Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Speciality Forums >> Science! Astronomy & Space Exploration, and Others

Pages: 1
deSitter
Still in Old School


Reged: 12/09/04

Deceit new
      #5782009 - 04/06/13 02:43 PM

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/04/03/itll-take-a-lot-more-than-...

It's just plain horrible how science is so much a spectator while these titanic egos stomp about the world without any regard for truth.

-drl


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joad
Wordsmith
*****

Reged: 03/22/05

Re: Deceit new [Re: deSitter]
      #5782035 - 04/06/13 03:01 PM

It's called a "paradigm," Danny. It isn't deceit. When Michelson and Morley ran their experiments to measure the ether, they weren't deceiving anyone: they were working within a paradigm that made perfect sense according to the physics of the times (especially from Maxwell). Their experiments shattered the paradigm and a new one took its place.

Should dark matter turn out eventually to have been an incorrect hypothesis (or a wrong calculation) to explain observed values, then that paradigm will shatter, but it won't be deceit then either. Science doesn't work that way.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
deSitter
Still in Old School


Reged: 12/09/04

Re: Deceit new [Re: Joad]
      #5782039 - 04/06/13 03:05 PM

It's deceit, because several people have given the same simple analysis which shows that this experiment cannot possibly extricate the desired signal from the unknown background. Surely someone associated with this experiment is aware of that. This sort of behavior was unheard of in the past. If it were an isolated incident it would be easy to shrug off. But it's not. It's a trend.

-drl


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
7331Peg
Sirius Observer
*****

Reged: 09/01/08

Loc: North coast of Oregon
Re: Deceit new [Re: Joad]
      #5782946 - 04/07/13 12:27 AM

Last three sentences of the article:

"There might be particle dark matter out there, and it might even have the right parameters to be detectable by AMS. But if it is, we haven’t seen it yet. And unless subsequent data comes in with better statistics at higher energies to suggest otherwise, there will be no reason to think it ever saw even a hint of dark matter."

Call it misleading, an error in the choice of phrasing, hype, or deceitful -- for anyone who read the several press releases, it was rather obvious there was no definitive identification of a dark matter particle. But you had to read the whole release, not the title or first few lines, to realize that.

It's hard not to lean towards drl's conclusion on this one.


John



Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ColoHank
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 06/07/07

Loc: western Colorado
Re: Deceit [Re: 7331Peg]
      #5783143 - 04/07/13 05:45 AM

I don't see deceit, because deceit implies intent to deceive. I don't see any big egos at work, either. There is lots of speculation, though, which can be a good thing if it motivates further inquiry and testing. Anyone who disapproves is free to challenge the work of others on its merits or to formulate his or her own explanation(s)

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
CounterWeight
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 10/05/08

Loc: Palo alto, CA.
Re: Deceit new [Re: ColoHank]
      #5814290 - 04/21/13 10:19 PM

Give me Noethers Theorem any day!

We live in the day of 'pop sci' and 'pop phyz' marketing, advertizing dollars, BBC/hisory/discovery channel special programming, 'bling theory', and despirate needs for funding and magic money.

I'm curious if there's an element that these wonderful computer simulations and baloney aren't completely deceitful. It's as though the computers do the thinking and we are somehow supposed to suspend our disbelief like any other fictional movie. I've lost track of the time spent trying to steer good minds at the university level and below to just try and spend their valuable time studying the very boring and exacting stuff we do know about.

That is the crux. Is it fiction? Yes it is fiction. Is it Science fiction and therefore a more educated confusion on a higher level and therefore not deceptive or confusing? All depends on who is trying to understand - I wish to heck folks we preface statements more often with "we think" or "we do not know, but hypothesize..."

Perhaps the most unfortunate type of 'relativism' is this constant bombardment of the unproven yet wonderfully fleshed out with computer models and fancy animations. This I mean a more philosophical relativism that treats truth as something negotiable and inconsistent. There is a crushing excess of pure fantasy out there and I am far from convinced it is a good thing for any of the sciences.

Much of what we have that we can trust was initiated in a human mind and 'proven' with the same minds in the framework of math and scientific method. All the building blocks were pre-computer and pre-fancy digital animation. My point here is that if it is garbage is there really a difference in if it looks pretty and has been fabrized rather than equated to 'yellow journalism ' of the tabloid press? "Taboid Physics". An animation or model that blends quasi facts to create pseudo science where science once stood - and the science was "we don't know". Not knowing ins't a bad thing, it's honest.

I do agree that there is a sort of institutionalism of it all and at school not wise to disagree with the 'prof' if he's a fan of one direction over another.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
CounterWeight
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 10/05/08

Loc: Palo alto, CA.
Re: Deceit new [Re: CounterWeight]
      #5814375 - 04/21/13 11:04 PM

Just wanted to add this link about why I made the initial statement I did, it is a Google talk that is a good starting point. Not saying I am in total agreement, but he's a great speaker. Best to watch when you have a good ~hour of time to think.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
deSitter
Still in Old School


Reged: 12/09/04

Re: Deceit new [Re: CounterWeight]
      #5814988 - 04/22/13 10:47 AM

Noether's theorem does lead to a conservation law from any variational principle, and GR does have one, and so there is a conserved quantity in GR - but it's not energy-momentum conservation! It's the energy-momentum supplemented by a "pseudo-tensor". Because of this, the existence of Noether currents does not seem to me to be that interesting, because it doesn't demand *local* conservation as a tensor equation. This is a somewhat heterodox view. The actual conservation laws are matters of physics and there must be physical constraints imposed as matters of principle.

Edit: I was refreshing my memory on this topic - these Noether currents in GR do lead to a sort of global law of conservation of energy and momentum. This law is applied to determine say the gravitational radiation and consequent slowing down of a rotating pulsar. They also are used in black hole studies. One takes a surface distant from a gravitating system where spacetime is assumed to approach flatness "sufficiently rapidly". You can integrate the Noether currents over this surface and get a large-scale law for "asymptotic conservation of energy and momentum". The whole of energy-momentum inside this surface is conserved in the appropriate limit. However, the local distribution of energy and momentum is still not determined - energy can disappear here and show up there, as long as it stays the same as a whole. This is not at all the sort of conservation law that applies to say electric charge.

Not coincidentally, the derivation of GR from a variational principle uses a similar stratagem. At a crucial point in this derivation, one must assume that spacetime at great distances and remote times from a gravitating system approaches flatness "sufficiently rapidly". Again, this is not at all what happens with electrodynamics - there, one can stop the integration at some arbitrary nearby surface and include a surface term coming from it and still maintain strict local conservation of charge and energy-momentum. One is not required to integrate out to infinity, although that is usually done to simplify things.

In a sense, the existence of these Noether currents is co-extensive with the ability to formulate a theory in terms of a variational principle. So there is no actually new physics involved. The physics is in the differential equations themselves.

-drl


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
deSitter
Still in Old School


Reged: 12/09/04

Re: Deceit new [Re: CounterWeight]
      #5815358 - 04/22/13 02:07 PM

I couldn't agree more.

-drl

Quote:

Give me Noethers Theorem any day!

We live in the day of 'pop sci' and 'pop phyz' marketing, advertizing dollars, BBC/hisory/discovery channel special programming, 'bling theory', and despirate needs for funding and magic money.

I'm curious if there's an element that these wonderful computer simulations and baloney aren't completely deceitful. It's as though the computers do the thinking and we are somehow supposed to suspend our disbelief like any other fictional movie. I've lost track of the time spent trying to steer good minds at the university level and below to just try and spend their valuable time studying the very boring and exacting stuff we do know about.

That is the crux. Is it fiction? Yes it is fiction. Is it Science fiction and therefore a more educated confusion on a higher level and therefore not deceptive or confusing? All depends on who is trying to understand - I wish to heck folks we preface statements more often with "we think" or "we do not know, but hypothesize..."

Perhaps the most unfortunate type of 'relativism' is this constant bombardment of the unproven yet wonderfully fleshed out with computer models and fancy animations. This I mean a more philosophical relativism that treats truth as something negotiable and inconsistent. There is a crushing excess of pure fantasy out there and I am far from convinced it is a good thing for any of the sciences.

Much of what we have that we can trust was initiated in a human mind and 'proven' with the same minds in the framework of math and scientific method. All the building blocks were pre-computer and pre-fancy digital animation. My point here is that if it is garbage is there really a difference in if it looks pretty and has been fabrized rather than equated to 'yellow journalism ' of the tabloid press? "Taboid Physics". An animation or model that blends quasi facts to create pseudo science where science once stood - and the science was "we don't know". Not knowing ins't a bad thing, it's honest.

I do agree that there is a sort of institutionalism of it all and at school not wise to disagree with the 'prof' if he's a fan of one direction over another.




Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
CounterWeight
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 10/05/08

Loc: Palo alto, CA.
Re: Deceit new [Re: deSitter]
      #5818023 - 04/23/13 05:19 PM

Joad,

Interesting you mention the M&M experiment. Is the universe plain or peanut? Plain was declared! (attempt at humor which rarely works so I am specifically saying it is here )

In a sense what I came away with from that was that it could not be proven using light, and failed the discrete test and so was determined to be undetectable "if it is there" and therefore useless experimentally and mathmatistically based on those/that and the physics / math.

But I do feel in ways we've been banging our heads on it ever since (in field theory and subatomic paticle theory) as it would have been extraordinarily convenient.

Maxwell didn't really say or quantify an ether (if my memory correct it was 'assumed'), just eplained everday things very well from way back.

Going in an odd path. Newton also observed everyday things and sought an explanation. There wasn't a math up to it so he invented it. The result was a 'tool' where prediction and observation reconciled nicely, and still do in most cases. Einstein also mentally observed some ideas and tried to invent a math. It took a lot of help and he never claimed sole authorship, but unlike Calc, the math still can't be fully reconciled. E. Noether deserves far more credit than she is given for making what does reconcile. Another amazing tool that explains an enormous amount and reconciles nicely - extremely useable without introducing more difficulty.

Algebra meet calculus, live long and prosper together. Maxwell to Relativity with a toolset that is compatable in both directions and requires NO MAGIC.

But then retracing we are still in ways in that Maxwellian / Hamiltonian / Lagrangian / Lorentzian / Eulerain (why there is no 'space elevator') mathematical worldview. I remember a statement by Hawking that he felt if there was hope it might be string theory - programs, specials, books, lectures - but no 'plain or peanut'. Then too black holes, and WIMPS, and MOND, dark chatter, and 'place your favorite here'. Also there was / are comments about the privledged character of three plus one space time I can't remeber who to attribute to. Should not be surprising as all the tools are about and were developed in it. But what of if there is another dimension that only comes into play at relativistic paramters and we are simply beating our heads agains't trying to define what it is at both ends, here I mean subatomic and universe wide?, I know that is a metaphysical question.

I think it is surprising just how little has changed in any significant way since the original M&M experiment and Newtons 'Fluxions'. In ways it is now a huge business compared to any previous age we know of. Thing is... how to discuss with a fan of string theory (as the TV special claimed) who does not understand the 3+1 spacetime model and all the immense underpinnings - or that energy behaves entirely different in the super cold and super hot, that I might think what are called black holes are actually super cold? get me a TV special and I'll have my adherents too.

Please don't think I am knocking 'search' and 'question', it's just that now IMO it's also become entertainment. The M&M 'ether' experiment was also looking for something we could not see or detect easily. The conclusion and anti conclusion are still ringing in our ears. What is the difference between not being able to detect or measure and the thing just not being there in a meaningful way? If many of these modern experiments were held to that sort of metric, we'd say 'plain or peanut' instead of give me x millions more $.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1


Extra information
1 registered and 3 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  LivingNDixie, FirstSight, JayinUT 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 772

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics