Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[W.D.Clinger]

What actual tools do you think should be used that aren't already in use?
How exactly would this affect outcomes, or indeed have any effect at all?
What specifically are you actually trying to say? Not some vague waffle about "improvements in management functions like identifying and assessing potentially transformative research identification appear plausible". If you were put in charge of world science today, you would walk into your first meeting to determine how science will be run from now on and you would say "We should do X". What is X?

Although BurntSynapse is going to some trouble to avoid answering such questions here, we might look to some of the answers Buck Field has offered elsewhere, as in this interview:

My approach is to look at this as a troubled project. I made a career out of project rescue where something was failing and our team had to get it delivered, usually by the end of the year for some executive to win a bonus. What you do first in these situations is conduct an audit, finding out the current state. In physics, we know things are a mess, and figuring out what to do about it requires us to look at how the work was done. If there’s some we can save, great. There’s always something that can be salvaged, even if just to learn what doesn’t work.

That's just for context. Buck Field thinks physics is a mess. Immediately after the words I quoted above, he explained what he wants to do about it:

In physics development, one thing that seemed suspicious, I mean in theory development, is that James Clerk Maxwell was using esoteric quaternion algebras to investigate electro-magnetism which were really powerful, but obscure. His equations were so useful they took over research, which was based on weaker vector algebras. These are less reliable but standard, well-known tools, and scattered warnings at the time were ignored. For project rescue, reworking from that point to identify any divergences is potentially optimal. If our team would get a million dollar bonus for fixing this project, I’m pretty sure that’s where we’d start.

....The next thing I’d like to do is recruit some quaternion geeks with interest in science, for a theory development workshop I’d like to put together. I think could be done for under $150k. Getting that funded would be awesome!

I can't tell whether the phrase I highlighted is saying quaternion algebras are less reliable than vector algebras or vice versa, but it hardly matters. What matters is that the person who said that does not understand the mathematics---from which we must infer he has no real understanding of the electromagnetic theory it describes---but he is nonetheless quite certain that's a good place to start.

(As for the roots of Buck Field's confusion here, I can only speculate. The imaginary part of a quaternion is often referred to as its vector part, and it's conceivable that Mr Field is confusing that use of the word "vector" with the far more general meaning of that word in algebra. At any rate, that confusion is evident at some of the crackpot web sites that appear to be advocating ideas related to Mr Field's.)

(ETA: For possible later reference, I'm going to record this link to a history of vector analysis in case it turns out to be relevant to Mr Field's confusion.)

 

[Hellbound]

I can't tell whether the phrase I highlighted is saying quaternion algebras are less reliable than vector algebras or vice versa, but it hardly matters. What matters is that the person who said that does not understand the mathematics---from which we must infer he has no real understanding of the electromagnetic theory it describes---but he is nonetheless quite certain that's a good place to start.

...or he's an obstacle (if they decide to get "proactive", and get involved beyond management by thinking they know more than the subject matter experts).

 

[Cuddles]

Personally, I tend to have caution judging opinions I don't understand well.

The evidence of this thread rather suggests otherwise.

 

[ben m]

(As for the roots of Buck Field's confusion here, I can only speculate. The imaginary part of a quaternion is often referred to as its vector part, and it's conceivable that Mr Field is confusing that use of the word "vector" with the far more general meaning of that word in algebra. At any rate, that confusion is evident at some of the crackpot web sites that appear to be advocating ideas related to Mr Field's.)

Yikes. The "quaternions" argument is something that comes up frequently in perpetual motion/free energy conspiracy circles. In truth, the quaternion and vector versions of E&M are just two different representations of the same mathematical group; in order to find something different in one than the other, you'd have to find an error in abstract algebra.

If there's something missing from the laws of E&M---i.e., if there's an electromagnetic law other than Faraday/Coulomb/Ampere-Maxwell---then it's missing from both the quaternion and the vector representations, and has never turned up in our (extraordinarily precise) electromagnetic experiments, and if such a new phenomenon can be shoehorned into one representation it can also be shoehorned into the other.

Also, when you get into QFT you find that all of the E&M laws---no more, no less---pop out naturally from the requirement that the Dirac equation be invariant under a U(1) local gauge symmetry. Represent it however you like, that's a pretty good clue that we've got them right.

