that 'there is no distance involved' be interpreted? Please, specify, in mathematical terms, how your hypothetical 'attachment force' varies with distance. Specifying this dependence is even more important in case of gases, or gas molecules. If I understand what you say, you hypothesize that the 'attachment force' tends to keep gas molecules together. But, if you agree that gas molecules are of finite size, and sparsely distributed, the 'attachment force' must act at a distance in which case, please specify how the force depend on the distance. If each of your gas molecules stretches to infinity, then the concept of 'inside' or 'outside' of a a mass makes no sense--everything is inside.

As you can see, using words alone is insufficient to elucidate the concepts. Please, put some math behind, so that others can understand what you are saying.

All this only scratches the surface--unless you put hard math behind your words, there is really nothing to talk about. There is way too much wiggle room, way too much fluff, and hardly any substance. Math is ruthless in exposing fallacies in reasoning. Which brings me to the following: are you afraid of math? Are you afraid that it will show that all your hypothesizing is nothing but a fantasy land where normal laws of logic do not apply? You accuse others of being afraid of your 'theories.' But maybe it is you who is afraid (of rigorous scrutiny). So, unless you put math behind your words, I will assume one of three things: 1. Incompetence, 2. Laziness, 3. Fear. Or the combination of the three.
Re. 1, Incompetence, i.e. insufficient background in math to substantiate hypothesizing.
Re. 2, Laziness. It is so easy to produce words and then sit back and wait until someone else puts in their sweat trying to (dis)prove these words. If it works out, great, you take credit; if it does not, then not much loss--for you.
Re. 3, Fear. Fear of rigorous scrutiny. Living in a fantasy land is so pleasant--one need not bother with this pesky reality, logic, etc. And it is so easy to dismiss others' criticism: just tell yourself that they are afraid to face the truth.

To summarize: if you want others to take your 'theories' seriously, you must substantiate them with more than just words: Produce quantitative predictions. Do experiments and show how the results are explained by your 'theories' and contradict conventional physics. Or, at the minimum, show that the results are easier to obtain using your theories than conventional ones. Unless/until you do that, your 'theories' will not, and should not, be taken seriously. To put it another way: unless you do it, nothing will get done.