Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Farsight

How much energy was put in it when it was made. When we made an electron and a positron using two 511keV photons, we put 511keV into the electron when we made it.

Yes, and the interaction with the Higgs field determines how much energy is required to make an electron

Again, I'm not concerned with whether that's right or not, you are claiming it's inconsistent: show the inconsistency

The rest of your post outlines your own ideas about what electrons are made of, and yes, those ideas are not consistent with the Higgs mechanism, we all know that and accept it, but not being consistent with your ideas (whether those ideas are right or not) doesn't mean that the standard model isn't internally consistent, or that it's not consistent with E=mc²

(I know that the latter is implied by the former as the standard model is a relativistic theory, but I just thought I'd make that last bit more clear)

[Farsight]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Wait, it wasn't hard to do the calculation in SI units, but it's too hard to do it in any other system?

Again, I'm not asking for an explanation of why there's a conversion factor, I'm just asking for you to actually do the calculation

I mean, you're not actually going to say that the calculation works in SI, but doesn't work in some other system, are you?

If not, why don't you just do it?

Or, admit that it's not valid, I certainly won't think any less of you

It's valid Robo, because regardless of your system of units E=mc² and KE=½mv² and λ₁f₁= c and λ₂f₂= c and √(λ₁f₁) = √(λ₂f₂) = c^½. It's just too difficult to explain, and it's just too much of a distraction.

Originally Posted by Roboramma

The thing is that I still agree with you that E=mc² (and so does everyone else), but I still don't understand what contradiction you are trying to get across

See what I said to Kwalish Kid above about the box of radiation where the Higgs mechanism is not involved, and the mass is there because of E=mc². Also note the Stark quote from wiki concerning the electron and E=mc² . Also read Mass energy equivalence on wikipedia:

"In physics, in particular special and general relativity, mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. In this concept, mass is a property of all energy, and energy is a property of all mass, and the two properties are connected by a constant. This means (for example) that the total internal energy E of a body at rest is equal to the product of its rest mass m and a suitable conversion factor to transform from units of mass to units of energy."

The contradiction is that the Higgs mechanism says the mass of a a body such as the electron, is a measure of something else. It blatantly contradicts the most famous expression in physics.

Blink. Now do you understand it?

[edd]

Originally Posted by Farsight

The contradiction is that the Higgs mechanism says the mass of a a body such as the electron, is a measure of something else. It blatantly contradicts the most famous expression in physics.

No it doesn't.

[Farsight]

Originally Posted by Probably Not

Lurker here, but I didn't want this to slip by. Using natural units, you don't "lose" c² even if c = 1. The value may be 1, but the units themselves remain. mc² continues to have units of energy (ML²/T²).

Noted. The "lose" was a reference to the wiki article on natural units which says: The equation c = 1 can be plugged in anywhere else. For example, Einstein's equation E = mc² can be rewritten in Planck units as E = m. It gives a caveat re Planck units, but nevertheless the c² isn't in the expression. By the way, see what I said earlier about proposed future definitions of the kilogram.

[Farsight]

Originally Posted by ben m

Almost right, finally, except for one thing.

"It's 511 rather than 411 because h and c are what they are?" Nonsense. There is nothing about h, c, or any other macroscopic constant that tells you that there's a resonance at 511 keV, nor that there's another one at 106 MeV, nor that there's another one at 1777 MeV. The laws of relativity and quantum mechanics would be perfectly happy if Nature had presented us with a 411 keV lepton, or a 511.1 keV lepton, etc.

In the real world, we believe that the location of this resonance (511 keV instead of 411 or 512 etc) is determined by the electron-Higgs coupling. The location of muon is determined by the muon-Higgs coupling. Etc.

The Higgs mechanism has determined that all electrons will be 511 keV particles. The creation/destruction/kinematics of electrons obeys the laws of special and general relativity for an m=511 keV particle because the electron is a 511 keV particle.

OK, explain it then. Explain the location of the electron Higgs coupling, and the location of the muon Higgs coupling.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Farsight

By the way, see what I said earlier about proposed future definitions of the kilogram.

Heh, did my mini thesis on this very subject of kilogram calibration. The current system is crap and geographically vague, with flawed controls on some measured variables. But then again so will be most new systems of defining it until people get used to it. I concluded just leave it as it is in the end due to economic practicality, if I remember correctly.

[Perpetual Student]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student
The cesium atom is a physical system that oscillates as you describe above. The second is defined as the duration of time it takes for 9,192,631,770 oscillations. The fact that the information is conveyed via electromagnetic waves is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Farsight

It isn't irrelevant at all. How can you be so dismissive of everything I said in post 889 above?. After you said let's see if it is possible to have a civil discussion with you. The hyperfine transition is an electromagnetic phenomena too, the electron has a wave nature, we can diffract it, we even made it out light in pair production. When the electromagnetic waves and field changes propagate slower, the second is bigger, and that's it. There is no literal time flowing slower in that physical system, or in the intervening space, or in your eyes and brain.

So the hyperfine transition is an electromagnetic phenomenon and the electron has a wave nature. How is that significant? Be specific. The cesium atom and the observer are in the same rest frame when we count the number of oscillations in question. The duration of time taken by 9,192,631,770 oscillations is defined as a second. There is no "slower propagation" to concern anyone. There is no tautology as you imagine. How specifically does the wave nature of the electron have any relevance? Be specific and stop all the hand waving!

[Farsight]

Originally Posted by ben m

Go ahead. Do the algebra. Derive the proton-electron mass ratio using foot-pound-second units. Distances in feet, time in seconds, mass in slugs, force in pounds, energy in pound-feet, charge in FPSE units.

Every Freshman science student learns unit-conversion problems by actually working them. Why can't you work this one?

Because I change n, you claim it's a fudge, it doesn't do any good, and we go round in circles talking about new physics instead of the solid old Einstein physics you're trying to avoid. Meanwhile, see how ProbablyNot said above that the units of energy are ML²/T²? The units of energy have a mass term in there, c is distance or length over time, so ML²/T² relates to E=mc² rather than E=hf. Now see the Watt balance section of the kilogram article on wikipedia:

The Planck constant defines the kilogram in terms of the second and the meter. By fixing the Planck constant, the definition of the kilogram would depend only on the definitions of the second and the meter.

Then see my post 747 where I said the second and the metre are defined using the motion of light. That means that just about everything ends up being derived from h and c.

Originally Posted by ben m

Because, amidst all the physics you don't know you don't know, this was a mistake stupid enough that I thought even you might come to see the hole in your knowledge.

See above.

Originally Posted by ben m

And, y'know, that's what we do with learners of physics. We walk you through basic physics and make you do problems. If there's a problem you're stuck on, we dwell on it until you understand it.

LOL. OK, I don't understand the location of the electron Higgs coupling, and the location of the muon Higgs coupling. Or why the electron is a body whose mass doesn't depend upon its energy content, or ditto for the Higgs boson.

Over to you ben. In your own time.

When you can't explain these things, maybe we can then talk about the holes in your knowledge.

LOL. I have to go.

[edd]

Originally Posted by Farsight

Meanwhile, see how ProbablyNot said above that the units of energy are ML²/T²? The units of energy have a mass term in there, c is distance or length over time, so ML²/T² relates to E=mc² rather than E=hf.

I think this qualifies as 'not even wrong'.

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by Farsight

1) Yes. But if that theory leads you to dismiss those observations you've got a problem.

2) No. The Sun doesn't go round the Earth. Nor does the universe go round Phobos.

Classic Farsight. First line: Don't use theory to dismiss observations. Second line: Dismiss observations because they don't match theory.

The truth is that without much theory, observations do show the sun going around the earth. Haven't you ever noticed? The sun moves across the sky. It rises and sets.

Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton came up with sophisticated theories that account for those observations. According to those theories there's a preferred frame for acceleration and rotation, and the sun does not go around the earth in the preferred frame (although it does in other frames).

But those theories have long since been replaced (by Farsight's supposed hero, Einstein). According to general relativity, the sense in which there's a preferred frame for rotation or acceleration is very subtle. In fact, the foundational principle and great insight of GR is that acceleration and gravitation are extremely similar.

In GR, the "force" of gravity is replaced by geometry, and the only meaningful quantities are geometric invariants (like curvatures). There is no geometric invariant I know of that tells us that the earth goes around the sun - on the contrary, there is a specific, quantifiable description of the solar system in which the sun goes around the earth. It has precisely the same geometric invariants as one in which the earth goes around the sun, it makes precisely the same predictions for all physical experiments, and it therefore matches observations exactly as well.

