Dark Matter vs UFO Evidence

Discussion in 'Why Science Is Wrong... About Almost Everything' started by LazerHawk, Nov 12, 2015.

  1. Vault313

    Vault313 New

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,237
    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.
     
  2. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,009
    I liked this too:
    I submit that the only reasonably valid point of view with respect to the ultimate questions of cosmology is agnosticism.
     
    Vault313 likes this.
  3. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,009
    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
     
  4. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,009
    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
     
  5. Mazda

    Mazda New

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2013
    Messages:
    128
    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.
     
  6. north

    north Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    305
    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:
     
  7. Saiko

    Saiko Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,181
    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.
     
  8. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,009
    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: Nov 25, 2015
  9. Saiko

    Saiko Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,181
    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.
     
  10. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,009
    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.
    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.
    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
     
  11. Saiko

    Saiko Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,181
    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.

    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: Nov 25, 2015
  12. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,009
    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
     
  13. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,009

Share This Page