Fact Check, debunking obviously false information


    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    Why crystals form spontaneously during cooling after then? Why massive objects condense from random clouds into a spherical objects?

    It's nice to believe in laws but even better is to open an eyes and not to live in illusions.


    A portion of this is semantics.

    2LOT could also be stated as "from complex to less complex" and / or "Higher degree of information to less information".


    A random cloud is very complex while a sphere is quite simple, complexity and information wise. It does seem more "ordered" but that could be interpreted differently in 2LOTD.


    A crystal could also be viewed the same way. Less complex.


    However, I do agree that there are other areas that are absolutely in contradiction to 2LOTD. Namely evolution. The unbelievable complexity of the human brain, overall nervous system and body (along with the millions of other species variants) is absolutely against 2LOTD. Huge amounts of new information is gained, extreme complexity and all ordered in a system that requires exacting coordination with each complex system. This flies in the face of 2LOTD, with no mechanism theory on what actually drives this ordered, complex increase of information versus the 2LOTD requirement for decomposition.


    I only bring this somewhat OT subject up as it does fit 1) "false information" at least controversial 2) shows that in all the various opinions here, it really is not so much as the actual factual substance of the debate, it is the "my interests are with" bias.


    I.E. The vast overall tone of the anti-SM crowd is that the "lies and mis-direction" of SM is all caused by big money, big interest and greed. Something that is probably seen to a small extent, but hardly is the driving force in the thousands of physicists around the world. (in my opinion)


    This same crowd, may however, completely accept evolution as OK, even though it's foundation if far, far, far less sound than the Standard Model. So much so, that if it was any other field, such as chemistry or Physics, it's lack of basic standard scientific theory standards, by definition would have it laughed out of existence. No predictive, not testable, no driving mechanism, against other laws such as LOTD, etc. etc.


    It is only held in such high position because the "alternative is unthinkable".


    So my point.... science is driven more to the core, by one's own personal bias more than anything. That bias may be a pet theory. It may be crowd mentality, it may be personal understanding (which could be right or wrong) and yes, it could be greed as well. However, it often is more influenced by these factors than the emotionless, unbiased examining of data and facts.


    If so, certain people here would not be making statements similar to "the last 90 years of foolish blindness" and other emotional claims. They would simply stick to the facts and data. Of course, their world view is that statement IS fact, which is hand waiving of course. Others would be more open to other ideas as well, (such as I expect very closed mindedness to the evolution challenge above)


    It is all a matter of personal bias. (Not that some are more logical or fact based than others. Normally the degree of personal insult indicates the degree of lack of logic or defendable fact)


    PS.... and most will not change their views by verbal discussion from the opposing side! World views seldom change and then usually only from some internal decision.

    However, I do agree that there are other areas that are absolutely in contradiction to 2LOTD. Namely evolution.


    That is a commonly held view however scientists do not agree:


    https://skepticalinquirer.org/…a_thermodynamics_problem/


    (1) 2LoT says nothing about parts of systems not isolated from the whole increasing in order

    (2) The earth, with impinging 5000K sunlight and a temperature of 300K, has a continual driver that allows order to be created on the earth against the normal entropic deterioration

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    Why crystals form spontaneously during cooling after then? Why massive objects condense from random clouds into a spherical objects?

    It's nice to believe in laws but even better is to open an eyes and not to live in illusions.


    Zephir: 2LoT applies to whole (or isolated) systems. In both these cases the increase in order in the object is balanced by a decrease in order outside the object (a temperature increase). Although in the "coalescing to a sphere" case maybe the temperature increase is inside the object - so there is not even a local increase in order.


    2LoT is rather like maths - self-evidently true - if you understand what it means. From the many people arguing with it, and arguments like yours above, it is clear that many do not understand what it means.


    Words are slippery however - perhaps better to use the technical work entropy rather than the non-technical order:


    Please don't ever let anyone tell you that entropy is disorder. This is one of those statements that's true for an ideal gas but not for much else. People often try to get around this by redefining "disorder" to mean "entropy", but that's just silly. It's best to think of entropy as what it is -- the logarithm of the number of microstates compatible with the system's measurable macroscopic state -- and not rely on the outdated "disorder" metaphor.

