Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[ben m]

Sorry ben, but you're wrong about this. Like I said, a 511kev photon doesn't spontaneously morph into an electron and a positron which you label as "off shell" so you can break all the rules of physics. Virtual particles are virtual, they don't pop in and out of existence like magic. But QED can handle photon-photon pair production, for a reason. Yes, the anonymous wiki editor got it wrong, but the "given reason" really is crackpot. Think about it. Think for yourself.

Gotta go.

Just like all your other posts. Mainstream physics, as represented by pop-science-article quotes, sounds wrong to you. You can't point to an actual error in the math, calculations, or experiments, you just quote the words and declare that you see them as nonsense. You claim to know a better picture, but rather than laying it out you say "think about it".

Same old same old.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Same old same old.

Indeed.

What's remarkable is this: after all this time, after thousands of posts, in dozens of forums, Farsight has not convinced even one person of the validity of his models. Nor the validity of his critiques of GR, QED, etc.

Not even one.

And how does Farsight react to this gigantic failure of his to communicate?

If he truly believed he was onto something that no one else in the world had - apparently - understood, you might expect him to try harder, wouldn't you? For example, to learn enough of the relevant mathematics so that he could re-phrase his deep insights in ways that those more familiar with the essentials of GR than he is could more readily grasp. Or write up a key part of his thesis in the form of a scientific paper, and get it published in a peer-reviewed journal. Or ...

 

[catsmate]

Farsight's main argument here is how absurd it seems, which is not much of an argument.

Exactly.

I love that Farsight's photons violate charge-reversal and time-reversal invariance. It's not "some sort of charge form factor", it's specifically + at the front, - at the back. When did that start, Farsight? Before or after Ben Franklin decided on the arbitrary sign convention? Does a photon emitted by antimatter have the opposite electric dipole?

How large are these charges and how far apart are they? Are they approximately one wavelength apart, for example? Perhaps I can compare your predictions to an experimental result I have right in front of me which is relevant to this sort of hypothesis.

I predict a lack of answers to these questions.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Back to the OP, crackpots invariably discuss physics with words, pictures, diagrams, analogies, etc. -- in other words -- anything but mathematics. How else could they maintain their delusional notions of physics?

 

[ben m]

If he truly believed he was onto something that no one else in the world had - apparently - understood, you might expect him to try harder, wouldn't you?

Maybe that gets to the crux of it---the difference between a crackpot and a non-crackpot-with-radical-ideas. Someone has some nifty and (they think) important and new idea. They get excited because they think it's right; they try to explain it to you. You tell them it's wrong.

A scientist responds by doing more science---adding more detail, more and clearer explanations, testing edge cases, etc. etc.. A crackpot responds by blaming the audience and staying in exactly the same place.

 

[lpetrich]

Back to the OP, crackpots invariably discuss physics with words, pictures, diagrams, analogies, etc. -- in other words -- anything but mathematics. How else could they maintain their delusional notions of physics?

Some of them go as far as claiming that they don't need math for this or that reason. Like how math cannot be a fundamental sort of language for describing physical theories.

Or else they want someone else to work out the math of their theories.

 

[Reality Check]

It Virtual particles are virtual.

Yes - virtual particles are virtual

They aren't real particles that appear out of the vacuum and annihilate one another a short time later.

Yes, virtual particles aren't real particles that appear out of the vacuum and annihilate one another a short time later .
ETA: They do have properties like real particles such as charge.

...snipped Wikipedia irrelevance...

Now watch my lips, Farsight :
* I search Photon-photon scattering in collisions of laser pulses (PDF) and find no mention of "gamma" let alone "gamma-gamma pair production"
* What you quote is about virtual particles but pair production is usually real particles, e.g. real electron positron production in the presence of a nucleus. The paper uses "pair-creation".
* What you quote is not about a photon "morphing into an electron-positron pair". It is about virtual particle pairs appearing out of the vacuum and then annihilating each other a short time later. This is standard quantum field theory.
* The paper is about photon-photon scattering and uses QED to model it:
Photon-photon scattering in collisions of laser pulses (PDF).

ETA: My guess is that you are going on a semantic nitpicking derail. This is the scattering of real photons from real photons caused by the polarization of virtual electron/positron pairs. The real effects would be measured on the real photons. Thus "photon-photon scattering" rather than "photon-photon scattering caused by the polarization of virtual electron/positron pairs"!

The whole point is that photons interact with photons, and
* classical mechanics (Maxwell's equations) says it does not happen.
* QED says it is possible by interacting with virtual particles.

The paper gave you a photon-electron interaction. So does wiki. See this bit: "From quantum electrodynamics it can be found that photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they carry no charge". Somebody has inserted the next sentence since I've raised this issue. The front portion of a photon is a little like a partial positron, the back is a little like a partial electron. But the main point is that photons interact with photons, and QED doesn't cover it.

Virtual electron-positron pairs are always popping in and out of existence in a vacuum. That is basic quantum mechanics, Farsight.
Citing an irrelevant but interesting article (Cargo Cult Science) by Richard Feynman does not change this basic physics !
Citing one of the funders of Quantum Field Theory is especially ignorant since QFT is full of virtual particles!

