Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> If a new theory contradicts things the 
>> current theory explains, there's no good reason to consider it until it has 
>> been adjusted to explain that which it says shouldn't happen.
> 
>   Perhaps nitpicking, but don't GR and QM contradict each other in some
> aspects, yet both are considered the current status quo, to the best of
> our knowledge? In other words, a theory contradicting another establishing
> theory is not *always* grounds for dismissal.

Yes. But the places where QM contradicts GR is places where you can't 
*measure* GR.  Places where GR contradicts QM is places where you can't 
*measure* QM.

Let me see if I can rephrase one more time: If a new theory explains 
something, but the theory predicts things that *experiements* (not other 
theories) already contradict, the new theory needs to be changed.

For a while, light acted like waves sometimes and like particles other 
times, so we knew neither theory was right. (Once we figured out light was 
acting like particles, that is, which is what Einstein won the Nobel for.) 
Now we've figured out that light *isn't* a wave, it's always particles, and 
it just *moves* sometimes en mass in a way that waves move. But there are 
several ways of writing the equations for the way a wave moves, and not all 
of them require the contents to be a wave. (For example, an actual ocean 
wave is made out of particles, but it still moves like a wave.)

If you have a theory that says X is only 1000 years old, you need to explain 
why there are 15 different independent ways of measuring its age that says 
it's 100,000 years old that all come up with a date close to each other. If 
you point to photos taken by Apollo 11 astronauts and show how they might 
have been taken on Earth, you have to also explain the other dozen moon 
shots, the rocks brought back not looking like anything anywhere on earth, 
and explain why all the technical drawings matched the space ships and would 
according to current science also work. You can't just say "there's one 
discrepancy that I can explain by dismissing the entire rest of the 
evidence."  If you want to claim that no plane hit the pentagon, you also 
have to explain where the 130 people who got on that plane went. And so on.

If you want to say life came from outer space, OK, we don't know where life 
came from, but what supports your theory, and where did it come from in 
outer space in order to come here?  Maybe it did, but what's the evidence 
that it *did* rather than *might have*.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Yes. But the places where QM contradicts GR is places where you can't
> *measure* GR.  Places where GR contradicts QM is places where you can't
> *measure* QM.

	So, if one day we measure things that confirms what QM predicts, and GR
contradicts, and also make other measurements for other phenomena that
confirm what GR predicts, and QM contradicts, what do you suggest? Drop
QM as it is the newer theory?

"In the wave vs particle stuff, for a while, neither could explain *all*
the phenomena, so people knew they didn't have the right answer. But if
your theory of light as a wave says fluorescence shouldn't happen, it's
not a very good theory."

	You did it again. Yes, neither explained all the phenomena, and neither
was abandoned.

	So unless you're suggesting that current (accepted) physics theories
explains *all* observable phenomena, why reject a new theory that
explains most unexplained phenomena, most currently explained phenomena,
but is wrong on a few things that the current theory is correct on?


-- 
Blessed are the censors, for they shall inhibit the earth.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Yes. But the places where QM contradicts GR is places where you can't
>> *measure* GR.  Places where GR contradicts QM is places where you can't
>> *measure* QM.
> 
> 	So, if one day we measure things that confirms what QM predicts, and GR
> contradicts, and also make other measurements for other phenomena that
> confirm what GR predicts, and QM contradicts, what do you suggest? Drop
> QM as it is the newer theory?

No. We'd have to come up with a unified theory that covers both. Just like 
we did when we measured "sometimes waves, sometimes particles".

> "In the wave vs particle stuff, for a while, neither could explain *all*
> the phenomena, so people knew they didn't have the right answer. But if
> your theory of light as a wave says fluorescence shouldn't happen, it's
> not a very good theory."
> 
> 	You did it again. Yes, neither explained all the phenomena, and neither
> was abandoned.

Yeah, OK. I see what you're getting at.

> 	So unless you're suggesting that current (accepted) physics theories
> explains *all* observable phenomena, why reject a new theory that
> explains most unexplained phenomena, most currently explained phenomena,
> but is wrong on a few things that the current theory is correct on?

If the new theory actually does explain *most* phenomena but maybe not all, 
I don't think it gets rejected out of hand.  I was considering primarily 
what you'd call the "crackpot" theories. (I haven't watched a lot of 
Joseph's videos, but they don't seem scholarly to me. :-)

But yes, now I understand what you meant when you said "a philosophy you 
never understood", and I see you're probably seeing reasonable theories 
rejected more often than I do (since I'm no longer in the 
theory-investigation business).

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> If the new theory actually does explain *most* phenomena but maybe not 
> all, I don't think it gets rejected out of hand.

On the other hand....

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726485.700-quantum-randomness-may-not-be-random.html?page=2

"Even so, most physicists are not yet ready to embrace the new models, 
because one crucial problem remains: Bohmian theory, critics point out, 
doesn't make any predictions that differ from those of ordinary quantum 
mechanics."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> If the new theory actually does explain *most* phenomena but maybe not
> all, I don't think it gets rejected out of hand.  I was considering
> primarily what you'd call the "crackpot" theories. (I haven't watched a
> lot of Joseph's videos, but they don't seem scholarly to me. :-)

	Well, I think it's a philosophy that's an overreaction from crackpots,
that unfortunately has become a prevalent mentality. Imagine if
Schrodinger's Equation, when formulated, was found to be inconsistent
with some actual measured GR phenomenon, and they simply wouldn't allow
it to be taught in schools, for example.

> But yes, now I understand what you meant when you said "a philosophy you
> never understood", and I see you're probably seeing reasonable theories
> rejected more often than I do (since I'm no longer in the
> theory-investigation business).

	Well, not for anything serious (as I don't know particle theory, etc -
I'm not a physicist - I just *do* physics<G>). At a much smaller level,
I think this is common in a lot of scientific disciplines. A colleague
of mine had trouble publishing a paper some years ago. His paper
proposed a theory that explained some previously unexplained phenomena
in carbon nanotubes, but lacked feature B (a hypothesized form of a
phonon, if you need to know). B had been used in the past to explain
some phenomena in nanotubes, but was a much more sophisticated theory.

	It's important to note here that no one had ever observed B (those
kinds of phonons) in the lab (which doesn't mean they don't exist - just
that it's hard to measure).

	For a while, the paper was rejected purely because it didn't account
for B. The referees wanted to know how his theory ties in with B (it
doesn't - he was pointing out the results could be explained without
resorting to B altogether).

	So here's a situation where a theory explained a phenomenon and matched
experimental results well (after some parameter tweaking). It was a
simple model that didn't involve as yet unmeasured particles. Yet
somehow the onus was on him to show it explains everything B does...

	(He got it published eventually).

-- 
For Sale: Parachute. Only used once, never opened, small.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> 	For a while, the paper was rejected purely because it didn't account
> for B. The referees wanted to know how his theory ties in with B (it
> doesn't - he was pointing out the results could be explained without
> resorting to B altogether).

Well, that would seem to be the answer, then. :-) I guess scientists can be 
somewhat blind like everyone else. What he needed to answer was "this is how 
I account for the measurements that seem to imply B is necessary."  If it 
wasn't clear enough, then he needed to clarify and resubmit, I guess. Sounds 
like the system worked to me.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

Maybe, or maybe he is right and most of the scientist just want to be 
sited on their comfortable majority accepted current believes and not 
adventuring on grounds not approved by the grand majority. I've again 
watched the videos I posted and make perfect sense, explaining how life 
can be supported on extreme conditions and how things developed from one 
  logical step to another, in theory at least his explanation is 
flawless IMHO.

Post a reply to this message

On 8-3-2009 18:19, Darren New wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>>     For a while, the paper was rejected purely because it didn't account
>> for B. The referees wanted to know how his theory ties in with B (it
>> doesn't - he was pointing out the results could be explained without
>> resorting to B altogether).
> 
> Well, that would seem to be the answer, then. :-) I guess scientists can 
> be somewhat blind like everyone else. What he needed to answer was "this 
> is how I account for the measurements that seem to imply B is 
> necessary."  If it wasn't clear enough, then he needed to clarify and 
> resubmit, I guess. Sounds like the system worked to me.

I know a couple of these situations. It really happens more than one 
would hope. Often the background is that someone influential has 
invested a lot of time in a theory and that now much of his lab depends 
on grands to look into it. Such a person will sometimes do her/his 
utmost to prevent other theories and counter data to get published. 
Eventually the other measurements and theories almost always do get 
published but there may be a delay of several years and they won't get 
into influenced journals at first. Both are a threat to the financial 
situation of the group.

Something similar is happening with the work of my PhD student. His work 
is in modelling the effect of high frequency interference on 
electronics. Here we have the problem that most people in the field are 
measuring interference, we are modelling it. Now for the second time an 
editor has to make a decision to overrule a reviewer that insists that 
we measure up to at least 1 GHz, because that is what is specified in 
the measurement regulations. We on the other hand have only measured up 
to 100 MHz because that was enough to show that the measurements matched 
our equations. (Technically we can not measure higher without special 
equipment and even then those measurements would be subject to doubt 
anyway). Some people are not able to distance themselves from their 
daily routine and really try to understand what somebody else is 
writing. It delays the process a lot and it is not nice to have to put 
pressure on the editors to force a decision.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> I know a couple of these situations. It really happens more than one 
> would hope. Often the background is that someone influential has 
> invested a lot of time in a theory and that now much of his lab depends 
> on grands to look into it. Such a person will sometimes do her/his 
> utmost to prevent other theories and counter data to get published. 

It saddens me to realize I believe that people would do this maliciously, 
rather than just being stubborn or close-minded. Sigh.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

On 8-3-2009 21:20, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> I know a couple of these situations. It really happens more than one 
>> would hope. Often the background is that someone influential has 
>> invested a lot of time in a theory and that now much of his lab 
>> depends on grands to look into it. Such a person will sometimes do 
>> her/his utmost to prevent other theories and counter data to get 
>> published. 
> 
> It saddens me to realize I believe that people would do this 
> maliciously, rather than just being stubborn or close-minded. Sigh.
> 
Of course you can not prove that, but there are a few cases that I am 
pretty sure that is what happens. And that is only in those areas that 
are closely related to my work.

BTW once I was contemplating changing my field from cardiology to 
foundations of computer science (not so much a step as it seems). My 
main interests were (and are) however in things that could be improved 
in Dijkstra's work (I think it may be known in this group that I am a 
fan of his work ;) ). The message of people knowledgeable in that field 
was simple: Don't do it, you won't get any papers published when you 
disagree with Dijkstra.

Post a reply to this message