Null Physics anyone?

[ben m]

If you permit that Zero is not in the set of numbers you and I can measure, how do we treat it. Boolean logic allows for sets to form, and unary operation allows me to say this - Zero is the complementary set of all real numbers.

The set of numbers which are "the reals except for zero" is known in mathematics as the real multiplicative group R*. Not new. What properties of R* do you think map to what properties of the real world? Especially given that real-world physics seems to contain addition as well as multiplication, and R* does not play well with addition.

[ben m]

Let the set of measurable lengths be Rl in metres. This is a set of real numbers that includes 0 but has limits, e.g. the smallest length is the Planck length and the largest length is the size of the universe (which may be infinite).

I don't like saying that "the smallest length is the Planck length"---rather it is the case that "the smallest length that you can say anything about without a complete quantum theory of gravity is the Planck length". It's possible that the Planck length is "the shortest deBroglie wavelength you can ever get" but even that isn't completely clear.

Even if that's how it works, you can discuss lengths smaller than the deBroglie wavelength of the particles involved, and indeed you can do so to as many digits of precision as you like. Those digits actually have observable consequences---not on single measurements (which obey the uncertainty principle) but certainly on expectation values (averages over multiple measurements)

[Tim Thompson]

No new math proposed here. Zero does exist. Just not as a physical property that can be measure. OK?
I've never read the book in question, nor have I found anything you have said so far to be comprehensible. Except this. It's comprehensible & wrong. I stick the probes of my voltmeter into my wooden dining room table top and I measure 0 Volts (and they said it couldn't be done!). Or maybe you have some secret meaning in mind for "measure" that I am overlooking?

[Perpetual Student]

Zero most certainly does exist -- for example, the value of Witt's book.

[BFM]

The set of numbers which are "the reals except for zero" is known in mathematics as the real multiplicative group R*. Not new. What properties of R* do you think map to what properties of the real world? Especially given that real-world physics seems to contain addition as well as multiplication, and R* does not play well with addition.

To answer directly, Absolute temperature lends well to this model. Also, since we seem to be able to have this conversation, albian groups would lend to making mr witts math a little prettier

[BFM]

I've never read the book in question, nor have I found anything you have said so far to be comprehensible. Except this. It's comprehensible & wrong. I stick the probes of my voltmeter into my wooden dining room table top and I measure 0 Volts (and they said it couldn't be done!). Or maybe you have some secret meaning in mind for "measure" that I am overlooking?

you would be looking for the property of something that would not exist. If I am trying to measure something that is not there how can i measure it????? Lets stick to absolute temperature for the purposes of trying to illustrate the point i am making.

[BFM]

I wonder if you are confused about the difference between "ionization" and "charge separation". There are lots of pressure waves and ionization in plasmas but very rarely charge separation.

Thermoacoustic refrigerators do neither ionization nor charge separation.

I think there was a point to this! Do you think that the lack of lightning bolts in HII regions as an astrophysics puzzle---any more so than (e.g.) the lack of lightning bolts in the ocean? Do you think this puzzle is relevant to Witt somehow?

Ben, I am not trying to say that a thermoacoustic refrigerator aught to induce a charge separation , but there are natural magnetically induced electric currents flowing in the ocean. I bring up the idea of a sterling to illustrate a point that inducing an current in ionized gas might be a good tabletop way to prove or disprove what mr witt sugegsts here in his cosmology section.

[ben m]

So, What can you do when 2 things (i.e. nothing) are alike, you can add. So as some of our more illustrious posters admitted, that yes, his math is circular. Well that's fine. y=mx+b can when solved for zero certainly looks like 0=0 when b=0, regardless of m. A mathematical proof need only prove itself.

Your sentences green importantly, so addition commutes alike? Thusly---there you go.

(In other words: you're not making yourself clear.)


Mr. Check, the fundamental concept of zero is a place holder for nothing.
When I said that bookkeepers in India several thousand years ago gave us this concept, it came from an accounting standpoint. The ZERO sum is a useful tool when calculating balances, IE when the miller has received nothing from his customer, the baker.


So what? And Pi is a place holder for the diameter-to-circumference ratio of the circle. It remains true that mathematics has gotten beyond this, and for example the equation "e^(i pi) = -1" is true despite its total disconnect from circles and circumferences. Likewise, mathematicians now (and 500 years ago) know much more about zero---and about all numbers, and about non-numbers and functions and operators and whatnot---than ancient merchants did.


Keep in mind, before this point a lot of great work had been done without in geometry, astronomy etc. I am getting off track here, but I hope we can see eye to eye here.

The history of mathematics is interesting, but the truth or falsehood of math statements is independent of their history.


Can and will you admit an infinite amount of a dimensionless unit is smaller than the same amount of a unit with a bounded relationship?

You are again not being clear. Give an example.

[Reality Check]

ben m:
What is your opinion of Physics Essays (http://physicsessays.aip.org/journals/doc/PHESEM-home/)?

It looks like Terence Witt has at last got something published in a journal.
Einstein's nonphysical geometry and intergalactic redshift (http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/1.3027495)

General relativity is the major driving force behind modern cosmology, causing the intergalactic redshift effect to be interpreted as a dynamic universal expansion. In this paper the author argues that (a) the geometry used by general relativity is not a literal, physical representation of space-time, and (b) the intergalactic redshift is caused by ancient photons' long exposure to space-time's geometry, not by the uniform universal expansion of space.


The journal states that it is peer-reviewed but it is strange that no one picked up the contradiction in the abstract:

GR geometry is non-physical.
Intergalactic redshift is caused by space-time's geometry, which is presumably the non-physical GR geometry!
What is even stranger is that I would expect Terence Witt to broadcast the publication of his paper extensively. But there is little mention of it - mostly in a press release about the book being available for order through another publisher.

[ben m]

you would be looking for the property of something that would not exist. If I am trying to measure something that is not there how can i measure it????? Lets stick to absolute temperature for the purposes of trying to illustrate the point i am making.

The statement "in practice you can describe temperature without using the real number zero" is a much, much weaker (and less interesting) statement than you seemed to be making before. Indeed, this statement is well-known and well-proven in perfectly normal, zero-using physics.

Moreover, keep in mind that temperature is a statistical property of (countable) ensembles of degrees of freedom---degrees which we count, using additive numbers which include zero, and whose energies we measure on the real number line including zero. Even the statement "you can't reach zero Kelvin" has a rarely-stated caveat: " ... in a statistical system". Shrink your system enough, isolate a specific set of degrees of freedom, and you can sometimes get into a perfect ground state with exactly zero entropy---i.e. absolute zero temperature---except that by convention it's not interesting to write down the temperature and entropy unless the numbers are "large enough".

Not a very good basis for a Grand Theorem about How Numbers Work In Nature.

I'm sure you would be happy to use 0 K as an analogy to illustrate what you want your grand theory to do. But you can find an analogy for anything you want, including many true things and many false things and many not-even-wrong things. Skip the weak analogy and get to the meat, OK?

[BFM]

Your sentences green importantly, so addition commutes alike? Thusly---there you go.

(In other words: you're not making yourself clear.)



So what? And Pi is a place holder for the diameter-to-circumference ratio of the circle. It remains true that mathematics has gotten beyond this, and for example the equation "e^(i pi) = -1" is true despite its total disconnect from circles and circumferences. Likewise, mathematicians now (and 500 years ago) know much more about zero---and about all numbers, and about non-numbers and functions and operators and whatnot---than ancient merchants did.



The history of mathematics is interesting, but the truth or falsehood of math statements is independent of their history.



You are again not being clear. Give an example.


I only bring up the history of math to prove a point that, as illustrated by other posters, who are trying to measure the voltage of a table, that most persons do not have a good concept of what zero actually is. Physicists have not made that great leap into the acceptance of what a good mathematician can do with zero. Hence why I bring up absolute temperature, and departing into the different algebras.

As far as infinities of different sizes her's a good article http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-infinity-comes-in-different-sizes

[ben m]

ben m:
What is your opinion of Physics Essays (http://physicsessays.aip.org/journals/doc/PHESEM-home/)?

Look through their table of contents some time: you will see all of the crackpot big names. It's a journal whose specific mission statement is to publish non-mainstream ideas without the burden of expert review. If you have library access, look them up in Worldcat some time---it's not in libraries. It's not indexed on SPIRES or Citebase or anything. In other words, it's got the same academic credentials as Bob's Weekly Mimeographed Perpetual-Motion E-Zine.

Glad it exists, from a free-speech and open-access perspective.

Never been sure why they don't post their articles online---it's not like many people *want* to read their stuff, why make it even harder?

[BFM]

The statement "in practice you can describe temperature without using the real number zero" is a much, much weaker (and less interesting) statement than you seemed to be making before. Indeed, this statement is well-known and well-proven in perfectly normal, zero-using physics.

Moreover, keep in mind that temperature is a statistical property of (countable) ensembles of degrees of freedom---degrees which we count, using additive numbers which include zero, and whose energies we measure on the real number line including zero. Even the statement "you can't reach zero Kelvin" has a rarely-stated caveat: " ... in a statistical system". Shrink your system enough, isolate a specific set of degrees of freedom, and you can sometimes get into a perfect ground state with exactly zero entropy---i.e. absolute zero temperature---except that by convention it's not interesting to write down the temperature and entropy unless the numbers are "large enough".

Not a very good basis for a Grand Theorem about How Numbers Work In Nature.

I'm sure you would be happy to use 0 K as an analogy to illustrate what you want your grand theory to do. But you can find an analogy for anything you want, including many true things and many false things and many not-even-wrong things. Skip the weak analogy and get to the meat, OK?

I don't know how weak the argument is when it lets the frame of reference shift from the traditional mathematics involved with classic physics, to more abstract algebras. Remember the chap Lisi and his crazy e8 lie set. Well it was a little to nutty to be taken seriously, but Mr. Witt's geometric argument is much much simpler

[Reality Check]

I only bring up the history of math to prove a point that, as illustrated by other posters, who are trying to measure the voltage of a table, that most persons do not have a good concept of what zero actually is. Physicists have not made that great leap into the acceptance of what a good mathematician can do with zero. Hence why I bring up absolute temperature, and departing into the different algebras.

As far as infinities of different sizes her's a good article http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-infinity-comes-in-different-sizes
Why absolute temperature? What has this got to do with Terence Wiit's book?
According to Terence Wiit: there is only one infinitty. It has a finite size. It has the units of length.

Zero is easy, e.g. it is an integer number between -1 and 1.

It is easy to measure a quantity of zero kg/volts/joules/newtons/etc. in physics. But that quantity that you measure is not the number zero. The number zero does not have any units.

[Reality Check]

you would be looking for the property of something that would not exist. If I am trying to measure something that is not there how can i measure it????? Lets stick to absolute temperature for the purposes of trying to illustrate the point i am making.
OK. Then for the purposes of temperature only (what is absolute temperature?) you can never actually measure a quantity of 0 Kelvin.
So what?
Are you saying that every equation in Terence Witt's book is a calculation of temperature?

[BFM]

Why absolute temperature? What has this got to do with Terence Wiit's book?
According to Terence Wiit: there is only one infinitty. It has a finite size. It has the units of length.

Zero is easy, e.g. it is an integer number between -1 and 1.

It is easy to measure a quantity of zero kg/volts/joules/newtons/etc. in physics. But that quantity that you measure is not the number zero. The number zero does not have any units.

Terry does not NOT state that there is only one infinity. The math in his first chapter constructing his null sets is correct using alternate constructs of algebra.

Also, in reference to temperature of absolute zero, the reason I asked you to grant me what you just did, is that I can take that now apply alternate algebras, including affomentioned R*

Why can I do this?

[Reality Check]

Terry does not NOT state that there is only one infinity. The math in his first chapter constructing his null sets is correct using alternate constructs of algebra.

There is only 1 definition of infinity in his first 4 chapters that I have read.
If there are others then please provide citations.
Also state where he creates his "alternate constructs of algebra".


Also, in reference to temperature of absolute zero, the reason I asked you to grant me what you just did, is that I can take that now apply alternate algebras, including affomentioned R*

Why can I do this?
You can apply R* to the set of measurable temperatures if you want. By excluding 0 K from the set of measurable temperatures you are defining that set as the the real multiplicative group R* for temperatures.
Note that you will then not be able to add or subtract temperatures. Thus questions such as what is the difference in temperture bewteen the Earth and the Sun cannot be answered.

This has no application to the set of measurable masses (which includes zero), the set of measurable charges (which includes zero) the set of measurable lengths (which includes zero) etc.

So now you have a set of measurable temperatures that excludes 0 K. Temperatures in this set cannot be added or subtracted.
What are you going to do with it?

[sol invictus]

I only bring up the history of math to prove a point that, as illustrated by other posters, who are trying to measure the voltage of a table, that most persons do not have a good concept of what zero actually is. Physicists have not made that great leap into the acceptance of what a good mathematician can do with zero. Hence why I bring up absolute temperature, and departing into the different algebras.

What in the world are you talking about? Zero has been understood thoroughly for centuries - more like millennia. Mathematically it's the additive identity, that's all.

As for temperature: are you aware that it can be negative?

[BFM]

There is only 1 definition of infinity in his first 4 chapters that I have read.
If there are others then please provide citations.
Also state where he creates his "alternate constructs of algebra".


You can apply R* to the set of measurable temperatures if you want. By excluding 0 K from the set of measurable temperatures you are defining that set as the the real multiplicative group R* for temperatures.
Note that you will then not be able to add or subtract temperatures. Thus questions such as what is the difference in temperture bewteen the Earth and the Sun cannot be answered.

This has no application to the set of measurable masses (which includes zero), the set of measurable charges (which includes zero) the set of measurable lengths (which includes zero) etc.

So now you have a set of measurable temperatures that excludes 0 K. Temperatures in this set cannot be added or subtracted.
What are you going to do with it?

I am not saying that he states that he is creating alternate contructs of math. I do think he does a poor job of saying what mathematical contructs he is using, infact he appears to be using abelian groups (which tie very nicely into boolean math) without stating such.

Also. Even relativistic protons have mass. Before we get into a QCD discussion, let CERN do its job and prove/disprove the model, if it ever comes online. Know that FERMILAB keeps ruling out possibilites of the higgs boson............

It's Late. Im going to bed.

[ben m]

I can take that now apply alternate algebras, including affomentioned R*

Why can I do this?

Because you picked a random group, then scoured physics for an example of a quantity that appeared to span that group, then ignored any contrary details of the physics? You can do that with any group you like.

[Reality Check]

I am not saying that he states that he is creating alternate contructs of math. I do think he does a poor job of saying what mathematical contructs he is using, infact he appears to be using abelian groups (which tie very nicely into boolean math) without stating such.

As far as I can see he uses ordinary (but misapplied) set algebra, i.e. intersections and unions. If he was a competent mathematician and using abelian groups then he would have stated this.


Also. Even relativistic protons have mass. Before we get into a QCD discussion, let CERN do its job and prove/disprove the model, if it ever comes online. Know that FERMILAB keeps ruling out possibilites of the higgs boson............

Try to keep on topic and not just blurt out random things.

Relativistic protons have mass. So do protons at rest.
We are never going to get into a discussion of QCD because Terrence Witt never discusses QCD.



It's Late. Im going to bed.
When you wake up you need to continue with your application of the set of measurable temperatures that excludes 0 K to Terrence Witt's pseudo-mathematics.

This should be interesting :rolleyes: ....

[Perpetual Student]

Isn't amazing how many people who think they understand physics become seduced by crackpot stuff. Remember this BFM guy started with this comment:

Having Read the Book

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And having a excellent math and science background, I can say that book was a good read, contains novel ideas, and leaves room for additional work, including proofs (mathematical and observational). It almost reminded me of reading Flatland at some point in middle school. I love the fact that it introduces into modern physics the concept of 0 aka the null. How irrational is it that bookkeepers figured it out on the Indian subcontinent several thousand years ago, but the establishment rails against it because of its author/source/method of introduction (I have also invested the time to read this entire thread, quite amusing/frightening I might add...).

I would love to pick apart some of the concepts and ideas in the book and discuss them further, without getting into a gr, sm, qcd, string, whiners and complainers fest. Please Limit this discussion to people who have HONESTLY read the book with an open mind. It took about 1 week an hr a night to digest it, and I believe that it has been one of the best investments of my time recently.

With that in mind I realize there are some mental giants roaming loose on this thread, so before you (and you know who you are) start tearing into this post, which I don't really care if you do or don't, please post the ratio of free hydrogen to ionized hydrogen in free space at the top of your post.

So he thinks he has "a(sic) excellent math and science background." Then he says stuff like, "Physicists have not made that great leap into the acceptance of what a good mathematician can do with zero. Hence why I bring up absolute temperature, and departing into the different algebras."

Good Grief!

[sol invictus]

Also. Even relativistic protons have mass.

"Even"? Keep demonstrating your total ignorance of physics....


Before we get into a QCD discussion, let CERN do its job and prove/disprove the model, if it ever comes online.

The LHC at CERN is not going to prove or disprove QCD. It was built to find the origin of electroweak symmetry breaking, whether it's the Higgs or something else.

Know that FERMILAB keeps ruling out possibilites of the higgs boson............

Wrong. It has constrained its mass, but it hasn't ruled it out.

[ben m]

I only bring up the history of math to prove a point that, as illustrated by other posters, who are trying to measure the voltage of a table, that most persons do not have a good concept of what zero actually is.

Measuring the voltage across a table and getting zero is a perfectly good use of zero, and a perfectly good illustration of what zero "actually is".

You don't like it? This is how I am hearing that dislike: "Your physical example would be a counterexample if it were relevant. Since I'm right, there must be no counterexamples, so your example must be irrelevant."

[Perpetual Student]

From Witt's book:

"infinity + 1 > infinity"
"infinity (infinity + 1 ) = infinity2 + infinity
"infinity = the magnitude of the diameter of the universe"

BFM

Having Read the Book

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And having a excellent math and science background, ...

Yeah, right!

[sol invictus]

From Witt's book:

"infinity + 1 > infinity"
"infinity (infinity + 1 ) = infinity2 + infinity
"infinity = the magnitude of the diameter of the universe"

Yeah, right!

If BFM had any kind of math background, s/he would immediately recognize the silly Witt-icisms you quoted above as standard confusions many school kids go through when they first confront the concept of infinity in math class (at least the first two - the third is just weird). By age 14 or so most kids with even moderate abilities in math have understood that those statements are inconsistent and impossible.

[BFM]

Sorry for the confusion here. What I meant to say was that Even Relativistic Photons have mass...... It was late. sorry for the typo

[BFM]

Let's say I have a set of really good Dial Calipers that can measure the width of ANYTHING. If you measure piece of paper, a human hair, etc, they would all give you measurements. If I take way that object, close my calipers, they read zero. By your logic I have made a sound measurement??? No I have made NO measurement. When you look for the voltage of a table and it has none, 0 is not a measurement, it is a placeholder for the lack of the property.

I am going to hit golf balls (seriously, I wont be back till Monday). If a ball sits on the tee, and my goal is 285 yard away, it has moved 0 meters, UNTIL I HIT IT. If the ball is never hit and Stays on the Tee forever, why would you measure its distance traveled?

[sol invictus]

Sorry for the confusion here. What I meant to say was that Even Relativistic Photons have mass...... It was late. sorry for the typo

That's what you meant to say? Are you sure?

Because that's really wrong. All photons are relativistic, and none have mass - photons are exactly massless.

[ben m]

I am going to hit golf balls (seriously, I wont be back till Monday). If a ball sits on the tee, and my goal is 285 yard away, it has moved 0 meters, UNTIL I HIT IT. If the ball is never hit and Stays on the Tee forever, why would you measure its distance traveled?

I don't want to measure the 285 yards, either, because golf is dumb. Let's put 285 and 0 into one set, and all the other reals into another. Null Physics surely follows apace.

BFM, now that we've discarded (and pureed and composted) your claim to have a "good background in math and science", let me introduce you to the concept of Cartesian coordinates. In science, we measure things with respect to coordinate systems. There are many different coordinate systems, all of which allow you to do the exact same measurements/kinematics/etc.. There are some coordinate systems that have special behavior at the origin. Others have special behavior somewhere else. None of them tell you what is or is not measurable or worth measuring; indeed, none of them should tell you that anything is unmeasurable unless you're being willfully ignorant.

[BFM]

Because that's really wrong. All photons are relativistic, and none have mass - photons are exactly massless.

Tear apart my Background. OK. Rest photons have no mass. As educated person you should know that there's a difference between invariant mass and relative mass. PHOTONS HAVE A RELATIVISTIC MASS

[DeiRenDopa]

Tear apart my Background. OK. Rest photons have no mass. As educated person you should know that there's a difference between invariant mass and relative mass. PHOTONS HAVE A RELATIVISTIC MASS(bold added)

They do?

Sez who?

And independent of who sez, what does Mr Null Physics say (wrt photons, relativity, and mass)?

And independent of what Mr Witt says, how do you - BFM - know that photons have a relativistic mass? (emphasis on how).

[ben m]

Tear apart my Background. OK. Rest photons have no mass. As educated person you should know that there's a difference between invariant mass and relative mass. PHOTONS HAVE A RELATIVISTIC MASS

Listen, BFM, this is just terminology confusion. It's something that's taught very badly in the schools and the popular literature. "Relativistic mass" was always a useless and confusing way to explain Special Relativity; physicists never, ever use it. When we talk about mass we're only talking about rest mass. If we want to talk about "total energy" (rest mass + kinetic) we just say "energy"---what's the point of dividing the total energy by c^2 and giving it mass units? None, unless you're a journalist trying to explain spacetime to a newspaper audience circa 1945.

Not a big deal, but when you say "photons have mass" we all hear you saying "photons have rest mass".

[BFM]

I don't want to measure the 285 yards, either, because golf is dumb. Let's put 285 and 0 into one set, and all the other reals into another. Null Physics surely follows apace.

BFM, now that we've discarded (and pureed and composted) your claim to have a "good background in math and science", let me introduce you to the concept of Cartesian coordinates. In science, we measure things with respect to coordinate systems. There are many different coordinate systems, all of which allow you to do the exact same measurements/kinematics/etc.. There are some coordinate systems that have special behavior at the origin. Others have special behavior somewhere else. None of them tell you what is or is not measurable or worth measuring; indeed, none of them should tell you that anything is unmeasurable unless you're being willfully ignorant.

Let's ignore coordinate space, and what you might think of my background for the moment. You are on the wrong side of an argument here. Lets try a apples and oranges. I have a crate full of apples and I ask you how many oranges I have in the crate? It is an irrational question who's answer is not 0 its undefined. Look at the ratio of apples/oranges. Whats the slope of that line? I will kindly take the next page or two or three to set up all of the facts and equations of my current point. Do you care that I just made your zero undefined? Because its making my point.

To put it in terms of tabletops. The set off all wood table tops has the properties of being non conductive. The set of all conducting wood table tops has zero members. If I didn't know that tabletops weren't conducting, and wanted to answer this question, the resultant equation would end up with a divisor of zero and UNDEFINED SLOPE. What does this have to do with measuring voltage?? or *earlier* what is the temperature difference between the earth and the sun? these questions both arise when using this math. You stated it difficult to add in this environment, but not impossible. I CAN show you the way how, if you need the refresher. But not tonight, or tomorrow, as I will be riding rollercoasters all day.

[Paulhoff]

Someone get these zero eleplants out of my room.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Perpetual Student]

[QUOTE]Let's ignore coordinate space, and what you might think of my background for the moment. You are on the wrong side of an argument here. Lets try a apples and oranges. I have a crate full of apples and I ask you how many oranges I have in the crate? It is an irrational question who's answer is not 0 its undefined.

Wrong! The answer is clearly zero oranges.


Look at the ratio of apples/oranges. Whats the slope of that line? I will kindly take the next page or two or three to set up all of the facts and equations of my current point. Do you care that I just made your zero undefined? Because its making my point.

Gibberish!

To put it in terms of tabletops. The set off all wood table tops has the properties of being non conductive. The set of all conducting wood table tops has zero members. If I didn't know that tabletops weren't conducting, and wanted to answer this question, the resultant equation would end up with a divisor of zero and UNDEFINED SLOPE. What does this have to do with measuring voltage?? or *earlier* what is the temperature difference between the earth and the sun? these questions both arise when using this math. You stated it difficult to add in this environment, but not impossible. I CAN show you the way how, if you need the refresher.

More gibberish! What does measuring zero voltage of an object have to do with defining the set of non-conducting objects? What resultant equation are you talking about?


But not tonight, or tomorrow, as I will be riding rollercoasters all day.

You seem to be already riding on one.

[sol invictus]

Tear apart my Background. OK.

Already done. Let's continue.


Rest photons have no mass.

There's no such thing as a "rest photon". That's, hmm, the second postulate of special relativity? Heard of that?


As educated person you should know that there's a difference between invariant mass and relative mass. PHOTONS HAVE A RELATIVISTIC MASS

Relativistic mass is a useless and outdated concept that is not used by any physicist I know of. But even if you wanted to use it, you're going to have a hard time defining it for photons - it's zero times infinity - unless you simply declare it's equal to the energy (in which case why bother with it at all?).

I have a crate full of apples and I ask you how many oranges I have in the crate? It is an irrational question who's answer is not 0 its undefined. Look at the ratio of apples/oranges. Whats the slope of that line? I will kindly take the next page or two or three to set up all of the facts and equations of my current point. Do you care that I just made your zero undefined? Because its making my point.


This is literally something young primary school children struggle with.

The slope of what line?? And even if there were one orange in this crate you find so confusing, I could ask you to look at the ratio Napples/(Noranges-1) :jaw-dropp!

Numbers are an abstraction. One apple is not the number "1" - it's a rather complex object, constantly exchanging molecules with its environment, much larger than some other apples, smaller than others, perhaps with a tiny bite out of it, perhaps with a worm in it, which we have chosen to label as "one apple". We can then use the rules of math to manipulate numbers, and those manipulations correspond to some extent to certain manipulations of the objects we've labeled - but never exactly (numbers don't get eaten, or rot, or grow into trees full of other numbers).

[ben m]

You know what this is? It's Nullity all over again.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70101

Someone finds a math quantity that doesn't behave like they want it to. They slap a new name on it and push it into a new category, so that everything else behaves "right" and they can wrap their brain around writing a few new rules for the one-element category. The "nullity" guy wanted to do it to infinity; this guy wants to do it to zero.

[BFM]

Already done. Let's continue.



There's no such thing as a "rest photon". That's, hmm, the second postulate of special relativity? Heard of that?



Relativistic mass is a useless and outdated concept that is not used by any physicist I know of. But even if you wanted to use it, you're going to have a hard time defining it for photons - it's zero times infinity - unless you simply declare it's equal to the energy (in which case why bother with it at all?).



This is literally something young primary school children struggle with.

The slope of what line?? And even if there were one orange in this crate you find so confusing, I could ask you to look at the ratio Napples/(Noranges-1) :jaw-dropp!

Numbers are an abstraction. One apple is not the number "1" - it's a rather complex object, constantly exchanging molecules with its environment, much larger than some other apples, smaller than others, perhaps with a tiny bite out of it, perhaps with a worm in it, which we have chosen to label as "one apple". We can then use the rules of math to manipulate numbers, and those manipulations correspond to some extent to certain manipulations of the objects we've labeled - but never exactly (numbers don't get eaten, or rot, or grow into trees full of other numbers).

Thanks for stating my point with rest photons. Looking through relativity, there is no intrinsic quantities that you or I can measure that is zero. Infinitesimally small yes, but Everything has energy. Period. R* is a valid point. Brush up on hyperreal numbers, because when you use them, my points
are valid.

[BFM]

You know what this is? It's Nullity all over again.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70101

Someone finds a math quantity that doesn't behave like they want it to. They slap a new name on it and push it into a new category, so that everything else behaves "right" and they can wrap their brain around writing a few new rules for the one-element category. The "nullity" guy wanted to do it to infinity; this guy wants to do it to zero.

What new names have I given to anything?? What Behavior is not to my liking? Have I stated some phenomenon That I want to magically change??

[sol invictus]

Thanks for stating my point with rest photons.


You mean correcting your egregious errors? You're welcome.


Looking through relativity, there is no intrinsic quantities that you or I can measure that is zero.

Utter nonsense. Momentum of a massive particle is a good example. One can always transform to a frame in which it is precisely, exactly zero.

Brush up on hyperreal numbers, because when you use them, my points
are valid.

You haven't made any points. If you think Witt's statements are consistent with hyperreals... well, go ahead and try to show us how. Good luck with that.

[ben m]

Thanks for stating my point with rest photons. Looking through relativity, there is no intrinsic quantities that you or I can measure that is zero.

There is no quantity that you or I can measure that is 1.5534, either. Infinitesimally different, but not exactly.

[ben m]

What new names have I given to anything?? What Behavior is not to my liking?

You have decided that there is Some Problem revolving around zero. You have decided that it's important to Isolate Zero From The Real Number Line so that (well, it's not clear exactly, but as far as I can tell) you have a domain where The Problem does not occur.

[Reality Check]

Hi BFM: You seem to have forgotton about this question that I asked you:
OK. Then for the purposes of temperature only (what is absolute temperature?) you can never actually measure a quantity of 0 Kelvin.
So what?
Are you saying that every equation in Terence Witt's book is a calculation of temperature?
In actual fact the questions are a bit inexact. They should be:
For the purposes of temperature as measured on the Kelvin temperature scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin), a temperature of 0 Kelvin can never be measured.

For the purposes of temperature as measured on the Celcius temperature scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celcius), a temperature of −273.15 Celcius can never be measured.

For the purposes of temperature as measured on the Fahrenheit temperature scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degree_Fahrenheit), a temperature of −459.67 Fahrenheit can never be measured.

I added the links in case you have bever heard of Celcuis or Fahrenheit (which seems likely :D !)

So the questions should be:

Are the numbers −273.15 and −459.67 also to be excluded from your set of measurable temperatures as well as zero?
If not why not?
If yes then why can we not define a temperature scale where the lowest possible value is any value of measurable temperature and so end up with an empty set of measurable temperatures?
What has this to do with Terence Witt's crackpot book?
I am looking forward to your mathmatical proof of Terence Witt's Null Axiom from the set of measurable temperatures measured in Kelvin (excluding 0 Kelvin).

[Blue Bayou]

I think the ultimate answer/ Grand Unified Theory of Everything can be succinctly summed up in the Galaxy Song by Monty Python, to wit:

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'.
Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.
It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,
But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide.
We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.
We go 'round every two hundred million years,
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe.

The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.

[BFM]

I haven't been here in a while, sorry for the delay, navigating ones assets through the financial crisis takes priority sometimes.

Now that being said here's a link which speaks right to the astrophysical construct Mr. Witt proposes in his book, the cycle of rebirth and galactic cooling via electron flow.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fermi-haze

The empirical data shows that there is an excess of free electrons in the inner galaxy. This data cannot be explained by current processes.......

[Paulhoff]

The empirical data shows that there is an excess of free electrons in the inner galaxy. This data cannot be explained by current processes.......
Gee, something not explained as soon has it is found, and............

Paul

:) :) :)

[ben m]

The empirical data shows that there is an excess of free electrons in the inner galaxy. This data cannot be explained by current processes.......

