URLs that end in .edu are usually pretty good sources. I have seen exceptions - but they are usually good.
How to recognise pseudoscience
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
URLs that end in .edu are usually pretty good sources. I have seen exceptions - but they are usually good.
You are now doing what you have done previously with things like 'effective theory', you are making up your own definition and then using it as if it means what other people mean.
By every criteria QCD and electroweak theories are not pseudoscience. They are constructed from basic principles, they are formalised, they are used to make models and those models are then tested and found to be accurate. The fact they contain adjustable parameters doesn't make them pseudoscience. The fact you disagree with them doesn't make them pseudoscience. The fact they are not complete and perfect models doesn't make them pseudoscience.
According to you.
No, it's very very close to the sum of the two masses due to the very weak EM interactions (compared to the mass energy scales) but there could be a small difference as we currently cannot measure to the necessary precision to see it clearly. The same reason quark bound states and nucleon bound states masses are not quite the sum of the constituent rest masses applies to systems bound by electromagnetism, it's just thousands, even millions, of times smaller.
No, it does not. We know nucleon bound states are not just the sum of their parts as it's precisely that difference which fuels the Sun and nuclear reactors. As I said, we cannot say for certain the same is true for EM bound systems but that's because we can't do the precision experiments required yet. Presently there's absolutely no reason to think EM will be any different and there's certainly nothing to support your claim nature shows your assumptions to be correct. There's a difference between proof and a lack of disproof.
Misusing standard terminology is dishonest.
You're taking something classical and assuming the analogy holds to the quantum, which it doesn't.
If all you have is assertions you really cannot say nature supports you.
If everything were non-relativistic then yes but the energy-momentum relation and the uncertainty principle allow such counter intuitive processes to occur, as well as when you pump enough energy into a system. A highly energetic gluon can carry more energy than the rest mass of the W boson. In fact that's how you can form W bosons in the LHC, by gluon-gluon collisions.
The problem is that experimentally we see flavour changing neutral currents (ie processes mediated by the W and Z bosons) in collisions where the total energy is below their rest masses. The W decays have specific signatures and such signatures are seen below 90GeV.
The notion you're putting forth was originally considered by Fermi. To explain proton-neutron transformations he thought 4 particles were involved in a single process, such as the neutron spitting out a positron, electron-neutrino and a proton in a single step. It wasn't until later it was realised (and shown in experiments) an intermediate step occurs where a W+ boson is produced. This is exactly the kind of next order correction to Fermi's theory which resulted in more accurate models of such processes.
Except that no such transitions have ever been observed but the transitions described in the SM have been.
You're showing how little you understand. There's numerous ways of calculating things, including at multiple energy levels. You don't have to put the rest mass of quarks directly into your calculations, you can put in things like energy and momenta at higher energies where the strong coupling becomes weaker and then you run the couplings down to find the rest masses if you're interested. This is precisely what Lattice QCD does on supercomputers, you put in the measured masses of things like various mesons, which is sufficient to allow you to do many of the calculations for LHC processes, and then you use strongly coupled lattice calculations to determine how the behaviour of the meson components changes as you make the energy go down (which makes the coupling go up).
This procedure is not pseudoscience. It takes in some information and allows you to make predictions from it. QCD and QFT in general is such that while it would be nice to have the rest masses of all particles precisely it is possible to measure their properties at any energy scale and then 'run' them to any other energy scale. It's this method which gave us the prediction of asymptotic freedom in QCD which was observed in precisely the manner predicted and won a Nobel Prize. In that instance QCD made a verified quantitative prediction in precisely this type of thing, so you saying its pseudoscience because it approaches problems differently to how you do doesn't make it so.
I'm sure if I said "Sylwester, your work is wrong because that isn't how the SM calculates things" you'd say "It doesn't need to calculate things how the SM does!". You're effectively making the claim, that because your approach is not what the SM does then the SM is pseudoscience. It's completely flawed reasoning and the claims of pseudoscience with regards to QCD and EW theory are just demonstrably false.
Just this week a new QCD state was found, precisely where it was predicted to be 25+ years ago. Furthermore, just because there isn't evidence yet doesn't mean any predictions are pseudoscience. We haven't got any evidence there's life elsewhere in the universe but it isn't pseudoscience to predict there is. You're basically saying the fact the theory predicts things we can test for then its pseudoscience.
Nothing to do with the Standard Model.
Nothing to do with the Standard Model.
I've commented to you before about this. You're being dishonest. Firstly, the energy scales the SM requires the Higgs or a Higgs mechanism facilitator to be in hasn't been completely searched so it's like saying "I've lost my keys. Since I don't know where in the house they are they don't exist". If you haven't looked you can't say they aren't there. Secondly there is tantalising evidence the Higgs is in the aforementioned range. Further experiments are being done now.
Again, you're arguing against predictions. You claim gluons turn into photons, which has never been seen. By your logic your claim is also pseudoscience. You're working with a double standard, you call the unconfirmed (due to the difficulty in testing them often) predictions of the SM pseudoscience but you have no problems making unconfirmed predictions of your own.
Your "my everlasting theory" and "forever" comments are precisely the sorts of thing James was referring to when he described pseudoscientists. An unjustified title for unsupported assertions, some of which run counter to experiments and sometimes even their own consistency.
AlphaNumeric, as usually, you do not understand what you are reading. For example, you wrote that I claim that gravitons and gravitational waves are a part of the Standard Model. You should read my last post once more. I did not write such thing.
Your posts show that you are unable to understand the leading thought. I know that you have such problem so in my post the leading thought is coloured. I can see that I must try to describe the main problem by using other sentences.
The main my statement is as follows.
The mainstream theories of the weak and strong interactions are partially the pseudoscience due to the initial conditions, not due to the applied methods.
I write once more that the pseudoscience follows from the incorrect (weak interactions) or incomplete (strong interactions) initial conditions, not due to the applied methods.
AlphaNumeric, almost all your post concerns the applied methods. I wrote nothing about the applied methods. The methods applied in the theories of the weak and strong interactions introduced the GREAT mathematicians who try to describe the nature so they must-be/are correct. But the applied methods follow from the initial conditions. If the initial conditions are incorrect or incomplete, then the applied methods are correct but partially they cannot describe what the nature in reality is doing. Can you see that the hundreds unsolved problems within the mainstream theories and all the weak points follow from the incorrect or incomplete initial conditions? We must concentrate on the initial conditions. If we change totally or partially the initial conditions for the correct conditions then we will able to apply new methods which will give us opportunity to solve the hundreds unsolved problems.
Now there appears following question. Can we claim that theories with incorrect or incomplete initial conditions are at least partially the pseudoscience? And my answer is YES.
The motivation is as follows.
Incomplete or incorrect initial conditions show the lack of professionalism of authors of such theories.
The lack of professionalism in the theory of weak interactions follows from the fact that this theory violates the hierarchy of mass. The carriers of interactions cannot have masses greater than the sum of the masses of interacting particles and it concerns both the macro- and micro-world. The big number of the unsolved problems in this theory and the incorrect predictions follow from the violation of the hierarchy of mass.
The lack of professionalism in the theory of strong interactions follows from the fact that there is assumed that the masses of the up and down quarks are the part of the initial conditions but their EXACT masses are not defined. This means that we cannot calculate, for example, the properties of the nucleons, i.e. of the fundamental particles, from the EXACT masses of the up and down quarks. Decades go by and we still have the same unsolved basic problems. My advice is as follows. We must change the initial conditions in the QCD. If not, then there will be tremendous number of parameters. Today there are at least 3 times more parameters than in my Everlasting Theory.
The lack of professionalism in the string/M theory follows from the initial condition that there are in existence more than the 3 spatial dimensions. Physics is physics. Real volume is real volume. The imaginary physical quantities appear for objects which have broken contact with the wave functions. We should seek a different physical meaning of the magic numbers 10 and 26. My theory shows the correct solution.
Recapitulation
I listed the 4 direct and indirect evidences that there are the tachyons in existence. I showed how the General Theory of Relativity leads to the tachyons. This suggests that the GR is more fundamental than the Quantum Physics. This suggests that theory which will start from initial conditions containing tachyons, will be more fundamental than the GR (the GR is TODAY the most fundamental theory). My theory starts from gas composed of tachyons. My theory leads to the initial conditions applied in the GR and QP and partially to the initial conditions applied in the QCD and EWT. This theory shows also which initial conditions in the mainstream theories are incorrect or incomplete. For example, the initial conditions applied in the GR are incomplete so there appear the incorrect interpretations also.
I can write the complete initial conditions from which the GR should start to eliminate the incorrect interpretations. Within my theory, I calculated also the curvature of light in gravitational field (this is not in my book; there is much more my calculations not published in my book). Such calculations are very simple when we start from correct and complete initial conditions. How we can recognise such initial conditions? I wrote about it in my previous posts.
So once more: pseudoscience in the mainstream theories follows not from the applied methods. This follows from the lack of professionalism in formulation of the initial conditions.
The ultimate theory must start from the tachyons and phase transitions of gas composed of tachyons/pieces-of-4D-spacetime. Only then we will able to solve the hundreds unsolved problems.
Your posts show that you are unable to understand the leading thought. I know that you have such problem so in my post the leading thought is coloured. I can see that I must try to describe the main problem by using other sentences.
The main my statement is as follows.
The mainstream theories of the weak and strong interactions are partially the pseudoscience due to the initial conditions, not due to the applied methods.
I write once more that the pseudoscience follows from the incorrect (weak interactions) or incomplete (strong interactions) initial conditions, not due to the applied methods.
AlphaNumeric, almost all your post concerns the applied methods. I wrote nothing about the applied methods. The methods applied in the theories of the weak and strong interactions introduced the GREAT mathematicians who try to describe the nature so they must-be/are correct. But the applied methods follow from the initial conditions. If the initial conditions are incorrect or incomplete, then the applied methods are correct but partially they cannot describe what the nature in reality is doing. Can you see that the hundreds unsolved problems within the mainstream theories and all the weak points follow from the incorrect or incomplete initial conditions? We must concentrate on the initial conditions. If we change totally or partially the initial conditions for the correct conditions then we will able to apply new methods which will give us opportunity to solve the hundreds unsolved problems.
Now there appears following question. Can we claim that theories with incorrect or incomplete initial conditions are at least partially the pseudoscience? And my answer is YES.
The motivation is as follows.
Incomplete or incorrect initial conditions show the lack of professionalism of authors of such theories.
The lack of professionalism in the theory of weak interactions follows from the fact that this theory violates the hierarchy of mass. The carriers of interactions cannot have masses greater than the sum of the masses of interacting particles and it concerns both the macro- and micro-world. The big number of the unsolved problems in this theory and the incorrect predictions follow from the violation of the hierarchy of mass.
The lack of professionalism in the theory of strong interactions follows from the fact that there is assumed that the masses of the up and down quarks are the part of the initial conditions but their EXACT masses are not defined. This means that we cannot calculate, for example, the properties of the nucleons, i.e. of the fundamental particles, from the EXACT masses of the up and down quarks. Decades go by and we still have the same unsolved basic problems. My advice is as follows. We must change the initial conditions in the QCD. If not, then there will be tremendous number of parameters. Today there are at least 3 times more parameters than in my Everlasting Theory.
The lack of professionalism in the string/M theory follows from the initial condition that there are in existence more than the 3 spatial dimensions. Physics is physics. Real volume is real volume. The imaginary physical quantities appear for objects which have broken contact with the wave functions. We should seek a different physical meaning of the magic numbers 10 and 26. My theory shows the correct solution.
Recapitulation
I listed the 4 direct and indirect evidences that there are the tachyons in existence. I showed how the General Theory of Relativity leads to the tachyons. This suggests that the GR is more fundamental than the Quantum Physics. This suggests that theory which will start from initial conditions containing tachyons, will be more fundamental than the GR (the GR is TODAY the most fundamental theory). My theory starts from gas composed of tachyons. My theory leads to the initial conditions applied in the GR and QP and partially to the initial conditions applied in the QCD and EWT. This theory shows also which initial conditions in the mainstream theories are incorrect or incomplete. For example, the initial conditions applied in the GR are incomplete so there appear the incorrect interpretations also.
I can write the complete initial conditions from which the GR should start to eliminate the incorrect interpretations. Within my theory, I calculated also the curvature of light in gravitational field (this is not in my book; there is much more my calculations not published in my book). Such calculations are very simple when we start from correct and complete initial conditions. How we can recognise such initial conditions? I wrote about it in my previous posts.
So once more: pseudoscience in the mainstream theories follows not from the applied methods. This follows from the lack of professionalism in formulation of the initial conditions.
The ultimate theory must start from the tachyons and phase transitions of gas composed of tachyons/pieces-of-4D-spacetime. Only then we will able to solve the hundreds unsolved problems.
I don't think you're in a position to be saying such things to me given your continued failure to grasp why your claims are inconsistent.
In your post your list came after a discussion of components of the SM, specifically after comments about QCD. You're complaining about the SM being pseudoscience and then you include in your post of pseudoscience things outside the SM.
Perhaps I should have given you the benefit of the doubt and thought you know what is and what isn't in the SM but given your propensity to abuse standard labels I didn't.
I've been replying to your claims things like QCD and EW theory are pseudoscience. I've given lengthy replies on the topic.
If you're going to be dishonest about a poster it's generally rather daft to be dishonest about a poster when talking to that poster!
You really need to get your terminology right. You don't mean initial conditions, you mean initial assumptions/postulates. Initial conditions are what you'd use for modelling a dynamical system, like initial conditions in a differential equation.
So you're claiming they are pseudoscience because their initial postulates are not correct or complete. By that logic everything in physics pre-1900 was pseudoscience because we know that on some level pretty much all of it was wrong.
Was Newtonian mechanics pseudoscience? It's not 100% correct so its postulates must be flawed in some way so by your definition it was pseudoscience. But of course it wasn't pseudoscience because that isn't what pseudoscience means. James has given a lengthy overview of the markers of pseudoscience, he's effectively given what defines pseudoscience. Not being perfect isn't one of the sufficient conditions.
Science is about the iterative development of understanding and models based on ever increasing experimental data. In Newton's day his models were accurate to the limit of testing. He developed them based on experiments and made testable predictions which were verified. That makes it scientific even if it wasn't perfect. Likewise QCD and EW theory are both scientific.
You are now doing with 'pseudoscience' what you've done with things like 'effective theory', you are using your own definition which is not the same as common usage. It's dishonest. In fact, such dishonesty is a hallmark of pseudoscientists! If you could present your case properly you wouldn't need to bend the truth by using terminology different to everyone else, you'd be up front and honest.
No, I've actually covered the point I just made in previous posts, as well as described how QCD can be applied to make accurate models despite not knowing the quark rest masses perfectly.
So from both points of view I've countered your claims.
Sure but that doesn't make the models pseudoscience, it means they are not perfect. But only the irrational or delusional claim to have perfect understanding and models when they do not have all the data. Hence why calling your work the 'everlasting theory' is a sign of pseudoscience on your part.
That's what theoretical physicists are working on. That's what string theory or loop quantum gravity or twisters are about, new postulates leading to new ideas, new models, new ways of approaching problems.
Then you are using a different definition to everyone else and your continued use is just dishonest.
Did Newton lack professionalism? We know all his work has flaws in places so the postulates cannot be right. He was exceedingly professional in his pursuit of scientific knowledge.
As I said, science is iterative. You develop the best model/explanation you can based on the evidence, you make predictions and you test those predictions. When they turn out to be wrong in some way you make new models. Each step has a non-perfect model so somewhat incorrect postulates but no step is pseudoscience.
I know you have a slightly different mind set because you think you've jumped to the answer for physics and you're certain it's perfect despite how little of the universe's phenomena we've studied. Any rational person would leave open the possibility of flaws in their work, that new unexpected experimental results could flip over some or all of their model. It's an historical trend that those people convinced of their infallibility fall the hardest. A number of physicists believed physics was all wrapped up by 1890. Discovery of x rays and the electron prised open the quantum theory door, followed quickly by the toppling of Newton by Einstein. Your inability to entertain the notion you could be wrong is blinding you.
You're saying EW theory is wrong because it isn't what your theory says. Sorry, that doesn't cut it. It's like saying Einstein was wrong in 1905 because he didn't agree with Newton.
Clearly the model of how W and Z bosons interact with quarks and leptons is viable up to at least 100GeV because we've verified its accuracy to 6~12 decimal places in that energy range.
This goes back to how your belief in your correctness is blinding you. You aren't using experimental data to compare theories, you're just saying "I'm right so if you don't agree with me then you're wrong!". That is pseudoscientific.
Besides, you're now using 'lack of professionalism' in a way different to standard meaning. A professor would be lacking in professionalism if he was to be rude to students. Or if he demanded others include his name on work he didn't contribute to. Or if he went around saying he's solved all of physics with his 'everlasting theory' which is perfect. A lack of professionalism in science is arrogance, rudeness and dishonesty. Three traits you've a tendency for when discussing your work.
Why don't you be more specific and give 3 examples of things commonly considered problems by the mainstream community which are due to this.
We can, the issue is one of application not one of fundamentals. The calculations are extremely difficult to do for QCD due to the strong self-coupling of gluons at low energies.
There's a difference between a computer taking too long to compute an answer and it being impossible for a computer to compute an answer.
No, much development has been made. To use your example, the understanding of quark masses in nucleons has advanced significantly due to the advent of Lattice QCD and the development of gravity/gauge dualities allowing the theoretical understanding of strongly coupled QCD phenomena through the lens of well understood weak gravitational phenomena.
Remember Sylwester, you might be used to spouting such rhetoric on other forums to lay persons but it isn't going to fly talking to me. It's generally unwise to try to BS someone about their own area of work.
The dimensionality of space-time isn't an initial condition in string theory, it's a conclusion. Unlike other quantum field theories, which require you specify the dimensionality of space-time by hand, string theory spits out the dimensionality based on the string properties.
Another tip if that its best not to just fabricate statements about science which is easy for people to check. Especially when the person you're talking to works in the area you've lying about.
And a duck is a duck and a monkey a monkey. Got any other tautologies you want to throw out?
And laughable they are too.
You haven't done any GR, just like you haven't done any string or M theory. Misrepresenting yourself is dishonest. By continuing to do so you only make it more obvious how pseudoscientific you are.
AlphaNumeric, you just show how pseudoscientific discussion should look.
You still do not understand what you are reading. Of course, the Newtonian mechanics is not pseudoscience whereas the theories of the weak and strong interactions are partially the pseudoscience. Why? There are the big MISTAKES at the beginning of the two last theories. Violation of the hierarchy of mass and statement that the masses of the up and down quarks are the initial parameters are the big mistakes. In reality, the masses are not the initial parameters because they do not lead to the masses of nucleons. We can say that the SM is TODAY the incoherent theory and my theory shows that it will be forever unless we change the initial conditions (i.e. the parameters and initial formulae/postulates). Today there is no proof that the nucleons consist of the up and down quarks because the masses of the quarks do not lead to the masses of the nucleons. There is only the suggestion that inside nucleons can appear some particles carrying fractional electric charges. But my theory leads to the same conclusion and within my theory the calculation of the masses of the nucleons from my initial conditions is very simple.
My theory shows that there is not the strong self-coupling of gluons at low energies. The wrong conclusion follows from the incomplete and wrongly chosen initial conditions in the QCD. The nature knows at once how it should behave so why a computer needs tremendous long time to compute an answer? The same as the nature, I do not need a computer to calculate the masses of nucleons from my initial conditions (3 times less than in the QCD).
But there is the pseudoscience solution. Just you should add next parameters to the initial conditions in the QCD. Then the computers will not take pains.
You still do not understand what you are reading. I never wrote that the SM as a whole is pseudoscience. The masses of the quarks and leptons follow from my theory. This means that my theory is the more fundamental theory than the QCD. This leads to conclusion that my theory can point the big number of the weak points in the QCD.
There is not a confinement of quarks and gluons. On the surface which separates the strong field from the pure Einstein spacetime, the gluons transform into photons. The gluon-photon transition is specific because the carriers of gluons and photons have the same internal structure. Moreover, they both are the rotational energies of the carriers. The different properties of the gluons (8) and the photons (1) follow from the different properties of the strong field and the pure Einstein spacetime. The first field has internal helicity due to the internal helicity of the core of baryons whereas the pure Einstein spacetime has not. So the gluon-photon ‘transitions’ follow from the different properties of the fields, not from a physical transition of the gluons into photons. This means that the gluon-photon ‘transition’ cannot be observed in experiments.
Moreover, the ranges of the strong and weak interactions also follow from the internal structure of the core of baryons so the violation of hierarchy of masses is not needed. The internal structure of the cores of baryons follows from the phase transitions of the imaginary Newtonian spacetime i.e. the gas composed of the tachyons/pieces-of-space. Whereas existence of the tachyons follows from the Einstein formula E = mc^2/sqrt(1 – v^2/c^2).
My theory shows also why alpha_strong decreases when energy increases. This follows from the Uncertainty Principle for the virtual loops composed of gluons which are responsible for the strong interactions. They arise inside the core of baryons so their properties depend on its properties also.
The reformulated QCD is very simple due to the internal structure of the core.
AlphaNumeric, your posts will compromise you forever.
You still do not understand what you are reading. Of course, the Newtonian mechanics is not pseudoscience whereas the theories of the weak and strong interactions are partially the pseudoscience. Why? There are the big MISTAKES at the beginning of the two last theories. Violation of the hierarchy of mass and statement that the masses of the up and down quarks are the initial parameters are the big mistakes. In reality, the masses are not the initial parameters because they do not lead to the masses of nucleons. We can say that the SM is TODAY the incoherent theory and my theory shows that it will be forever unless we change the initial conditions (i.e. the parameters and initial formulae/postulates). Today there is no proof that the nucleons consist of the up and down quarks because the masses of the quarks do not lead to the masses of the nucleons. There is only the suggestion that inside nucleons can appear some particles carrying fractional electric charges. But my theory leads to the same conclusion and within my theory the calculation of the masses of the nucleons from my initial conditions is very simple.
My theory shows that there is not the strong self-coupling of gluons at low energies. The wrong conclusion follows from the incomplete and wrongly chosen initial conditions in the QCD. The nature knows at once how it should behave so why a computer needs tremendous long time to compute an answer? The same as the nature, I do not need a computer to calculate the masses of nucleons from my initial conditions (3 times less than in the QCD).