 

[ben m]

When asking for evidence the comment was absurd, the response received was to ignore the respectful question designed to improve my understanding of his view, change the topic...and ask more questions of me. This seems irrational.

Also, seriously: this is not changing the topic. It was an analogy. Do you not understand analogies?

You asked a question about the root cause of lack-of-progress in physics---a question whose answer you believe to be "stagnant theory that needs a paradigm shift." I re-asked the question, pointing to another field whose lack of progress is obviously NOT caused by stagnant theory, but rather by the inaccessibility of data. My intention, which I think was not TOO esoteric, was that you'd realize that this is also an answer to the physics question. Just in case, then explained the analogy and answered your question directly.

So, I offered an attempt at a helpful analogy to attempt to improve your understanding, but you think I'm irrational? I answered your question, but you think I ignored it? What?

Here's my interpretation of what's going on. You have adopted "JREF posters are irrational trolls who don't understand the trouble with physics" as a paradigm. Every post you read, you interpret through the lens of this paradigm: "What insult do I need to respond to in THIS irrational troll post? What aspect of my programme do I need to defend this time?" This paradigm is incommensurate with the paradigm in which you actually read and learn anything. Maybe you need to awaken to a paradigm shift of your own. (Ooh, I'm finally getting it. "poster/troll" are object concepts, while "read/learn" are process concepts.)

 

[catsmate]

Personally, I tend to have caution judging opinions I don't understand well.

Yet you're quite willing to express your uninformed opinions about physics.........

If the Project Management Institute, whose glossary of "management-waffle" you had worked on for years, universities on 4 continents where you'd taught grad school info systems PM, and your clients, (one with the most successful implementation in history), were all happy with your work, I'd probably be more hesitant to disregard your opinion in that management specialty than you are regarding mine.

My hesitancy for such leaps is based on my concept of skepticism as rational inquiry which is reliable and brings people to new understandings, new agreement and disagreement, but I accept that others in the community don't share this concept.

For amusement I passed your comments here onto a couple of colleagues, experienced PMs and PMI grads, with a total of more than fifty years experience; they think you're spouting complete nonsense, parroting jargons about a field you have no understanding of .

Quite frankly, from your performance here, I suspect your success happened the same way it does for project managers here. The people who actually do the work ignore the PM and get things done, giving enough lip service to whatever management-flavor-of-the-week the PM is promoting. Every project I've worked with, in over twenty years in the industry (info systems, just in case you're wondering), the PM has either been a coordinator (i.e.-he takes our information and does the task of distributing it to the project team, updating schedules, and so forth) or he's an obstacle (if they decide to get "proactive", and get involved beyond management by thinking they know more than the subject matter experts).

Exactly

Additionally, the patronizing tone of posts exactly like yours (quoted above) seems at odds with your stated desire for rational inquiry. Passive-aggressive is still aggressive. At least some of us are up front about it.

I've heard similar from PM on occasion when people who understand reality dare to criticise their plans for not conforming with said reality,

The fact that you still have avoided all the pertinent questions, to instead complain that (paraphrased) "you're all being meanies, and you're stupid-heads compared to me" doesn't win you any points either.

But a common tactic of woosters.

 

[lpetrich]

Yikes. The "quaternions" argument is something that comes up frequently in perpetual motion/free energy conspiracy circles. In truth, the quaternion and vector versions of E&M are just two different representations of the same mathematical group; in order to find something different in one than the other, you'd have to find an error in abstract algebra. ...

Farsight has sometimes seemed to make similar arguments about Maxwell's equations, that Oliver Heaviside's vector version is somehow a perversion of Maxwell's revealed truth. Revealed as in religious revelation.

Quaternions can be interpreted as a scalar-vector combinations (s,v) adding linearly and satisfying this multiplication law:

s12 = s1*s2 - v1.v2
v12 = s1*v2 + s2*v1 - (v1)x(v2)

One can construct a quaternion representation of a vector as (0,v)
Dot product: (q1*q2 + q2*q1)/2
Cross product: - (q1*q2 - q2*q1)/2

Quaternions can be realized with Pauli matrices:
s + i*(pauli).v

There is an interesting quaternion/Pauli-matrix version of Maxwell's equations:

D = (D(time),- i*D(space))
F = (0, E + i*B)
J = (charge density, current density)
charge = (electric charge) + i*(magnetic charge)
density = (electric density) + i*(magnetic density)

DF = k*J

(c = 1, k = units factor)

Maxwell himself may have discovered it, but I'd have to burrow through his writings to be sure.


Different forms and notations can clarify various features, or else obscure them. The usual vector form uses a 3+1 decomposition of spacetime, into 3 space dimensions and 1 time dimension. The general covariant form puts time alongside space, and reduces the equations to something like

D.F = k*J
D^F = k*J(mag)
with
D.J = 0
D.J(mag) = 0
F = D^A

D = 4D differential operator (vector)
J = 4-current (vector)
A = electromagnetic potential (vector)
F = electromagnetic field (antisymmetric 2-tensor)
. = inner product
^ = antisymmetric outer product
Note: A gets singularities away from the sources when magnetic monopoles are present

One can get the quaternion form out of the general-covariant form by multiplying the indices by (I,i*pauli) (upper indices) or (I,-i*pauli) (lower indices). So the quaternion form, like the 3+1 vector form, hides some details that are manifest in the general-covariant form.

 

[lpetrich]

Also, when you get into QFT you find that all of the E&M laws---no more, no less---pop out naturally from the requirement that the Dirac equation be invariant under a U(1) local gauge symmetry. Represent it however you like, that's a pretty good clue that we've got them right.

That's true not only of Dirac particles but also of *any* particles with electric charges.

Charge conservation is equivalent to a global symmetry: field X -> X*e^i*q*a for charge q and phase factor a shared by all the particles.

If a is constant over space-time, then the symmetry is a global one. Making it vary as a function of space-time makes the symmetry local. The differential operators for the fields must get terms with the electromagnetic potential to soak up the extra variation.

Gauge-covariant form:
D(X) -> D(X) + i*q*A*X
Change of gauge:
A -> A - D(a)

The electromagnetic field is given by the gauge-invariant derivative of the electromagnetic potential: F = D^A

One gets the source equation by putting a kinetic term into the field Lagrangian: (1/(4k))*(F.F)

Maxwell's equations:
The source equation:
D.F = k*J
What's sometimes called a Bianchi identity:
D^F = 0

The latter results from D^(D^A) = D^D^A = 0


All these results can be generalized to nonabelian symmetry groups, thus giving the Yang-Mills equations. These appear in quantum chromodynamics and electroweak unification.

 

[Perpetual Student]

The above posts bring something important to mind concerning the subject of this thread. To their credit, physics crackpots demonstrate a real interest -- a passion -- to understand how the universe works. But to their discredit they are unwilling (incapable or too lazy?) to master the mathematics needed to gain that understanding.
As an example, all this magical thinking about Maxwell's use of quaternions sounds quite plausible to those who don't (cannot) make the required effort, so they construct a world of facile (but fictitious) explanations to suit their needs.

 

[BurntSynapse]

(As for the roots of Buck Field's confusion here, I can only speculate.

Is it really so infeasible to ask why I believe X that speculation the "only" option? Only if we are more interested in maintaining a position more than committed to a reliable process of reasoning, by which we might change a position. The assumption that an opposing opinion cannot be acknowledged as having any valid points convinces me not much rational discussion, but plenty of skeptical discussion occurs in these forums. And its not like there isn't plenty of credulous hokum out there, but absent rationalism, skepticism can be just as wrong. Cautious optimism is the way to proceed.

To the issue you raise: What you call "my confusion" is based on my readings mainly of the papers of Rowan Hamilton, Maxwell, and the related Heaviside-Tait debates in Nature.

To me, both sides seem to have had good reasons for their opinions. I find pragmatic arguments generally compelling, and Heaviside's was, IMO. But the fact is that use of vectors was not accompanied by what we would do today in business: document the assumption and watch for indications that our assumption was in error as part of risk management. Further, the locality constraint debated at the time did not seem to be enforced on later work. I'm not qualified to assess the ultimate impact, but I am qualified to say that absent someone paying attention, it is an uncontrolled & unmanaged risk that does not seem to ever have been addressed. Would someone do me the favor of running THAT by their PM associates for assessment of: Is this a generally accepted good practice: why or why not?

Every information system project rescue I've done has involved correcting such oversights, and such work is well understood and documented in PM practice standards.

Objections have been raised elsewhere that I'd misread those debates and the relative strength of the vector vs. quaternion communities, but when we looked at details like the maximum membership of the Quaternion Society for example, that objection was not maintained.

Having said that, I welcome any evidence that a more likely root cause for physics straying beyond the bounds of methodological naturalism exists. Even vaguely plausible options are welcome. Caveat: I'm not claiming this is the only one, either - just one that seems plausible to me.

 

[ctamblyn]

...
Having said that, I welcome any evidence that a more likely root cause for physics straying beyond the bounds of methodological naturalism exists.
...

I understand M.N. to be the position that the methodology of science should be based on the working hypothesis that there are no supernatural agents or forces underlying observable phenomena.

I don't see that mainstream physics has (even slightly) moved outside those bounds.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

(As for the roots of Buck Field's confusion here, I can only speculate.

Is it really so infeasible to ask why I believe X that speculation the "only" option?

It has been, as you have been unwilling and/or unable to answer others' questions. In this case, however, your response does provide several hints.

To the issue you raise: What you call "my confusion" is based on my readings mainly of the papers of Rowland, Maxwell, and the related Heaviside-Tait debates in Nature.

To me, both sides seem to have had good reasons for their opinions. I find pragmatic arguments generally compelling, and Heaviside's was, IMO. But the fact is that use of vectors was not accompanied by what we would do today in business: document the assumption and watch for indications that our assumption was in error as part of risk management.

If you regard the use of vectors (or any other valid mathematics) as an assumption that needs to be documented, then your ignorance of mathematics and science goes far beyond electromagnetism.

Further, the locality constraint debated at the time did not seem to be enforced on later work. I'm not qualified to assess the ultimate impact, but I am qualified to say that absent someone paying attention, it is an uncontrolled & unmanaged risk that does not seem to ever have been addressed.

Luckily, I am qualified to tell you people have been paying attention.

I don't know whether you're seeing risk in failing to enforce a "locality constraint", or from using vectors, or from using quaternions, but it doesn't matter. When Maxwell's laws equations are written in differential form, they're local. When people use quaternions or vectors properly, that mathematics is the least of your worries.

Would someone do me the favor of running THAT by their PM associates for assessment of: Is this a generally accepted good practice: why or why not?

When project managers try to impose their ignorance of the relevant disciplines onto the practitioners of those disciplines, that's poor management practice.

Objections have been raised elsewhere that I'd misread those debates and the relative strength of the vector vs. quaternion communities, but when we looked at details like the maximum membership of the Quaternion Society for example, that objection was not maintained.

Judging the validity of the mathematics by counting the number of people who have joined some organization is pure woo. If you had any understanding of the mathematics, you wouldn't be doing that.

Having said that, I welcome any evidence that a more likely root cause for physics straying beyond the bounds of methodological naturalism exists.

You haven't explained why you believe physics has strayed "beyond the bounds of methodological naturalism", or why you think that would be a bad thing if it had happened.

At the risk of speculating once again, the hints you've dropped in previous messages suggest you were convinced by the EPR argument (although you've been crediting only Einstein, the "E" in EPR), were unaware of Bell's inequalities and the relevant experiments, and haven't taken the trouble to follow up on the references that have been provided you.

On the other hand, I think there's a lot more to your confusion than what I've noted above. You appear to be entirely out of your depth.

 

[ben m]

Is it really so infeasible to ask why I believe X that speculation the "only" option? Only if we are more interested in maintaining a position more than committed to a reliable process of reasoning, by which we might change a position. The assumption that an opposing opinion cannot be acknowledged as having any valid points convinces me not much rational discussion, but plenty of skeptical discussion occurs in these forums.

Speculation seems at this point to be the only option based on your response (or non-response, or nonsense-response) to the past five pages' worth of attempts to get you to explain your position.

