Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

by **Michael Mozina** » Sat Jan 23, 2021 9:57 pm

paladin17 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 4:23 pm
Michael Mozina wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 10:49 pm The mere fact she even openly questions the existence of exotic forms of "dark matter' is quite unusual, refreshing and scientifically accurate.
The last 5 words here is an example of why I made the confirmation bias claim: when one praises and over-accentuates the views similar to their own.
In reality there are many people with alternative theories of gravity - all of which (the following) don't have any dark matters in them. To name just a few: Mike McCulloch's quantized inertia, Erik Verlinde's emergent (entropic) gravity, Mordehai Milgrom's MOND. Etc. So it's nothing unusual or refreshing really. Routine scientific search.

Well, you're right of course that MOND proponents don't support "dark matter" either, but they still assume that mainstream mass estimation techniques based on light measurements are correct when in fact there have been *numerous* published studies since the now infamous bullet cluster fiasco which which have demonstrated *conclusively* that the baryonic mass estimation techniques themselves are *flawed* to the point of ridiculousness.

We now know for instance that the mainstream underestimated the number of stars in various galaxies by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy. They also underestimate the number of stars between galaxies in clusters. We also have found more mass in plasma halos around our galaxy in the last ten years than all the mass in the stars combined. It's entirely possible that ordinary plasma accounts for any and all "missing mass" in lensing studies.

I've yet to hear *any* astronomer, including MOND proponents, *deal* with that core problem in their baryonic mass estimation techniques and I don't expect they ever will either. They can't deal with that problem because it blows their dark matter and nucleosynthesis estimates out the water, and it eliminates the need for MOND theory too.

MOND theory is also based on Newtonian models of gravity rather than GR, so it's not particularly compatible with 'space expansion" claims, nor is it compatible with Planck data sets AFAIK. It's also not compatible with nucleosynthesis estimates, so it's traction within the Big Bang community is quite limited.

I'm aware however that we all have "biases", including me. I'm just appreciative of the fact that Sabine is so openly willing to question the physics "establishment", both in the realm of particle physics, but also it's effect on cosmology theory and astronomy. She's a rare breed in that sense, and I find it quite refreshing.

by **paladin17** » Sat Jan 23, 2021 4:23 pm

Solar wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 6:14 pm Seriously? The work of Simon E. Shnoll "Cosmophysical Factors in Stochastic Processes" is just one area that has demonstrated the potential for an alternative based on an immense amount of scientific data.

I know about his work - in fact, I have a suspicion it was me who introduced it to the EU community. But maybe not.
Anyway, the point is that he doesn't actually propose any "theory of everything". What he clearly shows is that microscopic events are connected to macroscopic ones. But (as far as I know) doesn't tell us why or how.

Solar wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 6:26 pm
paladin17 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 5:25 pm The thing is, science doesn't really owe anyone anything and is not really must do anything (even after forgetting the fact that there is no such thing as "science" as a single entity).
That is not true.

As long as science is attached to tax payer dollars and/or working for corporate interest at corporate expense in product development and refinement it is indebted to hopefully produce, account for, an explain results. That is why "there is no such thing as "science" as a single entity)."

It's not the scientists' decision on where to put the taxpayer's dollars. So my point stands. If politicians/administrators keep funding it and the public is OK with that, then apparently everything is cool. I wouldn't agree with that myself (I'd get rid of taxes altogether in the first place), but it's not me who created this system.

Michael Mozina wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 10:49 pm The mere fact she even openly questions the existence of exotic forms of "dark matter' is quite unusual, refreshing and scientifically accurate.

The last 5 words here is an example of why I made the confirmation bias claim: when one praises and over-accentuates the views similar to their own.
In reality there are many people with alternative theories of gravity - all of which (the following) don't have any dark matters in them. To name just a few: Mike McCulloch's quantized inertia, Erik Verlinde's emergent (entropic) gravity, Mordehai Milgrom's MOND. Etc. So it's nothing unusual or refreshing really. Routine scientific search.

by **Michael Mozina** » Fri Jan 22, 2021 10:49 pm

paladin17 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 11:23 am Sounds like an example of a confirmation bias.

