sbannist comments on Open Thread: November 2009 - Less Wrong

3 [deleted] 02 November 2009 01:18AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (539)

Tags: open_thread

Comments (539)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 02 November 2009 11:04:20PM 1 point [-]

Oh, a bit off topic, but mind clarifying something for me? My QFT knowledge is very limited at the moment, and I'm certainly not (yet) up to the task of actually trying to really grasp the Standard Model, but...

Is it correct to say that in a sense the force carriers are, in a sense, illusory? That is, the gauge bosons are kind of an illusion in the same sense that the "force of gravity" is? From what little I managed to pick up, the idea is that instead one starts without them, but assigns certain special kinds of symmetries to the configuration space. These local (aka) gauge symmetries allow interference effects that basically amount to the forces of interaction. One can then "rephrase" those effects in a way that more looks like another quantum field interacting with, well, whatever it's interacting with?

ie, can the electromagnetic, strong, and weak forces (as forces) be made to go away and turn into symmetries in configuration space in the same sense that in GR, the force of gravity goes away and all that's left is geometry of spacetime?

Or have I rolled a critical fail with regards to attempting to comprehending the notion of gauge fields/bosons?

Thanks. Again, I know it's a slight tangent, but since the subject of the Standard Model came up anyways...

Comment author: sbannist comment score below threshold [+] (17 children)

Comment author: RobinZ 03 November 2009 03:54:51PM 7 points [-]

This comment scores a full 68 points on the Crackpot Index. That doesn't make it wrong, but if it's right, I think you need to explain yourself more clearly.

To start with, as Psy-Kosh asked, what theory are you talking about, anyway? Where is it published, by whom, and what predictions have been made with it?

Comment author: thomblake 03 November 2009 07:03:31PM 1 point [-]

a full 68 points

I was going to post a comment showing it should be much higher than 68, but re-checking my evaluation your score appears correct. Amongst other mistakes, I was going to award 50 points for no testable predictions, but I think the comment about the Higgs boson counts.

However, it seems like misspelling 'Kuhn' should count for something.

Comment author: RobinZ 03 November 2009 07:16:33PM 0 points [-]

Let me recount quickly so we can compare:

-5 for starters.
+3 for statements widely agreed to be false (nonexistence of 1. black holes, 2. dark matter, 3. big bang).
+10 for claiming a paradigm shift.
+20 for talking about how great the theory is without explaining it.
+40 for claiming something like a conspiracy suppressing the new idea (cf. "threatening to their funding and careers").

However, it seems like misspelling 'Kuhn' should count for something.

Step 8 suggests a +5 for misspelling Einstein, Hawking, or Feynman - you could do the same for Kuhn.

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 03 November 2009 04:31:43PM 1 point [-]

Well, really, for now my main thing is that I just want to know if my understanding of the concept of gauge bosons is correctish or if I completely missed the point of that aspect of the standard theories.

Comment author: sbannist comment score below threshold [+] (6 children)

Comment author: RobinZ 03 November 2009 05:39:26PM * 2 points [-]

Are you ... taking pride in sounding like a crackpot? That doesn't seem like a very good plan for figuring out what is really going on in the world. That's why we denounce crackpottish proclamations like "this theory is largely rejected/ignored by both the particle and string mainstream [because it is] very very threatening to their funding and careers" - because these sorts of statements are easy arguments to wield against people with the temerity to dispute your favored idea.

I haven't read the paper you linked here, but the titular "ECE" - "Einstein Cartan Evans" - returns no hits in a quick Scitation search. If you ask me, it seems premature to treat the results with anything like the confidence you attribute to it.

Comment author: sbannist comment score below threshold [+] (4 children)

Comment author: RobinZ 04 November 2009 04:01:22AM * 3 points [-]

I intend no insult to you in my disagreement (and I apologize for missing your ironic intent, if that is what I did). Our experience and intuition differ, and I have been explaining how mine lead me to different conclusions in this matter.

(Also, what you are complaining of is abuse, not ad hominem - it's an important distinction.)

(Edit: To summarize the link, "ad hominem" goes, "you're an irrational person, therefore you are wrong", whereas we are saying, "your argument is wrong, therefore you are not rational". We refuse to accept your claim that ECE is a theory-of-everything because you have not supported it, not because we think you're stupid - in fact, I don't think you're stupid, just mistaken.)

Comment author: sbannist 05 November 2009 01:01:20AM -2 points [-]

Ok. Well, I just don't think its possible on this site.to go through 800+ papers, 130+ in the last few years, which lead to this theory. I don't have the time, and there is no indication that anyone here is open to it. Plus, I see no equation editor.

I'll repeat. I responded to a Higgs Boson thread, saying I believe it does not exist, I referred to the theory supporting my belief, and I get trashed. Thats arrogant and close minded. And if I feel I have been ad hominemed, then I have.

If someone is as dissatisfied as I am with the output of Standard Model and string theories, they will seek out an alternative. And learn the math. I just pointed to what, after a four year analysis, I believe to be an extremely credible alternative.

So thanks for the consideration.

Comment author: Cyan 05 November 2009 04:20:09AM 2 points [-]

130+ in the last few years

And not one review article?

Comment author: RobinZ 05 November 2009 02:59:17AM 1 point [-]

Thanks for your input - I'm sorry we could not be more helpful. Be well.

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 03 November 2009 03:33:02PM 1 point [-]

Huh? Sorry, I was unclear.

I meant "this is my understanding of what the mainstream theory, ie, the Standard Model says. In fact, it's my understanding of what many of the candidate theories that go beyond it say, it's my understanding of why so many theories are described in terms of their symmetries. Because once one knows their symmetries, one more or less knows the basic structure of the forces it implies. Is this understanding correct, or did I completely miss the point about gauge symmetries and such?"

What theory are you talking about anyways?

Comment author: sbannist comment score below threshold [+] (4 children)

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 03 November 2009 04:31:23PM 2 points [-]

Didn't look all the way through that paper yet, but... if you mean the Riemann curvature tensor having antisymmetric parts... so? How does that kill GR? (besides, anti symmetry is a type of symmetry. I didn't mean symmetric as in "symmetric vs antisymmetric tensors", I meant it in the more general sense.)

(Okay, I know of Einstein-Cartan-Theory, but I haven't studied it yet. I still only have a rudimentary grasp of the math of basic GR)

But... what's any of this got to do with my original question?

Comment author: sbannist comment score below threshold [+] (2 children)

sbannist comments on Open Thread: November 2009 - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (539)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (539)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login