Skip to content


October 16, 2011

This is prompted by a back and fore I just had with Martillo on SciForums. Those of you who frequent physics related forums will know him as the author of ‘A New Light in Physics’. I’m not going to go into that stuff, which he’s been pushing for years. Instead the discussion reminded me of something which is often done by cranks, namely the conflagration of the following statements;

  1. I think you are wrong
  2. I think the mainstream is right

All too often cranks seem to think that because I’m not buying what they are selling then I must be asserting the current mainstream explanation is right. Right in the sense of the universe working precisely as outlined by the model in question. I’m not sure why it’s such a common issue for them to grasp. Perhaps it’s a peak into how their mind works, in that they think their work must be exactly true and therefore if I don’t agree with them then there must be some other model I think is exactly true?

In reality you’ll be hard pressed to find a particle physicists who thinks the Standard Model is the final word in particle physics until you hit quantum gravity energy scales. That isn’t the say they, we, don’t have confidence in it. When pressed it’s more likely you’ll get comments along the line of how the SM is extremely good up to energies of about 100 GeV and thus any particle process below that can be explained to sufficient accuracy by the SM now (if you could compute the relevant integrals etc).  It’s much like Newtonian gravity’s relationship to relativity. NG is great if you want to launch a satellite, it is much simpler and cheaper to work with than relativity and gets the job done. As such it wraps up gravity for slow moving, not too big objects where timing to the nanosecond isn’t important and you aren’t modelling too far into the future. It’s not exact but it’s useful for those jobs. In the case of gravity we know an improvement to NG, general relativity. It’s currently beyond our capability to find an error in it but it can’t be quantised directly so it too is just an approximation to something more fundamental.

These implicit “I don’t think its perfect but its damn good” views are all over physics, where effective models are common place.  Having a justified confidence that a model is accurate to a certain number of decimal places in specified conditions is a long way from having a belief it’s absolutely perfect.

Contrast that with hack models which get names like ‘The Everlasting Theory’ or ‘The Final Theory’ or ‘The Ultimate Cosmology’ (sometimes with the author’s name in the title too, just for extra ego stroking). Rather than just saying “I have a superior model than the mainstream one”, it’s “I have a superior model to everything ever because its perfect.” Often discussions then boil down to hacks saying “The SM must be wrong, as it disagrees with my model”. For example. Sylwester, the author of ‘The Everlasting Theory’, once asserted the SM doesn’t predict a value for the strong coupling when it runs to high energy. Actually it does and he knows it, as he and I had discussed it many times, even talking specific values at specific energy scales. What he meant was it didn’t predict what his ‘everlasting theory’ predicted so it was a point against the SM. Circular reasoning doesn’t seem to be something he understands. When someone is that invested in the absolute certainty of their conclusions there’s little which can really be done in honest discussion, they are pretty much incapable of it. In such cases the whole “If you disagree with me you must be saying the SM is perfect” clearly is some form of projecting their attitudes onto others.

It cannot be (rationally) denied that things like general relativity and the Standard model are very accurate in the domains we have tested them. Even if something like the Higgs doesn’t exist the accuracy of the SM up to 100 GeV (the Higgs lies somewhere north of that, if it exists) is a demonstrable fact. It might be the case that in 100 years when we can measure 5 extra decimal places we find problems with the SM in that range, just as we can measure errors in Newtonian physics using atomic clocks on aeroplanes, but no one in physics research would be shocked by that. It wouldn’t invalidate all of current physics or result in every physicist being fired, as some hacks have asserted will happen when the Higgs isn’t found (which they are certain of…). There’s justified reason to use the SM or GR to model phenomena we can easily produce and test, as we’ve tested them in such conditions and found them accurate. Not perfect or exact or proven true, accurate.

2 Comments leave one →
  1. October 29, 2011 10:13 am

    Over time, I extend my Everlasting Theory. In 1985, there were a few pages A4. I described the atom-like structure of baryons only. In the year 1997, there were about 50 pages. In this year, I added the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime which lead to the non-perturbative, but effective, M-theory. There appear the one fundamental bosonic string theory (the theory of the binary systems of my closed strings), the three superstring theories (i.e. the theories of the neutrinos, cores of baryons and the objects before the ‘soft’ big bangs after the period of inflation) and the two heterotic theories. In 2009, I described the all interactions, not only the strong, for the higher energies. The description leads to conclusion that there should be asymptote for the strong-weak interactions equal to 0.1139. This result is consistent with experimental data. Today my theory is described on 126 pages A4, there are the 241 formulae, many tables and figures. I calculated a few hundreds physical quantities and they are consistent with experimental data – there are the 7 parameters only. This is a natural process that within the correct theory we can obtain the next and next theoretical results consistent with experimental data. Some discussion about such theory does not change the initial conditions so a discussion has no influence on the next and next results. Recently, on the SciForums, I described the hocus-pocus in the QED (this theory neglects the weak interactions) which causes that the QED is the effective theory for the electromagnetic interactions of the electrons. This follows from my Everlasting Theory. Within my theory, I described the electroweak complete theory of the electrons. This theory leads to the superluminal neutrinos.

  2. October 31, 2011 7:30 pm

    Sylwester, you’ve shown you’re dishonest, a fraud and incapable of engaging in rational conversation. Your above post is just spam and as such any future posts you try to make on this site which isn’t DIRECTLY relevant and coherent and HONEST will not get past the spam filter.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: