As of today, both are stuck.

Let me see in this way:

- In just one gram of an element there are about 6. 02×10^23 atoms.

- In just one cubic centimeter of metals there are about 10^24 atoms.

- In the visible universe (Hubble's radius), and I quote:

The Hubble Deep Field, an extremely long exposure of a relatively empty part of the sky, provided evidence that there are about 125 billion (1.25×10^11) galaxies in the observable universe.

- How many stars are in the visible universe? I quote:

Rough estimations of the average number of stars in a galaxy give
a value of 4.10^11. So, in the observable universe, the estimation gives
a value of 5.10^22 stars.

----------------------------------

And physics pretend to reduce this to a simple set of equations?

RIDICULOUS and HERETICAL, to the least. The arrogance of some people
is incredible.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> As of today, both are stuck.
>
> Let me see in this way:
>
> - In just one gram of an element there are about 6. 02×10^23 atoms.

That’s true only for one element. It’s immediately wrong for any other
element.

>
> - In just one cubic centimeter of metals there are about 10^24 atoms.
>
> - In the visible universe (Hubble's radius), and I quote:
>
> The Hubble Deep Field, an extremely long exposure of a relatively empty
> part of the sky, provided evidence that there are about 125 billion
> (1.25×10^11) galaxies in the observable universe.
>
> - How many stars are in the visible universe? I quote:
>
> Rough estimations of the average number of stars in a galaxy give
> a value of 4.10^11. So, in the observable universe, the estimation gives
> a value of 5.10^22 stars.
>
> ----------------------------------
>
> And physics pretend to reduce this to a simple set of equations?

Why yes. That’s the amazing thing about nature, that it repeats itself for
the most part.
The universe’s baryonic mass is about 75% hydrogen. Using your numbers for
the star count, that’s about 10^80 atoms in the observable universe, and
3/4 of them are identical. That means that the simple laws used to describe
a hydrogen atom apply over and over and over again about 10^80 times
identically.

And you find this problematic, why?

>
> RIDICULOUS and HERETICAL, to the least. The arrogance of some people
> is incredible.
>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 8/6/21 2:18 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> [...]

It's only Richard Hertz who is at a "dead end". Basically because he
considers his personal ignorance to be equivalent to knowledge. Hopeless.

Tom Roberts

On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 12:18:03 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> imbecilities snipped<

It is refreshing to see that your crankiness extends to other fields. Most likely, it extends to all fields that you do not understand.

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 12:27:20 PM UTC-3, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 8/6/21 2:18 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > [...]
>
> It's only Richard Hertz who is at a "dead end". Basically because he
> considers his personal ignorance to be equivalent to knowledge. Hopeless.
>
> Tom Roberts

Tom, I respect your base of knowledge but not your attitude when attacking others.
It's a flaw of character that put you at the level of JanPB self-entitlement.

About Dono, I can't find any element of his persona to be respected. He used to be
a know-it-all POS when posting about GR many, many years ago. But it seems that
he didn't have the patience to write more than one line to develop his explanations,
and in the last years he MUTATED to a lifeform which only find pleasure with one-liner
parade of insults. Poor Dono.

Now, to the point. When I wrote about dead ends at science, I specifically addressed
the problem of magnitudes.

You can develop a theory for the quantum behavior of a single Hydrogen atom and his
lonely electron as a partner. But you are in problems if you want to extrapolate this pet
theory over an environment where 10^30 (or more) H atoms are co-coliving.

The same applies to pet theories of gravitation developed to explain TWO-BODIES behavior.
But it fails miserably when applied to a context where 10^25 celestial bodies are interacting
in a time span of billion of years.

The same problem happen actually, which has posed the entire world over the edge, and is
the pandemic effect of the COVID virus. There are, almost literally, infinite elements to be
accounted into any development for a solution (either for the virus structure or the human
body responses). If you add to this how these complexities interact and evolve in time over
EVERY PERSON, you'll find that any "solution" is only "statistically safe" for a lapse of time,
with special cases which baffles scientists all over the world. The complexities involved
are well beyond our current abilities to manage them.

We, as a civilization, just don't have the means and knowledge required to manage the vastness
of data and complex interactions. Maybe in 200 years or maybe never.

So, put in such contexts what I wrote about. And also, stop being jerks!

The dead end is there because of the huge amount of money and support technology (computers,
software, instruments) to make advances. The world is not in a good shape to get huge funds to
develop labs or instruments or the manpower needed to advance toward undefined or (worse)
extremely ambitious goals, which are only to obtain pieces of the giant puzzle that is the existence
of everything.

Is that clear, haters of the free thought?

