Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[Perpetual Student]

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.

Yes.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I'm not certain that this has been mentioned before.
A hallmark characteristic of crackpots seems to be their total unwillingness or incapability to recognize and understand even the the most simple and stark demonstration that any facet of their dogma is false. This inability to yield on even the most trivial detail regarding their fantasies is quite remarkable.

 

[Farsight]

It's true. The problem is that they will not accept that their fantasies are just that. If somebody shows them Einstein saying space is inhomogeneous or the speed of light varies with position, the crackpot will utterly reject it, and comfort themselves by calling the other guy a crackpot. Even though what Einstein said is there in black and white and a matter of public record, with professional endorsement. It is truly bizarre.

 

[ben m]

It's true. The problem is that they will not accept that their fantasies are just that. If somebody shows them Einstein saying space is inhomogeneous or the speed of light varies with position, the crackpot will utterly reject it, and comfort themselves by calling the other guy a crackpot. Even though what Einstein said is there in black and white and a matter of public record, with professional endorsement. It is truly bizarre.

The funny thing is, I don't believe in GR just because Einstein said it. I believe in GR because it's been carefully tested, by people (a) checking its equations for internal consistency and (b) devising experimental measurements and comparing them to GR calculations.

The thing I strongly believe to be true is that actual GR calculations, using Einstein's GR equations, are internally consistent and have passed extraordinarily-stringent experimental tests. The equations, in the form used to make the predictions, are widely taught, researched, explained in standard textbooks, and the meaning thus conveyed is uncontroversial. This is what I mean when I say "I believe GR is true" or "I know/understand GR". I know the same version everyone else knows, the version that's passed experimental tests.

I furthermore believe that Einstein was talking about the same GR that I believe in, and that his words have a reasonably clear meaning to people other than yourself, you being a hostile witness who's actively mining for things to misunderstanding.

However, my belief in the latter is much weaker than my belief in the former.

The standard version of GR, the equationy version, the Misner Thorne and Wheeler version, has been tested, and I'm happy to have learned it and to understand it well and to be confident in its reliability (within the domains in which such confidence is warranted), and everyone who claims to know GR will say the same thing. If it were true that Einstein's popular writings describe something else---some equationless theory that's not the one MTW picked up on---well, this "something else" theory would be untested, undeveloped, cannot be called "General Relativity", and would not inherit the intellectual heritage of the known/tested/taught version of GR. (I reiterate that you have not identified a "something else" in Einstein's writings, only familiar things that you personally misunderstood.)

Can you take your interpretation of Einstein's words and make your prediction for, say, the inspiral of the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar? Go ahead.

 

[Farsight]

The funny thing is, I don't believe in GR just because Einstein said it. I believe in GR because it's been carefully tested, by people (a) checking its equations for internal consistency and (b) devising experimental measurements and comparing them to GR calculations.

Me too. I've said repeatedly that GR is one of the best-tested theories we've got, and that the evidence is actually more important than what Einstein said.

The thing I strongly believe to be true is that actual GR calculations, using Einstein's GR equations, are internally consistent and have passed extraordinarily-stringent experimental tests.

Me too. I've referred to Clifford Will's Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment on many occasions.

The equations, in the form used to make the predictions, are widely taught, researched, explained in standard textbooks, and the meaning thus conveyed is uncontroversial.

That isn't true. The meaning is controversial. And one thing at the heart of that controversy is the speed of light.

This is what I mean when I say "I believe GR is true" or "I know/understand GR". I know the same version everyone else knows, the version that's passed experimental tests. I furthermore believe that Einstein was talking about the same GR that I believe in, and that his words have a reasonably clear meaning to people other than yourself, you being a hostile witness who's actively mining for things to misunderstanding.

Only I'm not the hostile witness, and I don't misunderstand. I point to what Einstein actually said about the speed of light varying with position, and I point to Magueijo and Moffat and Ned Wright and the Baez website and the NIST optical clocks and more to back up what I'm saying. You know, this kind of thing:

"Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "... according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [Einstein means speed here] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers."

Can you take your interpretation of Einstein's words and make your prediction for, say, the inspiral of the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar? Go ahead.

No. I've never said the maths is wrong, I've said some aspects of the modern interpretation is wrong. The understanding is wrong.

...I reiterate that you have not identified a "something else" in Einstein's writings, only familiar things that you personally misunderstood...

I haven't misunderstood it. The bottom line is this: Wheeler misunderstood it. Yes. That's the size of it. Some aspects of MTW, the "bible", are just wrong.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Me too. I've said repeatedly that GR is one of the best-tested theories we've got, and that the evidence is actually more important than what Einstein said.

This is clearly the opposite of what you have repeatedly said. You routinely repudiate contemporary physics, indeed any physics since 1920, and any use of GR out of the hands of Einstein. This means that you reject the theory as it is tested.

Me too. I've referred to Clifford Will's Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment on many occasions.

This, too, goes against most of your previous statements, since you regularly insult posters for using mathematics rather than the textual analysis that you provide.

That isn't true. The meaning is controversial. And one thing at the heart of that controversy is the speed of light.

You have yet to demonstrate that anyone who has studied relativity theory believes that there is something to be debated about the speed of light in the theory.

Only I'm not the hostile witness, and I don't misunderstand. I point to what Einstein actually said about the speed of light varying with position, and I point to...

Case in point: you insult those who attempt to discuss the mathematical details of the theory and point yourself to textual analysis.

No. I've never said the maths is wrong, I've said some aspects of the modern interpretation is wrong. The understanding is wrong.

So far, you have never attempted to show anyone how to coincide the mathematics with your interpretation. Everyone who has studies relativity theory doubts that it is possible. You either have a means to reconcile the two or you dogmatically believe that there is such a reconciliation.

I haven't misunderstood it. The bottom line is this: Wheeler misunderstood it. Yes. That's the size of it. Some aspects of MTW, the "bible", are just wrong.

Yet another example of insulting without serious evidence.

I think that it might be nice to adopt a slogan from another realm: Cranks believe their theory works because it seems right, scientists believe their theory is right because it seems to work.

 

[Perpetual Student]

The funny thing is, I don't believe in GR just because Einstein said it. I believe in GR because it's been carefully tested, by people (a) checking its equations for internal consistency and (b) devising experimental measurements and comparing them to GR calculations.

The thing I strongly believe to be true is that actual GR calculations, using Einstein's GR equations, are internally consistent and have passed extraordinarily-stringent experimental tests. The equations, in the form used to make the predictions, are widely taught, researched, explained in standard textbooks, and the meaning thus conveyed is uncontroversial. This is what I mean when I say "I believe GR is true" or "I know/understand GR". I know the same version everyone else knows, the version that's passed experimental tests.

I furthermore believe that Einstein was talking about the same GR that I believe in, and that his words have a reasonably clear meaning to people other than yourself, you being a hostile witness who's actively mining for things to misunderstanding.

However, my belief in the latter is much weaker than my belief in the former.

The standard version of GR, the equationy version, the Misner Thorne and Wheeler version, has been tested, and I'm happy to have learned it and to understand it well and to be confident in its reliability (within the domains in which such confidence is warranted), and everyone who claims to know GR will say the same thing. If it were true that Einstein's popular writings describe something else---some equationless theory that's not the one MTW picked up on---well, this "something else" theory would be untested, undeveloped, cannot be called "General Relativity", and would not inherit the intellectual heritage of the known/tested/taught version of GR. (I reiterate that you have not identified a "something else" in Einstein's writings, only familiar things that you personally misunderstood.)

Can you take your interpretation of Einstein's words and make your prediction for, say, the inspiral of the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar? Go ahead.

I have spent a good deal of my time over the last three years studying physics (call it a hobby). The dozens of lectures, texts and papers I have studied from around the world include physics concepts and principles defined by mathematical equations and mathematical descriptions of physical phenomena. Never do the authors and professors say, "Newton wrote this," "Einstein said this" or "Maxwell believed that."
The physical systems are described and analyzed mathematically. It does not matter if the subject is statistical mechanics, relativity, quantum field theory, etc.; it's the mathematics that defines and describes the physical systems.
It seems that using and depending on the words of the "masters" is exclusively a crackpot indulgence.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

I have sat in on many academic lectures and seminars where people did discuss what Newton believed and what Maxwell believed. The evidence for the discussion was, for the majority of claims, a rigourous analysis of the mathematics presented in their works.

 

[lpetrich]

An important part of Farsight's method is what may be called scriptural exegesis, sacred-book interpretation, or in more blunt terms, book-thumping. Complete with saying how wrong it is to deny the authors of the thumped books. If my experience is any guide, it is *very* rare in physics crackpottery, and indeed most forms of crackpottery, though it is common in creationism.

Physics crackpots usually argue more like their mainstream counterparts, addressing theories without considering their favorite theorists to be inspired prophets of revealed truth whom it would be wrong to question. However, they may also make lots of ad hominem arguments, like what orthodox oxen mainstream physicists are.

 

[ben m]

"Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "... according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [Einstein means speed here] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers."

Funny that you fail to quote the following paragraph (by bold)

In this passage, Einstein is not talking about a freely falling frame, but rather about a frame at rest relative to a source of gravity. In such a frame, the not-quite-well-defined "speed" of light can differ from c, basically because of the effect of gravity (spacetime curvature) on clocks and rulers.

So, you quoted some bog-standard relativity. An accelerating observer thinks light behaves differently than an inertial one does. But you placed your cursor very carefully in order to imply both (a) "here's something that you Wheelerites failed to understand about Einstein, I know better" and also (b) "Baez is on my side on this". Nope. Your quote has Baez and Einstein (and Wheeler and, a long way down, me) agreeing on standard mainstream GR. Did you have something to add?

 

[RussDill]

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.

Wow. I expect some things from Farsight but I didn't expect anything like that.

So then there must be anti-photons with reverse charge. Can you tell us about these anti-photons farsight?

 

[Farsight]

...and also (b) "Baez is on my side on this". Nope. Your quote has Baez and Einstein (and Wheeler and, a long way down, me) agreeing on standard mainstream GR. Did you have something to add?

Yes. The Baez website has been referred to here because it includes a crackpot index. Only when it comes to what Einstein said and the speed of light varying in the room you're in, the Baez website agrees with me. The irony is delicious. It means I'm not the crackpot. So if I'm not the crackpot, who is?

It seems that using and depending on the words of the "masters" is exclusively a crackpot indulgence.

No, saying Einstein was wrong is the crackpot indulgence. And I'm on the right side of that fence.

The evidence for the discussion was, for the majority of claims, a rigourous analysis of the mathematics presented in their works.

Evidence consists of experimental results and observations, not a "rigorous analysis of the mathematics".

This is clearly the opposite of what you have repeatedly said.

No it isn't. Enough of your false assertions.

An important part of Farsight's method is what may be called scriptural exegesis, sacred-book interpretation, or in more blunt terms, book-thumping

I'm not the book thumper, people like ben m are the book thumpers. He treats MTW like a bible. I point out what Einstein said, and he dismisses it because it proves his bible wrong.

So then there must be anti-photons with reverse charge. Can you tell us about these anti-photons farsight?

There aren't any. What you found related to gamma gamma pair production where the Wikipedia article used to say this:

"From quantum electrodynamics it can be found that photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they carry no charge, but half wavelength is a positive charge and the next half wavelength is a negative charge".

The issue we were discussing was that the QED given explanation says pair production occurs because pair production occurs, spontaneously like worms from mud. There's an obviously tautology with that. It's crackpot, it's cargo-cult science. What actually happens is that one photon interacts with the other.

PS: this forum is very slow.

 

[lpetrich]

Is The Speed of Light Everywhere the Same? stated "Given this situation, in the presence of more complicated frames and/or gravity, relativity generally relinquishes the whole concept of a distant object having a well-defined speed." Farsight, however, seems to think that the variation of the speed of light in general relativity is well-defined. He ought to stop thumping his heroes' writings and work out how to calculate this variation. He won't get taken seriously by anyone working on general relativity unless he does so.

Evidence consists of experimental results and observations, not a "rigorous analysis of the mathematics".

Disdain for math again. If math is an important part of a theory, then a rigorous analysis of it is a Good Thing.

I'm not the book thumper, people like ben m are the book thumpers. He treats MTW like a bible. I point out what Einstein said, and he dismisses it because it proves his bible wrong.

Pure projection. After calling ben m a book thumper, Farsight then acts like a book thumper, making an issue out of "what Einstein said".

The issue we were discussing was that the QED given explanation says pair production occurs because pair production occurs, spontaneously like worms from mud. There's an obviously tautology with that. It's crackpot, it's cargo-cult science. What actually happens is that one photon interacts with the other.

Something firmly denied by those who have worked on Quantum-Electrodynamics processes at a professional level, like Richard Feynman. In pair production, the two photons do NOT directly interact, but instead make virtual electrons between them.

 

[lpetrich]

Farsight has expressed a curious set of opinions on what constitutes physics crackpottery. He has described supersymmetry, magnetic monopoles, string theory, multiverses, etc. as crackpottery, because there is no evidence for them, or at least so he claims.

That is strange, because that would consign *any* untested prediction of a theory to crackpottery status, and because that would imply that theorizing is not allowed to get ahead of observation and experiment. I've seen some criticisms of string theory that it's too far ahead of observation and experiment, but what Farsight seems to propose goes too far in the opposite direction.

So would these hypotheses be crackpottery?

• 1869. Dmitri Mendeleev predicts some then-unknown chemical elements.
• 1920. Ernest Rutherford predicts the "neutral proton" (neutron).
• 1930. Wolfgang Pauli predicts the "neutron" (neutrino).
• 1935. Hideki Yukawa predicts a strong-interaction carrier (pion).
• 1962. Murray Gell-mann and Yuval Ne'eman predict the omega baryon.
• 1964. Robert Brout, François Englert, Peter Higgs, Gerald Guralnik, Carl Hagen, and Tom Kibble predict the Higgs particle.
• 1964. Moo-Young Han and Yoichiro Nambu predict the gluon.
• 1968. Sheldon Glashow, Steven Weinberg, and Abdus Salam predict the W and Z particles.
• 1970. Sheldon Glashow, John Iliopoulos, and Luciano Maiani predict the charm quark.
• 1973. Makoto Kobayashi and Toshihide Maskawa predict the bottom and top quarks.

 

[Farsight]

Is The Speed of Light Everywhere the Same? stated "Given this situation, in the presence of more complicated frames and/or gravity, relativity generally relinquishes the whole concept of a distant object having a well-defined speed." Farsight, however, seems to think that the variation of the speed of light in general relativity is well-defined.

The point is that Einstein "talked about the speed of light changing". And that this doesn't just apply to distant objects, it applies to the room you're in. Hence "this difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers". The Baez article backs me up. Not Perpetual Student.

I wouldn't consign *any* untested prediction of a theory to crackpottery status.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

No, saying Einstein was wrong is the crackpot indulgence.

Then Einstein was a crackpot, since he many times pointed out where he was wrong.

Evidence consists of experimental results and observations, not a "rigorous analysis of the mathematics".

Not when you are looking at the way that somebody used mathematics.

 

[Perpetual Student]

The point is that Einstein "talked about the speed of light changing". And that this doesn't just apply to distant objects, it applies to the room you're in. Hence "this difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers". The Baez article backs me up. Not Perpetual Student.

Excuse me! I have never rendered any opinion on the speed of light in GR, simply because it is not a question I have studied. However, I do see that the authors of the article you linked do say this:

Given this situation, in the presence of more complicated frames and/or gravity, relativity generally relinquishes the whole concept of a distant object having a well-defined speed. As a result, it's often said in relativity that light always has speed c, because only when light is right next to an observer can he measure its speed—— which will then be c. When light is far away, its speed becomes ill-defined.

and this:

In general relativity, the constancy of the speed of light in inertial frames is built in to the idea of spacetime being a geometric entity. The causal structure of the universe is determined by the geometry of "null vectors". Travelling at the speed c means following world-lines tangent to these null vectors. The use of c as a conversion between units of metres and seconds, as in the SI definition of the metre, is fully justified on theoretical grounds as well as practical terms, because c is not merely the vacuum-inertial speed of light, it is a fundamental feature of spacetime geometry.

So, I think you are a bit confused about what the authors of the article you linked are actually saying.

 

[Farsight]

I'm not at all confused, and I reiterate this: yes, "relativity generally relinquishes the whole concept of a distant object having a well-defined speed". But we aren't talking about distant objects. We're talking about light in the room you're in. The light at the ceiling goes faster than the light at the floor. If it didn't light wouldn't curve, your pencil wouldn't fall down, and the NIST optical clocks would stay synchronised. Remember you said "A hallmark characteristic of crackpots seems to be their total unwillingness or incapability to recognize and understand even the most simple and stark demonstration"? The parallel-mirror gif is the simple stark demonstration.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

I'm not at all confused, and I reiterate this: yes, "relativity generally relinquishes the whole concept of a distant object having a well-defined speed". But we aren't talking about distant objects. We're talking about light in the room you're in.

That passage is a canonical example of Farsight confusion: you are talking about distances, yet you claim that you are not talking about distances.

In order to study physics, one has to study how physics problems are presented and solved and how physics applications are considered and implemented. If one has never done this, as Farsight seems not to have done, then one misses the very basic elements of physics. Of course, many physicists also miss the fundamental operations of their own discipline when asked to consciously consider it, but they at least have the opportunity and the basic knowledge to be lead to a proper consideration.

The light at the ceiling goes faster than the light at the floor. If it didn't light wouldn't curve, your pencil wouldn't fall down, and the NIST optical clocks would stay synchronised.

It seems for many crackpots that they pursue a grand unified theory. Farsight's grand unified theory seems to be that light slows at different locations. As we have seen in the proper thread for its discussion, Farsight has no reason to believe this, since he has no means of turning different speeds of light into, using his example, the forces governing the trajectory of a pencil.

Remember you said "A hallmark characteristic of crackpots seems to be their total unwillingness or incapability to recognize and understand even the most simple and stark demonstration"? The parallel-mirror gif is the simple stark demonstration.

I have seen a number of crackpots present pictures that they felt communicated a lot of information that present absolutely nothing, perhaps worse than nothing. When asked for the details, they ultimately fail to produce.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I have sat in on many academic lectures and seminars where people did discuss what Newton believed and what Maxwell believed. The evidence for the discussion was, for the majority of claims, a rigourous analysis of the mathematics presented in their works.

Since I'm only an amateur studying textbooks, lectures and papers that I can find online, my experience is limited. It's true that Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, Heisenberg, etc. may be discussed in passing when the equations describing the physics are developed and discussed, but the real physics is based on the equations and experiments, not the words of the "Masters."