Null Physics anyone? [Archive]

terrywitt

5th October 2007, 04:10 PM

I would like to respond to a couple of ben m's comments, and thank gratuitous python for at least considering the possibility that I'm not a loon. Indeed, my doctor says he's got the dosage just about right...

First and foremost, the book excerpts are supposed to be incomplete to encourage curiosity, not disdain, but the best laid plans and all that. So, as to the comments.

Neutron. It is easier to understand why a neutron is a composite, not elementary particle, when you actually have a good idea of what elementary particles actually are. I am familiar with neutron scattering and decay modes, as well as their charge distribution on the sub-Fermi scale. The Standard Model views quarks as points, string theory proposes hyperdimensional strings, but neither is even remotely accurate physical representation. High-energy neutron scattering mimics the existence of internal constituents (other than protons and electrons), but this is only because adding hundreds of MEV (or more) of energy causes a significant distortion of the underlying composition. It's like trying to measure the shape of a light bulb by shooting bullets at it.

Tired light. Fritz Zwicky was the original proponent for tired light in the early 1900's, and if you would have read my book before commenting you would have found the entire history therein, as well as a resolution to the refractive dispersion and other issues.

3He radius: There is a difference between the diameter of the charge distribution and the spacing of the bound state. My research assistant, who was a graduate student in astrophysics at FIT at the time, could not find an accurate measurement of the bound state of 3He in the literature. If she missed it, my bad. The same calculation, as detailed in the book, gives the inter-nucleon spacing of the bound triplet state of a deuteron at 1.748 F, in agreement with the observed value of 1.747 F.

Milky Way Radial Drift: The RAVE survey that ben m referenced has a resolution of at most 5 km/sec, insufficient to test the effect I propose, which is ~1.5 km/s. Thanks for playing, though.

Surface brightness loss: I didn't say astronomers didn't know about this loss, I was just unable to find any good, non-statistical modeling for it. This is what Appendix M represents.

Totality boundary: I'm not "proving" the bounding relationships listed in Theorem 2.10; all I'm doing is emphasizing that they are the best method of interpreting the geometric relationship between infinite largeness and smallness.

And no, I didn't like "A brief history of time". But the diagrams were awesome, man!

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.

Schneibster

5th October 2007, 07:34 PM

OK, so if a neutron is a composite of a proton and an electron, what's a sigma, or a lambda? Or, for that matter, what are mesons?

Your statement above seems to assume that string theory proposes a different internal structure for protons and neutrons than the Standard Model, i.e. something other than two ups and a down or two downs and an up. Is that what you intended to say?

I'm familiar with Zwicky's original formulation of tired light. Zwicky was a noted iconoclast; as it happens, I know an astronomer who worked with him, and is a fairly well known iconoclast himself. But all of that is immaterial to the facts that:
1. Only the Hubble constant explains the fact that the age of the oldest observed stars is the inverse of the Hubble constant;
2. Only the Hubble constant explains the observed time-dilation of the light curves of distant supernovae;
3. Only the Hubble constant explains the overall isotropy of the CMBR;
and very much more. Tired light explains none of these things. Do your ideas specifically address these issues? Be aware that if you claim they do, I'm going to want to see an explanation of precisely how, and "sorry go read the book" isn't going to go very far with me, since I'm not particularly motivated to read a physics book by someone who doesn't have a publication history in peer reviewed journals unless they've got something to back their ideas up.

I think you will find that there are some people at JREF who also debunk crank physics. Welcome to JREF.

ben m

5th October 2007, 09:13 PM

Neutron. It is easier to understand why a neutron is a composite, not elementary particle, when you actually have a good idea of what elementary particles actually are.

Yes, the neutron is a composite of three quarks. It is not a composite of an electron and a proton. Smash a neutron and a proton together; what do you think are the odds that you get two protons and one electron out? Do you think that this reaction cross-section should be larger or smaller than the n+p --> n+p+pi or n+n+pi or p+p+pi cross section? By what ratio should they be larger/smaller?

Alternatively, perhaps you can either (a) point out which nuclear and particle physics experiments disagree with the Standard Model, but agree with your model---please include citations and error bars---or (b) show in what limits your model reduces to the Standard Model (in the sense of, say, "Schrodinger's Equation reduces to Newton's Laws in the limit of small h") such that they give the same answers in every experiment to date.

More realistically, send me a personal message (click on my username in the left-hand column of this page) when your theory, or any part thereof, is published in the form of an ordinary research paper (refereed or not), and I'll take a look at it then. Good luck.

terrywitt

5th October 2007, 11:38 PM

Thanks for the welcome. Let me separate my responses into matter and cosmology.

MATTER

My particle/matter physics requires a great deal of background, and it’s easy to sound a bit “crankish” when you try to condense a 480 page book, developed over 30 years, into sound bites. But here goes.

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.

Null Physics attacks the problem from the other pole, starting with the toughest question of all: “why does the universe exist?”. Its premise is that if you can’t provide a rational, complete answer to this question, your physical theories will always contain gaping philosophical holes, and you will forever be unable to explain the universe to any great depth.

Null Physics is based on a geometry that is a solution to an equation whose sum is zero. In short, space is a zero-sum equation of the form 0 = 0 + 0 + 0…, and energy and matter are curvatures of space. So we have nothing, in the form of a summation of what appears to us as geometric points, and then we have positive and negative curvatures of space, which constitutes matter and energy. Since space is composed of nothing, in the form of geometric points, and curvatures of space are displaced points, the sum of the equation remains zero. (I can’t recall the theorist, but quite a while ago there was an attempt to unify EM as a fifth dimension). Since the time of Lucretius (or before) the big question has always been “how do you derive something from nothing?” This leads naturally (although admittedly counterintuitively) to the realization that something has to be composed of nothing for there is no other available source.

So while cosmologists try to reconcile the conservation of energy by claiming that the universe’s negative gravitational potential offsets its matter/energy, they fail to realize the most important thing: there is no difference between a universe whose sum is zero and a universe that is, intrinsically, a formulation of zero. I’ve left out a tremendous amount of supporting theory and rationale, but that’s the long and short of it. The universe is infinite and eternal because it is an equation whose physical sum is nothing, and nothing is by definition unbounded. The “universe equation” is not a wave function, as has been posited various places; it is a geometry.

A unique aspect of this geometry is that an infinite space of N dimensions has a finite size in N+1 dimensions. An infinite line, for instance, has a finite area. Think of it as cutting a line into an infinite number of segments and stacking them on top of each other at infinite density. The result is not an infinite area, as that is a plane; it is not infinitely small, as that is a line segment. The result is finite. In fact, if we consider the width of a line as 0, then in accordance with the poles of the Riemann sphere, (0*infinity) = 1. The only difference Null Physics requires is that in the physical case, the 1 in this equation is an area (1^2), not a length. In the same way, the infinite space of our universe can be partitioned into an infinite number of cubes, that when stacked upon each other in the fourth dimension, result in a finite hypercube. Infinite three-dimensional space corresponds to finite four-dimensional space. This finite four-dimensional constant is what Planck’s constant is. It is also responsible for unit elementary charge, etc. Universal constants have always presented quite a difficulty because space would appear to have no place to “store” them, and even if their origin is posited in a universal creation event, there is no reason for their values to remain fixed as the nascent universe evolved. Indeed, how can Planck’s constant have the same value in galaxies billions of light years away as it does here on Earth? String theory attempts to resolve this difficulty by positing a hyperdimensional substructure for space, but this does not solve the problem because there is no constraint for this structure to be fixed throughout space. My theory resolves the universality of governing constants because it has only one: the four-dimensional size of infinite space, and this is by definition the same everywhere in infinite space. I was able to calculate this size and it is equal to 3.16(10)^-26 J-m, and it is called “unit hypervolume”. Physically, it’s a hypercube whose edge length is about 0.1 mm. It is the connection between the macro and micro universe and the quintessential definition of finiteness.

Our universe has four and only four dimensions, three of space and one of time. It contains two, dimensionally unique three-dimensional substances: space, whose units are of course distance^3, and energy, whose fundamental units are time-distance^2. The reason why it is possible to have finite energy density in space is because both have the same dimensional size. Our universe has space and curved space, nothing else. Everything within it can be described as some combination of its four dimensions.

Since unit hypervolume is a four-dimensional finite, it represents the one and only bounding condition for anything, in particular energy. This is why Planck’s constant has units of J-m, and why it is associated with the quantization of energy. Joules, as energy, is three-dimensional, and meters are one dimensional, for a total of four dimensions. Planck’s constant isn’t exactly equal to space’s four-dimensional size, the proportionality between the two is 2PI, but that’s a detail I needn’t address here. Elementary particles, and by this I mean electrons (positrons) and protons (antiprotons) are space-time boundaries; essentially four-dimensional “holes” in space, whose size is proportional to unit hypervolume. These holes generate long-range fields that produce the Coulomb and gravitational interactions, and the close-range interaction of these holes are responsible for the Strong and Weak forces. Again, all of this is supported by a wealth of evidence which, given the graphs and equations required, can’t be replicated here. It includes calculations of average nuclear density, white dwarf density, the strength and range of the Strong force, the inter-nucleon spacing of a deuteron, and the maximum material density in black holes.

Mesons, kaons, and particles that decay into electrons (positrons) are essentially high-energy electron states, whereas sigmas, lambdas, and particles that decay into protons (antiprotons) are essentially high-energy proton states. Their instability is caused by the internal presence of bound positive-negative particles in combination with a stable particle. A muon, for instance, is an electron combined with a positive/negative pair. Think of it like an electron combined with positronium at nuclear density. The bound pairs that exist within unstable particles cannot exist singly in nature, like protons and electrons. The neutral pi meson, for instance, decays into two gamma rays because it is a bound particle/antiparticle.

COSMOLOGY

This is the easy part. There is no difference between a universe whose sum is zero and zero (same total), so a universal origin is nonsensical. The lack of universal origin brings into question universal expansion (which according to my sources Hubble never agreed with, but I’m not a historian). Enter tired light. It is interesting that you know someone who worked with Zwicky. Since I felt like I was able to validate his tired light concept, I tried to contact his daughter, Barbarini Zwicky, for the possibility of including a unique quote for Null Physics, but was not successful, and didn’t want to push it out of respect.

Before speaking to tired light, let’s talk about universal curvature. The error in the five-dimensional unification I mentioned above was the failure to realize that the two spatial curvatures cited above, responsible for EM and gravity, both occur within a four-dimensional geometry. Spatial curvature/distortion can occur in one of two ways, either normal to space, along the fourth dimension (resulting in positive and negative EM fields) or along space, within the third dimension, resulting in nonpolar fields. Gravitation is caused by the internal distortion of space, which is in turn caused by the hypervolumetric density required to store energy’s three dimensional volume (time-distance^2) within space (distance^3). Spatial curvature is by definition extraspatial, so even if it occurs along three-dimensional space it is a four-dimensional phenomenon. So the net effect of energy density on space is not to produce a net four-dimensional curvature, it is to produce an average four-dimensional curvature. It is already “generally” agreed that space is probably flat or near flat, which is just what you would expect from its infinite nature, but it is important to interpret its average curvature correctly. Spatial curvature, by definition, has units of 1/r, acceleration. This can be interpreted one of two ways; either statically as a structural deformation or dynamically as an expansion. Sadly, it has been interpreted as the later. So even though Michelson and Morley, and experiments to follow, show us space is not a material substance, the universal expansion has space expanding into larger volumes, expanding over itself.

So what happens if space’s curvature is treated statically? It is still represented as a field of dv/dx, but the dv is not the motion of the underlying metric. Instead, dv/dx is induced in objects moving through it, resulting in the slow expansion of photons over vast distances. This is also why the signals from distant supernovae are broadened. Just as the photon is stretched, so to is the distance between them (I’ve got a great graph in the book). As the photon’s wavelength increases, due to the internal differential velocity to which it is exposed, it loses energy. Since its ensemble motion, because of this internal expansion, is slightly less than c, it behaves like a rapidly moving relativistic particle, and decays, emitting microwaves. These microwave decays, as calculated in the book, fall into the CMB band, and correspond well to the redshift quantizations found by Tifft and Napier.

There’s a lot more, but I really don’t want to spoil the book.

IN CLOSING

Unfortunately, self-published physics books are invariably the product of uniformed, and in many cases, positively deranged individuals. Just as unfortunately, peer-reviewed journals strenuously reject ideas contrary to the reigning paradigms. So rather than fight the battle a little bit at a time, I decided to wait until I had some convincing results and published the results of my work from 1978 to 2004 all at once. So far it’s gone well with the individuals who actually read the book, but after reading Lee Smolin’s new book, “The Trouble With Physics” I fear I might be tilting at windmills with regard to the theoretical physics community.

Thank you for your interest.

Schneibster

6th October 2007, 01:01 AM

What's a J-m? It looks like a Joule-meter, which is not a measure of size. This is confirmed by a later paragraph; it is the units of Planck's constant. But it's still not a unit of size. Did you make a mistake here?

Why is there no answer to my question about string theory? It's quite simple.

What is the cause of the mass difference of some 1836 times between the proton and electron?

The name of the "theorist" you spoke of who unified EM and gravity by postulating a fifth dimension was Theodor Kaluza. What he showed is that Maxwell's equations emerge smoothly and naturally from this framework, just as Einstein's field equations for gravity emerge smoothly and naturally from the four dimensional spacetime framework of relativity. Einstein eventually rejected his ideas because he couldn't find anywhere to put the fifth dimension that it wouldn't cause problems. What he never thought of was to make it small; that's what string theory does.

It helps if you actually understand a theory before you criticize it.

That'll do to go on with, I think. I'm still not convinced, and in fact, I'm more wary than ever. Let's see what you can come up with. I have some rather unconventional ideas myself, but I don't go so far as to reject the Standard Model or relativity. I've seen a lot of BS, and so far, this doesn't look any different. Make it different for me.

terrywitt

6th October 2007, 11:50 AM

Thanks for your clarification on Kaluza, I was confident you would know the name.

A J-M is a Joule-meter, as you deduced from Planck’s constant. In contemporary physics, units of joules have no size correlation because they are not treated, as I said in the post, in energy’s fundamental Null Physics units of time-distance^2, (or in the SI system, second-meter^2). Since energy is actually a three-dimensional substance, it has a volume, and therefore J-M is a four-dimensional quantity, and Planck’s constant is a four-dimensional boundary condition. This may seem like “other BS you’ve seen”, but only because you haven’t used it to calculate nuclear density or the inter-nucleon spacing of a deuteron to four decimal places, USING NO OTHER CONSTANTS.

As to your string theory question, I was under the impression that string theory is built on top of the Standard Model, etc, incorporating all of its content by reference, but I do not presume to be an expert in either QCD or any of the latest versions of string theory. I remember quarks being treated as point-like in the Standard Model, but frankly I don’t remember whether quarks are hyperdimensional strings in string theory, or whether they are points connected by hyperdimensional strings. The reason I don’t remember such things is because I have a wealth of compelling evidence that neither quarks or strings are accurate representations of physical entities, so their interpretation de jour is largely irrelevant, not unlike the migratory habits of a Yeti. I am sure I will be corrected a number of times in my depiction of the prevailing physics paradigms, which is why I try to focus on Null Physics.

I am not debating the empirical accuracy of either the Standard Model or Relativity, nor would I lump them into the same class of theories. Far from it, both are spectacularly accurate, as you well know, and relativity even speaks to some underlying foundational issues. My point is that theories that are manufactured to fit empirical data, with little to no underlying natural philosophy, are dead ends. I don’t need to know exactly what a house looks like to know that it’s built on swamp land. It is quite possible that much of the mathematics developed for the Standard Model or string theory will prove spectacularly useful for dealing with Null Physics geometry. But building these models without knowing something as simple as energy as time-distance^2 is like squaring a circle.

Null Physics has remarkable explanatory power, but cannot currently match the descriptive power of the Standard Model or General Relativity. It has, however, enormous descriptive power for a physical theory that only requires a single constant, and it can even tell us why this constant exists and why it has the value it does. In reference to your other question, I have yet to calculate the electron/proton mass ratio, but it’s not as if this ratio emerges miraculously out of the Standard Model either. It was manufactured by the appropriate choice of parameters. I suspect that Null Physics accomplishes more with its one constant than the Standard Model could with any 10 of its constants. But you can only appreciate the difference if you truly care WHY the universe is the way it is. If you just want to describe it, and are fine with waiting around with the Standard Model for the next bigger particle accelerator to be built, you don’t need Null Physics. It’s quite possible, after all, that the Standard Model will apply to particles of any energy, up to the Planck. But since it doesn’t tell us why quarks exist, why they have fractional charge, why they have mass, why they are bound together by gluons, etc, it will never provide a comprehensive understanding of matter. If it were a truly accurate representation of matter, instead of must an empty mathematical model, it would contain that gravity thing…

The reason why Null Physics cannot compete with the predictive power of the Standard Model is because the universe’s underlying geometry is fundamentally nonlinear. Numerical integrations are necessary for many of the particle calculations done in the book, and the analytic expressions I have been able to derive are for simple cases (isolated particles) or are approximations of nonlinear cases. The relativistic collision of two protons, handled so well by the Standard Model, is not even close to a simple case. The Standard Model can approximate the results of the universe’s underlying geometry using concepts like quarks and 20 or so arbitrary constants, but it will never tell us much about it. Another phenomenon? Let’s add another particle.

But as you said, it helps if you actually understand a theory before you criticize it. Did my explanation of the four-dimensional size of Planck’s constant make sense? The conversion rate between Joules and second-meter^2 is about 0.12. Thus, one joule is equal to 8 second-meter^2.

One other question; does JREF have an "official" stance on the status of string theory as a viable science, or is it just a variety of opinions?

Schneibster

6th October 2007, 01:26 PM

Any opinion I express is mine alone.

The ratio of the mass of the electron to the mass of the proton is not particularly significant in the SM; this is because electrons are free point particles (or strings, if you prefer), whereas protons are composites of three other particles. The rest masses of these components of the proton contribute some to its mass, but their binding energy contributes more, as anyone who looks over a table of the quark masses can easily guess.

By maintaining that the proton is a fundamental particle, you have denied the outcome of experiments in which the quarks have been detected within not only protons, but most if not all of the other baryons (including neutrons) that are reasonably stable. Furthermore, the existence of the omega hyperon, composed of three strange quarks, is the final proof of the existence of the strange quark. This is because, using QCD, the omega's existence, mass, and decay products and modes were correctly predicted prior to its detection. This is extremely compelling evidence of the existence of quarks, evidence you apparently are unaware of, or chose to ignore.

And that's merely the tip of the iceberg; there are also the pion, kaon, psi, B, and D mesons, upon which the current Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix measurements, of crucial importance to QCD, depend. From what I can tell, you have completely left the mesons out of your treatment. This is why ben asked you about the cross-section of np collisions. Note the presence of a pion among the decay products of this interaction.

Let's take a step back.

We know that electrons are fermions, and so are protons. How, then, can the neutron be a fermion? Yet, it is. In order to be a fermion, the neutron cannot be a composite of an even number of fermions; such a composite cannot have spin 1/2. It can have spin 1, or spin 0, and must therefore be a boson. The prevalence of mesons, which are bosons, in interactions involving the color force, shows that the color force has to be coupling two fermions to make a meson, and three to make a baryon; thus, all the baryons are fermions, and all the mesons are bosons. And if you want a piece of physics that has been proven over and over again, it's spin.

Finally, if the neutron is a composite of a proton and an electron, where does the neutrino come from when a neutron decays?

Nope, sorry, so far I'm still not convinced. It's that "a neutron is a proton and an electron" thing that is doing it. It's a complete denial of the Standard Model.

terrywitt

6th October 2007, 05:55 PM

So I assume that the answer to the question about string theory is that JREF has no “official” stance about the efficacy of string theory, at least that you are aware of?

Thanks for your excellent neutron/quark comments.

The Standard Model has made a number of outstanding predictions and correlations, this is not an issue I would dispute, nor have I. But this is exactly what you would expect of the interaction between a complex mathematical model and a complex underlying geometry. Do we remember all of the predictions, prior to the SM’s completion, that failed? All the revisions? All the patches? The many rules and constants that the SM uses, because of its empirical accuracy in so many regimes, are an indirect reflection of at least part of the underlying geometry in which interactions take place. That they sometimes correlate well at untested energies is not really that surprising. But there is a difference between mathematical analogies and physical existence. The “discovery” of the strange quark tells us that the inclusion of this element in the SM works, and is consistent with all of its other elements. It does not tell us quarks are physical entities that actually exist. I’ve also heard recently that there is compelling evidence of the production of isolated quarks in recent experiments; if not, the LHC is sure to “produce” a few. I do not discount the monumental effort that has gone into the manufacturing of the SM of matter. I, like many others who know far more about this model than myself, question the physical reality of the end result. When all is said and done, we have an accurate model, and not the slightest idea why elementary matter has the properties it does, or why it is so complex. The why of things is clearly more important to me than many physicists with whom I’ve discussed such issues. They always seem to think that “why” is either unimportant, unknowable, or will “shake out” in the future. Sorry, just not good enough.

In Null Physics, a neutron’s bound electron has little to no resemblance to an electron in its free state. So no, I would not expect it to behave much like a high-density state of hydrogen. A free-state electron has a core radius of 1738 F; a radius responsible for the existence of electron degeneracy pressure and which correlates well with low-mass white dwarf star density. The bound electron found in a neutron has a radius of 1.71 F, compressed to that size by the proton’s intense fields. As I had noted earlier, the existence of quarks is invariably verified with high-energy scattering. My claim is that the presence of this massive kinetic energy in the normal geometry of protons, electrons, etc, masquerades as internal subcomponents, which are then modeled as various forms of quarks. Crooked line with a crooked ruler. The geometry of two protons colliding at 2 GEV has little in common with that of their state in hydrogen gas at room temperature.

So what, I wonder, is the harm of starting with a new space-time geometry, based on certain extraordinarily pure foundational principles, and working backward to try to connect it to the observed physical universe by measuring the distortions of this geometry and comparing it to empirical observations? It’s a big job, since we’re starting without the preconditions of even what it means to have “spin”, or be a “fermion,” but a large portion of this work is complete, has produced compelling and consistent correlations, and has been recently published as Null Physics. When the theory reaches the stage where it is possible to simulate high-speed proton collisions with this geometry, I’m confident that it will exhibit evidence of “quarks”, just as it has reproduced many of the known properties of matter to high resolution. But I’m beginning to suspect that you are not terribly interested in this approach. As I said earlier, it’s certainly not ready to supplant the SM, but it has already produced falsifiable predictions, and it’s outstanding on that “why” thing. Is there some unspoken rule about looking more closely at theoretical physics’ foundational issues?

Just out of curiosity, a) have you read Lee Smolin’s book, “The Trouble With Physics”, b) do you consider string theory a viable scientific approach?

Schneibster

6th October 2007, 06:10 PM

You didn't explain the missing/extra spin, and you didn't explain the neutrino. Without those explanations your ideas are in conflict with well-verified features of both the Standard Model and reality.

Neutrons decay at room temperature. So do radioactive nuclei, and when they emit beta particles, that is neutron decay. This has nothing to do with high energy collision experiments, and is an observed feature of reality. If your idea can't handle it, then it is not a description of reality.

That's about all there is to it. Nice chatting with you.

terrywitt

6th October 2007, 07:46 PM

I sense a failure to communicate. I said two relevant things in reference to spin; First, that the bound electron in a neutron is spectacularly distinct from its free-space geometry, certainly to an extent capable of modulating its "spin". Second, that the property of spin, or of being a fermion for that matter, had yet to be identified in the application of Null Physics' geometry. Incomplete application of this nonlinear geometry constitutes work in progress, not a break from reality. I believe I mentioned that Null Physics wasn’t quite ready to supplant the SM’s descriptive capability, but has shown spectacular initial results given the austerity of its foundational premises.

Yes, neutrons decay at room temperature, in about 10.2 m, emitting an (anti)neutrino, a proton, and an electron. The neutrino is emitted in response to the conversion of the electron from its bound to free-space state. In Null Physics, evidence suggests that neutrinos are the bound state of photons much in the way that bound electrons are bound into neutrons.

Does this mean you haven't read Lee Smolin’s book and think string theory is a viable science? Lee's book is great. I would recommend it to anyone, regardless of their theoretical inclinations. Also, why do you keep avoiding that "why" stuff? Are you of the opinion that physics has no foundational issues?

Schneibster

6th October 2007, 08:03 PM

I also sense a failure to communicate. Spin is a conserved quantity. There is no "modulate." Conservation of angular momentum is implicit in the four-dimensional structure of spacetime; it is the fact that it is four dimensional, and that time is hyperbolically symmetric to each space dimension, in other words, that dictates the conservation of momentum, angular momentum, and energy. These are static unchangeable features of any four-dimensional spacetime geometrically arranged as ours is. That's what relativity says.

You can't add one-half and one-half and get a half-integer. It's just that simple.

Your idea conflicts irretrievably with the Standard Model of particle physics, the most precise and accurate theory of physics available, completely substantiated by extensive, nay, exhaustive experiment. Sorry, but that's how it is.

Loss Leader

6th October 2007, 08:09 PM

Yeah, I'm a lawyer. I don't understand a word of what's being said.

Still, Terrywitt, I have some layman's questions for you:

1. What experiments have been done that produce results consistent with your model that are inconsistent with the prevailing established physics model?

2. If no such experiments have been done, what experiment could you suggest that would give an answer consistent with your model and rule out whatever everybody else is using.

3. Earlier, it was said that shooting a proton at a neutron does not produce two protons and an electron. This is inconsistent with your model. How do you explain the fact that scientists cannot extract a proton and electron from a neutron.

4. Where have you been all these years? Einstein may have written his first works as a patent clerk but he was young and he spent most of his life in established academia. Any physicist would be required by his university to publish. So where have you been?

5. What's the deal with that show The Big Bang Theory? Those two guys are supposed to be physics professors but they live like children and appear to spend no time at all either teaching or researching. Still, it's pretty funny so far and I plan to watch it. Your thoughts?

Loss Leader

6th October 2007, 08:12 PM

Your idea conflicts irretrievably with the Standard Model of particle physics, the most precise and accurate theory of physics available, completely substantiated by extensive, nay, exhaustive experiment. Sorry, but that's how it is.

The SM is inelegant and does not appropriately explain the relative weakness of gravity among the forces. Given what we know about the beautiful simplicity of the physical world, it is almost certainly wrong. The physicist who believes otherwise is nothing other than a teaching assistant waiting for a new textbook.

I'm kidding. I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Schneibster

6th October 2007, 08:14 PM

I'm kidding. I have no idea what I'm talking about.I figured. ;)

gratuitous python

6th October 2007, 09:59 PM

Well, I'm glad we flushed out the author and got some idea of what was between the exerpts. Unfortunately, most of it was far beyond what my tiny brain can handle, at least after a big dinner and several glasses of wine.

My original point was that I felt we were being too quick to judge an original point of view as "crackpot" without first examining what the overall point of view actually was. We were making a judgment based on a few isolated exerpts from a work without knowing what the supporting pieces were or what exactly the author's overall theory might be. I also sensed a great deal of defensiveness about any outside challege to conventional wisdom.

Frankly, I remain dubious about "null physics," although still trying to be open-minded. While I don't plan to read the book myself at this point (My bedside table is groaning), I am interested in following the debate, and I appreciate what I've seen so far in this forum. Some excellent points were made and parried by all participants.

Whether or not Mr. Witt is on the right track, I have to say that I have long been uncomfortable with the Standard Theory. All the patches and plugged-in constants remind me of the "epicycles" and other convolutions of the Ptolemaic System before it finally crashed. I just don't think we're there yet and feel we may have to side-step a bit before we reach the path to a valid "Theory of Everything." I welcome any new ideas, regardless of whether or not they come from academically vetted sources.

Mr. Witt is not a member of the astrophysics establishment. He does not have an academic background. He has not gone through the discipline of peer review. He is self-published. That should certainly raise suspicions but does not automatically make him a crackpot.

I'm still waiting to hear from someone who has actually read the book.

terrywitt

6th October 2007, 10:14 PM

Sh: The decay of a neutron involves the emission of a proton, electron, and (anti)neutrino. I trust you agree that spin is conserved during this beta decay process. The formation of a neutron would necessarily, by time symmetry, involve the combination of an electron, proton, and absorption of a (anti)neutrino as part of the electron binding process. Not sure why you think that this would violate any conservation laws or why an electron in its neutronic bound state (which you would claim does not exist anyway) needs to have a half-integer spin. I would suspect that the conservation of spin is a key aspect of the binding process between the proton and electron. My CRC shows a spin of ½ for the neutrino, how about yours? So let's see 1/2 + 1/2 - 1/2 = 1/2!

LL: If you read the prior posts, it should answer most of your questions.

Schneibster

6th October 2007, 10:27 PM

OK, well first, the spin of the neutron has been measured, and it's 1/2. The spin of the proton has been measured, and it too is 1/2, and the spin of an electron is also 1/2.

So if a neutron is made of a proton and an electron, then you can have 1/2 + 1/2, or 1/2 - 1/2. The first equals 1, the second 0. So where does the other 1/2 come from? Are you now saying, after publication, that you were wrong and there's also a neutrino in there? Looks like a pretty serious flaw to me.

terrywitt

6th October 2007, 10:47 PM

SH: No, I'm saying that the conversion of an electron from its free state to its neutronic bound state requires the absorption of an (anti)neutrino. This is mentioned in the book that no one on this blog has read yet. And, let's all say it together now, a bound electron is not the same as an electron in its free state. Since the proton's energy component represents the lion’s share of a neutron, the best perspective would be to view a neutronically bound electron is the superposition of a free electron and (anti)neutrino. And no, I don’t think the neutrino remains a ghost in the system.

GP: Did you read Lee Smolin's "The Problem With Physics"? He has some great anecdotes in a been there, done that kind of way; great book. Peter Woit’s book, “Not Even Wrong” is pretty good as well, but since he’s not a physicist he hasn’t seen as much of the same stuff, and Lee's seemed more heartfelt.

Schneibster

6th October 2007, 10:51 PM

OK, so now account for the fact that protons in the nucleus turn into neutrons by K-shell electron capture and emit a neutrino.

terrywitt

6th October 2007, 11:29 PM

Thanks for the great discussion! Really enjoying it, but need to call it a day. Eyes...defocusing... I'll talk to the K-shell capture tomorrow, as well as some other particularly neat nuclear topics.

terrywitt

7th October 2007, 11:52 AM

Neutronic bounding of electrons needs to conserve energy as well as spin. I would imagine that K-shell capture emits a neutrino for this purpose. Beta decay by positron emission is another variation on the same theme of the binding of nuclear electrons. The nucleus is a far more complex environment than a neutron in free space, so I wouldn’t want to speculate too much about some of its processes without a better model of the pertinent dynamics. What Null Physics does speak to, however, through the application of bound electrons, is nuclear energy density and size, maximum nuclear density, the density of neutronium, the nuclear potential, and the saturation of the nuclear potential. And of course it tells us WHY positive protons can be bound together at such high density, because the Strong force is an intrinsic component of its particle geometry. It’s a great start for a single-constant model, but isn’t ready to replicate all of the details covered by the liquid drop or shell models.

Schneibster

7th October 2007, 12:19 PM

OK, but where does the spin on the neutrino come from? By your calculations, spin would have to be ADDED, not SUBTRACTED. "I would imagine" doesn't cut it. You either know or you do not- and if you do not, then you haven't explained how your idea does not contradict the Standard Model. Furthermore, the Standard Model gives a coherent explanation of this phenomenon, and your idea does not. And that means that the SM is more complete. Why would anyone want to use something that is less complete instead of something that is more complete?

terrywitt

7th October 2007, 02:36 PM

Ok, let’s do the math again. K-shell capture is an event of the form p + e = n + v, where we have the emission of a neutrino instead of the absorption of an (anti)neutrino: ½ + ½ = ½ + ½. The spin of the neutrino comes from the same place as a neutron’s beta decay: n = p + e + (v), ½ = ½ + ½ - ½. In both cases, the conversion of a free electron to bound electron (or vice versa) represents a spin transfer of ½ with respect to the bounded state of the electron. This change can be reconciled by the absorption of an (anti)neutrino or emission of a neutrino. The two events are spin equivalent with respect to the end state. If anything this reiterates my statement that the neutrino does not persist as a ghost in the system.

In answer to your second question, why do you persist in ignoring the value of explanatory power; good old Ockham’s razor? There are any number of theorists who are currently trying to “simplify” the SM so that it might be easier to unify with GR or be easier to integrate into a GUT. I’m not the only one working on this, as you would have to be aware. I’m just the only one I know using an entirely new geometry with a philosophical basis. The real beauty of the SM is that it is an excellent generalization of empirical results that can be used to test new paradigms as they are developed. I suspect that the relentless basic physics quiz in which we are engaged stems from the fact that you have, without reading my book, determined that I am unqualified to pursue such a lofty goal, not that such a goal is not desirable. Certainly presenting 480 pages of work, one or two pages at a time, out of context does not seem the most efficient way to evaluate my ideas. However, this has been helpful, since a couple of my readers have contacted me and say they now have a better handle on my overall premise after reading my "white paper".

This has been fun, but I must insist that you do me the courtesy of answering a couple of my questions before I will respond to any more of yours.

First, are you of the belief that it is impossible to replace the SM with a more eloquent theory that requires far fewer ad hoc constants?

Second, would you consider a theory that used ~20 ad hoc constants with no philosophical basis JUST AS GOOD as a theory that used only a single constant with a good philosophical basis, assuming that the two theories could account for experimental data equally well?

Third, are you absolutely convinced, beyond all doubt, that it is not possible to know and understand WHY the universe exists?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then continuing this discussion really is pointless, and we can erect a statue to the SM and marvel at our cleverness. But darn, there’s that gravity thing again... Maybe we can tie it all together with string theory.

Schneibster

7th October 2007, 03:34 PM

Ok, let’s do the math again. K-shell capture is an event of the form p + e = n + v, where we have the emission of a neutrino instead of the absorption of an (anti)neutrino: ½ + ½ = ½ + ½. Well, of course it is, but that's not what you said at first, is it now? You said, a neutron is an electron plus a proton.

The spin of the neutrino comes from the same place as a neutron’s beta decay: n = p + e + (v), ½ = ½ + ½ - ½. In both cases, the conversion of a free electron to bound electron (or vice versa) represents a spin transfer of ½ with respect to the bounded state of the electron. This change can be reconciled by the absorption of an (anti)neutrino or emission of a neutrino. The two events are spin equivalent with respect to the end state. If anything this reiterates my statement that the neutrino does not persist as a ghost in the system.So, like I said, you're saying there's an antineutrino combined with the electron inside the neutron. This "bound" electron then becomes a boson. And this accounts for the fermion spin of the neutron.

OK, why is that better than three quarks, and how does that account for the hyperons and mesons? Surely THEY don't have antineutrinoized electrons in them, particularly considering that they display characteristics that cannot be accounted for in this manner. And finally, if the weak force isn't responsible for converting one of the down quarks in a neutron into an up quark, along with the emission of a W- weak boson that then decomposes into an electron and an antineutrino, what precisely does the weak force DO in your model?

In answer to your second question, why do you persist in ignoring the value of explanatory power; good old Ockham’s razor? Because you're not adding any explanatory power, and you're failing to explain things as a coherent whole that the Standard Model already explains that way; so we're not even talking about equal explanatory power, we're talking about less.

There are any number of theorists who are currently trying to “simplify” the SM so that it might be easier to unify with GR or be easier to integrate into a GUT. I’m not the only one working on this, as you would have to be aware. Yes, and most of them are working on string physics. There are two other hypotheses out there that bear examination, and neither of them questions the quark theory of the composition of baryons and mesons. Yours does, in the process losing explanation of the weak force and proposing results that conflict with experimental evidence.

I’m just the only one I know using an entirely new geometry with a philosophical basis. Well, philosophy has a rather bad name in quantum mechanics. As far as new geometries, all three of your competitors propose them: twistors, loop quantum gravity, and string physics all propose that the basic geometry of spacetime is different than we suppose.

The real beauty of the SM is that it is an excellent generalization of empirical results that can be used to test new paradigms as they are developed. I suspect that the relentless basic physics quiz in which we are engaged stems from the fact that you have, without reading my book, determined that I am unqualified to pursue such a lofty goal, not that such a goal is not desirable. No, I have determined from the excerpts published above that your ideas conflict with the SM, and since the SM is strongly based on experimental results, that means that your ideas conflict with reality. I've already identified four different ways in which this is the case. If it doesn't describe reality, it might be nice philosophy, but it's not physics.

Certainly presenting 480 pages of work, one or two pages at a time, out of context does not seem the most efficient way to evaluate my ideas. However, this has been helpful, since a couple of my readers have contacted me and say they now have a better handle on my overall premise after reading my "white paper".Neat. I'm not impressed by 480 pages of work; Deepak Chopra has done more, but none of it makes any sense. Like I said, you need to make contact with reality if you're going to write about physics.

This has been fun, but I must insist that you do me the courtesy of answering a couple of my questions before I will respond to any more of yours.Well, I'll respond, but at this point, I see little value in continuing. When you have ideas that don't conflict with experimental evidence, feel free to get back to me.

First, are you of the belief that it is impossible to replace the SM with a more eloquent theory that requires far fewer ad hoc constants?No, in fact, I'm certain that there is such a theory. There are currently three candidates for such a theory, and a great deal of both math and experimentation to be done before we can differentiate among them. None of them may be correct; but more likely, one of them is. It may be quite a while before we find out which. Personally, I favor string physics, but that's not a scientific judgment.

Second, would you consider a theory that used ~20 ad hoc constants with no philosophical basis JUST AS GOOD as a theory that used only a single constant with a good philosophical basis, assuming that the two theories could account for experimental data equally well?Sure, but there are three such theories under investigation already, and yours apparently does not account for experimental data. When you get to high energy particle physics you basically throw up your hands and punt. The SM describes both the low and high energy regimes; so your idea cannot even be said to be as good as the SM, much less twistors, LQG, or string physics.

Third, are you absolutely convinced, beyond all doubt, that it is not possible to know and understand WHY the universe exists?Why is not a physics question. What, where, and when are physics questions. Why is a philosophical question. I'm not particularly interested in philosophy, given that its most recent production of any note is deconstructionism, which claims that there is no objective reality.

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then continuing this discussion really is pointless, and we can erect a statue to the SM and marvel at our cleverness. But darn, there’s that gravity thing again... Maybe we can tie it all together with string theory.Well, I don't answer any of them "yes," but I still see no point in pursuing an idea that claims to be physics but cannot show as good explanatory power as the SM. So I guess we agree on that.

Like I said earlier, nice chatting with you.

terrywitt

7th October 2007, 04:45 PM

I suspected that you might favor string theory, judging from your interpretation of the meaning of the word “explaining”. The reason the universe exists is actually the #1 problem to a full comprehension of its properties, which is a useful thing if we have a realistic goal of ever describing it fully with the most austere mathematical models. The only reason you think the solution for the existence of the universe is a philosophical problem is because you don’t know what this solution is, and are therefore unqualified to make this assessment. If this solution, for instance, explains the size and value of Planck’s constant, or the number of dimensions in space, as it does in Null Physics, then this is physics, not philosophy.

It’s hard to imagine a world in which “critical thinking” results in a deliberate misinterpretation of so many of my statements. I say I’m working on applying my geometry to high-energy physics, and you say I “through up my hands”. You say you’ve found 4 places where Null Physics is at odds with reality, yet I’ve patiently answered all of your questions, and you really don’t know the first thing about the geometry. I explain where Null geometry is positioned and headed, and you toss in more aspects of the SM, such as mesons, etc, that I’ve ALREADY TOLD YOU are under development. So now you do me the honor of looking at Null Physics when it fully supplants the SM? Wow, thanks, I’ll keep you specifically in mind when that comes to pass.

Schneibster

7th October 2007, 05:21 PM

I suspected that you might favor string theory, judging from your interpretation of the meaning of the word “explaining”. I have no idea what this is, but from the number of subtle digs you have indulged in so far, I expect it's intended as an insult. I'm ignoring this one too; insults from woos don't particularly concern me. But I'll be pointing them out from now on, just so folks have that to judge your statements on as well.

The reason the universe exists is actually the #1 problem to a full comprehension of its properties, which is a useful thing if we have a realistic goal of ever describing it fully with the most austere mathematical models. The reason the universe exists is immaterial to physics and cosmology. How it came to exist might not be. A mathematical model that describes the creation of the universe ex nihilo has been proposed, and so far not invalidated. I'm not clear on what you're trying to accomplish that has not already been accomplished.

The only reason you think the solution for the existence of the universe is a philosophical problem is because you don’t know what this solution is, and are therefore unqualified to make this assessment. In my experience, excuses about the "solution for the existence of the universe" (whatever that might mean) followed by statements about the lack of qualifications of an opponent is a sure-fire indication of the physics woo. The accusation of lack of qualifications of the opponent, the subtle hints of one's own superior knowledge, the avoidance of questions one does not have good answers to, these are all highly indicative. Try not to be quite so obvious about it, OK? This is one of those subtle insults I talked about above. The reader is encouraged to examine prior responses for signs of the same type of behavior; it exists in nearly every prior post by this individual.

If this solution, for instance, explains the size and value of Planck’s constant, or the number of dimensions in space, as it does in Null Physics, then this is physics, not philosophy.Not if it doesn't describe everything that the SM can. If it can't, or describes things that contradict reality, then it is not physics; at least not physics that makes contact with reality.

It’s hard to imagine a world in which “critical thinking” results in a deliberate misinterpretation of so many of my statements. "Deliberate misinterpretation" is another of those subtle little digs that woos like you use when you get exposed. Perhaps if your ideas didn't have so many holes, you wouldn't have so much trouble.

You know, I've tried to be polite, and tried not to denigrate you, but if you're going to be nasty, then I can be nasty too. I'd have to say that the initial evaluation of crackpot is pretty accurate. I don't recommend anyone waste their money on your book, nor their time. There are plenty of books out there by real physicists to read. I'll leave it at that.

terrywitt

7th October 2007, 08:45 PM

Actually, I didn’t think my dig was all that subtle, at least no more than a couple of yours:

It helps if you actually understand a theory before you criticize it.

and

Why is there no answer to my question about string theory? It's quite simple.

Crackpot? Woo? I see you’ve “elevated” the discussion to the level of name calling. Not sure what a woo is, but it can’t be good. Anyway, I guess we’ve entered the “lively” part of the discourse. I thought your instructions to other blog readers for interpreting our exchange were priceless. I think they will be able to assess, on their own, the relative levels of arrogance and intractability evident in our individual comments and determine whether or not they might be interested in a fresh perspective.

Ironically, (other than the name calling…words hurt, you know) your last response was the first time our interaction actually started to look like a discussion. The statement:

The reason the universe exists is immaterial to physics and cosmology. How it came to exist might not be. A mathematical model that describes the creation of the universe ex nihilo has been proposed, and so far not invalidated.

can be seen to be a misinterpretation, however, once the next logical step is taken. The reason the universe exists is inclusive of both origin and non-origin scenarios. In the case of an origin, ex nihilo, the reason it exists rests with the underlying cause of the origin. In the case of no origin, an eternal universe, the reason the universe exists explains why it is present, instead of nothingness. In either case a physics problem exists, because in either case the universe has universal constants and other properties that require explanation. Assuming you don’t just throw in the towel and go with the anthropic argument, of course.

What's the proper post icon for a woo? I didn't know, so I just used my usual one. Hope that doesn't violate woo conservation.

gratuitous python

7th October 2007, 09:17 PM

But I'm still waiting to hear from someone who's actually read the book.

Let's all get a good night's sleep.

Schneibster

7th October 2007, 10:34 PM

can be seen to be a misinterpretationNot really. The idea was published in Nature in 1973, under the title, "Is the Universe a Quantum Fluctuation?" by Edward P. Tryon.

Complexity

7th October 2007, 11:23 PM

terrywitt - I'm not a phycisist, but I find it fascinating and am not totally ignorant.

Some revolutionary ideas in science have come from unexpected directions.

However, being peculiar does nothing to suggest that you might have a revolutionary idea.

You may or may not have something worth considering. Time will tell.

I have no interest in reading your book, even if it were free.

Your posts set off alarms as soon as I read them. You have utterly failed to persuade me that you know anything of interest, let alone of revolutionary import.

I'll continue to read this thread - I always learn from Schneibster. Perhaps you will post something that will give me pause. I doubt it, but it could happen.

Taffer

8th October 2007, 02:03 AM

terrywitt: I am saddened by your lack of answers to many of Schneibster's questions. And if one is going to invoke the Razor, one should really understand how it is to be used. ;)

Schneibster

8th October 2007, 02:06 AM

Wanna know the worst part? I wish he was right.

Professor Yaffle

8th October 2007, 03:03 AM

Gratuitous python - Are you one one of Terry Witt's mates, who joined the forum in order to increase his bok sales, by getting people here to buy it in order to mor comprehensively demolish it?:duck:

Anyway, the main reason for me posting on this thread: Are there any Uk posters here who have noticed the similarity of Terry Witt's name to a certain Viz character (who I can't name without a moderator getting medieval on my ass)?

ben m

8th October 2007, 06:18 AM

(I wrote this offline following TerryWitt's "White Paper" post, and haven't had the time to read the new posts. I apologize for any rehashing.)

Terry, I think you just dug your hole a little deeper.

Mesons, kaons, and particles that decay into electrons (positrons) are essentially high-energy electron states, whereas sigmas, lambdas, and particles that decay into protons (antiprotons) are essentially high-energy proton states. Their instability is caused by the internal presence of bound positive-negative particles in combination with a stable particle. A muon, for instance, is an electron combined with a positive/negative pair. Think of it like an electron combined with positronium at nuclear density. The bound pairs that exist within unstable particles cannot exist singly in nature, like protons and electrons. The neutral pi meson, for instance, decays into two gamma rays because it is a bound particle/antiparticle.

Why didn't we think of that before---the particle zoo is just a bunch of high-energy excitations and bound states of the particles we're familiar with already! Um, we did think of that (roughly 1940-1960) and we rejected it for darn good reasons. It looks as though you're aiming to justify "lots of particles with different masses, that decay to different things", and hoping that the details will work out somehow. But the details are the whole story. There's something fundamentally very different about a muon and a pion---can you describe and account for the differences? Why do you think that kaon-proton collisions can produce single lambdas, but pion-proton collisions only produce lambda-antilambda pairs? Why do kaons live so much longer than etas? What's the difference between K-short and K-long? What's the difference between K0->pi+ e- nu and K0 -> pi- e+ nu? Why does pi -> mu nu so outnumber pi -> e nu? Why does J/Psi -> mu mu occur, but not K0 -> mu mu? Can you predict whether pi0 -> e+ e- occurs, or how common it is? That's the sort of knowledge you're sweeping under the rug. I have no doubt that, given such a question and the answer, you could think up a justification ("Oh, the kaon must have a persistent internal structure which mimics what you call 'strangeness'") but such justifications have zero predictive power.

I really have to emphasize: the Standard Model (which includes Schrodinger's Equation) correctly predicts everything ever observed in atomic, nuclear, particle experiments, from the energy levels of hydrogen to fringe pattern in diffraction experiments to the decay modes of the Z. The unsolved problems, like large nuclei, are limited not by SM failures but by computational power. Your model predicts ... what exactly?

Oh, right, it predicts "the maximum material density in black holes". Given that we can't actually measure this quantity, that's like writing a theory that predicts the color of leprechauns' shoes on the moons of Tau Bootes A. And it predicts the "strength and range of the strong force"? I presume you mean "I can make it fit the radii of small nuclei and maybe their masses", which doesn't even begin to capture the strong force: it's like saying "I have a complete theory of hydrodynamics" after writing down the deep-water wave equation.

High-energy neutron scattering mimics the existence of internal constituents (other than protons and electrons), but this is only because adding hundreds of MEV (or more) of energy causes a significant distortion of the underlying composition. It's like trying to measure the shape of a light bulb by shooting bullets at it.

That's quite an escape hatch! It looks like what you're really doing is building a wall around the things the theory "gets right" (i.e., the things you engineered the theory to fit), declaring everything else off-limits. I'm reminded of Autodynamics, which wrote an alternative to SR in order to fit 210Bi beta decay. They reacted very badly if you tried to use their equation to solve any other SR problem (like, say, the relative speeds of two cars), or accelerators, or non-beta decays, or non-210Bi beta decays! But still they claim that their theory is true and SR is wrong.)

In reality, if you really had a "force law" describing what goes on in the proton or neutron, you should be able to predict those distortions. (After all, high-energy probes do distort and/or destroy their targets; the Standard Model works through those distortions using the same force laws it uses everywhere else.) What's the energy at which "significant distortion" begins occurring? Does the distortion have a turn-on threshhold, or is it continuous? How do you determine this?

This is the easy part. There is no difference between a universe whose sum is zero and zero (same total), so a universal origin is nonsensical. The lack of universal origin brings into question universal expansion (which according to my sources Hubble never agreed with, but I’m not a historian). Enter tired light.

You're trying to distinguish yourself from crackpot physicists by saying "My tired-light theory works because my photons decay?" This is like trying to distinguish yourself from conspiracy theorists by saying "I can place the assassin on the grassy knoll." Do you know why photon-decay hypotheses were rejected? (Hint: solve your "photon decay" with both energy and momentum conservation (good luck!) or whatever's appropriate in your theory. Do a Monte Carlo simulation of an ensemble of photons from a point source at z=3, applying your decay equation with appropriate probability densities, and keeping track of their directions. When the photons get as far as Earth, make a 2-D histogram of their directions and overlay it with the Hubble Deep Field. Then make a histogram of their energies and overlay it with a high-resolution spectrum from Murphy et. al., Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 327 (2001) 1208.)

Physics needs a healthy dose of critical thinking right about now, and its lack thereof is making it progressively harder to discount pseudo science.

Every time I have seen someone make this claim, it has boiled down to this: "It is intuitively obvious that X is wrong; the only reason physicists could possibly accept it is closed-mindedness". This is not really different than, "Anyone can see that the WTC collapse is a controlled demolition, so the fact that NIST is still talking about heat-softening shows that they're closed-minded?" You're making the assumption that anything you "intuit", or anything you've proven to your own satisfaction, must be correct and worthy of full-professional-consideration by the field. That's not a good assumption, Terry. You might well find something "intuitively obvious" because you are (a) closed-minded yourself, (b) unaware of some important experiment, (c) misunderstanding the theory (very common!), or (d) a crackpot, or perhaps (e) because it is indeed obvious. I have yet to have seen an example of (e).

Indeed, string theory IS pseudo science.

Have you ever talked to a string theorist? In my experience, they will tell you one of two things: a) "I think of myself as a mathematician, exploring a mathematical landscape inspired by physics", or b) "We have hundreds of different theories which all agree precisely with the Standard Model. We hope that most of these theories---maybe even all-but-one of them---will be disproven by internal-consistency checks, so that is what we spend most of our time on. If we get down to one, or a few, plausible theories, we can begin discussing whether this theory is the true GUT and how to find out." You can argue about whether this is worth doing, or likely to succeed, but don't call it pseudoscience. Compare it to, say, bioinformatics. Is it pseudoscience when a genetics researcher leaves data behind and starts writing pure graph-theory papers? Is it pseudoscience when an ecologist invents 10,000 hypotheses on a computer, throws out 9990 of them by comparison to Craig Venter's shotgun data, and publishes the remaining 10 with "further study needed" flags?

Also: String theory is just one branch of theoretical physics. Quantum mechanics, the Standard Model, the Big Bang, etc., all exist independent of string theory; they will continue to exist if the string theory project fails (as it may). Theorists continue searching for non-string GUTs, non-string Standard Model modifications and extensions, non-string/non-GR gravity models, and so on.

Milky Way Radial Drift: The RAVE survey that ben m referenced has a resolution of at most 5 km/sec, insufficient to test the effect I propose, which is ~1.5 km/s. Thanks for playing, though.

I know about the 5 km/s, but you don't care about individual star velocities, you want an ensemble average. You need to break down RAVE's systematic error budget and see how well you can determine a centroid.

So what happens if space’s curvature is treated statically? It is still represented as a field of dv/dx, but the dv is not the motion of the underlying metric. Instead, dv/dx is induced in objects moving through it, resulting in the slow expansion of photons over vast distances. This is also why the signals from distant supernovae are broadened. Just as the photon is stretched, so to is the distance between them (I’ve got a great graph in the book).

In this case, you don't really have a non-expanding universe---you're just pasting a set of non-expanding coordinates onto the GR grid, saying that your coordinates are the "real" ones, and then treating the GR effects as effective forces. This isn't different in principle from the Newtonian approximation to static gravity (Newton says "this is the fixed x-y-z-t grid of the world, and here is the force field on that grid" whereas Einstein says "this is the curved x-y-z-t grid, along which objects move in straight lines"). If you actually follow particle trajectories on a grid like yours, you certainly can get a situation where the particles think they're following geodesics in curved space.

Of course, you may be confusing yourself by making your photons "decay". If you've got a way to stretch photon wavelengths, that lowers their energy without any additional decay process needed, just like gravitational redshifts and Dopplar redshifts.

So, what's the point? You want the Universe not to expand, but you don't care if all of the particles in the Universe feel like it's expanding? If that's the framework which fits your philosophy, that's fine with me. Or you want the Universe's curvature (or effective curvature, or whatever) do obey something other than the Einstein equations? Fine: write down your equations, specify the free parameters carefully, and do a proper global fit to cosmology data. Don't just describe it and say "it works", because we're going to presume that your criteria are no stricter here than they were when you claimed to "explain" particle physics.

gratuitous python

8th October 2007, 10:06 AM

Professor Yaffle -- No, I never heard of Terry Witt before I saw his ad in Smithsonian. My background is in marketing, not physics, and what interested me was the quality of his ad -- it seemed a brilliant way to sell what seemed -- and still seems -- a questionable product.

Anyway, I googled "null physics," and that led me to JREF. I signed on to take part in the thread because I was disappointed in what I saw as a dogmatic and overly emotional rejection of Witt's book by people who had never read it.

I like to think I'm about as skeptical as anyone, but I try to keep an open mind until I have all my facts. After following the ensuing discussion, I'm inclined to think that Terry Witt is no crackpot, but rather someone who knows a lot but not enough about his subject.

While ben m and Schneibster are probably correct in their critique of Witt's work, I'd be more comfortable with their views if I didn't detect such a high level of anger in what they write. What would be far more convincing to me is a level-headed analysis of "null physics" by someone with with the requisite background in physics who had actually read the book.

Soapy Sam

8th October 2007, 06:12 PM

General points of information.

1. The James Randi Educational Foundation owns and operates, but is a separate legal entity from, the JREF Forum.
2. Schneibster's comment that opinions expressed by him are solely his own extends to all posters on the forum. In particular, no opinion posted on the forum is an "official" JREF opinion. JREF is not a scientific regulatory body and nobody at JREF or the forum is pretending that it is.
3. "Woo" or "woo-woo" is either a noun for a person who holds beliefs which are not consistent with relevant evidence, or an adjective describing such behaviour. It appears to be a word which originated on this forum. It is generally used in a critical or derogatory fashion, though the degree varies. I do not know enough physics to fairly describe Terry's theories as "woo", but on the forum we often see sole, radical thinkers convinced by a theory which appears to generate strong resistance among more conventional thinkers. When I find someone appearing to criticise standard theories on the grounds that they are based on fitting theory to empirical evidence, I feel concern.

terrywitt

8th October 2007, 06:59 PM

gratuitous python

8th October 2007, 07:29 PM

However, I think what Witt was trying to say was that the Standard Model was built to accommodate existing empirical data but still doesn't answer some key issues or satisfactorily account for new data that appears, the result being that all sorts of patches, e.g. dark energy and dark matter, are necessary to keep it afloat. He's not dismissing empirical evidence.

As I stated in an earlier post, I see in the Standard Model parallels to the accretions added to Ptolemy's solar system in order to maintain the conventional wisdom of a geocentric universe filled with perfect circles.

This is not to say that Witt isn't a "woo-woo." He well might be. I just don't feel he's getting a fair hearing from people who make statements like "I wouldn't read the book, even if it were free." I'm also concerned that some of the criticisms of his theory are that it doesn't agree with certain assumptions or conclusions of the Standard Model. Of course it doesn't -- he's already stated that he sees flaws in the Standard Model.

Now, I'm not a physicist nor a mathematician, although I take an active interest in both and try to keep reasonably up-to-date on current thinking. And ever since being the first kid in my class to bust the Santa Claus myth, I've been a life-long skeptic with little tolerance for what you call "woo-woo," so I find it strange to find myself defending what is most likely a bit of hokum. I'm just asking that we all play fair.

When I read about string theory, I have to say I'm still not convinced and am quite surprised how so many bright minds are willing to buy into it with no real empirical evidence. Yet this guy comes along with his "null physics," and the pit bulls attack without making much of an effort to find out what he's talking about. I'd like to see Witt's critics concede that the Standard Model isn't the final word and then give him a chance to lay out his case before dogmatically dismissing it, mostly, it would seem, because his ideas are radical and come from outside the guild.

jsfisher

8th October 2007, 07:46 PM

Yllanes

9th October 2007, 01:51 AM

. I just don't feel he's getting a fair hearing from people who make statements like "I wouldn't read the book, even if it were free."

Professional physicists read the journals [1] and they have a lot of reading to do just with that. The only real way to have his models evaluated is to submit them to a journal (or to the arXiv, which is easier and only needs an endorser). The time when new, complete, theories were presented in books is long gone.

__________
[1] Actually, professional physicists read the arXivs (http://xxx.unizar.es/).

ben m

9th October 2007, 01:55 AM

Since it has been thus far impossible to achieve a productive discussion of my ideas, I thought I would try a different approach and post a chain of reasoning and let one of my many fans identify where the departure lies. In other words, which of the following premises, by number, are incorrect:

1. The Standard Model, (SM) which I’ve praised a number of times, is in spectacular agreement with empirical results.
2. In order to achieve its close correspondence with observed events, the Standard Model relies on around 20 constants that have experimentally determined values; ad hoc.
3. A number of theorists would like to improve on the SM by reducing the number of its many constants, and replace it with a theory that required fewer parameters, parameters that might have more physical significance.
4. Although it is not possible to prove that a more eloquent formalism of the SM exists, working toward that goal is an worthwhile project.
5. The theory that will eventually supplant the SM will not be created instantaneously. In its formative stages, it will necessarily be less complete than the SM, and might also use a different architecture.
6. When the new theory is complete, it should meet or even exceed the SM predictive ability, yet do so in a more eloquent fashion with fewer parameters. In the best case scenario, it will also encompass gravitation.

Does anyone disagree with statements 1-6? If so, which one and in what way?

1) Not just agreement; *prediction*. Vernon Hughes didn't measure the muon magnetic moment, then adjust the Standard Model constants until it agreed. He took the fine-structure-constant measured with atomic physics, did a deterministic SM calculation, and then measured the muon moment---and found agreement all the way out. Jerry Gabrielse took the same atomic data and measured the electron magnetic moment out to 14 decimals, finding perfect agreement. (The way you talk about it, you'd think that we took two data points, fit them to a two-parameter straight line, and then went off bragging about how intermediate points also lay along this line. )

2) The Standard Model's 27 parameters are not ad-hoc in the way you're picturing. 12 of them are just masses (six quarks, six leptons); if you go out, discover the muon, and measure its mass, in what way is that ad-hoc? It'd be nice to have a universe where, e.g., the muon and tau masses are just some simple function of the electron mass. But what makes you think we live in such a Universe?

3) Fewer free parameters, yes. "more physical significance", no. The leading directions for beyond-the-standard-model physics and up getting most of the masses and mixings from Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking. I doubt, Terry, that you'd find a new theory "satisfactory" if it finds 10 obscure quantum parameters in an obscure high-energy limit, and shows that they predict some mass ratios in the low-energy world.

4, 5, 6) Um. You're assuming, Terry, that the Universe was designed to suit your preferences---who promised it would be eloquent? Who promised it would be intuitive to our hunter-gatherer brains? You're designing a historical arc which justifies your work. In practice, Grand Historical Arcs have about as much predictive power as ... well, as Null Physics.

ben m

9th October 2007, 05:57 AM

While ben m and Schneibster are probably correct in their critique of Witt's work, I'd be more comfortable with their views if I didn't detect such a high level of anger in what they write.

Are my responses angry? I didn't mean them to be, but I'm definitely annoyed. I would point out that Mr. Witt did not come forward saying "Please let's share this idea, which I think is neat", he came forward saying "Physicists are closed-minded and utterly ignorant of the huge philosophical problems with their theories, which are so obviously flawed I shan't trouble to learn how they work." This is remarkably similar to the attitude brought by creationists ("Darwinists are stupid, amoral, and value their careers above all"), warming denialists ("Climate scientists are idiots; I can disprove their theory in a few minutes' thought"), and so on. It's tiresome.

I remember quarks being treated as point-like in the Standard Model, but frankly I don’t remember whether quarks are hyperdimensional strings in string theory, or whether they are points connected by hyperdimensional strings. The reason I don’t remember such things is because I have a wealth of compelling evidence that neither quarks or strings are accurate representations of physical entities

Name one example of a successful, paradigm-changing scientist who wasn't a practiced expert on the old paradigm. Copernicus? Newton? Harvey? Kepler? Einstein? Maxwell? Watson & Crick? Boltzmann? Mendeleev? Planck? Feynman? Gell-Mann? Hubble? Lyell? Agassiz? Darwin? Deliberately ignoring your predecessors might be a good strategy in entrepreneurship. It is emphatically not in science.

My point is that theories that are manufactured to fit empirical data, with little to no underlying natural philosophy, are dead ends.

Terry, this statement is so badly flawed that I can't even think of why you believe it---except that you need to believe it to justify your work. Theories built on "natural philosophy" were complete and utter dead ends for over 2000 years. Ptolemy's geocentrism, Hippocrate's humours, Aristotle's physics, Hahnemann's law of similars, the dozens of pre-Newton dabblers who guessed at whether cannonballs moved in straight lines or arcs, the biologists who guessed whether the Vital Force resided in the heart, spleen, or brain. History is littered with forgotten, entirely useless theories based in "natural philosophy"; everything we think of today as a "successful theory" was pieced together laboriously to account for and describe data; even Einstein's work was basically a frame-transformation of Maxwell's.

Null Physics has remarkable explanatory power, but cannot currently match the descriptive power of the Standard Model or General Relativity. It has, however, enormous descriptive power for a physical theory that only requires a single constant, and it can even tell us why this constant exists and why it has the value it does.

By "descriptive power", you seem to mean "I can describe any phenomenon using my theory". Dan Visser can do the same with his "Complex Cosmos"; the creationists at Common Sense Science have a weekly newsletter elaborating more "descriptions", and Carezani's Autodynamics has "described" muons, pions, nuclei, accelerators, and the Pioneer Anomaly. (Heck, my still-developing Tau Bootes Leprechauns theory does pretty well in the description department.) Sorry, Terry, but descriptions are surprisingly easy. I know you've worked hard on yours, but there are thousands upon thousands of ways to "describe" data. You have found one of them. Good for you.

The hard part is deciding whether your description is the right one or the wrong one, and for that we'll get right back to the detailed numerical tests.

The Standard Model can approximate the results of the universe’s underlying geometry using concepts like quarks and 20 or so arbitrary constants, but it will never tell us much about it. Another phenomenon? Let’s add another particle.

Um? The Standard Model was built at a time when the known mesons could all be built from four quarks. Kaon "oscillations", however, had been observed, and the quark model forbids such oscillations unless there are six quarks instead of four. So, the original electroweak unification theory was written for a six-quark theory. We discovered a family of heavy mesons in the early 1980s, which fit into the fifth-quark slot that awaited them (only the mass had been unknown), and the top quark in the mid-90s (whose mass had been predicted from LEP data), which fit into the sixth-quark slot that awaited it. How many new particle did we "add", then, in response to the dozen B-mesons, the hundred-odd B meson decays, the B0 oscillations, the K0 oscillations, the top quark mass peak, the LEP data, and so on, that we've discovered since 1975?

What's up with Null Physics? You don't have any idea what the particle masses are; you're guessing that you can describe them with no free parameters. You have no idea what their decays are; ditto. You have no idea what atomic physics, collider physics, cavity QED, etc., results are; you have no idea whether your theory will describe them. Your theory doesn't yet describe the world with fewer parameters than the Standard Model. You just hope that it will. You guess that it will.

Then you say that an electron is compressed to that size by the proton’s intense fields.

We know what happens when you expose an electron to the proton's intense fields. This is called a "hydrogen atom". We see no evidence, in atoms or in scattering experiments, of any stronger force than the E&M one, and the E&M one does not hold the proton to the electron any stronger than 13.7 eV.

When the theory reaches the stage where it is possible to simulate high-speed proton collisions with this geometry, I’m confident that it will exhibit evidence of “quarks”,

You're confident that the theory will describe data because you're confident that the theory is correct. You're confident that the theory will be correct because you're confident it will describe data.

In Null Physics, evidence suggests that neutrinos are the bound state of photons much in the way that bound electrons are bound into neutrons.

This pretty much speaks for itself. Terry, since you have shown yourself so adept at adding spins together, please demonstrate how you plan to combine two spin-1 photons to make a spin-1/2 neutrino. Then explain why, despite the existence (if you are right) a strong photon-photon attractive force, photons do not interact at all at cross sections down to 10^39 cm^2?

Speaking of spin, all of your posts on the neutron suggest that you're unaware of the left-handed nature of weak interactions. You ought to look this up.

End of criticism, beginning of advice

I hope you'll accept some constructive criticism.

You need to learn more mainstream physics. Go to your local university bookstore and find the high-energy physics textbooks that a first-year graduate student would use: probably Perkins, or Griffiths, or Halzen & Martin. Read them and do the problems.
You need to work on theory-experiment comparisons. Why are you wasting time calculating "average nuclear densities"? What experimental quantity were you hoping to compare this to? You need to think, and think hard, about what you can calculate that has been measured, unambiguously and accurately. Don't tell me the 3He "nucleon separation", tell me the charge radius. Don't tell me the "average nuclear density", tell me the Bethe-Weizsacker coefficients, the magic numbers, the decay modes and lifetimes, the low-energy excitations. Don't tell me the "density of a neutron star", which nobody knows: tell me the spindown rate, maximum spin, and the maximum glitch size. Don't tell me the density inside of a black hole; tell me the orbit frequency of the inner edge of the accretion disk.
Compare your theory to the old models. If you can show, mathematically, that "My theory reduces to QED when X is true, and differs from QED when X is false", this saves you the trouble of solving all of the QED situations by hand. In the end, your theory must reduce to (as appropriate) Newtonian gravity, Maxwell's Equations, General Relativity, Schrodinger's Equation, QED, the Fermi theory of beta decay, Yukawa theory, QCD, and the Standard Model. If it does not reduce appropriately to all of these, it is wrong. Quit complaining about "I'm not ready to do the full Standard Model" and get to work on Maxwell's Equations, or Newton's, or something.
You need to re-prioritize. Pick some sort of precision physics, a lot of which is done at low energies, and pound on it until you can make a prediction. If you can predict the electron magnetic moment with any accuracy at all, this is worth 100 times as much as a whole book full of cosmology speculations.
Don't take it personally. If the theory is wrong, it's Nature's fault, not yours. The only thing can be your fault, not Nature's, is your reaction.

Good luck; it's a hard road you've chosen.

Loss Leader

9th October 2007, 09:49 AM

Earlier in the thread, I asked Terry five questions. He has answered me by PM. My questions and his responses follow:

1. What experiments have been done that produce results consistent with your model that are inconsistent with the prevailing established physics model?
The Standard Model (SM) has been built to fit experiments, and fit them well. That said, my model can calculate things from foundational principles that the SM needs ad hoc constants for. With its 20 or so constants, there are a wide range of phenomenon that the SM can describe that Null Physics cannot (yet).2. If no such experiments have been done, what experiment could you suggest that would give an answer consistent with your model and rule out whatever everybody else is using.
I've already made some predictions that are listed as Appendix A at nullphysics.com. I am establishing some relationships that might allow these predictions to be tested in the near future.
3. Earlier, it was said that shooting a proton at a neutron does not produce two protons and an electron. This is inconsistent with your model. How do you explain the fact that scientists cannot extract a proton and electron from a neutron.
First, no one on the blog has read my book, so there's a lot they don't know about my model. It is not inconsistent with the collision of two protons. And actually, it's easy to extract a proton and electron from a neutron. Just send one flying into free space, such as off of a nuclear reactor, and the neutron will decay (in an average of 10.2 min) into an electron, proton, and (anti)neutrino.
4. Where have you been all these years? Einstein may have written his first works as a patent clerk but he was young and he spent most of his life in established academia. Any physicist would be required by his university to publish. So where have you been?
I started in physics in 1975 at O.S.U. with the intention of becoming a theoretical physicist. Even then, I noticed that this community was about as open to new ideas as the Omish community, maybe less so. I switched to Electrical and Computer engineering, founded a biomedical company, and sold it recently. If you Google "Terence Witt" it will have the details of the sale. So I've been busy. If you want to know why I haven't published, you can use the current blog as an example, or read Lee Smolin's excellent book, "The Trouble With Physics". It's quite a eye opener.
5. What's the deal with that show The Big Bang Theory? Those two guys are supposed to be physics professors but they live like children and appear to spend no time at all either teaching or researching. Still, it's pretty funny so far and I plan to watch it. Your thoughts?
There's a lot of subsistence positions in physics, such as assistent professorships, post-docs, etc, that pay next to nothing. As to the show, I thought the one I saw was a hoot, particularly when he responded to a noise in the middle of the night with a light saber toy.

