Dark Matter vs UFO Evidence

#21
aul Marmet - whom I had not heard off, but who was another Heretic:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/heisenberg/index.html
Yeah, no, sorry, I totally disagree with Marmet. I haven't had time to read everything in the link you gave, but he's essentially one of the strictest materialists I've come across in a while. Maybe there is more to his ideas than I have seen, but with stuff like this:
"Such definitions require some more analysis. One notices that the words matteror material objects are essential in the above definition when we define physical realism. In fact, in the reality of thoughts one must realize that there is no physical reality because thoughts do not exist outside our mind. One arrives at the realization that in physics, realism is limited only to its relation to matter, since it is the only case for which objects really exist independently of the observer. This shows the necessity to use the word mass in the definition of reality."

He is asserting that the only thing that is "real" is "mass" (whatever that is, anyway). He lays into philosophy quite harshly as well.

He's basically denying the reality or validity of QM, as far as I can tell.

Let's just say, so far he and I do not think alike. I may have to rethink my opinion of Ratcliffe if this guy was a major influence. Perhaps I was a bit hasty in forming an opinion.
 
#22
I liked this too:
To suggest that any complex biological organism – it really doesn’t matter if it’s fish or fowl – could have come about from a billion-year sequence of random chemical reactions in some kind of prenatal soup in such a way that it evolves from atom to elephant is quite outrageous. Considering the functional detail and modular interdependence of any living being, and bearing in mind that it must have had the ability to reproduce itself from the outset or it would have been extinct upon the death of the first generation, and moreover, that it carries by dumb chance a blueprint of itself with a complete set of instructions that command equally dumb chemicals to build another one just like the progenitor; all this stretches the bounds of reason and credulity almost to breaking point.

But the alternative does nothing settle the conundrum of origins. To suggest that you and I came about because of the intervention of an omnipotent, omniscient divine intelligence that planned the whole caboodle from scratch and set us loose in a preconceived, precarious environment with deadly traps and ghastly predators in some kind of macabre game presumably for its own amusement, is even more preposterous. Adding details to this deity, like humanoid form, gender, love, anger, cruelty, and maliciousness, is to tempt the clutches of insanity. So, while there remain a surfeit of daunting, unanswered questions in either solution, we are left with no option but to choose the less improbable, or to admit our ignorance.
I submit that the only reasonably valid point of view with respect to the ultimate questions of cosmology is agnosticism.
 
#23
The intro blurb:


Given that A - it smacks of "mind-reading" and, more importantly, B - Einstein also considered "spooky action at a distance" ridiculous, that's not exactly a compelling lead-in.
His writing style leaves something to be desired, but he makes some excellent points that I wasn't aware of.

For example, he points out that the raw data from the detectors is too voluminous by far to store, so it is filtered by the detector electronics to remove things that have the signature of supposed previously discovered bosons to reduce it to manageable proportions. This means that:

1) An error in the electronics could account for the whole signal, and there would be no way to detect this by looking at the data afterwards.

2) There are clearly possibilities of multiple collisions contributing to a 'signal' that gets interpreted as one interesting event. The flux of debris emerging from the collisions is enormous.

3) He estimates that the signal to noise ratio is 1 in 10^12. I have seen that questioned, but I haven't seen another figure - though I haven't attempted to pursue this.

The book is cheap (particularly on Kindle), and I don't think you will be disappointed if you read it - it isn't the kind of book that could be written by someone without any specialised knowledge. It also seems to have ignited some informed discussion on the internet - not just dismissal.

David
 
#24
He's basically denying the reality or validity of QM, as far as I can tell.
My feeling is that QM has to be basically sound. Unlike GR, it contributes absolutely fundamentally to the structure of ordinary matter. OK, my degree was in chemistry, so I might be biassed. The thing to realise, is that if particles didn't have a wave-like quality, matter would be very peculiar indeed (actually they would radiate energy and collapse, but never mind that) - no two atoms of, say sulphur, would be the same - just as no two solar systems would ever be exactly the same. Within molecules, the atoms are held together by standing waves - something like in an organ pipe. This is why chemicals have fixed properties - just as organ pipes have discrete frequencies.

I am very suspicious of a lot of science, and I think it is incredibly hard to unpick what is sound and what might be junk. The Higgs is an extreme case. However, you can see the corrupting processes at work if you look at CAGW, or some aspects of medical science.

