There are no fractals in the physical world, for the same reason there are no spheres or parabolas. Fractals are mathematical objects, corresponding to abstractions of physical reality - very useful, but never more than approximately accurate as descriptions of physical entities.
What qualifies as science?
- Thread starter Jozen-Bo
- Start date
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
From the standard Wikipedia template;
This article may present fringe theories, ...
Your false conclusion; " Ah, so Wikipedia itself acknowledges that CDT is a fringe theory".
Wikipedia is not acknowledging anything of the sort, unless you want to interpret "may" as "is".
See above; a real Koch snowflake, as well as examples of real natural fractal structures
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
Perhaps this is my fault; I’ve been using the term quite a lot in this thread. I personally have no strong dislike of it, other than that it shouldn’t be needed. I should be calling “mainstream science” just “science”, with the rest being pseudo-science or non-science. I purely use it to make clear I’m talking about established theories, not fringe or pseudo.
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
Are these not EXAMPLES of natural fractal patterns? The universe is filled with them and even on earth there are an uncountable number of fractal forms.
https://www.wired.com/2010/09/fractal-patterns-in-nature/
They are indeed not actually fractals, as you yourself point out immediately after:
So it's not a fractal. At best, a fractal-like patterns over a limited range of scale.
So you can't actually draw a Koch fractal on paper, as you cannot draw smaller than atomic scales.
You are the first to claim that, as far as I can see. I for one am fully aware that a finite sized object can have structures down to infinitesimal scales.
Does that mean if it's not infinitely large or infinitely small it cannot be a fractal ???
Where did that come from?
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
Technically, you are right. Even pointing to the CDT article itself being in the "Physics beyond the Standard Model" would only suggest, not prove.
So I did some searching, and here we go: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.08160.pdf
A paper from this year explicitly talking about CDT, and the second sentence of the introduction already establishes that CDT is (currently) not accepted mainstream. Yes, CDT is promising, but not yet there.
Please look up again what fractals actually are, and try to understand why natural structures cannot be fractals (at the very least, as long as atomic theory holds).
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Possibly. But even if you have been using the term, Write4U should not be telling me I am "clinging" to a word I have not been using!
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
No, it is only proof that my knowledge of scientific language is inadequate, not that I am necessarily wrong in my understanding of metaphysical concepts which , rather than trying to disprove the various and diverse scientific disciplines in conventional science, are attempting to combine them and form a cohesive TOE.
For one, David Bohm (by all accounts an eminent physicist) made this clear in his important book "Wholeness and the Implicate Order".
Peer reviews of his work do not dismiss his work as being wrong. The only objection is that it cannot be tested (yet). The same holds true for Tegmark's "A Mathematical Universe" and Loll's "Causal Dynamical Triangulation".
But you would place it on the shelf as "fringe science". But how about calling it being at the "cutting edge of science" ?
In any case, well reasoned and peer reviewed formal papers by acknowledged scientists is doing "science". All cutting edge scientific hypotheses encounter challenges, is that not part of the scientific method?
My shortcomings in explanation does not in any way affect the importance of the work itself.
But then I make no claim of being a scientist and I am also not trying to take credit by claiming that any of this is my own work.
I just am trying to explain why these fundamental metaphysical concepts appeal to my "mirror neural system".
The OP asks "what qualifies as science", not "what makes a scientist".
IMHO, the subjects I raised do qualify as science, it's just that I am not a scientist.
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
Inadequate to the point of being wrong.
Sure, but I'm not arguing that your understanding of certain metaphysical concepts is wrong. I'm arguing that you use scientific terms incorrectly.
(Irrelevant, so no comment.)
Irrelevant; I'm not arguing that they are wrong.
Wait, are you now arguing semantics? The thing you've "accused" me of doing?
So? Call it whatever you like, it's still not mainstream science. It's still not established. It's still speculation. Good speculation, perhaps, but still speculation.
("Acknowledged" scientists? Is this an argument from authority?)
I've never argued otherwise.
Not necessarily, but sure.
Right, but your representation of the work is incorrect and wrong. For example, you use many of the terms incorrectly.
Noted.
And I am trying to point out that you are clearly misunderstanding many of the concepts involved, and thus that the appeal they have on you is neither here nor there.
True, so let's stop referring to all kinds of scientists by name (i.e. no arguments from authority), and solely talk about the ideas and concepts involved.
The subjects as they really are, yes. (Well, not the metaphysical ones, perhaps. And definitely not the philosophical ones. Those are not scientific.) But not your representation of them. You don't understand many of the terms involved, so what you raise is not science.
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
True.
I'm not sure I agree with this one. It's a branch of philosophy, and doesn't follow the scientific method. There may be (I simply don't know enough about it) scientific components to it, but as a whole, it's not scientific as far as I know.
Archaeology doesn't fundamentally follow the scientific method, but it's obviously studying the natural world; do you consider it to be a science? If so, why? If not, why not?
Oh, and before I forget to ask: how's that list of critics of BB THEORY coming along?
Metaphysics is within the BB theory .
Just google , critics of the big bang theory , you will find many .
For instance , just for instance ;
https://thetechreader.com/top-ten/top-ten-scientific-flaws-in-the-big-bang-theory/
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
We tried (see post #627, #628, and #631) but we didn't find (m)any.
Right, let's look at that link. #10 is not a flaw, but an unsolved question. #9 is not a flaw, but an unsolved question. #8 is wrong; the author is apparently unaware that the early universe was not transparent. #7 is dead wrong; the author has apparently never heard of gravity. #6 is partially wrong (there is strong evidence for dark matter), and dark energy is not a flaw, just an unresolved issue. #5 is a misunderstanding of spatial expansion, and thus wrong. #4 is dead wrong, and shows a profound misunderstanding of BB theory. #3 is wrong, because that's not what the First Law of Thermodynamics says. Matter can be created and destroyed. But even if we are talking about energy, the point is still wrong. BB theory currently only explains what happens after gravity decouples from the other forces; we need a quantum gravity to go further back. #2 is plain wrong; the universe is expanding. #1 is wrong, because the author failed to take into account spatial expansion.
Come on, that's not decent criticism. Even I am able to point out the flaw in each and every point.
I only got as far as the first paragraph in the authors summation, where he said the BB is only a theory!
I stopped there as it was obviously a woo site something that our friend river is only ever able to give.ps: Ask him about the Alien atomic war on Mars!!
Fair dinkum!The X-Files TV show, has plenty to answer for.
These points are just the begining.
People , brilliant people have been pointing out the flaws of BB for 20-30yrs .
Just google , you will find many more problems with BB.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Thank you much for that excellent link and your effort to give my hopelessly inadequate presentation a serious look.. It now holds a special place in my library.
I am heartened to see that my intuitive layman's impression was correct in the sense that CDT might be able to offer an important contribution to our understanding of a fundamental aspect of our universe.
p.s. I am sure you will have noticed the fractal aspect to this hypothesis as well.
What qualifies as Science? I think it is far easier to list what is not qualified as science.
The paranormal, the supernatural, the pseudo sciences for starters. Probably the most dangerous out of all those is pseudoscience and similar alternatives to accepted science. A good example is in the field of medicine.
Recent times in Sydney.....
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-...eath-charges-upgraded-to-manslaughter/8872216
"Botched breast surgery leads to manslaughter charges for Chinese tourist"
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The signs of pseudoscience and pseudoscientists are
The paranormal, the supernatural, the pseudo sciences for starters. Probably the most dangerous out of all those is pseudoscience and similar alternatives to accepted science. A good example is in the field of medicine.
Recent times in Sydney.....
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-...eath-charges-upgraded-to-manslaughter/8872216
"Botched breast surgery leads to manslaughter charges for Chinese tourist"
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The signs of pseudoscience and pseudoscientists are
- Proposition of theories as scientific but which cannot be empiracally tested.
- The acception of only that isolated evidence supporting their nonsense in some limited trivial way and rejection of all hard evidence.
- The fanatical refusal to give up any specific idea, no matter what empirical evidence falsifies it.
- Quoting the "so called Ancients" and mythical and mystical unscientific nonsense about Earth, life the universe and anything.
- Impressionable and gullible attitiudes, particularly paranormal, supernatural, or ET claims.
Never heard of this before . ( people it is important to explain an acronym , please )
CDT , is defined as ; Causal dynamical triangulation , This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.
Except as yet we do not have anything like any validated or verifiable QGT of which CDT springs. All we are able to do is speculate backwards from 10-43 seconds. I prefer the Universe being the ultimate free lunch myself.....
https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/
A Universe from Nothing:
In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.
The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.
What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.
Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.
Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.
If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
At least that has some real scientific application although still speculative.
And yet, so far, you haven't managed to name even one.
You've already been told what Googling produces - YOU made the claim, support it.