I have to say, I agree with him about The Big Bang Theory. It's a funny show.

The rest of his answers are a little unsatisfactory. I like my physical theories to explain experimental evidence that other theories can't. This doesn't seem to be the case here.

Incidentally, from last night's episode of The Big Bang Theory:

Penny: So, what's new in the world of physics?
Leonard: Nothing.

terrywitt

9th October 2007, 01:15 PM

Goodness. Interesting way to answer a few simple questions. What is truly mystifying is the following statement:

"Physicists are closed-minded and utterly ignorant of the huge philosophical problems with their theories, which are so obviously flawed I shan't trouble to learn how they work."

I have never said that, nor even intimated it. And the bloggers have apparently forgotten that I was originally drawn into this “morass masquerading as an open discussion” by being called a “nutcase” and “crackpot”. I have repeatedly shown a great deal of respect for both the Standard Model and Relativity. The kind of misdirection evident in comments such as the above usually has an underlying cause unrelated to the discussion at hand. But I’m not a psychologist, so let’s get back to physics.

I’m glad ben trotted out most of the typical excuses for the conceptual incompleteness of the current paradigms. In no particular order: what makes you think our ape brain can understand the underpinnings of reality, what makes you think there is any deeper reality, etc. What makes you think there is a pure unification beneath the complexity of matter? This is a good defense. After all, if there is no reason the universe has all of these constants, the current models are not conceptually incomplete! QED. Sorry, not good enough, and neither is the anthropic argument.

Natural philosophy did reach a dead end over 2000 years ago, because it was unable to correlate with the burgeoning empirical evidence that was being acquired, and was not designed to do so. Science then shifted to a heuristic approach. This “modern” approach can be used to successfully describe (AND PREDICT) a wide variety of phenomena because IT IS RELATED TO THE UNDERLYING GEOMETRY. I get that; I’ve said that. Do I need to sign something? Prediction is the whole point of description, this is not a news flash. GENERALIZATION leads quite naturally to PREDICTION. It’s that next telephone pole you find after you’ve seen a few along the road. There are any number of patterns within the rich geometry of which matter and energy are composed.

Natural philosophy died away a couple of thousand years ago, but the questions they asked did not, such as “why does the universe exist?” They persist to this day. That they were never satisfactorily answered does not make them meaningless, or worthless. The relationship between “why does the universe exist?” and the properties that the universe exhibits is not a strained association. Why else would so much work go into the unification of the Standard Model of cosmology with the Standard Model of matter? The purpose of Null Physics is to bridge this gap.

Ben, your knowledge of contemporary models is evident and you’ve gotten some good practice exercising it during this discussion, but you really don’t understand enough about Null geometry to be giving me advice as to how to precede with it. This will no doubt be labeled as a typical woo woo response, but allow me to elaborate. Null Physics is not a mathematical model, and as such it does not, and does not need to, reduce mathematically to other mathematical models. Null Physics provides a pure, rich, nonlinear geometry that has a number of unique characteristics. As noted elsewhere on this vitriolic blog, various solutions of this nonlinear geometry have produced compelling results; calculations that Ben et al have somehow managed to appraise without review. Barring some sort of psychic connection, in clear violation of one of JREF’s fundamental tenants, I’m not quite sure how they managed to pull that off. “Put it in the journals and we’ll review it!” A reasonable request, to be sure, but the theory really does require 480 pages for its full support, and since it is not related to the current mathematical models it would be rejected out of hand, as has happened on this blog. There is also a little speculation in the book, such as neutrinos as “bound states of photons”, and mesons as “high-energy” states of electrons, but these are included in Appendixes so as not to detract from the primary theme. I've included speculations in this discussion because I am continually, and annoyingly, grilled about areas of physics yet to be addressed by my geometry.

So, in closing, consider the following concept, an observation and a supposition. OBSERVATION: As students progress through various levels of math, they solve equations, resulting in analytic expressions, etc. Then they go out in the real world, and analytic solutions are few and far in between. The spring heats when it is compressed. Matter in a gravitational potential emits slightly different photons, etc. Everywhere you look, the most accurate representation is a nonlinear solution or simulation. ASIDE: When Earth was thought to rest on the backs of elephants, a reasonable question surfaced: What do the elephants stand on? The answer was “oh, it’s elephants all the way down…”. SUPPOSITION: Since our surroundings are so predominantly nonlinear, interspersed with traces of analytical patterns, it is reasonable to suppose that the fabric of reality itself is nonlinear, “all the way down”. This inherent nonlinearity can be described AND PREDICTED using mathematical models of various levels of complexity, but we still lose something in the translation – that “why” thing. Null Physics works bottom up from a rich nonlinear geometry, not top down from empirical results. This is why its continued empirical application is a work in progress, and a work that shows great promise, for those who have the opportunity to understand and review its calculations.

Paul

9th October 2007, 01:44 PM

Just a minor point Terry, but I feel it does highlight your attention to detail:

THIS IS NOT A BLOG

and stop wining about what you think would happen if you attempted peer review, do it and find out.

Soapy Sam

9th October 2007, 03:00 PM

Terry, in your post above I think you meant "proceed", not "precede" and "tenets" , not "tenants".
Typos are common. (I make many)- but are generally random keyboard errors. These look like actual misapprehensions about the words themselves.

That's not an attack. It's intended to be helpful. As Paul said, you may have slightly misunderstood the environment here. It's not anyone's blog, it's just a discussion forum. (A Bulletin Board in Oldspeak). You are welcome to defend your POV any way you like , within the forum rules, with those who are equipped to follow your arguments. Whether you convince anyone or not is only important if it matters to you personally to do so. This is not a formal adjudication centre on matters of science, just an Internet forum.
You are also free to post elsewhere in the board on anything else that interests you.

Don't feel you are in any sense restricted to this thread. Look around. Relax. There may be other threads of interest or amusement to you.
You don't actually have to be right , or profoundly well informed (on anything) to post here. Interesting folk are always welcome. If you do choose to restrict your posts to defense of a single point of view however, you must expect to be challenged by those with similar interests and knowledge. If they didn't think you worth arguing with, they would ignore you.

Yllanes

9th October 2007, 03:10 PM

Null Physics is not a mathematical model, and as such it does not, and does not need to, reduce mathematically to other mathematical models.

This is probably your way of saying that your model doesn't actually predict any numbers, but is a collection of qualitative descriptions. If this is true then it is dead on arrival. In physics the only thing that matters is
Your theory produces some real quantitative predictions. Some real numbers, in short (cross sections, half lives, etc.)
Another guy then does an experiment and gets the same numbers.
That is all. That is what we call 'prediction'.

blobru

9th October 2007, 04:07 PM

Several investigators have found that the further away a supernova is (i.e., the larger its redshift), the longer it appears to last (i.e., the wider its light cone). The direct linear relationship, apparent duration ≈ redshift, is almost exactly what you'd expect with an expanding universe; however, it contradicts Null Physics' tired light hypothesis: if the redshift is due to light expanding over distance and not space expanding over time, nearby supernovae and distant supernovae should on average appear to be about the same duration (measured by light cone).
How does NP account for this?

terrywitt

9th October 2007, 06:20 PM

Paul: Thanks for the blog terminology clarification. Is the correct term for others on this post “posters,” since “bloggers” is clearly in error? “Forumers” just doesn’t seem to roll off the tongue.

Soapy: Also thanks. I don’t really think it’s primarily a function of wanting to be “right”; from the beginning I’ve just been trying to describe what Null Physics “is”, in the absence of anyone here reading the book. I do know the difference between tenet and tenant, precede and proceed, just as you are no doubt aware that typos can take that form, as the brain is processing to the keyboard. The usual one for me is there and their. I’ll relax, and I have found the discussion very productive in terms of distilling my message to an audience that hasn’t seen the book as well as how to properly offend the physics literati. I certainly did not want to come off as anti-physicist or anti-empiricism. It’s just that when I’m pushing my rusty shopping cart down the interstate, trying to sell books, I can’t understand why people don’t like me.

Yllanes: No, my theory is not qualitative. It has a large number of analytic solutions as well as numerical solutions that result in real numbers - real values. That’s why all of its predictions, listed at nullphysics.com, are testable. Moreover, the source code for some of these calculations can also be found on nullphysics.com.

Blobru: I sit in stunned silence, in the distance, a dog barks. Someone just asked me a great question about my theory!!! Please give me a second to compose myself. Signal dispersion is the prima facie evidence against the original version of tired light. Refractive dispersion is important as well, because if the light were interacting, in any way, with matter, then photons of different frequencies would be dispersed along their path from a distant object, producing chromatic aberration. So we know for a fact that light is not losing energy by interacting with anything in the intergalactic medium, to include “gravitons”. The reason why signals are red shifted and dispersed is because the same dv/dx (gravitational curvature) that stretches photons also separates them along their paths. This is counterintuitive, because it means that two photons leaving at slightly different times, taking the same path, actually move away from each other. Yet this is precisely what space with a four-dimensional curvature ought to do. If it were perfectly rectilinear, two photons, leaving from a source one second apart, would arrive at their destination one second apart. But space is not rectilinear, so this is not what happens. The dv/dx induced by the universe’s average curvature spreads photons as well as the distance between them, because it is immaterial whether or not the dx in dv/dx is within a photon’s wavelength or the separation between two photons in a signal. The next thing to account for is the loss of energy. Photons lose about half of their energy every ~10 billion years. This means that the universe’s entire legacy luminous output is halved every ~10 billion years. This is a prodigious energy loss. Where do you suppose it goes? Microwaves. Deep space photons, when exposed to the expansion of dv/dx, emit microwaves. Since the microwaves are emitted parallel to the photon’s trajectory, energy and momentum are conserved.
Thanks for asking.

Complexity

9th October 2007, 06:49 PM

This is not to say that Witt isn't a "woo-woo." He well might be. I just don't feel he's getting a fair hearing from people who make statements like "I wouldn't read the book, even if it were free." I'm also concerned that some of the criticisms of his theory are that it doesn't agree with certain assumptions or conclusions of the Standard Model. Of course it doesn't -- he's already stated that he sees flaws in the Standard Model.

Now, I'm not a physicist nor a mathematician, although I take an active interest in both and try to keep reasonably up-to-date on current thinking. And ever since being the first kid in my class to bust the Santa Claus myth, I've been a life-long skeptic with little tolerance for what you call "woo-woo," so I find it strange to find myself defending what is most likely a bit of hokum. I'm just asking that we all play fair.

When I read about string theory, I have to say I'm still not convinced and am quite surprised how so many bright minds are willing to buy into it with no real empirical evidence. Yet this guy comes along with his "null physics," and the pit bulls attack without making much of an effort to find out what he's talking about. I'd like to see Witt's critics concede that the Standard Model isn't the final word and then give him a chance to lay out his case before dogmatically dismissing it, mostly, it would seem, because his ideas are radical and come from outside the guild.

I'm the one who made the comment about not reading the book, even if it were free.

I read a great deal, but I think I'll be able to continue to so for perhaps another ten years.

I seem to be taking about a year to give a serious reading to a good-sized technical book outside of my field (e.g. Lewin's Genes, Janeway's Immunobiology).

I can read a great many non-technical science books in a year (e.g. Greene's The Elegant Universe, Susskind's The Cosmic Landscape, Carroll's Endless Forms Most Beautiful).

I also read a great deal of history, fiction, and books in other areas.

Nonetheless, I will be able to read at most 10 or 15 serious technical books outside of my area during the rest of my life.

Now, why should this guy's book be one of those?

I'm not a physicist. I'm an interested amateur who spent two years as a physics major and gave it up for other things. I will never have the mathematics or physical background required to read uninterpreted physics. I have to, and am happy to, rely on researchers such as Greene and Susskind to interpret for me.

There are several people who participate on this forum who are either gifted amateur or professional physicists. I pay attention to what they have to say. I also have a functioning woodar (and gaydar) and have learned to pay attention when it chirps.

I am not competent to interact with this guy on physics - however wrong he may be, he knows more than I do.

I'm not going to spend my time reading his book - I truly have better things to do. I hope to be reading and thinking long enough to educate myself on some evolutionary developmental biology. That will take many years. It is something that I would love to know more about.

One further point - there are more people demanding that their theories get a full hearing than there are hours each day. You have to pick and choose what is worth even cursory study, let alone a deep reading.

This guy doesn't make the cut, for me. If he does for someone else, great. I'd be interested in a short digest from someone I respect. But I certainly don't expect anyone to invest their time unless the guy makes their cut on his own.

terrywitt

10th October 2007, 01:12 AM

This has been an absolute hoot, and I wanted to thank all the posters for a great time and the lively discourse. I wish you all the best. TW

Taffer

10th October 2007, 01:15 AM

That's a shame, Terry. You really should listen to some of what has been said here.

Broes

10th October 2007, 01:17 AM

TW:
If your theory is so describtive of reality and makes science shudder at it's most fundamental roots, why are we hearing about this on an obscure internet forum and not in a mayor scienific journal with peer review?

ben m

10th October 2007, 03:11 AM

( Did I miss him? I just read his explanation of how photons "decay" instead of redshifting. )

Aha, the decay photons are collinear with the source photons? That means that the microwave "decay" photons must point back to their sources. In other words, you're not predicting a microwave background, you're predicting that all high-redshift objects are microwave point sources. This is experimentally not true. You're predicting that higher-redshift sources should *always* have higher microwave-to-primary-light ratios. This is also experimentally not true.

So that's that.

(If I understand the cosmology correctly, you're also not solving "Olber's Paradox"; since you don't remove energy from any line of sight, but just move it from a few optical photons into many microwave photons, you're just shunting the problem from optical frequencies to low frequencies.)

Paul

10th October 2007, 04:31 AM

I think this quote from Terry's website explains a lot about his theory, although not why he thought hit and run advertising for his book would work here:

At long last, a theory has emerged that addresses the foundation of reality logically, rationally, empirically, and completely - Null Physics. The universe it reveals doesn't rely on unknowable precursors in the ancient, untestable past. The universe it reveals won't collapse, or grow old and die. Null Physics tells us why the universe exists, how the universe exists, and why it is the way it is. The mystery of our existence has beaten scientists and philosophers for so long that they are utterly convinced that reality's underpinnings are beyond human comprehension. They are wrong. Anyone with a basic familiarity with high-school physics can, by reading this volume, understand the universe with a greater depth and clarity than is currently believed possible. Welcome to 21st century physics.

Taffer

10th October 2007, 05:00 AM

I think this quote from Terry's website explains a lot about his theory, although not why he thought hit and run advertising for his book would work here:

So, in short, he has found a Theory of Everything which is explanable using high-school level phyiscs?

Why is it that I find that so hard to believe?

Paul

10th October 2007, 05:34 AM

Why is it that I find that so hard to believe?You have a working brain in your head.

Loss Leader

10th October 2007, 03:06 PM

So, in short, he has found a Theory of Everything which is explanable using high-school level phyiscs?

Why is it that I find that so hard to believe?

Trust me, it wasn't high school level. I did pretty well in high school and I have no idea what any of you were talking about.

ben m

11th October 2007, 02:17 AM

So, in short, he has found a Theory of Everything which is explanable using high-school level phyiscs?

I don't doubt that he has a theory of something; the question is, of what? It may be a theory of some possible Universe, but it certainly isn't the theory of ours.

Soapy Sam

11th October 2007, 05:08 AM

I think Complexity makes an excellent point in post 56.
Outside what we know is a huge cloud of what we partly know.
It requires a certain humility to accept that there are limits to what we can know.

Last night , someone told me that sound and light are the same thing and it's all a matter of frequency and vibrations.

Which I guess sums it all up.

Time for a strong coffee , I think.

quarky

16th October 2007, 12:43 PM

my second attempt to reply here:
i actually have the book (my girlfriend bought it for me; i started reading it; had to do a quick google; landed here)

i'm brand new here, and may not comprehend the rules just yet. if this post flies, i'll be back.

quarky

16th October 2007, 01:20 PM

probably not cool to reply to one's own post, eh?
pity that terrence witt has left the arena already.
this is the most expensive book i've ever owned!

(i'm sorta obligated to read the whole thing; grumble moan bitch)

anyway, i hatched out a similar hypothesis about 10 years ago, on a popular website that no longer exists. mine is math-free; pure philosophy..but good philosophy.
is there a good spot to spew it out here?

it has a bit of avalanche theory; some nuero-transmitter chemistry; a touch of layman's quantum mechanics...pretty happy stuff, mostly.

perhaps 1000 people have already read it, years ago.
(i'm not saying that witt was one of them)

Soapy Sam

16th October 2007, 04:11 PM

Dump a synopsis in the philosophy or science areas. If the mods feel it needs moved, they'll move it.

Schneibster

16th October 2007, 04:48 PM

Yeah, no stress, they leave a link where it came from, too. I'd suggest science, even though it's a little hinky.

I commented above I wouldn't buy it, but if given it as a gift, I can understand why you'd read it. Beware, however, there are people here (and I am one) who know enough about how physics actually works that you want to be careful how you present things. I'm tolerably certain we're not looking at anything that's actually going to supplant real physics, but you might get some good ideas from it, and I'm sure we'd all be interested to hear them.

quarky

16th October 2007, 06:48 PM

cool.

here's the notion:

a single subatomic particle is all that exists; it violates C in the extreme; yet it pre-exists its permutations. it assembles all the larger systems, really fast. if it was a quark, it would move into 6 positions; change spin as needed to behave like the apparent variations. the percievors of the phenomenae don't notice the speed of this particle; hence, we don't suspect seperate, sequential realities being assembled before our eyes, by a very zippy particle.

if such a scenario is possible, then we are formed by its motions, and ultimately exist as the same minute particle that is speeding about, creating all necesary larger configurations to accomodate our perceptual commands and desires.

we interface with this single subatomic particle at the synapse of a a pair of nuerons.

enough of that.
i shall look for the correct forum.

Paul

16th October 2007, 08:07 PM

we interface with this single subatomic particle at the synapse of a a pair of nuerons.Except we couldn't, because if you were correct, nothing but that single particle would exist, not the synapse or the neurons or the necessary equipment to process the signals etc, etc...

One particle, moving very quickly and pretending to be other things, is still only one particle.

If you're going to claim that it's so fast it's practically indistinguishable from multiple particles then you have another of the 'what's the difference if you're right' ideas (like 'we're all just part of god's dream'); whatever the truth the universe will behave the same way, so why try to produce a theory with no benefits and countless drawbacks over the current ones.

Schneibster

16th October 2007, 08:16 PM

a single subatomic particle is all that exists; it violates C in the extreme; yet it pre-exists its permutations. it assembles all the larger systems, really fast. if it was a quark, it would move into 6 positions; change spin as needed to behave like the apparent variations. the percievors of the phenomenae don't notice the speed of this particle; hence, we don't suspect seperate, sequential realities being assembled before our eyes, by a very zippy particle. Amusing, but definitely more philosophy than science; even if it's true, it's a distinction without a difference. There's no way to prove it.

Feynman once proposed (I'm not sure whether in jest or not) that because positrons can be interpreted as electrons moving backward in time, there is only one electron, zipping back and forth and creating all the timelines of all the electrons we think we see everywhere in the universe. But again, it's a distinction without a difference, and there is no way to prove it.

quarky

17th October 2007, 07:51 AM

true, its not proveable, and is rathar reverse engineered. it begins from an assumption of unified fields. i find the urge to unify the fields disturbing in some ways, even though i'm guilty of it too. what if they simply don't unify? we seldom approach the matter that way.

to paul, i would suggest that there are benifits in the single quark hypothesis, which i should attempt to point out in another forum. if nothing else, it deals with our individual quantum 'influence' on reality. "we", whatever 'we' are, have 'command' of a single particle. we direct it at the synapse of a single pathway, at the onset of a flow of brain activity. fairly different from 'god's dream' scenarios. the single particle would need to exist, pre big bang. its the big bang that is the dream.

i'm not particularly attached to any of my bizzare ideas, but i seek to free myself of them anyway. thanks for playing.

Paul

17th October 2007, 11:19 AM

"we", whatever 'we' are, have 'command' of a single particle. we direct it at the synapse of a single pathway, at the onset of a flow of brain activity.There seems to be some confusion as to the meaning of 'a single subatomic particle is all that exists', because if we assume this to be true, there is no we, no command, no synapse, no pathway, and no brain to have activity.

fairly different from 'god's dream' scenarios. the single particle would need to exist, pre big bang. its the big bang that is the dream.Again, some confusion I think. In the god's dream scenario everything, from the vastness of the universe to subatomic particles, exists solely in the dream of some other being; there is no big bang, only the dream that we have the concept of the big bang.

Your scenario would also seem to not need a big bang; if the particle can appear to be everywhere, why would it also appear to be an expanding universe?

i'm not particularly attached to any of my bizzare ideas, but i seek to free myself of them anyway. thanks for playing.What's the point of posting an idea you have been hanging onto for ten years, saying it's bizarre and you want to get rid of it, and then claim to be playing games?

quarky

18th October 2007, 08:35 AM

the single particle arranges a universe to accomodate our perceptual bias. natch, we are the single particle, ultimately...as are the pathways, etc.

it was terrence witts book that re-opened this notion for me.
expressing ideas is a way of cleaning the mind. doesn't mean its junk being thrown out. bizarre is good. play is good. everything begins with thought. (i think)

Paul

18th October 2007, 11:26 AM

the single particle arranges a universe to accomodate our perceptual bias.You're still separating us from the universe, the single particle does not allow for this.

natch, we are the single particle, ultimately...as are the pathways, etc.So everything is one and nothing but the particle really exists, however, it all appears as if it were real and for all practical purposes it is; there is no benefit in treating the universe in any other way than it experimentally appears to function, that way lies pain and suffering and arrest for tax evasion.

quarky

18th October 2007, 01:16 PM

You're still separating us from the universe, the single particle does not allow for this.

So everything is one and nothing but the particle really exists, however, it all appears as if it were real and for all practical purposes it is; there is no benefit in treating the universe in any other way than it experimentally appears to function, that way lies pain and suffering and arrest for tax evasion.

The single particle allows for time, which is how we are able to appear to be seperate from it. Is it not likely that this universe appeared from a singularity?
Before time (and distance) happened, somewhat mysteriously, at the big bang?

If time was to collapse, there would only be that singularity. At that juncture, we would surely "be" that singularity, if we were to "be" at all.

not so unlikely.

Paul

18th October 2007, 03:04 PM

The single particle allows for time, which is how we are able to appear to be seperate from it.That seems a little odd; to allow the appearance of separation the particle must be so fast as to appear to be billions of billions of billions of individual particles.

Time, subjective or objective, either flows or appears to flow and is quantified by us; why should the particle be the cause of time, why not time allows for the particle?

Is it not likely that this universe appeared from a singularity?Is your singularity composed of only one particle?

Before time (and distance) happened, somewhat mysteriously, at the big bang?Why a big bang? Why would the single particle, that is capable of appearing to be the entire universe, need to start small and to fake expansion and increased complexity?

If time was to collapse, there would only be that singularity. At that juncture, we would surely "be" that singularity, if we were to "be" at all.That depends on the real nature of time; if the particle were to cease changing patterns, time would effectively stop but there would still appear to be an entire universe. Conversely, if the particle stopped moving, there would appear to be no universe but there could still be time.

Apathia

18th October 2007, 07:56 PM

Feynman once proposed (I'm not sure whether in jest or not) that because positrons can be interpreted as electrons moving backward in time, there is only one electron, zipping back and forth and creating all the timelines of all the electrons we think we see everywhere in the universe.

Surely, he was joking! :lol2:

Schneibster

18th October 2007, 10:51 PM

Perhaps. But you can't prove it wrong, either.

That may be the punch line. :D

Schneibster

18th October 2007, 10:52 PM

Mmmmm. I think your universe got more complicated, quarky. You've got something other than the particle now.

Spacetime.

quarky

20th October 2007, 08:16 AM

what is space-time made out of?

Paul

20th October 2007, 09:44 AM

what is space-time made out of?Nothing, it's a concept not a thing.

quarky

20th October 2007, 10:36 AM

not incompatible with single quark hypothesis

Schneibster

20th October 2007, 12:18 PM

Nothing, it's a concept not a thing.That may not be true. Remember Newton's Bucket, and Mach's Hypothesis.

I'll use the same variation on Newton's Bucket that Brian Greene uses in The Fabric of the Cosmos.

Let's say you take a pair of rocks and tie them together with a rope. You're in space, so there's no gravity (yes, yes, I know, technically there's a gravity field that has a value of zero, just stay with me here). If you spin the thing like a bolo, then the rocks keep the rope taut as they spin. The question is, what makes it do that? From each rock's point of view, the whole universe is spinning around it; it's motionless. The other rock and the rope are spinning around it, too, at a different rate, and so it's the other rock that is pulling the rope taut.

Now, the simplistic answer is, momentum- Newton's First Law, an object in motion tends to remain in motion, along a geodesic (<- slight update for relativity there) and an object at rest tends to remain at rest. But the question here is, what makes momentum- and more properly, how does the rock know it's moving? It's easy to dismiss it in the case of linear motion, you can just say the rock doesn't know; it's the observer who defines how the rock is moving. But in the case of the rocks and rope, it's more difficult. What are the rocks and rope spinning with respect to?

Well, you might say, if you were sitting on one of the rocks, you'd see the stars (or galaxies, if you were out in intergalactic space) spinning around you. They mark the spacetime in the universe. But Mach asked a question about that, which is, what if there was nothing in the universe but the rocks and the rope (and you to observe them). What would they be spinning with respect to, and how would you know they were spinning? Unlike the case with linear motion, where you (the observer) can just speed up and say, well, they're not moving so they don't have any momentum, in this case, there's a definite phenomenon that doesn't go away- the rope is taut. And if you spin to match the motion of the rocks, it's still taut. If you suppose that you couldn't tell whether you were spinning or not, then there would be a "mystery force" pushing the rocks apart. So without stars or galaxies to refer to, how do they know they're spinning?

Now, there's an assumption here: we're assuming that if we had a completely empty universe, with nothing but the rocks and rope, if they were spinning, they would pull the rope taut. We don't know that, because we don't have any empty universes to test it in. But if we believe (assume) it, the implication is, there's something other than the stars and galaxies that motion is defined with respect to. And if it's a totally empty universe, there's only one thing left: spacetime. So now it looks like spacetime really isn't just a nothing; it's a something. It's not just a concept; its existence has a real physical consequence: the rope is taut.

When Mach first thought this little conundrum up, his opinion (Mach's Hypothesis) was that if you had a totally empty universe, there'd be no way to make the rope taut. You wouldn't be able to tell; motion would be meaningless, except linear motion of the two rocks to one another. The implication being, spacetime is just a concept, as Paul has said. It's just the distance between events. And initially Einstein agreed with him, after he'd formulated Special Relativity. But the longer he thought about it, the less Einstein agreed with Mach. And in the end, he disagreed with him; Einstein believed that spacetime was a real existent physical entity, with properties that could be defined and measured.

Not only that, but if you've thought about it, you'll realize that if you eliminate the rope, and just have two motionless rocks, or better yet, one motionless rock and another pair that are spinning, then you CAN define rotation; and the rope becomes taut. Certainly it can't just be that third rock that changes everything and makes the rope taut. That's ridiculous; the force of gravity isn't strong enough to do that. So there's an implicit contradiction in Mach's Hypothesis.

Einstein gave us a definition of spacetime, and showed not only that it exists, but that it has a shape. Near a massive object, like a planet or a star, spacetime is warped; far away from massive objects, it's flat. The warp in spacetime near massive objects is the cause of the force we call gravity. And that's General Relativity, in a nutshell. So we see that if we agree with GR, then we have to accept that spacetime is a something, not just a concept. And in a completely empty universe, there would still be something for the rocks and rope to rotate relative to: spacetime. And the existence of the force of gravity is evidence to support that view.

In modern formulations of relativity, the physical existence of the spacetime continuum is a formal postulate of Special Relativity. So from our point of view, there's not much question about it.

But never forget that Einstein initially didn't believe it was real. And you can't really prove it; like I said, we don't have any empty universes to do tests in. But these days, most physicists believe that spacetime has real physical existence; and in fact, the most important conservation laws are believed to arise from symmetries of that spacetime. The conservation of momentum, for example, arises from the symmetry of physical law over position; wherever you are, you'll get the same laws of physics, and that implies that one of those laws is conservation of momentum. The conservation of energy arises from the symmetry of physical law over time; that is, if you check physical laws today, and check them again tomorrow, they'll be the same. And, most important to this discussion, the symmetry of physical law over rotation implies the conservation of angular momentum; that is, if you check physical laws while you're looking that way, and check them again looking this way, then they'll be the same.

So I must therefore respectfully disagree with Paul; spacetime has real physical existence, and measurable characteristics; it's a something, not just a concept. At least it is if you believe relativity.

Paul

20th October 2007, 03:32 PM

So I must therefore respectfully disagree with Paul; spacetime has real physical existenceThanks for that, I'm quite happy to be corrected. :p

I'm not a physicist so my understanding of these things depends on the explanations I read, and those often use words in ways which cause the layman to make assumptions; I was going with the concept, construct and model explanations in too literal a way.

It's also interesting that your explanation is simpler than all of the beginners' information I found on the net.

Anyway, it certainly does seem to complicate, even more, the single quark hypothesis.

Schneibster

20th October 2007, 05:28 PM

I strive for understandable explanations; I'm not a physicist either, but I'm a very curious engineer, and know enough math to get myself into serious trouble. :D

As far as an answer to quarky's question, I'd have to answer that spacetime isn't "made out of" anything, as far as current theories go. It's a basic constituent of the universe, just as quarks, leptons, gluons, weak bosons, and photons are. I left gravitons out because we're still working on that part of physics.

Broes

22nd October 2007, 02:31 AM

Schneibster, you rock... You are my quantum hero.
I sincerly enjoy reading you explanations, very educational! :)

roSSman

31st October 2007, 06:46 PM

Schneibster

1st November 2007, 08:02 AM

I agree that Schneibster rocks, in terms of his knowledge and ability to explain. I happened upon this thread by Googling 'null physics' after seeing Witt's ad in Popular Science. I read the entire thread, and feel significantly more informed. I hadn't ever happened upon JREF before, though I am a long-time fan of Mr. Randi. I joined, specifically, to ad my comments.Thanks for the compliment, and welcome to the JREF forums.

Secondly, I am somewhat swayed by arguments averring that the standard model stinks. Yes, I understand it's facilitated a litany of predictions with accuracy out to many decimal places -- and that's awesome. But conceptually, it's awful. It fails (almost completely) to give us any kind of satisfying mental picture that makes its dynamics mechanically comprehensible -- in the way, say, that heliocentricity made comprehensible all those odd movements of planets. Here we disagree.

First of all, I get a very satisfying mental picture of how particle physics works from the standard model. It is a very satisfying simplification of a simply enormous amount of data and a huge collection of confusing observations. From four forces, and twelve elementary particles, everything we see around us and much that we must explore very deeply to even discover exists is explained.

The four forces are electromagnetism, the weak force, the color force, and gravity. Each has its own particle(s) by which it interacts: respectively, the photon, W and Z bosons, gluon, and graviton. The elementary particles are six quarks: up, down, strange, charm, top and bottom; and six leptons: electron, muon, and tau, and three neutrinos that correspond to the three massive leptons. The leptons interact by gravity, electromagnetism (except the neutrinos which are uncharged), and the weak force. The six quarks interact by all four forces. The photon and W and Z bosons, and therefore electromagnetism and the weak force, are aspects of a single underlying force, and this force is called "electroweak" and there is an additional boson for it, the Higgs boson, which is an artifact of the electroweak symmetry breaking. The W and Z bosons, the gluons, and the Higgs boson have mass; the remaining bosons (photon and graviton) are massless.

As for parameters to the model, there are the twenty-one particle masses (neutrinos are massless), the masses of the W and Z bosons, a single mass for gluons, and the mass of the Higgs, and the field strengths of the four forces; twenty-nine.

There are two additional wrinkles. First, the underlying dynamics of particles are essentially different from those of the everyday world around us, in a single very simply, but highly counter-intuitive way: there are pairs of properties, such as spin on two axes, or position and momentum, or energy and position in time, that cannot be simultaneously defined with infinite accuracy, and in fact the inaccuracy can approach the size/mass/spin/energy of the particles. This is called Heisenberg uncertainty, and it means that particles, rather than being like familiar objects in the everyday world with precise positions and boundaries are "smeared out" over a range of positions, or over a range of times, or energies, or masses. And it is the presence of this one small difference in the dynamics that makes particle physics seem so difficult and counter-intuitive. Many extremely intelligent people, including Albert Einstein, one of the smartest men who has ever lived, have tried to get around this or show that it was not true, but the best they have been able to do is merely prove that in fact, it MUST be true. This fact has profound implications about the nature of force and matter on the smallest scales, but it does not alter the twenty-four particles and four forces.

Second, all of the activities of these twenty-four particles and four forces occur on a stage set by four dimensions, and the description of these dimensions and the ways that the particles can behave in them is called Special Relativity.

As a result of the facts of uncertainty and relativity, there are two theories for each force, and a synthesis for each force of those two. Those two theories are a field theory and a quantum theory, and the synthesis is a quantum-field theory. We know the entire details of the quantum-field theory of the electromagnetic force. We have quantum theories for the electroweak and color forces. We have a field theory for gravity. To the extent that we do not have both theories for all four forces, the model is incomplete. Research to fill in the missing pieces of the quantum-field theories I have indicated is underway. That's what the LHC is for, and it's why it was such a tragedy that the superconducting supercollider was not built fifteen years ago.

From this theory of twenty-four particles and four forces emerges a picture of our universe from the smallest scales, far below those of the atomic nucleus, to the largest scales, of superclusters of galaxies; from the beginning of the universe in a quantum fluctuation followed by inflation and the hot Big Bang, symmetry breakings of each force, nucleosynthesis, recombination, transparency, and the formation of galaxies, stars, planets, and life, to eventual entropy death after trillions of years. Literally scores of different composite particles, mesons, protons, neutrons, and all the hyperons, are described in terms of this theory; the existence and characteristics of atoms is completely described; and this leads in turn to a complete description of the interaction of all the matter and all the energy in our universe, for all the time of its existence.

And that's all there is. It's an incredible achievement. We stand on the threshold of a complete understanding of the correct way to describe every single event that has ever occurred and ever will occur in our universe; only a few remaining details stand between us and that: the remaining field theories of the weak and color forces, and the quantum theory of gravity. And that's it.

So when you compare the standard model with epicycles, understand that both epicycles and heliocentrism explain only a very small number of phenomena; the standard model explains EVERYTHING, with the three exceptions I have noted. Its accuracy and precision are so far beyond the predictive capabilities of any other theory ever proposed that it stands head and shoulders above everything that has gone before, as humanity's greatest achievement in science. And when I see you state as if it were a fact that it does not provide a "simple" explanation, I have to question whether you are truly aware of the vast range and incredible detail and complexity of the universe. Compared to that, the standard model is extremely simple, and if its dynamics seem counter-intuitive, sorry, that's just how it IS. There will not be a theory that will eliminate either uncertainty or relativity. They are basic facts of how things are. There will never be a simple mechanistic description of particle physics, because of these two facts about our universe.

I'm well aware that maybe that's just the way our subatomic world is: inalterably strange in a way that will make it forever resist allowing the kind of "aha" comprehension that Copernicus and Galileo gave us in respect to planetary movements. But maybe not. At this point, we don't truly know. Yes, we do. We know that our universe is relativistic, and we know that quantum mechanics must incorporate uncertainty. Both of these have been proven not merely by extensive and detailed experimentation, but also because they are the only possible explanation for a vast range of phenomena. Given those two facts, there will never be the kind of intuitive simplicity that is possible for the motions of planets.

At any rate, my point is there was a very successful model (at least in terms of its near term predictions), but it was lousy conceptually. There was also considerable resistance to a much better one. I don't think it unlikely that we're now in a similar situation in regard to the standard model. I think it is highly unlikely, if you mean that there will ever be a simple mechanistic explanation of quantum mechanics. In fact, given what we have observed already, I think it is impossible, due to uncertainty and relativity. On the other hand, theoretical physicists are exploring a mathematical theory called "string theory" that just might explain all of the twenty-four particles, and all of the quantum theories of the four forces, as the movements of a single, simple underlying entity. We would then be left with that entity, and the dimensionality of the universe, and nothing else. If this turns out to be true, it will be a simplification as great as the atomic hypothesis of Dalton. However, it will not supplant the standard model; it will merely explain it.

Of course, whether Witt is the new Galileo is a whole other question. Though he may fully be all the nice things I initially described, none of those make him right. Concurring with the prevailing theory on this thread, it's my guess, too, that he's out in left field. At the least, however, he's sure not your regular crackpot. Reading his discussion, I find myself rather liking the guy.

Given the above, I cast my vote for the conclusion that, on a personal level at least (though perhaps not on a merits-of-his-theory level), some of you guys were harder on Witt than the circumstances justified. I also think there may be excessive resistance (even antipathy for) the hope that some heliocentric-like breakthrough will someday arrive on the scene. Wouldn't it be great if it did?There is no antipathy to such; if it were possible in such a simplistic manner, however, it would already exist. It is common when discussing the standard model of particle physics to see it as complicated. It is not; it is incredibly simple. Twenty-four particles, four forces, uncertainty, and relativity. Nothing more. Two field theories and a single quantum theory stand between us and complete understanding of the universe. Work proceeds on all three of those fronts; they are the remaining puzzles.

Of course, a great deal of work remains in filling in the details; there are the angles of the CKM matrix, there are the almost infinite possible combinations of the quarks into mesons and baryons, there is the question of whether spacetime itself might be quantized. There are no less than three competing quantum gravity theories, none of which is far enough along to provide testable predictions. There is the question of the origin of the twenty-nine parameters. Judging by what we have seen so far, the answers to these remaining questions may open vast new vistas of physics to us. What we are certain they will not do is deny relativity or uncertainty; and given those two facts, the standard model is as simple as it can be.

Relax and enjoy it. And understand what you're looking at: the most incredible intellectual achievement in the history of the human race.

ben m

1st November 2007, 11:58 AM

In the first place, Witt is obviously intelligent, articulate, polite and even witty. It's evident he's sincere, and motivated by a genuine desire to contribute. It also appears undeniable that he's been unabashed when it comes to making a considerable investment in the effort. His apparent knowledge of arcane details in physics (and ability to manipulate math) is impressive (to me at least).

Hi roSSman,

Perhaps you're not familiar with the sheer number of people who have done exactly the same thing as Witt:

[#]Decide they don't like modern physics
[#]Spend years in isolation writing up their own theory
[#]Make the theory qualitatively agree with reality in a few thought-experiments
[#]Submit these early sketches to physics journals, and get rejected
[#]Become very facile at claiming "agreement" with real experiments---by describing, in words ("well, the nucleus recoils leftwards, then stops, and the braking-radiation must be what you mistook in your detector") without actually making concrete predictions.
[#]Self-publish a book or web page and start advertising it.

I've never seen an ad campaign as expensive as Witt's, but the content is totally typical. Oh, by the way, these theories are all totally different---it isn't that thousands of people are stumbling across the same solution, like Newton and Leibnitz both discovering calculus. They're all making stuff up. A few that have come my way: Autodynamics, Common Sense Science, Gyron Aether Theory, Dan Visser's "Complex Cosmos", Filter Mechanics ... go to http://www.crank.net/physics.html to find lots, lots more. It's a whole bizarre underground that professional physicists deal with all the time, but most people have never heard of.

All this is contingent, of course, on my statement that these people are "just like Witt", and that Witt is just as wrong as they are. Some of the science earlier in this thread ought to convince you of that. It's not a matter of Witt needing a few years to fine-tune: his theory is well-developed enough to make a few inescapable predictions (like microwave/optical ratio in starlight) and those predictions are horribly wrong.

ben m

1st November 2007, 12:02 PM

Sorry, duplicate post.

Dilb

1st November 2007, 03:01 PM

All this is contingent, of course, on my statement that these people are "just like Witt", and that Witt is just as wrong as they are. Some of the science earlier in this thread ought to convince you of that. It's not a matter of Witt needing a few years to fine-tune: his theory is well-developed enough to make a few inescapable predictions (like microwave/optical ratio in starlight) and those predictions are horribly wrong.

Even wronger that his physics claims are at least a couple of his math statements. For example, this part has been bugging me:
A unique aspect of this geometry is that an infinite space of N dimensions has a finite size in N+1 dimensions. An infinite line, for instance, has a finite area. Think of it as cutting a line into an infinite number of segments and stacking them on top of each other at infinite density. The result is not an infinite area, as that is a plane; it is not infinitely small, as that is a line segment. The result is finite. In fact, if we consider the width of a line as 0, then in accordance with the poles of the Riemann sphere, (0*infinity) = 1.

This is just 'plane' wrong. If you could cut up a line and build a square, then you could go to any single point on square by giving it one number, the distance along the line. It's a basic fact that to describe two dimensions, you need two numbers, there simply isn't enough information if you only have one number.

Alternatively, a line has zero width. Cutting it up into segments and adding it together gives you
0+0+0+0+0+0+.....
which is zero.

A final thing to consider is that a finite plane is equivalent to an infinite plane. Say you have a square, from -Pi to Pi in the x direction, and -Pi to Pi on the y direction. To find any point from -infinity to infinity, just take the tan() (tangent function) of your x and y coordinate. You get to anywhere on the infinite plane just by using the numbers on the finite square.

roSSman

1st November 2007, 07:15 PM

Wow!

I have never seen such a beautiful and concise distillation of the whole area of concern, as provided by Schneibster.

He rocks indeed. His description is a gift, a thing of beauty.

Thank you. I almost feel like I can wrap my head around what was formerly (to me) an unintelligible zoo of particle descriptions. I plan to re-read that distilation several times, hoping to fully absorb everything. I'll likely keep a copy for occasional reference, as well.

For clarification, I have (for a long time) had what to me is a reasonably comfortable grasp of three out of four forces (the weak force being the exception), and of relativity as well. It’s that underlying particle zoo that’s always made my eyes glaze over.

To the extent Schneibster rebuffed my comments, I want to clarify that in criticizing the standard model and expressing hope for major conceptual improvement, I did not mean to imply even the slightest suspicion anything would ever supplant it -- any more than quantum dynamics and relativity supplanted Newton (which, obviously, they did not). I also did not (and do not) have any hope anything will ever undo uncertainty and/or relativity. I am at least educated enough to be very convinced those are immutably real (and in their own sense very beautiful) aspects of our universe.

It also is not “simplicity,” exactly, that I’ve hoped for. It's a level of "aha"-type comprehension (whether done via string theory or otherwise) that would prevent a guy like our beloved Richard Feynman from feeling any impetus to write something like “[W]e have no satisfactory mechanism to explain even the simplest of phenomena.”

It's a kind of comprehension that would allow a guy like Schneibster to eloquently explain why, given a (hopefully small) set of underlying fundamentals, we must, inevitably, end up with the four fundamental forces, the many particles by which they interact, and even uncertainty itself.

Am I wrong to hope for something like that?

Going back to the Ptolemaic comparison, heliocentricity told us why, given deeper fundamentals than had been imagined, we must see the very kind of movements that were formerly explained by equants, deferants and epicycles. It made the observation of such movements both inevitable and explainable in a way prior cosmology could not begin to match.

Of course, like any comparison, even if this Ptolemaic one has some merit, it’s applicability is limited – particularly in the sense that Ptolemaic cosmology was just plain wrong (crystal spheres, and all that). In contrast, I’m betting all contributors here will agree it would be stupid to suspect a time will ever come where the same can sensibly be concluded about today’s physics. Certainly, I concur in believing modern hubris, to both that extent and related ones, is well justified.

By the way, my vote for a likely GUT (spectacularly unqualified though I am to cast it) is for one based on the relativity side of today’s apparent impasse. More precisely, while the bulk of effort seems to be focused on quantizing gravity, I wonder if opposite movement would not be more productive.

I’d love to know, in this regard, is there anything that would violate present understanding if it were supposed that all those particles and forces, at their most basic level, are simply interaction between different parts of spacetime itself, places that involve varying kinds of ripples and dimples (if you will) within its own fabric? Putting it differently, the theme would be that spacetime (and a menagerie of particular kinds of curves, peeks, canyons, slopes and vortices within) is everything. It seems to me that, if workable, that might be rather a unifying concept. I've wondered if any work has been done in that direction. I’ve done a bit of Googling and such, but failed to find anything that seems (really) to be quite on point (please don't clobber me too hard if it's out there and I just haven't found it; my search time is tightly limited).

Just to clarify, I do understand that typical conceptions of spacetime deformation involve gravity alone (even within black holes, if I understand correctly). I am ignorant, however, of any reason why that necessarily means spacetime could not deform (though in very different ways) at atomic and subatomic scales – perhaps sufficiently to account, on the basis of its own fabric, for the actors there.

I also understand that even to think that maybe I've had an idea of possible significance (in my stance of comparative ignorance), and though I don't suspect it's even novel to me (indeed, I'd hope its not), puts me, personally, on the crackpot road. Dang! I hate that.

Anyway, that's my stupid wondering. Am I completely out in left field, or is my suggestion at least not altogether implausible? You guys seem to have the knowledge to answer far more competently than my own analysis allows.

In response to BenM, thanks for kindly leading me along. I was aware of what you're describing in general, but your description adds significantly to the clarity. I had already personally concluded that in all likelihood Witt's role ultimately fits there (i.e., in crackpotdom), but I still wanted to give him credit for the fact he seems of a lot higher quality (whether wrong or not) than most in the role.

In response to Dilb, I like your call. That argument of Witt's ("An infinite line . . . has a finite area . . .") got to me as well. Even I know a line has zero area. Last I knew, finite and zero don't exactly mean the same thing. Some of Witt's writing reminds me of the phrase "confusing obscurity with profundity." No doubt, that in itself is a hallmark of someone in the crackpot (or is the word "woo"?) mode. Stop me. I want to be nice to the guy.

Schneibster

1st November 2007, 08:11 PM

You REALLY need to find out about string theory. Your idea about interactions between different parts of spacetime is sort of a part of it. Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe is probably as good a non-technical explanation of it as any.

Just don't get so hooked on it you forget it might be wrong. Have fun.

roSSman

2nd November 2007, 06:37 PM

Thank you, Schneibster, for the reference. I've already ordered the book, and plan to dive right in when it arrives.

TriangleMan

3rd November 2007, 11:26 PM

I'm glad to see a thread here on this 'null physics'. I saw the full-page ad in Discover and it screamed 'crank' but I was surprised that someone had the funds for such an ad campaign. This thread highlighted the problems with Witt's work without me worrying about paying any money for the book - not that I was planning to buy it anyway.

lenny

4th November 2007, 05:07 AM

hi Schneibster,

thanks for the very nice post (the fact that i respond to the questionable bits does not imply that i disagree with the wonderfully well communicated majority of bits).

We know that our universe is relativistic, and we know that quantum mechanics must incorporate uncertainty. Both of these have been proven not merely by extensive and detailed experimentation, but also because they are the only possible explanation for a vast range of phenomena.

we know that our universe is not Newtonian, and the fact that QM must incorporate uncertainty is a statement about the theory, not the unverse.

how would a skeptic ever support the statement "the only possible explanation for a vast range of phenomena"?

lenny

4th November 2007, 05:16 AM

there are pairs of properties, such as spin on two axes, or position and momentum, or energy and position in time, that cannot be simultaneously defined with infinite accuracy, and in fact the inaccuracy can approach the size/mass/spin/energy of the particles. This is called Heisenberg uncertainty, and it means that particles, rather than being like familiar objects in the everyday world with precise positions and boundaries are "smeared out".

i am curious why you prefer "uncertainty" here to "indeterminacy".

do you distinguish "cannot be defined" from "are not defined"? if something is uncertain we can still hope to put a probability distribution on it, while if some "thing" is not defined the probability calculus has no role to play.

(i believe) the use of the word uncertainty leads many astray, confusing what is "unknown" with what is "undefined", and then on down a path of mental images Heisenberg himself warned us against...

Schneibster

4th November 2007, 07:09 AM

hi Schneibster,

thanks for the very nice post (the fact that i respond to the questionable bits does not imply that i disagree with the wonderfully well communicated majority of bits).Thanks, for both the compliment and the criticism.

BTW, you've not been around for a while. Nice to see you back.

we know that our universe is not Newtonian, and the fact that QM must incorporate uncertainty is a statement about the theory, not the unverse. Well, it was- until Aspect and the DCQE. Aspect appears to show that in fact, spin on a second axis cannot have a value. If it did, then conservation of angular momentum would prevent the probability function from governing the angular momenta measured later; they would be based on the unmeasurable, but definite, angular momentum on the second axis. This is what violation of Bell's Theorem shows. The DCQE merely confirms it, but across space instead of across time.

how would a skeptic ever support the statement "the only possible explanation for a vast range of phenomena"?Because the possibilities are binary, not infinite. Either the spin on the second axis has a value, or it does not.

Schneibster

4th November 2007, 07:14 AM

i am curious why you prefer "uncertainty" here to "indeterminacy".

do you distinguish "cannot be defined" from "are not defined"? if something is uncertain we can still hope to put a probability distribution on it, while if some "thing" is not defined the probability calculus has no role to play.

(i believe) the use of the word uncertainty leads many astray, confusing what is "unknown" with what is "undefined", and then on down a path of mental images Heisenberg himself warned us against...We are almost certainly in agreement; I used "uncertainty" because it's the popular conception. I did go to the trouble to state that this uncertainty is not a matter of not being able to measure the parameter.

One of the points of quantum mechanics is that probability distributions are all there is to know. Physicists therefore consider a probability distribution to be a defined value; most people don't understand why that is, and what I was attempting to describe is why. Because this conflicts with the way we perceive the universe directly with our senses, the terminology is difficult. "Indeterminacy" is actually technically correct, but I've found over the course of many conversations that most people interpret it as "uncertainty," and the confusion remains.

Rob Lister

4th November 2007, 08:08 AM

I just want to say, "holly cow!"

Schneibster is a debate bully but nobody can accuse him of not knowing his ****. I tend to lean in the direction of those for [whom I know know] the subject matter I'm not [too smart in].

wow, great thread.

Rroberts

4th November 2007, 10:51 AM

From what I can gather, in three pages of posts on this book, we have yet to see a single person who has actually read it??? Except the author of course. As it turns out, I bought the book a few weeks ago because the excerpts looked interesting and its references were impeccable (Allen’s astrophysical constants, Lang’s astrophysical formulas, etc). I have finished the book recently, and have a few comments, based on my astrophysics background. First, it’s a gorgeous volume, and its diagrams, images and graphs have been professionally done. Think college textbook quality. Second, quite aside from the fascinating (and original) theory it presents, there are a number of excellent data reductions, from Sion’s and McCooks white dwarf catalog, to the BATSE burster catalog to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. I also enjoyed the simplified white dwarf cooling model listed in one of the Appendixes. Never seen that done in two pages before. Many of the particle field expressions required numerical solutions, but I reviewed the source code (written in c) on the website and it was consistent with the graphs and equations. The one prediction that would probably give the book the most traction is the ~1.5 km/s coreward galactic inflow of the Milky Way. This is derived three different ways using three independent datasets (galactic composition/output, galactic luminosity profile, white dwarf age). Unfortunately, this motion is going to be tough to substantiate because most of the large-scale stellar surveys like RAVE are strictly heliocentric scalar magnitudes, and you can’t use that to evaluate coreward motion. Vectorizing RAVE would be one big, expensive project. I doubt that the NSF will jump on that one anytime soon, after the billions of dollars it has invested in the standard cosmological model. Too bad. I’d love to see the results. To summarize, I think the book is comprehensive, compelling, very well written, and a great read for anyone interested in physics’ foundational issues. I got so sucked into Part IV (physical null cosmology) that I completely missed a staff meeting. I can’t remember the last time I felt a true sense of discovery while reading a physics text (except perhaps my first foray into GR). Felt like a breath of fresh air. The physics is certainly NOT high-school level, but I checked and that is not what is claimed on the website. The claim is that someone familiar with high-school physics should be able to follow it. I agree. I think this book would be a great experience for an AP physics student with a little calculus under their belt, because all of the calculations are straightforward and use baby steps from beginning to end. Also, with so many graphs, it looks like a layperson might be able to skip the math entirely, but I’m not the best judge of that. There’s an extensive glossary to help the physics neophytes.

After I finished this book, I was so baffled by the bizarre mismatch between its content and marketing that I emailed NULLPHYSICS.COM to ask why I was first hearing about this book in a gadget magazine like popular science??? I was told that about two dozen copies of the book have been out for peer review since August 2007, and the soonest review will probably be coming from the Canadian Astronomical Society near the end of the year, although any of them could happen sooner/later. They had wanted to delay the book’s release until some peer reviews were available, but thought it was more important to introduce the book prior to the holiday season in anticipation of the reviews. Not sure why the author didn’t mention the pending reviews in his posts, but he was probably so busy taking body blows from random directions that he may have been distracted. I was impressed with the way he stayed a total iceman during all the personal attacks. A couple of his responses were hilarious.

As to this surreal forum of omniscient non-readers, anyone who claims that this book is just a shallow rehash of previous work or is full of crackpot ideas is LAUGHABLY mistaken. Many of my friends and colleagues are real, working physicists, in academia and the private sector, and not a single one would ever consider posting evaluations of another person’s work without a thorough, complete, and careful scrutiny of its contents. In other words, they would actually read it and understand it before talking about it. To do otherwise is just not good practice in any field, and a pretty good way of looking uninformed and foolish later on. Of course that’s the case with real reviews and real critics, not anonymous swipes on a forum, but one can hope that the level of this discussion might eventually mature a little. And no, I don’t work for Terence Witt. It will be interesting to see how long it takes bona fide reader #2 to show up. Since the name of this forum is “Null Physics anyone?” it would be nice to have some folks that actually know something about null physics on it. There’re plenty of other forums available for physics hobbyists to discuss the current paradigms.

Schneibster

4th November 2007, 12:21 PM

"Some folks that actually know something about null physics?" What "folks that actually know something about null physics?" Where do they work? What do they have degrees in?

See, this is the kind of stuff I was expecting. There aren't any "folks that actually know something about null physics."

Now, let's talk about peer review. Nobody gets a book "peer reviewed." Scientific papers get peer reviewed.

OK, now let's talk about the knowledge of physics demonstrated by the author. See, if you're going to write a book on physics, it's kind of mandatory that you actually KNOW some physics, and if you're going to challenge the standard model of particle physics, it would be helpful if you know what the standard model of particle physics actually says. The author shows no realistic understanding of what the SM actually says; yet is steadfast in maintaining that "null physics" is somehow "better."

Frankly, if the author had known enough to answer the questions I and others asked, I might have been willing to examine the book; but given that a book that purports to "overturn physics" is written by a person who shows not even a serious amateur's knowledge of what physics even says, I have no intention of wasting my time.

It's relatively obvious that the writer doesn't know that there are no "folks that actually know something about null physics," doesn't know what peer review is applied to or what it means, and doesn't have anything to say about physics, and that means...

:troll

Rob Lister

4th November 2007, 12:34 PM

From what I can gather, in three pages of posts on this book, we have yet to see a single person who has actually read it??? Except the author of course. As it turns out, I bought the book a few weeks ago because ...

because you got it at a discount?

look, this is so, so obvious. If the good author wants to put the word out about such extraordinary things then it is incumbent upon him to do so in a fashion that does little [monetary] harm to others.

I'd have bought the book except for his (and your[like there's a difference]) response on this thread. Everyone likes new ideas, right!? Yea, well, all ideas are NOT created equal. Nice try though. Hope you make a nice buck from others. I doubt you'll make many here.

Schneibster was absolutely correct...though I cringe to admit it, there it is.

Terry

4th November 2007, 12:42 PM

Since the name of this forum is “Null Physics anyone?” it would be nice to have some folks that actually know something about null physics on it.

No, the name of this forum is the James Randi Educational Foundation forum. The name of this thread, which is a tiny part of the forum, is "Null Physics anyone?"

Schneibster

4th November 2007, 12:57 PM

One more point. The author pointed to two statements of mine as "insulting." Here they are:

It helps if you actually understand a theory before you criticize it. This was in reference to the author's obvious lack of knowledge regarding string theory. The statement that prompted this was: 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.So what we basically have is a demonstrated lack of knowledge of a field that the author demonstrably knows nothing about; I also asked a question about string physics to double-check it, and the lack of response was notable; upon noting it, however, I am again accused of being insulting.

'Nuff said.

Rroberts

4th November 2007, 05:31 PM

What a happy little bunch. Didn’t think my post was ambiguous, but. DEF: People who know something about Null Physics: Anyone who has read and understood “Our Undiscovered Universe”. Gee, pretty sure they don’t work or teach anywhere in particular yet, since the book’s long and was only released mid-end August. In fact, I’m sure there aren’t too many people who have finished it by now, but it seems unlikely that I’m the only one. Fact that it’s only available in a $60 book? Not my problem. Don’t. Care. The term “Peer Review” apparently caused some confusion, substitute “Reviewed by professional physicists in appropriate disciplines”. Ignore the actual review of the book: priceless. No one on this thread going to buy the book? Again. Don’t. Care. But if they do buy it, actually read it, and still can’t tell the difference between it and Autodynamics or Gyron Aether theory, they need to get their head into an MRI ASAP. Any other bona fide readers brave enough to toss their comments into this Kangaroo court?

Schneibster

4th November 2007, 05:41 PM

Touch where I will, it comes up false. Books get reviewed by journalists. "Peer reviewed" is a specific claim about a process that happens in science. It was relatively obvious that you were implying with all your "missed a meeting" and "astrophysics background" that you are in fact a qualified scientist; and it is equally obvious that you are nothing of the kind. We don't have a great deal of patience with posers here, in case you hadn't noticed it so far.

Dilb

4th November 2007, 07:33 PM

Many of my friends and colleagues are real, working physicists, in academia and the private sector, and not a single one would ever consider posting evaluations of another person’s work without a thorough, complete, and careful scrutiny of its contents.

Really? What's it like knowing that many highly-ethical robots, all of whom have nothing personally worthwhile to do? I ask because I work with physicists, and they have no problem with mocking and critiquing obviously flawed theories in casual personal discussions (like posting on a forum). When they get a thousand-page manuscript on "revolutionary physics" that contains basic math errors in the first few pages, no one I know would read more than a few pages, and only then out of sheer bemusement.

Paul

4th November 2007, 08:01 PM

First, it’s a gorgeous volume, and its diagrams, images and graphs have been professionally done. Think college textbook quality.What does this have to do with scientific validity?

Second, quite aside from the fascinating (and original) theory it presents, there are a number of excellent data reductions, from Sion’s and McCooks white dwarf catalog, to the BATSE burster catalog to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. I also enjoyed the simplified white dwarf cooling model listed in one of the Appendixes. Never seen that done in two pages before.Again, what does an ability to make pretty charts have to do with allegedly explaining the existence of the universe?

The one prediction that would probably give the book the most traction is the ~1.5 km/s coreward galactic inflow of the Milky Way. This is derived three different ways... ...I doubt that the NSF will jump on that one anytime soon, after the billions of dollars it has invested in the standard cosmological model.So it would require others to spend large sums to confirm even one prediction? I'm not a scientist, but I'm pretty sure that's not how it works, no childish conspiracy theories required.

To summarize, I think the book is comprehensive, compelling, very well written, and a great read for anyone interested in physics’ foundational issues.Yet it can't even prove what you think is it's most important prediction.

The physics is certainly NOT high-school level, but I checked and that is not what is claimed on the website. The claim is that someone familiar with high-school physics should be able to follow it. I agree.What's claimed is:"Anyone with a basic familiarity with high-school physics can, by reading this volume, understand the universe with a greater depth and clarity than is currently believed possible."That doesn't seem too ambiguous to me.

I think this book would be a great experience for an AP physics student with a little calculus under their belt, because all of the calculations are straightforward and use baby steps from beginning to end. Also, with so many graphs, it looks like a layperson might be able to skip the math entirely, but I’m not the best judge of that. There’s an extensive glossary to help the physics neophytes.So you need calculus and you can skip the maths, and you need physics beyond high school and no experience at all.

They had wanted to delay the book’s release until some peer reviews were available, but thought it was more important to introduce the book prior to the holiday season in anticipation of the reviews.A real scientist wouldn't have self published a book at all, and certainly wouldn't have thought that the holidays might increase the take-up of their revolutionary theory of everything.

I was impressed with the way he stayed a total iceman during all the personal attacks. A couple of his responses were hilarious.I'm sure you think they were hilarious for different reasons to physicists. By the way, a total iceman might have stayed around to defend his ideas, not run away when he was asked to explain himself.

sol invictus

5th November 2007, 06:26 AM

What crackpots forget is that scientific revolutions rarely (if ever) happen by showing that the current theory is wrong. Instead, they happen when the current theory is shown to be incomplete. That is, correct in some situations, but wrong when you push it very far in some direction.

A good example is Newton's theory of gravity, which was replaced by Einstein's theory of general relativity in one of the greatest scientific advances of the last century. The thing is, Newton's theory isn't really wrong - it's extremely accurate for describing motions on earth, for example, and for describing the motions of planets and even galaxies it's quite good. It's only if you do extremely accurate measurements in the solar system, or look very closely at galaxies, that you will start to see that it isn't quite working.

So when Einstein came along and proposed general relativity, his primary requirement for it was that it be almost exactly the same as Newtonian gravity in those situations. Why? Because if not it would be wrong for sure. In fact GR is so close to Newtonian gravity that it's only recently, almost a century later, that we have more than a few pieces of independent evidence that it works better.

Crackpots try to throw out everything that came before (often because they don't know what it was) and replace it all with something brand new. That's just not going to work - there are thousands of scientists across the world searching full-time for a single deviation from the laws of physics as we know them... and very rarely finding any (and when they do, it's almost always a mistake or at most requires a small adjustment to a parameter in the current model). So if you've got a new, revolutionary theory, take my advice - before you make a fool of yourself, make sure it reproduces all the predictions of current theory first.

ben m

5th November 2007, 10:08 AM

But if they do buy it, actually read it, and still can’t tell the difference between it and Autodynamics or Gyron Aether theory, they need to get their head into an MRI ASAP.

It sounds like you're dismissing Autodynamics and Gyrons as crackpot theories ... but I bet you haven't even read their books! How dare you! After all the authors' hard work!

roSSman

5th November 2007, 06:10 PM

Autodynamics?

I just read today about biodynamics. Seems if you combine homeopathy, astrology and viniculture, you can make terrific wine.

Is autodynamics related? I'd like to know, because I love wine.

Who knows, with Null Physics, maybe we can make a virtual vineyard, practice biodynamics as we grow grapes there, and using autodynamics for marketing, grow rich indeed.

Anyone up for it?

Stir

6th November 2007, 08:50 AM

Even wronger that his physics claims are at least a couple of his math statements. For example, this part has been bugging me:

This is just 'plane' wrong. If you could cut up a line and build a square, then you could go to any single point on square by giving it one number, the distance along the line. It's a basic fact that to describe two dimensions, you need two numbers, there simply isn't enough information if you only have one number.

Alternatively, a line has zero width. Cutting it up into segments and adding it together gives you
0+0+0+0+0+0+.....
which is zero.

A final thing to consider is that a finite plane is equivalent to an infinite plane. Say you have a square, from -Pi to Pi in the x direction, and -Pi to Pi on the y direction. To find any point from -infinity to infinity, just take the tan() (tangent function) of your x and y coordinate. You get to anywhere on the infinite plane just by using the numbers on the finite square.

Sorry Dilb, but mathematically there are the same number of points in a line as in a plane, or in a volume or in any finite number of diemnsions. 'Same number' means 'can be put into a one-to-one correspondence'. The real numbers (the number line) can be put into one-to-one correcpondence with the points in a plane (or higher diemsnion equivalent) quite easily, and you don't need two numbers to describe a point, as follows: take the decimal representations of the real numbers representing the location of a point (x, y coordinates for example) and create a unique real number by taking digits alternately from the x number's representation and the y number's representation. It's not hard to see that this creates the necessary 1-1 correspondence.

Stir

6th November 2007, 09:03 AM

sol invictus

6th November 2007, 11:52 AM

...take the decimal representations of the real numbers representing the location of a point (x, y coordinates for example) and create a unique real number by taking digits alternately from the x number's representation and the y number's representation. It's not hard to see that this creates the necessary 1-1 correspondence.

Is it?

Suppose I take 1.0000... = 0.9999999..., with an infinite number of 9s. Following your prescription would give me something like (1, 0) from the first form, but (0.9999...,0.99999...) = (1,1) from the second. That doesn't look very 1-1.

More generally if you carefully define the reals as limits of sequences of rationals, it's not obvious to me that this prescription commutes with that limit. I'm not saying it doesn't, but it's not obvious to me.

jsfisher

6th November 2007, 06:57 PM

Is it?

Suppose I take 1.0000... = 0.9999999..., with an infinite number of 9s. Following your prescription would give me something like (1, 0) from the first form, but (0.9999...,0.99999...) = (1,1) from the second. That doesn't look very 1-1.

More generally if you carefully define the reals as limits of sequences of rationals, it's not obvious to me that this prescription commutes with that limit. I'm not saying it doesn't, but it's not obvious to me.

The one-to-one correspondence is between the decimal representations of a point in the plane and on the line. Your example points out that decimal representations of some numbers are not unique.

Dilb

6th November 2007, 08:05 PM

Sorry Dilb, but mathematically there are the same number of points in a line as in a plane, or in a volume or in any finite number of diemnsions. 'Same number' means 'can be put into a one-to-one correspondence'. The real numbers (the number line) can be put into one-to-one correcpondence with the points in a plane (or higher diemsnion equivalent) quite easily, and you don't need two numbers to describe a point, as follows: take the decimal representations of the real numbers representing the location of a point (x, y coordinates for example) and create a unique real number by taking digits alternately from the x number's representation and the y number's representation. It's not hard to see that this creates the necessary 1-1 correspondence.

Dang, I could have sworn that I learned somewhere that more dimensions means you have more numbers. Neat to learn, anyway.

sol invictus

6th November 2007, 08:16 PM

The one-to-one correspondence is between the decimal representations of a point in the plane and on the line. Your example points out that decimal representations of some numbers are not unique.

That was exactly my point. The proposed correspondence used the decimal representation and then claimed it was 1-1, which is isn't.

...take the decimal representations of the real numbers representing the location of a point (x, y coordinates for example) and create a unique real number by taking digits alternately from the x number's representation and the y number's representation. It's not hard to see that this creates the necessary 1-1 correspondence.

I think the answer to my objection is probably that the set of real numbers with a non-unique decimal expansion is countable (meaning it's the same size as the integers), and therefore you can just exclude those numbers and the proof still goes through.

Dang, I could have sworn that I learned somewhere that more dimensions means you have more numbers. Neat to learn, anyway.

A simpler example is to note that there are exactly as many real numbers between 0 and 1 as there are between 0 and 2 (or any other finite interval), because multiplying or dividing by 2 is a 1-1 map. There are also as many integers as rational numbers - but there are more reals. It's weird stuff.

jsfisher

6th November 2007, 08:51 PM

That was exactly my point. The proposed correspondence used the decimal representation and then claimed it was 1-1, which is isn't.

I think you missed a subtlety in my post. The digit-interleaving mechanism does produce a one-to-one (and onto) mapping, but not of the points in the plane to points on the line. The correspondence is for the decimal representations of the points, not the points themselves.

Even though (1.00..., 0.00...) and (0.99..., 0.00...) describe the same point, they are different decimal representations. So, they must map to different decimal representations of points on the line for the mapping to be one-to-one.

sol invictus

6th November 2007, 10:29 PM

I think you missed a subtlety in my post. The digit-interleaving mechanism does produce a one-to-one (and onto) mapping, but not of the points in the plane to points on the line. The correspondence is for the decimal representations of the points, not the points themselves.

Sorry, I'm not getting it. This correspondence was supposed to be a 1-1 mapping from points on the plane to points on the line - not from decimal representations of points to decimal representations of points!

Again, I think the correct answer is just that the "bad" points (the ones with more than one decimal rep.) form a countable set.

