Particles That May Break Known Laws of Physics

Started by josephpalazzo, September 10, 2015, 01:00:59 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

josephpalazzo


Baruch

There are no laws, just recurrent patterns that haven't been contradicted by experiment yet ;-))  You have seen one short lived resonance, you have seen them all.  Explain the Fine Structure Constant (as Feynman suggested) and then we might know something.

You know that the Big Bang and gravitational waves violate mass-energy conservation, right?  Just saying that the Bianchi Identities take care of things, is a cop out.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

josephpalazzo

Quote from: Baruch on September 10, 2015, 01:49:53 PM
There are no laws, just recurrent patterns that haven't been contradicted by experiment yet ;-))

Nice tautology



QuoteYou have seen one short lived resonance, you have seen them all.

You still need to explain why there are 3 families of quarks, and 3 families of lepton, and why these are 3, and not any other number.


QuoteExplain the Fine Structure Constant (as Feynman suggested) and then we might know something.

First, it isn't a constant as it is energy dependent. Second, it's the parameter that particularly couples matter to the electromagnetic field. Matter is also coupled to the other fields, but with different coupling constant.

Quote
You know that the Big Bang and gravitational waves violate mass-energy conservation, right?  Just saying that the Bianchi Identities take care of things, is a cop out.

A battle semantics... It's all in the definition.

Baruch

#3
Correct math, is a tautology.  Contingent math, is physical science.  Contradictory math, is economics ;-)

I don't believe you or anyone else has solved the problem of logical induction (mathematical induction on a monotonically and uniformly increasing number series ... doesn't count).  The first black swan to come along, blows the whole group delusion.

Yes, there are lots of hard to explain things.  But don't worry, I am working on it ;-)

Well then, on the basis of a relativistically rotating platter, the value of Pi is a variable too, dependent on the RPM.  But like good scientists, we can "save appearances" by defining Pi as the ratio you get at zero RPM.  Or we can simply abandon the Euclidean delusion that math describes physical reality, rather than just being a useful calculus for engineers to get real work done ;-)

On the basis of semantics, then Creation science is science.  Though that isn't my semantics.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

josephpalazzo

Quote from: Baruch on September 10, 2015, 02:21:38 PM
Correct math, is a tautology.  Contingent math, is physical science.  Contradictory math, is economics ;-)

The tautology I was referring to was: laws = recurrent patterns = that (which) haven't been contradicted by experiment yet.

Sorry to disappoint but there is no correct math, nor contigent math, and neither contradictory math. There is only math, a creative endeavor of the human mind.

QuoteI don't believe you or anyone else has solved the problem of logical induction (mathematical induction on a monotonically and uniformly increasing number series ... doesn't count).  The first black swan to come along, blows the whole group delusion.

Mathematical induction is just another tool in the kit. It has its limitations. Can you live with that?

QuoteYes, there are lots of hard to explain things.  But don't worry, I am working on it ;-)

But you get no medal from me, ;-)

QuoteWell then, on the basis of a relativistically rotating platter, the value of Pi is a variable too, dependent on the RPM.  But like good scientists, we can "save appearances" by defining Pi as the ratio you get at zero RPM.  Or we can simply abandon the Euclidean delusion that math describes physical reality, rather than just being a useful calculus for engineers to get real work done ;-)

Pi is constant, it's time and length that can expand/contract. Don't mix your apples with your oranges.

QuoteOn the basis of semantics, then Creation science is science.  Though that isn't my semantics.

False equivalence. Whether or not energy/matter is conserved depends on what you consider in the equation. Energy/matter is conserved if you include the energy of the gravitational field along with the energy of matter and radiation. See: http://blog.vixra.org/2010/08/17/energy-is-conserved-in-cosmology/



stromboli

This is a great post JP. The problem is there are only a dozen people or so on the forum with the knowledge to address it without looking stupid. I'm not one of them.  :sad2:

josephpalazzo

Quote from: stromboli on September 11, 2015, 11:55:56 AM
This is a great post JP. The problem is there are only a dozen people or so on the forum with the knowledge to address it without looking stupid. I'm not one of them.  :sad2:

There are only good questions, including the "stoooopid" ones.


jonb

Quote from: josephpalazzo on September 11, 2015, 12:04:47 PM
There are only good questions, including the "stoooopid" ones.


This is stunningly true on so many levels.

Baruch

Jonb - except that most lay people, and more than a few scientists, think that the focus should be on the "temporary" answers they come up with, not with the profound questions that have been shaken out of the intellectual woodwork.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Hakurei Reimu

When have you come up with a "profound" question?
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Baruch

Mighty catty of you ... I think I might have felt a little scratch ;-)  Meow!
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

josephpalazzo

Quote from: Baruch on September 11, 2015, 08:03:39 PM
Jonb - except that most lay people, and more than a few scientists, think that the focus should be on the "temporary" answers they come up with, not with the profound questions that have been shaken out of the intellectual woodwork.

Most of the times, there are only temporary answers. There are few moments in history that witnessed major breakthroughs; Gauss who realized that space could be curved, Einstein that time was not absolute, to name two of those instances. But these are rare moments. For most folks, including myself, we struggle with the (temporary)answers we have at hand.

Baruch

Good thing huh?  If you had to get a Nobel to get tenure ... there wouldn't be many.  As it is, tenure seems endangered ... since the people paying for college, businesses and parents, want to subordinate education to political-economic realities.  Though I can admire that tenure hasn't been completely killed, and that true education hasn't been completely commercialized and consumerized.  Also if only 1 in 10 college management teams are any good (see Coopers Union) then it is a wonder they haven't all closed their doors.

Spoiler alert ... I went to college for careerism, not for an education.  I got an education subsequently by wide book reading.  My experience with pedagogy is that face to face teaching is still necessary ... that the on-line experience will only meet the needs of the many who can't afford college, but deprive those who can afford college of a real education.  Also it is true that the motivation of students is weak at best.  They by the nature of their youth, don't know what they want, and if they do know what they want, don't know why.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

josephpalazzo

Quote from: Baruch on September 12, 2015, 06:23:38 AM
Good thing huh?  If you had to get a Nobel to get tenure ... there wouldn't be many.  As it is, tenure seems endangered ... since the people paying for college, businesses and parents, want to subordinate education to political-economic realities.  Though I can admire that tenure hasn't been completely killed, and that true education hasn't been completely commercialized and consumerized.  Also if only 1 in 10 college management teams are any good (see Coopers Union) then it is a wonder they haven't all closed their doors.

Tenure, hmm...I don't know what that has to do with this thread, but anyway, since I'm one of those who did benefit from tenure, let me answer this one. Tenure allowed me to be free from any political retaliation that would have resulted from office politics. I didn't have to cater to my head department, and I didn't have to brownnose the dean of faculty, and so on. Those who were in the actual position to judge me were my students. The fact that I'm using my real name on this forum should give you an idea that I don't shy away from criticism or personal risk. I run a blog that any of my students could tear apart if I were so inept or less than competent in my field.  Sure there are rotten apples in academia, but you'll find them in every profession. Anyway, before tenure, you have a 5-year trial period, long enough for any administration to get rid of some of the rotten apples, and sure, some will escape that, but no structure is always perfect.

QuoteSpoiler alert ... I went to college for careerism, not for an education.  I got an education subsequently by wide book reading.  My experience with pedagogy is that face to face teaching is still necessary ... that the on-line experience will only meet the needs of the many who can't afford college, but deprive those who can afford college of a real education.  Also it is true that the motivation of students is weak at best.  They by the nature of their youth, don't know what they want, and if they do know what they want, don't know why.

Yes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a self-made education - in fact it should be an ongoing process for everyone of us with or without a formal education. It's unfortunate that you seem to have had a negative encounter with the educational system.  Sure, it's a plus if you have parent/guardians who serve as exemplary models, or a school system that is topnotch, but those are accidentals. Bill Gates started his fortune from a garage, so formal education or not, the bottom line is that you are responsible for yourself.