This was the link where stefan posted a solution that shows that QED is incomplete.
https://physics.stackexchange.…s-argument-link-em-and-qm
That is what you get today:
The church of SM physics
-
Well Wyttenbach, without detracting from your point, If you read the reasons that are given for deleting a question one could say that the question was either found to be off topic (which is unlikely) or of low quality (which is what would probably be argued if they would be asked point blank).
Your posts imply that there is a coordinated effort to avoid the discussion of certain topics. On the years I have been researching controversial claims I have seen this argued many times by those who come with new, radical approaches. However, there's an old saying that tells one has no need to attribute to malice something that is better explained by stupidity.
In this case I would say that is more probable that the question was found of being of low quality not because it would be really of low quality, but because the average person in the field really has not even thought things at that level of depth, so Most probably really doesn’t understand the problem proposed.
I have found many times that interdisciplinary work is often misunderstood and scoffed at by specialists and experts on a narrow field. The capacity of viewing things with a wider angle is truly rare. The problem starts even at so basic levels as the use of language.
As an example, I Recall that in My first paper submission one of the reviewers, and the only one that recommended rejection, was really harsh in his review but by his wording you could tell he had not understood at all what the paper was about. I specially recall his irate comment about why was I talking about energy expense if “growing vegetables were not powered by electricity”. The energy expense I was talking about was at the metabolic level for neutralizing the toxic effect of boron in the growth of vegetables, some vegetal species are capable of circumventing the toxicity but they do so at expense of energy for creating the compounds that are able to absorb the boron and immobilize it. The reviewer was probably lacking In biological background so he did not even understood that I was referring to this kind of energy expense, and in his opinion I was a complete moron while in reality it was probably exactly the opposite. I simply sent my paper to other journal and it got published after one round of revision.
So, one has always to remember that at the other side there’s people, and people, more often than not, and specially in this kind of impersonal settings, tend to act stupidly, no matter how educated. -
Your posts imply that there is a coordinated effort to avoid the discussion of certain topics. On the years I have been researching controversial claims I have seen this argued many times by those who come with new, radical approaches. However, there's an old saying that tells one has no need to attribute to malice something that is better explained by stupidity.
No: I only try to work against a totalitarian systems. An open system would give e.g. 2,3 keywords ( in the comment) why they reject something.
This site does the worst possible as it points on page where the users can develop their own fantasy when reading a catalogue of reasons.
-
No: I only try to work against a totalitarian systems. An open system would give e.g. 2,3 keywords ( in the comment) why they reject something.
This site does the worst possible as it points on page where the users can develop their own fantasy when reading a catalogue of reasons.
well I think you are reading too much in the deletion of the question, but I agree it is rude to just go and delete it without providing a good reason.
I think Researchgate would be a better platform for promoting discussion of the topic, you can create a question there and ask the people you are interested into to answer. It does not warrant answers anyway, but certainly there it would be hard to get a question deleted.
-
In case anyone is interested in the Q&A feature of Researchgate
-
You might also consider that the correct method for anyone proposing alternate theories of physics is not physics stackexchange questions, but a research paper and a suitable journal.
I'd have sympathy with the (erroneous, looking at the number of way-out theories that do get published) idea that peer review shuts of novel science except that those claiming this seldom put well-written (or indeed any) complete papers on arxiv or vixra. When you claim something Nobel Prize worthy if true, but that is only 1% worked out and not written up in a form that makes a case, I don't expect many people to be interested.
It is the idea that people should bow down and worship such (charitably) incomplete work, giving it priority over stuff where the authors have had the courtesy to write it up, that seems to me more like a church - or should I say cult?
-
You might also consider that the correct method for anyone proposing alternate theories of physics is not physics stackexchange questions, but a research paper and a suitable journal.
I agree: Nobody should be allowed to question a fringe model (now a religious model of physics).
That's what stackexchange should be in your opinion. Just - Opus Dei like - teaching ground for physics novices...
-
You cannot sensibly gain crowd sourced answers to questions when what you are asking about does not exist.
At a minimum a stack exchange question on new physics would need a link to a well written research paper (say on vixra) so that everyone knew what was being considered!
I find the blatant bias and misrepresentation here obvious and unhelpful.
-
I find the blatant bias and misrepresentation here obvious and unhelpful.
I understand form this sentence that you agree with totalitarian systems stack-exchange maintains.
-
That is not what I said. The 125GeV Higgs particle (that you deny) is evidenced in two completely different (independent) sets of observations that relate to different decays.
This is good example how the SM church tries to influence people.
1) Reduced the discussion to the one "125GeV Higgs particle" that fits the theory better, than the other (126.7GeV).
2) Try to explain that the other event is just a not yet fitting different decay of the better fitting one.
3) After the particle was not found between 3500..7000 GeV - the last collision energy upgrade request of CERN - declare the new particle, that already could be generated with the (40 year) old machine, being the search one...
4) Change all models (adding tons of higher order perturbations..) to make the energy fit with the model
But that time CERN/SM folks are really unlucky. They measure a real particle, a 5D rotating proton, what definitely never will fit with virtual particle math... (But 3 digits is enough for them to claim something to be real...)
-
I have to agree with THHuxleynew that is important to have a written paper to refer people when one is asking a question.
The thing is that Wyttenbach has made available several parts and a summary of his ongoing work in his Researchgate page, which IMHO is a valid venue where peer review is spontaneous and direct. The poster for ICCF 22 is also available.
Now, I am more inclined to find solutions to problems Than to keep complaining about them, so, THHuxleynew, imagine yourself in Wyttenbach’s shoes and tell us what journal would you choose to submitt a seminal paper on the SO(4) model, where would you send a manuscript?I know is not easy a choice.
I think the SO(4) model is really interesting and right from the start allows a higher precision calculation to the experimental values. That alone should call anyone’s curiosity.
I also agree that it needs to be put in front of more people to see where it might be room for improvement or see if there any overlooked sources of error. So, let’s help Jurg advance with it and suggest him a potential formal channel of publication.
Let’s also show Jurg along the way of helping him to publish his model that there is no church of SM as he perceives it.
-
Let’s also show Jurg along the way of helping him to publish his model that there is no church of SM as he perceives it.
If you know people that worked in the field, then you would understand why I opened this thread. Today western! churches are (mostly) way more open and democratic an no longer under a totalitarian regime.
Physics as it is presented to the world today is in a very dangerous state. NIST already started to fudge many constants based on fringe SM models. A small circle of high priests decides what can be published.
People as THH spread FUD to defend the insanity of a claim that a prediction of a particle can be made without giving a mass. This implies that the Church can claim anything and post-event claim it's prediction.
We - the people that pay taxes - not the one with a fortune - were forced to spend CERN several billions for the Church's predication that the Higgs particle (- as we know now for a fake particle -) will have an energy of first > 1000GeV then 3500 ..7000 GeV. Now the claim it at 125GeV what is 560 fold of 7000GeV...
For the normal taxpayers this sounds like: Based on a wired religious believe of the SM Church we simply spoiled Billions.
PS:They certainly will not publish something that will end the carrier of a large number of their friends... This is "naked" illusion.
-
Display More
If you know people that worked in the field, then you would understand why I opened this thread. Today western! churches are (mostly) way more open and democratic an no longer under a totalitarian regime.
Physics as it is presented to the world today is in a very dangerous state. NIST already started to fudge many constants based on fringe SM models. A small circle of high priests decides what can be published.
People as THH spread FUD to defend the insanity of a claim that a prediction of a particle can be made without giving a mass. This implies that the Church can claim anything and post-event claim it's prediction.
We - the people that pay taxes - not the one with a fortune - were forced to spend CERN several billions for the Church's predication that the Higgs particle (- as we know now for a fake particle -) will have an energy of first > 1000GeV then 3500 ..7000 GeV. Now the claim it at 125GeV what is 560 fold of 7000GeV...
For the normal taxpayers this sounds like: Based on a wired religious believe of the SM Church we simply spoiled Billions.
PS:They certainly will not publish something that will end the carrier of a large number of their friends... This is "naked" illusion.
Well Jurg, I think you have a great model, and you have shown that it predicts values much closer to the ones experimentally measured than QM and SM. Convincing others that think they are right (or right enough) that they are really wrong has never been an easy task.
Certainly claiming one is right and all others are wrong, even if its blatantly true, will usually not be well received and will cause fight back. More so if the livelyhood of those that are wrong is threatened by someone coming with a better answer.
So, the problem is how to work around this behavioral barrier. It's not easy at all. This happens to anyone with great ideas that challenge the paradigm. In his days Einstein faced the same.
-
With regards of finding resistance to scientific ideas from a political and hegemonic positions, I have met it in my small and humble field of research (boron toxicity in plants and how to avoid it). I have met the resistance of people in positions of power that decided (for political reasons) that informing people that boron was toxic to plants was not good, and tried to supress the research. They couldn't, as truth prevails, and boron intoxicated plants produce less crop yield and the more sensitive ones end up dying unexorably.
-
Now, I am more inclined to find solutions to problems Than to keep complaining about them, so, THHuxleynew, imagine yourself in Wyttenbach’s shoes and tell us what journal would you choose to submit a seminal paper on the SO(4) model, where would you send a manuscript?
Well, were I W, I would publish on vixra or arxiv depending on how I felt about journal publication prospects.
But that he cannot do till he has a paper describing the work.
Conference poster does not do the job - it is not self-contained enough to explain and justify the work. The researchgate info when I last looked at it read like notes in progress, not a self-contained paper.
If constraints of one paper don't work, then it is possible to publish as a set of self-referencing papers.
I don't see journal publication as the problem, I see lack of good quality self-contained paper (of the sort that might get published in a journal). Without that no-one can make a sensible positive evaluation of the work. if there are obvious errors i guess they might be found, but i doubt many would bother to read it until there was some chance of it making sense - if it did have merit.
When trying to claim new physics it is no good saying "I've done this and this, but not written it up properly" and then try to write up something whose validity depends on work generally not accepted that you have not yourself properly written up!
W's best bet is something like this, since he has a semi-classical approach. He could talk to people, and find out what they needed to be able to evaluate his stuff (which is a good paper / set of papers).
Mini Workshop — Beyond the Standard Model: historical-critical perspectives
13 Oct 2019 - 27 Oct 2019 • Firenze , ItalyOrganizer:
The Galileo Galilei Institute for Theoretical PhysicsAbstract:
Ever since the Standard Model was established, there have been speculations about physics “beyond the Standard Model” (BSM), giving rise to a steady flow of models of “new physics” and letting the borders between high energy physics, astrophysics, and cosmology become increasingly permeable. So far, though, experiments failed to provide evidence for new physics, generating increasing talk of a “crisis” of these research programs, calling into question their premises, such as the principle of naturalness, or even questioning their scientific methodology. The workshop aims at approaching the present situation from a historical-critical perspective, contextualizing and questioning the developments of earlier decades, both to understand better their past and present scope, and to provide new material for reflections on contemporary physical research.Topics:
1. Supersymmetry and supergravity: motivations and developments, 2. Formal analogies in/between particle physics, condensed matter physics, and cosmology, 3. Computer simulation in theoretical high energy physics and in cosmology, 4. The interplay of experimental results and BSM model-buildingEvent listing ID:
1230621Related subject(s):
Mathematical PhysicsEvent website:
http://www.ggi.infn.it/showevent.pl?id=323THH
-
Conference poster does not do the job - it is not self-contained enough to explain and justify the work. The researchgate info when I last looked at it read like notes in progress, not a self-contained paper.
I don't see journal publication as the problem, I see lack of good quality self-contained paper (of the sort that might get published in a journal). Without that no-one can make a sensible positive evaluation of the work. if there are obvious errors i guess they might be found, but i doubt many would bother to read it until there was some chance of it making sense - if it did have merit.
We are all looking for some way to tell if we should "brother to read it". Yet why bother to read this forum? I think because we all suspect that there will be something useful. I don't have much use for the kind of theories that one can't use for design of experiments. Further, I am limited by training to applying chemistry. However, I can still sort out of this forum some good stuff.
THH the bar you set is ridiculously too high. Further, it took me 6 years to get enough of a quality and self contained story to publish my patent. I can't wait 20 years to publish the way you want it. My effort as it is in the patent isn't a prototype, but it is closer to providing an engineering basis that most of what I read in this forum. A patent application may not be worth the brother in your judgement but I think I can wear you down till you might get curious.
My basis for fusion is real because the stoichiometry is real. I am working toward our common goal: a better energy future and I find many of the forum's conversations useful. To all keep it up.
-
Your posts imply that there is a coordinated effort to avoid the discussion of certain topics. On the years I have been researching controversial claims I have seen this argued many times by those who come with new, radical approaches. However, there's an old saying that tells one has no need to attribute to malice something that is better explained by stupidity.
There's definitely a coordinated censorship on physics stack exchange. See my answers here:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/493921/76162
https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/494012/76162
They're high-quality answers with references to Einstein and other good factual material. However user John Rennie used the chatoom to call for downvotes here:
https://chat.stackexchange.com…message/51192214#51192214
https://chat.stackexchange.com…message/51204320#51204320
https://chat.stackexchange.com…message/51217054#51217054
https://chat.stackexchange.com…message/51217454#51217454
The "moderators" didn't just turn a blind eye to this. After other posters downvoted my answers, they suspended me for a year for "low quality answers". It was quite deliberate. Stack exchange peddles popscience and "lies to children" whilst censoring serious physics that challenges the nonsense. A lot of other physics websites do this. The censorship is endemic.
-
JD - crowd sourced determining of quality is quite normal. Stackexchange does rely on getting high signal to noise ratio so if most people on the site think your posts are rubbish they won't want you.
It is a tough world out there. But that is the internet for you: for example, here I am marginally tolerated, since my posts are not to the liking of many! There is enough breadth of opinion here to keep me though, and this site is quite tolerant of a range of contrary views.
Imagine how stackexchange would do if every question has 3 completely contradictory answers?
https://physics.stackexchange.…ent-horizon/493921#493921
Your first downvoted answer above. I would downvote it too? Why? Because it is unambiguously wrong. The question was about what different observers would experience inside and outside a black hole
- You claim that an observer falling into a black hole would experience death - some form of singularity - at the event horizon. That is untrue. For an large enough black hole you would not notice the event horizon.
- You give as reason the fact that the transformation between external and observer-relative reference frame coordinates is singular at the event horizon. That is true, but it does not mean what you think it means.
- You say "That's where seconds last for a longer and longer time, eventually lasting for an infinite time. Amazingly, people take this sort of thing seriously." Your inability to accept the consequences of relativity - this infinite time stretching that happens at the event horizon well away from any true singularity - shows a lack of imagination rooted I think in a view that time should "make sense" in classical terms. This problem has been discussed over and over. The equations of GR, at the event horizon, are surprising but perfectly consistent, and all observations back them up.
-
You claim that an observer falling into a black hole would experience death - some form of singularity - at the event horizon. That is untrue. For an large enough black hole you would not notice the event horizon.
Is it not true (or likely) that tidal forces would kill you before you even reached the event horizon? Death would certainly prevent you from noticing it.
