Your silly retort is more rational than anything they’ve come up with. Physics is the science of how the physical world works. Quantum Mechanics is a branch of physics that deals exclusively with particles or corpuscules. If they are going to posit the existence of a particle that carries a Force, like a gluon, they had better come up with a rational physical interpretation of what it does. Otherwise what are they going to prove? You brush it off like it’s insignificant because it’s microscopic, but the physical interpretation is the core piece of its existence and if we can’t verify what it is actually doing, then it becomes unfalsifiable. That’s not science, that is religion.
They probably didn’t give a physical interpretation because when they tried to do it with the graviton, it backfired on them. So they ignored it and hoped no one would notice.
And the Higgs boson is an excitation of the Higgs field? Please tell, what is this field? No one in science has ever defined what a “field” is. It’s just a throw away word to say something is happening that we can’t explain. A field only exists in math, it has no physical interpretation.
Also, the Electric Universe is no better in this regard, they don’t explain the fundamental forces either, but as a discipline, they aren’t really trying too.
the physical interpretation [of the gluon] is the core piece of its existence and if we can’t verify what it is actually doing, then it becomes unfalsifiable. That’s not science, that is religion.
Religion? “Lattice QCD has already made successful contact with many experiments. For example the mass of the proton has been determined theoretically with an error of less than 2 percent.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_QCD
No one in science has ever defined what a “field” is. It’s just a throw away word to say something is happening that we can’t explain. A field only exists in math, it has no physical interpretation.
“Field” is a word and a concept. You are estopped from objecting to that fact, because even the nonsense you are posting comprises words and concepts.
Since you’re on mises.org, maybe you can learn something from von Mises:
“There is always in science some ultimate given. For contemporary physics the behavior of the atoms appears as such an ultimate given. The physicists are today at a loss to reduce certain atomic processes to their causes. One does not detract from the marvelous achievements of physics by establishing the fact that this state of affairs is what is commonly called ignorance.” - Ludwig von Mises, Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science http://mises.org/books/ultimate.pdf
Basically, your attacks on physics aren’t profound, but merely pathetic, annoying, and tiresome.
“Field” is a word and a concept. You are estopped from objecting to that fact, because even the nonsense you are posting comprises words and concepts.
To this I do not object, a field is definitely a concept. However, we do not do physics with concepts, we do physics with objects. The study of concepts is reserved for philosphy.
Physics has no marvelous achievements in the last 100 years, only mathematical model’s, unless you or Mises are confusing technology with physics. Technology progresses through empiricism.
Further, you are the one who ventured into this thread with passive aggressive comments towards EU, so maybe you were trolling for this reaction.
For anyone interested in something a little more substantial, this is one of the most compelling papers published for E.U. in the IEEE. Anthony Peratt’s - Characteristics for the Occurence of a High-Current Z-Pinch as Recorded in Antiquity.
Note: His investigation and thesis was completely independant of E.U. theory. He knew nothing of it at the time.
Cliff notes version: Peratt is a plasma phycisist who works at Los Alamos Labs in NM. He noticed that ancient rock art in the American Southwest where he lived looked remakably similar to plasma discharge formations he saw in the lab. It piqued his curiousity and he started investigating. He found that these rock art petroglyphs were found all over the world on every habitable continent. He postulated there was a giant plasma discharge above the earth’s poles, something akin to a mega-aurora but probably two order’s magnitude greater.
The hypothesis gained strength when analysing the rock art that he found that in most cases, the rock art was in such a place that the artist would have been facing either the north pole or south pole. Even more astonishing was that each lattitude would have seen the discharge from a different vantage point and thus a different orientation of the formation. The rock art images match exactly what would be expected from each vantage point when witnessing the same event. The fit is too great to be an accident.
The paper has been mostly ignored by the scientific community
Except that it difers from the carrington event in that this one lasted for decades, if not centuries. They surmise it may have been the origin of worldwide sky god worship and mythology.
I’ll leave one more comment on traditional physics and leave it at that. It’s well known that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are incompatible. It’s not something they’ll be able to rectify down the road either, they are wholly incompatible at a fundamental level due to radically different physical interpretations of the way things work. Science accepts them both as they are, yet logically, they can’t both be correct. At a minimum, one of them is complete garbage. Which one do you cast your lot with?
Isn’t that going a bit far, since they both have predictive value? I think people have figured out by now when one theory will be useful and when the other [big things and little things].
That’s a fair question. They certainly like to compartmentalize it as big vs small things, but I don’t think anyone believes the Universe has multiple sets of physics. Maybe they do.
To add a little meat to this. General Relativity explains gravity as a warp in space-time. You could take a snapshot of the universe and visualize the architecture of the warped space and see how each objects gravity well effects every other object. This is conceptually a static model. Contrast this with QM with a wildly different physical interpretation. Gravity is transmitted via the graviton which transfers negative momentum. You can’t visualize how QM gravity works in a snapshot, it would require a movie so-to-speak, where you watch gravitons move from point A to B and deliver their negative momentum. This is conceptually a dynamic model.
GR gravity static, QM gravity dynamic. They are irreconcilable and never the twain shall meet. One of them has to be bogus.
EDIT: As far as the predictive power of the theories. I don’t have any problem with the mathematical model’s and I’m not saying any of their equations are wrong. Math is simply a tool used to describe. Mathemeticians may be doing a very good job of describing what is going on. Physicists on the other hand have done a terrible job of explaining what is happening.
Invoking a metaphysical entity, such as a black hole is saying “it must exist because the equations say it could exist… though even if it did exist, we could never have any direct observational confirmation of its existence short of actually getting sucked inside of it…” Astrophysicsts don’t just shrug their shoulders and say “well, we are pending a better theoretical construct before rendering judgment on the infinities that arise”… they actually are searching for - and claim they are finding - evidence that “implies” the existence of these absurdities.
It does have equations, they’re called Maxwell’s Laws.
I understand what he’s saying, and maybe that’s partially right, but these model’s are so disparate, they can’t be close-but-not-quite. However, I think the real travesty is that there are no true physicists any more, they’ve all become mathemeticians. They don’t seem to be concerned at all explaining how things work. Sure, we have equations and model’s that can predict how two magnets might attract or repel each other and describe the process to very high precision, but that doesn’t mean we understand what happened. No one in the world knows how two magnets physically attract or repel each other. If they just took a step back from the particle colliders and thought about solving some of these fundamental issues, it would be a major revolution and probably crack open a whole new vista of discoveries. A lot easier said than done, for sure, but that’s what Physicists should be working on.
What does that mean? Are you saying black holes are not real? I don’t know much about physics so I want to catch up…
and if they are fake or not real, why would the establishment push so hard to prove them or lie about them?
I don’t think they are lying about them, they genuinely believe they exist. However, their assertion came about because of necessity to explain certain phenomena, not because it’s a natural extension of any of their model’s. I already posted a video earlier in the thread of how they violate even the mathematical model of General Relativity field equations.
Black holes are part of a wider pattern in modern physics of passing off mumbo-jumbo as “serious” science - a phenomenon made possible primarily by the use of intimidating and alien-sounding jargon. Search “Thunderbolts of the Gods” and listen to the critiques of modern science offered by the plasma cosmology folks. Before astrophysicists start invoking exotic metaphysical entities to explain the phenomena of the heavens, they need to first incorporate all currently known physics into their models… in other words, they need to take into account the massive influence of electromagnetic force.
Does anyone here know any other fascinating theories like the Electric Universe theory? After I discovered Austrian economics, my views of the world has changed. After reading about the EU theory, looking at the world has never really been the same.
I know you’re being patronizing (austrianites tend to look down upon “university trained economists”), but I have to say I’m not one. I’m a financial engineer with a general background in applied math, probability and signal analysis.
But we do share a lot of mandatory courses with economics majors (like micro and macro economics, as well as statistics and econometrics), and also some elective courses like operational research and optimal control, stochastic processes and game theory for example.
And many entry-level job offerings are open to both branches.
So I have an idea of the job market for economists. A lot of analysts I’ve worked with have an MS or PhD in economics.
Your previous post seemed to assume that that a degree in economics qualifies one for being a government/Fed technocrat or perhaps for writing newspaper-like diatribes for or against government economic management, when reality is that most of them find uses for some of their technical skills in a host of market niches which demand more than the usual MBA power-point master has to offer.
Of course just a plain BS degree in economics from a second tier school hasn’t much market value without further complementation from experience and or additional training in some specific skillset (like, say, actuaries), but that’s true for almost all such degrees.
That’s not true. Money is not the only professional goal for the great majority of people.
The life of an academic professor / author / public lecturer has a lot of not-so-tangible advantages compared to the life of a wall street managing director, and this is not measurable by their base salary figures.
Less risk, less stressful daily routine, more freedom to determine one’s own work agenda, more vacations and vacation-like activities such as conferences, more social appreciation and so on.
They also tend to live in university campuses and/or college towns, which have much lower costs of living and are overall much healthier than cities like London. And academics tend to inbreed (marry other academics), which usually lead to more succeful marriages which are financially complementary.
As for most financial types, they tend to get trophy wives which usually turn out as large liabilities.
And also you have to consider that personality types that are likely to be successful in academic environments are not necessarily equally likely to thrive in business situations, and conversely.
That’s important since we all know that being academic professor / author / public lecturer is a status that is very hard to achieve in terms of competition, as hard as an investment bank manager averaging a mil per year in total compesation.