String theory is what?

[ChildInAZoo]

I don't want to ignore it, it's just that it's so much work, and I'm not equipped to do it. That's why I talk to guys like you. I have this big picture that's only an outline, covering the deep fundamentals* but lacking in detail. You're close-in, with lots of detail, but with respect, you don't seem to understand those deep fundamentals of have any kind of big picture. I'd hope there's mileage in talking things through, but there seems to be a kind of professional pride that prevents people like yourself from accepting any input from people like me. I think it's a pity, because progress in physics has been stalled for many years. IMHO there's an impasse, it has to be broken, and I'm doing what I can to help.

Don't you think that your choice of fundamental principles might simply be in contradiction with the details? After all, if you can't grasp the details, how could you possibly hope to understand whether or not you are presenting a contradiction? And if you are dealing with fundamentals, then why don't you simply lay out what these fundamentals are? You have refused my request to provide the fundamental principles that you are using.

I have to use circuituous method because it's very difficult to get a journal to accept a paper that delivers a new idea. I'm not just talking about my own experiences here. For the new idea to be right, the old idea has to be wrong. And the sort of people who came up with the old idea, or adhere to it, are the sort of people on the editorial committee.

This has been shown by philosophers and sociologists of science to be false. New ideas are published all the time in journals. the rejection of new ideas is a rare occurrence. You may be confusing the rejection of poor ideas, or poorly explained ideas, with the rejection of new ideas. In your case, if you are not equipped to do the mathematical work of the physics you are looking at, then you will never get published, with good reason. You cannot get over an important standard used to determine whether or not your idea has any value.

When you refuse to put your ideas available for plain view, then you make sure that nobody who might assist you will be able to do so.

[lpetrich]

That's the problem I have with such self-styled physicists as Farsight; they ignore the necessity of being able to get good numerical agreement with present theories.

I don't want to ignore it, it's just that it's so much work, and I'm not equipped to do it.

Do you have any idea of how you'd do those calculations? Even if you don't do them, it would still be helpful to describe how you would do them.

However, there is a way to do such calculations by proxy. If you can demonstrate that your theories reduce to the Standard Model to within experimental limits, you can then use Standard-Model-based calculations without any additional work. But you must do so mathematically, by showing that you get the Standard-Model Lagrangian from your theories. At the very least, you ought to get Maxwell's equations for the photon and the Dirac equation for the electron.

That's why I talk to guys like you. I have this big picture that's only an outline, covering the deep fundamentals* but lacking in detail.

It's not enough to have great ideas. You ought to work out how to test them, and accept the necessity of modifying or rejecting them as need be.

I think it's a pity, because progress in physics has been stalled for many years. IMHO there's an impasse, it has to be broken, and I'm doing what I can to help.

What do you mean?

I have to use circuituous method because it's very difficult to get a journal to accept a paper that delivers a new idea.

Farsight, hasn't it ever occurred to you that journal editors may be rejecting your papers because your ideas have serious flaws?

I'm not just talking about my own experiences here. For the new idea to be right, the old idea has to be wrong. And the sort of people who came up with the old idea, or adhere to it, are the sort of people on the editorial committee.

That's a dumb way of looking at the progress of science. What often happens is that old but successful theories get shown to be limiting cases of new theories. That is what had happened with relativity and quantum mechanics, and creators of Standard-Model extensions, Grand Unified Theories, and Theories of Everything try to get the Standard Model as an appropriate limit.

By not appreciating the necessity of accounting for the Standard Model, you may be turning off a lot of journal editors right there.

You might want to try reading Asimov - The Relativity of Wrong some time.

[ChildInAZoo]

What do you mean?

This point bears repeating, since there have been amazing strides forward in physics over the last few decades.

[lpetrich]

What do you mean?

This point bears repeating, since there have been amazing strides forward in physics over the last few decades.

Anything in particular?

[JimC]

What do you mean?

This point bears repeating, since there have been amazing strides forward in physics over the last few decades.

But without, it seems to me, a large amount of certainty about the competing possibilities...

At least not in comparison with past changes in the physics zeitgeist...

[Farsight]

Don't you think that your choice of fundamental principles might simply be in contradiction with the details?

No, not at all. If they were, you'd be able to point to problems within say Time Explained.

After all, if you can't grasp the details, how could you possibly hope to understand whether or not you are presenting a contradiction? And if you are dealing with fundamentals, then why don't you simply lay out what these fundamentals are? You have refused my request to provide the fundamental principles that you are using.

I have simply laid out the fundamentals. I've refused your request to restate them because it's specious. They are already stated simply.

This has been shown by philosophers and sociologists of science to be false. New ideas are published all the time in journals. the rejection of new ideas is a rare occurrence. You may be confusing the rejection of poor ideas, or poorly explained ideas, with the rejection of new ideas. In your case, if you are not equipped to do the mathematical work of the physics you are looking at, then you will never get published, with good reason. You cannot get over an important standard used to determine whether or not your idea has any value.

It isn't false. There's considerable concern about this. See for example http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/38468.

When you refuse to put your ideas available for plain view, then you make sure that nobody who might assist you will be able to do so.

I'm not refusing to make the ideas available. That's what I'm doing. You're refusing to examine them, and defending your stance with untrue accusations.

[Farsight]

Do you have any idea of how you'd do those calculations? Even if you don't do them, it would still be helpful to describe how you would do them.

Not really. We're dealing with dynamical geometry in three dimensions, and writing it down as a static linear one-dimensional expression just seems to throw away all the meaning. I've been intending to learn about David Hestenes' geometric calculus, see http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/ and I've had an invitation for a week in Scotland to learn about something that might be similar, plus I've been trying to find somebody doing lattice models to see if we can simulate the photon, the electron, and pair production. A plane-polarized photon would be a start, so you can actually "see" the wavefunction manifested as a lattice distortion. The lattice has an elastic quality, but it's under pressure rather than being stretched elastic chords. The photon is a pressure pulse, like the outline of a wave-packet, and the degree of rotation from a horizontal line element _ to a sloped line like this \ or this / denotes electromagnetic field strength. The derivative of the slope gives the archetypal sinusoidal waveform. The strong force is represented by the resistance of the lattice to extension, gravity is the pressure-gradient surrounding the photon, the weak interaction is a kind of rotational friction, and so on.

However, there is a way to do such calculations by proxy. If you can demonstrate that your theories reduce to the Standard Model to within experimental limits, you can then use Standard-Model-based calculations without any additional work. But you must do so mathematically, by showing that you get the Standard-Model Lagrangian from your theories. At the very least, you ought to get Maxwell's equations for the photon and the Dirac equation for the electron.

It's a tall order. I've have however been looking at On Physical Lines of Force. Maybe I could start with that.

What do you mean?

The Maths Tower at Manchester University was demolished, physics A-levels are down 57% in 25 years, there's funding pressure, and my teenage children gave up their all science subjects. I know a fair bit about physics, and decided to do my bit and explain a few things, but the naive questions floored me. I looked at E=mc² and realised I didn't understand what the terms actually represented. Then I started working on them, doing research and analysis on those those deep fundamental things like energy, mass, the speed of light c, and charge, and so on.

Farsight, hasn't it ever occurred to you that journal editors may be rejecting your papers because your ideas have serious flaws?

Yes, but I wasn't talking about my papers.

That's a dumb way of looking at the progress of science. What often happens is that old but successful theories get shown to be limiting cases of new theories. That is what had happened with relativity and quantum mechanics, and creators of Standard-Model extensions, Grand Unified Theories, and Theories of Everything try to get the Standard Model as an appropriate limit. By not appreciating the necessity of accounting for the Standard Model, you may be turning off a lot of journal editors right there.

There's a lot of resistance, lpetrich. Progress is slow because of it. Have you read Graham Farmelo's The Strangest Man? Check out page 53 where you can read how Einstein was still being dismissed in Cambridge in 1923.

You might want to try reading Asimov - The Relativity of Wrong some time.

I've read it. I don't disagree with the sentiment. You'll find me saying the standard model is a work-in-progress rather than wrong. Re what I was saying above, see the bit where Asimov says "Copernicus switched from an earth-centered planetary system to a sun-centered one." It took a hundred years for that to catch on, because of guys like ChildInAZoo. Then when it does, all the resistance from all the guys chasing dead ends gets swept under the carpet. Stuff like String Wars and String Theory.

[ChildInAZoo]

What do you mean?

This point bears repeating, since there have been amazing strides forward in physics over the last few decades.

Anything in particular?

I think that the understanding of quantum information theory has provided some really interesting insights into the fundamental nature of quantum-level events. I also think that the development of a host of techniques for different astronomical and cosmological applications has given us new ways to measure gravitational effects at new scales. Both of these routes of advance have given us the hope of distinguishing between quantum gravity theories on the basis of observations. The work on super-fluids and other states of matter is fascinating too.

I find it interesting and promising that Anthony Legget, who got his Nobel for work in super-fluids (IIRC), moved on to work on quantum super positions of currents and other macro-level events. (Though that work was begun some time ago... I should check up on that.)

[ChildInAZoo]

Re what I was saying above, see the bit where Asimov says "Copernicus switched from an earth-centered planetary system to a sun-centered one." It took a hundred years for that to catch on, because of guys like ChildInAZoo. Then when it does, all the resistance from all the guys chasing dead ends gets swept under the carpet. Stuff like String Wars and String Theory.

Why are you personally attacking me when I have been trying to be helpful? Are you continuing to refuse to lay out your fundamental principles because you know that they are problematic? Certainly, attacking one of the few people here that was supportive to your work seems like a counter-productive strategy.

[lpetrich]

Don't you think that your choice of fundamental principles might simply be in contradiction with the details?

No, not at all. If they were, you'd be able to point to problems within say Time Explained.

Where can I find that document?

This has been shown by philosophers and sociologists of science to be false. New ideas are published all the time in journals. the rejection of new ideas is a rare occurrence. You may be confusing the rejection of poor ideas, or poorly explained ideas, with the rejection of new ideas. In your case, if you are not equipped to do the mathematical work of the physics you are looking at, then you will never get published, with good reason. You cannot get over an important standard used to determine whether or not your idea has any value.

It isn't false. There's considerable concern about this. See for example http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/38468.

This seems too much like the "orthodox oxen" argument, as I call it. "There is no ox so dumb as the orthodox", according to self-styled physicist George Francis Gillette.

Farsight, even if you do get published, that does not mean that you are right. It's to be expected that many theoretical speculations end up falsified by later observations and experiments, or even get shown to be inconsistent with present theories. So at the very least, you ought to describe how to test your theories. What do your theories predict that is different from what the Standard Model predicts?

When you refuse to put your ideas available for plain view, then you make sure that nobody who might assist you will be able to do so.

I'm not refusing to make the ideas available. That's what I'm doing. You're refusing to examine them, and defending your stance with untrue accusations.

Why not create your own website where you explain your ideas? That's what the Time Cube guy did. Look at it this way. The Internet is the world's biggest vanity press.

[ChildInAZoo]

Why not create your own website where you explain your ideas? That's what the Time Cube guy did. Look at it this way. The Internet is the world's biggest vanity press.

I believe that Farsight's sole purpose for being here is to try to sell his own self-published book. It may be that he is purposefully presenting his ideas in the most confusing way possible in the hope that someone will buy his book for further clarification. So far, however, he is providing me with evidence that he is unable to present a coherent argument. It might even be that he knows that he cannot present such an argument and thus he pursues obfuscation and personal attacks. However, he may just be obstinate and for some reason unable to seriously consider that his own writing style is confusing.

[Farsight]

Don't you think that your choice of fundamental principles might simply be in contradiction with the details?

No, not at all. If they were, you'd be able to point to problems within say Time Explained.

Where can I find that document?

I posted one on this forum. See http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 06&start=0

This seems too much like the "orthodox oxen" argument, as I call it. "There is no ox so dumb as the orthodox", according to self-styled physicist George Francis Gillette.

You'd be amazed at how much assumption and groupthink there is. Or sociology if you prefer. It's the old Feynman adage, "the first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool". It's kind of like a blind spot. You don't know you've got it until you learn to see it. And then you worry that you haven't seen it all.

Farsight, even if you do get published, that does not mean that you are right. It's to be expected that many theoretical speculations end up falsified by later observations and experiments, or even get shown to be inconsistent with present theories. So at the very least, you ought to describe how to test your theories. What do your theories predict that is different from what the Standard Model predicts?

Not a lot when it comes to the standard model. I don't have any numbers, and it's mostly outline postdiction and interpretation, like "quarks are loops". But take a look at http://www.knotplot.com/zoo/. On the top row 5¹ is a stable pentaquark, 7¹ is a stable septaquark, and so on. I'm thinking 4¹ is a tetraquark but is unstable because it lacks rotational symmetry. And I do know why neutrinos oscillate and how gravity unifies, but again only in outline.

Why not create your own website where you explain your ideas? That's what the Time Cube guy did. Look at it this way. The Internet is the world's biggest vanity press.

Because it has that vanity press aspect, and I want to engage physicists because I'm doing my bit to help "save" physics. If I don't take care I'll end up being critical of the erudition / intellectual arrogance / elitism / competition / propaganda / imposed consensus / paradigm / peer review / censorship / etc, then I won't be helping to save physics, I'll be helping to slay it. For example, seen this: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42554. I know what dark matter is, but what I need to do is get say somebody at the CDMS II collaboration to come out with it.

[lpetrich]

Do you have any idea of how you'd do those calculations? Even if you don't do them, it would still be helpful to describe how you would do them.

Not really. We're dealing with dynamical geometry in three dimensions, and writing it down as a static linear one-dimensional expression just seems to throw away all the meaning.

What "meaning" do you have in mind? The "meaning" of lots of pretty pictures?

What's a "static linear one-dimensional expression", anyway?

... plus I've been trying to find somebody doing lattice models to see if we can simulate the photon, the electron, and pair production. A plane-polarized photon would be a start, so you can actually "see" the wavefunction manifested as a lattice distortion.

Why not write out the equations that you are trying to solve?

At the very least, you ought to get Maxwell's equations for the photon and the Dirac equation for the electron.

It's a tall order. I've have however been looking at On Physical Lines of Force. Maybe I could start with that.

Let's see if you can get the Standard Model out of that.

What do you mean?

The Maths Tower at Manchester University was demolished, physics A-levels are down 57% in 25 years, there's funding pressure, and my teenage children gave up their all science subjects.

That's an entirely separate issue, and I don't see why you insist on dragging it in.

I know a fair bit about physics, and decided to do my bit and explain a few things, but the naive questions floored me. I looked at E=mc² and realised I didn't understand what the terms actually represented. Then I started working on them, doing research and analysis on those those deep fundamental things like energy, mass, the speed of light c, and charge, and so on.

Do you know any of the mathematics behind mainstream physics? The mathematics is an essential part of the theories of mainstream physics.

There's a lot of resistance, lpetrich. Progress is slow because of it.

Seems like the "orthodox oxen" argument again. There's VERY good reason to be skeptical of claims of grandiose new discoveries.

[newolder]

I know what dark matter is ...

“Extraordinary claims ...” - you know the drill. Will you post about this 'is-ness' in rigorous mathematical terms and testable by experiment, any time soon?

[ChildInAZoo]

I know what dark matter is, but what I need to do is get say somebody at the CDMS II collaboration to come out with it.

This seems like an unsupportable claim. If Farsight really cannot follow the relevant mathematics, he cannot possibly have justification for any claim about dark matter.