Null Physics anyone?

[Wangler]

Interesting discourse for sure

All,

This is a very interesting thread, and I want to thank everyone for making it that way.

I actually joined the forum so that I could post about this particular thread.

I am certainly not a physicist, as my post will make obvious.

Like others, I have been intrigued by Mr. Witt's splashy ads.

I admit to being somewhat torn, however.

On one hand, a part of me wants to champion Witt and his musings, if only because I am one (of I assume many) who has occassionally dreamed of re-writing physics in a big, but basic way.

You know, back when your understanding of the concepts is incomplete, and you mess around with Coulomb's law and Newton's law, and try to hash out something meaningful, which is always nonsense.

On the other hand, much of what Witt says doesn't make sense, as has been pointed out by many in this thread.

Keep in mind that Witt's theory will stand or fall on it's own merit. I believe that criticial analysis of new ideas is the responsibility of everyone who espouses to value science, and the scientific method.

That being said, I feel as if the criticisms of Witt's null physics at various points in this thread are a bit overzealous, and almost seem "panicky". The critiques were pointed, persistent, and sometimes persnickety.

These types of critiques prove to Witt that he is hitting near the mark, and the "establishment" is beginning to worry about null physics. Of course, that couldn't be further from the truth.

I was impressed with Ben M's advice to Mr. Witt; a perfect way to respond to someone with kind of wacky ideas: take some time, review current literature and come up with some useful predictions and reductions of your theory. I was kind of disappointed when Witt pooh-poohed his excellent advice.

I was less impressed with the constant championing of the Standard Model. It is certainly the most successful theory in modern science, a point everyone (including Witt) seemed to agree upon.

Just remember, other theories have been successful at predictions, too; the Titus-Bode "law", Bohr's atom model, Newtonian Gravitation. There are plenty of things that the Standard Model cannot handle-the standard model is not an end all; it's just a great point along the way.

I wish the book wasn't $59. I'd buy it just for a look-see. I might try to find it used.

If I do get a hold of it, I'll let everyone know. I would even let others borrow it, if anyone would be willing to invest the time.

Anyhow, thanks for the great thread!

Cheers,

Keith

 

[Wangler]

Upon reviewing this thread, one thing that Schneibster said on Oct. 5 put me in "woo" mode.

Speaking about the tired light, I was reminded of my own personal "quack" theory.

The dark energy content of the universe is just the repository of all the energy lost by red-shifted photons.

What do you all think?

I'm sure that there is some reason why this can't be, but I will still write a book in about 30 years. The question I pose above will be my only peer review.

Keith

 

[thubbathubba]

The dark energy content of the universe is just the repository of all the energy lost by red-shifted photons.

No. The dark energy is the result of all the energy gained by blue shifted light we can't see because everything is accelerating away from us.

 

[Alexious]

I actually joined the forum so that I could post about this particular thread.

Seconded. Another interested amateur who wanted to find the real scoop on Null Physics. And I certainly think I've done so.

However, I do have one problem with what's been said here. I suppose this is a bit of a thread-jack and it might deserve it's own thread. But I'll start here.

No, in fact, I'm certain that there is such a theory. There are currently three candidates for such a theory, and a great deal of both math and experimentation to be done before we can differentiate among them. None of them may be correct; but more likely, one of them is. It may be quite a while before we find out which. Personally, I favor string physics, but that's not a scientific judgment...

Why is not a physics question. What, where, and when are physics questions. Why is a philosophical question. I'm not particularly interested in philosophy, given that its most recent production of any note is deconstructionism, which claims that there is no objective reality.

There is one thing I think Witt has right (whether he's using it to make money or honestly try and revolutionize physics, I don't know). People in general ARE interested in the why and I think they're looking to physics to be part of the answer. And that's why Witt will sell quite a few copies of his book.

Without the why, the GUT is a big yawn. I mean how is the average person supposed to react? Great! You solved your really hard math problem. Congratulations. Now how about doing something useful like curing cancer or creating a workaround for global warming.

From the outside looking in, I think part of the problem with the physics community IS the lack of why. There's no fire. No energy. I mean, more than one person in the thread talked dismissively about A Brief History of Time. At least Hawking tried to generate some interest! Someone needs to make physics matter again.

Schneibster's rant about not being interested in the why brings to mind Charles Barkley and his "I'm not a role-model" commercial. Guess what? You don't really have a choice. Science has become the place where a lot of people turn to for answers. And I'm not talking about the searching for another subatomic particle type of answers.

 

[Yllanes]

Nobody else finds damm curious the amount of people who have registered in this forum just to post in this thread and who haven't posted anywhere else?

I count

• gratuitous python.
• roSSman
• rRoberts
• EvanE
• DocTwisted
• Moebus
• John Lisbeth
• phil99
• thubbathubba
• Wangler
• Alexious

Plus the author, of course. Others, such as T-Diddy, registered to post in this thread but have posted elsewhere. As many of the reviews on Amazon were clearly written by sock puppets, I think maybe some moderator should look into this.

 

[ben m]

Nobody else finds damm curious the amount of people who have registered in this forum just to post in this thread and who haven't posted anywhere else?

Hypothesis: there's a $2,000,000 ad campaign out there. People Google for its subject, "null physics", and get JREF as the 2nd hit. That's why newcomers find this thread out of the blue.

Google Trends doesn't have enough data to back that up, but I'd be curious to see Forum referrer stats ...

 

[Yllanes]

Hypothesis: there's a $2,000,000 ad campaign out there. People Google for its subject, "null physics", and get JREF as the 2nd hit. That's why newcomers find this thread out of the blue.

2nd hit? Ah, then it makes sense. It seemed strange because for any other topic with many people interested several different threads appear (for example, we have at least 4 on Lisi's 'Exceptionally Simple Theory of everyhting').

 

[thubbathubba]

...written by sock puppets, I think maybe some moderator should look into this.

We come for the skepticism, but stay for the paranoia.

 

[thubbathubba]

...It seemed strange because for any other topic with many people interested several different threads appear...

In the few days since Mr. Witt's glossy advertisement sent my bs-detector into threat-level orange, leading me to this thread, I have surfed around JREF looking for something interesting. Mostly cat-fights (you know, insults, diatribes, and other vacuous stuff like questioning someone's motivation for joining the forum.)

Instead of musing about Witt's "sock puppets," why not engage in critical examination of what little information he's published for free on his website? Look at the number of us who jumped into this forum; this should come as a warning about the effectiveness of Witt's ad campaign. I offered up my newbie ass earlier to give the serious debunkers something to feed on, but aside from one breif 'don't-waste-your-time' dismissal, narry a bite.

If James Randi was dead, he'd be spinning in his grave.

 

[thubbathubba]

People in general ARE interested in the why and I think they're looking to physics to be part of the answer...

Science has no obligation to provide aesthetically pleasing, easily comprehensible answers to the philosophical questions of the general public.

Says Mr. Witt: "...the current scientific approach lacks any trace of an underlying natural philosophy." So what? Science describes the "how" of things. "Why" is a question for philosophers, not scientists.

 

[Yllanes]

Instead of musing about Witt's "sock puppets," why not engage in critical examination of what little information he's published for free on his website?

Copying extracts of it here and trying to show why they are wrong when there is nobody defending them is just giving free publicity to the book, not to mention a waste of time. If someone were to defend the book or make a sincere question about it, it would be a different story. Just see how many people keep replying to BeAChooser about plasma cosmology.

By all means, if you are intrigued by anything you read there bring it to this thread. But if you already know it doesn't make sense, why bother?

You'll see me participating in threads about legitimate questions about physics, but not wasting time reading a nonsensical book that doesn't fool anyone. Again, if someone were to appear here and make some claim about the 'physics' exposed on that book, that would be different. But I don't think a single claim has gone unanswered in this thread.

 

[Wangler]

Yllanes hit the nail on the head.

I saw the splashy ad, went right to Google, and JREF forums were the second or third on the hit list.

Came and joined, and couldn't be happier. This looks like a great place to learn a great deal, about a myriad of subjects. And from very enthusiastic people, as well.

I also thought it was strange about how people began hammering Witt for really technical details at first, and it was about halfway through this thread before someone asked about why he was dividing infinity by infinity.

Keith

 

[thubbathubba]

By all means, if you are intrigued by anything you read there bring it to this thread.

In post #172 I sincerely asked whether physics constants are typically expressed by equations that reduce 1=1, which is what Mr. Witt's "Universal Closure Constant" 1M = (1M/∞3)(∞3) appears to do.

I was told to stop wasting time, and put on a black-list of potential sock puppets.

But if you already know it doesn't make sense, why bother?

A few reasons for bothering:
- The adertising campaign seems to be very sophisticated.
- Mr. Witt has apparently been given a visiting professorship at the Florida Institute of Technology to continue his null physics 'research.' (The fact that Mr. Witt is terribly wealthy, already lives near FIT, and seems willing to spend freely to create an air of credibility makes me wonder about this academic position.)
- People seem to be buying his book, as evidenced by Facebook and MySpace postings.

My reason for Googling "null physics" was to see how knowledgeable addressed the substance of his ideas. I confess to being pretty ignorant about physics; however, I think I'm fairly typical of the many consumers of popular science that Mr. Witt is targeting through his advertising. I distrust his book and his marketing campaign, but I do not "know it doesn't make sense."

 

[Yllanes]

In post #172 I sincerely asked whether physics constants are typically expressed by equations that reduce 1=1, which is what Mr. Witt's "Universal Closure Constant" 1M = (1M/∞3)(∞3) appears to do.

In that post you asked some questions and provided your own answers. sol invictus confirmed your answers were right.

I was told to stop wasting time, and put on a black-list of potential sock puppets.

sol invictus gave you good advice: there are plenty of good books on physics at all leves of difficulty. You would make a better use of your time reading them. Remember: new physics are never first exposed in a several hudred pages long book. People write papers, which are peer reviewd and read by the physical community.

My reason for Googling "null physics" was to see how knowledgeable addressed the substance of his ideas.

The problem is that knowleadgeable people do not go out of their way to address this kind of books. One has plenty of real papers to read to waste time on them. If it hasn't submitted to the usual journals, then it is not worth it.

 

[ben m]

In post #172 I sincerely asked whether physics constants are typically expressed by equations that reduce 1=1, which is what Mr. Witt's "Universal Closure Constant" 1M = (1M/∞3)(∞3) appears to do.

I was told to stop wasting time, and put on a black-list of potential sock puppets.

Look again: sol answered your question---yes, it reduces to "1=1". His "stop wasting time" comment, perhaps, means something different than you think it does. You asked for clarification on a point which is impossible to clarify. The equation reduces to 1 = 1 or NaN = NaN, there's no physics insight to be gained from it, and there doesn't appear to be some charitable interpretation in which this bit of introductory nonsense will spawn something sensible by the end of the chapter. It's simply a bit of nonsense that Witt mistakenly thinks is profound. We asked Witt for various clarifications earlier in the thread and he promptly ran away. So, good luck looking for a charitable interpretation, but---as Sol said---basically don't waste your time.

Yilanes's sock suspicions were not unreasonable Sock puppetry does happen here, and we don't usually have so many newcomers on one thread. Notice that he withdrew his sock suspicion after my last post.

 

[thubbathubba]

...someone asked about why he was dividing infinity by infinity.

Well, I think it was me asking that. I am happy to represent the ignorant masses as a foil for anyone from the educated few who is willing to disabuse us of the false-science behind a glossy ad-campaign. If you look at the number of hits this thread has gotten, it seems that a lot of people are curious.

 

[thubbathubba]

His "stop wasting time" comment, perhaps, means something different than you think it does. You asked for clarification on a point which is impossible to clarify...

I appreciated sol's earlier response, and don't think I read too much into the advice against wasting time discussing the topic of this thread. Perhaps sol underestimated the depth of my ignorance (seriously), but you actually did just clarify the point I needed clarifying - so thanks, you accomplished the impossible!

The problem is that knowleadgeable people do not go out of their way to address this kind of books. One has plenty of real papers to read to waste time on them. If it hasn't submitted to the usual journals, then it is not worth it.

Yilanes's sock suspicions were not unreasonable Sock puppetry does happen here, and we don't usually have so many newcomers on one thread...

I guess I'm still trying to get a feel for the culture here. When I saw the James Randi imprimatur on this forum I expected to find knowledgeable people eager to go out of their way to refute bad science for those of us wandering in off the street.

 

[thubbathubba]

By the way - I hope I don't seem ungrateful. I do truly appreciate the time people have spent discussing and debunking.

 

[Yllanes]

I guess I'm still trying to get a feel for the culture here. When I saw the James Randi imprimatur on this forum I expected to find knowledgeable people eager to go out of their way to refute bad science for those of us wandering in off the street.

And I'm sure plenty of people will do it if a question is posed here. But you can't expect them to review in detail each crackpottish claim out of the blue, without any special motivation. The issue you raised about the book was answered. The answer was short, but there really wasn't much more to say.

I repeat: if you find anything interesting or confusing about that book bring it here. But if you already know it doesn't make sense, why not read a real book instead? Why not ask about good books on a certain topic instead of examining a nonsensical one?

 

[thubbathubba]

...if you find anything interesting or confusing about that book bring it here.

OK. I've actually read through all the excerpts of the book Mr. Witt has offered for free on his website. I found nothing that so much as hints at delivering upon the grandiose promise he makes in the preface: "Null Physics is, for the first time in the history of science, both a complete answer to the riddle of our existence and a quantitative theory of universal properties."

Beyond the inexplicably meaningless equation we discussed in previous posts, the rest of the math is incomprehensible to me, so for all I know there may be something substantive there. No way I'm going to drop $60 bucks for the whole thing to find out, though. If Mr. Witt was a real scientist he wouldn't be afraid to give away the ending.

I did find one section that seems to give a tiny glimpse of his broad thesis in terms I can understand:

>>>>>>>
"There is a far more interesting reason why space is a chilly 2.7 °K in an infinite, nonexpanding universe."

"Fusion is by far the universe’s largest power output, and lumetic decay is by far its largest power loss. Even though this effect is weak and requires billions of years to cause a significant energy deficit in individual photons, its universal consequence is staggering. Since the light given off by all luminous objects decays over time, the cumulative energy in space associated with any luminous object is limited. After a given length of time, the loss due to the lumetic decay of prior luminous output will balance an object’s current luminous output."
<<<<<<<

So I am surmising from this that Mr. Witt's theory purports to say:
- Our universe has no begining, no end, and no outter limit.
- Our sky is not white from the glow of infinite stars because light energy decays through "power loss" over time and most of it will thus never reach us.

Our universe is infinitely large with an infinite number of stars, and yet it manages to bleed energy. To where?

I expected the answer would be some kind of theoretical parallel universe/dimension takes-up the lost energy, but Mr. Witt's universe is far too intuitve and rational for that. Granted, the equations he provides are beyond me, and the terms "rate," "loss," and "current output" may have special meanings in Null Physics explained in portions not excerpted, but here's his theorum that answers the question:

"THE LUMETIC DECAY RATE OF ANY CELESTIAL OBJECT’S PRIOR LUMINOUS
OUTPUT WILL EVENTUALLY BALANCE ITS CURRENT LUMINOUS OUTPUT."

So, does this mean the lost power somehow returns to the fusion source?

No, that can't be it, because if all the lost photon energy was balanced by energy gains in the fusion source, stars would be gaining brightness geometrically as the age.

So does energy decay reach an equilibrium with the source star?

That won't work either, because for the static-universe/infinite number of stars theory to be rational wouldn't the vast majority of photons have to lose ALL of their energy before reaching us? (Otherwise, we'd be getting pummeled by an infinite number of photons of every possible energy state.)

I guess this revolutionary new theory is not as intuitive as advertised. It's starting to look possitively quarky to me.