To the issue you raise: What you call "my confusion" is based on my readings mainly of the papers of Rowan Hamilton, Maxwell, and the related Heaviside-Tait debates in Nature.

You didn't consider seeking any post-1900 information on the topic? Remember that the goal of E&M theory is not "find the richest representation of Auguste Coulomb's foundational data" but rather "find a theory that describes ALL the E&M data". In this direction, the late 20th/early 21st-century muon g-2 experiments are at least as important as anything Coulomb measured and must be included.

But the fact is that use of vectors was not accompanied by what we would do today in business: document the assumption and watch for indications that our assumption was in error as part of risk management.

It's not an "assumption". It wasn't even a "decision". It's like asking music theorists to document the risks associated with a five-line clef. The only way you can think of it as a source of "risk" is in the case some "true" (or potentially true) aspect of E&M was embedded in one convention, and forgotten about in the other---AND if for some reason physicists are unable to extend notation (or theories, or whatever) to include new ideas as necessary.

The first condition is (listen to your area-experts here, mr. PM) a bee in the bonnet of modern crackpots but it has no basis in truth. Maybe this is just a language difference, but in physics when something is "wrong" we call it "wrong", not "low-risk". Publishing a paper saying "X is wrong", or "Y is true", is how we document what we're doing.

The second condition is already obvious in E&M (the modern theory uses neither vectors nor quaternions, but gauge symmetries.). There is no risk to choosing a convention if people are trained to change conventions when needed, which they are.

 

[Farsight]

Farsight has sometimes seemed to make similar arguments about Maxwell's equations, that Oliver Heaviside's vector version is somehow a perversion of Maxwell's revealed truth. Revealed as in religious revelation.

Geddoutofit, lpetrich. It's no religious revelation to point out that the field concerned is the electromagnetic field, or that certain people cling to ignorance and misunderstanding. For example on this website the author says "Magnetic Field Generated by a Single Current-Carrying Rod". It isn't really a field, and it isn't really generated. I'm forever pointing this sort of thing out. I've previously referred to section 11.10 of Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics where he says "one should properly speak of the electromagnetic field Fuv rather than E or B separately". And looking at your next post, I've repeatedly said that field is the derivative of potential, often referring to the Aharonov-Bohm effect:

"...Richard Feynman complained[citation needed] that he had been taught electromagnetism from the perspective of electromagnetic fields, and he wished later in life he had been taught to think in terms of the electromagnetic potential..."

"...The Aharonov–Bohm effect shows that the local E and B fields do not contain full information about the electromagnetic field, and the electromagnetic four-potential, (Φ,A), must be used instead..."

See this thread and weep at the ignorance. The irony of Clinger telling BS that "your ignorance of mathematics and science goes far beyond electromagnetism" fair takes the breath away.

 

[Roboramma]

If you're bothered by what lpretrich said, why don't you simply explain whether or not you do "make similar arguments about Maxwell's equations, that Oliver Heaviside's vector version is somehow a perversion of Maxwell's revealed truth"?

And while you're at it, if you do, why.

 

[leon_heller]

Some physicists are rather gullible. When I was studying psychology at Birkbeck College one of our lecturers mentioned that Uri Geller had visited the physics department. The psychology department wanted to be involved, but Geller refused to attend if any psychologists were present. Geller mentions the event on his web site:

http://www.uri-geller.com/hast1.htm

 

[BurntSynapse]

I understand M.N. to be the position that the methodology of science should be based on the working hypothesis that there are no supernatural agents or forces underlying observable phenomena.

I don't see that mainstream physics has (even slightly) moved outside those bounds.

What you describe is naturalism, & I would agree that physics has not moved into the supernatural at all. What is your understanding of what distinguishes the methodological subset?

 

[lpetrich]

Geddoutofit, lpetrich.

I was judging from what you've posted as "Electromagnetism Explained" in various places.

For example on this website the author says "Magnetic Field Generated by a Single Current-Carrying Rod". It isn't really a field, and it isn't really generated.

Why that is supposed to be the case I have no idea.

I'm forever pointing this sort of thing out. I've previously referred to section 11.10 of Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics where he says "one should properly speak of the electromagnetic field Fuv rather than E or B separately".

Do you understand the mathematics behind that assertion?

The Faraday tensor F has 6 independent components, and when going from general covariance to a 3+1 representation, 3 of the get identified as E and 3 of them as B.

And looking at your next post, I've repeatedly said that field is the derivative of potential, often referring to the Aharonov-Bohm effect:

"...Richard Feynman complained[citation needed] that he had been taught electromagnetism from the perspective of electromagnetic fields, and he wished later in life he had been taught to think in terms of the electromagnetic potential..."

"...The Aharonov–Bohm effect shows that the local E and B fields do not contain full information about the electromagnetic field, and the electromagnetic four-potential, (Φ,A), must be used instead..."

So what? That's a quantum-mechanical effect.

Some nonconstant potentials produce zero fields, but these potentials can still make their mark on particle wavefunctions. Observable effects are still gauge-invariant, however. The effects on wavefunctions can be observed as interference, and that's something that averages out in the classical limit.

 

[ctamblyn]

What you describe is naturalism, & I would agree that physics has not moved into the supernatural at all. What is your understanding of what distinguishes the methodological subset?

I disagree. Naturalism (with no qualifier) I take to be an ontological position, which, approximately, asserts that there really isn't any such thing as the supernatural.

What I described, I perhaps described poorly. I said "the methodology of science should be based on the working hypothesis that there are no supernatural agents or forces underlying observable phenomena," which is not intended to be a statement about the existence of the supernatural, but rather a description of a methodology which doesn't assume supernatural agents or forces in its models.

ETA: Perhaps what I mean isn't relevant though. If you had to restate your earlier point (ETA: the one I quoted in #1551) without using the term "methodological naturalism" how would you word it?

 

[BurntSynapse]

It has been, as you have been unwilling and/or unable to answer others' questions. In this case, however, your response does provide several hints.

It is true that there are many questions I have been unwilling and/or unable to answer, but I think if one were to count the number of sincere attempts to address opposing concerns, I would not rate near the top offenders in this regard.

If you regard the use of vectors (or any other valid mathematics) as an assumption that needs to be documented,

I don't regard use of vectors an assumption, I claim a widespread assumption exists today that vector maths can be used without risks which were well known by both sides in the Heaviside-Tait debates, and were argued at length. I would be very interested to know of anyone examining those potential risks after the debates fizzled out.

...then your ignorance of mathematics and science goes far beyond electromagnetism.

Legitimate objections don't need to come with any personal attack. Let's be civil, yes?

Luckily, I am qualified to tell you people have been paying attention.

I don't know whether you're seeing risk in failing to enforce a "locality constraint", or from using vectors, or from using quaternions, but it doesn't matter. When Maxwell's laws equations are written in differential form, they're local. When people use quaternions or vectors properly, that mathematics is the least of your worries.

I'd be happy to learn you are right. How do we know mathematics is the least of our worries?

When project managers try to impose their ignorance of the relevant disciplines onto the practitioners of those disciplines, that's poor management practice.

I agree. If you are an expert in this, I'd appreciate help moving math to the bottom of the list of potential sources of risk. Enlighten me.

Judging the validity of the mathematics by counting the number of people who have joined some organization is pure woo.

While I, many philosophers of science, and a comedian or two would disagree with your claim, it is beside the point.

I cited the number of members in the Q society to refute the claim that Heaviside's vector-based approach was the underdog within the math community.

If you had any understanding of the mathematics, you wouldn't be doing that.

Rather than mathematics, I think you mean something like "reasonable justification skills", which would prevent one from making the error you proposed for me.

At the risk of speculating once again, the hints you've dropped in previous messages suggest you were convinced by the EPR argument (although you've been crediting only Einstein, the "E" in EPR), were unaware of Bell's inequalities and the relevant experiments, and haven't taken the trouble to follow up on the references that have been provided you.

In complex projects, we must rely on the knowledge of specialist experts, as you point out. PM's are limited in the time they can spend focusing on technical fields, just as a quantum chromo-dynamicist is limited in spending time learning the PMBOK and still do her job well.

As for EPR/Bell, I think the topic does not seem closed among some experts, and there exists an expectation in this group that new discoveries of quantum mechanics lie ahead in such research.