Null Physics anyone?

[godless dave]

At the end of the day, for all mankinds knowledge and wisdom, can it be said that every thing we know is actually correct. Sure we can say that observation agrees with theories and predictions, but does that make it true?

Of course not. But if observation disagrees with theories and predictions, then we know the theories and predictions are not true. And that's the case for Witt's hypotheses - they contradict what is observed.

 

[Skwinty]

Of course not. But if observation disagrees with theories and predictions, then we know the theories and predictions are not true. And that's the case for Witt's hypotheses - they contradict what is observed.

Hi Godless Dave
long time no hear.
Your statement is true only if you are making the correct observation for the theory/prediction.

with regard to null physics, now that Ben M has reviewed the entire book and revealed his credentials, I have as previously stated, seen the error of my ways.

 

[The Man]

Sure we can say that observation agrees with theories and predictions, but does that make it true?

The key is not so much saying what is true, but demonstrating what is false and I am sure “Null Physics” falls into that category (the latter not the former).

 

[Reality Check]

Interesting little tidbit: The Null Physics forum on Terry Witt's Our Undiscovered Universe has vanished and been replaced by a photo competition.
This looks like the typical behaviour of a crackpot when faced with critisms of their "theory" - run away and hide!

 

[Wangler]

Interesting little tidbit: The Null Physics forum on Terry Witt's Our Undiscovered Universe has vanished and been replaced by a photo competition.
This looks like the typical behaviour of a crackpot when faced with critisms of their "theory" - run away and hide!

I see that they are not having a forum member vote on the pictures: only they decide!

Still seems as if the Null Physics crowd is still avoiding "peer review".

 

[Paulhoff]

I see that they are not having a forum member vote on the pictures: only they decide!

Still seems as if the Null Physics crowd is still avoiding "peer review".

It is called "NULL peer review".

Paul

 

[sol invictus]

Anyone else get the feeling that all the blogs on that site are written by the same person?

 

[Reality Check]

Benjamin Monreal's review of "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt has inspired me to write my own review pointing out a few more flaws in the book.
Hopefully people will discover Ben's review or mine before wasting their money on the book.

 

[jadey]

Enlightened First Poster

I have found this thread to be extremely enlightening, not so much to the subject of Null Physics (I can't personally follow all the deep physics conversations), but to the scientific review process.

By now, mine is a familiar story: saw the advertisements ... googled Null Physics ... landed on this thread ... took several days to get through all of the posts ... wish I could understand more of the concepts.

I was surprised by the immediate dismissal of the author as being a crackpot, and felt like the rebuttals were close-minded and a bit harsh. My sentiments were in line with gratuitous python in the sense of "we don't have all the answers so let's hear the author out". It was interesting to read the dialogue when Terri Witt was engaged, especially when the posts were civil.

After completing the entire thread, I better appreciate why many members of the forum reacted so strongly. It seems odd that the author chose to develop this entire "paradigm shift" in an apparent vacuum for 25 years(?). It seems that it would have been more fruitful to come forth with an approach like "hey physics community, I've got this interesting paradigm shift, lets see if it holds water". Perhaps he tried and received a cool reception, but I would think if there was anything promising in his ideas, some physicists would have joined his cause. Even if they didn't, he could still carry the torch and publish a book as he has done. So, he had nothing to lose by coming forth with his concepts earlier (funding was apparently not an issue).

In closing, I'm not qualified to comment on the physics, but I find the author's approach lacking. I find it highly suspect that this book is the first anybody has heard of Null Physics.

Thanks to all who participated, and for Ben M. and Reality Check reviews. I think it took longer to read the thread than it would have taken to read the book, but I probably learned more I'm now addicted to this JREF forum

 

[Stir]

A thorough (and rather entertaining) review of Witt's book has appeared here.

Enjoy .

Thank you Sol I! And thank you, thank you, thank you Benjamin Monreal!!!

My favorite line from the review: "Null Physics relies on a standard-of-proof that would embarrass a homeopath. "

 

[MainframeX]

The General Principles of Reality

I came to this thread because I have been curious about Null Physics due to the exuberant ad spaces in several magazines and since I haven't read it I can't personally conclude that its content holds any merit though reading from the comments on this thread I suspect that Mr Witt offers an interesting perspective though possibly imaginary in his approach to a unifying particle. Again I haven't read it so i can't judge but I doubt its more imaginary that current String Theory which in my opinion is an imaginary mathematical representation of theoretical physics with no possible verifiable experimentation is/has been a travesty to physics for the last 30-40 years and has stagnated a whole generation of physicists from exploring different venues in physics because String Theory was adopted as the mainstream theoretical branch to mainstream physics resulting in not only study but jobs being offered only for physicists versed in String Theory. Its actually a great pity again in my opinion.

Anyway, I also have worked on theoretical physics theories resulting in not only mathematical verification but also experimental and just like Mr Witt have put it into a book but mine is absolutely free. The following is my own promo ad which I'm not spending millions on promoting (which makes Mr Witt a better businessman than me but I don't believe physics should be a business) and yup its bold but so what...we all self promote at varying degrees. My only intent is to inspire a different perspective and direction in physics.

Goto: www[dot]gpofr[dot]com

"A new theoretical physics ebook documents a very significant discovery. In this ebook release over a year ago in late 2007 to a specific group of people, a new relativistic mass equation is derived which equates the relativistic mass of Jupiter (1.898x10^27 kilograms) to the value of an electron charge (1.6x10^-19 coulombs) EXACTLY! This validates the author's initial hypothesis with undeniable accuracy. There is no deviation in the math. It is rock solid because it is so simple! For the first time in the history of science an exact relationship between atomic and star systems has been discovered. Neils Bohr was the first to postulate that there was a similarity between atomic systems and star systems, and his theories gave rise to quantum physics, but never did he detail, nor anyone else, an exact relative link between the two until now. This wonderful discovery was something the author, Robert DeMelo, did not expect to find but the new equation was the one that gave insight into this relationship which was the catalyst why this ebook was written. The new relativistic mass equation was derived using the Reality Scale value of S, a constant value also derived in the ebook, which remarkably related to the speed of light and Euler's mathematical constant (two other Universal constants) and was further derived from a new relativistic mass-density equation. Essentially mass-gravity at the celestial scale is equal to charge at the quantum scale. It is unification at a very fundamental level. Anyone who knows anything about physics knows this is very significant.

This is something the world needs to be aware of because the ramifications of derivative theories based on this discovery are huge. The most significant derivative theories include whole new gravity and relativity theories which are also detailed in the ebook. In specific reference to the new gravity theory, it basically states that gas giant planets interact with eachother as electrons would with eachother at a much slower rate of interaction. It further states that objects of similar size and mass-density repel each other and objects of significantly different size and mass-density attract each other, thus actual gravity is not just an attraction force but also a repulsion force dependent on the physical composition and structure of the objects in interaction."

 

[sol invictus]

Again I haven't read it so i can't judge but I doubt its more imaginary that current String Theory which in my opinion is an imaginary mathematical representation of theoretical physics with no possible verifiable experimentation is/has been a travesty to physics for the last 30-40 years and has stagnated a whole generation of physicists from exploring different venues in physics because String Theory was adopted as the mainstream theoretical branch to mainstream physics resulting in not only study but jobs being offered only for physicists versed in String Theory. Its actually a great pity again in my opinion.

It must be gratifying for string theorists to be attacked so vehemently by so many total nutjobs.

"A new theoretical physics ebook documents a very significant discovery. In this ebook release over a year ago in late 2007 to a specific group of people, a new relativistic mass equation is derived which equates the relativistic mass of Jupiter (1.898x10^27 kilograms) to the value of an electron charge (1.6x10^-19 coulombs) EXACTLY!

Wait, wait - I know!! M = (M/Q)*Q???

 

[Tubbythin]

Again I haven't read it so i can't judge but I doubt its more imaginary that current String Theory which in my opinion is an imaginary mathematical representation of theoretical physics with no possible verifiable experimentation is/has been a travesty to physics for the last 30-40 years and has stagnated a whole generation of physicists from exploring different venues in physics because String Theory was adopted as the mainstream theoretical branch to mainstream physics resulting in not only study but jobs being offered only for physicists versed in String Theory.

Does the book contain better sentence structure and punctuation than the above?

 

[MainframeX]

It must be gratifying for string theorists to be attacked so vehemently by so many total nutjobs.



Wait, wait - I know!! M = (M/Q)*Q???

You're assuming I'm not a String Theorist, but you're right that was harsh of me but I was only quoting Dr. Lee Smolin.

 

[sol invictus]

You're assuming I'm not a String Theorist, but you're right that was harsh of me but I was only quoting Dr. Lee Smolin.

Well, one thing I can tell you is the assertion that ST "stagnated a whole generation of physicists from exploring different venues in physics because String Theory was adopted as the mainstream theoretical branch to mainstream physics resulting in not only study but jobs being offered only for physicists versed in String Theory" is a bald-faced and trivially falsified lie.

There have been a total of around 1-2 USA faculty jobs going to string theorists each year for the past 7 or 8 years at least. There are perhaps 200 on faculties in the entire country (a guess, probably an overestimate), compared to at least 30,000 physicists. Only a small minority of departments have any string theorists at all on their faculties; to claim the subject has stagnated an entire generation is paranoid nonsense.

The truth is that Smolin is an advocate of a theory called loop quantum gravity, which is a far less successful attempt at a theory of quantum gravity. His agenda is to grab as many resources as he can. Take anything he says with a large quantity of salt.

 

[MainframeX]

Dr Lee Smolin is a respected theoretical physicist whose research doesn't include String Theory. The fact is, preference is given to those who have studied and know string theory for many "theoretical" research physics positions not the classical physics positions that include your typical science teacher who is expected to teach and not research. This falls inline with what you mentioned that string theorist are a small percentage because theoretical research positions are also small in number.

 

[sol invictus]

Dr Lee Smolin is a respected theoretical physicist whose research doesn't include String Theory.

False.

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?irn=1505882
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?irn=1434306

The fact is, preference is given to those who have studied and know string theory for many "theoretical" research physics positions not the classical physics positions that include your typical science teacher who is expected to teach and not research.

That's simply and demonstrably false. I'm quite familiar with the state of the faculty job market in theoretical physics, and very, very few string theorists have been hired over the last 5-10 years. If you don't believe me, you can check for yourself

Smolin quite simply lies about that, for his own gain.

This falls inline with what you mentioned that string theorist are a small percentage because theoretical research positions are also small in number.

No - all of those physicists do research. There are few if any tenure-track faculty positions (which are the ones I was talking about) which do not require a significant research component.

 

[MainframeX]

False.

{links sites referenced}

With all do respect, you're citing his work from all the way back to 1985/86 when string theory became popular. How about his most recent work in theory of quantum gravity. Over time people, including me, drop old theories and work for something more promising with far greater potential. He didn't develop string theory but he adopted it over 20 years ago in order to do whatever he was attempting to do at that time 2 decades ago.

That's simply and demonstrably false. I'm quite familiar with the state of the faculty job market in theoretical physics, and very, very few string theorists have been hired over the last 5-10 years. If you don't believe me, you can check for yourself

Smolin quite simply lies about that, for his own gain.

Preference doesn't mean you have to be a full fledged string theorist or the position has to be at all to do with string theory. If you're apt enough to understand the complexity of string theory then it is a definite nice to have on any resume demonstrating a level of intelligence in abstract thinking and mathematics, but the unfortunate aspect is that those who study string theory are taught to think that string theory will result in a grand unification theory for all of physics but has so far only resulted in a very ugly disjointed ensemble of imaginary mathematics with no practical possibility for application. Dr. Smolin perhaps dropped his pursuit of finding anything solid with string theory many years ago when he, like me, realized it was all untestable (unverifiable).

To say he is a liar is extreme. Perhaps not well informed is a better option. And I will definitely stick to the fact that he is well respected by a good many people in the science community.

No - all of those physicists do research. There are few if any tenure-track faculty positions (which are the ones I was talking about) which do not require a significant research component.

Then you're aware of US statistical information I am not aware of (I'm Canadian btw), but what kind of research? Does it have anything to do with grand unification research such as string theory or does it have to do with specific fields of research such as astrophysics, superconductivity or condensed matter research where research results can be made into viable applications thus the incentive is in viable, application potential research. Each respective field has its own research with many sanctioned and sponsored by private industry and some in partnership to with universities. Perhaps Dr. Smolin is overzealous in his string theory claims but you can't absolutely disprove his claims especial in regards to preference of one candidate over another unless you work for a national job board catering to physicists. Maybe you do but I don't think you do.

I will stick to the fact that string theory has been promoted by mainstream physics as an acceptable field of theoretical research while alternative venues are frowned upon such as Dr Smolin's quantum gravity theory. You can't content the masses from thinking outside the box of mainstream opinion especially in regards to theoretical research. My main point here is that string theory has failed to produce anything predictable or application worthy over the course of almost 40 years but an ugly mishmash of imaginary mathematics.

 

[sol invictus]

If you're apt enough to understand the complexity of string theory then it is a definite nice to have on any resume demonstrating a level of intelligence in abstract thinking and mathematics, but the unfortunate aspect is that those who study string theory are taught to think that string theory will result in a grand unification theory for all of physics but has so far only resulted in a very ugly disjointed ensemble of imaginary mathematics with no practical possibility for application.

That's a very bold claim you're making! String theory is "imaginary mathematics" - whatever in the world that means - with "no practical possibility for application". And precisely how are you in a position to know that? Is that what Smolin told you to think?

Perhaps Dr. Smolin is overzealous in his string theory claims but you can't absolutely disprove his claims especial in regards to preference of one candidate over another unless you work for a national job board catering to physicists.

Smolin has made claims as extreme as that no one but a string theorist had been hired in years - I'd have to dig up the precise quote, but it was blatantly false. Most of the time he's talking to people that have no other immediate source of information and believe him based on his credentials, so he can get away with it.

I will stick to the fact that string theory has been promoted by mainstream physics as an acceptable field of theoretical research while alternative venues are frowned upon such as Dr Smolin's quantum gravity theory.

That's a far cry from your original claim. Now tell me - who, precisely, would you like to have making such decisions if not physicists? Would you put Smolin in charge, to decide who to hire and what people should work on? Or a committee of non-experts? What will they tell young Ph.D. students that decide on their own that they want to study string theory - no, it's forbidden? You seem to find physicists and their professional opinions - the people whose careers depend on this, who are the experts, spend their days and nights working on the topic, struggling for jobs and publications, who have the most at stake - to be misguided fools in need of some advice. It's really weird.

You can't content the masses from thinking outside the box of mainstream opinion especially in regards to theoretical research. My main point here is that string theory has failed to produce anything predictable or application worthy over the course of almost 40 years but an ugly mishmash of imaginary mathematics.

Again, "imaginary mathematics". FYI string theory has produced several Fields medalists - that's the highest award in math, analogous to the Nobel prize (there isn't one for math), except awarded only once every four years rather than every year. Two string theorists got it, and at least one other mathematician working on string theory. The truth is that ST sparked a revolution in a major field of mathematics - algebraic geometry - and has lead directly to some of the most exciting developments in the entire field in the last two decades.

Moreover it's had broad and far-reaching applications to many areas of physics, from QCD (which was its original purpose) to gravity to nuclear physics to superconductivity and the quantum Hall effect. It's an extremely powerful and versatile theoretical tool - whether it is the correct theory of everything is another question entirely, but without doubt it has had a major impact and made major contributions to theoretical physics and mathematics.

None of that is true for loop quantum gravity. It has produced no mathematical insights, and it has no application to other fields. It is an obscure and small subfield that has gone nowhere.

 

[MainframeX]

That's a very bold claim you're making! String theory is "imaginary mathematics" - whatever in the world that means - with "no practical possibility for application". And precisely how are you in a position to know that? Is that what Smolin told you to think?



Smolin has made claims as extreme as that no one but a string theorist had been hired in years - I'd have to dig up the precise quote, but it was blatantly false. Most of the time he's talking to people that have no other immediate source of information and believe him based on his credentials, so he can get away with it.



That's a far cry from your original claim. Now tell me - who, precisely, would you like to have making such decisions if not physicists? Would you put Smolin in charge, to decide who to hire and what people should work on? Or a committee of non-experts? What will they tell young Ph.D. students that decide on their own that they want to study string theory - no, it's forbidden? You seem to find physicists and their professional opinions - the people whose careers depend on this, who are the experts, spend their days and nights working on the topic, struggling for jobs and publications, who have the most at stake - to be misguided fools in need of some advice. It's really weird.



Again, "imaginary mathematics". FYI string theory has produced several Fields medalists - that's the highest award in math, analogous to the Nobel prize (there isn't one for math), except awarded only once every four years rather than every year. Two string theorists got it, and at least one other mathematician working on string theory. The truth is that ST sparked a revolution in a major field of mathematics - algebraic geometry - and has lead directly to some of the most exciting developments in the entire field in the last two decades.

Moreover it's had broad and far-reaching applications to many areas of physics, from QCD (which was its original purpose) to gravity to nuclear physics to superconductivity and the quantum Hall effect. It's an extremely powerful and versatile theoretical tool - whether it is the correct theory of everything is another question entirely, but without doubt it has had a major impact and made major contributions to theoretical physics and mathematics.

None of that is true for loop quantum gravity. It has produced no mathematical insights, and it has no application to other fields. It is an obscure and small subfield that has gone nowhere.

I dont know where you're getting your information, but string theory, under the scientific method, is untestable and thus unverifiable and concludes with no predictable results...I know. String theory has not predicted a single thing that can be verified over the last 40 years so no there has been no "viable" applications arising from it. Under all intents and purposes it shouldn't be considered a scientific "theory" at all. You got one thing right, it was popular and has been championed by individuals like Dr. Michio Kaku who walks a fine line on fringe science with books such as "Physics of the Impossible", which I found fascinating though highly "imaginary" and yes I know it was an exploratory work. If you're going to talk about Dr. Lee Smolin might as well bring Dr. Kaku up. Both research what they want and perhaps both conclude with "imaginary mathematics" but I seriously doubt that Dr. Kaku is more respected than Dr. Smolin and I for one respect both of them.

You know imaginary mathematics I can guarantee this (you're a smart individual) though you might not be obviously aware of it. I was fortunate that one of my physics professors instilled this in me many years ago. "Imaginary" mathematics has to do with the context of the math. A very simple example that describes imaginary mathematics is the following: "Johnny has (or dreams of) 3 pink flying elephants." The math is correct (there are 3) but the context is completely imaginary. To make this a bit more complex, physics is not a direct representation of math. Math is a direct representation of physics. If it doesn't exist in the physical, mathematics cannot readily define it and runs the risk of becoming imaginary contextually. And this is where string theory has fallen in regards to its coupling of individual verifiable physics theories. Without any verifiable experimentation, string theory's context has become imaginary. No mainstream physics theory, even theoretical should be unverifiable and much less run for 40 years under this same premise. Einstein's theory of relativity ran many years without verification but it wasn't 40 years and besides that Einstein never lost touch with the physically "real" of his physics context. I'll be the first to say string theory had a good start. The idea of string theory was highly promising before everyone and their uncle decided to add their own interpretation. It has become very ugly and highly imaginary.

And in regards to mathematical awards. Good for them. The mathematics in string theory is complex and the fact it has "sparked a revolution in a major field of mathematics - algebraic geometry" is good for mathematics but not for physics. You can't lose touch with the physical context in physics otherwise it's just math...most likely imaginary.