pantheory

newts, I agree totally, and believe 1 is an excellent number concerning the least possible individual types of entities in reality which seemingly should also should have the least number of characteristics possible to explain observed reality. Michel123456, I never thought of it but I followed your suggestion, it is now a new thread .

This thread is a spin-off from the thread "simple explanations have legs" This was my quote: As has been suggested by myself and others, I believe that common logic is a big failing of today's primary scientific theories/ models which is one of the causes why many do not make sense and one of the reasons why I think most will be replaced by more logical models. It was suggested that this might be an interesting topic to discuss. I hope you think so Besides all the formal logical principles involved with argument, there are also a number of other logical principles that might be adopted for a new book on formal logic. Below are a few principles that I have in my book on cosmology which could be adapted for formal verbal logic. I could probably think of and/or discover many more concerning research for a book. Maybe you have some ideas? -- All else being equal, "The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations." This 14th century concept was proposed at the beginning of the age of "enlightenment" or free-thinking in Europe. It is called the Principle of Occam's Razor. -- Something does not come from nothing. This is a very old concept and adage which can be derived from many sources including an old Latin saying. It also can infer the basis for the first Law of Thermodynamics: Mass/ energy can neither be created nor destroyed". Nothingness by itself was ever a possible state of reality. -- Everything can be considered relative. This principle requires a relative comparison for any statement concerning realities of the natural world. This concept was originally conceived by Heinrich Mach. A similar version reached greater fame through Albert Einstein. -- If the universe is ultimately finite concerning times past, logically there could be no exterior cause for it. This is because any exterior cause must also have an explanation as to its beginning which would defy the meaning of the word "finite." (where universe means everything in existence) -- As a principle of logic "the principle of least action" would relate to the concept that the most direct course, shortest path, or simplest explanation, concerning what changes may have occurred between one condition to another, is the more likely explanation. The question then becomes "what is the simplest and most likely way to get from here to there." In this way this principle is similar to Occam's Razor. In physics, "the principle of least action" is a principle of possible variations, that when applied to the action of a mechanical system, can be used to obtain the most parsimonious equations of motion for that system. .

Thanks newts for the help. Some might think your comments are cynical at times, but I consider the same comments to be realistic And when I make similar comments there may not be a sense of humor involved

Ophiolite, Thanks for trying to find confirming papers I also found similar papers as the one you posted. As all might realize, it is very difficult to determine the strength of magnetic fields in past epochs. The reason why it is a prediction of this model is because it is different from what would be expected by the present dynamo model of planetary magnetism. If at some time this model were found to be valid, it would point a finger in the direction of both a different cause of planetary magnetism, but also it could seemingly support the parent cosmological model which predicted it. Of course I agree that the implications of the paper are contrary to the prediction, but I do not think the evidence presented disproves anything since data interpretations as stated, were based upon the dynamo model of gravity. Of course if our planet had little orbital spin to start with for whatever reason like Venus, and if the collision of the Mars-sized body that theoretically created the moon also was the source of the Earth's present orbital spin, then up until this collision the Earth would not accordingly have had much if any magnetic field like Venus.

newts, I agree with your opinion. I think most all standard-model theories are close to impossible to disprove in the foreseeable future because, in my opinion, none meet the required theoretical criteria of being disprovable. I consider almost all of these theoretical models to be wrong in almost every way. I can only think of two theoretical models that I think are exceptions to this assertion: one is Natural Selection and the other is Plate Tectonics.

rigney, Sleeping for a long time may be unrelated to understandings of eternity. If one's mentality is based upon the future, then sleeping longer each day might enable one to live longer into the future. If this is one's belief then to live longer may seem like a good idea. For me the future will most likely be more exciting than the present, true or false, since I am a futurist in general. Much also has to do with motivation. If one has such a belief then one might try to live longer by sleeping longer, which is my opinion is a valid strategy to living longer. As far as living the "most valuable life" I would suggest that most people should spend at least 7-8 hours in bed. As for me it's more like 9. Twelve hours per day sleep may be a wee bit too much unless your health is really failing. In my opinion eternity is simply a mental concept that does not exist in reality, so my entire life-strategy concerns the best that I can do here and now, with an attempt to live a little less now, and a little bit longer in the future In my belief humanity could never ultimately be more important than ants, for instance, or rocks for that matter -- although personally I have a fondness for Earth-life in general, probably even extra-terrestrial life if there is such a thing . What do you think?

I agree that Occam's Razor or other related simplicity principles cannot be the last word but I think they suggest the serious problems with many of today's major theoretical models with few exceptions. The version of Ocamm's Razor that I prefer is this one: "All else being equal, the simpler explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be correct than a more complicated explanation. Explanations of anything should make as few assumptions as possible." From this version the key factors seem to me to be "all else being equal" and "as few assumptions as possible." There will always be argument concerning "all else being equal" but the second factor is more difficult to argue against, "as few assumptions as possible." Based upon this factor, in my opinion, standard models have a much more difficult time justifying the competitive logic of the model. Simplification, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. In my opinion Supersymmetry and standard string theory, are complications to the understanding of reality, even though they may be simplification to the related standard models, which in themselves I believe need major overhauls if not complete replacement. I agree. If QM required verbal logic, little would have been accomplished in this wonderful field. But I think ultimately logical reconciliation will have to be made in this and every science field since, in my opinion, everything is ultimately and solely based upon simple logic, whether or not we presently have any grasp or understandings of the related facts or logic involved. Hence I think that someday we will be able to properly and logically explain whether quarks or some other configuration like the OP proposal etc. is the correct foundation materials/ configuration of matter It might be interesting to realize that Murry Gell-Mann originally stated: Later, accordingly he was talked into conceding that quarks might be real particles. .

This is also my exact take on things too I generally agree with your statements but believe that humans are capable of a very high degree of logic, at least compared to other animals My belief is that logic itself as a formal verbal science could be greatly improved. In my opinion only a very small percentage of humans know how to properly use it to their full advantage. I totally think we are in agreement and parroting each other only using different perspectives and words Nice comments!

Bignose, This quote by the OP would also be my assertion whether his alternatives have validity or not. In my opinion there are very few correct theories today. These characteristics mentioned in his quote, I think, are the missing ingredients in nearly all theories today. Only two prominent theories that I can presently think of will become fact in this century are: Natural Selection and Plate Tectonics. A theory must be solely based upon observations but a model absent of logic, like in the quantum theory of today in my opinion, can run wild and become a farce concerning verbal explanations of it. Your example of "farts are the cause for all the forces" are not based upon observations that I am aware of , so maybe you did not get the point that the OP was trying to make, at least my understanding of it, which I think was that Occam' Razor is missing from many of today's theoretical models.

Like your screen name Mr skeptic I consider myself a skeptic too. But for me my biggest problem and skeptical concern, other than with religion, concerns a number of mainstream theories today which I consider almost totally wrong, hence this thread . "Simple explanations" in this context refer to understandings and verbiage only. In my opinion Occam's Razor better applies to the logic of a model than the math, since the math of theoretical physics accordingly can never be better than a close approximation of reality and could never be an analog. Granted the inverse square laws of light, magnetism, and gravity, are pretty close approximations. Like any other simple principle, Occam's Razor can be incorrectly applied. In the primary case that I can think of, Special Relativity was preferred over Laurenze's principles which required an Aether. In the case where there really was an Aether, as in a background particle field of some kind, then if there is a particle field like dark matter, Higg's particles, gravitons, field strings, quantum sand, quantum foam, etc. or some field entity that carries EM radiation, then the decision accordingly based upon Ocumm's Razor would have been completely wrong -- thus disposing of a the aether concept which accordingly would instead have been correct/ or is correct. The result was Special Relativity instead of Lorenz Transforms and Quantum Theory instead of a logical theory, that in my opinion ushered in maybe a century of false theory I respect Dirac's theories at the highest level but concerning his opinion that beauty should trump simplicity, of course he was only talking about the mathematics/ physics of it. Of course most would agree that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, simplicity appeals to logic and intellect. Dirac was a mathematician. I believe mathematics in the form of theoretical physics, could never be more than a close approximation of reality and never a mirror of it. I think that this applies both in the quantum world as well as the macro-world of Newton. I agree that QM is the best thing going concerning predictions in the micro-world, but the verbal interpretations of it I think have nothing at all to do with reality -- unfortunately. .

