The Grand Unified Theory of Physics Has Been Discovered

Before I say, “everything we thought we knew about physics is wrong” let me qualify that statement.
Modern physics isn’t wrong. It’s irrational. I know what you’re thinking. That’s silly, we have advanced technology. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics can make extremely accurate predictions. Those GPS satellites need to be adjusted because of time dilation, those transistors wouldn’t be here without Quantum. Your computer wouldn’t function!
I have to be absolutely clear here — I am not denying whatsoever that Relativity and Quantum can make very accurate predictions. I am not denying that the application of mathematics in engineering can be indispensable to the development of technology. I am not denying the utility or predictive power of a single equation anywhere in physics. So let’s get that off the plate right away.
But technology is largely a process of trial and error which evolved slowly over the ages through the accumulation of practical knowledge. By that I mean countless individuals have tinkered around and figured out how to build things through continued practice and experience. They can share their insights with others and also benefit when innovations are shared with them. And subsequent to breakthroughs like Newton’s laws of motion mankind has realized it’s possible to discover equations which can consistently make predictions and act as principles of engineering thereby hastening the pace of technological advancement.
Yet the equations themselves are verified through empiricism like the technology that was originated through trial and error. The inquirer performs experiments, makes measurements, gathers results, and analyzes the data. He unearths from the data an eloquent equation which relates how the measured quantities vary with respect to one another. These equations can be tested and can make accurate predictions. They can help us design new things.
In all of these examples the method is empirical and based on experience. To put it succinctly: the end attainment of this process is of the form, “if I do X, Y will result.” If I drop the apple and let it fall for three seconds I will observe it to be measured at such and such velocity. If I put magnets into a certain constructed configuration I will have created a magnet powered motor. And so on and so forth.
The key is that practical knowledge, X then Y, in no way necessitates that the individual understand the underlying physical mechanism behind how X brings about Y. Advanced technology does not mean that we have unlocked how nature really operates at the most subtle levels. It just means that for thousands of years our skill and sophistication in knowing how to get things to work have increased exponentially. Even the most sophisticated computer chips in all their spectacular glory are the result of decades upon decades of incremental improvements with respect to their design and the utilization of the equations of electrical engineering which govern the operation of electric circuits.
The problem is that prediction has been confused with explanation. Physicists treat their physical explanations as if they were proven by their predictive equations. Equations relate physical quantities represented by variables, and they are derived and verified through observation. Formulating equations is just an advanced form of pattern recognition. As such they cannot dictate what objects are actually responsible for bringing about what is ultimately observed. At best the equations only provide hints about what might be happening physically. They do not lock you in to any particular scenario concerning what objects are involved. You can do the whole thing empirically without it mattering whether you understand the underlying phenomena occurring in reality.
Explanation however requires that assumptions be made about existence. Surely there is something happening in reality which continuously draws the apple towards the Earth, surely something is happening between magnets that attract them to one another. We can measure and quantify all day long but these invisible mechanisms can only be discovered by making explicit assumptions about the objects involved and their behavior.
Prediction is about observation and pattern recognition, and comes in the form, “given X conditions, Y will result.” Explanation is not contingent upon observation and comes in the form, “let us assume that X exists, and let us assume that it behaves in Y manner, that’s what explains Z.”
And explanation is not contingent upon observation for a reason: because the human mind’s ability to conceive is not limited by its sensory system. Obviously we cannot see the entity responsible for mediating gravity nor magnetism, we cannot see atoms, we cannot delve into the depths of the unfathomably small and say with any confidence that we know what is happening down there, even with the most powerful possible microscope or Large Hadron Collider. All we can do is use our intellects to conceive of the physical architecture of the entities responsible in order to produce a theory which may or may not be true. And the possible theories we could conceive to explain the same body of evidence (observations, experiments, measurements, equations, etc.) are unlimited. This is why it is ridiculous for physicists to act as if their physical interpretations are proven by their equations. If this were the case then why, for example, are there at least a dozen physical interpretations for Quantum Mechanics of which there is broad disagreement among physicists regarding which one is correct? At best the observations only provide us with clues as to how nature operates. It is up to us to imagine the possibilities and see if we can finally grasp what heretofore appeared to us as magic.
“Warped spacetime” is not proven by the equations of General Relativity, “warped spacetime” is an assumption made by physicists in order to interpret and explain the equations. “Time dilation” is not proven because GPS clocks have to be adjusted, “time dilation” is an assumption used to explain GPS discrepancies. “Wave packets” are not proven because physicists cannot understand why various experiments would suggest that light is a wave while others suggest it’s a particle, “wave packets” are an assumption used to try to explain away irreconcilable discrepancies. And insofar as they are assumptions they are irrational ones. The physical explanations put forth by physicists are riddled with contradictions and paradoxes. Why should we take them on faith when neither technology nor predictive equations justify their Alice in Wonderland claims? If they said they’d proven the existence of square circles should we take them on their word? No amount of “evidence” or ability to make predictions can “prove” claims that are contradictory or downright unintelligible. There’s no coherent claim there to even attempt to prove!
The core problem among many others is that the entities of their hypotheses cannot be illustrated, conceived, imagined, or visualized (at least in simplified form). They cannot illustrate for you warped spacetime, black holes, wormholes, big bangs, wave packets, zero dimensional particles, higher dimensions, forces, fields, charges, energy, etc. And therefore it’s impossible to understand any of their “explanations” involving these alleged entities. Luckily I was able to snap some photographs of them as you can see below:
And here we have a stunning realization: after all these centuries our ability to predict has advanced remarkably providing mankind with technologies that our ancestors could never have dreamed of, and yet our ability to explain physical phenomena hasn’t moved an inch. It’s only natural that man would attempt to interpret reality as being comprised of discrete particles or waves. On the bank of a river there are grains of sand and waves in the flowing water. Atomism can be found in ancient Greece and India, for example. Yet after all these thousands of years where are we at? Particles and waves! And we still can’t explain the most basic of phenomena like a falling apple!
That is, until now. Finally we have a theory which only invokes 3D objects that can be visualized. The Grand Unified Theory has not arrived in the form of an inch long equation as physicists said it would. In fact, it is not mathematical in nature at all. It has arrived in the form of a theory involving objects which allow us to at long last visualize what is happening with gravity, light, electricity, and magnetism. The language of physics is objects and visualization, not abstract mathematical concepts. Contrary to what we are led to believe, physics is not the domain of the few geniuses, but is accessible to anyone.
BILL GAEDE’S ROPE HYPOTHESIS
I’ve written about the Rope Hypothesis before but only briefly. Here I would like to elaborate so you can decide for yourself whether you think it could be a paradigm shifter.
Above is a 2D cross section of the Hydrogen Atom, the building block of all the other elements. The Rope Hypothesis begins with the following assumption: every atom in the universe is connected to all others by ropes.
Each of these ropes is comprised of two threads entwined around one another like DNA without the rungs. As each rope approaches the surface of the atom one of these threads breaks off and wraps around the atom to form the electron serpentine. The other penetrates to the center to form the proton dandelion. Thus under the proposal the electron is not a particle or a “probability cloud” but more like a ball of yarn woven with gazillions of threads. Nor is the proton a particle but a sea urchin like structure also comprised of gazillions of threads converging towards its center. Considering that the number of atoms in the universe must be unfathomably vast the number of ropes converging on an atom must be equally vast and incomprehensibly thin. The surface of the atom is immense compared to the ropes.
The picture that emerges is radically different from the age old theories founded on particles and waves. Matter is not comprised of discrete particles, it is interconnected. The universe is interwoven with ropes and atoms are the tiny cosmic knots where they converge.
LIGHT
Look familiar? On the left is a typical depiction of light as a self-propagating series of alternating magnetic and electric “fields.” Of course physicists are not saying that the lines they’ve drawn in order to depict the fields are representations of what really exists. They cannot illustrate a field nor explain what it means physically for a field to exist. According to wiki,
In physics, a field is a physical quantity that has a value for each point in space and time.
Exactly. Let’s say I take a magnetometer to a magnet. I place it at many various locations around the magnet and take down all of the readings. I can then plot those readings and derive an equation which will spit out the correct magnitude when given a location. As I stated earlier, measured physical quantities and equations do not dictate what objects are involved. The magnetometer is an object and it’s clearly interacting somehow with the magnet, but simply taking readings and plotting the varying quantities does not tell me what the mechanism behind magnetism is. A “field” then is just an abstract concept which refers to varying quantities. Fields do not exist and therefore they cannot influence anything which does! What exists are the objects responsible for mediating magnetism and it requires one to make assumptions about them as a means of producing a theory.
Physicists cannot explain how a “field” might exist in reality, they cannot explain in the case of light how these “fields” would continually propagate themselves outwards and perpendicular to one another around an axis. Under the Rope Hypothesis however we have a clear physical interpretation for the mysterious entity which underlies light. As seen above the rope architecture rationally justifies the the alternating “fields.” But light is not equivalent to the rope.
Under Thread Theory every electron shell of every atom in the universe is constantly expanding and contracting. The countless threads that comprise the shell expand outward and in doing so incorporate more thread from the surrounding ropes in order to compensate for the increased size. As the shell contracts it releases that thread back to the ropes. This activity causes every rope extending outward from the atom to be twisted resulting in torsion signals being sent along the ropes. This is the phenomenon known as light. The rope is the structure which underlies light but light refers to the torsional motion which spreads out radially in all directions from an atom towards every other atom in the universe. Likewise all the other atoms are constantly pumping and torquing. As such all atoms are perpetually relaying signals to one another.
In addition the rope model justifies why the speed of light is so fast. Light isn’t a self-propagating wave or a particle, it’s a torsional motion that fires down a preexisting taught rope binding two atoms. As an added bonus the rope model explains why the speed of light is independent of the source emitting it as is postulated by Einstein’s Special Relativity: the speed of the torsional wave along the rope depends upon the physical properties of the rope, not the emission source.
Note that I have barely even scratched the surface here as to what the rope model explains with respect to light but I don’t intend to go into too great of detail in this article. Next I will touch on gravity.
GRAVITY
One of the major failures of Quantum Mechanics is its inability to explain attraction. According to wiki,
In particle physics, force carriers are particles that give rise to forces between other particles. These particles are bundles of energy (quanta) of a particular kind of field. There is one kind of field for every species of elementary particle.
So we have particles that shoot particles at particles, but the particles that get shot outwards are also “bundles” of “energy” (see above for the photograph) of a kind of “field” (see above for why fields do not exist). It’s no wonder that physicists routinely and proudly proclaim that no one understands Quantum Mechanics!
The essential problem with any particle based hypothesis is that you won’t be able to rationally explain gravitational or magnetic attraction. Discrete islands of matter have no way of interacting with one another but by colliding. A collision can only mediate a push, not a pull. Therefore Quantum Mechanics was dead before it was even born a century ago (although I suppose it’s nice to have all these accurate equations sitting around).
Under the Rope Hypothesis mediating pull is no problem, everything is connected by ropes! The rope model holds that not only are atoms constantly pumping torsion signals to one another but also the ropes between all atoms remain under constant tension. Within this framework we can now see what draws the apple towards the Earth as well as what keeps the planets in orbit around the Sun.
Every atom in the apple is permanently bound to every atom in the Earth. At a far distance above the Earth the interconnecting ropes largely overlap one another. There are fewer effective ropes acting between the two objects because many of the ropes are superimposing. As the apple approaches the Earth however the ropes fan out and the number of effective ropes increases. To be clear, the Earth isn’t reeling the apple in like a fish on a line. Rather, gravity is the aggregate tension along the interconnecting ropes. The number of ropes contributing to that aggregate tension increases as the ropes fan out.
Finally we have a physical interpretation for Newton’s Law of Gravitation. If we take mass to be the count of hydrogen atoms in either body then multiplying them will always return the number of interconnecting ropes. It’s not surprising that the number of interconnecting ropes would be a factor in determining the overall gravitational strength. The distance squared term is explained above as the increasing number of effective ropes that occurs as the ropes fan out. The Gravitational Constant is beyond the scope of this article but under the rope model its components have been teased out and its physical significance discovered.
The rope model also explains the Pioneer Anamoly. Wiki states,
Pioneer 10 and 11 were sent on missions to Jupiter and Jupiter/Saturn respectively…although the spacecraft included thrusters, after the planetary encounters they were used only for semiannual conical scanning maneuvers…leaving them on a long ‘cruise’ phase through the outer Solar System…the calculated position of the Pioneers did not agree with measurements based on timing the return of the radio signals being sent back from the spacecraft. These consistently showed that both spacecraft were closer to the inner Solar System than they should be…as the anomaly was growing, it appeared that the spacecraft were moving more slowly than expected…it appeared to cause an approximately constant sunward acceleration
According to Newton’s law the spacecraft should have been further along than they were. Before the anomaly was allegedly solved (it being due to “thermal recoil”) scientists characterized it as if a mysterious force was pulling the craft back towards the Sun. Being so concerned with mathematics and prediction over explanation physicists more or less assumed that the inverse square relationship would extend to infinity. The rope model however provides an alternative theory and explains the mysterious force pulling the craft back towards the Sun.
