String theory is what?

[Farsight]

What "meaning" do you have in mind? The "meaning" of lots of pretty pictures?

No. The meaning of what time is for starters, and what the electromagnetic field is.

What's a "static linear one-dimensional expression", anyway?

Something like the Dirac equation. It doesn't give you a mental model of what the electron actually is.

Why not write out the equations that you are trying to solve?

Because I don't know how to write out an equation to adequately describe a three-dimensional dynamical stress-energy vorton.

Let's see if you can get the Standard Model out of that.

One has to start somewhere. Understanding the photon is where you start, then you understand that the electron is not pointlike, and that the rotation is real, and then you move on.

That's an entirely separate issue, and I don't see why you insist on dragging it in.

It's not separate. Theoretical physics has been going nowhere whilst people have wasted thousands of man-years on string "theory" that isn't a theory, and predicts nothing and explains nothing. The public are losing patience with people selling mystery and mysticism protected by a "you can't understand it" wall of mathematical runes that just doesn't deliver anything useful and doesn't satisfy our curiosity. And governments too. Look at the cuts in Japan: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsid ... tis-1.html. Time to start delivering. I can help, but if guys like you won't let me, who am I saving physics from? You, lpetrich, and your vanity.

Do you know any of the mathematics behind mainstream physics? The mathematics is an essential part of the theories of mainstream physics.

Yes of course I do. And what's more, I know what the terms actually represent in reality. That's what you don't understand, and cannot accept that you don't.

Seems like the "orthodox oxen" argument again. There's VERY good reason to be skeptical of claims of grandiose new discoveries.

And there's even more reason to be skeptical of decades of non-discovery. And skeptical of the entrenched naysayer views from people who have achieved nothing and who just get in the way.

[Farsight]

I know what dark matter is, but what I need to do is get say somebody at the CDMS II collaboration to come out with it.

This seems like an unsupportable claim. If Farsight really cannot follow the relevant mathematics, he cannot possibly have justification for any claim about dark matter.

Yes I can. Dark matter is simple. Once you understand gravity. So I'll start a thread on gravity to explain it to you, with references to scientific evidence and Einstein papers. You can then challenge me on the various points and attempt to show where I'm incorrect. You will not be able to.

[ChildInAZoo]

Dark matter is simple. Once you understand gravity. So I'll start a thread on gravity to explain it to you, with references to scientific evidence and Einstein papers. You can then challenge me on the various points and attempt to show where I'm incorrect. You will not be able to.

Why don't we nip this in the bud. If you cannot do the calculations that produce the predictions of dark matter, then you cannot possibly hope to justify a theory about dark matter, let alone gravity. If you cannot show us how to calculate the gravitational interactions of a galaxy, or a galaxy cluster, then don't bother starting a new thread.

[Trolldor]

Little thing moves towards the bigger thing.

[lpetrich]

The meaning of what time is for starters, and what the electromagnetic field is.

What sort of "meaning" are you expecting? Why are relativity and Maxwell's equations unsatisfactory?

What's a "static linear one-dimensional expression", anyway?

Something like the Dirac equation. It doesn't give you a mental model of what the electron actually is.

What were you expecting? Some sort of resemblance to macroscopic objects?

Why not write out the equations that you are trying to solve?

Because I don't know how to write out an equation to adequately describe a three-dimensional dynamical stress-energy vorton.

Farsight, that sort of remark makes it look like you are unfamiliar with a lot of the mathematics that modern physics depends on. That's because it's E-Z to write equations for multidimensional quantities.

It may also explain why your papers have been rejected by professional journals. With so many elementary mistakes, it's not surprising.

Let's see if you can get the Standard Model out of that.

One has to start somewhere. Understanding the photon is where you start, then you understand that the electron is not pointlike, and that the rotation is real, and then you move on.

Photon = quantization of Maxwell's equations for the electromagnetic field
Electron = quantization of the Dirac equation for the electron field
Muon = another flavor of electron
Etc.

Photons have spin in the form of circular polarization, and electron spin is a similar effect. Something like:

Photon:
(1,i,0,0)
(1,-i,0,0)
* exp(i*w(z-t))

Electron:
(1,0,0,0)
(0,1,0,0)
Positron:
(0,0,1,0)
(0,0,0,1)
* exp(-i*m*t)

Theoretical physics has been going nowhere whilst people have wasted thousands of man-years on string "theory" that isn't a theory, and predicts nothing and explains nothing.

Explain why that is supposed to be the case about string theory, and what you think that physicists ought to have been working on instead.

Do you know any of the mathematics behind mainstream physics? The mathematics is an essential part of the theories of mainstream physics.