Most theories in standard particle physics are formulated as relativistic quantum field theories, such as QED, QCD, and the Standard Model. QED, the quantum field-theoretic description of the electromagnetic field, approximately reproduces Maxwell's theory of electrodynamics in the low-energy limit, with small non-linear corrections to the Maxwell equations required due to virtual electron–positron pairs.

 

[Reality Check]

I'm glad we agree about something.

A bigger issue is why did you not recognize that this was nonsense added to that Wikipedia article, Farsight?
It looks obvious to me since I studied QFT (many years ago!):
Quantum electrodynamics never looks at "half-wavelengths" of photons. It is concerned with creation and annihilation operators on whole photons or electrons.
There is the minor fact that photons are treated as elementary particles with no extent (and a really small experimental upper limit to their size).
Also look at the Talk page.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

disenchantment with Electric Universe

Crackpottery is not a black hole from which there can be no escape. Here's the last paragraph of a long and thoughtful essay written by a layman who fell in with the Electric Universe folks, but got better:

On the whole, the EU has some serious issues to resolve and questions to answer if it wishes to recover or even build-up its credibility within the global scientific community. For now, it gives me the impression that the majority of EU proponents spend most of their time selectively attacking or promoting pieces of other peoples' work, without doing enough analytical or problem-solving work of their own. It also seems to be a group that attracts the naivety of the layman who may be too easily persuaded by novel and original niche theories with little quantitative meat on the bones of the theory. In reality, astrophysics is a hard science that requires many hours of detailed study and an aptitude for interdisciplinary learning. This apparent (and often counterintuitive) difficulty however, should not put people off in their endeavours to further their understanding of our mysterious and complex universe.

The essay mentions our esteemed Tim Thompson and our departed Michael Mozina.

 

[Reality Check]

A while since I looked at the EU woo.
Came across something interesting - even a creationist (maybe YEC) can see the problems with EU or at least Donald E. Scott’s book, The Electric Sky: An Evaluation of Plasma Astronomy

 

[Cuddles]

Crackpottery is not a black hole from which there can be no escape. Here's the last paragraph of a long and thoughtful essay written by a layman who fell in with the Electric Universe folks, but got better:

Interesting read. I liked this part:

In a weak attempt to counter-debunk Tom Bridgman's criticisms, TB website administrator Dave Smith insinuated that Hannes Alfven is the final authority on the behaviour of plasmas. Not only that, it seems Dave Smith fails to even understand the quotes that he is presenting from Alfven

Blind reliance on a dated authority figure without understanding what said authority actually said in the first place. Sound familiar to anyone?

 

[Hellbound]

Blind reliance on a dated authority figure without understanding what said authority actually said in the first place. Sound familiar to anyone?

Not to mention that labelling anything as the "final authority" is pretty much an admission that one has abandoned the basic principles of scienctific endeavor.

 

[catsmate]

Blind reliance on a dated authority figure without understanding what said authority actually said in the first place. Sound familiar to anyone?

Hell yes.
And not just in pseudo-science, it happens in JFK and 911 CTs and elsewhere.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Interesting read. I liked this part:

In a weak attempt to counter-debunk Tom Bridgman's criticisms, TB website administrator Dave Smith insinuated that Hannes Alfven is the final authority on the behaviour of plasmas. Not only that, it seems Dave Smith fails to even understand the quotes that he is presenting from Alfven

I fixed that for you by restoring the link on "insinuated".

If you follow that link, you'll find Dave Smith, "independent researcher and Managing Editor of the Thunderblog", speaking with authority on a subject he understands quite well:

The recent explosion of blogs on the internet now gives a voice to many who would otherwise be 'nobodys'. A superficially impressive website can be built almost overnight and populated with some self-published papers and a few choice quotes, which can then be used in an attempt to gain notoriety or attention whilst attacking the views of others with whom the author, posing as a well-informed skeptic, disagrees.

 

[Reality Check]

If you follow that link,

you will also find this Dave Smith essentially exposing EU as a religion, not science

The EU states that the universe is of unknown age and size and that a big bang event is unnecessary and not supported by empirical evidence.

(my emphasis added)
It ignores that the Big Bang event is supported by empirical evidence and so EU stating the opposite is dogma not science.
He is confirming that "that EU theorists use the same tactics as creationists", e.g.
* start with the assertion that X is correct and thus all evidence that X is not correct is wrong.
* tend to believe in "holy" books (the EU obsession with the works of Anthony L. Peratt and Hannes Alfven while largely ignoring modern textbooks).
* tend to believe in authorities rather than the scientific consensus (Peratt and Alfven again appear a lot).
* tend to ignore actual science, e.g. the fact that plasma physics is a well established part of astronomy. No astronomer or cosmologists ignores plasma - they just know what it is capable of doing.

Dave Smith seems to be even ignorant about what plasma cosmology is !
Alfven's invalid Plasma Cosmology does not have anything to do with the EU "plasma cosmology" which is not even defined except as set of theories (even if mutually exclusive or invalid) that say that there was no Big Bang and have the word plasma in them.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Recent discussions in other threads have caused me to think again about this subject.
Many comments have been made here about the roots of crackpot physics, but I have come to believe the most fundamental problem of all leading to crackpot notions is a lack of mathematical skills. Of course, the crackpot must also be driven by a desire to comprehend nature.
I say this because of recent experiences relating to my own quest to better understand modern physics. Although I have had a superficial understanding of tensors, in order to get a real grasp on some subjects (e.g.: GR), I've had to spend a great deal of time to become "fluent" with tensor calculus. It's a tough subject! It takes a lot of time and effort. Every time I think I've got it, something comes up to confront my grasp of the subject. I've been at it for weeks and I am still battling away.
So, in contrast to my own experiences, I do believe it is the lack of training, patience, ability, pertinacity, inclination, etc. to take the kind of path required to master the math that the crackpot lacks. It's so much easier to just read about physics and come up with home-spun notions than do the hard work of mastering the mathematics. I've come to believe all other factors relating to crackpot physics are secondary.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Many comments have been made here about the roots of crackpot physics, but I have come to believe the most fundamental problem of all leading to crackpot notions is a lack of mathematical skills.

I'd say that's only the second most fundamental problem.

Most people lack the mathematical skills needed to understand general relativity, quantum mechanics, or modern particle physics. Very few become advocates for crackpot physics.

It's so much easier to just read about physics and come up with home-spun notions than do the hard work of mastering the mathematics. I've come to believe all other factors relating to crackpot physics are secondary.

I disagree. Reading about physics in the popular press is easier than searching out or inventing crackpot physics, and it's much easier to admit you've been wrong when physicists explain your errors than to spend years defending your errors against hundreds of people who know far more math and physics than you do.

To acquire a reputation for crackpot physics, you must convince yourself you understand physics better than the physicists. You must also convince yourself of the irrelevance of mathematics, or must convince yourself you understand mathematics better than the physicists. You must hold to those convictions for years despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

In my opinion, the primary source of crackpot physics is an extraordinary, off-the-charts sense of illusory superiority.

 

[ben m]

I disagree. Reading about physics in the popular press is easier than searching out or inventing crackpot physics, and it's much easier to admit you've been wrong when physicists explain your errors than to spend years defending your errors against hundreds of people who know far more math and physics than you do.

I'd say it's pretty common to read some popular physics, start thinking about it, and come up with some ideas of your own. This frequently leads to the following conversation:

"Oh, you're a physicist. I was just reading about this gravity wave discovery in the newspaper."
"Great! It's very exciting."
"But I was thinking about it and they said gravity waves are plus-shaped, but then they said the polarization is pinwheel-shaped, so it sounds like maybe they actually found a different kind of wave, like a dark-energy wave."
"Good question. Yes, this type of wave DOES make the pinwheel pattern, that's not a mistake, but it'd be hard to explain without some math. Interested?"
"Oh, no, I was just curious. Sounds like people are on top of it."

 

[Perpetual Student]

I'd say that's only the second most fundamental problem.

Most people lack the mathematical skills needed to understand general relativity, quantum mechanics, or modern particle physics. Very few become advocates for crackpot physics.
I disagree. Reading about physics in the popular press is easier than searching out or inventing crackpot physics, and it's much easier to admit you've been wrong when physicists explain your errors than to spend years defending your errors against hundreds of people who know far more math and physics than you do.

To acquire a reputation for crackpot physics, you must convince yourself you understand physics better than the physicists. You must also convince yourself of the irrelevance of mathematics, or must convince yourself you understand mathematics better than the physicists. You must hold to those convictions for years despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

In my opinion, the primary source of crackpot physics is an extraordinary, off-the-charts sense of illusory superiority.

You make some good points, and on further reflection, it seems that determining what is THE most fundamental problem might vary from person to person and is probably a useless question (I have a proclivity for useless questions). In any case, it may be that to some degree many --perhaps most -- people suffer from "illusory superiority," but few fall into the realm of crackpot physics. It still seems to me that skill in mathematics is an overlying aspect.

Let me offer this example: Two people, A and B, would like to attain a good understanding od General relativity. Both may have a sense of illusory superiority.
So, they begin by reading some popular books on the subject and then read the Wikipedia article on GR or its equivalent, but the tensor equations are gibberish so they try to interpret the words about the equations and read more discussions of those equations. A, who does have some training in mathematics and is willing to work at it, is not satisfied and decides to undertake a study of differential geometry and tensor calculus. B has little mathematics background and is unwilling to make the effort but just keeps reading more and more literature and creates private interpretations of what he reads.
Both A and B may end up with crackpot notions (since neither is trained in physics), but B is by far the most likely to go astray.
I think we are familiar with a few examples of Mr. B within these threads.

 

[dasmiller]

It still seems to me that skill in mathematics is an overlying aspect.

Instead of 'skill,' how about 'respect?' Crackpots often seem to view the math as merely a trivial elaboration of the 'real' truth. From that perspective, the fact that they don't understand the math is like, say, a racecar driver not knowing what kind of paint is on the car.

Those who lack the skills but respect the math would be more likely to admit that they simply don't understand the physics well enough to dispute it.