Null Physics anyone?

[Wangler]

But Ramanajun spent his life doing mathematics and virtually nothing else – he often failed all his subjects except mathematics.

Not to beat this to death, but if Ramanajun took classes in mathematics, was he truly self-educated?

I certainly agree that the chances of Witt being on to something are vanishingly small.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Not to beat this to death, but if Ramanajun took classes in mathematics, was he truly self-educated?

I certainly agree that the chances of Witt being on to something are vanishingly small.

I guess we are not that far apart.

Ramanujan was self-educated to a significant degree (the mathematics he learned in school was relatively rudimentary and out of date). He derived many mathematical results that he was not aware had already been discovered and then went on to obtain further new results. His knowledge of current mathematics was extremely poor since he had no contact with Europe. It is amazing that he re-derived so many important concepts and then went beyond contemporaries in Europe.

“It was in the Town High School that Ramanujan came across a mathematics book by G S Carr called Synopsis of elementary results in pure mathematics. This book, with its very concise style, allowed Ramanujan to teach himself mathematics, but the style of the book was to have a rather unfortunate effect on the way Ramanujan was later to write down mathematics since it provided the only model that he had of written mathematical arguments. The book contained theorems, formulae and short proofs. It also contained an index to papers on pure mathematics which had been published in the European Journals of Learned Societies during the first half of the 19th century. The book, published in 1856, was of course well out of date by the time Ramanujan used it.” (Article by: J J O'Connor and E F Robertson)

There is an excellent biography written some years ago by Robert Kanigel. If you are interested, it is a fascinating story. It is a testament to how much a self educated person -- who also happens to be extraordinarily talented and single mindedly driven -- can achieve.

 

[Skwinty]

My point was that Skwinty's claim that he was self-educated was rubbish, at least in the areas where his major work was done.

Firstly, to put things into perspective.
The claim that Faraday was largely self educated, is not my claim, it is the claim of Wikipaedia.
You chose,erroneously, to give me credit for that claim even though you read the article.

He says the neutron is made of a proton and an electron!

Secondly, as to the neutron being composed of a proton and electron disproving the field of nuclear physics.
This very description was believed by scientists in the early days of nuclear physics. This error did not impede
the progress of nuclear physics, hence the atomic bomb, nuclear power and other related developments.
So I fail to see,how this description of the neutron, disproves the entirety of nuclear physics.

Suppose I came along with a miracle cure for the common cold. All of modern medicine is wrong, I say, totally wrong - there are no such things as these invisible "viruses" doctors talk about. I have a much simpler and easier to understand mechanism - you just have to avoid moonlight at all costs, and your cold will be cured (after all, the moon is a cold place!). No one will listen because my theory threatens the whole medical establishment - they just have too much to lose.

What would you think about that? If you found out that my medical qualifications stopped at a bachelor's in psychology (a subject more closely connected to medicine than EE is to the kind of physics Witt is discussing), would that not be a rather important piece of evidence in the case for my quackulence?

Here's an analogy for you. A realistic one, not one as inane as moonshine causing influenza.

"Suppose a primitive native, with no prior contact with modern civilization, found a digital watch on a jungle trail.
Being the shaman of his village, he studies this object and soon recognizes patterns in the symbols it displays.
Eventually, he develops a model of the precession of the symbols, and wows his tribesman by predicting the
appearance and moment of arrival of the next cipher. Yet he has no idea what the watch is or why it was laying
on the trail in the first place. These are insignificant details, he tells his ignorant compatriots, because he knows
what the next symbol is going to look like and approximately when it will appear, and this remarkable foreknowledge
transcends all other considerations. As Physics creeps into the twenty-first century, its methodology bears an uncanny
resemblance to the approach used by our friend with the digital watch. Scarier still, many physicists would not see this
as a problem."
Analogy courtesy of Terence Witt.
On the lighter side:
A biologist, physicist and mathematician are sitting at a sidewalk cafe drinking coffee. They observe two people walk into
the building across the street and a few minutes later three people walk out of the building.
Biologist says:
Good grief, they must have reproduced!
Physicist says:
Rubbish, theres not enough empirical data!
Mathematician says:
Whats the matter with you fools, can't you understand that there is minus one person in the building!

 

[sol invictus]

Here's an analogy for you. A realistic one, not one as inane as moonshine causing influenza.

Again you refuse to address this issue. How do you, as a layperson with little knowledge of physics, decide whether Witt's theory is as ridiculous as my moonshine? If I were you I would trust the opinion of those with more knowledge in the field, but you are unwilling to do that. So how did you decide that? Why do you think the moonshine theory is more ridiculous than Witt's?

Secondly, as to the neutron being composed of a proton and electron disproving the field of nuclear physics.
This very description was believed by scientists in the early days of nuclear physics. This error did not impede
the progress of nuclear physics, hence the atomic bomb, nuclear power and other related developments.

That is totally incorrect. The idea that the neutron could be a proton plus an electron was ruled out when its mass was measured accurately, merely two years after it was discovered in the first place in 1932.

It is simply impossible for the neutron to be a proton plus an electron, because the neutron is more massive than a proton plus an electron. I don't understand what is hard to understand about that. Anyone making that claim is just ignoring 70 years of experimental results - results which are in fact at the basis of the standard model and all of nuclear physics. It is just as ridiculous as ignoring the evidence that diseases are caused by microbes and not moonshine.

 

[ben m]

Secondly, as to the neutron being composed of a proton and electron disproving the field of nuclear physics.
This very description was believed by scientists in the early days of nuclear physics. This error did not impede
the progress of nuclear physics, hence the atomic bomb, nuclear power and other related developments.
So I fail to see,how this description of the neutron, disproves the entirety of nuclear physics.

Ah, I see. It's OK to believe something false, as long as it was once thought to be true. Sign me up for some Homeopathic Allergy Drops---they were as plausible as anything else in 1800! Don't tell me that "there are zero atoms left in a 10C dilution"---everyone in 1500 knew that matter is infinitely divisible.

 

[Tubbythin]

Firstly, to put things into perspective.
The claim that Faraday was largely self educated, is not my claim, it is the claim of Wikipaedia.
You chose,erroneously, to give me credit for that claim even though you read the article.

You used the claim here. Whether he was largely self-educated or not is something of a moot point. The point is that in science where he made a name for himself, he was taught by one of the foremost scientists of the time.

Secondly, as to the neutron being composed of a proton and electron disproving the field of nuclear physics.
This very description was believed by scientists in the early days of nuclear physics. This error did not impede
the progress of nuclear physics, hence the atomic bomb, nuclear power and other related developments.
So I fail to see,how this description of the neutron, disproves the entirety of nuclear physics.

As Sol says, this is utter rubbish. As another example, the Fermi theory of beta decay was developed in 1934, 11 years before the atomic bomb.

ETA:Not to mention the fact that if Witt was correct then the last 40 years of particle physics are all wrong. I wonder how many Nobel laureattes he's taking on?

 

[Skwinty]

Again you refuse to address this issue. How do you, as a layperson with little knowledge of physics, decide whether Witt's theory is as ridiculous as my moonshine? If I were you I would trust the opinion of those with more knowledge in the field, but you are unwilling to do that. So how did you decide that? Why do you think the moonshine theory is more ridiculous than Witt's?

Sol, you refuse to address the opinions of respectable scientist's in my previous posts. Your analogy has no correlation to Witt and Null Physics. If it does, its in your mind and fallacious. There is however, good correlation between physicists and the primitive with the digital watch.

That is totally incorrect. The idea that the neutron could be a proton plus an electron was ruled out when its mass was measured accurately, merely two years after it was discovered in the first place in 1932.

I have a physics text book published in 1984 that states and I quote:
"Thus, it must be concluded that the fundamental particles-the proton, neutron and electron-are not really fundamental particles....Neutrons have no net electrical charge. They are thought to be a combination of a proton and electron....A hydrogen atom consists of one proton that is orbited by one electron and is electrically neutral....A neutron is a very tightly bound combination of an electron and proton, that, consequently, is electrically neutral"(read here no orbiting electron).
Abraham Pais also mentions this in "Subtle is the Lord".
Hence, this is not a Witt invention.
Reactor physicists do not talk about quarks, chemists deal mainly at the molecular level and particle physicist's deal with quarks etc.

t is simply impossible for the neutron to be a proton plus an electron, because the neutron is more massive than a proton plus an electron. I don't understand what is hard to understand about that. Anyone making that claim is just ignoring 70 years of experimental results - results which are in fact at the basis of the standard model and all of nuclear physics. It is just as ridiculous as ignoring the evidence that diseases are caused by microbes and not moonshine.

I agree with the mass of the neutron being greater than that of the proton and electron. This difference is called mass defect. This difference is the binding energy. When a free neutron decays via beta decay to a proton, electron and anti-neutrino, the anti-neutrino comes from this energy and satisfies the laws of conservation. Speaking of neutrino's, do we actually know what a neutrino is?
Have any experimental results been proved wrong? Of course they have.
Now, is my physics text book wrong? As I said, it was published in 1984 and not 1931.

What is ridiculous is that anyone ignores the evidence that microbes cause disease , and instead blames moonshine. Unless of course you drink too much moonshine with added snake poison and other vile and disgusting things.

As for my understanding of physics, I may not have a degree in physics but my discipline is electrical engineering with 27 years experience in the nuclear industry, so I have some understanding of physics, perhaps more than a little.

 

[Skwinty]

You used the claim here. Whether he was largely self-educated or not is something of a moot point. The point is that in science where he made a name for himself, he was taught by one of the foremost scientists of the time.

Yes, I quoted the claim, that does not make it mine.
So he got tickets from some benefactor to attend some lectures. He didnt speng 6 years at a University to obtain a Phd.
My point was that you dont have to have a degree to add some benefit to mankind, which was in reply to a statement of Sol's that not having a degree in a specific discipline was a strong indication that you didnt understand the discipline. Please keep my statements in context to the discussion.

 

[sol invictus]

Sol, you refuse to address the opinions of respectable scientist's in my previous posts.

Huh? Where?

Your analogy has no correlation to Witt and Null Physics. If it does, its in your mind and fallacious. There is however, good correlation between physicists and the primitive with the digital watch.

How do you know? This is supposed to be a forum for skeptics - on what evidence do you base that conclusion?

I have a physics text book published in 1984 that states and I quote:
"Thus, it must be concluded that the fundamental particles-the proton, neutron and electron-are not really fundamental particles....

As far as we know, the electron is a fundamental particle. What book is this?

Neutrons have no net electrical charge. They are thought to be a combination of a proton and electron....

That is simply wrong, or at best extremely sloppy and misleading.

Abraham Pais also mentions this in "Subtle is the Lord".

You'll have to give an exact quote.

Hence, this is not a Witt invention.

He may not be the first person to have thought of it, but that does not change the fact that it is wrong, and in contradiction with 70 years of experimental data.

I agree with the mass of the neutron being greater than that of the proton and electron. This difference is called mass defect. This difference is the binding energy.

No! Binding energies are negative by definition. If when you put two things together they have MORE energy than when they were far apart, they repel each other - you had to do work to force them together.

Think, for example, of a hydrogen atom. It has less energy than a free electron plus a free proton, because the electron is bound to the proton.

Have any experimental results been proved wrong? Of course they have.

Sure - every experiment in the last 70 years was wrong, and Witt is correct.

Now, is my physics text book wrong? As I said, it was published in 1984 and not 1931.

The quote you gave (perhaps out of context?) is wrong. If you like I can give you tens, perhaps hundreds, of references, all of which will tell you that the neutron is a bound state of three quarks.

Here's the first quote I found with the google:

(Professor of Physics emeritus, Rutgers University)

It is tempting to say that a neutron consists of a proton plus an electron;
the mass of the electron would make up 40% of the mass difference. This
argument is totally invalid. It would be equally valid to say that a proton
consists of a neutron plus a positron (a positron has exactly the same mass
as an electron, but is positively charged). The validity of using this
argument in both directions is strengthened by the fact that neutrons in
neutron rich nuclei beta decay into an electron and a neutrino while protons
in proton rich nuclei beta decay into a positron and a neutrino. For
example a N13 (nitrogen 13) nucleus decays into C13 (carbon 13), a positron,
and a neutrino with the release of 2.221 MeV.


The charge of the proton adds some electromagnetic energy to the proton
mass, but the magnitude of that effect is not only impossible to calculate,
but works in the wrong direction.


Quarks give the best chance to explain the proton-neutron mass difference by
"hand-waving". A proton consists (mainly) of two up quarks and one down
quark. A neutron consists (mainly) of one up quark and two down quarks.
Current estimates are that the up quark has a mass in the range 2-8 Mev and
the down quark 5-15 MeV. So replacing one up quark in the proton by a down
quark would increase the mass by something between -3 MeV and +13 MeV.
Clearly this is not a precise calculation, but it is (mostly) in the right
direction and could overcome the electromagnetic contribution and produce
the correct answer. There are other known contributions to these masses
including interactions with the weak and strong interactions, but this is
probably already more than you want to know about this subject!

As for my understanding of physics, I may not have a degree in physics but my discipline is electrical engineering with 27 years experience in the nuclear industry, so I have some understanding of physics, perhaps more than a little.

You obviously do not have any expertise at least in this area of physics.

 

[ben m]

I have a physics text book published in 1984 that states and I quote:
"Thus, it must be concluded that the fundamental particles-the proton, neutron and electron-are not really fundamental particles....Neutrons have no net electrical charge. They are thought to be a combination of a proton and electron....A hydrogen atom consists of one proton that is orbited by one electron and is electrically neutral....A neutron is a very tightly bound combination of an electron and proton, that, consequently, is electrically neutral"(read here no orbiting electron).

This textbook is wrong. Not uncommon for middle- and high-school science materials, which (sadly) are often written by nonscientists who simply copy factoids from the previous edition. See, for example, "Why Johnny Can't Learn from Textbooks I Have Known" by Mario Iona.

Abraham Pais also mentions this in "Subtle is the Lord".

He mentions, in a footnote on page 360 (OUP 2005 paperback edition) that on its first discovery it was thought to be an electron and a proton. He does not say that's what he, or anyone else, continued to believe post-1930-ish.

What was your point, Skwinty? I think it was "Because Terence Witt has reinvented an old wrong idea, rather than inventing a new wrong idea, it can't be too wrong, so he's not a crackpot."

 

[Skwinty]

Huh? Where?.

Post 575

How do you know? This is supposed to be a forum for skeptics - on what evidence do you base that conclusion?.

So what evidence do you give for the moonshine.
The digital watch analogy is self explanatory

As far as we know, the electron is a fundamental particle. What book is this?.

Technical Physics by Clarence Green published by Prentice Hall

You'll have to give an exact quote..

I will supply you a quote in a few days, I must have the book returned to me first.

He may not be the first person to have thought of it, but that does not change the fact that it is wrong, and in contradiction with 70 years of experimental data..

Then dont imply that its a Witt invention

No! Binding energies are negative by definition. If when you put two things together they have MORE energy than when they were far apart, they repel each other - you had to do work to force them together.

Think, for example, of a hydrogen atom. It has less energy than a free electron plus a free proton, because the electron is bound to the proton..

Is this incorrect "Binding energy is the energy equivalent of the mass defect"

Sure - every experiment in the last 70 years was wrong, and Witt is correct..

You going from the sublime to the ridiculous here

The quote you gave (perhaps out of context?) is wrong. If you like I can give you tens, perhaps hundreds, of references, all of which will tell you that the neutron is a bound state of three quarks..

Quarks give the best chance to explain the proton-neutron mass difference by "hand-waving".
I thought hand waving had a negative connotation.

You obviously do not have any expertise at least in this area of physics.

I don't recall saying that I did.

 

[Skwinty]

This textbook is wrong. Not uncommon for middle- and high-school science materials, which (sadly) are often written by nonscientists who simply copy factoids from the previous edition. See, for example, "Why Johnny Can't Learn from Textbooks I Have Known" by Mario Iona.



He mentions, in a footnote on page 360 (OUP 2005 paperback edition) that on its first discovery it was thought to be an electron and a proton. He does not say that's what he, or anyone else, continued to believe post-1930-ish.

What was your point, Skwinty? I think it was "Because Terence Witt has reinvented an old wrong idea, rather than inventing a new wrong idea, it can't be too wrong, so he's not a crackpot."

My point is, I got the book for nothing, I am reading it, comparing to what I know and other literature and discussing it in this thread called Null Physics Anyone. The reason I debate it is because not one of you will ever admit that the mainstream is ever wrong in any manner. You will however roundly dismiss Witt as a crackpot over what seems to me to be a small semantic issue. And on top of it without reading the book.
Reality Check at least made an effort, although he did say he did not read it all, only specific aspects.

I know it appears as though I am defending Witt, but I am just trying to understand what the facts are. I apologise for not being as clever and erudite as you folk, but I like to think that it is better to think incorrectly rather than not think at all. This being a forum for skeptics, I am being skeptical of you folk as well.

With regards to authors copying factoids, it really is sad if they only copy certain factoids and not others and then do this for 50 years. My point here is there must be many college text books that say the same thing about the composition of neutrons.

 

[Reality Check]

Hi Skwinty:
There are a few textbooks out there that describe the neutron as a combination of a proton and electron. But hopefully they only do this to temporarily simplify things for the reader. I am sure that your textbook goes onto describe the quarks inside the neutron.
But Technical Physics by Clarence Green may be a physics for technicians textbook (he may also be the author of a couple of books about servicing AM, FM, and FM stereo receivers). In that case quarks might not even be mentioned.

The digital watch analogy is good but the Witt shaman predicts that after 99 will appear after 12 and than when we open the watch up it will contain nothing. Real science predicts that 1 appears after 12 and then the watch actually contains stuff.

 

[The Man]

Is this incorrect "Binding energy is the energy equivalent of the mass defect"

Yes but as Sol stated the "Binding energy" is negative and thus so is the "mass defect". You need to add energy to separate the particles as such the mass of the bound state is less then (not grater then) the sum of the masses of the free particles.

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

Because a bound system is at a lower energy level than its unbound constituents, its mass must be less than the total mass of its unbound constituents. For systems with low binding energies, this "lost" mass after binding may be fractionally small. For systems with high binding energies, however, the missing mass may be an easily measurable fraction.

There are better sources of information then some free out of date and out of print book.

 

[sol invictus]

Post 575

I'm not sure what you want me to respond to. Dyson's quote goes exactly against Witt's nonsense - he says we should take our equations more seriously, while you claim we should regard Witt's fundamental mistakes as "details".

So what evidence do you give for the moonshine.

There is as much evidence for it as for Witt's theory: none. That's precisely my point. Again, why do you think Witt should be taken more seriously than that?

Technical Physics by Clarence Green published by Prentice Hall

Never heard of the book or the author, and I don't see any info about either online. That quote is wrong.

Quarks give the best chance to explain the proton-neutron mass difference by "hand-waving".
I thought hand waving had a negative connotation.

He was asked for a heuristic explanation of the mass difference. The real explanation is technical and hard.

With regards to authors copying factoids, it really is sad if they only copy certain factoids and not others and then do this for 50 years. My point here is there must be many college text books that say the same thing about the composition of neutrons.

I just checked the two intro college texts I have on my shelf. One doesn't discuss neutrons; the other correctly says they are made of quarks. I also have many more specialized physics books and I am certain not one makes that statement.

 

[ben m]

The reason I debate it is because not one of you will ever admit that the mainstream is ever wrong in any manner.

Eh? OK, here goes: there are two 100% mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics: Many Worlds and Copenhagen. If you stretch you can make it three, if I understand Bohm correctly. Two out of these three are definitely wrong; at most one is right. We don't know which one.

The Standard Model of Particle Physics does not give a correct picture of ultra-ultra-high-energy interactions. It is, therefore, at best an "effective theory" which is approximately correct---and by "approximately" I mean "to fifteen decimal places" at low energy.

General Relativity in the version with no cosmological constant is wrong. Of the mainstream proposed modifications---quintessence, cosmological constant, etc.---most or all are wrong. Zero or one is right. We won't know which ones are wrong until we have more data.

Of the dozens of varieties of string theory, zero or one is correct and the rest are wrong. We don't know which one.

Of the hundreds or thousands of predictions for what the LHC will see, most or all of them are wrong. A subset of them may be right. We'll find out when we do the experiment, eh?

Anything whatsoever in "accepted" modern physics may be wrong---but the wrongness has to be something special that hasn't shown up in past experiments. That's why we still work in physics, Skwinty. Not to congratulate ourselves over and over on Feynman's or Einstein's successes, but to check whether or not they got it right in the 3rd or 5th or 100th decimal place, or in unusual combinations, under extreme conditions, etc..

Seriously, Skwinty---"we never admit we're wrong" isn't true in a great many domains, and it isn't problem in the domains where there is no evidence whatsoever that we're wrong.

 

[Tubbythin]

As for my understanding of physics, I may not have a degree in physics but my discipline is electrical engineering with 27 years experience in the nuclear industry, so I have some understanding of physics, perhaps more than a little.

Just curious... does this graph mean anything to you?

 

[Tubbythin]

The reason I debate it is because not one of you will ever admit that the mainstream is ever wrong in any manner.

I believe the mainstream was wrong about the existence of an aether. I think most people will agree with me on this one.
Steady state cosmology used to be a mainstream theory (I think). I think that's wrong.
The plum pudding model of the nucleus was wrong.
It seems Einstein was wrong about his hidden variables interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Ptolemy's geocentric universe was wrong.
Neutrinos used to be thought to be massless. That's almost certainly wrong.
...

 

[sol invictus]

The reason I debate it is because not one of you will ever admit that the mainstream is ever wrong in any manner.

You always have trouble with the same thing... for you, everything must be absolute. If we point out that many of Witt's statements are false, that must mean that not one of us will ever admit the mainstream is ever wrong in any matter.

Much of what Witt is saying is in such basic conflict with reality that if it's correct it would mean not that one thing is wrong, but nearly everything in modern physics. It's the difference between my moonshine example, in which if it were true nearly all of modern medicine would be nonsense, and some new or evolving theory of regarding an HIV vaccine or something. Witt isn't saying a few things could be improved, which we all agree on - he's saying throw the whole thing out and replace it with what I say.

 

[godless dave]

There are many things in physics that the mainstream theories don't account for, and there are almost certainly areas where the mainstream theories are wrong. They will be corrected by physicists who do research and publish in peer-reviewed journals, physicists who can back up their conclusions with data and who make that data available so other physicists can replicate their findings.

Witt hasn't done any of this, nor has he explained why some of his conclusions contradict the available data.