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 11:38:48 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> snip imbecilities<
It is refreshing to see that you are an equal opportunity denier of mainstream science. When you die, all that is left of you is the idiocies you posted here.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 12:27:20 PM UTC-3, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 8/6/21 2:18 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> It's only Richard Hertz who is at a "dead end". Basically because he
>> considers his personal ignorance to be equivalent to knowledge. Hopeless.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> Tom, I respect your base of knowledge but not your attitude when attacking others.
> It's a flaw of character that put you at the level of JanPB self-entitlement.
>
> About Dono, I can't find any element of his persona to be respected. He used to be
> a know-it-all POS when posting about GR many, many years ago. But it seems that
> he didn't have the patience to write more than one line to develop his explanations,
> and in the last years he MUTATED to a lifeform which only find pleasure with one-liner
> parade of insults. Poor Dono.
>
> Now, to the point. When I wrote about dead ends at science, I specifically addressed
> the problem of magnitudes.
>
> You can develop a theory for the quantum behavior of a single Hydrogen atom and his
> lonely electron as a partner. But you are in problems if you want to extrapolate this pet
> theory over an environment where 10^30 (or more) H atoms are co-coliving.
>
> The same applies to pet theories of gravitation developed to explain TWO-BODIES behavior.
> But it fails miserably when applied to a context where 10^25 celestial
> bodies are interacting
> in a time span of billion of years.
>
> The same problem happen actually, which has posed the entire world over the edge, and is
> the pandemic effect of the COVID virus. There are, almost literally,
> infinite elements to be
> accounted into any development for a solution
> (either for the virus structure or the human
> body responses). If you add to this how these complexities interact and evolve in time over
> EVERY PERSON, you'll find that any "solution" is only "statistically
> safe" for a lapse of time,
> with special cases which baffles scientists all over the world. The complexities involved
> are well beyond our current abilities to manage them.
>
> We, as a civilization, just don't have the means and knowledge required
> to manage the vastness
> of data and complex interactions. Maybe in 200 years or maybe never.
>
> So, put in such contexts what I wrote about. And also, stop being jerks!
>
> The dead end is there because of the huge amount of money and support
> technology (computers,
> software, instruments) to make advances. The
> world is not in a good shape to get huge funds to
> develop labs or instruments or the manpower needed to advance toward undefined or (worse)
> extremely ambitious goals, which are only to obtain pieces of the giant
> puzzle that is the existence
> of everything.
>
> Is that clear, haters of the free thought?
>

Opining about something you know next to nothing about isn’t really “free
thought”, at least of any substantive value except as self amusement.

You may find statistical mechanics to be a ripe opportunity for learning
for you.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 12:27:20 PM UTC-3, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 8/6/21 2:18 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> It's only Richard Hertz who is at a "dead end". Basically because he
>> considers his personal ignorance to be equivalent to knowledge. Hopeless.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> Tom, I respect your base of knowledge but not your attitude when attacking others.
> It's a flaw of character that put you at the level of JanPB self-entitlement.
>
> About Dono, I can't find any element of his persona to be respected. He used to be
> a know-it-all POS when posting about GR many, many years ago. But it seems that
> he didn't have the patience to write more than one line to develop his explanations,
> and in the last years he MUTATED to a lifeform which only find pleasure with one-liner
> parade of insults. Poor Dono.
>
> Now, to the point. When I wrote about dead ends at science, I specifically addressed
> the problem of magnitudes.
>
> You can develop a theory for the quantum behavior of a single Hydrogen atom and his
> lonely electron as a partner. But you are in problems if you want to extrapolate this pet
> theory over an environment where 10^30 (or more) H atoms are co-coliving.
>
> The same applies to pet theories of gravitation developed to explain TWO-BODIES behavior.
> But it fails miserably when applied to a context where 10^25 celestial bodies are interacting
> in a time span of billion of years.
>
> The same problem happen actually, which has posed the entire world over the edge, and is
> the pandemic effect of the COVID virus. There are, almost literally, infinite elements to be
> accounted into any development for a solution (either for the virus structure or the human
> body responses). If you add to this how these complexities interact and evolve in time over
> EVERY PERSON, you'll find that any "solution" is only "statistically safe" for a lapse of time,
> with special cases which baffles scientists all over the world. The complexities involved
> are well beyond our current abilities to manage them.
>
> We, as a civilization, just don't have the means and knowledge required to manage the vastness
> of data and complex interactions. Maybe in 200 years or maybe never.

Two cranky alleged "engineers":
Maciej Wozniak: "anything goes, Science is wrong"
Richard Herz: "nothing goes, Science is wrong".

> So, put in such contexts what I wrote about. And also, stop being jerks!

You are the jerk.

> The dead end is there because of the huge amount of money and support technology (computers,
> software, instruments) to make advances. The world is not in a good shape to get huge funds to
> develop labs or instruments or the manpower needed to advance toward undefined or (worse)
> extremely ambitious goals, which are only to obtain pieces of the giant puzzle that is the existence
> of everything.
>
> Is that clear, haters of the free thought?

Debunking idiots is not being "haters of the free thought".

To all the enlightened people who find pleasure to show off their self perceived engrandement on knowledge,
I can tell that it's very sad that such perception of themselves seems to allow them to negate alternative points of view

It's like to observe the behavior of chickens, if I put them out of the hen house, depriving them of the false sense of security
that have being within, not knowing that sooner or later will be the lunch of someone. Poor chickens, which lost their sense
of belonging and their comfort zone while being put out of the hen house.

Your desperate need to be within your comfort zones make you look pathetic.

In my case, I'm not indoctrinated in any way (political, economical, scientific or socially), so I can explore parallel or divergent
paths of knowledge without fears that my head could explode.

But this is me. I have no flag nor doctrine at any branch to keep even when wrong or evil positions are visible.

I'm a rational person, with flexibility and a wide range of information and knowledge to use, when needed. I can even face contradictions
and weigh them accordingly.

CAN YOU? Or you are sold out to a single doctrine of whatever in life?

Crank Richard Hertz wrote:
....
> I'm a rational person

No. You're not.

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 8:04:17 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
> Crank Richard Hertz wrote:
> ...
> > I'm a rational person
>
> No. You're not.

Says who is unable to write a post with three or four paragraphs that could hold consistency, defect
which share with the one-liner prince of insults, the lowlife Dono.

Python, try to write here something about anything, with some length, which can pass a test of coherence.

But please, don't plagiarize it, as it's the usual method in your relativity cult.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> To all the enlightened people who find pleasure to show off their self
> perceived engrandement on knowledge,
> I can tell that it's very sad that such perception of themselves seems to
> allow them to negate alternative points of view
>
> It's like to observe the behavior of chickens, if I put them out of the
> hen house, depriving them of the false sense of security
> that have being within, not knowing that sooner or later will be the
> lunch of someone. Poor chickens, which lost their sense
> of belonging and their comfort zone while being put out of the hen house.
>
> Your desperate need to be within your comfort zones make you look pathetic.
>
> In my case, I'm not indoctrinated in any way (political, economical,
> scientific or socially), so I can explore parallel or divergent
> paths of knowledge without fears that my head could explode.

There are many forms of speculation, which you call “alternative points of
view”, ranging from science fiction to testable ideas.

The activity of science, and in fact the central idea of science, is
approaching ideas with the constraint of verification against observation
and experiment. Unless an “alternative point of view” offers something
unique in the way of an observational prediction, compared to more accepted
ideas, then the idea isn’t really of much scientific value. If an
“alternative point of view” has no predictive power at all, then it isn’t
even really scientific thinking at all — this is the category of invisible
pink fairies. Invisible pink fairies aren’t scorned because it’s fairies
that’s mentioned; they’re scorned because such ideas make no definitive
predictions.

What you are lobbying for is the freedom, on a physics newsgroup, to idly
speculate over a wide range of passing thoughts, but in a way that is
distinctly non-scientific. That is, at core, off topic.

>
> But this is me. I have no flag nor doctrine at any branch to keep even
> when wrong or evil positions are visible.
>
> I'm a rational person, with flexibility and a wide range of information
> and knowledge to use, when needed. I can even face contradictions
> and weigh them accordingly.
>
> CAN YOU? Or you are sold out to a single doctrine of whatever in life?
>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

How did the Big Bang create the first atom?
How was it arranged into stars?
how were galaxies formed by those stars?

Mitchell Raemsch

On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 9:25:52 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> There are many forms of speculation, which you call “alternative points of
> view”, ranging from science fiction to testable ideas.

No. Your simplification of “alternative points of view” is the usual a-la-Bodkin way
to make synthetic statements which comprehend everything. You are consumed by
the desire to "put a fundamental egg of thought" that can sound reaffirming, glorious
and a sample of your self-perceived capability for capturing the essence of truth in one phrase.
You like, and always liked, to be capable of deep thoughts which may encapsulate any
set of complexities.

When I used “alternative points of view”, I was clearly using this in the sense of new ideas
about any specific subject (a theory, for instance). I'm not talking about diverse and random topics

In this particular point, it's used over the birth of the concept of relativity in physics.

> The activity of science, and in fact the central idea of science, is
> approaching ideas with the constraint of verification against observation
> and experiment. Unless an “alternative point of view” offers something
> unique in the way of an observational prediction, compared to more accepted
> ideas, then the idea isn’t really of much scientific value. If an
> “alternative point of view” has no predictive power at all, then it isn’t
> even really scientific thinking at all — this is the category of invisible
> pink fairies.

Again, you are writing for the sake of it, without coherence.

Examples of contradictions of your posture against real facts:

1) "approaching ideas with the constraint of verification against observation and experiment."
2) "something unique in the way of an observational prediction, compared to more accepted
ideas, then the idea isn’t really of much scientific value."
3) "If an "alternative point of view” has no predictive power at all, then it isn’t even really
scientific thinking at all."

Here you have three statements that spin around the same simple concept: predictive power and,
later, their observation and experiment.

On Einstein: "My theory will be demonstrated by three experiments" (while he was working on it,
in the first years of 1910's decade):

- The deflection of light by gravity.
- The explanation of Mercury's perihelion.
- The red-shifting of light under heavy gravitational fields.

This affirmations were made BEFORE he even had written Entwurf I and II (1913, 1914), with
Grossman as a mathematician or the final outcome: 1915 GR, with Hilbert.

So, he used "predictive powers" to state HOW his theory had to be proven. His first try, in 1911,
was by plagiarizing von Soldner's work (written a century before), about the deflection of light
corpuscles (Newton) and giving half the value of the 1915 result.
His second try, by plagiarizing Gerber's formulae, was made in 1915 and gave the same 43" for
Mercury's perihelion advance in a century. This was exactly what Gerber formulae gave in 1898.
His third prediction didn't match any experimental observation.
It took Eddington in 1919 to save his ass (with the hoax around the eclipse) to trigger him as an
international celebrity that had dethroned Newton.

On other incredible prediction about the Big Bang, which saved part of the theory:

December 6, 1979. Alan Guth develop his theory of "inflation", which solved many problems with
the cosmological model of the BB theory:

"In the first 10^-35 seconds, the universe expanded 10^24 times his original size", which was followed
by explanations about energy transforming into matter, partially, and blah, blah, blah!

42 years after, this incredible "prediction" remains intact in the current theory of Lambda-Cold Dark Matter.

Of course that this disparate has no means to be proved (and observed).

There are plenty of many other examples like these, at every branch of knowledge.

In science fiction, authors violate any given physical theory just for the sake of a good narrative. People
who like science fiction, like myself, enjoy the readings of good books without questioning the "artistic
license" on current physics because we know it's fiction, like a fairy tail..

So, “alternative points of view” are strictly linked to any given theory: relativity, quantum mechanics, nuclear
physics and the atomic bomb, how come US "invented computers and software" or historic revisionism, which
is fascinating as an art and a science, etc.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 9:25:52 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> There are many forms of speculation, which you call “alternative points of
>> view”, ranging from science fiction to testable ideas.
>
> No. Your simplification of “alternative points of view” is the usual a-la-Bodkin way
> to make synthetic statements which comprehend everything. You are consumed by
> the desire to "put a fundamental egg of thought" that can sound reaffirming, glorious
> and a sample of your self-perceived capability for capturing the essence
> of truth in one phrase.
> You like, and always liked, to be capable of deep thoughts which may encapsulate any
> set of complexities.
>
> When I used “alternative points of view”, I was clearly using this in
> the sense of new ideas
> about any specific subject (a theory, for instance). I'm not talking
> about diverse and random topics

I’ll point out that “new ideas” about a subject does not necessarily
involve science thinking. John Sefton in a different group has an artistic
idea about atoms. It is a “new idea” about something that is of interest to
physics, but it is in no way a scientific idea because John has no clear
concept of what science actually is, though he is an artist. A poem about
atoms is not physics. A science fiction novel about atoms is not physics.

>
> In this particular point, it's used over the birth of the concept of relativity in physics.

The birth of the concept of relativity in physics is a matter of historical
record. Perhaps your “new idea” about history is akin to Abraham Lincoln:
Vampire Assassin.

