dennislmay

If more undergraduate students in special relativity and quantum mechanics would do their own homework [read and understand the history and decision points of why only one point of view is taught in educational settings] they might eventually be able to solve actually interesting problems that have evaded solution for more than 3 generations. On a fundamental level conventionally taught relativity and conventional quantum mechanics are irreconcilable as deterministic versus indeterministic theories. So one or the other or both are fundamentally incorrect. The next question is deterministic or indeterministic. If you decide indeterministic then both versions of relativity fail and you have nothing. If you choose deterministic then you must choose which QM which will work with a version of relativity. The only candidate is LET because Special Relativity is entirely brittle - unable to adapt. Dennis

The brittle theory [Think calculus of variations - it fails utterly under any variation] Special Relativity cannot adapt to new observations. LET can be modified keeping essentially the same framework - it can be varied in a differential manner and not entirely collapse as Special Relativity does. LET existed prior to Special Relativity, mathematically Special Relativity brought nothing new to the table so historically under the Feynman presumption Special Relativity is a worthless theory. Special Relativity and LET have the same mathematical framework but are very different theories in their assumptions concerning the nature of reality. One can be varied in a differential manner with little consequence [LET], the other produces logical contractions and a failure of identity and causality under differential variation [special Relativity]. Dennis

Yes the "Green is the new Red" religion in Hawaii is said to be quite strong. I've never been there but in general I don't like to go to places where straying a few blocks the wrong way off the beaten path might lead to my ass getting kicked. A problem said to exist in Hawaii as friends in the Air Force stationed there told me, people who have visited or lived there, and as my brother tells me it is a recurring plot theme on the new Hawaii-50 show. Tribal violence against non-locals can't be good for tourism or promoting a good future in general. Dennis

You mean Hawaii didn't have record cold this year :-) Dennis

Since most physicists have never taken both regular Special Relativity coursework and coursework in Lorentzian Ether Theory [LET] which pre-dates Einstein's version [i was taught both in parallel in the same class by a world class expert in Special Relativity]. They both produce exactly the same results mathematically but are different interpretations. If you've not been taught or been exposed to both you are unaware of the actual foundations of the work and give undo credit to Einstein. Einstein's Special Relativity is entirely brittle in respect to the speed of light and Einstein did not say there is no aether - only that as long as no consequence of the existence of an aether can be detected Special Relativity will hold. Lorentzian Ether Theory is not brittle in that respect. It can adapt to new observation without producing the logical paradoxes Einstein's Special Relativity immediately falls into. Any non-linearity in quantum mechanics, any effective supraluminal messaging of any kind, and any preferred reference frames of any kind cause the logic of the entirely brittle Special Relativity explode like glass. Taychons, time travel, and causal violations are all creations of the brittle nature of Special Relativity - contradictions which do not exist in LET in its original or modified versions that can incorporate new observations. There are many interpretations of quantum mechanics which produce the same mathematical outcome just like there are two interpretations of relativity which produce the same mathematical outcomes. The only known interpretation of quantum mechanics which maintains causality and identity without assuming parallel universes are the Bohm or Bohm-like deterministic interpretations. The only version of relativity which can be integrated with Bohm-like deterministic quantum mechanics are LET related versions of relativity. So you can keep causality and identity or you can keep Einstein's version of Special Relativity - it is exactly that simple. Dennis

The speed of light being the limit depends upon on both your buying certain models of quantum mechanics and a certain model of relativity. If however you rely upon observation you may reach different conclusions: http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0614 Experimentation demonstrates the new lower limit of speed is four orders of magnitude greater than the speed of light. A result which agrees with modeling in deterministic quantum mechanics where the results begin to noticeable diverge from theory and observation in the near field if the speed is not at least 4 orders of magnitude greater than light. The other "interpretations" mean you abandon identity and causality [and any form of logic which does not involve hand waiving, arbitrary assertions, and fuzzy ill defined concepts without referents]. Dennis

I don't believe we can see forever but that is not the question at hand. What is wrong with the cosmos being spatially infinite? Every criticism of that concept I've heard to date is entirely without merit. The idea that an infinite and eternal cosmos would roast does not apply except in certain models which are not being discussed here. Dennis

Al Gore has increased his personal wealth by an estimated $100 million dollars through various publications, speaking fees, and other payments related to his pushing the pseudo-science hysteria of AGW. It has also gotten him various paid positions on corporate boards where he is further able to push his agenda. That is still trivial to the trillion dollar payday those who will broker carbon credits expect to cash in on. Dennis

The "event horizon for the cosmos" depends upon a theory which cannot even get spiral galaxies right - not even close, much less the entire cosmos. Dennis

There is no issue with the theory of complex numbers being consistent. I suspect what is intended in the discussion is whether or not complex numbers in and of themselves have an identifiable matching real world identity and causality related compliment - which they do not. That is not the intention of complex numbers. They are a tool in mathematics allowing ease of computational manipulation in compact form with known properties of how to convert those results back to real world identity and causality related compliments. Dennis

