Jump to content

Could someone give me an appropriate criticism for this?


Recommended Posts

I have one request, I hope you could answer it….
I saw this article that makes heavy assumptions based on Quantum Electrodynamics , like something like formation of an energy domain or such, and it connects it with brain activity which is super weird, I did ask a neuroscientist and he said he couldn’t make any sense with the physics part of it because the author delves into parts of physics which I’ve not heard off such as Energy Quanta-Gradients and stuff like that, and to me it seems pretty pseudosciencey as it is published in a non peer review Journal, however if you don’t mind you could please point out some of this mistakes(if any) this author makes on the QED theory(you need not read the whole paper just the part of Tension vs Energy domain (Section 3)? I would really really appreciate it, I’ll link the article down below:-
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344348924_Mind-Brain-Body_System's_Dynamics_Open_Access

 

 

TL;DR:- This person bases his theory on Quantum Electrodynamics to explain brain activity, all I hope is for you to point out 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, swansont said:

No. There's no physics there, just some terminology tossed together, devoid (as far as I can tell) of any real meaning.

Also is there really something knows as a tensive gradient in quantum physics? Also is them something known as Spin Conjugate Dynamics /Phase Conjugate Dynamics really? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Google results for "Spin Conjugate Dynamics" gives ~10 results and the top 3 are from the author of the paper (and I think that other hits are referencing the paper). That's...not good.

IMO it's not the writing quality, as such, it's fiction vs non-fiction.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Not that I'm aware of and, if you are writing about something obscure, and fail to explain what it is, then you are writing badly.

Hmm well said...

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I've not run across these terms before. The Google results for them suggest they are made up.

So basically the article is shit?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, joigus said:

It's BS at its grandest.

🤣

I asked to some other guy, he said it's awesome and seems like word salad because of its technicality, is their really anything of use? You are theoretical physicist so could you get anything put of the paper?

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Abhirao456 said:

I asked to some other guy, he said it's awesome and seems like word salad because of its technicality, is their really anything of use? You are theoretical physicist so could you get anything put of the paper?

You have been told it's BS and I, for one, object to finding this intrusive BS on my screen when I click on your link.

BS1.jpg.3c6690a918d8bd2f3b447ec97d39f3c8.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, studiot said:

You have been told it's BS and I, for one, object to finding this intrusive BS on my screen when I click on your link.

It's researchgate lol

Edited by Abhirao456
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Abhirao456 said:
1 hour ago, studiot said:

You have been told it's BS and I, for one, object to finding this intrusive BS on my screen when I click on your link.

It's researchgate lol

Edited 23 minutes ago by Abhirao456

 

1) I didn't say the words in red so making it seem as though I did is bad form and against our rules.

2) Not posting enough description of the link so that I have to go offsite to find out what the thread is about is also against our rules.
The mods were kind enough to allow you to continue. Please don't abuse that privilege.

 

Having said that, I wonder if you have heard of Professor Penrose's speculation about some unresolved isses in quantum mechanics.
These are not mainstream but might have something to do with the alleged research you have asked about.

Edited by studiot
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Abhirao456 said:

I asked to some other guy, he said it's awesome and seems like word salad because of its technicality, is their really anything of use? You are theoretical physicist so could you get anything put of the paper?

Not a single useful rule to be applied empirically have I found there. Nor a single useful rule to be applied in an explanatory way. Many pompous words, that's all.

You should have to find an expert in cosmogony, the mind, matter, ethology, and what not, to be 100% sure whether he's making any sense at all. For the time being, I will stick with other's opinions that it's mostly word salad.

2 hours ago, Abhirao456 said:

You are theoretical physicist so could you get anything put of the paper?

Just to clarify, I'm not a professional theoretical physicist, although I've had all the training, and keep up-to-date reasonably well. But my approach is very much on the mathematical/conceptual side. But don't go just by me, or any other theoretically-minded person. Science is heavily constrained by experiment. No matter how deep and far-reaching your theoretical analysis may appear, if you can't make a prediction or retrodiction (explanation of what's already known) pretty quickly, you're probably just playing freely with words or concepts. That's a good test.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, joigus said:

But don't go just by me, or any other theoretically-minded person. Science is heavily constrained by experiment. No matter how deep and far-reaching your theoretical analysis may appear, if you can't make a prediction or retrodiction (explanation of what's already known) pretty quickly, you're probably just playing freely with words or concepts. That's a good test.

+1

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, studiot said:

 

1) I didn't say the words in red so making it seem as though I did is bad form and against our rules.

2) Not posting enough description of the link so that I have to go offsite to find out what the thread is about is also against our rules.
The mods were kind enough to allow you to continue. Please don't abuse that privilege.

 

Having said that, I wonder if you have heard of Professor Penrose's speculation about some unresolved isses in quantum mechanics.
These are not mainstream but might have something to do with the alleged research you have asked about.

Hey I'm so sorry I don't know how the forum works, I had written that is open access journal so I wanted to edit and put researchgate, I'm so sorry

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Not a single useful rule to be applied empirically have I found there. Nor a single useful rule to be applied in an explanatory way. Many pompous words, that's all.

You should have to find an expert in cosmogony, the mind, matter, ethology, and what not, to be 100% sure whether he's making any sense at all. For the time being, I will stick with other's opinions that it's mostly word salad.

Just to clarify, I'm not a professional theoretical physicist, although I've had all the training, and keep up-to-date reasonably well. But my approach is very much on the mathematical/conceptual side. But don't go just by me, or any other theoretically-minded person. Science is heavily constrained by experiment. No matter how deep and far-reaching your theoretical analysis may appear, if you can't make a prediction or retrodiction (explanation of what's already known) pretty quickly, you're probably just playing freely with words or concepts. That's a good test.

Hmm your right, although you may not be an expert about the mind stuff, I think his physics part should atleast make sense, if it doesn't then I don't think his other stuff should because he uses the so called "physics" to relate it to the mind, moreover neither is he physicist, cosmogonist , biologist,etc. He is just a physiotherapist, that's all..... 

 

That being said I think the fact that people who are expertise in physics should be able to tell whether it's nonsense, and I think it's true that the article is nonsense

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Abhirao456 said:

Hey I'm so sorry I don't know how the forum works, I had written that is open access journal so I wanted to edit and put researchgate, I'm so sorry

Accepted. Anyone can overlook things and most new members here seem to overlook the rules, hopefully you are more careful with important documents before you sign them.

 

But I also offered you my guesswork as to what this might be about.
Guesswork since I haven't been able to read the article.

Penrose is a world authority on mathematical physics and has tried to introduce a physcological aspect to quantum entanglement.

You will find reference to this in his massive book the 'Road to Reality'.

 

Edited by studiot
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, studiot said:

Accepted. Anyone can overlook things and most new members here seem to overlook the rules, hopefully you are more careful with important documents before you sign them.

 

But I also offered you my guesswork as to what this might be about.
Guesswork since I haven't been able to read the article.

Penrose is a world authority on mathematical physics and has tried to introduce a physcological aspect to quantum entanglement.

You will find reference to this in his massive book the 'Road to Reality'.

 

Hi, yes I have read penrose's view, his view is called the Orch Or theory, the article I linked is quite different actually although he does say something about the microtubules..... 

The author of the article I linked is weird, he says there is a "tension domain" and a "energy domain" according to Quantum Field Theory, which I think isn't the case..... Also he states the mind body is a form of a toroid which Penrose doesn't say......

I generally overlook people who put toroids in their theory because they tend to couple this with their pseudoscientific nonsense, but I questioned because I've never seen anyone write so much lol XD...  well great that it is a word salad.....

 

PS: I would like to confirm my position here that I'm not against the mind being seperate from the brain but this paper takes bullshit to the whole new level

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Abhirao456 said:

I generally overlook people who put toroids in their theory

Yes toroids, along with tesseracts, pyramids and crystals.
Funny how often geometric words figure in the mystique.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, joigus said:

Not a single useful rule to be applied empirically have I found there. Nor a single useful rule to be applied in an explanatory way. Many pompous words, that's all.

You should have to find an expert in cosmogony, the mind, matter, ethology, and what not, to be 100% sure whether he's making any sense at all. For the time being, I will stick with other's opinions that it's mostly word salad.

Just to clarify, I'm not a professional theoretical physicist, although I've had all the training, and keep up-to-date reasonably well. But my approach is very much on the mathematical/conceptual side. But don't go just by me, or any other theoretically-minded person. Science is heavily constrained by experiment. No matter how deep and far-reaching your theoretical analysis may appear, if you can't make a prediction or retrodiction (explanation of what's already known) pretty quickly, you're probably just playing freely with words or concepts. That's a good test.

Hey since you're quite knowledgeable in physics, could you point out atleast 5 mistakes in the paper please? Or is it impossible cuz its a word salad?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.