Well, I guess my standards are just a little higher than yours. The fact that the contest was open to the public and the community could vote on the winners makes me suspect the validity of any paper there. I mean, I could post a paper there and no one should take my opinion of these scientific matters seriously.
The double solution theory, a new interpretation of Wave Mechanics
- Thread starter cav755
- Start date
Well, I guess my standards are just a little higher than yours. The fact that the contest was open to the public and the community could vote on the winners makes me suspect the validity of any paper there. I mean, I could post a paper there and no one should take my opinion of these scientific matters seriously.
you don't seem to understand, the review system is just as tough at FQXI as it is anywhere. As it is open to the public, it means anyone of scientific mainstream may come in and slam the theory openly if it contains any errors.
FQXI draws a great number of famous minds, simply because it is a very reputable place to get your work looked at.
Well, not really. Many people that present essays there are after the money prize. And because of the community's ability to vote, the comments are very polite and always positive. A person that writes a supportive comment on another author's entry might just get another vote. The whole idea behind the contest's mechanics is flawed. But as I said, the jury selected essays might be a different story. Might.
If you are a researcher, FQXI is an excellent place to try and earn money to forward your own experiments. Let's admit it... this is what most scientists would do anyway.
The community has an ability to vote... but the work can be influenced by open public discussions on papers. I have seen quite a few physicists over the years openly make remarks on work below... largely most comments ever left by experts are usually good hearted.
Really... any work submitted there is open for harsh criticism and this criticism may weigh the opinions of the public. How much ratio, scientific and non-scientific minded people involved here, is hardly the problem. A paper won't get submitted anyway without pre-review from fellow peers any way (it's the only safe way to go).
I have followed fqxi from their beginning. There are some very distinguished people involved there. They are by their own admission on a fishing expedition looking new ideas from anybody and everybody. From their mission statement:
I sometimes read essays there and find some of them interesting. But as their mission statement says, they are often unconventional and non-mainstream. Which is also why anti-conventional people like you and Farsight, and others like them. To use them to support a position in a debate is as I said before, not that useful. The essay contest is similar to mindstorming, where participants throw out half baked or even fully unbaked ideas in the hopes that there might be a gem in the rough. My experience is that this never works. But fqxi seems to have some deep pockets and so they have been passing it out to some winners. And some of those grant winners are even semi-heroes of mine. People that I follow. But the paper you cited did not get a grant that I can see. Using it as a argument is, as I said, not that useful. I am not saying the paper is incorrect, just that 4th place in a public essay contest does not give it any clout. And I could probably find another winner from that essay contest that you completely disagree with.
Again, you are attacking FQXI and not the content of the paper. I can assure you, the work is quite on the dot. If the paper has received public scientific scrutiny as I expect it has now, if anything was terribly wrong about it, they would probably have taken it down. But look at the work, actually look at it. It's absolutely fine. It's actually very good work.
I think you are not understanding what an essay contest is. It won 4th place in a 10-way tie. It is there on the fqxi website because it was entered and won, not because it is correct. It won because enough of the community voted for it. The community is comprised of anybody that registers at the website. You know, come to think of it, I think I registered there when the website first went live, so I am probably part of the community and could have voted.
What you're saying is invalid until you actually read the content of the paper. Or until you are able to intelligently make any decisions about it.
I will say it again. I don't know whether the essay is correct or not. And I don't think my opinion of the essay has anything to do with it being good or bad, correct or or incorrect. What I am saying is that science is not decided by an essay contest. I have read the paper but not studied it. It seems well written and I like the presentation. But I don't have to the skill set to make a decision about validity so I probably won't visit it again. And I doubt that you have the proper skill set either. All I am saying is that an essay contest decided by public vote is not science. Not even close. I tend to be cynical about such things. Attitudes like yours seem to validate my cynicism. And finally, I would be willing to bet that the essay's author would agree more with me, than with you.
Right.
Just so long as we have that established, then I don't mind what you say about it.
You make my point. All of you aether cranks like to use half quotes and fanboy tactics. You are always long on denial and short on backing up your claims. You always put the onus of "proof" on your opponent and never deliver evidence for your own ideas. Very typical crank.
All you aether deniers can't explain what occurs physicslly in nature in a double slit experiment. You're so confused you think probability wave functions physically exist.
You redefine what a particle is and then you make up a bunch of nonsense in order to try and explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
Do you know why the particle is always detected entering, traveling through and exiting a single slit in a double slit experiment? Because the particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.
"This physical picture is remakably similar to an early model of quantum dynamics proposed by Louis de Broglie..." - 2:35 mark
[video=youtube;nmC0ygr08tE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmC0ygr08tE[/video]
There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.
That's nice....You can go to the grave thinking that along with the rest of your fairy tales, but guess what?
The mainstream view [and reality view] will still be that the aether as you present does not exist, and the other nonsense re BH polar jets and such, are actually pseudoscience.
In other words you campaign here has not changed a thing. :shrug:
Let me try and explain your error. Imagine that I travel back in time to the year (say) 1800 and present to the scientific community the theory of DNA. I am assuming here that you believe the current thinking on genetics and DNA. I might be wrong. If not then insert some other theory you do believe in here. Back to 1800. People back then will believe I am nuts. And, here is the punchline, they would be correct to say so. They would be scientifically correct to deny my presentation.
Science is a tree. As you get towards the leaves it does get a little fuzzy. But you have to follow the branches. If you don't then you are a crank.
Now here I bet you are thinking that "Yes, I am ahead of my time. I have the truth but no one will believe me." You would be wrong in that assumption. You see, from the tree of science you can extrapolate many, many theories. Only a very few are correct. Science tends to consider only the close in branch theories. And rightly so since they are more likely to connect to the tree through experimental verification.
So a person from a 1000 years in the future, if they could travel back in time, might confirm your (aether) theory. Aether is a long shot but possible. But it would not be scientific.
You are a crank because you stray too far from the tree of science. There are zillions of possible theories that are equally possible to yours. Or maybe more possible. You should join science because it is a very successful route to the truth. It might not be correct, but it will tend toward correctness better than any other method. Stick to the tree of science.
I'm a big fan of Mark Twain. Unfortunately many of his apt quotes could get me banned if used in replies. My favorites involve spoons and honesty. I sometimes wonder if these cranks are really an experiment to either test our resolve, or to sow discord and misinformation. Paranoia is a symptom of my cynicism.
No, his problem is more basic: he doesn't have a theory, he has a vague notion at best. That's his biggest issue: he doesn't know what a theory is. So only if he existed before science was invented (say, before Galileo) would his methodology be potentially acceptable.
If he had a theory, he'd be able to make testable predictions with it, and an aether with mass would have testable predictions. For example, he claims a separate particle and wave traveling through the aether at the same time....so doesn't that mean he thinks they travel at the same speed? Does he think the waves should be detectable perpendicular to the direction of motion? Show attenuation due to the mass? Have a rest frame?
As far as I can tell, his vague notion is only one very undeveloped thought. It has no depth at all - it is not a theory.
But even that isn't what makes him a crank. Academic fraud through failure to follow the scientific process is what makes him a crank. Unless he is actually crazy (which remains a viable possibility here), he must know that hijacking/vandalizing/sabotaging a wikipedia page is not how new scientific ideas are brought up for discussion by the scientific community.
"This physical picture is remakably similar to an early model of quantum dynamics proposed by Louis de Broglie..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmC0ygr08tE
I wrote most of the following.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#de_Broglie.27s_wave_mechanics
Interesting additions to that Wiki. Unfortunately, unwelcome thinking like yours, and to a lesser degree these days, like mine, brings out the negative hyper intuitiveness of people who get chummy with each and then start sharing their disdain in what I find to be an obnoxious display off topic banter.
You make some valid points, provide links, and when someone fails to make valid counterpoints, but instead unleashes their disdain, I don't blame you for reposting the links and ideas that they failed to dispel.
There are forums for people who insist on discussions that contain no alternative ideas, or speculation. This forum, at least in its current posture, allows that, and my suggestion to those who insist on hard science and no discussion of speculative ideas, go where they and their children will be safe from people who think like you and me.
In the mean time, the concept of an aether or a medium of space is great discussion topic in a science forum. People want to make it out as absurd, but it does fit into place where some of the generally accepted science thinking falls short. Quantum gravity for example is a popular topic, as are gravity waves and their means of transmission.
Here is a small portion of the following link with some comments that might help bring the discussion back on topic:
Scienceblogs
Or is really both. And it makes sense to me that the composition of particles would be both wave and particle like if they exert and respond to gravity. The wave nature could represent the gravity waves that they emit and "feel", and the particle nature could be what the wave-particle resolves to when observed directly.Chad Orzel Blog said:
Or you will find it in one place but you will not be able to see the wave associated with it directly, only in the interference pattern that appears in various experiments. But even if you observe only the particle state, maybe the wave state goes on unobserved.
That is certainly observable, and an apparatus can be rigged at home (I do it) that will demonstrate the pattern you get with two slits and with one slit. Interference is easy to see and understand as the wave associated with the particle, and that wave goes through both slits to produce it. The particle is always detected to have gone through one or the other slit.
True to the extent that quantum physics takes it. The possibility of continuous wave action in the medium of space though, would add a continuous background within which the discrete quantum nature of particles and light emerges. Along with the view that there is a foundational medium and continuous wave action is the concept that gravity waves are continuous waves emanating from a particle and being received by a particle. The particle though is particular, and can only add or remove energy in quantum increments.
The article and my comments go on, but this is enough to give people an opportunity to discuss science topics instead of just their mutual disdain
.