Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic
If the frequency cannot be detected, why should any supposed effect be detectable? And speaking of undetected things like the Higgs boson, let me point out that violations of charge conservation have NEVER been observed. Are you sure you want to ride this crippled pony of a theory? This is one for the glue factory!
|
You are making the assumption that these effects would be detectable as charge conservation violations. What makes you assume that?
A year ago I was shouted-out of a lecture when I speculated that point charges can be induced in electrically isolated grains. Within a month it was announced that gamma rays actually originate in lighning, and are not induced by cosmic rays. This observation flies in-the-face of current theory, and where there is smoke there is fire: gamma rays result in pair production. Isolated pairs rejoin in a clap of thunder. How do they get so far appart?
Quote:
Great Flying Spaghetti Monster! I do wish people would stop gratuitously mentioning epicycles! That's 10 points off for you! 
|
Agreed
it is a little like mentioning a paradyme shift. I hate that.
Particle physics relies upon statistical solutions. I can argue that, at the root of particle physical theory, complex wave mechanics are involved that reduce to these 'simplified' models. This does not eschew quantum mechanics.
Quote:
|
If your statement is taken at face value it would seem to mean that if our theories get to be too good at prediction then we should distrust them because they cannot possibly be right. What kind of an approach is this?
|
Good point. But I think a better analogy to what I am saying is to look at models of complex protien interactions: Relativistics physics play no obvious role, and we do not need them to understand these 'higher level' quantum behaviors. Gravity plays virtually no role in QMs. So the description within QM of gravimetric properties may be completely out in left-field.
Quote:
|
The approach followed by you and by Stephen is almost identical in this respect: you ignore physical principles already known as well as measurements and experiments already performed. Charge does not "oscillate"; the speed of light does not vary by 20 percent across the diameter of the Solar System. Both of you need to go back to the university library of your choice and really read up on physics.
|
Basic theory has never properly married quantum and relativistic behavior, and this is after an 80 year engagement. That is a problem. Basic theory cannot churn out a good reason for lightning to produce gamma rays, for the acceleration of the solar wind, the accelerations of the Pioneer probes or the anomalous behavior of Cassini as it approaches Titan. Something very basic might be wrong.
If you want to try an interest though experiment, assume the speed of light does vary 20% between the sun and the Kuiper belt, then figure out how you would measure this, and what effect varying the speed of light would have on every thing we see and experience. Then gradually reduce the effect, making it most pronounced very near the sun, reducing to a very small, nearly constant acceleration by the orbit of Saturn. At what level would the effect be non-detectable? At what level would Saturn detectably glow more brightly in direct solar opposition than predicted? (Something we have observed!)
At what level would we see only wider-than-expected errors in GR predictions? Errors such as more gravitational lenses than we would expect to see; and greater gravitational redshifts in massive objects? The red shifts of these massive objects would cause us to overestimate both their size and absolute magnitude, and ultimately the size of the Hubble Constant. Since the most intrinsically redshifted objects would also appear to be more distant, there would be the appearance of cosmic evolution where evolution may not be occurring. Is this what we are seeing?
A speed of light in a true vacuum that is 20% greater that what we measure on Earth would explain the low solar neutrino content. That is where I came up with that number, and we both agree it is wrong. A much smaller shift is possible, but this requires a better explanation for the solar neutrino count. Do neutrinos have mass, as some have suggested? Is some of the mass of the sun allocated to the gravitational field? (Perhaps more than an atom of the same mass would be allocated at the orbit of the Earth); and as these atoms are fused, does this gravitational energy return to the sun? Is the energy per fusion reaction greater than SR predicts? Is this why red dwarf stars appear to have much longer lives than we think they should?
Where is the gravity budget for fusion experiments conducted on earth? Is the much wider-than-predicted blast zones of nuclear blasts due entirely to the unexpected fusion of case materials; or is there more energy than expected in the collapse of gravitational waves as mass is converted to energy? How do supernova explosions accelerate matter to such incredible velocities? What happens to the gravitational field energy when they explode? Why haven't we detected gravity waves?
Where is that Higgs boson when you really need it? Can your university library-of-choice answer these questions?
Edit: Grammer