The current data cannot be explained by our very first guess at what current processes look like. That guess consists of (a) measure cosmic rays near Earth (b) use their energy/lifetime/species distributions to constrain a diffusion equation, and (c) guess that all of this looks exactly the same---same diffusion, same injection spectrum, etc.---at the Galactic center.

It surprises nobody, least of all the Fermi team (and even less the cosmic-ray community) that this didn't give an instantly perfect description of Galactic Center electrons.

Meanwhile, did Witt have a prediction about electrons? I thought he had a prediction about vaguely electron-like leprechauns which share none of the actual properties of electrons.

[BFM]

The current data cannot be explained by our very first guess at what current processes look like. That guess consists of (a) measure cosmic rays near Earth (b) use their energy/lifetime/species distributions to constrain a diffusion equation, and (c) guess that all of this looks exactly the same---same diffusion, same injection spectrum, etc.---at the Galactic center.

It surprises nobody, least of all the Fermi team (and even less the cosmic-ray community) that this didn't give an instantly perfect description of Galactic Center electrons.

Meanwhile, did Witt have a prediction about electrons? I thought he had a prediction about vaguely electron-like leprechauns which share none of the actual properties of electrons.

Happy post Holidays! I hope the ski season in the northern hemisphere treats you well (if your up here that is)

I think the title of my post tells you about what i think of statements like this, to which I would say, think for yourself.

So you didn't get it right, if you read the book/ gave his theory a good read you would know the answer to your last question

[Reality Check]

Happy post Holidays! I hope the ski season in the northern hemisphere treats you well (if your up here that is)

I think the title of my post tells you about what i think of statements like this, to which I would say, think for yourself.

So you didn't get it right, if you read the book/ gave his theory a good read you would know the answer to your last question
Both ben m and I read the book.
Both ben m and I participated in a forum run by Mr. Witt until Mr. Witt shut it down.

The fact that his ideas are wrong are easy to see. Read "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1 (http://web.mit.edu/~bmonreal/www/Null_Physics_Review.html); Review 2 (http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~fiski/ouu_review.html).

There is no prediction of excess electrons producing the observed microwaves in galaxy centers that I recall from the book. If there is then cite it.

[BFM]

Both ben m and I read the book.
Both ben m and I participated in a forum run by Mr. Witt until Mr. Witt shut it down.

The fact that his ideas are wrong are easy to see. Read "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1 (http://web.mit.edu/~bmonreal/www/Null_Physics_Review.html); Review 2 (http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~fiski/ouu_review.html).

There is no prediction of excess electrons producing the observed microwaves in galaxy centers that I recall from the book. If there is then cite it.

Uhh wrong. Page 345.

[Reality Check]

Uhh wrong. Page 345.
What does he actually predict?
What does he predict for the microwave radiation from this?
How close is the match to the Fermi data?

P.S.
The really bad mathematic and physics in "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1 (http://web.mit.edu/~bmonreal/www/Null_Physics_Review.html); Review 2 (http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~fiski/ouu_review.html).

[BFM]

What does he actually predict?
What does he predict for the microwave radiation from this?
How close is the match to the Fermi data?


"This excess diffuse emission is centered on the Galac-
tic center, and can be parameterized by a simple two-
dimensional Gaussian template (` = 15, b = 25).
The template-correlated spectrum of this emission is sig-
nificantly harder than either 0 emission or ICS from
softer electrons, whose fitted spectra agree well with
models. This harder spectrum coupled with the distinct
spatial morphology of the gamma-ray and microwave
haze are evidence that these electrons originate from a
separate component than the softer SN shock-accelerated
electrons." http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0910/0910.4583v1.pdf THE FERMI HAZE:
A GAMMA-RAY COUNTERPART TO THE MICROWAVE HAZE
Gregory Dobler,1,2,5 Douglas P. Finkbeiner,1,3 Ilias Cholis,4
Tracy Slatyer,1,3 & Neal Weiner4

Reread pages 335-351 of Witt's book and it you will find an identical argument with an explination. Unless you want me to transcribe those pages for you to read here.

[Reality Check]

"This excess diffuse emission is centered on the Galac-
tic center, and can be parameterized by a simple two-
dimensional Gaussian template (` = 15, b = 25).
The template-correlated spectrum of this emission is sig-
nificantly harder than either 0 emission or ICS from
softer electrons, whose fitted spectra agree well with
models. This harder spectrum coupled with the distinct
spatial morphology of the gamma-ray and microwave
haze are evidence that these electrons originate from a
separate component than the softer SN shock-accelerated
electrons." http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0910/0910.4583v1.pdf THE FERMI HAZE:
A GAMMA-RAY COUNTERPART TO THE MICROWAVE HAZE
Gregory Dobler,1,2,5 Douglas P. Finkbeiner,1,3 Ilias Cholis,4
Tracy Slatyer,1,3 & Neal Weiner4

Reread pages 335-351 of Witt's book and it you will find an identical argument with an explination. Unless you want me to transcribe those pages for you to read here.
Not really. It is a total waste of time rereading his book given the really bad mathematic and physics in it ( Review 1 (http://web.mit.edu/~bmonreal/www/Null_Physics_Review.html); Review 2 (http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~fiski/ouu_review.html) )

I hope that you did not lose too many brain cells reading that lump of pseudoscience :D !

ETA:
There is no "identical argument" between the paper and Witt's book. The paper does not state an origin for the electrons giving rise to the Ferni haze.

[sol invictus]

"This excess diffuse emission is centered on the Galac-
tic center, and can be parameterized by a simple two-
dimensional Gaussian template (` = 15, b = 25).
The template-correlated spectrum of this emission is sig-
nificantly harder than either 0 emission or ICS from
softer electrons, whose fitted spectra agree well with
models. This harder spectrum coupled with the distinct
spatial morphology of the gamma-ray and microwave
haze are evidence that these electrons originate from a
separate component than the softer SN shock-accelerated
electrons." http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0910/0910.4583v1.pdf THE FERMI HAZE:
A GAMMA-RAY COUNTERPART TO THE MICROWAVE HAZE
Gregory Dobler,1,2,5 Douglas P. Finkbeiner,1,3 Ilias Cholis,4
Tracy Slatyer,1,3 & Neal Weiner4

Reread pages 335-351 of Witt's book and it you will find an identical argument with an explination. Unless you want me to transcribe those pages for you to read here.

Few posters here have Witt's book. Why don't you transcribe the relevant section so we can see for ourselves?

[BFM]

Not really. It is a total waste of time reading his book given the really bad mathematic and physics in it ( Review 1 (http://web.mit.edu/~bmonreal/www/Null_Physics_Review.html); Review 2 (http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~fiski/ouu_review.html) )

I hope that you did not lose too many brain cells reading that lump of pseudoscience :D !


Without getting into an ad hominem argument, my braincells are fine. I gave you and answer, you didn't like it (notice i didn't say you evaluated the facts and formed a conclusion afterwards, as a man of science might) so your answer is "not really".

I assume you pick and choose when to behave in a professional manner in your daily life as well.

[Reality Check]

Without getting into an ad hominem argument, my braincells are fine. I gave you and answer, you didn't like it (notice i didn't say you evaluated the facts and formed a conclusion afterwards, as a man of science might) so your answer is "not really".

I assume you pick and choose when to behave in a professional manner in your daily life as well.
It is not an "ad hominem argument" (unless you are Witt in disguise). It is a humorous statement that reading his book will kill your brain cells :D !

I liked the answer: Witt's book has a prediction (according to you) of excess electrons at the galaxy center.
Whether that matches the prediction in the paper depends on whether Witt also predicts the energies of the electrons and hopefully the microwave radiation given off by them.

I assume you also pick and choose when to behave in a professional manner in your daily life as well.

Did you notice the really bad mathematics and physics in "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt?
If not then read these reviews: Review 1 (http://web.mit.edu/~bmonreal/www/Null_Physics_Review.html); Review 2 (http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~fiski/ouu_review.html).

[BFM]

Few posters here have Witt's book. Why don't you transcribe the relevant section so we can see for ourselves?

I could scan it to .pdf and leave it here for digestion, is that possible here?

[Reality Check]

I could scan it to .pdf and leave it here for digestion, is that possible here?
Probably not due to copyright.
We just need Witt's predictions that match what is in the paper. That should be a paragraph or 2.

[sol invictus]

It's certainly possible technically (you can attach images to posts), but I have no idea what the copyright issues are. I would think a few scanned paragraphs/pages would constitute fair use, but I'm not sure. Maybe you could check with a mod?

Of course the fact that these so-called predictions are buried in a book that costs $60 is just one more reason to not bother with them. No real scientist would ever do that - the goal of science is to discover new things and make them known. Scientists want their work to be as widely read and discussed as possible.

[BFM]

Probably not due to copyright.
We just need Witt's predictions that match what is in the paper. That should be a paragraph or 2.

Gladly. I have and will talked with the author, about transcribing/linking to a .pdf of the work for those who can't follow the argument. I might add that This is more effort than it would take than for one who has supposedly bought read and reviewed the book to reread it, so do you actually still own it? It's not Mao's Little red book and McCarthy is long dead here in the states (NZ might not have a kiwi hunter but we sure had a commie hunter):footinmou

[Reality Check]

I might add that This is more effort than it would take than for one who has supposedly bought read and reviewed the book to reread it, so do you actually still own it?
I did not buy it. Witt sent it to me for free for being on his now defunct forum.
Currently it is buried at home somewhere in my pile of old books to get rid of sometime.

I did review this collection of really bad mathematics and physics: Review 2 (http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~fiski/ouu_review.html).

[BFM]

I did not buy it. Witt sent it to me for free for being on his now defunct forum.
Currently it is buried at home somewhere in my pile of old books to get rid of sometime.

I did review this collection of really bad mathematics and physics: Review 2 (http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~fiski/ouu_review.html).

You keep saying that....... I have read your review, why do you keep bringing it up?

You are at work right now and you can't dig it up, understood. Let me propose a pause to this conversation for a day or so as i want to go to bed, my buddy from oxford is stateside tomorrow, we have a lot of drinking to do. I will contact the author to get permission to reporoduce a section of his work, you can go home and literally take 5 minutes to "kill some brain cells" or review the pages i cited. We can reconvene and continue.

Until Then

[Reality Check]

You keep saying that....... I have read your review, why do you keep bringing it up?
Because if you read it then you would understand that his book is full of pseudoscience. He may be "correct" (but see below) this time but that is an accident.

I will read that one page you cite again but I doubt that it will be more than an assertion that there will be excess electrons at the center of the galaxy. As a prediction that would be useless since there is no way to tell the excess apart from an excess from any other cause.

[BFM]

Because if you read it then you would understand that his book is full of pseudoscience. He may be "correct" (but see below) this time but that is an accident.

I will read that one page you cite again but I doubt that it will be more than an assertion that there will be excess electrons at the center of the galaxy. As a prediction that would be useless since there is no way to tell the excess apart from an excess from any other cause.

Thank you for agreeing to reread some of his work, please read Pages 335-351, they detail a mechanism of where the excess radiation comes from.

PS. I was wrong about you......

[theneedtoknow]

I haven't read the book, but this quote from one of the reviews made me laugh quite hard

"Terence Witt then takes this "infinity" which is actually a finite length and uses it exactly like a number, e.g. theorem 3.9 (on page 72) "The time required for light to traverse the Universe is eternity, infinity/c" (where eternity is not the eternity seen in every dictionary but "the longest possible duration") and the equally absurd theorem 2.8 on the next page: "The resolution of translational motion is infinity moments per absolute second, (infinity/sa)". Read Infinity is NOT a number for a clear description about why treating infinity as a number invalidates the foundations of mathematics."

Even with his ridiculous definition of infinity, why would eternity be the time that the FASTEST "object" (a photon) traverses that distance...wouldn't something moving at the lowest speed possible take a much greater time to traverse "infinity", resulting in a whole slew of possible timeframes that are orders of magnitude longer than "eternity"??????

[schrodingasdawg]

And this quote (from earlier in the thread) made me laugh.

Most of our current physical theories are constructionist, building mathematical models from empirical data. They provide, naturally, great correspondence to observed phenomena, since they are based on same, but give us no insight into the foundational nature of the universe because they lack natural philosophy. Relativity, conversely, is based on a few simple principles, but even these don’t give us much insight because they are reasonable extrapolations of our observations of the natural world. Relativity, for instance, can’t tell us WHY the speed of light is constant in any reference frame or WHY matter generates a gravitational field.

As one of the reviews stated, 17 on the crackpot index.

[Reality Check]

Thank you for agreeing to reread some of his work, please read Pages 335-351, they detail a mechanism of where the excess radiation comes from.
Read it.
This is his "black holes are not black and magically convert all elements to hydrogen" fantasy.
The "black holes are not black" dream is debunked in my review (http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~fiski/ouu_review.html).

“Our Undiscovered Universe” has a prediction for Sagittarius A* when treated as a galactic core: It is a “massive black hole with a radiant output of ~6*1031 W, peaking in the infrared near ~0.06 mm” (page 359) or the output of 200,000 Suns at a wavelength of 60 microns.
This prediction shows that Terence Witt has never looked for the many papers since 1965 that detail the many infrared observations of the galactic center. This includes at least one observation exactly at 60 microns ("IRAS images of the galactic center" (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ApJ...278L..57G) published in 1984). The actual intensity of Sagittarius A* in the infrared band has been measured many times over the years, e.g. in this pre-print (http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.1782v1) accepted for publication in 2007: "A Constant Spectral Index for Sagittarius A* During Infrared/X-ray Intensity Variations". So here is one prediction by the author that has been falsified. This information took me less than an hour to find. Any competent scientist would have checked to see what data existed for Sagittarius A* and would quickly found that there was something wrong with their theory when the prediction was falsified. Any competent scientist not working in astronomy would have checked this prediction with an astronomer.



In addition

He never explicitly states that there are excess electrons in the center of the galaxy. His term "thermal electron current" might be them.
In science a prediction has to be testable and falsifiable.
His assertion is not testable. He never defines the properties of his "thermal electron current". His idea cannot be compared to the Fermi haze (PDF) (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0910/0910.4583v1.pdf). Thus the Fermi haze is not evidence that his "thermal electron current" exists.
ETA
And another problem with his idea - his "galactic cores" and probably stellar black holes (which he ignores) have surfaces that extend a tiny bit past the Schwarzschild radius, i.e. they have no event horizon.
Real black holes also have another property - matter vanishes into the event horizon. This means that astronomers can compare observations of black hole candidates to objects that definitely have surfaces, i.e. neutron stars. Type I X-ray bursts are a characteristic of matter hitting a surface. They are seen when matter falls onto the surface of a neutron star, is compressed and heated as it accumulates which leads to thermonuclear reactions (and X-rays). For some reason any in-falling matter from the accrual disk of Sagittarius A* and the observed black hole candidates are not accumulating on a surface. So either there is no in-falling matter (unlikely and really fatal for Terrence Witt's idea) or we have an event horizon. See for example The Rates of Type I X-Ray Bursts from Transients Observed with RXTE: Evidence for Black Hole Event Horizons (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...646..407R); Remillard, et al., Astrophysical Journal 646(1): 407-419, July 2006.

[ben m]

IIRC, Witt generically "predicted" electrons doing something in the direction of Galactic centers. What was the "something"? Well, it's hard to say, because Witt did not have any laws of physics describing these electrons. It's even harder to say when you consider that Witt had to violate several laws of thermodynamics in the process.

Given a theory whose entire content is "there are electrons over there behaving contrary to all known laws of physics", how do you get to "... and this theory predicts the WMAP and Fermi hazes"? It's very simple. You do it the same way as a bad sci-fi author. "Since dilithium crystals are unstable except in a warp core, and they're harvested from asteroids, let's make the Tunguska event into a dilithium-crystal explosion." Maybe you plug the known Tunguska magnitude into a scale you made up earlier so you can tell your readers that the Tunguska event only required a microgram of dilithium. Rephrase that same sentence and put in a crackpot book and you've got "my lithium theory predicted the magnitude of the Tunguska explosion". My response: no it didn't, your theory said "maybe some things explode" and you tarted that up into a post-diction.

"Hyperspace drive makes you travel through time, but time travel makes paradoxes, so we need some sort of exotic black hole to erase those paradoxes." Put that into a crackpot book and you can rephrase it as my time-paradox theory predicted the existence of intermediate-mass black holes.. Convincing, no?

Without the book in front of me (I threw it away when I moved), I will guess that Witt's "prediction" is either:

(a) in the style of the dilithium example, a post-diction of the WMAP haze which was discovered in 2004. Hypothesized process: Witt knows that his theory wants to move electrons around weirdly. Witt learns about WMAP haze. Witt says, "Tell me more about this haze ..." and learns what the distribution and spectrum are. Witt fiddles with theory and convinces himself that his weird electrons of course produce that spectrum and that distribution. Voila! Or perhaps (b) in the style of the black hole example, you can skip the part about the "fiddles with the theory" and "convinces self" and jump straight to "voila" without any analysis at all. I've seen both kinds.

[Reality Check]

Without the book in front of me (I threw it away when I moved), I will guess that Witt's "prediction" is either:

(a) in the style of the dilithium example, a post-diction of the WMAP haze which was discovered in 2004. Hypothesized process: Witt knows that his theory wants to move electrons around weirdly. Witt learns about WMAP haze. Witt says, "Tell me more about this haze ..." and learns what the distribution and spectrum are. Witt fiddles with theory and convinces himself that his weird electrons of course produce that spectrum and that distribution. Voila! Or perhaps (b) in the style of the black hole example, you can skip the part about the "fiddles with the theory" and "convinces self" and jump straight to "voila" without any analysis at all. I've seen both kinds.
Witt may not know about the Fermi haze.

The claim was from BFM:
Now that being said here's a link which speaks right to the astrophysical construct Mr. Witt proposes in his book, the cycle of rebirth and galactic cooling via electron flow.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fermi-haze (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fermi-haze)

The empirical data shows that there is an excess of free electrons in the inner galaxy. This data cannot be explained by current processes.......
And the answer is......
The empirical data shows that there is an excess of free electrons in the inner galaxy. This data cannot be explained by current processes. This data definitely cannot be explained by Terrence Witt's idea.

[mike3]

I know JREF does a great job of debunking paranormal nonsense and the like, but there's no getting around the fact that after 30 years, string theory isn't even science. Physics needs a healthy dose of critical thinking right about now, and its lack thereof is making it progressively harder to discount pseudo science. Indeed, string theory IS pseudo science.

This isn't just an attack on string theory, but pretty much all particle physics stuff, even the well-proven stuff.

[quarky]

pseudo science is a proving ground for real science.

I find myself in a world where pseudo-science is alive and even costs money.

Its a real world, yet it has lots of pseudo implications and applications.

In chemistry, pseudo versions of molecules have real effects, and organic can be quite synthetic and toxic.