kristalris

As Swansont has advised I've started a new thread in order to react to this post. I've chosen the forum " other sciences": http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72285-correct-scientific-procedure-especially-in-physics/#entry724608

CORRECT SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURE IN SCIENCE ESPECIALLY PHYSICS After consulting Swansont to start a new thread for continuation of the following discussion, which I believe then belongs in this forum. Bignose in # 148 in a Speculations thread started by Przemyslaw.Gruchalahttp: //www.scienceforums.net/topic/71746-ultimate-theory-of-the-universe-how-to-build-universe-with-just-two-particles/page-8 I copy pasted the post that I wanted to react to, because it was coming of topic in that thread. Posted Yesterday, 07:29 PM kristalris, on 20 Jan 2013 - 10:56, said: Yet you all are following incorrect scientific procedure. Cannot disagree more. Correct scientific procedure judges ideas almost wholly on how useful they are. And almost always usefulness is defined as how well predictions made by the idea agree with actual measured values. All that stuff about confirmation bias carries weight in the softer sciences, but in physics it is hard to get away with it. If I report that I put 10 g of deuterium with 20 g of polonium in a steel bomb calorimeter, and in 5 minutes I see a temperature rise from 25.0 to 25.5 degrees C.... that is what gets reported. Now, I may call that cold fusion, the energy of the two atoms mating, or whatever I want. But, the most important thing is that it is repeatable. This is what destroys all your confirmation bias issues. See the example of Pons and Fleishmann, claiming to have demonstrated cold fusion in their lab. But once their experimental setup was published, no one could replicate it. And their idea was shown to be wrong. Look, if you want to call confirmation bias the way the data is interpreted... fine, whatever. I actually really don't care about that. My main argument is that you cannot just ignore the data itself. E.g. Breidenbach's experiment wherein a proton is bombarded with electrons, and the electrons scatter exactly as if there are 3 point-like bodies inside the proton. Whatever you want to call those 3 bodies, I don't really care. But, you can't show up and claim that a proton is made up of 1001 bodies, or have positron halos in them, (both actual claims made on this forum some time back) without showing how the 1001 bodies or the halos would lead to 3 point-like bodies scattering electrons. The fact that electrons scatter like there 3 point like bodies inside a proton is undeniable, many times replicated fact. Well, once that fact was reported, and verified many times, people naturally became curious as to what they are, and worked on other ways of finding out information about them. But, the fact that they are there has never changed. So, for anyone to claim differently just shows an utter lack of research and understanding of the base of knowledge we currently have. And there is no confirmation bias in seeing the number 3 in '3 point-like bodies'. The math is there. You can do the math yourself and see how the data from the experiment show that there are 3 bodies. So, while I understand your point about possible confirmation biases, I don't think it applies nearly as often as you think it does in physics and chemistry, etc. Papers in these fields are required to publish many details about their experiment and how they gathered data and how they manipulated the data to get results. If the papers don't have this info, they don't get published. And that info is required so that others can exactly replicate the experiment described in the paper. The result is hard facts, no matter how they get interpreted or biased or anything else after that. There is still another data point out there that any future improvement will have to be able to hit. So, when you get an idea posted here, for example, that claims the particle of light have substantial mass... it ignores all the current data points we have created when doing experiments with light. Unless you are prepared to say (and back up) that every experimental result published with light has been done incorrectly or falsified in some way, I don't know how this isn't a major problem in the idea. I mean, this is like the stake through the vampire's heart. I would certainly hope that there isn't a single reasonable organization that would spend money on further developing an idea that makes claims so opposed to so many facts that we know to be true at this time -- and there hasn't been anything compelling so far. Look, again, in a big picture, there is something missing. There are improvements to the current model. And, yes, that improvement may be a major revolution of what we call the current model. But, that improvement is still wholly constrained by the published facts of today. Such as when we do experiments A, B, C, ..., X, Y, and Z, photons are massless. That improvement will still agree with all those experimental results. That improvement may show that we were only testing certain conditions, but that improvement will also demonstrate that under those conditions the expected results are exactly what we measured. This is what happened when the electromagnetic force and the weak force were unified. They were thought to be separate because each was tested under different set of circumstances. But the unification shows how the electroweak force acts under different conditions. And don't think that that wasn't huge for physics. The fact that two forces initially thought to be so very different from one another could be unified, is huge. It required a lot of re-thinking and re-evaluation of the known results. Note... re-evaluation of results, NOT tossing them away. And it is the reason it is suspected that all 4 forces could one day be unified. But, once again, that future unification will not toss away all the results of today. That future unification will show how when you test it under certain conditions, it acts like gravity, then when you test it under a different set of conditions, it acts like the weak force, etc. I hope all of the above helps convince you that it isn't 'incorrect scientific procedure' but is in fact exactly correct. Old experiments may get re-interpreted in terms of new ideas, but the actual results of those experiments do not change. And those old results still have to be met by any new and improved idea that comes along. So, in short, if Przemyslaw.Gruchala wants to get any kind of serious attention for his idea, he needs to show how his idea makes predictions that agree with known results. So far, it has failed miserably, and therefore fails that very first test of usefulness in terms of making predictions that conform to known reality. It is really, truly, as simple as that. I don't care if his idea has 2 particles, or 20,000 particles, or has the wishing of polka-dotted unicorns as its basis --- it has to make spot-on predictions. Period. End of story. Poor or no predictions? Not interested from a scientific perspective. Makes thousands of predictions very accurately? Very interested. There is no other judgement that matters. THAT is science. Edited by Bignose, Yesterday, 07:38 PM. EVIDENCE & PROOF in SCIENCE and PHYSICS In part repeating, correcting and elaborating on what I stated in this respect in another thread: After that I will respond more in detail to your post. As I already stated there’s a problem in the way physics is currently doing research. In short the production department has taken over the research department. This was already so in Newton’s day. The price we pay for this is that this inherent scientific bureaucracy does not only cost too much time, it also costs too much money and it leaves a lot of problems that could have been solved unsolved for far too long. Actually an old discussion. At the heart of this is IMO psychology, and that the problem as such exists is clearly shown in history. Relatively new insights in psychology shed light on what is the problem and thus also who to solve it. But let’s first look at the problems of mathematics. MATHMATICS IN SCIENCE and Physics On the other hand also the place of mathematics in science should be looked at. Historically physics has been looking at it of the reputed maxim of Rutherford on tests and statistics. I.e. not that long ago statistics were looked upon by mathematicians and physicists alike as a sort of unscientific guesswork. Now we can conclude that these old school advocates have lost that argument and that we have moved from a deterministic approach to having an empirical statistical approach to physics as well. In fact what has happened is that the standard of proof has dropped when running into problems. Quite normal and proper. Now I’m going to invite the physicists to come all the way down via intuitive Bayesian statistics and ditto probabilistic reasoning via Bayesian networks etc. being the mathematics of common sense, to the word salad level of logical reasoning. Although science strives to get a deterministic explanation of everything in nature, it is a priori quite clear we are never going to get there. So you need to use the appropriate way of reasoning based on the amount of data that you have. If you overstate your position, i.e. reason deterministically where you could only pose a statistical based argument to that degree you are selling more than you can deliver. To that extent you are thus acting in a pseudo-scientific way. The same applies if you base an explanation on a big picture based only data that cover part of the picture. If data are missing you will have to guess. Thus it is not allowed in properly executed mathematics to measure something with an accuracy in a thousandth of a mm and a deviation of meters. And then pretending it is better to work that accurately. Working too accurate costs too much time, and money and leads to errors in reasoning for losing sight of the big picture etc. and leads too unjustified hopes. The price of the latter is that people lose their trust in science, when it is proven wrong. The same is true if the standard of proof that is demanded for any new idea is placed unreasonably and thus too high. In fact that is the seemingly reasonable trick to get rid of unwanted idea’s. Simply apply an unreasonable standard of proof on the one that carries the burden of that proof. Also the reasonable attribution of the burden of proof is a point. The one that states a position should prove that position. Yet the division of labour also comes into play. A taxpayer like I pays taxes in order to have science done. If a guy like Krauss comes along selling idea’s as if they are science that particles can be here there everywhere and nowhere at the same time and that everything is in fact moving nothing, then he can’t place the burden of proof on anyone to provide the mathematics on a proven concept to the contrary that hasn’t the mathematics yet, if it is testable. The reason is, that the concept level is the word salad level of logic at which level it only can be decided what garbage or non-garbage to put into the subsequent mathematics. Mathematics doesn’t provide that. You are only allowed to counter with mathematics taking the stated assumptions as a fact and showing it logically (internally) inconsistent or inconsistent with observations. Both to the extent that it can be deemed irreparably improbable. If you say to mr Math’s c = max then if mr Maths subsequently says that you can mathematically travel back in time, then someone has fulfilled the burden of proof by pointing out the possibility of a garbage in problem, and a word salad concept that is consistent with all observations and that addresses all relevant problems. As a tax payer this person can subsequently oppose funding research into the possibility of traveling back in time. Science is or at least should be primarily about finding the truth. In order to do that it however needs a degree of order. In order to provide that it is essential to get the definitions into a practical order. I.e. one can use stipulative (new) definitions to do that. As shown deterministic reasoning doesn’t / can’t deal with everything in science but logic can. So if we have to take a decision for instance what idea’s to fund in physics. Now before we go into that let us first look at a practical example of the difference between research and production: CHUCK “Right stuff” YEAGER Just to add a nice true story to illustrate the difference between research and production. Alas I can't find the book of Chuck "Right Stuff" Yeager. You know the guy that broke the sound barrier. As far as I can remember then: The USAF had a problem of the Sabre jetfighter crashing and killing pilots. It was the cold war so it was deemed an urgent problem. Crash investigation had narrowed it down to all the aircraft being out of the same production batch. They had torn the aircraft to bits but couldn't spot the problem. So they went to test-pilot Yeager and said: look there is an as far as we know airworthy aircraft from that batch, take it for a spin and try and find out what's wrong. So Yeager took along his helmet kicked the tires did a real accurate pre-flight check and gingerly took off. Very gingerly taking it to a considerable height. There he started doing aerobatics. And, shore enough when he was making a manoeuvre he unexpectedly spun to the right. So he did what the flight manual dictates and pushed his stick hard to the left. He's controls froze up on him. Now if you're doing say 800 km/h at say ten km height (not to use knots and feet) you are in a bit of trouble time wise to sort things out. So Yeager let go of the controls to get himself out of the loop (of the system). And sure enough the spinning resided. So he then again tried to push the stick conforming the manual, yet again the controls froze up. Then he let go and did it very gently, and the aircraft responded. So he landed safely albeit red-eyed and with leaves in the ailerons. Now this narrowed it down: further investigation revealed that there had been a guy in production who thought it a good idea to put a bolt in the aileron upside down, because it was easier. And the aileron still had maximum deflection, so why bother. Alas, when the wing flexed under pressure it could no longer give maximum deflection when just that was needed. The moral of the story: In production: do as your told, be conscientious and don't be creative; In research: the realm of the test pilot: it takes guts and fast guess work and a don't follow the book attitude or you will auger in like all those other conscientious pilots who ended up doing what the manual said pushing the stick hard left all the way down. Psychology dictates what personalities go where. I.e. Yeager shouldn’t of said: now you be more concise, what is wrong with the plane. In research you get on with it, quick and dirty if necessary. Then there was a cold war on. They could of course gone and try and contentiously find the needle in the haystack. That would of taken much longer. And still test flights would have to be done. Maybe even at the same risk because they might have found something else seemingly wrong, fix that and have a test flight. Ultimately in science doing the test decides the issue and not the prior data. Any hypothesis involves inherent guesswork. Big issues like TOE require a lot of guesswork. We are trying to find TOE better sooner than later. Why? Because knowing more now will cost less lives later via enhanced medicine and what not (if we start acting wisely with the knowledge that is, which can also get organized.) So getting there in ten instead of fifty years saves lives. I.e. getting on with it is urgent. PSYCHOLOGY the BIG FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS The comunis opinio in psychology holds that every human can be placed in one of five personality traits. I.e. everyone scores higher or lower on all five but always one trait is dominant. As a rule of thumb I can concur with this. It fits the way I see the world. On this issue two of the traits are relevant the conscientious on the one and openness on the other. These traits are without a doubt in the core genetic. Someone who scores high on conscientiousness is good at organizing, planning and seen as being rational. These people tend towards a directive communication method. This trait is very important in our western society in being successful. Via damage to the brain we know it resides in the front of the brain. Someone who scores low on this trait isn’t bothered in getting things organized and lets things be. Someone who scores high on openness is inquisitive, creative and is seen by others as strange (crank). Someone who scores low on this does everything as it is supposed to be done. Giving rise to a more reflective less concise way of communicating when a high here is coupled to a low score on conscientiousness. Where openness resides in the brain is more of a mystery. The most broadly held view is that it resides everywhere in the brain: i.e. the tendency to use the whole brain in order to solve a problem. Being extremely open and extremely low on conscientiousness would be nice for say an artist. Just generating idea’s, views that are new and could be inspiring for a scientist in order to use it to further science and thereby contribute to the survival of our species. Now being high on openness and fairly high on conscientiousness or high on conscientiousness and fairly high on conscientiousness are ideal traits for scientists. The former in research the latter in production of science. Does science have a production department then? Yes. When teaching current science for instance. Or when asked to produce something that is known not to need further fundamental research (build a plane that can cross the Antlantic doesn’t need any research anymore. Just follow the book by building a successful plane that does that.) The great minds in science like Newton, Darwin, Einstein etc. most would of scored high on the personality trait openness and would be seen as crank. And indeed according to DSM IV & V they are all certifiably mad, geniuses. Or are they? Or has science of psychology gone haywire in deeming the current society as normal as have done the protagonists of DSM taking themselves as normal and conscientiously measuring any greater deviation and branding that abnormal and thus crank? Yet in fact only measuring their own lack of creative intelligence. Now if systems such as DSM would be used wisely then there wouldn’t be that much of a problem. The problem is it provides the unwise with a sales attribute. Instead of giving our kids creatively intelligent education that they don’t get bored the get a pill to sit quiet and fit the system. (Mother Nature built a lot of kids to run around, that is now deemed mentally ill.) Production minded people think in terms of authority and are preoccupied in attaining and holding and following authority. They think that being modest is a virtue. It is in production and sometimes sales. Fully committed in not making mistakes. Everything must be communicated as succinct as possible. Avoiding to much discussions because these are disorderly. Do as your told, don’t rock the boat. Excellent in production. A disaster in research. Then they crash the plane when in a test flight situation. They seem rational up to the point where they are forced out of their comfort zone. They feel that they are of independent thought because no group pressure unless from peers will make them change their mind. They look on open minded people as lazy and or loose cannoned delusional megalomaniac cranks. Research minded people simply answer the stated questions without notions of grandeur, or what not. And accept making mistakes. They are of independent thought in the sense that they aren’t susceptible to peer pressure or authority. They can only work together well with conscientious people if it is in a clear organised way so that it is clear they are the research department. This because they habitually rock the boat. In a schooling system they are usually underachievers. Excellent in research a disaster in production if they don’t learn to behave. Now back to the mathematics of creative intelligence and evidence and proof: DUCK or RABBIT? Collecting data is like putting dots on a piece of paper. If you collect sufficient dots that are sufficiently spread across the entire subject of study at a certain point one can draw a line between the dots. Akin to what Krauss pointed out in a You Tube film that Hubble did: ultimately showing the expanding universe now known as a Law. According to Krauss Hubble first got it wrong insofar that it showed the earth being older than the universe. However on the basis of very few dots Hubble saw the correct line. Good creative intelligent guesswork based on a very limited amount of data by Hubble. As for any high school kid in science class learns to draw the line between the dots is allowed to ignore the dots that are too far off. (As long as you show to have deleted them and don’t add dots that haven’t been observed this is scientifically correct.) Let’s say the dots are at a moment sufficiently spread to draw the picture as in this link. You might then see a rabbit if you have some imagination. With more imagination you could also see a duck. With even more imagination you might even see a hare or a goose. This is the inductive part of the process. This needs the personality trait of openness, especially if we know that we might come across a new never yet observed dark species. It is this imagination of the human mind that makes it possible to investigate the different hypothesis. If it is a hare or a rabbit one would more closely scrutinise via extra testing the dots around the area where whiskers might be expected. And likewise see where the dots might give a wing. This is the deductive part of the process that needs a rigorous scrutiny and thus needs the personality trait of conscientiousness. Matching it to everything we already know. Now another phenomenon also comes into play. If you have too many dots you wouldn’t see the forest through the trees as we Dutch say. You lose sight of the big picture. Apart from that if the brain consciously or even unconsciously sees ears then it is extremely difficult to see hypothesis rabbit or hare. Another problem that can be illustrated this way is that the one with a lot of knowledge and experience on the subject senses that it is a mammal and thus strikes off the idea of duck and goose as being crank. The one with far less knowledge and experience on the subject has in these both respects a strength that lies in that weakness. That is correctly spotting the wing and thus yet incorrectly thinking it could possibly be a duck yet probably is a goose. It could namely ultimately be a bat hanging upside down in the cave of Plato. Being then a bat in this metaphor for an as yet unobserved dark beast. It is thus correct scientific procedure to combine the research and do testing into hypothesis wings, even though the stated duck or goose is correctly sensed to be incorrect. Because it leads to indeed finding a wing. So you are not allowed to fill in dots where no observations have been done. You are however allowed to fill in the line in those areas as long as it is presented as speculation. A very important common mistake of this is also the focussing too much on the parts of the beast that can be well observed (say the ears) and ignoring the parts that inherently can’t or can only marginally be observed (say the wings). How wide or narrow one should take the problem depends on the question one asks. If the question is in fact on a TOE then it is a very wide question. TOE When asking the TOE question you must answer for instance the following questions: Is the cosmos to be assumed infinite? Is the cosmos to be assumed not infinite? Are the questions A and B to be assumed irrelevant? A lot of physicists would state C. That is alright if it were a production situation. Production is only about all that where science is available as knowledge. On TOE that is not the case, thus it is a research question. As it is a research question the answer C is incorrect. You have to go through both hypothesis A and B. Are you then not allowed to try and solve this research question via a production department method? Yes, as long as that is not the only method used. I.e. do both or else you are following an incorrect scientific procedure. This because you then are only looking at the dots (i.e. data) and forgetting to address all problems (i.e. draw an integral picture). Like solving a crime scene, you should both go by the book: i.e. methodically step by step without having a prior notion on the one and on the other try to figure out what scenarios have probably taken place i.e. jump to conclusions and investigate these. That shows you where to start looking. You usually can’t swipe the entire crime scene for DNA for instance. It’s inherently creative guesswork. (Sorry Sherlock its first of all inductive guesswork, then deductive accurately checking). If you only go by the book in trying to solve a crime scene, you get a very thick book. It becomes a costly very bureaucratic exercise costing a lot of time ending up in silly mistakes being made. I could go into length’s showing examples of this. I hope you already got the point. The latter scenario driven way you do via the system of looking at all available evidence (i.e. dots) at that point in the investigation and try and build scenarios (hare, rabbit, goose, duck.) In an open mind setting. There are of course far more questions that should be addressed on TOE (that should now include Hubble.) Because physics is performed in an area where it is possible to do a lot of measurements slowly moving forward as in the production department yields a sure and steady furtherance of science. Yet at the same time it also more and more clogs up the system in preventing addressing the larger questions in a direct way. It is clear where quantum physics is going: slowly but gradually shooting the SM to bits. Ultimate conclusion it is observed all being built up of nothing. At least according to the production department. The production department simply ignores all awkward fundamental questions: What are waves? Is that moving nothing? What is energy? A telekinetic nothing that can provide a force? Haven’t we seen this way of reasoning in the Middle ages concerning the force that blows in the sail of ships? Is the Higgs field that probably exists omnipresent everywhere where atoms can exist? What is mass? Higgsfieldian nothing? Where is the order coming from? I.e. why doesn’t it disintegrate much faster? Don’t we observe pressure in the system? I.e. what is keeping the huge energies we observe are in atoms (atom bomb) at bay? A pull force? What is that? A string lasso? Is it all just a one off, because that is all we can observe? Is that irrelevant for answering the question where to look? DEMOCRATIC SCIENCE : FEAR OF LOZING FACE AND FUNDING This all adds up to the following problem: like three puppy dogs with one venturing out too see what happens if you put your teeth in the couch is the research dog. With the other two staying trembling in their dog basket. The latter two are deemed good dogs by their boss because they behave and do as they’re told. The two get their dog diploma, the other one flunks this due to other interests. Subsequently one of these becomes Top dog and in charge of the cookies (i.e. funding). As any mathematics teacher will know given a certain problem in a class year in year out a group of students makes the same error in reasoning. Let’s say thinking two plus three equals six. The problem is, when these aren’t students but the Top dog managers of funding who usually have a majority. With our dogs in the basket two against one: a two thirds majority. So going about this we get the rule 2 + 3 = 6. Subsequently this goes wrong. Now everybody knows Top dogs don’t make mistakes. So change the rules. Think, think, (how do I do this without personal risk? ) Problem with doing so leaves 2 + 3 = 9. (If interested I can show this for the Lucia de B case.) Simply not grasping that it is wrong. The Top dog as distributer of cookies will hold power even after horrendous mistakes. Psychology and history shows this to be true. You can only change this by organizing it differently. Problem with the scared dogs is they remain dogs that shrike for risks. Which is good. If a bear attacks the scared ones flee and the brave (research) one goes into the attack against the problem. Mother Nature organized it so that the genes have a maximum chance of maintain the species. IDEA => CONCEPT => THEORY => LAW An idea that can be scribbled on the back of a beermat can be the start. One moment of inspiration followed by a lot of transpiration. When an idea is in word salad on the common sense level it is a concept. It should address all problems and be stated to be in line with all known observations. The probability of it rises if it remains standing after scrutiny. The one posing an idea not being a professional or educated in the topic means that you have a very low a priori probability of this being – most certain completely – correct. That this doesn’t prove it wrong, because that is the fallacy of authority. You must look at all the evidence. I.e. likelihood ratio’s and posterior odds past the norm. That norm is your standard of proof. You don’t need to do the numbers because word salad logic suffices at this level. If it is presented in a falsifiable way it is per definition scientifically valid on research questions. If part of it is proven by mathematics, it still is only a proof of concept. Yet on a higher standard of proof. Risk = chance x consequence. A cost for gain question. Because for risk of an error due to the Top dog problem everyone is correctly concerned or even in fear for losing face and thus funding. Yet proper research requires trial and error. Now if indeed there is a comunis opinio that all the science has been put to it including the mathematics it should be called a scientific valid theory. There can be opposing theories and thus hypothesis. If one theory remains without a possible way to further investigate and there is broad acceptance of it being correct (always within explicit or implicit boundaries) it should be called a Law. I.e. E = mc2 should not be called a theory but a law of physics. No-one contests its applicability within the area where it works. The same goes not only for historic reasons for the laws of Newton. I.e. a law is only valid within a given or to be assumed field (Sir Karl Popper in fact.). GETTING IT PROPERLY ORGANISED Division of labour also shows what can be asked as burden of proof and what standard of proof should apply in order to have a maximum chance of getting problems solved . Now some scientists say that this would clog the system. Not true. I’ve now seen on this and other forums many idea’s and concepts. All that I’ve seen on TOE are either: Extremely improbable at a concept level (having God or spinning washing machines as particles. Or Krauss cum suis with something coming from nothing i.e. believing in magic.) Inwardly obviously inconstant thus illogical; Un-falsifiable; Not addressing all relevant issues on the stated problem (current science hasn’t either) In conflict with observations; (Which is possible to contest but provides an extremely high standard of proof. For science can and must be trusted. Uninteresting so I agree with Bignose on this ) Conclusions stated as observations. (same in current science: time dilation instead of observed clock slowing down; Length contraction instead of Doppler effect; massless particles instead of probably measurement problem. If someone has fulfilled these criteria this someone can claim proof of concept at the appropriate level. Being the word salad level. If thus applied you will most certainly not clog the system with bad idea’s. ++ Again that is the level at which you decide what garbage or non-garbage to put in the subsequent mathematics.++ So stating that he person who provides such an idea should first do the mathematics is an unreasonable request. That is the job of a scientist mathematician / physicist. The same applies to an idea that comes close but not close enough to fully prove it mathematically or otherwise. Science should organise an investigation into it. Even if no scientist is yet convinced it is correct, this because of the Top dog problem. It should be a matter of course. However it can be necessary to decide which idea’s to investigate first and which later. Therefore a different set of rules apply. First the formal status of an as yet proven concept should be bestowed in order to further chances of this actually happening. It also alleviates the problem of scientist loosing face when the test fails. “I did it even though I was convinced it wouldn’t work. Now we know I was right, its busted because….” And publish that so that we don’t have to do it again. THE STRENGTH OF A CONFIRMATION BIAS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias Take the story of Billy Mitchell: protagonists of battleships would rather rig the tests and die in their battleships in the then coming war than admit that airpower was already the dominant factor. History showing what in fact is psychology based on the different DNA together forming of human nature. (The rigging of tests in this sense will even usually happen when the scared Top dog feels threatened.) Science needs to get this organised in a way that scientists can brainstorm etcetera without fear of having their idea’s stolen or have fear for not being funded anymore when the test fails. Research is trial and = error =. The latter should be facilitated in order that more risks are taken. The fact that Higgs was deemed an idiot or what not by Stefan Hawking should have led to the Dean of Cambridge giving him a caution. This directly when he stated it. Whether Higgs is proven right or wrong is immaterial. Yet it provides yet again strong evidence for my case that science needs to reorganise itself. (As goes for the law systems my actual topic BTW that got me into this quantum stuff etc..) REACTION TO BIGNOSES POST: That a confirmation bias doesn’t or can’t exist in physics because you use data is incorrect. Physicists are humans and humans are susceptible to a greater or lesser extent to a confirmation bias. Period! What you are pointing at is that you aren’t interested in conspiracy theories. Neither am I. They are highly improbable a priori and thus require a lot of strong evidence. Furthermore you in fact say that one and can trust science to be honest. I agree, I’m convinced that dishonest reporting (adding data, or leaving it out without mention) happens, but is not at the heart of the problem. This is where peer review and vetting etcetera also comes into play. And, where reputation is important. With a proof on concept as stated above it is far less important. Everyone can vet themselves and check the idea. The idea should speak for itself. It doesn’t have to be to accurate. It can’t be. At first at least. Only if you have done the mathematics based on the required assumptions of the stated idea as well can you bust an idea with the mathematics. Sticking to the mathematics based on other assumptions doesn’t disprove anything. That is executing a confirmation bias. So is requiring a too high a standard of proof or refusing to do ones job. Assumptions are inherent unicorns. If you take the unicorn only to be a horse with a horn and no further magic, then that can indeed be a metaphor for an as yet undiscovered beast that could exist, and sometimes indeed is spotted. Like has happened countless times in the history of science and physics. Spotting the correct assumptions and integrating this in a testable logical idea requires creative intelligence. For that the human brain is extremely well equipped. Use it via organizing it properly. The funding or effort required the more accurate the idea, concept, and subsequent theory has to become. THAT is proper science!