As stated above at larger distances the ropes begin to superimpose and there are fewer effective ropes. At large enough distances the ropes superimpose enough to where they act like a single rope. The craft were not as far along as scientists expected because the “force” of gravity had not decreased as quickly as they thought it would given Newton’s inverse square law. Ultimately gravity falls off into a linear regime.
ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM
Why is it that a magnetic “field” travels around the flowing current in a wire? According to conventional ideas about electricity it is electrons that flow along a conducting wire. How do the electron beads generate a “field?” And why does the “field” turn in the opposite direction if the electron beads reverse course? Good luck searching the internet to find an intelligible answer to that one.
Under Thread Theory there is a straightforward explanation. Electricity is a phenomenon where the electron shells of atoms in a conducting material are in contact and spinning in the same direction. A potential applied to a wire induces the immediate shells to spin which in turn induces the next consecutive shells to start spinning and so on and so forth along the wire. Electricity is not a flow of particles but more like a drill bit spinning in place.
Now we can finally understand why electricity generates a magnetic “field.” As the electron shells spin the threads which originate in the shells of the spinning atoms and bind them together are swung around the atoms. Magnetism is not a “field,” it’s an aggregate of gazillions of threads being swept around elongated rows of spinning electron shells.
If the shells are spinning clockwise the threads will sweep around clockwise. If the shells reverse and spin counterclockwise then the threads will be swung around in the other direction. The rope model also explains magnetic attraction and repulsion. If you take two live wires with shells spinning in the same direction the wires will attract. If they are spinning in opposite directions the wires will repel.
During attraction the threads become enmeshed and pull the wires together, during repulsion they clash and push the wires apart. The same principle applies to magnets. Magnetic materials have electron shells which are aligned naturally and spinning in the same direction. In the case of a bar magnet the shells are aligned such that the rows on top of the magnet sweep in the opposite direction as the rows on the bottom. The threads get swept out the north end, cascade down either side of the magnet, and swing back through into the south end producing the familiar iron shaving patterns.
GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION
Since I touched on it at the beginning I’ll provide a brief alternative explanation. At higher altitudes the gravitational stresses on atoms are different than they are closer to the Earth. The lower aggregate tension for a GPS satellite in space will affect the caesium oscillator in the atomic clock and allow it to operate slightly faster. In other words, it’s not time that speeds up it’s the clock! Yet we’re told the whimsical “time dilation” is a FACT and you must just accept it.
CONCLUSIONS
As stated earlier I have barely even scratched the surface as to what the Rope Hypothesis has to offer. That is not at all to say that it has all the answers or is perfect, there’s of course many questions that need to be asked. But I don’t know how it could be regarded as anything other than a huge step in the right direction. A paradigm shift away from particles and waves.
I was always interested in physics as a kid growing up. I read the popular books like Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time.” While the books stimulated my imagination with extraordinary tales of black holes and big bangs and time travel it bothered me that it never made any real sense. I spent a long time looking for answers only to run up against what I’ve seen happen to many others — you ask a question on Physics Forums or Reddit or anywhere else and a qualified professional gives you some giant nonsensical wall of text. It wasn’t until I finally discovered Thread Theory that I could do what I wanted to do all along: visualize the damn objects and what they were doing!
General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and String Theory are in a lot of trouble if people start catching on to this. They’ve wooed peoples’ imaginations with documentaries and tales of alternate dimensions and the like. But of course no one can really understand what they’re saying. What happens when a theory comes along that provides answers in a way that everyone can imagine and understand? Their only hope is to push the “technology works because of us,” and “we can make predictions” narrative which is why I dealt with that at the beginning.
As I’ve stated before I do believe this has definite ramifications for liberty. Science, at least as it applies to physics or some aspects of astronomy, has been turned on its head. Instead of being a tool for enhancing our understanding it has become a tool for obfuscation and endless complication. A friend of mine the other day compared it to Ptolemy’s epicycles. We are told we can’t understand the universe — it’s too crazy and weird. We must take on faith the Authority of the experts who are the only select few that can speak directly to God through His language, Mathematics. We have no choice but to accept as Gospel their second hand laymen’s interpretations that they give us when we start asking questions. We’re left floating in an ocean of uncertainty without any solid rock to cling to. It leaves us vulnerable to manipulation. It’s an attack on our innate reasoning abilities. The Rope Hypothesis restores the possibility that we CAN understand nature, anyone can. And it makes us reevaluate ourselves and our place in the universe.
We’re told that everything will either fall back into the Big Crunch, or perhaps it will dissipate into nothing. Under the Rope Hypothesis the atoms are permanently interwoven. The “proton ball,” that constitutes all the matter in the universe, or whatever you want to call it, is the only authentic perpetual motion machine. Everything within it assembles and disassembles, is born, grows, dies, and withers, endlessly, forever and ever. There’s no beginning, no end. Just the now. As George Carlin called it — The Big Electron.
For anyone interested in further reading I would highly suggest Bill Gaede’s book. He goes into an inordinate amount of detail. For anyone planning on coming to Anarchapulco I am having a little side conference to discuss alternative theories in science (it will be the very next day after Anarchapulco ends, February 22nd). Bill Gaede will be speaking. I’m also excited to have Stephen Crothers, an independent scientist from Australia, who will be speaking on black holes and big bangs. In addition Mike Huttner, an independent scientist and proponent of the Rational Scientific Method from the US, will be speaking on the object/concept dichotomy. I am working to get other speakers. If attending at all interests you see here for the Facebook group for updates.
I hope to see you there!
Join The Discussion
61 CommentsThoughts? Comments?
Please login or register to post a comment.
Account deleted October 5, 2015 , 1:29 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA
David Robison October 5, 2015 , 1:40 am
Haha I love this whole interview so much. I had it all spliced together at one point but it got taken down for copyright. There’s another part where he talks about a friend asking him where photons come from when emitted during “quantum jumping,” or the less fun filled name “atom electron transition.” Is there an infinite number of photons chillin’ in the atom waiting to get shot out somehow? Or are they created from nothing? Feynman admits that he has no idea. Under the RH light is a torsional motion along a rope, not an object in and of itself. Doesn’t require the atom to have the infinite ammo cheat code turned on heh.
joe sands July 10, 2016 , 4:29 am
Please explain why Mercury & inner plants travel faster than outer planets in our solar system, whereas outer solar systems travel faster than inner solar systems around our milky way galaxy? There appears to be an issue with the rope hypothesis in this regard.
Please explain why density of space is so much different to density of a gram of lead especially when all those ropes intertwine to reach this piece of lead?
i.e. vaccum = no objects just space cannot be explained by rope hypothesis b/c there are zillions of ropes travelling thru it!
I agree that current theories are irrational but so is rope hypothesis.
Cash Memorz November 27, 2018 , 12:37 am
2nd repost of a corrected comment
Cash Memorz November 27, 2018 , 12:43 am
repost of a corrected comment
Cash Memorz November 27, 2018 , 1:04 am
It is fine to have an opinion. But to act as if that opinion is worthy of consideration, you must first display some understanding of the current way that physics is actually affecting our lives. In the start of the article you state “those transistors wouldn’t be here without Quantum”. That is totally false. If you check the history of how and when transistors first came out, the first transistor (“Cat’s whisker”) was made in 1905, about twenty years before Schrodinger, Born and the other greats of physics of the time, even came up with the idea of how things work at the quantum level. If one keeps checking for all of the devices that have been claimed to have been produced by the application of quantum wave mechanics, it is found that there is not even one item that is actually working according to that paradigm. The transistor is given an explanation of how it works, by application of the physics as described according to quantum wave mechanics. But that explanation is after the fact of having a transistor first, and then that explanation is an ad hoc one that is designed to use quantum mechanics as if it were foregone conclusion that quantum mechanics can be used as an explanation There is nothing about quantum mechanics that has been shown to be working in any way except as a hypothesis. It is not the best method of explaining anything until something can be made to work according to its tenets. Even the large number of experiments that are interpreted as explaining a phenomenon in that experiment to some high degree of accuracy is not enough. Because experiments are only the start. Indications of accuracy are only good for that and no more, in terms of propaganda or popularizing a theory. If nothing of utility is ever made according to that phenomena and related accuracy purported and even peer reviewed via papers, then what good is it in the human scheme of things? It is not enough to be an exercise in academia to say something is good, if nothing is ever done with the theory to make life better via devices based on the theory. It is not even a theory if that best explanation cannot be converted to practical and feasible devices. It stays at the level of a working hypothesis until that best explanation becomes useful. The road block here is academic prejudice consisting of interpretations based on group think. This is caused by the too soon implementation of waves to explain phenomena such as the two slit experiment, but used anyways.
Quantum wave mechanics is supposed to have been used for entanglement, quantum computers, and more. But the further that any devices have been developed towards a practical version, the more complex that device has become, to the point of being unfeasible. No one can put up with a quantum computer, as it is currently designed and configured, if it is just a simulator of a “real” quantum computer. And the number and kinds problems that have to be overcome are currently so large in number and in degree of difficulty, that the working version will have so many arcane features and shear bulk of sub-devices, as to make it untenable as a device that “makes one life better”. It will be so complex and bulky as to make its use far far too involved and time consuming, in even the most simplest of tasks as to make it not worth using. The same applies to entanglement, a phenomenon, that quantum computers are base on, to form the action of what quantum bits or q-bits rely on to exist.
This point applies to all quantum wave mechanical based phenomena and the devices derived from those phenomena.
The reason why this problem exists in QWM, is exactly why Erwin Schrodinger warned against using his wave hypothesis of matter. Because it was just a hypothesis of his and not to be used until he had tested its validity in the field of chemistry. And when it started to be used willy-nilly before it had passed his tests, Schrodinger disowned his wave theory. That Born or others pushed the wave theory to the fore is not an excuse for using something too soon.
Using the same reasoning and similar reasons, the rope theory is also a no show. It does not cover everything, such as all known phenomena, from the quark level to the whole universe and beyond. Yes, there is a theory that does all this. The Grand Unified Theory- Classical Physics, as started by Herman Anton Haus in 1986, developed by Randell Mills with the collaboration of John J. Farrell and further expanded by Huub Bakker and others such as Kroesen at Eindhoven Technological University, physicists at Columbia Tech and tested several times:
Rowan University’s report http://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Chary%20Redacted%20Report.pdf
Rowan University’s report II http://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Jansson%20Redacted%20Report.pdf
UNC Asheville’s report http://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Dr.%20Booker%20Redacted%20Report.pdf
University of Illinois report http://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/GlumacReportwithGraphics2014.pdf
Also three devices made according to the theory: Free Electron Laser accepted from Herman Haus by the USA military in 1988, the Millsian Molecular modeler made in 2012, upgraded to version 2 in 2017 and in use by 5000, that is a hundred times faster and more accurate than anything similar based on QWM and the near perfected Suncell in 2018-2019. Huub Bakker is working on the 4th device and others are examining the materials towards the fifth or near indestructible plastics coming from the ash of the Suncell.
GUT-CP predicted the accelerating expansion of the universe in 1995. This was “discovered: in 1998 and again corroborated in 2012.
Rope theory is a very far down the list of such theories. GUT-CP is at the top. And is why it is about to overturn QWM, QFM and string theory. This starts with using the GUT-CP explanation for result of the two slit experiment. The particles(no waves involved) going through the slits have their momentum conserved, which ends up with the slits as the pattern upon which the fat field pattern is caused by being a Fourier transform of the two slit pattern.
If that method of deriving the far field had been found sooner, then we would not be having all of the complexity and weirdness that has befallen the over tasked physics community. Physics is hard enough with out having to put up with all of that for 80-90 years. And is the very reason why rope theory and many others had to be considered.
David Robison October 5, 2015 , 3:25 am
“It depends on whether you’re student of physics or an ordinary person that doesn’t know anything or not”
So we must take them on faith then. I just want to know where I stand as an “ordinary person” who is not in a position to question the likes of Feynman or any other.
Okay Mr. F present us with your objects. Are we expected to take his almighty word on faith? If so, then why? Technology? Equations? Obviously he has no answers. He acted like the interviewer was from outer space when the question was asked in a simple and straight forward manner.
Silliness. Anyone please feel free to give your input. Maybe we can get to the bottom of this mess. Thanks.
Jared Joseph Shepherd October 5, 2015 , 4:38 am
David, I am glad you find the “rope hypothesis” conceptually accessible as well as serviceable in explaining physical concepts. I myself have casually conceived of gravity (in this case, the inverse square relationship of Newton’s mathematical model of gravity) in terms of many extended strands of ropes; the closer two objects are, the denser the sets of interacting ropes and the stronger the force.
Yet ropes are but an analog model that use objects that exist at an experiential scale but are being applied at a level at which ropes cannot be compressed while still existing as ropes. Hence, even you describe the ropes as being “incomprehensibly thin.” Such would no longer be a rope but an abstract geometric relationship. Something as such seems to me to be beneath the level of observable, i.e., empirical. Such limits in theoretical physics, I think, are unavoidable and preclude resolving the disagreements specialists wage indefinitely. The rope analogy does not seem to me to be so very different than many of the abstract concepts that you are critical of. It is not that I am so accepting of these criticized concepts. But for the same reasons I find the rope hypothesis as presented here just as wanting as many of the concepts criticized.
As far as unifying physics, I am also not so convinced–but then again, I am not a reductionist in the first place. So I may be unfairly biased. As an empirical scientist, I am probably too scrutinizing to be very receptive to tertiary sources of literature. But I do think the sciences can be unified. I believe strongly that such unification is very much connected to the practical, which you have touched upon. You’re emphasis on the idea of ropes being understandable I think are your most important insights and much more important than the model being considered, itself, or how well the model fits the world. The solution to unifying sciences, I believe, is even simpler than ropes. And I think you’ve gleamed some of the solution here.
Thanks for the post.
David Robison October 5, 2015 , 12:13 pm
Thank you for the thoughts Jared.
“The rope analogy does not seem to me to be so very different than many of the abstract concepts that you are critical of.”
The difference is, as you indicate later in your comment, that the rope is a 3D object which anyone can visualize. The entities I am critical of at the beginning cannot be visualized. Sometimes they do attempt to illustrate the objects I was critical of, but it’s always either a “lower dimensional analogy” like the gravity well in the example of warped spacetime, or perhaps it’s a little sphere in the case of a “charge.” In all those cases however they are never the “real deal,” they’re just supposed to be helpful tools to give the person a vague idea.
In the case of the rope what you see is what you get. The hypothesis proposes that the ropes are genuine real objects with that shape.
Reagan Rothbard October 5, 2015 , 4:40 am
David, thank you for writing this! The idea of an Alternative Science conference sounds terrific.
David Robison October 5, 2015 , 12:15 pm
Awesome thanks for reading! Hope to see you at the conf!
Lee Roesner October 5, 2015 , 12:25 pm
David, great to see someone here discussing physics. I agree with Jared though that a unifying theory is even simpler than “ropes”, and even if it was ropes, how much and how fast anything might be determined by ropes, would be mathematically absolute. You just can’t escape absolute math.
Empirical evidence, is evidence interpretated by the beholder, and we now have scientist who are observing telling us there is no real world and that we make our own world, created only by what we think and dream (coughbullshitcough) and so we get to create a world based only on feelings, beliefs and faiths. This is when it gets dangerous…and of course, this is also the general state of our political elections ~ feelings and beliefs.
These are so called scientists (and we now know why they’re not engineers) who do not realize all dreams will prove themselves out in the physical world by our physical actions, and the mathematical reality of what can be and what cannot.
It’s unfortunate that we assume freedom and liberty is just another belief system, equal to any other belief system, from a shelf full of belief systems, not fully acknowledging that “free” is a “natural state” of nature. We have yet to acknowledge that it’s for good mathematical reason, and then, that it’s a requirement for physical growth.
We have no clue that each of these belief systems have effect on our physical actions, with each producing a physical condition, where each will have its absolute mathematical effect or physical consequence. Socialism would be an example of a certain belief system that leads to certain human/physical behavior, that then has it’s physical consequence that leads to physical decline, which is economic loss.
And that’s to say you can’t belief in Socialism more and change its physical effect. If you try harder, you will only double down on it.
Ropes or no ropes, or without even understanding what a particular force is, the wisdom to be found is in the relationship between forces, and is where you’ll find the common reason behind all cause and effect.
Of course this reason is universal and I would content that it can be easily demonstrated on a kitchen table with full comprehension by a 12 year old, as it’s being demonstrated everywhere, always, and agree it’s been obfuscated by the so called “great minds” for far too long.
Mises himself, as close as he was to understanding economics, had no clue while observing and terming things such as the “the division of labor”, as if his insight only had to do with human behavior, that he was observing physical phenomenon of certain cause with positive effect.
He was observing physical action that produces a certain mathematical condition of energy, time and space, that was “efficient” and so resulted in “economic gain” and so that “produces more” in “less time”. This condition, that produces a physical consequence of more physical creation, is not confined to the result of human physical action alone.
Human intention has no effect on physics, the math or its physical consequence.
Great to discuss math and physics and it’s relationship to freedom and liberty.
David Robison October 5, 2015 , 5:29 pm
Interesting thoughts I’m gonna have to reflect on this one for a minute.
Something Clever October 7, 2015 , 1:39 pm
Death to sophistry!
Great article.
David Robison October 14, 2015 , 11:50 pm
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it amigo.
Harry Halbert October 17, 2015 , 10:57 am
David, thanks for writing this. The rope hypothesis does seem to explain experimental observations more coherently than prevailing theories, which suggests it could indeed be a more accurate model of how the universe works.
However, I think it still falls short of being a grand unified theory – here are my reasons:
1. How does the rope hypothesis explain the fact that, the closer 2 objects are to each other, the stronger the gravitational pull between them? This is the opposite of how ropes behave – the further a rope is stretched, the more tension (pull) there is – so the closer the ends of the rope, the less pull there is.
(The explanation in the article – based on “number of interconnecting ropes” – doesn’t seem to be consistent. Because if every pair of atoms is connected, then the number of interconnecting ropes between 2 objects is independent of the distance between 2 objects.)
2. The test of a scientific model lies in its predictive power. What predictions can we make about Physics and the universe, based on the rope hypothesis? Only when such predictions are tested and verified by experiments, can we be confident in the validity of the model.
David Robison October 17, 2015 , 3:33 pm
Hey Harry, thanks for reading.
On your first point:
To be clear, the ropes don’t stretch like rubber bands. They are just always under tension due to the fact that all the H atoms in the Universe are tugging radially on each other.
You are correct in asserting that the number of interconnecting does not change. The number of ropes and atoms in the Universe never changes. What changes is the number of effective ropes contributing to the total tension. At larger distances the ropes superimpose and don’t individually contribute their tension to the overall aggregate tension between the objects.
Ever watch Alaska: The Last Frontier? There’s an episode where they’re trying to use two ATVs to move this 4,000 pound bridge. They tie their ATVs to the thing and start by pulling in the same direction. No matter how hard they rev the thing won’t budge. Then they decide to change it up and pull at different angles instead of the same direction. They move the bridge no problem.
The same principle applies to Thread Theory’s explanation for gravity. As the ropes fan out when two objects approach the ropes are under tension at different angles and thus begin contributing their individual tensions to the aggregate. That’s the explanation for the inverse square law. While the overall number of ropes is constant the # of effective ropes increases exponentially as distance decreases.
On the second point:
I’m coming from a different school of thought on this. I need to do a write up on the Rational Scientific Method.
I think science is about increasing our understanding through proposing rational explanations for phenomena. Whether or not they or true I would regard as someone’s scientific opinion and outside the boundaries of science. Whether or not they are rational, i.e., whether the Key Terms can be used consistently, whether the objects can be illustrated, and whether the processes can be illustrated, is an objective, scientific matter.
So Thread Theory is about trying to explain consummated events rather than make predictions about the future to test whether the theory is true or not. Given the nature of the claims ultimately the truth or falsity cannot be assessed because we’re talking about observer independent reality.
The predictive method is great for discovering patterns and developing technology. If we’re talking an equation or something it makes more sense because you can actually test that and get a definitive answer. Those claims are observer dependent and so they can be tested.
The Rational Scientific Method is more in line with how Austrians approach economics. They use theory to explain evidence and you can’t really test something like the Fundamental Axiom.
Michael Richman October 19, 2015 , 12:09 am
I’m hesitant to spend too much time on this thread because I doubt I’ll be particularly convincing to most of the readers. (I actually changed “waste” to “spend” in that sentence in hope that I won’t be entirely right on this point!) Still, I think it’s worth commenting on some things this article brings up from a perspective I suspect is uncommon on this site.
You see, I’m a physicist. The seeds were sown when I was just a child asking questions my parents could not answer, but I guess I became a “serious” physicist when I chose that field as my academic specialization. I studied at an unremarkable liberal arts college where I earned my B.S. (the irony is thick in academia, no!?) followed by a highly ranked research university where I earned my PhD. After obtaining my terminal degree (sounds like a deadly illness, right? maybe it is) in January, I took a job as a post-doctoral researcher with a 1-3 year funding-dependent contract. I’m laying this out as “full-disclosure” but also as a sort of authoritative claim. I live my life within the heart of the beast, and given the apparent dearth of “establishment scientists” on this site, I think that should warrant at least some attention to my opinion.
This post is likely to be tl;dr, so let me comment first on the main strength of this article, as I see it. There is an underlying frustration with career scientists who do not see failure to communicate as a problem. I think it’s true that scientists, and maybe physicists particularly, are prone to an elitist attitude that is not just unwarranted but downright dangerous. In my experience, scientists prefer to see themselves as open-minded, but in fact they are mostly as conservative as everyone else. Physicists especially see themselves as the peak of the intellectual world, which exacerbates their aggregate failings. After all, American physicists are largely in agreement on a vaguely-reformist Democratic [Party] platform. In my estimation, they are so impressed by their own understanding of how things work at the smallest scales that they can’t conceive of the failings of their extrapolation of that mode of thought to large scale structures such as societies of individually highly complex individuals. You know, something something chaos something something. “If we can build absurdly-precise particle accelerators, why can’t we guide society in a related way?” … fail. The elitist attitude not only lends itself to statism, but it opens the door to all manner of faux-science masquerading as real understanding. I mean, if you know you can’t trust scientists — and maybe you really can’t — then why shouldn’t you go out on a limb and trust someone who says something you can at least hold easily in your mind?
I guess that brings me to actual questions of science — and another arguable strength of this article. I think David would agree that philosophy of science warrants more attention from both scientists and non-scientists. But when we start digging in, this is where we start to disagree.
In my view, physics is largely the study of how nature *behaves*. This study is far from complete, and it’s likely it will never be complete. But what we have so far is a spectacularly precise understanding, if we compare what we have now to the rest of the history of our species. Some relatively recent observations highlight the success of the approach that has been taken in “mainstream physics”. I’ll list two (among many) examples that come to mind from particle physics:
– Neutrinos exist. You see, the “nature-behavioral” claim that energy and momentum are conserved quantities was at risk of disproof in 1930 when some experiments seemed in tension with that idea. At the risk of being known forever as a fool, Pauli postulated that some neutral particle with extremely small mass — the neutrino — not only existed, but was produced in the relevant reactions in a way that preserved energy and momentum (and charge!) conservation. Sure enough, later experiments were able to confirm that neutrinos do exists, and they interact with other matter in a symmetric way when emitted vs absorbed, so that they were entirely consistent with the rest of the pre-existing theory. Since then, we’ve learned quite a bit about whatever the f neutrinos are — ask in reply-comments if you’d like more info (or research it for yourself!).
– The Higgs boson exists. Observations over the course of decades establish the “existence” of a handful of particles that constitute the “Standard Model”, but the mathematics behind the theory only allow these particles to have masses if a particular other particle not only exists, but can decay to matter/antimatter pairs of all the other massive particles. Talk about going out on a limb, huh? I mean, you’re going to trust math over the lack of observations of such a thing until now??? Well… it turns out that the Higgs boson is real. It’s actually only the most recent, and most epic, confirmation of the prevailing mathematical model.
Now, from a science philosophy perspective, you could certainly posit an entirely unorthodox model such as the “rope theory”. I briefly considered looking in detail at how it would apply to the entire body of observations to date, but I decided that would be time *wasted*, not spent. It doesn’t actually solve any of the philosophical problems of mainstream physics. The ropes and threads are no more “objects” than are fields, notwithstanding the physics community’s failure to communicate about fields. At best, the rope theory is no better than string theory, if it can account for what we see but cannot be disproved by any particular measurements. At worst, it’s a completely ad-hoc hypothesis that warrants no serious consideration. Frankly, the exposition here makes me suspect the latter. How T F does this account for chemical reactions? Nuclear reactions? Neutrinos and neutrino flavor-oscillations? Also, what’s with the cherry-picking of the Pioneer Anomaly, the link to the relevant Wikipedia page, and the rejection of every argument on that page about the failures of proposals other than the accepted explanation of thermal recoil? (By the way, thermal recoil isn’t that hard to understand. A refrigerator in orbit would behave exactly the same way, since it emits heat in a direction-dependent way — out its rear-end, but not through the front!)
See, serious physicists don’t — or at least shouldn’t — hold any illusions about what REALLY IS. Those are matters of philosophy. Metaphysics. But we certainly do insist on falsifiable claims. We may be able to understand only the behavior, but not the fundamental structure, of nature until we understand literally everything, and we may never be able to understand literally everything.
I guess that’s all this severely jet-lagged physicist wants to say about rope “theory”, but let me close with another falsifiability-related claim: we don’t know shit about dark matter and dark energy. Inferring that these “really” exist is the kind of error Robinson is warning us about. Dark matter skeptics within the physics mainstream are quiet enough that you might assume we don’t exist, but we do. We don’t know dark matter exists; we just know that our observations are consistent with its existence. We do, however, believe that serious study is more likely than ad hoc speculation to reveal the true behavior of nature.
David Robison October 19, 2015 , 3:50 am
Hello Michael thank you for reading the article and taking the time to extensively comment.
As a disclaimer let me relate that I take a different view of the purpose of science than the empiricist view. I like the Rational Scientific Method. Here is a quick run down if you would please bear with me for a second:
The RSM comes in three stages. Hypothesis. Theory. Conclusion. Hypotheses do not become Theories, they are always and everywhere eternally separate.
HYPOTHESIS (assumptions)
1. Illustrate the objects (at least in simplified form)
2. Define your Key Terms in an unambiguous, non-contradictory, non-circular, non-synonymous manner
3. Paint the initial scene (how the objects are arranged with respect to one another)
THEORY
1. Illustrate the behavior of the objects
2. Define any other Key Terms in an unambiguous, non-contradictory, non-circular, non-synonymous manner
CONCLUSION
1. Connect the theory with any evidence
It’s a very straightforward approach. It’s all based on explicit assumptions, i.e., statements that are taken at face value so the theory can be understood (not ‘assuming’ them to be true). The concepts of belief, truth, proof, knowledge, and fact are eliminated. It’s just the presentation of a theory. Whether anyone believes the theory is their scientific opinion. This solves a lot of problems especially with things like dogma, confirmation bias, etc.
“You see, I’m a physicist.”
Me too! Well not for a living, but you know… 🙂
“In my view, physics is largely the study of how nature *behaves*”
But what is doing the *behaving*? Objects! Can’t study behavior without the things doing the behaving. “Object” is the most key term in physics and physicists have yet to define it unambiguously and consistently. I believe this is because in their minds science is about modeling mathematically and being able to make predictions. They have no use for objects except to create “analogies” for trying to visualize things that are impossible to picture, such as higher dimensions.
My definition of object:
object – that with shape (pursuant to the RSM above this is just an ASSUMPTION, not a truth claim)
“But what we have so far is a spectacularly precise understanding”
We have a spectacularly precise ability to predict. I would consider understanding to be the ability to explain, not just predict. That would entail illustrating the objects of the theories. The problem is that they cannot do this because they do not do physics with objects, they do physics with abstract mathematical concepts that cannot be illustrated.
“Neutrinos exist.”
This is an assumption, not a fact. It’s an assumption (hypothesis) used in a theory in order to explain observations (conclusion). The only objective question is whether the theory is rational, i.e., are the key terms used consistently and can the objects be illustrated (as well as processes). At any rate…
“ask in reply-comments if you’d like more info (or research it for yourself!).”
Yes! I am always interested in learning more. Thread Theory is brand new so there is much work to do. Here’s one way of approaching it:
Thread Theory proposes a mechanism for beta decay. A neutron is an H atom where the magnetic threads from each rope don’t break off to form an electron serpentine but instead continue along the rope towards the center of the convergence. Beta decay, at least neutron to proton, is where the M threads recoil outwards to form an E shell. This release of thread from the nucleus might cause some torsional activity along the extending ropes that could be interpreted as “neutrinos.” I wouldn’t be the first to point out the similarity between “neutrinos” and “photons.”
“The Higgs boson exists.”
Again, this is an assumption! And an assumption that cannot be rationally justified. No one can explain what a Higgs Boson or a Higgs Field is! We are given the usual: endless analogies.
Let’s keep in mind that the LHC produces such a voluminous amount of data that they end up discarding 99.99997% of it. They accomplish this with a massive server farm running algorithms written by the physicists themselves to separate out anything that isn’t “interesting.” After initial processing it’s sent out to a global network of computer centers for further processing.
Lord knows what kind of assumptions and preconceived ideas they’ve built in to these selection algorithms. The potential for confirmation bias and data dredging is enormous.
Let’s also bear in mind that the construction and lifetime operating costs of the LHC up and until the “discovery” of Higgs was $13.25 billion. This is a machine that took 10 years to build in collaboration with 10,000+ scientists from over 100 countries. They need RESULTS in one way or another.
“I briefly considered looking in detail at how it would apply to the entire body of observations to date, but I decided that would be time *wasted*, not spent.”
I would encourage you to reconsider that. Don’t get me wrong — I think while modern physics is horribly misguided they are damn good at recognizing patterns. With your practical knowledge you might find that you could advance some groundbreaking insights within the context of the Rope Hypothesis. Just a thought.
(continued)…
David Robison October 19, 2015 , 3:51 am
“The ropes and threads are no more ‘objects’ than are fields”
As I defined (assumption) above object is that with shape. A 3D rope has shape and can easily be understood by the likes of a six year old, this is what I’ve been looking for for years. Fields do not have shape because they are abstract mathematical concepts.
“At best, the rope theory is no better than string theory”
There is a clear objective difference between the two. Thread Theory does not posit anything other than 3D objects. String Theory talks about one dimensional “strings” and higher dimensions and all other manner of mathematical jargon that has no physical meaning.
“if it can account for what we see but cannot be disproved by any particular measurements”
It’s impossible to prove or disprove an explanation, hence why these terms are extra-scientific. Explanation is about making explicit assumptions. Proof/disproof only makes sense in the view that science is about predictions via equations.
Thread Theory EXPLAINS basic phenomena like gravitational attraction with visualizable 3D objects whereas neither General Relativity nor Quantum can provide an explanation with objects. They rely on either “warped spacetime” “pushing” somehow or a 0D particle which causes things to move toward the direction in which it deflects off of them.
“At worst, it’s a completely ad-hoc hypothesis that warrants no serious consideration.”
I can imagine no greater example of ad-hoc than the Standard Model which invents a new particle with a new behavior every time something unexpected is encountered. The laws of nature could be completely different and regardless of what they were one could produce a “Standard Model” so long as you had the ability to talk about as many particles as necessary with as many different behaviors as necessary. It’s the essence of ad-hoc. And there is NO physical explanation for the different behaviors or physical interpretation for any of the myriad of ridiculous parameters like “strangeness.”
“How T F does this account for chemical reactions?”
Like I said, it’s brand new. What chemical reaction did you have in mind?
“Nuclear reactions?”
Such as? Fission? Fusion?
“Neutrinos and neutrino flavor-oscillations?”
How exactly does YOUR theory account for the “flavor oscillations?” How does a neutrino suddenly decide to change “flavors” and under what process does it accomplish this? What’s the physical significance of a “flavor oscillation?” Or of “flavor” at all? These are abstract mathematical concepts.
This goes back to recognizing patterns and endlessly encoding them into these overly complex classification systems without having any understanding whatsoever of the underlying phenomena. Tell me in no uncertain terms: as an elementary particle does a neutrino have a radius under the prevailing theory? Does it have any size? That’s the first thing we need to settle before proceeding.
“Also, what’s with the cherry-picking of the Pioneer Anomaly, the link to the relevant Wikipedia page, and the rejection of every argument on that page about the failures of proposals other than the accepted explanation of thermal recoil? (By the way, thermal recoil isn’t that hard to understand. A refrigerator in orbit would behave exactly the same way, since it emits heat in a direction-dependent way — out its rear-end, but not through the front!)”
This is not cherry picking this is crucial to understanding other phenomena as well. For example according to the prevailing scientific approach poor Newton and Einstein should have been obliterated with the galaxy rotation problem. But they did such a great job at predicting everything else that physicists invented dark matter to save them (which they WILL find in the LHC via confirmation bias idiocy).
They eeked out this “thermal recoil” “explanation” as yet another patchwork to save Newton/Eine. They assume their equations continue unto infinity because they have no physical understanding.
Newt and Eine work incredibly well in most situations with which we are familiar. I communicated the Pioneer Anomaly situation because it’s clearly related to the inverse square explanation, i.e., the superimposing of ropes. It explains Newton’s equation and the anomaly with a consistent physical interpretation.
“See, serious physicists don’t — or at least shouldn’t — hold any illusions about what REALLY IS. ”
Yet you said neutrinos and Higgs bosons exist. So which is it? At any rate, NOR do I. I make explicit ASSUMPTIONS, there are no truth claims involved.
“But we certainly do insist on falsifiable claims.”
Makes perfect sense for the empirical method, not the explanation method.
“I guess that’s all this severely jet-lagged physicist wants to say about rope ‘theory'”
I really appreciate the long typed out comment. I’m not trying to push Thread Theory as some kind of Gospel I just want to spread understanding of it so people can come to their own conclusions. I have plenty of problems with it. Modifications may be necessary, there’s much work to do. But I think it represents an enormous leap forward. It’s worth looking into with an open mind IMO.
Michael Richman October 19, 2015 , 10:20 pm
Consider for a moment what you are proposing.
The math is too hard, the things are too small, and there’s too much emphasis on describing what actually happens in nature. Therefore, let us ignore the massive ensemble of evidence collected over the last few generations, and invoke instead a less mathy “explanation”, defining that term such that the correctness of the explanation is explicitly not important. Our explanation will still invoke objects that are too small to observe with our eyes, but at least they can be visualized without math.
You clearly know very little about the standard model. That’s fine — it’s complex stuff, and it’s not useful in most people’s every day life. But simply claiming that the standard model is ad hoc does not make it so. The model includes the smallest number of “fundamental” particles necessary to explain what we observe in labs and in space — at least, as far as we know so far. There are 17 fundamental particles that exist either alone or in various bound states. The properties of the fundamental particles determine the properties of composite particles. The math isn’t easy, but it works. You can propose that certain bound states should be possible, and then go out and make them in a lab. They behave as expected based on the behavior of the constituent particles. That’s what makes it a good explanation. It doesn’t necessarily mean you know what the fundamental particles “really are”, but it does mean that you know something about how they behave.
I think you need to do more research. I can’t upload years’ worth of coursework in this comments thread, so I won’t try to address all the questions you asked about the standard explanations. What I will say is that calling an approach rational doesn’t make it so. Nature doesn’t care what you personally, or anyone else, can visualize. There’s nothing rational about preferring a simple visualization over an explanation that is consistent with the behavior of nature.
I will stand by my offer of more info on neutrinos, though. These particles are electrically neutral, like neutrons, but they are fundamental particles, like electrons. They are created in nuclear reactions. Early last century it was observed that some reactions seemed to yield final states with different momentum from the initial states. Because the explanatory power of energy and momentum conservation was so strong, Pauli postulated that there must be some other particle that is difficult to detect, which has enough energy that none was “destroyed” in the reaction, and traveling in the right direction so that momentum was also conserved. The missing particles can’t be photons because if they were, the detectors in use at that time would have been able to see them. I think this corresponds more or less to the hypothesis and theory steps in your description of RSM. Then detectors were built to try and observe these particles. Sure enough, they were found. Nowadays neutrino detectors are used to measure the properties of particle accelerator reactions, nuclear power plant reactions, the core of the sun, and atmospheric particle showers induced by “cosmic rays” — extraterrestrial particles coming from we-don’t-yet-know-where and crashing into the upper atmosphere. Super K observed neutrinos from a supernova, SN1987A. It’s really elegant that a single theory can tie together all of these phenomena. There’s nothing ad hoc about it.
Last thing: let me just note that discarding large amounts of data in an analysis is common practice. It’s done to isolate things that are less well understood by ignoring things that are already well understood based on results of previous, less sensitive instruments. There’s nothing conspiratorial about it. Similarly, there’s nothing shady about rejecting a modified-gravity explanation of the Pioneer Anomaly. It was indeed considered, but the modification that would have accounted for Pioneer would also have caused effects that were not observed in careful measurements of other distant objects.
Lee Roesner October 19, 2015 , 10:45 pm
At the risk of sounding trite, when physicist or mathematician observes a tree blowing in the wind, they may envision overwhelming amounts of calculation taking place, and then again at every moment in time, where in effect, it is only calculating one thing.
I’m afraid this is where the train left the tracks as far as science goes…which is more about data collecting now, and getting awards for finding “new data”.
The wisdom part truly is a lost art.
Michael Richman October 20, 2015 , 12:57 am
I’m not 100% sure I follow you. Are you saying that a cold, mechanical understanding is a poor substitute for deep spiritual connection to the world? If so, then I’m with you. (And if not, then what follows will be a tangent but I hope you’ll enjoy it anyway).
There is a quiet subculture in the physics community, at least among young physicists, that does prioritize a spirituality that transcends, yet is informed by, mathematical rigor. I assure you that the beauty of the tree blowing in the wind is not lost on us.
I mentioned in my post that the Earth is constantly bombarded by “cosmic rays” — atomic nuclei with crazy high energies, whose sources have not been found in the century+ since their discovery. We see equal amounts in almost every direction, which (along with a few other observations) shows that they must come from extragalactic objects. My work involves attempting to identify some or all of the sources. One intriguing hypothesis is that cosmic rays have played a crucial role in biological evolution. I mean, think about the precision of DNA replication. Most every cell in your body has identical DNA. Natural selection depends on DNA mutation, but if the chemical process is so precise, where do the mutations come from? It has been suggested that daughter particles of the cosmic rays occasionally interact with the DNA of sperm, egg, or zygote such that a mutation occurs.
Humanity has been largely confined to the surface of the Earth as long as we have existed, so the possibility that we owe our physical form to the cumulative effects of not only an ancient supernova that eventually birthed our solar system, but also violent processes in who-knows-how-many distant galaxies… it’s mindblowing. How beautiful would it be if this view of the interconnectedness of all matter and life is not only attractive, but true and demonstrable? Possibilities like this are what keep me interested in my work.
Similarly, we see beauty in the tree partially because of the seemingly fractal nature of nature. In the middle of a field stands a tree composed of a strong functional trunk and many branches covered in leaves. Each part consists of countless tiny cells going about their business more or less independently. The cells consist of countless atoms consisting of countless tiny fundamental particles. The standard model includes 17 fundamental particles, but the tree is made up of only three. Are they really fundamental? I prefer to think they subdivide even further, perhaps infinitely. Even if there really is a bedrock size scale, we may never find it.
But we can also zoom out. The field is dwarfed by the Earth, yet the Earth is just a tiny rock compared to the entire solar system. But on a map of the Milky Way, the solar system wouldn’t cover even a single pixel (probably not even on Apple’s retina displays!). Our home galaxy is surrounded by an obscene number of others, some similar and some quite different, and these are arranged in an unfathomably huge web of superclusters of clusters of galaxies. The universe suggests that the tree is tiny, but thanks to the tree and its sisters, the atmosphere retains a sufficiently stable supply of oxygen for us and our fellow wildlife to be able to breathe. We are biologically hardwired to appreciate and respect the tree without knowing about any of these other size scales, but knowing about them only makes the entire picture more beautiful to me.
One of the marvels of modern science is that all of this is so well understood because we can basically just take pictures of it all with ordinary optical equipment fitted with precisely-crafted lenses. Physics deals in fundamentals, so all the fascinating consequences are left for astronomy, chemistry, biology, engineering, psychology, etc. to elaborate on. It’s not unreasonable that physics, as the oldest science (arguably roughly tied with mathematics, if you consider that a science), would now be focusing on the tiniest and the most distant objects, as this is where we find open questions.
The never-ending quest for data, and for public funding with which to obtain it, has robbed modern science of its aesthetic appeal in the eyes of bitter non-experts who are quite unfortunately left out of the party. The same is true of public education and mathematics — see this FANTASTIC essay, A Mathematician’s Lament (https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf). It is in this sense that I think we could argue that modern science has lost its way. As with any other human action, it boils down to economics. Statism has perverted science, one of the most beautiful products of society, into a blunt tool in service of “civilization”.
I hope we can get back on track someday. But if that’s what we want, we will get there by recognizing systemic problems in the hierarchical class division between elite scientists, worker bee scientists, and everyone else. It won’t help to carelessly reject the extremely useful and beautiful, even if eternally incomplete, theories that we have found *in spite of* statist perversion of scientific inquiry.
Michael Richman October 20, 2015 , 12:58 am
^ That was intended as a reply to Lee Roesner — not sure why it got posted at top level, sorry about that.
David Robison October 20, 2015 , 1:06 am
I noticed typos in my response so I deleted/reposted a few times, maybe that did something.
EDIT: Just discovered the edit button. Well that was a lot easier.
David Robison October 20, 2015 , 1:05 am
@Michael R.
“The math is too hard, the things are too small, and there’s too much emphasis on describing what actually happens in nature. ”
This is NOT my argument.
My argument is that math is not the language of physics. Math has nothing to do with physics. I understand it’s drilled into everyone’s heads b/c of math’s utility in making predictions, but math does not explain anything.
Physics – the study of objects
Object – that with shape
Explanation – someone’s account of how something happened
Math only describes because the variables represent measured quantities. It’s just a description of how variables relate to one another, a description of what is observed. Describing what you observed does not explain what you observed. At best math is a clue as to what physical explanation might account for the pattern.
“Therefore, let us ignore the massive ensemble of evidence collected over the last few generations”
Come on man, this is NOT my argument. Please find me one spot in my article where I said we should ignore evidence. What I am taking issue with are their physical interpretations. Do you understand the difference between a physical interpretation and evidence? Between theory and evidence? There are multiple possible theories for any given body of evidence.
Thread Theory explains the existing body of evidence that has been amassing over the last few generations. So no one is ignoring anything. It’s just a different interpretation for the evidence. The prevailing assumptions are not magically facts because physicists say so.
“and invoke instead a less mathy ‘explanation’”
This is not a matter of my personal preference. Math does not explain. Math only describes.
“You clearly know very little about the standard model.”
This is how the religion propagates itself, by telling any dissenters they simply haven’t taken enough college courses. QM has become so specialized that QED folks prolly say the same type of thing when a QCD guy tries to take issue with one of their papers. I’ll tell you what I do know, that physicists cannot illustrate a single object and therefore do not have a single explanation for anything.
“There are 17 fundamental particles that exist either alone or in various bound states.”
Yeah and when you count up the antiparticles and colors there’s 61 elementary particles! Mathematicians cannot physically explain the different behavior of these particles, they have to rely on mathematical descriptions. This is why it’s ad hoc. There’s no physical explanation for the different behaviors.
“The math isn’t easy, but it works.”
And I explicitly state that I don’t disagree. The math works great. Math doesn’t explain.
“You can propose that certain bound states should be possible, and then go out and make them in a lab. They behave as expected based on the behavior of the constituent particles. That’s what makes it a good explanation.”
Making a prediction and confirming it is not an explanation. Newton developed his law of gravitation and it predicts the motion of bodies under the influence of gravity very well yet he admitted that he had no explanation for gravity in his “I frame no hypotheses” quote. Newton gave us a wonderful equation that describes behavior but which explains nothing.
“It doesn’t necessarily mean you know what the fundamental particles ‘really are’, but it does mean that you know something about how they behave.”
I don’t know what this “really are” stuff is. I am not talking about metaphysics or something. I am talking about shape. Form. It’s a very simple requirement. Function follows from form. In your particle universe the particles just bounce off each other randomly and chaotically. To prevent this mathematicians add “forces” into the mix which they cannot illustrate. They also add “fields” which they cannot illustrate. They also add all these parameters like “quantum spin” which have no physical meaning. All they “know” is that they can describe patterns consistently. That’s it.
Again, mathematicians cannot explain the different behaviors for elementary particles that are structurally indistinguishable. They can DESCRIBE the “particles” that they’ve modeled mathematically as zero dimensional points. That’s not a physical explanation.
“Nature doesn’t care what you personally, or anyone else, can visualize.”
This has nothing to do with me personally. And no, the human mind doesn’t place limitations on Nature, but it DOES place limitations on what the human mind can visualize and understand. Your argument basically says, “Our brains can’t comprehend Nature so we need to fill our ‘explanations’ with gibberish that the mind still doesn’t understand.”
And I think you are dead wrong. We CAN visualize Nature. Thread Theory shows that we can.
“There’s nothing rational about preferring a simple visualization over an explanation that is consistent with the behavior of nature.”
Rational – describes any communication whose key terms have been defined to the point where there is only a single possible interpretation for them (i.e., where everyone understands the same thing)
Visualization necessarily follows from rationality. If the objects can’t be visualized then there will always be multiple interpretations for the theory. Leaving your theory open to interpretation is not science, it’s called religion. The Priest lets the congregation decide what he means. In Science, the theorist absolutely must be precise with his terminology.
And again, mathematicians don’t have any explanations! They have a pile of descriptions.
“Because the explanatory power of energy and momentum conservation was so strong”
Mathematical description, not explanation.
“The missing particles can’t be photons because if they were, the detectors in use at that time would have been able to see them.”
I am not suggesting they are the same thing, I am suggesting that a ‘neutrino’ is some torquing that occurs along the ropes as a result of magnetic threads being released to reform an E shell. What you would call a “photon” results from a full “quantum jump” of the “electron.” Which under TT is an expansion/contraction of the E shell taking in and releasing one link of thread (hence, the ‘quantum of energy’ of Quantum Mechanics). At any rate this is not a core component of TT, definitely on my list to work out though.
“I think this corresponds more or less to the hypothesis and theory steps in your description of RSM.”
Hypothesis and Theory are solely about presenting objects, definitions, and behavior. There’s no right/wrong, correct/incorrect, true/false, etc. It’s just an objective presentation. Whether anyone think it’s true is their opinion. Mathematicians like to mistake their opinions and assumptions for facts.
“Sure enough, they were found.”
That they detected particles is their ASSUMPTION in order to explain the evidence. Assumptions are not facts. I have already provided an alternative possibility.
“There’s nothing ad hoc about it.”
It’s the Standard Model that is ad hoc in its “explanation.” Look I don’t doubt that you are tapping into definite patterns. The experimentalists since Newton’s time have provided us with fantastic patterns and clues as to how Mother Nature operates. The only thing left to do is explain those patterns. Saying everything is a particle which somehow has all these abstract mathematical concepts as “properties” in order to “explain” the different behaviors is not an explanation.
“There’s nothing conspiratorial about it.”
It doesn’t require a conspiracy to recognize the obvious perils in this. It’s the most extreme example of confirmation bias I’ve ever seen. There’s maybe a not so popular saying in high energy particle physics…”yesterday’s Nobel prize is today’s background.” It’s an endless process. Collide, filter, “discover,” turn up the energy, rinse, repeat.
“Similarly, there’s nothing shady about rejecting a modified-gravity explanation of the Pioneer Anomaly.”
Not sure what you mean here…who is rejecting what?
Michael Richman October 20, 2015 , 1:26 am
I think I might be seeing what you are getting at in this post. You might say that rope theory attempts to explain why we see what we see. I’m going to check it out a bit more to see to what extent it is consistent with mainstream theory — because if the explanation is correct, it must be consistent with the data. If it disagrees with mainstream cosmology, that might be ok, but it has to agree with relativistic quantum field theory and local small-scale general relativity because these are already very well-measured. If it does, then it is at least potentially useful.
I disagree that openness to interpretation is either religious or a weakness. Committing prematurely to an interpretation is the hallmark of religion. If we can’t confirm that the ropes are real, then it’s just speculation — sort of like my pet hypothesis that the Standard Model “fundamental particles” can in fact be divided up into even smaller parts (possibly with clarification of “charge” and “color” along the way).
Confirmation bias is a real problem in modern physics, I will certainly grant that. It’s a problem in all science, really. But note that it’s not confirmation “bias” to accept an explanation that is consistent with an already successful theory. You’ve heard that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” yes? For an alternative explanation to be accepted, it must be either *more consistent* with the evidence than existing theory, or *equally consistent* plus *equally or more simple* (in the Occam’s Razor sense).
I personally think collider experiments are kind of boring and arguably quite wasteful. That doesn’t mean their results are wrong; it just means that the market is jacked due to the statist incentive structure.
I brought Pioneer back up because it sounds like you are saying the “unanticipated attractive force” hypothesis was ruled out prematurely. Based on my reading, it looks like that possibility was considered but disproven by evidence — the behavior of other distant objects.
Michael Richman October 20, 2015 , 1:28 am
^ another threading fail. I’m using a pretty unconventional, rough-around-the-edges browser (‘uzbl’ — you probably don’t want to try it) so it might be letting me down here.
David Robison October 20, 2015 , 3:09 am
I got the e-book somewhere in one of my flash drives, I can send it to you even if you just want to look at it for fun. My conference related email is drobison.rationalphysics@gmail.com.
“I disagree that openness to interpretation is either religious or a weakness. Committing prematurely to an interpretation is the hallmark of religion.”
Let me be more specific since I’ve used the term “interpretation” in two different contexts.
Evidence can be interpreted in many different ways. Those interpretations are what can be called Theories. So I agree in this context openness to theories is a strength.
In the other context I’m saying interpretation refers to the theories themselves being left open. If the theorist cannot clearly communicate their explanation then everyone in the room is bound to leave with their own specific interpretation. When it comes to the Scientific Method and the presentation there should be no interpreting. Otherwise we have miscommunication or worse yet irrationality.
“If we can’t confirm that the ropes are real, then it’s just speculation — sort of like my pet hypothesis that the Standard Model “fundamental particles” can in fact be divided up into even smaller parts (possibly with clarification of “charge” and “color” along the way).”
The ropes are pure speculation, yes! As are particles. The only objective difference between possible theories is whether the objects can be visualized and behaviors explained pursuant to the form of the objects. One may argue that visualization is not a requirement of science. Even then I can still categorize theories objectively as to whether the alleged entities can be visualized. And ultimately what I’m seeing from every “layman” asking questions on various physics forums is that, whether they realize it or not, they are trying to visualize, but cannot, which leads to the confusion. They blame themselves and lack of years at the university rather than the fact that prevailing theories do not propose objects.
Smaller parts is the tendency. Particle theory has nowhere else to go but smaller and smaller reductions, turtles all the way down, hoping that at some point the evidence will “click” and a major simplification will occur. If you could explain charge and color physically then that would be monumental. Perhaps you could take advantage of the rope architecture and do just that. Idk.
“For an alternative explanation to be accepted”
I am arguing that acceptance/denial belongs to religion. Presentation of a theory is objective. The theory may be idiotic but that’s for everyone to decide after they’ve viewed the presentation. What separates Science from irrationality is whether the theory references key terms that can be used consistently. Consistency, I would argue, entails visualization of objects/processes.
“I brought Pioneer back up because it sounds like you are saying the ‘unanticipated attractive force’ hypothesis was ruled out prematurely. Based on my reading, it looks like that possibility was considered but disproven by evidence — the behavior of other distant objects.”
“Disproven” is someone’s opinion, not part of the Scientific Method. There are competing explanations for the Anomaly. I think it can be explained by the drop off of the inverse square law at larger distances, i.e., the ropes superimposing. Realistically I think “thermal recoil” was an ex post justification for the anomaly. Yet another way of patching things together because challenging Newton or Einstein would be unthinkable. Their equations are great except when you apply them to something like the galaxy rotation problem or the Pioneer spacecraft. It requires a physical understanding to possibly understand why the inverse square law falls off or how the galaxy spins more like a carousel wheel.
Michael Richman October 20, 2015 , 3:31 am
Some of this is just word games. I mean, I can visualize fields and wave packets. There’s no magic, no sleight of hand, no deception, no running off the rails. Maybe it does take time to study it and understand how this explanation works. That doesn’t mean it’s no explanation at all. Gaede claims otherwise in his YouTube videos, but he also reveals himself as an obvious crackpot in numerous other ways in these videos.
When I talk about theories being “accepted”, I’m only referring to the same thing as you when you talk about individuals “deciding” after viewing presentation. If most people “decide” that they’ve viewed a pile of BS, then the BS is not “accepted”.
So we all individually get to “decide” whether the Pioneer anomaly hints at new physics. My understanding is that it does not. There was a small but measurable unexpected acceleration of the probe. Excited experimentalists considered the possibility that modified gravitational theory would explain the discrepancy, but they found that any such modified theory implied effects that should also be observable on other distant objects. Those effects were not observed, so they — and now, upon study, I too — rejected the hypothesis. Deciding that a particular gravity modification is the answer, and ignoring evidence to the contrary, is classic religious behavior.
I personally agree that some type of modified gravity will explain the apparent transition from 1/r^2 to 1/r, but no such modification has yet been proposed that is consistent with the motion of distant objects in the solar system in addition to Pioneer and galactic arms.
David Robison October 20, 2015 , 4:28 am
“Some of this is just word games. I mean, I can visualize fields and wave packets. ”
Scientific, precise definitions = word games? Let’s just use words however we want and in different ways throughout a theory? Anything goes? I don’t think so.
You absolutely cannot visualize fields or wave packets. If you can then simply illustrate them for us! Please send me the picture.
“Maybe it does take time to study it and understand how this explanation works.”
It takes time to visualize an object? I have to go to the University and study a bunch of math before I can conceive of the shape of a field or wave packet? What are these mysterious objects? The objects are esoteric, huh? Sounds like RELIGION.
“When I talk about theories being ‘accepted’, I’m only referring to the same thing as you when you talk about individuals ‘deciding’ after viewing presentation. If most people ‘decide’ that they’ve viewed a pile of BS, then the BS is not ‘accepted’.”
The only objective assessments are whether the objects can be visualized, the processes visualized, the key terms used consistently, and the behavior understood pursuant to the structure. What is “accepted” means nothing in science. This is why we have continual “revolutions,” because dogma entrenches ideas that make no sense for long periods of time.
“So we all individually get to ‘decide’ whether the Pioneer anomaly hints at new physics.”
The ‘Anomaly’ is not predicted just like the galaxy rotation is not predicted. So what do? Thermal recoil and dark matter. If you can patch things up continually then it’s not science.
I’m not concerned with prediction so the equations getting a number wrong in those instances doesn’t bother me. Neither Newton nor Einstein PHYSICALLY explained the orbit of the planets. So the mathematicians can worry about the numbers all they want.
“There was a small but measurable unexpected acceleration of the probe.”
Deceleration. The probes were closer than they should have been.
“modified gravitational theory would explain the discrepancy”
Math doesn’t explain, it describes.
“I personally agree that some type of modified gravity will explain the apparent transition from 1/r^2 to 1/r, but no such modification has yet been proposed that is consistent with the motion of distant objects in the solar system in addition to Pioneer and galactic arms.”
Thread Theory explains the galaxy rotation problem. Endless mathematical descriptions aren’t going to get to the heart of these issues. We need physical objects!
Michael Richman October 20, 2015 , 5:25 am
Distinguishing between acceleration and deceleration? That’s adorable…
Imagining that “thermal recoil” in an isolated instance of an initially-misunderstood space probe is somehow equivalent to dark matter? Also adorable.
I’m sorry man. I just can’t. There is a difference between being a skeptic and latching on to whatever nonsense you run across on the internet. I hope in time you will learn the difference.
David Robison October 20, 2015 , 1:33 pm
“Distinguishing between acceleration and deceleration? That’s adorable…”
Yes I know qualitative considerations are not important to mathematicians. Definitions are not important. Anything goes so long as you have your zero dimensional particles to play with.
“Imagining that ‘thermal recoil’ in an isolated instance of an initially-misunderstood space probe is somehow equivalent to dark matter? Also adorable.”
They’re both just examples of endless patching. How are they “equivalent?” Both are explained rationally under TT btw. Must you ooze with such insufferable arrogance? Typical mathematician.
“There is a difference between being a skeptic and latching on to whatever nonsense you run across on the internet. I hope in time you will learn the difference.”
You haven’t made a single argument this entire time. You’ve done nothing but tout authority and then make little characterizations like these which are completely inaccurate. I am not “latching on to whatever nonsense” on the net. I waded through the mass of horseshit for years and years until I discovered something which obviously makes infinitely more sense than your Religion. And it took me years to fully realize its significance.
At any rate — my goal is not to endlessly argue with mathematicians. They are impossible to communicate with. I want to spread understanding of Thread Theory to people who aren’t devoted followers of irrational theories. Not to convince anyone just to put it out there as another option because I know what it’s like to be frustrated with the sci-fi garbage being spewed out there these days by people referring to themselves as academics.
Michael Richman October 20, 2015 , 3:42 pm
You are calling me a mathematician but I’m actually no such thing. It’s kind of a hilarious charge, really. Look, I watched a few of Gaede’s videos and read some of his web material. It’s clear that your parroting his tirades against modern physicists.
Believe me when I say that this is at least as frustrating for me as it is for you. How can someone have such a sense of entitlement to understanding without putting in the commensurate effort to get caught up on the state of the art? Physics is a very old field, so getting caught up really does take a lot of work.
Now, Gaede points to a quote that says if you can’t explain it to a bar maid, you don’t really understand it very well at all. I explain things to the satisfaction of “lay people” all the time. But there is a world of difference between explaining it to someone who actually wants to learn, and talking past someone who dismisses essential points as “irrational” because a raving madman on the internet told him to. So do you really want to learn? Or are you committed to a stance where you will dismiss anything that you either can’t immediately understand or were told by Gaede to dismiss?
I chuckled when you made a point of “correcting” acceleration to deceleration. This is material from the first day or two of high school physics. Consider a ball thrown in the air. It is far more useful, both for clarity of concepts and for ease of mathematical work, to say that the ball has constant acceleration towards the Earth. Otherwise you have deceleration up for half the time, and then a sudden change to acceleration down. By assigning acceleration a magnitude and a direction, we can understand the whole trajectory at once. I’m sorry I took a mean-spirited jab at you over the remark, but it really does show how out of your element you are.
Similarly for Pioneer. There’s nothing patchwork about the thermal recoil solution. What would be patchwork is to invoke a modified theory of gravity, in direct contradiction to the behavior of other objects in the same part of the solar system. Why would anyone do that?
I contend that it is arrogant to presume that you should be able to understand even highly technical points about the latest theories, which have been developed in response to actual study of nature for many years, without “doing your homework”. Choosing instead to slander the prevailing theories as “irrational” whenever you don’t understand them… it’s childish.
The thing is, physicists don’t particularly like that the math is so complex. But it’s the best way we have so far of accounting for what we’ve observed. We would be overjoyed with a valid simplification. Feynman diagrams are a great example. Sure, there was some early concern that it couldn’t possibly as easy as reading factors off of a cartoon. Turns out that it is. Now Feynman diagrams are wildly popular. So we are quite interested in anything new that makes things simpler. Those game-changers historically pretty much always come from an insider with a deep understanding of both the strengths and shortcomings of pre-existing methods. That has nothing to do with a preference for locking people out and everything to do with the competence required to make meaningful contributions to an already well established body of thought.
David Robison October 21, 2015 , 3:14 pm
“parroting his tirades”
Blah blah blah, sorry Michael I’m not parroting anything. I could just as easily say you’re parroting all of your Priests. Actually I have quite a few criticisms of Thread Theory, my goal is to spread awareness at this point.
Can we get to the arguments without 99% of every one of your comments being endless characterizations and 1% substance?
“Otherwise you have deceleration up for half the time, and then a sudden change to acceleration down. ”
You still don’t understand my basic point. There’s a QUALITATIVE difference. Yes in mathemagix you can throw away qualitative considerations and that’s all fine and good. But I am not making calculations, I’m physically explaining something. Qualitative considerations are important. By ignoring them the mathematicians have killed any possibility that they will understand Nature.
At least Newton was honest enough to admit he had no explanation for gravity. You on the other hand are under the impression that the equation is a “theory” or “explanation.”
“What would be patchwork is to invoke a modified theory of gravity”
You’re not talking about a theory of gravity, you’re talking about an equation that describes (evidence). Again, do you know the difference between theory and evidence? You should figure out this basic distinction before proceeding.
That the Pioneer Anamoly is explained by thermal recoil is your opinion. Thread Theory provides a consistent picture. Which one is correct is anyone’s opinion. But the Anomaly is one of endless rational explanations TT provides to all the “mysterious” things that have been eluding the mathematicians, and it does so under one unified Hypothesis.
“highly technical points about the latest theories”
You have no theories. You have equations. Let me know when you decide to do some physics.
“Choosing instead to slander the prevailing theories as ‘irrational’ whenever you don’t understand them”
Incredible how you’ve managed to understand 0% of what I’ve said this entire time. I’m accumulating interview clips with top physicists saying things like it’s impossible to picture higher dimensions. It is not humanly possible to physically understand higher dimensions. It’s not me lacking understanding, it’s that the physical interpretation for something like General Relativity cannot be understood. It doesn’t explain anything, it merely describes with an equation.
And did you sign up to this site *just* to respond to my article? Lol. I should get a commission.
Michael Richman October 21, 2015 , 5:01 pm
If you’re not parrotting Gaede’s nonsensical distinctions between physicists (basically, him and his followers) vs mathematicians (actual physicists), then where would you come up with a claim that I’m a mathematician? I’m simply not a mathematician. No mathematician would agree that I’m a mathematician. It’s pretty obvious.
The rest of my post is about the relevant scientific points and about the philosophy of scientific dissent, which I think is on-topic with respect to the OP and this thread.
Thread theory attempts to explain diffraction, gravitational lensing, and the Pioneer anomaly, but it fails on all counts because its explanation is in disagreement with what we actually observe. For starters, gravitational lensing depends on the density of the obstructing object, whereas diffraction depends only on its size and opacity. It would be beautiful indeed if these phenomena were as similar as the falling apple and the orbiting satellite, but nature shows us that they are not. In the case of Pioneer, as I have already clearly stated, the “explanation” entails a modified (non-Newtonian and non-GR) gravitational force that is at odds with the behavior of other objects in the vicinity of Pioneer, so even if it’s an attractive possible explanation, it is in fact an incorrect one.
Your baseless claim that we have no theories hinges on a redefinition of the term to exclude what are commonly understood, for very good reasons, as theories. This is what I mean by word games…
Top physicists do not argue that it’s impossible to understand higher dimensional spaces in any way; they argue that it’s impossible to visualize all the dimensions at once. That’s only a problem if you think valid explanations are constrained by your personal imagination. Good luck with that.
I’m on this site because I support its mission more generally. I have commented on little other than this because I found most of what I’ve read to be so compelling and already well-rounded by others’ comments. When I finished reading this article, I was shocked to find that no one was attempting to set the record straight, so I stepped in. But I see now that common ground cannot be found. You won’t address my concerns that thread theory is at odds with observation. You seem to see its lack of concern about consistency with observation as a strength, which is deeply anti-scientific. You attempt to tone police me while your main source spews nothing but aggressive, rude polemics with a side of severe mischaracterization of the mainstream view.
I guess we’ll save a lot of time if we just get on with our lives. I honestly wish you the best. I hope you come to your senses regarding this “alternative theory” sooner rather than later, *for your own sake*.
I’m unsubscribing from this thread.
David Robison October 21, 2015 , 6:27 pm
“I’m simply not a mathematician.”
You don’t do physics with objects you do “physics” with abstract mathematical concepts. By definition you are a mathematician.
“Thread theory attempts to explain diffraction, gravitational lensing, and the Pioneer anomaly”
Yes among about 1,000 other different things.
“gravitational lensing depends on the density of the obstructing object, whereas diffraction depends only on its size and opacity”
What they have in common is that both involve atoms relaying light signals. The atoms in the corona of a star relay the signals in the case of gravitational lensing, atoms along the slit walls relay signals to the screen in the double slit experiment. TT provides a rational explanation for both, no need to resort to sci-fi garbage like “warped spacetime” or “wave-particle duality.”
“entails a modified (non-Newtonian and non-GR) gravitational force”
They’re all part of the same physical mechanism which has to do with the number of effective pulling ropes. There is no new “force.” It just means that the inverse square law doesn’t hold out unto infinity. Surprise, surprise Mother Nature doesn’t follow the patterns that man perceives in his little corner of the galaxy out unto the end of the Universe.
“gravitational force that is at odds with the behavior of other objects in the vicinity of Pioneer”
Such as?
“Your baseless claim that we have no theories hinges on a redefinition of the term to exclude what are commonly understood, for very good reasons, as theories. This is what I mean by word games”
There is no “redefining.” The only objective criterion for a definition is whether it can be used consistently. You cannot use yours consistently. I clearly defined the term as part of the Rational Scientific Method. “Word games” is what mathematicians like to say when someone calls them out on their inconsistency with language.
In the current version of the scientific method the only difference between a hypothesis, theory, and fact is whether enough scientists have raised their hands and stated that it is their opinion that it is one of the three.
As stated previously, you have not even defined the term “object,” the most crucial word in physics. If you had to define it you would realize why you’re a mathematician, not a physicist.
“Top physicists do not argue that it’s impossible to understand higher dimensional spaces in any way; they argue that it’s impossible to visualize all the dimensions at once.”
If you cannot visualize them then obviously the “understanding” you are referring to is not physical it’s mathematical.
“That’s only a problem if you think valid explanations are constrained by your personal imagination.”
And the imaginations of every other human being on the planet. It’s not possible to physically grasp higher dimensions. You can claim to have a mathematical “understanding” in the abstract but it’s not physical.
To reiterate: equations do not explain. If your “explanation” relies on “understanding” higher dimensions mathematically then it is not a physical explanation.
“You seem to see its lack of concern about consistency with observation as a strength, which is deeply anti-scientific.”
How is it inconsistent with observation? You have not even remotely established this at all. Deeply anti-scientific is committing the fallacy of reification and treating abstract mathematical concepts as if they are real things. So is refusing to define the Key Terms that make or break your theory.
“I hope you come to your senses”
You too.
Michael Richman October 20, 2015 , 1:30 am
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=thread+theory&l=1 lolol
Lee Roesner October 20, 2015 , 2:28 am
@Michael Richman @David Robison
Man oh man do I love these discussions. There is so much to say and yet so little.
David said ” My argument is that math is not the language of physics. Math has nothing to do with physics. I understand it’s drilled into everyone’s heads b/c of math’s utility in making predictions, but math does not explain anything.
Physics – the study of objects
Object – that with shape
Explanation – someone’s account of how something happened”
Perhaps David the way physics is understood today, it may seem to have nothing to do with math. To the contrary…it is mathematically absolute…and it has to be, otherwise engineers would be having a hell of a time, keeping in mind that math is only a relative measurement. I can reply to Michael in this same context, regarding the blowing leaves/tree in the wind.
In both instances, the study/observation of objects and shapes is one thing regarding physics, but I’ve found the answer to things is not so obvious in the objects themselves, the answer is more obvious in the observation of the relationship between the objects, when there is cause and effect.
The science of physics is stuck in the data of objects, and of course with each object being different, each has its own data set.
It physicists were to also study cause and effect between physical objects, they would find another whole data set, that is NOT different, regardless of the physical objects, and why I mentioned the tree blowing in the wind.
While yes this physical condition is processing a lot of math, it’s simply determining its next effect, and there is only one thing being determined/calculated in that entire environment, and that is each physical element’s path of least resistance. This phenomenon can be observed in anything and everything. Is this phenomena not valuable?
Interestingly enough, when you begin to ponder this universal physical effect, and then to make an attempt to interfere with it…some very valuable information comes to light. But that again, is cause and effect.
Perhaps this is not physics, and is only the meta data, but would make it metaphysics?
Michael Richman October 20, 2015 , 2:49 am
I’m watching some of bgaede’s material on youtube. Turns out he’s an obvious crackpot. Good luck guys.
David Robison October 20, 2015 , 3:49 am
“I’m watching some of bgaede’s material on youtube. Turns out he’s an obvious crackpot. Good luck guys.”
He wasn’t born to be a marketer, that’s for sure. You should see his website heh. I am not here to defend everything the guy does/says, don’t give a shit about that. Thread Theory is a brilliant discovery which has three major innovations…(1) It moves us past particles/waves which we’ve been stuck in for thousands of years, (2) it only references objects which can be visualized, (3) it unifies gravity, light, electricity, and magnetism in a manner which agrees with the evidence. AND that barely scratches the surface of how many explanations there are for the “mysteries” the mainstream cannot explain.
I think labeling him a crackpot without explaining why is completely irresponsible. If he was time cube guy I would understand. And to be sure — one only has so much time to allocate towards competing theories. That being said how can you make this characterization when he isn’t proposing anything other than 3D objects? It is YOU who posits abstract mathematical concepts as if they are real, perhaps we should put you in a straight jacket for the safety of society. I get it…you can make a prediction. That’s not an explanation.
Is this like Baez’s “crackpot” index ? I’ve seen it a trillion times. It’s puerile ad homs for people trying to defend their religion at all costs. It’s a monumental shame and an embarrassment towards anything which could be regarded as Science.
Tell me Michael…you think open interpretation is good (I like to call this bullshit lip service). Unless it disagrees with your views? Or the views that have been “proven” by “evidence?” What’s left open when mathematicians have already decided all the “facts” i.e., their own assumptions?
This is not science.
Michael Richman October 20, 2015 , 3:43 am
I mean, in this video, Gaede talks about diffraction around a solid object like it’s not understood in modern physics. He also talks about the mainstream understanding like it involves “bouncing”, which is deeply misguided. He’s a total crackpot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOwTV-HgDUo#t=262
David Robison October 20, 2015 , 4:02 am
This is just the problem, Michael. It’s IMPOSSIBLE to ascertain the physical “theory” being put forth by mathematicians because they only care about prediction and description. The physical interpretation for this phenomenon is a creative license granted to the mathematician to make up for any given context because physical interpretations aren’t important to them! They cover all their bases with conflicting interpretations and render their arguments “unfalsifiable.”
So every time someone criticizes a physical interpretation it’s a “straw man” EVERY TIME. No matter what. “That’s not what it’s like.” Endlessly.
The double slit experiment cannot be rationally explained with waves/particles. Ropes explain it easily. The ropes resolve all this ongoing confusion about how some experiments indicates waves while others indicate particles. Wave-particle duality? No. Just an innovative approach the likes of Bohr, Einstein, Schrodinger, De Broglie, etc, never imagined.
The double slit mechanism is the same one at play for gravitational lensing. It’s just pre-connected atoms relaying signals. No magic involved.
Michael Richman October 20, 2015 , 8:23 pm
Recognizing crackpot science based on the qualitative feel of the way it is presented is not a fool-proof method, but it’s at least something to keep in mind. Here’s a nice post on some things that should at least induce the student to proceed with caution.
http://skullsinthestars.com/2008/01/04/a-brief-field-guide-to-scientific-crackpots/
David Robison October 21, 2015 , 3:21 pm
Surprised you didn’t bust out Baez’s crackpot index. Cool story bro.
Michael Richman October 21, 2015 , 4:56 pm
I actually saw Baez first, but I think it’s unfair. Certain possible great discoveries would necessarily score highly on that index. All I said is, there are some things that should make you proceed with caution. The linked article itself is pretty reasonable. There’s no sure-fire way to identify (or even define, perhaps) a crackpot. But there are ways to recognize when you are being given extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. It’s just one aspect among others in evaluating new things found online.
Something Clever November 8, 2015 , 4:30 am
David, do you believe that the universe is a closed system?
David Robison November 15, 2015 , 4:46 pm
What exactly do you mean by a closed system? I think the interconnected ball of Hydrogen atoms is permanently interwoven and that no matter can break off from it. So it will always be perpetually in a state of internal motion.
Something Clever November 16, 2015 , 5:24 am
It was a question pertaining to the second law of thermodynamics.
It seems that a great number of our premises about the universe regard it as a closed system, which I am not convinced that it is.
David Robison November 16, 2015 , 2:41 pm
Okay gotcha.
I used “Universe” loosely in this article. Let me give a stricter definition:
Universe – all of space and matter
The 2nd law deals with a bounded system in relation to its external environment. Since the Universe is unbounded and has no external environment then I’d argue that the 2nd law isn’t even applicable. The Universe is neither open, closed, nor isolated.
Justin Hale June 2, 2016 , 7:41 am
Except warped spacetime is not an assumption. It’s proven by gravitational lensing.
David Robison June 2, 2016 , 2:37 pm
Nothing has been proven. Take the example of a solar eclipse where light APPEARS to bend around the Sun. This doesn’t “prove” anything other than light APPEARS to bend. General Relativity proposes “warped spacetime” as the physical explanation for this appearance. It’s just one attempt at an explanation — it doesn’t somehow suddenly preclude other possibilities. There will always be multiple possible theories to explain any given body of evidence!
“Warped spacetime” has no physical meaning and therefore cannot explain the observation of light from distant stars appearing to bend. The question is WHAT is doing the “bending?” “Spacetime” is an abstract mathematical concept, it’s not a physical object capable of performing any activity in reality.
“Warped spacetime” is depicted as a warping object with shape which interacts with the passing light, but these illustrations are purely FIGURATIVE. They are not representations of the actual “warped spacetime” object, but they serve to give the impression that some THING is bending the light, yet no one can actually illustrate this mysterious entity. Without the object which does the bending it becomes impossible to visualize the theory in order to understand what is happening with the light. We learn nothing about why light appears to bend.
Thread Theory provides a possible answer though which is a hell of a lot more straightforward. The atoms comprising the distant star are connected to the atoms comprising the sun’s corona, which are then connected to the Earth and the lens of any telescope. The coronal atoms are just relaying the light signals. The light isn’t bending at all it’s just appearing to bend because of diffraction.
Randall Chester Saunders June 3, 2016 , 1:09 am
Hi David,
“To put it succinctly: the end attainment of this process (science) is of the form, ‘if I do X, Y will result.'”
That is not the end or purpose of science. Science is the study of physical existence, that aspect of reality we directly perceive, and its purpose is to discover the nature of that existence. Since existence consists of all the physical existents (entities) there are, science is the process of discovering everything that exist, the nature (qualities and attributes) of those entities, their relationships to each other, and their behavior. Since all action is the action of entities and the action of entities is determined by their nature, and their relationships to all other entities.
Knowledge acquired by the process of science consists of all principles that correctly describe the attributes, behavior, and relationships between all identified existents and are generally called the laws of science or scientific theories. Since the words hypothesis and theory have been misused throughout this thread I’ll mention that a hypothesis is an informed guess or possible explanation for some physical phenomenon which must be tested (and testable if it is to be a legitimate hypothesis); a hypothesis that is been demonstrated to be correct is a theory. [The means by which scientific hypotheses are demonstrated to be correct is the whole field of the scientific method.]
Scientific principles do not say, “if I do X, Y will result.” This kind of simple-minded idea of cause and effect was thrust into philosophy and subsequently into some shallow scientific thinking by Hume. There is no such, “same cause same affect,” in science. Scientific principles identify the attributes and relationships between existents and what they, “say,” is, there is a specific relationship between these things (entities, attributes, other relationships) and these relationship hold for all possible cases, sometimes within limits and usually expressed in mathematical terms (but not always). [In the whole history of the world there have never been to identical cases of anything, and there are never two identical causes, much less two identical cases of cause and effect. Also, no case is without context, and no supposed “cause” is ever “the cause,” of any specific event.]
The perfect example is Ohm’s law, E=IR. The voltage in a DC circuit equals the current divided by the resistance. There is no, “cause and effect,” but a relationships expressed as a principle, any change in the current or the resistance will result in a corresponding change in the voltage. It can be turned around. I=E/R, any change in voltage or the resistance will result in a corresponding change in the current.
There is a view about science, however, that is incorrect. Science is not an attempt to find some underlying reality that explains everything. There is only reality and that reality is the world and existence we experience directly every day–the world we see and hear and smell and taste and feel. It is that world and all that is in it that is reality, ultimate reality–it is the people we love and the food we eat, every adventure we have and all the beauty we enjoy in it that is the ultimate reality. It is in fact, the reality that all the sciences study, all of physics attempts to describe how the existent in this real world behave, all of chemistry attempt to describe why all the things in this world of substances behave the way they do, taste, smell, and burn (if the burn) or do not burn.
The mistake that is made is the belief that what the scientists describe is more “real” than the world we perceive. There is a kind of assumption that the world we perceive is a kind of illusion–the table you place your dinner on is not really solid, it is in fact mostly space and only seems solid. Atoms, from which everything (well almost everything, plasmas are only parts of atoms) are mostly space. That’s what used to be taught in schools. The model of the atom has changed somewhat since then, but the same kind of mystic faith that what the scientist describes is more real than the perceived world prevails.
In truth, all that the scientist describes is an explanation of why the perceived world has the characteristics it has. The chemist explains that coal and diamonds consist of the same chemical element, carbon, and further explains that the difference in coal and diamonds is their molecular structure. If you want a diamond some carbon must be but into this particular form, if you want coal, or lamp black, or a pencil lead you have to use different molecular structures. But you cannot start with carbon. You first have to have diamonds, coal, pencil leads, and lamp black to study. They are the reality and without them there is no carbon to discover and study.
The important thing to understand is that science is not attempt to explain why coal is coal and diamonds are diamonds. Science only describes what is, not why it is. The desire for an answer to why is actually from an (often unspoken or unrecognized) belief that there must be some kind mystical cause or plan or purpose behind everything.
Here’s and example:
“The problem is that prediction has been confused with explanation. … At best the equations only provide hints about what might be happening physically ….”
Scientists don’t provide “predictions,” they provide principles which describe the nature of things, their attributes and how they behave. Things are what they are, have the nature they have and behave as they do. That is what they are. There is no other explanation, nor is any required.
The formulas describe what happens in any particular context. There is no mystic “behind the scene” physical happening, there is only the actual perceivable physical events which science accurately describes.
About Models
‘Warped spacetime’ is not proven by the equations of General Relativity, ‘warped spacetime’ is an assumption made by physicists in order to interpret and explain the equations. ‘Time dilation’ is not proven because GPS clocks have to be adjusted, ‘time dilation’ is an assumption used to explain GPS discrepancies. ‘Wave packets’ are not proven because physicists cannot understand why various experiments would suggest that light is a wave while others suggest it’s a particle.
In part scientists themselves are to blame for the confusion surrounding scientific models. Scientific models are simply devices for make certain scientific principles easier to grasp. They enable one to “picture” what cannot really be seen. Consider the model of the atom. The concept of the atom began with the discovery that chemical compounds alway only formed in whole number combinations. The hypothesis was suggested early but it took many years of experimentation to verify that compounds only formed that way, finally revealing that all substances consisted of discrete units, which we call atoms.
As more was learned about the similarity and difference between different substance it became obvious that the differences in substances were determined by differences in atoms especially their differences in weight, reactions with other chemical substances, and electrical properties. This led to the discovery that atoms themselves were constructed of “parts” that were similar in all atoms, but in different proportions. Some contributed to an atoms weight (neutrons) and some to their chemical reactions with other substances (electrons, valence).
With each additional new discovery of the nature of atoms, the model of the atom changed. While the nature of atoms concerning atomic weight, valence, isotopes, components, electrons, protons, neutrons, etc. has been established, no model of the atom was really a correct, “picture,” of an atom, including the most modern model which looks more like gelatin than a particle.
No correct picture of an atom is possible because an atom is only a concept for the chemical nature of physical substances. Most of the basic properties of atoms are fully illustrated by the periodic table. It is a kind of “model” for the chemical nature of the universe, but no one mistakes that model for the universe. Unfortunately many people mistake the latest model of the atom that they are aware of for what an atom actually is.
Also, unfortunately, scientists sometimes mistake their own models, their ways of picturing things or how things work, for reality itself. When Einstein posited his four dimensional description of physical reality (special relativity) as though “spacetime” were a “thing” that could be contorted, it was only a model for how physical entities behave. He may himself have believed his model was an actuality, and certainty many scientists today think that way, but really is only a picture of how the physical behaves. (What is spacetime made out of? What a strange material the shape of which can be changed without either compression or depression.)
“Time dilation is another model of how clocks run under influence of acceleration and relative velocities. The wave/particle duality of light is less a model than a way of describing the properties of light in different contexts. It is an absolutely accurate description because light does behave in ways that are wave-like in some contexts and particle-like in others. Attempting to “picture” light as an actual wave or particle and believing the picture is actually of light is a mistake.
All the models of science are ways of envisioning the principles, but the principles all have actual physical ways of being pictured. Every principle of science is a way of describing how the real physical world behaves, and every example of real-world behavior is an illustration of the behavior the scientific principles describe.
“The essential problem with any particle based hypothesis is that you won’t be able to rationally explain gravitational or magnetic attraction.”
What needs to be explained? If something behaves in a certain way it does. Describing that behavior is all that is required. If models are used to clearly describe the behavior that is all they are. What is it that needs to be explained.
As I said earlier, the desire for an explanation is actually from an (often unspoken or unrecognized) belief that there must be some kind mystical cause or plan or purpose behind everything. There is no mystic “behind the scenes” physical happening, there is only the actual perceivable physical events which science accurately describes.
dL 1337 July 10, 2016 , 6:37 am
damn…for a second I thought some new GUT had made its way into the popular headlines. Alas, what we actually have is a year old diatribe against the methods of contemporaneous theoretical physics.
As a double major in physics/math I can give my 2 cents. Science is a method. A method of falsification. It advances knowledge but it doesn’t advance truth. It merely tells you what it is not true. The specialization of science, however, forces a heuristic paradigm that strays from the popperian falsification model. It elevates consistency and coherence above falsification in the day-to-day practice. Advancing knowledge while retaining consistency/coherence with the previous body of knowledge. That is until a new observation and/or theory with predictive capacity blows up the the currently accepted body of knowledge Then the popperian falsification model kicks in until a a newly calibrated body of knowledge settles in. Then it’s rinse and repeat. So, in reality, the structure of scientific investigation probably follows the Thomas Kuhn pattern.
In terms of the mathematical abstraction of physics, I will say any reasonably intelligent person armed with curiosity and undergraduate knowledge of mathematics can read the old scientific papers, even the original papers of Einstein(that is, until Einstein forayed into the area of unified field theory). Even things like time dilation, curved spacetime are not that divorced from an intuition of reality. Its when you start with the second quantization of quantum mechanics(i.e, quantum field theory) that you begin to see the abstraction of physics divorced from any intuition of reality. Plus the requisite mathematical knowledge necessary to follow it from that point on expands into graduate and post-graduate levels. In short, it becomes pretty much inaccessible to the layman(or even a physics undergraduate), even a highly intelligent/curious one. This divide probably started around the the 1940s. So you have about 75 years of scientific advancement built on top that that dividing point.
So I can see the rationale for the periodic popping up of heterodoxical scientific claims. But unless it can be backed up by extraordinary observation of verifiable predictive claims, it really can’t be viewed as anything other than a rationalization against the relentless specialization of science.
David Robison July 10, 2016 , 5:48 pm
“As a double major in physics/math I can give my 2 cents.”
*eyeroll*
Sorry but I’ve spent thousands of hours trying to reason with “educated” bozos like you who come to me waving your credentials around and puffing your chests out, trying to induct me into your mathematical religion.
It would be pointless for us to discuss anything, since (1) you’ve not come to discuss, but to preach, and (2) we’re not even speaking the same language.
If you really want to proceed, read this article as many times as you need.
https://practicallawandjustice.liberty.me/the-rational-scientific-method/
Once you demonstrate a competent understanding of the Rational Scientific Method then we can move forward with a discussion.
Sorry to be an asshole about it but I can’t spend the rest of my life trying to communicate things to people who are so far up the ass of the mathematical religion that they dig their heels in every step of the way.
Randall Chester Saunders July 11, 2016 , 12:56 am
“Science is a method. A method of falsification. It advances knowledge but it doesn’t advance truth. It merely tells you what it is not true.”
This little bit of sophistry, originated by Carl Popper, has infected the entire field of intellectual enquiry from philosophy to science. Treating only your particular way of spinning this nonsense, not one thing you said is correct.
Science is both a method and an established body of knowledge. It is not a method of falsification, it is a method of discovery. It does advance knowledge, but only that which is true is knowledge. If a thing is not true, it is not knowledge.
Perhaps this is the worst of your statements: “It merely tells you what it is not true.” In all of reality there is nothing that is not true. Reality is simply what it is, and is what it is whether anyone knows it or not. Truth pertains only to propositions, statements that assert something about something else. Every proposition that asserts something about any aspect of reality that is correct is true. The only thing that can be untrue is a statement about some aspect of reality that is not correct. In other words, only someone’s guess, surmise, hypothesis, or wild conjecture about reality can be not true. To say science can only tell you what is not true reduces all of science to studying other’s guesses, surmises, hypotheses, or wild conjectures, which divorces it completely from the study of physical existence and its nature.
Please explain that which is “not true” identified by the periodic table of the elements, since it can only tell us what is not true. What are the untrue things it tells us about copper, carbon, nitrogen and iron?
There is one very narrow area of inquiry to which the concept of falsifiability pertains correctly. Any hypothesis for which no method is possible to prove it false, if it is false, is an illegitimate hypothesis. Without this limit, just anything can be hypothesized from busy little spirits to magic, since there would be no way to disprove them.
The interesting thing about falsifiability is, it also provides a way to prove things true. If a test is devised to prove a hypothesis false, if it is false, when the test is performed, if the test fails to prove the hypothesis false, it has proved the hypothesis is correct, and the hypothesis becomes a theory. So much for Popperism.
Randall Chester Saunders July 10, 2016 , 6:02 pm
@zgana
“Distinguishing between acceleration and deceleration? That’s adorable…
Imagining that “thermal recoil” in an isolated instance of an initially-misunderstood space probe is somehow equivalent to dark matter? Also adorable.”
You are one patient man, Michael. I would have used a different word, but I prefer your, “adorable.”
Electro House June 23, 2017 , 2:51 pm
Is this discussion still alive? If so then, all I can say is you, or anyone else can feel free to come up with any explanation you want. But as long as you don’t give me (deduce from your theory) testable, or falsifiable consequences, (by that I mean new observable phenomenon, not existing ones), then no one is buying it, and it will never be accepted by science community. Good luck.
David Robison July 18, 2017 , 5:20 pm
Wow Electro did you sign up and pay for liberty.me *just* to comment on this article? That’s what Michael Richman did too. Jeff Tucker should pay me commission for all the new customers I’m bringing in from the Fyzziks community.
Did you get your edu-macation in Pop Fyzziks too? Sure sounds like it!
So the fact that someone somewhere is discussing ideas which don’t fall in line with the Alice in Wonderland garbage that your religion spews bothered you so deeply that you just had to sign up in order to leave this comment which adds no value whatsoever, but which merely voices your disapproval for a “reason” that I’ve already dealt with in a luxury of detail in my Rational Scientific Method article?
Incredible. You guys really do have a crusade mentality, you can’t stand independent thought or your Math Fyzziks religion being questioned.
“it will never be accepted”
Yeah, I’m aware of that, and this is relevant how? Is that what you think is important, whether your authorities who have a large vested financial interest in your religion suddenly reverse course and change their minds out of the blue? Lol.
Do me a favor: do not comment again and leave this comment section to those who actually wish to discuss the topic at hand. Thanks.
hanifa abdel June 26, 2017 , 7:14 pm
Hello greetings !
I am Hanifa by name, I have something confidential to discuss with you.
I hope you will accept my proposal despite we don’t know each other before?
I will give you more details as soon as i hear from you. here is my email;
(hanifaabdel1@hotmail.com) Thanks Hanifa
Electro House August 29, 2017 , 2:35 pm
@practicallawandjustice Nice dude trying to attack me with all the dipshit comments while I was trying to be open minded and give an opinion on how and what you should do to prove this to scientific community . Chill down and actually listen to what people has to say man.
Don’t make me feel like wasting my time thinking about your theory by writing inappropriate comments.
Call other moron when they have different opinion …ok