    Having said that, the entropy of a crystal is actually lower than the entropy of the same substance in solution. This isn't paradoxical because, as others have pointed out, the crystallisation process releases heat, and this heat increases the temperature of the crystal's surroundings through the usual dS=δQ/TdS=δQ/T. Because of this, it's tempting to think that this means that the "disorder" created by heating the water outweighs the order created in forming the crystal.

    But sometimes the heat that's given off can end up in the crystal itself rather than the surrounding water (this will typically happen with supercooled water becoming ice, for example) and in these cases one would end up having to say that a warm crystal is less ordered than cold liquid, which just doesn't really seem right. Better just to say that the system with the crystal in it has a higher entropy than the one without, even though, at least in the everyday sense, it has more order.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    However, I do agree that there are other areas that are absolutely in contradiction to 2LOTD. Namely evolution.


    That is a commonly held view however scientists do not agree:


    https://skepticalinquirer.org/…a_thermodynamics_problem/


    Well, I read your link and stand by my above statement....

    "Normally the degree of personal insult indicates the degree of lack of logic or defendable fact)"


    I am not defending or arguing evolution from any religious view point. I am only looking at it from standard scientific measure.


    Thus, the article includes this along with a large number of derogatory conjecture:


    " Consequently, among scientists the thermodynamics argument has become a symbol for the sort" of mind-numbing ignorance that is the stock-in-trade of creationists."


    This person's view is so biased influenced, he could not clearly analyze this subject if it hit him in the face.


    "You see, any claim that evolution violates the second law must be backed up with a calculation." is also another telling remark. It can be calculated, but all the

    parameters will simply be argued against, such as closed system, probability and time. Such as time ---we do not have billions of years....90% of variant life was went extinct multiple times during mass extinctions, the last only 65 million years ago. Hardly enough time since for slow evolution to produce the millions of species, the billions of variants since.


    So can it be calculated? Sure.. will anyone agree on the component values? Only depending on your predetermined bias.

    I am fully open to examining both sides of the evolution subject. However, I will do it honestly and openly. I would not pay much attention to Mr. Rosenhouse because he is clearly so biased on one side, that I would take little of what he states as dependable and not distorted. Likewise from some "anti-evolution" writers as well!


    But to state that "however scientist do not agree" is placing a pretty big umbrella. That is like saying scientist do not agree with SM because W does not! :)

    It is debated and with substance.


    https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/


    https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/aping…presentation-of-humanity/


    Both are examples of non-religious scientist who strongly question evolution.


    So some here state that the SM is pushed and popularized because of motives other than pure scientific fact, I believe this to be more the case with evolution.

    So "debunking" is not an extremists position.

    This person's view is so biased influenced, he could not clearly analyze this subject if it hit him in the face.


    Sorry, here is a more carefully written link saying the same thing, without insults (I did not check carefully which link I posted, not my way to post insults):


    http://curious.astro.cornell.e…ermodynamics-intermediate


    There are scientists who believe evolution is impossible.


    The Discovery Institute announced that over 700 scientists had expressed support for intelligent design as of February 8, 2007.[50] This prompted the National Center for Science Education to produce a "light-hearted" petition called "Project Steve" in support of evolution. Only scientists named "Steve" or some variation (such as Stephen, Stephanie, and Stefan) are eligible to sign the petition. It is intended to be a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of the lists of alleged "scientists" supposedly supporting creationist principles that creationist organizations produce.[51][52] The petition demonstrates that there are more scientists who accept evolution with a name like "Steve" alone (over 1370[53]) than there are in total who support intelligent design. This is, again, why the percentage of scientists who support evolution has been estimated by Brian Alters to be about 99.9 percent.[54]

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    You should start with the proton picture as this is well defined. To work with Clifford torus in a mind structure it took me about 3 moths of training but adding one more dimension for charge took much longer...

    All points noted, Jürg. I fear we may have to differ on this. The fundamental physics I've been doing is all very "plain vanilla" with nothing mysterious.

    So some here state that the SM is pushed and popularized because of motives other than pure scientific fact, I believe this to be more the case with evolution.


    I'm sure this is true of any idea, scientific or otherwise. Some will advocate it for selfish reasons nothing to do with the truth.


    However the scientific process, imperfect though it is, does a good job of holding to truth as the most important value. While individual scientists are biassed, bias tends not to survive because unlike ideas in areas of politics, ideology, economics, etc, science is rooted in experiment and scientific theories live or die by predictions.


    In addition scientific theories tend to be precisely stated as maths with definite answers - this precision makes it difficult to hide and again easier to detect bias.

    • Official Post

    As my agricultural engineering title requires a background in biology this is certainly a deeply interesting topic. At what point one can really make an absolute division between what’s alive and what’s not alive is a permanent and hot topic of debate. Life can be at some point reduced to an informatics system and it has been proposed again and again that the degree of complexity can’t be explained by random events. As this often degenerates in the old “intelligent creation” vs “pure random” debate I am on a different board, I propose life is result of an underlying order of nature that is what many insist on calling “god” but is only nature. The fabric of space time Is not random, and this underlying order express itself at every level from microscopic to macroscopic and also in how life spawns universally. Just an idea. In this perspective the “aether” is this underlying natural order. It can’t be seen but it expresses itself in everything.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    JohnDuffield you do not of course know me very well, I seldom ignore tech details others post.


    In this case you have posted a whole load of papers from 1913 - 1935, when sub-atomic physics was in an initial state of flux and the mystery of "what are sub-atomic particles" was still in its early days of investigation. You have to be very sure of yourself (as I can see here you are) to ignore the next 84 years of particle physics research, deciding that you alone realise where all other physicists went wrong.

    It isn't just me. There's a lot of people who take issue with the Copenhagen School and their point-particle electron. Unfortunately they tend to struggle to get their papers into a high-impact journal.


    Quote

    You summarise (I paraphrase) "in the 1930s QFT was plagued by severe difficulties, caused by infinities, themselves caused by the assumption that electrons are point particles". I agree. QFT was very difficult for anyone to accept because of those infinities, and other problems. However the next 35 years show how one by one all those difficulties were overcome.

    But they weren't overcome. The situation only get worse.


    Quote

    You don't consider this - for example regularisation - relatively late to the party - which turns a fix into a proper and provably correct mathematical technique. we will probably understand more when we have a GUT - which now looks highly likely to be fundamentally quantum, with the equations of GR emerging naturally from an emergent spacetime produced from quantum events.

    A mathematical technique can never substitute for understanding the physics. You will never have a GUT. Spacetime does not emerge from quantum events. That's just another fantasy that stems from a lack of understanding of the fundamental physics. See Svend Rugh and Henrik Zinkernagel’s 2002 paper on the quantum vacuum and the cosmological constant problem. They point out that photons don't scatter on the vacuum fluctuations of QED. If they did, “astronomy based on the observation of electromagnetic light from distant astrophysical objects would be impossible”. Hence when they say the QED vacuum energy concept “might be an artefact of the formalism with no physical existence independent of material systems”, they’re right.


    Quote

    I think anyone wanting to consider this topic "is QFT correct" could properly look at the various ideas floated in the 1920s and 1930s, but they would also need to look with sympathy and understanding at the work afterwards. That includes the later (19702, 1980s) work on renormalisation groups and regularisation. It is often the case that hacky things that give the right physical results but seem weird end up having proper mathematical explanations. So it has been with renormalisation, although i'm not saying we have a full underlying explanation of QFT - clearly we need a GUT for that. Still, the direction of travel is towards problems with QFT being solved and successes multiplying. The strong indications are that a GUT will emerge from basic QM operations and so at a fundamental level explain QFT as well as GR.

    As above. All that GUT stuff about the forces unifying at some high energy is just cargo-cult nonsense. Sorry Huixley, but when you understand how the forces work, from reading all those old papers, you know this.


    Quote

    Anyway enough on your throwaway dismissal of QFT (forgive me if I've misinterpreted it, it sounded like that).

    It isn't throwaway. It's considered.


    Quote

    I'm going to summarise what I think are the key ideas in these early papers (you may disagree) and your comments, and then state how I think they relate to modern thinking, and why few others agree with you that the 84 years after have gone in a wrong direction which can now clearly be identified. The three basic ideas are:


    (1) there is plentiful experimental proof that electrons are waves

    (2) the electron is not a fundamental particle, but rather has structure: as a rotating ring or other shape of charge. The rotation then means that geometrically we have a torus, but AFA these papers go the exact topology is not so important, whereas the fact that an electron is a rotating charge is.

    (3) electrons are in fact spacetime twists carrying standing wave photons, which appear to be charge because the twisting space causes the E field to be uniformly inward. (3) has some recent support, so I've added it. Although I'm not sure it existed in any of the early papers.

    Yes, the evidence says electrons are waves. But it isn't rotating charge. It's a rotating field-variation that results in a standing wave. Then we call it charge. Your point 3 isn't bad, but note that there isn't really an E field. It's an electromagnetic field, which is the twisted space.


    Quote

    I'm going to give you one line answers to (1) and (2) and (3) on the understanding that much more could be said on each, but a summary shows you and everyone else where I stand. (1) - indeed electrons are waves and QM describes exquisitely well all of the many effects that this causes. A "rotator" view of electrons would need exactly to emulate the defined QM wave characteristics which are precisely defined and consistent with experiment. Thus, specifically, the frequency of these waves varies with electron momentum. The waves vary in shape, forming specific calculable functions in potential wells or in boxes or in free space. The "size" of the electron (viewed as a wave packet) varies from smaller than we can measure to as large as the universe (only a slight exaggeration).

    That's not bad. Which means the electron isn't a point particle. N'est pas?


    Quote

    (2) and (3) These two models are different and have severe different individual technical critiques, which we could consider later. They share one critique as follows: Both suffer from a similar enormous complexity.

    It isn't complicated Huxley. It's simple. Drat, the wife is calling. I have to go. I'll explain why it's simple tomorrow.


    strip5electron-e1568465579109.png


    I must go. I'll just say this for now: displacement current does what is says on the tin.

    • Official Post
    Quote from THHuxleynew

    And not a surprise, becase 2LoT is really just saying that the universe goes from more ordered to less ordered states, which is probabilistically so likely as to be effectively certain.


    Not in a straight-line though Planet Earth is an example of a large (though finite) system going from a less ordered cloud of dust to this very orderly thing we stand upon. It can't last though.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    after 90 years QED/QFT these folks still have no clue about the internal proton/neutron structure.


    The lack of knowledge about the internal proton/ neutron structure

    may explain why "calculations" of neutron mass and proton mass are rather imprecise...


    the best computations of QED/QCD in 2008 give about 3% precision depend in on the particular method used.

    Perhaps Unzicker should have asked Gross about this.

    There's a lot of people who take issue with the Copenhagen School - indeed, and few scientists now like CI for QM. I never gave it credence in the 1980s when it was a good deal more popular. So what?


    and their point-particle electron - that is more difficult, because point particle is simplest and works. No elaborate model makes different better predictions


    A mathematical technique can never substitute for understanding the physics. A mathematical technique can however enable understanding of physics through a rigorous mathematical model with calculable predictions. And it is true that without mathematical understanding, you will never have complete physical understanding.


    You will never have a GUT. Not sure what is the point of that assertion?


    That's not bad. Which means the electron isn't a point particle. N'est pas? Well it depends on what you mean by point particle. In QM - or QFT - all so-called point particles in finite space have indeterminate position, momentum. "Point particle" means that no internal structure can be observed - just the wave function. Sometimes particles that appear point particles reveal structure at higher energies than we have been able to probe of course. You can never rule that out.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    Not in a straight-line though Planet Earth is an example of a large (though finite) system going from a less ordered cloud of dust to this very orderly thing we stand upon. It can't last though.


    That is the mistake many make. Confusing "the universe" with "part of the universe". Indeed parts can go from less ordered to more ordered. If you consider isolated gravitational collapse generally the apparent order increase is driven by potential energy converted into heat, and so the overall entropy still increases.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    "Point particle" means that no internal structure can be observed


    I don't think that the point particle assumption really applies..to the proton and neutron.

    QCD has come up with quarks and nowadays the proton "sea"of thousands of virtual and "real" gluons quarks etc.


    This 'structure' does not help to come up with an accurate mass.. versus the exptal nine or 10 figure precision.

    • Official Post
    Quote from THHuxleynew

    That is the mistake many make. Confusing "the universe" with "part of the universe". Indeed parts can go from less ordered to more ordered. If you consider isolated gravitational collapse generally the apparent order increase is driven by potential energy converted into heat, and so the overall entropy still increases.


    Mistake? Who said anything about a mistake? It was merely a comment upon a statistical anomaly to which we owe our very existence..

    Quote from Alan Smith

    Mistake? Who said anything about a mistake? It was merely a comment upon a statistical anomaly to which we owe our very existence..


    Not in a straight-line though Planet Earth is an example of ... was the mistake as reply to "the universe goes from less to more ordered". And I said it...


    THHuxleynew Oh no you didn't...


    THHuxleynew wrote:

    And not a surprise, becase 2LoT is really just saying that the universe goes from more ordered to less ordered states, which is probabilistically so likely as to be effectively certain.

    This 'structure' does not help to come up with an accurate mass.. versus the exptal nine or 10 figure precision.


    Indeed RB since you sound quite clued up you know the reason it is so difficult to calculate the exact mass (I've mentioned it before here)?


    The lack of knowledge about the internal proton/ neutron structure

    may explain why "calculations" of neutron mass and proton mass are rather imprecise...


    the best computations of QED/QCD in 2008 give about 3% precision depend in on the particular method used.

    Perhaps Unzicker should have asked Gross about this.


    Yes... and no!


    I detect a bit (but could be wrong!) of misunderstanding and a bit of proverbial "hand waiving" in your response! :)


    First, my point has nothing / zero to do with "creationism" or "intelligent design" / ID. So perhaps you misunderstood my point and comparison to the SM question of debunking / what is misuderstood / what is simply incorrect. It has NOTHING to do with motive, nor topology.... only method and application.


    It strictly has to do with that the theory of neo-Darwinism simply does not stand muster to the scientific method at any point. Again, it would be roundly laughed at if it were any other field of study! Often, with some of the same argument you use (correctly or not) against some of the posits posted here by others.


    Stated simply, evolution is not scientific. It has no theoretical driving mechanism. It makes no predictions. It is not testable. It is not qualitative. It is not supported by experiment. It is now argued (and widely so) that the fossil record does not support it nor other factual evidence based mechanisms. If someone pointed to a SM alternative, that fit the same "mold" as evolution, I am quite convinced you would not entertain that alternative with any credence.


    Yet you do evolution! Why? And this is some of the same questions I would ask others here positing alternate SM theories, when they have little to no predictive function, little to no test validations, little to no driving mechanism theory. Not all, but some.


    Secondly, you are hand waiving a bit with the 99.9 percent. This mean little to nothing. Science is not popularity, this I agree with W and others here. When I was in university, literally 99.9% of the university population believed Electrons/Protons/Neutrons were the smallest particles in existence. Of course they were wrong. Just because someone is educated, does not mean they understand the core mechanisms of a field. So the 99.9% of "scientists" is hand waiving and means nothing. Especially if the survey was loaded with "creationism" or "ID". Try asking them a blind question about would you support a theory that had zero drive mechanism, zero predictability, zero qualitative measure, was not testable, (etc.) and I am positive that 99.9% (or more) would state they would give little to no credence on such a theory. Many of these scientist, if they examined the reality of evolution would also doubt it. They are simply accepting the "main stream norm".


    So in turn, I ask this.... you support the SM (as I tend to do) because it has mustered the scientific method better than other alternate theories. At least to my ability to understand and education that I have recieved, it does. I realize it is not perfect nor complete, but the best I have been exposed to. I would entertain other alternatives if they were logical and met scientific muster.


    Why do you support evolution? Does it meet scientific muster the way SM does? Does it meet muster better than W's S(04) does? Or Mills? etc.??

    Or are you one of the 99.9% who believe it because mainstream preaches it?


    If you really research the problem with Macro-Evolution, you will be sore pressed to find an answer to it's very severe problem. "Chance" does not have a "chance" in that case! Gravity works and is not magic. It always draws mass toward itself. As Curbina stated, perhaps there is a "natural" law that indeed drives complexity in "living" organisms? Who knows? But neo-Darwinism does not explain nor offer anything at all! A iron ore deposit should evolve into airplanes otherwise, given enough time! No, evolution requires "life", which other theories and laws do not. For some reason, many scientist accept neo-Darwinism where they absolutely would not if it were another field of study according to scientific protocol.


    Something to think about! :/

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.