David
 
#25
I may have to rethink my opinion of Ratcliffe if this guy was a major influence.
Well , I have not the understanding that you have on the subject - me, being very much the layman

In chapter 4 on light.
Ratcliffe speaks of red shift equals time / not distance, that it's the ageing (& weakening) of light making it more red shifted.
Feynamn argued against 'tired' light for reasons , that later Marmet & Thomas Van flander were to show as wrong.

I think that’s as far as any influence goes. So I hope you don’t throw out the baby yet.. :)

Maybe the book is for more general and less deep thought on the subject. I really enjoyed it though.
 
#26
From Hilton's blog
"No, there’s nothing cunning about it. Mathematics is a language, a way of describing things in nature using symbols, quantities and units of measure. It’s just fancy arithmetic. Like any language, it doesn’t exist in nature, it’s simply a mental construct used by human beings to communicate ideas. "

This. X100. I'm so glad to see an intellectual reiterate this. So many people follow Plato in the belief that mathematics are the *only* thing that is real, whether they realize it or not. Funny how so few intellectuals realize that mathematics is exactly what he says here: a human construct..
Since Patel has stopped posting here, I will step up for giving mathematical platonism some consideration.

First I would correct that: "the platonism under discussion is not Plato's", secondly:
Mathematical platonism has considerable philosophical significance. If the view is true, it will put great pressure on the physicalist idea that reality is exhausted by the physical. For platonism entails that reality extends far beyond the physical world and includes objects which aren't part of the causal and spatiotemporal order studied by the physical sciences. Mathematical platonism, if true, will also put great pressure on many naturalistic theories of knowledge. For there is little doubt that we possess mathematical knowledge. The truth of mathematical platonism would therefore establish that we have knowledge of abstract (and thus causally inefficacious) objects. This would be an important discovery, which many naturalistic theories of knowledge would struggle to to accommodate.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/
 
#27
His writing style leaves something to be desired, but he makes some excellent points that I wasn't aware of.
Those are excellent points. For the lay-person. And of course I can't simply state with any validity that his conclusions are incorrect. What I can state is that a very large number of people work and do research at CERN. Not to mention other accelerators. Since those points aren't specific to projects but address things involved in HEP overall, I find it a stretch to think that they haven't been noted and accounted for. In fact his mentioning them seems to tie in with his mention of Einstein would find it ridiculous - which I see not so much as style but as flawed reasoning.

The bottom line is that I'll leave it to others to peruse his work.
 
#28
Those are excellent points. For the lay-person. And of course I can't simply state with any validity that his conclusions are incorrect. What I can state is that a very large number of people work and do research at CERN. Not to mention other accelerators. Since those points aren't specific to projects but address things involved in HEP overall, I find it a stretch to think that they haven't been noted and accounted for. In fact his mentioning them seems to tie in with his mention of Einstein would find it ridiculous - which I see not so much as style but as flawed reasoning.

The bottom line is that I'll leave it to others to peruse his work.
Did you read it all?

My initial impression was not favourable, and I really wish he would improve his style - you don't start with what appear to be wild generalisations, and then process the evidence!

There is some interesting commentary about his book on the internet. Look particularly at the comments - don't they look a bit like pro and anti comments about ψ - the pro comments are informed, the anti ones more like bluster!

http://bogpaper.com/the-higgs-fake/

In his book he sites at least one instance in the recent past when a particle was discovered with acceptable statistics, and then disappeared again!

The fact that so many people are involved in this discovery actually makes me more suspicious. This is typical of the most outrageous mistakes in science. Think of the dawning awakening to the fact that saturated has been demonised for 50 years without good evidence, and that people have been mislead and suffered medical harm as a result.

I also feel that I know what he means about the early pioneers, and what they might think now. It isn't as though QM is any better understood than it was many years ago - as is often discussed here - I mean the mystery has deepened because of all the confirmation that it really is non-local - but understanding is something else. We seem to have forgotten the old mysteries and replaced them with a mass of rather banal 'mysteries' such as how protons and neutrons are made of (3) quarks, but you can never see a quark on its own. Yes there is a mathematical theory for that, but does it really make sense?

If you haven't done so, I strongly suggest that you and others read the whole book - including a final chapter with a set of tricky questions for researchers in the field.

I wish Lone Shaman still posted here - I am sure he would have a lot of incredibly informed things to say about this!

David
 
Last edited:
#29
Did you read it all?
I have stated clearly that I haven't and that I probably won't. I also expressed clearly my reasons for that. I'll add that with things like this simply reading through is not an option. It involves assessing the salient points and seeing what other data and conclusions have been put forth about them. Since that takes time and energy I often choose to not engage it with the work of someone who uses flawed conjectures in their synopsis.

So I'll steer this into a look at your own statements.

- That there have been other instances when a team of physicist thought they'd found a particle and then discovered they were incorrect is common knowledge. (BTW - cites)

- There were not "so many people" involved. And even if there were its' irrelevant. Your comparison to stuff about "saturated fats" is IMO a little silly. But I'd hope we are all well aware that many things claimed turn out to be different. Some of us also know that things are not fundamental so they can and often do change.

- QM is better understood. Very much so. Understanding doesn't always mean having a neat little box for every process. In fact that thinking is part of the problem. There will always be at some level - mystery.
 
#30
I have stated clearly that I haven't and that I probably won't. I also expressed clearly my reasons for that. I'll add that with things like this simply reading through is not an option. It involves assessing the salient points and seeing what other data and conclusions have been put forth about them. Since that takes time and energy I often choose to not engage it with the work of someone who uses flawed conjectures in their synopsis.
This is actually a problem of style, if he had presented his evidence - which is considerable - and then put his conjectures in his last chapter, there would be no problem. All I can say, is that I found it very well worth reading despite his bad style.
So I'll steer this into a look at your own statements.

- That there have been other instances when a team of physicist thought they'd found a particle and then discovered they were incorrect is common knowledge. (BTW - cites)
The book contains plenty of references. I'd be pretty worried if I worked in the field, because the problem is that it takes decades if ever before these experiments are reproduced.
- QM is better understood. Very much so. Understanding doesn't always mean having a neat little box for every process. In fact that thinking is part of the problem. There will always be at some level - mystery.
Well I am referring to its interpretation - which is not understood - yes as computers become larger, more calculations can be done, and as technology improves, it is possible to check a larger range of bizarre predictions. Also concepts like particle spin, are not really understood - just fitted into a mathematical framework.

Anyway, for anyone else who might be listening, I would recommend Alexander Unzicker's book.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Higgs-Fake-Physicists-Committee/dp/1492176249

David
 
#31
I'd be pretty worried if I worked in the field, because the problem is that it takes decades if ever before these experiments are reproduced.
Not necessarily. The time varies greatly. And relatively few experiments -in any area of science are reproduced. Plus as I mentioned that matters most if one believs the physical is fundamental. Otherwise one has to factor in that both the yay and the nay can be equally correct.

Well I am referring to its interpretation - which is not understood - yes as computers become larger, more calculations can be done, and as technology improves, it is possible to check a larger range of bizarre predictions. Also concepts like particle spin, are not really understood - just fitted into a mathematical framework.
I think that offers nothing more to what I stated. It is more understood. It's just seemingly not the type of understanding that seems to fit with your preferred way of thinking.

You seem to be very attached to this being wrong - it seems to more than just an objective look at yay or nay. OTOH I previously posted an article here by a physicist who stated nay so I don't really have a dog in this race. I will just reiterate that flawed conclusions are not a matter of style. There is nothing he can state that will make the things I pointed out as inaccurate become correct.

--------
The article is no longer on Skeptiko. Here's a link http://phys.org/news/2014-11-wasnt-higgs-particle.html
 
Last edited:
#32
Well I don't want to prolong this discussion too much, but you see Unzicker also raises a whole different set of experimental issues about these experiments. This is a completely different issue from the one raised in your link - is the particle actually the Higgs.

The filtering process operates to exclude all sorts of known particles in order to look for the desired new particle - Higgs in this case. This processing has to happen in the detector electronics (it is known as triggering) which is extremely undesirable because a vital part of the data processing can't be repeated after the event. The number of particles involved is vast. As I said he estimates 10^12 particles per detected Higgs. The scope for error in that process is incredible.

Unzicker also raises the point that the beam energy inevitably contains a fair spread - about 6%. This means that the peaks are not sharp - so reduced signal to noise.

On the theoretical side, he points out that the Standard Model doesn't predict the masses of new particles - so if a peak is found it gets assigned to something!

He also has a lot of more technical points, included in his list of questions for physicists at the end of the book.

I think it is significant that CERN hasn't assigned a student to debunk this book (or answer his explicit questions) if it is easy to do so. They just ignore it.

Anyway, let's drop the subject.

David
 
Top