The death of "Modern Physics". Prepair it's funeral!

[PhysMachine]

I'm going to go on a bit of a rant.

I am sick and tired of people coming onto internet fora with these wild-hacked theories that purport to fix "problems" with existing physical laws, and yet make almost no predictions. On top of making almost no predictions, they come in with some hypothetical experiment that "confirms" their theory, when either
(a) The experiment has been done already and has in fact invalidated their theory or
(b) The experimental design is so vague as to be useless, or so poorly thought out that it wouldn't be possible to perform the experiment to begin with.

Then they get met with resistance from the existing scientific community, and develop a martyr complex. Here is the way that physics research works, more or less:
1. An experiment is performed. It either confirms an existing theory (see 2) or finds some new effects (see 3)
2. Kudos, we've made our existing theories more accurate.
3. Let's come up with some possible theory explaining things from existing theories. If we succeed, see 4. If we fail, see 5.
4. Publish the derivation from the existing theory and see if your result has any other implications.
5. Come up with a brand new theory out of the ether (HINT: This hasn't happened since Galileo or Newton). Test to see if this new theory works. If so, see 6. If not, see 7.
6. Claim Nobel Prize
7. Return to 3.

If you come up with a new theory, the burden is on you to prove that it is in some way better than an existing theory. This is the way science works. It keeps people from running around with inane ideas on how the universe works and declaring "OH YEAH! Prove me WRONG." to everyone else.

If you have a new idea about the universe, then great. Flesh it out and see if it duplicates existing theoretical and experimental results. If it does, see where it expands upon existing theories and either perform or at least provide a very detailed design of an experiment to be performed that would falsify or confirm your theory.

This is the way science works. So stop complaining when the establishment slaps down people that start a geocities site to espouse their latest and greatest idea.

 

[wesmorris]

Try scanning these couple of posts. They might just show you are probably 'in error' by your ssumptions regarding "absoluteness".

Geistkiesel ​

I've read most of your stuff on the topic already geist, and simply disagree. Seems to me you're reaching for something meaningless. I'm no physicist though, so I can't properly refute you. My objection is philosophical, and you have not addressed it.

 

[Aer]

1. An experiment is performed. It either confirms an existing theory (see 2) or finds some new effects (see 3)
2. Kudos, we've made our existing theories more accurate.
3. Let's come up with some possible theory explaining things from existing theories. If we succeed, see 4. If we fail, see 5.
4. Publish the derivation from the existing theory and see if your result has any other implications.
5. Come up with a brand new theory out of the ether (HINT: This hasn't happened since Galileo or Newton). Test to see if this new theory works. If so, see 6. If not, see 7.
6. Claim Nobel Prize
7. Return to 3.

You forgot to mention one vital step above. At step 3, you most look at your experiment setup and make sure all your assumptions are correct. That is if you neglected some effect, you must make sure that you can in fact assume the said effect to be negligible.

 

[martillo]

PhysMachine,

You wrote:

If you have a new idea about the universe, then great. Flesh it out and see if it duplicates existing theoretical and experimental results. If it does, see where it expands upon existing theories and either perform or at least provide a very detailed design of an experiment to be performed that would falsify or confirm your theory.

I have an experiment that can definetly decide it all!:
It's just a modification in the well known experiment of Davisson and Germer. But I don't have the resources to produce it. I'm just waiting for somebody who can and be interested.

Theexperiment is already described in the text. Please take a look at:SECTION 6.4: "The experiment as a proof"

Even if you are interested only if the Relativity Theory is wrong or right this experiment can decide!

NOTE: It is only described shortly because it is assumed a good knowledge about Davisson-Germer experiment. A link to a description of it is provided at the home page. More information you can easily find at the internet.

 

[fo3]

That's why Physics is at the state it is.

And what kind of a state would that be? A state that every scientist finds acceptable and you don't?

 

[Aer]

From Section 6.4:

It is proposed here that the experiment at high velocities could be considered as a proof that Relativity theory is wrong because it can prove that the mass m does not vary with the velocity. The experiment will satisfy the De Broglie formula only if a constant value of m is used.

Are you talking about relativistic mass or rest mass?

Relativistic mass is horseshit and everyone who uses it is horseshit. I don't see how this proves your theory in any way.

Now let's consider relativistic mass for a moment. If a hydrogen atom was moving through the atmosphere at .99(repeat 9, 100 times)c then the hydrogren atom would have a mass greater than Earth from Earth's perspective. But freakin hell, the atom still conforms to the curvature of spacetime created by the mass of the Earth.

 

[superluminal]

You forgot to mention one vital step above. At step 3, you most look at your experiment setup and make sure all your assumptions are correct. That is if you neglected some effect, you must make sure that you can in fact assume the said effect to be negligible.

This is what peer review is for.

I would like to add one thing to the rant. Professional scientists aren't just some guys off the street dicking around for the laughs. If you, as a bystander, think you've spotted something with an experiment or a theory that the've all missed - you're wrong.

This is just simple common sense. Peer review, remember? And if they did miss something, you can be assured that other physicists are already all over their shit. Like wolves at a kill. Bet on it.

 

[martillo]

Fo3,

And what kind of a state would that be? A state that every scientist finds acceptable and you don't?

Then tell me why there are so many threads in every Physics Forum discussing Relativity!

 

[UnderWhelmed]

Then they get met with resistance from the existing scientific community, and develop a martyr complex. Here is the way that physics research works, more or less:
1. An experiment is performed. It either confirms an existing theory (see 2) or finds some new effects (see 3)
2. Kudos, we've made our existing theories more accurate.
3. Let's come up with some possible theory explaining things from existing theories. If we succeed, see 4. If we fail, see 5.
4. Publish the derivation from the existing theory and see if your result has any other implications.
5. Come up with a brand new theory out of the ether (HINT: This hasn't happened since Galileo or Newton). Test to see if this new theory works. If so, see 6. If not, see 7.
6. Claim Nobel Prize
7. Return to 3.

How do I skip to step 6?

 

[Aer]

How do I skip to step 6?

Get a geocities account.

 

[martillo]

Aer,

You wrote:

Relativistic mass is horseshit and everyone who uses it is horseshit. I don't see how this proves your theory in any way.

I can see you disagree with Relativity! Good!
But which is the alternative then?

I believe my theory is a good candidate...

 

[Aer]

I can see you disagree with Relativity! Good!
But which is the alternative then?

I believe my theory is a good candidate...

No, you misunderstand. I do not agree with those who retard the theory to include relativistic mass in any way. When I was taught relativity in college - there was no mention of "relativisitic mass" and rightfully so. In fact, I checked the index of my physics books which contained no reference to "relativistic mass or mass: relativisitic" awhile back. It is a retardation of the theory.

 

[UnderWhelmed]

It is proposed here that the experiment at high velocities could be considered as a proof that Relativity theory is wrong because it can prove that the mass m does not vary with the velocity. The experiment will satisfy the De Broglie formula only if a constant value of m is used.

:bugeye: I guess it doesn't take any energy to move faster as well.

 

[UnderWhelmed]

Relative mass was all but abandoned, due to the fact that there is no absolute frame of reference. I'm am sure we can all agree to this

Rest mass is easy to work with, that why we use it.

 

[Aer]

Also, concerning the wave-particle duality, when refering to mass and energy on the quantum level, I believe Richard Feynmann may be the closest to the actual truth:

From wikipedia:

In quantum electrodynamics, Richard Feynman shows the wave-particle duality of photons and electrons is an illusion. In his view, photons and electrons obey rules that share some qualities of both particles and waves. They are neither particle nor wave, but some generalized object with no direct macroscopic analog.

 

[Dilbert]

:bugeye: I guess it doesn't take any energy to move faster as well.

No, you have got it all wrong That fool is not trying to create an experiment. "The experiment as a proof", he is just saying that having come up with the experiment is proof enough.

 

[Aer]

Relative mass was all but abandoned, due to the fact that there is no absolute frame of reference. I'm am sure we can all agree to this

Rest mass is easy to work with, that why we use it.

The idiots over on physicsforums don't think so! That is why I stopped visiting that site. The foremost experts on their relativity forum seem to think there is something significant to relativistic mass.

 

[UnderWhelmed]

The idiots over on physicsforums don't think so! That is why I stopped visiting that site. The foremost experts on their relativity forum seem to think there is something significant to relativistic mass.

There is, you can never get an absolute value...it's different for everyone, everywhere, and at every speed....

 

[Aer]

Well they also claim that GR implies gravity acts like a force because of the equivalence principle. I pointed out that they were in fact refering to the "weak equivalence principle" and that there was a difference, but they just ignored that too.

 

[fo3]

Fo3,
Then tell me why there are so many threads in every Physics Forum discussing Relativity!

Because the theory of special relativity doesn't use much difficult math and it's calculations are understandable to most people. And because its implications are so counter-intuitive, that most people assume that there must be something wrong with the theory and rush to let everyone know that they have discovered a fatal flaw in physics. That is why.

I don't claim to be a physics expert, but if you looked at physics a little more closely you would see how perfectly all the pieces match in modern physics. Todays theorys make incredibly accurate predictions about nature, that are completely accordant with experiment. The predictions wouldn't be the same if the theory of special relativity would be wrong. Everything from the tinyest particles to the vast distances of the universe are perfectly accordant with eachother. And modern physics theory does a good job at describing all that. The theorys are far from being finished, but they still are incredibly accurate at places they can be used at.
Tens of thousands of very very talented physicists have worked for decades on these theorys and I can't believe that there is still someone who thinks that all of them have simply "overlooked" something and that someone who knows almost nothing about physics can fix all the problems by changing things that "don't seem right" to them.