Loop quantum gravity theory offers glimpse beyond the event horizon

A look beyond the horizon of events

In principle, nothing that enters a black hole can leave the black hole. This has considerably complicated the study of these mysterious bodies, which generations of physicists have debated since 1916, when their existence was hypothesized as a direct consequence of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. There is, however, some consensus in the scientific community regarding black hole entropy—a measure of the inner disorder of a physical system—because its absence would violate the second law of thermodynamics. In particular, Jacob Bekenstein and Stephen Hawking have suggested that the entropy of a black hole is proportional to its area, rather than its volume, as would be more intuitive. This assumption also gives rise to the "holography" hypothesis of black holes, which (very roughly) suggests that what appears to be three-dimensional might, in fact, be an image projected onto a distant two-dimensional cosmic horizon, just like a hologram, which, despite being a two-dimensional image, appears to be three-dimensional.

As we cannot see beyond the event horizon (the outer boundary of the back hole), the internal microstates that define its entropy are inaccessible. So how is it possible to calculate this measure? The theoretical approach adopted by Hawking and Bekenstein is semiclassical (a sort of hybrid between classical physics and quantum mechanics) and introduces the possibility (or necessity) of adopting a quantum gravity approach in these studies in order to obtain a more fundamental comprehension of the physics of .

Planck's length is the (tiny) dimension at which space-time stops being continuous as we see it, and takes on a discrete graininess made up of quanta, the "atoms" of space-time. The universe at this dimension is described by quantum mechanics. Quantum gravity is the field of enquiry that investigates gravity in the framework of . Gravity has been very well described within classical physics, but it is unclear how it behaves at the Planck scale.

Daniele Pranzetti and colleagues, in a new study published in Physical Review Letters, present an important result obtained by applying a second quantization formulation of loop quantum gravity (LQG) formalism. LQG is a theoretical approach within the problem of quantum gravity, and group field theory is the "language" through which the theory is applied in this work.

"The idea at the basis of our study is that homogenous classical geometries emerge from a condensate of quanta of space introduced in LQG in order to describe quantum geometries," explains Pranzetti. "Thus, we obtained a description of black hole quantum states, suitable also to describe 'continuum' physics—that is, the physics of space-time as we know it."

Condensates, quantum fluids and the universe as a hologram

A "condensate" in this case is a collection of space quanta, all of which share the same properties so that even though there are huge numbers of them, we can nonetheless study their collective behavior by referring to the microscopic properties of the individual particle. So now, the analogy with classical thermodynamics seems clearer—just as fluids at our scale appear as continuous materials despite consisting of a huge number of atoms, similarly, in , the fundamental constituent atoms of space form a sort of fluid—that is, continuous space-time. A continuous and homogenous geometry (like that of a spherically symmetric black hole) can, as Pranzetti and colleagues suggest, be described as a condensate, which facilitates the underlying mathematical calculations, keeping in account an a priori infinite number of degrees of freedom .

"We were therefore able to use a more complete and richer model compared with those done in the past in LQG, and obtain a far more realistic and robust result," says Pranzetti. "This allowed us to resolve several ambiguities afflicting previous calculations due to the comparison of these simplified LQG models with the results of semiclassical analysis as carried out by Hawking and Bekenstein". Another important aspect of Pranzetti and colleagues' study is that it proposes a concrete mechanism in support to the holographic hypothesis, whereby the three-dimensionality of black holes could be merely apparent: all their information could be contained on a two-dimensional surface, without having to investigate the structure of the inside (hence the link between entropy and surface area rather than volume).


Explore further

Escaping gravity's clutches: The black hole breakout

More information: Daniele Oriti et al, Horizon Entropy from Quantum Gravity Condensates, Physical Review Letters (2016). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.211301
Journal information: Physical Review Letters

Provided by International School of Advanced Studies (SISSA)
Citation: Loop quantum gravity theory offers glimpse beyond the event horizon (2016, May 27) retrieved 18 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-05-loop-quantum-gravity-theory-glimpse.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
5135 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

KBK
May 27, 2016
Science has been turned upside down and the rules changed repeatedly. Time in passing makes such the norm, not the exception. The kind of mentality that refuses the new and cannot integrate it is the failure mode of a child that won't let go or change.

The dogmatic mind did not go anywhere, it became the engineering class in the sciences, with all their book driven facts. Physiology does not change that fast and recognizing it in self-reflection is the all important part in overcoming the dogmatic mindset.

Point is, billions have had out of time and timeless experiences. As well, perfected meta studies and literally thousands of studies on psychic sensitivities have been done.

The indicative is as Planck said - the universal nature is that of consciousness.

Time and unidirectionality are robust -- but are not the full reality, not by a long shot.

No matter what dogma screeches, it still fails to fit the model and the incessant manifold profundity of anomalies.

May 27, 2016
Well, that about covers my daily nutritional requirements for mumbo jumbo.

May 27, 2016
Very interesting, it seems they've made mathematical contact with black hole gravity physics from LQG. That's within reach of getting contact with GRT. LQG's stock just went up.

May 27, 2016
Background independent. :)

May 27, 2016
I thought myself well-read, but this stuff lost me...

FWIW, surely the infamous 'Event Horizon 'information paradox' is a red herring as a *real* Black Hole is NOT isolated, but surrounded by a searing accretion disk which will destroy any quantum coherence...

May 27, 2016
Black holes is an idea from 100 years ago ,in a math equations that does not take into account, the structural limits of atoms ,protons or neutron's, when you collide neutrons in a particle accelerator they reach their structural limits in those high velocity kinetic collisions,and revert back into their quantum parts of their mechanical magnetic construction, that means when two neutron stars merge in a high velocity collision that those neutrons will all convert back into their quantum parts and all gravity will be able to construct from those parts is a super hot quantum particle plasma mass , not a black hole

May 27, 2016
CCM quantum particle mass's are surrounded by 150 million degree heat where every atom that approaches this environment is stripped of its orbiting electrons ,that end up building a gravity held rotating negatively charged external magnetic field around the CCM and protons and the neutrons are drawn in to a high velocity neutron storm ,where high velocity kinetic collisions are turning those parts back into super hot quantum particle plasma to rain down by gravity to grow the mass

May 27, 2016
Well, that about covers my daily nutritional requirements for mumbo jumbo.
- axemaster

Are you referring to the mumbo jumbo of KBK's comment - or was it the mumbo of the article?

May 27, 2016
@Nik, the basic argument isn't very sophisticated and the accretion disk doesn't matter.

Mass has intrinsic entropy. If it falls into a black hole and that entropy isn't represented to the universe on the surface of the event horizon, then that entropy is lost, thus destroying entropy and violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics (AKA 2LOT). Therefore, the entropy of mass that falls into the black hole must be represented by entropy at the surface of the event horizon after the matter has fallen in. This is an extremely simplified version of the argument, but valid nevertheless.

Also, an accretion disk cannot violate the 2LOT either so there's no point in trying to move the goalposts out to the accretion disk.

It's worth noting that the Fluctuation Theorem proves that entropy cannot be destroyed even at the quantum level; at best you can create equal amounts of positive and negative entropy.

May 27, 2016
@FineStructureConstant maybe KBK is promoting Biocentrism where Mind creates what we see (well, basically) so if that were true we could 'mingle with' what Mind has produced. Must try that and maybe de-create the universe.
@axemaster, that ought give you a double dose, Ha!

May 27, 2016
Background independent.
So?

String physics contacted GRT long ago; in fact one of its immediate precursors, Kaluza-Klein theory, is a direct extension of GRT. It's taken LQG this long to get there. It's nowhere near the front runner at this late date.

May 27, 2016
@Da Schneib Is there a possibility that that once inside the BH reactions become endothermic thus a more ordered state and decrease in entropy...just a thought, that's all.

May 27, 2016
@Mimath, it doesn't matter to the entropy of the BH because it can't be seen from outside the event horizon.

KBK
May 27, 2016
Well, that about covers my daily nutritional requirements for mumbo jumbo.
- axemaster

Are you referring to the mumbo jumbo of KBK's comment - or was it the mumbo of the article?


Either or both will work.

Now eat your greens, It'll make you grow.

Speaking of that, 'the secret life of plants', is a well documented eye opener.

May 27, 2016
Well if its a quantum particle mass then when it cools off and orbiting neutron particle storm is gone from no inner galactic material to deconstruct and its orbiting negatively charged field has a closer orbit and thru induction forces converts the quantum particle mass back into neutrons, that would change the laws of entropy to letting the balls out of the box ,and balls go out and make a new box over and over galaxy expansion, multiple point galactic creation, instead of single point creation,

May 27, 2016
Alas poor Copernicus pointing out to wise man of the possibility of their mechanical comprehension as the opposite of truth

May 27, 2016
Well if its a quantum particle mass then when it cools off and orbiting neutron particle storm is gone from no inner galactic material to deconstruct and its orbiting negatively charged field has a closer orbit and thru induction forces converts the quantum particle mass back into neutrons
ummm you can't but that's not I don't even what a bunch of horsepucky.

May 28, 2016
Maybe to someone who has no clue to the magnetic particle shell construction of neutrons, protons, and hydrogen atoms consisting of two quantum constructions of the electron and positron the building blocks of neutrons,protons, and hydrogen atoms, mass

May 28, 2016
How to build a hydrogen atom from two quantum constructions, the electron and the positron, a positron has a positive dominant charge by it quantum mass make up, that charge can magnetically capture electrons to build a negatively charged shell of electrons around that particle from their opposite charges to produce a neutron , that neutron can magnetically capture positrons of of star emissions to build a positively charged shell around the negatively charged shell of the neutron to become a proton and that mass and spin momentum will capture and electron to orbit it to become a hydrogen atom , in a magnetic mechanical construction from this building blocks of opposite charges, that is magnetically mechanically possible and never conceived in mechanical terms,

May 28, 2016
My SMTP processor is down, our only choice is to quantify and calculate the backup microchip!
Send the mobile driver into the monitor, it will bypass the mainframe by programming its CGI form factor!
Use the high speed SSD processor, then you can back up the visual program!
Try to connect the UDP mainframe, maybe it will network the mobile array!

Maybe there's one for physics. Oh, wait, we have ursiny23! No problem!

Enjoy: http://shinytoyla.../jargon/

May 28, 2016
No reason for anger at the construction of a different model , since you don't even have a separate comparative model to work with , its o k if I'm wrong it gets you thinking outside of your trained Para gram, and its ursiny 33 and you have just heard something you or anybody else every mechanically thought of, that has magnetic mechanical possibilities thank you very much lucky thing social physics media wasn't around for Copernicus I imagine alot anger was vented at him for his audacity in going against the flow

May 28, 2016
LOL

It's not anger, it's ridicule for your obvious attempts at trying to construct an argument by stringing unrelated concepts together.

It no workie like that. Get it?

May 28, 2016
Ridicule is a character flaw of ones core being and an impediment of learning ursiny33@gail.com

May 28, 2016
How to build a hydrogen atom from two quantum constructions, the electron and the positron, a positron has a positive dominant charge by it quantum mass make up, that charge can magnetically capture electrons to build a negatively charged shell of electrons around that particle from their opposite charges to produce a neutron , that neutron can magnetically capture positrons of of star emissions to build a positively charged shell around the negatively charged shell of the neutron to become a proton and that mass and spin momentum will capture and electron to orbit it to become a hydrogen atom , in a magnetic mechanical construction from this building blocks of opposite charges, that is magnetically mechanically possible and never conceived in mechanical terms,

@ursiny33 Come on, admit it, you got that from Star Trek didn't you. Unless you keep your 'magnetic mechanical construction' in continuous operation all you'll get is 'poof'.

May 28, 2016
Gravity can not be moderated by the quantum equivalent of a particle, not in the standard sense anyway. If it were, then the particle that mediates gravity would be stuck behind the event horizon and the rest of 3 space could never be made aware of the mass that lies behind it...that is to say that a BH would be invisible to mass on our side of the universe. Clearly not the case.
Entropy, on the other hand, is information. And information might just sit outside the standard model. The holographic interpretation has some credibility to it in the way the universe is able to remember where mass is, was or will be. My pet theory is that Dark Energy is mass from the future telling mass in the present (at the Plank scale) where it will be. A sort of acceleration, or certainty, to a future position, mediated by information. Only at cosmological scales does the tiny amount of future information sum to a noticeable phenomena. That's as much as I can say with Haiku like constraints on this post

May 28, 2016
@Da schneib
There are probably more motives for cranks than for science enthusiast to comment on Physorg. Although I do not understand what would drive the second to interact with the former; it is pretty easy to make distinction from coherent and incoherent comments. Personally, I am not much irritated by their presence; most of them are kept on ignore. But I do sense that their presence have a tendency to spark comments from scientophiles as if intelligence had to compete with nihilism or as if their tendency to generate chaos would drive coherent commentators to put things back in order. This drive looks just as much obsessive to me and anyway, it is the diversity of comments that gives color to PO.