CORRECT SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURE IN SCIENCE ESPECIALLY PHYSICS After consulting Swansont to start a new thread for continuation of the following discussion, which I believe then belongs in this forum. Bignose in # 148 in a Speculations thread started by Przemyslaw.Gruchalahttp: //www.scienceforums.net/topic/71746-ultimate-theory-of-the-universe-how-to-build-universe-with-just-two-particles/page-8 I copy pasted the post that I wanted to react to, because it was coming of topic in that thread. Posted Yesterday, 07:29 PM kristalris, on 20 Jan 2013 - 10:56, said: Yet you all are following incorrect scientific procedure. Cannot disagree more. Correct scientific procedure judges ideas almost wholly on how useful they are. And almost always usefulness is defined as how well predictions made by the idea agree with actual measured values. All that stuff about confirmation bias carries weight in the softer sciences, but in physics it is hard to get away with it. If I report that I put 10 g of deuterium with 20 g of polonium in a steel bomb calorimeter, and in 5 minutes I see a temperature rise from 25.0 to 25.5 degrees C.... that is what gets reported. Now, I may call that cold fusion, the energy of the two atoms mating, or whatever I want. But, the most important thing is that it is repeatable. This is what destroys all your confirmation bias issues. See the example of Pons and Fleishmann, claiming to have demonstrated cold fusion in their lab. But once their experimental setup was published, no one could replicate it. And their idea was shown to be wrong. Look, if you want to call confirmation bias the way the data is interpreted... fine, whatever. I actually really don't care about that. My main argument is that you cannot just ignore the data itself. E.g. Breidenbach's experiment wherein a proton is bombarded with electrons, and the electrons scatter exactly as if there are 3 point-like bodies inside the proton. Whatever you want to call those 3 bodies, I don't really care. But, you can't show up and claim that a proton is made up of 1001 bodies, or have positron halos in them, (both actual claims made on this forum some time back) without showing how the 1001 bodies or the halos would lead to 3 point-like bodies scattering electrons. The fact that electrons scatter like there 3 point like bodies inside a proton is undeniable, many times replicated fact. Well, once that fact was reported, and verified many times, people naturally became curious as to what they are, and worked on other ways of finding out information about them. But, the fact that they are there has never changed. So, for anyone to claim differently just shows an utter lack of research and understanding of the base of knowledge we currently have. And there is no confirmation bias in seeing the number 3 in '3 point-like bodies'. The math is there. You can do the math yourself and see how the data from the experiment show that there are 3 bodies. So, while I understand your point about possible confirmation biases, I don't think it applies nearly as often as you think it does in physics and chemistry, etc. Papers in these fields are required to publish many details about their experiment and how they gathered data and how they manipulated the data to get results. If the papers don't have this info, they don't get published. And that info is required so that others can exactly replicate the experiment described in the paper. The result is hard facts, no matter how they get interpreted or biased or anything else after that. There is still another data point out there that any future improvement will have to be able to hit. So, when you get an idea posted here, for example, that claims the particle of light have substantial mass... it ignores all the current data points we have created when doing experiments with light. Unless you are prepared to say (and back up) that every experimental result published with light has been done incorrectly or falsified in some way, I don't know how this isn't a major problem in the idea. I mean, this is like the stake through the vampire's heart. I would certainly hope that there isn't a single reasonable organization that would spend money on further developing an idea that makes claims so opposed to so many facts that we know to be true at this time -- and there hasn't been anything compelling so far. Look, again, in a big picture, there is something missing. There are improvements to the current model. And, yes, that improvement may be a major revolution of what we call the current model. But, that improvement is still wholly constrained by the published facts of today. Such as when we do experiments A, B, C, ..., X, Y, and Z, photons are massless. That improvement will still agree with all those experimental results. That improvement may show that we were only testing certain conditions, but that improvement will also demonstrate that under those conditions the expected results are exactly what we measured. This is what happened when the electromagnetic force and the weak force were unified. They were thought to be separate because each was tested under different set of circumstances. But the unification shows how the electroweak force acts under different conditions. And don't think that that wasn't huge for physics. The fact that two forces initially thought to be so very different from one another could be unified, is huge. It required a lot of re-thinking and re-evaluation of the known results. Note... re-evaluation of results, NOT tossing them away. And it is the reason it is suspected that all 4 forces could one day be unified. But, once again, that future unification will not toss away all the results of today. That future unification will show how when you test it under certain conditions, it acts like gravity, then when you test it under a different set of conditions, it acts like the weak force, etc. I hope all of the above helps convince you that it isn't 'incorrect scientific procedure' but is in fact exactly correct. Old experiments may get re-interpreted in terms of new ideas, but the actual results of those experiments do not change. And those old results still have to be met by any new and improved idea that comes along. So, in short, if Przemyslaw.Gruchala wants to get any kind of serious attention for his idea, he needs to show how his idea makes predictions that agree with known results. So far, it has failed miserably, and therefore fails that very first test of usefulness in terms of making predictions that conform to known reality. It is really, truly, as simple as that. I don't care if his idea has 2 particles, or 20,000 particles, or has the wishing of polka-dotted unicorns as its basis --- it has to make spot-on predictions. Period. End of story. Poor or no predictions? Not interested from a scientific perspective. Makes thousands of predictions very accurately? Very interested. There is no other judgement that matters. THAT is science. Edited by Bignose, Yesterday, 07:38 PM. EVIDENCE & PROOF in SCIENCE and PHYSICS In part repeating, correcting and elaborating on what I stated in this respect in another thread: After that I will respond more in detail to your post. As I already stated there’s a problem in the way physics is currently doing research. In short the production department has taken over the research department. This was already so in Newton’s day. The price we pay for this is that this inherent scientific bureaucracy does not only cost too much time, it also costs too much money and it leaves a lot of problems that could have been solved unsolved for far too long. Actually an old discussion. At the heart of this is IMO psychology, and that the problem as such exists is clearly shown in history. Relatively new insights in psychology shed light on what is the problem and thus also who to solve it. But let’s first look at the problems of mathematics. MATHMATICS IN SCIENCE and Physics On the other hand also the place of mathematics in science should be looked at. Historically physics has been looking at it of the reputed maxim of Rutherford on tests and statistics. I.e. not that long ago statistics were looked upon by mathematicians and physicists alike as a sort of unscientific guesswork. Now we can conclude that these old school advocates have lost that argument and that we have moved from a deterministic approach to having an empirical statistical approach to physics as well. In fact what has happened is that the standard of proof has dropped when running into problems. Quite normal and proper. Now I’m going to invite the physicists to come all the way down via intuitive Bayesian statistics and ditto probabilistic reasoning via Bayesian networks etc. being the mathematics of common sense, to the word salad level of logical reasoning. Although science strives to get a deterministic explanation of everything in nature, it is a priori quite clear we are never going to get there. So you need to use the appropriate way of reasoning based on the amount of data that you have. If you overstate your position, i.e. reason deterministically where you could only pose a statistical based argument to that degree you are selling more than you can deliver. To that extent you are thus acting in a pseudo-scientific way. The same applies if you base an explanation on a big picture based only data that cover part of the picture. If data are missing you will have to guess. Thus it is not allowed in properly executed mathematics to measure something with an accuracy in a thousandth of a mm and a deviation of meters. And then pretending it is better to work that accurately. Working too accurate costs too much time, and money and leads to errors in reasoning for losing sight of the big picture etc. and leads too unjustified hopes. The price of the latter is that people lose their trust in science, when it is proven wrong. The same is true if the standard of proof that is demanded for any new idea is placed unreasonably and thus too high. In fact that is the seemingly reasonable trick to get rid of unwanted idea’s. Simply apply an unreasonable standard of proof on the one that carries the burden of that proof. Also the reasonable attribution of the burden of proof is a point. The one that states a position should prove that position. Yet the division of labour also comes into play. A taxpayer like I pays taxes in order to have science done. If a guy like Krauss comes along selling idea’s as if they are science that particles can be here there everywhere and nowhere at the same time and that everything is in fact moving nothing, then he can’t place the burden of proof on anyone to provide the mathematics on a proven concept to the contrary that hasn’t the mathematics yet, if it is testable. The reason is, that the concept level is the word salad level of logic at which level it only can be decided what garbage or non-garbage to put into the subsequent mathematics. Mathematics doesn’t provide that. You are only allowed to counter with mathematics taking the stated assumptions as a fact and showing it logically (internally) inconsistent or inconsistent with observations. Both to the extent that it can be deemed irreparably improbable. If you say to mr Math’s c = max then if mr Maths subsequently says that you can mathematically travel back in time, then someone has fulfilled the burden of proof by pointing out the possibility of a garbage in problem, and a word salad concept that is consistent with all observations and that addresses all relevant problems. As a tax payer this person can subsequently oppose funding research into the possibility of traveling back in time. Science is or at least should be primarily about finding the truth. In order to do that it however needs a degree of order. In order to provide that it is essential to get the definitions into a practical order. I.e. one can use stipulative (new) definitions to do that. As shown deterministic reasoning doesn’t / can’t deal with everything in science but logic can. So if we have to take a decision for instance what idea’s to fund in physics. Now before we go into that let us first look at a practical example of the difference between research and production: CHUCK “Right stuff” YEAGER Just to add a nice true story to illustrate the difference between research and production. Alas I can't find the book of Chuck "Right Stuff" Yeager. You know the guy that broke the sound barrier. As far as I can remember then: The USAF had a problem of the Sabre jetfighter crashing and killing pilots. It was the cold war so it was deemed an urgent problem. Crash investigation had narrowed it down to all the aircraft being out of the same production batch. They had torn the aircraft to bits but couldn't spot the problem. So they went to test-pilot Yeager and said: look there is an as far as we know airworthy aircraft from that batch, take it for a spin and try and find out what's wrong. So Yeager took along his helmet kicked the tires did a real accurate pre-flight check and gingerly took off. Very gingerly taking it to a considerable height. There he started doing aerobatics. And, shore enough when he was making a manoeuvre he unexpectedly spun to the right. So he did what the flight manual dictates and pushed his stick hard to the left. He's controls froze up on him. Now if you're doing say 800 km/h at say ten km height (not to use knots and feet) you are in a bit of trouble time wise to sort things out. So Yeager let go of the controls to get himself out of the loop (of the system). And sure enough the spinning resided. So he then again tried to push the stick conforming the manual, yet again the controls froze up. Then he let go and did it very gently, and the aircraft responded. So he landed safely albeit red-eyed and with leaves in the ailerons. Now this narrowed it down: further investigation revealed that there had been a guy in production who thought it a good idea to put a bolt in the aileron upside down, because it was easier. And the aileron still had maximum deflection, so why bother. Alas, when the wing flexed under pressure it could no longer give maximum deflection when just that was needed. The moral of the story: In production: do as your told, be conscientious and don't be creative; In research: the realm of the test pilot: it takes guts and fast guess work and a don't follow the book attitude or you will auger in like all those other conscientious pilots who ended up doing what the manual said pushing the stick hard left all the way down. Psychology dictates what personalities go where. I.e. Yeager shouldn’t of said: now you be more concise, what is wrong with the plane. In research you get on with it, quick and dirty if necessary. Then there was a cold war on. They could of course gone and try and contentiously find the needle in the haystack. That would of taken much longer. And still test flights would have to be done. Maybe even at the same risk because they might have found something else seemingly wrong, fix that and have a test flight. Ultimately in science doing the test decides the issue and not the prior data. Any hypothesis involves inherent guesswork. Big issues like TOE require a lot of guesswork. We are trying to find TOE better sooner than later. Why? Because knowing more now will cost less lives later via enhanced medicine and what not (if we start acting wisely with the knowledge that is, which can also get organized.) So getting there in ten instead of fifty years saves lives. I.e. getting on with it is urgent. PSYCHOLOGY the BIG FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS The comunis opinio in psychology holds that every human can be placed in one of five personality traits. I.e. everyone scores higher or lower on all five but always one trait is dominant. As a rule of thumb I can concur with this. It fits the way I see the world. On this issue two of the traits are relevant the conscientious on the one and openness on the other. These traits are without a doubt in the core genetic. Someone who scores high on conscientiousness is good at organizing, planning and seen as being rational. These people tend towards a directive communication method. This trait is very important in our western society in being successful. Via damage to the brain we know it resides in the front of the brain. Someone who scores low on this trait isn’t bothered in getting things organized and lets things be. Someone who scores high on openness is inquisitive, creative and is seen by others as strange (crank). Someone who scores low on this does everything as it is supposed to be done. Giving rise to a more reflective less concise way of communicating when a high here is coupled to a low score on conscientiousness. Where openness resides in the brain is more of a mystery. The most broadly held view is that it resides everywhere in the brain: i.e. the tendency to use the whole brain in order to solve a problem. Being extremely open and extremely low on conscientiousness would be nice for say an artist. Just generating idea’s, views that are new and could be inspiring for a scientist in order to use it to further science and thereby contribute to the survival of our species. Now being high on openness and fairly high on conscientiousness or high on conscientiousness and fairly high on conscientiousness are ideal traits for scientists. The former in research the latter in production of science. Does science have a production department then? Yes. When teaching current science for instance. Or when asked to produce something that is known not to need further fundamental research (build a plane that can cross the Antlantic doesn’t need any research anymore. Just follow the book by building a successful plane that does that.) The great minds in science like Newton, Darwin, Einstein etc. most would of scored high on the personality trait openness and would be seen as crank. And indeed according to DSM IV & V they are all certifiably mad, geniuses. Or are they? Or has science of psychology gone haywire in deeming the current society as normal as have done the protagonists of DSM taking themselves as normal and conscientiously measuring any greater deviation and branding that abnormal and thus crank? Yet in fact only measuring their own lack of creative intelligence. Now if systems such as DSM would be used wisely then there wouldn’t be that much of a problem. The problem is it provides the unwise with a sales attribute. Instead of giving our kids creatively intelligent education that they don’t get bored the get a pill to sit quiet and fit the system. (Mother Nature built a lot of kids to run around, that is now deemed mentally ill.) Production minded people think in terms of authority and are preoccupied in attaining and holding and following authority. They think that being modest is a virtue. It is in production and sometimes sales. Fully committed in not making mistakes. Everything must be communicated as succinct as possible. Avoiding to much discussions because these are disorderly. Do as your told, don’t rock the boat. Excellent in production. A disaster in research. Then they crash the plane when in a test flight situation. They seem rational up to the point where they are forced out of their comfort zone. They feel that they are of independent thought because no group pressure unless from peers will make them change their mind. They look on open minded people as lazy and or loose cannoned delusional megalomaniac cranks. Research minded people simply answer the stated questions without notions of grandeur, or what not. And accept making mistakes. They are of independent thought in the sense that they aren’t susceptible to peer pressure or authority. They can only work together well with conscientious people if it is in a clear organised way so that it is clear they are the research department. This because they habitually rock the boat. In a schooling system they are usually underachievers. Excellent in research a disaster in production if they don’t learn to behave. Now back to the mathematics of creative intelligence and evidence and proof: DUCK or RABBIT? Collecting data is like putting dots on a piece of paper. If you collect sufficient dots that are sufficiently spread across the entire subject of study at a certain point one can draw a line between the dots. Akin to what Krauss pointed out in a You Tube film that Hubble did: ultimately showing the expanding universe now known as a Law. According to Krauss Hubble first got it wrong insofar that it showed the earth being older than the universe. However on the basis of very few dots Hubble saw the correct line. Good creative intelligent guesswork based on a very limited amount of data by Hubble. As for any high school kid in science class learns to draw the line between the dots is allowed to ignore the dots that are too far off. (As long as you show to have deleted them and don’t add dots that haven’t been observed this is scientifically correct.) Let’s say the dots are at a moment sufficiently spread to draw the picture as in this link. You might then see a rabbit if you have some imagination. With more imagination you could also see a duck. With even more imagination you might even see a hare or a goose. This is the inductive part of the process. This needs the personality trait of openness, especially if we know that we might come across a new never yet observed dark species. It is this imagination of the human mind that makes it possible to investigate the different hypothesis. If it is a hare or a rabbit one would more closely scrutinise via extra testing the dots around the area where whiskers might be expected. And likewise see where the dots might give a wing. This is the deductive part of the process that needs a rigorous scrutiny and thus needs the personality trait of conscientiousness. Matching it to everything we already know. Now another phenomenon also comes into play. If you have too many dots you wouldn’t see the forest through the trees as we Dutch say. You lose sight of the big picture. Apart from that if the brain consciously or even unconsciously sees ears then it is extremely difficult to see hypothesis rabbit or hare. Another problem that can be illustrated this way is that the one with a lot of knowledge and experience on the subject senses that it is a mammal and thus strikes off the idea of duck and goose as being crank. The one with far less knowledge and experience on the subject has in these both respects a strength that lies in that weakness. That is correctly spotting the wing and thus yet incorrectly thinking it could possibly be a duck yet probably is a goose. It could namely ultimately be a bat hanging upside down in the cave of Plato. Being then a bat in this metaphor for an as yet unobserved dark beast. It is thus correct scientific procedure to combine the research and do testing into hypothesis wings, even though the stated duck or goose is correctly sensed to be incorrect. Because it leads to indeed finding a wing. So you are not allowed to fill in dots where no observations have been done. You are however allowed to fill in the line in those areas as long as it is presented as speculation. A very important common mistake of this is also the focussing too much on the parts of the beast that can be well observed (say the ears) and ignoring the parts that inherently can’t or can only marginally be observed (say the wings). How wide or narrow one should take the problem depends on the question one asks. If the question is in fact on a TOE then it is a very wide question. TOE When asking the TOE question you must answer for instance the following questions: Is the cosmos to be assumed infinite? Is the cosmos to be assumed not infinite? Are the questions A and B to be assumed irrelevant? A lot of physicists would state C. That is alright if it were a production situation. Production is only about all that where science is available as knowledge. On TOE that is not the case, thus it is a research question. As it is a research question the answer C is incorrect. You have to go through both hypothesis A and B. Are you then not allowed to try and solve this research question via a production department method? Yes, as long as that is not the only method used. I.e. do both or else you are following an incorrect scientific procedure. This because you then are only looking at the dots (i.e. data) and forgetting to address all problems (i.e. draw an integral picture). Like solving a crime scene, you should both go by the book: i.e. methodically step by step without having a prior notion on the one and on the other try to figure out what scenarios have probably taken place i.e. jump to conclusions and investigate these. That shows you where to start looking. You usually can’t swipe the entire crime scene for DNA for instance. It’s inherently creative guesswork. (Sorry Sherlock its first of all inductive guesswork, then deductive accurately checking). If you only go by the book in trying to solve a crime scene, you get a very thick book. It becomes a costly very bureaucratic exercise costing a lot of time ending up in silly mistakes being made. I could go into length’s showing examples of this. I hope you already got the point. The latter scenario driven way you do via the system of looking at all available evidence (i.e. dots) at that point in the investigation and try and build scenarios (hare, rabbit, goose, duck.) In an open mind setting. There are of course far more questions that should be addressed on TOE (that should now include Hubble.) Because physics is performed in an area where it is possible to do a lot of measurements slowly moving forward as in the production department yields a sure and steady furtherance of science. Yet at the same time it also more and more clogs up the system in preventing addressing the larger questions in a direct way. It is clear where quantum physics is going: slowly but gradually shooting the SM to bits. Ultimate conclusion it is observed all being built up of nothing. At least according to the production department. The production department simply ignores all awkward fundamental questions: What are waves? Is that moving nothing? What is energy? A telekinetic nothing that can provide a force? Haven’t we seen this way of reasoning in the Middle ages concerning the force that blows in the sail of ships? Is the Higgs field that probably exists omnipresent everywhere where atoms can exist? What is mass? Higgsfieldian nothing? Where is the order coming from? I.e. why doesn’t it disintegrate much faster? Don’t we observe pressure in the system? I.e. what is keeping the huge energies we observe are in atoms (atom bomb) at bay? A pull force? What is that? A string lasso? Is it all just a one off, because that is all we can observe? Is that irrelevant for answering the question where to look? DEMOCRATIC SCIENCE : FEAR OF LOZING FACE AND FUNDING This all adds up to the following problem: like three puppy dogs with one venturing out too see what happens if you put your teeth in the couch is the research dog. With the other two staying trembling in their dog basket. The latter two are deemed good dogs by their boss because they behave and do as they’re told. The two get their dog diploma, the other one flunks this due to other interests. Subsequently one of these becomes Top dog and in charge of the cookies (i.e. funding). As any mathematics teacher will know given a certain problem in a class year in year out a group of students makes the same error in reasoning. Let’s say thinking two plus three equals six. The problem is, when these aren’t students but the Top dog managers of funding who usually have a majority. With our dogs in the basket two against one: a two thirds majority. So going about this we get the rule 2 + 3 = 6. Subsequently this goes wrong. Now everybody knows Top dogs don’t make mistakes. So change the rules. Think, think, (how do I do this without personal risk? ) Problem with doing so leaves 2 + 3 = 9. (If interested I can show this for the Lucia de B case.) Simply not grasping that it is wrong. The Top dog as distributer of cookies will hold power even after horrendous mistakes. Psychology and history shows this to be true. You can only change this by organizing it differently. Problem with the scared dogs is they remain dogs that shrike for risks. Which is good. If a bear attacks the scared ones flee and the brave (research) one goes into the attack against the problem. Mother Nature organized it so that the genes have a maximum chance of maintain the species. IDEA => CONCEPT => THEORY => LAW An idea that can be scribbled on the back of a beermat can be the start. One moment of inspiration followed by a lot of transpiration. When an idea is in word salad on the common sense level it is a concept. It should address all problems and be stated to be in line with all known observations. The probability of it rises if it remains standing after scrutiny. The one posing an idea not being a professional or educated in the topic means that you have a very low a priori probability of this being – most certain completely – correct. That this doesn’t prove it wrong, because that is the fallacy of authority. You must look at all the evidence. I.e. likelihood ratio’s and posterior odds past the norm. That norm is your standard of proof. You don’t need to do the numbers because word salad logic suffices at this level. If it is presented in a falsifiable way it is per definition scientifically valid on research questions. If part of it is proven by mathematics, it still is only a proof of concept. Yet on a higher standard of proof. Risk = chance x consequence. A cost for gain question. Because for risk of an error due to the Top dog problem everyone is correctly concerned or even in fear for losing face and thus funding. Yet proper research requires trial and error. Now if indeed there is a comunis opinio that all the science has been put to it including the mathematics it should be called a scientific valid theory. There can be opposing theories and thus hypothesis. If one theory remains without a possible way to further investigate and there is broad acceptance of it being correct (always within explicit or implicit boundaries) it should be called a Law. I.e. E = mc2 should not be called a theory but a law of physics. No-one contests its applicability within the area where it works. The same goes not only for historic reasons for the laws of Newton. I.e. a law is only valid within a given or to be assumed field (Sir Karl Popper in fact.). GETTING IT PROPERLY ORGANISED Division of labour also shows what can be asked as burden of proof and what standard of proof should apply in order to have a maximum chance of getting problems solved . Now some scientists say that this would clog the system. Not true. I’ve now seen on this and other forums many idea’s and concepts. All that I’ve seen on TOE are either: Extremely improbable at a concept level (having God or spinning washing machines as particles. Or Krauss cum suis with something coming from nothing i.e. believing in magic.) Inwardly obviously inconstant thus illogical; Un-falsifiable; Not addressing all relevant issues on the stated problem (current science hasn’t either) In conflict with observations; (Which is possible to contest but provides an extremely high standard of proof. For science can and must be trusted. Uninteresting so I agree with Bignose on this ) Conclusions stated as observations. (same in current science: time dilation instead of observed clock slowing down; Length contraction instead of Doppler effect; massless particles instead of probably measurement problem. If someone has fulfilled these criteria this someone can claim proof of concept at the appropriate level. Being the word salad level. If thus applied you will most certainly not clog the system with bad idea’s. ++ Again that is the level at which you decide what garbage or non-garbage to put in the subsequent mathematics.++ So stating that he person who provides such an idea should first do the mathematics is an unreasonable request. That is the job of a scientist mathematician / physicist. The same applies to an idea that comes close but not close enough to fully prove it mathematically or otherwise. Science should organise an investigation into it. Even if no scientist is yet convinced it is correct, this because of the Top dog problem. It should be a matter of course. However it can be necessary to decide which idea’s to investigate first and which later. Therefore a different set of rules apply. First the formal status of an as yet proven concept should be bestowed in order to further chances of this actually happening. It also alleviates the problem of scientist loosing face when the test fails. “I did it even though I was convinced it wouldn’t work. Now we know I was right, its busted because….” And publish that so that we don’t have to do it again. THE STRENGTH OF A CONFIRMATION BIAS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias Take the story of Billy Mitchell: protagonists of battleships would rather rig the tests and die in their battleships in the then coming war than admit that airpower was already the dominant factor. History showing what in fact is psychology based on the different DNA together forming of human nature. (The rigging of tests in this sense will even usually happen when the scared Top dog feels threatened.) Science needs to get this organised in a way that scientists can brainstorm etcetera without fear of having their idea’s stolen or have fear for not being funded anymore when the test fails. Research is trial and = error =. The latter should be facilitated in order that more risks are taken. The fact that Higgs was deemed an idiot or what not by Stefan Hawking should have led to the Dean of Cambridge giving him a caution. This directly when he stated it. Whether Higgs is proven right or wrong is immaterial. Yet it provides yet again strong evidence for my case that science needs to reorganise itself. (As goes for the law systems my actual topic BTW that got me into this quantum stuff etc..) REACTION TO BIGNOSES POST: That a confirmation bias doesn’t or can’t exist in physics because you use data is incorrect. Physicists are humans and humans are susceptible to a greater or lesser extent to a confirmation bias. Period! What you are pointing at is that you aren’t interested in conspiracy theories. Neither am I. They are highly improbable a priori and thus require a lot of strong evidence. Furthermore you in fact say that one and can trust science to be honest. I agree, I’m convinced that dishonest reporting (adding data, or leaving it out without mention) happens, but is not at the heart of the problem. This is where peer review and vetting etcetera also comes into play. And, where reputation is important. With a proof on concept as stated above it is far less important. Everyone can vet themselves and check the idea. The idea should speak for itself. It doesn’t have to be to accurate. It can’t be. At first at least. Only if you have done the mathematics based on the required assumptions of the stated idea as well can you bust an idea with the mathematics. Sticking to the mathematics based on other assumptions doesn’t disprove anything. That is executing a confirmation bias. So is requiring a too high a standard of proof or refusing to do ones job. Assumptions are inherent unicorns. If you take the unicorn only to be a horse with a horn and no further magic, then that can indeed be a metaphor for an as yet undiscovered beast that could exist, and sometimes indeed is spotted. Like has happened countless times in the history of science and physics. Spotting the correct assumptions and integrating this in a testable logical idea requires creative intelligence. For that the human brain is extremely well equipped. Use it via organizing it properly. The funding or effort required the more accurate the idea, concept, and subsequent theory has to become. THAT is proper science!

Okay, please Swansont, you being the premier moderator in this thread what should we do in order to continue a discussion on correct scientific procedure? The starter of the thread Sensei thinks it is off topic, stated in words to that effect. Bignose thinks it is still sort of on topic but might at a point get off topic but would like to continue in this thread, if I read his words correctly. Because any other moderator might come into the discussion thinking it is off topic at later date, and miss your ruling, I would feel safer in having the discussion split into another thread, seeing the way I got my warning.

I guess we'll let the starter of the thread Przemyslaw (Sensei) give his opinion whether or not it is too far off topic before I decide to put the question too a moderator. They don't like starting new threads either. So Sensei what do you want?

I would like to react, but I already have a warning. So I think we should continue this discussion on correct scientific procedure in another thread because it might be deemed off topic. But I don't know how.

You're implying but not saying his idea is busted. You mean that he hasn't proven his idea, just as you haven't dis-proven it either then. I guess you can't then. Well then the question is: if there are tests that can be done that show his idea busted? If you simply say we haven't seen it up till now, that thus means it could be correct if it hasn't been tested yet. If it has been properly tested you can say his idea is busted. Or the mathematics could show that. I guess he doesn't have the resources to prove his case up to the point you require. He already stated that he needs a laser. I guess he doesn't have a collider. You are applying a too high a standard of proof. If his idea shows that he theoretically can marry everything of the SM to two particles except quarks for which he has an explanation, then he has proven concept. Close is close enough. You shouldn't argue but test research questions. ​Question: if you shoot a Bic ball-pen with a crossbow into someones eye, as opposed to having someone fall onto a pen that goes into the eye, would that make a difference according to the book? Given the pen has gone and vanished into the eye killing the person. Go by the book or test?

Well I agree and disagree with you. You two are on different wavelengths so to speak and you actually put your finger on the sore spot as we Dutch say. You say that there is something missing. Maybe. Maybe there is something wrong instead. With your example of Newton you show the problem exactly. You say that you are not prepared to throw everything away. As if anyone is asking you to. The question at hand IMO is has Senseis model sufficient basis to warrant further effort and costs put into it? In order to ascertain that we need to look at all our observations and address all problems in current science. Well none of you does that. So you start debating with each other on different wavelengths so to speak. The proper wave length for this discussion is (not only in my opinion but as a dictate of proper scientific procedure) is the word salad concept level. Only there can you take in all observations and address all relevant problems without resorting to claim in part science on anything. Discussions on who read what are irrelevant. The problem at hand is not a production problem such as build me a GPS system. Then you can take the SM GR QM FT and SR of the shelf if you need it and build the thing. I.e. you don't trough it all away like we haven't thrown Newton away since Einstein came along as you more aptly put it. Asking the question at hand what is a complete standard model is an inherent research department question. Then the entire book of science doesn't exist in that sense anymore. I can give you a story on a test pilot Yeager surviving and solving the problem by not doing what killed a lot of other pilots in a plane in which there was something wrong (that would of incorrectly stated: there is something missing in the plane) by not putting the stick hard right in order to stop a hard left roll even though the flight manual dictates it. I.e. in research you are writing the book. That on the other hand doesn't mean that Yeager threw the entire flight manual out. There are a lot of even deeper questions that I guess you would deem philosophical and thus not physics; that you thus deem irrelevant. I.e. assume to be so. Then you assume these aren't of influence whereas at a word salad concept level they quite obviously can be seen as relevant. What are waves exactly? To name but one of these. The different wavelengths at which you are arguing I can depict by an analogy of a car and shooting it up. At one wavelength level we can see it has wheels, a bonnet, windows. At a deeper level we can see it is made of metal, rubber and plastic etc. Yet deeper atoms etc.. Now if you shoot at a car in exactly the same way every time a piece of metal connected to part of the rubber wheel will fly off. You say ah we observe our predicted quark. The reason why you came to this prediction and why the prediction is there in reality to repeatedly be measured is that the mathematics that you used holds an assumption that is both correct in a way and incorrect in another way. A variation on your Newton example: if you take the flat earth mathematics to be correct it will be correct with a paper city map but incorrect when crossing the Atlantic. If you use a flat earth assumption it can lead to seemingly correct predictions even-though it is incorrect. Evidence for a confirmation bias is clearly to be seen in the way you define everything: dark matter, dark energy, that should be dark attraction and dark repulsion. You agree there is something missing in the SM. No there is something wrong maybe missing. On research issues you should keep an open mind. And, you can't work that accurately in choosing the inherent assumptions to put into your subsequent mathematics or it is going to be garbage in garbage out and you will end up in the Escher Institute believing that water streams upwards. Or like Krauss cum suis that something can come from nothing. On a concept level - and in current science no one can claim more on this issue - that idea is more improbable than having a God, thus busted. So back to Senseis model. Do I understand it correctly that he has a model that is most simple because reduced to two particles and that there are only qualms with quarks? In which he doesn't dispute the readings and measurements but does dispute the sticker as the observed phenomenon deserving a sticker fundamental particle, just as with the piece of metal and rubber of the car? If so, he has a proven concept that warrants further investigation and public funding. I.e. scientists even if they are convinced Sensei is absolutely wrong should be funded to falsify what Sensei is stating by putting more effort into it. With a proven concept Sensei has already done his bit. That bit does not include the obligation to study anything further because that is irrelevant to the stated goal at hand. Edit: So if I understand Sensei correctly he is saying your quarks exist but are pieces of junk that you have shot of the car. They don't belong systematically to the wavelength wheel, bonnet window or for that matter to wavelength rubber, plastic, metal. Yet you all are following incorrect scientific procedure.

Okay quarks are a well established and detected fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model that begs the question if Sensei disputes the correctness of this link? That then leaves my last question what this does to the model? Does it have any hope of being tweaked into explaining quarks? That is of course for the advocates for the model to provide. And, a position that the detection of the quarks actually is a mistake will thus yield a very high standard of proof to meet in order to claim that I guess.It looks to me that Sensei had best take a more modest position: i.e. that his model has hope to be further developed in order to actually marry it with all well established and detected particles of the SM. Instead of opposing. I.e. he claims no problems on the dark energy dark matter site where the SM has problems yet he can't as yet fully marry it to the SM. A position that the standard model is incorrect is a weak position. Could the model be saved by adding other particles that might be perceived as quarks? In fact a question for Sensei. Edit: I see Sensei just posted a reaction that I mist. I understand him now to say in # 140 that the detection of quarks can be explained but those should't be seen as a fundamental particle. If I understand him correctly he doesn't dispute the readings/ measurements but the conclusions that what has been detected is a quark. So then he must show that his model fits the measurements. In fact he then is disputing the conclusion that the measurements hold a quark. I.e. expecting a quark predicted by the SM has the inherent danger of a confirmation bias in reading the results. Could that be?

It would only be a lie if he in fact had prior knowledge of this. The fact that you get this easily doesn't automatically constitute the fact that he knew, but at best that he should of known this. It is blatantly untrue at best. But if this was a well established fact in science I guess you wouldn't have had to Google it in the first place. So it isn't blatant either. He should of checked it but that again depends on his prior knowledge as well. If you first have to check everything you end up in an information infarct and don't try enough soon enough. The question I then have: does the fact that this has been observed bust this model (make it extremely improbable) or only make it less probable?

We can and hopefully will do something in time before it spirals out of control. I guess we are certainly going to have interesting times ahead of us and a lot of wars. Testing with rats a while ago showed that if you put to many of them in a to confined space war will break out. What we saw in Rwanda between the Tutsi's and Hutu's I'm convinced was due to overpopulation as a conditio sine qua non. What ever we do or don't do we are going to see more wars over water, food and resources. Even if we find possible solutions it must involve correct use of wisdom with which you can effectively battle corruption. If we keep on acting unwisely like up till now we are surely in for it on this planet. For everyone to a more or less degree. And BTW China has an enormous army and might find itself in a similar situation as Japan before the war or take even Galtieri and the Malvina's (Falklands). A lot of the problems can be averted but only after swift and decisive action IMO.

EVIDENCE & PROOF in SCIENCE and PHYSICS As I already stated there’s a problem in the way physics is currently doing research. In short the production department has taken over the research department. This was already so in Newton’s day. The price we pay for this is that this inherent scientific bureaucracy does not only cost too much time, it also costs too much money and it leaves a lot of problems that could have been solved unsolved for far too long. Actually an old discussion. At the heart of this is IMO psychology, and that the problem as such exists is clearly shown in history. Relatively new insights in psychology shed light on what is the problem and thus also who to solve it. But let’s first look at the problems of mathematics. MATHEMATICS IN SCIENCE and Physics On the other hand also the place of mathematics in science should be looked at. Historically physics has been looking at it of the reputed maxim of Rutherford on tests and statistics. I.e. not that long ago statistics were looked upon by mathematicians and physicists alike as a sort of unscientific guesswork. Now we can conclude that these old school advocates have lost that argument and that we have moved from a deterministic approach to having an empirical statistical approach to physics as well. In fact what has happened is that the standard of proof has dropped when running into problems. Quite normal and proper. Now I’m going to invite the physicists to come all the way down via intuitive Bayesian statistics and ditto probabilistic reasoning via Bayesian networks etc. being the mathematics of common sense, to the word salad level of logical reasoning. Although science strives to get a deterministic explanation of everything in Nature, it is a priori quite clear we are never going to get there. So you need to use the appropriate way of reasoning based on the amount of data that you have. If you overstate your position, i.e. reason deterministically where you could only pose a statistical based argument, to that degree you are selling more than you can deliver. To that extent you are thus acting in a pseudo-scientific way. Thus it is not allowed in properly executed mathematics to measure something with an accuracy in a thousandth of a mm and a deviation of meters. And then pretending it is better to work that accurately. Working too accurate costs too much time, and money and leads to errors in reasoning for losing sight of the big picture etc. and leads too unjustified hopes. The price of the latter is that people lose their trust in science, when it is proven wrong. The same is true if the standard of proof that is demanded for any new idea is placed unreasonably and thus too high. In fact that is the seemingly reasonable trick to get rid of unwanted idea’s. Simply apply an unreasonable standard of proof on the one that carries the burden of that proof. Also the reasonable attribution of the burden of proof is a point. The one that states a position should prove that position. Yet the division of labour also comes into play. A taxpayer like I pays taxes in order to have science done. If a guy like Krauss comes along selling me idea’s as if it is established science that particles can be here their everywhere and nowhere at the same time and that everything is in fact moving nothing, then he can’t place the burden of proof on me too provide the mathematics on a proven concept to the contrary that hasn’t the mathematics yet, if it is testable. The reason is, that the concept level is the word salad level of logic at which level it only can be decided what garbage or non-garbage to put into the subsequent mathematics. Mathematics doesn’t provide that. You are only allowed to counter with mathematics taking the stated assumptions as a fact and showing it logically (internally) inconsistent or inconsistent with observations. Both to the extent that it can be deemed irreparably improbable. If you say to Mr Math’s c = max then if Mr Maths subsequently says that you can mathematically travel back in time, then I have fulfilled my burden of proof by pointing out the possibility of a garbage in problem, and a word salad concept that is consistent with all observations and that addresses all relevant problems. As a tax payer I can subsequently oppose funding research into the possibility of traveling back in time. Science is or at least should be primarily about finding the truth. In order to do that it however needs a degree of order. In order to provide that it is essential to get the definitions into a practical order. I.e. one can use stipulative (new) definitions to do that. As shown deterministic reasoning doesn’t / can’t deal with everything in science but logic can. So if we have to take a decision for instance what idea’s to fund in physics you use word salad logic. Now before we go into that let us first look at a practical example of the difference between research and production: CHUCK “Right stuff” YEAGER Just to add a nice true story showing the difference between research and production. Alas I can't find the book of Chuck "Right Stuff" Yeager. You know the guy that broke the sound barrier. As far as I can remember then: The USAF had a problem of the Sabre jetfighter crashing and killing pilots. It was the cold war so it was deemed an urgent problem. Crash investigation had narrowed it down to all the aircraft being out of the same production batch. They had torn the aircraft to bits but couldn't spot the problem. So they went to test-pilot Yeager and said: look there is an as far as we know airworthy aircraft from that batch, take it for a spin and try and find out what's wrong. So Yeager took along his helmet kicked the tires did a real accurate pre-flight check and gingerly took off. Very gingerly taking it to a considerable height. There he started doing aerobatics. And, shore enough when he was making a manoeuvre he unexpectedly spun to the right. So he did what the flight manual dictates and pushed his stick hard to the left. He's controls froze up on him. Now if you're doing say 800 km/h at say ten km height (not to use knots and feet) you are in a bit of trouble time wise to sort things out. So Yeager let go of the controls to get himself out of the loop (of the system). And sure enough the spinning resided. So he then again tried to push the stick conforming the manual, yet again the controls froze up. Then he let go and did it very gently, and the aircraft responded. So he landed safely albeit red-eyed and with leaves in the ailerons. Now this narrowed it down: further investigation revealed that there had been a guy in production who thought it a good idea to put a bolt in the aileron upside down, because it was easier. And the aileron still had maximum deflection, so why bother. Alas, when the wing flexed under pressure it could no longer give maximum deflection when just that was needed. The moral of the story: In production: do as your told, be conscientious and don't be creative; In research: the realm of the test pilot: it takes guts and fast guess work and a don't follow the book attitude or you will auger in like all those other conscientious pilots who ended up doing what the manual said pushing the stick hard left all the way down. Psychology dictates what personalities go where. I.e. Yeager shouldn’t of said: now you be more concise, what is wrong with the plane. In research you get on with it, quick and dirty if necessary. We are trying to find TOE better sooner than later. Why? Because knowing more now will cost less lives later via enhanced medicine and what not (if we start acting wisely with the knowledge that is) PSYCHOLOGY the BIG FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS In part repeating and elaborating on what I stated in this respect in another thread: The communis opinion in psychology holds that every human can be placed in one of five personality traits. I.e. everyone scores higher or lower on all five but always one trait is dominant. As a rule of thumb I can concur with this. It fits the way I see the world. On this issue two of the traits are relevant the conscientious on the one and openness on the other. These traits are without a doubt in the core genetic. Someone who scores high on conscientiousness is good at organizing, planning and seen as being rational. These people tend towards a directive communication method. This trait is very important in our western society in being successful. Via damage to the brain we know it resides in the front of the brain. Someone who scores low on this trait isn’t bothered in getting things organized and lets things be. Someone who scores high on openness is inquisitive, creative and is seen by others as strange (crank). Someone who scores low on this does everything as it is supposed to be done. Giving rise to a more reflective less concise way of communicating when a high here is coupled to a low score on conscientiousness. Where openness resides in the brain is more of a mystery. The most broadly held view is that it resides everywhere in the brain: i.e. the tendency to use the whole brain in order to solve a problem. Being extremely open and extremely low on conscientiousness would be nice for say an artist. Just generating idea’s, views that are new and could be inspiring for a scientist in order to use it to further science and thereby contribute to the survival of our species. Now being high on openness and fairly high on conscientiousness or high on conscientiousness and fairly high on conscientiousness are ideal traits for scientists. The former in research the latter in production of science. Does science have a production department then? Yes. When teaching current science for instance. The great minds in science Newton, Darwin, Einstein etc. most would of scored high on the personality trait openness and would be seen as crank. And indeed according to DSM IV & V they are all certifiably mad, geniuses. Or are they? Or has science of psychology gone haywire in deeming the current society as normal as have done the protagonists of DSM taking themselves as normal and conscientiously measuring any greater deviation and branding that abnormal and thus crank. Yet in fact only measuring their own lack of creative intelligence. Production minded people think in terms of authority and are preoccupied in attaining and holding and following authority. Fully committed in not making mistakes. Everything must be communicated as succinct as possible. Avoiding discussions because these are disorderly. Do as your told, don’t rock the boat. Excellent in production. A disaster in research. Then they crash the plane when in a test flight situation. They seem rational up to the point where they are forced out of their comfort zone. They feel that they are of independent thought because no group pressure unless from peers will make them change their mind. They look on open minded people as lazy and or loose cannoned delusional megalomaniac cranks. Research minded people simply answer the stated questions without notions of grandeur, or what not. And accept making mistakes. They are of independent thought in the sense that they aren’t susceptible to peer pressure or authority. They can only work together well with conscientious people if it is in a clear organised way so that it is clear they are the research department. On the mathematics of creative intelligence and evidence and proof: DUCK or RABBIT? Collecting data is like putting dots on a piece of paper. If you collect sufficient dots that are sufficiently spread across the entire subject of study at a certain point one can draw a line between the dots. Akin to what Krauss pointed out that Hubble did ultimately showing the expanding universe now known as a Law. According to Krauss Hubble first got it wrong insofar that it showed the earth being older than the universe. However on the basis of very few dots Hubble saw the correct line. Good creative intelligent guesswork based on a very limited amount of data by Hubble. As for any high school kid in science class learns to draw the line between the dots is allowed to ignore the dots that are too far off. (As long as you show to have deleted them and don’t add dots that haven’t been observed this is scientifically correct.) Let’s say the dots are at a moment sufficiently spread to draw the picture as in this link. You might then see a rabbit if you have some imagination. With more imagination you could also see a duck. With even more imagination you might even see a hare or a goose. This is the inductive part of the process. This needs the personality trait of openness, especially if we know that we might come across a new never yet observed dark species. It is this imagination of the human mind that makes it possible to investigate the different hypothesis. If it is a hare or a rabbit one would more closely scrutinise via extra testing the dots around the area where whiskers might be expected. And likewise see where the dots might give a wing. This is the deductive part of the process that needs a rigorous scrutiny and thus needs the personality trait of conscientiousness. Matching it to everything we already know. Now another phenomenon also comes into play. If you have too many dots you wouldn’t see the forest through the trees as we Dutch say. You lose sight of the big picture. Apart from that if the brain consciously or even unconsciously sees ears then it is extremely difficult to see hypothesis rabbit or hare. Another problem that can be illustrated this way is that the one with a lot of knowledge and experience on the subject senses that it is a mammal and thus strikes off the idea of duck and goose as being crank. The one with far less knowledge and experience on the subject has in these both respects a strength that lies in that weakness. That is correctly spotting the wing and thus yet incorrectly thinking it could possibly be a duck yet probably is a goose. It could namely ultimately be a bat hanging upside down in the cave of Plato. Being then a bat in this metaphor for an as yet unobserved dark beast. It is thus correct scientific procedure to combine the research and do testing into hypothesis wings, even though the stated duck or goose is correctly sensed to be incorrect. Because it leads to indeed finding a wing. So you are not allowed to fill in dots where no observations have been done. You are however allowed to fill in the line in those areas as long as it is presented as speculation. A very important common mistake of this is also the focusing too much on the parts of the beast that can be well observed (say the ears) and ignoring the parts that inherently can’t or can only marginally be observed (say the wings). How wide or narrow one should take the problem depends on the question one askes. If the question is in fact on a TOE then it is a very wide question. TOE When asking the TOE question you must answer for instance the following questions: Is the cosmos to be assumed infinite? Is the cosmos to be assumed not infinite? Are the questions A and B to be assumed irrelevant? A lot of physicists would state C. That is alright if it were a production situation. Production is only about all that where science is available as knowledge. On TOE that is not the case, thus it is a research question. As it is a research question the answer C is incorrect. You have to go through both hypothesis A and B. Are you then not allowed to try and solve this research question via a production department method? Yes, as long as that is not the only method used. I.e. do both. Like solving a crime scene, you should both go by the book: i.e. methodically step by step without having a prior notion on the one and on the other try to figure out what scenarios have probably taken place i.e. jump to conclusions and investigate these. If you only go by the book in trying to solve a crime scene, you get a very thick book. It becomes a costly very bureaucratic exercise costing a lot of time ending up in silly mistakes being made. I could go into length’s showing examples of this. The latter scenario driven way you do via the system of looking at all available evidence (i.e. dots) at that point in the investigation and try and build scenarios (hare, rabbit, goose, duck.) In an open mind setting. There are of course far more questions that should be addressed on TOE (that should now include Hubble.) Because physics is performed in an area where it is possible to do a lot of measurements slowly moving forward as in the production department yields a sure and steady furtherance of science. Yet at the same time it also more and more clogs up the system in preventing addressing the larger questions in a direct way. It is clear where quantum physics is going: slowly but gradually shooting the SM to bits. Ultimate conclusion it is observed all being built up of nothing. At least according to the production department. The production department simply ignores all awkward fundamental questions: What are waves? Is that moving nothing? What is energy? A telekinetic nothing that can provide a force? Haven’t we seen this way of reasoning in the Middle ages concerning the force that blows in the sail of ships? Is the Higgs field that probably exists omnipresent everywhere where atoms can exist? What is mass? Higgsfieldian nothing? Where is the order coming from? I.e. why doesn’t it disintegrate much faster? Is it all just a one off, because that is all we can observe? DEMOCRATIC SCIENCE : FEAR OF LOSING FACE AND FUNDING This all adds up to the following problem: like three puppy dogs with one venturing out too see what happens if you put your teeth in the couch is the research dog. With the other two staying trembling in their dog basket. The latter two are deemed good dogs by their boss because they behave and do as their told. The two get their dog diploma, the other one flunks this due to other interests. Subsequently one of these becomes Top dog and in charge of the cookies (i.e. funding). As any mathematics teacher will know given a certain problem in a class year in year out a group of students makes the same error in reasoning. Let’s say thinking two plus three equals six. The problem is, when these aren’t students but the Top dog managers of funding who usually have a majority. With our dogs in the basket two against one. So going about this we get the rule 2 + 3 = 6. People of a certain creative intelligence have a click with each other. People less creatively intelligent further of are deemed stupid and sentimental, and on the other side people who are far more creative intelligent are deemed insensitive psychopaths. especially if the Top dog is told that he's got it wrong and this also becomes clear. Then it becomes threatening for a scared Top dog. Subsequently this goes wrong. Now everybody knows Top dogs don’t make mistakes. So change the rules. Think, think, (how do I do this without having risks are so.) Problem with doing so leaves 2 + 3 = 9. (If interested I can show this for the Lucia de B case.) Simply not grasping that it is wrong. The Top dog as distributor of cookies will hold power even after horrendous mistakes. Psychology and history shows this to be true. You can only change this by organizing it differently. Problem with the scared dogs is they remain dogs that shrike for risks. Which is good. If a bear attacks the scared ones flee and the brave (research) one goes into the attack against the problem. Mother Nature organized it so that the genes have a maximum chance of maintain the species. IDEA => CONCEPT => THEORY => LAW An idea that can be scribbled on the back of a beermat can be the start. One moment of inspiration followed by a lot of transpiration. When an idea is in word salad on the common sense level it is a concept. It should address all problems and be stated to be in line with all known observations. The probability of it rises if it remains standing after scrutiny. The one posing an idea not being a professional or educated in the topic means that you have a very low a priori probability of this being – most certain completely – correct. That this doesn’t prove it wrong, because that is the fallacy of authority. You must look at all the evidence. I.e. likelihood ratio’s and posterior odds past the norm. That norm is you standard of proof. You don’t need to do the numbers because word salad logic suffices at this level. If it is presented in a falsifiable way it is per definition scientifically valid on research questions. If part of it is proven by mathematics, it still is only a proof of concept. Yet on a higher standard of proof. Risk = chance x consequence. A cost for gain question. Because for risk of an error due to the Top dog problem everyone is correctly concerned or even in fear for losing face and thus funding. Yet proper research requires trial and error. Now if indeed there is a communis opinio that all the science has been put to it including the mathematics it should be could a scientific valid theory. There can be opposing theories and thus hypothesis. If one theory remains without a possible way to further investigate and there is broad acceptance of it being correct (always within explicit or implicit boundaries) it should be called a Law. I.e. E = mc2 should not be called a theory but a law of physics. No-one contests its applicability within the area where it works. The same goes not only for historic reasons for the laws of Newton. I.e. a law is only valid within a given or to be assumed field (Sir Karl Popper in fact.). GETTING IT PROPERLY ORGANISED Division of labour also shows what can be asked as burden of proof and what standard of proof should apply in order to have a maximum chance of getting problems solved. Now some scientists say that this would clog the system. Not true. I've now seen many idea's on TOE on other forums. All that I've seen on TOE are either: Extremely improbable at a concept level (having God or spinning washing machines as particles. Or Krauss cum suis with all is nothing.) Inwardly obviously inconstant thus illogical; Un falsifiable; Not addressing all relevant issues on the stated problem (current science hasn't either) In conflict with observations; (Which is possible to contest but provides an extremely high standard of proof. For science can and must be trusted.) If someone has fulfilled these criteria this someone can claim proof of concept at the appropriate level. Science should organize an investigation into it. Even if no scientist is yet convinced it is correct, this because of the Top dog problem. It should be a matter of course. However it can be necessary to decide which idea’s to investigate first and which later. Therefor a different set of rules apply. First the formal status of an as yet proven concept should be bestowed in order to further chances of this actually happening. It also alleviates the problem of scientist loosing face when the test fails. “I did it even though I was convinced it wouldn’t work. Now we know I was right, its busted because….” And publish that so that we don’t have to do it again. THE STRENGTH OF A CONFIRMATION BIAS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias Take the story of Billy Mitchell: protagonists of battleships would rather rig the tests and die in their battleships in the then coming war than admit that airpower was already the dominant factor. History showing what in fact is psychology based on the different DNA together forming of human nature. Rogue dog Mitchell didn't follow the order to miss the ship but sunk it and got fired. In the war a bomber was named in memory of him. Science needs to get this organised in a way that scientists can brainstorm etcetera without fear of having their idea’s stolen or have fear for not being funded anymore. The fact that Higgs was deemed an idiot or what not by Stefan Hawking should have led to the Dean of Cambridge giving him a caution. This directly when he stated it. Whether Higgs is proven right or wrong is immaterial. Yet it provides yet again strong evidence for my case that science needs to reorganize itself. It is a flaming culture that stems from the production department. (As goes for the law systems my actual topic BTW that got me into this quantum stuff etc..) This site doesn't allow flaming and lets proper argument count. Correctly so.

Well put, and indeed my idea does cover that even though as I stated in my thread I refrained from giving the entire idea because it probably would cloud the issue. I hope to post my idea on procedure today in my thread and maybe get round to updating my latest views in the latest version of my idea in the thread as well this weekend. It's work in progress. (For instance I changed the way I thought about the double slit experiment via objections of someone else. Anyway who said what, is all on record elsewhere) The reason is that with what I did put in my thread I already show enough proof of concept IMO to warrant funding of a feasibility study in to the proposed tests. Being the tests the result of following proper scientific research procedure. This doing philosophy as most physicists would call it is a practical means to an end. It shows you where to start looking for an answer via a test. It has produced a test on which a feasibility study wont cost much. You can take the Higgs field as static IMO when discussing this even though it is IMO moving like a glacier. I.e. as static as a glacier seems when walking over it. So it doesn't IMO have to catch up as a field. The mass it provides the say atom that passes through that field does need to be brought to catch up. Please bear in mind this atom is even if parts of it might be at c is still slow enough if the Higgs field is maybe / need be even far above c. Mind you, every bit of mass is contained in an extremely small virtual box. This you can test in the given experiment. (Sensei should be able to answer the question on the feasibility of doing such a computer simulation.) Anyway science and also Sensei fail to provide an answer for how things can and have gone to order. And they fail to explain why things don't disintegrate much faster, then they should given current science. I do explain this. Even though we on earth are spiraling all over the place in space; the speed in some parts of our galaxy is some 250 km/s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rotation_curve_(Milky_Way).JPG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way twirling around the center of the Milky-way. The mass of the Higgs field is > c. Maybe even far above c. It goes to order extremely fast. I.e. it must explain going to order in the time needed to let say the wave front of a photon that could be a meter long go to order en far less than a blink of an eye so to speak. So even when going through this field at this speed it should restore itself fast enough to fit the observation of an intact Higgs field crystal at a great bandwidth of speeds. And indeed I also predict what I call the helicopter effect. I.e. a helicopter can't exceed say a third of the speed of sound because the tip of the rotor would go through the sound barrier. (depending on the size of the rotor.) The same problem I predict you will have in speeding up say an atom. The electron will hit c. It will become unstable around 1/3 c. This can also be tested but that would be far more elaborate and costly to do. So for my idea to fit the observations the acceleration of Hubble must over billions of years keep it going without disintegrating. We do observe mounting entropy which is consistent with my idea. A new way to test my idea is looking at a average galaxy as a large gyro that is spinning at the given speeds in the Wikipedia link but take it as an average speed of most of the mass in the outer ring. I.e. that the total energy remains the same. Then you downsize the entire thing to a toy gyro of 1 kg and see how much gravity that should give when spun by a kid in order to explain dark matter. If the mathematics show that I must tell my kid not to spin that gyro because all the stuff in the room will fling towards it, then my idea on this is busted. We simply don't observe this. If on the other hand you need a gyro the size of the moon spun at 10000 rpm we have a measurement problem. Then w'll have to dream up a different test. However it might be relatively easy to test if you have done the simple math's to see how small a measurement problem actually is. My idea provides you with a reason to start looking in that direction. Science clearly hasn't done that yet because I guess someone would have pointed that out to me. So start looking or explain why we don't have to. If what I say - or what Sensei for that matter - says isn't perfect at the moment that could be a problem in a production question. In research that isn't the norm. Is it plausible enough to warrant further time and effort to bring it to the next level or not? That is the norm, or should be. I'll go into that in more depth in my own thread. It is work in progress i.e. that we will have to change the idea's is a given. What I don't grasp on the critique Swansont is giving him is if Sensei shows he can build it all from one particle upwards, that it can be held against him - if I understand this correctly - that sometimes when breaking up a particle also fusion could occur as a result of the way you broke it up?

To start off sorry Przemyslav, I'll call you Sensei then if that is okay? I scanned the posts and mist that bit before posting, I thought I would't have the time to react, but I do, for a bit anyway. Swansont puts forward that there is a lot of evidence of photons (etc.) being mass less. I don't contest that. I guess he in part is referring to observations that light doesn't interfere with other light and can't as yet be made to do so. The thing is I provide a way to elegantly explain that on a concept level (being thus a speculation) albeit testable why that is, and still conclude that photons have mass. I can prove this on a concept level via explaining how my idea works out on the double slit experiment. You can compare it with two rowing boats: eights that have their oars interlocked. If both are traveling in the same direction and same speed (ditto tempo and rhythm) then at great speed not even the waves of the oars will interfere between boats. If one of the rowers starts trying to avoid the other oars then in stead of the chance of that happening lessening it rises. The footprint of his oar in space time (being in this idea simply 3D space and absolute time) will become larger and so the chance of hitting the other oar as well. Normally light (i.e. photons) are going about their business in a very orderly way. The mass of which they are made is also so extremely small it is not a wonder that they don't interfere it is a wonder that anything hits anything else in an orderly way at all. The photon looking at it in that way being more the norm than the exception. But we observe this order in Nature: things are hitting each other in high frequency. I need the dynamic crystal for that. This you can test. What happens in the double slit experiment IMO is that the energy packet of the photon is slowed down in the glass of the first slit (or better it is detoured), this allows the wave front traveling through the Higgs field of unspun mass in the crystal to catch up through the other slit. Because this is in sync with the photon energy packet that has been slowed down / become more chaotic i.e. has got a larger footprint, it is effected by its own wave. You get an interference pattern. If you now start to observe the photon prior too the slit, and in order to do so you must be in sync, and I guess you use an electronic device causing an electro-magnetic field. Because it IMO is all built up of the same stuff (magnetism as well) and you are in sync it will subsequently effect the outcome by either slowing down the wave and/or preventing the detour of the energy packet. Then the energy packet is no longer effected by tits own wave hence no interference. This shows why it is extremely difficult to get two photons to interfere. Yet it should maybe be possible at great difficulty. You would need both photons to be slowed down, i.e. become larger. Now who has the burden of proof to show the needed mathematics (that is to say if Sensei hasn't in part done that already)? Not I. The full reason for that I'm still working on to post in my own thread. In short this isn't a production but a research problem. For mathematics you first decide what for garbage or non garbage you put into the mathematics prior to that. Mathematics dictate you do that in word salad at a concept level looking at all evidence and addressing all problems. It is not true that mathematics show that time is relative and that c = max. These are conclusions based on an interpretation of part of the evidence. It is evident that your mathematics then will change. But that doesn't mean that you will get anything different out of the predictions in the area's where we know that GR QM, SR and FT work. Of course not. On a concept level my idea is logically proven and by far more probable than current science is at that - concept - level. At that level current science is forced to follow Krauss et all stating that something can come from nothing (or things that are extremely improbable and inconsistent). Now that is a blatant contradiction and thus busted as something that you are allowed to assume as a fact that can be put into (or come out of) the mathematics on a research question. That it is proved to work in several production areas doesn't make that any different. Given stated current science assumptions it is mathematically possible to travel back in time. On a concept i.e. logical word salad level that is impossible. Given all the other related dark problems current science is forced back to the basics of first addressing the assumptions. So where is the conflicting word salad concept of current science to the idea's of Sensei and me? That first then the mathematics in science. Yet current science has none and mathematics can't provide that. Thinking you have no assumptions is a production mindset on a research question. You may only take observations and you must also address all relevant questions prior to the mathematics. At this level you have the burden of proof to show where Sensei or I infringe on any observation if we state that we don't infringe on any of it. Then you determine on that word salad level which is the most probable assumptions to be taken as fact and then you do the mathematics and / or tests. Not the other way round. Otherwise you are in a whopping confirmation bias. Apart from that on what observational fact do you conclude that all mass exerts gravity as the most fundamental way of explaining what mass is? You like Krauss et all will end up in saying that nothing has come from something as an assumption in your mathematics. On that level that is busted, because inconsistent with logic and all observations which you thus can't marry. I can. I on the other hand explain how mass can be made to cause gravity in which the massive photon exerts none. And I do that via the correct way to use mathematics. Getting the mathematics and tests done is the next step. And given a proven concept that step is for the professionals in science for which I pay taxes. And for others to support. If you pose or oppose position you must prove position in a falsifiable testable way. I've done that so has Sensei.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not putting the measurements of SR as part of the discussion. I only put this forward because Przem said to leave SR out of the discussion for the moment. I agree you can't. He must explain how the measurements which are linked to SR come about. I.e. take them as a fact. Maybe Przem has to tweak his idea in order to comply.Then he should get help in order to do that. Then again there might be another way around the problem: The heart of that problem can be simply the idea that having mass means thus exerting gravity. That is not an observation, that is a conclusion. That thus doesn't necessarily have to be. Here my idea provides a possible solution that doesn't infringe on anything current science has on measurements. And it would possibly link what Przem is saying to what science incontestably measures. If photons have as yet un-measurably little mass yet are kept below c by the Higgs field and get a (measurable / un-measurably?) little red-shifted in weak gravitational fields where SR works (so SR has its limits) and photons don't get more mass added by the Higgs field because they are to small and thus fast, they don't exert gravity because that is in this idea the under-pressure in the Higgs field caused by that adding of mass. Red-shifting being the price the (probably even more than) super conductive photon pays to hold c. I.e. the price for accelerating in a gravitational field. I guess that would link SR measurements to what Przem is saying in a consistent way. Photons can exert energy as we observe. Saying the thus have mass isn't a priori strange. We measure super conductivity. We measure red-shifting in gravitational fields. We measure photons hold c in a curve of a gravitational field and curve in at twice the Newtonian value. My idea complies i.e. is consistent with all this, and with what Przem is saying if he complies to the measurements linked to SR (and the rest of current science). And might I add I also thus can elegantly provide a concept to explain dark energy and dark matter in one go. It is now scientifically probable that the Higgs field is a very much nearly omnipresent field that provides mass and slows particles down. It not having an effect on a photon isn't probable. Mother nature is an illusionist and not God or a magician IMO. And having a measurement problem somewhere in the issue is an incontestable a priori given. I.e. if we could measure everything in this respect without any difficulty all discussion would quickly reside.

I see no reason why a photon can't have very little mass. When I place a marble on my weight watchers scale it reads zero, zero kg. Even-though my WW scale generally gives dubious results that I prefer to ignore, I still think that this is a correct measurement. Yet I guess that I'll of lost my marbles when concluding the marble is thus mass less. Constituting thus at the moment a measurement problem. Likewise probably this goes for photons as well. Further more with SR you can see that IMO as a Doppler effect in stead of anything literately contracting. So why forget about the observations linked to SR Przem?

You are pointing at a problem with the model of Przem that current science has as well. You state that experiments show that there is no classical motion but a quantum jump. The latter is described in a way taking c = max and time is relative. The latter two points are however assumptions.(The first indeed an observation of a strange jump.) On the same basis one can assume speeds > c and that only the clocks slow down and not time. Even given super conductivity it is possible to assume permanent motion in the system if the energy has nowhere to go, and assuming a logical end to the split-ability of particles and physical existence of mass. I.e. acceleration. We readily observe atoms that (must) have been spinning for billions of years.And we also agree that ultimately even an atom will end its life as such. But like I stated earlier you need to get more fundamental than Przem has done. I.e. it is just as speculative to assume a classical Newton explanation with speeds > c and absolute time as assuming things - then - coming from nothing like Krauss et all is on about. The only difference then is that the first assumption when you look at all the evidence and address all the questions is very simple and probable and the latter is extremely improbable because it then needs you to believe in blatant contradictions. I.e. belief in magic, that is less probable even than believing in God. Which is extremely improbable as well, yet not irrational, contrary to belief in magic. That the mathematics adds up does't prove a thing if you haven't gone through the mathematics of the alternate. Concerning the latter the burden of proof lies on everyone dealing with the problem. Especially and the more so true if it concerns a testable alternate. I'm still working on my promised reaction on evidence and proof. But what I've seen so far Przem has provided more than enough to warrant his idea to be further investigated in correct use of public funding IMO. Like he himself correctly complains about: it should be teamwork from a point on-wards And for the reasons I'm yet to provide in my thread. What do you want him to prove that his idea is already perfect? No-one in science can claim that at the moment on this topic, so why should he?

Agree, but then rather later than sooner, if we can help it.

Well the question then is what would you do? Try to go sit in the dome and hope to survive or commit suicide for loss of hope? Domesday preppers. I at the moment am not very interested in Domesday prepping but would put our collective resources into detection and prevention. If detected early enough it should be technically feasible to steer the thing clear of earth. I saw an idea once about placing a solar sail on the thing.

Of course. Did I say or imply anything different? So I fully agree.

Of course there are standards of proof. And yes even physics can't do without different standards of proof. Because this will become off topic in this thread I'll answer more in detail in my own thread that also deals with correct scientific procedure. My idea and this thread are linked insofar that my idea provides a more fundamental answer that the idea in this thread lacks as I stated earlier. Further more my idea provides a testable result. If that is positive it will strengthen Przemyslaw's idea, if my idea is busted it will not bust Przem's idea. (This also works vice versa BTW) Przem's idea provides my idea something I lack: a possibility to couple it to the standard model. For the reasons I'm going to state in my thread: you can take the SM as a fact and see where Przem's idea is in conflict with it. Say that there are only qualms with quarks. Does this then bust his idea? No of course not. You must also investigate if Przem's idea can be altered in order to fit the SM. Above that you should also take Przem's idea as a fact and see in how far something could be changed in the SM. I.e logic / mathematics dictate that you take what you put into it as an absolute truth. This even-though absolute truth doesn't exist. What you can say is that the SM is probably fully correct and extremely probably to a great extent correct. Apart from that its correctness is always also dependent upon explicit or implicit assumptions that might be incorrect given a changed problem. So the correct standard of proof for Prezm's idea is: does his idea have sufficient probability in being at least in part correct to warrant further cost and effort to be put into it? Cost for gain. I.e what is it's potential compared to other potential investigations? Or in other words: does it prove to be worth the effort? That is the correct standard of proof for this question. I.e. this standard is relative and not absolute what you make it out to be.

This was brought to my attention concerning my idea: Quote: When Earth crosses a domain wall, the Global Network of Optical Magnetometers for Exotic Physics (GNOME) could detect the event using four magnetometers (Northern Hemisphere in this sketch) to determine the normal velocity of the wall and predict its passing at other locations. One or more remaining magnetometers would verify the prediction and the measurements. (Phys.org)—Researchers from Canada, California, and Poland have devised a straightforward way to test an intriguing idea about the nature of dark energy and dark matter. A global array of atomic magnetometers – small laboratory devices that can sense minute changes in magnetic fields – could signal when Earth passes through fractures in space known as domain walls. These structures could be the answer to the universe's darkest mysteries. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-01-ran-wall-nature-dark-energy.html#jCp EQ It makes me wonder if this concerns the same as an Australian team is doing stating to expect to see space as ice in which cracks can be detected? Anyway: if so it's up my street.

I agree with you on this, however your standard quote: Data ---> Information ---> Knowledge ---> Wisdom I don't fully agree on / depends what you mean; then I would. Wisdom IMO = creative intelligence + knowledge (i.e. also science as book wisdom) + experience I.e. more Data ----> more information = more book wisdom ----> more knowledge ------> more wisdom But I guess you mean to say that?

I agree with you. I find the idea of a guaranteed basic income very interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee I also think that given modern technology it could for instance work in the sense that you say with the Euro split it in a digital Social Euro to provide this income. Subsequently for instance Greece could give € 500,= per month and the Dutch € 1000,=. You would have a guaranteed social minimum that can be spent but prevented from being accumulated if not spent within say three months. Being digital it is then easy to change what can be bought with it. Further more labor hiring and quitting a job at a social level is then simple. If an employer wants to bind a worker more then you will have to pay normal Euro's and taxes. Europe at the moment is under a lot of strain. That is dangerous. We need a way not only per country to make it work but also across Europe. Being digital you don't need a lot of bureaucratic systems to make it work. Of course if you join the system you need to subscribe for work in order to receive the digital Euro's. If you want more income you will have to work harder more efficiently in order to acquire normal Euro's. Apart from that the digital age also provides the means to consider having international only digital shares and accountability for the period the were held to the degree of its worth plus dividend during that period. This might help in finding a balance in striving for profit yet in an accountable way. Profit as the engine is an indispensable but unbalanced also highly unstable method IMO. Anyway I guess if we want to have hope for the future we need to fundamentally rethink certain aspects of our international society. One thing that has clearly shown not to work IMO is the communist solution. It only still "works" in Cuba and in my favorite country North Korea. (China now a capitalistic communist society of sorts .)

Now that is not true, mine is provable / falsifiable. And what I've learn't about physicists they have trouble in identifying the need for having different standards of proof depending on the question at hand. A proof of concept can be done on different levels depending on the amount of further effort and cost the proof warrants. I.e. don't ask for a new billions of dollars worth of collider on a basic proven concept. That could however warrant further effort and cost to be put towards it. Many people in all walks of life and even in science talk about "proven" as if it always the same thing. It isn't. It's a means to an end given an accepted risk.