Prev: Length Contraction, The Unwritten Part
Next: Mutual time slowdown means both clocks go slow
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 6 Aug 2010 13:32

ORIGINALLY FROM SCI.PHYSICS.RESEARCH (Thread = "Arrow of Time")

On Aug 6, 7:09 am, Oh No <N...(a)charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Thought experiments must obey the laws of physics. That is their
> purpose. Their outcome must be determined by physics, not by faith, or
> by mystical appeals to what a cup of coffee knows.
-------------------------------------------------------------

It is useful to remember that the "laws of physics" and the laws of
nature
are not necessarily equivalent. Such an equivalence is the ideal goal
which we strive towards by successive approximations.

Sometimes, however, there is a wide disparity between the
laws of physics and the laws of nature.
What do we do when the laws of physics lead to questionable results?

For example:
(1) a vacuum energy density that is 40 to 102 orders of magnitude
higher than what is observed,
(2) the possibility of large numbers of humanoid "Boltzmann Brains",
fully capable thinking thoughts, popping spontaneously out of the
vacuum
[see: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1008/1008.0808v1.pdf
if you cannot believe academic physicists would even consider
such nonsense, given that nature more typically requires eons of
causal evolution to produce a humanoid thinking system ] or
(3) that nature would cause the LHC to fail in order to prevent the
discovery of the "Higgs boson" via "backwards causation"
[ yes, Holger Nielsen and M. Ninomiya posted a paper on this:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1008/1008.0464v1.pdf ].

Faced with such bizarre results derived in full accordance
with standard assumptions and the "laws of physics", I think
any self-respecting scientist is obliged to strongly question
the standard assumptions and "laws of physics" that generated
such rubbish.

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw
From: PD on 6 Aug 2010 17:14
On Aug 6, 12:32 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu>
wrote:
> ORIGINALLY FROM SCI.PHYSICS.RESEARCH (Thread = "Arrow of Time")
>
> On Aug 6, 7:09 am, Oh No <N...(a)charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Thought experiments must obey the laws of physics. That is their
> > purpose. Their outcome must be determined by physics, not by faith, or
> > by mystical appeals to what a cup of coffee knows.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It is useful to remember that the "laws of physics" and the laws of
> nature
> are not necessarily equivalent. Such an equivalence is the ideal goal
> which we strive towards by successive approximations.

Agreed. Note that all we have to work with are laws of physics,
because we don't know the laws of nature. Our striving's success is
measured by repeated experimental test and application of the laws of
physics.

>
> Sometimes, however, there is a wide disparity between the
> laws of physics and the laws of nature.

Well, of course, the statement above begs the question how one could
possibly be aware of such a wide disparity, aside from direct
confrontation of laws of physics with experimental test and
application. After all, you don't know what the laws of nature ARE.

> What do we do when the laws of physics lead to questionable results?
>
> For example:
> (1) a vacuum energy density that is 40 to 102 orders of magnitude
> higher than what is observed,
> (2) the possibility of large numbers of humanoid "Boltzmann Brains",
> fully capable thinking thoughts, popping spontaneously out of the
> vacuum
> [see:http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1008/1008.0808v1.pdf
> if you cannot believe academic physicists would even consider
> such nonsense, given that nature more typically requires eons of
> causal evolution to produce a humanoid thinking system ] or
> (3) that nature would cause the LHC to fail in order to prevent the
> discovery of the "Higgs boson" via "backwards causation"
> [ yes, Holger Nielsen and M. Ninomiya posted a paper on this:http://arxiv..org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1008/1008.0464v1.pdf].
>
> Faced with such bizarre results derived in full accordance
> with standard assumptions and the "laws of physics",

I don't think this last line is appropriate at all. The explorations
above are explicitly made with the incorporation of NONstandard
assumptions. It is precisely the addition of non-standard assumptions
on top of existing laws of physics that leads to new theoretical
developments. Whether these non-standard assumptions are warranted is
precisely the reason why this new theoretical developments are put to
experimental test, as soon as a testable prediction can be extracted
from the exploration.

> I think
> any self-respecting scientist is obliged to strongly question
> the standard assumptions and "laws of physics" that generated
> such rubbish.
>
> RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
>  http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw

From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 6 Aug 2010 19:03
On Aug 6, 5:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well, of course, the statement above begs the question how one could
> possibly be aware of such a wide disparity, aside from direct
> confrontation of laws of physics with experimental test and
> application. After all, you don't know what the laws of nature ARE.
------------------------------------------------------------

(1) When your theoretical physics says the vacuum energy density
should be X, and measurements say the VED = (10^-102)( X), that's when
you know your physics and nature are at odds, to put it mildly.

(2) When your theoretical physics says functioning brains can arise on
a relatively short time scale and FROM THE VACUUM, and nothing like
this has ever been observed in the history of biology, chemistry or
physics, that's when you know that your physics is crackpot physics.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> developments. Whether these non-standard assumptions are warranted is
> precisely the reason why this new theoretical developments are put to
> experimental test, as soon as a testable prediction can be extracted
> from the exploration.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, consider the very popular but so far entirely mythical "WIMP" DM
particles.

This, and here I am being enormously polite and open-minded,
"hypothesis" has never led to a definitive prediction of exactly what
these so-called "WIMPs" are supposed to be. It's been 30 YEARS since
this "hypothesis" floated down the polluted river that theoretical
physics has become, and still they cannot tell us what the exact
physical characteristics of the mythic particles are. No definitive
predictions, no science.

Also, we have witnessed 30 YEARS OF NEGATIVE RESULTS from all the many
experiments looking for these poorly defined mythical particles. Do
physicists say: "Well, maybe the Dark Matter is something else"? NOT A
CHANCE! Detection of the fashionable "WIMPs" is always right around
the 347th corner, oops right around the 348th corner, oops right
around the 349th corner, ... . As Einstein said: 'Insanity can be
defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a
different answer'.

You are being treated like a mushroom: "kept in the dark and fed
bullshit".

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Thomas Heger on 7 Aug 2010 03:16
Robert L. Oldershaw schrieb:
> ORIGINALLY FROM SCI.PHYSICS.RESEARCH (Thread = "Arrow of Time")
>
> On Aug 6, 7:09 am, Oh No <N...(a)charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Thought experiments must obey the laws of physics. That is their
>> purpose. Their outcome must be determined by physics, not by faith, or
>> by mystical appeals to what a cup of coffee knows.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It is useful to remember that the "laws of physics" and the laws of
> nature
> are not necessarily equivalent. Such an equivalence is the ideal goal
> which we strive towards by successive approximations.
>
> Sometimes, however, there is a wide disparity between the
> laws of physics and the laws of nature.
> What do we do when the laws of physics lead to questionable results?
>
> For example:
> (1) a vacuum energy density that is 40 to 102 orders of magnitude
> higher than what is observed,
> (2) the possibility of large numbers of humanoid "Boltzmann Brains",
> fully capable thinking thoughts, popping spontaneously out of the
> vacuum
> [see: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1008/1008.0808v1.pdf
> if you cannot believe academic physicists would even consider
> such nonsense, given that nature more typically requires eons of
> causal evolution to produce a humanoid thinking system ] or
> (3) that nature would cause the LHC to fail in order to prevent the
> discovery of the "Higgs boson" via "backwards causation"
> [ yes, Holger Nielsen and M. Ninomiya posted a paper on this:
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1008/1008.0464v1.pdf ].
>
> Faced with such bizarre results derived in full accordance
> with standard assumptions and the "laws of physics", I think
> any self-respecting scientist is obliged to strongly question
> the standard assumptions and "laws of physics" that generated
> such rubbish.
>

I personally think, that these suckers at CERN know, what they are
doing. I guess, I know it, too. It's creating a singularity, that would
literally shred the Earth into pieces.
To understand this, you had to understand, that more energy would make
things smaller. See this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4fV6lXhyno&NR=1

So more energy makes things even smaller.
As they presumably want to replicate the big-bang, that is just what
they get.
So now they pump and pump and pump.
But why on Earth do they want to destroy this planet?

TH
From: PD on 7 Aug 2010 12:22
On Aug 6, 6:03 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu>
wrote:
> On Aug 6, 5:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, of course, the statement above begs the question how one could
> > possibly be aware of such a wide disparity, aside from direct
> > confrontation of laws of physics with experimental test and
> > application. After all, you don't know what the laws of nature ARE.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (1) When your theoretical physics says the vacuum energy density
> should be X, and measurements say the VED = (10^-102)( X), that's when
> you know your physics and nature are at odds, to put it mildly.
>
> (2) When your theoretical physics says functioning brains can arise on
> a relatively short time scale and FROM THE VACUUM, and nothing like
> this has ever been observed in the history of biology, chemistry or
> physics, that's when you know that your physics is crackpot physics.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > developments. Whether these non-standard assumptions are warranted is
> > precisely the reason why this new theoretical developments are put to
> > experimental test, as soon as a testable prediction can be extracted
> > from the exploration.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Well, consider the very popular but so far entirely mythical "WIMP" DM
> particles.
>
> This, and here I am being enormously polite and open-minded,
> "hypothesis" has never led to a definitive prediction of exactly what
> these so-called "WIMPs" are supposed to be.  It's been 30 YEARS since
> this "hypothesis" floated down the polluted river that theoretical
> physics has become, and still they cannot tell us what the exact
> physical characteristics of the mythic particles are. No definitive
> predictions, no science.

Indeed. And it was about a 100 years before the agents of heritable
traits that Darwin and Mendel proposed were definitively
characterized.

What is the time scale that you think is appropriate for a theoretical
speculation to be nailed down by science?

>
> Also, we have witnessed 30 YEARS OF NEGATIVE RESULTS from all the many
> experiments looking for these poorly defined mythical particles.  Do
> physicists say: "Well, maybe the Dark Matter is something else"? NOT A
> CHANCE!  Detection of the fashionable "WIMPs" is always right around
> the 347th corner, oops right around the 348th corner, oops right
> around the 349th corner, ... .  As Einstein said: 'Insanity can be
> defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a
> different answer'.
>
> You are being treated like a mushroom: "kept in the dark and fed
> bullshit".
>
> RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Length Contraction, The Unwritten Part
Next: Mutual time slowdown means both clocks go slow