But there is the pseudoscience solution. Just you should add next parameters to the initial conditions in the QCD. Then the computers will not take pains.
You still do not understand what you are reading. I never wrote that the SM as a whole is pseudoscience. The masses of the quarks and leptons follow from my theory. This means that my theory is the more fundamental theory than the QCD. This leads to conclusion that my theory can point the big number of the weak points in the QCD.
There is not a confinement of quarks and gluons. On the surface which separates the strong field from the pure Einstein spacetime, the gluons transform into photons. The gluon-photon transition is specific because the carriers of gluons and photons have the same internal structure. Moreover, they both are the rotational energies of the carriers. The different properties of the gluons (8) and the photons (1) follow from the different properties of the strong field and the pure Einstein spacetime. The first field has internal helicity due to the internal helicity of the core of baryons whereas the pure Einstein spacetime has not. So the gluon-photon ‘transitions’ follow from the different properties of the fields, not from a physical transition of the gluons into photons. This means that the gluon-photon ‘transition’ cannot be observed in experiments.
Moreover, the ranges of the strong and weak interactions also follow from the internal structure of the core of baryons so the violation of hierarchy of masses is not needed. The internal structure of the cores of baryons follows from the phase transitions of the imaginary Newtonian spacetime i.e. the gas composed of the tachyons/pieces-of-space. Whereas existence of the tachyons follows from the Einstein formula E = mc^2/sqrt(1 – v^2/c^2).
My theory shows also why alpha_strong decreases when energy increases. This follows from the Uncertainty Principle for the virtual loops composed of gluons which are responsible for the strong interactions. They arise inside the core of baryons so their properties depend on its properties also.
The reformulated QCD is very simple due to the internal structure of the core.
AlphaNumeric, your posts will compromise you forever.
Frankly, I think that any extension of QM to the macro world is folly. QM works at only the subatomic level. However, such speculations are not pseudoscience.
I wonder why kwhilborn's opinion that "These are two topics that would normally be thrown straight into pseudoscience here on Sciforums." should be grounds for considering those papers pseudoscience? This is just another Internet Forum, and hardly constitutes the judging panel for pseudoscience.
So kwhilborn sets up a false premise, and then issues a challenge, then declares himself the winner. THAT, my friends, smacks of pseudoscience.
Rich
I wonder why kwhilborn's opinion that "These are two topics that would normally be thrown straight into pseudoscience here on Sciforums." should be grounds for considering those papers pseudoscience? This is just another Internet Forum, and hardly constitutes the judging panel for pseudoscience.
So kwhilborn sets up a false premise, and then issues a challenge, then declares himself the winner. THAT, my friends, smacks of pseudoscience.
Rich
AlphaNumeric, I wish you a happy New Year 2012.
Sylwester
Sylwester
@ James R, and all.
I issued a challenge in post 6.
Obviously the OP was meant as humour but I demonstrated several papers that do not fit any of the criteria of the OP.
However..... / But...........
There is one aspect of the Opening Post which cannot be argued in fact as it is only based on opinions, and that is challenging the Pseudoscientist themselves.
I know the author of those papers did not submit them with expectations of swarming interest, however there are many who view these types of papers for their content as opposed to relegating the topic to the cesspool based on the topic itself.
I issued a challenge in post #6 and nobody has attempted to comply.
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/papers/QMlimits.html
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/papers/bell.html
(these were 2 posts I linked as examples in post 6)
The papers I linked as merely 2 examples showed....
a) were not sloppy
b) There is connectivity to existing science.
c) absence of Dogmatism (No faith required to understand these documents)
d) The general public is not targeted.
e) Testablility/falsifiability is fine, as topics arguments falls within accepted science.
This is all contrary to the opening post, and there are NO similarities between the OP descriptions and these papers.
Now as far as attacking the author. This is the one aspect of the OP which is more opinion based and cannot be "proved" entirely. However.
The Author of those papers was a Physics professor most of his life, and had won the Nobel prize during his lifetime. He does receive acceptance among his peers and one of the papers listed had a co-author to represent this. This second example was also subject to "real peer review" when it was a
Paper published in Foundations of Physics, Vol. 21, pp. 197-207, 1991, (c) Plenum Press.
Now we are talking about pseudo-science so I will argue that "peer acceptance" is limited only to some with open minds.
Yes! History repeats itself, and some of you seem smug enough to think we have every measurement tool available when it comes to PSI. PSI can only be recognized as science if we develop tools to measure it. How can that happen if we are too busy mocking it.
As for the quote - If someone had suggested radio waves existed in our not too recent past they would have been met with the same sort of "peer acceptance". One could argue that science is born on untried ideas that fit only in the fringe science categories.
At least Sceptics no longer have the power to throw Galileo types in jail for the remainder of their lives.
Just because he does not receive common peer acceptance, does not make the papers invalid.
Comparing the above quote (even though it is from the pseudoscientist section of the OP) to the papers I linked is laughable. I am not even going to attempt to explain this remark. It is obvious to any who read there is no comparison.
I recognize the Humour in the OP. I think it is funny and true in so many ways when dealing with many woo-woo claims.
However; I also have convictions that cannot be explained by conventional science and prefer to believe science holds the key as opposed to believing in "miracles".
So aside from the Humour. I have linked 2 examples of papers that do not fit the OP descriptions in any way. This is because there are many people who can discuss possibilities as adults without resorting to name calling or closing their minds on the basis of uncomfortable preconditioned beliefs.
In post 6 I challenged people to find similarities between the OP and these 2 papers. I also knew the only arguments I would receive would be "Character Assassination" against the author.
I make no secret that I believe in PSI research. Anyone who tackles this pioneering front is immediately labelled, and should receive extra credit for pursuing controversial studies.
I am not saying these papers are on the right track, but they go out of their way to avoid controversial statements by sticking to known arguments. There are no conclusions drawn from the first paper, and it is an effort only to look at things certain ways.
Aside from everything else... The OP was very funny!! Kudos to the author.
(I just think that attitude is too prevalent.)
I issued a challenge in post 6.
Obviously the OP was meant as humour but I demonstrated several papers that do not fit any of the criteria of the OP.
However..... / But...........
There is one aspect of the Opening Post which cannot be argued in fact as it is only based on opinions, and that is challenging the Pseudoscientist themselves.
I know the author of those papers did not submit them with expectations of swarming interest, however there are many who view these types of papers for their content as opposed to relegating the topic to the cesspool based on the topic itself.
I issued a challenge in post #6 and nobody has attempted to comply.
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/papers/QMlimits.html
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/papers/bell.html
(these were 2 posts I linked as examples in post 6)
The papers I linked as merely 2 examples showed....
a) were not sloppy
b) There is connectivity to existing science.
c) absence of Dogmatism (No faith required to understand these documents)
d) The general public is not targeted.
e) Testablility/falsifiability is fine, as topics arguments falls within accepted science.
This is all contrary to the opening post, and there are NO similarities between the OP descriptions and these papers.
Now as far as attacking the author. This is the one aspect of the OP which is more opinion based and cannot be "proved" entirely. However.
The Author of those papers was a Physics professor most of his life, and had won the Nobel prize during his lifetime. He does receive acceptance among his peers and one of the papers listed had a co-author to represent this. This second example was also subject to "real peer review" when it was a
Paper published in Foundations of Physics, Vol. 21, pp. 197-207, 1991, (c) Plenum Press.
Now we are talking about pseudo-science so I will argue that "peer acceptance" is limited only to some with open minds.
Yes! History repeats itself, and some of you seem smug enough to think we have every measurement tool available when it comes to PSI. PSI can only be recognized as science if we develop tools to measure it. How can that happen if we are too busy mocking it.
As for the quote - If someone had suggested radio waves existed in our not too recent past they would have been met with the same sort of "peer acceptance". One could argue that science is born on untried ideas that fit only in the fringe science categories.
At least Sceptics no longer have the power to throw Galileo types in jail for the remainder of their lives.
Just because he does not receive common peer acceptance, does not make the papers invalid.
Comparing the above quote (even though it is from the pseudoscientist section of the OP) to the papers I linked is laughable. I am not even going to attempt to explain this remark. It is obvious to any who read there is no comparison.
I recognize the Humour in the OP. I think it is funny and true in so many ways when dealing with many woo-woo claims.
However; I also have convictions that cannot be explained by conventional science and prefer to believe science holds the key as opposed to believing in "miracles".
So aside from the Humour. I have linked 2 examples of papers that do not fit the OP descriptions in any way. This is because there are many people who can discuss possibilities as adults without resorting to name calling or closing their minds on the basis of uncomfortable preconditioned beliefs.
In post 6 I challenged people to find similarities between the OP and these 2 papers. I also knew the only arguments I would receive would be "Character Assassination" against the author.
I make no secret that I believe in PSI research. Anyone who tackles this pioneering front is immediately labelled, and should receive extra credit for pursuing controversial studies.
I am not saying these papers are on the right track, but they go out of their way to avoid controversial statements by sticking to known arguments. There are no conclusions drawn from the first paper, and it is an effort only to look at things certain ways.
Aside from everything else... The OP was very funny!! Kudos to the author.
(I just think that attitude is too prevalent.)
Last edited:
Would anyone who does not think they are deluded please stand up. Reply and tell me that you think you are not deluded and why you think that? I want to know who the real delusional people are, lol.
Repeating yourself for the second or third time does not lend weight to your assertions, kwhilborn. But given that you have adopted that tactic, here you go:
Frankly, I think that any extension of QM to the macro world is folly. QM works at only the subatomic level. However, such speculations are not pseudoscience.
I wonder why kwhilborn's opinion that "These are two topics that would normally be thrown straight into pseudoscience here on Sciforums." should be grounds for considering those papers pseudoscience? This is just another Internet Forum, and hardly constitutes the judging panel for pseudoscience.
So kwhilborn sets up a false premise, and then issues a challenge, then declares himself the winner. THAT, my friends, smacks of pseudoscience.
Rich
Frankly, I think that any extension of QM to the macro world is folly. QM works at only the subatomic level. However, such speculations are not pseudoscience.
I wonder why kwhilborn's opinion that "These are two topics that would normally be thrown straight into pseudoscience here on Sciforums." should be grounds for considering those papers pseudoscience? This is just another Internet Forum, and hardly constitutes the judging panel for pseudoscience.
So kwhilborn sets up a false premise, and then issues a challenge, then declares himself the winner. THAT, my friends, smacks of pseudoscience.
Rich
So your complaint is that I might be trolling by asking if anyone who doesn't think they are deluded will stand up. To construe my statement as trolling and off topic shows you have a total lack of understanding of the topic of this thread and the nature of what is produced by the scientific method. Look up the definition of tentativeness of science. You obviously are saying that you certainly are not deluded, and I say you should be given credit for standing up and claiming that.
Excellent work James!
@ QW,
This is more applicable to the thread than simply stating, "all who are delusional please stand up."
That statement gives the impression than anyone/topic with pseudoscience label has a false opinion or belief.
Calling your post trolling does not infer I do not understand the scientific method or cancel out my education and license. I do profit from the "paranormal" industries, however I am a licensed soil engineer with a strong background in science courses. I may not be a Doctorate, but I understand why pseudo-science has its labels.
You are also known for pseudoscience postings such as QWC which blend more with the OP descriptions than the links I provided. Even bringing the word Delusional into an argument for "speculation science" (your fav kind), does not help matters.
@ richw9090
I did not go into detail in post 6 as to why the posts were lacking the descriptiveness of the OP, and had people challenge that.
I also had AN attack just the author, when I had issued a challenge in the post that stated that would be the only possible retort.
These are short papers dealing with known science concerning PSI.
If you would like to see how long either of those topics lasts in the physics forum (or any other) go ahead and start a conversation. These two papers are blatantly dealing with PSI (psychic phenomenon). If you are arguing that these papers deserve a higher status than pseudo-science then I must agree with you. I would love to see them discussed in the science realm.
The second paper for example carried the quote.
This is more applicable to the thread than simply stating, "all who are delusional please stand up."
That statement gives the impression than anyone/topic with pseudoscience label has a false opinion or belief.
Calling your post trolling does not infer I do not understand the scientific method or cancel out my education and license. I do profit from the "paranormal" industries, however I am a licensed soil engineer with a strong background in science courses. I may not be a Doctorate, but I understand why pseudo-science has its labels.
You are also known for pseudoscience postings such as QWC which blend more with the OP descriptions than the links I provided. Even bringing the word Delusional into an argument for "speculation science" (your fav kind), does not help matters.
@ richw9090
I did not go into detail in post 6 as to why the posts were lacking the descriptiveness of the OP, and had people challenge that.
I also had AN attack just the author, when I had issued a challenge in the post that stated that would be the only possible retort.
These are short papers dealing with known science concerning PSI.
If you would like to see how long either of those topics lasts in the physics forum (or any other) go ahead and start a conversation. These two papers are blatantly dealing with PSI (psychic phenomenon). If you are arguing that these papers deserve a higher status than pseudo-science then I must agree with you. I would love to see them discussed in the science realm.
The second paper for example carried the quote.
Many people on this Forum (despite your opinion) view any PSI topic as pseudo-science. If you wish to argue that point I am on your side.
Last edited:
Actually I said all who think they are not deluded please stand up, but you took it as criticism of Pseudoscience and I meant is as a realistic view of all who think that a concensus theory that has not been falsified is no longer tentative.
You should know I don't believe that if you are familiar with my pea brained delusions, lol. Acutally my definition of a "pea brain" is any one who doesn't consider science theory to be fact, i.e. me, you, and all who hold alternative views. We are "pea brains" in the eyes of those few mainstream science enthusiasts who believe their pet theory is reality. This is not a criticism of mainstream science, but of those few who believe they have a grasp of reality without the precise correspondence between their theory and reality.
Hell, I'm a pea brain by my definition; don't belittle yourself or anyone for their views if you aren't willing to defend your opposition to them by showing how they are internally inconsistent or how they are not consistent with observations and scientific data.
QWC is my personal view of cosmology and I maintain that the quantum level and the grand scale of the greater universe are "connected" (saying that makes it Psuedoscience accoring to the OP, lol) by natural law and must work together and we are just wrong somewhere when and if our consensus mainstream theories don't work together.
Newtonian physics has incorrect postulates, else it wouldn't be wrong. You're being inconsistent.
This is just a rephrasing of your "If it isn't the same as my 'everlasting theory' then it is wrong" assertion. In fact....
... you say it explicitly! Your argument is "You're wrong because I'm right and you don't say what I say".
We don't go to theory for that, we go to experiments. Deep inelastic scattering says otherwise.
At what point does sufficient data go from a 'suggestion' to 'demonstrated'?
Sylwester, if you cannot do anything other than say "My theory says...." and then just repeat an assertion you don't have an argument and we aren't having a discussion, you're just throwing out catch phrases.
Seriously? Wow, your lack of conceptual grasp of basic principles is even worse than I thought.
Computers process human constructed algorithms based on models we develop. Nature just does what it does. If you get hit by a car you don't have to compute force and acceleration results in your head but a computer running a simulation of such a collision. Any model implemented on a computer will take some time to run, that's how algorithms work.
It's easy to make formulae which give mass spectra. Constructing them from first principles in a manner which isn't just curve fitting hidden by slights of hand is a different thing. QCD already has plenty of formulae/descriptions for the relationships between mass, charge and spin. It's how QCD successfully predicted the existence and mass of the newly discovered meson at the LHC.
No, that isn't how it works. You clearly do not know how QCD is constructed (gauge invariance, CPT invariance etc) or how predictions are reached. You once again decide to try to misrepresent a mainstream model you don't know anything about. If you were honest you wouldn't be doing that. If you work could stand on its own merit you'd not need to do it.
No, the problem is I do and I don't accept your dishonest circular reasoning, false assertions and misrepresentation of models and terminology.
Just the fundamental core of it, QCD and EW theory?
Experimental data says otherwise. Confinement wasn't some idea some theoretician thought up and declared QCD has, it's something which was observed and then it had to be explained.
Such a transition has never been seen. Furthermore it would violate charge conservation in the strong force.
It's funny how you don't have any problem making claims about things no experiment has ever seen (and in fact something all data points to be false) but when someone uses QCD or EW to predict things you claim its all nonsense and people will be 'held to account'.
I'm sure if I posted some length monologue about what QCD says about this or that you'd just say "It's all pseudoscience!" and ignore it but you have no problem posting such things about your own work. All of what you describe is unobserved, it has no basis in experiments.
I stand by my assessment of your work and my correction of your misuse of terminology and misrepresentation of mainstream work. If you want to talk about compromising oneself, you've repeatedly (even after correction) misused terminology and made claims you have not and indeed cannot back up. I'd say it has compromised your professional integrity but you haven't got any.
I don't think James was claiming to have a complete classification of pseudoscientists.
The 'papers' are little more than talk. There's no attempt, cursory or otherwise, to try to do anything specific, which results in another problem, the papers are extremely short given the supposed conclusions. The author makes references to things like Gaia, trying to claim something about superconducting might be relevant to the origins of life, which pertain to Gaia. James covered that in his bit about the lack of connectivity to existing science. What has Gaia got to do with anything? No attempt is made by the other to justify such a mentioning beyond "Perhaps this is relevant" but you can ask that about anything. That's the problem with having no details, you can suppose whatever you like because you aren't being guided by methodological processes, just your suppositions.
The author makes comments trying to justify his lack of quantitative workings, saying its due to how biology can't be reproduced in QM. So if he admits the disconnect between the two how is he making all these suppositions with any kind of rationale? You say "Testablility/falsifiability is fine, as topics arguments falls within accepted science." but that doesn't appear to be the case.
He got his Nobel Prize for his PhD work. Since then he's become more and more estranged. Pretty much all research in maths and physics is put on www.ArXiv.org now. It used to be open to anyone until they realised layperson hacks were putting stuff on so you had to be university affiliated or have such a person vouch for you. Even then some people cause disruption and post nonsense. Josephson's work post-2004(ish) has been considered sufficiently wacko he's banned from putting his work on ArXiv except in the 'general physics' section, which is short hand for "Terrible stuff which is as close to crank as we'll allow".
One needs only to look at one of his last ArXiv papers here to see why. He claims to have some string theory based thing about parapsychology but the document is only a few pages, has no mathematics and makes completely nonsense ridiculous claims. It's like the two papers you linked to but much much worse.
So despite Josephson having once been the toast of Physics he is now effectively isolated. His reputation and Nobel Prize got him some slack at the start but even then there's only so much crap people will take.
Sylwester is 'smug' enough to believe he doesn't even need to have the measuring instruments to know exactly how the universe works.
It's my experience those most certain are the hacks, not the mainstream. Sylwester and Pincho are two people on just this forum who are certain they have the true explanation/model of the universe. Farsight thinks his work is worth at least 4 Nobel Prizes and claims to know more about electromagnetism than Dirac, making him a world leading expert. Farsight can't even get Lorentz invariance out of electromagnetism, despite it being one of its most important properties.
It might be easy to mistake confidence in their abilities researchers have for confidence in their models. I'm confident in my abilities when it comes to some areas of string theory but that isn't the same as saying I'm confident it is right in its description of reality. Laypersons often get the wrong idea that if a researcher's model is shown not to square with experiment then it hinders, even terminates, their career. It doesn't. As such its fine to say "Okay, I'll try something else". The 'smug' pseudoscientists typically invest so much personal effort and ego into their claims it is impossible to retract them even when fatal errors are exposed. Farsight's been rejected from every journal and had to pay to self publish his work. Now he pumps money into magazine adverts, rather than stopping and thinking if he should carry on at all.
But if decent reasoning cannot be given as to why people should look into the work further why should anyone do so? You can pitch any number of ideas which cannot be disproven but that doesn't mean it's rational to investigate them or take them seriously. You cannot disprove that the universe was created by sky pixies who live with the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster in a jelly castle in Custard Land but no one is going to believe that unless they are bat shit nuts.
No experimental evidence is given and no attempt at developing even the vaguest formal principles is made. Doesn't have to be mathematics, just some specific definitions, principles and what they imply. There's plenty of examples of such things in philosophy, which is unprovable but sometimes worthy of discussion.
Well you knew wrong.
Your examples are more unusual than a typical paper published in that journal but that is likely in part due to the fact the author has a Nobel Prize so he was perhaps given more slack than others might have been, I doubt they would have been published if the author had been someone else. But since then his continuation along that line of work has lead to his virtual isolation and being called a pseudo-scientist by many in the community.
If they can provide something more than just supposition then it would be justification for giving them some help yes. And there have been funded projects into psychic abilities or phenomena so it's not like it's completely suppressed. But given the complete lack of anything to date, despite the huge numbers of people claiming to be psychic or capable of astral projection or divining etc, any serious proposal for research is going to have to give compelling justification.
Nonsense.
Have you heard of the Correspondence Principle?
Rougly, it says that in the limit of "large" objects or quantum numbers, quantum mechanics must reproduce classical mechanics.
In the QCD there is the procedure error for the low-energy regime. It is the pseudoscience. At first there should be defined the exact masses of the up and down quarks and next, from these parameters, we should derive the properties of the resting nucleons i.e., among other things, we should calculate the masses of the nucleons and their magnetic moments. The big problems to calculate these physical quantities from the initial parameters follow from the procedure error for the low-energy regime. The Everlasting Theory shows that it is not true that almost whole mass of resting nucleons (it is the low-energy regime also) is the relativistic mass of the up and down quarks. We can say that due to the procedure error the QCD is incorrect for the low-energy regime.
In the theory of the weak interactions there is the mass-hierarchy error for the low-energy regime. It is the pseudoscience. This causes that the calculated values of the coupling constants for the weak interactions in the low-energy regime are incorrect. This causes that there appears the hocus-pocus in the QED (I described it in some previous post) and causes that there is no proof that QCD ‘confines’ for low energies. We can say that due to the mass-hierarchy error the EW theory is incorrect for the low-energy regime ALSO. The Higgs mechanism is not the correct solution too.
Due to the internal structure of the cores of baryons described within the Everlasting Theory, we can eliminate all the problems which appear in the QCD and EW theory in the low-energy regime.