This new equation might finally unite the two biggest theories in physics, claims physicist

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by paddoboy, Aug 20, 2016.

  1. Engell79 Registered Senior Member

    Okey Schmelzer, let me take you serious for a second.

    I dont understand why someone with your 'fringe' or Off-mainstream path of sicence dosnt apriciate other fringe or off beat sicence. I find it close minded, and not the sign of a great scientist that you instantly claim "Its worthless"
    rather than apriciate the work and ask your self. "what if it were possible? what arguments can i, with my mind, find to defend this theory." I do this my self, wen ever im meet with something i dont understand or oppose. I force my self
    to think... "How do i defend this, how could this be true rather than what i think." and in this process even if there is no definitive answer, your deffinatly not getting dumber.

    lets take Einstein, he spend alot of time finding arguemts for Ether theory, and then turned around and finnaly came to the conclutions of GR. even after he made GR, he spend quite alot of time weighing the theories of Aether from Lorentz and that other dude i forgot the name of.

    there is no doubt that your level of understanding far supperseed my own, and thus i find it sad you dont use that amazing gift with an open mind. (i honestly dont know if you do, but from your post on these forums your taking a wery one-tracked-approch.) you may be VERY different in RL.

    imagine the knowlegde you could gain, and further understanding, if you went all in on "how can i prove ER=EPR is true." now, you may end up unabel to find an asnwer, but sure as hell youll have gained knowlegde and understanding. Or, you might find that this cannot be proved true, and why... ending up with a key to something much bigger than the original purpos. Someone with your understanding and skill, migh actually find something noteworthy that way.

    -snap- of the serious beat and back to forum banther.

    Again, the 'published' arguement... lols... well, honsetly i think, no one has done anything to your Aether theory is just a sign that it might not be worth their time ( in their perspective.) i would wish for a world, were all science was challenged, tried and
    experimented with.

    and just as a fact: i dont disagree with neither your theory or the ER=EPR... but neither do i belive you to be 'right' until further facts for either theories are made by smarter people than i... i say they are both fringe, instresting but nothing more.
    and yes... someday someone migh say Ether=String... oh.. bad example..... well another one then.. once EVERY ONE belived the world to be flat.... yep its true... once people actually belived females to be of lesser intelligence than men.... being a married man i can wouch for that one not being true.... my point is, new reserach is constantly riddiculed and later found "True."

    did i waste my time with my serious part? i guess, but maybe someone else will think about it.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Most people who engage in fringe science are not in it for science or truth, they are in it for themselves. They tell themselves that they are there for science and truth, but that is part of the lie that they tell themselves and others in order to feel better.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    The problem is that if one looks at 'fringe' parts containing the e-word, what you see is simply unprofessional. As you would not start thinking about how 2+2=5 would be possible, I will not start to think about how the 1000+1st "Einstien made a logical error" claim would be possible.

    Regarding string theory my approach is quite different. I do not start to think about it, because there are already thousands of clever people thinking about it. They do not need my help. What I can do, and do, is to compare the investment of man-years of research with what they have reached up to now. This is a horrible amount, and they have reached nothing but some nice and interesting higher mathematics. Which has been appreciated by the mathematics community. But they have reached nothing in physics. In fact, even what they have claimed to reach (quantum gravity) is yet unproven, and even the partial results which have been proven work only for an unrealistic case (unbroken supersymmetry), at least according to their critiques (Woit, Smolin). But, whatever, here my approach is simply a bet: Even if one starts with a naive 50:50 bet of string vs. ether, if I bet on strings I have to compete with thousands, if I bet on ether I get it essentially all alone.

    There are other approaches which I reject without further studying the details, but for another reason: These are approaches which do not question the strong equivalence principle (SEP) of GR. I could polemically say they take the SEP as a dogma. But this would not be the point, because every approach has to make some decisions about the principles which are not questioned. Every theory starts with some axioms, and, similarly, every approach has to start with some axioms too. My ether approach also has such axioms/dogmata.

    The point is that I have found quite early (this was, in fact, my first nontrivial result at all) a strong argument that the SEP is incompatible with quantum theory. This is (It is unpublished, but none of the several rejections has really found an error in it - at best one can say they have found weak points in the presentation, usually not even this.) After this, an approach which does not question the SEP immediately ends in the problem I have found in this paper.

    So, if I would have been at, say, one of these lectures about ER=EPR, I would have had an argument to present against it - that of my paper. And if I would be as naive as 20 years ago, I would have already started to write a paper with such content. But this is simply something I have given up.

    The very idea that one would better consider alternatives too is, in some sense, a triviality. You would be unable to develop any new theory without doing it all the time. So, the difference between different scientists is only about the range of alternatives they would care to think about, not that they think about alternatives at all. So, most string theorists would think about various alternative string theory approaches, but do not think at all about ether theoretical approaches. And so on.
    You underestimate the power of the "publish or perish" principle. To find a serious error in a paper gives you a reasonable chance to publish a refutation in this same paper. "Foundations of Physics" counts less than "Physical Review", but is certainly attractive enough to write a rejection if one finds an error in one of its papers.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Engell79 Registered Senior Member

    a pragmatic aproach, that i can respect. (Not that it should matter to you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . )

    In any case thank you for answering my questions with a professional attitude, and satisfying my curiosity.
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Two great posts that touch on truth and explain much.

Share This Page