May 28, 2016
Background independent.
So?

String physics contacted GRT long ago; in fact one of its immediate precursors, Kaluza-Klein theory, is a direct extension of GRT. It's taken LQG this long to get there. It's nowhere near the front runner at this late date.


Have you been subsequently convinced that relativity is "background independent" then, because in This Thread, you argued otherwise, which was the point of my jab here.

As pointed out in following link String theory traditionally had to rely on a "fixed background", while LQG is manifestly background-independent. However, as I pointed out in the above thread string theorists are realizing the importance of background-independence.

https://en.m.wiki...g_theory

May 28, 2016
CCMs are cosmic particle accelerators , in their constructed environment, they have a magnetic negatively charged vessel,from stripping atoms, entering the super hot environment and those neutrons and protons fall into a high velocity kinetic collisions stream orbiting the mass blasting those quantum construction apart, its not a smooth ride to some other dimension, all the quantum material stays in this dimension, the quantum particle dimension of its being and birth space , a quantum particle mass is not an idea outside of reality as is black holes sending your parts to a magical kingdom, of unknowns ,compared to the logic of the known of this space time dimension, in fact its more scientifically sane and rational in mechanical physics

May 28, 2016
The Indian and south African partial sky survey found 64 CCMs in area that had the same orientation,spins on there axis , all pointing in the same direction but being separated in distances now the mechanical probability that those objects had those parameters' set from being born in the same galaxy, would be quite high, and direct evidence of galaxy expansion from an event to its galactic central core anchor of mass ,like a conversion back into neutrons as the mechanical cause , that's a possibility

May 28, 2016
Galaxies are the factories of perpetual creation, the seeds, in the quantum particle dimension of our space time

May 28, 2016
That the quantum construction of the building blocks, electrons and positrons they do not have equal charge make up , the electron has a dominant negative charge by its quantum particle mass and a minority quantum mass of a positive charge , that enables it to field chain with other electrons in magnetic lines of force, the positron has a dominant positive charge in its construction by by its quantum mass and a minority negative charge with in its construction, so when we measure these we see the dominant charge and classify it based on that, without realizing it true quantum construction, the only quantum construction that has an equal charge mass is the photon in quantum mass constructing it very close on that within a thousandth of equal quantum mass on its positive and negative make up , because its a fused together electron and positron , if it has a collision with other mass it breaks apart into two electrons , in its structural limits.

May 28, 2016
If the photon hits a magnetic field around a mass it can safely ride on the magnetic field lines of electrons around the mass

May 28, 2016
@ursiny33
Galaxies are the factories of perpetual creation, the seeds, in the quantum particle dimension of our space time

Not too sure that is true on the star level. I understand that stars are being created at as lesser rate than than those that cease to be stars. In the long term that would mean creation has a limit which means that quantum mechanical processes will settle to a lower level (a cold universe). If, I repeat, IF, expansion continues then gravity might not be able to start a collapse and start the process over again.

May 28, 2016
if you think of the universe as a massive computer, effectively a simulation, the black hole can be imagined as a glitch that occurs when the mass/density variable registered at any vertex wraps the counter. imagine that, just for fun.

May 29, 2016
I'm just a dreamer... but is it possible that a black hole is a massive ball of unsolvable entangled superposition? its contents can never be observed externally, so maybe any superposition state could never collapse... but it's moot because we can never test it or see it. ultimately, I think the universe will have secrets that can never be revealed. maybe we'll even have a proof to show that fact, which will be strangely and unsettlingly satisfying. oh that felt good.

May 29, 2016
if you think of the universe as a massive computer, effectively a simulation, the black hole can be imagined as a glitch that occurs when the mass/density variable registered at any vertex wraps the counter. imagine that, just for fun.
I think neutron stars have glitches, and even then it's more properly referred to as a "feature."

So check your "counter" (or metric) before a supermassive black hole approaches, check it as it passes through, and check it after it has passed by – the "counter" (and the continuum) remain intact, perfectly "unwrapped." As soon as aLIGO detects a clear ringdown from a BH-BH merger we'll have a good idea of what happens to the "counter" during the time the BH "passes through."

May 29, 2016
How about this. If you have say a scaffold of a 3 dimensional cube and you shine a light on it the shadow will be 2 dimensional. Lets say you shine a light on a 4 dimensional object the result would be a 3 dimensional shadow that we can perceive. Lets say in that dimension there is a bubble. The middle is empty. There are things on the film of the bubble. Lets call them particles. Lets say there is some type of "light" that shines from the outside thru those particles and creates a shadow inside the bubble. If you were to go the speed of light you would be on that film of the bubble. If the light shined on you the result could be anything within that bubble or everything depending on the light source. So infinite pretty much everything or our perception of it anyway. A blackhole would be a momentary hole in that film. There is no 3 dimensional shadow cast because there is nothing there.

May 29, 2016
Say the light shines and the most finite amount of time would be a single frame. that is our reality. Each smallest amount of time would create another frame. Independent of the first but a projection of the same things. Like stacking up dimensions. We reside on that single frame as it travels thru an infinite 3 dimensional space which is actually just a projection of a higher dimension. The bubble wiggles like a bubble. Which would cause the smallest portion to look like different things depending on the angle your looking at. Could be a string, could be a circle.

May 29, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

May 29, 2016
OK, black hole is supposed to be a condensate, that's nice. The condensate of what?
The condensate of space-time quanta, at the Planck scale.
Every mathematical model hides an underlying logic or geometry of physical model and I'm just therefore asking, which logic or geometry it is?
The logic of quantum mechanics applied to space-time at the Planck scale (formulating a quantum gravity) such that the homogeneous classical geometries of space-time arise or emerge at scales greater than the Planck length, from the dynamics and interaction of the condensate (analogous to a fluid), to give a description of black hole quantum states which is consistent with general relativity (beyond the Planck scale).

May 29, 2016
Central core mass is ,a comprised of quantum constructions in fluid plasma form of positrons and electrons, from the cosmic particle accelerator its in

May 29, 2016
Although I do not understand what would drive the second to interact with the former
@Techno
it's not so much to "interact" with the former as to advocate for something that is provable, IMHO
(IOW- the scientific method)
if you allow the pseudoscience to propagate, it spreads and gains credibility simply by location and the refusal of those who actually understand to refute it
(this is how many laymen or the scientifically illiterate will actually see it)

... so unless there is a refute, it's a valid concept to someone who is scientifically illiterate... and there are people out there who actually can't comprehend the scientific method (see: eu advocates, jvk, verkle, zephir, obama_socks now aka otto_szucks among other socks, etc)

https://www.youtu...EwjBXlZE

May 29, 2016
it's not so much to "interact" with the former as to advocate for something that is provable, IMHO
(IOW- the scientific method)


The scientific method does not concern itself with provable things. Hypothesis, for which there may not be immediate evidence is a necessary component of science. Given this, the only way to "refute" a hypothesis is to state WHY it is incompatible with present empirical knowledge. Ironically, this requires knowledge of science AND time to waste,.... which are usually in inverse proportion.

.... unless there is a refute, it's a valid concept to someone who is scientifically illiterate...


If someone is scientifically illiterate, then evidently they were not influenced by valid scientific ideas (at this science news site) either, so your concern is mute,..... and besides irrelevant, as each person is ultimately responsible for their own state of knowledge.


May 29, 2016
.... as is evidenced by the cranks themselves.

if you allow the pseudoscience to propagate, it spreads and gains credibility


Engaging them gives them another reason to add more posts, and generally ends up doubling or tripling the number of posts in a thread.

Don't feed the cranks. Just click on Ignore. This is not a scientific journal.


May 29, 2016
there are people out there who actually can't comprehend the scientific method (see: eu advocates, jvk, verkle, zephir, obama_socks now aka otto_szucks among other socks


I think your subjective presumption that they espouse their pet crankology on account of a lack of understanding of the basic scientific method, is unfounded. A few on that list know some science and occasionally say something interesting, .... so lacking the relatively basic knowledge of "scientific method", seems unlikely. Your hundreds of calls for "evidence" has not been effective for this reason, IMO.


May 29, 2016
.... it's absurd to complain about cranks when you can't possibly be effected by them unless you VOLUNTARILY read their posts.


May 29, 2016
@Noumenon
We should not underestimate the risk of antiscientific attitudes.


Nor the risk of thought police. Science is littered with wrong ideas,.... but can only progress in an environment of free thought.


May 29, 2016
Theoretical physicists, are smart people, they usually major as a mathematician, chemical engineering, and physics, there all smart in , alot of them did not major in structural engineering,or structural limits or they did not major in electrical engineering those would be minors in there intellectual capacities, they are smarter than those, with out any background in those fields or experience around those fields people outside that , with no experience in those fields,there hypotheses have zero mechanical electrical,or magnetic possibility.

May 29, 2016
@Noumenon
Science is littered with wrong ideas,....

I challenge you to demonstrate that, here or in a paper.
That should be a piece of cake, seen that there are so many.


Phlogiston, vitalism, caloric, aether, static universe, phrenology, geocentric hypothesis,.... not to mention the road of scientific progress is littered with outdated theories.

You question this? How could it be otherwise?


KBK
May 29, 2016
@KBK - profound comments: and meaningless in this context.

Perhaps you'd feel more at home elsewhere...


My comment is actually dead on.

When at the limit of science we are also naturally... encountering the limits of mind. And in those limits, it is mind that is required to change, so that the new science can arrive.

Mind must change first, otherwise new science cannot be seen or integrated.

When you lift a weight at the limit of your body's endurance and capacity, you struggle and it may take time, or it may break you, and you may never lift it.

Science, at the limit, has similar issues.

Thought is tied to the mind in realization, of self and the observation, as a pairing. Thought is mired in it's origins, one of emotion and hind-brain, before conscious thought emerges from those deeper murmurs.

Scientists & theoreticians should be required to take Jungian oriented psychology courses. (Freud sucks dead donkeys) Otherwise we are wasting our time.

May 29, 2016
The scientific method does not concern itself with provable things
@nou
1- the scientific method is defined by "proof" (using the colloquial term) called evidence
2- the best science using the method is by validation (IOW- repeated proof)
3- to the typical scientific illiterate (or ignorant) evidence = proof
so your concern is mute,..... and besides irrelevant, as each person is ultimately responsible for their own state of knowledge
is it? the propagation of pseudoscience is largely due to the proliferation of pseudoscience on what would typically be considered reputable science sites and the users inability to differentiate (for various reasons) what is real science and what isn't

they also mostly don't comprehend the difference between dot-com, dot-org, or dot-edu... let alone the difference between peer reviewed and self-published opinion (see AGW, also Dr roy)

if it's made to look legit, they assume it *is*, thus the problem

watch the video

2Bcont'd

May 29, 2016
@nou cont'd
I think your subjective presumption that they espouse their pet crankology on account of a lack of understanding of the basic scientific method, is unfounded
1- it aint subjective if i can prove it
2- knowing the steps don't mean they understand it (see bschott - magical magnetic cancer killer)
3- if a person can quote the xtian bible, does that make them xtian?

regurgitation isn't the same as comprehension, nor is the occasional good guess the same as proof of being correct

you can "prove" someone is failing to understand or to comprehend the basics... sometimes it takes time, other times it's obvious

examples: just because plasma discharge *can* create damage to something dont mean it is responsible for the breakup of D/1993 F2

Just because plasma *can* create damage to earth dont mean it carved the big ditch

there are ways to tell if things like that happened (& it's called proof to a layman)

2Bctd

May 29, 2016
@Nou cont'd
...so lacking the relatively basic knowledge of "scientific method", seems unlikely
and a broken mechanical clock is also correct twice a day - but that don't mean it's always right, nor that it tells good time
Your hundreds of calls for "evidence" has not been effective for this reason, IMO
to the poster? absolutely not
... but you mistake my motivation/reasoning

i don't do it to change the idiots mind - that is like holding back the ocean with a sieve

i do it to:
1- present a basic & useful methodology (if there aint "proof", it aint real)

2- teach how to challenge a position for critical analysis (not be a "thought police", but establish that there are strict protocols for the labeling of something scientific vrs pseudoscience)

3- learn more about certain posters to either establish validity of a hypothesis/diagnosis - or - to learn about their thought process

i've made this point before - i still aint changed

May 29, 2016
one last point @nou
Nor the risk of thought police. Science is littered with wrong ideas,.... but can only progress in an environment of free thought
there is a big difference between being a "thought police" and requiring people to use a proven methodology and work within the strict guidelines of a system that has produced the advancement that we live with today

thought police is telling people they can't believe what they want to - and personally, i don't care what anyone *believes*

science takes the "belief" part out of the equation so that we can build upon the knowledge we gain
it took us from balloons, horses and bicycles to cars, airplanes and space exploration on other planets

accepting *all* beliefs as equal means prayer is equal to medicine and we will end up back in the dark ages

and that ain't just IMHO... we have historical precedent

May 30, 2016
@ursiny33
Coming up with alternative models can be fun but I'd just like to point out to you that a neutron in free space is unstable and will decay into a proton electron and an electron antineutrino. Your hydrogen atom model doesn't work. A free neutron has a greater mass than a free proton.

May 30, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

May 30, 2016
My humble opinion is that string theory and holographic universe theory is bull shit, just like the electric universe theory. It just has more complicated math and it has support from religious sect of string physicists who spreaded in academia despite obvious non falsifalibity of their theories.

May 30, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

May 30, 2016
@Noumenon
Science is littered with wrong ideas,....

I challenge you to demonstrate that, here or in a paper. […]

Phlogiston, vitalism, caloric, aether, static universe, phrenology, geocentric hypothesis,.... not to mention the road of scientific progress is littered with outdated theories.
Lame. A list of disproven hypotheses and pseudoscience from the 19th century and further back.

You challenged me to demonstrate "wrong ideas" in science [hypothesis ARE ideas], and now you're complaining that they are "disproven hypotheses"?
Two of those are from the 20th century. Aether was at the basis of H.A. Lorentz theory predating Einstein's STR, and static-universe was a direct hypothesis of Einstein's implicit in the cosmological term of GR……

May 30, 2016
Of course there are recent failed as ideas/hypothesis/theories, just as there have always been in science,… as THAT's how science progresses….. steady state universe, Kaluza-Klein theory, Bohr atom, … twister theory, …E8 as a basis of QFT, ….supersymmetry, ….Wely unified theory,… Einstein's efforts at unification [spent more time on this than on any other subject].

These are ideas, not even hypotheses.


A hypothesis IS and "idea", as is a postulate, as are theories.

There comes a point where scientists must abandon a failed idea....


Wait,... you objected to me stating that there has been "wrong ideas" in science,... now you're claiming scientists must abandon failed ideas. Why would they have to if there was never any failed ideas?


May 30, 2016
religious cranks managed to sabotage [heliocentric model] acceptance until the renaissance.


Indeed, they were "thought police". They did not attempt to counter that hypothesis, but instead objected to it having even being made. This is the distinction that I'm making above. Science requires an environment of free-thought in order to progress,… which de facto means there are going to be "wrong ideas" as a consequence. This does NOT obstruct scientific progress.

CapStumpy, is akin to those "religious cranks",… in not attempting to counter given [crank-]hypothesis, but rather objecting to them even-being-made, simply on the basis of his own misapprehended thought of knowledge,….. i.e. that evidence should precede hypothesis.


May 30, 2016
Iron in shell construction a positive layer of particles over a neutrons negatively shell will compress thru the force of magnetic attraction , to each other giving the proton a smaller radius in mass ,

May 30, 2016
Magnetic compression between charges is a force

May 30, 2016
Sorry nor iron but Krone ....in shell construction to answer Krone question on mass size between protons and neutrons

May 30, 2016
Krone: Free neutrons and protons decay , this is true back into their quantum constructions of electrons and positrons and then into their individual quantum natural states ,in open quantum space except in a magnetic electron field vessel or in an electron magnetic induction environment as free neutrons and protons

May 30, 2016
Krone neutrons and protons don't have their own induction environment sealing its construction like atoms do in their orbiting electrons manufacturing and induction environment around its construction for its structural stability

May 30, 2016
@Noumenon
Science is littered with wrong ideas,....

I challenge you to demonstrate that, here or in a paper. […]

Phlogiston, vitalism, caloric, aether, static universe, phrenology, geocentric hypothesis,....
Lame. A list of disproven hypotheses and pseudoscience from the 19th century and further back.

You challenged me to demonstrate "wrong ideas" in science [hypothesis ARE ideas], and now you're complaining that they are "disproven hypotheses"?

That's right. You are saying that "science is littered with wrong ideas", as if wrong ideas were not efficiently thrown out and replaced by correct or in any case viable ideas....


I never said nor implied "wrong ideas were not efficiently thrown out". You just made that up. I said despite wrong ideas science progresses. Here is the full statement......

"Science is littered with wrong ideas,.... but can only progress in an environment of free thought."

Duh.

May 30, 2016
There comes a point where scientists must abandon a failed idea....

Wait,... you objected to me stating that there has been "wrong ideas" in science,... now you're claiming scientists must abandon failed ideas. Why would they have to if there was never any failed ideas?


The truth comes out in the end: the philosopher does not understand how science works


That's a vague accusation. How did you arrive at that ad hominem characterization? Another thing you just made up out of the blue?

May 30, 2016
The idea is to get you think outside of your programed truths , that you believe are truths ,even if they are not , when Copernicus had his free ideas outside of the known belief system of knowledge , those anti idea forces were up in arms, and condemnation, thinking outside of the box has brought us knowledge, you must learn to let things go and move on if you can disprove mechanical electric physics ideas ,or ponder if there even that smallest possible truth in any of it , anger and expressed sustain for ideas has gotten man nowhere peace

May 30, 2016
You said "littered with". This implies a mess. This implies that it is not cleaned up.

That's your own interpretational baggage, not what I said. Please try to distinguish your own interpretational mess from my actual comments.

Here is another quote from me above,… "the road of scientific progress is littered with outdated theories.". This simply means that science leaves behind outdated ideas, as a matter of progress.

I have NOT said NOR implied that at any given time, main stream science is littered with wrong ideas so that science is an incoherent mess. I was speaking about "science" generally, which means the history of scientific progress.

Fact free thought driven by delusion and ignorance hampers the progress of science.


The more delusional and the more ignorant the less effect it has on the progress of science,... especially when such an idea does not even qualify 'as being wrong'.


May 30, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

May 30, 2016
religious cranks managed to sabotage [heliocentric model] acceptance until the renaissance.


"Indeed, they were "thought police". They did not attempt to counter that hypothesis, but instead objected to it having even being made. This is the distinction that I'm making above. Science requires an environment of free-thought in order to progress,… which de facto means there are going to be "wrong ideas" as a consequence. This does NOT obstruct scientific progress." - Noumenon

May 30, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

May 30, 2016
That's great since the hydrogen atom based constructions are just a by product of the quantum particle dimension of space , whose existence is not even dependent of those constructions for its existence even in the unknown

May 30, 2016
@Nonsensemenonsense
You should consult a dictionary. There is a lot of "interpretational baggage" in there.


Whenever on attempts to assume ownership of what someone else has stated by changing the wording to support their own interpretational characterization,.... it is evidence that they aim to establish a strawman to argue with.

Here is a link for your enlightenment....
https://www.youtu...kCPo7tC0

May 30, 2016
No, I did not mean refuse that goes in a garbage can,.... but obviously by analogy.

"the road of scientific progress is littered with outdated theories." - Noumenon ................ This simply means that science leaves behind [on the side of the road] outdated ideas, as a matter of progress [to advance further down the road].

"Science is littered with wrong ideas,.... but can only progress in an environment of free thought." - Noumenon, .................. the full quote and 1st use of "littered",... meaning science can only progress if there is free-thought, despite that as a consequence results, there are wrong ideas.

Who is the one trolling here? Your desire of insisting-upon your own faulty interpretation is suspicious.


May 30, 2016
"Science requires an environment of free-thought in order to progress,… which de facto means there are going to be "wrong ideas" as a consequence. This does NOT obstruct scientific progress." - Noumenon

You are the one trolling by insinuating that science needs a clean-up


I have not stated anything even remotely like that here. I have provided three more quotes from me to elucidate further my meaning,.... and yet you continue to INSIST upon your own interpretational characterization, despite my comment being clear from the very beginning.


May 30, 2016
Science is littered with wrong ideas,...

I challenge you to demonstrate that, here or in a paper. […]

Phlogiston, vitalism, caloric, aether, static universe, phrenology, geocentric hypothesis,....
Lame. A list of disproven hypotheses and pseudoscience from the 19th century and further back.

You challenged me to demonstrate "wrong ideas" in science [hypothesis ARE ideas],[...]

That's right. You are saying that "science is littered with wrong ideas", as if wrong ideas were not efficiently thrown out [..]


You cut my quote in half. Here is the FULL quote....

"Science is littered with wrong ideas,.... but can only progress in an environment of free thought." - Noumenon

IOW, Science can only progress in an environment of free thought, despite [implied by "but" above....] that freedom of thought will also result in wrong ideas as a consequence.


May 31, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

May 31, 2016

there is a big difference between being a "thought police" and requiring people to use a proven methodology and work within the strict guidelines of a system ...


You're a bit naive if you believe that there are "strict guidelines" or procedures to follow in advancing scientific knowledge within the scientific method, so that everything is clear step by step. In addition it is common that evidence follows hypothesis not precedes it. I will give a few examples....

When Mitchell and Moyle first worked out the chemiosmotic process they were met with enormous skepticism. Only subsequently did the evidence support their ideas.

There was no way to theoretically derive the Schrodinger equation from known physics at the time he published it. In essence, he pulled it out of his ass.

When Max Planck published his solution to the black body radiation intensity/frequency formula, he had no theoretical physical justification for it.


May 31, 2016
When Max Planck published his solution to the black body radiation intensity/frequency formula, he had no theoretical physical justification for it.


No justification for it? How about that it worked?

That's an empirical justification, not a theoretical one.

May 31, 2016
When Max Planck published his solution to the black body radiation intensity/frequency formula, he had no theoretical physical justification for it.


No justification for it? How about that it worked?


He had no physical justification for the hypothesis of quanta implicit in his purely mathematical solution. It is well known that he struggled to find such a justification, and that others did not take his quanta seriously [for that matter neither did Planck as a physical quanta of EM; he thought it was an effect of the emitter not the nature of EM itself] ....until Einstein showed that EM itself must be of quanta in resolving the photo-electric effect,.... not just the resonators in the cavity.


May 31, 2016
.... of course I did not say there was no "No justification for it",.... but instead there was no "theoretical physical justification" for it.


May 31, 2016
CapStumpy ...in not attempting to counter given [crank-]hypothesis...
@nou
so... by forwarding a link or evidence that i have disproving it, i then also have to explain it? why? the evidence speaks for itself?
simply on the basis of his own misapprehended thought of knowledge
which is based upon your interpretation of my posts... although it also is subjective and not based upon facts
(typical of a philo making a philo point - if it looks like it can explain a point, use it and claim it factual)

if i had no knowledge, how would i know that Lacis et al applied to the "not enough CO2" arguments of antig? or any other argument? I would post it in biology if i was ignorant... big logical fallacy fail there, bub...
... i.e. that evidence should precede hypothesis
No... but even a scientific hypothesis is based upon evidence (then tested)

pseudoscience misinterprets everything until there is only the belief
(See cd85 and bs, etc)

May 31, 2016
That's your own interpretational baggage, not what I said
@Nou
Phys is right. communication in science means being specific, clear, concise
... it's not like philo where being vague means you can be both right and wrong depending on how the individual interprets the point - and that is a *good* thing in philo

- in science it is a death sentence, really
you can't have an interpretive law of gravity

therefore when you communicate in philo for a science argument it means you are either:
1- intentionally being vague for the sake of attention
2- ignorant of the methodology of science
3- ???

given your abilities in certain areas, i would say you are familiar with science, however you are still clinging to philo thought process for the sake of argument or attention, IMHO

& if 1 and 2 don't apply, then you are intentionally posting for someone to follow / share your beliefs = religion (or the seeking of validation through sharing with like minded)

May 31, 2016
The "theoretical physical justification" is that it worked, perfectly. It does not matter that Planck did not feel comfortable with it. A mathematical model that uniquely describes reality is by definition theoretically and physically justified.


You don't appear to understand the point made nor the history or QM, in particular Planck's contribution.

It is one thing to find a mathematical equation that accounts for an empirical based graph,..... it is quite another to establish theoretically why (meaning the physical reason) why or what the equation is supposed to represent. Planck worked on this, unsuccessfully, only subsequently to finding an equation,.... and did not derive the equation from first principles given known physics. Recall that QM was new physics then.

Planck had even admitted that his quanta solution was one of "desperation" and not one from understanding the physics. If I have time to locate a quote I will post it.


May 31, 2016
objecting to them even-being-made, simply on the basis of his own misapprehended thought of knowledge,….. i.e. that evidence should precede hypothesis.


if i had no knowledge, how would i know that Lacis et al applied to the "not enough CO2" arguments of antig?


I didn't intend to question your knowledge of any specific subject, but rather "of knowledge" itself, as in the example given (which you cut out of your quote).... i.e. the assumption that "that evidence should precede hypothesis".

No, phys1 is not right, as he cut my quote he responded to in half, just as you did, which was required to understand the entire sentence. He added his own interpretation to characterize what I had said rather than accept is as given. There is no reason to change my words except to invent a strawman. Communication is also the responsibility of the reader. I made myself clear multiple times yet he insisted upon his own characterization. Not honest.


May 31, 2016
..... just as the coward know-nothing troll-rater hiding under his desk, is not honest. But, this is expected on a site run by intellectual degenerates.


May 31, 2016
The expansion of space only doesn't confirm the single point theory of creation, its just a possible evidence of the reality, if there was no other mechanical possibilities, like multiple point creation over large distances, as a mechanical galaxy expansion model from clusters of galaxies tracking each other into deep space over a large arch in space from an earlier older hydrogen atom based construction,

May 31, 2016
Visible evidence becomes fact in reality when you eliminate all other mechanical possibilities

May 31, 2016
I didn't intend to question your knowledge of any specific subject, but rather "of knowledge" itself
@Nou
and again, if i had no knowledge, then i wouldn't know what study applies to which argument to link it

i was being specific but it still applies (to your whole post)
(which you cut out of your quote)
space - also irrelevant. the answer i gave applies (as noted)
he cut my quote he responded to in half, just as you did
if the answer given explains the entirety of the question, as my post did, then there is no need to waste the space with your entire quote, is there?
seems a little narcissistic, IMHO, especially when the argument is invalid regardless of the whole quote vrs the edited for length quote
There is no reason to change my words except to invent a strawman
editing for length isn't changing your words when the answer addresses your point, as noted above
I made myself clear
and i disagree with your assessment
others do as well

so?

May 31, 2016
Had to address this separate, Nou
Communication is also the responsibility of the reader.
Nope. it is the responsibility of all persons involved, starting first and foremost with the speaker (or writer, in this case)

now, we can ask questions to clarify (which i do at times)
we can make points as well (like i did above)
we can demonstrate how things are taken and how they're meaning something that perhaps the author doesn't mean (as you and Phys do above)

however, the responsibility of clear, concise communication starts with the speaker/author (and you should be asking or checking to insure the reader/listener understands)
Here is a hint: read the very first line of this link (but remove the word "Verbally")
http://sites.ieee...ncisely/

this is you in a nutshell, Nou... it happens a whole lot here on PO

and that should indicate something to you

May 31, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

May 31, 2016
last@Nou
your entire quote was
CapStumpy, is akin to those "religious cranks",… in not attempting to counter given [crank-]hypothesis, but rather objecting to them even-being-made, simply on the basis of his own misapprehended thought of knowledge,….. i.e. that evidence should precede hypothesis
1- read this simple graph

https://en.wikipe...cess.svg

2- read my answer above (again)

evidence always does precede a hypothesis (see graph), because you require evidence to generate a hypothesis in science

i post links because it's for those who seek answers

you consider me a crank because i don't narcissisticly expound on minutiae like you do but the pseudoscience crank doesn't care about reality

those who are seeking validation will not read them, nor will they care about my "attempting to counter given [crank-]hypothesis"

it would be easier to teach a rock to speak

May 31, 2016
The article states an idea, by a certified thinker, if we only accepted ideas from certified thinkers we would not have had powered flight, in 1904

May 31, 2016
Certified thinker? lol I think your certification has long since expired, if it was ever in effect.

May 31, 2016
This isn't a vendetta against Maxwell,Planck , and Einstein , it just a questioning of their model , in which nobody even has thought of a comparative model that's mechanically possible, those ideas have just as much right to be investigated and found mechanically impossible as another idea , even by the author of the articles ideas, to just accept the theoretical idea of black holes, based on math that doesn't take into account structural limits of constructed assemblies of charged particles, and exclude any other mechanical magnetic possibility as a quantum particle mass , is a dereliction of seeking knowledge no matter where it came from , you are just treating your model as a religion from your certified man gods of knowledge,

May 31, 2016
And that the ridicule and anger is because you don't have the magnetic and mechanical ability in thinking to offer any insights that a black hole could be anything else than what the smartest people think it is , and certainly quantum particle plasma magnetic compression mass is out of the the question and mechanical reality

May 31, 2016
From someone who hasn't even conceived, that orbiting electrons on every atom produce a negatively charged induction environment around the nucleus to protect the structural stability of that collection of neutrons and protons of that element, that that's the mechanical purpose of those orbiting electrons, case closed

May 31, 2016
@ursiny33 '...around the nucleus to protect the structural stability...' Protect? they might provide stability with opposite charges but the term 'protect' implies a deliberate act. And of course there natural elements that decay indicating that the electrons here cannot provide stability.

Jun 01, 2016
@Noum
When Max Planck published his solution to the black body radiation intensity/frequency formula, he had no theoretical physical justification for it.
Actually, you've confused two things.

What he had was an experimental justification for it: it described black body radiation. And to this day it's called "Planck's Law." An empirically derived law requires no theoretical justification; it is physical. I don't know what "theoretical physical justification" means. It doesn't appear to mean anything.

Jun 01, 2016
Black holes, what has been really and experimentally proven about these objects? Theory physics is out reaching its grasp, its getting very thin out here. Back up the things you say, do understand the Barnum and Baitum Theory, A fool is born every second. This is hard Science is hard, work hard !!

Jun 01, 2016
I'll try to find more information if I have time, about what I mean about Planck. Just coming up with a formula that fits to a graph, ... the intensity/frequency relationship at each temperature,..... does not mean one understands the underlying physics. This was another step that Planck attempted to take subsequently to finding an equation that fit the graph. This is not "my opinion" but rather is the history of the subject. QM was new physics, and there could have not been anyway that Planck could have justified that equation on classical theoretical grounds [meaning physical explanation],.... he HAD to accept that energy is quanta,... in fact he did NOT accept that photons are quanta as explained above....


Jun 01, 2016
Sorry, about that I do realize that everyone is working hard on this, but, as humans do we really need, the Mattrix, the Mulitverse, it's really a jump. It's a strange universe and it should be, hey we don't know all the elements yet!. It's big out there, really big. So work on your numbers and theory's but don't, startle us with linked things you think are fact.

Jun 01, 2016
Hey Nouumenon, that's a long name,

thank you, I study physics many years, and things are getting a little out of or grasp, are we reaching to far. Mathematics Shure it's a sound footing but we made it . Is math stable and applied though out the universe ? We don't know, really. Because we are not out there, so, we must go out there to, see investigate everything.

Jun 01, 2016
I don't know what "theoretical physical justification" means. It doesn't appear to mean anything.


Well it does anyway ....

What a theoretical physicist does is derive equations from knowledge of physics ,... thus a "theoretical physical justification" would imply that a given equation was justified by their knowledge of physics.

There were several physicists who attempted to do this for the black-body radiation problem,.... Wein, Rayleigh, Jeans, and Planck himself, all attempted and failed to DERIVE an equation from "first principles", meaning their knowledge of classical physics. We now know this HAD to fail as there is no way to derive QT from classical physics.

TBC.....

Jun 01, 2016
....

So, Planck then decided to work the other way; just force a formula into existence that matched the graph "out of desperation", and then later find a theoretical [classical in his mind] physics justification.

Therefore Planck had no theoretical [physics] justification for his quanta constant h, stating... [Planck-constant was] "a purely formal assumption ... actually I did not think much about it..."

The equation was good, but a proper physicists would not consider his job complete as there was no understanding of what the quanta meant ....indeed....

"My unavailing attempts to somehow reintegrate the action quantum into classical theory extended over several years and caused me much trouble." - Planck

Planck was no revolutionary, he did not realize that this was new physics.


Jun 01, 2016
I didn't intend to question your knowledge of any specific subject, but rather "of knowledge" itself

@Nou
and again, if i had no knowledge, then i wouldn't know what study applies to which argument to link it


And again, I did not mean you had no knowledge of a particular subject. Please accept my apologies if that is what it seemed, and accepted my subsequent explanation as given rather than insisting upon your own reading.

If you provided a link or countered the cranks with facts, then this is precisely what I suggested above as being more effective than stating [incompletely] what the scientific method is .

As demonstrated with examples, science is not as clean cut and direct with strict guidelines as you suggested.... a hypothesis may not be preceded by evidence.


Jun 01, 2016
The modern babilonian metaphysics is sand tower built on free speculations. But in the pagan system of Babylon the shamans and their mantras are in vogue.

If some people were more resourceful would find that the physical world is not fully knowable because of people physical and mental limits.The visible is for the men but invisible is for the Creator.

Jun 01, 2016
@DS
Noumenon is right that Planck's derivation is heuristic.
The derivation was, and still is, justified only by the correct result.
Even to this day I consider quantum mechanics to be heuristic.
Sometimes the experimental data drives the theory; sometimes the theory drives the experiments. And this particular series of discoveries has both:

1. Planck comes up with Planck's Law based upon the results of the first fairly accurate black body spectra, done with the first cavity sources invented in 1898 and still used today. A series of experiments using better and better measuring techniques over the previous forty years or so had led up to this result. Planck published in October of 1900.

At this point, Planck began considering how such a law could arise, and eventually (after having rejected it for decades) changed his mind about Boltzmann's approach in his entropy laws and proposed that heat and light were emitted (but not absorbed or propagated) as quanta.
[contd]

Jun 01, 2016
[contd]
Boltzmann's method was the heuristic part, but Planck's abandonment of his previous rejection of this method was the key that led him to propose Planck's Constant; his law originally did not require it. This was the mark of Planck's genius; he was flexible enough to abandon his prior views when the evidence militated against them.

However, due to Young's dual-slit experiment which showed light was subject to interference, still no one questioned whether light was waves, and not, as Newton had called them, "corpuscles" (what we today call "photons," quanta of light).

2. In 1905, during his "miracle year," Einstein proposed that light in fact was quantized, in emission, during propagation, and in absorption, though he initially rejected Planck's Constant.

Still, it took nearly another decade before photons were proposed, and modern quantum theory (note, not quantum field theory; that was still in the future) became widely accepted.
[contd]

Jun 01, 2016
[contd]
Thus, the eventual acceptance of the quantum theory of light took nearly fifteen years to work out from the first really hard experimental results, and involved intertwining experimental and theoretical results. From a theoretical standpoint, it took nearly 60 years; Balfour and Kirchoff first proposed initial theoretical considerations that eventually led to Planck's Law in 1858 and 1859.

Planck and Einstein between them had basically invented quantum physics, and each won a Nobel Prize for their contributions.

Jun 01, 2016
None of which counters the point made...

My original statement was as follows....

"[WHEN] Max Planck published his solution to the black body radiation intensity/frequency formula, he had no theoretical physical justification for it." - Noumenon

""My unavailing attempts to somehow reintegrate the action quantum into classical theory extended over several years and caused me much trouble." - Planck

End.

Jun 01, 2016
@Phys1, I would therefore submit that physics is not and never has been either exclusively theoretical/heuristic, or exclusively empirical/experimental; instead it is a constantly intertwining combination of the two. This is its strength, and the solid foundation upon which it is built.

Jun 01, 2016
A lot of chaffe.

@Phys1, I would therefore submit that physics is not and never has been either exclusively theoretical/heuristic, or exclusively empirical/experimental; instead it is a constantly intertwining combination of the two. This is its strength, and the solid foundation upon which it is built.


No one said otherwise,.... in fact my entire argument and reason for mentioning Planck was to point out to CS that physics does not precede in a strict procedure.

Jun 01, 2016
Again, @Noum, I can see no apparent meaning in your phrase, "theoretical physical justification." You are confusing theoretical physics with experimental physics and failing to understand that they are different, but related. Experiment tests the theory, and unexpected experimental results generate new theory; but experiment is not the only source of theory, there are also purely theoretical considerations that lead to new theories. Those new theories are then tested experimentally. You can't separate them, but you also can't confuse them. And this is the essential flaw in your reasoning.

Jun 01, 2016
A lot of chaffe...

No one said otherwise,.... in fact my entire argument and reason for mentioning Planck was to point out to CS that physics does not precede in a strict procedure.
But you keep using this meaningless phrase, "theoretical physical justification," which proves conclusively that you don't understand either the fact that theory and experiment are essentially different, or the fact that they are essentially related.

Jun 01, 2016
But you keep using this meaningless phrase, "theoretical physical justification," which proves conclusively that you don't understand either the fact that theory and experiment are essentially different, or the fact that they are essentially related.


It's rather remarkable that you don't understand what "theoretical physical justification" means, even after it was explained to you. It's not a meaningless phrase. It's a meaningless phrase TO YOU. It simply means finding why, from then known physics, the quanta was necessary. See the Planck quote.

And why are you inventing the notion that I don't know that "theory and experiment are essentially different"?!! How the hell have you arrived at this absurdity from what I posted?!

Jun 01, 2016
It simply means finding why, from then known physics, the quanta was necessary.
First, the singular is "quantum;" "quanta" is plural.

Second, the quantum theory was not found "from then known physics;" Planck's Law was found "from then known physics." It took both more theorizing, and more experimentation, to discover Planck's Constant and the full quantum theory from it. The additional key experiment was the photoelectric effect; the additional key theory was the definition of Planck's Constant and its eventual identification with the energy of a photon.

You've made up another story that doesn't fit the facts, @Noum.

You always have to be right; you lack Planck's flexibility, to admit he was wrong and move on. This is why people call you a philosopher.

Jun 01, 2016
I had mentioned that Planck approached the quanta as if it was on account of the resonators [meant oscillators], that is, he imposed this condition purely as a mathematical assumption and in opposition to classical physics [as shown in his own quote], ....and I also had already mentioned the photo-electric effect solution by Einstein justifying the quantum of energy,..... yesterday.

I posted just enough to make the point I wanted to make and no more.

You seem desperate to prove Noumenon does know this or that, and have posted much unnecessary chaff in order to manufacture arguments that never existed, and have made unfounded and absurd accusations. This is corrupt behavior.

the quantum theory was not found "from then known physics;

Where did I say this? I stated the opposite, that there was no theoretical justification for it,... which is why Planck imposed it as a condition,... "purely formal assumption" - Planck


Jun 01, 2016
You seem desperate to prove Noumenon does know this or that,
No, @Noum, you're projecting again and it's very transparent. The technical questions are now over and you're back in philosopher mode. I don't care to interact on that basis, and I would think that would have become clear to anyone who was paying attention; you appear to be so wrapped up in "proving you're right" (whatever that means when you are making arguments like characterizing me as "desperate" without any evidence to back it up since you cannot read minds) that you've lost track of the technical argument again, as you always do.

The point is, your phraseology betrays your confusion about the difference, and the relationship, of theory and experiment in physics. It is this relationship that distinguishes physics from philosophy. There is no experimenting in philosophy any more; deconstruction obviates evidence, and divorces philosophy from reality. That was the point of the Sokal Affair.

Jun 01, 2016
And that's assuming all the navel-gazing the Classical Greeks did hadn't contaminated philosophy permanently 'way back when. This is a very questionable assumption given solipsism (as in, claiming "that's how you see it" is a valid argument about reality, not the philosophical school called "Solipsism," which eventually resulted in rhetoric of the kinds exhibited in politics).

Experiment grounds physics in reality. Philosophy has no such controls and cross-checks on its validity.

Jun 01, 2016
,.... that is, he imposed the quanta condition as a "purely formal assumption" [Planck's words] given the mathematical approach he was taking [statistical mechanics], and NOT on any theoretical [classical] physics grounds.

A theoretical physicist is to find theoretical physics justifications for their ideas. There was no way to do so with classical physics, as the oscillators, in classical physics could take on any amount of energy.

IOW, the "purely formal assumption" of quanta was one imposed on account of the approach and not from justified physics.

Jun 01, 2016
your confusion about the difference, and the relationship, of theory and experiment in physics.


Unfounded characterization and ad hominem. Corrupt.

I asked you to justify this absurd charge from statements I have made and you have not done so. You only post loaded characterizations and invent unfounded accusations. I posted no philosophy in this thread but yet you manage to convolute the discussion as if I had. This is a favorite tactic of fundamentally corrupt people that post to impress know-nothings wiki-jockys.

You're on ignore.

Jun 01, 2016
And to Planck's surprise his "purely formal assumption" turned out to be substantially correct and provable by experiment, specifically the photoelectric effect. Understanding this, however, took physicists a decade.

I'd be pretty reluctant to state what a theoretical physicist is "supposed" to do as if it were exclusive. (You can use a circumlocution, in this case simply pretending the "supposed" doesn't exist, to attempt to avoid "supposed," but that is the form of the idiom in American English and it is in this case an entirely accurate reading of your statement. I expect you'll lawyer about this, too.)

Jun 01, 2016
I asked you to justify this absurd charge from statements I have made and you have not done so.
You're lawyering again, @Noum. This isn't going to get you anywhere and it makes it obvious that you're not capable of keeping up with the formal arguments. You avoid them and concentrate on more lawyering and rhetoric.

This isn't ever going to work; the way to dismiss it is always obvious, simply identify the behavior and move on.

To your argument, showing it is false, here is your exact phrase that makes it obvious you don't know the difference and the relationship between theory and experiment in physics, and the difference between physics and philosophy:

theoretical physical justification
"Theoretical" means noumena, ideas in the mind; "physical" means phenomena, events in consensus reality. Your phrase equates to "imaginary real justification." As I said, I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Jun 01, 2016
What I meant by "theoretical physical justification" was 'theoretical justification from known physics', as was already explained to you the first time. I thought the context was obviously one of 'theoretical knowledge of physics'.

You would have been correct to point out that it was poorly worded, but not justified in your absurd deliberately insulting accusation of me 'not knowing the difference between theory and experiment', because, I had already by then elaborated on what I meant to McBride even before already answering you, when he questioned me....as follows...

"It is one thing to find a mathematical equation that accounts for an empirical based graph,..... it is quite another to establish theoretically why (meaning the physical reason) why or what the equation is supposed to represent."- Noumenon

.... thus knowing the difference between theory and experiment. Who doesn't?

It takes to much effort to write defensively on account of lawyers trolling phys.org,

Jun 01, 2016
your absurd deliberately insulting accusation
Reading minds again, @Noum?

This wasn't a slip of the tongue, it was representative of a basic misconception you have repeatedly demonstrated by attempting to confound physics and philosophy.

It's also more lawyering.

Jun 01, 2016
It takes to much effort to write defensively on account of lawyers trolling phys.org,
Less effort than examining your assumptions and behavior, apparently.

Jun 01, 2016
You're on ignore.


Hooyeei, that did not last long.

Jun 01, 2016
your absurd deliberately insulting accusation
Reading minds again, @Noum?

This wasn't a slip of the tongue, it was representative of a basic misconception you have repeatedly demonstrated by attempting to confound physics and philosophy.

It's also more lawyering.


I posted no philosophy here, only physics.

Your motivations are clear, dishonesty established a characterization based on deliberate lack of effort in interpreting ones post in context, then ignoring multiple further elaboration.

Corrupt

Jun 01, 2016
... Just coming up with a formula that fits to a graph,

It was not a fit except for Planck's constant
Well, if by "it" you mean the quantum theory, then this is correct. However, if by "it" you mean Planck's Law, actually it was a formula to fit a graph, then this is incorrect. You should confirm you meant the first, and I think you did.

does not mean one understands the underlying physics.

It opened the door to quantum mechanic, thus to deeper understanding of the physics. This was because it was not a fit. It was a heuristic derivation. Even better, Planck derived from experiment that light must be quantised - regardless of his own convictions at the time.
It wasn't Planck's Law, but Planck's Constant that opened that door. And the heuristic derivation was of the Constant, not the Law. If this is what you meant, then you are correct, as above.

Jun 01, 2016
wikipedia on "theory":
"Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. ... a body of knowledge ..."
wikipedia on "noumenon":
"a posited object or event that is known (if at all) without the use of ordinary sense-perception."

Two entirely different concepts.
Actually a theory is a noumenon. A thing of, to quote you, "abstract or generalized thinking" is obviously "a posited object or event that is known (if at all) without the use of ordinary sense-perception," since all thoughts are such. I wouldn't call a subset "entirely different."

Jun 01, 2016
I posted no philosophy here, only physics.

theoretical physical justification


It's transparent when you start disagreeing with what you yourself said.

This is growing tedious, and tendentious, as conversations with you always do.

Jun 01, 2016
Actually a theory is a noumenon. A thing of, to quote you, "abstract or generalized thinking" is obviously "a posited object or event that is known (if at all) without the use of ordinary sense-perception," since all thoughts are such. I wouldn't call a subset "entirely different."


Way Wrong. Noumenon means as contrasted from phenomenon. It means "as it exists in itself" apart from the conditions for acquiring knowledge. For example, "phenomenon" includes a component that is mind-dependent given the nature of acquiring knowledge,... i.e. the necessity of concepts and experimental conditions. We add conceptual form.

Noumenon in Kant's use is a limiting concept, to extract the above conditions. It's a way to justify an objective albeit unknowable reality independent of mind.

Please stop doing philosophy.


Jun 01, 2016
... which is relevant to QM interpretation which I have discussed here.

I posted no philosophy here, only physics.

theoretical physical justification


It's transparent when you start disagreeing with what you yourself said.

This is growing tedious, and tendentious, as conversations with you always do.


You made it so. Theoretical justification just means justified by theory (known physics), and what was meant albeit with wording, was 'theoretical knowledge of physics' or 'theoretical physical knowledge'. It is not philosophy.

GR is theoretical knowledge of physics.


Jun 01, 2016
A physical theory is a body of knowledge that is rooted in observation.


Well of course.

Classical physics was rooted in observations as well as QT. The problem of finding a theoretical justification for quanta obviously extended beyond the empirical observation of the intensity/frequency data at the time. Planck introduced quanta on account of his methodology [statistical mechanics] not on account of physics understanding. In fact he did not believe that energy was in general quantized.

I don't disagree with Wiki's definition of noumenon,... it's just that it is incomplete and vague. One should only reference Kant use.


Jun 01, 2016
Noumenon means as contrasted from phenomenon.
Phenomenon means event(s) in consensus reality. Those events have separate existence from the conceptions or sensory images formed in your mind or brain connected with them, as evidenced by the fact you can die (or sleep) and they will continue to occur according to the rest of us.

This is exactly the sort of self-swallowing solipsistic argument that everyone calls you a philosopher for, @Noum.

If you don't "believe in" consensus reality there is nothing to discuss with you.

Jun 01, 2016
It wasn't Planck's Law, but Planck's Constant that opened that door. And the heuristic derivation was of the Constant, not the Law. If this is what you meant, then you are correct, as above.
I fail to see your points.
OK, I will answer as best I can hoping to clear them up for you.

Planck showed that the radiation of a black body implied quantisation.
This is a gross oversimplification; it was not accomplished in a single step even for Planck, but at minimum in two steps:
1. Planck's Law
2. Planck's Constant

That was the first step towards quantum mechanics.
Which? Or was it both? Or did it also require other steps, like Einstein's photoelectric effect paper?

It does not matter what he or anyone else at the time believed.
I never said nor even implied it did.

Jun 01, 2016
It wasn't Planck's Law, but Planck's Constant that opened that door. And the heuristic derivation was of the Constant, not the Law. If this is what you meant, then you are correct, as above.

I fail to see your points. Planck showed that the radiation of a black body implied quantisation.


He is splitting hairs more than he is making points as usual. There is no Planck's Law without Planck's constant.


Jun 01, 2016
Theoretical justification just means justified by theory (known physics),
"Known physics" includes both theories and experimentally verified facts. As such, an empirical hypothesis is justified by "known physics" just as much as a hypothesis advanced purely on theoretical grounds (such as a theorem, which is wholly derived from mathematical considerations). Both will require experimental testing before they are accepted as theories. This shows that in fact, experiment is vital to physics. Without it, theoretical physics is just more philosophy. With it, it's physics, not philosophy.

You just don't seem to get this.

Jun 01, 2016
There is no Planck's Law without Planck's constant.
The original formulation of Planck's Law was:

Bˠ(T) = (Cγ⁻⁵)/(e^(c/γT)) - 1)

There is no "Planck's Constant" there; it's part of C, an empirically derived fitting constant in the formula. Planck's Constant was not even dreamed of when Planck advanced it in 1900.

You're making stuff up again, @Noum.

Jun 01, 2016
A physical theory is a body of knowledge that is rooted in observation... So we disagree on this, too.
Actually a physical theory is a body of knowledge that is tested by observation, not necessarily rooted in it.

Jun 01, 2016
Phenomenon means event(s) in consensus reality. Those events have separate existence from the conceptions or sensory images formed in your mind or brain connected with them, as evidenced by the fact you can die (or sleep) and they will continue


You're philosophizing from your couch.

Phenomenon means as observed, as experienced, as known. Dead people can't observe nor know anything.

All that consensus of phenomena means is that those minds that form the consensus have all evolved with the same capacities to do so.

"There is no way to remove the observer, us, from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason. Our perception — and hence the observations upon which our theories are based is not direct, but rather is shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our brains" - S. Hawking

What Hawking is saying here is that phenomenon necessarily has a mind dependent component.

Jun 01, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)

Sorry to intrude upon your conversation with Noumenon, Phys1, but I observe that you are all essentially in agreement on the central point which the discussion started from: that the science/theorizing method/process proceeds in steps and sometimes in reverse order or in giant leap of insight when a totally new issue is being recognized and treated by many minds in various ways, from either orthodox paradigm, or personal postulations from either observational, philosophical, theoretical or mathematical analysis...or a concurrent mixture of all these in the mind of the scientist/thinker concerned.

So your comment above, and an earlier comment effectively agreed with that, so you and Noumenon are on the same page and I can't see why the continuing antagonistic tones and semantics (especially when context is being disregarded) is being allowed to obscure the fact that all are agreed on what Noumenon said to CS originally.

A very interesting discussion! :)

Jun 01, 2016
There is no Planck's Law without Planck's constant.
The original formulation of Planck's Law was:

Bˠ(T) = (Cγ⁻⁵)/(e^(c/γT)) - 1)

There is no "Planck's Constant" there; it's part of C, an empirically derived fitting constant in the formula. Planck's Constant was not even dreamed of when Planck advanced it in 1900.

You're making stuff up again, @Noum.


More hair splitting. Original? There is no Planck's Law without Planck's constant.

Jun 01, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 01, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 01, 2016
What Hawking is saying here is that phenomenon necessarily has a mind dependent component.
I disagree with "necessarily." And I disagree that's what Hawking meant.

There is no Planck's Law without Planck's constant.
According to the historical record Planck disagreed with you.

You know, that pesky reality thing.

Jun 01, 2016
I couldn't fail to disagree with you less. But you still get a "1" for being a git about it


I don't know who you are or whether you are even a person as you have never actually said anything,... so what does it matter to me that you agree or do not agree? What is a git? Is that less or more as egregious as your behaviour toward me?

What Hawking is saying here is that phenomenon necessarily has a mind dependent component.
I disagree with "necessarily." And I disagree that's what Hawking meant.


We will have to disagree. I think that is precisely what he was saying, even though not referencing Noumenon / phenomenon distinction.

There is no Planck's Law without Planck's constant.
According to the historical record Planck disagreed with you.

You know, that pesky reality thing.


Not an important distinction though,.... the quanta was there all along.

Jun 01, 2016
Not an important distinction though
The distinction between reality and imagination is not an important distinction according to this statement by you.

Sorry, this is just more lawyering. Booooooorrrrrrrrrring.

Jun 01, 2016
What is a git? Is that less or more as egregious as your behaviour toward me?


It's short for igit, which is short for idiot, which is short for a person who doesn't play with others. It's a British Isles thing.


Ok, thank you. Does that mean that I am an annoyance to the sock-drawer? I was considering not posting anymore at phys.org given all the bickering, ..... but this may make it worthwhile to continue,... maybe ramp-up my right-winger ideology and my philosophy of physics.

I couldn't fail to disagree with you less.


This is the nicest convoluted thing that has come out of your sock-drawer to me. Thank you.


Jun 01, 2016
Hi Sheik_Yerbuti (or if I may translate for American-English speakers: "Shake_Your_Booty"?) :)
Sorry to intrude upon your conversation
Not "sorry", "regret". This is a hobby horse of mine. "Sorry" means "I would do something different the next time". "Regret" means "I would do the same thing, but regret the consequences". You're not sorry because you would do it again.
While I admire your attention to semantical correctness in general, in this instance it would have been better informed if you had paid more attention to context. The "sorry" was in context meant as an "apology in advance" for the 'act of intrusion' itself. I neither regretted nor was sorry for any consequence from my apologetic and well intentioned intrusion; especially if the consequence was positive and helped dispel some of the unnecessary antagonism and cross-purpose out-of-context semantical distractions from the main point on which they essentially do agree despite the semantics etc. :)

Jun 01, 2016
Not an important distinction though
The distinction between reality and imagination is not an important distinction according to this statement by you.


You added that interpretation. I already confirmed such a distinction is important above. I meant, in the present discussion wrt Phys1 point.


Jun 01, 2016
You added that interpretation.
No I didn't. You're making stuff up again, @Noum. Boooooooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrring.

Jun 01, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)

Mate, I was hoping that you would have outgrown that tactic by now. You showed signs recently that you were dropping that dismally embarrassing tactic which you have long unfairly employed in the past; which only ever led you to more embarrassing backdowns because your certainty of correctness/strawmanning others were not proof against YOU being wrong (or at least argumentative and trollish with your adhoms and your antagonistic tone).

None of that is part of the Scientific Method or the Scientific Discourse Etiquette. Please tone it down; or better yet, drop it altogether; as it has brought you nothing but loss of respect because you act like this even when patently proven in the wrong based on known science (remember our past encounters where that tactic was of no avail against the known science facts, despite your obviously unfounded accusations of me being incorrect, lying, a troll etc? The upshot was always that you were incorrect. Play nice. :)

Jun 01, 2016
I was hoping that you would have outgrown that tactic by now.
It's not a tactic. It's the only answer to solipsistic horsepucky. Identify it, dismiss it, and move on. Your problem is that it's the only kind of argument you make, so if you admit this might be valid you're left with nothing.

If I bother to address you, all I get back is more horsepucky, and I note that you have not yet made any reasonable response to the Virial Theorem.

Go count your toes.

Jun 01, 2016
A physical theory is a body of knowledge that is rooted in observation... So we disagree on this, too.
Actually a physical theory is a body of knowledge that is tested by observation, not necessarily rooted in it.

Rooted as in without roots it would fall, like a tree without roots.
Rooted in it as in derived from it. Which is what we were discussing. If you had said "supported by observation" I wouldn't have disagreed with you.

Jun 01, 2016
There is no Planck's Law without Planck's constant.
The original formulation of Planck's Law was:

Bˠ(T) = (Cγ⁻⁵)/(e^(c/γT)) - 1)

There is no "Planck's Constant" there; it's part of C, an empirically derived fitting constant in the formula. Planck's Constant was not even dreamed of when Planck advanced it in 1900.

Who cares ? h is also "an empirically derived fitting constant" and the same as C up to some constants known from other empirical fits. Essential is that the _shape_ of Planck's law is _not_ a fit.
Errr, no.

You know a lot about physics, but you don't bother to check how it was originally derived. It's easier a lot of times to understand what it means if you know where it came from, as well as how we do it today.

Also, Planck's Constant isn't derived solely from blackbody experiments any more. We have far more sophisticated ways of measuring it now. And C isn't the same as h.

Jun 01, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)

You are confusing me with somebody else. My reality-based physics/maths TOE (and all my posts here) are aimed at REMOVING philosophical 'point' concept/axiom from the comological theory mathematics/modeling! Only thus can the theory have any chance of AVOIDING the otherwise presently inescapable 'singulaties' which current mathematical constructs keep throwing up and so preventing proper reality-physics-consistent COMPLETION of the cosmological model/theory.

So you are even wrong about who is saying what here!

Mate, it's excruciatingly obvious you are still only a SHORT way along a very long 'learning curve' re cosmology physics/arguments. You didn't know the Virial Theorem based argument for hypothesized DM distribution. In past instances you didn't know about NON_Keplerian orbital regimes (you accused me of lying, until you read up and found out I was not). You never knew there were plasma flux tubes, plasmoids etc in/on sun!

Tone it down, mate. :)

Jun 01, 2016
What matters is that discrete quanta of energy were implied to explain the observations. This radical step constitutes the conception, not yet the birth, of quantum mechanics, whether those involved in the conception were aware of it or not.
They weren't initially implied; they weren't to be conceived of for years yet when Planck's Law was conceived.

This is like claiming that the 23 (is it still 23?) free parameters of the SM are "implicit in" the SM, when in fact no one has yet derived them using any known theory of physics. I might accept "nascent in," but for a doubly-derived parameter to an equation that was chosen to fit experimental results? No, man. No way. Could we see Planck's Law as formulated in 1900 was incomplete? Sure we could. Can we see the SM is incomplete? Sure we can. That doesn't mean that quantum physics was somehow "implicit in" it, any more than whatever we come up with to explain those 23 free parameters of the SM will be "implicit in" the SM.

Jun 01, 2016
@ Da Schneib-Skippy and @ Phys1-Skippy. It would be nice if the other peoples would argue the way you two to do. I learn a lot from that, thanks.

Jun 01, 2016
I originally learned it from Asimov's "History of Physics," actually the predecessor which was the third volume of his "Understanding Physics" series, "The Electron, Proton, and Neutron," all of which were later combined with material from "The Neutrino" and released as a single volume. But Wikipedia has researched material, available at https://en.wikipe...#History and much of the material I cribbed was from section 6.2 and following.

As I said, Planck himself started talking about his constant about 1905 or so; by 1910, people were talking about quantizing light, but it took until 1924 or so before the first quantum theory really caught hold; that was Bose's theory, the beginnings of Bose-Einstein statistics which we use today to talk about quantized light. But you should really read the Wikipedia article to put it all in perspective; I learned some new stuff myself researching it. Enjoy!

Jun 01, 2016
@Ira, I value that. Thanks!

Jun 01, 2016
@Ira, I value that. Thanks!


Non thanks necessary. You guys both kept focused and worked to understand each other, that works. That's why I can not have any fun with you guys, I learn a lot. But you are to rational to have fun with so I just sit back and think about what you two was talking about. It was about the idea and not the "me".

Jun 01, 2016
Well, I hope you're having fun sitting back and thinking. ;)

Jun 01, 2016
@Da Schneib yes also at https://en.wikipe...constant '...Planck was able to calculate the value of h from experimental data on black-body radiation: his result, 6.55×10−34 J⋅s, is within 1.2%....

Jun 01, 2016
1.2% is not bad, considering the measuring technology for both temperature in the cavity and energy at various points on the spectrum that they had at the time. The original paper is available here: http://axion.phys...901.html
and the final values are at the bottom; Planck used erg-seconds, which accounts for the difference in the exponent.

Jun 02, 2016
If you provided a link or countered the cranks with facts, then this is precisely what I suggested above as being more effective than stating [incompletely] what the scientific method is
@Nou
this is what i do most of the time
everyone loses patience... and i don't like when they're blatantly stupid
As demonstrated with examples, science is not as clean cut and direct with strict guidelines as you suggested.... a hypothesis may not be preceded by evidence
re-read the chart again...

in order to make a hypothesis you must first have some observation or knowledge that causes you to speculate, hypothesize and then test or experiment, which is evidence, verbalized, written or otherwise
Dead people can't observe nor know anything
and they're also not part of a consensus - (unless there is an election, that is - LOL)

Jun 02, 2016
Not "sorry", "regret" ..."Regret" means "I would do the same thing, but regret the consequences"
@Sheik_Yerbuti
she has no regrets either - it is one of her favorite pastimes

in fact, it is an attention seeking device - see all further comments from that point and watch how she intentionally turns it into an attempt to force her specific brand of personal beliefs and morality
(like the thought police)
also read this WRT rc: http://outofthefo...mization

http://www.yourli...artid=65

if you follow her profile here on PO you will notice that she argues for "Scientific Discourse Etiquette" while refusing to provide the basic most important ingredient: evidence

i would show you her personal earthling club page, but i don't want you to cry (or hate me for sending you there - LOL)

Enjoy - and love the moniker
PEACE

Jun 02, 2016
in order to make a hypothesis you must first have some observation or knowledge that causes you to speculate, hypothesize and then test or experiment, which is evidence, verbalized, written or otherwise


Yes, of course. The point was that the point of a hypothesis, or a postulate, or a starting premise, is a point-of-departure that may not be entirely justified from evidence a-priori.

Dead people can't observe nor know anything


and they're also not part of a consensus


Which does not matter to the point made. I've heard the "consensus" argument before,.... it is only a consequence that we are constituted for acquiring knowledge via evolution in the same way. As I stated above, there is an objective reality,... it is just that the distinction made between phenomenon and noumenon is one of a conceptual layer which we supply as an a-priori necessary means of acquiring knowledge [see Hawking quote],... so that Noumenon is conceptually formless

Jun 02, 2016
... and this way of thinking (positivist of which Hawking has stated he is , as opposed to realist), seems implicit in QM and was the original Heisenberg and (eventually) Bohr (Copenhagen) point of view,.... that the underlying Realty is conceptually formless so that the act of observation adds the conceptual form; It is only a particle or a wave to the extent that the apparatus is designed to detect it that way (the allowed history in CHI), and there is no non-metaphysical way of saying it IS a particle or it IS a wave independent of experiment. The particular attributes don't exist apart from observation, they are created at observation. This is not "my crack pot" opinion only it is shared by many prominent physicists.

[I am not the one who first interjected philosophy in this thread]

Jun 02, 2016
....Another hint of this is the fact that it is possible to have predictive-knowledge without intuitive-understanding (where Kant was wrong), so rather than our a-priori concepts ensuring intuitive knowledge, in QM, they are exposed as an artificial synthesis.

EDIT; "the logically consistent history in CHI" .

Jun 02, 2016
The point was that the point of a hypothesis, or a postulate, or a starting premise, is a point-of-departure that may not be entirely justified from evidence a-priori
@Nou
then you should have clarified this earlier because i was specifically responding to the comment
CapStumpy, is akin to those "religious cranks",… in not attempting to counter given [crank-]hypothesis, but rather objecting to them even-being-made, simply on the basis of his own misapprehended thought of knowledge,….. i.e. that evidence should precede hypothesis
now whether you take it as a whole in context, or simply take the last 4 words, it means the same. "evidence doesn't precede a hypothesis"

... however the only way to make a hypothesis is to first have an observation (evidence) to extrapolate from and eventually test, thus, per my point (repeated) there must be evidence to formulate a hypothesis

that is not my "misapprehended thought of knowledge" - it is fact. 2Bcont'd

Jun 02, 2016
@Noum, reconcile this:
It is only a particle or a wave to the extent that the apparatus is designed to detect it that way (the allowed history in CHI), and there is no non-metaphysical way of saying it IS a particle or it IS a wave independent of experiment.
with the fact that we see individual particle impacts on a CCD (or for that matter a phosphor screen), but the collection of impacts over time obeys a wave equation (interference).

The detected phenomenon is neither a particle nor a wave; these distinctions which seem so clear-cut to us in the classical physics that we see around us simply do not exist at the size and time scales that quantum interactions define. It is simply something different, that partakes of the characteristics of both.

You avoided this question in the Shroedinger's Cat thread.

Jun 02, 2016
@Nou cont'd
so, then you finally agree to the point
Yes, of course
so that remains to explain the reasoning for the whole problem or argument

there are only a few possibilities:
1- communication problems
2- physical problems
3- natural problems
there were no internet outages, so 3 is out
i don't have a missing brain, and you don't either, unless we're not being told something - like tumors (this is 2)
that leaves (1)

why are we not able to communicate?
this goes to DaSchneib's comments and elsewhere... IMHO you are entering the science with the philo perspective, which can affect how you perceive what is written
OR
you're here to troll/fight

given your adamant attempts to "prove yourself" as mentioned above by DaS... i consider the former the likeliest possibility - it's hard to communicate when person A is literal and trained in science when person B is being metaphorical or subjective when /A/ requires technical specifics over subjective interpretations

Jun 02, 2016
@Noum Let me try this another way:

Our instruments can show us particles, that is, localized phenomena with a specific and very small uncertainty in position and time. (Note that position and time are not complementary under Heisenberg uncertainty.) We can see the events of individual interactions of these particles. So how can the particles not be "real," whatever we mean when we say "real?" We can directly detect them, with CCDs, phosphor screens, bubble chambers, cloud chambers, Geiger counters, etc.

When we add up these events, these interactions, these particles, we get phenomena that only are explainable by wave interactions, specifically interference. We can see the interference in the integration of the particle phenomena over time. So if we see interference, how can the waves not be "real?" We can directly detect them, using any of the above methods, integrated over time.

So are the particles "real," or are the waves "real," or both?
[contd]

Jun 02, 2016
[contd]
You have claimed the waves "are not real." This is not consistent with the available evidence (i.e. interference). It's not reasonable to postulate negative particles (and I don't mean antimatter, that's just more particles and makes the same sort of traces in our instruments that matter does). There simply isn't any such thing that can cancel the existence of a particle or antiparticle without resulting in some other particles. The only thing that does this is waves.

Until you abandon your preconceived notions based on philosophy without any grounding in experimental data, you will not be able to explain this. That's why I keep pointing it out.

Why you keep avoiding dealing with this massive unavoidable paradox introduced by your solipsism and insistence that quantum reality must be the same as classical reality is entirely another question, and I'm not sure I agree with the Cap'n here.

Jun 02, 2016
Why you keep avoiding dealing with this massive unavoidable paradox introduced by your solipsism and insistence that quantum reality must be the same as classical reality is entirely another question, and I'm not sure I agree with the Cap'n here
@DaSchneib
always open to new input...
by all means, feel free to expound or share! thanks

I just figured the best way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time
so the best way to address large problems ....

Jun 02, 2016
Cap'n, my only disagreement is on whether it's simply misunderstanding or outright trolling to get attention no matter whether it's negative or positive. If I intended to disagree with your methods I'd address you directly, my friend: you would listen! ;)

Jun 02, 2016
The 'particles' are very small, much smaller than the QM wave functions. The small things must be more real than the QM wave functions.
Actually I think I disagree here; I think particle uncertainty is position vs. momentum, and I think wave uncertainty is energy vs. time. And I note that both uncertainties seem to sum to Planck's Constant.

Let me put this another way: "particle" is defined more by position than momentum; as a result we tend in our measurement apparatus to emphasize position, and leave momentum to flap in the wind. If we insisted upon momentum measurements, we would get a far greater uncertainty in position than our current measurement techniques show. Similarly, when we measure waves we emphasize energy over time; as a result, we get a much more diffuse position for them due to the time uncertainty.

Given the uncertainty in particle position, I think that "smaller" might not actually agree with real results. What is your opinion?

Jun 02, 2016
....Another hint of this is the fact that it is possible to have predictive-knowledge without intuitive-understanding (where Kant was wrong), so rather than our a-priori concepts ensuring intuitive knowledge, in QM, they are exposed as an artificial synthesis.

EDIT; "the logically consistent history in CHI" .
...

As kant had no knowledge of quantum mechanics, anything he had to say about 'the nature of knowledge' in regard to it, which is what youre continually trying to sell, is nonsense.

Jun 02, 2016
"Kant originated the technique required to sell irrational notions to the men of a skeptical, cynical age who have formally rejected mysticism without grasping the rudiments of rationality. The technique is as follows: if you want to propagate an outrageously evil idea (based on traditionally accepted doctrines), your conclusion must be brazenly clear, but your proof unintelligible. Your proof must be so tangled a mess that it will paralyze a reader's critical faculty—a mess of evasions, equivocations, obfuscations, circumlocutions, non sequiturs, endless sentences leading nowhere, irrelevant side issues, clauses, sub-clauses and sub-sub-clauses, a meticulously lengthy proving of the obvious, and big chunks of the arbitrary thrown in as self-evident, erudite references to sciences, to pseudo-sciences, to the never-to-be-sciences, to the untraceable and the unprovable—all of it resting on a zero: the absence of definitions. I offer in evidence the Critique of Pure Reason."

Jun 02, 2016
@Noum, reconcile this:
It is only a particle or a wave to the extent that the apparatus is designed to detect it that way (the allowed history in CHI), and there is no non-metaphysical way of saying it IS a particle or it IS a wave independent of experiment.
with the fact that we see individual particle impacts on a CCD (or for that matter a phosphor screen), but the collection of impacts over time obeys a wave equation (interference).

The detected phenomenon is neither a particle nor a wave; these distinctions which seem so clear-cut to us in the classical physics that we see around us simply do not exist at the size and time scales that quantum interactions define. It is simply something different, that partakes of the characteristics of both.


I fail to see how you disagree with me. You seem to have summerized what I posted above fairly well.....


Jun 02, 2016
The detected phenomenon is neither a particle nor a wave - DaSchneib


the underlying Realty is conceptually formless [...] It is only a particle or a wave to the extent that the apparatus is designed to detect it that way - Noumenon


these distinctions which seem so clear-cut to us in the classical physics that we see around us simply do not exist at the size and time scales that quantum interactions define- DaSchneib


The particular attributes don't exist apart from observation, they are created at observation. - Noumenon

Jun 02, 2016
@Noum reconcile this:
It is only a particle or a wave to the extent that the apparatus is designed to detect it that way [...] and there is no non-metaphysical way of saying it IS a particle or it IS a wave independent of experiment.

with the fact that we see individual particle impacts on a CCD (or for that matter a phosphor screen), but the collection of impacts over time obeys a wave equation (interference).


Did you not see "independent of experiment" in that post? Otherwise I don't understand the objection.

I will not respond to your next posts until these points are cleared up,... i.e. where is the disagreement given what I posted.


Jun 02, 2016
however the only way to make a hypothesis is to first have an observation (evidence) to extrapolate from and eventually test, thus, per my point (repeated) there must be evidence to formulate a hypothesis


There must be a legitimate theoretical problem for which one would make a hypothesis ... so to this extent, yes, there would be empirical evidence for the given problem,... but not necessarily for the hypothesis.

I'm not sticking up for the water-surface and EU cranks,... I'm only saying that facts are more effective than telling people the scientific method,.... which you do a lot.

As kant had no knowledge of quantum mechanics


I did not say he did. Can you article an objection to something I posted or are you expecting me to debate the internet again?

Jun 02, 2016
Hi Noumenon. :)
...It is only a particle or a wave to the extent that the apparatus is designed to detect it that way...
Natural examples of 'detecting-apparatus-dependent' perception/conceptualization occurs in biophysical 'sensing/interpreting' system; wherein 'specialized apparatus' cannot 'output' any 'signal/response/interpretation' in a form other than that for which it naturally evolved to 'present'.

Examples:

1) A blow to the head OR severe internal inflammation/pressure on the optic nerve OR progressive deterioration of brain's visual sensory, can result in you 'seeing stars' or other illusory 'imagery'; even in pitch black conditions when the optics/nerves/brain not actually receiving any normal light signal 'visual cues' at all!

2) In extremis late stage of Hypothermia death process, the 'signals' from dying temperature-related nerve cells may be 'misinterpreted' as 'overheating', and the person may even try to discard clothing in response!

Just an FYI. :)

Jun 02, 2016
LOL

It's not anger, it's ridicule for your obvious attempts at trying to construct an argument by stringing unrelated concepts together.

It no workie like that. Get it?
- DaSchneibo

LOL
ursiny33 is just another one of Theghostofotto1923's sock puppets. Otto has done this kind of disconnected smatterings of gobbledegook off and on in many threads to get someone like you to act surprised that anyone could talk stupid shit in Physorg.
You fell for it...again....congratulations
LMAO (smirk)

Jun 02, 2016
@Noum,

The detected phenomenon is neither a particle nor a wave - DaSchneib

the underlying Realty is conceptually formless [...] It is only a particle or a wave to the extent that the apparatus is designed to detect it that way - Noumenon
Just because it's neither a particle nor a wave doesn't mean it's "conceptually formless." In fact, it's not; we have math that can give it form, though we cannot imagine that form except in terms of things we already know: particles and waves. We therefore talk about how it's like a wave in this manner, and like a particle in that manner, but (unless we're playing logic games) we know that it's neither. It is its own thing, a quantum phenomenon, which we can never see or touch or even directly imagine.

"Conceptually formless" is where we part ways, you and I: to my mind, you give up and throw up your hands, whereas I try to figure out what the logic is that these things follow.
[contd]

Jun 02, 2016
[contd]
The second point is, "particle" and "wave" aren't just a priori concepts we've randomly chosen to describe classical physics; they're fundamental descriptions of that physics, but those descriptions are incompatible with quantum reality. This in turn means that the instruments we use to probe that reality ultimately must report to us in wave-and-particle form because that's all we can see or imagine. That doesn't invalidate the quantum reality they report, though. It just means we have to compensate conceptually for their limitations.

That's a start; I'm too fuddled today to do better than that. I'll be back.

Jun 02, 2016
Although I do not understand what would drive the second to interact with the former
@Techno
it's not so much to "interact" with the former as to advocate for something that is provable, IMHO
(IOW- the scientific method)
if you allow the pseudoscience to propagate, it spreads and gains credibility simply by location and the refusal of those who actually understand to refute it
(this is how many laymen or the scientifically illiterate will actually see it)

... so unless there is a refute, it's a valid concept to someone who is scientifically illiterate... and there are people out there who actually can't comprehend the scientific method (see: eu advocates, jvk, verkle, zephir, obama_socks now aka otto_szucks among other socks, etc)

https://www.youtu...EwjBXlZE
- stumpfrump
You talk a good talk, but you still say nothing wrt your ACTUAL COMPREHENSION of science & what you have retained in memory, w/o resorting to Wiki. You are dishonest.

Jun 02, 2016
I have sound unpublished arguments but putting them here is not my idea of publishing. I am quite willing to share my arguments with you on a person to person basis.
Unfortunately I can't see a way for us to correspond without giving out more personally identifying information than I care to on this forum. I don't have a trash email account that I'd like to get spam from RC or Zephir on. If you know a way then pass it along and I'll check it out. I wouldn't recommend you put any PII on here either, though, so think it through first.

I think particle uncertainty is position vs. momentum, and I think wave uncertainty is energy vs. time. And I note that both uncertainties seem to sum to Planck's Constant.
That is all true but it describes the wave function, not the femtometer sized particle itself.
Hmmm, I think that the position/momentum pair is particle-like, not wave-like. It doesn't really make sense to talk about the "position" of a wave.

Jun 02, 2016
Hi Da Schneib, Noumenon, Phys1. :)

It's good to see discussion between you becoming more polite and constructive/informative by the day. Good stuff! :)

AN OBSERVATION: There is a whole qualitative difference between US 'knowing' our/things' instantaneous position/momentum, and the Universe ITSELF 'knowing' (or 'having'?) its own natural extant 'states' of BOTH position AND momentum of ALL its 'constituent parts at ALL scales/times.

Eg: A sailor on the open ocean hasn't the equipment/signpost 'cues' etc to 'know' what his velocity is with respect to landmarks 'beyond the ocean horizon' (which in the case of the universe may be infinitely far away)....BUT...just because a sailor 'cannot know' what his position/speed etc may be with respect to the ocean as a whole beyond visual horizon, it doesn't necessarily follow that in the extant probably INFINITE UNIVERSAL system there isn't some overall systemic 'absolute instantaneous position/momentum information' INHERENT to it? :)

Jun 02, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
I don't have a trash email account that I'd like to get spam from RC or Zephir on.
Mate, it's that kind of 'throwaway line' cheap shot that detracts from your otherwise good/proper respect for truth/persons. In case you missed it over all these years, I am scrupulously independent, objective, lone researcher who eschews all associations/connections with other commentators/groups/gangs etc because it would compromise my hard won, constantly demonstrated, impartiality, objectivity and independence. So please do not again 'include me' in your 'groupings' of 'internet others' of whatever kind. My record shows that I am one of the FEW here who has NEVER 'played 'games' with people or the site's ratings/communications facilities. Your 'concern' would be better aimed at those of your own "my friend" types who HAVE not only done all that and boasted about it, but ALSO stalked and harassed others over the internet. PLease be more discerning in future. Ta. :)

Jun 02, 2016
OK, a little less fuddled now.

@Noum:
these distinctions which seem so clear-cut to us in the classical physics that we see around us simply do not exist at the size and time scales that quantum interactions define- DaSchneib

The particular attributes don't exist apart from observation, they are created at observation. - Noumenon
And here again, we disagree. The position is not "created" at any time. Because quantum phenomena obey uncertainty, their positions in the absence of interaction with another quantum phenomenon are a range of probabilities; but at the point where they interact, they can be localized to whatever degree of precision is desired. The statement that position is "created at observation" is therefore incorrect.

This difference in our views is due to the fact that you do not accept the Born Rule as a fundamental description of quantum reality. Probability is not merely all we know, it is all we *can* know in the absence of interaction.

Jun 02, 2016
it's that kind of 'throwaway line' cheap shot that detracts from your otherwise good/proper respect for truth/persons
@RC, respond to being pwnt on your horsepucky about "non-Keplerian orbits." Both by finding out that they are powered orbits, and to the Virial Theorem.

I have no intention of handing out my email address to a psycho.

Jun 02, 2016
The detected phenomenon is neither a particle nor a wave - DaSchneib

the underlying Realty is conceptually formless [...] It is only a particle or a wave to the extent that the apparatus is designed to detect it that way - Noumenon

Just because it's neither a particle nor a wave doesn't mean it's "conceptually formless." In fact, it's not; we have math that can give it form, though we cannot imagine that form except in terms of things we already know: particles and waves.


Yes, this is what I said above by "We add conceptual form". The capital R in Reality was to reference reality as it exists independently of "we".

It is its own thing, a quantum phenomenon, which we can never see or touch or even directly imagine.


Yes, by "the underlying Realty" is meant "an objective albeit unknowable reality independent of mind",… and therefore which is the sense in which I mean "conceptually formless".

Quotations " " are from posts I made above.

Jun 02, 2016
Let's just have the list of absolute crap @RC posted on the simulation thread, here: http://phys.org/n...ong.html

The List:
Yellow curve going up, dotted curve going down.
Dotted curve goes up.
"Merely 'believing'", "emotional," "blind," "ego-tripping," "don't get it," and "bad habits."
"Ring" and "Gap."
"Spherical" spiral galaxies.
"Non-Keplerian" orbits.
Non-inverse square gravity.
M33 "super-massive" black hole.
"Spherical" central bulges in spiral galaxies.
Spiral galaxies are flat because they have central bulges.
Galactic "orbitals."
Spiral arms are "rings."
I never say you're right.
Just because you're right once you're always right.
Dotted curve doesn't go up.
Nucleus of M33 is 10kly wide.
Orbital velocity is the same as rotational velocity.
Orbital velocity and rotational velocity can be measured by "wavelengths."
The observed rotational velocity curve of a galaxy is calculated.
"disc mass region"

Jun 02, 2016
Yes, this is what I said above by "We add conceptual form". The capital R in Reality was to reference reality as it exists independently of "we".
But this is true of everything, both quantum and classical physics. You're staring at your navel and calling it a black hole again. Your argument eats itself: you are arguing both that reality does not exist, and that there's some Reality that exists. Make up your ever lovin' mind. This is why I despise philosophy. You can argue any damn thing because it's not connected to reality and never was.

Yes, by "the underlying Realty" is meant "an objective albeit unknowable reality independent of mind",… and therefore which is the sense in which I mean "conceptually formless".
First, it's not "unknowable." We can describe it mathematically.

Second, it's not "objective" unless it's consensus reality which you already said you don't believe in, though in the next breath you said you did.
[contd]

Jun 02, 2016
"Conceptually formless" is where we part ways, you and I: to my mind, you give up and throw up your hands, whereas I try to figure out what the logic is that these things follow.


No, we are simply using different language. I still do not see where we disagree in fact. You will need to reread my posts and try to articulate this difference before I can respond further.

"Conceptually formless", referred to Reality as it exists independent from our knowledge. So, if the "underlying Reality" is neither a particle nor a wave [I statement I have made for years at PO and evidently you concur] then de facto, it is "conceptually-formless",... that is, WITHOUT THE "conceptual layer which we supply as an a-priori necessary means of acquiring knowledge [see Hawking quote]".

This is simply epistemic logic.

Our posts are overlapping which makes it even harder to maintain a rational discussion. I will wait until you address the most points.

Jun 02, 2016
[contd]
Third, it's not "conceptually formless." It's described by mathematics.

Fourth, this is another self-swallowing argument, exemplified by "objective but unknowable." It can't be objective if it's unknowable, because no one can objectify what they cannot know.

Again, philosophy as you practice it, which is by lawyering and making arguments disconnected from consensus reality, is completely useless in analyzing physics. Yet again the Sokal Affair rears its ugly head.

On edit: you will need to examine your premises, which you have consistently refused to do because you insist you have to be right. I don't really care if you respond or not; your responses are generally devoid of meaning because you deny consensus reality and assert it in the same sentence. More lawyering and solipsism. This approach is totally useless in analyzing or discussing physics.

Jun 02, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
it's that kind of 'throwaway line' cheap shot that detracts from your otherwise good/proper respect for truth/persons
@RC, respond to being pwnt on your horsepucky about "non-Keplerian orbits." Both by finding out that they are powered orbits, and to the Virial Theorem
Who "pwned" who? Have you not realized yet that gravitational effects in the galaxy disc distribution are NON_Keplerian even in the absense of any extraneous applied 'power' from e-m or kinetic impact/pressure forces etc? How can you still 'believe' you "pwned" anyone in that exchange (where you started out not even knowing NON-Keplerian orbital regimes/term even existed in the physics literature/lexicon)?

And you also didn't even KNOW about the virial theorem! And I already explained how it doesn't 'work' for DM 'clumping'.
I have no intention of handing out my email address....
Who asked you for it? Not me, mate! Don't want it; don't need it. So, thanks but no thanks. :)

Jun 02, 2016
Have you not realized yet that gravitational effects in the galaxy disc distribution are NON_Keplerian even in the absense of any extraneous applied 'power' from e-m or kinetic impact/pressure forces etc?
Virial Theorem.

Your only answers are a bunch more logic chopping. This is why I don't trust you. This is why no one does.

Humans have evolved over millions of years to detect cheating, in fact it's a well developed mechanism in all social mammals. You are cheating and until you stop you'll continue to be detected. Grow up.

Jun 02, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Have you not realized yet that gravitational effects in the galaxy disc distribution are NON_Keplerian even in the absense of any extraneous applied 'power' from e-m or kinetic impact/pressure forces etc?
Virial Theorem.
You posted that unadorned term as if you are exp-laining anything different from what I have explained for your benefit already. Consider: That virial theorem related dynamics is what produces the DISC of ORDINARY matter is exactly applicable; and resulting disc distribution is what produces NON_Keplerian orbits/motions within that disc. I already explained that to you.

The OTHER issue was that virial theorem dynamics was assumed to also explain NON_Baryonic DM (sometimes referred to by cosmologists as 'exotic' DM). I already pointed out how that virial theorem assumption/interpretation does not 'work' for that DM (its speedy/energetic constituents don't have any E-M/Collision energy-shedding means).

Read/Learn more, mate. :)

Jun 02, 2016
This difference in our views is due to the fact that you do not accept the Born Rule as a fundamental description of quantum reality.


Where did you get this information? This is false. I have never said that I don't accept the Born rule. I do in fact.

it's consensus reality which you already said you don't believe in


Where did I say that? I never said this. Where did you get this from? I said consensus only confirms that we are all constituted for observation the same given from evolution,... thus that it does not dispute the original point made.