Nice comment. Knowledge is related to intelligence for sure. Not according to any standard model, but I suggest that a universe can be created in accord with the cosmological model being presented in the associated link to this one. "Alternative to the Big Bang, model/ thread" here in the speculation forum, which truly is a theory of Everything, according to almost every possible definition of a TOE. Of course to know everything is impossible but to know a lot more than we presently do would also be great. Presently I think most standard models presently are barking up the wrong trees concerning how the universe "really" works.

Thanks for your reply, Ophiolite. The reason this stronger magnetism is a prediction of this model is that the entire theory of magnetism of this model as a whole is much different from the standard model. The theory behind this prediction is that accordingly both stellar and planetary magnetism is based upon several factors. The first has to do with the density of the atmosphere, the second relates to its rotation rate, and a third is the strength of plasma radiation from the sun. But geo-magnetism accordingly is unrelated to the Earth's iron core. Instead when the sun, as well as all stars, originated it had a very large torus of inflowing matter that was the original source of the sun's matter. Both its atmospheric density as well as its spin rate were greater in the past. This, according to this model, would have produced a greater degree of stellar magnetism. The Earth, for the same reasons, would accordingly have had greater magnetism during its origin. Its spin rate and atmosphere would have been denser/ greater due to its higher temperatures and increased heavy material in its atmosphere. This theory is also contrary to the dynamo model whereby the Earth's inner iron core is accordingly the source of Geomagnetism. The link you presented relates to observation of rock material of maybe 3.5 billion years ago and less. The times of the sun's and Earth's origin date back 5 to 4.5 billion years respectively. So maybe the first 500 million years of their lives, accordingly the sun and Earth accordingly would have had stronger magnetic fields than it does in the present day. The mechanics of the theory are that for the Earth, ionized clouds move over the water producing continuous weak westerly currents of electricity in the oceans and lakes. These currents in the waters produce magnetic currents of influence in both the water and in the adjacent air. These magnetic currents move at right angles to the electrical current flow. This accordingly is the Source of Geomagnetism. Although totally scientific, the paper concerning the link, involves much speculation, extrapolations based upon the present dynamo magnetic model of the Earth. Other evidence for the model that I have proposed is that Venus, Mars, and the Earth all probably have an iron core. Venus with its very thick atmosphere, but little rotational spin, has hardly any detectable magnetic field. Mars, with probably a substantial a spin rate similar to our own but with a very sparse atmosphere, has little detectable magnetic field. The detectable magnetic influences on Mars surface material generally run East and West as apposed to North and South for the Earth. The reason for this, according to the proposed model, is that Mars has seasons where there is an atmospheric flow during the Martian summer where carbon dioxide and water vapor through winds, flow from south to north over the land, and in the winter the wind blows the other way returning carbon dioxide and water vapor back to the south pole. So accordingly the flow of the ionized atmosphere form south to north creates east-west magnetic markings on the land surface. This is contrary to the present dynamo theory concerning the Earth, planetary, and stellar magnetism models. If one looks at magnetic influences on Uranus and Neptune one also can see how the dynamo model fails to explain what has been observed.

Here are more predictions of the above model: You heard it first here! -- De Broglie waves are waves which all spinning particles create in the surrounding field as they alternate their axis of rotation. -- Magnetic fields of galaxies generally become stronger with age as current theory predicts, however contrary to current models, distant large galaxies will appear to have larger magnetic fields than their closer galaxies having a similar appearance. This is based upon a presently unknown type of distance relativity. -- The density of matter in the observable universe in any time frame would accordingly be generally constant. -- Both the Sun and the Earth would have originally had stronger magnetic fields as well as all of the other planets in our solar system.

Replying to Neutrino Oscillations evolve with Redshift ? The idea of the paper is speculative but now based upon much evidence. But as to neutrino interactions with matter effecting/ evolving redshifts, I can think of no possible mechanisms how this could happen. What is your idea?

No, the Big Bang model does not propose an infinitely rapid expansion of the universe during the Inflation era (the Inflation hypothesis), it only proposes a very rapid Inflation process, in most interpretations. Inflation accordingly was faster than the speed of light. Instead the flatness problem of the Big Bang model relates to the underpinnings of the Big Bang model itself, which are Einstein's cosmological equations based upon his Theory of General Relativity (GR). GR uses Riemann geometry which relates to the proposal that space in non-Euclidean. Euclidean geometry can also be called a "flat geometry" in that everything would simply have simple length, width, and depth co-ordinates and there accordingly would be no curvature of space if the universe were that simple. But when looking at the universe as a whole, all indications indicate that the universe is flat and simple, and that space is not curved as proposed by Einstein and his theory of gravity. By proposing the Inflation hypothesis theorists believe that if the universe expanded very quickly (faster than light) that it could appear to us that the universe is Euclidean/ Flat even if at a much larger scale it accordingly could be curved in some way. So the flatness problem is the contradiction of observations which seem to suggest that space is Flat, and that Einstein and the Big Bang model are wrong. Inflation supposedly proposes a theoretical way to get around what is being observed. Most consider the flatness problem to be a fine-tuning problem of the Big Bang model, that requires the density of matter/ energy in the beginning universe, to have according been very close to an exact number during most of its volume expansion phase, otherwise the observable universe would now appear to be much different.

I also am an infidel . Realize that the existence of positive and negative charges as something separate from something mechanical, can certainly be questioned (by me for instance). I agree. I agree. When quarks go, so will gluons -- theoretically I agree. Unfortunately this is the sad state of affairs concerning theories today whereby there are many versions of the same model, and regardless of the observations made, the theory can often claim that a particular observation was predicted beforehand. Maybe there are 2,000 separate theorists and three collectively made such a prediction within a factor of 20 -- then they claim a successful prediction. The prime example of this was the microwave background and the Big Bang model -- regardless of whether the microwave background had anything to do with an original bang or the supposed hot dense field as a result. .

There are two very distinct aspects of QM. One is the math called QM and the other called Quantum Theory which primarily consists of interpretations. See link this forum, below postings 9,10,&11 http://www.sciencefo...ions-have-legs/ I agree but in time, I think logical interpretations and related theory will supersede all others which is why I believe most of Quantum Theory (QT) will be replaced I can tell you what I think are the numerous mistakes of the model and what predictions could prove it wrong. This could be done on the other thread link posted above, since this thread concerns quantum jumping. The other thread concerns the troubles with today's theories, and is entitled Simple but Logical (theories)....... .

I agree and believe Quantum Theory will be modified some day enabling logic to become part of the new model. Their collective ideas involve alternative ideas that could be transformed into alternative theory, whereby the math would not change, only the explanations. I agree, but in QM they state that the electron can never be in transit between two orbital states, it simply goes from one orbital position to another without transiting the distance in between. This link provides the normal QT explanation. http://www.jimloy.co...ics/quantum.htm You might call it a new and different theory, but the math would probably remain the same for the most part. If transit actually takes place, why has it never been observed? I also cannot find such explanations but I could guess at least a couple of simple, logical possibilities and am sure there are many others: one possibility is when an electron changes orbits it either accordingly absorbs a photon or emits one. At this precise moment, how could its changing position be detected, using another simultaneous photon? So there would not seem to be any conceivable method of detecting/ observing its transit if it occurred. Another possible explanation is that the electron itself may not change positions at all but its orbital position could change by moving in or out based upon the changing position of the nucleus. My opinion is that if explanations do not follow normal logic, like quantum leaping/ jumping, those explanations have a greater chance of being wrong. .

Because it has never been detected, of course, does not mean that it never could be detected, re: physically traversing the distance between electron orbits. I consider it a matter of logic. If an electron is in fact physical, then it would have to disappear, transform into something else and then back into a particle. I understand almost the entirety of Quantum Theory has such assertions which seem illogical. I do not think leaping is a simpler explanation than traversing simply because detection in transit has never been observed. In this way my thinking is more in line with Shroedinger, Einstein, De Broglie and others who believe(d) that particles always have existence in one location or another, not disappearing and reappearing, or multiple locations at one time.

Thanks michel

The mathematics of QM is based upon a long history of observation. There is little question that it is the best thing going concerning its predictive ability. Quantum Theory, on the other hand, are the verbal explanations as to why QM predictions are valid. This theory is where all the "lack of logic" exists. Quantum Theory could be almost entirely wrong and totally replaced, while QM could remain almost totally intact concerning its mathematics. All that would accordingly change would be the explanations. Here is an example. Quantum Theory, concerning the double slit experiment using photons, proposes that a single photon particle goes through both slits and then interferes with itself. Is this logical? Einstein, De Broglie, Shroedinger and many others thought this was not only wrong, but a ridiculous interpretation. If the background field (the ZPF) includes any particulate or string-like entities such as dark matter, Higg's particles, gravitons, field strings, quantum sand, quantum foam, etc. , then as the photon moves through the field it could produce waves of these particulates in the background field which could go through both slits, while the photon itself would go through only one slit. The waves could accordingly interfere with the photon's progress producing the interference patterns we see. This is extremely simple to understand but since we have no proof of the existence of such particulates such as dark matter, etc. we have chosen a "ridiculous" explanation. All of Quantum Theory, in my opinion, consists of little more than many such ridiculous interpretations/ explanations. Mathematical logic is its own system. The primary requirement is internal consistency. This logic does not require formulations in physics to provide justification. Both logical systems are based upon a number of quite different rules. .

Simple but logical explanations have legs. A prime example of "Simple but logical" theories I believe were Newton's theories. Although Newton often did not explain the logic behind his assertions and formulations, considering today's physics as a whole, Newton's proposals seemed to always have a strong logical basis that today's models seem to lack. Most of Newton's models have survived to the present day. , .

In my recent readings concerning the CMBR, they have observed "ripples" in the CMBR in the form of continuous slight increases and decreases in temperature on a somewhat regular basis. The mainstream interpretation is that minor fluctuations during the Inflation era have expanded into the variation we see today. This does not seem to be the only likely interpretation. It is well known that the universe is made up of galactic bubbles/ webs surrounding large voids. If the related CMBR heat was produced instead by galaxies, a 360 degree pan of the sky at the same distance would seemingly produce the same pattern of heat that they are now observing. The polarization CMBR pattern observed could likewise be explained/ It is also now known that large voids result in as much as a 45% less heat reduction concerning the CMBR temperature than its surrounding volumes. This would seem to be a strong indicator that the heat of the CMBR is the redistribution of galactic heat, since in the relative absence of galaxies we observe less heat concerning background radiation. http://en.wikipedia....i/CMB_cold_spot .

Although I don't believe the standard model is a valid model, its beginning of time concept I believe is totally valid and logical. I believe that time is an extremely simple concept to understand and that there is no other meaning to it. Accordingly "time" is solely an interval of change(s) which occur between two instances, and nothing more. Again in causality, I think the BB concept (even if the model is wrong) is dead on correct logically. Accordingly the consensus version is/ was that the beginning bang was self-contained concerning the potential energy that caused it, and that there was no external cause. This I agree seems to be a conundrum, but would be of no consequence if the BB model were wrong. I believe that time, like space is a simple analog defined by atomic changes, and particle spin in particular. Some believe space could also be digital but I also think that such models are barking up the wrong tree I do not think I would ever seriously consider any model where "eternal/ eternity" could be considered as something physical. As to gravity, I think the concept of warped space will in time be replaced, and that space-time will come to be understood as a very simple concept, such as a point in space identified by the relative coordinates of its observable surroundings, at a particular point in time -- and nothing more.

A totally valid comment. In this way I agree with standard model physicists that assert that time before the beginning of the universe has no meaning at all if the beginning was finite concerning time past. As to time ending in the future, seems like a logical possibility, but not one according to any cosmological models that I know of. Accordingly "infinite" is only conceptual that does not exist in reality according to many standard model versions (and others) -- such as space as a continuum, for instance. Most BB theorists believe time would have no meaning before the beginning of the universe if this is the only universe. Defining time in the heat-death epoch is a standard model problem that is unrelated to alternative models. Logically there is absolutely no problem at all. Time is measured by change, and one could never undo what has already happened. Mathematical models may consider other possibilities, but I think such models totally fail in logic. The quantum nature of time is solely theory, and in my opinion a misguided one since again it fails in logic as well as supporting observations. I think that the mainstream consensus still asserts that time began with a Big Bang, at least as the leading hypothesis.