There is no question that those attracted to medicine are generally 3rd tier intellectuals and scientists at best. Now that we are actually talking about government medicine it moves to 4th or less tier with little prospect of getting good statistical studies on a regular basis. 1st world medicine being transformed into 3rd world medicine. Dennis

False - you can do electrodynamics and quantum theory without complex numbers. They are mathematical tools of convenience. Any physics starting with and ending with real numbers can be done without complex numbers - that is a fact though Ba'al Chatzaf is the not the first to incorrectly believe otherwise - I ran into two such professors [both applied mathematics] and when you pin them down they have no basis for their claim. Dennis

I don't know all the details about my mother having polio - mostly that she couldn't walk for some period of time and had to relearn to walk. She was affected by it later in life mostly related to having pain in her ribs and sharp stabbing pains occasionally. She also suffered from feeling cold all the time most of her life. She was known to garden in the summer wearing a white sweater. Some of those issues were no doubt related to her almost dying as an infant from a calcium deficiency related to my grandmother nursing my uncle while pregnant with my mother. It is unfortunate that the government has been allowed to destroy the medical system at a time when trust in government is approaching single digits. Who will trust what the government has to say anything about anything related to medical care and vaccinations in particular. They botched the swine vaccine back in the day killing a number of people. I suspect we will see offshore medicine and research become the new standard of medicine if things are not turned around very soon. Dennis

J.S Bell pointed our von Neumann's error in 1964, Grete Hermann announced the error in 1935, Schrödinger wrote about the error in 1935, 1952 Bohm and Vigier showed that it had to be an error, Einstein and Peter Bergmann discussed the error [date unknown but Einstein died in 1955]. Only Bell worked publicly to attempt to correct the error - in his 1988 book "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics" Bell discusses how the physics and educational communities still fail to understand that the no hidden-variable theorem was an error and still treat it as though it was correct. You can still find the implication that the von Neumann was correct all over the web including in links from major universities. Dennis

My college geology professor was a young guy who had just finished his PhD. His advisor was from the old school which knew the days when plate tectonics was pseudoscience not to be discussed seriously in polite circles. Any book published today giving an opinion concerning specific examples of what is and is not pseudoscience is likely to contain a great many errors and embrace any number of fallacies. I can find provable mistaken opinions from reputable sources all day long. AGW may be the biggest scam ever pulled off in terms of the sheer number of people involved but I would argue the damage done by John von Neumann in his "no hidden-variable theorem" of 1932 [already disproved by 1935] remains the greatest blunder in the history of science since modern science began under Newton. I can readily find references implying von Neumann was correct to this day from reputable sources all over the web. The refusal to correct this error once and for all is very much like the secular religion of AGW. It matters not that the issue was settled logically and scientifically nearly 80 years ago the believers want to believe and fighting the true believers is an endless and thankless task. Dennis

The history is interesting because some of it is actually recent history. The proper method of explaining the calculus only came to be widely taught about the time I took calculus. Nearly every other class I took while an undergraduate made an issue of explaining the history of the different mathematical/engineering/physics approaches and notation used in calculus and differential equations. While all are correct only the mathematical approach is rigorously correct. Infinitesimals is not a dead issue because innumeracy in general is alive and well as discussed in some other posts. Dennis

The question of vaccinations is a risks/reward issue for the individual. The related issue is your confidence in the medical establishment. I and one other person among the 32 in my flight at OTS had a bad reaction to our military vaccinations. I got a high fever bordering on dangerous causing me to be bedridden for about 24 hours. The other guy had his arm swell up within minutes looking like a golf ball had been shoved under his skin. We both recovered in about a day and a half. A close friend of mine is now permanently disabled because of a reaction she had to a flu vaccination last fall. My uncle had his teeth stained bright yellow because of a bad reaction to an injection in the 1960's. Dental work was able to bleach the staining. My mother had polio as a child and had to relearn to walk so I can appreciate the preventative value of vaccinations. Since the government has a heavy and increasingly heavy hand in all things medical the question of vaccinations must be watched like a hawk. There have been serious mistakes, cover-ups and corruption in the past so every individual has a right to worry - even more so now that a government chronically involved in cover-ups has invested its political future in controlling medical care. I'm in favor of vaccination and I intend to get one for shingles - since I had chicken pocks as a child and my grandfather had shingles several years ago. I am also in favor of watching the medical profession closely since many of them and their masters in particular cannot be trusted. Dennis

Similar and related battles continue to this day - the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, cosmology and gravitational theories are all tightly intertwined with the philosophical positions of their researchers - driving the course of funding and the resulting theoretical and mathematical research into those subjects. Dennis

Ellen Stuttle wrote: "My husband had a very hard time coming to terms with the fact that physicists, too, can act this way." I have mentioned before that I witnessed scientific institutional corruption at a very early age. I was already aware of it in some detail a few months after I turned 17 and have never taken anything the professionals have had to say for granted. You don't have to call them on their BS in every case but keep the alternatives open in your mind when it is clear what they are selling isn't the real deal. Dennis

I know this is old news but it is circulating again on Facebook. Ellen Stuttle discussed before how a handful of people drafted the APS position - without input from members - by a few people over lunch. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/ I didn't like the APS before they became a purely political rubber stamping organization, now they are less than useless. Dennis

Dennis, That has a lot more to do with me and the general public not being on the cutting edge of physics than some kind of conspiracy against the truth. Rand mentioned the obvious more than a few times that there are leaders within intellectual movements - a small number of people with influence. The loaded word conspiracy requires context and is often a throw away line for ad hominem attacks intended to both make the other person seem unreasonable and attempt to cut at the root of their line of argumentation that more than one person may be involved in a plan or movement of some sort [imagine two or more people working cooperatively - social animals can't do that]. When like-minded people in positions of power take the same position that can be done independently or cooperatively with a continuum in between. When can something be called a conspiracy? - that is seldom clear cut. In our like-minded educational and media world sticking your nose out to say something different can result in unemployment or if you have an editor or professor controlling your work - that work simply won't be seen. Most like-minded people are not movers and shakers but follow the crowd. People in the media are almost never subject matter experts, they rely on the movers and shakers who tend to know each other and work cooperatively for the most part. Moffat is a mover and shaker who works along the approved path of GR research. McGaugh is a rebel not working the approved path. We are fortunate that a tiny amount of independence still exists at some educational institutions or there would only be one approved path of research. Dennis

Yes a handful of people have worked on alternatives - and GR has been found lacking and wrong. You clearly were not aware of that superior alternatives have existed since late 2010. You didn't know about it because the dominant science media and educational institutions continue to take the view that Einstein can do no wrong - if not openly then by their silence. Dennis

http://www.everythingimportant.org/Einstein_worship/ Scientists are not going to openly admit their worship of Einstein or their blindness to alternatives because they see the "beauty" in his formulation. You have to experience seeing it first hand - there will be no valid survey unless done in a clandestine manner. There is however the competing church of indetermistic QM with Feynman as its last idol of worship. No different in kind - the competing religions do battle to this day. Both are overshadowed by the newer climate change religion which enjoys unlimited funding and a wider less educated audience. Dennis

The U.S. has 300,000,000 people I do not thing one in 3000 is all that generous. http://www.sciencejournalism.net/informed_science_journalism.html 20% of science reporters have science degrees [2007] - before the cutbacks. A 2013 study with 476 full time science reporters from around the world - purposefully trying to oversample ouside the US, Canada, and Europe because of the crisis in print journalism there: http://issuu.com/scidev.net/docs/learning_series_global_journalism Only 1/3 expect to be science reporters in 5 years. One survey counted 82 science journalists in the UK in 2009. If you scale from the UK population to the US population the expected number would be 411 with 82 having science degrees and 27 expecting to have a 5 year or longer career in the field. Dennis

Dennis, I understand your concern. I sincerely hope that no physicists actually believe that beauty determines truth. I think that the whole "beauty is truth" idea is just hyperbole. From what I know, Einstein and other physicists have only ever used beauty as a heuristic for picking out interesting hypotheses from a large (possibly infinite) pool of possibilities. For example, there is no rigorous deduction of the Einstein field equations anywhere in GR from first principles. GR allows for an infinity of field equations. Einstein simply chose the one form that fit Newtonian gravity at low energies and that was the simplest, and that form has turned out to be the correct one. Nobody, as far as I know, has said that the beauty of the field equations alone is enough to establish them as a truth. Many alternative field equations have been proposed over the years and only Einstein's have passed all the tests. Beginning in late 2010 [others] and early 2011 with this paper of Stacy McGaugh: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.3913.pdf the entire Dark Matter/General Relativity explanation of the velocity curves of spiral galaxies unraveled and should now enjoy the status of junk science. Start with McGaugh's paper and you will find 3-4 versions of GR different from Einsteins which give better results than regular GR - plus MOND which is also better within certain ranges found in spiral galaxies. John Moffat is a researcher with a version of GR superior to Einstein's: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.5420.pdf General Relativity is constantly praised for its beauty but since 1932 it has been at odds with observation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter So General Relativity had a 16 year run before it was shown to be observationally incorrect. 13 of those years it enjoyed provisional observational support. It wasn't until the 1960's that GR saw much application in cosmology - years after it had already been observed to be incorrect. Outside of the solar system GR has been found to be observationally inferior to at least 4-5 competing theories. 3-4 of them give the same or better results on all scales. Within our solar system the value of "G" evades a consensus value and has been the subject of continuing evasion since I was in high school. I don't believe this is just plain error upon error but a misunderstanding of the physics involved. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/puzzling-measurement-of-big-g-gravitational-constant-ignites-debate-slide-show/ So I do disagree with several of your statements concerning GR. As a student I observed the religious figure worship of Einstein and the beauty of his equations was a subject of much discussion which left a bad taste in my mouth. His GR work has been found lacking and the Dark Matter fix is incorrect by observation. The fixes to GR to give better results are also without foundation from any first principles. I have observed beauty of formula worship and it is a real problem. Dennis