[KaiduOrkhon]

Quote

What if a theory (or just a glorified idea) that someone is stating on this board is not as intellectually flattering or complex as todays theories but is in fact right?

I keep saying the earth is round but people balk at me for lack of mathematical expression.

___________________________________________

Dear D'jona and Insane Alien
By Your petitioned leave:
At the time I wrote the above post, I misunderstood that it would occur and be stationed between the above post and that of Martian (as quoted above). That is to say, the sequencing of the quote to Martian was intended to occur, addressed to each and both of you, as above described. Please pardon the quasi-anachronism.

Sincerely,
K.B. Robertson
(Etceteras.)

[KaiduOrkhon]

Hoping this information corroborates the edifications of J'Dona, Severian and anyone else who couldn't agree with them more, including Truly Yours.

An introduction to an introduction:

THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS.

by Professor Frank Pajares,

as remarkably condensed by Thomas S. Kuhn.

An advised required reading to anyone interested in and/or involved in any of the sciences, particularly pragmatic and theoretical physics. With kudos to Mr. David DubinaSix, of Alaska (nor is this the first riveting package of information that Mr. Six has forwarded to this record ) This same URL clicker occurs near the close of this dissertation on TOTAL FIELD THEORY. If you don't enjoy snowboarding, skiiing, ice or rollerskating, golf or baseball, horseback riding, hockey - or reality in general - you can probly skip this intro to the introduction (It Requires High School Reading Skills - far more challenging than TV GUIDE, for example...)

Otherwise, please relax. Clear your mind, and, arm yerself with a large container of popcorn and/or chips and a non-alcoholic beverage (You may slide 'n glide, sea 'n ski, earth, wind and fire when ready, Skidly?).

http://www.des.emory...fp/kuhnsyn.html
:rolleyes:

This URL sometimes lands on fine print which may be enlarged via clicking on the 'View' mode in the upper left hand corner of your moniter. Adjust 'Text size'. (So easy, even a Geico advertising administrative executive can do it?)

The record was inspired to proffer the above (may I say 'riveting') URL, in the spirit of the immediate above quoted message posted by MARTIAN, and the perhaps majority who may agree (Sorta like the chicken soup, that can't hurt any, and, may help?).


Thank you for being here, and there.

I am gratefully and respectfully, That Rascal Puff, Aka K. B. Robertson.

(Of course my TOTAL FIELD THEORY <is not an hypothesis> is not presented here, neither is its URL, though it is, in my humble estimation, completely ingenous and germane as an issue in this thread. With permission of the adminstrators <including J'Dona and Severian?>, it would be an honor and a privilege to bring one chapter of my book to this thread, and, should it not meet the administrations requirements, it follows that it won't be posted for very long if at all. I request this opportunity, that those who will, may draw their own conclusions. Thank you - one and all, large and small - once again. - That Rascal Poof )

[zeropoint]

bascule]So does this mean [url=http://www.thefinaltheory.com]thefinaltheory.com[/url said:

is wrong? *gasp*

Yes, please tell us about the flaws in The Final Theory.

Linda

[KaiduOrkhon]

:-)
Dear ZeroPoint Quark Linda:
Thank you for your request. Unfortunately I do not have permission of the incumbent administrators to refer Readers here (via 'click-on URL' or other URL address) to one chapter - or for that matter the entirety of my condensed version of my 627 page, 45 year, 10 sold out edition, small press, internationally distributed work. I have already been chastized for posting extensive messages, hence I am unable to fulfill your complimentary request. Mr. Bill Hutchinson - EINSTEIN WAS WRONG!! AND EVIL!!! is permitted to be clicked on, but not my work gainsaying his and that of the Final Theory, written by an Australian who begins to parallel my work (feigning ignorance of it) and then perilously breaks away from it into a communications pudding that fails to set up whether its chilled or heated. :eek:
I do not understand the inequity of allowing Bill Hutchinson's black magic and anti semitism to be clicked on here, while - so far - any such suggestion or action on my part, regarding my work, has been disallowed (there seems to be some sort of an idea that I'm trying to sell what I've sold out ten times and have always freely given away also. It used to be entitled THE NEW GRAVITY, then it went on to being GRAVITY IS THE 4th DIMENSION: Extraterrestrial Physics 101, then GRAVITY, ELECTRICITY & MAGNETISM are the 4TH, 5TH & 6th DIMENSIONS: THE NON-MATHEMATICAL REINSTATEMENT OF EINSTEIN'S PRESENTLY ABANDONED UNIFIED FIELD: THE BIG BANG THEORY IS WRONG: ENTROPIC HEAT DEATH IS A MYTH. Presently I call it TOTAL FIELD THEORY. It's posted and can be freely accessed, but the predominant management forbids it. :confused:
Yes. I have a 'new' theory, based on previous non recognitions of the foundations of classic and contemporary physics. But I'm not allowed to connect readers of 'Do You Have A New Theory' to it. :eek
Thank you for asking.
:rolleyes:

[elas]

If you have something to be peer reviewed then that is great! My post was not to discourage this, but to encourage people to think through their ideas before making a fool of themselves? So before you put yourself up for public ridicule (which is what all new theories are subjected to (Einstein's included)) you have to ask if it makes reasonable predictions for things that have already been tested.

For example, if it is a quantum theory, does it describe the motion of electrons correctly? Does it describe electromagnetism? Does it get the correct value for the magnetic moment? (I was being a little tongue in cheek with my first post - I don't expect you to have it calculated to 10 significant figures, but it should agree with 2 to a reasonable approximation.)

If it is a theory of gravity, does if have newtonian gravity as its low energy limit? Does it predict the correct perhelion of Mercury?

If you have a theory which passes these sort of tests, then we will be very happy to hear aboiut it. If it doesn't pass these tests then surely it is already wrong, and a lot more 'wrong' than the SM.

My apologies for not replying earlier, I lost track of this forum.

I feel you are missing the key point. My theory does not meet any of your criteria for the very good reason that the SM already does this with proven success.
Speaking at the 2005 Solvay conference David Gross (Nobel laureate) said:We are in a period of utter confusion.....These equations tell us nothing about where space and time come from and describe nothing we would recognise. At best, string theory depicts the way particles might interact in a collection of hypothetical universes..............we are missing something funamental.
My proposal is about that something fundamental it tells us what particles are and why they have their particular properties. It shows that particle structure is observed to be repeated on the cosmic scale; it is not about prediction but about why things are the way we observe them to be.
I shall send a copy to alexross, meanwhile I am looking for an arxiv sponsor, if there is one reading this willing to consider my proposal please send an email to www.jhmar2@tiscali.co.uk. The fundamental nature of my proposal means that it does not fit neatly into any existing arxiv classification and is unlikely to be of interest to strict QT theorists.

[elas]

Severian

However, when coming up with a new theory it is important that it should be better than the old one. Therefore the first step of coming up with a new theory is a sufficient understanding of the old one. You have to make sure that your new theory does everything at least as well as the old theory, otherwise the old theory remains more attractive. This is very difficult mainly because our current theories are so spectacularly good in their predictions.

Surely the greatest need is not for a better predictive theory but for a theory of explanation. It should tell us what mass and charge really are, why do some particles have zero charge, how do some zero charge particles convert to two opposite charge particles. At present we can predict but not explain. Surely a new theory should not simply be more attractive, or predictive, or better, but, its priority should be, to improve to our underderstanding of current theory.

[Severian]

Quote

Surely the greatest need is not for a better predictive theory but for a theory of explanation. It should tell us what mass and charge really are, why do some particles have zero charge, how do some zero charge particles convert to two opposite charge particles. At present we can predict but not explain. Surely a new theory should not simply be more attractive, or predictive, or better, but, its priority should be, to improve to our underderstanding of current theory.

If your theory could predict the masses and charges then it would be more predictive, so more desirable.

Note that we do understand (on some level) why some particles have zero charge and how some zero charge particles convert to two opposite charge particles. This is part of the Standard Model.

[elas]

Severian

If your theory could predict the masses and charges then it would be more predictive, so more desirable.

No one theory accurately predicts mass but, several different concepts of mass allow prediction to be made providing the right concept for that particular method is used. As a result ST cannot define mass in non-mathematical terms. It does not tell us what mass is or why mass exists; or what is the cause of mass.

Note that we do understand (on some level) why some particles have zero charge and how some zero charge particles convert to two opposite charge particles. This is part of the Standard Model.

I challenge you to explain in non-mathematical terms why some particles have zero charge and what happens during the conversion process.

My theory does not predict charge but it does explain why the allocation of fractional charge to quarks is wrong. It explains what charge is. It does not predict mass but is does explain what mass is and why particles have there particular mass. It shows that the wave structure that seeks to determine particle structure, is the same wave structure that seeks to determine planetary orbits, or the distance between the rings around a comet; or the spiral structure of galatic arms. Nature is simply repeating wave patterns on different scales. It is not a perfect system; there is to much movement and violence for nature to achieve perfection; what we have to look for is the pattern that nature seeks to achieve. It is as if we are trying to determine the depth of an ocean by observing its raging surface.

'Only that which we are ignorant of, is beyond explanation; the rest is explainable'

[KaiduOrkhon]

Dear zeropointquarklinda:

the first url is a crtique on Einstein by a guy named Hutchison, who, uhm, speaks for himself.Compliments of 'bascule', of Science Forums and Debate - SFN,
http://www.renewamer...utchison/050128

The following URL clicks on to TOTAL FIELD THEORY, by Yours Truly
http://forums.delphi...EinsteinGroupie

[KaiduOrkhon]

Dear zeropointquarklinda:

the first url is a crtique on Einstein by a guy named Hutchison, who, uhm, speaks for himself.Compliments of 'bascule', of Science Forums and Debate - SFN,
http://www.renewamer...utchison/050128

The following URL clicks on to TOTAL FIELD THEORY, by Yours Truly
http://forums.delphi...EinsteinGroupie

A pop-up ad may occur on the first click of the above URL, after X'ing that out, a second click takes you there.

[lucaspa]

elas]Surely the greatest need is not for a better predictive theory but for a

more attractive, or predictive, or better,[/I'] but, its priority should be, to improve to our underderstanding of current theory.

No. The idea that you need to know what something "really" is is an illusion. Things are what they are. What you are trying to do is impose your ideas on the universe instead of figuring out what the universe is. Charge is defined as a property that does such and so to other particles. Anything beyond that is philosophy and not science.

What people are trying to tell you is that your theory must "predict" knowledge we already have AND predict new knowledge we should find IF it is true. This is the standard method of theory evaluation. Instead, as far as I can see, your "theory" is simply a philosophical interpretation of current theories. That is outside the scope of science. Try a philosophical journal. There are several, including the Journal of the Philosophy of Science Association: http://philsci.org/ Look at the site, get the Instructions for Authors for the journal, and submit your paper.

[lucaspa]

Quote

Severian

No one theory accurately predicts mass but, several different concepts of mass allow prediction to be made providing the right concept for that particular method is used. As a result ST cannot define mass in non-mathematical terms. It does not tell us what mass is or why mass exists; or what is the cause of mass.

Acutally, String Theory does all of these. Defining mass in non-mathematical terms is simply convenience and involves translating the language of mathematics to English. ST says mass is the result of vibration of strings. Thus mass exists because strings vibrate and the vibration is the cause of mass. You need to read more on String Theory.

Of course, ST does not tell you the source of strings. But then, it doesn't have to.

Quote

I challenge you to explain in non-mathematical terms why some particles have zero charge and what happens during the conversion process.

The implication here is that the Standard Model can explain this in mathematical terms. If you don't understand the math (like I don't), too bad for you. That is our failure, not a failure of the theory.

Quote

My theory does not predict charge but it does explain why the allocation of fractional charge to quarks is wrong.

Your theory must "predict", from the statements of the theory, that charge will exist and have the values it does. If the allocation of the fractional charge to quarks is wrong, then that hypothesis would not give the charges we see. Your theory must give the charges we see. Does it?

Quote

It explains what charge is. It does not predict mass but is does explain what mass is and why particles have there particular mass.

"why particles have there [sic] paticular mass" is predicting mass. Does your theory really predict what the particular mass of particles is?

Quote

It shows that the wave structure that seeks to determine particle structure, is the same wave structure that seeks to determine planetary orbits, or the distance between the rings around a comet; or the spiral structure of galatic arms.

I know that isn't true. The "waves" in QM are often probability waves, not movements.

Quote

'Only that which we are ignorant of, is beyond explanation; the rest is explainable'

This is one of the assumptions about the physical universe necessary to do science. It is usually put as the universe is accessible. That is, we CAN understand it (explain it). This isn't a fact as it is stated, but an assumption.

[Severian]

Quote

No one theory accurately predicts mass but, several different concepts of mass allow prediction to be made providing the right concept for that particular method is used. As a result ST cannot define mass in non-mathematical terms. It does not tell us what mass is or why mass exists; or what is the cause of mass.

The inability of the Standard Model to predict the masses of the fundamental particles is a failure - or at least shows that it is incomplete. I know of no model which can predict them though, so I have nothing to replace it with. However, the Standard Model does tell us what mass is and why it exists, and even gives us a cause for mass - it is an interaction of the fundamental particles with the vacuum.

Quote

I challenge you to explain in non-mathematical terms why some particles have zero charge and what happens during the conversion process.

Why should I do it in non-mathematical terms? That is like refusing to pay your tax bill unless the government can explain your tax bill without using numbers. The fact of the matter is that some particles have zero charge because they are trivial representations of the symmetry group U(1) - does that count as mathematical? It probably does, but your inability to understand what it means does not make it wrong.

Quote

My theory does not predict charge but it does explain why the allocation of fractional charge to quarks is wrong.

Why is it wrong? It fits the data.

[Severian]

Quote

Acutally, String Theory does all of these. Defining mass in non-mathematical terms is simply convenience and involves translating the language of mathematics to English. ST says mass is the result of vibration of strings. Thus mass exists because strings vibrate and the vibration is the cause of mass. You need to read more on String Theory.

I would dispute that. String theorists have never been able to predict the masses of the particles. If the masses of the particles were really coming from the vibrations of the string then they would either all be massless, or have masses of the Planck scale. To get around this, string theory asserts that the particles we see are the massless modes, but that there is some additional (unknown) mechanism with causes a slight symmetry breaking, making the masses non-zero. That is certainly not a prediction, and the contribution to the mass is not the energy of vibration.

[elas]

Severian

However, the Standard Model does tell us what mass is and why it exists, and even gives us a cause for mass - it is an interaction of the fundamental particles with the vacuum.

I have already quoted Gross; Barut, Veltman and others say the same thing that there is no connection between SM, QT and what we observe. Strictly speaking SM and QT are philosophy not science.

I cannot predict mass but I can show that the difference between particles can be attributed to changes in the fractional wave structure. Unfortunately it is only possible to predict which fractional wave is involved (and therefore predict mass) in the negative lepton group. There is insufficient data to do the same for other particles.

The fact of the matter is that some particles have zero charge because they are trivial representations of the symmetry group U(1) - does that count as mathematical? It probably does, but your inability to understand what it means does not make it wrong.

No one understands what this means. Current practice is to tell students that if they can compute it they understand it (Veltman). That is why we need a theory that explains to underwrite the current predictive theories.

[KaiduOrkhon]

I have a generalised new perspective on - re-cognition of a series of relatively old - tried and true theories; where the mathematics and predictions are already well established. That is, the required predictions and mathematical confirmations are already in place as the status quo in contemporary theoretical and astrophysical science.
http://forums.delphi...EinsteinGroupie

[Severian]

Quote

I have already quoted Gross; Barut, Veltman and others say the same thing that there is no connection between SM, QT and what we observe. Strictly speaking SM and QT are philosophy not science.

This is such complete rubbish. The Standard Model makes very clear predictions which are very well tested. It is most definitely science.

Quote

No one understands what this means.

I understand what it means. Why don't you?

[elas]

Severian

I understand what it means. Why don't you?

This makes you unique, according to Jim Baggott:
"the theory is, quite simply, not meant to be understood."
Further on he writes:
"Students are usually advised not to ask how this particular conjuring trick is done".
If you have an explanation (understanding) please let us have it.

Your attitude shows the difficulty those working on interpretation have to face. Only those at the very top are prepared to state the true position of QT, the rest firmly believe they understand it when in reality they have only a high mathematical skill, but no interpretation.

[pablo d]

Severian said:

If the masses of the particles were really coming from the vibrations of the string then they would either all be massless, or have masses of the Planck scale

I thought that string theory started a particle off with having the planck mass, and then via quantum fluctuations most of that mass is cancelled out, leaving the remainder as the total mass.

Also - and sorry for being another pest in this thread - but how exactly does the Standard Model of particle physics determine *why* particles have the mass they do. I was under the impression that the SM just takes these arbitrary values as a given and basically ignores the underlying reason, or am I wrong :confused:

[Severian]

Quote

I thought that string theory started a particle off with having the planck mass, and then via quantum fluctuations most of that mass is cancelled out, leaving the remainder as the total mass.

No - that is not right. That would be true of, for example, the Higgs boson in the Standard Model, but sting theory have inbuilt supersymmetry (this is the super of superstrings) which makes the quantum fluctuation cancel among themselves.

Quote

Also - and sorry for being another pest in this thread - but how exactly does the Standard Model of particle physics determine *why* particles have the mass they do. I was under the impression that the SM just takes these arbitrary values as a given and basically ignores the underlying reason, or am I wrong :confused:

As I said earlier, the mass comes directly from the strength of interaction of the particle with the vacuum. However, the arbitrariness is that our model does not predict what these strengths of interaction are, so we have to postulate the right strength to get the right mass. So we have no reason, for example, for why the top quark is so much heavier than the electron.