What is needed to disprove an "accepted" theory?

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Bad/incoherent theories published by scientific journals effectively delay the formulation of the Theory of Everything, and radically increase the entropy in physics i.e. radically increase mess in physics.

Is this a planned policy to increase profits of elders?

 

[Schmelzer]

Bad/incoherent theories published by scientific journals effectively delay the formulation of the Theory of Everything, and radically increase the entropy in physics i.e. radically increase mess in physics.

No. Only the freedom of publication of various ideas, among them bad and incoherent theories, gives a chance for the TOE to be found in whatever future.

Don't forget that the publication of bad theories allows also the publication of their refutations, so prevents the repetition of these errors.

 

[PhysBang]

It is a truly bad idea to try to fit all data points. No records collected are an exact representation of the world as it is.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

No. Only the freedom of publication of various ideas, among them bad and incoherent theories, gives a chance for the TOE to be found in whatever future.

Don't forget that the publication of bad theories allows also the publication of their refutations, so prevents the repetition of these errors.

So once more. The peer-review scientific journals should not validate incoherent theories because it increases mess in physics.

Incoherent "theories" can be published in arxiv or vixra, and so on, but there must be listed all weak points such as physical singularities, approximations, mathematical tricks as the mathematical indeterminate forms, free parameters or flexibility leading to invariants.

ToE is already formulated - it is the ordinary sum of the theory of scales, general relativity and quantum-physics/Standard-Model. Such mixture causes that ToE is the coherent theory. Within such theory are solved all basic unsolved problems that are listed, for example, in wiki.

Such ToE is the true end of theoretical physics.

 

[Schmelzer]

Certainly the mixture of general relativity and quantum-physics/Standard-Model is incoherent, as, btw, above parts taken alone. So according to your own criteria, they should not have been published. Nor alone, nor as a mixture. And, no, this incoherent mixture does not solve the problems of modern physics.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Certainly the mixture of general relativity and quantum-physics/Standard-Model is incoherent, as, btw, above parts taken alone. So according to your own criteria, they should not have been published. Nor alone, nor as a mixture. And, no, this incoherent mixture does not solve the problems of modern physics.

The theory of scales causes that GR and QP/SM transform into the coherent theories. Moreover, we can partially unify GR and QP via the theory of scales and show that unification of these theories within the same methods is impossible - it is not due to incompleteness of such ToE but because it is the fundamental property of spacetime.

 

[Schmelzer]

A, you want to sell your own "theory of scales", I have misunderstood this.

But a unification of GR and QP is possible. In some sense you are correct - there is a fundamental property of the GR spacetime interpretation which prevents quantization - the Strong Equivalence Principle. But this does not mean that unification is impossible. All one needs to do is to reject the SEP. For example, by introducing a preferred background. With such a background, quantization becomes trivial.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

A, you want to sell your own "theory of scales", I have misunderstood this.

But a unification of GR and QP is possible. In some sense you are correct - there is a fundamental property of the GR spacetime interpretation which prevents quantization - the Strong Equivalence Principle. But this does not mean that unification is impossible. All one needs to do is to reject the SEP. For example, by introducing a preferred background. With such a background, quantization becomes trivial.

All one needs to do is to introduce a threshold for SEP via scales.

I should not discuss my theory in this thread - it is forbidden.

 

[wellwisher]

You can disprove an accepted theory, but proof alone may not change the status quo. Science is big business and the source of prestige for many people who don't wish to lose their place at the big table of science. Change can upset this balance, even if truth.

Picture if you got your theory accepted. Now you get to sit at the big table of physics as one of the big wigs. The prestige of the big table, gets you a nice comfortable job and salary at a prestigious university. You are also given the key to the city and have access to the best toys international physics has to offer. You are invited everywhere to speak and get a reserved seat at all the international symposiums, etc..

Now, there is a lot to lose, if all of a sudden, someone new comes along; changing of the guard. The result is one will be in conflict between the needs of truth and self preservation. The desire for truth will allow you to accept the change. However, self preservation will not allow this change to occur too fast. The compromise will be foot dragging, until those who have a lot to lose, can figure out how to retain what they have, while allowing the change. Science is not just about truth, but also politics.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

I assume that sooner or later, due to new experimental data, there will be the end of the dark ages in theoretical physics that started with the mathematical indeterminate forms and free parameters in 1948.

For example, due to the LHC experiments, the mainstream superstring theory is today the lifeless theory.

 

[river]

I assume that sooner or later, due to new experimental data, there will be the end of the dark ages in theoretical physics that started with the mathematical indeterminate forms and free parameters in 1948.

For example, due to the LHC experiments, the mainstream superstring theory is today the lifeless theory.

Not only what you suggest here but also access , by any theory , to State of the Science Technology and Thinking .

It makes sense , any theory that challenges the mainstream thinking ; must be given the access to the most advanced technology and thinking available . with honest analogy .

 

[Schmelzer]

Which dark age? If one looks at the last hundred years, there was the quantum revolution, and the development of the Standard Model of particle physics. The SM started in the 1970, and where were quite a lot of improvements (more quarks, and neutrino masses) after this, so that even the last half century is a full success. Don't forget that revolutionary theories, like quantum theory or the SM, happen extremely seldom. And that for every successful theory there have to be a large number of approaches which fail. So, we have quite a good time.

There is, of course, the general danger of degeneration of science because of the extreme job insecurity of modern scientists. This is not specific to modern physics, but to science as a whole, and can be solved even by a a few states who start to use a more reasonable system, which supports freedom of science by giving scientists secure jobs.

The hope for the future is also available. We have sufficiently simple open problems, like the quantization of gravity and the unification of all the forces into a single theory - simple because there are already proposals how to solve them.

 

[river]

Which dark age? If one looks at the last hundred years, there was the quantum revolution, and the development of the Standard Model of particle physics. The SM started in the 1970, and where were quite a lot of improvements (more quarks, and neutrino masses) after this, so that even the last half century is a full success. Don't forget that revolutionary theories, like quantum theory or the SM, happen extremely seldom. And that for every successful theory there have to be a large number of approaches which fail. So, we have quite a good time.

There is, of course, the general danger of degeneration of science because of the extreme job insecurity of modern scientists. This is not specific to modern physics, but to science as a whole, and can be solved even by a a few states who start to use a more reasonable system, which supports freedom of science by giving scientists secure jobs.

The hope for the future is also available. We have sufficiently simple open problems, like the quantization of gravity and the unification of all the forces into a single theory - simple because there are already proposals how to solve them.

lets hope that in the future ; in the near future ; things will come around for the betterment of all of us .

I don't envy any Human Being in Science who knows better but is shut down by those in control .

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Which dark age? If one looks at the last hundred years, there was the quantum revolution, and the development of the Standard Model of particle physics. The SM started in the 1970, and where were quite a lot of improvements (more quarks, and neutrino masses) after this, so that even the last half century is a full success. Don't forget that revolutionary theories, like quantum theory or the SM, happen extremely seldom. And that for every successful theory there have to be a large number of approaches which fail. So, we have quite a good time.

There is, of course, the general danger of degeneration of science because of the extreme job insecurity of modern scientists. This is not specific to modern physics, but to science as a whole, and can be solved even by a a few states who start to use a more reasonable system, which supports freedom of science by giving scientists secure jobs.

The hope for the future is also available. We have sufficiently simple open problems, like the quantization of gravity and the unification of all the forces into a single theory - simple because there are already proposals how to solve them.

You probably did not notice that the dark ages concern the theoretical physics only, not experimental physics. The dark ages in physics concern the applied methods, especially mathematical tricks such as the applied mathematical indeterminate forms and tens free parameters that cause that theoretical physics still cannot explain tens fundamental problems - it lasts decades!

What is the origin of the Universe (a black-hole singularity is the nonsensical idea)? What is the Higgs mechanism for neutrinos? Why we still cannot unify gravity and Standard Model? Is the spacetime grainy? What is the origin of physical constants and masses of quarks and leptons, and so on?

The dark ages in theoretical physics started from assumption that infinity minus infinity is a non-zero constant plus free parameters that explain nothing - within such methods, we can prove almost everything. It is the core characteristic for the dark ages.

Future will show how many mainstream ideas is nonsensical. Historians of science will write about irresponsibility of elders during the dark ages in theoretical physics.

ToE = S-cales + QUA-nta + RE-lativity = "SQUARE"

 

[Schmelzer]

You probably did not notice that the dark ages concern the theoretical physics only, not experimental physics.

The point being? Quantum theory is, first of all, a theory, a result of theoretical physics, not of any experiments.

And the standard model is also a theory. One quite closely related to experiments, and with its constants measured in experiments. But many of its main ingredients, like quarks and gluons, have not been observed, but are inventions of theoreticians.

So, no, there are no dark ages, not even of theoretical physics alone. At worst you may have some dark decades or so, but in no way ages.

 

[PhysBang]

You can disprove an accepted theory, but proof alone may not change the status quo. Science is big business and the source of prestige for many people who don't wish to lose their place at the big table of science. Change can upset this balance, even if truth.

Do you have any evidence for this claim? I can find examples of cases where evidence produced extreme and sudden change in scientific communities, but no cases where evidence failed to produce this change.

Picture if you got your theory accepted. Now you get to sit at the big table of physics as one of the big wigs. The prestige of the big table, gets you a nice comfortable job and salary at a prestigious university. You are also given the key to the city and have access to the best toys international physics has to offer. You are invited everywhere to speak and get a reserved seat at all the international symposiums, etc..

Now, there is a lot to lose, if all of a sudden, someone new comes along; changing of the guard. The result is one will be in conflict between the needs of truth and self preservation. The desire for truth will allow you to accept the change. However, self preservation will not allow this change to occur too fast. The compromise will be foot dragging, until those who have a lot to lose, can figure out how to retain what they have, while allowing the change. Science is not just about truth, but also politics.

This is not how science works. People don't stop going to conferences just because there are new people coming to conferences. Nor do ongoing grants dry up because there are new theories. Indeed, grants tend to follow experience.

It is a horrible fantasy world that you live in. I wish that you would just accept the people in the world that aren't white and aren't male and learn about the real world. It is not as bad as you think,

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

The point being? Quantum theory is, first of all, a theory, a result of theoretical physics, not of any experiments.

And the standard model is also a theory. One quite closely related to experiments, and with its constants measured in experiments. But many of its main ingredients, like quarks and gluons, have not been observed, but are inventions of theoreticians.

So, no, there are no dark ages, not even of theoretical physics alone. At worst you may have some dark decades or so, but in no way ages.

Dark ages does not mean "several centuries" - for example, it is assumed that the dark ages in cosmology lasted several hundred million years. Dark ages (Middle Ages) is the period which characterizes a relative scarcity of historical and other written records. By some analogy, dark ages in physics are characterized by a relative scarcity of coherent theories or by a relative big excess of physically or/and mathematically incoherent theories.

Within the incoherent mainstream theories (the quantum physics is the incoherent theory so its validity is limited) we never will solve the tens basic unsolved problems. Scientists try to do it for decades but it is a Sisyphean task. We need a coherent theory very different from the incoherent mainstream theories.

 

[wellwisher]

There is one conclusion, based on simple observations of tangible things, that can change physics for the better. If you look at our tangible universe, there is a net conversion of matter to energy and not energy to matter. Both paths occur, but the net direction is matter to energy. In terns of reference change, there is a net movement of inertial reference to the speed of light reference in our universe. I conclude from this, that the speed of light is the ground state of the universe.

This is different from the traditional assumption, of using a relative inertial reference, like the earth, as the ground state, since this is where we live and how our eyes see. In that tradition, since the speed of light is faster, we assume this is at higher potential. If we move matter faster it takes energy. Yet the natural net flow of matter to energy in our universe does not justify this bulk assumption.

Inertial references are relative, while the speed of light is the same in all references.

The easiest way to explain why the speed of light is the same in all reference, is the speed of light is the ground state for the universe. An analogy is sea level is the same for all elevations on the earth including the atmosphere. This can be inferred by the direction of water flow. If we assume somewhere at the top of a mountain is the ground state; earth reference, then the speed of light being the same in all reference, is harder to get you mind around. But as the ground state, it very easy to see and make analogies consistent with the net universal flow of potential; matter to energy; relative to absolute.

This one conclusion; ground state, and application; speed of light the same, is a good beginning.

 

[wellwisher]

The speed of light ground state is not the same as the reference of energy. The reason is, although photons move at the speed of light, photons are also impacted by inertial reference; red and blue shifts. Energy is a bridge state between the relative inertial references and the absolute ground state.

Since energy is not the same as the speed of light ground state, but has a potential somewhere between the ground state and inertial reference, then energy should set a potential with the speed of light ground state. We should observe universal energy net lowering potential; universal red shift.

 

[wellwisher]

All the forces of nature releases energy; photons at C, when they lower potential. This suggests that all forces path for matter to return to the speed of light ground state. The impact of the forces have differences, which suggests there are many paths to the same place.

Gravity, as defined by GR causes space-time to contract. Contraction of space-time, due to gravity, moves matter in the direction of the space-time reference of the speed of light ground state. At the limit of the black hole, space-time contracts to nearly the same reference as the speed of light ground state. All force roads lead to Rome, so to speak, making unification of force and energy much easier.

All the forces and energy are heading to the same place, often with conflicting results. For example, energy uses space-time expansion; red shift, while mass uses space-time contraction. Both ways, although conflicting, return some of the universe back to the ground state. The result of the conflict is variety appears in the universe.

Gravity can be at conflict with the EM force due to the exertion of pressure increasing EM potential. This is still useful, resulting in new phases of matter, which now have a new starting point for the return to C.