Yes of course I do. And what's more, I know what the terms actually represent in reality. That's what you don't understand, and cannot accept that you don't.

So you understand the mathematics of:
Lagrangians
Path integrals
Lie groups and Lie algebras
The Yang-Mills equations
The Dirac equation
The Klein-Gordon equation
Higgs-particle symmetry breaking
?

Seems like the "orthodox oxen" argument again. There's VERY good reason to be skeptical of claims of grandiose new discoveries.

And there's even more reason to be skeptical of decades of non-discovery. And skeptical of the entrenched naysayer views from people who have achieved nothing and who just get in the way.

What do you mean by "decades of non-discovery"? What discoveries do you think that physicists ought to have made?

[Farsight]

The meaning of what time is for starters, and what the electromagnetic field is.

What sort of "meaning" are you expecting?

A meaning that delivers understanding and puts an end to celebrity pseudoscience garbage like time travel.

Why are relativity and Maxwell's equations unsatisfactory?

They aren't. What's unsatisfactory is your lack of understanding of them. And your ignorance of the fact that the relativity taught today is the "modern interpretation" which is not in line with Einstein. And of course there's also widespread ignorance of the fact that Maxwell's equations are in fact Heaviside's equations, which threw away much underlying meaning.

What were you expecting? Some sort of resemblance to macroscopic objects?

An appreciation of the underlying reality instead of quantum mysticism.

Farsight, that sort of remark makes it look like you are unfamiliar with a lot of the mathematics that modern physics depends on. That's because it's E-Z to write equations for multidimensional quantities.

But it isn't easy to write an equation for a a three-dimensional dynamical stress-energy vorton. Try writing an equation for a hurricane. And come on, the Moebius strip was a "mystery" for 75 years. See: Mobius Strip: 'Endless Ribbon' Mystery Solved.

It may also explain why your papers have been rejected by professional journals. With so many elementary mistakes, it's not surprising.

LOL, lpetrich. You can't find any mistakes, and now you resort to pretence. You'll have to do better than that.

Photon = quantization of Maxwell's equations for the electromagnetic field
Electron = quantization of the Dirac equation for the electron field
Muon = another flavor of electron
Etc.

Groan. lpetrich, look at what you're saying. You see equations as reality. SLAP. Wake up.

Explain why that is supposed to be the case about string theory, and what you think that physicists ought to have been working on instead.

No. Lee Smolin has already given an adequate explanation in The Trouble with Physics. Or if you prefer, there's Peter Woit's Not Even Wrong. What those physicists hould have been working on instead is electromagnetism, gravity, topological quantum field theory, and the standard model.

So you understand the mathematics of:
Lagrangians
Path integrals
Lie groups and Lie algebras
The Yang-Mills equations
The Dirac equation
The Klein-Gordon equation
Higgs-particle symmetry breaking
?

Not all of it. But enough. And certainly enough to see that you have no concept of the reality underlying any of them. To you the electron is a quantization of the Dirac equation for the electron field. But you don't even understand the electromagnetic field. Moreover you don't want to, and don't want anybody else to either. That's why you have declined my invitation to discuss matters on the electromagnetism thread. Do you think this can be studiously ignored? Dream on. And the longer it goes on, the worse it's going to be.

What do you mean by "decades of non-discovery"?

What I say. And you know it. Too many mathematical non-scientist pseuds have enjoyed an easy life of elitist privilege achieving absolutely nothing whilst standing in the way of earnest sincere genuine physicists and scientific progress.

What discoveries do you think that physicists ought to have made?

Clean conversion of matter into energy and artificial gravity.

[lpetrich]

The meaning of what time is for starters, and what the electromagnetic field is.

What sort of "meaning" are you expecting?

A meaning that delivers understanding and puts an end to celebrity pseudoscience garbage like time travel.

What do you mean by "understanding"? Having lots of pretty pictures in your mind? Newtonian classical mechanics is the ultimate physical theory, the Theory of Everything?

How is time travel "celebrity pseudoscience garbage"?

Why are relativity and Maxwell's equations unsatisfactory?

They aren't. What's unsatisfactory is your lack of understanding of them. And your ignorance of the fact that the relativity taught today is the "modern interpretation" which is not in line with Einstein.

How does it differ from Einstein's? And why this Einstein-thumping?

And of course there's also widespread ignorance of the fact that Maxwell's equations are in fact Heaviside's equations, which threw away much underlying meaning.

What meaning? Some speculations unsupported by observation and experiment? How would one distinguish Maxwell's vortons from their absence?

What were you expecting? Some sort of resemblance to macroscopic objects?

An appreciation of the underlying reality instead of quantum mysticism.

What makes you so sure of the nature of the "underlying reality"? What is "quantum mysticism"?

