Null Physics anyone?

[Schneibster]

hi Schneibster,

thanks for the very nice post (the fact that i respond to the questionable bits does not imply that i disagree with the wonderfully well communicated majority of bits).

Thanks, for both the compliment and the criticism.

BTW, you've not been around for a while. Nice to see you back.

we know that our universe is not Newtonian, and the fact that QM must incorporate uncertainty is a statement about the theory, not the unverse.

Well, it was- until Aspect and the DCQE. Aspect appears to show that in fact, spin on a second axis cannot have a value. If it did, then conservation of angular momentum would prevent the probability function from governing the angular momenta measured later; they would be based on the unmeasurable, but definite, angular momentum on the second axis. This is what violation of Bell's Theorem shows. The DCQE merely confirms it, but across space instead of across time.

how would a skeptic ever support the statement "the only possible explanation for a vast range of phenomena"?

Because the possibilities are binary, not infinite. Either the spin on the second axis has a value, or it does not.

 

[Schneibster]

i am curious why you prefer "uncertainty" here to "indeterminacy".

do you distinguish "cannot be defined" from "are not defined"? if something is uncertain we can still hope to put a probability distribution on it, while if some "thing" is not defined the probability calculus has no role to play.

(i believe) the use of the word uncertainty leads many astray, confusing what is "unknown" with what is "undefined", and then on down a path of mental images Heisenberg himself warned us against...

We are almost certainly in agreement; I used "uncertainty" because it's the popular conception. I did go to the trouble to state that this uncertainty is not a matter of not being able to measure the parameter.

One of the points of quantum mechanics is that probability distributions are all there is to know. Physicists therefore consider a probability distribution to be a defined value; most people don't understand why that is, and what I was attempting to describe is why. Because this conflicts with the way we perceive the universe directly with our senses, the terminology is difficult. "Indeterminacy" is actually technically correct, but I've found over the course of many conversations that most people interpret it as "uncertainty," and the confusion remains.

 

[Rob Lister]

I just want to say, "holly cow!"

Schneibster is a debate bully but nobody can accuse him of not knowing his ****. I tend to lean in the direction of those for [whom I know know] the subject matter I'm not [too smart in].

wow, great thread.

 

[Rroberts]

Book Review

From what I can gather, in three pages of posts on this book, we have yet to see a single person who has actually read it??? Except the author of course. As it turns out, I bought the book a few weeks ago because the excerpts looked interesting and its references were impeccable (Allen’s astrophysical constants, Lang’s astrophysical formulas, etc). I have finished the book recently, and have a few comments, based on my astrophysics background. First, it’s a gorgeous volume, and its diagrams, images and graphs have been professionally done. Think college textbook quality. Second, quite aside from the fascinating (and original) theory it presents, there are a number of excellent data reductions, from Sion’s and McCooks white dwarf catalog, to the BATSE burster catalog to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. I also enjoyed the simplified white dwarf cooling model listed in one of the Appendixes. Never seen that done in two pages before. Many of the particle field expressions required numerical solutions, but I reviewed the source code (written in c) on the website and it was consistent with the graphs and equations. The one prediction that would probably give the book the most traction is the ~1.5 km/s coreward galactic inflow of the Milky Way. This is derived three different ways using three independent datasets (galactic composition/output, galactic luminosity profile, white dwarf age). Unfortunately, this motion is going to be tough to substantiate because most of the large-scale stellar surveys like RAVE are strictly heliocentric scalar magnitudes, and you can’t use that to evaluate coreward motion. Vectorizing RAVE would be one big, expensive project. I doubt that the NSF will jump on that one anytime soon, after the billions of dollars it has invested in the standard cosmological model. Too bad. I’d love to see the results. To summarize, I think the book is comprehensive, compelling, very well written, and a great read for anyone interested in physics’ foundational issues. I got so sucked into Part IV (physical null cosmology) that I completely missed a staff meeting. I can’t remember the last time I felt a true sense of discovery while reading a physics text (except perhaps my first foray into GR). Felt like a breath of fresh air. The physics is certainly NOT high-school level, but I checked and that is not what is claimed on the website. The claim is that someone familiar with high-school physics should be able to follow it. I agree. I think this book would be a great experience for an AP physics student with a little calculus under their belt, because all of the calculations are straightforward and use baby steps from beginning to end. Also, with so many graphs, it looks like a layperson might be able to skip the math entirely, but I’m not the best judge of that. There’s an extensive glossary to help the physics neophytes.

After I finished this book, I was so baffled by the bizarre mismatch between its content and marketing that I emailed NULLPHYSICS.COM to ask why I was first hearing about this book in a gadget magazine like popular science??? I was told that about two dozen copies of the book have been out for peer review since August 2007, and the soonest review will probably be coming from the Canadian Astronomical Society near the end of the year, although any of them could happen sooner/later. They had wanted to delay the book’s release until some peer reviews were available, but thought it was more important to introduce the book prior to the holiday season in anticipation of the reviews. Not sure why the author didn’t mention the pending reviews in his posts, but he was probably so busy taking body blows from random directions that he may have been distracted. I was impressed with the way he stayed a total iceman during all the personal attacks. A couple of his responses were hilarious.

As to this surreal forum of omniscient non-readers, anyone who claims that this book is just a shallow rehash of previous work or is full of crackpot ideas is LAUGHABLY mistaken. Many of my friends and colleagues are real, working physicists, in academia and the private sector, and not a single one would ever consider posting evaluations of another person’s work without a thorough, complete, and careful scrutiny of its contents. In other words, they would actually read it and understand it before talking about it. To do otherwise is just not good practice in any field, and a pretty good way of looking uninformed and foolish later on. Of course that’s the case with real reviews and real critics, not anonymous swipes on a forum, but one can hope that the level of this discussion might eventually mature a little. And no, I don’t work for Terence Witt. It will be interesting to see how long it takes bona fide reader #2 to show up. Since the name of this forum is “Null Physics anyone?” it would be nice to have some folks that actually know something about null physics on it. There’re plenty of other forums available for physics hobbyists to discuss the current paradigms.

 

[Schneibster]

"Some folks that actually know something about null physics?" What "folks that actually know something about null physics?" Where do they work? What do they have degrees in?

See, this is the kind of stuff I was expecting. There aren't any "folks that actually know something about null physics."

Now, let's talk about peer review. Nobody gets a book "peer reviewed." Scientific papers get peer reviewed.

OK, now let's talk about the knowledge of physics demonstrated by the author. See, if you're going to write a book on physics, it's kind of mandatory that you actually KNOW some physics, and if you're going to challenge the standard model of particle physics, it would be helpful if you know what the standard model of particle physics actually says. The author shows no realistic understanding of what the SM actually says; yet is steadfast in maintaining that "null physics" is somehow "better."

Frankly, if the author had known enough to answer the questions I and others asked, I might have been willing to examine the book; but given that a book that purports to "overturn physics" is written by a person who shows not even a serious amateur's knowledge of what physics even says, I have no intention of wasting my time.

It's relatively obvious that the writer doesn't know that there are no "folks that actually know something about null physics," doesn't know what peer review is applied to or what it means, and doesn't have anything to say about physics, and that means...

 

[Rob Lister]

From what I can gather, in three pages of posts on this book, we have yet to see a single person who has actually read it??? Except the author of course. As it turns out, I bought the book a few weeks ago because ...

because you got it at a discount?

look, this is so, so obvious. If the good author wants to put the word out about such extraordinary things then it is incumbent upon him to do so in a fashion that does little [monetary] harm to others.

I'd have bought the book except for his (and your[like there's a difference]) response on this thread. Everyone likes new ideas, right!? Yea, well, all ideas are NOT created equal. Nice try though. Hope you make a nice buck from others. I doubt you'll make many here.

Schneibster was absolutely correct...though I cringe to admit it, there it is.

 

[Terry]

Since the name of this forum is “Null Physics anyone?” it would be nice to have some folks that actually know something about null physics on it.

No, the name of this forum is the James Randi Educational Foundation forum. The name of this thread, which is a tiny part of the forum, is "Null Physics anyone?"

 

[Schneibster]

One more point. The author pointed to two statements of mine as "insulting." Here they are:

It helps if you actually understand a theory before you criticize it.

This was in reference to the author's obvious lack of knowledge regarding string theory. The statement that prompted this was:

there's no getting around the fact that after 30 years, string theory isn't even science. Physics needs a healthy dose of critical thinking right about now, and its lack thereof is making it progressively harder to discount pseudo science. Indeed, string theory IS pseudo science.

So what we basically have is a demonstrated lack of knowledge of a field that the author demonstrably knows nothing about; I also asked a question about string physics to double-check it, and the lack of response was notable; upon noting it, however, I am again accused of being insulting.

'Nuff said.

 

[Rroberts]

Book Review #1

What a happy little bunch. Didn’t think my post was ambiguous, but. DEF: People who know something about Null Physics: Anyone who has read and understood “Our Undiscovered Universe”. Gee, pretty sure they don’t work or teach anywhere in particular yet, since the book’s long and was only released mid-end August. In fact, I’m sure there aren’t too many people who have finished it by now, but it seems unlikely that I’m the only one. Fact that it’s only available in a $60 book? Not my problem. Don’t. Care. The term “Peer Review” apparently caused some confusion, substitute “Reviewed by professional physicists in appropriate disciplines”. Ignore the actual review of the book: priceless. No one on this thread going to buy the book? Again. Don’t. Care. But if they do buy it, actually read it, and still can’t tell the difference between it and Autodynamics or Gyron Aether theory, they need to get their head into an MRI ASAP. Any other bona fide readers brave enough to toss their comments into this Kangaroo court?

 

[Schneibster]

Touch where I will, it comes up false. Books get reviewed by journalists. "Peer reviewed" is a specific claim about a process that happens in science. It was relatively obvious that you were implying with all your "missed a meeting" and "astrophysics background" that you are in fact a qualified scientist; and it is equally obvious that you are nothing of the kind. We don't have a great deal of patience with posers here, in case you hadn't noticed it so far.

 

[Dilb]

Many of my friends and colleagues are real, working physicists, in academia and the private sector, and not a single one would ever consider posting evaluations of another person’s work without a thorough, complete, and careful scrutiny of its contents.

Really? What's it like knowing that many highly-ethical robots, all of whom have nothing personally worthwhile to do? I ask because I work with physicists, and they have no problem with mocking and critiquing obviously flawed theories in casual personal discussions (like posting on a forum). When they get a thousand-page manuscript on "revolutionary physics" that contains basic math errors in the first few pages, no one I know would read more than a few pages, and only then out of sheer bemusement.

 

[Paul]

First, it’s a gorgeous volume, and its diagrams, images and graphs have been professionally done. Think college textbook quality.

What does this have to do with scientific validity?

Second, quite aside from the fascinating (and original) theory it presents, there are a number of excellent data reductions, from Sion’s and McCooks white dwarf catalog, to the BATSE burster catalog to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. I also enjoyed the simplified white dwarf cooling model listed in one of the Appendixes. Never seen that done in two pages before.

Again, what does an ability to make pretty charts have to do with allegedly explaining the existence of the universe?

The one prediction that would probably give the book the most traction is the ~1.5 km/s coreward galactic inflow of the Milky Way. This is derived three different ways... ...I doubt that the NSF will jump on that one anytime soon, after the billions of dollars it has invested in the standard cosmological model.

So it would require others to spend large sums to confirm even one prediction? I'm not a scientist, but I'm pretty sure that's not how it works, no childish conspiracy theories required.

To summarize, I think the book is comprehensive, compelling, very well written, and a great read for anyone interested in physics’ foundational issues.

Yet it can't even prove what you think is it's most important prediction.

The physics is certainly NOT high-school level, but I checked and that is not what is claimed on the website. The claim is that someone familiar with high-school physics should be able to follow it. I agree.

What's claimed is:

"Anyone with a basic familiarity with high-school physics can, by reading this volume, understand the universe with a greater depth and clarity than is currently believed possible."​

That doesn't seem too ambiguous to me.

I think this book would be a great experience for an AP physics student with a little calculus under their belt, because all of the calculations are straightforward and use baby steps from beginning to end. Also, with so many graphs, it looks like a layperson might be able to skip the math entirely, but I’m not the best judge of that. There’s an extensive glossary to help the physics neophytes.

So you need calculus and you can skip the maths, and you need physics beyond high school and no experience at all.

They had wanted to delay the book’s release until some peer reviews were available, but thought it was more important to introduce the book prior to the holiday season in anticipation of the reviews.

A real scientist wouldn't have self published a book at all, and certainly wouldn't have thought that the holidays might increase the take-up of their revolutionary theory of everything.

I was impressed with the way he stayed a total iceman during all the personal attacks. A couple of his responses were hilarious.

I'm sure you think they were hilarious for different reasons to physicists. By the way, a total iceman might have stayed around to defend his ideas, not run away when he was asked to explain himself.

 

[sol invictus]

What crackpots forget is that scientific revolutions rarely (if ever) happen by showing that the current theory is wrong. Instead, they happen when the current theory is shown to be incomplete. That is, correct in some situations, but wrong when you push it very far in some direction.

A good example is Newton's theory of gravity, which was replaced by Einstein's theory of general relativity in one of the greatest scientific advances of the last century. The thing is, Newton's theory isn't really wrong - it's extremely accurate for describing motions on earth, for example, and for describing the motions of planets and even galaxies it's quite good. It's only if you do extremely accurate measurements in the solar system, or look very closely at galaxies, that you will start to see that it isn't quite working.

So when Einstein came along and proposed general relativity, his primary requirement for it was that it be almost exactly the same as Newtonian gravity in those situations. Why? Because if not it would be wrong for sure. In fact GR is so close to Newtonian gravity that it's only recently, almost a century later, that we have more than a few pieces of independent evidence that it works better.

Crackpots try to throw out everything that came before (often because they don't know what it was) and replace it all with something brand new. That's just not going to work - there are thousands of scientists across the world searching full-time for a single deviation from the laws of physics as we know them... and very rarely finding any (and when they do, it's almost always a mistake or at most requires a small adjustment to a parameter in the current model). So if you've got a new, revolutionary theory, take my advice - before you make a fool of yourself, make sure it reproduces all the predictions of current theory first.

 

[ben m]

But if they do buy it, actually read it, and still can’t tell the difference between it and Autodynamics or Gyron Aether theory, they need to get their head into an MRI ASAP.

It sounds like you're dismissing Autodynamics and Gyrons as crackpot theories ... but I bet you haven't even read their books! How dare you! After all the authors' hard work!

 

[roSSman]

Autodynamics?

I just read today about biodynamics. Seems if you combine homeopathy, astrology and viniculture, you can make terrific wine.

Is autodynamics related? I'd like to know, because I love wine.

Who knows, with Null Physics, maybe we can make a virtual vineyard, practice biodynamics as we grow grapes there, and using autodynamics for marketing, grow rich indeed.

Anyone up for it?

 

[Stir]

Even wronger that his physics claims are at least a couple of his math statements. For example, this part has been bugging me:


This is just 'plane' wrong. If you could cut up a line and build a square, then you could go to any single point on square by giving it one number, the distance along the line. It's a basic fact that to describe two dimensions, you need two numbers, there simply isn't enough information if you only have one number.

Alternatively, a line has zero width. Cutting it up into segments and adding it together gives you
0+0+0+0+0+0+.....
which is zero.

A final thing to consider is that a finite plane is equivalent to an infinite plane. Say you have a square, from -Pi to Pi in the x direction, and -Pi to Pi on the y direction. To find any point from -infinity to infinity, just take the tan() (tangent function) of your x and y coordinate. You get to anywhere on the infinite plane just by using the numbers on the finite square.

Sorry Dilb, but mathematically there are the same number of points in a line as in a plane, or in a volume or in any finite number of diemnsions. 'Same number' means 'can be put into a one-to-one correspondence'. The real numbers (the number line) can be put into one-to-one correcpondence with the points in a plane (or higher diemsnion equivalent) quite easily, and you don't need two numbers to describe a point, as follows: take the decimal representations of the real numbers representing the location of a point (x, y coordinates for example) and create a unique real number by taking digits alternately from the x number's representation and the y number's representation. It's not hard to see that this creates the necessary 1-1 correspondence.

 

[Stir]

What a happy little bunch. Didn’t think my post was ambiguous, but. DEF: People who know something about Null Physics: Anyone who has read and understood “Our Undiscovered Universe”. Gee, pretty sure they don’t work or teach anywhere in particular yet, since the book’s long and was only released mid-end August. In fact, I’m sure there aren’t too many people who have finished it by now, but it seems unlikely that I’m the only one. Fact that it’s only available in a $60 book? Not my problem. Don’t. Care. The term “Peer Review” apparently caused some confusion, substitute “Reviewed by professional physicists in appropriate disciplines”. Ignore the actual review of the book: priceless. No one on this thread going to buy the book? Again. Don’t. Care. But if they do buy it, actually read it, and still can’t tell the difference between it and Autodynamics or Gyron Aether theory, they need to get their head into an MRI ASAP. Any other bona fide readers brave enough to toss their comments into this Kangaroo court?

Thank you! I would love to hear from a second reader. I greatly appreciate all the discussion, but TW & RR seem to be reasonable, informed, and intelligent ... as do the critics. I guess I'll order the book.

 

[sol invictus]

...take the decimal representations of the real numbers representing the location of a point (x, y coordinates for example) and create a unique real number by taking digits alternately from the x number's representation and the y number's representation. It's not hard to see that this creates the necessary 1-1 correspondence.

Is it?

Suppose I take 1.0000... = 0.9999999..., with an infinite number of 9s. Following your prescription would give me something like (1, 0) from the first form, but (0.9999...,0.99999...) = (1,1) from the second. That doesn't look very 1-1.

More generally if you carefully define the reals as limits of sequences of rationals, it's not obvious to me that this prescription commutes with that limit. I'm not saying it doesn't, but it's not obvious to me.

 

[jsfisher]

Is it?

Suppose I take 1.0000... = 0.9999999..., with an infinite number of 9s. Following your prescription would give me something like (1, 0) from the first form, but (0.9999...,0.99999...) = (1,1) from the second. That doesn't look very 1-1.

More generally if you carefully define the reals as limits of sequences of rationals, it's not obvious to me that this prescription commutes with that limit. I'm not saying it doesn't, but it's not obvious to me.

The one-to-one correspondence is between the decimal representations of a point in the plane and on the line. Your example points out that decimal representations of some numbers are not unique.

 

[Dilb]

Sorry Dilb, but mathematically there are the same number of points in a line as in a plane, or in a volume or in any finite number of diemnsions. 'Same number' means 'can be put into a one-to-one correspondence'. The real numbers (the number line) can be put into one-to-one correcpondence with the points in a plane (or higher diemsnion equivalent) quite easily, and you don't need two numbers to describe a point, as follows: take the decimal representations of the real numbers representing the location of a point (x, y coordinates for example) and create a unique real number by taking digits alternately from the x number's representation and the y number's representation. It's not hard to see that this creates the necessary 1-1 correspondence.

Dang, I could have sworn that I learned somewhere that more dimensions means you have more numbers. Neat to learn, anyway.