Is it more complex or less fundamental? Hardly - the two descriptions are related almost trivially mathematically, but one or the other is more convenient depending on your purpose.

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by Farsight

It's valid Robo, because regardless of your system of units E=mc² and KE=½mv² and λ₁f₁= c and λ₂f₂= c and √(λ₁f₁) = √(λ₂f₂) = c^½. It's just too difficult to explain, and it's just too much of a distraction.

Nonsense is usually difficult to explain.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Farsight

It isn't irrelevant at all. How can you be so dismissive of everything I said in post 889 above?. After you said let's see if it is possible to have a civil discussion with you. The hyperfine transition is an electromagnetic phenomena too, the electron has a wave nature, we can diffract it, we even made it out light in pair production. When the electromagnetic waves and field changes propagate slower, the second is bigger, and that's it. There is no literal time flowing slower in that physical system, or in the intervening space, or in your eyes and brain.

"When the electromagnetic waves and field changes propagate slower,"? Slower? What definition of a second are you using to determine this "slower" propagation?

Originally Posted by Farsight

No it isn't. Look at the definition again: the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. It isn't 9,192,631,770 hyperfine transistions, it's 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation. I got that wrong on an early Time Explained. Like I said, it's like you sit there with waves coming at you, you count 9,192,631,770 waves going past you, and then you say that's a second. The important thing to remember is that you can't talk about frequency when you're defining the second, because frequency is cycles per second.

So what? To define a second you do have to refer to the second (or more generally time). So what is your definition of a second that makes the referenced cycle period longer (thus "propagate slower") and does not refer to a measure of time like the second?

One of the obvious issues with a lot of crackpot physics is that they are simply not self consistent. One of the ways proponents of such avoid this is by not making clear definitions (like the second in this case) as the self contradiction would be obvious. The assumption above that "field changes propagate slower" indicates a definition of time (a second) not yet presented. One is just begged to indulge the "slower" assumption without the implied definition of a second being provided that would not only have to differ substantially from the current standard but can have no relevance if it does not at least reference a measure of time like the second.

[ben m]

Originally Posted by Farsight

Because I change n, you claim it's a fudge,

I haven't seen you "change n", I've seen you talk about how sure you are that it works. Do it.

[Kwalish Kid]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Crackpots are often compared to fundamentalists, but I don't think that's a particularly useful comparison. In my opinion, fundamentalist religion is more social than intellectual. Fundamentalism has much to do with a religious community's peculiar sense of identity, us versus them, and the members of that community derive social benefits from sticking to the party line.

It's interesting to note that there are crackpot communities. (I can think of anti-relativity.com and physicsdiscussionforum.org as two examples.) Yet it seems that there is not the homogeneity in those groups; each member seems to have their own dogma. It would be interesting to see a sociological study of these groups.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Kwalish Kid

It would be interesting to see a sociological study of these groups.

As would the converse.

I tend to remember physics students as being just as sociologically withdrawn as their crackpot counterparts.

Just one has highly linearized maths and ideologies, whereas the other a more organic yet less empirical mix; that ultimately stills adds to creativity and questioning of long held axioms and assumptions.

[Kwalish Kid]

Originally Posted by Farsight

Geddoutofit. The mass of a body is a measure of its energy content is not some cherry-picked out-of-context quote. It's what E=mc² is all about.

This is an excellent example of a cherry-picked quotation. First, you have presented the equation that is only used in limited form. Second, people here have accused you of using that limited form where it is not appropriate. Third, this formula only makes sense in the greater context of the theories of relativity. One cannot simply choose one formula and expect it to apply to every physical system and fully describe that system. (To make this clear: one can claim that the laws of gravity always apply to every object, but one cannot then ignore the effects of electromagnetism on that object. School children know that static electricity can make a balloon fail to fall to the ground.)

So if one cannot use the proper context of relativity theory, one really cannot be expected to use individual elements properly in general.

Quote:

[i]Re: For example, Einstein described the electron as a body, and said the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. So the latter is utterly contradicted by the mass of a body like the electron is a measure of its interaction with the Higgs field.

Except that according to the Higgs theory, at least some of the energy content that mass measures is provided by the Higgs field. That does not seem to be inconsistent in any way. By your logic, it seems that gravity cannot be the cause of weight because scales measure weight.

Quote:

Oh such a lofty pronouncement. Yes there is a contradiction. The electron is a body, Susskind's box is a body. The mass is there because the energy is there, and E=mc² applies to them both.

But since you only take the results of the box experiment and can't work it through yourself, you are taking this result on the faith of the work of Susskind (or those who reported the result to you), correct? If those who work through such problems reported that it is consistent with the Higgs theory, would you believe them?

Why do you not try to learn how to work through these problems yourself?

Quote:

Oh change the record. You are not versed in scripture cuts no ice on a skeptics forum.

You misinterpret my statements. In this case, I suspect that you are trying to change the subject, so I will bring up the subject again.

You are making claims about certain systems of coordinates that you do not like, yet that you are unable to understand mathematically. They are systems of coordinates that make certain claims about what relationships can be maintained in physics and what cannot. This same geometrization can be done with Newtonian gravity (i.e. Newton-Cartan theory). They are a consequence of the idea that there are no special properties of spacetime that pick out particular axes of rotation. And this seems to be true. So far, you have not addressed those solutions to the Einstein field equation that do pick out particular axes of rotation. If you want to be taken seriously, you should learn the mathematics and address them.

Given that the question of the geometrization of gravity is a mathematical question, why are you qualified to take positions on particular systems of coordinates that you are unable to follow mathematically?

Quote:

What, you mean what Einstein said doesn't make any sense mathematically or historically? Well that's a new one!

I notice that you cut out my statement and failed to address it. So I will ask: Why do you dismiss the statements of Einstein that support the use of isotropic and homogeneous cosmological models? Why do you ignore that Einstein's chosen cosmological model in his very first full book on relativity theory was isotropic and homogeneous?

Quote:

No, you're just a naysayer troll saying Einstein was wrong.

Yet in this case, I am defending the lifelong work of Einstein in supporting a homogeneous cosmological model and you are denying it based on a single quotation in a single public address without bothering to look at what Einstein wrote or said on the subject. Doesn't this make you the naysayer about Einstein?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

As would the converse.

I tend to remember physics students as being just as sociologically withdrawn as their crackpot counterparts.

What percentage of the world's physics students did you meet at the time?

[Zeuzzz]

Three years A-level and three years degree students. So a negligible amount with extreme subjective sample bias. Though I reckon I can find a meta analysis if pressed

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Though I reckon I can find a meta analysis if pressed

Don't bother, I have some drying paint to watch.

[Kwalish Kid]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

As would the converse.

I tend to remember physics students as being just as sociologically withdrawn as their crackpot counterparts.

This is anecdotal evidence. These kind of observations we expect to be biased by selection effects.

There are sociological studies of physics students and physicists out there; check them out.

Quote:

Just one has highly linearized maths and ideologies, whereas the other a more organic yet less empirical mix; that ultimately stills adds to creativity and questioning of long held axioms and assumptions.

I think you are dramatically over-estimating the effects of crackpots. They have been at this for decades, mailing physicists and philosophers their physics theories. I suspect that once their basic misunderstanding becomes apparent, their ideas are ignored.

It is tempting to see all physicists as uncreative. I do not think that this is the case.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Farsight

Because I change n, you claim it's a fudge, it doesn't do any good, and we go round in circles talking about new physics instead of the solid old Einstein physics you're trying to avoid. Meanwhile, see how ProbablyNot said above that the units of energy are ML²/T²? The units of energy have a mass term in there, c is distance or length over time, so ML²/T² relates to E=mc² rather than E=hf. Now see the Watt balance section of the kilogram article on wikipedia:

The Planck constant defines the kilogram in terms of the second and the meter. By fixing the Planck constant, the definition of the kilogram would depend only on the definitions of the second and the meter.

As the Kilogram represents the units Newton Second² Meter^-1 it does depend on the definitions of those units as does h having the units Newton Second Meter. For your own edification energy has the units Newton Meter (or Joules), where exactly is the " mass term in there"? Certainly we can relate units of mass to units of energy by canceling out the terms (units) mass has but energy doesn't and introducing those it does. Those terms (that conversion of units) take the units of a velocity squared (Meter² Second^-2). So energy does not have a mass term in there. It does have a Meter term that mass does not, mass has the reciprocal of that term. Mass also has the square of a Second term that energy does not. Hence the need for Meter term squared (Meter²) and the reciprocal of a Second term squared (Second^-2) to convert units of mass to units of energy.

This is another reason why there is so much crackpot physics. Confusion about unit conversions and the basic math involved. Above we have an example of the crackpot notion that just because we can put energy in terms (units) of mass that "The units of energy have a mass term in there" when the units of energy (Newton Meter or Joules) contains no "mass term in there". Heck the units of mass (Newton Second² Meter^-1) don't even contain an energy term. It does however contain terms of force (Newton) and the reciprocal of acceleration (Second² Meter^-1) or terms of momentum (Newton Second) and the reciprocal of velocity (Second Meter^-1).

[edd]

The Man: it is usual to consider dimensions using mass length and time as the fundamentals - hence the MLT stuff Farsight gave. So you'd say energy has the dimensions of mass length^2 time^-2. And you'd consider the kilogram a base unit of SI, and the Newton a derived unit.

[dasmiller]

Originally Posted by edd

The Man: it is usual to consider dimensions using mass length and time as the fundamentals - hence the MLT stuff Farsight gave. So you'd say energy has the dimensions of mass length^2 time^-2. And you'd consider the kilogram a base unit of SI, and the Newton a derived unit.

Is it necessary, though? If you defined energy in terms of, say, the transition of the electron in a hydrogen atom from the 1S to 2S orbital (or whatever transition makes sense), would that be a mass-free energy unit? Or is mass still buried in there somewhere?

(I genuinely don't know the answer)

ETA: or define your unit energy to be the energy of a photon with some particular wavelength, since we've already defined length.

[edd]

Originally Posted by dasmiller

Is it necessary, though? If you defined energy in terms of, say, the transition of the electron in a hydrogen atom from the 1S to 2S orbital (or whatever transition makes sense), would that be a mass-free energy unit? Or is mass still buried in there somewhere?

(I genuinely don't know the answer)

ETA: or define your unit energy to be the energy of a photon with some particular wavelength, since we've already defined length.

That would simply change your choice of units - it doesn't change the quantity's dimensions.

You could choose another basis than mass length and time however. Force length and time would work but it is unconventional. That doesn't change any underlying physics either of course.

[Zeuzzz]

Hows the paint drying Daffyd?

[dasmiller]

Originally Posted by edd

That would simply change your choice of units - it doesn't change the quantity's dimensions.

You could choose another basis than mass length and time however. Force length and time would work but it is unconventional.

Okay, that's what I was looking for. Thanks.

Quote:

That doesn't change any underlying physics either of course.

Agreed.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Hows the paint drying Daffyd?

Who is Daffyd?

[Zeuzzz]

I duno, but he sounds too welch to make me bothered to spell his name correctly.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

I duno, but he sounds too welch to make me bothered to spell his name correctly.

If you're going in for stand-up, don't give up your day job.

[ben m]

Originally Posted by Farsight

LOL. OK, I don't understand the location of the electron Higgs coupling, and the location of the muon Higgs coupling. Or why the electron is a body whose mass doesn't depend upon its energy content, or ditto for the Higgs boson.

The electron obeys E=(0.511 MeV/c^2) c^2 . To create an e+ e- pair by colliding photons, the photons need to bring in at least 2 x 0.511 MeV plus any additional kinetic energy. The electron's mass (the thing that goes into F=ma, the thing that goes into F = GMm/r^2) is 0.511 MeV/c^2.

YES, MASS-ENERGY IS INCLUDED IN THE ELECTRON ENERGY BUDGET ACCORDING TO SPECIAL RELATIVITY. How many times do we have to say this? YES, E=MC^2. How many times?

Maybe (?) I understand a bit better what's wrong with your mental picture of the Higgs mechanism. You obviously think of it as doing something other than what it's doing.

What happens when you collide 2 photons with 0.45 MeV each? It doesn't make a phelectron-phositron pair with m = 0.4 MeV/c^2 each. Why not? It would obey relativity if it did. What happens if you collide two photons with 0.0001 MeV each? Why doesn't it make a pair of low-mass electrons, each with m = 0.0001 MeV/c^2 ? That'd be perfectly consistent with relativity. You can walk through Einstein's original thought-experiments and calculate the velocities, momenta, etc., of such particles created in such collisions.

Why are electrons only found at m=0.511 MeV? Why do 0.4+0.4 MeV photon collisions fail to produce low-mass electrons? Why do 10 + 10 MeV collision produce two fast-moving objects, rather than (as E=mc^2 allows) two heavy slow ones? Because the Higgs mechanism sets the electron mass to be 0.511 MeV/c^2. The Higgs mechanism sets the number that gets plugged in to "m" in all other physics equations, including the SR equations of kinematics, the GR equations of gravity, etc.

I repeat for the 10th time: The Higgs mechanism tells you what the mass will be. Everything about the behavior of this mass obeys Special Relativity.
Everything. "Energy content", gravitational pull, inertia, energy needed to create, energy needed to annihilate.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by edd

The Man: it is usual to consider dimensions using mass length and time as the fundamentals - hence the MLT stuff Farsight gave. So you'd say energy has the dimensions of mass length^2 time^-2. And you'd consider the kilogram a base unit of SI, and the Newton a derived unit.

Right a consequence of how those units in that system were defined and how those definitions have changed since then, as noted by ben m. In fact we really can't perceive mass directly so it actually did start out with what was a force [weight] being one of those defined dimensions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_units

Quote:

Original (1793): The grave was defined as being the weight [mass] of one cubic decimetre of pure water at its freezing point.FG

As you note..

Originally Posted by edd

That would simply change your choice of units - it doesn't change the quantity's dimensions.

You could choose another basis than mass length and time however. Force length and time would work but it is unconventional. That doesn't change any underlying physics either of course.

and as has been noted here crank physics (more of just numerology than physics though) often only seem to work out in a particular system of units.

[xtifr]

A-a-a-and, once again Farsight successfully hijacks another thread to make it all about his Relativity+ nonsense. Although it's fairly amusing that he chose this particular thread.

Is it too much to ask that we split off the attacks/defense of Relativity+ to a more appropriate thread, and keep this one about the hows and whys of crackpottery? Whether or not you think Relativity+ is an example of crackpottery, discussions of its details are not an answer to the original question.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Farsight

It's valid Robo, because regardless of your system of units E=mc² and KE=½mv² and λ₁f₁= c and λ₂f₂= c and √(λ₁f₁) = √(λ₂f₂) = c^½. It's just too difficult to explain, and it's just too much of a distraction.

Did you even read what I wrote? IF it's valid, just do the calculation, it wasn't difficult in one system of units, it shouldn't be difficult in another

Quote:

The contradiction is that the Higgs mechanism says the mass of a a body such as the electron, is a measure of something else. It blatantly contradicts the most famous expression in physics.

Blink. Now do you understand it?

Blink.

I explain why it doesn't say that the mass of an electron is something else, and you just reply with the assertion that it says it's something else?

Can you please just reply to what I am writing?

Thanks

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by xtifr

A-a-a-and, once again Farsight successfully hijacks another thread to make it all about his Relativity+ nonsense. Although it's fairly amusing that he chose this particular thread.

Farsight never loses an opportunity to hijack a physics thread with his own idiosyncratic and erroneous version of physics. There's an upside, lurkers like me with a layman's interest in physics learn a lot from the real physicists here who correct his mistakes. Thanks to you all.

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by ben m

I haven't seen you "change n", I've seen you talk about how sure you are that it works. Do it.

When you're driving a truck, you can haul stuff. When you're playing with a toy truck, you can only pretend to haul stuff.

Originally Posted by Kwalish Kid

It's interesting to note that there are crackpot communities. (I can think of anti-relativity.com and physicsdiscussionforum.org as two examples.)

OMFSM. I had no idea.

According to Wikipedia's current article on fundamentalism,

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to specific theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology, primarily to promote continuity and accuracy.

In some forms of fundamentalism, those demands are backed by the authority of holy scripture, which the modernists are supposed to be guilty of ignoring.

Crackpot physics seldom demands we reject modern physics by returning to the specific theories of an earlier age. Crackpot physics seldom accuses modern physicists of misinterpreting holy scripture given to us in the remote past by some alleged deity.

But there are exceptions. At times, crackpot physics does indeed resemble a fundamentalist's calls for returning to (the fundamentalist's peculiar interpretation of) some holy scripture.

Farsight has contributed several examples:

Originally Posted by Farsight

I'd say some element of what I say is what Einstein thought. Unfortunately when I give the quotes to back that up, people tend to dismiss them.

Originally Posted by Farsight

Get real. I haven't made myriad mathematical mistakes. And I'm the guy who puts up what Einstein wrote and points out how different it is to what the experts write.

Originally Posted by Farsight

I'm the guy here who's saying Einstein was right. It's the recurrent theme of our little chats. And what do we see in response? Dismissal such as bah, cherry-picking and physics has moved on, all amounting to Einstein was wrong. The irony is just delicious.

Originally Posted by Farsight

No Pixel, the recurrent theme is that I'm the guy who gives the Einstein quotes, which are then dismissed by people who don't understand his work.

Originally Posted by Farsight

But I do know enough physics to say here's what Einstein said, and when some self-appointed "top experts in the world" flatly contradict that, I know enough physics to take them apart. LOL. My little knowledge is a dangerous thing all right. Dangerous to people who dismiss Einstein and peddle woo.

Originally Posted by Farsight

...the main thing about our little chats is that I want you guys to appreciate what Einstein actually said. And think for yourself.

Originally Posted by Farsight

I was thinking about how to describe it with squares and cubes and c=λf, where for two harmonic standing waves λ₁f₁= c and λ₂f₂= c and √(λ₁f₁) = √(λ₂f₂) = c^½. But then I thought it's too tricky and it's too novel, I'm here to talk about what Einstein said and knock the woo on the head, not this.

So I have to admit religious fundamentalism does bear some resemblance to Farsight's calls for what he regards as a return to the fundamentals of Einstein's scriptures.

Originally Posted by sol invictus

It's particularly bizarre in Farsight's case, because what he claims Einstein meant bears very little relation to what Einstein actually thought (or said, for that matter). Part of the reason is that if you can't follow Einstein's math, you can't understand what he did - because all of what he did was based on mathematics.

That's true, and sol invictus has identified one of the main reasons for the great gulf that lies between what Einstein actually said and what Farsight believes Einstein to have said.

Religious fundamentalists often disagree amongst themselves concerning the meaning of their holy scriptures. Wars have been fought over those disagreements.

Had their holy scriptures been written in the language of mathematics, they'd have been less ambiguous, and we might have had fewer religious wars. Einstein wrote in the language of mathematics.

If you can't read the language in which your holy scriptures were written, you're unlikely to understand what they say.

[Perpetual Student]

Similarly, remember how often we saw Mozina quoting something Alfven said. It was very reminiscent of someone quoting sacred texts.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

It's not unusual for crackpots to be professionals, especially from the ranks of professions other than the one in which they demonstrate crackpottery.
Linus Pauling comes to mind.
Some feel that Fred Hoyle became somewhat of a crackpot even though he made major contributions in cosmology. Would DeiRenDopa consider Hoyle to be a crackpot?

There's the Salem Hypothesis regarding engineers and woo. This could be extended to others (e.g. computer scientists) who have a smattering in a particular field, enough to get it wrong when applied to science.

[DavidS]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

...dirty diapers are too concrete...

If you're seeing that, your change and disposal frequencies aren't nearly as high as they should be.

Oh, the physics and math stuff? I'm in no position to question your work. Carry on.

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

There's the Salem Hypothesis regarding engineers and woo. This could be extended to others (e.g. computer scientists) who have a smattering in a particular field, enough to get it wrong when applied to science.

The descriptions in those links are quite remarkable. I have an acquaintance (an EE with a master's degree), who fits the descriptions in those links extraordinarily well. He has his own "alternative explanations" for relativity and quantum theory. He believes in some peculiar 9/11 conspiracy and has religious views that relate human consciousness to some vague "first cause."
He insists he is correct in his opinions because of his superior perspective as an engineer. I wonder if these guys convince each other of this stuff as they interact with each other in their work -- thereby creating some kind of subculture.

[dasmiller]

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

The descriptions in those links are quite remarkable. I have an acquaintance (an EE with a master's degree), who fits the descriptions in those links extraordinarily well. He has his own "alternative explanations" for relativity and quantum theory. He believes in some peculiar 9/11 conspiracy and has religious views that relate human consciousness to some vague "first cause."
He insists he is correct in his opinions because of his superior perspective as an engineer. I wonder if these guys convince each other of this stuff as they interact with each other in their work -- thereby creating some kind of subculture.

Does he work with a lot of other engineers? I have my 'lone engineer' theory.