Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 70

Thread: The Standard Model is so entrenched that

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    761

    The Standard Model is so entrenched that

    You would have to fly in a spaceship to a different galaxy to provide observations that would falsify it.
    Are there any experiments that cannot be interpeted as verifing TSM?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,023
    The standard model cannot be ( actually cannot be allowed to be) falsified by ANY observation.

    Place your offerings at the alter and tithe. It's faith, not knowledge.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    SE Michigan
    Posts
    2,905
    You guys sound familiar...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ęsop
    The Fox and the Grapes

    One hot summer's day a Fox was strolling through an orchard till he came to a bunch of Grapes just ripening on a vine which had been trained over a lofty branch. "Just the thing to quench my thirst," quoth he. Drawing back a few paces, he took a run and a jump, and just missed the bunch. Turning round again with a One, Two, Three, he jumped up, but with no greater success. Again and again he tried after the tempting morsel, but at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: "I am sure they are sour."

    It is easy to despise what you cannot get.
    Fred
    "For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
    -- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

    Earth's sole legacy will be a very slight increase (0.01%) of the solar metallicity.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    The Heart of Darkness
    Posts
    1,765

    Angry Oh give me a break!!!!!

    OK, I've had it up to here with the implied insults you two, and other ATM types, have been throwing around. As a particle physicist I'm offended by your implications that I, and my colleagues, are unthinking boobs. If the Standard Model you're referring to is that of particle physics you're knocking one of the most successful theories out there including, as it does, the quark model, electroweak theory, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum chromodynamics among its components. It's met experimental tests and has been flexible enough to accomdate the results of experiments that originally conflicted with its predictions. I know most ATM types out there feel that that's a weakness of a theory, but frankly, all that opinion does is demonstrate your ignorance of how real science is conducted. An inflexible theory is useless.

    So what's your alternative. The electric universe? Don't make me laugh. Not even wrong. Show me that it, or any alternative you care to mention, makes all of the predictions that the SM does, and then show how it better predicts observations the SM does not. For a start on those, here's the Particle Data Group website. It contains references to experiments and the currently accepted measurements of many quantities. Go to work. Come back when you're done. Until then, I suggest you quit with the unwarranted righteous indignation and go learn some physics before you criticize those whose job it is to investigate these phenomena.
    "I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

    "If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

    This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by turbo-1
    The standard model cannot be ( actually cannot be allowed to be) falsified by ANY observation.
    I respectfully suggest that some folks confuse the concept of a scientific LAW with concept of a scientific "theory". A theory (any theory) can be falsified by any number of direct observations. This is typically what leads to "better" models and better 'theories'. Laws can't be falisified. Theories can be falsified.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,023
    Quote Originally Posted by Eta C
    OK, I've had it up to here with the implied insults you two, and other ATM types, have been throwing around. As a particle physicist I'm offended by your implications that I, and my colleagues, are unthinking boobs. If the Standard Model you're referring to is that of particle physics you're knocking one of the most successful theories out there including, as it does, the quark model, electroweak theory, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum chromodynamics among its components. It's met experimental tests and has been flexible enough to accomdate the results of experiments that originally conflicted with its predictions. I know most ATM types out there feel that that's a weakness of a theory, but frankly, all that opinion does is demonstrate your ignorance of how real science is conducted. An inflexible theory is useless.
    At what energy level will we find the Higgs boson? In this regard, the principle flexibility of the standard model of particle physics appears to be the willingness to move the energy level goalposts, but not the willingness to consider that there may be no Higgs boson.

    I will offer you a proof that there is no Higgs boson. If mass is conferred upon matter by by the Higgs boson, and if gravitational attraction is mediated by the graviton, we have a really huge coincidence to explain. If the Higgs field and the gravitational field are truly fields, they are capable of dynamically interacting with matter, and they are capable of variation with respect to time and location. So how can these two separate fields be so absolutely, perfectly congruent across all space and time to produce the universe that we observe?

    The universe does not act the way we expected, and that has caused us to resort to invoking Dark Matter and Dark Energy to keep the model somewhat predictive. Still the Universe seems to observe the same gravitational laws everywhere and everywhen we look. If there were two separate fields interacting with matter giving rise to 1) mass and 2) gravitational attraction, differences in field density would give rise to some very odd and inconsistent behavior here and there, perhaps evolving with time and/or with cosmological expansion. We do not see this.

    The consistency of observed gravitational behavior across the visible universe is a very strong indicator that mass and gravitation both arise from matter's interaction with a single field. It's still early days yet, but I think that this is the way to reconcile the Higgs/gravitational field coincidence and reconcile the 120 OOM coincidences of the too-small cosmological constant and the too-small gravitational equivalence of the vacuum energy.

    http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=35191

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    341
    If scientific theories are falsifiable, why do I here so many statements similar to this?

    Clifford Will: "Special relativity is so much a part not only of physics but of everyday life, that it is no longer appropriate to view it as the special 'theory' of relativity. It is a fact."



    "It is an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe remain hypothetical." Jim Peebles, Princeton Cosmologist

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by turbo-1
    At what energy level will we find the Higgs boson? In this regard, the principle flexibility of the standard model of particle physics appears to be the willingness to move the energy level goalposts, but not the willingness to consider that there may be no Higgs boson.

    I will offer you a proof that there is no Higgs boson.
    Fast forward a few years, and imagine the Higgs boson(s) has been discovered, its characteristics determined, and this extension of the Standard Model becomes the new Standard Model.

    What then would be the status of your 'proof'?

    {for avoidance of doubt, this is speculation; we must unfortunately wait some years yet before the death - or not - of the Higgs can be announced by our hep colleagues.]
    If mass is conferred upon matter by by the Higgs boson, and if gravitational attraction is mediated by the graviton, we have a really huge coincidence to explain.
    And if 'gravity' turns out to be something more like LQG than String/M-theory? Or if the first successful theory of quantum gravity (quantum theory of gravity?) is something that no one has yet even dreamed of?
    If the Higgs field and the gravitational field are truly fields, they are capable of dynamically interacting with matter, and they are capable of variation with respect to time and location. So how can these two separate fields be so absolutely, perfectly congruent across all space and time to produce the universe that we observe?
    What a great question!

    If I understand your posts in other threads correctly, you have some ideas about the answers to these questions, but have not yet developed even the mathematical framework in which to begin exploring them? Of course, I wish you well in your endeavour, but without at least a sketch of what that framework would (could?) look like, what basis do we have to discuss (and, hopefully, progress - or, dare I say it - falisify your ideas)? The phrase 'not even wrong' is certainly apt, IMHO, as a description (and not only of your idea, a great many of the ATM ideas floated here in BAUT's ATM section also merit the label).
    The universe does not act the way we expected, and that has caused us to resort to invoking Dark Matter and Dark Energy to keep the model somewhat predictive. Still the Universe seems to observe the same gravitational laws everywhere and everywhen we look. If there were two separate fields interacting with matter giving rise to 1) mass and 2) gravitational attraction, differences in field density would give rise to some very odd and inconsistent behavior here and there, perhaps evolving with time and/or with cosmological expansion. We do not see this.

    The consistency of observed gravitational behavior across the visible universe is a very strong indicator that mass and gravitation both arise from matter's interaction with a single field. It's still early days yet, but I think that this is the way to reconcile the Higgs/gravitational field coincidence and reconcile the 120 OOM coincidences of the too-small cosmological constant and the too-small gravitational equivalence of the vacuum energy.

    http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=35191
    I agree that DE is, at present, very poorly understood (and there is, possibly, some room in the good observational results to assert that it may not 'exist' at all).

    DM is quite a different kettle of toast. There is much in possible extensions to the Standard Model (e.g. various SUSY zoos) that could fit the astronomical bill quite nicely, and our inability to put some DM particles on the rack in our labs may owe more to our poor abilities to generate anything above the dampest of firecrackers (energy-wise) compared with what regular denizens of our universe can create by the tonne without even breaking into a sweat.

    In this sense, shouldn't a charge of 'too conservative by far' be levelled at the mainstream?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by upriver
    You would have to fly in a spaceship to a different galaxy to provide observations that would falsify it.
    Are there any experiments that cannot be interpeted as verifing TSM?
    [nitpick] An 'experiment' cannot be 'interpreted' as 'verifying' anything! [/nitpick]

    Here are a few (off the top of my head):
    - discovery of a stable isotope of element number 2222 (anywhere)
    - discovery of a fourth lepton (i.e. other than the electron, muon, and tau)
    - results from the double pulsar system that do not accord with GR
    - large proper motions in the 'M82 quasars'
    - null results for the SZE in 10,000 rich clusters (out of 11,000 observed)
    - (lots of) globular cluster stars with atmospheres comprised principally of elements heavier than Fe
    - 10,000 high-z quasars with lower-z absorption lines dominated by elements heavier than Fe
    - 90%+ of CMBR hotpots (or coldspots) exhibiting consistent, systematic large proper motion (thank you turbo-1).

    Now I've a question for you: are there any ATM ideas which are sufficiently quantitative in their predictions that they can be tested at all?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by turbo-1
    The standard model cannot be ( actually cannot be allowed to be) falsified by ANY observation.

    Place your offerings at the alter and tithe. It's faith, not knowledge.
    This is your claim.

    Please show how each of the hypotheticals in my last post would not falsify the standard model. I'll make it easy - please show how even one would not falsify at least one aspect of the standard model (they're not all relevant to all aspects).

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky56
    If scientific theories are falsifiable, why do I here so many statements similar to this?

    Clifford Will: "Special relativity is so much a part not only of physics but of everyday life, that it is no longer appropriate to view it as the special 'theory' of relativity. It is a fact."



    "It is an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe remain hypothetical." Jim Peebles, Princeton Cosmologist
    I give up, why?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    653

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid
    This is your claim.

    Please show how each of the hypotheticals in my last post would not falsify the standard model. I'll make it easy - please show how even one would not falsify at least one aspect of the standard model (they're not all relevant to all aspects).
    Renormalization and Regularization.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,023
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid
    Fast forward a few years, and imagine the Higgs boson(s) has been discovered, its characteristics determined, and this extension of the Standard Model becomes the new Standard Model.

    What then would be the status of your 'proof'?

    {for avoidance of doubt, this is speculation; we must unfortunately wait some years yet before the death - or not - of the Higgs can be announced by our hep colleagues.]
    If the Higgs boson is incontrovertably shown to exist, then my polarized quantum vacuum model of gravitation is kaput. In fact, in light of the self-attraction and self-polarization of the virtual-particle pairs in my model, if gravity waves are ever detected, then my model is falsified. (Reason: Field polarization lines between two gravitationally-bound objects, will look like a smooth dumbbell shape at system-scale distances, but sufficiently far from the system, the field polarization will be indistinguishable from a spheroid.) I should probably add that to the summary below with the other potentially falsifying experimentational observations. It's not going to be much of a theory if it cannot make predictions and cannot be falsified, is it?

    http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=35191

    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid
    And if 'gravity' turns out to be something more like LQG than String/M-theory? Or if the first successful theory of quantum gravity (quantum theory of gravity?) is something that no one has yet even dreamed of?
    I think that visualizing the ZPE field of the quantum vacuum as the GR ether that Einstein described in "Uber den Ather" is going to lead to the resolution of GR with QT, and it will more resemble what the LQG folks are shooting for than any Stringy theory. We will end up with evanescent space-time foam, providing space with fine structure and physical properties.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid
    What a great question!
    It appeared to be a perfectly natural question to pose, yet somehow, I never see it addressed anywhere. If this fine-tuning of both the Higgs field and the gravitational field cannot be explained without invoking some incredible coincidence in the congruence of the fields, the standard model has a problem. I came across this conundrum while considering the balance between the 120 OOM too large expansive pressure of the quantum vacuum and the 120 OOM too large gravitational equivalence of the vacuum energy. Sir Roger Penrose spoke about this in a lecture I found archived, and it struck me that there is something very fundamental and important going on in the vacuum if it can remain dynamically balanced to that level of precision.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid
    If I understand your posts in other threads correctly, you have some ideas about the answers to these questions, but have not yet developed even the mathematical framework in which to begin exploring them? Of course, I wish you well in your endeavour, but without at least a sketch of what that framework would (could?) look like, what basis do we have to discuss (and, hopefully, progress - or, dare I say it - falisify your ideas)? The phrase 'not even wrong' is certainly apt, IMHO, as a description (and not only of your idea, a great many of the ATM ideas floated here in BAUT's ATM section also merit the label).I agree that DE is, at present, very poorly understood (and there is, possibly, some room in the good observational results to assert that it may not 'exist' at all).
    I have laid out at least a half-dozen experimental results that will falsify the model, and I will not holler and kick if any of them turn out negatively. If you read the thread I linked (and I know you are familiar with my travails to some extent) I explained that in 18 months of part-time work, I have laid the conceptual foundation for the model. When it is finished it will be a purely classical field theory. GR curved space-time will be replaced by the the concept that the vacuum fields are polarized by the presence of matter, and that mass, gravitation and inertia all arise through matter's interaction with the local vacuum field - no action at a distance; therefore, no gravitational field or graviton and no Higgs field or Higgs boson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid
    DM is quite a different kettle of toast. There is much in possible extensions to the Standard Model (e.g. various SUSY zoos) that could fit the astronomical bill quite nicely, and our inability to put some DM particles on the rack in our labs may owe more to our poor abilities to generate anything above the dampest of firecrackers (energy-wise) compared with what regular denizens of our universe can create by the tonne without even breaking into a sweat.

    In this sense, shouldn't a charge of 'too conservative by far' be levelled at the mainstream?
    As with the Higgs boson, the energy levels at which SUSY particles are "anticipated" just keep getting pushed higher and higher, which seems a pretty liberal stance to me. At what energy level with non-detection of the Higgs boson or any SUSY particles be taken as evidence of their non-existence? Even if a very massive SUSY particle were found, there is still the not-so-trivial matter of explaining how it manages to distribute itself so that galaxies rotate just so, and clusters manage to hold together and lens background ojects.

    I realize that appeals to elegance can seem archaic, but I think we will discover that nature is pretty simple at the roots, and that we might be able to explain much of what we see with the entities we currently know to exist. We know the quantuum vacuum exists, and we know it can have measurable effects in the macroscopic world. We cannot have a TOE if it does not address the expected and observed qualities of the vacuum, so why not study it now? If the vacuum can be polarized by the presence of matter, we might not need any more entities to explain gravity on galactic and cluster scales.
    Last edited by turbo-1; 2005-Dec-06 at 07:52 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,023
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid
    This is your claim.

    Please show how each of the hypotheticals in my last post would not falsify the standard model. I'll make it easy - please show how even one would not falsify at least one aspect of the standard model (they're not all relevant to all aspects).
    You're right that my claim was a bit of hyperbole - there are certainly some things that might possibly falsify the standard model, should they be observed.

    Please understand that from my viewpoint, however (impatient and frustrated! ), the standard cosmological model has already been falsified. The amount of dark matter needed to fix GR gravity on galactic and cluster scales (and its required distribution) are simply quantifications how badly GR gravitation fails and on what scales. Somehow, the failure is touted as "proof" for the existence of DM and our scientific resources are spent looking for it.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by turbo-1
    The amount of dark matter needed to fix GR gravity on galactic and cluster scales (and its required distribution) are simply quantifications how badly GR gravitation fails and on what scales. Somehow, the failure is touted as "proof" for the existence of DM and our scientific resources are spent looking for it.
    Why exactly does this indicate that GR fails? DM is really quite similar to the situation in the 19th century, when Uranus was not following the path Newtonian Gravity predicted. Two people, John Couch Adams, in England, and Urbain Le Verrier, in France, independently used the Newtonian Equations to predict the location of the 19th century version of dark matter, the planet Neptune. What I find interesting is that George Airy, the Astronomer Royal. didn't have the search started right away, partly because he believed the inverse square law of gravitation broke down over large distances. The planet was found quite near (it's location basically split the two predictions) where it was predicted to be by both Adams and Le Verrier.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    11,562
    Quote Originally Posted by turbo-1
    I will offer you a proof that there is no Higgs boson.
    I would accept that offer! except I get the impression that you may have already presented it in this thread, is that correct?
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky56
    If scientific theories are falsifiable, why do I here so many statements similar to this?

    Clifford Will: "Special relativity is so much a part not only of physics but of everyday life, that it is no longer appropriate to view it as the special 'theory' of relativity. It is a fact."
    To take an extreme case, we could consider the statement "the sun will rise each morning" as a scientific theory. It is falsifiable--if the sun does rise tomorrow, the statement would be false. That is what distinguishes it from the unscientific statement "there is an undetectable seven-dimensional parrot on my shoulder"

    On the other hand, most people do not have a problem with saying that "the sun will come up tomorrow" is a fact. We've verified its certainty in many, many ways. What else would we mean by "fact"?
    Quote Originally Posted by turbo-1
    Please understand that from my viewpoint, however (impatient and frustrated! ), the standard cosmological model has already been falsified. The amount of dark matter needed to fix GR gravity on galactic and cluster scales (and its required distribution) are simply quantifications how badly GR gravitation fails and on what scales. Somehow, the failure is touted as "proof" for the existence of DM and our scientific resources are spent looking for it.
    "Somehow"? Are you asking for an explanation for how that was determined? Or are you just dismissing the whole process?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,023
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor
    Why exactly does this indicate that GR fails? DM is really quite similar to the situation in the 19th century, when Uranus was not following the path Newtonian Gravity predicted. Two people, John Couch Adams, in England, and Urbain Le Verrier, in France, independently used the Newtonian Equations to predict the location of the 19th century version of dark matter, the planet Neptune. What I find interesting is that George Airy, the Astronomer Royal. didn't have the search started right away, partly because he believed the inverse square law of gravitation broke down over large distances. The planet was found quite near (it's location basically split the two predictions) where it was predicted to be by both Adams and Le Verrier.
    Let's take the gravitation of a spiral galaxy. We inventory the matter in the galaxy by looking at all the luminous stuff, including stuff that is luminous at radio frequencies, we factor in dust, etc, and we make our best guess as to the mass of the galaxy. Strangely, we find out that the galaxy has far less visible mass than is necessary to produce the flat rotation curves we see in its arms.

    A reasonable person might break the problem down and say, the two most likely culprits are:

    1) The galaxy is far more massive than we can predict from observation so most of the matter is indetectable. We can fix this if we invoke dark matter, which cannot be luminous, cannot be strongly interactive, and must still be interactive enough on some level to distribute itself "just so" in order to produce the observed rotation curve.

    or:

    2) Our GR model of "curved space-time" gravity may not be predictive on galactic scales.

    If 1) is true, then our observational "accounting practices" are insufficient to detect most of the mass of a galaxy. If 2) is true, then the "missing mass" is simply a quantification of how much the GR model of gravity fails on that scale.

    If we believe and act on 1), this implies that we think GR gravitation is accurate on all scales. The thought that GR is settled and 100% accurate may be comforting, but one should not get too complacent about that. Einstein was quite troubled by the incompleteness of GR and sought for years to find the physical process that "curved space-time" was modeling. He believed that gravitation and inertia were emergent, and that they arose from matter's interaction with the local space in which it is embedded - no action-at-a-distance. This is quite different from the way most people today regard GR gravitation, although some LQG folks could easily adapt their views to conform with his, since they are already modeling the fine structure of the vacuum.

    2) Has been tackled by the MOND people, with good predictive sucesses, but nobody has a clue what physical process MOND is modeling that produces the required flat rotation curves. The modification is ad-hoc. Again, we get a quantifiable difference between GR and MOND, indicative of the magnitude of the discrepancy between the observed and inferred mass and the gravitational behavior of the system. We have a measure of how much GR might be in error on galactic scales, but no indication of the source of the error.

    On cluster scales, the need for dark matter persists if we belive that GR gravity is 100% accurate. It is needed to account for excess cluster binding and for excess observed lensing. Once again, if you believe in the DM paradigm, you must identify the material and model its distribution to fix the shortfalls at the cluster scale.

    In light of this, is it not reasonable to revisit GR and see if we can model gravitation as a physical process? We know a whole lot more about the quantum vacuum now (~80 years on) than was known at the time that Einstein was pursuing his 'etheric' version of GR. Don't you think he would be intrigued by the role of the vacuum in gravitation and inertia?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,023
    Quote Originally Posted by hhEb09'1
    I would accept that offer! except I get the impression that you may have already presented it in this thread, is that correct?
    True - If the Higgs boson conveys mass to matter and the graviton mediates the gravitational attraction between massive bodies, we have a huge coincidence problem. The Higgs field and the gravitational field must be congruent to the nth degree everywhere and everywhen in the Universe, or it would not look the same everywhere. This problem is compounded if we expect that these fields may evolve over time or become more densified or rarified in the presence of embedded matter.

    Everywhere we look, galaxies and clusters seem to follow the same gravitational rules. This is compelling evidence that mass and gravitation arise from matter's interaction with a single field, not two separate fields.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    11,562
    Quote Originally Posted by turbo-1
    On cluster scales, the need for dark matter persists if we belive that GR gravity is 100% accurate. It is needed to account for excess cluster binding and for excess observed lensing. Once again, if you believe in the DM paradigm, you must identify the material and model its distribution to fix the shortfalls at the cluster scale.
    The calculations that produce the matter shortfalls are not really relativistic ones, are they? The newtonian equations (approximations?) produce the same result.
    In light of this, is it not reasonable to revisit GR and see if we can model gravitation as a physical process? We know a whole lot more about the quantum vacuum now (~80 years on) than was known at the time that Einstein was pursuing his 'etheric' version of GR. Don't you think he would be intrigued by the role of the vacuum in gravitation and inertia?
    Yes. But all that is being done. People have been working on and testing alternate theories of gravitation for eighty years.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    341
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid
    I give up, why?
    Because science has become entrenched?

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    11,562
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky56
    Because science has become entrenched?
    And this is bad how?

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,023
    Quote Originally Posted by hhEb09'1
    The calculations that produce the matter shortfalls are not really relativistic ones, are they? The newtonian equations (approximations?) produce the same result.
    Correct, the Newtonian approximation produces shortfalls equivalent to that of GR. I just don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water, and would like to re-cast GR curved space time as the polarized quantum vacuum field. If the quantum vacuum is self-attractive (and it certainly has enough gravitational equivalence to be a huge player, here), things could get pretty complex on galactic and cluster scales.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    11,562
    Quote Originally Posted by turbo-1
    Correct, the Newtonian approximation produces shortfalls equivalent to that of GR. I just don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water, and would like to re-cast GR curved space time as the polarized quantum vacuum field. If the quantum vacuum is self-attractive (and it certainly has enough gravitational equivalence to be a huge player, here), things could get pretty complex on galactic and cluster scales.
    Could get? What are the numbers?

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,023
    Quote Originally Posted by hhEb09'1
    Could get? What are the numbers?
    I'm hoping to get numbers from CERN's Athena project (testing the Weak Equivalence Principle comparing the gravitational infall rates of neutral antihydrogen and hydrogen). If there is a differential in the infall rate, it would provide a natural polarizing mechanism for the vacuum field in the presence of matter, and the magnitude of the differential would shed some light on the strength of the field's self-attraction.

    Also, I believe that when the archived Pioneer telemetry data is crunched, we will get our first look at another set of numbers - the refractive index of Solar-system space. The probes are not slowing down with a smooth, coordinated Sunward acceleration, the EM is returning sooner than expected because the speed of light in a rarified vacuum field is faster than that in a denser vacuum field (as predicted by Klaus Scharnhorst as an effect of vacuum rarification between the plates of a Casimir device).

    I am still in the conceptual stage, and am not at the point where I can spend a lot of time to refine my math skills (I attended college starting in 1970), so I can be patient a bit about quantification. I would welcome an energetic collaborator with good math skills and a good sense of humor.
    Last edited by turbo-1; 2005-Dec-07 at 02:31 AM.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    My bold
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky56
    Because science has become entrenched?
    Hmm, let's see now ... I read a post by a BAUT member who calls herself (himself? itself??) 'Sparky56'. What does this mean?!?!?

    Well, it means that the monitor (or other device) on which I read it 'works'.

    It means that the PC which my monitor is attached to 'works'.

    Also, that the ethernet connection/wireless router/cable modem/coax cable to which the PC is attached 'work'.

    That the cable provider has some device, somewhere, that is attached to some kind (or many kinds) of server.

    Etc, etc, etc, etc.

    If I were so foolish as to open the case of my PC (or monitor, or wireless router, or cable modem, or ...) and pull out the funny green things with strange metallic 'lines' on them, as well as funny rectangular blackish objects, and if I were to be even more foolish as to grind/cut/crush/dissolve in acid/.... these components, I might discover some curious things about what it takes to be able to read words by 'Sparky56' on my monitor.

    If I were even more curious, I might scream and yell, question and probe, investigate and research, etc, etc, etc ... and discover that I can read 'Sparky56's words only because thousands of engineers have spent millions of hours of effort following the 'science' of condensed matter physics, of information theory, of Maxwell's equations, etc, etc, etc.

    Should I embark upon such a journey, and conclude that 'science works', would I thus be foolish to permit myself a certain, small pleasure that 'science' is, indeed, 'entrenched', at least so far as my ability to read the words of 'Sparky56' on my monitor?

    But, being the iconoclast that I am, I reject all this as mere details, the stuff of syncophants and yes men. I demand a fair hearing to all those who rail against science! Let the astrologers, the 'maths is bunk' folk, those who praise 'crystals', who decry the loss of Atlantis, etc, etc, etc have a fair hearing! What say they!! Let them explain to me, in their own words, how it is that I can read the words of 'Sparky56' upon my monitor! Let them tell us all what the HST will find if it points its ACS at {insert pet celestial coordinates here} and collects data for 10,000 seconds! Let us give space to those who will confidently say what the LHC's various instruments will discover after they have been running for five years!!

    All postering aside, if you are 'agin' science, why are you here Sparky56?

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    864
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky56
    Because science has become entrenched?
    hmmmmm. I do not think science is entrenched, it have many models to explain many things in very accurate detail. You are correct, it do not explain all detail. If you have model that explain greater amount you please present. If it explain some detail that currenty theory do not, but do not explain as *many* detail as current model, I stay with current model.

    Is scientific method. Have served well for centuries.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    7,795
    Quote Originally Posted by turbo-1
    The standard model cannot be ( actually cannot be allowed to be) falsified by ANY observation.... It's faith, not knowledge.
    It is hard to imagine how anyone could be any more incorrect. "Quantum theory boldly exposes itself to potential falsification on a thousand different fronts. Its record is impressive: quantum theory passes every test we can devise. After sixty years of play, this theory is still batting a thousand." [Nick Herbert]
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    11,562
    Quote Originally Posted by turbo-1
    I am still in the conceptual stage, and am not at the point where I can spend a lot of time to refine my math skills (I attended college starting in 1970), so I can be patient a bit about quantification. I would welcome an energetic collaborator with good math skills and a good sense of humor.
    [Claude Rains]Verry interesting. I know of just such a collaborator, but he is...shall we say...detained by other interests[/Claude Rains]

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,023
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar
    It is hard to imagine how anyone could be any more incorrect. "Quantum theory boldly exposes itself to potential falsification on a thousand different fronts. Its record is impressive: quantum theory passes every test we can devise. After sixty years of play, this theory is still batting a thousand." [Nick Herbert]
    Thank you for citing Dr. Herbert, but I would prefer Dirac's "not even wrong", if you're going to take a swing at my views.

    For those interested in learning more about Dr. Herbert:

    http://members.cruzio.com/~quanta/

    If you can, please explain to me (in your own words) how the standard model can be reconciled with the currently-accepted GR concept of gravitation. I do not mind being told that I am in error when you can show me how I am in error.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    11,562
    Quote Originally Posted by turbo-1
    If you can, please explain to me (in your own words) how the standard model can be reconciled with the currently-accepted GR concept of gravitation. I do not mind being told that I am in error when you can show me how I am in error.
    I think Cougar was talking about your swipe at the standard model, when you said that it was "faith". Is that like faith that the sun will rise tomorrow?

Similar Threads

  1. The Big Flow Theory v.s. The Standard Model
    By Occams Ghost in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 2008-Feb-21, 04:48 PM
  2. String Theory and the standard Model
    By dmill120 in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2007-Jan-20, 05:13 AM
  3. Beyond the Standard Model?
    By Fortunate in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2005-Dec-28, 05:52 AM
  4. The Standard Solar Model
    By Duane in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 2004-Nov-25, 01:50 AM
  5. Standard model is like the Rubix cube
    By RickNZ in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2003-Nov-22, 03:10 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: