Null physics

[skwinty (Steve)]

Any one have any comments wrt Terry Witt's Null Physics book advertised in various astronomy mags.
It is getting trashed as crackpot on the JREF forum.

[renormalised (Carl)]

I've seen it advertised, but I haven't read it.

[Paul Hatchman]

Originally Posted by skwinty

Any one have any comments wrt Terry Witt's Null Physics book advertised in various astronomy mags.
It is getting trashed as crackpot on the JREF forum.

And rightly so in my humble opinion. I have not ready the book, but have studied the material on his site. Frankly I find many of his claims about physicists highly insulting.

See:

The foundational problems in physics are so old and deeply entrenched, and the theoretical physics community so resistent to change, that the most likely source of the next physics revolution lies entirely outside of this environment.

and

Credibility is the coin of the realm in science, and there are quite a few good reasons, such as fear of losing funding, for a scientist to be conservative.

This is no way comes even close to describing any of the scientists I know, have listened to, or have (briefly) collaborated with. They would give their eye teeth for actual solutions to oustanding problems and are working hard to find them. As to conservative, take a look at what people like John Webb are doing at UNSW, looking for changes in fundamental constants (like the speed of light) over the lifetime of the universe. This is way out the main stream physics & cosmology, but his work is real, serious science.

As to Witt's theories, it is not like these have not been investigated by other's, but discarded for various reasons. A review the existing literature would, I think, be beneficial.

In summary: There are many ways to do science, but hawking a book in astronomy magazines is not one of them.

[renormalised (Carl)]

The problem is, Paul, that when someone comes up with something out of left field they usually get castigated by the scientific community for being wrong, or crackpots, frauds etc. Science can be an awfully conservative and myopic field to find oneself in. When vested self interests, big money and academic reputations are at stake, the knives truly do come out. By and large, though, most scientists are a pretty congenial mob and willing to be open minded, privately. It's just that most will not go out on a limb to stake their reputations on something entirely new....unless they've got some backing from somewhere or from someone.

That's not to say I support Witt's assumptions, but as I said previously, I haven't read any of his material so I'll reserve judgment till later.

[Chippy (Nick)]

Yes, I totally agree with this. It doesn't mean that new ideas can't come from the existing establishment - but many times new or radical discoveries and theories have been ridiculed by a majority of the scientific community (incorrectly) to great effect. Eventually the scientific community wakes up, and the person responsible generally gets the credit - but it can be a very long time coming. It has actually served to alienate many great scientists from their fields over the years. Chandresakar was a classic example - Eddington strongly rejected his work (on white dwarf limits), and the rest of the scientific community followed suit. It pretty much forced him out of the field for about 40 years from memory. He remained in physics - but not astrophysics.

Originally Posted by renormalised

The problem is, Paul, that when someone comes up with something out of left field they usually get castigated by the scientific community for being wrong, or crackpots, frauds etc. Science can be an awfully conservative and myopic field to find oneself in. When vested self interests, big money and academic reputations are at stake, the knives truly do come out. By and large, though, most scientists are a pretty congenial mob and willing to be open minded, privately. It's just that most will not go out on a limb to stake their reputations on something entirely new....unless they've got some backing from somewhere or from someone.

That's not to say I support Witt's assumptions, but as I said previously, I haven't read any of his material so I'll reserve judgment till later.

[Paul Hatchman]

Hi renormalised,

All I can say is, based on my experience, I disagree. By looking through the astronomical literature, you will find many "out of left field" ideas presented every year. Some of these may work out but the majority do not. It can take many many years of very hard work to sort out the wheat from the chaff. It is one thing to say "look at my great new idea", and totally another to do the level if research, build the appropriate models and simulations, take measurements and design experiments to support those ideas.

I'm not saying there is no discrimination, science is a human endeavour after all. But I think to suggest that "When vested self interests, big money and academic reputations are at stake, the knives truly do come out" is over the top. Historical examples?

Cheers,

Paul

[Paul Hatchman]

Originally Posted by Chippy

Chandresakar was a classic example - Eddington strongly rejected his work (on white dwarf limits), and the rest of the scientific community followed suit. It pretty much forced him out of the field for about 40 years from memory. He remained in physics - but not astrophysics.

You mean the Chandrasekhar who won the Nobel prize for physics for work on the structure and evolution of stars?

He was never "forced out". You are absolutely correct that the Chandrasekhar limit was not accepted within the wider astronomical community for decades, largely because of Eddington's objections. However in this matter Chandrasekhar had some big supporters including Bohr and Pauli helping to argue his case. He worked his entire career in the field of astronomy at the University of Chicago and a quick search of the Astronomical Abstract database, lists close to 200 books/papers authored by him.

So I don't think he's a particularly good example. I also suspect that it would be harder for another Eddington-like character to hold so much sway over the astronomical community these days. Science has moved on a long way from the "boys club" culture of the British Royal Society.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Paul Hatchman

You mean the Chandrasekhar who won the Nobel prize for physics for work on the structure and evolution of stars?

He was never "forced out". You are absolutely correct that the Chandrasekhar limit was not accepted within the wider astronomical community for decades, largely because of Eddington's objections. However in this matter Chandrasekhar had some big supporters including Bohr and Pauli helping to argue his case. He worked his entire carrer in the field of astronomy at the University of Chicago. A quick search of the Astronomical Abstract database, lists close to 200 books/papers authored by him.

So I don't think he's a particularly good example. I also suspect that it would be harder for another Eddington-like character to hold so much sway over the astronomical community these days. Science has moved on a long way from the "boys club" culture of the British Royal Society.

The only example I can think of where the "Boys Club" prevailed in relatively recent times was the flak over Alfred Wegener's Theory of Continental Drift.

Wegener was a meteorologist and by intruding into an unrelated scientific field did disturb many egos.

This behaviour is very much the exception than the rule.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

I'm not necessarily speaking from an astronomical point of view, but there's plenty of examples from science in general where people who have come across a lot of opposition to their ideas. Although, Nick's example of Subramanyan Chandrasekhar is a case in point. Sir Arthur Eddington went out of his way to castigate Chandrasekhar for his ideas about electron degeneracy and white dwarfs, and being the pre-eminent scientist/astronomer of his day, everyone followed suit. Turns out that Chandrasekhar was right. Lord Rutherford said in the early 1900's that whilst he thought the structure of the atom was interesting, the chances of ever getting usable energy from it would be impossible. 22 years later, they built the first atomic pile under a football stadium at the Uni of Chicago. 3 years after that, they blew Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the outhouse with atomic bombs. Pons and Fleischmann and their "cold fusion" device. They were roundly castigated and vilified by MIT and others, who have invested billions in trying to get normal "hot" fusion to work (for 50 years, to no avail). Mind you, one of the backers of MIT happened to be Exxon-Mobile and Chevron...another conflict of interest there. Funny, how it never stopped over 600 laboratories worldwide from conducting experiments in cold fusion, with most having found the same excess of heat and nuclear byproducts, that certain others "never" found. Seems there's something going on in the experiments and even if it's not strictly nuclear, there's still something occurring that is mimicking the nuclear process.

There are quite a few others, but I can't remember them offhand. It's not only scientist...this sort of behavior occurs in all fields of study. The problem with accepted paradigms is that they become like a religion and when a new idea comes along, the voices of protest can become rather deafening and very "robust" in their response. Often to the point of being overly zealous about defending the status quo.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Paul Hatchman

You mean the Chandrasekhar who won the Nobel prize for physics for work on the structure and evolution of stars?

He was never "forced out". You are absolutely correct that the Chandrasekhar limit was not accepted within the wider astronomical community for decades, largely because of Eddington's objections. However in this matter Chandrasekhar had some big supporters including Bohr and Pauli helping to argue his case. He worked his entire career in the field of astronomy at the University of Chicago and a quick search of the Astronomical Abstract database, lists close to 200 books/papers authored by him.

So I don't think he's a particularly good example. I also suspect that it would be harder for another Eddington-like character to hold so much sway over the astronomical community these days. Science has moved on a long way from the "boys club" culture of the British Royal Society.

That's precisely why he was eventually accepted. He had very strong supporters, but some don't.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

The only example I can think of where the "Boys Club" prevailed in relatively recent times was the flak over Alfred Wegener's Theory of Continental Drift.

Wegener was a meteorologist and by intruding into an unrelated scientific field did disturb many egos.

This behaviour is very much the exception than the rule.

Regards

Steven

That's another example... I'm afraid it's not the exception.

Archeology is rife with controversies such as this. Try and argue with an Egyptologist/Archeologist that the pyramids and Sphinx are older than they accept. I have, and despite giving them the evidence showing this, it's like talking to a brick wall. Plenty of others, including other geologist like myself, have tried to explain to them why we believe the pyramids (the three at Giza, in this case) are as old as we reckon they are (based on sound and reasonable scientific grounds), but they just won't accept what we've told them. They won't even consider having those ideas tested, for fear testing might "ruin" and do damage to the monuments. That's the biggest load of crock I've ever heard. You hardly need to intrude on the structures of the monuments to get what's needed to determine their ages.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by renormalised

That's another example... I'm afraid it's not the exception.

Archeology is rife with controversies such as this. Try and argue with an Egyptologist/Archeologist that the pyramids and Sphinx are older than they accept. I have, and despite giving them the evidence showing this, it's like talking to a brick wall. Plenty of others, including other geologist like myself, have tried to explain to them why we believe the pyramids (the three at Giza, in this case) are as old as we reckon they are (based on sound and reasonable scientific grounds), but they just won't accept what we've told them. They won't even consider having those ideas tested, for fear testing might "ruin" and do damage to the monuments. That's the biggest load of crock I've ever heard. You hardly need to intrude on the structures of the monuments to get what's needed to determine their ages.

Is this the theory that claims the Sphinx and Giza pyramids were constructed during a period of time when Egypt had a wetter climate say 8000-10000 years ago?

Regards

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

Yes, it is. However, the only way to test to see if it's correct or not is to do the necessary study of the weathering profiles and a number of test to carry out on the monuments themselves.

This is getting off topic...better we get back on topic than have it pulled from the forum!!!

[Suzy_A]

There are plenty of other 'alternative' physics ideas around - I was once sent a book called "A Fresh Look at the Universe" by Geoffrey Balston.

I haven't seen Witt's 'Our Undiscovered Universe', (but have looked at his webpage) but it does sound similar to AFLatU.

AFLatU and other similar books all see to be written by people that did high-school or first year uni physics and no more. As a result, they usually have a highly distorted view of what physics is - basically high school and 1st year (and 2nd) uni physics is usually WRONG! It mostly covers classical or newtonion physics and as such is only a very rough approximation to more advanced quantum mechanics and relativity.

When you apply classical physics to the more philosophical aspects of the universe - like how and why are we here - then you just get bizzare stuff coming out. The classical case being that of Determinism, which basically states that any cause has an effect. Another way of putting this is that if we knew enough information about the Universe - the position and energy of all particles - then we could calculate everything that has happened and will happen. Or to put it another way, what will happen will happen because the pre-existing state of the Universe means that it must be so. There is no such thing as 'free will'.

This then was used as an excuse for various acts of war, invasion, genocide etc. 'We are killing them all because that is what is meant to happen'.

It is quite easy to show however, using quantum mechanics that all this is not so - that cause and effect are not so closely related (especially on an atomic and cosmological scale) and that free can exist.

Anyway, back to the matter in hand, AFLatU basically was a mis-application of limited Newtoniam physics to cosmology.

As I said, I haven't seen OUU, but quite probably it is something similar.

Not to say that he IS wrong. He might be right, but I doubt it. When Einstein first published the papers on SR and GR, and when Heaviside published his work on the ionosphere, "Maxwell's" equations, induction theory of transmission lines, when Chandrasekhar did his work, the Establishment may have said it was rubbish, but there were instantly open minded people who did have the necessary mathematics and physics to understand that they were right, and it wasn't long before the new paradigm took hold.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Suzy_A

...Not to say that he IS wrong. He might be right, but I doubt it. When Einstein first published the papers on SR and GR, and when Heaviside published his work on the ionosphere, "Maxwell's" equations, induction theory of transmission lines, when Chandrasekhar did his work, the Establishment may have said it was rubbish, but there were instantly open minded people who did have the necessary mathematics and physics to understand that they were right, and it wasn't long before the new paradigm took hold.

All true, but it also follows on that the new paradigm is not necessarily correct either. It's just a pity that most scientist don't see that, or if they do, refuse to acknowledge this in favour of the more comfortable position.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Suzy_A

AFLatU and other similar books all see to be written by people that did high-school or first year uni physics and no more. As a result, they usually have a highly distorted view of what physics is - basically high school and 1st year (and 2nd) uni physics is usually WRONG! It mostly covers classical or newtonion physics and as such is only a very rough approximation to more advanced quantum mechanics and relativity.

That's why GR and Quantum Mechanics should be studied as Maths subjects.
I remember at Uni that 3rd year Physics students were encouraged to take up Maths units for Quantum Mechanics and GR in order to really understand the theory.

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

They're not wrong....just incomplete. There's a huge difference.

[Suzy_A]

Originally Posted by renormalised

They're not wrong....just incomplete. There's a huge difference.

What's not wrong? Classical Physics?

Classical Physics is wrong! But it is a good approximation for the macroscopic world - for things with a mass of 0.000001 kg to 10,000,000,000 kg and that travel at 0.000001 m/s to 100,000,000 m/s in time frames of 0.000001 s to 100,000,000 s. Once outside these boundries, the faults of Classical Physics starts to break down and are readily observable. Actually they are apparent well within these boundries, if you know where to look. Look at a blue sky and look at the 'floaters' and the diffraction effects. Easily explained by quantum mechanics. Impossible by classical physics.

Of course Quantum and Relativity are also wrong - but not as wrong as CP. Q and R are both 'right' within their respective boundries, but fail outside and also need to be reconsiled with each other. But so far no one has come up with a 'Grand Unified Theory' that is better. String Theory was a good attempt, but has inherent faults that are greater than those of Q and R.

[renormalised (Carl)]

You still don't understand, and what you said proves yourself otherwise. They're not wrong, just incomplete. To be wrong, they would by definition have no validity whatsoever. They would be wrong in all cases if that were true. Since they plainly are not, they therefore cannot be wrong...only incomplete.

[Paul Hatchman]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Sir Arthur Eddington went out of his way to castigate Chandrasekhar for his ideas about electron degeneracy and white dwarfs, and being the pre-eminent scientist/astronomer of his day, everyone followed suit.

But not *everyone* did, that is the point. For every ego out there, there are hundreds of up and comers looking to make their mark. They will do the experiments, or the follow up work, or whatever is required to put the theory on a firm footing.

Originally Posted by renormalised

Lord Rutherford said in the early 1900's that whilst he thought the structure of the atom was interesting, the chances of ever getting usable energy from it would be impossible.

That is really not the same thing is it? Making bold pronouncements from an early and incomplete understanding of a physical phenomenon is different to the supposed suppressing of new ideas to maintain an orthodoxy.

Originally Posted by renormalised

They were roundly castigated and vilified by MIT and others, who have invested billions in trying to get normal "hot" fusion to work (for 50 years, to no avail). Mind you, one of the backers of MIT happened to be Exxon-Mobile and Chevron...another conflict of interest there. Funny, how it never stopped over 600 laboratories worldwide from conducting experiments in cold fusion, with most having found the same excess of heat and nuclear by products, that certain others "never" found.

Wow! Just WOW! If I understand what you are saying, you are accusing hundreds if not thousands of scientists of deliberate fraud. Are you serious? The physicists I know, live quite modestly and earn far, far less than they could in private industry. And 600 laboratories? There must be a whole raft of papers published on these experiments. Where are they?

I suggest, if you have not done so already, that you read up on how hard it is to actually measure this alleged "cold fusion" effect. It basically relies measuring any heat increase after eliminating any other possible forms of energy entering the experiment and does not measure any "fusion" directly. It is a very hard thing to do correctly, even under the most carefully controlled conditions and mistakes in the experiment will lead to positive, rather than negative results.

Cheers,

Paul