Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[Farsight]

There is NO direct electromagnetic-electromagnetic interaction. Pair production is the result of two separate photon absorptions, though two very close ones.

Oh yes there is. Take a look at the QED given explanation for gamma-gamma pair production. Pair production occurs because one of the photons spontaneously transforms into an electron-positron pair? That's like worms from mud. Photons do not actually spend their lives spontaneously transforming into electron-positron pairs which then magically transform back into a single photon, which nevertheless manages to keep on propagating at c. Believe all that and you end up claiming that pair production occurs because pair production occurs. Feynman would be horrified that anybody believes that. Because it's a corruption of QED, and it's not physics, it's cargo-cult science.

So come on lpetrich, explain how pair production occurs. Then you can tell us Why is there so much crackpot physics?

 

[Farsight]

I asked by what mechanism does a photon become and electron. You have provided no mechanism. Do you not understand the question? Your comment, "It's just displacement current and that double-loop configuration I mentioned. The photon displaces its own path into a closed path." does not provide a mechanism. Why does one photon move along at c but another is stuck in the "double-loop" you describe? By what means does the double-loop occur? Why and how? Why are not all photons in a "double-loop"? Why are any in a "double-loop"?

Because light bends itself into an arc. In a double loop each loop keeps on bending the other into a closed arc forever. The result is a standing wave. Ergo electron diffraction, atomic orbitals, magnetic moment, Einstein-de Haas etc etc. Ask ctamblyn and lpetrich how pair production occurs. All they'll give you is worms from mud.

Most of this goes over my head but I would like to thank you for posting it.

LOL, Emperor's New Clothes. He tricked you, you mug. He started with a massless spin ½ field then gave you a load of smoke and mirrors that he knew you wouldn't understand. Get him to start with pair production where you turn massless photons into massive spinors. How do you think that works? Magic?

All: you know, what really tickles me about JREF is that it's laden with suckers who strut around thinking they're skeptics. They're not. They lap up nonsense like Sunday school kids, and when somebody comes along to show them the simple evidence and tell them to think for themselves, they're straight into dismissal and denial. And proud of it!

LOL, I've got to go. But in parting, let me tell you that you should listen to BurntSynapse. Whilst I think the starship is a bit ambitious, he's making a fair point. In wartime you put your scientists together, with engineers, and facilities, and resources, all under project management, and you get results.

 

[edd]

Oh, and by the way, we don't do science by popular vote, edd. It's science. Not the X-factor.

I'm pointing out that you have a weak argument if you keep pointing to someone and say 'and he's a CERN physicist' as if that makes him right, when there are plenty of other CERN physicists who hold differing views.

I'm also saying that physicists who may find the Higgs mechanism distasteful for one reason or another may well have valid reasons behind that, but that I don't think any of them will buy into your particular brand of Higgs-hating, which is unfounded (to put it politely).

Example - www.zpw.ethz.ch/2012/slides/ellis_john_zpw2012.ppt - you can see one of John Ellis's talks he's given a few times here. Slide 4.

Newton:
Weight proportional to Mass

Einstein:
Energy related to Mass

Neither explained origin of Mass

Could it be any more plain that there's a highly regarded theoretical physicist at CERN who understands what he's talking about and would completely disagree with the idea that the Higgs mechanism goes against relativity?

(Yes, he's doing the usual mild overselling of it too, but clearly this isn't something he thinks will replace E=mc^2 or something, because it plainly won't)

 

[edd]

No it hasn't. You wish.No. Stop right there. The electron is a spinor. It's a spin ½ particle, it has its field. And it is not massless.

You do realise he's trying to explain a mechanism by which something massless acquires mass, right? I think it's only fair to let him start with something massless in that case.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Because light bends itself into an arc. In a double loop each loop keeps on bending the other into a closed arc forever. The result is a standing wave. Ergo electron diffraction, atomic orbitals, magnetic moment, Einstein-de Haas etc etc. Ask ctamblyn and lpetrich how pair production occurs. All they'll give you is worms from mud.

So far, all you have said is that there is some magic way that light changes its direction and its fundamental electromagnetic properties. You haven't provided any mechanism and you have not provided any detailed description of how this happens. You are making direct claims about detailed behaviour that you refuse to support.

How about defending some of your other direct claims?

"why does the expansion rate of a homogeneous matter dominated universe slow?"

Can you provide a detailed scale for the inhomogeneity that you identify as being so great in the universe?

Can you please provide us with a detailed model for your claim that in a universe as homogeneous as you identify the universe to be, gravity will cause the matter in the universe to coalesce into one central lump, but it will not do the same to space?

Can you please give us the equation for the pressure that you identify as being an innate feature of empty space? (And please do not dodge the question as you often do by claiming that this is Phil Plait's idea. You are endorsing the pressure and you are using it as the basis of your claims.)

Can you explain why every practicing cosmologist engaged in "a misunderstanding of gravity and a disregard for space" since (at least) 1920?

Can you please provide a citation as to when this misunderstanding and disregard was rectified?

Can you point to where this misunderstanding and disregard occurs in standard papers on cosmology?

Why is it that conservation of energy says the dark energy density can't stay the same? In your answer, please clearly state the law of conservation of energy in a form usable in a physics application.

 

[ctamblyn]

And it is not massless. We can create it along with the positron in pair production. So that's where we start. So start again. I have immediately cut your argument off at the knees and exposed your sleight-of-hand.

To paraphrase Babbage, I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a statement.

Try reading your own question again, followed by my answer.

 

[BurntSynapse]

I don't think we can have productive discussion unless we have agreement on criteria we should use for evaluating. I'll give it one more try:

Except when your "vision of success" depends explicitly on "A state of nature"

Close. Actually it is accomplishment of a vision that depends partially on the state of nature. Nor is the dependency explicit, which allows (perhaps encourages) common misperceptions.

Vision and state are two separate things that have a relationship that requires clarity on our terms. In decision theory, States of Nature are "uncontrollable future events", whereas a vision of success is ours to choose. Our vision of success might include a finding unicorns, whereas the existence of them at the time we seek them is a state of nature we cannot control.

The relationship between vision and state is a bit more complex than direct equivalence also. For successful accomplishment of our vision, It is a necessary condition for unicorns to exist during the time we are seeking them, but it is not a sufficient condition for successfully finding them. If they existed, we might still miss them for lots of reasons. This is a common justification for pseudo-scientific beliefs we would not want to consider good science, but lots of legitimate science happens in this area as well...and Popper's falsifiability was put forward as a solution to this problem of distinguishing between good and bad ideas when both are in this uncertain area. Of course, falsifiability was shown to have serious problems as well...such as when the lack of stellar parallax seemed to falsify heliocentrism.

Before proceeding, do we agree to these meanings of states of nature, vision of success, and successful accomplishment?

 

[lpetrich]

There is NO direct electromagnetic-electromagnetic interaction. Pair production is the result of two separate photon absorptions, though two very close ones.

Oh yes there is.

What self-interactions? Here's what won't count: effective self-interaction as a result of interacting with other particles.

Take a look at the QED given explanation for gamma-gamma pair production. Pair production occurs because one of the photons spontaneously transforms into an electron-positron pair? That's like worms from mud.

Farsight, that's indeed what happens.

Photons do not actually spend their lives spontaneously transforming into electron-positron pairs which then magically transform back into a single photon, which nevertheless manages to keep on propagating at c.

What makes you so sure?

Feynman would be horrified that anybody believes that.

On the contrary, he had gotten his Nobel Prize from what you'd complained about -- he showed how to get sensible results out of those calculations.

 

[lpetrich]

Because light bends itself into an arc. In a double loop each loop keeps on bending the other into a closed arc forever. The result is a standing wave.

I read that article, and it's fortunately outside a journal paywall.

It's about solutions of Maxwell's equations, lack of self-interaction and all. As I expected, the solution involves waves going inward and outward at long distances, so that does not support Farsight's circling-photon hypothesis.

Ergo electron diffraction, atomic orbitals, magnetic moment, Einstein-de Haas etc etc.

All of it independent of the circling-photon hypothesis and some of it has great difficulties for that hypothesis, like the value of the electron's magnetic moment.

He started with a massless spin ½ field then gave you a load of smoke and mirrors that he knew you wouldn't understand.

Mathematics that I understand. Farsight, this is the sort of mathematics that Richard Feynman had used, so to deny it is to deny Feynman's work.

 

[The Man]

I don't think we can have productive discussion unless we have agreement on criteria we should use for evaluating. I'll give it one more try:

I don’t think we can have a “productive discussion unless” you can focus on what is actually being said, but I’ll keep trying.

Close. Actually it is accomplishment of a vision that depends partially on the state of nature. Nor is the dependency explicit, which allows (perhaps encourages) common misperceptions.

In "a vision of success", what is being visualized (the success) is the “accomplishment ” , FTL travel in this case, and thus explicitly dependent that “state of nature”. Is your claim now that your “vision of success" (for FTL travel) involves not accomplishing FTL travel?

Vision and state are two separate things that have a relationship that requires clarity on our terms. In decision theory, States of Nature are "uncontrollable future events", whereas a vision of success is ours to choose. Our vision of success might include a finding unicorns, whereas the existence of them at the time we seek them is a state of nature we cannot control.

Separate does not mean independent and a “relationship”, as you put it, does imply some dependence (mutual or otherwise) . Is your claim now that, given the “vision of success is ours to choose”, one can’t choose “a vision of success” that is dependent on "uncontrollable future events"?

Yes “finding unicorns” depends on (among other things) their “existence” “at the time we seek them”. So even your own example demonstrates “a vision of success” can depend upon “States of Nature”.

Consistency in the application of terms is just as important as clarity. In fact said clarity becomes meaningless if it is not applied consistently.

The relationship between vision and state is a bit more complex than direct equivalence also. For successful accomplishment of our vision, It is a necessary condition for unicorns to exist during the time we are seeking them, but it is not a sufficient condition for successfully finding them. If they existed, we might still miss them for lots of reasons. This is a common justification for pseudo-scientific beliefs we would not want to consider good science, but lots of legitimate science happens in this area as well...and Popper's falsifiability was put forward as a solution to this problem of distinguishing between good and bad ideas when both are in this uncertain area. Of course, falsifiability was shown to have serious problems as well...such as when the lack of stellar parallax seemed to falsify heliocentrism.

And some of these “lots of reasons” “we might still miss them for” are they also perhaps "uncontrollable future events" thus “States of Nature”? If so than that dependence is related to more “States of Nature” than just their “existence” “at the time we seek them”.

Oh and I think I should point out here, before you run further astray in some other "uncontrollable future events". All those other “lots of reasons” “we might still miss them for” in no way diminishes the dependence of that “vision of success" on unicorns in fact existing. As a “vision of success" (for finding unicorns) that depended on unicorns not exiting would be just self-contradictory.

Before proceeding, do we agree to these meanings of states of nature, vision of success, and successful accomplishment?

Sure, let’s see how that pans out…

“states of nature” or "uncontrollable future events"

Case1) The numbers drawn for the lottery

Case2) FTL travel is achievable


“vision of success”

Case1) Winning the lottery

Case2) Achieving FTL travel


“successful accomplishment”

Case1) The numbers draw for the lottery are those on your ticket

Case2) Traveling FTL

Now wasn’t there someone here who claimed that appealing to such unknown and uncontrollable future events was a mistake?

Decisions are justified on the bases of available information, not the future unknown state of nature. Thus, purchasing a lottery ticket can be justified economically when the expected value reaches a positive value, like a $100M jackpot has accumulated, and $50M ticket will be sold for that draw.

Since we cannot know at the decision point (purchase) whether a ticket wins, appealing to a future unknown as a justification for doing anything would be a mistake.

This common error is one of the first we learn in graduate decision science: good decisions are not based on non-existent future outcomes, they are good/bad decisions based on how well we analyze available information at the decision point.

Oh right, that was you. Nope, still doesn’t help, you are still presenting an apparently self-contradictory position.

Again, heck, at least we know winning the lottery is possible, so your purported “vision of success” for FTL travel doesn’t even rise to that standard of “appealing to a future unknown”

Before proceeding please try to address what is actually being said in at least a consistent manor.

 

[ben m]

Because light bends itself into an arc. In a double loop each loop keeps on bending the other into a closed arc forever.

Nope. Remember what happened last time you cited this paper? The same thing that lpetrich said now.

This paper is about a cleverly-arranged interference pattern, in non-interacting, Maxwell-obeying light. It does not support your "electron = photon" nonsense.

(The authors call it "nondiffracting light", but in their PRL they have to spend a paragraph explaining this word choice, which turns out not to mean a whole lot.)

You, Farsight, are probably misunderstanding what direction the light is bending in. The light does NOT emerge from (e.g.) a laser aimed in the y-direction, propagate for a while in y, then turn towards the z-direction. Instead, the light is sculpted by a lens occupying the entire (say) x-z plane at y=0, and it propagates to the plane at y=1. The sense in which it's "bending" is this: on emerging from the lens, its Poynting vector has a +z component, and on reaching y=1, its Poynting vector has a -z component. The light never interacts with itself, never stops moving forward (in the y-direction), and after passing y=1 the only thing it can do is disperse. The authors state clearly that a 180-degree bend is the theoretical limit---contradicting your statement, which I repeat is gibberish that you invented out of whole cloth---that the light can close the circle. It can't.

Nonetheless, I expect you to continue finding new victims on new discussion boards, citing "light goes in a circle" to new victims as a proven fact, and hoping that no one calls you on it. Good luck with that!

The previous sentence is a lie.

 

[tsig]

I don't think we can have productive discussion unless we have agreement on criteria we should use for evaluating. I'll give it one more try:



Close. Actually it is accomplishment of a vision that depends partially on the state of nature. Nor is the dependency explicit, which allows (perhaps encourages) common misperceptions.

Vision and state are two separate things that have a relationship that requires clarity on our terms. In decision theory, States of Nature are "uncontrollable future events", whereas a vision of success is ours to choose. Our vision of success might include a finding unicorns, whereas the existence of them at the time we seek them is a state of nature we cannot control.

The relationship between vision and state is a bit more complex than direct equivalence also. For successful accomplishment of our vision, It is a necessary condition for unicorns to exist during the time we are seeking them, but it is not a sufficient condition for successfully finding them. If they existed, we might still miss them for lots of reasons. This is a common justification for pseudo-scientific beliefs we would not want to consider good science, but lots of legitimate science happens in this area as well...and Popper's falsifiability was put forward as a solution to this problem of distinguishing between good and bad ideas when both are in this uncertain area. Of course, falsifiability was shown to have serious problems as well...such as when the lack of stellar parallax seemed to falsify heliocentrism.

Before proceeding, do we agree to these meanings of states of nature, vision of success, and successful accomplishment?

As long as we can agree that unicorns are Invisible, Pink and Unitary then fine.

 

[Dancing David]

So BurntSynapse, what are the answers?

"I ask, what tool specifically are you thinking of. You made the claim, what tool, cognitive or technological should be considered that aren't?"
[iteration 1]

What tools?

 

[lpetrich]

I may have posted on this before, but I've identified two generations of crackpottery about fundamental physical theories, with a third generation emerging.

The first generation of fundamental-physics crackpottery was in the 19th century and early 20th century, before Albert Einstein became famous. Its advocates were opposed to Newtonian theories like gravity. Some of them were also against wave theories, like of sound, preferring particle theories (Martin Gardner, Fads and Fallacies, 1952). A century ago, astronomer Simon Newcomb had a lot of experience with anti-gravity crackpots, like one who seemed very indignant at its acceptance, starting a long and impassioned speech with "It seems to me that the astronomers of the present day have gravitation on the brain". SN asked one AGCP what is the force that pulls us to the Earth, and the AGCP answered that he doesn't believe in Newton's theory that it extends up to the Moon -- he believed that it does not extend above the atmosphere (Simon Newcomb, The reminiscences of an astronomer, 1903, pp. 381, 383-384 -- at books.google.com).

The second generation of fundamental-physics crackpottery emerged after Einstein became famous. Its advocates are anti-relativity, often supoorting a revival of Newtonianism. Martin Gardner chronicled some of them, like George Francis Gillette. The ether theorists of the Natural Philosophy Alliance are likely second-generation ones, reviving the luminiferous ether as a way of reconciling Maxwellian electrodynamics with Newtonian mechanics.

If those ether theorists are not much into experimenting, it may be fortunate for them, because if they try to redo the Michelson-Morley experiment and similar experiments, they will be in for a nasty surprise.

Is there a third generation of fundamental-physics crackpottery? It would involve defense of Newton's and Einstein's theories and opposition to more recent ones. I think I've seen a bit of that.

 

[Roboramma]

It does. It demonstrates that mass arises from an interaction, but that this interaction is an electromagnetic self interaction rather than with the Higgs field.

Right, so you're not saying that the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc², you're saying that it contradicts the idea that the electron is a trapped photon. You then go on to attempt to validate the idea that an electron is a trapped photon.

Honestly, I think that's a cool idea. It'd be pretty neat if we could explain electrons that way. So far I've not seen a single prediction that you've made with that model (for instance, can you predict the mass of the electron based on the properties of light? or it's charge? that would be pretty convincing), and some of the objections others have presented seem quite strong to me (for instance, where does the charge of the electron come from? why does the photon get trapped - what interaction causes it, and what evidence is there for such an interaction? etc.), but if you could present some quantitative predictions of your model, I think even those objections could be disregarded.

But regardless of the merits or lack thereof of your idea, they have nothing to do with whether or not the Higgs mechanism is consistent with E=mc².

Again, I'm not even discussing whether the Higgs mechanism is correct. I'm simply discussing whether or not it is consistent with special relativity.

 

[ben m]

So far I've not seen a single prediction that you've made with that model (for instance, can you predict the mass of the electron based on the properties of light? or it's charge? that would be pretty convincing)

Let's just remind ourselves what the Standard Model can predict:

a) Not the mass (that's measured)
b) The charge (sort of---the model says has to be the same as other lepton charges)
b') The apparent variation of the charge ("running" of alpha), predicted by QED. Observed & confirmed.
c) The magnetic moment 2.00231930419922. The first digit, "2", was predicted by Dirac, the remainder---all of them, and accurately---by workers beginning with Schwinger. Observed & confirmed.
d) The electron scattering cross section, off anything, at any energy. Including electron-photon, electron-electron, electron-positron, electron-neutrino, electron-antineutrino cross sections. Including parity-violating asymmetries (hard to get THOSE out of Maxwell) in e+e- and e-e- scattering. All observations agree with predictions.
e) The positronium spectrum and lifetime, predicted by Bethe and Salpeter. Observed and confirmed.

Predictions of Farsight's two-photon model:

a) He drew a picture of it.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Because light bends itself into an arc. In a double loop each loop keeps on bending the other into a closed arc forever. The result is a standing wave. Ergo electron diffraction, atomic orbitals, magnetic moment, Einstein-de Haas etc etc. Ask ctamblyn and lpetrich how pair production occurs. All they'll give you is worms from mud.

So, the mechanism is: [photon] --> bending --> [double loop] --> poof --> [electron].
Yes. Very convincing. Very scientific. Perhaps you should publish that for all the world to see. Congratulations! Your Nobel prize is now being engraved; better make your reservations for Oslo. Please don't forget all the little people who inspired and debated with you here.

 

[BurntSynapse]

I don’t think we can have a “productive discussion unless” you can focus on what is actually being said, but I’ll keep trying.

I respect and appreciate such efforts, they do you credit and I thank you.

In "a vision of success", what is being visualized (the success) is the “accomplishment ” , FTL travel in this case, and thus explicitly dependent that “state of nature”.

As indicated before, I'm unaware of where this dependency is explicitly specified in this manner, but if we were planning, I would advocate it be restated to prevent the misinterpretation mentioned before: "If (FTL possible state of nature exists) then (successful accomplishment)", which would be invalid. We can only be certain that if (no FTL possible state of nature exists) then (no successful accomplishment)".

Is your claim now that your “vision of success" (for FTL travel) involves not accomplishing FTL travel?

"Involves" seems too vague to give a simple and non-misleading yes or no. I'd like to provide a clear yes or no that you probably would also like, but to do so I need to be addressing a question specific enough that the answer is meaningful and not misleading.

It matters also whether "accomplishing" refers to a future state of nature or refers to something in a vision we use "simply as irreducible posits comparable, epistemologically, to the gods of Homer" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_Van_Orman_Quine#Confirmation_holism_and_ontological_relativity)

My claim is that positing the future state allowing FTL offers benefits of a similar class to those which have historically been obtained from positing the gods of Homer, heliocentrism, and Newton's laws during their day.

Separate does not mean independent and a “relationship”, as you put it, does imply some dependence (mutual or otherwise).

Yes it does seem to imply this, whether the implication is valid or not. This is why the language of logic and philosophy is so nit-picky. I'm not trying to sidestep anything by distinguishing a vision, adopting a vision, and accomplishing a vision, and so forth, I just hope to be as clear as I can.

Is your claim now that, given the “vision of success is ours to choose”, one can’t choose “a vision of success” that is dependent on "uncontrollable future events"?

I don't think I explicitly claimed that, but I think I'd certainly agree that we are free to choose a vision dependent on anything, but I think we should use potential productivity to select our visions. If being irrational looks like it could be really productive, I think deciding to be irrational could be justified. Whether this applies to any particular situation is another question.

Yes “finding unicorns” depends on (among other things) their “existence” “at the time we seek them”. So even your own example demonstrates “a vision of success” can depend upon “States of Nature”.

If by "vision" you mean "holding or selecting a particular vision" I disagree. I think my claim only asserts a particular state is a necessary condition for success in accomplishing the vision, but it is mute on whether framing our work by that vision is productive. I wouldn't agree with the claim that my example demonstrates our ability to hold a "vision of success" does or should depend on the "state of nature" in the way you suggest.

Consistency in the application of terms is just as important as clarity. In fact said clarity becomes meaningless if it is not applied consistently.

Agreed.

And some of these “lots of reasons” “we might still miss them for” are they also perhaps "uncontrollable future events" thus “States of Nature”?

Sure.

If so than that dependence is related to more “States of Nature” than just their “existence” “at the time we seek them”.

Yes, this holds true if the dependency referred to is "successful accomplishment of the vision".

Oh and I think I should point out here, before you run further astray in some other "uncontrollable future events". All those other “lots of reasons” “we might still miss them for” in no way diminishes the dependence of that “vision of success" on unicorns in fact existing.

No: We are free to hold completely delusional visions of success (involving unicorns or Gods on Mt. Olympus) without any observational verification. In 1951, Quine began arguing the value of a vision or theory is in its utility for progress and prediction. He rejects Popper's falsifiability based on the observation that people can save any belief, (no matter how ridiculous), "given sufficiently radical modifications of the containing theory". This seems plausible to me, especially after discussions with my sister about astrology.

As a “vision of success" (for finding unicorns) that depended on unicorns not exiting would be just self-contradictory.

I agree such a proposition seems non-sensical.

Sure, let’s see how that pans out…
“states of nature” or "uncontrollable future events"
Case1) The numbers drawn for the lottery
Case2) FTL travel is achievable

“vision of success”
Case1) Winning the lottery
Case2) Achieving FTL travel

“successful accomplishment”
Case1) The numbers draw for the lottery are those on your ticket
Case2) Traveling FTL

Now wasn’t there someone here who claimed that appealing to such unknown and uncontrollable future events was a mistake?

Oh right, that was you. Nope, still doesn’t help, you are still presenting an apparently self-contradictory position.

If, at a decision point, we take an outcome to be certain when it depends on both our decisions/actions and an unknown future state (and perhaps other things), then our decision based on that is considered a bad decision.

The reason I don't see this position as contradictory is that I argue we should not assume such certainty. My position is one of cautious optimism, with emphasis on the caution.

For example, using extreme care monitoring for any signs of defects in the vision or defects in our approach, as is a best practice for successfully accomplishing complex goals.

Again, heck, at least we know winning the lottery is possible, so your purported “vision of success” for FTL travel doesn’t even rise to that standard of “appealing to a future unknown”

There's been decades of wrestling with rules for good science that are not to tight, excluding productive science, nor to loose that would allow astrology to gain status as a legitimate science.

Your objection is quite true, but if we can see that some productive cognitive frameworks in the history science that would have been tossed out by only allowing known possibilities, this rule might seem too tight.

Of course, if my (or any) recommendation is overly risky, unreliable, and/or unproductive we would want to be able to clearly tell. Based on the continuing debates around explanation and causation, this demarcation problem doesn't seem to have especially well resolved rules.

Before proceeding please try to address what is actually being said in at least a consistent manor.

I'm trying pretty hard...how am I doing?

 

[ben m]

My claim is that positing the future state allowing FTL offers benefits of a similar class to those which have historically been obtained from positing the gods of Homer, heliocentrism, and Newton's laws during their day.

I don't think that the benefits follow. Again, think in terms of action items. Physicists are already studying the laws of spacetime, using every theoretical and experimental tool known. When you tell them "No, you should keep in mind that FTL may be possible someday", the action item is ... well, "study spacetime using every theoretical and experimental tool known." Your "positing" doesn't actually change the research.

Heliocentrism was not like this. Heliocentrism was not an vague goal, it was a concrete new idea, a new thing that astronomers could do with their data. If you had walked into Tycho Brahe's office and said "OK, the PM says to keep heliocentrism in mind", he'd have known what to do differently---"oh, so I'll solve this new equation I never solved before." If you walk into Ed Witten's office and say "keep FTL in mind", he'd say, "How, exactly?" and keep studying spacetime.

There's been decades of wrestling with rules for good science that are not to tight, excluding productive science, nor to loose that would allow astrology to gain status as a legitimate science.

Has this "wrestling" made a difference to actual science practice? Was there a time when the NSF was considering funding astrology, but backed off because someone tightened up a definition? The one instance where these definitions get discussed productively is in court cases, like Kitzmiller v. Dover or Edwards v. Aguillard, in which a judge tries to delineate science from nonscience carefully enough that bad-faith parties can't worm their way around it. But that's not saying something important about "defining science", that's saying something about "legalese". We care about defining "science" in the same way we care about "extenuating circumstances" or "hate crime" or "interstate commerce".

 

[lpetrich]

Let's just remind ourselves what the Standard Model can predict:

(lots of successes with the electron)

Predictions of Farsight's two-photon model:

a) He drew a picture of it.

As far as I can tell, he believes that an electron is a single photon in a double loop.

He also believes that protons are photons in trefoil loops, with the quarks being the loop handles.