What is the criteria that decides between an acceptable ‘theory’ and an unacceptable ‘theory’?

Aug 31, 2020
42
5
55
What constitutes an acceptable scientific article in terms of what is acceptable and what is not? For instance, is any writing that is inimical to established scientific theories automatically considered to be ‘wacky’ content? Take, for example, the quantum mechanics contention that at the level of the very, very small, objects behave differently. Take, note that this is an un-corroborated statement; by its very nature there can be no way in which to prove that it is either true or untrue. The implications that arise out of accepting the quantum mechanics statement that at the level of the very, very small, or at the level of the sub-atomic if you like, “things behave differently”, are equally difficult to prove or disprove. When, for instance, quantum mechanics states that a solid particle like an electron or a proton can be a wave when looked at in one way and a solid particle when looked at in another way, there really exists no proof that the statement is true. If one ignores the fact that wave particle duality was born out of an exigency to show that atoms can exist, the conclusions and methods used by quantum mechanics become even more doubtful. The need for wave-particle duality was born out of the need to explain the fact that charged particles, like electrons, as they orbited the nucleus, must radiate away all of their energy in about 10 pico seconds (10^-11 s) and fall into the nucleus. Consider the implications of this discovery, it meant that atoms could not exist, this in turn meant that nothing; in our world, the solar system or the Universe can exist! Quantum mechanics, in the manner of chicken little, rushed about trying to find the reason that atoms were able to survive in spite of electrons radiating away all of their energy and plummeting into the nucleus. They came up with the mathematically and philosophically inept solution that all sub-atomic particles even if they possessed measurable mass, could be either a wave or a particle as the situation dictated. From a purely logical viewpoint is this conclusion acceptable ? Is it not a little ‘wacky’?

Regardless of what the answer to that question might be what cannot be ignored are facts. The facts are that just after and during the second world war, physicists had been working on anomalies in the behaviour of electrons in atoms. It was found that electrons were continuously emitting and absorbing ‘virtual’ photons. It is thought that these virtual photons are exactly the same as ‘real’ photons but complete their interactions over such short time intervals, or with such low energies, that for all purposes they do not exist. In other words these virtual interactions are ignored by the laws of conservation of energy and momentum. If this is so, it offers the perfect ‘classical’ physics explanation as to why electrons do not spiral into the nucleus. The electron by constantly emitting and absorbing ‘virtual’ photons is in effect self-regulating its energy precluding falling into the nucleus. This being so, quantum mechanics should, if ethics are involved, immediately have withdrawn wave-particle duality in deference to this new theory that the electron in its journey around the nucleus self-regulates its energy; but wave-particle duality was too deeply embedded in quantum mechanics for this to be done. Look at this article on ‘What are elementary particles?’ published in live science magazine: What are Elementary particles ?

It doesn’t make sense that modern main stream physics is so touchy about the topic of ‘virtual’ particles, when it is well known that the nucleus itself is held together by massless virtual particles called gluons. If the nucleus is held together by virtual interactions, surely it makes sense that similar virtual interactions are responsible for the stability of the electron around the nucleus?

This raises the question of whether something published or referred to in Live Science magazine can be referred to in a thread on Live Science Forums or would it automatically be considered ‘wacky’ since it goes against established science, in this case 'wave particle duality' ?

Returning to the question of the inferences raised by the quantum mechanics assertion that at the level of the very, very small, “things work differently” several what can only be called occult practices or beliefs arise. This, in spite of the fact that atomic force microscopes that penetrate almost to the level of the sub-atomic have seen no changes in the laws that prevail at the macro level, similarly femto-second lasers that can trace the orbital of an electron have also not detected any departure from the normal such as that suggested by quantum mechanics. For instance some of the occult beliefs in quantum mechanics are that a particle with a measurable mass can be in two places at once. That light as it travels from A to B ceases to be real. This is a process called disassociation whereby light as it travels from A to B exists everywhere and nowhere at the same time. Quantum mechanics even holds that sub-atomic particles are cognitive, they can sense when to be a wave and when to be a particle.

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about ‘virtual particles’ :

“In particle physics, a gauge boson is a force carrier, a bosonic particle that carries any of the fundamental interactions of nature, commonly called forces. Elementary particles, whose interactions are described by a gauge theory, interact with each other by the exchange of gauge bosons—usually as virtual particles.“ Wikipedia –gauge boson.

The point of this article is: How can quantum mechanics with its theories of a particle possessing mass being in two places at once (superposition) of undergoing decomposition and then re-appearing (disassociation) possess the property of action at a distance (quantum entanglement) be one thing or another as the situation demands (wave-particle duality) be given preferential treatment ? While theories like Gestalt Aether Theories, which have no occult properties at all and explain everything empirically, be treated as a ‘wacky’ theory and be put in an alternate science category?

Admittedly ‘Live Science Forums’ has been very tolerant so far but who is to say that this policy of toleration will continue?
 
Feb 19, 2020
123
25
130
"What constitutes an acceptable scientific article in terms of what is acceptable and what is not?"

Leave out the word "scientific" and you might find your answer?

Richard Feyman: “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong”
 
  • Like
Reactions: WayneInIndy
Aug 31, 2020
42
5
55
Leave out the word "scientific" and you might find your answer?
Richard Feyman: “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong”
This is nothing personal; consider for a moment what you have written. Notice how high handed it is. This is one of the trademarks of quantum mechanics, this assumption that only people conversant with quantum mechanics are qualified to know what is ‘scientific’ and what is not. It is the kind of cheap red propaganda tactics that were associated with early communism and which more civilised communist nations today would blush to use. As I said it is nothing personal; just a comment on how quantum mechanics strong arms its views. Derogatory references are made about Newton and his clockwork view of the Universe, which in classical physics would have been unacceptable. Look at these quotes:

” Quantum mechanics ... It has survived all tests and there is no reason to believe that there is any flaw in it.... We all know how to use it and how to apply it to problems; and so we have learned to live with the fact that nobody can understand it.” Murray Gell Mann

(Who, in their right senses can talk of a science without flaws?)

"But the world moved on ...Today even our clocks are not made of clockwork. ... With the advent of quantum mechanics, the clockwork world has become a lottery. Fundamental events, such as the decay of a radioactive atom, are held to be determined by chance, not law." Ian Stewart

(Is the use of the word 'lottery' permitted as a description of a science? Or would it be more acceptable to put such conceptions on a back burner?)

” The theory of quantum mechanics also explained all kinds of details, such as why an oxygen atom combines with two hydrogen atoms to make water, and so on.” Richard P Feynman

“The laws of quantum mechanics itself cannot be formulated … without recourse to the concept of consciousness.” Eugene Paul Wigner

(Whose consciousness?)


These are a few of the more understated quotes of quantum mechanics and in fact quantum mechanics admits to nurturing a kind of straitjacket environment.

My intention was to point out that quantum mechanics on the basis of a few unsustainable and unprovable assumptions has established an occult science full of esoteric theories. What is even more important is that I have provided an alternate explanation without recourse to the occult.

Could you point out any of the experiments that you claim establish quantum mechanics as the foremost science?
 
Feb 19, 2020
123
25
130
I'm sorry to be so high handed. I have made no claims about quantum mechanics. You have done that. Your original question was general. I tried to answer it with a quote about what is acceptable research. If you want to argue with someone about quantum mechanics you should have made that specific from the outset...as your last question is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WayneInIndy
Aug 31, 2020
42
5
55
Richard Feynman: “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong”
No problem. You are right when you say that my original question was general. The media and indeed all scientific forums are heavily weighted in favour of quantum mechanics and relativity. Any one who objects or tries to post matter inimical to these two theories is immediately ostracised, shunned and prevented from voicing their views. The reason for this behaviour, strange as it may seem, is Government intervention. Ever since Einstein showed the practical applications of his equation e = mc^2 in the form of the atomic bomb. The US government has treated everything to do with Einstein to be more true than the Gospel itself. Any scientist or College professor who disagreed with any Einsteinian point of view was in very real danger of losing his job and his tenure. Yet, think about this, Einstein says lengths get shorter and time dilates depending on the frame of reference from which an event is viewed. This is the equivalent of saying little blue men come and shorten lengths while a giant stretches out time as if it were putty! Imagine a thousand space ships all travelling to and fro between the earth and a star that is 10 light years away (yes, I know there are no stars that are 10 light years away) at some fraction of the speed of light. That space would become so fragmented that it would be incapable of supporting sentient life. Each of those thousand space-ships would be seeing and experiencing, different times and distances so that the final figure would be close to 1000! (One thousand factorial, a number which is bigger than the number of atoms in the Universe.) Because of the success of the atomic bomb, no sane discussion on Einstein is possible.

Today, this fanatical attitude still prevails, even though it is now more of a vestigial reaction than something real. Like the coccyx is the remnant of a tail. The unfortunate side effect is the proliferation of proven experiments that get unproven after a decade and are completely ignored. Huge sums are spent on these impractical experiments. For instance, in excess of two billion dollars was spent on LIGO which is supposed to have a sensitivity of one ten thousandth the width of a proton. Whether, the 'gravitational waves' detected by this instrument have any meaning, as scientists are falling over themselves to claim, is doubtful. So the state of science today, consists of support for these impractical theories (because that is where the money is) in the form of unrealistic experiments supported by unrealistic evidence.

Should rational arguments be swept aside without being heard, is the question?
 
Feb 19, 2020
123
25
130
"Any scientist or College professor who disagreed with any Einsteinian point of view was in very real danger of losing his job and his tenure."

The same is now true with respect to global warming (climate change). Even discussing the impractical and unrealistic solutions being offered to prevent it are met with disdain...or silence. Too much has been invested in making it an emergency, an existential threat.

"Should rational arguments be swept aside without being heard, is the question?"

The scientific answer is NO. The political answer, apparently is YES? Good luck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WayneInIndy
Aug 31, 2020
42
5
55
The scientific answer is NO. The political answer, apparently is YES? Good luck.
Thanks! Can't ask for more, it seems to be a very reasonable answer. As for the green environment: for those who don't believe, just enter a room where two or three smokers are present. Is it possible to say that nothing is happening to the air? Now, translate that same situation to the more than 500 million cars, buses, motorcycles, trucks and scooters world-wide. More than 50% of the fuel that is being combusted in the engine is improperly burnt and is released back into the air. Jet planes are some of the worst offenders. Apart from carbon monoxide, particulate matter is also released into the air. Look at out forests, where almost a million acres are cut somewhere or the other every day. The shocking pictures of the world's Ocean's, clogged with plastic bottles and other flotsam, are scenes from a horror movie. One has to wonder is the present Corona epidemic some sort of natural control released by nature? After all how do certain species of tree know when to blossom, even though they are spread across different continents?
 
Feb 19, 2020
123
25
130
It is not a question of believing that the globe has warmed a small amount (less than one degree C). It has. Nor is it denied that humans have littered the planet. They have. The problem is what can be done about the CO2 that has accompanied these lifestyles. We have been told to drastically change these lifestyles ASAP by lowering CO2 emissions to zero and then to NET-zero. None of this is possible without social and economic chaos. The COVID travel lockdown has given us a sneak preview of that scenario. This pandemic dress rehearsal isn't good, and to continue to demand the rapid reduction in fuel emissions but expect a different result is not the way to go. It would not lower atmospheric CO2 anyhow nor the global temperature anomaly.
 
Sep 18, 2020
1
1
10
No problem. You are right when you say that my original question was general. The media and indeed all scientific forums are heavily weighted in favour of quantum mechanics and relativity. Any one who objects or tries to post matter inimical to these two theories is immediately ostracised, shunned and prevented from voicing their views. The reason for this behaviour, strange as it may seem, is Government intervention. Ever since Einstein showed the practical applications of his equation e = mc^2 in the form of the atomic bomb. The US government has treated everything to do with Einstein to be more true than the Gospel itself. Any scientist or College professor who disagreed with any Einsteinian point of view was in very real danger of losing his job and his tenure. Yet, think about this, Einstein says lengths get shorter and time dilates depending on the frame of reference from which an event is viewed. This is the equivalent of saying little blue men come and shorten lengths while a giant stretches out time as if it were putty! Imagine a thousand space ships all travelling to and fro between the earth and a star that is 10 light years away (yes, I know there are no stars that are 10 light years away) at some fraction of the speed of light. That space would become so fragmented that it would be incapable of supporting sentient life. Each of those thousand space-ships would be seeing and experiencing, different times and distances so that the final figure would be close to 1000! (One thousand factorial, a number which is bigger than the number of atoms in the Universe.) Because of the success of the atomic bomb, no sane discussion on Einstein is possible.

Today, this fanatical attitude still prevails, even though it is now more of a vestigial reaction than something real. Like the coccyx is the remnant of a tail. The unfortunate side effect is the proliferation of proven experiments that get unproven after a decade and are completely ignored. Huge sums are spent on these impractical experiments. For instance, in excess of two billion dollars was spent on LIGO which is supposed to have a sensitivity of one ten thousandth the width of a proton. Whether, the 'gravitational waves' detected by this instrument have any meaning, as scientists are falling over themselves to claim, is doubtful. So the state of science today, consists of support for these impractical theories (because that is where the money is) in the form of unrealistic experiments supported by unrealistic evidence.

Should rational arguments be swept aside without being heard, is the question?
"The US government has treated everything to do with Einstein to be more true than the Gospel itself." What is something that is LESS "true than the Gospel itself."? Do you believe in that business about water walking and water into wine etc with any serious bone in your body?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WayneInIndy
Jul 27, 2020
195
21
105
What is the criteria that decides between an acceptable ‘theory’ and an unacceptable ‘theory’?

Practically, this depends on who came up with the theory, and who is trashing on it.

There are no greater egos than in science, with the possible exception of Hollywood.
 
Aug 31, 2020
42
5
55
Practically, this depends on who came up with the theory, and who is trashing on it.
Nothing about the merits or demerits of the theory itself? Surely it should be possible for something to stand or fall on its own virtues? Take a beautiful piece of music or a work of art. The great thing here is that the Gestalt Aether Theory is a theory of physics that is presented completely devoid of maths, although the implications of a fascinating new maths lie just beyond the scope of this presentation. So in theory, anyone with an ability to read, should be able to understand it and(with the help of the internet) crosscheck any doubts that might arise.
 
Jul 27, 2020
195
21
105
Nothing about the merits or demerits of the theory itself?

Evolution

Nuclear fission

Prions


All "theories" (to name just a few) heavily trashed on by most "experts" in their time , only to be proven correct.

As Orwell might have noted, some theories are more equal than others.......and they certainly are!
 
  • Like
Reactions: WayneInIndy
Sep 26, 2020
31
3
55
some info. this 'question within a question' is inherently unanswerable. it is immediately clear that the answer will always be determined by the Point of view, of the 'asker'.
while waxing rhapsodic about quantum theory, this poster seems to want to lay a foundation for a discussion of his favorite, left-field theory. if so, he has some learning to do. because, there is a Part of the question that CAN be answered.

a theory will not be worthy of discussion IF, it relies on Assumption, or a New or otherwise UNDESCRIBED process/principle.

an assertion that a theory 'explains things, empirically', is the same as saying, "the evidence is supported by ITSELF" !!! d
 
In 1980s TV Hunter fashion: works for me.

Although, the Borg thing doesn't make sense. Perfection according to? In even Greg Bear's EON/ETERNITY, the Jarts came to see the light of that.

Brit: me or you?...cos it ain't me, beau.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chem721
Jan 1, 2020
155
28
130
"What constitutes an acceptable scientific article in terms of what is acceptable and what is not?"

Leave out the word "scientific" and you might find your answer?

Richard Feyman: “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong”
pardon me for being wrong but seems logical to me that facts are acceptaple - just my observation -not saying it s right
 
Jan 1, 2020
155
28
130
Thought you were Brit for some reason. Got you confused with someone else.

Humans should always be able to pull the plug, like Hal in 2001. You simply have to make them incapable of the correct activities to prevent a power outage.
I
Thought you were Brit for some reason. Got you confused with someone else.

Humans should always be able to pull the plug, like Hal in 2001. You simply have to make them incapable of the correct activities to prevent a power outage.
Valentine Michael Smith -you are quite correct it is ME who is he Brit whereas every single member on here is American ,.I am the only one
 
Sep 26, 2020
31
3
55
sarajo - yes. however, many people do not Know what Constitutes, a Relevant fact.
the 'result' of a process is a fact, but is not necessarily a relevant one.
in other words, where a fact is based on a 'Set of Other Facts', its degree of relevance Must be clearly established (Not assumed). d
 
@Chem721 : Humans behaved in human fashion, and provoked HAL's human by design response.

At some point people will have to allow their fingers off the button, and I have no issue with some non-human entity taking out humanity. It will do a nicer job.


@sarajo: oh? I realized only last week your name didn't mean something slavic.



in other words, where a fact is based on a 'Set of Other Facts', its degree of relevance Must be clearly established (Not assumed). d
On Earth as in Heaven.
 
Dec 2, 2019
4
1
15
"
What is the criteria that decides between an acceptable ‘theory’ and an unacceptable ‘theory’?
"

That happens when independent peer-review and validated experimental tests support or rebuke the predicted. And any theory is subject to change as related new information is discovered, verified, and evaluated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chem721

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts