Neutrino Oscillations

Dear Steve Willner:

"Steve Willner" wrote in message
...
In article uE0bb.2332$gv5.1405@fed1read05,
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net writes:
How long after a SNe is seen does the neutrino "cloud" arrive?

Other people have given quantitative answers, but perhaps it's worth
adding that the lack of observed delay for SN 1987A neutrinos gave an
upper limit on the neutrino mass. My failing memory is that the
upper limit derived was 8 eV or so. If neutrinos had more mass than
that, they would necessarily have travelled slower.

Anybody know if this is still be the best upper limit available? Of
course the "reasonable expectation" from solar neutrino experiments
is that the mass of the electron neutrino should be in the meV range,
but that isn't a hard limit as far as I know.

Acknowledged. Thanks!

David A. Smith

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in
message ...
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

greywolf42 schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
...

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in
message
...

[snip]


I know
of no discrepancies between this model (with the slight modification
of
included neutrino masses) and experiments; do you?

Yes. Remember the 'blind' studies, that the SM failed?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2001Nov8.html

Unfortunately for you, the problem outlined in the article has been
solved in the meantime: there was simply an error in the theoretical
calculations. After this error was corrected, the theoretical
prediction
agreed perfectly well with the experimental findings.

I have to withdraw this comment: I confused this experiment with the one
which measured the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon (another case
where,
after correction of some errors in the calculation, the SM prediction
agrees
with experiment with a precision of up to 10 decimal places).

I don't know to much about the experiment you mentioned above, but I
notice that
they "only" measured a discrepancy of around 3 standard deviations.
Bearing in mind that even larger discrepancies have already disappeared
after more data had been taken,
this isn't a big problem for the SM - "statistical fluctuations" would
be a possible
explanation. More data will reveal if this is true or not.

If the effect turns out to be real, this could mean:
1) The SM is wrong altogether.
2) The SM misses some aspects of nature, it is merely a limit of the
"real" model.
This is equivalent to Newton's mechanics being a limit to the "real",
relativistic mechanics. Would you say that Newton's mechanics is wrong
altogether?


In the light of the fact that the SM has made tons of predictions which
agree with
measurements with astonishing precision (and no, the comment "this
precision
isn't astonishing because the parameters of the model simply have been
set up to
give the right predictions" makes no sense at all), I would go with 2.
If you prefer to choose 1, this only reveals your ignorance of the SM
and of science in general. (it's still beyond me how anyone could claim
that the SM makes no predictions!!!)

Because 'predictions' take place 'before' the observations are made in the
lab. I don't dispute that the SM can calculate to good precision that which
is measured in the lab.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in
message ...
greywolf42 wrote:

Old Man wrote in message
...
greywolf42 wrote in message
...

Joseph Lazio wrote in message
...
"g" == greywolf42 writes:

g Joseph Lazio wrote in message
g ...

Most of the time, minor modifications in a theory or model are
sufficient to allow it to accomodate new data. Is that bad
science
or a sign that we are learning something?

g Repeat all of the above argument of yours, but replace
"Standard
g Model" with "Ptolemaic system." Your argument is unchanged.
Why
g *should* those folks have junked their model? All they ever had
to
g do was make occasional, minor modifications every time they got
a
g new observation.

Ah, but that's the point. That's exactly what happened, for
centuries.

Yep. And it's worked for 30 years for the SM.

Until somebody came up with extremely high precision data
(Tycho) and a new way of looking at things (Kepler).

Wrong again. First off, Tycho and Kepler were AFTER Copernicus.
Tycho
died
a staunch Ptolemaic. There was no discrepancy between the model and
observation. There's this method where you always add another
'wheel'
to
the model...

Wrong all around.

Ptolemy's model wasn't even consistent with Ptolemy's data. For
the orbits of Mercury and Venus, it was an incredulous stretch.

IIRC, there were some versions that had Mercury and Venus orbiting the
Sun.

That was not a "version" of the Ptolemaic model, that was a model on its
own - invented by Tycho.

Even if you are correct (and this is not the version that I've read in
various texts) -- Tycho's model would still be Ptolemaic.

Tycho came around to hoping that his data would demonstrate that
the Sun revolved about Earth while the other planets revolved about
the Sun. With his data, Tycho's configuration is indistinguishable
from that of Copernicus.

One has to be a lot dumber than Tycho to not notice that Venus
and Mercury, whenever observable, appear only near the horizon
and that all of the epicycles have a common period. Copernicus'
model required epicycles for agreement with the available data.

The epicycles do not all have a common period. There were epicycles
upon
epicycles.

So what? What has this to do with the things said above?

Apparently, you found it 'dumb' not to notice that 'all the epicycles have a
common period.' I merely noted that your observation was incorrect.

Besides, it didn't matter. It was a model, and it gave the 'right'
answers.
Just like the Standard Model.

As I already pointed out, the SM is totally different: whereas the
Ptolemaic model needed different parameters for different types of
predictions, the SM uses the
same set of parameters for *all* predictions.

That is a bizarre statement. The Ptolemaic model *only* predicted the
locations of the planets on the celestial sphere -- and therefore when they
rose or set. There were *no* different 'types' of predictions in the
Ptolemaic model.

Neither SM nor Ptolemaic model has any physical, cause-and-effect. They
both incorporate "new" or divergent observations by adding another epicycle
or particle.


The method is the same -- unscientific.

Well, I would say making measurements, setting up a model based on the
measurements and then testing the model by comparing its predictions to
reality *is* scientific.

You are misusing the word *prediction.* Predictions come before
observations. Calculations can come after.

No physical causality.

What has "physical causality" to do with "scientific"?

It is a fundamental requirement of the scientific method. Mere correlations
are useful, but not scientific.

Kepler could just as well have assumed circular guiding orbits
with elliptical epicycles to get a perfect fit to Tycho's data and to
Copernicus' model. [Old Man]

Except for that eight minutes of arc 'anomaly.' Guess you missed
the
point of the following quote. Kepler abandoned epicycles completely.
For
reasons of causality.

No, because of the reason "model has to agree with observations".

Sigh. Read the quote. *WHY* didn't Kepler just add a wheel? See the words
"physical causation."

______________________________________________

Kepler's "way" of looking at things was indeed important:

"It was (Kepler's) INTRODUCTION OF PHYSICAL CAUSALITY INTO
THE FORMAL GEOMETRY OF THE SKIES which made it impossible
for him to ignore the eight minutes (of) arc. So long as cosmology
was
guided by purely geometrical rules of the game, regardless of
physical
causes, discrepancies between theory and fact could be overcome by
inserting another wheel into the system. In a universe moved by
real,
physical forces, this was no longer possible."

"The reason why nobody before him had asked the question is that
nobody had thought of cosmological problems in terms of actual
physical forces. So long as cosmology remained divorced from
physical causation in the mind, THE RIGHT QUESTION COULD
NOT OCCUR IN THAT MIND." (italics in originals as
capitals in ascii)
-- Arthur Koestler ("Kepler -- Eight Minutes of Arc," 1959)

Kepler didn't introduce forces into his model, IIRC, hence this doesn't
make much sense.

Read it again.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...
greywolf42 wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...
greywolf42 schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
...

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in
message
...
greywolf42 wrote:

[snip]

Nonsense. Only because the SM didn't say anything about masses of
neutrinos doesn't imply that it can't say anything about them! For
example, it described their interactions quite well.

Well, yes -- in the same manner that the Ptolemaic system described
the
motions of the planets -- in a completely ad hoc manner.

What's ad hoc about the SM, in your opinion?

The 19 empirical constants, for starters.

Err, these constants were *measured*, not postulated, so calling them
"ad hoc" makes no sense at all!

Thats part of the definition of ad hoc. You first measure something, then
fit it into the model.

It was developed based on observations and mainly symmetry
principles. Do you even know what a gauge theory is?

Yes.

Well, I don't believe you. Explain it. In your own words.

Are you referring to the gauge field program? Or are you referring to one
of the specific gauge potential theories?

[snip]


Err, if you haven't noticed, the SM does tell us *lots* about the
properties of matter. For example, it tells us which interactions
can
take part between the particles, it explains the various ranges of
the
different forces, and so on.

Those are all backfits -- not explanations.

You don't consider "charged particles attract resp. repel each
other because they interchange photons" and similar statements
to be explanations?

I would if the exchanged particles were fundamentally observable.

Err, the theory itself tells us that the exchanged ("virtual") particles
can't be observed. So what? This explanation gives the right predictions
for things which *can* be observed - cross sections, bound states (Lamb
shift), running of the coupling constants, anomalous magnetic moments,
and so on.

But I don't consider this to be an "explanation." Anymore than I consider
the raising of hemlines causes the stock market to go up.

However,
the SM does not actually consider the exchange of "photons" --
because none are ever observed.

Sorry, I don't understand this argument!

Virtual photons are not real. They don't exist.

So the 'explanation' is contradicted by experiment.

WHAT A NONSENSE!!!

If you consider the scientific method nonsense, I can't help you. Science
requires that if I postulate that something physically causes an
observation, then that "something" must itself be observable -- because it
is a physical carrier.

So
the SM decleares these as 'virtual' particles that cannot ever be
observed.

Err, no. The particles were not "decleared" to be unobservable because
the experiments didn't observe them (directly). The theory said right
from the start that the particles could not be observed. Hey, that's
obvious! As soon as you observe it, you absorb or at least deflect it,
and hence it can't provide the interaction any more!

Horsefeathers -- historically and phenomenologically. One does not have to
absorb ALL the virtual particles to identify that they exist. One simply
has to sample them.

Do you consider Maxwell's equations to be "backfits, not
explanations",
too? They were derived by similar methods.

No they weren't developed by such methods.

They were developed by the same method: Setting up hypotheses based on
observations and subsequently testing these hypotheses.

You are wrong again. No matter how often you repeat the lie. See next
sentence.

Maxwell provided a physical
derivation, based on a particulate, superfluid aether. See "On
Physical Lines of Force", 1861.

Using a "physical" picture to explain what's going on is not the same as
using this picture to derive the equations.

Correct. But -- as you can see -- Maxwell didn't just use a 'picture.' He
used a specifically physical, Newtonian fluid of corpuscular nature to
derive his equations from fundamental fluid dynamics.


[snip]


Why don't we wait before using the SM, then? The SM has no
predictions for us, either.

That's either complete ignorance, or an outright lie. The SM
has tons of
predictions: cross sections, decay rates, anomalous magnetic
moments, hadron masses, and on and on.

The hadron masses are input from experiment.

Wrong. QCD on the lattice can predict hadron masses.

AFTER they were measured by experiment. You are again misusing the term
*prediction*.

The others were not
predictions -- as they weren't calculated until after they had
been measured.

Again: That's either complete ignorance or a lie. For example, the cross
section for the production of Z bosons was calculated long before this
cross section was ever measured. Same for anomalous magnetic moments.
Same for several decay rates.

And even if they were calculated only after measurement: So what? They
are still a prediction from the theory!

No, they are not a 'prediction'. They are a calculational result. A
'prediction' MUST be made prior to the observation to be a prediction.

Do you claim that somehow the
calculation was distorted in order to arrive only at the already known
result, or what???

No. Simply that the constants are set to match the observations. This is
not 'distortion.' It's simply not a prediction.


Nevertheless, the SM of particle physics does describe
properties of
and interactions between elementary particles with amazing
accuracy.

Since all of those 'properties' are set by said experimental
interactions, this is not 'amazing' at all.

What on earth do you mean by "experimental interactions"?

And are you really that stupid that you don't understand that
one first
has to determine the parameters in one's model before it can
make
predictions, but that after the parameters had been determined,
the
model can (as the SM does) make lots of predictions?

Yes, I understand the process. It's the same as used by the
Ptolemaic method.

It's the same as used *everywhere* in science.

The scientific method is not the same as the Ptolemaic method. The latter
is limited to my next sentence:

Observation, adjustible parameters, adding parameters.

Which parameters (beside neutrino masses and mixing angles) were added
to the SM since its invention, please?

And 'round we go again. I've posted these several times. If you can't be
bothered to read them, that's your problem.

Bye in this thread....

{snip the rest}

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

Gregory L. Hansen wrote in message
...
In article ,
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
greywolf42 wrote:

So
the SM decleares these as 'virtual' particles that cannot ever be
observed.

Err, no. The particles were not "decleared" to be unobservable because
the experiments didn't observe them (directly). The theory said right
from the start that the particles could not be observed. Hey, that's
obvious! As soon as you observe it, you absorb or at least deflect it,
and hence it can't provide the interaction any more!

Virtual particles are not particles as people usually think of them.
Quantum field theory is a theory of fields, the fields are quantized
(that's why it's quantum field theory). Virtual particles are a
representation of the field. Like classical fields, the field isn't
observed directly, it's studied through its interactions with things we
can see, like what it does to an electron that flies through a test region
and hits a detector.

To say that virtual particles can't be directly observed means they're
just another field. But quantum effects are pretty obvious, e.g. discrete
emission of photons rather than continuous loss of energy that affects the
design of charged particle accelerators.

Discrete emission of photons merely means that the emitting matter is
quantised. Not that the photon is quantized. However, "fields" -- per
se -- are merely mathematical maps for the underlying physical processes.
Hence, they themselves are not fundamental. Fields cannot "cause" anything.
Which is why people constantly talk about virtual particles being the
fundamental of the theory.


Do you consider Maxwell's equations to be "backfits, not
explanations",
too? They were derived by similar methods.

No they weren't developed by such methods.

And QED is Maxwell's equations, quantized.

Actually, no. There are no little clocks in Maxwell's equations.

The others were not
predictions -- as they weren't calculated until after they had
been measured.

And the theory is tested, for instance, by comparing lifetimes of free
neutrons with superallowed Fermi beta decay. The SM predicts relations
between those measurements. Likewise the parameters in the SM relate
to experiments like the angular asymmetry of gamma rays in the reaction
n+p-d+gamma, the spin rotation of polarized neutrons in liquid helium,
and the triple correlation in beta decay, all of which are experiments in
progress today and didn't even exist when the standard model was
invented. The predictions of many experiments involve a limited number of
parameters, and the theory is tested in the same sense as finding the same
or different values of the acceleration of gravity depending on whether
you swing a pendulum or roll a ball down an inclined plane. More
parameters, but same idea.

You are also misusing the term "prediction."


And are you really that stupid that you don't understand that
one first
has to determine the parameters in one's model before it can
make
predictions, but that after the parameters had been determined,
the
model can (as the SM does) make lots of predictions?

Yes, I understand the process. It's the same as used by the
Ptolemaic method.

It's the same as used *everywhere* in science.

I think we're supposed to get "physically correct" theories without prior
reference to the physical world.

Only if you are a Platonist or Kantian.

After
awhile, things run like clockwork. But nothing new found by
prediction.

Lie - or complete ignorance. For example, the W and Z bosons were
predicted and later found.

Within the large range predicted. But later, the bottom quark, and the top
quark were not found in the large range predicted. And the Higgs is still
missing within the ranges predicted. Is the SM getting worse?

Even when nothing new is found, adding sig-figs to the validity of a
theory is still progress, even if it's progress of the most boring kind.
It's demonstration of mastery of greater regions of parameter space.

But predictions of where the parameter space break down -- or give something
new -- that demonstrate understanding of the process. Not tweaking of
measurements within the known envelope.


-- we just move the goalposts
again. There is no such thing as disproof in the SM.

*yawn*

I hang around with people measuring the triple correlation in beta decay.
If they get a non-zero answer that they can back up, blammo, disproof in
the SM. For one example. The anamalous muon g-2 could have done it.
There's all kinds of ways big accelerators could do it, but I'm more
involved in the precision measurement aspect.

Not all science changes paradigms.

Nothing happens to the SM, either -- unless somebody adds another
epicycle to it.

Why do you say "another" epicycle here? What "epicycles" were
added to the SM in the past, in your opinion?

Just like the last several times, see the quote from Kaku.

Kaku describes the SM exactly as it was when it was set up in the late
70s. I quote from your list:

Uh, that list was the "AFTER" list. Not the description of the 1977
version.'

"1. Thirty-six quarks, coming in six 'flavors' and three 'colors,' and
their
antimatter counterparts to describe the strong interaction."

Already in the SM when it was invented.

Bjoern is incorrect. See the full quote from Kaku.

...

So, again I ask you: what changes were made to the SM since its
invention, besides the neutrino masses and mixing angles? What epicycles
were added since its invention?

A veritable shopping list of particles. But from three symmetries.
U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3), was it? More impressive than all those particles being
there from the beginning is how those particles were inserted, including
particles not then known.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

Gregory L. Hansen wrote in message
...
In article ,
greywolf42 wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote in message
...
In article ,
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
greywolf42 wrote:

So
the SM decleares these as 'virtual' particles that cannot ever be
observed.

Err, no. The particles were not "decleared" to be unobservable because
the experiments didn't observe them (directly). The theory said right
from the start that the particles could not be observed. Hey, that's
obvious! As soon as you observe it, you absorb or at least deflect it,
and hence it can't provide the interaction any more!

Virtual particles are not particles as people usually think of them.
Quantum field theory is a theory of fields, the fields are quantized
(that's why it's quantum field theory). Virtual particles are a
representation of the field. Like classical fields, the field isn't
observed directly, it's studied through its interactions with things we
can see, like what it does to an electron that flies through a test
region
and hits a detector.

To say that virtual particles can't be directly observed means they're
just another field. But quantum effects are pretty obvious, e.g.
discrete
emission of photons rather than continuous loss of energy that affects
the
design of charged particle accelerators.

Discrete emission of photons merely means that the emitting matter is
quantised. Not that the photon is quantized. However, "fields" -- per
se -- are merely mathematical maps for the underlying physical processes.
Hence, they themselves are not fundamental. Fields cannot "cause"
anything.
Which is why people constantly talk about virtual particles being the
fundamental of the theory.

Looks like a personal opinion to me.

Looks like the special plead to me.

You want to understand fields in terms of particles bouncing around.

That's one way, but not the only way.

But in QFT there's no natural
particle interpretation in an arbitrary spacetime.

And there are no democrats in the republican mailing list. The key here is
your restriction to an "arbitrary spacetime."

QFT is a theory of
fields, and the very concept of a particle is thought of as interactions
with a quantized field. There's no fundamental need for the particle,
just fields.

There are no needs for particles in any mathematical symbol.

Virtual particles are not the "cause" of the field, they ARE the field.
They're the quantized equivalent of Fourier transforming a field; they're
a representation of the field and don't have an independent existence.

If they don't exist outside the mathematical symbols (the field is one
symbol, the Fourier transform is an imaginary massaging of the symbol,
giving us a representation of another symbol) -- then they simply don't
exist. Except in your mind.

Which is what I said. They are nothing more than a mathematical map of the
real world.

Do you consider Maxwell's equations to be "backfits, not
explanations",
too? They were derived by similar methods.

No they weren't developed by such methods.

And QED is Maxwell's equations, quantized.

Actually, no. There are no little clocks in Maxwell's equations.

Big deal. Lorentz covariance is demanded in relativistic QED, and you get
that whether your preference is special relativity or Lorentzian aether.

Well, the "deal" is that QED is *not* Maxwell's equations, quantized.

Non-relativistic QED uses Galilean transformations.

Your point would be what?

The others were not
predictions -- as they weren't calculated until after they had
been measured.

And the theory is tested, for instance, by comparing lifetimes of free
neutrons with superallowed Fermi beta decay. The SM predicts relations
between those measurements. Likewise the parameters in the SM relate
to experiments like the angular asymmetry of gamma rays in the reaction
n+p-d+gamma, the spin rotation of polarized neutrons in liquid helium,
and the triple correlation in beta decay, all of which are experiments
in
progress today and didn't even exist when the standard model was
invented. The predictions of many experiments involve a limited number
of
parameters, and the theory is tested in the same sense as finding the
same
or different values of the acceleration of gravity depending on whether
you swing a pendulum or roll a ball down an inclined plane. More
parameters, but same idea.

You are also misusing the term "prediction."

No I'm not. E.g. there's an experiment to measure the neutron spin
rotation in liquid helium. The prediction is about a millionth of a
radian. When the experiment is completed and produces a number, it will
either be consistent with previous measurements of parameters and give a
value of about a millionth of a radian, or it won't. It has the dual
purpose of improving the precision of weak force coupling constants, or
blowing up the standard model, depending on how the measurement turns out.

That measurement has never been done before in a meaningful way, it will
be completely new information. Neutron spin rotation has been measured in
other systems, chlorine and tin I believe, which give a very strong
effect. But those are such big atoms that nobody knows how to interpret
the results, it's essentially just a demonstration of the technology. The
signal in helium is very small, but helium is a much simpler atom and a
prediction has been made for its effect, first by some Russians, then a
more sophisticated calculation by some Americans that agrees with the
earlier one. Now we're waiting for the data.

You still misused the word 'prediction' in your previous sentence.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

Gregory L. Hansen wrote in message
...
In article ,
greywolf42 wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote in message
...
In article ,
greywolf42 wrote:

{snip higher levels}

Discrete emission of photons merely means that the emitting matter is
quantised. Not that the photon is quantized. However, "fields" --
per
se -- are merely mathematical maps for the underlying physical
processes.
Hence, they themselves are not fundamental. Fields cannot "cause"
anything. Which is why people constantly talk about virtual particles
being the fundamental of the theory.

Looks like a personal opinion to me.

Looks like the special plead to me.

Nope.

Your statement, above, is a special plead. It is such, because it does not
address the substance of my argument, but attempts to demean the statement
by artificially tagging it as 'personal opinion.' That is the definition of
the special plead fallacy.

You're making definite statements up there about what is really
fundamental, that you can never back up.

Of course I can back it up. Do you dispute that matter is quantized, or
that photons can have any of a continuum of energies?

The best you could ever do is
show that it's a better model than another description, but you can't do
that much just now. All you can ever do is discuss "fundamental" in the
context of a theory, or give a personal opinion.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the positivist futility. So I don't agree with
you.

{snip uncommented statements}

Virtual particles are not the "cause" of the field, they ARE the field.
They're the quantized equivalent of Fourier transforming a field;
they're a representation of the field and don't have an independent
existence.

If they don't exist outside the mathematical symbols (the field is one
symbol, the Fourier transform is an imaginary massaging of the symbol,
giving us a representation of another symbol) -- then they simply don't
exist. Except in your mind.

Which is what I said. They are nothing more than a mathematical map of
the real world.

That's true of any theory. Including aether theories.

Nope. Scientific theories include cause-and-effect. They are not mere
mathematical correlations. Aether theories are physcial cause-and-effect
theories.

But fields are no
more a mathematical map than particles or anything else you'd care to
name.

Particles exist. Drop a 40 pound rock on your shoe, then tell me it doesn't
exist.

Now calculate the force with which that rock will hit your shoe. Did your
foot hurt as you finished the calculation?

Do you consider Maxwell's equations to be "backfits, not
explanations",
too? They were derived by similar methods.

No they weren't developed by such methods.

And QED is Maxwell's equations, quantized.

Actually, no. There are no little clocks in Maxwell's equations.

Big deal. Lorentz covariance is demanded in relativistic QED, and you
get
that whether your preference is special relativity or Lorentzian
aether.

Well, the "deal" is that QED is *not* Maxwell's equations, quantized.

Read a book. Where does quantum electrodynamics begin? With the
classical Maxwell Lagrangian, that's where.

Maxwell did not use a Lagrangian method to derive 'Maxwell's equations."
Maxwell's equations are approximations.

But even the Lagrangian method doesn't use little clocks -- like QED.

Non-relativistic QED uses Galilean transformations.

Your point would be what?

QED doesn't have to be relativistic. As it's most often used, in
materials science, it's not relativistic.

Your point would be what? We aren't discussing relativity.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

Gregory L. Hansen wrote in message
...
In article ,
greywolf42 wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote in message
...
In article ,
greywolf42 wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote in message
...
In article ,
greywolf42 wrote:

{snip higher levels}

Discrete emission of photons merely means that the emitting matter
is
quantised. Not that the photon is quantized. However, "fields" --
per
se -- are merely mathematical maps for the underlying physical
processes.
Hence, they themselves are not fundamental. Fields cannot "cause"
anything. Which is why people constantly talk about virtual
particles
being the fundamental of the theory.

{snip special plead comments, dropped}

You're making definite statements up there about what is really
fundamental, that you can never back up.

Of course I can back it up. Do you dispute that matter is quantized, or
that photons can have any of a continuum of energies?

What does that have to do with "However, 'fields' -- per se -- are merely
mathematical maps for the underlying physical processes. Hence, they
themselves are not fundamental. Fields cannot 'cause' anything."

I notice you dodged the questions. But I am in the process of backing
up my statement. However, I need to determine the starting point. Again:

Do you dispute that matter is quantized?

Do you dispute that photons can have any of a continuum of energies?

You like to think in terms of an aether rather than fields. But there's
no particular, physically demonstrable reason to support that view.
Fields aren't fundamental because... because you say they're not?

Fields are not fundamental because those who developed field theory (i.e.
Maxwell) claimed they weren't. Field is shorthand for field theory, which
is itself shorthand for mathematical field theory. You are welcome to
provide a proof that mathematical field theories are fundamental, and can
cause physical effects when you write those lines on the paper.

The best you could ever do is
show that it's a better model than another description, but you can't
do
that much just now. All you can ever do is discuss "fundamental" in
the
context of a theory, or give a personal opinion.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the positivist futility. So I don't agree
with you.

I've learned something from the history of science. I've learned that
lots of theories have been proposed as The Way Things Really Are, but had
to be discarded in light of new evidence. I don't think today is so
special that This Time We Got It Right.

Then why are you claiming that you have the 'true faith' with your
'fundamental' field theories?

{snip uncommented statements}

Virtual particles are not the "cause" of the field, they ARE the
field.
They're the quantized equivalent of Fourier transforming a field;
they're a representation of the field and don't have an independent
existence.

If they don't exist outside the mathematical symbols (the field is one
symbol, the Fourier transform is an imaginary massaging of the symbol,
giving us a representation of another symbol) -- then they simply
don't
exist. Except in your mind.

Which is what I said. They are nothing more than a mathematical map
of
the real world.

That's true of any theory. Including aether theories.

Nope. Scientific theories include cause-and-effect. They are not mere
mathematical correlations. Aether theories are physcial cause-and-effect
theories.

Field theories do have cause-and-effect. An electron accelerates when it
interacts with an electrical field.

This is not cause-and-effect. As the electrical field is merely a
mathematical (imaginary) device.

Aether theories are no more an
explanation than anything else. It's never explained, for instance, why
one element of aether can't occupy the same volume as another element.

Huh? It has been explained for centuries! Aether corpuscles have a
property called extension (physical size). This physical boundary prevents
two bodies from occupying the same space at the same time.

If there's no force between them they'll pass right through!

Nope. This is field theories. Field theories need forces because their
objects are mathematical points, moving in imaginary fields. Specifically,
your current argument is a recent strawman erected by field theorists to
disparage science (cause and effect).

You're happy with a different picture with a different set of unanswered
questions. But your personal comfort doesn't make it more or less
"cause-and-effect".

Correct. It isn't personal comfort. It's the scientific method. My
questions are not yet completely answered. Your questions are forever
unanswerable. That is the difference.

But fields are no
more a mathematical map than particles or anything else you'd care to
name.

Particles exist. Drop a 40 pound rock on your shoe, then tell me it
doesn't exist.

Now calculate the force with which that rock will hit your shoe. Did
your foot hurt as you finished the calculation?

And you leave the question unasked, "What is the particle made of?"

That question is secondary. Does the particle exist? Did your foot hurt
when you scrawled the lines on the paper describing the result of the
'field?' Or did your foot hurt when a rock fell on your foot? The former
is imaginary -- the latter is physical.

Now lets see if you picked up granite or sandstone......

{snip higher levels}

Well, the "deal" is that QED is *not* Maxwell's equations, quantized.

Read a book. Where does quantum electrodynamics begin? With the
classical Maxwell Lagrangian, that's where.

Maxwell did not use a Lagrangian method to derive 'Maxwell's equations."
Maxwell's equations are approximations.

Maxwell didn't write out his equations with little triangles, either, but
they're still the differential form of Maxwell's equations. And they can
be put in integral form and they're still Maxwell's equations. They can
be put in a very terse form with four-vector notation, but they're still
Maxwell's equations. They can be written in field form or potential form
and they're still Maxwell's equations. And the Maxwell Lagrangian is both
determined by and uniquely produces Maxwell's. Same physics, different
representation. And quantum field theory is classical field theory with
operators instead of variables.

Maxwell's equations are what Maxwell wrote. No more, no less. What others
may have done later while under the influence of religious appreciation of
mathematics is not Maxwell.

There's no reason to think that Maxwell's equations are approximations.

Because they were derived by Maxwell using a fluid aether. And Maxwell used
several specific physical approximations in developing those equations. I'd
personally consider this a reason to think they are approximations.

But even the Lagrangian method doesn't use little clocks -- like QED.

I guess we're done with the silly claim that QED is Maxwell's equations,
quantized. Good.

Non-relativistic QED uses Galilean transformations.

Your point would be what?

QED doesn't have to be relativistic. As it's most often used, in
materials science, it's not relativistic.

Your point would be what? We aren't discussing relativity.

You're the one that brought up little clocks. You don't need to go
relativistic to quantize a field.

I mentioned clocks because QED uses little clocks. And I never mentioned
relativity for those clocks. Maxwell's equations don't use little clocks.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

"g" == greywolf42 writes:

g Joseph Lazio wrote in message
g ...

g Obviously, you don't understand "science."
I suspect I do not understand what you consider to be "science."
It's not clear to me that anybody but yourself understands what you
consider to be "science."

g Do you understand the scientific method? [...]

Which "scientific method"? The rigid formulaic approach that is
taught to grade school children or the messy, at time contradictory,
exploratory approach that most scientists really use?

As for my part, I'm going to continue to publish papers in
astronomical journals, observe with some of the best telescopes on
the planet, and to be part of the great scientific establishment (I
hope! .

g Publishing is not a fundamental part of the scientific method.

Name one famous scientist who did not publish his or her results.

g It *is* fundamental to advancement in the pecking order of
g grant-chasing establishment bureaucrats.

Ah, yes, the old either-or choice. Either publishing scientific
results is all good or it is all bad. Science is like all other human
enterprises in some respects. Some stuff that gets published probably
should be. Bean counters confuse quantity with quality. So what.
Name one human enterprise that is perfect.

g Great discoveries usually come from outside the establishment.

A nice fiction...

g Because existing within the establishment requires staying with the
g herd, in all but minor points.

You mean like Rubin & Ford publishing their result that galaxy
rotation curves did not obey everybody's expectations? or like Guth
publishing his wild-eyed idea about the early Universe? or the
supernova teams publishing their results that suggested that the
Universe is accelerating? or Walker & Wardle publishing their result
that extreme scattering events are not due to plasma clouds but dense
halo molecular clouds? or ...?

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

Joseph Lazio wrote in message
...
"g" == greywolf42 writes:

g Joseph Lazio wrote in message
g ...

g Obviously, you don't understand "science."
I suspect I do not understand what you consider to be "science."
It's not clear to me that anybody but yourself understands what you
consider to be "science."

g Do you understand the scientific method? [...]

Which "scientific method"? The rigid formulaic approach that is
taught to grade school children or the messy, at time contradictory,
exploratory approach that most scientists really use?

Ah! The classic fallacy of the excluded middle -- and set up as a straw
man.

Neither of your straw options are the scientific method. As you know, Mr.
Lazio.

As for my part, I'm going to continue to publish papers in
astronomical journals, observe with some of the best telescopes on
the planet, and to be part of the great scientific establishment (I
hope! .

g Publishing is not a fundamental part of the scientific method.

Name one famous scientist who did not publish his or her results.

"Famous" is not part of the scientific method, either.

Much -- if not most -- groudbreaking scientific work is done by unknowns,
and pirated by the powerful, or "in" crowd. And all that data that supports
science is gathered by unknowns.

g It *is* fundamental to advancement in the pecking order of
g grant-chasing establishment bureaucrats.

Ah, yes, the old either-or choice. Either publishing scientific
results is all good or it is all bad.

LOL! I never said either-or! I simply noted that publishing is not part of
the scientific method. But that it is necessary to advance in the current
hierarchy. I.E. to become "famous."

Science is like all other human enterprises in some respects.

No. Those who call themselves *scientists* in the academic pecking order
are still human. But *Science* is -- by definition -- the application of
the scientific method. Not what PhDs do to line up at the public trough.

Some stuff that gets published probably
should be. Bean counters confuse quantity with quality. So what.
Name one human enterprise that is perfect.

Why, none. Do you have a point?

g Great discoveries usually come from outside the establishment.

A nice fiction...

The Sun-centered solar system, big bang, plate techtonics, the connection
between electricity and magnetism, genetics, ...

"Fundamental challenges to disciplines tend to come from outside. It is
customary for students to be introduced to their fields of study gradually,
as slowly unfolding mysteries, so that by the time they can see their
subject as a whole, they have been so thoroughly imbued with conventional
preconceptions and patterns of thought that they are extremely unlikely to
be able to question its basic premises."

How many examples or quotes would you like?

g Because existing within the establishment requires staying with the
g herd, in all but minor points.

You mean like Rubin & Ford publishing their result that galaxy
rotation curves did not obey everybody's expectations?

This you class as a 'great discovery'?! How about French, ignoring his own
data so as to not disprove the BB theory (yet again), and not **** off the
power structure?

or like Guth publishing his wild-eyed idea about the early Universe?

LOL! Guth's idea (inflation) was a pure epicycle to salvage standard
cosmology (the Big Bang).

or the
supernova teams publishing their results that suggested that the
Universe is accelerating?

ROTFLMAO! The SN teams didn't suggest the universe is accelerating! They
published data that contradicted the BB paradigm. That's about the fifth
major disproof of the BB. So there's nothing really new there. And -- as
expected -- a new epicycle was invented to accomodate the (unpredicted)
result.

or Walker & Wardle publishing their result
that extreme scattering events are not due to plasma clouds but dense
halo molecular clouds?

This is a "great discovery?"

or ...?

These examples of yours are all minor revisions to what has gone before --
by those safely within the power structure. Just as I discussed.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas