Fractal patterns spotted in the quantum realm (Feb 2010)

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by common_sense_seeker, Feb 17, 2010.

  1. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    It's a pleasure. Anything other than the hotch-potch they call the Standard Model is considered pseudoscience, especially on this forum. Best of luck to you
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    When you can provide evidence for anything you claim you'll stop being considered an ignorant hack. Until then don't blame others for the fact you're not taken seriously.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Wexler Gadfly Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    115

    Everything I read and see from a layperson perspective says fractal geometry is commonly found in nature. If this is true, wouldn't that be inclusive of all matter? How could some matter not be fractal?


    I am not one to subscribe to the labeling of "psuedoscience" for any idea or concept...especially considering the history of the various disciplines of science...Hubble was a quack, until he wasn't, as an example...Neanders and human's never interbred...the continents have always been...nothing was smaller than the atom...junk dna...dark matter / energy...it goes on and on. One could just as easily say that the search for a theory of everything and a god particle is psuedoscience...but I wouldn't.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Electrons are common in nature. Can we therefore conclude all matter is electrons? No. Your logic is flawed.

    The search for a theory of everything is just a way of saying science aims to understand as much as possible. That isn't pseudoscience, it is the definition of what the aim of science is. As for the 'god particle' no scientist calls it that, a journalist coined that phrase. And we have compelling evidence/reason for looking for it. The Standard Model of particle physics includes the most tested and accurate models of nature in human history. It's electroweak component correctly predicted the existence of the Z and W bosons before they were seen, including their properties etc. That same model also predicts a process known as electroweak symmetry breaking (aka the Higgs mechanism). Some field facilitates this process, either a particle in its own right or a combination of particles which do the same job. The simplest model is a single particle, the Higgs boson. Other models, like technicolour, are less straight forward but are also tested and checked when experimental data comes in.

    The Higgs mechanism is a prediction of a model whose previous predictions have been tested and verified. It is an essential part of science that models make predictions, sometimes about things we've already tested (ie they explain the known) and sometimes about things we haven't tested (they motivate particular experiments and research directions). This is an example, just like the general relativity accurately explained the precession of Mercury (which previous models couldn't) but also predicted time dilation effects or light deflection, which was then tested in later years.

    CSS hasn't got a clue about even the ethos of science. Ignorance comes to those who walked behind him on the same ruinous path down into the Void. [/LOTR]
     
  8. Wexler Gadfly Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    115
    Facinating. Again, I am merely a layperson looking for an explaination. I have no dog in this fight.

    One thing though, wouldn't fractal geometry be considered more of a "force" where as an electron is in fact a component rather than an influence?


    Has fractal geometry been proven to not apply to all matter? If not, and with the abundance of evidence where it does exist, wouldn't that fall along your lines of "compelling evidence"?



    There is a danger in disputing something that really isn't "common sense" of an era, just ask Ludwig Boltzmann.
     
  9. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    How is fractal geometry a force? Is Euclidean geometry a force? It's a description of a particular property systems have. In Euclidean geometry the 5 postulates of Euclid hold true. In non-Euclidean geometry some of them do not. In fractal geometry there are particular properties to do with length scalings. How do you consider that a force?

    Some systems, in some representations, when considering some of their properties have fractal structures. There's a great deal more representations of properties of systems which do not have fractal structure to them. Often when fractal structures in physics are being referred to they are not meaning the literal layout of objects have fractal structure. This is actually impossible to obtain physically because fractals are self similar on infinitely many scalings, which obviously isn't the case. Instead they are referring to abstract mathematical representations. For instance, if you consider the time it takes a double pendulum to loop over itself given an initial configuration (which depends on 2 parameters) then you end up with this fractal. That has fractal structure to it but it is nothing to do with the physical layout of the double pendulum, it is an abstract mathematical representation of some particular property.

    Yes, fractals are mathematically and visually interesting but you can't just say "This looks cool, it must apply everywhere!", that isn't how science works. And I say that because CSS has said such things in the past, saying "Why doesn't anyone apply fractals to this?" as if it's some trivial and universally implementable concept.

    CSS likes to think he's open minded and challenging people's preconceptions but he isn't, on either count. Ironically he's unwilling to listen or learn about anything which doesn't already fit in his narrow view of the world. Most scientists are vastly more open minded than him, to say nothing about being more intelligent, well read, rational and honest.
     
  10. Wexler Gadfly Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    115
    I should re-state. If all matter is under the influence (direction or shape) of fractal geometry, would that not constitute a "force"?


    Is it possible that the remaining systems not found to be fractal are not fully understood, yet? Again, from a spectator perspective, it seems that fractal geometry (self similiar systems, 1.618...etc.) transcends such a wide spectrum of nature - even to the quantum level if you subscribe to the original article - it seems that the progression is following a pattern of discovery - the more we look thanks to a ground breaking theory, the more we understand, the more we find...and then common thought is changed.




    I want to understand the bias in this debate - is CSS using fractals for a religious purpose?
     
  11. Wexler Gadfly Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    115

    Again, pardon the ignorance, but is it possible that whatever it is that causes fractal patterns just might be the higgs field? That random particular mass is really just observing scaling laws, and there really is nothing "random" about it?



    I'm sure that someone has thought that before, and that it's been disputed, but I was watching this lecture and read the post Q&A, and kept thinking that if self similarity transcends from the quantum world, to biological and right up to cities, companies and networks...well, then I needed to come on this board again and ask the question...regardless of how "dumb" the question might be.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    http://www.ted.com/talks/geoffrey_west_the_surprising_math_of_cities_and_corporations.html

    Sorry if you've seen this already, or feel that it's completely irrelevant...but the point is, creativity typically comes from thinking laterally...and just a general layman observation is that most scientific disciplines rarely cross...in fact, I've come to understand that it's rare for University departments to even converse. That sounds odd to me.
     
  12. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    That isn't even a coherent sentence. Something appearing in some cases of physical systems doesn't make it a force. Forces cause accelerations.

    I have no issue with people investigating fractals, they are bloody interesting. Recently I've been working with complex dynamical systems which exhibit chaos in their phase space trajectories. Understanding the nature of this sort of thing would be of vital importance to physics, as many systems fall under such heading. However, it is important to be led by evidence and reason and not try to lead the evidence and reason. Yes, understanding fractals more would help physics. Yes, there will be more places fractals appear in physics than those currently known. Does this mean we can generalise to the point of irrationality? No.

    CSS isn't doing anything with anything, other than wasting his time. He doesn't understand any science, even the principles behind science, yet he thinks he's coming up with stuff which is worth bothering actual scientists with.

    The Higgs field and scaling laws are slightly different things. The Higgs field is a scalar field which couples to certain quantum fields and gains a vacuum expectation value. That isn't anything to do directly with fractal geometry. You're trying to shoehorn in things which don't belong, or at least you presently have no reason to think belong.

    Don't get me started on the abundance of narrow to the point of blind vision some academics have....
     
  13. Wexler Gadfly Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    115
    LOL! Ok, I'll quit here.


    Agreed, and I guess I sort of look at this like a spectator of football making suggestions about his favorite team...while the spectator has most likely never been involved in a professional football organization, he might still get lucky on occasion with what the team should do, through general observation.


    When you say "you presently have no reason to think belong" - is the "you" me, or is it "you" being the physics community at large?

    See football spectator analogy if referring to me, I'll agree 100% that I have no idea what I am talking about!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!






    But maybe that's the point? That because we have the preconceived notions about how something should be we miss the larger, over-arching similarities that allow for a broader understanding, or worse, a new idea that changes everything...thus my earlier point about Hubble and Neanders and tectonics and Junk DNA and Dark Matter and Botzmann and...the list is endless.

    Thank you for the dialogue, I greatly appreciate it!
     

Share This Page