Talk:Reciprocal System of Theory/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

To Doug: Okay, I see you've split off the tutorial section. I've made some changes too. I'm going to remove the NPOV dispute warning which I put there. If you think I've gone too far with my changes, and it's going to take a while to fix, put the warning back on. -- Tim Starling 06:37 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Tim, you've demonstrated your excellent editorial skills with this edit. What a difference. It's definitely a worthy article now and I thank you for your help. I will study it for a while before I attempt to make any suggestions. You are good.
Doug
P.S. The paragraph on gravitational waves is incorrect and will have to be corrected. Here is a quote from the gravitational wave wiki:
Physicists Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor explained their observations of a binary neutron star system as the result of the system's emitting gravitational waves in accordance with general relativity, an achievement for which they were awarded the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics. However, gravitational radiation has never been directly observed -- that is, no one has yet witnessed a physical object actually changing shape as a gravitational wave passes through it -- although there have been a number of unconfirmed reports. The confirmed observation of gravitational waves would be important further evidence for the validity of general relativity.
So, there are "unconfirmed reports," but no evidence, contrary to the statement in the paragraph in question.
The evidence from earthbound gravitational wave detectors is essentially nonexistent. They are not what I was referring to in the article. I said astronomical measurements, and they have consistently indicated the existence of gravitational radiation, in line with GR to an accuracy of 0.5%, since 1974. Some physicists like to call this "indirect" evidence, and say that real proof will only come when the gravitational wave detectors come online, but then some physicists rely on gravitational wave detection funding for their livelihood. This page from the Nobel e-Museum, says that binary neutron star measurements constitute "[proof] that gravitational radiation really exists." -- Tim Starling 14:17 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Excised text:

In fact, proponents point out, it permitted Larson to predict the explosion of galaxies before they were actually observed.

Do galaxies explode? I've never heard of such a thing. You don't mean GRBs like this, do you? Anyway, consider it removed it pending confirmation. -- Tim Starling 07:51 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Oh yes. For examples with great images check this out:
http://www.starlight-pub.com/ExplodingGalaxies/ExplodingGalaxies.html
Larson describes his prediction (published in 1959) later in the following quote taken from chapter 7 of his book Quasars and Pulsars:
Aside from the discussion of the pulsars and some matters of detail that have been clarified by recent studies, the essential elements of the contents of the preceding six chapters are all included in the first book of this series, The Structure of the Physical Universe, published in 1959. At that time the study of extra-galactic radio sources was still in its infancy; indeed only five of these sources had yet been located. The galactic collision hypothesis was still the favored explanation of the generation of the energy of this radiation; the first tentative suggestions of a galactic explosion were not to be heard for another year or two, and it would be three more years before any actual evidence of such an explosion would be found. The existence of quasars was unknown and unsuspected.
Here is a spectacular example:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/centaurus_a_020807.html
It's interesting to note that there is much more involved here than meets the eye, because what enable Larson to make the prediction in the first place was the nature of the energy generation process that is predicticted by the RST. It is one in which 100% of the iron content of a star is turned into energy, producing supernovae. In the case of the galactic explosion, it is a rapid chain reaction of these supernovae that produces explosions so powerful that stars are literaly hurled out at unimaginable speeds like cows in tornado. The idea of legacy physics that a black hole consuming dust is the cause is pretty lame by comparison and completely ad hoc.
I see the problem: we have a different definition of "galaxy explosion". In those examples you gave, a galaxy gives out lots of radiation and what not, but at the end of it, there's still a perfectly good galaxy left. By "galaxy explosion" I took that to mean that it would destroy (or at least severely damage) the galaxy. When a star explodes, it's goodbye star.
So what exactly do you mean by "galaxy explosion"? Those examples are rather diverse. Do you mean a GRB; or just any quasar or AGN? I ask because you mentioned dust falling into a black hole, but that's not the current preferred explanation for a GRB. -- Tim Starling 00:10 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
In 1959 those distinctions didn't exist. Astronomers were guessing as to what was happening (well, they still are, but now they have more info and more theories.) They still refer to the events as "explosions," but now it's common to also use words like "eruptions," "outpourings" and "ejections," concurrently with the term 'explosion," "colossal explosion" etc. This is because its analogous to a volcano: the volcano explodes and erupts, ejecting material in huge outpourings of gas and material from time to time, but this does not destroy the volcano. That's why they call them "active galaxies" too I guess.
The point is, Larson's RST predicts these "cataclysmic" (another term they use) events as a result of the age or mass limit of matter in the theory. In the RST, it is this process that produces the solar and stellar energy (not nuclear fusion, which is unable to produce the higher energies observed) and the supernovae and galactic explosions (eruptions, ejections, outpourings, etc.) In the RST they must explode, it's part of the life cycle of matter and constitutes a final stage in an aggregation process of matter in the case of exploding stars and galaxies. - Doug

---

I still have a problem with the pseudoscience text. It's one thing to say that some scientists regard the RST as pseudoscience and quite another to say that "in the eyes of the mainstream, it..." because this wording implies that it has been examined by the "mainstream" (whatever that means) and found wanting when the truth is, that just is not so. It is so unknown, that it cannot be said that the "mainstream" relegates it to pseudoscience for whatever reason.

Also, the statement that "It provides no viable mathematically rigorous alternative," is misleading since the word "alternative" by itself is meaningless. Do we mean alternative to existing theories? If so, which ones, or do we mean all of them? Or do we mean an alternate physics that explains natural phenomena on a completely new basis (e.g. space and time vs matter and energy)? If so, that's exactly what's been done.

Further, as I showed in the previous version of the article, mathematical viability does not consist in complexity. The equation 1 + 2 = 3 is just as viable and rigorous as Gab=8πTab, probably more so, but it certainly is not as complex. General relativity equations have to describe a "fabric" of a 4D curved space-time metric that will generate a corresponding energy density that can only be described by an energy tensor. It certainly true that these are complex mathematical formulations, and that they must be proven with "rigor" in order to be ahown as valid and accurately capable of reconciling observed properties of matter in motion, but the point is moot when applied to the RST, because the RST equation is simple not complex. It's viability is proven by examination we might say.

When the RST deals with discrete proportions of space and time only, which have been properly defined, the need for describing the "fabric" of space-time, and thus the complexity of the metric of the hypersurface, is eliminated. There is no need for this complexity, because their is no need for a space-time "fabric" or metric.

In Newton's equation, F = ma, force is simply defined in terms of m and a, and will always yield the correct value as long as m and a are correctly known. Einstein's equations are used to get the correct values of m and a under certain conditions of high speeds, so the problem when the equation does not give the correct value isn't in Newton's equation, it lies in the correct determination of the value of the terms m and a.

So, we may ask, what is force really? The answer is that force is the "quantity of acceleration." But, we ask, what is acceleration? The answer is that acceleration is the rate of change of the magnitude of a motion in an inertial frame of reference. What then is mass? Well now, that's a problem isn't it? If we ask Einstein, he might say that it is equivalent to a certain quantity of energy to which it is related by a factor of speed, the measure of motion, but then that's begging the question. We want to know what it is, not what it is equivalent to. Well, he might say, its value depends on its relative velocity in an inertial frame, as he proceeds to write his equations that show how this is so. These equations are very involved and exceedingly complex. They involve certain assumptions of the nature of space and time, which are dubious, but we are told "not to bother too much about [their] meaning." Arguments ensue and certain erudite listeners are captivated, while others, less astute in the matters of abstract mathematics and exotic geometry, are not quite sure what's happenening.

But, again, let's point out that this elaborate description of how mass behaves under certain conditions does not tell us anything as to what it actually is, does it?

Well then, let's ask Bohr and Heisenberg et al. Do you guys know what mass is? They might say that it is a property of matter, but then knowing the tautology of that reply, we would answer, what then, pray tell, is matter? Well, they might begin, matter, at it's most fundamental level, is a very small entitiy called an atom. What is an atom? we plaintively ask. They might answer, an atom is a collection of electrons, protons and neutrons more or less held together by their charges. Oh my, dare we ask what these charges are? Let's not, for now anyway. We want to know what mass is, so let's ask, are these electrons, protons and neutrons mass? No, the reply comes back, not exactly, but electrons, protons and neutrons have mass, we know that because we have measured it very accurately. Let's show you how these things interact, as they proceed to write their wave equations and Hamiltonians and Lagrangians. Wait, hold up there just a bit we say. So, let's get this straight, you are saying that mass is a property of matter because it's a property of electrons, protons and neutrons, which together constitute matter, right? Sorry, but that still doesn't tell us what it actually is, does it?

Well ok, we'll get back to you. In the meantime, let's give Larson a shot at the question, do you know what mass is Dewey? Larson would say that mass is a "quantity of motion" (formerly, this was the definition of momentum.) Ok, what then is motion? we ask. His answer would be that motion is just a certain proportion of quantities of space and time. Well then, what is space and time? He would clearly state that he only knows what he reads in the newspapers; that is, that they are reciprocals of one another in the definition of motion, mathematically (or rigorously) expressed as m = s/t. But, he says, if we can assume that they are restricted to discrete values in the operation of this equation (i.e. integers), and that they operate in three dimensions, we can... and he proceeds to show us how combining these quantities of space and time in various proportions in each of the three dimensions produces mass.

Wow, we might say, that was easy. In fact, too easy, this can't be real science. Where is the mathematical rigor? Does this mean that you are going to completely reject these "beautiful" equations of Einstein's describing how matter behaves at high speed? What about our "beautiful" model of electrons, protons and neutrons, that describe matter itself? Are you going to replace all this with m = s/t? Well, the truth is, much of it won't be needed now that we know what mass is, because this will enable us to get the correct values of the terms m and a, and, therefore, F = ma is all that we need, but thanks for all your efforts anyway, it was a superb attempt.

Of course, this mini-dialog over simplifies the matter (no pun intended), but you can clearly understand what I'm saying here. In the RST, physics is simpler. There is no need of a metric other than the well understood geometry of Euclid, and thus no need of an elaborate set of equations to describe it. There is no need to explain atoms in terms of elementary particles and their interactions by the use of wave equations and formalisms such as Hamiltonians and/or Lagrangians, because in the RST these entities don't exist as "parts" of atoms, but instead electrons, protons and neutrons exist in their own right as less complicated motion combinations that precede more complex combinations that constitute atoms.

Having said this, I don't mean to imply that complex mathematics is not needed in the RST. As a tool, it is needed as much as any other tool. However, we do not need to invent a hypersurface, with tensors and linear algebra, to explain the operation of gravity in the RST, and we don't need the standard model, with wave equations, etc., to explain the basic properties of matter. Therefore, the cry that the RST "provides no viable mathematically rigorous alternative," must be seen for what it is, a completely unfounded and uninformed point of view.

What we need to say is this:

1) "The RST is a new and innovative approach that has been ignored by mainstream physics." -- This is obviously true

2) "The claim that it clarifies the nature of motion to the point of showing that the present ideas of space, time, matter and energy are in need of revision, is unconfirmed as yet." --- This is also obviously true

3) "However, because its approach is so unusually fundamental, and thus requires physicists to "begin anew" in certain respects, its serious consideration by them will likely only be precipatated by a major crises in current physical theories, forcing them to turn to alternatives such as the RST." -- This is also a very true statement

What we don't need is to flat out say that the RST is pseudoscience because we say it is. If we insist on making such a statement, we better be prepared to make the case with real facts, not expecting that a few vague statements that unnamed scientists in the "mainstream" say so. This in itself is unscientific jounalism so to speak. If you feel the need to show the shame, back the claim. Don't make an argument that it is pseudoscience because it "rejects" current theories. Because the RST does not need these theories to explain the properties of matter is not in any way germane to the argument that it is psuedoscience (not that the RST is complete in any sense - there is much to be done along this line - but its success thus far is encouraging.)

The word psuedoscience should only be used after very careful consideration of the facts. It is obvious that the RST is not psuedoscience when one takes a serious look at it. In fact, its approach is more consonant with solid scientific philosophy than the rampant "inventive" science that is so in vogue today. It would cause Newton to turn over in his grave if he could see the bent of modern science for an easy inventive scientific philosophy rather than the proper inductive philosophy. -- Doug 26 July 2003

I'll see what I can do. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the complexity issue, because I can't see how the fundamental principles of standard physics are any more complex than those of RST. The thing that I really want to include (and you really don't want me to include) is that RST doesn't have the necessary framework which allows two physicists, working separately, to derive the same result. I have to admit that I'm not particularly well informed in this respect. I've been through exactly this discussion with a number of, hmmm how should I put it... amateur theoretical physicists, regarding different theories. In a couple of cases I've read up on the theory in extreme detail, and convinced myself beyond any doubt that those theories don't have the proper framework. But I've never managed to convince a proponent of that. I'm hesitant to engage in such a debate with you because it takes a long time to do the research and it's very unlikely we'll reach a satisfactory conclusion.

I'll see what I can do with clever wording...

-- Tim Starling 14:17 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I can understand your hesitancy. You can't spend the enormous time it takes to get to the bottom of some of these issues each time someone proposes a different point of view. On the other hand however, that implies that we have to be a guardian of sorts over the "cannon" of scientific knowledge appearing in Wikipedia. The problem is that the prejudice supported by current theories is allowed to override the results of physical observations, let alone alternative points of view and therefore the situation becomes untenable for the minority view.
As an example, the issue at hand, the question of gravitational radiation, is not being represented properly, in fact, it is very misleading and illustrative of my point. As Larson points out:
observers keep calling attention to the absence of evidence of the finite propagation time that current theory ascribes to the gravitational effect, as in this extract from a news report of a conference at which the subject was discussed:
"When it [the distance] is astronomical, the difficulty arises that the intermediaries need a measurable time to cross, while the forces in fact seem to appear instantaneously." [Science News, Jan 31, 1970]
But it is assumed that we must accept either a finite propagation time or action at a distance, which, as Bridgman once said, is "a concept to which many physicists have a violent allergy." 34 Einstein's theory, which supports the propagation hypothesis, has therefore been accorded a status superior to the observations. The following statement from a physicist brings this point out explicitly:
"Nowadays we are also convinced that gravitation progresses with the speed of light. This conviction, however, does not stem from a new experiment or a new observation, it is a result solely of the theory of relativity." [Bridgeman, 1959]
Though these quotes are fairly old, the situation hasn't changed, they are still striving to detect the radiation and measure it's speed. I know it's hard to delve to the bottom of some issues, but we have no choice if we are going to assert allegations such as calling a theory 'pseudoscience.' The RST is not an inventive theory to be dismissed lightly. It is a man's life's work that is philosophically sound and scientifically valid. The only thing we can honestly say concerning its general scientific status is that it is relatively unknown and unexamined.
The "necessary framework, which allows two physicists, working separately, to derive the same result," does exist, but whether it does or not is not germane to the argument. The discovery of scalar motion is a fact that can be repeated, examined and challenged by physcists everywhere without a new "framework." Larson's conclusions of the consequences of the new paradigm of motion can likewise be examined, tested and challenged without a new "framework." There are many examples of this, but, again, the lack of gravitational radiation is the most clear. Normal science does not need a new "framework" to calculate the gravitational force, it's speed of "propagation," or it's constant. To understand how it relates to inertia, they don't need a new "framework," they just need to understand the scalar concept of motion. To understand how it relates to mass, likewise, and so on. Science doesn't need yet another formalism. What they need is a clarification of the physical picture. The RST provides that.

--Doug 26 July

Did you see my recent comments about gravitational radiation at the top of this talk page?

The point is that gravitational radiation is well and truly accepted. You seem to be aware of this although perhaps you doubt the reasons physicists give for their belief. It was my intention to present a typical argument: a physicist says they have proof for a phenomenon (in this case gravitational radiation), and the proponent counters by claiming that there is no such proof. That standard counter-argument is exactly what you are doing now.

It is standard practice to state views which are widely held by experts in the field, as fact. For example, we don't scatter qualifications throughout the electromagnetic radiation article, like "if relativity is correct...", and "if hidden variable theories are indeed wrong...". It's a convention which saves on screen space and makes it easier for students to learn material.

The learning point is particularly interesting: I was annoyed all through school and the first couple of years of my undergrad degree, by teachers constantly stating poor approximations and obsolete theories as fact. Now I regard that practice with amusement: I can see how it makes it easier for students, although it is somewhat irritating.

Meandering back towards the point: "accepted wisdom" is as close to fact as you can get. Every statement in this encyclopedia, and elsewhere, should be regarded with skepticism. If you read a statement, say "Hadrons are particles composed of quarks," you should immediately read that as "as far as the author is aware, according to accepted wisdom, hadrons are particles composed of quarks".

I say: "There is strong evidence for gravitational radiation. RST proponents dispute this." That should be expanded as: "As far as the author is aware, the consensus of expert physicists is that there is strong evidence for gravitational radiation. As far as the author is aware, RST proponents dispute this."

I really can't see any other interpretation for my statement. If my statement was absolutely, objectively true, it would be irrational to criticise it. There is no absolute truth in science, so accepted science can always be criticised rationally.

Note that the current revision does not use the term "pseudoscience".

(Posted via edit conflict)

-- Tim Starling 16:05 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I missed your gravitational radiation comments at the top of the page. I understand your point relative to brevity for pedagogical reasons. However, if this is the objective, what does the statement that this is an example of a "false" prediction have to do with it? In other words, the fact that we want to be efficient in expression can't be reasonably construed as justification for classifying the RST's prediction of no gravitational radiation as trivially false, can it?
Wouldn't it be better to give an example of a "false" prediction that is neutral first, to clearly define what we mean by "trivially false," before we implicate the RST? (btw, do you have reference to these three categories used by detractors, so I can read more about them?)
It's hardly clear to say that since the RST predicts that there can be no such thing as gravitational radiation, while GR predicts the exact opposite, that indirect astronomical evidence, just in, relegates the RST's prediction to the "trivially false" category. Even if tomorrow, gravitational radiation is undeniably observed, would this disproof of the RST be trivial? Also, since all direct evidence indicates no such radiation exists, isn't the burden of proof upon the theory that asserts its existence, not the theory that is in complete accord with all the observations?
And speaking of observations, your comment relative to the due dilengence required by users of Wikipedia is right on, but I think it relates to the community as a whole as well, which Wikipedia reflects remarkably. I followed your link to gravitational radiation above and found this quote there:
Physicists Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor explained their observations of a binary neutron star system as the result of the system's emitting gravitational waves in accordance with general relativity, an achievement for which they were awarded the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics.
This certainly seems to lend credibility to GR's case for gravitational waves, because the process of radiation requires a transfer of energy - i.e. a loss at the transmitting end and a gain at the receiving end - clearly at odds with the RST and observations. However, following the link to the Nobel Prize yielded a surprise. They were awarded the prize "for the discovery of a new type of pulsar, a discovery that has opened up new possibilities for the study of gravitation." This is hardly the same as described in the Wiki, which makes it look like the award was for discovering that the binary star system emits "gravitational waves in accordance with general relativity," which just is not true.
Not only was the award not given for such an "achievement," but their explanations have set the world off looking to confirm the theoretical answer to their discovery, which was that the star was losing energy in its orbit and thus "inspiraling," towards its companion. Their explanation for the inspiraling is that the star is losing energy "transmitted" by its gravity. So, they are off in a big way to see if they can detect the hypothetical gravitational radiation:
The direct detection of gravitational waves is one of the greatest scientific challenges of our day. With construction of the interferometers underway, and the possibility of a new generation of resonant mass detectors, the calculation of the signals expected from various astrophysical signals has a high priority. [Quote from Drexel Research Group, 2000]
What's happening is that the binary star system has a "quadrapole moment" other systems don't. This makes it feasable to detect the hypothetical radiation. So, that is exactly what they are trying to do, feverishly.
however, this is far from "well and truely accepted," and physicists are NOT saying that "they have proof for [this] phenomenon." So, it follows that I am not simply countering "by claiming that there is no such proof." Either that or I don't understand the English language nor the logic of reason.
So, obviously, the verdict is not in, and the use of pedagogical expedients in this case are certainly not justified. But, this is a great example of a testable, falsifiable prediction of the RST that is diametrically opposed to GR. Why can't we just go ahead and admit that and in fact use it to set the RST up for a great fall? In this way we could get away from this endless argument over the scientific status of the RST and focus on its merits or lack thereof instead. The drama would make for wonderful copy and probably increase Wikipedia traffic to boot, at least among the physicists, until the results are in.

--Doug July 26, 2003 12:37pm MST

They were awarded the prize "for the discovery of a new type of pulsar, a discovery that has opened up new possibilities for the study of gravitation."

Yes, the Nobel committee has a long tradition of only awarding the prize for experimental work. Their statements are often carefully worded to place emphasis on the experimental component, rather than the theoretical interpretation.

(btw, do you have reference to these three categories used by detractors, so I can read more about them?)

Ah, no. Sorry. Let's just consider those three categories on their merits, shall we?

-- Tim Starling 03:19 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, that was a scare. I was beginning to think we might have lost the whole shebang, but I take it was only a reboot of the server that was needed? Anyway, I had just submitted my changes last night when it went down. Luckily, I had saved them just in the nick of time. Glad it wasn't as serious as feared.

I changed the focus of the article from the debate on its scientific status to its scientific merits or lack of them. Since it's now obvious that the theory is testable and the biggest test is the much anticipated mother of all tests ("the most important of all tests" - a quote from Kip Thorne - native Utahn), it makes for a much more interesting article, I think.

-- Doug 28 Jul 2003

If you look closely, you'll see that I never actually said RST is falsifiable. I may have said it's a poor argument to claim it isn't. Here's why. In a sense RST has already been proven false, by way of binary neutron star measurements. These measurements have been pretty convincing for a decade or so. However, RST proponents continue to promulgate the theory. Why?

The answer is attachment. Even scientists are prone to it sometimes, but it is certainly inconsistent with the principles of the scientific method. A scientist must always be ready to immediately abandon a theory in the face of evidence to the contrary. Crackpots (I've met a few on usenet) often cling to the theories they create despite overwhelming evidence that they contradict even everyday experience.

In a sense, such theories are "unfalsifiable" because the inventor (and perhaps other proponents) will continue promoting it forever. They will have ready-made replies to the criticisms levelled at their theory -- replies which convince no-one but themselves.

The attachment of pseudoscientists to their theories has been compared to the attachment inspired by religion. Some older, more popular such theories truly do inspire that kind of devotion -- see the list at pseudoscience. For example, it's been shown that astrology has no basis in fact. There's been lots of statistical studies. And yet, people continue to believe.

I'm not sure if it will prove to be the same in this case, since uniquely, the inventor of RST has passed away. Hence one might expect that the current proponents of the theory are less attached to it than Larson himself would have been. However, I'd prefer not to have the article claim that RST is falsifiable and scientific. I think it's a moot point, and that the issue should be sidestepped.

By the way, if you have logged in, you can sign your entries with ~~~~, which is automatically converted to a name and a date. You can even set a nickname in your preferences.

-- Tim Starling 04:47, Jul 29, 2003 (UTC)