Farsight, that sort of remark makes it look like you are unfamiliar with a lot of the mathematics that modern physics depends on. That's because it's E-Z to write equations for multidimensional quantities.

But it isn't easy to write an equation for a a three-dimensional dynamical stress-energy vorton.

Physicists have written numerous other such equations, like the Navier-Stokes equations, Maxwell's equations, the Dirac equation, Einstein's equations, etc.

Try writing an equation for a hurricane.

AMS Journals Online - An Implicitly Balanced Hurricane Model with Physics-Based Preconditioning

And come on, the Moebius strip was a "mystery" for 75 years. See: Mobius Strip: 'Endless Ribbon' Mystery Solved.

That's for the shape of a strip of material with a Moebius-strip topology.

It may also explain why your papers have been rejected by professional journals. With so many elementary mistakes, it's not surprising.

LOL, lpetrich. You can't find any mistakes, and now you resort to pretence. You'll have to do better than that.

If you can't accept that you've made any mistakes, that's not my problem.

Photon = quantization of Maxwell's equations for the electromagnetic field
Electron = quantization of the Dirac equation for the electron field
Muon = another flavor of electron
Etc.

Groan. lpetrich, look at what you're saying. You see equations as reality. SLAP. Wake up.

Equations are a DESCRIPTION of reality.

Explain why that is supposed to be the case about string theory, and what you think that physicists ought to have been working on instead.

No. Lee Smolin has already given an adequate explanation in The Trouble with Physics. Or if you prefer, there's Peter Woit's Not Even Wrong. What those physicists hould have been working on instead is electromagnetism, gravity, topological quantum field theory, and the standard model.

There are plenty of physicists who have worked on what you describe. Why don't you go to arxiv.org and check out some abstracts there?

What do you mean by "decades of non-discovery"?

What I say. And you know it.

I don't know it.

Too many mathematical non-scientist pseuds have enjoyed an easy life of elitist privilege achieving absolutely nothing whilst standing in the way of earnest sincere genuine physicists and scientific progress.

So mathematics is pure fakery?

What discoveries do you think that physicists ought to have made?

Clean conversion of matter into energy and artificial gravity.

Why not try to demonstrate that those effects exist?

[ChildInAZoo]

No. Lee Smolin has already given an adequate explanation in The Trouble with Physics.

I got to see an interesting presentation by Lee Smolin recently. In it, he said that getting a PhD in physics was a necessary prerequisite to being taken seriously in theoretical science today. That is, he suggested that one cannot be considered to be in the community of scientists without having a PhD, as the PhD status indicates one's seriousness in pursuing and mastering the relevant science.

[Farsight]

What do you mean by "understanding"? Having lots of pretty pictures in your mind? Newtonian classical mechanics is the ultimate physical theory, the Theory of Everything?

I mean what it means. Look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding

How is time travel "celebrity pseudoscience garbage"?

Because Hawking is on the Discovery Channel milking woo when we don't even travel forward in time. I've explained this with supporting evidence in Time Explained. Read it, understand it.

How does it differ from Einstein's? And why this Einstein-thumping?

Einstein talked about the variable speed of light and the aether of general relativity. I've given you all the details in How Gravity Works. And it isn't thumping the tub for Einstein to point out what he actually said.

What meaning? Some speculations unsupported by observation and experiment? How would one distinguish Maxwell's vortons from their absence?

The electron is a self-trapped 511keV photon, as evidenced by pair production and annihilation, with the evidence of spin angular momentum and magnetic dipole moment that tells you the spin angular momentum is a real rotation, as backed up by the Einstein-de Haas effect. That's not speculation.

What makes you so sure of the nature of the "underlying reality"?

The scientific evidence.

What is "quantum mysticism"?

This: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... world.html. There are plenty of other examples of people portraying quantum as meaning "weird" rather than "how much", puffed up with intellectual arrogance as they tell the public it surpasseth all human understanding.

Physicists have written numerous other such equations, like the Navier-Stokes equations, Maxwell's equations, the Dirac equation, Einstein's equations, etc.

No problem.

Try writing an equation for a hurricane.

AMS Journals Online - An Implicitly Balanced Hurricane Model with Physics-Based Preconditioning refers to a simulation, not an equation. That's what you've got to do to understand the electron. You have to simulate it, so you can see it, so you can understand it.

Equations are a DESCRIPTION of reality.

And they're not always adequate. If they were, you wouldn't be shrinking from discussing electrmagnetism.

There are plenty of physicists who have worked on what you describe.

But not enough, and those who do struggle to get their papers into journals and media because "string theory is the only game in town". It's the pseudoscience that has offers no prediction and is unsupported by scientific evidence, and it has shackled scientific progress for decades.

So mathematics is pure fakery?

No. It's a vital tool for physics. But it's not the only tool, and it isn't what physics is. When people pretend it is, that's when the fakery starts.

Why not try to demonstrate that those effects exist?

What do you think I'm doing? But until you understand particles and gravity, you ain't getting off first base.

[Farsight]

I got to see an interesting presentation by Lee Smolin recently. In it, he said that getting a PhD in physics was a necessary prerequisite to being taken seriously in theoretical science today. That is, he suggested that one cannot be considered to be in the community of scientists without having a PhD, as the PhD status indicates one's seriousness in pursuing and mastering the relevant science.

That's true. But read The Trouble with Physics and search on "seer". See page 309 for example:

"It is one thing to be a craftsperson, highly skilled in the practice of one's craft. it is another thing to be a seer."

Yes, he talks further, saying This distinction does not mean that the seer is not a highly trained scientist. But look at what he said about hidden assumptions and distinct skills. So maybe a highly trained scientist won't see those hidden assumptions. By the way, I've been "Farsight" since 2002, when I adopted the handle for discussions of promising companies on the ADVFN share-trading website. I'm not sure if you can access this page, but this is me: http://www.advfn.com/cmn/fbb/thread.php3?id=1601105. Oh, and this is Smolin's latest paper on arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.4866

[ChildInAZoo]

"It is one thing to be a craftsperson, highly skilled in the practice of one's craft. it is another thing to be a seer."

Yes, he talks further, saying This distinction does not mean that the seer is not a highly trained scientist.

Are you saying that you are someone who naturally and instinctively grasps the meaning of the science even though you cannot follow the details of the scientific argument? This seems to be something of than a "seer" as Smolin uses is, since he seems to indicate that a seer is still a highly trained scientist.

But look at what he said about hidden assumptions and distinct skills. So maybe a highly trained scientist won't see those hidden assumptions. By the way, I've been "Farsight" since 2002, when I adopted the handle for discussions of promising companies on the ADVFN share-trading website. I'm not sure if you can access this page, but this is me: http://www.advfn.com/cmn/fbb/thread.php3?id=1601105.

So you don't have a PhD. If you were really interested in physics, why haven't you learned any in the last 8 years? If you were competent, you could have a PhD now. How can you see the hidden assumptions of physicists when you cannot understand the details of their reasoning? Are you trying to start some kind of church?

Oh, and this is Smolin's latest paper on arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.4866

So what? This has nothing to do with an assessment of your position, a position you refuse to explain by laying out your assumptions and principles, a position that you refuse to support with observational evidence that is relevant to actual predictions you make, a position that you have arrived at without any scientific qualifications.

[Farsight]

Are you saying that you are someone who naturally and instinctively grasps the meaning of the science even though you cannot follow the details of the scientific argument? This seems to be something of than a "seer" as Smolin uses is, since he seems to indicate that a seer is still a highly trained scientist.

LOL, no. I can follow the scientific argument. I'm saying a fresh pair of eyes can see the problem that others have missed.

So you don't have a PhD. If you were really interested in physics, why haven't you learned any in the last 8 years? If you were competent, you could have a PhD now. How can you see the hidden assumptions of physicists when you cannot understand the details of their reasoning? Are you trying to start some kind of church?

I didn't start all this until late 2006. And no, I'm not trying to start a church. That's obvious, and your allegation goes too far.

So what? This has nothing to do with an assessment of your position, a position you refuse to explain by laying out your assumptions and principles, a position that you refuse to support with observational evidence that is relevant to actual predictions you make, a position that you have arrived at without any scientific qualifications.

I explain a great deal, I offer observational evidence, and I do have scientific qualifications. Your insincerity is patent, ChildInAZoo, and it shames you.

[ChildInAZoo]

LOL, no. I can follow the scientific argument.

If this is the case, then you could do the mathematics. But you can't seem to do any of the mathematics. So are you taking mathematical results on faith? Or, in your church, do you hold a position where you are able to bless certain results on your own authority?

And no, I'm not trying to start a church. That's obvious, and your allegation goes too far.

I'm not sure I'm going far enough. You have been avoiding fundamental questions and you are trying to sell us a special book. Seems very much like a religion.

I explain a great deal, I offer observational evidence, and I do have scientific qualifications. Your insincerity is patent, ChildInAZoo, and it shames you.

How can this be true? What is insincere about asking you for the fundamental postulates of your theory? What is insincere about asking for the details of your prediction of specific numbers for galaxy rotation curves? I didn't make the prediction, you made the prediction. Is it sincere to make a specific prediction on faith without being able to actually produce the details of the prediction?