Null Physics anyone?

[sol invictus]

In spite of the Standard models success it is unlikely to be the final theory.
Why the local gauge interactions?

Actually we have a very good answer for that - symmetries are fundamental.

Why the different state transformations?

Huh?

Why no fractionally charged hadrons?

Because of the gauge groups and the matter content. Did you mean to ask about those instead?

What is the origin of quark and lepton masses?

Probably the Higgs, but we'll know for sure in a year or so.

Why no gravity?

Classical gravity couples to the standard model quite nicely, actually, and (with one additional parameter, the cosmological constant) explains everything we've ever observed.

Why no detection of the Higgs boson?

Ever heard of LHC?

Perhaps if this was understood then the origin of CP violations,

We do - the CKM matrix.

the strong CP problem,

Axions, probably.

The standard model has 19 arbitrary parameters which are chosen to fit the data.

Wrong - it has over 20 now that we know neutrinos are massive. And of course they are chosen to fit the data - that's how science works. You make observations, you use a few of them to build a theory, and then all the billions of data points that remain are explained and/or predicted by your theory - if it works, that is. Like the SM does.

I doubt if Witts motivation is money,

If it is, he's very bad at accomplishing his goals. But I suspect you're correct on this one - his motivation is the same as all the other hundreds of physics cranks out there: megalomania or some other kind of mild mental illness.

whereas JREF makes no secret of its financial aims.
How many thousand dollars for a meeting with Randi?
People who live in precarious glass houses shouldn’t really throw stones!

Don't be ridiculous. Almost none of the posters on this forum have ever attended such an event, or have any connection to Randi or JREF other than posting here.

 

[Tubbythin]

Hi Tubbythin

You are optimistic about reaching the required energy levels.
I doubt that this energy level is achievable with out making the accelerator the size of the universe.

Reaching the required energy level for what? The Higgs boson? Then yes. If the Higgs exists then, as I understand it the LHC should find it. If it doesn't find it then either the LHC doesn't work or the Higgs boson doesn't exist (or at least the theory needs a large modification). Why do you think the accelerator needs to be that size?

At no time did I intimate that the null physics theory is the theory to replace all theories. What I did intimate that it may help to get us to think outside the box and consider something else. Please remember, I , like everyone else on this forum have not read the theory and have just looked at the excerpts.

By forgetting what we know about nuclear and particle physics and replacing it with a theory that is inconsistent with innumerbale bits of data? That is your idea of thinking outside the box?

The problem is when the "right theory" arrives, how will you recognise it with out dismissing it as crackpot. The chances are it will be way out of the current paradigm just as null physics is.

Sure, but it will also be consistent with observations we already have. Which null physics isn't.

As far as the statement that null physics is not rejected out of hand, what does crackpot , nutcase woo woo imply?

Ermm. You want definitions?

 

[Skwinty]

Ben M:
To put Bens opinion in perspective.

1st October 2007, 11:41 AM

October 2007 Smithsonian has a full page ad for "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt (the advertised web site reveals no particular qualifications for him to write about astrophysics) ... has anyone looked at the book? I'm guessing he's a total nut-case.

1st October 2007, 12:48 PM

Just looked at the web page at nullphysics.com. Crackpot crackpot crackpot.

Well done Ben 67 minutes and you have sussed it all out.
Nothing like engaging your brain before shooting your mouth off.
How can I take anything you say seriously.


Sol Invictus:

skwinty:Why the local gauge interactions SU(3)cXSU(2)LXU(1)y and why 3 families of quarks and leptons

Sol:Actually we have a very good answer for that - symmetries are fundamental.

skwinty:What kind of good answer is that?

skwinty:Why no fractionally charged hadrons?

Sol:Huh?

skwinty:Read post 339


skwinty:What is the origin of quark and lepton masses?

Solrobably the Higgs, but we'll know for sure in a year or so.

skwinty:Yeah, Maybe and pigs can probably fly.


skwinty:Why no gravity?

Sol:Classical gravity couples to the standard model quite nicely, actually, and (with one additional parameter, the cosmological constant) explains everything we've ever observed.

skwinty: On which planet does this occur?


skwinty:Why no detection of the Higgs boson?

sol:Ever heard of LHC?

skwintyrobably but we'll know for sure in about a year when pigs on the wing deliver the mail.


skwintyerhaps if this was understood then the origin of CP violations,

Sol:We do - the CKM matrix.

skwinty: The quark mixing matrix reveals the CP violations but does it explain the origin.


skwinty:the strong CP problem,

Sol:Axions, probably.

skwinty:Yes, axions were postulated to explain away lots of phenomena.(probably)


skwinty:The standard model has 19 arbitrary parameters which are chosen to fit the data

Sol:Wrong - it has over 20 now that we know neutrinos are massive. And of course they are chosen to fit the data - that's how science works. You make observations, you use a few of them to build a theory, and then all the billions of data points that remain are explained and/or predicted by your theory - if it works, that is. Like the SM does.

skwinty:Sure and in two years time there will be forty arbitrary parameters to add to the fine tuning conspiracy.Every time another artifact appears another arbitrary parameter will be postulated to explain the artifact.Sure its one thing to fit the data and another to select specific values for your arbitrary parameters.

skwinty:I doubt if Witts motivation is money,

Sol:If it is, he's very bad at accomplishing his goals. But I suspect you're correct on this one - his motivation is the same as all the other hundreds of physics cranks out there: megalomania or some other kind of mild mental illness.


skwinty: Lets face it its obvious that you know something about physics but how much you know about commerce is debatable.Witt has probably made more money in the last year than you will make in ten lifetimes.
The average intelligent and curious person has had it up the ying yang with the arrogant, condescending and chauvinistic attitude of modern physicists. If you think that the numbers of dissenters on this forum will have any impact on the sale of his books then I suspect that you are deluding yourself.
If you were around in the 1900's you probably would have said Einstein was a crackpot.

skwinty:whereas JREF makes no secret of its financial aims.
How many thousand dollars for a meeting with Randi?
People who live in precarious glass houses shouldn’t really throw stones!

Solon't be ridiculous. Almost none of the posters on this forum have ever attended such an event, or have any connection to Randi or JREF other than posting here.

skwintyf course you are correct here. The posters on this thread could't spring 60 bucks for a book, never mind joining JREF as a paid up member or sponsor. Check the Join JREF page for prices.




Tubbythin:


skwinty:You are optimistic about reaching the required energy levels.
I doubt that this energy level is achievable with out making the accelerator the size of the universe.

Tubbythin:Reaching the required energy level for what? The Higgs boson? Then yes. If the Higgs exists then, as I understand it the LHC should find it. If it doesn't find it then either the LHC doesn't work or the Higgs boson doesn't exist (or at least the theory needs a large modification). Why do you think the accelerator needs to be that size?

skwinty:One just has to look through a telescope to realise that the energy levels produced on earth would never in a billion years hope to match the energy levels that abound in the universe.



skwinty:At no time did I intimate that the null physics theory is the theory to replace all theories. What I did intimate that it may help to get us to think outside the box and consider something else. Please remember, I , like everyone else on this forum have not read the theory and have just looked at the excerpts.


Tubbythin:By forgetting what we know about nuclear and particle physics and replacing it with a theory that is inconsistent with innumerbale bits of data? That is your idea of thinking outside the box?


skwinty: At no stage did I say we should forget about any of the lessons we have learned. I am only suggesting that an open mind is a good thing and to at least make a token effort to understand what Witt is trying to say. Sure, he may not be 100% correct but at least he makes an effort to ask the WHY question rather than fudging his equations with arbitrary parameters and specifically selected values for those parameters.


skwinty:The problem is when the "right theory" arrives, how will you recognise it with out dismissing it as crackpot. The chances are it will be way out of the current paradigm just as null physics is

Tubbythin:Sure, but it will also be consistent with observations we already have. Which null physics isn't.

Skwinty:Yes and you bought the book and validated all the math and theory.



The fact of the matter is that any self respecting physicist would be honest enough to realise that his pet theory is not the last word on anything and is ripe for a coup detat.

As far as the neutron proton electron argument goes it should be remembered that particle bombardment, fission, fusion and radioactive decay are different and therefore not equal. No amount of time reversal or other quantum trickery will ever make them the same, so expect different results and outcomes for each of them.With all the arbitrary parameters and chosen values in an equation you can prove that the moon is made of green cheese.
I'm not convinced that Witt has it all sewn up, but then I'm not so sure that the current physics paradigm has it all sewn up either. But at least I try to have an open mind about it.

Cheers and thanks for the discussion but it is like banging your head against the wall. It's so nice when it stops.So I'll stop for a while and revisit over the weekend. I do have to work as well as pursue these esoteric discussions.

 

[ben m]

Well done Ben 67 minutes and you have sussed it all out.
Nothing like engaging your brain before shooting your mouth off.
How can I take anything you say seriously.

Eh? What were the excerpts, 12-15 pages total? Witt's writing (and typography) isn't exactly PRL-like in density. Yes, I read the excerpts. They were full of baloney.

Seriously, Skwinty---there are thousands of random New Physics Theories available on the Internet, ranging in quality from Time Cube (low) to Autodynamics (featuring actual equations whose physics consequences can be evaluated.) All of the non-content cues---the non-journal publication, the big ads, the big claims---are quite precisely characteristic of crackpots. All of the content cues---the excerpts, the white papers, and Witt's posts here---contain exactly zero convincing physics.

Was there some positive feature of the content of Witt's ads---not "it offers a new paradigm", but "Witt's specific theory has features XYZ"---that makes you look twice? I sure didn't see any.

 

[Reality Check]

skwinty: The point is that "the current physics paradigm has it all sewn up" is not a claim of the current physics paradigm. The current physics paradigm admits that it is not complete.

Nor for that matter is it a claim of Null Physics that it is complete. Terrence Witt in his forum has stated that Null Physics is not a replacement:

OUU isn't about a direct mathematical replacement of QM or GR; it's about foundational issues wrt space, time, energy, etc, and how they can be resolved with a new geometry.

For example he uses GR in his chapter about lumetic decay.

Any theory has to be consistent with all of the existing observations that are included in the scope of the theory. This includes the "current physics paradigm" and any new physics paradigm. Thus a theory that is about gravity has to make predictions that match the observations that we have, e.g. the orbits of planets, gravitational lensing, etc. If any prediction is wrong then the theory is wrong. The theory will then be discarded or restricted to a scope where its predictions are valid. For example Newton's law of gravity is wrong since it does not predict the precession of Mercury's orbit but it is still valid in the appropriate scope (and easier to use than GR).

New physics paradigms have risen several times in the past and been accepted. The process of becoming accepted has often been long and contentious. However that makes it likely that the accepted theory is correct and that non-accepted theories are wrong.

 

[Tubbythin]

skwinty:One just has to look through a telescope to realise that the energy levels produced on earth would never in a billion years hope to match the energy levels that abound in the universe.

Depends what you mean. We'll probably never make the energy of the Ultra-high-energy cosmic rays, sure. But the LHC will accelerate protons to 7TeV. Thats equivalent to a temperature of ~ 10¹⁶ K! That is, for example, roughly a billion times hotter than the core of the Sun.

skwinty: At no stage did I say we should forget about any of the lessons we have learned. I am only suggesting that an open mind is a good thing and to at least make a token effort to understand what Witt is trying to say. Sure, he may not be 100% correct but at least he makes an effort to ask the WHY question rather than fudging his equations with arbitrary parameters and specifically selected values for those parameters.

There's an open mind and then there's letting your brains fall out.

Skwinty:Yes and you bought the book and validated all the math and theory.

No. Why would I pay for a book with no peer review. If his theory is so great it'd be in one of the top journals.

The fact of the matter is that any self respecting physicist would be honest enough to realise that his pet theory is not the last word on anything and is ripe for a coup detat.

And any self respecting physicist would attempt to get his work published in a top journal.

As far as the neutron proton electron argument goes it should be remembered that particle bombardment, fission, fusion and radioactive decay are different and therefore not equal.

And none of them give any evidence for the neutron being composed of a proton and an electron. So its fail to the power of 4.

No amount of time reversal or other quantum trickery will ever make them the same, so expect different results and outcomes for each of them.With all the arbitrary parameters and chosen values in an equation you can prove that the moon is made of green cheese.

You can add as many arbitrary parameters as you want. The neutron is still not a proton plus an electron.

I'm not convinced that Witt has it all sewn up, but then I'm not so sure that the current physics paradigm has it all sewn up either. But at least I try to have an open mind about it.

The fact that I understand that the theory is rubbish and you do not does not mean I have a closed mind and you do not.

 

[godless dave]

In spite of the Standard models success it is unlikely to be the final theory.

There isn't a physicist alive who would disagree with that statement.

Why the local gauge interactions?
Why the different state transformations?
Why no fractionally charged hadrons?
What is the origin of quark and lepton masses?
Why no gravity?
Why no detection of the Higgs boson?

What do you think theoretical and experimental physicists are working on? They're actually investigating these issues while Witt self-publishes a book and promotes it with press releases.

 

[Paulhoff]

How many thousand dollars for a meeting with Randi?

None, as in no money, I see him about once a month, and hope to see him again next Wednesday.

Paul

 

[sol invictus]

skwinty:Why no fractionally charged hadrons?

Are you asking about electric charge? Non-Abelian charges? There's no mystery either way.

skwinty:Yeah, Maybe and pigs can probably fly.

Were you aware that LHC is currently cooling down, on the verge of starting up?

skwinty: On which planet does this occur?

All of them.

skwinty: The quark mixing matrix reveals the CP violations but does it explain the origin.

It's quite clear that you have no idea what the word "explain" means.

If you were around in the 1900's you probably would have said Einstein was a crackpot.

Nonsense. Einstein's theories were recognized to be correct within a very short time, and not long after that he was the most famous physicist in the world.

Why? Because he was right. Witt, on the other hand, is one of the countless loonies that think they can overturn all of modern science. They're a dime a dozen - I'm seen literally hundreds of such theories over the last decade. The only difference here is that Witt has more money to waste than most.

 

[Skwinty]

Hi Sol, Tubbythin,Ben m,Godless Dave , PaulHoff and Reality check

Well this is what I mean about condescending.
Here we are discussing particle physics ,cosmology and nuclear physics and I get asked if I know about LHC.

Yes I do, I am not a complete idiot, some parts are missing.

Seriously though, you keep splitting hairs as if nuclei werent enough.
The neutron decays in a few minutes to a proton + electron + electron anti-neutrino.
So wheres there no proton and electron?
I have yet to see where Witt makes the claim that the neutron only consists of a proton and electron.

In a neutron star, electrons and protons will fuse to neutrons.
My point about energies and accelerators is this:
Sure you will get instantaneous temperatures of 10^16 Kelvin, but for how long can you sustain those temperatures? Can you sustain the neccessary pressures as well?

Thats why I made the point about particle bombardment, fission , fusion and radioactive decay. Time reversals dont work for me in the classical sense, however in the quantum sense time reversal has merit.

As far as me not understanding the word explain, you must have the same problem with the word origin. This refers to the fractionally charged hadron and CP violations.

I am not a particle or any other kind of physicist but I do know the difference between this is how it happens and this is why it happens.

With regards to James Randi, the point I was trying to make is that Witt is accused of trying to make money and this coming from posters on a forum that solicits money from the public ranging from $25 to $25000.
Now making money is integral to life so whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

I also understand that the work on theoretical physics continues albeit with an incessant request for bigger and better colliders and equipment.
It seems as the philosophy of science died with Einstein.

With regard to gravity: There is no Grand Unified Theory, but by saying
"Classical gravity couples to the standard model quite nicely, actually, and (with one additional parameter, the cosmological constant) explains everything we've ever observed." indicates that you already have this theory.

With regards to having an open mind and no brains is a good example of facetiousness.

 

[Tubbythin]

Hi Sol, Tubbythin,Ben m,Godless Dave , PaulHoff and Reality check

Well this is what I mean about condescending.
Here we are discussing particle physics ,cosmology and nuclear physics and I get asked if I know about LHC.

Yes I do, I am not a complete idiot, some parts are missing.

And you seem certain it won't discover the Higgs boson. So either you know something that all the wrold's greatest particle physicists don't, or you don't know what you're talking about?

Seriously though, you keep splitting hairs as if nuclei werent enough.

I'm not sure what you mean. We keep saying that null physics is wrong because it doesn't match with our observations of nuclei? That's splitting hairs?

The neutron decays in a few minutes to a proton + electron + electron anti-neutrino.
So wheres there no proton and electron?
I have yet to see where Witt makes the claim that the neutron only consists of a proton and electron.

That fist sentence is correct. The second sentence doesn't make any sense.

In a neutron star, electrons and protons will fuse to neutrons.

Fuse is the wrong word. Or at least misleading.

My point about energies and accelerators is this:
Sure you will get instantaneous temperatures of 10^16 Kelvin, but for how long can you sustain those temperatures? Can you sustain the neccessary pressures as well?

Necessary for what?

Thats why I made the point about particle bombardment, fission , fusion and radioactive decay. Time reversals dont work for me in the classical sense, however in the quantum sense time reversal has merit.

Please elaborate. I don't know what you're trying to say.

With regards to having an open mind and no brains is a good example of facetiousness.

Ok. Put it another way. Having an open mind to theories that explain all the evidence already explained by the current theory and explain something new or more precisely is good. Having an open mind to theories which contradict numerous observations is just foolish.

 

[Skwinty]

Hi Tubbythin
The splitting hairs comes about from this.(I thought my previous post was clear though)

You trash Witt because you say that a neutron doesnt contain a proton and an electron.
A neutron will decay to a proton , electron and electron antineutrino in about 10 minutes.
I also stated that there is a difference between particle bombardment,fission,fusion and radioactive decay and therefore different results to the processes.
Sure when you smash particles together you can count and describe the bits and end up with quarks etc.
This is not the case in fission,fusion or decay.So, where is the fail to the power of four come into the equation.

With respect to neutron stars, what would the correct term in your opinion be? Fuse is good enough for me.

As far as the LHC is concerned, it has not smashed anything as yet,but the upgrades are already planned.The fact of the matter is that no LHC will ever be large or energetic enough to emulate the conditions in the cosmos.

I will believe the existence of the Higgs when and if it is discovered. You may find it easier to rebutt arguments by implying that I do not know what I'm talking about as it is easier than using logic and fact.

You say that Witts theory contradicts observation.
Given that you have read the excerpts, I think that Witt is offering a different interpretation of these observations and not disputing the observations.

You dont specify what your profession is in your public profile.
Would you like to share this information?

 

[Reality Check]

...snip...
You trash Witt because you say that a neutron doesnt contain a proton and an electron.
A neutron will decay to a proton , electron and electron antineutrino in about 10 minutes.

It does not contain a proton and an electron. It does contain quarks - see Free neutron and its decay.

I also stated that there is a difference between particle bombardment,fission,fusion and radioactive decay and therefore different results to the processes.
Sure when you smash particles together you can count and describe the bits and end up with quarks etc.
This is not the case in fission,fusion or decay.So, where is the fail to the power of four come into the equation.

With respect to neutron stars, what would the correct term in your opinion be? Fuse is good enough for me.

As far as the LHC is concerned, it has not smashed anything as yet,but the upgrades are already planned.The fact of the matter is that no LHC will ever be large or energetic enough to emulate the conditions in the cosmos.

Existing high energy physics experiments already "emulate the conditions in the cosmos", e.g. CERN and FermiLab.

The upgrades to LHC are being planned now because it takes a long time to do the upgrade (the construction of LHC was approved in 1995). They are not because the LHC is not expected to produce new physics such as the Higgs boson. It is to explore new physics at even higher energies.

 

[Skwinty]

It does not contain a proton and an electron. It does contain quarks - see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_neutron Free neutron and its decay.


Existing high energy physics experiments already "emulate the conditions in the cosmos", e.g. CERN and FermiLab.

The upgrades to LHC are being planned now because it takes a long time to do the upgrade (the construction of LHC was approved in 1995). They are not because the LHC is not expected to produce new physics such as the Higgs boson. It is to explore new physics at even higher energies.

Reality check
Please read your own references

A free neutron is a neutron that exists outside of an atomic nucleus. While neutrons can be stable when bound inside nuclei, free neutrons are unstable and decay with a lifetime of just under 15 minutes (885.7 ± 0.8 s).[1] Because the neutron consists of three quarks, the only possible decay mode without a change of baryon number requires the flavour changing of one of the quarks via the weak nuclear force. The neutron consists of two down quarks with charge -1/3 and one up quark with charge +2/3, and the decay of one of the down quarks into a lighter up quark can be achieved by the emission of a W boson. By this means the neutron decays into a proton (which contains one down and two up quarks), an electron, and an electron antineutrino (antineutrino), with the proton and electron potentially forming a hydrogen atom

 

[Reality Check]

Reality check
Please read your own references

A free neutron is a neutron that exists outside of an atomic nucleus. While neutrons can be stable when bound inside nuclei, free neutrons are unstable and decay with a lifetime of just under 15 minutes (885.7 ± 0.8 s).[1] Because the neutron consists of three quarks, the only possible decay mode without a change of baryon number requires the flavour changing of one of the quarks via the weak nuclear force. The neutron consists of two down quarks with charge -1/3 and one up quark with charge +2/3, and the decay of one of the down quarks into a lighter up quark can be achieved by the emission of a W boson. By this means the neutron decays into a proton (which contains one down and two up quarks), an electron, and an electron antineutrino (antineutrino), with the proton and electron potentially forming a hydrogen atom

Skwinty
Please read the text.

There no actual proton or electron or electon antineutrino before the decay. The sequence is

1. Start with a neutron containing two down quarks with charge -1/3 and one up quark with charge +2/3. Note that there is no proton, electron or for that matter an electon antineutrino.
2. A down quarks decays into a lighter up quark by the emission of a W boson
3. The proton forms and the remaining energy converts to a electron and electon antineutrino

 

[Skwinty]

There no actual proton or electron or electon antineutrino before the decay. [/LIST]

Yes, thats because before the decay its a neutron.
The neutron contains the building blocks of a proton and an electron with a antineutrino.

See, this is what I call splitting hairs.

 

[Reality Check]

If the neutron contained the exact building blocks of a proton and an electron with a antineutrino then I would agree with you. But the intermediate decay of a down quarks into a lighter up quark by the emission of a W boson means that it is not splitting hairs - just making the actual situation clearer.

 

[Skwinty]

I think the issue really stems from the fact that Witt chose to represent the neutron pictorially with round circles representing the proton and the electrons as little circles bound into the circle representing the neutron.
You must admit it is easier to draw that than the up/down quarks etc.
Now to use that issue to dismiss him as a crackpot is really splitting hairs.

I understand that every has their own opinions and interpretations of these matters, but one needs to allow some leeway when putting these ideas on paper.

As far as peer review goes, did Leonard Susskind, lee Smolin, David Greene etc etc put their books on physics through peer review.
Were they dismissed as cranks.

It strikes me that the issue is more that Witts theories are in opposition to the established paradigm that causes all the consternation. As I have said previously ,it is easier to dismiss him as a crank than to rebutt with logic and fact.

Dont say that people dont have the time or interest to do this. Just look at this forum and how many people invested time and energy on this subject.

 

[Paulhoff]

So then Skwinty, explain a proton turning into a neutron, which can happen, so how can a proton be a so-called building block.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

Paul

 

[Skwinty]

A proton can change into a neutron by electron absorption.
It's not wrong to say that the proton and electron are building blocks.
Whats your point?
For goodness sake the hydrogen atom is the basic building block, add electrons one by one and you get the list of elements