A Revised Planck Scale?

Thus spake "
Oh No wrote:
not the scientists. Pickering is a sociologist, and his book is called a
sociological history. Treat it for what it is, and I believe it is a
good book. But don't accept scientific and philosophical judgements from
someone who is not qualified to make them.


Pickering's book is a very well-informed, well researched and
scientific analysis of the development of high-energy physics from 1945
to the "GUT" era of the 1980s. Just because he interprets subjective
ideas in a way that is different from your preferred way, does not make
him wrong.

It does not make him right, either.

Sometimes the most accurate reviews of a field, and the best
new ideas, come from those who stand slightly outside the field, and
avoid the academic group-think.

Where do you think I stand?

We can model a hydrogen atom precisely. Beyond that we are limited to
computer solutions, but we do have a very good understanding of atoms.
We have a very good understanding at a subatomic scale also, of
electrons especially, and not bad of protons and neutrons. Beyond
quarks, I think everything is less clear cut. Gluons are accepted, but
in my view, before we start building qcd, we really ought to sort out
the remaining problems in qed, and the interpretational issues which
have plagued quantum theory since its inception.


Since you feel more comfortable when bona fide professors of physics
are expressing their views,

I do not. I feel more comfortable when I am forming my own views based
on an understanding of theory and experiment. I think I have reason to
claim a better understanding of both than would be expected of a
sociologist.

here is a little something from Prof. Lee
Smolin.

"Although I respect my colleagues who disagree, I find their thinking
basically incomprehensible. As much as I try to see what they are
talking about, I find the assertion that nature is actually a vector in
a complex space made up of infinite dimensions as silly as Aristotle's
universe of concentric spheres surrounded by heaven with Earth at the
center".

I share Smolin's view, but came to it independently.

My research suggests to me in the most clear terms that the Born
interpretation of Psi-squared as a "probability density" was one of the
great wrong turns of modern science.

There you are wrong. The fact that the squared magnitude of the wave
function is a probability density is just about the most empirically
solid fact of our era. Indeed, in strict treatments of quantum theory
such as those due to Von Neumann and Dirac, only the probability is
treated as observed scientific fact; the wave function is regarded as
metaphysical. It is found in the mathematical structure of quantum
theory, but it is not possible to say that it corresponds to anything in
physical reality.

It is through studying this approach to quantum theory that I came to
the realisation that the same thing applies when the wave function
belongs to a photon from a distant star. I believe that we should not be
treating this as a classical e.m. wave as is normal in general
relativity, but rather as a quantum wave function. Its correct treatment
then requires that we first develop a consistent model for quantum
theory which applies on a FRW cosmology.

The teleconnection is an intrinsic, and I believe essential, part of
that model. Ultimately my own reason for certainty that the
teleconnection is right is not based on the empirical results of the
theory, but on the empirical validity of the postulates, and whatever
level of confidence I have that I have not made deductive mistakes.

As it turns out, it does lead to different predictions from the standard
model in interpreting the red shift of light from stellar objects. As I
have been posting here, I have found that these predictions are
consistent with observation in so far as I have been able to calculate
predictions, and that in certain cases I have consistent predictions
where the standard model does not.

[Mod. note: again, this thread should return to astrophysics or should
go elsewhere -- mjh]

Phew, at a pinch I think I just made it. But certainly, the only forum
for the main part of this discussion is the one we are seeking to
create, sci.physics.foundations. I thank the moderator for being as
tolerant as he has been in the absence of such a forum. I think we can
continue after the creation of that forum.


Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email

Thus spake "
Oh No wrote:

We don't say the Ptolemaic model of
the Solar System is still valid within its "domain of applicability",
do we?

Funnily enough, it is perfectly possible to construct an ellipse from an
infinite sequence of wheels within wheels. This is a generalisation of
the theory of Fourier transforms, so if we so desire, and wish to be
amusing, we are quite entitled to say exactly that.


Brilliant!

I think you have gone quite a ways in proving my contention that, as
with statistics, with mathematics one can "prove" whatever one wants to
prove, or "disprove" whatever one wants to disprove.

This is not true. One can prove that an ellipse can be approximated by a
Ptolomeic system. This does not prove that a Ptolomeic system is
valuable in understanding the motions of the planets.

Not dissimilar mathematics is extremely valuable in other circumstances.
For example, a knowledge of spherical harmonics is essential for
analysing cosmic background radiation.

The thing that
keeps science honest is that nature exists, that we can observe its
properties, that we can predict the results of future observations and
learn whether we are right or wrong. Our understanding of nature can
improve, so long as we are willing to accept nature's verdicts and
learn from them.

By dispensing with mathematics and statistics in the way in which you
have, you also dispense with the methodology by which we do learn
whether we are right or wrong, and actually make it appear as though you
present these fine sentiments as a charade to try and make yourself look
good, while not actually being in the least bit concerned to accept
natures verdicts or learn yourself.



Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email

Oh No wrote:

By dispensing with mathematics and statistics in the way in which you
have, you also dispense with the methodology by which we do learn
whether we are right or wrong, and actually make it appear as though you
present these fine sentiments as a charade to try and make yourself look
good, while not actually being in the least bit concerned to accept
natures verdicts or learn yourself.


I most certainly do not 'dispense with mathematics', since I regard
mathematics as crucially important when it comes to formal descriptions
of ideas about how nature works. I just question the misuse of
mathematics, especially when it is used to rule out things that are
beyond the axiomatic framework of the mathematics in question.

I most certainly do not 'dispense with statistics' which are important
in science, so long as they are used with care and are not used to
mislead.

I most certainly do not 'dispense with the predictions/testing
methodology of science' which I find myself having to defend on an
all-too-regular basis in the field of cosmology.

I do put up with a lot of insults for my efforts.

RLO

[Mod. note: again, this thread is now closed -- mjh]