>
>
>> The activity of science, and in fact the central idea of science, is
>> approaching ideas with the constraint of verification against observation
>> and experiment. Unless an “alternative point of view” offers something
>> unique in the way of an observational prediction, compared to more accepted
>> ideas, then the idea isn’t really of much scientific value. If an
>> “alternative point of view” has no predictive power at all, then it isn’t
>> even really scientific thinking at all — this is the category of invisible
>> pink fairies.
>
> Again, you are writing for the sake of it, without coherence.
>
> Examples of contradictions of your posture against real facts:
>
> 1) "approaching ideas with the constraint of verification against
> observation and experiment."
> 2) "something unique in the way of an observational prediction, compared to more accepted
> ideas, then the idea isn’t really of much scientific value."
> 3) "If an "alternative point of view” has no predictive power at all,
> then it isn’t even really
> scientific thinking at all."
>
> Here you have three statements that spin around the same simple concept:
> predictive power and,
> later, their observation and experiment.

Yes, that is the essence of science.

>
> On Einstein: "My theory will be demonstrated by three experiments" (while
> he was working on it,
> in the first years of 1910's decade):
>
> - The deflection of light by gravity.
> - The explanation of Mercury's perihelion.
> - The red-shifting of light under heavy gravitational fields.
>
> This affirmations were made BEFORE he even had written Entwurf I and II (1913, 1914), with
> Grossman as a mathematician or the final outcome: 1915 GR, with Hilbert.

Yes, he identified three areas of experimental test for his theory.

>
> So, he used "predictive powers" to state HOW his theory had to be proven.

First, no theory is ever proven, and Einstein never claimed it would be
proven. Read his own words. What he pointed out was three possible and
fruitful areas of experimental test.

> His first try, in 1911,
> was by plagiarizing von Soldner's work (written a century before), about
> the deflection of light
> corpuscles (Newton) and giving half the value of the 1915 result.

Again, you keep saying that if he made predictions, that they were already
predictions made by other scientists. There is NOTHING WRONG with that. The
predictions do not need to be terra nova, they do not need to be surprising
new applications. What is true is that general relativity is the first
theory that got ALL THREE of these predictions quantitatively correct, and
you seem to want to dismiss that as unimportant.

> His second try, by plagiarizing Gerber's formulae, was made in 1915 and
> gave the same 43" for
> Mercury's perihelion advance in a century. This was exactly what Gerber
> formulae gave in 1898.
> His third prediction didn't match any experimental observation.
> It took Eddington in 1919 to save his ass (with the hoax around the
> eclipse) to trigger him as an
> international celebrity that had dethroned Newton.
>
> On other incredible prediction about the Big Bang, which saved part of the theory:
>
> December 6, 1979. Alan Guth develop his theory of "inflation", which
> solved many problems with
> the cosmological model of the BB theory:
>
> "In the first 10^-35 seconds, the universe expanded 10^24 times his
> original size", which was followed
> by explanations about energy transforming into matter, partially, and blah, blah, blah!
>
> 42 years after, this incredible "prediction" remains intact in the
> current theory of Lambda-Cold Dark Matter.
>
> Of course that this disparate has no means to be proved (and observed).

Of course it can be validated. Inflation itself makes a number of
spectacular firm predictions, which are matched in observation. This seems
to be a surprise to you.

>
> There are plenty of many other examples like these, at every branch of knowledge.
>
> In science fiction, authors violate any given physical theory just for
> the sake of a good narrative.

No sir, that is not what characterizes science fiction as an invariant
rule. Are you nuts?

People
> who like science fiction, like myself, enjoy the readings of good books
> without questioning the "artistic
> license" on current physics because we know it's fiction, like a fairy tail.
>
> So, “alternative points of view” are strictly linked to any given theory:
> relativity, quantum mechanics, nuclear
> physics and the atomic bomb, how come US "invented computers and
> software" or historic revisionism, which
> is fascinating as an art and a science, etc.

History is not science.

>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, 9 August 2021 at 14:42:09 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 9:25:52 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> There are many forms of speculation, which you call “alternative points of
> >> view”, ranging from science fiction to testable ideas.
> >
> > No. Your simplification of “alternative points of view” is the usual a-la-Bodkin way
> > to make synthetic statements which comprehend everything. You are consumed by
> > the desire to "put a fundamental egg of thought" that can sound reaffirming, glorious
> > and a sample of your self-perceived capability for capturing the essence
> > of truth in one phrase.
> > You like, and always liked, to be capable of deep thoughts which may encapsulate any
> > set of complexities.
> >
> > When I used “alternative points of view”, I was clearly using this in
> > the sense of new ideas
> > about any specific subject (a theory, for instance). I'm not talking
> > about diverse and random topics
> I’ll point out that “new ideas” about a subject does not necessarily
> involve science thinking. John Sefton in a different group has an artistic
> idea about atoms. It is a “new idea” about something that is of interest to
> physics, but it is in no way a scientific idea because John has no clear
> concept of what science actually is, though he is an artist. A poem about
> atoms is not physics. A science fiction novel about atoms is not physics.
> >
> > In this particular point, it's used over the birth of the concept of relativity in physics.
> The birth of the concept of relativity in physics is a matter of historical
> record. Perhaps your “new idea” about history is akin to Abraham Lincoln:
> Vampire Assassin.
> >
> >
> >> The activity of science, and in fact the central idea of science, is
> >> approaching ideas with the constraint of verification against observation
> >> and experiment. Unless an “alternative point of view” offers something
> >> unique in the way of an observational prediction, compared to more accepted
> >> ideas, then the idea isn’t really of much scientific value. If an
> >> “alternative point of view” has no predictive power at all, then it isn’t
> >> even really scientific thinking at all — this is the category of invisible
> >> pink fairies.
> >
> > Again, you are writing for the sake of it, without coherence.
> >
> > Examples of contradictions of your posture against real facts:
> >
> > 1) "approaching ideas with the constraint of verification against
> > observation and experiment."
> > 2) "something unique in the way of an observational prediction, compared to more accepted
> > ideas, then the idea isn’t really of much scientific value."
> > 3) "If an "alternative point of view” has no predictive power at all,
> > then it isn’t even really
> > scientific thinking at all."
> >
> > Here you have three statements that spin around the same simple concept:
> > predictive power and,
> > later, their observation and experiment.
> Yes, that is the essence of science.

Or, at least, an idiot woodworker thinks so. A kind
of the same thing.

> theory that got ALL THREE of these predictions quantitatively correct, and
> you seem to want to dismiss that as unimportant.

A lie, of course, as expected from a fanatic idiot;
anyone can check GPS (or UTC, or TAI) - clocks
keep indicating t'=t, just like they always did.

> Of course it can be validated. Inflation itself makes a number of
> spectacular firm predictions, which are matched in observation.

Only in observation of some imagined twins. Real people
are observing, that clocks of GPS keep indicating t'=t.

Dead end in the physics of the atom?

I want to post some excerpts from the book of this cynical and yet "tormented" author (very recently):

Arkady Plotnitsky
Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

The Principles of Quantum Theory, From Planck’s Quanta to the Higgs Boson
The Nature of Quantum Reality and the Spirit of Copenhagen

****************************************************************************************************
Excerpts, from "6.3 The Unrepresentable and the Multiple: Particles and Fields in QFT"

Heisenberg says:
---------
There remains the question: “What then has to replace the concept of a fundamental particle?”
I think we have to replace this concept by the concept of a fundamental symmetry.
The fundamental symmetries define the underlying law which determines the spectrum of
elementary particles. … [W]hat we have to look for are not fundamental particles, but fundamental
symmetries. And we have actually made this decisive change in the concepts,
which came about by Dirac’s discovery of antimatter, that I do not think we need any further
breakthrough to understand the elementary—or rather nonelementary—particles. We must
learn to work with this new and unfortunately rather abstract concept of the fundamental
symmetries; but this may come in time. (Heisenberg 1989, p. 36)
--------------
Heisenberg’s final conclusion is correct.
..............
As I also noted in Chap. 2 (and in Chap. 1), however, Heisenberg’s position in this regard is not entirely
clear. Heisenberg, who retained certain affinities with Bohr’s thinking throughout his life, does give the concept of
a fundamental symmetry a physical flavor (perhaps!) as replacing that of a no- longer elementary “elementary” particle.
..............
Some of these configurations are, in the present view (although not Heisenberg’s view as given here), associated with
elementary particles as quantum objects, defined in general as beyond representation or even conception.
...............
Although it was not answered by Dirac’s theory the question of “What is an elementary particle?” or (these questions
cannot be dissociated) “What is a quantum field?” was advanced immeasurably by Dirac’s equation and then QED and
QFT. Although it still remains unanswered, we reached much further on the trajectory established by Dirac, since the
time of Heisenberg’s articles, just discussed, in the 1970s, reaching the (QFT) standard model of particle physics.
.........................
Many predictions of the theory, from quarks to electroweak bosons and the concept of confinement and
asymptotic freedom to the Higgs boson, to name just a few, were spectacular, and the field has garnered arguably the
greatest number of Nobel Prizes in physics. It was also QFT that led and is still fundamentally linked to, mathematically
and physically, string and then brane theories.

These theories are of course far short of the physical successes of QFT, if one could indeed speak of any actual physical
successes thus far in this case. On the other hand, these theories do have physical implications, which are important and
motivate the work of string and brane theorists.
........................

MY POSITION OVER THESE EXCERPTS AND THE TOPIC OF THIS POST:

- The evolutionary path from QM toward current physics has erased the concept of particles, and replaced them with "blobs"
in the quantum space. The nature of these blobs in quantum fields is UNKNOWN, but mathematics say that they are there.

- The efforts of Gell-Man and others to put some order in the collection of hundred of pieces that emerged when colliding atoms
at increasing levels of speed and energy, led to the current Standard Model of Elementary "Particles?", which is an artificial
construct that left out myriads of very short lived "particles° and led to an architecture that replaced protons and neutrons by
artificial °blobs" (quarks with fractional charges of e) plus the abstract glue that make them to stick together (gluon).

And yet, this failed model still prevails as it provides no answers neither observability. It's have been stuck for the last 50 years.

- Efforts to develop an yet more abstract model of the quantum realm led to develop the failed string theory, which has abandoned
without shame a decade ago (or so), in the pursuit of super simmetry and proton decay, yet without a single answer (even in
mathematical physics).

- It has been the job of QUANTUM ENGINEERS (not theoretical physicists) to make some advances at CERN and other costly labs
around the world. As always, the rationality of engineering comes to the rescue of theoretical physics.

And physics of the atom (as of today) has reached a DEAD END. The answer of the physics community is that it hasn't been tried
hard enough, so they claim huge amounts of money to develop a super LHC, with energies WELL above 50 TeV and size that is
three or four times larger than the existing one.

Their rationality rest on the explanation: "We didn´t hit things hard enough. We need to recreate the energies as close as those
present at the "birth of the universe", and the truth will emerge. They will not get the 50 billion USD (lower estimate) they ask for,
along with additional couple of billion USD for "maintenance". Not in this COVID world and sinking national economies.

So, I advice them very strongly: "Start looking to other careers, so you can keep fooling yourselves and the rest of us, while wasting
OUR MONEY for the pleasure that "mathturbation" gives to you all".

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dead end in the physics of the atom?
>
> I want to post some excerpts from the book of this cynical and yet
> "tormented" author (very recently):
>
> Arkady Plotnitsky
> Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
>
> The Principles of Quantum Theory, From Planck’s Quanta to the Higgs Boson
> The Nature of Quantum Reality and the Spirit of Copenhagen
>
> ****************************************************************************************************
> Excerpts, from "6.3 The Unrepresentable and the Multiple: Particles and Fields in QFT"
>
> Heisenberg says:
> ---------
> There remains the question: “What then has to replace the concept of a
> fundamental particle?”
> I think we have to replace this concept by the concept of a fundamental symmetry.
> The fundamental symmetries define the underlying law which determines the spectrum of
> elementary particles. … [W]hat we have to look for are not fundamental
> particles, but fundamental
> symmetries. And we have actually made this decisive change in the concepts,
> which came about by Dirac’s discovery of antimatter, that I do not think
> we need any further
> breakthrough to understand the elementary—or rather
> nonelementary—particles. We must
> learn to work with this new and unfortunately rather abstract concept of the fundamental
> symmetries; but this may come in time. (Heisenberg 1989, p. 36)

This is in fact very close to the modern understanding of what is
fundamental: the symmetry.

> --------------
> Heisenberg’s final conclusion is correct.
> .............
> As I also noted in Chap. 2 (and in Chap. 1), however, Heisenberg’s
> position in this regard is not entirely
> clear. Heisenberg, who retained certain affinities with Bohr’s thinking
> throughout his life, does give the concept of
> a fundamental symmetry a physical flavor (perhaps!) as replacing that of
> a no- longer elementary “elementary” particle.
> .............
> Some of these configurations are, in the present view (although not
> Heisenberg’s view as given here), associated with
> elementary particles as quantum objects, defined in general as beyond
> representation or even conception.

That’s actually not really true in modern physics.

> ..............
> Although it was not answered by Dirac’s theory the question of “What is
> an elementary particle?” or (these questions
> cannot be dissociated) “What is a quantum field?” was advanced
> immeasurably by Dirac’s equation and then QED and
> QFT. Although it still remains unanswered, we reached much further on the
> trajectory established by Dirac, since the
> time of Heisenberg’s articles, just discussed, in the 1970s, reaching the
> (QFT) standard model of particle physics.

Yes, that’s true also.

> ........................
> Many predictions of the theory, from quarks to electroweak bosons and the
> concept of confinement and
> asymptotic freedom to the Higgs boson, to name just a few, were
> spectacular, and the field has garnered arguably the
> greatest number of Nobel Prizes in physics. It was also QFT that led and
> is still fundamentally linked to, mathematically
> and physically, string and then brane theories.

Yes, that is true too.

>
> These theories are of course far short of the physical successes of QFT,

Which is speaking of string theory and brane theories, and yes that is
true.

> if one could indeed speak of any actual physical
> successes thus far in this case. On the other hand, these theories do
> have physical implications, which are important and
> motivate the work of string and brane theorists.

Well, yes, of course.

So far what you’ve quoted from Plotnitsky seems uncontroversial. Now we get
to what YOU say.

> .......................
>
> MY POSITION OVER THESE EXCERPTS AND THE TOPIC OF THIS POST:
>
> - The evolutionary path from QM toward current physics has erased the
> concept of particles, and replaced them with "blobs"
> in the quantum space. The nature of these blobs in quantum fields is
> UNKNOWN, but mathematics say that they are there.

Well, that went off the rails quickly, didn’t it? It seems you were not
able to learn much from your readings in Plotnitsky after all. What a
shame.

>
> - The efforts of Gell-Man and others to put some order in the collection
> of hundred of pieces that emerged when colliding atoms
> at increasing levels of speed and energy, led to the current Standard
> Model of Elementary "Particles?", which is an artificial
> construct that left out myriads of very short lived "particles° and led
> to an architecture that replaced protons and neutrons by
> artificial °blobs" (quarks with fractional charges of e) plus the
> abstract glue that make them to stick together (gluon).

It may well surprise you that quarks and gluons as well established
experimentally and conceptually as protons and neutrons, despite you
flinging around words like “blob” and “unknown” and “abstract”.

>
> And yet, this failed model still prevails as it provides no answers
> neither observability.

What observabilities did you have in mind to ask about?

> It's have been stuck for the last 50 years.

I wouldn’t say stuck. There was a ton of work done in the 1980s and 1990s
and 2000s, including the discovery of several quarks and several vector
bosons.

>
> - Efforts to develop an yet more abstract model of the quantum realm led
> to develop the failed string theory, which has abandoned
> without shame a decade ago (or so), in the pursuit of super simmetry
> and proton decay, yet without a single answer (even in
> mathematical physics).

Well, sure, string theory didn’t pan out. Neither did SU(5) and the
consequent proton decay. But so what? It’s the hallmark of science to try
900 different ideas and only 1 works out really well. That’s the whole
point of testable hypotheses. What part of this do you not understand?

Secondly, the dubious validity of any SUCCESSOR to the Standard Model
(which is what supersymmetry, string theories, and technicolor and other
things are) doesn’t impinge on the value of the Standard Model itself,
which seems to be pretty successful so far.

>
> - It has been the job of QUANTUM ENGINEERS (not theoretical physicists)
> to make some advances at CERN and other costly labs
> around the world. As always, the rationality of engineering comes to
> the rescue of theoretical physics.

LOL. I wonder what you mean by “quantum engineer”.

You mean engineers who make things using quantum mechanics? Like shopping
store bar code scanners from lasers first produced by physicists back in
the 1950s, which in turn came from theoretical work done in the 1920s?

>
> And physics of the atom (as of today) has reached a DEAD END. The answer
> of the physics community is that it hasn't been tried
> hard enough, so they claim huge amounts of money to develop a super LHC,
> with energies WELL above 50 TeV and size that is
> three or four times larger than the existing one.

I just want to point out that the physics of any high energy collider today
is not to further develop the physics of the atom, but to develop the
physics of the things inside things inside the atom. Two layers more down.

>
> Their rationality rest on the explanation: "We didn´t hit things hard
> enough. We need to recreate the energies as close as those
> present at the "birth of the universe", and the truth will emerge. They
> will not get the 50 billion USD (lower estimate) they ask for,
> along with additional couple of billion USD for "maintenance". Not in
> this COVID world and sinking national economies.

Well, it does appear that funding for another very large laboratory is
going to be very hard to come by. It’s certainly a good thing that there
are many, many, many other physics experiments being done at much smaller
scale, in the basements of university laboratories all over the world or in
much smaller facilities like the g-2 facility or the JILA lab or BESS
balloon-borne experiments. Which you seem to be oblivious to.

>
> So, I advice them very strongly: "Start looking to other careers, so you
> can keep fooling yourselves and the rest of us, while wasting
> OUR MONEY for the pleasure that "mathturbation" gives to you all".
>

Ah, so here it is, yet another engineer complaining about where his tax
dollars get spent and wanting line item veto power over anything that
smacks of fundamental rather than applied physics.

Let’s just remind you that you do not have the power to control where your
tax dollars go and what they fund. The closest you get is the power of an
election vote to put into office custodians of those tax dollars that are
more inclined to your thinking. But once they’re in office, they’ll divvy
up those tax revenues as they see fit.