Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[Farsight]

If you say so ... though you might like to re-consider; many who read this might use words like "fantasy" and "denial".

What was it you were saying Robo?

I am puzzled though, so here are some more simple, honest questions:

1) as I understand it, "observation" is an inadequate basis from which to conclude that "the Earth goes round the Sun. That isn't blathering, that's what happens." Or perhaps 'insufficient', rather than 'inadequate'.

Don't you also need some theory, some model, some beyond-observation framework in which to interpret the observations?

Certainly my reading of the source you cite is that such a beyond-mere-observation framework is essential.

2) As the source you cite says, "The Copernican revolution was arguably completed by Isaac Newton whose Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687) provided a consistent physical explanation which showed that the planets are kept in their orbits by the familiar force of gravity."

As the General Theory of Relativity (GR) has replaced Newton's theories, don't you think it necessary to re-examine your conclusion?

After all, "observation" - your term - is more consistent with a model (or framework) based on GR than one based on Newton's theories.

3) Does "the Earth go round the Sun", if one uses GR as the basis for models which provide a consistent physical explanation (of the observations)?

1) Yes. But if that theory leads you to dismiss those observations you've got a problem.

2) No. The Sun doesn't go round the Earth. Nor does the universe go round Phobos.

3) Yes. GR allows you to use any coordinate system you wish, just as you are free to use any chart you wish. But if you use a geocentric chart and then forget that the map is not the territory start telling people the Sun goes round the Earth, you've got a problem.

 

[Farsight]

The mass of a body is a measure of it's energy content. Okay, so what determines its energy content?

How much energy was put in it when it was made. When we made an electron and a positron using two 511keV photons, we put 511keV into the electron when we made it. And its 511keV rather than 411keV because h and c are what they are. Both are common to all photons. But there's only one energy-momentum where E=hf and p=hf/c is just right for the stable resonance called an electron.

In this case, it's interaction with the Higgs Field.

No it isn't. When you do gamma-gamma pair production it's a photon-photon interaction. An electromagnetic interaction. Then you've got yourself an electron. That's an electromagnetic thing. People talk about the electron field, but that's not some fundamental field. The field concerned is the electromagnetic field. A standing wave in a box adds mass to that system because the wave interacts with the box. You can diffract an electron. In atomic orbitals electrons exist as standing waves. It's a 511keV spin ½ electromagnetic standing wave with a magnetic moment, where the electromagnetic field variation is now a standing field. What field interaction created the electron in pair production? An electromagnetic field interaction. What field interaction keeps it as an electron? An electromagnetic field interaction. What field interaction destroys it in electron-positron annihilation? An electromagnetic field interaction.

Now, whether that's correct or not, it's clearly consistent, can you really not see that?

No it isn't consistent. Because when we made the electron and the positron, those 511keV photons conveyed inertia from the emitting body to the absorbing body, just like Einstein said.

Sheesh, look at the time, I have to go.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student
The second is defined as so many vibrations of a physical system, not the motion of light.

No it isn't. Look at the definition again: the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. It isn't 9,192,631,770 hyperfine transistions, it's 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation. I got that wrong on an early Time Explained. Like I said, it's like you sit there with waves coming at you, you count 9,192,631,770 waves going past you, and then you say that's a second. The important thing to remember is that you can't talk about frequency when you're defining the second, because frequency is cycles per second.

The cesium atom is a physical system that oscillates as you describe above. The second is defined as the duration of time it takes for 9,192,631,770 oscillations. The fact that the information is conveyed via electromagnetic waves is irrelevant. In fact, there is no information detected by humans that does not come to us via electromagnetic phenomena. All the senses and every experiment and observation we can make involves interacting with the universe through electromagnetism.

The tautology is that when the light moves slower, in line with Einstein see above, the waves come at you slower, but you still count 9,192,631,770 of them going past you and say that's a second. It's a bigger second. Then you define the metre, which stays the same because the bigger second and the slower light cancel each other out. Then you use the bigger second and that metre to measure the speed of the slower light, and you still get 299,792,458 m/s! Then when you look at Brian's gif, which is a simplified version of the NIST super-accurate optical clock, you end up saying that the two light pulses are moving at the same speed. It contradicts Einstein and the empirical evidence. And it's all the more unforgiveable once you know about A World without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein. There is no time flowing between those two mirrors, it's just light, moving.

Time dilation does not create a tautology. All measurements of time and distance are frame dependant and can be reconciled through Lorentz transformations.

As we all know, I'm a lot more civil than some people here.

 

[Probably Not]

Sure. But like I said you then lose the c² in E=mc², which is not good. It's like trying to lose the v² in KE=½mv² which distinguishes it from p=mv.

Lurker here, but I didn't want this to slip by. Using natural units, you don't "lose" c² even if c = 1. The value may be 1, but the units themselves remain. mc² continues to have units of energy (ML²/T²).

 

[ben m]

How much energy was put in it when it was made. When we made an electron and a positron using two 511keV photons, we put 511keV into the electron when we made it. And its 511keV rather than 411keV because h and c are what they are. Both are common to all photons. But there's only one energy-momentum where E=hf and p=hf/c is just right for the stable resonance called an electron.

Almost right, finally, except for one thing.

"It's 511 rather than 411 because h and c are what they are?" Nonsense. There is nothing about h, c, or any other macroscopic constant that tells you that there's a resonance at 511 keV, nor that there's another one at 106 MeV, nor that there's another one at 1777 MeV. The laws of relativity and quantum mechanics would be perfectly happy if Nature had presented us with a 411 keV lepton, or a 511.1 keV lepton, etc.

In the real world, we believe that the location of this resonance (511 keV instead of 411 or 512 etc) is determined by the electron-Higgs coupling. The location of muon is determined by the muon-Higgs coupling. Etc.

The Higgs mechanism has determined that all electrons will be 511 keV particles. The creation/destruction/kinematics of electrons obeys the laws of special and general relativity for an m=511 keV particle because the electron is a 511 keV particle.

 

[ben m]

No I didn't. There's a c^2½ expression for electron frequency and a c^3 expression for proton frequency. Which can be recast as a c^1½ expression for electron wavelength and a c^2 expression for proton wavelength.

Go ahead. Do the algebra. Derive the proton-electron mass ratio using foot-pound-second units. Distances in feet, time in seconds, mass in slugs, force in pounds, energy in pound-feet, charge in FPSE units.

Every Freshman science student learns unit-conversion problems by actually working them. Why can't you work this one?

Oh here we go with the "appeared" and the "implied". Why are you trying to make such a big deal about this expression? When I gave it as a throwaway remark?

Because, amidst all the physics you don't know you don't know, this was a mistake stupid enough that I thought even you might come to see the hole in your knowledge.

And, y'know, that's what we do with learners of physics. We walk you through basic physics and make you do problems. If there's a problem you're stuck on, we dwell on it until you understand it.

 

[edd]

Curiously, if you go to the source for this proton/electron mass ratio claim you'll find the original author is well aware that it's dimensionally incorrect and... well... it's hard to describe what he does next. You'll have to have a look yourself. You might want a stiff drink ready though:
http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/19084/1/19084.pdf page 54.

 

[ben m]

Curiously, if you go to the source for this proton/electron mass ratio claim you'll find the original author is well aware that it's dimensionally incorrect and... well... it's hard to describe what he does next. You'll have to have a look yourself. You might want a stiff drink ready though:
http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/19084/1/19084.pdf page 54.

Andrew Worsley, by the way, has come up on JREF before. He's one of the authors that showed up in Bentham's crackpot-welcoming Open Astronomy Journal. Huh.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I am puzzled though, so here are some more simple, honest questions:

1) as I understand it, "observation" is an inadequate basis from which to conclude that "the Earth goes round the Sun. That isn't blathering, that's what happens." Or perhaps 'insufficient', rather than 'inadequate'.

Don't you also need some theory, some model, some beyond-observation framework in which to interpret the observations?

Certainly my reading of the source you cite is that such a beyond-mere-observation framework is essential.

2) As the source you cite says, "The Copernican revolution was arguably completed by Isaac Newton whose Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687) provided a consistent physical explanation which showed that the planets are kept in their orbits by the familiar force of gravity."

As the General Theory of Relativity (GR) has replaced Newton's theories, don't you think it necessary to re-examine your conclusion?

After all, "observation" - your term - is more consistent with a model (or framework) based on GR than one based on Newton's theories.

3) Does "the Earth go round the Sun", if one uses GR as the basis for models which provide a consistent physical explanation (of the observations)?

1) Yes. But if that theory leads you to dismiss those observations you've got a problem.

Hmm, well of course; a theory must be consistent with all relevant observations.

2) No. The Sun doesn't go round the Earth. Nor does the universe go round Phobos.

Wait, didn't you just say that you cannot have a theory dismissing observations? Yes, you did.

So, if the observations - all of the relevant ones - are consistent with the theory (GR in this case), then you can't dismiss the theory, simply because - out of personal prejudice? - you don't like what that theory implies, can you?

In this case, if "the Sun goes round the Earth" and "the universe go round Phobos" are consistent with the theory (GR), you can't very well claim otherwise, can you?

Not if you wish to maintain a certain, rather basic, logical consistency.

3) Yes. GR allows you to use any coordinate system you wish, just as you are free to use any chart you wish. But if you use a geocentric chart and then forget that the map is not the territory start telling people the Sun goes round the Earth, you've got a problem.

You've lost me, I'm afraid.

And now I'm back to where I began ... how did you arrive at the conclusion "the Sun doesn't go round the Earth"?

It can't be "observations" (because all relevant observations are consistent with GR, and in GR "the Sun goes round the Earth" is just as valid as "the Earth goes round the Sun"), and it can't be the theory (GR in this case), so what is the basis for your conclusion?

 

[kalen]

But there's only one energy-momentum where E=hf and p=hf/c is just right for the stable resonance called an electron.

OK, I'll bite. What is the E and p that is just right for the stable resonance called an electron?

 

[Farsight]

The energy in the gravitational field doesn't go into the stress energy tensor.

Sure thing. You would have found a reference to this in the wiki mass in general relativity article which came up when we were talking about raising the cannonball:

"...The main reason for this is that "gravitational field energy" is not a part of the energy-momentum tensor; instead, what might be identified as the contribution of the gravitational field to a total energy is part of the Einstein tensor on the other side of Einstein's equation (and, as such, a consequence of these equations' non-linearity)..."

You're welcome to try to demonstrate that a stress energy tensor with a matter component that is solely based off the visible matter can conform to astronomical and cosmological observations.

I wouldn't want to. The whole point of what I said earlier is that space has its vacuum energy, and it isn't necessarily homogeneous. Einstein made it clear that it isn't homogeneous in a gravitational field caused by a central concentration of particulate matter which "conditions" the surrounding space. In similar vein where it isn't homogeneous for some other reason there's a gravitational field that isn't caused by particulate matter. It's no big deal, there's people talking about it, see arXiv. Give it time and I imagine they'll get more publicity. Meanwhile don't forget the vacuum catastrophe, and the way "constants" aren't actually constant. Lambda is a "constant".

Most people would be happy with the simplification that would offer, but no-one has managed it without fundamentally altering GR.

Or maybe you just haven't heard about it. A quick google turned up this. I skimmed it and saw negative energy which suggests to me that there's maybe some issues with it. But maybe they're thinking along the right lines. There's maybe other people out there thinking along similar lines too, only they haven't enjoyed any publicity as yet.

Which you wouldn't want to do by the sounds of it.

Not me edd. I wouldn't mind if it evolved a bit and/or reverted to something closer to the original, but the main thing about our little chats is that I want you guys to appreciate what Einstein actually said. And think for yourself.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Why are quotations taken out of context more important than the mathematical framework that Einstein used and promoted?

 

[Roboramma]

Looks pretty civil Robo. I wish there were more like that.

Yeah, I enjoyed it

When I've got more time perhaps. I did make some post/s there, and I have commented on CMBR rest frame before.

Sorry, that comment was addressed to Giordano, who seemed not to understand your position: I think he can learn something from that thread

 

[Tubbythin]

Curiously, if you go to the source for this proton/electron mass ratio claim you'll find the original author is well aware that it's dimensionally incorrect and... well... it's hard to describe what he does next. You'll have to have a look yourself. You might want a stiff drink ready though:
http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/19084/1/19084.pdf page 54.

Je ne comprends pas.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Curiously, if you go to the source for this proton/electron mass ratio claim you'll find the original author is well aware that it's dimensionally incorrect and... well... it's hard to describe what he does next. You'll have to have a look yourself. You might want a stiff drink ready though:
http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/19084/1/19084.pdf page 54.

In the voice of Slim Pickens:

Well, I've been to one world's fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.​

Worsley's dimensions go nuts already on page 29, where he computes "a fundamental quantum mass" by taking Planck's constant h as the energy E in E=mc²:

m_q = h/(c²)​

Realizing that the dimensions of his m_q are mass times time, he adds a footnote advising us to "multiply by n, which is the number of quanta per unit time".

On page 32 he calculates "the wavelength of this quintessential quantum" in SI units "with a frequency of 1 per unit time", as though the SI unit of time (the second) were some fundamental constant of mathematics or nature, obtaining 2.9979245 ⋅ 10⁸ m.

(If you pay attention to how he uses n in his calculations, n is really just the number of seconds per unit time. Worsley never explains why n should have the value 1 when he's using the SI unit of time. It's crackpot numerology, and nothing more.)

On page 33, he writes:

The fascinating thing is that for a single quintessence travelling at the speed of light, then the wavelength is itself equivalent to the distance travelled by the speed of light in a single unit of time, whatever units you use. In the above example (see Box 2) we use two standard units, Standard International (S.I.), and centimetres, grams and seconds (cgs), the answer comes out exactly the same in each case.

The answer comes out the same because he used 1 second as his unit of time in both calculations. Had he used a different unit of time, he'd either have gotten a wrong answer or he'd have had to give n a more explicit role in his calculation that would have revealed the naked unit-dependence of n.

Worsley's also using a crackpot notion of wavelength. The standard notion of wavelength is a pure distance (for a pure sine wave, the distance between wave crests), independent of your chosen unit of time. Worsley's notion depends on the unit of time.

That's how Worsley comes up with the truly remarkable coincidence that, for a radio wave whose frequency is 105.6 MHz, there are "effectively 105.6 million quanta".

This relationship between time and wavelength may be a surprise to some, for it is taught that units are arbitrary, but in reality they are not.

That's crackpottery at its (finest)^-1.


[size=+1]So Why Is There So Much Crackpot Physics?[/size]

It's hard to discuss that question without considering the backgrounds and motivations of individuals who promote crackpot physics.

Dr Andrew Worsley probably thinks he's doing the math correctly, just as Michael Mozina probably thinks he's doing science.

Reading their crackpot science is like watching children play with toy trucks or baby dolls.

For children, that's healthy play. When they grow up, they may drive real trucks and change real diapers.

We seldom see adults whose experience is limited to toy trucks and dolls say other adults are driving or changing diapers wrongly. Real trucks and dirty diapers are too concrete; even a child knows toy trucks and dolls aren't the same as real trucks and real people.

Math and theoretical physics are a lot more abstract, so some adults are able to convince themselves their play-math and pretend physics are real. A few convince themselves their play-math and pretend physics are more real than what the professionals are doing. After all, the Dunning-Kruger effect is real too.

Crackpots are often compared to fundamentalists, but I don't think that's a particularly useful comparison. In my opinion, fundamentalist religion is more social than intellectual. Fundamentalism has much to do with a religious community's peculiar sense of identity, us versus them, and the members of that community derive social benefits from sticking to the party line.

There is, to be sure, some boost to the individual ego that comes from thinking you know the Truth, unlike all those pointy-headed infidels, but few fundamentalists are able to maintain that faith over long periods of time without social support from others who share at least some aspects of that faith.

It seems to me that those who promote crackpot physics are more likely to be proudly iconoclastic. (There are exceptions, as with the plasma cosmology folks, especially the Velikovskian wing.) Dr Andrew Worsley comes across as more of a lone prophet than just another sheep in the herd.

We shouldn't generalize too much. Gerhard Gerlich, a professor of theoretical physics who says the atmospheric greenhouse effect discovered over a century ago by Fourier/Tyndall/Arrhenius can't possibly exist in any way, shape, or form, has been active in organizations that oppose several different kinds of government regulation. Although I hate to judge before all the facts are in, it's beginning to look like his political passions may have exceeded his scientific judgment.

That's a more likely explanation for Gerlich's crackpot physics than any lack of skill in mathematics. Judging by the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper and their reply to Halpern et al.'s rebuttal, Gerlich uses (irrelevant or trivial) mathematics to intimidate. Worsley, on the other hand, uses (dimensionally incorrect) mathematics to amaze. No one explanation for crackpot physics is likely to fit both of them.

 

[Farsight]

Great! So demonstrate how you use that conversion factor to get the same result for the ratio of electron mass to proton mass with some other system of units!

I was thinking about how to describe it with squares and cubes and c=λf, where for two harmonic standing waves λ₁f₁= c and λ₂f₂= c and √(λ₁f₁) = √(λ₂f₂) = c^½. But then I thought it's too tricky and it's too novel, I'm here to talk about what Einstein said and knock the woo on the head, not this. Since I'm struggling enough trying to get E=mc² across, it's like I said to edd, it's too much of a distraction. Look how the guys are using it to distract attention from the plain-vanilla what-Einstein-said physics - the stuff that's robustly supported by scientific evidence and which challenges the sky-falling-in stuff which isn't.

 

[Farsight]

They are dismissed as cherry-picking because that is what you do: you pick things out of context to support a position that does not make sense given the context of the quotation..

Geddoutofit. The mass of a body is a measure of its energy content is not some cherry-picked out-of-context quote. It's what E=mc² is all about.

Re: For example, Einstein described the electron as a body, and said the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. So the latter is utterly contradicted by the mass of a body like the electron is a measure of its interaction with the Higgs field. You aren't going to sweep that under the carpet with ad-hominems like your crackpot ideas. Because E=mc² was Einstein's idea. Not mine:

The context of the quotations that you choose is the science of the General Theory of Relativity. Your position contradicts this context but you apparently do not realize this because you cannot follow the practice of the science of the theory.

You do talk some nonsense. That was special relativity. Everybody, take a look at Mass-energy equivalence on wiki:

However, Stark wrote the equation as e0 = m0 c² which meant the energy bound in the mass of an electron at rest and still was not the present popular version of the equation.

The mass of an electron is a measure of its energy content, just as the mass of Susskind's box of radiation is a measure of its energy content. The Higgs mechanism plays no part in Susskind's box. Its mass is not there because of an interaction with the Higgs field, it's there because the energy is there, and because E=mc².

This is a great example of your cherry-picking: you fail to see how, in the actual practice of doing what Einstein laid out, there is no contradiction between (Special in this case) relativity theory and the Higgs theory. Again, this failure seems to be due to your inability to actually work through problems in physics.

Oh such a lofty pronouncement. Yes there is a contradiction. The electron is a body, Susskind's box is a body. The mass is there because the energy is there, and E=mc² applies to them both.

By now we all know that here you are using code words for specific systems of coordinates...

Oh change the record. You are not versed in scripture cuts no ice on a skeptics forum.

You are presenting an alternative theory that doesn't make any sense mathematically or even historically....

What, you mean what Einstein said doesn't make any sense mathematically or historically? Well that's a new one!

Now you could imagine that I am lying or that I am deluded...

No, you're just a naysayer troll saying Einstein was wrong. Enough.

 

[edd]

Look, noone is arguing about the validity of E=mc².

Re: For example, Einstein described the electron as a body, and said the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. So the latter is utterly contradicted by the mass of a body like the electron is a measure of its interaction with the Higgs field.

As we keep repeating, it's perfectly logical for it to be both.

The mass of an electron is a measure of its energy content, just as the mass of Susskind's box of radiation is a measure of its energy content. The Higgs mechanism plays no part in Susskind's box. Its mass is not there because of an interaction with the Higgs field, it's there because the energy is there, and because E=mc².

The Higgs might not play a part there directly*, but the box plays a part there. If I said the mass is a result of the radiation bouncing around against the box, would you have a problem? Because clearly take away the box and you have radiation that zips off at the speed of light.

*obviously it seems likely the box has a mass as a result of the Higgs mechanism - it's presumably made of something. If the Higgs weren't at work, you wouldn't have a box at all.

 

[Roboramma]

I was thinking about how to describe it with squares and cubes and c=λf, where for two harmonic standing waves λ₁f₁= c and λ₂f₂= c and √(λ₁f₁) = √(λ₂f₂) = c^½. But then I thought it's too tricky and it's too novel,

Wait, it wasn't hard to do the calculation in SI units, but it's too hard to do it in any other system?

Again, I'm not asking for an explanation of why there's a conversion factor, I'm just asking for you to actually do the calculation

I mean, you're not actually going to say that the calculation works in SI, but doesn't work in some other system, are you?

If not, why don't you just do it?

Or, admit that it's not valid, I certainly won't think any less of you

I'm here to talk about what Einstein said and knock the woo on the head, not this. Since I'm struggling enough trying to get E=mc² across, it's like I said to edd, it's too much of a distraction. Look how the guys are using it to distract attention from the plain-vanilla what-Einstein-said physics - the stuff that's robustly supported by scientific evidence and which challenges the sky-falling-in stuff which isn't.

The thing is that I still agree with you that E=mc² (and so does everyone else), but I still don't understand what contradiction you are trying to get across

 

[Farsight]

The cesium atom is a physical system that oscillates as you describe above. The second is defined as the duration of time it takes for 9,192,631,770 oscillations. The fact that the information is conveyed via electromagnetic waves is irrelevant.

It isn't irrelevant at all. How can you be so dismissive of everything I said in post 889 above?. After you said let's see if it is possible to have a civil discussion with you. The hyperfine transition is an electromagnetic phenomena too, the electron has a wave nature, we can diffract it, we even made it out light in pair production. When the electromagnetic waves and field changes propagate slower, the second is bigger, and that's it. There is no literal time flowing slower in that physical system, or in the intervening space, or in your eyes and brain.

In fact, there is no information detected by humans that does not come to us via electromagnetic phenomena. All the senses and every experiment and observation we can make involves interacting with the universe through electromagnetism.

Correct. And c = √(1/ε0μ0). And like Einstein said repeatedly year after year, the speed of light is not constant.

Time dilation does not create a tautology. All measurements of time and distance are frame dependant and can be reconciled through Lorentz transformations.

Roll eyes? After you said let's see if it is possible to have a civil discussion with you. And I replied with sincerity, and you dismissed it all? Come on man, think for yourself, read what Einstein said, and look Brian's gif. It's an exaggeration but it's not misleading. Are those two light pulses moving at the same speed? Well? Does the speed of propagation of light vary with position, or was Einstein just another crackpot?