How so? What I like about Sabine is that she's not afraid the be brutally honest when it she feels it's warranted, and she's far more honest about presenting "evidence" in a fair and reasonable manner than most physicists I've heard in recent years. The mere fact she even openly questions the existence of exotic forms of "dark matter' is quite unusual, refreshing and scientifically accurate. Exotic particle physics models and exotic forms of "dark matter" are typically "assumed" to exist by particle physicists and astronomers alike. Particle physicists use "dark matter" to "sell" their next collider to politicians and the public, and astronomers use it to prop up their otherwise falsified cosmology model. Most physicists tend to never even openly question it's value or it's accuracy.

by **JHL** » Fri Jan 22, 2021 7:57 pm

paladin17 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 5:25 pmThe thing is, science doesn't really owe anyone anything and is not really must do anything (even after forgetting the fact that there is no such thing as "science" as a single entity).
All these alternative theories of everything are welcome to form their own ensembles of power and receive whatever support they like. If they are strong enough, they can.

I'll use that as a springboard:

1. Any reference to science must, to be credible, use the term in absolute passive objectivity. It has no voice - science never, ever says X or Y - and it has no bias. No dogma, no determination, no consciousness, nothing. It is a constantly evolving receptacle of and for knowledge and it is only as good as that knowledge is abstract and completely free-standing, separate from our leveraging it for another purpose.

2. That said, in the free market sense you're right: Science owes nothing too. However in the real world that's simply not the case. Science is routinely narrowed, conditioned, usurped, repurposed, incentivized, rendered exclusive and exclusionary, and on and on.

3. Linguistically, science absolutely does "owe", so to put it, the above. If it is not freighted with that objectivity then it ceases to be science. Linguistically, science certainly is a single entity, just one possessing a myriad of forms. Each must be objective and passive, properties that do not exist in our world of bias, agenda, dogma, and so on.

paladin17 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 5:25 pmI'd never use the term "pseudoscience" seriously, because there is no such thing (per se) - there is simply good science and bad science. Good science allows one to do stuff - explain, invent, observe, develop new things etc. Bad science doesn't. That's pretty much all.
By the same token there is no "mainstream science" in my books.

Exactly. And all models of reality must, to be credible (and even useful) come so labeled. They are not science because they are facsimiles in the same way that I may model a pink elephant in ballet slippers with a tiny umbrella on the other side of the door because of the sounds its apparent phenomenon makes.

If models are scientific in our common vernacular, then they are projections and properties of the scientific community and not at all science itself. I reject scientists find almost as much as I reject science says. Both are extensions of abstract knowledge which change into irrelevance or worse as soon as they are launched.

The point being that society has a remarkable propensity to create mad bullsh*t out of anything and everything thought to be true and certain and take it to the very limits of absurdity - sometimes involving millions of lives - before out of the most brutal of emergent realities thereof, to one day stop calling it truth, goodness, or even science.

Cosmology is less crucial or costly than our many collective failures, but it still suffers to a rather remarkable degree from - or risks suffering from - these same damn fool intellectual trajectories.

by **Solar** » Fri Jan 22, 2021 6:26 pm

paladin17 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 5:25 pm The thing is, science doesn't really owe anyone anything and is not really must do anything (even after forgetting the fact that there is no such thing as "science" as a single entity).

That is not true.

As long as science is attached to tax payer dollars and/or working for corporate interest at corporate expense in product development and refinement it is indebted to hopefully produce, account for, an explain results. That is why "there is no such thing as "science" as a single entity)."

by **Solar** » Fri Jan 22, 2021 6:14 pm

paladin17 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 11:23 am
Solar wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:37 pm "There is no reason this method should work and it does, as a matter of fact, not work - but they have done this for decades and still have not learned that it does not work." - Sabine Hossenfelder
Is there an alternative?
One could propose a "simple theory of everything", maybe. But then again there are hundreds and thousands of such theories already, so does this method work?..

Seriously? The work of Simon E. Shnoll "Cosmophysical Factors in Stochastic Processes" is just one area that has demonstrated the potential for an alternative based on an immense amount of scientific data. Unfortunately, Mr. Shnoll already realizes that nothing will probably come of his serendipitous discoveries. He wasn't expecting the results, he didn't want the results and yet, there there it is. He is also desirous that theoretical physicist get involved but no one seems to be interested in how distant stars might effect the fine structure and synchronization of what were thought to be "random" emissions. With regard to Shnoll's work some aspect of a TOE/GUT might lay in waiting but it might look nothing like the "big bang". Therefore, it will not be considered.

Instead, this ongoing menagerie called "particle physics" which is aimed at nothing more than "... fixing the Higss boson" which is too small, supersymmetry, then onward to "dark matter", will continue.

Nature has already provided the best “particle accelerators” with evidence of “new physics” while the results of these attempts to mimic the dynamic while repeatedly guided by the dopamine rush of mathematical aesthetics are said to be remarkably inconsistent and utterly problematic with one another. It is the constant "churn" (constant turning in a machine) that this group is after; not answers. There is no such thing a "new physics". There is only learning to understand the old in a different light as Shnoll's work, and others, are already pointing to.

by **paladin17** » Fri Jan 22, 2021 5:25 pm

JHL wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 4:57 pm If that's the case then so-called science owes everyone a standard disclaimer: Here go monsters. No more elaborations on the status quo as sole authority; no more rejecting those other theories out of hand; no more grants based on favoritism; none of that.

That science must also disclaim itself as a mathematical abstract and not a concrete reality - the word science has to return to its dictionary definition.

The thing is, science doesn't really owe anyone anything and is not really must do anything (even after forgetting the fact that there is no such thing as "science" as a single entity).
All these alternative theories of everything are welcome to form their own ensembles of power and receive whatever support they like. If they are strong enough, they can.

JHL wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 4:57 pm Lastly, if no method works then they're all equal in that condition. No more exemptions because of momentum or status.

I absolutely agree. E.g. I'd never use the term "pseudoscience" seriously, because there is no such thing (per se) - there is simply good science and bad science. Good science allows one to do stuff - explain, invent, observe, develop new things etc. Bad science doesn't. That's pretty much all.
By the same token there is no "mainstream science" in my books.

by **JHL** » Fri Jan 22, 2021 4:57 pm

paladin17 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 11:23 amOne could propose a "simple theory of everything", maybe. But then again there are hundreds and thousands of such theories already, so does this method work?..

If that's the case then so-called science owes everyone a standard disclaimer: Here go monsters. No more elaborations on the status quo as sole authority; no more rejecting those other theories out of hand; no more grants based on favoritism; none of that.

That science must also disclaim itself as a mathematical abstract and not a concrete reality - the word science has to return to its dictionary definition.

Lastly, if no method works then they're all equal in that condition. No more exemptions because of momentum or status.

by **paladin17** » Fri Jan 22, 2021 11:23 am

Earl Sinclair wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 4:24 pm And, the only force needed to make elements stick together is the electrostatic force.

Unfortunately, it is impossible - see Earnshaw's theorem.
The model has other flaws as well (e.g. mysteriously vanishing magnetic moment of electron when it is "inside" a neutron).

Solar wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:37 pm "There is no reason this method should work and it does, as a matter of fact, not work - but they have done this for decades and still have not learned that it does not work." - Sabine Hossenfelder

Is there an alternative?
One could propose a "simple theory of everything", maybe. But then again there are hundreds and thousands of such theories already, so does this method work?..

Michael Mozina wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:47 pm Thanks for that link. I had not seen that particular video yet. Ouch. That was a scathing rebuke, and well worth watching. I think Sabine is probably the only truly "honest' physicist left on planet Earth right now. That was a refreshing change from all the hype and hoopla we see in physics today. I really like Sabine.

Sounds like an example of a confirmation bias.

by **JHL** » Fri Jan 22, 2021 1:50 am

Michael Mozina wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:36 pmI think the part that bothers the most about astronomy today is the "certainty" with which astronomers present the big bang model. They treat it as "fact" rather than a hypothesis which may not be accurate, and they refuse to even *listen* to alternatives to their beliefs or any criticism of their beliefs. I can't tell you how many times I've heard an astronomers falsely claim: "We know dark energy/matter exists because..." without a second thought about the validity of their model or the validity of their various numerous assumptions.

Actually they're right ... which makes your point: Dark energy/matter exists because they invented it to balance the model; and if the model balances, then QED!

by **Michael Mozina** » Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:47 pm

Solar wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:37 pm And then there is Sabine Hossenfelder who puts the apparent inability to learn from what does not work while continuing to use the same method of "inventing a lot of particles that you can add..." into perspective:

"There is no reason this method should work and it does, as a matter of fact, not work - but they have done this for decades and still have not learned that it does not work." - Sabine Hossenfelder

Particle Physicists Continue Empty Promises

Thanks for that link. I had not seen that particular video yet. Ouch. That was a scathing rebuke, and well worth watching. I think Sabine is probably the only truly "honest' physicist left on planet Earth right now.

That was a refreshing change from all the hype and hoopla we see in physics today. I really like Sabine.

I think it's hysterical and quite telling that they also accuse her of being "anti-science" simply because she'd rather spend our public tax dollars on more worthwhile science projects. That seems to be the mainstream's "go to" method of attacking anyone and everyone who doesn't believe their hype, their dogma and their metaphysical nonsense. I loved the various quotes that she cited about what particle physicists expected to find at LHC vs. what they actually found.

SUSY theory isn't even "science' anymore. It's just another form of unalsifiable dogma.

by **Michael Mozina** » Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:36 pm

JHL wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:17 pm
Michael Mozina wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 7:53 am
Very generally - and not to go off-topic again - your remarks above again remind me of the inherent mystery of all things, where the very large is made of the very small; the very small being ineffable and immaterial - all Dancing Wu Li Masters-like - with materialism caught in the middle as if in a conscious or purposeful matrix, the matrix where also happens mind.

Mind being the exception to or the interruption in materialism, we could project back into the cosmology - it being made from the very small - the virtually entirely experimental nature of models, in the present case the LCDM.

In other words, it seems there is merit to the conscious admission that building a cosmos on a slew of what, with little concern to how and none to why - they being the undeniable realizations caught up in the quantum - gives things like the LCDM model (and the EU) a necessary added component.

That component is that all models must be freighted with the conscious admission that we do not and shall not know how the universe works - there's that word, how - because all we've ever done is calculate a rickety parallel what. We have in no way established a reality per all our cosmological constructs as we have arranged a material parallel to them. The mathematical model that gets some half of an unseen freight train right is not at all a freight train.

That all rapidly looks like a raging set of semantics but I propose it's not. It's not because ultimately the entire cosmological premise, construct, and state, as we think we know it, reverts to or stems from or reflects back the quantum, and there things simply do what they do. There are "rules" where if X does this Y somehow must do that, but there are no other involvements, involvements that define the rest of Aquinian, arrow-of-time reality. If X does that and Y will do that, that is an act of faith of a sort, a faith that the next time it will again and so on.

Back to your point (as it struck me): if the very small is as unknown as it is, then the very large cannot, to any reasonable set of conclusions, be known, which is more or less what I think you're tacitly implying. We have models, each of which can be entirely upended when more turtles down in the quantum murk pop up their heads.

And it's either turtles all the way down or turtles down to X level below which is nothing. Heck of a thing to make a universe out of and in my opinion, no thing to base certainty on...

We seem to be pretty much on the same page.

I think the part that bothers the most about astronomy today is the "certainty" with which astronomers present the big bang model. They treat it as "fact" rather than a hypothesis which may not be accurate, and they refuse to even *listen* to alternatives to their beliefs or any criticism of their beliefs. I can't tell you how many times I've heard an astronomers falsely claim: "We know dark energy/matter exists because..." without a second thought about the validity of their model or the validity of their various numerous assumptions.

Particle physicists at least seem to leave the door open for scientific alternatives to the standard particle physics model, albeit mostly concepts involving additional metaphysical components and pure guess work. In that sense it's a more open minded community IMO.

by **Solar** » Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:37 pm

And then there is Sabine Hossenfelder who puts the apparent inability to learn from what does not work while continuing to use the same method of "inventing a lot of particles that you can add..." into perspective:

"There is no reason this method should work and it does, as a matter of fact, not work - but they have done this for decades and still have not learned that it does not work." - Sabine Hossenfelder

Particle Physicists Continue Empty Promises

by **JHL** » Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:32 pm

paladin17 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 12:48 pm
JHL wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 1:22 am Mostly off-topic: I keep waiting for - for want of a better word - a philosophical discussion...
Obviously it depends on definition of "material" in the first place.

It absolutely does, even to the degree that the whole notion evaporates - either reality is a projected abstract or it's a concrete material, so to grasp for the right words, with cosmology then reverting, through many orders of magnitude, to its mystical quantum constituents. Whether we care to see any of this as an unacceptable philosophical diversion or a valid science is a purely arbitrary decision. The universe simply doesn't care. That we know of.

paladin17 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 12:48 pmI would propose a more general observation to what you've provided: I would claim that it is the removal of an object in question from everyday experience is what causes most problems. You don't deal with stars/galaxies and electron clouds on a daily basis - they only appear under a very specific and carefully focused narrative.
Ergo, if an object we construct to describe reality (where an object is really only a placeholder for all of its effects combined) is out of our traditional domain, it would behave "strangely" or even "magically". But one can perceive the situation from another point of view, where it would become almost a tautology: since if this object needs such special conditions to reveal itself, it probably is "strange" and "unnatural" in the first place. I mean, it is the way we construct it in the first place.

I can't begin to understand the perspective of either the quantum scientist or the cosmologist, but as you allude, from one perspective everything is strange - it must be because surely much of it utterly is. Maybe I'm proposing to not make any certain proclamations about one manifestation of popular mathematical constructs as to how they necessarily describe the universe's mechanisms. We do tend to speak in almost purely mechanical terms where the cosmos goes, with the tiny foundational bits its made from being left to their own devices to some degree.

paladin17 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 12:48 pmA narrower remark can be made about particle physics in particular, where this construction of objects is perhaps the most obvious (many in the EU community know the brilliant book "Constructing quarks" by A. Pickering, which carefully studies the phenomenon). How we tend to insert "new particles" to explain certain observations - just like we insert a "stone" (or a "table" or an "apple") to describe the observed sensory input, perceived in all its entirety as coming from a single source.
I simply cannot see how one can describe the modern gnoseological landscape without adopting a constructivist (or any related) philosophy. It fits extremely well with how society actually operates in the world. Knowledge is a bunch of stories we tell each other about the world, and science is simply a practice of producing objects that play part (among other things) in those stories etc.

Nicely put. Knowledge is a bunch of assertions we make using imperfect tools, although in this vein, science is then the rigorous application of a short set ephemeral, agreed, vetted abstracts, where somehow those terms do not contradict themselves.

by **JHL** » Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:17 pm

Michael Mozina wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 7:53 am

Very generally - and not to go off-topic again - your remarks above again remind me of the inherent mystery of all things, where the very large is made of the very small; the very small being ineffable and immaterial - all Dancing Wu Li Masters-like - with materialism caught in the middle as if in a conscious or purposeful matrix, the matrix where also happens mind.

Mind being the exception to or the interruption in materialism, we could project back into the cosmology - it being made from the very small - the virtually entirely experimental nature of models, in the present case the LCDM.

In other words, it seems there is merit to the conscious admission that building a cosmos on a slew of what, with little concern to how and none to why - they being the undeniable realizations caught up in the quantum - gives things like the LCDM model (and the EU) a necessary added component.

That component is that all models must be freighted with the conscious admission that we do not and shall not know how the universe works - there's that word, how - because all we've ever done is calculate a rickety parallel what. We have in no way established a reality per all our cosmological constructs as we have arranged a material parallel to them. The mathematical model that gets some half of an unseen freight train right is not at all a freight train.

That all rapidly looks like a raging set of semantics but I propose it's not. It's not because ultimately the entire cosmological premise, construct, and state, as we think we know it, reverts to or stems from or reflects back the quantum, and there things simply do what they do. There are "rules" where if X does this Y somehow must do that, but there are no other involvements, involvements that define the rest of Aquinian, arrow-of-time reality. If X does that and Y will do that, that is an act of faith of a sort, a faith that the next time it will again and so on.

Back to your point (as it struck me): if the very small is as unknown as it is, then the very large cannot, to any reasonable set of conclusions, be known, which is more or less what I think you're tacitly implying. We have models, each of which can be entirely upended when more turtles down in the quantum murk pop up their heads.

And it's either turtles all the way down or turtles down to X level below which is nothing. Heck of a thing to make a universe out of and in my opinion, no thing to base certainty on...

Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

Supersymmetry has failed every test to date

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Supersymmetry has failed every test to date

Re: Supersymmetry has failed every test to date

Re: Supersymmetry has failed every test to date

Re: Supersymmetry has failed every test to date

Re: Supersymmetry has failed every test to date

Re: Supersymmetry has failed every test to date

Re: Supersymmetry has failed every test to date

Re: Supersymmetry has failed every test to date

Re: Supersymmetry has failed every test to date

Re: Supersymmetry has failed every test to date

Re: Supersymmetry has failed every test to date

Re: Supersymmetry has failed every test to date

Re: Supersymmetry has failed every test to date

Re: Supersymmetry has failed every test to date

Re: Supersymmetry has failed every test to date

Re: Supersymmetry has failed every test to date