The real numbers (the number line) can be put into one-to-one correcpondence with the points in a plane (or higher diemsnion equivalent) quite easily...It's not hard to see that this creates the necessary 1-1 correspondence.

Stir

7th November 2007, 08:44 AM

Sorry, I'm not getting it. This correspondence was supposed to be a 1-1 mapping from points on the plane to points on the line - not from decimal representations of points to decimal representations of points!

Again, I think the correct answer is just that the "bad" points (the ones with more than one decimal rep.) form a countable set.

S I: Yes you are correct that subtracting aleph zero points from an aleph one set leaves aleph one ... but the 'interleaving' argument is actually correct as has been explained. Let me come at that from a slightly different approach (which perhaps I should have included originally, but makes the argument muddier to most people): First decide on a rule on how you choose to represent "terminating rationals" (i.e. those rationals whose decimal representations reach a point beyond which there are all 0's ... or alternately all 9's). It doesn't matter which way you choose to represent them, just pick one. Once you've made this decision, the one-to-one works, and note that you haven't eliminated any points on the line or the plane, just decided on a convention on how some are represented. Hope that helps.

jsfisher

7th November 2007, 04:38 PM

S I: Yes you are correct that subtracting aleph zero points from an aleph one set leaves aleph one ... but the 'interleaving' argument is actually correct as has been explained. Let me come at that from a slightly different approach (which perhaps I should have included originally, but makes the argument muddier to most people): First decide on a rule on how you choose to represent "terminating rationals" (i.e. those rationals whose decimal representations reach a point beyond which there are all 0's ... or alternately all 9's). It doesn't matter which way you choose to represent them, just pick one. Once you've made this decision, the one-to-one works, and note that you haven't eliminated any points on the line or the plane, just decided on a convention on how some are represented. Hope that helps.

One amusing curiosity you end up with is that the function mapping points on a plane to points on a line is, indeed, one-to-one (meaning every point in the function's domain maps to a unique point in the function's realm), but the function is not onto. There are points on a line that do not map back to a point in the plane.

It is almost like saying the number of points on a line exceeds the number of points in a plane, but such is the nature of the various infinities.

T-Diddy

15th November 2007, 07:16 PM

Disclosure: I am not trained in advanced physics. My training/degrees are in the fields of mechanical engineering (solid mechanics, fluid mechanics and heat transfer) and nuclear [reactor] physics – not the theoretical stuff discussed earlier. Oh, and I have a high school diploma, which is just about all I needed in my quest to debunk TW… Anyway, this is my first post here; I saw TW’s ad, now appearing in Popular Science, and couldn’t resist looking it up, which ultimately led me here.

Although this thread has mostly been devoted to debunking TW’s theories in the realm of advanced physics, I think you’ve sold yourselves short on how easy it is to prove him wrong and reduce his arguments to utter rubbish. Let’s explore the simplest premises that are available from his book, shall we? To quote from his website:

SURFACE BOUNDARIES
In general, any (N+1)-dimensional space can have an N-dimensional surface subject to the following related criteria:
Ψ THEOREM 2.9 - CLOSURE BOUNDARY {Ψ2.4, Ψ2.8}
(A) ANY (N+1)-DIMENSIONAL REGION CAN BE BOUNDED BY AN INFINITELY
THIN N-DIMENSIONAL SURFACE
(B) THE MAXIMUM DIMENSION AN INFINITELY THIN N-DIMENSIONAL
SURFACE CAN BOUND IS (N+1)
A circle is bounded by an infinitely thin line; a sphere is bounded by an infinitely thin area.
Similarly, a line is too dimensionally small to form a spherical boundary. In reference to our
universe, no boundaries of any kind exist along its three spatial dimensions. This means space is not a bounded interior region; it is a bounding surface.

Let’s start with the first sentence. It begins clearly enough, because any N+1 dimensional space can, in fact, contain an N dimensional surface (provided you don’t bound the N+1 surface to be too small). Unfortunately, his logic heads south by the end of the sentence. The statement made at the beginning of the sentence is not subject to any additional criteria; that is to say, an N+1 dimensional surface can ALWAYS accommodate an N dimensional surface. TW’s theorem, regardless of whether it is true, is proposed to support a flawed premise (and conclusion, but we’ll get to that later).

Now, to look at theorem 2.9 (A) – Can any N+1 dimensional surface be bounded by an infinitely thin N dimensional surface? Short answer: No.

There are four available examples in classical physics: 0-to-1 dimensional bounding up through 3-to-4 dimensional bounding. TW discusses two examples: using a line to bound a circle and a shell to bound a sphere. However, a circle (defined in Euclidean geometry as the sum of all points equidistant from a single point – not a line) cannot be circumscribed by a 1-dimentional object (line). By virtue of bending the line, it is no longer 1-dimensional: it is now 2-dimensional. Similarly, a sphere shell, although of zero thickness, is still a 3-dimensional object (if you doubt it, look up the formula: it requires inputs in 3 dimensions).

Lest anyone suggest that the above argument is semantic, let’s look at the two cases TW doesn’t explore. Is a 1-dimensional object (line) bounded by a 0-dimensional object (point)? Clearly not. At a minimum, at least two points are required to bound a line (segment). This is an important distinction, because theorem 2.9 (B) and the conclusions that proceed from it require the bounding object to be singular. Similarly, a 4-dimensional object (3D w/ time component) cannot be bounded by a 3D object. Perhaps a 4D object could be said to be bounded by a 3D object at the beginning of the specified time and by another 3D object at the end of the specified time (really the same object at two different times), but by no means does the “3D” object bound the “4D” version.

Based on this, it naturally follows that theorem 2.9 (B) cannot be true because it is premised on 2.9 (A). All further assertions based on these theorems are also wrong.

In summary, TW has, for no valid reason, taken 50% of the available examples and via improper geometric definition has created a false theorem. This theorem (2.9 (A)) is used to justify another theorem (2.9 (B)). This theorem is used to draw the conclusion that the universe, but virtue of extending infinitely in 3D, cannot be bounded and thus must be a bounding surface by virtue of 2.9 (B).

Incidentally, this conclusion doesn’t mean anything, and doesn’t even make sense. Although wrong, it seems to be the cornerstone for many more of TW’s theories to come (try reading the next few paragraphs that follow these theorems – they all rely on it heavily). Thus, we can state that null physics is indeed, null (and void).

Alternative method of disproving TW:

Theorem 2.9(B) requires the N dimensional object to be infinitely thin in the N-1 dimension. For example, a shell (or, for TW, plane) circumscribing a sphere has no thickness. However, when using 2.9 (B) to draw conclusions about “universal closure,” the universe is presumed to be infinitely large in 3 dimensions, not infinitely small in any dimension. TW has conveniently inverted the use of infinity here in a fashion that is not logically supported, and is thus invalid.

Second Alternative method:

Let’s offer a “true” version of 2.9(A) – namely, that any N+1 dimensional object can be bounded by a finite number of N dimensional objects. (For geometric (up to 3D) objects, the number required is N+2, but this doesn’t necessarily translate to time.) From this, a “true” version of 2.9(B) would be that only N dimensional surfaces can be used to bound an N+1 dimensional surface (i.e., lines cannot be used to circumscribe a sphere – only planes). Realistically, it should be N or N+1 dimensions, because an N+1 dimension object can be contained in a larger N+1 dimension object, but this is irrelevant to this particular argument.

Hmm, let’s apply this to the universe. The 3D universe can bind the 4D universe (i.e., there is a beginning to the universe, and presumably and end as well). Why can’t the 4D universe be binding a 5D universe? Or a 5D universe bind a 6D? In fact, there is no reason that the universe cannot extend into infinite dimensions using this train of logic. It thus follows that the “universal closure constant” (whatever the heck that is) is not 4, as stated by TW, but infinity. The term is one of TW’s invention for all I know, so I doubt it means anything (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong), but isn’t it a lot more plausible that a “closure constant” for an infinite object is infinity vice 4? Maybe I should write a book about it. Would anybody pay me $59 for it (I’ll make sure to throw in some nice, glossy graphs and everything!)? :D

ben m

15th November 2007, 09:33 PM

Maybe I should write a book about it. Would anybody pay me $59 for it (I’ll make sure to throw in some nice, glossy graphs and everything!)? :D

I couldn't help looking it up: Witt must have paid a total of $230,000 for full-page ads in Smithsonian and Popular Science. That made me gasp, then made me laugh. :)

Did he advertise anywhere else?

Ooh, Discover and SciAm. That's another $60K each.

Schneibster

15th November 2007, 11:09 PM

T-Diddy

16th November 2007, 01:30 PM

Ben's post on cost got me to thinking about how much TW has sunk into this (this post probably makes me a terrible person, but for the sake of scientific progress, I feel I must make it :D):

Sorry about the screwy form for the hyperlinks: I haven't made enough posts yet to be allowed to paste them in my posts.

Discover Magazine –full page, color ad: $52,700 (one-time) – 2 pages = $105,400 (discovermagazine<dot>com/media-kit/rates-specs/advertising-rates)

Smithsonian Magazine – Spread, color ad: $238,000 (smithsonianmag<dot>com/advertising/rates.html)

Popular Science – full page, color ad: $109,316 – 2 pages = $218,632 (popsci<dot>com/popsci/mediakits/2007mediakit.pdf)

Scientific American – full page, color ad: $67,400 (one time) – 2 pages = $134,800 (sciam<dot>com/mediakit/print/index.cfm?section=adrates)

Total Advertising Cost (to-date): $696,832

Based on visits to two online publishers (Lulu.com and instantpublisher.com, the first two that pop us as sponsored links on Google), the books could cost as little as $27 or as much as $85 per copy, depending on the printing options (particularly, the number of color pages).

We know he’s charging $59.00 a copy. Assuming that he got the books delivered for $29.00 a copy, that’s $30 gross per copy. At that rate, he only needs to sell 23,228 copies to break even.

I hope he got a discount from some of those magazines…

ben m

16th November 2007, 02:58 PM

Total Advertising Cost (to-date): $696,832

That's depressing. Let's see---things you can do with $700,000:

If you gave it to MIT: http://giving.mit.edu/ways/naming/list.html

Fully endowed undergraduate scholarship: $500,000
Partially funded endowed scholarship: $50,000 and up
Fully endowed Presidential Fellowship: $1 million
Fully endowed graduate fellowship—tuition plus stipend, two semesters: $1 million
Partially funded endowed fellowship: $250,000 and up
UROP (Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program)—and other research funds
Named research fund (general): $50,000
Named UROP fund: $50,000 to $235,000
One-year UROP: $235,000
Summer (only) UROP: $135,000
Two-semester UROP: $100,000
One-semester UROP: $50,000

Full professorship: $3 million
Career development professorship: $2 million
Named renovated large classroom: $300,000
Named renovated seminar room: $80,000
Named library information resources fund: $25,000

(sigh). Mr. Witt, you wanted your name on the lips of scientists everywhere. I dare say that endowing the Witt Postdoctoral Fellowship, two Witt Rooms, or the Witt Research Funds would have gotten you a lot closer (and produced a lot more science) than blowing it on your book.

What did you get for your $700,000? A few hundred book sales, a blog post, and a JREF thread?

T-Diddy

16th November 2007, 04:53 PM

I'm very hesitant to post this one, because now I'm sure you'll all think I'm horrible. I emailed my "anti-proof" above to TW's email he set up for reviews. However, I did warn him that if he replied, I would lampoon him to no end, so I actually don't feel bad about it. He responded thus:

Dear Thomas:

This is not a forum. This email is intended for people who have actually read the book, and it is clear by your comments that you have not, or else you would know why the closure constant is limited to 4 dimensions (among other things). Our excerpts are small, incomplete samples used to provoke curiosity, not provide complete derivations or descriptions of the underlying concepts. If you do in fact have degrees as listed, you ought to be able to afford a $60 book, which you could then read and make informed comments.

FYI, “Our Undiscovered Universe” has been reviewed by tenured professors in astrophysics, mathematics, and physics, and such reviews will be available soon at NULLPHYSICS.COM. No errors have been found in either the derivations, supporting evidence or calculations, although a couple of the reviewers would like even more evidence than has been presented in the book, since the Big Bang is such entrenched dogma. This additional evidence will become available when the predictions made by Null Physics are tested.

We’re not sure why many physics hobbyists feel so threatened by a thoughtful challenge to the current paradigms, but the religious zeal with which we have been attacked has at least been entertaining.

Sincerely,
The Null Physics Team

I responded by offering to perform a full review if he provided me a copy for free.

EvanE

17th November 2007, 07:40 PM

I guess I must at least thank Terry Witt for leading me to this forum which I found when I Googled 'null physics' to see what it was about after seeing a 2 page spread in the latest Popular Science. And what a great forum I have found it be thus far.

The posts here have been very enlightening, although most of the physics stuff is well over my head. I am a psychology major and thus studied psychological research and statistical methods. But regardless of the science, whether psychology or physics, the process of gaining acceptance to get to a theory is the same. That being peer review, which allows for others to check out and critique the data and if it clears that then begin replication to validate a hypothesis. The audacity of this individual to think he can sit on some idea for 30 years and then spring it upon the masses and expect them to shell out 60 bucks to learn about it is preposterous. Not a single reputable scientist would behave in such a manner. When this 'null' idea struck him way back when, he should have submitted it for peer review. If it gets rejected, then go back to the drawing board to try at it again if you are so sure it is the answer. This is how science works. Start small and build on established parameters.

But apparently Mr. Witt thinks you must start big, with 'why the universe is here' and work backwards or some such. I reject such a premise all together. It practically borders on faith, much like creationists have a preconceived notion and then try to fit science around it. Wrong. Not how science works. Empiricism comes before philosophy when seeking objective answers.

From the amount Mr. Witt has spent on these ads, it seems he is either trying to make money off this, or he is a megalomaniac. Basically, he thinks his idea is so special that he can just bypass the entire science community and bring forth his truths to the magazine reading science-ish masses (most of whom, like myself, wouldn't have any idea how to check his work). Why can't he let those 'stuck in the string theory box' hacks have a shot at his work? Because they would overturn it in about 5 minutes probably. Heck, I would be intimidated by a guy like Edward Witten (who knows a thing or two about physics and geometry) looking at my work too. But that is who new ideas must stand up to if they are to be validated.

DocTwisted

21st November 2007, 10:56 AM

Ok, I found this thread, like EvanE above me, after googling the topic because of seeing the two-page ad in Popular Science for the book.

While not someone who got very far in his science classes (though extremely far in his literature classes), I think the difference between SM Physics and Null Physics boils down like this:

Standard Model Physics was created and refined over multiple lifetimes by both scientists and mathematicians who took as precise measurements as they knew how to, recorded the data, and found the patterns within so that they could predict, say, how far a baseball thrown at an initial speed of 75 mph would go before the first bounce if it started a height of 1.5 meters above the ground, given a flat surface to travel over and standard earth gravity and air pressure. The key to the verification of all findings in this system's methods were repeatable, verifiable results. There's tons of peer review of all findings, and whole libraries of publicly available information on the laws, theories, and the what, how, and when of the SM.

Null Physics has been written by one man working for a number of years, not by taking measurements but by starting with a (not publicly stated, but presumably somewhere in the book) philosophical standpoint on why the universe exists, and somehow using that to create a number of new theories, so far with no verification (and in some cases, apparently direct contradiction of measurements taken by scientists), no peer review, and the only publishing done so far is one hardcover book that must be purchased (and is doubtlessly copyrighted to prevent purchasers from making the information in the book "spoilered" online). There are some suggested experiments and their predicted results in an appendix of the book (according to the author's postings here), and promised future peer reviews.

How's that sound? Please feel free to correct me if I'm saying something wrong here.

sol invictus

21st November 2007, 11:19 AM

That's an accurate summary.

One thing that may not be obvious is how many such people there are around. Professional physicists (particularly those that work on elementary particles or cosmology) hear from people like this regularly. Maybe once every month an email will come in from some crackpot with a theory of everything. Often the email is sent to an entire department or research group. These theories usually have certain characteristics in common - they were developed by an individual working in isolation, never by someone with a solid grounding in physics, and they replace all that came before them with something much superior. Typically the only reason their greatness hasn't been acknowledged is a conspiracy by the establishment to suppress them.

Slightly less often one of these theories will be self-published in book form. I actually have a small collection of such books (which are sometimes mailed to or left lying around physics departments). The only thing that makes this one remarkable is how much money was spent advertising it.

I suspect there is a specific psychological illness (one which can be present in varying degrees) that leads to this. Megalomania isn't a bad word for it, but it's rather more specific than that. It's a little sad, but mostly harmless. Stephen Wolfram, for example, may suffer from a mild form of it (see A New Kind of Science, particularly the first page of the notes). Occasionally it actually rises to the level of dangerous. Some of the more disturbed of these individuals have become violent - there was one case many years ago where the administrator (not even a professor) in a physics department was shot. So it's not entirely a laughing matter.

ben m

21st November 2007, 02:05 PM

DocTwisted and Sol hit the major points, I think.

Perhaps one key to the apparent megalomania is that these are (often) reasonably smart people who have had reasonable success in other fields---engineering, or entrepreneurship, or medicine. Before running into QM and Relativity, they may have never before encountered something that they couldn't intuit. Therefore, they think that everything must be intuitive.

Additionally, in some fields, "starting from scratch" is a good thing. The most successful engineers and businessfolk are sometimes people who said, "Rather than incrementally improving our current cell phone contract structure, I'm going to throw it out and reinvent it with no baggage attached." So they're biased towards thinking iconoclastically---because iconoclasm sometimes works. Indeed, they're happiest thinking iconoclastically. I think that if you told Mr. Witt, "Your idea was right. To firm it up, you need to make these industry-standard theory-experiment comparisons involving form factors ...", he'd rebel against that, too: "I've invented better theory-experiment comparisons, and anyway I would prefer to leave the dirty work to you bean counters; I have to begin work on my paradigm-shifting theory of biology."

The other thing is, well, clearly they're not used to being told they are wrong. I don't picture business people sitting around in their boardrooms saying, "I'm sorry, Mr. Witt, your new product idea is wrong because you made a mathematical error in the profit calculation", or "Mr. Witt, your marketing campaign will not work because it violates several key theorems." If a marketing guy tells you that your product is a bad idea, it's not unlikely that you can take it somewhere else, polish up the presentation a bit, and make it work, then dismiss the naysayer as unimaginative. If a physicist tells you that your theory is garbage because its geometry is nonsense and it makes wrong quantum predictions---well, as soon try the same approach, you've become a crackpot.

That's my guess, anyway, as to Mr. Witt's psychology.

DocTwisted

22nd November 2007, 01:35 AM

DocTwisted and Sol hit the major points, I think.

--clipped--

The other thing is, well, clearly they're not used to being told they are wrong. I don't picture business people sitting around in their boardrooms saying, "I'm sorry, Mr. Witt, your new product idea is wrong because you made a mathematical error in the profit calculation", or "Mr. Witt, your marketing campaign will not work because it violates several key theorems." If a marketing guy tells you that your product is a bad idea, it's not unlikely that you can take it somewhere else, polish up the presentation a bit, and make it work, then dismiss the naysayer as unimaginative. If a physicist tells you that your theory is garbage because its geometry is nonsense and it makes wrong quantum predictions---well, as soon try the same approach, you've become a crackpot.

That's my guess, anyway, as to Mr. Witt's psychology.

Thank you.

I found your last paragraph rather interesting, in that it reminded me of another world where people become self-destructive because nobody is willing to tell them they're doing something wrong... that of pop culture celebrities. When everyone all around you is watching you is worshiping you as you money hand over fist, it takes some real cajones to be the one to tell them that some what they're doing to celebrate might be a very bad idea...

...do you think it might be a related kind of problem here?

Moebus

25th November 2007, 05:55 PM

First, I happened upon this thread - having just joined JREF - and am appalled! Mr. Witt, I commend you for having a book; though I've never read it, you undertook to cover 400+ pages of hard work to explain your position ... I can commend your dedication. The rest of you - it would behoove you to write a paper as a rebuttal (this is not only polite, but scientific - and, please, make your criticisms as concise and deliberate - I'd settle for 200 pages). As it is, I'm saddened by the Q/A method of criticism (for it is cannot properly be called such - the little tidbits offered are not in themselves viable - mere repetitions of others' work - hence, you all fail to lend credence to your own comments; since none of you are peer-reviewed ... using the same yardstick can be humbling, yes?). For myself, I trust NO MAN who can make a conclusion based on excerpts! This is absurd! Or did you? If so, you may as well know that the war in Iraq - well, that's really because they have weapons of mass destruction!

As for the criticism that one cannot be taken seriously because one lacks the credentials (hmmmm, I suppose a mail clerk named Einstein, or a lawyer/amateur mathematician named Fermat, ought to be outright discounted). Thus far, this forum is neither educational, nor foundational, it is - at best - rhetorical. I really am desirous of learning something of substance. Uhm, string theory! Anyone ACTUALLY SEEN (scientifically observed) ONE?!? Pray tell me - what color is it? Seems like a lot of "bs" has been propounded (oh, that's BOLD STATEMENT to you). Am I supposed to believe something BECAUSE someone said it exists? TESTABILITY is the ground by which we can determine viability. The theory of evolution is bunk ... BECAUSE it cannot be tested, hence, cannot be falsified; and, neither, can it be taken seriously (except if you REALLY want to believe it). The theory of gravity, on the other hand, CAN be tested. At best, anything that is propsed AND which cannot be tested, is not even CONJECTURE! The Taniyama-Shigemura Conjecture was testable ... having now been proven by Dr. Andrew Wiles ... it led the way to proving Fermat's Theorem (150 pages he worked on HIMSELF, and after 350 years of the best minds were stumped!). And, YES, if there is any criticism of the proof, you can bet your life it will be in the form of ANOTHER paper/book. Not mere Q/A criticism!

Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

Note, the following came from an actual college science book (the examples in parenthesis are mine).

1. Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white. (Every Finch I’ve ever seen has a beak) (Every man I’ve ever seen has legs)
2. Hypothesis: All swans must be white. (All Finches must have beaks) (All men must have legs)
3. Test: A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans. (A random sample produces only Finches with beaks) (A random sample produces only men which have legs)
4. Publication: "My global research has indicated that swans are always white, wherever they are observed." (Global research reveal that Finches always have beaks) (Global research reveal that men always have legs)
5. Verification: Every swan any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been white. (Every Finch has always been beaked) (All men have always been legged)
6. Theory: All swans are white. (All Finches are fishes) (All men are apes)

Prediction: The next swan I see will be white. (The next Finch seen will be a fish) (The next man seen will be an ape)

Interesting things can happen when we leave off the proper steps required by reason, and take a - dare I say it LEAP OF FAITH?!? By the way, I'm glad to join this forum - to discuss skepticism, critical thinking (right), the paranormal (your wife's cooking), and science (so-called, because we know someone, somewhere, is doing the work for us; and all we need do, afterward, is BELIEVE them). As for me, I cannot ascertain Mr. Witt's efforts; nor can I afford the amount required to check it out. As such, I cannot comment on his work - merely on his efforts.

Moebus

25th November 2007, 06:13 PM

If you write a book, post it on here ... that way, you'll have the joy of being the butt of the rebuttals. But, make sure you do charge $60 for your efforts ... we're not here for charity, you know.

Paul

25th November 2007, 07:01 PM

First, I happened upon this thread - having just joined JREFThen you should be aware of the nature of the forum.

and am appalled!Honestly, you need to get out more.

Mr. Witt, I commend you for having a book;So merely having a book is enough to impress you? In that case, you should be totally enamoured with L Ron Hubbard, OJ Simpson, Sergius Nilus, David Icke, David Duke and Fred Phelps.

though I've never read itBut you though you'd complain about other people not reading it.

you undertook to cover 400+ pages of hard work to explain your positionAh, I see, it's a big book so it must be OK.

The rest of you - it would behoove you to write a paper as a rebuttal Witt chose to self publish his book and then make ridiculous claims for it's contents; why would that deserve a 200 page scientific paper in response?

For myself, I trust NO MAN who can make a conclusion based on excerpts!Yet based on not reading this book, and having read the opinions of people qualified to comment, you feel justified in rushing to Witt's defence.

I suppose a mail clerk named Einstein, or a lawyer/amateur mathematician named Fermat, ought to be outright discountedYou must mean Fred Einstein and Jimmy Fermat, otherwise you'd just be making yourself appear foolish.

Thus far, this forum is neither educational, nor foundational, it is - at best - rhetorical. I really am desirous of learning something of substance.A good start would be to stop abusing the language in an attempt to appear smart, it isn't working.

The theory of evolution is bunk ... BECAUSE it cannot be tested, hence, cannot be falsified; and, neither, can it be taken seriously (except if you REALLY want to believe it).Perhaps you could attempt to clarify the point you are failing to make, if indeed there is one.

Prediction: The next swan I see will be white. (The next Finch seen will be a fish) (The next man seen will be an ape)

Interesting things can happen when we leave off the proper steps required by reason, and take a - dare I say it LEAP OF FAITH?!?
Well, you can dare say it, but it doesn't explain what you're wittering on about; you deliberately include silly false misstatements in order to demonstrate what?

By the way, I'm glad to join this forum - to discuss skepticism, critical thinking (right), Ooh sarcasm, aren't you clever.

As for me, I cannot ascertain Mr. Witt's efforts; nor can I afford the amount required to check it out. As such, I cannot comment on his work - merely on his efforts.So, we are left with
'Witt good, write big book, lots of words. Me not understand words, me not read book, but people say bad things about book, they wrong. Big book, lots of words, big book good.'

ben m

25th November 2007, 08:09 PM

First, I happened upon this thread - having just joined JREF - and am appalled! Mr. Witt, I commend you for having a book; though I've never read it, you undertook to cover 400+ pages of hard work to explain your position ... I can commend your dedication.

Hi Moebus, welcome to the Forums. Don't mind us if we're a bit snappish sometimes. I assume, from the tone of your post, that you're (a) unfamiliar with what's expected of a modern physics theory and (b) unfamiliar with the vast number of "physics crackpots" out there.

On the topic of crackpots, I might suggest that you visit http://www.crank.net and http://homepage.mac.com/sigfpe/Physics/pots.html. The latter page lists ... what, 400 crackpots? Each one with a different, homegrown, idiosyncratic theory of physics. I would guess that 2/3rds of them have written books. Mr. Witt's general idea---"Hey, I may be an outside, but I'm smart and my thought-experiments are as valid as Einstein's"---is extraordinarily common.

On the topic of modern physics: Moebus, we've seen thousands of theories come and go. We've noticed some patterns among these theories; in many cases, we've found general proofs validating those patterns. With those patterns in mind, we're actually really quick at deciding whether a theory is workable or not. Does the theory reduce to the Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model in the appropriate limits? Does the theory break with these models in other limits? And how? Is the theory Lorentz invariant? Gauge invariant? Unitary? If not, what does it mean? How many free parameters does the theory have? And so on. We know, from experience, exactly what experiments a non-Lorentz-invariant theory will fail to describe; we know exactly what happens, in the general case, to theories which don't reduce to quantum mechanics: they can't explain the "EPR" class of experiments.

Mr. Witt's excerpts are enough to tell you that he's failed some of these tests; his responses on this forum suggest that he's uninterested in the other tests. This is quite enough to tell you that the theory is wrong. Moreover, they tell you that the author isn't likely to have some great insights in the unseen parts of his book.

This isn't poker---if you have a great hand, you show it. If Witt had a theory with the required properties, he'd say so in Excerpt #1: "My theory has properties W, X, Y, and Z which make it a good candidate for a theory of everything; in the next 400 pages I will prove these statements and elaborate." No, instead he fiddles around with word games with "infinity", spends an appendix doing trivial integrals, and draws some pictures of what he thinks nuclei look like. This is not hte behavior of a player hiding a great hand; it's the behavior of someone who doesn't know a good hand from a bad one. "Behold---I have a seven and a five! Do you want to fold now or should I show you more?"

This isn't being arbitrary or picky. Imagine if an inventor was trying to sell you a revolutionary new car---but, on querying, he wouldn't let you see it without a fee; he revealed that he had kicked all four tires and felt that this was a thorough safety test (or, wait, were those tires, or axles? or brakes? I'll let someone who knows this fancy terminology clear that up); that it was shaped quite a lot like a car, the glovebox and turn signals worked great, but that, although he was personally unable to start the engine or make it move, he was sure that such performance could be expected ... why? Because of the great success of the glovebox and turn signals, which you can see if you pay the fee.

There's nothing closed-minded about making quick judgements when little evidence is presented, if the little that is presented is bad.

OnlyTellsTruths

25th November 2007, 08:12 PM

Moebus has either never posted on an internet message board before or is directly involved with sales of the book in question. Then again he may be from planet x, in which case we can't be sure of anything.

TriangleMan

25th November 2007, 10:30 PM

Prediction: The next swan I see will be white. (The next Finch seen will be a fish) (The next man seen will be an ape)
Prediction: Moebus is a sock of Witt. (Can I have the $1,000,000 now?)

Anyway I just hope Witt didn't put himself in heavy debt to finance this endeavour as it would be unfortunate to lose his home over this. $700k is a lot of money to spend on advertising.

ben m

25th November 2007, 11:09 PM

Prediction: Moebus is a sock of Witt. (Can I have the $1,000,000 now?)

I mostly doubt it---why wouldn't Witt invent a sockpuppet who has actually read the book?

TriangleMan

26th November 2007, 12:26 AM

I mostly doubt it---why wouldn't Witt invent a sockpuppet who has actually read the book?
Beats me, maybe so the poster would not be in a position to have to defend why the book is good? By not reading it one doesn't have to deal with the items and questions brought up in the first couple of pages of the thread. I had noticed that Moebus's writing style is similar to Witt's more agitated posts - liberal use of "quotations" combined with (brackets) and the odd CAPPED word. That combined with the sudden appearance of a supporter seemed odd to me. Little matter if I'm right or wrong though as Witt appears to have stepped out of the debate.

Moebus

26th November 2007, 12:31 AM

Now, Paul, I have somewhat to say to you:
1. You should ask whether I'd read ALL the posts ... I did (but that was too much for you to endeavor, investigate, I mean).
2. That I need to get out more is a correct assessment. Seems you frequent this forum more than I do (care to take your own suggestion?).
3. Big book, impress me? No, courageous investigators impress me, hard workers impress me, EVEN CRAZY WORTHLESS IDEAS impress me because it implies someone is using their brain to think ... not necessarily headed in the correct direction, but at least ACTIVELY using what little they've got (I surmise you've quite plenty to go around ... note: Thomas Alva Edison came up with many erroneous assumptions ... but his perseverance prevailed ... but you probably think he invented the light bulb, right?)
4. I never actually said it was okay to have a big book ... merely that he undertook to spend money FIRST to propound his ideas ... if he gets any return for his efforts, well, I suppose he can join the ranks of L. Ron Hubbard.
5. You suggest that I'm defending Witt? Nonsense, I am neither defending Witt, nor debunking anyone else here. YOU made that PRESUMPTION about my intent, on your own. Those who post here are QUALIFIED to posts such comments?!? Are you insane?!? AM I SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE THAT?!? I don't have any means of ascertaining the qualifications of anyone on this forum; you may, I do not.
6. Abusing the language? What, missing commas, periods, dashes, spell check not working? Appear smart, like, "oh, oh, oh, PICK ME, I know!"
7. Ah, the point of my post ... it is this, that SCIENCE, like everything else, demands a certain amount of faith just to be believable. Take, for example, my belief that you actually are capable of coherent thought. I COULD BE WRONG ... prove to me otherwise, yes? EVERYTHING IS QUESTIONABLE! That, I believe, is my prerogative.
8. Silly misstatements ... that I be required to believe without demand of proof? Why, because Darwin said so? Because your teacher said so, or because your professor said so? Are you getting it yet? SOMEBODY SAID SOMETHING TO YOU .. WHICH REQUIRED YOU TO BELIEVE THEM! You've been doing it since you were, what, a monkey?
9. Dude, if you think that was sarcasm ... YOU NEED TO GOT OUT MORE; no, seriously, take your jacket, go out to the local pub ... there are guys there that make more sense.
10. Attacking a person does not clarify understanding, it is merely an effort to shut them up. In which case, I trust your own tactics work well with you. What are you, the leader of the Inquisition?

OnlyTellsTruths: Planet X ... was that the one that scientists recently nixed (though they were pretty adamant it was once Pluto)? The SMARTEST thing you said was, "we can't be sure of anything." Kudos to your own self-realization; now go out and play.

TriangleMan: You implied Witt had dedication ... commenting that he spent money to put out his own opinions. Surely, that is worthy of consideration ... at least he didn't ask the government for your tax dollars to fund experiments on why humans and tomatoes are only 1 gene apart.

Ben M ... my hats off to you. You endeavored to clarify YOUR position (and, rather than attack the person; and wonder of wonders, you used reason to bring about your points - I understood your reasoning). You do not condescend to look down your nose at those who may not understand, indeed, you take the pains to explain. A thinker, indeed. I shall be looking out for your posts in the future. Thank you - I have no doubt that you are deliberate in all your endeavors. Cheers.

Moebus

26th November 2007, 12:36 AM

Why the book is good? Hmmm, don't recall having said that. I think I commended the man for "having A book." Which implies a publisher. But, hey, repeat a lie often enough and, even I might start believing you. But, oh what does it matter if YOU'RE WRONG OR RIGHT?!? I was in Thailand for a symposium once, the driver kept saying "mai pen rai (it doesn't matter)," to our inquiry ... why were we going 8 hours the other way?

Taffer

26th November 2007, 12:45 AM

The theory of evolution is bunk ... BECAUSE it cannot be tested, hence, cannot be falsified; and, neither, can it be taken seriously (except if you REALLY want to believe it).

I cannot begin to tell you how wrong the bolded is.

Moebus

26th November 2007, 12:53 AM

Please begin ... and, to help you start, you can use Darwin's own words; and, then proceed to Mendel's experiments - it should be sufficient to debunk me.

Taffer

26th November 2007, 02:59 AM

Please begin ... and, to help you start, you can use Darwin's own words; and, then proceed to Mendel's experiments - it should be sufficient to debunk me.

I'm sorry, are you serious?

Every entry level geneticist checks certain predictions made by evolutionary theory.

ben m

26th November 2007, 08:46 AM

Please begin ... and, to help you start, you can use Darwin's own words; and, then proceed to Mendel's experiments - it should be sufficient to debunk me.

In other words, "Please begin ... and let me walk you into the DASTARDLY LOGICAL TRAP I thought up during homeroom. Mwa ha ha ha!"

Why don't you look through the vast databases of previous attempts to debunk evolution, at http://www.talkorigins.org/, where someone has almost certainly mentioned your objection, and someone else has almost certainly written a nice little essay in response. If you still have a question afterwards, come back and start a new thread---this thread, IIRC, was about "null physics".

(Also: a quick Amazon search will confirm that mainstream biologists have written much bigger books than creationists. :) I think that means we win.)

Paul

26th November 2007, 08:47 AM

Now, Paul, I have somewhat to say to you:Somewhat?

1. You should ask whether I'd read ALL the posts ... I did (but that was too much for you to endeavor, investigate, I mean).
As you claimed to have joined the forum, then come across this thread, then found it necessary to comment, I took the position that you would have familiarised yourself with the discussion first - a courtesy to you.

3. Big book, impress me? No,Yet you seem to be impressed by the number of pages a given idea takes to expound.

EVEN CRAZY WORTHLESS IDEAS impress me because it implies someone is using their brain to thinkCrazy and worthless kind of implies that they're not using their brain in a particlarly effective manner.

4. I never actually said it was okay to have a big book
'400+ pages of hard work' ... 'I'd settle for 200 pages' ... '150 pages he worked on HIMSELF' All these in one post seems to indicate the size of the book is important to you.

merely that he undertook to spend money FIRST to propound his ideasThe amount of money spent, in this case a seemingly huge amount, has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the work.

5. You suggest that I'm defending Witt? Nonsense, I am neither defending Witt, nor debunking anyone else here.You are taking a de facto position in favour of Witt by berating those in opposition and praising his dedication and hard work.

Those who post here are QUALIFIED to posts such comments?!? Are you insane?!? AM I SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE THAT?!? I don't have any means of ascertaining the qualifications of anyone on this forumWhy don't you ask why some feel qualified to criticise Witt, instead of having a teenage tantrum?

6. Abusing the language? What, missing commas, periods, dashes, spell check not working? Appear smart, like, "oh, oh, oh, PICK ME, I know!"Actually, I was think more of the misuse of words which people sometimes believe will make them appear intelligent.

8. Silly misstatementsYes

that I be required to believe without demand of proof?No, that you deliberately went from beaks to fishes and legs to apes.

Why, because Darwin said so? Because your teacher said so, or because your professor said so? Are you getting it yet? SOMEBODY SAID SOMETHING TO YOU .. WHICH REQUIRED YOU TO BELIEVE THEM!Have you personally verified any scientific theories? If not, you cannot believe in medicine, heavier-than-air flight, nuclear power, gravity or computers.

You've been doing it since you were, what, a monkey?Personally, I can't remember all of the last 5-8 million years, but I believe that I was never actually a monkey.

9. Dude, if you think that was sarcasm ... YOU NEED TO GOT OUT MOREWell, it was sarcasm, I don't have to think it was.

10. Attacking a person does not clarify understanding, it is merely an effort to shut them up. In which case, I trust your own tactics work well with you.Someone like you would never stoop so low...

What are you, the leader of the Inquisition?Yes, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

T-Diddy

26th November 2007, 04:47 PM

Two things for Moebus:

1--> Witt published the book himself. Don't believe me? Go to his website and look at the publisher (Aridian Publishing Corporation). Now go to google and type that in. Notice there is only one result - the null physics website. That's because it's the name he published it under (himself).

2--> You're really critical of people using excerpts from his book to prove him wrong. I issue you a challenge. Please refer to post #126 above, wherein I thoroughly debunk his most basic premises and show his logic is terrible in general. If you can prove my debunking wrong (really, not just a dot the i's and cross the t's thing), I will concede we shouldn't judge him. However, Witt posted enough of his book online to prove he is a crackpot using those concepts he included.

Go ahead, prove me wrong. God knows I need a good laugh.

TriangleMan

26th November 2007, 10:21 PM

TriangleMan: You implied Witt had dedication ... commenting that he spent money to put out his own opinions.
No, unless your definition of 'dedication' is 'someone who throws money away needlessly'.

Surely, that is worthy of consideration
Not particularly, it's more a sign of being dogmatic. Full page ads noting a previously unknown revolution in physics is a definite yellow flag signifying crankdom. That's why the moment I saw the ad I went to JREF to see if there was a thread.

On other boards I've dealt with or witnessed threads with many a crank who self-published a book of their nonsense. Witt is not special with the exception that he spent a lot more money on it. My only hope is that he did not put assets such as his house at risk for this.

... at least he didn't ask the government for your tax dollars to fund experiments on why humans and tomatoes are only 1 gene apart.
Bolding mine. Check my location. And I do support research money going to experimentation and research, even if it's for tomato gene sequencing.

Schneibster

27th November 2007, 02:58 AM

What, we got little kids coming on here with opinions about 400 page physics books now?

<sniff sniff> I thinks I smells a sock-puppet.

roSSman

28th November 2007, 04:09 PM

Since I'm new here myself, I'm not clear on whether a sock-puppet is the mere pretense of a different person (e.g., Moebus is Witt undercover) or a genuinely different person, who's put up to the task of making the posts, by an underlying character (e.g., Moebus is Witt's kid).

Regardless of applicable "sock" terminology, I don't believe Moebus is Witt. Putting any substantive faults aside, Witt's posts exhibited a level of emotional and rhetorical maturity that's patently lacking in those done by Moebus -- which, obviously, drip with juvenile patterns (no offense intended).

The situation does raise an interesting question. Given Moebus' giveaway of the fact his perspective is biased by theism, I find myself wondering whether Witt may himself be in a similar position. It's no secret theists usually dislike the Big Bang. If I recall correctly from its promo literature, Witt's book purports to prove there twarnt no such thing.

Hmmm.

Perhaps (in Witt's book) we're dealing with a deeply-disguised cousin to Of Pandas and People. Maybe Witt didn't even spend his own money. It does not stretch credulity to think the John Templeton Foundation (among others) may have been happy to foot the bill.

It would put a whole added varnish on the thing, wouldn't it?

Assuming Witt is still monitoring this thread, I pose this question: Did your work, Mr. Witt, have any secondary, pro-theism agenda?

JohnLisbeth

29th November 2007, 05:08 PM

I just discovered this thread yesterday. The funniest posts are those that talk about how much it has cost Terry Witt to publish and advertise his book. If you’ll Google “Witt Biomedical”, “Philips” and “sale” you’ll find that Terry started his own company in 1990, built it into the leader in its field and sold it last year to Phillips for $165,000,000.
Talk about the American dream……

I’ve known Terry since 1997 and I can tell you that he had no money worries even before the sale.

Now, you may ask, does any of this qualify him as a top-rank mathematician and cosmologist?
Nope. But I think it’s safe to assume that anyone who can earn a couple of hundred million bucks that quickly (or at all!!) is very intelligent, very organized and very determined. The image of some loser crackpot who mortgaged his house or got funding from some religious group to publish a book is simply the result of ignorance.

I’m not a mathematician, just a computer geek approaching retirement. I’ll be interested to see how qualified individuals who actually read the book will respond.

John

Paul

29th November 2007, 06:53 PM

I’m not a mathematician, just a computer geek approaching retirement. I’ll be interested to see how qualified individuals who actually read the book will respond.If you had read the thread, instead of just posting to tell us how rich your friend is, you would know that qualified individuals have already responded.

If Mr Witt is so obscenely wealthy, why does he need to hawk his ideas around to the layman in an expensive book?

roSSman

30th November 2007, 09:14 AM

Witt's business and financial success fits to a tee with the very sympathetic (and half-praising) description of a crackpot mind, as provided by ben m in Post #140 (a description I'd already intended to thank him for, since I have significant crackpot tendencies of my own).

T-Diddy

30th November 2007, 04:22 PM

$165 Mil? Now I know why he waited until after the sale to publish his book. Incidentally, if he's rich he's a complete jerk for charging $59 for the book and not giving it to the world.

Laughter, after all, is the best medicine.

ben m

30th November 2007, 09:42 PM

The other thing that puzzled me initially is, why isn't the book for sale on Amazon? I don't think "cutting out the middleman" is usually a good sales strategy in the book world. Not for lack of a publisher---Amazon, Powell's, etc., list lots of self-published and POD books. Then I realized: Amazon allows reviews and comments. Witt didn't want people to see comments on the book before buying it. I could be wrong, but I can't think of another explanation.

Yllanes

1st December 2007, 02:20 AM

Negative reviews of crackpottish physics books have 'disappeared' before from Amazon. See this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=55817&highlight=Amazon).

tomwaits

1st December 2007, 03:50 AM

I think Jack Torrance should be given due praise for his writings. His "All work and no play make Jack a dull boy" novel was HUNDREDS of pages!

roSSman

6th December 2007, 10:05 AM

I was troubled by the notion that Amazon does not play fair with its reviews. I clicked Yllanes' link (Post 161), followed that thread, and went from it to others. I decided to test the situation myself. I submitted a very much deserved and strongly negative review, to see if it would be rejected.

It was, indeed, on the first submission. But the second time around, it was accepted, and is presently posted by Amazon (I can't post links yet, but if you copy and paste the following to your browswer, it will work: amazon.com/review/product/1581126018/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt_sr_1?%5Fencoding=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar).

At this point (and though knowing my limited experience is not the best guide), it's my best guess that Amazon's screeners may be a bit more critical of negative reviews (as compared to positive ones), but I doubt there's any purposeful intent to unfairly skew results. Certainly, it does not appear there is any blanket policy to reject negative reviews.

roSSman

7th December 2007, 08:25 AM

Bad news. After one day of exposure, my negative review no longer shows on Amazon.

roSSman

16th December 2007, 06:35 PM

For anyone interested, when I complained to Amazon shortly after the last post, they reinserted my negative review, and it's endured there since.

phil99

16th February 2008, 05:54 PM

I just received my first issue of Science Illustrated and the inside front cover was the left half of a two-page spread for Witt's book. (The mag looks to be a dud.)

It immediately put me in mind of "Spatiomaterialism,' which is another "unified" theory that Overturns All Others and Explains It All (albeit more oriented to philosophy than physics).

If Witt finds criticism of his work on this thread to be dishonest, then he shouldn't have made available the excerpts from his work that he has. As far as I can tell, they are what have been trashed here, and his rebuttals to that trashing, such as they have been, told this non-physicist his dog won't hunt.

Did I miss someone ask Witt (1) why he never peer-review posted a paper on any facet of his theory; or (2) what was the response to his posting(s)?

If Einstein could do it, and Godel could do it, then is it not reasonable to expect Witt to do it?

ben m

16th February 2008, 07:04 PM

Here's all he said:

Unfortunately, self-published physics books are invariably the product of uniformed, and in many cases, positively deranged individuals. Just as unfortunately, peer-reviewed journals strenuously reject ideas contrary to the reigning paradigms. So rather than fight the battle a little bit at a time, I decided to wait until I had some convincing results and published the results of my work from 1978 to 2004 all at once. So far it’s gone well with the individuals who actually read the book, but after reading Lee Smolin’s new book, “The Trouble With Physics” I fear I might be tilting at windmills with regard to the theoretical physics community.

So, as usual, he doesn't submit to journals because they "strenuously reject" his ideas---and, in his mind, the problem can't possibly be that his ideas are wrong. Not clear whether he learned this the hard way. :)

TriangleMan

16th February 2008, 11:53 PM

Welcome to the board, phil99!

I saw more null physics ads in Discover so it appears Witt has paid for multiple-months of advertising in various magazines.

I guess we should keep this thread alive, whenever anyone googles "null physics" this thread is currently #2. Anyone intrigued by the ads and doing a net search should find it.

ben m

17th February 2008, 08:43 AM

There's something odd on the "author's journal", also:

I just wanted to drop a note to the brave souls who have attempted to defend me or my book in the various forums where both are being attacked. I really do appreciate your support, but as you have no doubt discovered, these sad little venues are specifically not about evaluating new ideas or acknowledging theoretical physics' foundational issues.

According to Google, there are only a handful of people mentioning it at all---us, Bad Astronomy, a few random instances of "Anyone heard of this book?"---and I didn't see anyone "defending" it. Other than Witt himself. Are you still out there, Terry?

Witt's claim to be a visiting faculty at Florida Tech, of which I was skeptical, is apparently true. Although you won't find FIT promoting him on their web page. Weird.

thubbathubba

19th February 2008, 01:43 PM

I Googeloped over to this thread after doing a couble-take to the NullPhysics add in Discover Magazine yesterday. Ironically, it's the one with Einstein on the cover (Herr Doktor Einstein the patent clerk, not Fred Einstein the mail clerk), so I was in the mood to see if perhaps the second coming had finally came. When I saw James Randi on the banner of this site I knew THAT wasn't going to happen; rather, I was in for some good old-fashioned debunking.

I read this whole thread, understood the majority of the sentences without numbers or coefficients (and took the others on faith), and must say, as a casual Googeloper into this forum, you guys do not disappoint. I laughed, I cried (well, I stayed up to late and my eyes started watering from some strain), it MOVED me. Monty-Python references interspersed with gluons, leptons, and peons... what's not to love?

Although I am utterly unqualified to judge outcomes based upon the scientific arguments, the rhetorical quality has been pretty lopsided. With the of Mr. Witt himself, who left all his chips on the table when he retired from the game (with the grace of the gifted marketer he seems to be, I should interject), no one else has shown any kind of hand.

My qualification is in word-logic, not numbers-logic. Curiosity draws me to the sciences, but because unlike the Einsteins of the world Attention Deficit Disorder reduces me to a dilettante because it is not paired with mathematical intuition (so, naturally, I am a lawyer.) I often fantasize about stumbling upon a philosophical paradigm that supplants the bizzaro-world of quantum physics, which seems to describe a universe appart from the one I navigate. Unlike some people, however, this fantasy does not animate my life (so far...)

My experience with this sort of thing is in confronting Holocaust-deniers years ago on the old alt.revisionism newsgroup (where my sometimes formidable but usually evil opponents eroded my soul), and more recently debating evolution-Deniers on the web (where my sometimes kind-hearted but always soft-minded opponents eroded my intellect). The one thing I can say that distinguishes this Null Physics thread from those I've participated in is that the denier-sites usually had someone from 'the other side' capable of carrying their torch. That does not appear to be the case here.

Unfortunately, with the exception of Mr. Witt himself, even those who claim to have read the book do not seem able to mount any kind of defense against the compelling criticism several of you posed. And - NO - the "you-cannot-comment-until-you-read-the-whole-thing" argument is no defense: one need not devour the whole turkey to know it's been undercooked; the first bite'll usually do (and probably better spat out than spend the night on the John.) It's worth noting, too, that this argument is a favorite of Creationists who - with no sense of irony - often charged that I have not studied the entire Bible sufficient to crticize particular doctrinal elements derived from it, while they themselves faithfully parroted false criticisms of Biology, Geology, Physics (woo-hoo!) and various other scientific disciplines to which they remained wilfully (and proudly!) ignorant.

To add my piece to this forum (as one of the popular science consumers the targeted by "Null Physics" book), I offer the following brief observations, and my apologies that these may borrow or outright steal from the comments of others:

- Mr. Witt's apparent fluence in the language of physics neither credits nor discredits him; but speaking Latin is not what qualified Martin Luther to pin his manifesto to the cathedral door.
- If Mr. Witt's revolutionary paradigm is an outgrowth of science (as opposed to, say, theology), then how can his theory purport to answer the ultimate "why?" of the universe, while leaving the so many lowly "how?" details to be filled-in later? (His answer to this, of course, was 'pay-your-money-and-read-the-book,' yet he offers not so much as a scientific abstract let alone a detailed synopsis of his theory.)
- The preface of his book is provided at his website. It begins with a quote from Galileo Galilei: "In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." If the 5 pages of prefaratory apologia following this quote portend the humility of Mr. Witt's scientific reasoning, then he does not understand the true implications of Galileo's words.
- If Mr. Witt's commitment is truly to science (in contrast to, say, commerce), then marketing an over-priced tome to popular science consumers (in contrast to, say, sending free copies to the popular science commentators such as the knowledgable critics on this forum) is at best a hopeless blunder.
- Mr. Witt is going to soon discover that although we consumers of popular science are attracted to radical new ideas and expect the next Einstein to arrive during our lifetime, most of us do know the difference between peer review and literary review. And we certainly are aware that charlattans are master marketers first and foremost.

I do hope that a competent defender of Null Physics shows up soon. It would be a shame to let the critical power I've witnessed here languish.

thubbathubba

19th February 2008, 04:04 PM

At risk of further demonstrating my ignorance, below are a few quotes from Mr. Witt's book, teasers from which are excerpted at "nullphysics.com" (I reproduce the copyrighted text for criticism under "fair use.")

Mr. Witt recognizes that "...conservation of energy is the cornerstone of modern physics, yet is blatantly violated by a universal origin from nothing..." and then goes on to raise-and-dismiss summaries of four conventional theories that address this dilemma. Among them is the "Not In Effect" hypothesis:

"In this scenario, energy conservation came into existence after the
universe emerged. While it is true that conservation is meaningless in the absence of something to conserve, it is just as true that the two are inseparable."

Perhaps he fleshes-out his dismissal of this hypothesis later, but if the beast is built upon the skeleton of the above two sentences, the logic will never fly. It reads like this:

1) Hypothesis: The rule of Energy Conservation did not exist before our Universe.
2) The hypothesis separates Energy from Conservation prior to our Universe.
3) Posit: Conservation is inseparable from Energy.
4) Therefore, any type of energy that existed prior to our Universe could not exist because Conservation did not exist.

To borrow his phrase, Mr. Witt blatantly violated the rules of logic: He asserts as a truism the very rule the hypothesis purports to suspend. The "inseparability" of Energy and Conservation is the essence of the rule that does not yet come into existence in our Universe under the "Not In Effect" hypothesis. He appears to be saying the hypothesis must be false because it violates the same rule that the hypothesis assumes as a precondition is false.

This may be an oversimplification of the argument he eventually makes. So far, however, nothing I’ve read in the excerpts from the book recommends I pay the $60 he wants from me in order to find out.

thubbathubba

19th February 2008, 07:07 PM

OK, can someone please explain to me the excerpt below from Witt's book? [NOTE: "M" and "3" are exponents in the following equations; I can't reproduce them precisely here.]

>>>>>

From (Ψ2.8), the universe’s closure relationship can be written:

1M = (1M/∞3)(∞3)

where: Infinite largeness = Size of space = ∞3
and: Infinite smallness = Size of a point = (1M/∞3)

<<<<

I read this as a way to mathematically express the idea "The totality of the universe (1M) EQUALS the totality of the universe (1M) DIVIDED by potential infinite largeness (∞x * ∞y * ∞z), then MULTIPLIED by potential infinite smallness (∞x * ∞y * ∞z)"

Four questions I have (forgive me for being math-challenged):

1) Is not "One to the M power" simply one no matter what "M" is? Isn't 1 to any power simply 1? That certainly seems constant to me.
2) Re the equation: If you divide figure-A by figure-B, and then multiply the product by figure-B, don't you automatically get figure-A, no matter what values you plug in?
3) Doesn't the utility of this equation rely upon there being SOME theoretical difference between the two uses of the identical figure "∞3"? And if so, why is this difference not expressed somehow in the equation?

The equation appears to me to always resolve simply to 1=1, no matter the value of "M". Is this how theoretical constants like "M" are typically expressed?

Sorry I am such a neophyte.

sol invictus

19th February 2008, 08:34 PM

Four questions I have (forgive me for being math-challenged):

1) Is not "One to the M power" simply one no matter what "M" is? Isn't 1 to any power simply 1? That certainly seems constant to me.

Yes.

2) Re the equation: If you divide figure-A by figure-B, and then multiply the product by figure-B, don't you automatically get figure-A, no matter what values you plug in?

Yes.

3) Doesn't the utility of this equation rely upon there being SOME theoretical difference between the two uses of the identical figure "∞3"? And if so, why is this difference not expressed somehow in the equation?

My advice - stop trying to make sense of nonsense written by insane crackpots. Buy a real book on cosmology and/or fundamental physics if you're interested.

~enigma~

19th February 2008, 08:58 PM

self-published physics books are invariably the product of uniformed, and in many cases, positively deranged individuals.
At least you don't lie :)

Now tell me again why I want to buy your self-published physics book...

thubbathubba

19th February 2008, 10:42 PM

My advice - stop trying to make sense of nonsense written by insane crackpots. Buy a real book on cosmology and/or fundamental physics if you're interested.

Good advice, but I guess I'm still intrigued by the possibility that the very first equation provided on the Null Physics website is nonsense. That seems so improbable that I have to know whether it's true.

sol invictus

20th February 2008, 04:59 AM

Good advice, but I guess I'm still intrigued by the possibility that the very first equation provided on the Null Physics website is nonsense. That seems so improbable that I have to know whether it's true.

If you'd seen as many deranged theories of everything as I have, you wouldn't be surprised at all. I've seen easily 50 different ones in the last decade, and those are just the ones that were either sent to me or left lying around (deliberately) in places where physicists might find them. This one happens to have more resources than most.

Interestingly, they all have certain characteristics in common - the authors believe that almost everyone that came before them was wrong about almost everything, they work alone with with little or no reference to anyone else, they're convinced their results are being suppressed by "the establishment", and that if only their theory could get the attention it deserves its validity would be recognized.

thubbathubba

20th February 2008, 10:37 AM

This one happens to have more resources than most.

The sophisticated and expensive marketing program behind this book should concern everyone. Although serious science won't be threatened by it, if it remains unaddressed it could "gain traction" as the author eepcets within the crown of popular science consumers. And that's not harmless.

I've scoured the web for information about this book and its author, and beyond the official website and the printer's site, about all I find is the occassional posting by some novice like me who saw the add in a magazine and asked, "Is there anything to this Null Physics?"

JREF is so far about the only place you can find a serious discussion of any depth addressing that question. I'm a little disappointed that this thread sorta ran out of steam without Witt himself here to chum the waters.

Complexity

20th February 2008, 11:00 AM

Delete

I'd forgotten I already responded in post 56.

thubbathubba

20th February 2008, 12:24 PM

This has been an absolute hoot, and I wanted to thank all the posters for a great time and the lively discourse. I wish you all the best. TW

But then Mr. Witt says in his website journal:

"I just wanted to drop a note to the brave souls who have attempted to defend me or my book in the various forums [...], these sad little venues are specifically not about evaluating new ideas or acknowledging theoretical physics' foundational issues."

Apparently his 'best wishes' were null.

Almo

20th February 2008, 02:51 PM

I wonder if he regrets having left a trail of discussion about it here.

Wangler

20th February 2008, 11:26 PM

All,

This is a very interesting thread, and I want to thank everyone for making it that way.

I actually joined the forum so that I could post about this particular thread.

I am certainly not a physicist, as my post will make obvious.

Like others, I have been intrigued by Mr. Witt's splashy ads.

I admit to being somewhat torn, however.

On one hand, a part of me wants to champion Witt and his musings, if only because I am one (of I assume many) who has occassionally dreamed of re-writing physics in a big, but basic way.

You know, back when your understanding of the concepts is incomplete, and you mess around with Coulomb's law and Newton's law, and try to hash out something meaningful, which is always nonsense.

On the other hand, much of what Witt says doesn't make sense, as has been pointed out by many in this thread.

Keep in mind that Witt's theory will stand or fall on it's own merit. I believe that criticial analysis of new ideas is the responsibility of everyone who espouses to value science, and the scientific method.

That being said, I feel as if the criticisms of Witt's null physics at various points in this thread are a bit overzealous, and almost seem "panicky". The critiques were pointed, persistent, and sometimes persnickety.

These types of critiques prove to Witt that he is hitting near the mark, and the "establishment" is beginning to worry about null physics. Of course, that couldn't be further from the truth.

I was impressed with Ben M's advice to Mr. Witt; a perfect way to respond to someone with kind of wacky ideas: take some time, review current literature and come up with some useful predictions and reductions of your theory. I was kind of disappointed when Witt pooh-poohed his excellent advice.

I was less impressed with the constant championing of the Standard Model. It is certainly the most successful theory in modern science, a point everyone (including Witt) seemed to agree upon.

Just remember, other theories have been successful at predictions, too; the Titus-Bode "law", Bohr's atom model, Newtonian Gravitation. There are plenty of things that the Standard Model cannot handle-the standard model is not an end all; it's just a great point along the way.

I wish the book wasn't $59. I'd buy it just for a look-see. I might try to find it used.

If I do get a hold of it, I'll let everyone know. I would even let others borrow it, if anyone would be willing to invest the time.

Anyhow, thanks for the great thread!

Cheers,

Keith

Wangler

20th February 2008, 11:38 PM

Upon reviewing this thread, one thing that Schneibster said on Oct. 5 put me in "woo" mode.

Speaking about the tired light, I was reminded of my own personal "quack" theory.

The dark energy content of the universe is just the repository of all the energy lost by red-shifted photons.

What do you all think?

I'm sure that there is some reason why this can't be, but I will still write a book in about 30 years. The question I pose above will be my only peer review.

Keith

thubbathubba

21st February 2008, 12:03 AM

The dark energy content of the universe is just the repository of all the energy lost by red-shifted photons.

No. The dark energy is the result of all the energy gained by blue shifted light we can't see because everything is accelerating away from us.

Alexious

22nd February 2008, 12:30 AM

I actually joined the forum so that I could post about this particular thread.

Seconded. Another interested amateur who wanted to find the real scoop on Null Physics. And I certainly think I've done so.

However, I do have one problem with what's been said here. I suppose this is a bit of a thread-jack and it might deserve it's own thread. But I'll start here.

No, in fact, I'm certain that there is such a theory. There are currently three candidates for such a theory, and a great deal of both math and experimentation to be done before we can differentiate among them. None of them may be correct; but more likely, one of them is. It may be quite a while before we find out which. Personally, I favor string physics, but that's not a scientific judgment...

Why is not a physics question. What, where, and when are physics questions. Why is a philosophical question. I'm not particularly interested in philosophy, given that its most recent production of any note is deconstructionism, which claims that there is no objective reality.

There is one thing I think Witt has right (whether he's using it to make money or honestly try and revolutionize physics, I don't know). People in general ARE interested in the why and I think they're looking to physics to be part of the answer. And that's why Witt will sell quite a few copies of his book.

Without the why, the GUT is a big yawn. I mean how is the average person supposed to react? Great! You solved your really hard math problem. Congratulations. Now how about doing something useful like curing cancer or creating a workaround for global warming.

From the outside looking in, I think part of the problem with the physics community IS the lack of why. There's no fire. No energy. I mean, more than one person in the thread talked dismissively about A Brief History of Time. At least Hawking tried to generate some interest! Someone needs to make physics matter again.

Schneibster's rant about not being interested in the why brings to mind Charles Barkley and his "I'm not a role-model" commercial. Guess what? You don't really have a choice. Science has become the place where a lot of people turn to for answers. And I'm not talking about the searching for another subatomic particle type of answers.

Yllanes

22nd February 2008, 04:21 AM

Nobody else finds damm curious the amount of people who have registered in this forum just to post in this thread and who haven't posted anywhere else?

I count

gratuitous python.
roSSman
rRoberts
EvanE
DocTwisted
Moebus
John Lisbeth
phil99
thubbathubba
Wangler
Alexious

Plus the author, of course. Others, such as T-Diddy, registered to post in this thread but have posted elsewhere. As many of the reviews on Amazon were clearly written by sock puppets, I think maybe some moderator should look into this.

ben m

22nd February 2008, 06:21 AM

Nobody else finds damm curious the amount of people who have registered in this forum just to post in this thread and who haven't posted anywhere else?

Hypothesis: there's a $2,000,000 ad campaign out there. People Google for its subject, "null physics", and get JREF as the 2nd hit. That's why newcomers find this thread out of the blue.

Google Trends doesn't have enough data to back that up, but I'd be curious to see Forum referrer stats ...

Yllanes

22nd February 2008, 06:53 AM

Hypothesis: there's a $2,000,000 ad campaign out there. People Google for its subject, "null physics", and get JREF as the 2nd hit. That's why newcomers find this thread out of the blue.

2nd hit? Ah, then it makes sense. It seemed strange because for any other topic with many people interested several different threads appear (for example, we have at least 4 on Lisi's 'Exceptionally Simple Theory of everyhting').

thubbathubba

22nd February 2008, 09:00 AM

...written by sock puppets, I think maybe some moderator should look into this.

We come for the skepticism, but stay for the paranoia.

thubbathubba

22nd February 2008, 09:41 AM

...It seemed strange because for any other topic with many people interested several different threads appear...

In the few days since Mr. Witt's glossy advertisement sent my bs-detector into threat-level orange, leading me to this thread, I have surfed around JREF looking for something interesting. Mostly cat-fights (you know, insults, diatribes, and other vacuous stuff like questioning someone's motivation for joining the forum.)

Instead of musing about Witt's "sock puppets," why not engage in critical examination of what little information he's published for free on his website? Look at the number of us who jumped into this forum; this should come as a warning about the effectiveness of Witt's ad campaign. I offered up my newbie ass earlier to give the serious debunkers something to feed on, but aside from one breif 'don't-waste-your-time' dismissal, narry a bite.

If James Randi was dead, he'd be spinning in his grave.

thubbathubba

22nd February 2008, 09:59 AM

People in general ARE interested in the why and I think they're looking to physics to be part of the answer...

Science has no obligation to provide aesthetically pleasing, easily comprehensible answers to the philosophical questions of the general public.

Says Mr. Witt: "...the current scientific approach lacks any trace of an underlying natural philosophy." So what? Science describes the "how" of things. "Why" is a question for philosophers, not scientists.

Yllanes

22nd February 2008, 10:18 AM

Instead of musing about Witt's "sock puppets," why not engage in critical examination of what little information he's published for free on his website?
Copying extracts of it here and trying to show why they are wrong when there is nobody defending them is just giving free publicity to the book, not to mention a waste of time. If someone were to defend the book or make a sincere question about it, it would be a different story. Just see how many people keep replying to BeAChooser about plasma cosmology.

By all means, if you are intrigued by anything you read there bring it to this thread. But if you already know it doesn't make sense, why bother?

You'll see me participating in threads about legitimate questions about physics, but not wasting time reading a nonsensical book that doesn't fool anyone. Again, if someone were to appear here and make some claim about the 'physics' exposed on that book, that would be different. But I don't think a single claim has gone unanswered in this thread.

Wangler

22nd February 2008, 12:05 PM

Yllanes hit the nail on the head.

I saw the splashy ad, went right to Google, and JREF forums were the second or third on the hit list.

Came and joined, and couldn't be happier. This looks like a great place to learn a great deal, about a myriad of subjects. And from very enthusiastic people, as well.

I also thought it was strange about how people began hammering Witt for really technical details at first, and it was about halfway through this thread before someone asked about why he was dividing infinity by infinity.

Keith

thubbathubba

22nd February 2008, 12:10 PM

By all means, if you are intrigued by anything you read there bring it to this thread.

In post #172 I sincerely asked whether physics constants are typically expressed by equations that reduce 1=1, which is what Mr. Witt's "Universal Closure Constant" 1M = (1M/∞3)(∞3) appears to do.

I was told to stop wasting time, and put on a black-list of potential sock puppets.

But if you already know it doesn't make sense, why bother?

A few reasons for bothering:
- The adertising campaign seems to be very sophisticated.
- Mr. Witt has apparently been given a visiting professorship at the Florida Institute of Technology to continue his null physics 'research.' (The fact that Mr. Witt is terribly wealthy, already lives near FIT, and seems willing to spend freely to create an air of credibility makes me wonder about this academic position.)
- People seem to be buying his book, as evidenced by Facebook and MySpace postings.

My reason for Googling "null physics" was to see how knowledgeable addressed the substance of his ideas. I confess to being pretty ignorant about physics; however, I think I'm fairly typical of the many consumers of popular science that Mr. Witt is targeting through his advertising. I distrust his book and his marketing campaign, but I do not "know it doesn't make sense."

Yllanes

22nd February 2008, 12:20 PM

In post #172 I sincerely asked whether physics constants are typically expressed by equations that reduce 1=1, which is what Mr. Witt's "Universal Closure Constant" 1M = (1M/∞3)(∞3) appears to do.

In that post you asked some questions and provided your own answers. sol invictus confirmed your answers were right.

I was told to stop wasting time, and put on a black-list of potential sock puppets.

sol invictus gave you good advice: there are plenty of good books on physics at all leves of difficulty. You would make a better use of your time reading them. Remember: new physics are never first exposed in a several hudred pages long book. People write papers, which are peer reviewd and read by the physical community.

My reason for Googling "null physics" was to see how knowledgeable addressed the substance of his ideas.

The problem is that knowleadgeable people do not go out of their way to address this kind of books. One has plenty of real papers to read to waste time on them. If it hasn't submitted to the usual journals, then it is not worth it.

ben m

22nd February 2008, 12:33 PM

In post #172 I sincerely asked whether physics constants are typically expressed by equations that reduce 1=1, which is what Mr. Witt's "Universal Closure Constant" 1M = (1M/∞3)(∞3) appears to do.

I was told to stop wasting time, and put on a black-list of potential sock puppets.

Look again: sol answered your question---yes, it reduces to "1=1". His "stop wasting time" comment, perhaps, means something different than you think it does. You asked for clarification on a point which is impossible to clarify. The equation reduces to 1 = 1 or NaN = NaN, there's no physics insight to be gained from it, and there doesn't appear to be some charitable interpretation in which this bit of introductory nonsense will spawn something sensible by the end of the chapter. It's simply a bit of nonsense that Witt mistakenly thinks is profound. We asked Witt for various clarifications earlier in the thread and he promptly ran away. So, good luck looking for a charitable interpretation, but---as Sol said---basically don't waste your time.

Yilanes's sock suspicions were not unreasonable Sock puppetry does happen here, and we don't usually have so many newcomers on one thread. Notice that he withdrew his sock suspicion after my last post.

thubbathubba

22nd February 2008, 12:36 PM

...someone asked about why he was dividing infinity by infinity.

Well, I think it was me asking that. I am happy to represent the ignorant masses as a foil for anyone from the educated few who is willing to disabuse us of the false-science behind a glossy ad-campaign. If you look at the number of hits this thread has gotten, it seems that a lot of people are curious.

thubbathubba

22nd February 2008, 01:16 PM

His "stop wasting time" comment, perhaps, means something different than you think it does. You asked for clarification on a point which is impossible to clarify...

I appreciated sol's earlier response, and don't think I read too much into the advice against wasting time discussing the topic of this thread. Perhaps sol underestimated the depth of my ignorance (seriously), but you actually did just clarify the point I needed clarifying - so thanks, you accomplished the impossible!

The problem is that knowleadgeable people do not go out of their way to address this kind of books. One has plenty of real papers to read to waste time on them. If it hasn't submitted to the usual journals, then it is not worth it.
Yilanes's sock suspicions were not unreasonable Sock puppetry does happen here, and we don't usually have so many newcomers on one thread...

I guess I'm still trying to get a feel for the culture here. When I saw the James Randi imprimatur on this forum I expected to find knowledgeable people eager to go out of their way to refute bad science for those of us wandering in off the street.

thubbathubba

22nd February 2008, 01:21 PM

By the way - I hope I don't seem ungrateful. I do truly appreciate the time people have spent discussing and debunking.

Yllanes

22nd February 2008, 02:13 PM

I guess I'm still trying to get a feel for the culture here. When I saw the James Randi imprimatur on this forum I expected to find knowledgeable people eager to go out of their way to refute bad science for those of us wandering in off the street.
And I'm sure plenty of people will do it if a question is posed here. But you can't expect them to review in detail each crackpottish claim out of the blue, without any special motivation. The issue you raised about the book was answered. The answer was short, but there really wasn't much more to say.

I repeat: if you find anything interesting or confusing about that book bring it here. But if you already know it doesn't make sense, why not read a real book instead? Why not ask about good books on a certain topic instead of examining a nonsensical one?

thubbathubba

22nd February 2008, 06:44 PM

...if you find anything interesting or confusing about that book bring it here.

OK. I've actually read through all the excerpts of the book Mr. Witt has offered for free on his website. I found nothing that so much as hints at delivering upon the grandiose promise he makes in the preface: "Null Physics is, for the first time in the history of science, both a complete answer to the riddle of our existence and a quantitative theory of universal properties."

Beyond the inexplicably meaningless equation we discussed in previous posts, the rest of the math is incomprehensible to me, so for all I know there may be something substantive there. No way I'm going to drop $60 bucks for the whole thing to find out, though. If Mr. Witt was a real scientist he wouldn't be afraid to give away the ending.

I did find one section that seems to give a tiny glimpse of his broad thesis in terms I can understand:

>>>>>>>
"There is a far more interesting reason why space is a chilly 2.7 °K in an infinite, nonexpanding universe."

"Fusion is by far the universe’s largest power output, and lumetic decay is by far its largest power loss. Even though this effect is weak and requires billions of years to cause a significant energy deficit in individual photons, its universal consequence is staggering. Since the light given off by all luminous objects decays over time, the cumulative energy in space associated with any luminous object is limited. After a given length of time, the loss due to the lumetic decay of prior luminous output will balance an object’s current luminous output."
<<<<<<<

So I am surmising from this that Mr. Witt's theory purports to say:
- Our universe has no begining, no end, and no outter limit.
- Our sky is not white from the glow of infinite stars because light energy decays through "power loss" over time and most of it will thus never reach us.

Our universe is infinitely large with an infinite number of stars, and yet it manages to bleed energy. To where?

I expected the answer would be some kind of theoretical parallel universe/dimension takes-up the lost energy, but Mr. Witt's universe is far too intuitve and rational for that. Granted, the equations he provides are beyond me, and the terms "rate," "loss," and "current output" may have special meanings in Null Physics explained in portions not excerpted, but here's his theorum that answers the question:

"THE LUMETIC DECAY RATE OF ANY CELESTIAL OBJECT’S PRIOR LUMINOUS
OUTPUT WILL EVENTUALLY BALANCE ITS CURRENT LUMINOUS OUTPUT."

So, does this mean the lost power somehow returns to the fusion source?

No, that can't be it, because if all the lost photon energy was balanced by energy gains in the fusion source, stars would be gaining brightness geometrically as the age.

So does energy decay reach an equilibrium with the source star?

That won't work either, because for the static-universe/infinite number of stars theory to be rational wouldn't the vast majority of photons have to lose ALL of their energy before reaching us? (Otherwise, we'd be getting pummeled by an infinite number of photons of every possible energy state.)

I guess this revolutionary new theory is not as intuitive as advertised. It's starting to look possitively quarky to me.

Wangler

22nd February 2008, 10:28 PM

So I am surmising from this that Mr. Witt's theory purports to say:
- Our universe has no begining, no end, and no outter limit.

Are you sure that you read all the excerpts? In the excerpt from chapter 8, Witt claims that the 4-dimensional size of the universe is on the order of 10e-25 s-m^3.

And in the exerpt from chapter 2 presents the now famous infinity divided by infinity formulation, which helps support the argument that "....The full extent of reality consists of an infinitely large exterior (infinite largeness) that bounds an infinitely small interior (infinite smallness)." (quote from the excerpt).

See, he thinks that the universe is infinitely large, but that's o.k., because it's also infinitely small!

Why hasn't this come out of the Standard Model? Because mainstream physicists don't want it too! Mua-ha-ha! :D

All of us are bound to become excerpt-experts at this pace.

Where has Mr. Witt gone?

Keith

thubbathubba

22nd February 2008, 10:30 PM

A few more questions:

1) "...billions of years to cause a significant energy deficit in individual photons..."

By "deficit" does Mr. Witt mean to imply that photons under his lumetic decay hypothesis experience a net loss of energy?

2) "Since the light given off by all luminous objects decays over time, the cumulative energy in space associated with any luminous object is limited."

Is the energy contained within but not yet emitted by the luminous object not considered "energy in space?"

3) By "limited" does he mean "declining" cumulative energy?

Limited cumulative energy seems like a pretty conventional thing to say about either a star, all the light it has emitted, or both as a 'balanced' system. The statement doesn't seem to logically follow this idea of energy loss due to lumetic decay (if that's what "lumetic decay" is.)

4) I'm pretty sure I was wrong in my last post about stars having to glow brighter if by "balancing" photon-decay-to-source-output he means the lost photon energy returns to the source star. I suppose stars could just glow longer. But it's obvious neither of these can be what Mr. Witt means by "balance," so I'm still left with the question 'where does the energy go' as these photons decay?

Again, I am completely out of my depth here, but I was not aware that photons will lose energy unless they interact with something else. Is this true?

5) Finally, and most vexing: If the universe is "infinite" as Null Physics seems to posit, then how can the universe be experiencing any kind of "power loss?"

That seems to clearly imply a very certain end to everything... eventually.

thubbathubba

22nd February 2008, 10:40 PM

Are you sure that you read all the excerpts? In the excerpt from chapter 8, Witt claims that the 4-dimensional size of the universe is on the order of 10e-25 s-m^3.

Yeah, I read it all; never claimed to understand it all (ugh).

I didn't pick-up on the fact that he has an equation expressing the finiteness of space (unless that "m" is related to his infinity-cubed-divided-by-infinity-cubed constant?) Guess I was focusing to much on the words, such as "infinite universe."

Or do you suppose "infinite universe" has a different meaning under Null Physics as well?

Wangler

22nd February 2008, 10:59 PM

~enigma~

22nd February 2008, 11:08 PM

I'm not sure anyone could fully understand null physics, besides Mr. Witt.

As far as where the photon's energy goes, I'm not sure where null physics sends it, but my personal belief is that the red-shifted photons transfer energy to space-time, resulting in a universe whose expansion is accelerating.

Or, (photon energy loss) = (dark energy)
Are you basing this on photons as particles or as a wave?

ETA - instead of looking at the red shift as a doppler effect, look at it as a result of the expansion of space.

Wangler

22nd February 2008, 11:22 PM

Enigma,

I don't honestly know...a wave, I guess, because I know that a change in wavelength implies a change in energy.

I could also see an interaction of some type between a photon particle, and the structure of space-time.

As an analogy, picture the photon as a marble, moving on a non-frictionless rubber sheet (rubber sheet = classic general relativity example). Assume that besides kinetic energy, the photon is also vibrating, or it is at a certain temperature.

The photon experiences friction, which would cause a normal particle to slow down.

The photon cannot slow down, so the vibrations diminish, or the photon cools.

What happens to the photon's lost energy? It's transferred to the rubber sheet, which heats up, or perhaps grows in size.

~enigma~

23rd February 2008, 12:02 AM

Wangler

23rd February 2008, 01:12 AM

Does looking at a red shift as a result of space's accelerating expansion avoid a paradox?

thubbathubba

23rd February 2008, 01:38 AM

I must have gone to the fridge for a snack while watching the Discovery Channel or something, but I think I need someone to get me up to speed on the basics here:

My impression has always been that the total energy of red-shifted light from a distant star was not reduced; rather, it was stretched out as the star receded. (Does that put me in the "wave" camp?)

When you reduce the segment of the light wave you're examining to an individual photon, do you actually observe a mysterious energy loss?

Yllanes

23rd February 2008, 02:53 AM

When you reduce the segment of the light wave you're examining to an individual photon, do you actually observe a mysterious energy loss?

There is nothing mysterious about it. The energy of a particle is not a relativistic invariant: an object will have different energies in different frames. Consider a proton. In non relativistic physics it will have a kinetic energy of 1/2 m v2 in a frame where it moves with velocity v. In its rest frame, though, its kinetic energy is 0.

In relativistic physics, in its rest frame its only energy will be E = mc2. In the laboratory frame where it has a velocity v its energy will be E2 = gamma * mc2, where gamma = (1 - v2 / c2)-1/2.

The fact that the energy is different in different frames doesn't mean it has to go anywere or that there is a paradox.

With photons things are a bit subtler, because they move at c in every frame, but the conclusion is similar: they have different energy in different reference frames.

Wangler

23rd February 2008, 06:29 AM

Yllanes, please bear with me, as all of this is confusing.

Don't you mean that the energy of an object, or a particle, may take different forms in different reference frames?

Isn't energy conserved overall, across all reference frames? Or does Special Relativity not jive with the conservation of energy?

I also thought that the particles mass increased in it's rest frame, so that as it's laboratory frarme energy increased (due to increased kinetic energy in the laboratory frame), it's energy in the rest frame would also increase.

Doesn't Energy (rest frame) have to equal Energy (laboratory frame)?

Yllanes

23rd February 2008, 07:12 AM

Yllanes, please bear with me, as all of this is confusing.

Don't you mean that the energy of an object, or a particle, may take different forms in different reference frames?

No. Energy, just like velocity, is not invariant across different reference frames. This is not new to Special relativity, it is also true in Newtonian Physics.

Isn't energy conserved overall, across all reference frames? Or does Special Relativity not jive with the conservation of energy?
The fact that energy is different in different frames does not mean energy is not conserved. A quantity is invariant if it takes the same value in all frames. A quantity is conserved if its value does not change with time (although it may be different in different frames).

For example, the mass of a particle is a relativistic invariant. But the total amount of mass need not be conserved: a particle of mass M may disintegrate in two other particles whose masses m1 and m2 are m1 + m2 < M. The masses of the three particles are the same in all frames.

With energy we have the opposite picture. Before and after the first particle disintegrates the total energy of the system must be the same. But its value is different in the rest frame of the original particle than in a laboratory frame.

Doesn't Energy (rest frame) have to equal Energy (laboratory frame)?
No. What's invariant is the mass of the particle. The energy E and momentum p of a particle take different values in different frames, but the quantity

m2c4 = E2 - p2c2

is invariant. In a different frame we will have energy E' and momentum p' but E'2 - p'2c2 will still equal m2c4.

Energy and momentum are the components of a vector and they change when we change frames. Mass is its magnitude and it doesn't change. Think of ordinary three dimensional vectors in Euclidean space: if you perform a rotation the components change, but the length of the vector doesn't.

sol invictus

23rd February 2008, 07:14 AM

It is true that, in an expanding universe dominated by radiation, the total energy in radiation decreases because of redshift. That's the reason why, although the early universe was radiation dominated, it became matter dominated later in the expansion (since matter moving at non-relativistic velocities does not experience this extra redshift).

However no energy is lost in this process, because there are terms in the total energy associated with the gravitational field as well, and in general relativity the total energy is always conserved. Those extra terms do not take the form of a cosmological constant, so the idea does not work in any known theory of physics.

Wangler

23rd February 2008, 07:38 AM

Yllanes,

Thank you! I think that this is beginning to make sense to me, at least for particles with a rest mass.

What clarifies it is when you say that energy and momentum are components of a vector or a tensor, and mass is basically the invariant magnitude.

How this all relates to photons and red-shift will probably take me years to figure out.

Null physics' (mentioned so as to keep thread on target) or other's versions of different types of "tired light" seem to make intuitive sense, at first glance.

It's hard to see the contradictions at first.

Yllanes

23rd February 2008, 08:16 AM

What clarifies it is when you say that energy and momentum are components of a vector or a tensor, and mass is basically the invariant magnitude.

How this all relates to photons and red-shift will probably take me years to figure out.

For photons the difference is that m = 0, so E2 - p2c2 = 0. It is very easy to deduce the formula for the Doppler effect. The four momentum of the photon is

\footnotesize
\[
(k^0, \boldsymbol k) = (\omega / c, \boldsymbol k),\qquad (k^0)^2 - \boldsymbol k^2 = 0 \quad \Longrightarrow\quad k = \omega/c.
\]

where omega is the frequency, of course. Let \footnotesize$\omega_0$ be the frequency of the photon in the reference frame where the source is at rest and let \footnotesize$\vec v$ be our velocity with respect to this source, which we will assume is along the x coordinate. The components of the momentum in both reference frames are related by a Lorentz transformation:

\footnotesize
\[
k^0_0 = \frac{\omega_0}{c} = \frac{k^0 - \frac vc k^1}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}
\]

Now, if theta is the angle between the direction of propagation of the wave and the x axis, then k1 = k cos theta = omega/c cos theta. So we arrive at the formula for the Doppler shift:

\footnotesize
\[
\omega = \omega_0 \frac{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}{1- \frac vc \cos \theta}
\]

As you see, we have arrived at this formula just by assuming that the four momentum of a photon satisfies (k0)2 - k2 = 0 in every reference frame. The mass of a photon is zero in all frames, but its energy (proportional to omega) is different.

I should mention that the cosmological redshift is not a Doppler shift and arises from a different mechanism.

Wangler

23rd February 2008, 10:00 AM

I should mention that the cosmological redshift is not a Doppler shift and arises from a different mechanism.

The cosmological redshift is due to the expansion of space, correct?

When the universe was a few picoseconds old, the "luminosity" was very large. As the universe expanded, this "luminosity" was spread over a greater total area, and has since diminished into the 2.7 K background radiation?

Is this right?

What if we visualise a universe filled with a uniform distribution of particles, with a homogenous velocity distribution. Is it correct to consider the possibility that the contraction of this particle distribution (via gravity) could be precisely counteracted by the expansion of the universe?

Perhaps I should start a different thread?

I know that this latest conjecture might seem different than my red-shift photon questions, but I am really just trying to grasp how the expansion of the universe affects reality.

thubbathubba

23rd February 2008, 10:59 AM

... they have different energy in different reference frames.

That sounds more familiar. I think I was confused by Mr. Witt's apparent use of the terms "power loss" and "energy deficit" interchangeably to refer to the total of all forms of energy associated with a particular photon.

However no energy is lost in this process, because there are terms in the total energy associated with the gravitational field as well, and in general relativity the total energy is always conserved. Those extra terms do not take the form of a cosmological constant, so the idea does not work in any known theory of physics.

So is it correct to say that these "tired light" and null physics theories propose that the total energy is not conserved as the brightness of red-shifted light decays?

ben m

23rd February 2008, 01:28 PM

So is it correct to say that these "tired light" and null physics theories propose that the total energy is not conserved as the brightness of red-shifted light decays?

If I interpreted Witt correctly, his version of "tired light" is supposed to conserve energy and momentum, because he makes high-energy photons decay by emitting collinear microwave photons. This is trivially ruled out by experiments, but he gets credit for trying.

Wangler

23rd February 2008, 03:30 PM

I seem to recall other aspects of "tired light" (Witt's or other's) that disagree with observation.

Isn't there some sort of "widening" of emission or absorption lines from objects with high Z, that can't be explained by Doppler or other means?

Keith

thubbathubba

25th February 2008, 11:53 AM

If I interpreted Witt correctly, his version of "tired light" is supposed to conserve energy and momentum, because he makes high-energy photons decay by emitting collinear microwave photons. This is trivially ruled out by experiments, but he gets credit for trying.

Is it safe to interpret Mr. Witt's "lumetic decay" theory as describing the Cosmic Background Radiation as x-rays produced by the decay of light, which we observe as red-shifted?

1) Are there some simple laboratory results that contradict this (in terms understandble to this layman?)

2) Would his "lumetic decay" principle predict results different from our conventional model when measuring red-shifted light from a single light source over time from the different relative locations/velocities of Earth's in space (or am I over-applying Doppler to cosmological red shift?)

3) For nearby galaxies like Andromeda, aren't astronomers able to detect a red-shift/blue-shift difference between the light coming from the stars in its receding spiral arms and the light from its advancing arms, as well as the arms at apogee and perigee relative to Earth)?

If that is the case, wouldn't the "lumetic decay" theory for red-shift predict results that vary considerably from the Big Bang explanation for red shift?
If red shift is due mainly (or I suppose even minutely) to something like this "lumetic decay," wouldn't we detect more red-shift in the older light from the stars in Andromeda that are furtherst away from us (which would be near orbital apogee and very little apparent motion relative to Earth), when compared to the younger light from stars closest to us (whose orbit is at relative perigee but also with little apparent motion, thus elimintating most Doppler effect difference between the apogee/perigee stars in an infinite/static universe model)?
Do we have this kind of data (or does some fault in my analysis make it irrelevant?)

4) Speaking of Andromeda: I recall that it is one of the few blue-shifting light sources relative to Earth. If null physics predicts something called "lumetic decay" for red-shift, does blue shift light imply "lumetic increase," or could there be some other explanation?

5) While I'm on it, what does our Big Bang model of the universe say about all the blue shifted light that must be traveling opposite all the red-shifted light we detect here on Earth (or am I again over-applying the Doppler effect?)

Wangler

25th February 2008, 02:11 PM

[QUOTE=thubbathubba;3470001]
4) Speaking of Andromeda: I recall that it is one of the few blue-shifting light sources relative to Earth. If null physics predicts something called "lumetic decay" for red-shift, does blue shift light imply "lumetic increase," or could there be some other explanation?QUOTE]

I thought that shifts in wavelength or frequency were pretty much identical no matter what the reason, Doppler or comological.

The only differences, I think, are when you look really close at an object's spectrum.

I think if you see an individual photon's wavelength increase, you cannot really determine if the red-shift is due to gravitation, Doppler, or space-expansion.

Only when you look at a bunch of photons do you see the curious effects that lead every one to hang their hats on the cosmological red-shift being due to an expanding universe.

Keith

olebole

29th February 2008, 03:20 PM

Another flaw in the "tired light" theory is that it doesn't predict the observed time dilation in the light curves of distant supernovas. Try to Google "Tired Light" and see for example "Errors in Tired Light Cosmology"...

(apologies if somebody has already mentioned this - but this thread is so dreadfully long that I didn't bother checking through all the posts...)

olebole

2nd March 2008, 10:19 AM

I just came across a website by James A. Putnam called "Life, Intelligence and New Physics Theory" (my blood is too new for directly posting links, but it's newphysicstheory (http://www.newphysicstheory.com)).

Like Mr. Witt's Null Physics theory, this seems to be an alternative to the Standard Model - and it's the work of one man.

Has anyone had a look a this? You don't need to buy an expensive book!! It's available online...

Terry

2nd March 2008, 10:29 AM

Another flaw in the "tired light" theory is that it doesn't predict the observebut this thread is so dreadfully long that I didn't bother checking through all the posts...)

hehehe... 200-ish posts is dreadfully long? NEWBIE!. But seriously, welcome to the forum.

zosima

2nd March 2008, 04:43 PM

I heard a rumor from someone at FIT, that Witt doesn't really work with anyone at the physics department(quite probably because they think he is a crank), but that they were happy to give him the visiting scientist position because he is a billionaire(yes, I heard billions...) who is willing to fund his own research. Anyone who knows much about how science works on the university level, knows that as far as universities are concerned the more dollars you bring in the better, in terms of prestige, power, and rankings, etc... So as far as I'm concerned FIT made a very smart and rational decision in giving him a meaningless position. I guess it works for him too 'cause he can use the title to trick people who don't know the details into thinking he's more legitimate than he is.

Despite their hiring of Witt,however, FIT does have one of the best astrophysics departments in the nation. With the amount of money Witt has they might even be able to get Witt to pay for a spacecraft to validate his theory. That would be totally awesome because, one it would quite probably invalidate his theory, two the satellite could also carry other instruments that could help scientists do real research.

W/R/T astrophysics, it seems like that is what Witt is claiming his theory is best at explaining, and that he has confidence it can be applied particle physics at some point in the future. So I'd just like to point out that his theory is completely unable to explain cosmic microwave background radiation(CMB). As I understand it, he claims that as light gets tired it emits microwave radiation(in some direction, I'm not really sure which). He would claim this microwave radiation from 'lumetic decay' is the CMB that we observe.

The thing with CMB isn't just that there is a lot of microwave radiation, but that its frequency vs power distribution and its small directional anisotropies are very peculiar. The CMB frequency vs. power distribution and anisotropies are consistent with blackbody radiation emitted from a single event. If we take normal physics to be true, then this is light from the big bang, red shifted by the expansion of the universe. What is so brilliant about this discovery is that the shape of the curve and the anisotropies were predicted before it was measured by COBE and the experiment and prediction match so damn perfectly that when you see the two plotted simultaneously you can't even tell that there are two curves.

"Lumetic decay" explains none of this. As far as I can tell since the microwave radiation is being emitted in this theory by any light that happens to be traveling around, its power spectrum should probably be flat or possibly normal, but definitely not a blackbody distribution. I guess he might try to claim that 'lumetic decay' emits with a blackbody distribution. Despite the fact that this seems like tailoring the theory to fit the data, it still wouldn't explain the near isotropic distribution of CMB. If 'lumetic decay' is true we would expect huge directional anisotropies in microwave radiation that are consistent with the direction of the major light emission sources. We absolutely do not see this.

:)

p.s. Like many others I stumbled upon this forum as a result of my inquiries into Null Physics, but since I had the 411 on this fellow from a personal connection as well I thought ya'll might appreciate the info.

zosima

2nd March 2008, 05:23 PM

Oh ya,
Witt doesn't explain time dilation of type 1a supernovae. If we look at distant supernovae we don't only notice that their light is red shifted, but also that the light curves from the supernova appear to be wider along the time axis the more distant a supernova appears to be. This would indicate that either #1 type 1a supernovae proceed slower when they are more distant or further in the past or both or #2 that they are moving very quickly relative to us and thus show time dilation due to relativity, moreover the more distant they are the faster they are going.

Despite the fact that it does not appear that Witt is claiming any problems with relativity, he can't use it as an explanation for this phenomena. Witt accepts a static universe where distant things are not moving particularly quickly with respect to us, so relativity does not apply to explain this. So if Witt wants to explain this he would have to come up with some as yet uninvented mechanism to duct tape onto his theory.

ben m

3rd March 2008, 10:00 AM

zosima

3rd March 2008, 10:47 AM

>>Ben M

I think thats a good point and I imagine the truth is somewhere is between. I hardly think he'll have the destructive effect that Dembski had. It's not like like this guy is anti-science. His theories aren't harmful to physics, only to the public perception of physics, which is already so confused and mislead that he probably can't do that much more harm. Perhaps my previous post had a more negative tone than the situation warrants.

I think its reasonably open minded that FIT has given him an opportunity to see his theories play out. It will give a forum for people to evaluate what he has said in a way that is closer to peer review and if Witt has a shred of integrity, when they don't play out he will agree and not delve deeper into the realm of conspiracy theories. It just doesn't hurt that he is incredibly rich.

From what I've gathered, the problem he is having it that any scientist on the university level is incredibly busy and they really don't have the time to spend on a fellow who is not trained in the field and whose theory has some very apparent problems.

In other words, since he's not harmful there is no reason not to take his money., but just because the university administration made this decision, doesn't mean the faculty are going to cooperate.

roSSman

3rd March 2008, 10:06 PM

I lead a very busy life, and have precious little time for such pleasures as investigating a curious ad in Popular Science, or contributing posts to threads such as this. It's quite obvious some other folks have more time for such endeavors, and three cheers for you. I simply don't have it.

Given such constraints, I've been away for a while, and (upon returning) I have found very troublesome the suggestion by Yllanes (Post # 185) that I (among no less than ten others) may be a "sock puppet."

It seems almost to reek of the elitism that crackpots claim wrongly excludes their ideas.

Come on.

Do you really mean to assert that, just because we (those listed in that post) have not contributed to other threads, we are suspect? In other words, it's only you cool guys that contibute to lots of different threads that qualify as being free from suspicion.

Where's the rationale?

If you look, not one of the eleven whom you implicate (except some evident juvenile way back, and I'm NOT going to take the time to find and reference him) have even come close to defending Witt's ideas.

How is it sensible, in that context, even to suggest we are sock puppets?

Maybe Witt is not the only one exercising irrationality.

Aside from such ill directed inuendo toward me and other first-time contributors, I want to say this thread has really been terrific.

On seeing Witt's first ad (I, too, have seen several others since), I felt it was very probably a bunch of rubbish, but I was curious to know more definitely if so, and to know of what kind. Without wasting money on the book, I've learned a lot here -- not only about the initial object of my concern, but I've learned a fair amount more about physics, too. I've ordered and read some added books in consequence (good ones, not Witt's), and expanded my horizons overall. I've been impressed by the knowledge, erudition, curiosity and intelligence of many contributors. I've been proud to know I am of the same "race" as the outstanding contributors here. I've revelled in the feeling that, to some extent, I've rubbed shoulders with folks such as you.

Thank you, all you great guys who've contributed (I'm asssuming "guys," because none here have seemed to evoke a female persona).

And please, Yllanes, without better evidence, don't even suggest me and other exclusive-to-this-thread contributors may be sock puppets. I assure you, I am not. And, I'm betting not one other contributor to this thread is, either (that particular, and evidently juvenile, defender was too inarticulate to qualify).

Yllanes

4th March 2008, 01:03 AM

Given such constraints, I've been away for a while, and (upon returning) I have found very troublesome the suggestion by Yllanes (Post # 185) that I (among no less than ten others) may be a "sock puppet."

Listen, I'm sorry, I didn't realise this forum came up so high in the list of Google results for the book, or how big the publicity campaign for it had been. It's just that I can't understand what is so interesting about this stupid book that people prefer to talk about it instead of about real science.

phil99

4th March 2008, 08:54 AM

(Attempts to post keep telling me I'm not logged in...one last try)...

As of yesterday, FIT's web site still doesn't list Witt in their faculty directory.

ErkDemon

4th March 2008, 11:15 AM

This is probably your way of saying that your model doesn't actually predict any numbers, but is a collection of qualitative descriptions. If this is true then it is dead on arrival. In physics the only thing that matters is
Your theory produces some real quantitative predictions. Some real numbers, in short (cross sections, half lives, etc.)
Another guy then does an experiment and gets the same numbers.
That is all. That is what we call 'prediction'.

No, that's not all that matters. Qualitative predictions and descriptions of relationships are often necessary before quantitative work can proceed as anything other than an ad hoc method of arranging and extrapolating data.

"Qualitative" gives the broad brushstrokes of a picture, "quantitative" fills in the fine detail. If you try to paint on a very large canvas, filling in a little section at a time without any overview or masterplan for what you're doing, you can end up with intricate gibberish, or with different sections that are locally consistent but don't from a larger logically-consistent picture. Imagine trying to get a group of people to paint a view of Manhattan, where each worker paints one window without seeing any of the rest of the canvas. You're going to end up with a lot of beautifully-painted rectangles, but you won't be able to use the resulting painting to tell you anything about the geography of Manhattan.
You won't be able to use the picture to navigate.

Hopefully, if the basic structure is good, the details get filled in later.

Descriptions in physics can be powerful. For instance, take Einstein's general theory of relativity. It's a geometrical description of gravity. Now, currently, there's no obvious engineering application that actually //requires// a geometrical description of gravity, and at the time that GR was written, the theory made no solid predictions that were easily distinguishable from those of other theories. You could instead imagine a non-particulate aether permeating space, and you could apply dragging coefficients and the like to make it fit astronomical data.
But the concept of obtaining these results from geometrical relationships was considered more efficient, more precise, and more concise. Similarly Special Relativity supplanted Lorentzian Ether Theory, because SR was considered to provide a more fundamental justification for the same basic equations, and therefore to be the more efficient description.

Descriptions are also valuable in situations where the math is deterministic, but the correct //application// of the math isn't always easy to determine. In quantum field theory, descriptions (even artificial ones) can act as useful mnemonics for how the math ought to operate in certain situations, and help an operator to make sure that they are carrying out the right set of calculations (or whether they should be doing the calculations at all). Descriptions are useful for "sanity-checking" calculations.

Descriptions also help when the fine details aren't yet worked out. A basic idea (e.g. "The Big Bang") can be a broad concept that encompasses a range of different theories, models and implementations. When you hit on one of these descriptions, it can often be important //not// to quantify the thing too early, in case you end up defining the idea according to a bad implementation, and the disproof of that implementation then leads to the basic idea being unfairly dismissed, when it might actually be right. Early models of the atom were wrong, but the notion that "atoms exist" has continued to be useful. We didn't just disprove the first model that came along, and then declare that the general concept of the atom was dead. Mathematicians sometimes have a tendency to jump in and inappropriately over-define and over-specify concepts at an early stage. Concepts and their potential mathematical implementations should be kept separate. It's sometimes better to be correctly vague than incorrectly precise. Avoid premature calculation.

Descriptions can also act as a guide for where a theory or group of theories may be going: two descriptions that appear to produce equally-good matches to current data may well lead to diverging predictions in other regions that we can't yet test, or haven't yet had time to study. By looking at these divergences, we can make more informed decisions about how we're going to allocate future research resources. For instance, while Witt's model may (quite understandably) have vague spots that haven't yet been worked out regarding particle physics, it seems to predict some quite broad qualitatively-different behaviours in cosmology that we should be able to look at and compare against the available evidence without having to know precise figures to umpteen decimal places.

If someone produces a broad system that (if correct) would have have a wider range of applicability than current theory, and appears to make predictions that diverge qualitatively (and seemingly unambiguously) from current theory in ways that aren't too difficult to understand, then I think its sensible to concentrate on those areas when assessing the model. Fine-focusing on other areas where the model's predictions are arguably in roughly the same ball-park as current theory, and where the lack of development of the model means that its difficult to narrow the potential differences down further ... that doesn't seem to me to the the best way to go about things.

When you look at how much "bare-bones" general relativity gets wrong (before we patch it up with invented things like dark matter and dark energy), and we consider that GR1915 doesn't seem to attempt to say //anything// definitive about particle physics, I think that if Witt's model was even //approximately// right in such a wide range of situations, that'd be impressive. But look how long it took to develop the standard model, or quantum mechanics, or some aspects of GR: to insist that Witt's model handles everything that was previously done by a //range// of earlier, incompatible stand-alone theories, and that the first publication of the theory has all the details already perfectly fully worked out, with no mistakes or ambiguities or areas needing further work, I think that's unreasonable. Especially since only one guy's been working on it.
It took more than a hundred years to find the mistakes in Newton's original model, and fifty years to flush out basic user-errors in special relativity (Terrell & Penrose), so I think we should expect to find a few gaps and mistakes and nasty ambiguities should be expected.

======
IMO what we probably //should// be asking is: does there seem to be something here that's interesting, does it have the potential for further development, does it give an alternative view of current data that may offer some new perspectives and inspire possibly better models, how impressive (or not) is what it already manages to do from its initial assumptions, and does it get anything badly, unambiguously wrong?

If it //does// get anything unambiguously wrong, are these things due to the basic idea or to a flawed implementation? Can these reasonably be fixed without overcomplicating the model? Is the investment worthwhile? And if not, are there any unusual questions or concepts used in this model that we can steal and put into the common ideas-pool for other future models?

Even "wrong" theories have worth if they are wrong in an interesting way, or if they introduce methods or concepts that can be recycled and reused by future researchers. Expanding our conceptual vocabulary is valuable, even if it's only so that we can put names to more approaches that don't seem to work.
But saying, "theory X is automatically rubbish because it doesn't agree with our current system", that seems to me to be a cheap copout.

Yllanes

4th March 2008, 12:00 PM

No, that's not all that matters. Qualitative predictions and descriptions of relationships are often necessary before quantitative work can proceed as anything other than an ad hoc method of arranging and extrapolating data.

"Qualitative" gives the broad brushstrokes of a picture, "quantitative" fills in the fine detail.

The Standard Model goes way beyond the descriptive stage. Any idea that intends to replace it must be quantitative and very precise. If it isn't it is worthless.

Of course a single person can't be expected to construct a whole theory that replaces all the Standard Model. But science does not work like that. What Witt should do if he had something would be to work out a particular problem to the end, with precise predictions, not try to build a new theory of everything from scratch. A theory of all of phsyics without numbers is worthless, a small model that solved one particular problem within the Standard Model would be science.

sol invictus

4th March 2008, 03:59 PM

No, that's not all that matters. Qualitative predictions and descriptions of relationships are often necessary before quantitative work can proceed as anything other than an ad hoc method of arranging and extrapolating data.
<snip>
Even "wrong" theories have worth if they are wrong in an interesting way, or if they introduce methods or concepts that can be recycled and reused by future researchers. Expanding our conceptual vocabulary is valuable, even if it's only so that we can put names to more approaches that don't seem to work.
But saying, "theory X is automatically rubbish because it doesn't agree with our current system", that seems to me to be a cheap copout.

I agree with everything in the part I quoted above. BUT (and that's a big but), we already have a theory which does an astoundingly good job of explaining our data. So we have both a qualitative and quantitative description, and one which fits into everything we've learned and understood about mathematics and the physical world over the last 2,000+ years.

When someone comes along with a proposal that throws almost that entire structure away, and offers only vague qualitative assurances that it will work, how seriously should we take it? Such a thing has never before happened in the history of science. The closest analogs would be Einstein and the various people involved in the shift to a heliocentric model, but in both cases they built on data painstakingly accumulated by others, they fully understood the old model and its failings, and they constructed coherent quantitative models that explained the data where the old models did not.

This theory has neither intellectual coherence, quantitative predictions, or any justification in a failure of the old theory. It throws away nearly everything we have learned, and therefore it must contend with all the vast quantities of experimental data the old theory explained perfectly. The odds that it could succeed at that are very close to zero, so nobody is going to waste their time checking.

And bear in mind that there are hundreds of such crackpot (I use that term in a technical and specific sense) theories proposed every year - it would be a full time job for a significant fraction of all the physicists in the world to carefully check each of them. Instead, those physicists use their rather well-informed judgment to decide what to study.

roSSman

4th March 2008, 09:15 PM

Thanks, Yllanes. I appreciate your acknowledgement.

And now, please let me retreat slightly. Since my post, ErkDemon has defended a concept, a pigeon hole of argument into which perhaps Witt would like to fit himself, with sufficent vigor (and with arguments sufficiently well-stated) as to make it reasonable to wonder, at least, if he (ErkDemon) might potentially be a sock puppet. I don't at all guess that he is, but at least there's someone's whose arguments might be consistent with that position.

As it is, I like ErkDemon's aguments. I don't believe that when the detailed facts about Witt are examined, those arguments end up supporting him (Witt) at all. But I am personally fond of the notion that a conceptual ("qualitative") view of matters has enormous value.

Take plain old heliocentricity. We could have all the equations down with perfection (and I presume we do), but without the concept, they'd be nothing but very successful numbers/predictions. On the other hand, without any numbers at all, the concept alone is a wonderful thing we can all easily wrap our heads around. It's a thing of beauty.

I guess both the numbers and concepts are beautiful.

Anyway, to this very non-expert person, it seems to be a mistake to think numbers alone rule, or even that they are super preeminent. I don't think the importance of a coherent and optimum conceptualization (optimum in the sense it's the best explanation for the numbers) should be minimized. I also think ErkDemon argues the matter well.

sol invictus

4th March 2008, 09:20 PM

I just posted this in another thread, but it's equally relevant here:

http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/06/19/the-alternative-science-respectability-checklist/
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

zosima

6th March 2008, 11:57 AM

3 comments:

>> Rossman:
I too agree that a qualitative view of science can be incredibly useful, but I also tend to believe that recent results in quantum theory indicate that such an intuitive view is impossible. Non-locality results(spooky action at a distance), wave/particle duality(two slit experiments), and indeterminacy (a la schrodinger's cat) imho make any sort of qualitative theory that is intelligible to human intuition essentially incoherent as an explanation.

>> Hermine:
Although I have no doubt that this primal therapy stuff has a place on JREF ;) I'm not sure it is anything more than tangentially related to this discussion. But I did have a little trouble understanding the post so maybe I'm missing something obvious. If not, perhaps the mods can move the post into its own thread.

>>To all:
The jref result for the search "null physics" on google is the number one result as of ~11:00 PST 2008/03/06(yyyy/mm/dd) above the null physics site itself. If that isn't a prime exemplar of reason triumphing in the fact of adversity, I don't know what is.

ErkDemon

6th March 2008, 01:38 PM

I agree with everything in the part I quoted above. BUT (and that's a big but), we already have a theory which does an astoundingly good job of explaining our data. So we have both a qualitative and quantitative description, and one which fits into everything we've learned and understood about mathematics and the physical world over the last 2,000+ years.

Are you sure?

Two of our biggest theories of the C20th are quantum mechanics and general relativity. Both are claimed by some of their adherents to be quite excellent and not requiring any fixing. But the two theories refuse to "play nice" together.
They aren't compatible. GR lets us "prove", unambiguously, that information can't possibly seep out through a gravitational horizon, while QM lets us "prove", equally unambiguously, that it must.

This problem has occupied some of our most brilliant theoretical physicists for the last thirty-something years, and they still don't have an agreed solution, even though they've now tried pretty much every reasonable-looking approach. They simply don't know how to fix it (a couple of them claim that they've managed it, but their colleagues don't agree). Hawking's approach was originally to say that since GR couldn't possibly be wrong, QM had to be rewritten to accommodate it ("loss of microcausality"), then he switched tack in 2004, and argued that since QM had to be right, something else had to give ("detour into obscure many-worlds arguments").

So not only do we not have an agreed solution, we don't even have an agreed concept for the shape of the future theory that can manage to incorporate the best bits of GR and QM. We are slowly piecing together a possible consensus over which conflicting parts should probably be given priority. So, "Quantum Gravity" (QG) isn't yet a theory, it's a research programme to try to devise an outline of the basic specifications that a future theory of QG should eventually address.

If anyone involved in theoretical physics honestly believes that we aren't sorely in need of a new theory, I'd suggest that they consider giving up physics and getting a job in finance instead. A lot of the statistics are the same, and the money's better.

When someone comes along with a proposal that throws almost that entire structure away, and offers only vague qualitative assurances that it will work, how seriously should we take it?

I guess we make a private, personal assessment of the odds, and publicly reserve judgement until more reliable details are available. Expressing opinions (as opinions) is fine.

Such a thing has never before happened in the history of science.

Special relativity threw away aether theory, and QM threw away classical mechanics. Phlogiston theory was the most successful and most beautiful theory of chemistry that we'd ever had ... but this didn't stop it being wrong, and we dumped that too.

The closest analogs would be Einstein and the various people involved in the shift to a heliocentric model, but in both cases they built on data painstakingly accumulated by others, they fully understood the old model and its failings, and they constructed coherent quantitative models that explained the data where the old models did not.

No, Einstein's special theory wasn't motivated by the need to make new predictions that fitted unexplainable data – it produced basically the same predictions as Lorentz's aether model, but put those predictions on a new philosophical basis (under more modern physics-journal acceptance procedures, this would, in itself, have been grounds for rejecting Einstein's 1905 electrodynamics paper).

BTW, on the subject of Einstein, I think that his most critical contribution to classical theory wasn't so much SR or E=mc^2 (which would probably have happened a few years later without him), or even general relativity (Schwarzchild and others were already snapping at his heels with their own, similar research), but his 1911 paper on the action of gravity on light.

This result really have been discovered and published a century earlier, but somehow it wasn't.
Then Einstein comes along in 1911, calculates the existence of gravity-shifts (much as Michell had done in the C18th), recognises that the exercise leads to a contradiction, but declares that his calculation is correct regardless. In an impressive display of arrogance(!), Einstein gives the calculation, predicts gravity-shifts, declares the failure of the usual associated logic, and then declares that the failure isn't his fault, its the fault of Nature, and of our usual assumptions. If gravity-shifts produced nonsensical results when we assumed that time passed at the same rate in all gravitational environments, then (argued Einstein) since his gravity-shift calculation must be correct, timeflow must necessarily vary as a function of gravitational field strength. It was a trivial, naïve calculation, and his conclusions totally set aside all previous theoretical work and conventions. He simply ignored everything that anyone else had ever done on the subject of and wrote what he thought, bypassing all the historical arguments and counterarguments. And he was essentially correct. So you'd had these brilliant mathematicians beating their heads against a brick wall for decades, trying and failing to get curved-space models of gravity to work, and along comes this Einstein bloke who looks like a math newbie, and says, sorry guys, you've been spending your entire professional lives working on the wrong problem. It's not curved space, it's curved spacetime. After that ... boom ... it's a race to see who can put together a general theory of relativity first. Einstein wins, partly because he works himself into the ground, and partly because some of his competitors have their research schedules wrecked by WW1.

The key point that Einstein spotted, and which none of the more highly-trained experts before him had been able to see, was that our basic project specifications for the development of a curvature-based model of gravity had been fundamentally wrong. If you used the standard, conventional approaches, you couldn't possibly get the right answer. People who went through the system and learnt the history of the subject, and the “right” way to attack these problems all ended up stuck, whereas Einstein apparently didn't have a clue about (or particularly care about) how anyone had tried to tackle the problem before him. He didn't seem to know the relevant work by Soldner, or Cavendish, or Michell, or even Newton (he didn't seem to know the contents of Newton's “Opticks”), and the only person that he cited in his paper for for any previous relevant theoretical work on the subject of the effect of gravity on light was himself (self-citing is sometimes presented as being a “red flag” for crackpottery).

Now, although I consider the 1911 piece to have been one of the most important physics papers of the last three hundred years, if I was a modern mainstream journal reviewer, and was doing my job properly and following the set rules, I'd have been forced to reject it as not fit for publication. It doesn't meet modern journal quality-control criteria. Neither, arguably, do his 1905 electrodynamics paper or his 1905 E=mc^2 paper. None of them display the “proper” acknowledgement or discussion of previous research by other workers, or demonstrate an understanding and appreciation of the history of the subject being discussed. I think that perhaps 50% he didn't actually know all the background, and 50% he probably didn't really care. His attitude seemed to be that his papers contained his arguments, and if you wanted someone else's, you should be reading their papers instead. But you'd have to find them yourself.

This theory has neither intellectual coherence, quantitative predictions, or any justification in a failure of the old theory.

Well, it does actually make some predictions that are qualitatively different to existing theory, and it does try to address the failure of Einstein's general theory to handle energy conservation in a universe that Hubble-shifts light.
Einstein's early presentation of general relativity assumed an infinite, static, pseudo-Euclidean universe (something like Witt's), and did seem to conserve energy ... in order to stop the thing collapsing under its own gravity, Einstein introduced a compensating, repulsive, "Cosmological Constant" that was meant to exactly counter the long-range effect of gravitation, and as a bonus, the CC would also have been expected to blueshift light as a function of distance travelled, compensating for gravitational effects that might be expected to produce a cumulative redshift.

So Einstein's early implementation of the theory tried to explain why we wouldn't see distance-dependent cosmological redshifts. Unfortunately, just a few years later, Hubble noticed that these redshifts (which Einstein had eliminated from the model) were real. So Einstein went back, declared that he'd screwed up by inventing his CC, and agreed that a Friedmann-style expanding universe made more sense. But switching to an expanding model meant that energy conservation no longer obviously worked.

As far as I can see, Witt's tried to fix this energy-conservation problem, in a constant-size universe that still shows Hubble-oid redshifts, by relating the energy lost through redshifting to the energy that appears in the microwave range, which would otherwise seem to be anomalous in his sort of steady-state model.

Now, speaking strictly personally, I really hate his suggested solution (!), but then again, the only potential alternative that I could suggest (a broader conservation principle that encompasses mass-energy-space) would require an expanding universe, and that's explicitly ruled out by Witt's initial design brief , since he's limited himself to explanations that might work in a steady-state universe.

So I think Witt should be given credit for correctly spotting a potential problem with current GR, and trying to address it, even though I very much dislike his suggested solution. By comparison, most of the GR guys not only don't seem to have a solution to offer ... they usually don't seem to acknowledge that this issue even requires a solution.

It throws away nearly everything we have learned, and therefore it must contend with all the vast quantities of experimental data the old theory explained perfectly. The odds that it could succeed at that are very close to zero, so nobody is going to waste their time checking.
And bear in mind that there are hundreds of such crackpot (I use that term in a technical and specific sense) theories proposed every year - it would be a full time job for a significant fraction of all the physicists in the world to carefully check each of them. Instead, those physicists use their rather well-informed judgment to decide what to study.

Hmm ... So maybe what Witt should do, instead of hassling physicists to assess his model for him, is to try to mug up on the relevant theory himself, and then to set himself apart from the letter-writing brigade by going away and organising and compiling his ideas and arguments in permanent book form, and, then (when he's sure that he's ready) to show his own commitment to the idea by publishing the thing himself, and then publicising the thing on the internet for people to read (or not read) as they see fit ...
... which is what he's done.

I personally don't like Witt's steady-state cosmology, but I didn't like Einstein's, either (shrugs), so I guess that's not something that he should take as a personal criticism.
I do suspect that maybe he's slightly hyped parts of the book, but then again, there seem to be hordes of mainstream physics and math guys regularly committing worse offences to try to get publicity for their research, too. I mean, every fortnight New Scientist and the news agencies seem to be carrying some new claim about someone's research being about to discover “the key to the universe” or somesuch, and those are all mainstream guys, working on the inside. So maybe the accusation that one could level at Witt is that in publicising his book, he might be behaving almost as badly as some mainstream researchers. :)

=====
The problem that I think Witt's likely to have trouble overcoming is that I thought that the HST had been accumulating photographic evidence that showed galaxies and stars seeming to be younger (on average) with distance, or at least showing some sort of visible orderly evolution over time. In a constant, immortal universe, we'd tend to expect to see the same basic mix at all distances and ages, unless we were somehow in an anomalous evolving "bubble" or fluctuation attached to the larger surface, in which the wider rules were temporarily broken, locally.
But if that was the case, and there was something anomalous about our own visible region that allowed evolution in its contents, then one way of producing a local change in properties with time within the bubble is to have the bubble changing size, and that brings us back to "Big Bang" models again.

tsacrey

6th March 2008, 07:02 PM

Ok...here's a disclaimer: I am most definitely NOT an expert on advanced theoretical physics and the mathematics that go along with it, but I LOVE steeping myself in knowledge that is over my head and trying my hardest to understand it.

I too stumbled across a two-page spread advertisement for Witt's book in a Discover magazine, the one about Einstein. It is kind of ironic that I find it in this issue, however not surprising now that I know how much money Terry Witt has poured into the advertising of his self-published work.

I know I'm gonna get repetitive here (kinda reiterating what others have said) but bear with me. I think that our standard model is absolutely terrific. I don't think that there are any words that can accurately describe the important role it has played in changing the lives of those of us in the scientific community as well as the general community. From technological advancements employing quantum tunneling to the inspiration of new, exciting theories like string theory/M-theory, etc, the standard model is everywhere we look. It is irrefutable as the most experimentally sound physics model we have today.

That being said however, and don't lose me here, we're all still scientists. Science demands[I] skepticism. It [I]demands[I] it. Though the standard model is all of the things I've already said, it is NOT perfect. Quantum mechanics and general relativity are still at odds. How then can we [I]truly and I mean TRULY refer to it as the be all and end all? How can we make statements that it is impossible to find a better theory? Just because we haven't found it yet? This is just an excuse.

I just finished reading one of the articles on Einstein's work in my Discover magazine. It reminded me and all other readers that Einstein, in fact, repeatedly changed his mind regarding his theories. He had HUGE problems with various implications of his equations over the years, many of which he had to concede to being wrong about. Though Einstein was at an odds with his own theories (at times), we must not think of this as silly. This is the very quality which made him such a great scientist. I must refer to a quote from the article I read:

"...if Einstein had lived longer he might have come to accept quantum mechanics, making peace with his most unwelcome scientific progeny. 'It's difficult to say, because Einstein changed his mind so many times on so many subjects...that's a sign of a great scientist. A great scientist is not somebody who believes his own ideas; it's somebody who does not believe his own ideas. He's ready to change his mind. What Einstein did was bring back science to its true soul, which is to change our view of the world, not just explain things. Einstein reminded us that what we don't know is much more than what we know." (Folger, 2008, p. 57).

Furthermore, previously in the article, it is said that

"Einstein's missed connections serve as a warning to today's physicists...are they...working with an incomplete understanding of some fundamental aspect of nature? 'Yes, it's perfectly possible...the history of physics [has shown that] almost every epoch has the feeling that "we know everything now."...what we don't know is probably huge. We are still far away from knowing all the ingredients.'" (Folger, 2008, p. 57).

So ok, there it is, what we're missing, or what we don't know, to state verbatim, is huge. If it's huge, then a complete overhaul of how we understand the universe at a fundamental level (i.e. the null physics level...don't freak out, more on this in a sec...) could definitely be what we need to discover our Unified Theory of Everything.

Ok. Null physics. MEH! WRONG ANSWER...at least insofar as I can tell from a skimming of one or two excerpts and reading this thread. Clearly Terry Witt does not have his wits about him (ha! I love puns and play-on words..) by trying to argue his physics theory (yes, a theory, even if it is not respectable) which, even if it could be something, is definitely still a sperm seeking the egg. I mean, we don't have a good basis for a scientific theory until it can concretely explain something we observe in the real world. In this way Witt and his theory are like sperm pals, swimming in the great womb of science, trying to find the proverbial golden egg (or ovum, I guess, in order to maintain the analogy) that links the word of philosophy with the world of science: experiment.

So is Witt a woo or a crackpot? I seriously can't tell, and it's all but impossible for me to determine this (or perhaps I don't care enough to pursue it...). I think that his type of boldness, in the hands of a good scientist (see my quotes above) is really what we need to find our UTE.

Wow, sometimes I amaze myself with how long winded I am.

The only specific thing that I wanted to discuss about Null Physics itself is Witt's statement that the universe is zero or is the sum of zero, whatever. Now, I know that some of the things I say here may be sweeping generalizations and so on, but I just figured it as an interesting thought experiment.

We've all but confirmed that all forms of matter (electrons, protons, etc.) all have anti-matter counterparts (positrons, etc.). When these particles collide with each other, they annihilate releasing energy, right? Well isn't that kind of like having two equal and opposite added variables on opposite sides of an equation meet on one side of the equation, negating each other? It seems to me (remember that I am a layman) that with the standard model (awesomeness in model form) and it's love children (string theory for example..and I don't know if the love child analogy works here, I just like it) seem to be indicating more and more different and exotic particles, and what's more that every single one of them has an antimatter partner. This does kind of seem like that equation that Witt talked about...kinda. Isn't that neat?

Anyhoo, this has been a long 'first official post' and my eyes are tiring. I have no intentions of challenging modern conventional theory, as you should be able to tell from my love of all things physics and science, so please to not misunderstand me. Neat thought experiments are not a replacement for experimentally tested and reliable theories, but sometimes, if you remember the people who came before you, they might be a good place to start looking for missing pieces to the puzzle.

G'night

Terry (not Witt...)

Reference:

Folger, T. (2008). Patently absurd. Discover, March 2008.

sol invictus

6th March 2008, 09:12 PM

Are you sure?

Yes.

Two of our biggest theories of the C20th are quantum mechanics and general relativity. Both are claimed by some of their adherents to be quite excellent and not requiring any fixing. But the two theories refuse to "play nice" together.
They aren't compatible. GR lets us "prove", unambiguously, that information can't possibly seep out through a gravitational horizon, while QM lets us "prove", equally unambiguously, that it must.

This problem has occupied some of our most brilliant theoretical physicists for the last thirty-something years, and they still don't have an agreed solution, even though they've now tried pretty much every reasonable-looking approach. They simply don't know how to fix it (a couple of them claim that they've managed it, but their colleagues don't agree). Hawking's approach was originally to say that since GR couldn't possibly be wrong, QM had to be rewritten to accommodate it ("loss of microcausality"), then he switched tack in 2004, and argued that since QM had to be right, something else had to give ("detour into obscure many-worlds arguments").

I disagree with that completely. And yes, I know very well what I'm talking about.

If anyone involved in theoretical physics honestly believes that we aren't sorely in need of a new theory, I'd suggest that they consider giving up physics and getting a job in finance instead. A lot of the statistics are the same, and the money's better.

Nonsense. Science just doesn't work that way. You don't throw old theories in the trash and start from scratch, ever. Why? Because the old theories worked really really really well, but when you figured out how to test them extremely precisely, you discovered they weren't quite exactly right. So you replace them with a better theory, but one which includes the old theory as a limit.

It is totally impossible that general relativity and quantum mechanics are wrong. They are simply inexact - but at a level that's undectable right now, and may well remain so for the forseeable future of the human race. While unifying QM with gravity is an extremely interesting topic intellectually, it's hardly a burning issue practically speaking.

zosima

6th March 2008, 11:54 PM

>> ErkDemon

I thought essentially the same thing as Sol when reading your post, but I thought he was a little short in his post, so let me see if I can clarify. The "contradiction" between QM and GR is not testable because the conclusions from phenomena predicted would only come into conflict at energies far higher than it is in the capacity of humans to realize experimentally. So the problem is about as significant to scientists as how many angels can fit on the head of a pin or how dense a black hole is(in Witt's case).

In other words the contradiction that we might imagine is completely unscientific insofar as we are unable to test it. When we/if we are able to test it, the results themselves should make it possible to generate a theory.

Science is the domain of the testable.

>>on the google results from before...it seems the jref forum is back to #2, I had no idea google updated so frequently, perhaps my results from before were a fluke...I guess I should have taken a screenshot. :(

sol invictus

7th March 2008, 07:09 AM

I didn't respond to these parts earlier.

Well, it does actually make some predictions that are qualitatively different to existing theory, and it does try to address the failure of Einstein's general theory to handle energy conservation in a universe that Hubble-shifts light.

Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. Energy is conserved in general relativity, both locally - conservation of the stress-energy tensor - and globally. You can see that by using any of several global definitions of energy, by the Wheeler-de Witt equation, or from the fact that energy is actually a kind of gauge charge in GR and as such is even "more" conserved than it is in any other theory.

But switching to an expanding model meant that energy conservation no longer obviously worked.

That's just false. If you want to argue about these things, I suggest you learn some physics first. Would you say energy isn't conserved because a charged particle flying in a circle (say it's tethered by a rope) gradually loses its kinetic energy?

As far as I can see, Witt's tried to fix this energy-conservation problem, in a constant-size universe that still shows Hubble-oid redshifts, by relating the energy lost through redshifting to the energy that appears in the microwave range, which would otherwise seem to be anomalous in his sort of steady-state model.

First of all, if he thought there was a problem it shows he doesn't understand even the basics of the theory he was trying to replace, which doesn't bode well. Second, what you said here is nonsense - we measure radiation in all frequencies, and we know that distant objects have the same spectra (more or less) as those nearby - they are just more redshifted. You can't just take that energy and put it into microwaves - we measure those too. The only explanation for redshift which does NOT violate conservation of energy is that the distant objects are simply moving away from us with a speed proportional to their distance - as in big bang cosmology.

By comparison, most of the GR guys not only don't seem to have a solution to offer ... they usually don't seem to acknowledge that this issue even requires a solution.

Gee, I wonder why? I guess they must all be idiots - that's the only explanation I can think of! :confused:

I do suspect that maybe he's slightly hyped parts of the book, but then again, there seem to be hordes of mainstream physics and math guys regularly committing worse offences to try to get publicity for their research, too. I mean, every fortnight New Scientist and the news agencies seem to be carrying some new claim about someone's research being about to discover “the key to the universe” or somesuch, and those are all mainstream guys, working on the inside.

Partly fair, although New Scientist is a rag that writes what it wants to, and it's not easy to stop it even if you wanted to.

ben m

7th March 2008, 02:02 PM

Energy is conserved in general relativity, both locally - conservation of the stress-energy tensor - and globally. You can see that by using any of several global definitions of energy, by the Wheeler-de Witt equation, or from the fact that energy is actually a kind of gauge charge in GR and as such is even "more" conserved than it is in any other theory.

Erk, that may have gone over your head---a simpler way to think about it is that two masses, when close together, have a net negative gravitational potential energy compared to when they're far apart---that's the gravitational "potential well" that you descend into when you jump off a diving board. As the universe expands, all of these energies become less negative, and that's equal to the energy lost from the background collection of photons. The equality has to be rigged up in the Newtonian picture, but GR enforces it to be true all the time.

ben m

7th March 2008, 02:18 PM

That being said however, and don't lose me here, we're all still scientists. Science demands[I] skepticism. It [I]demands[I] it. Though the standard model is all of the things I've already said, it is NOT perfect. Quantum mechanics and general relativity are still at odds. How then can we [I]truly and I mean TRULY refer to it as the be all and end all? How can we make statements that it is impossible to find a better theory? Just because we haven't found it yet? This is just an excuse.

Hi TSAcrey, welcome to the Forum.

I just want to comment on this point. Who, exactly, is said to "make statements that it is impossible to find a better theory"? Certainly not the theorists in my department, nor the experimentalists (like me) trying to break QM and SR and the Standard Model in any way we can think of, nor the funding agencies. Everyone wants to find a better theory---the only people saying otherwise are the crackpots. And, I think, what they're really saying is "Everyone is ignoring my theory, and since my theory is obviously right, the only reason for this must be that all new theories are ignored."

In reality the physics community is very aware of the QM/SR incompatibility, but we're also aware that QM and SR agree with experiments over this huge well-tested range. Mainstream theories try to keep the existing agreement intact, as the low-energy limit (or an "effective theory") of some better new theory.

ben m

7th March 2008, 02:31 PM

If anyone involved in theoretical physics honestly believes that we aren't sorely in need of a new theory, I'd suggest that they consider giving up physics and getting a job in finance instead. A lot of the statistics are the same, and the money's better.

Who exactly are believes that we're not "in need of a new theory"? Nobody. Not the experimentalists (we're eagerly awaiting new theories to test), not the theorists (that's what they do all day).

Special relativity threw away aether theory, and QM threw away classical mechanics. Phlogiston theory was the most successful and most beautiful theory of chemistry that we'd ever had ... but this didn't stop it being wrong, and we dumped that too.

Sorry, that's quite wrong. Aether theory's real power was in using the transverse wave equations to describe light. You know what you find in the low-velocity limit of Special Relativity, i.e. Maxwell's Equations? The same transverse wave equations. SR includes all of aether theory's correct predictions; not only can SR reproduce any experiments Faraday or Huygens or Snell ever did, in the right limit it does so using the same math. The math, and the predictions, are different only for experiments inaccessible to the older experimenters. Quantum mechanics reduces exactly to classical mechanics in the large-quantum-number limit. Write down a quantum Hamiltonian for Newton's apple, and Schrodinger's Equation will tell you the apple's trajectory towards his head. Not just the same result, but the same math. Nothing was "thrown away"---just altered in ways that reproduced the old experimental results, while predicting new results in different limits.

I can't defend phlogiston, of course, which never really predicted anything to begin with ...

tsacrey

7th March 2008, 03:05 PM

Yes, we do. We know that our universe is relativistic, and we know that quantum mechanics must incorporate uncertainty. Both of these have been proven not merely by extensive and detailed experimentation, but also because they are the only possible explanation for a vast range of phenomena. Given those two facts, there will never be the kind of intuitive simplicity that is possible for the motions of planets.

I think it is highly unlikely, if you mean that there will ever be a simple mechanistic explanation of quantum mechanics. In fact, given what we have observed already, I think it is impossible, due to uncertainty and relativity. On the other hand, theoretical physicists are exploring a mathematical theory called "string theory" that just might explain all of the twenty-four particles, and all of the quantum theories of the four forces, as the movements of a single, simple underlying entity. We would then be left with that entity, and the dimensionality of the universe, and nothing else. If this turns out to be true, it will be a simplification as great as the atomic hypothesis of Dalton. However, it will not supplant the standard model; it will merely explain it.

Ben, maybe I misinterpreted what was said here, and now reading it again, I think that perhaps I have (I was very tired and up late when I read it the first time!!)

The first bolded text above I think is more what I was thinking of, and not so much the second, and perhaps what was meant was that the match between the theory and the observation is soo great that it feels impossible to find a theory...anyway, with that I have to eat!

See ya later!

T

ErkDemon

7th March 2008, 05:38 PM

I disagree with that completely. And yes, I know very well what I'm talking about.

Well, there's a convincing scientific argument! ;)

Seriously, mate, everything in that paragraph should be sourcable. Tell me something specific that you disagree with and I'll see if I can dredge up a supporting quote or reference. At least give me some sort of evidence or argument to back up your position.

John Preskill 2004:
Hawking had precipitated a genuine crisis in fundamental physics, and it seemed that we would have to give up at least one of our cherished beliefs. Hawking's radical suggestion was that the foundations of quantum theory needed to be revised. "
On Hawking's volte-face:
This past year he has been thinking a lot about how his earlier conclusions about information loss might be evaded, and in his talk in Dublin last Wednesday he outlined a new argument supporting the conclusion that information loss does not occur after all. Unfortunately, I don’t understand this argument well enough to attempt to summarize it here. ...

====
Nonsense. Science just doesn't work that way. You don't throw old theories in the trash and start from scratch, ever.

You seem to be making quite a few unverifiable absolutist statements. That's usually a bad sign.
We certainly threw Phlogiston theory away, didn't we? At the time, it was the best theory of chemistry we'd ever had, by a long shot. But wrong. The weight change in reacting compounds wasn't due to the flow of energy after all, it was due to a previously-undiscovered element called oxygen. Beautiful theory, philosophically way ahead of its time ... but wrong. We kept some of its language and conventions, but the theory itself is long gone.

Now, okay, it's unusual for a theory to be as successful as Phlogiston theory was, while being fundamentally wrong, and perhaps there's a limit to how wrong current theories can be, but there's definitely a margin of potential wrongness there, and the conflict between GR and QM is a dead giveaway: something has to be wrong with the current picture. Until we know what it is, we won't know for sure how much has to be changed.

Yes. Why? Because the old theories worked really really really well, but when you figured out how to test them extremely precisely, you discovered they weren't quite exactly right. So you replace them with a better theory, but one which includes the old theory as a limit.

Not always. Aether theory (as a broad subject) wasn't a superset of failed Newtonian emission theory, and special relativity wasn't a superset of aether theory. General relativity (if you squint really hard) might be classed as a special-case non-particulate aether model (Einstein 1920), but I doubt if you could find anyone who'd consider it to be a superset of previous aether models.
SR is a superset of a cut-down version of Newton's model, and GR1915 is designed to be a superset of SR ... but since SR and GR apply some quite different rules (GR associates energy with curvature, SR describes arbitrarily-great energy-concentrations in the absence of curvature), that's possibly not one of the most impressive aspects of current GR.

Now, okay, each theory's numerical predictions have tended to be an incremental improvement on those of the previous theory, in the areas that we considered to be most important when these transitions happened. But with hindsight, some of the other predictions that we weren't so interested in actually got worse. Ballistic emission theory was used to correctly predict the r=2M horizon surface way back in the C18th, along with gravitational light-bending, and gravitational shifts, but the aether theories that replaced it didn't tend to predict these things - this part of the subject actually regressed. Moving forwards to the C20th, general relativity predicts a zero temperature for gravitational horizons, but if we choose to believe the QM description, nasty old c1800 emission theory (with its positive horizon temperature and indirect radiation effects) arguably gives a better correspondence to QM in this regard than 1950's GR does. So although Einstein's general theory was an advance in most respects, in this respect it introduced a different step backwards.
Trans-horizon radiation wasn't on our list of important subjects when we drew up GR1915, partly because the theory was originally devised for a horizonless steady-state universe. If it had been designed around the idea of an expanding universe, the subject of leaky cosmological horizons should have come up, and we might have ended up with a different sort of theory. The nature of our current general theory was partly shaped by a series of historical accidents (regarding the timing of different discoveries), which influenced Einstein in the selection of a particular set of design criteria. If history had played out differently, we could have gotten a different theoretical wish-list, and a general theory that made a few different predictions to the current version.

So this idea that we always move forward, and we always incorporate all our previous work in the next model, and our current theories are all inevitably decided by the physical data really doesn't seem to correspond to historical reality. It's a nice story to tell schoolchildren, but out in the real world, humans are messy creatures and our science often develops messily, too. We've found that a certain amount of randomness in the system means that we get stuck less often.

It is totally impossible that general relativity and quantum mechanics are wrong.

No.
QM? I actually like QM, and would put good money on it never being overthrown (I was on the record as being against Hawking's pre-2004 position, when he wanted to alter it) ... but I wouldn't be crass enough to announce that it can never be wrong. I don't personally see how it could ever be wrong, but I'm not arrogant enough to proclaim that just because I can't imagine something, it can't be possible (I also prefer to put some distance between myself and the sorts of people who often make those sorts of statements).

GR? Now, GR is more problematic. If you go through the history and the psychology of the subject, and you look at a few of the "special" definitions invoked in the GR textbooks and open them up to be slightly more reasonable, you should see that there's a loophole that allows at least one other class of general theory of relativity to exist that isn't a simple superset of GR1915, and which makes different predictions about information flow across curvature horizons. Someone who's highly trained to expert level in GR1915 might not be able to see it, but if you go back to first principles and try to rebuild a general theory from scratch without making the usual historical assumptions, you should be able to see the second solution.

Now, I'm not claiming that the second model is right, or that there can't be other alternative models that I can't see (I don't see how, but ...) ... but it's there. You should be able to use existing textbook definitions to "prove" that that's impossible - I can, too. But the precise wording of some of those definitions sometimes seems to have been selected for no other reason than to produce a snug fit with the particular sort of general theory that Einstein came up with.

FWIW, there's a general principle that I find useful when judging the reliability of information: the Titanic Principle. If someone says that a thing is probably true, it probably is. If they insist that it absolutely, definitely, MUST be true, and that for it not to be true is just unthinkable ... then the thing is often wrong.
Horses that "can't lose" and plans that "can't fail" usually do.

They are simply inexact -

No, general relativity's qualitatively-new prediction about gravitational horizons was that they had a perfect zero temperature.

That's not just "inexact" ... it's precise, it's qualitatively different to the QM prediction, and (if we believe the QM version) it's qualitatively wrong.
Put another way, the margin of error in temperature, expressed as a proportion between the temperature that that GR predicts and what QM (and just about every other theory) predicts, is infinity.
If you don't accept a proportional error margin of "infinity percent" as representing a wrong result, then we have different concepts of what "wrong" means in the context of a theory's predictions.

... but at a level that's undetectable right now, and may well remain so for the forseeable future of the human race. While unifying QM with gravity is an extremely interesting topic intellectually, it's hardly a burning issue practically speaking.

Well, if physical effects that have never yet been measured, and might not ever be measured as naturally-occurring events in the forseeable future of the human race aren't interesting, then why the heck did we just spend all that public money building CERN LHC? We did it because we wanted to know what happens in extreme situations that we'd never normally get the chance to see in nature. We want the bigger picture. Research on quantum gravity tries to extract data for other extreme situations, using bright people who can think about this stuff and generate answers without having to spend a few billion of GDP on a dirty great chunk of hardware. I mean, for most people, whether the Higgs boson exists isn't exactly a burning practical issue either.

You can defend LHC by saying "Ah, but the unknown things that we may discover in these extreme realms may have unforseen benefits. They may suggest new achievable technologies that we can't yet imagine, and whose benefits we can't yet quantify." Well, the same goes for quantum gravity.

Sure, we can't visit a natural, solar-mass black hole and measure the Hawking radiation, but we can devise experiments to measure the analogous indirect-radiation effect through horizons in Bose-Einstein condensate, or in experiments in nonlinear optics, and there are a decent number of experimenters working on these things right now, as proper engineering.

And if you don't believe that the conflict between GR and QM has any current practical importance, consider this: If we hadn't done all that theoretical research on Hawking radiation and decided that this particular conflict between GR and QM has to be settled in favour of QM, then scientists would never have been allowed to build the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva, would they? If we still thought that tiny black holes were immortal, and didn't just fizz themselves away in a burst of Hawking radiation, we'd have to send an international demolition team into Geneva to take that complex apart with explosives. Our willingness to create and operate LHC (without taking a shedload of tranquilisers) demonstrates that three-and-a-bit decades is long enough for us to do a 180-degree reversal over something that we were previously told was a piece of mathematically-proven physics that couldn't possibly be wrong.

Things change.