Referring JREF posters to scientific papers which refer to hard scientific evidence is not sacred-book interpretation. And what's with the disdain for mathematics? I've said repeatedly that mathematics is a vital tool for physics, we can't do physics without it.
I think two of the issues are that you have on occasions misinterpreted papers you cite as supporting your arguments when they do the opposite (e.g. when you claimed the AB effect was not a quantum phenomenon), and don't seem willing to provide proper mathematical models of the crackpot ideas you have promoted here (e.g. Relativity+).
As for crackpottery, you should google Max Tegmark crackpot. Then you might like to take a look in the mirror, and have a think about the title of this thread.
Yes they are - but I don't see it that way. I don't see the problem with speculating - as long as you are clear that's what you are doing - which Tegmark is very clear about.
I know that getting lots of criticism isn't a good thing - but it does come with the territory if the ideas are challenging to the usual way of thinking. I like this quote I read in someones sig :
Carl Sagan said:
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
I don't think Tegmark is Bozo the Clown - but only time will tell if his ideas are considered more mainstream in the future (or considered a hint towards something else that is mainstream). At worst he is just wrong.
I don't know if you are a crackpot or not. By my reckoning Tegmark only scores 3/15 (20%) on my 'Crackpot' scale - not too bad. Where would you put yourself?
For ease of cut-paste - here is a text version of the criteria I used :
Criteria (crackpot answer)
Ideas involve a lot of speculation? (YES)
Ideas attract a lot of criticism? (YES)
If ideas turned out to be correct, they would have a profound impact? (YES)
Ideas are contradicted by evidence? (YES)
Ideas contradict established scientific theories? (YES)
Demonstrates lack of understanding of established math, physics? (YES)
Claims that there is a conspiracy to discredit their ideas? (YES)
Has made claims in body of work that should be easy to demonstrate and yet has failed to do so? (YES)
Comes across as a nutter? (YES)
Is established scientist with deep background in subject and body of 'traditional' work? (NO)
Has made claims in body of work that are hard to demonstrate - and yet has done so successfully (NO)
Openly accepts that ideas could be wrong? (NO)
Work is well written and interesting - even if wrong. (NO)
Explicitly discusses question of whether ideas are 'crackpot' in own work? (NO)
Subject matter is necessarily speculative at our current level of understanding of it? (NO)
Crackpots hold opinions that are contradicted by scientific evidence. In this respect Mr., Duffield has proven himself to be the genuine article. He believes electrons and protons are photons in loops, he misunderstands the nature of fundamental constants, he avoids mathematical explanations, he believes time is a derived quantity, etc. Most condemning, when presented with a scientifically based logical argument, he obliviously continues his ignorant bluster (LINK)(LINK). In contrast, Mr. Tegmark's conjectures do not violate any known laws of physics, but Mr. Duffield rants against these conjectures in an effort to legitimize his own crackpot opinions. It's a vain ploy designed to legitimize himself.
For one thing, he has done some good and widely accepted work regarding the CMB. His views on the MUH and the four levels of multiverse are good speculative thinking and are not contradicted by any aspect of current mainstream cosmology.
Agreed - I'm a big fan. My point above was exactly to show the vast gulf between him and a real crackpot (with apologies to my example of this - this was meant in good humor).
I don't know his stuff well enough to judge - but I wouldn't call Farsight a "hard-core crackpot" either. He does challenge some well established physics (which puts him well ahead of Tegmark on that scale) - but that is also allowed in science.
I can see you guys have become embittered over many forum battles. From an external perspective it seems a bit like "Peoples Judean Front" vs "Peoples Front of Judea". The real enemy is pseudoscience and superstition.
Yes they are - but I don't see it that way. I don't see the problem with speculating - as long as you are clear that's what you are doing - which Tegmark is very clear about.
Max is being deliberately provocative to gain attention and further his career. People do this, and it does work, but there's a temptation to take it too far, which I think Max has done.
drelda said:
I don't think Tegmark is Bozo the Clown - but only time will tell if his ideas are considered more mainstream in the future (or considered a hint towards something else that is mainstream). At worst he is just wrong. I don't know if you are a crackpot or not. By my reckoning Tegmark only scores 3/15 (20%) on my 'Crackpot' scale - not too bad.
You know how there are some out-and-out crackpots who appear on JREF sometime. They're usually warbling on about "my theory" and telling you "Einstein was wrong". Well, as you are to them, so am I to you. I'm far more sceptical than some of the posters here. And look at them carp!
For ease of cut-paste - here is a text version of the criteria I used:
Criteria (crackpot answer)
Ideas involve a lot of speculation? (NO, and they're not my ideas)
Ideas attract a lot of criticism? (YES, but they're Einstein's!)
If ideas turned out to be correct, they would have a profound impact? (YES)
Ideas are contradicted by evidence? (NO)
Ideas contradict established scientific theories? (NO, reinterpretation only)
Demonstrates lack of understanding of established math, physics? (NO, I address the terms, and know an awful lot of physics)
Claims that there is a conspiracy to discredit their ideas? (NO)
Has made claims in body of work that should be easy to demonstrate and yet has failed to do so? (NO)
Comes across as a nutter? (NO)
Is established scientist with deep background in subject and body of 'traditional' work? (NO)
Has made claims in body of work that are hard to demonstrate - and yet has done so successfully (NO? I've made easy claims and demonstrated them)
Openly accepts that ideas could be wrong? (NO)
Work is well written and interesting - even if wrong. (YES)
Explicitly discusses question of whether ideas are 'crackpot' in own work? (NO)
Subject matter is necessarily speculative at our current level of understanding of it? (NO)
I'm not sure if it's a good crackpot test. Somebody who advanced scientific progress would maybe score a "crazy". Now, please excuse me for a moment:
Max Tegmark if not a crackpot! For one thing, he has done some good and widely accepted work regarding the CMB. His views on the MUH and the four levels of multiverse are good speculative thinking and are not contradicted by any aspect of current mainstream cosmology. In contrast, Farsight (Mr. Duffield) has promulgated some hard-core crackpot notions that contradict QFT and other well tested areas of physics.
Er, no. I'm the guy who tells you what Einstein or Maxwell said and points to the evidence of pair production and electron diffraction etc, you're the guy who says that none of that matters, but gets all starry-eyed when somebody tells you the universe is made of mathematics.
You say things based of your fuzzy comprehension of Einstein and Maxwell. So, you come up with notions like electrons and protons are photons in loops. In contrast, I have studied the equations of QFT and know that your silly notions are contradicted by experiment and the mathematics of QFT. There is a great gulf between reading physics papers without the mathematical skills to understand them and reading those papers carefully while comprehending the meaning of the equations.
Regarding Tegmark's MUH, I find it to be fascinating speculation, but I do understand why someone with no mathematics skills would find it incomprehensible.
You say things based of your fuzzy comprehension of Einstein and Maxwell. So, you come up with notions like electrons and protons are photons in loops. In contrast, I have studied the equations of QFT and know that your silly notions are contradicted by experiment and the mathematics of QFT. There is a great gulf between reading physics papers without the mathematical skills to understand them and reading those papers carefully while comprehending the meaning of the equations.
Oh yeah? You know that what I say is contradicted by experiment and the mathematics of QFT do you? Tell us how gamma gamma pair production works then. Here, I'll even give you a pointer:
Yes - but that's fine I think. Ideas that are very radical are likely to appear "crazy" to start with. It comes with the territory.
Of course - for every "crazy" idea that eventually turns out to genuinely advance science there is a large number that are worthless. And that proportion gets more and more extreme the further down the scale you go.
So we have to be careful not to discount ideas that seem a bit crazy - otherwise we will never make progress. On the other hand there is a limit - if you take any idea seriously no matter how insane it sounds then you could spend your whole life wading through garbage. I think for me that limit is something like 8/15 on my scale - that's why I put "Crackpot" there. Obviously there's a chance I will ignore something valuable with this approach - e.g. maybe Anders is on to something with his theory of how dark matter is really alien technology seeded from a previous universe .
Anyway Farsight - I have a proposal for you. If you read Max Tegmark's book then I'll read yours? Then we can have an informed discussion about each?
Finally I can announce that I have some direct observational evidence which conclusively decides the most burning question in these threads...
The Max_Tegmark that has been posting here is the real Max Tegmark. He has posted a link to our 'crackpot' debate about him on his website (last Q on critique section), and also sent me a forum PM about it.
I don't agree I'm afraid. There's new ideas that are pretty radical, but we don't call them crazy if they appear to be supported by hard scientific evidence.
Of course - for every "crazy" idea that eventually turns out to genuinely advance science there is a large number that are worthless. And that proportion gets more and more extreme the further down the scale you go.
Sure. But IMHO the problem is that the crazy idea that has no evidential support and which cannot be disproved because it's disconnected from evidence, eventually gains some kind of respectability and acceptance.
The Max_Tegmark that has been posting here is the real Max Tegmark. He has posted a link to our 'crackpot' debate about him on his website (last Q on critique section), and also sent me a forum PM about it.
drelda
Anyway Farsight - I have a proposal for you. If you read Max Tegmark's book then I'll read yours? Then we can have an informed discussion about each?
He just wants to make endless references to his favorite books bibles. A genuine discussion using logic and mathematics does not suit his MO. This is a tired method used by many crackpots.
Oh yeah? You know that what I say is contradicted by experiment and the mathematics of QFT do you? Tell us how gamma gamma pair production works then. Here, I'll even give you a pointer:
He just wants to make endless references to his favorite books bibles. A genuine discussion using logic and mathematics does not suit his MO. This is a tired method used by crackpots.
I'm the one who talks physics here. You don't. You're the one who dismisses hard scientific evidence and promotes notions that are bereft of experimental support.
Now come on, if you know that what I say is contradicted by experiment and the mathematics of QFT, tell us how gamma gamma pair production works. Here's your starter for ten:
I can name several: splitting of space-time with space fundamental and time not fundamental, electrons as circling photons, quarks as circling-photon trefoil handles, ...
Er, no. I'm the guy who tells you what Einstein or Maxwell said
Evidence 100% consistent with standard physics, complete with successful numerical predictions: space-time unification, electrons distinct from photons, etc.
Oh yeah? You know that what I say is contradicted by experiment and the mathematics of QFT do you? Tell us how gamma gamma pair production works then. Here, I'll even give you a pointer:
Now come on, if you know that what I say is contradicted by experiment and the mathematics of QFT, tell us how gamma gamma pair production works. Here's your starter for ten:
Photon-photon scattering, in QFT, is ... well, you write down the wavefunction (actually just the vector potential) of two incoming photons, and you write down the sum of of the two including the interaction Lagrangian, and you write down the overlap between this "two crossing photons" wavefunction and various outgoing wavefunctions, and you integrate to find a probability that each outgoing-wavefunction candidate occurs.
Unlike your ideas, which you talk about but can't actually solve, photon-photon scattering has been solved and any number of sources can walk you through the standard solution. See, for example,
starting with equation 4 (which you won't understand) and continuing to equation 10 (which you also won't understand) which is the complete QED prediction for the electric field of the ensemble of scattered photons (which you will also not understand, and presumably will insist is broken somehow, despite its straightfoward derivation from extremely-well-tested theories.)
OK, that answers your question. Your turn. Do the same thing for a "photon in a loop that looks like an electron". Show the equation for the vector potential A(x,y,z,t) of such an electron and demonstrate that it obeys Maxwell's Equations, both internally (i.e. acting like a photon) and externally (i.e., having the fields or interactions of an electron). Since you insist that these are Maxwell's ideas, not yours, surely you can quote the paper where they are worked out in full detail.
Photon-photon scattering, in QFT, is ... well, you write down the wavefunction (actually just the vector potential) of two incoming photons, and you write down the sum of of the two including the interaction Lagrangian, and you write down the overlap between this "two crossing photons" wavefunction and various outgoing wavefunctions, and you integrate to find a probability that each outgoing-wavefunction candidate occurs....
A wave of hands and a puff of smoke, only you've said nothing. Here, let's take a look at the paper you referred to:
"Virtual electron-positron pairs, can in principle, be polarised by an external electromagnetic field, thus introducing non-linearities into Maxwell’s equations, which break the familiar principle of superposition of electromagnetic waves in vacuum. Photons from multiple, vacuum-polarising sources, can then become coupled on the common point of interaction of the polarised virtual pairs".
Can you spot the problem with that? And no, don't try to digress on to me.
I'm the one who talks physics here. You don't. You're the one who dismisses hard scientific evidence and promotes notions that are bereft of experimental support.
OK, do you know the difference between timelike, null, and spacelike directions in it? Also, which sorts of these intervals have well-defined time directions?
Arguing like a theologian. One should argue about theories, not personalities.
What I've said is distance is defined using the motion of light, and time is defined using the motion of light. And that if your motion is not the same as mine, your definition of distance and time is not the same as mine. I explain space-time unification, I don't deny it.
"Virtual electron-positron pairs, can in principle, be polarised by an external electromagnetic field, thus introducing non-linearities into Maxwell’s equations, which break the familiar principle of superposition of electromagnetic waves in vacuum. Photons from multiple, vacuum-polarising sources, can then become coupled on the common point of interaction of the polarised virtual pairs".
Can you spot the problem with that? And no, don't try to digress on to me.
Nope, looks fine to me. You have quoted a wordy verbal description of the well-tested QED Lagrangian, cited later in the paper, which is the part that makes the testable predictions. If you have a problem with a QED, you have to have a problem with that Lagrangian. Which you don't. Because you don't understand it.
ETA:
Note that your particular response does not leave any evidence that you read, attempted to read, or understood by words, much less found a problem with them, much less thought about it carefully.
A wave of hands and a puff of smoke, only you've said nothing. Here, let's take a look at the paper you referred to:
Can you spot the problem with that? And no, don't try to digress on to me.
Seriously, that's great. The next time I am programming an ELIZA-like grammarbot, which pretends to conduct a conversation but without enough AI to know what it's talking about, I should try this sentence. "Here, let's take a look at what you just said. #QUOTE. Can you spot the problem with that?" It's omni-purpose!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
.