"Semantics", and ATM presentations

[Nereid]

Here are a couple of comments on "semantics", as applied to some challenges to recent ATM ideas:

A non answer can be demonstrated with math and science much more easily than with bickering and semantics.

(source)

most of Nereid's questions about semantics involved every-day usage rather than differences in ATM/MS jargon

(source)

I'm curious to know what readers think of this topic; specifically, to what extent do you think it appropriate - or even wise - to spend time and effort trying to establish what key terms in an ATM idea* mean?

I've made a selection from threads in the first three pages of the ATM section**. In all cases I think the ATM ideas, as presented, can be challenged only if readers understand the meanings of the key terms ... and that such understanding is difficult without engaging in what might - to some - seem like "semantics".

In other words, electic currents are responsible for the topology of magnetic fields. And in plasma, both electrons and ions in ordered motion is considered electric current.

(source)

space is simply that , space
or room for the physical to manifest

(source - a good post quoting this)

By introducing a physical aether (a type of dark matter) to quantum mechanics, I believe, the theory would be able to explain reality verbally to a much greater extent without using illogical concepts.

(source)

we know that equation A does not fit with equation B but as our universe does exist there must be an equation C that forms the triangle

(source)

11 2 5 8 are the 4 constellations that were the two solstice markers and the two equinox markers when?

(source)

We live a sea of Nuetrinos. Particularly on Earth between two negative charges. The Higgs Field is actually made up of nuetrinos and anti-nuetrinos [...]. When the High Energy Collisions of Cosmic Rays ( Leftover from the Heavier Element Producing Stars and carrying mostly Protons) collide with particles within Earths magnetic field they split off to either the nuetrino or the anti-nuetrino, providing charge to both sides. And leading to a buildup at both of Earths poles. Pos and Neg.

(source)

CAVEAT: The above are mere extracts, from posts that are longer than this (in all but one case); further, the posts are all from threads which contain earlier posts by the ATM proponent (in all but one, other, case). It is possible, and maybe likely (in at least one case), that reading the whole post, and history of posts to that point, will give you - dear reader - a better grasp of what the key terms mean. If so, please say so (and explain how, and why).

To close, an example of an ATM idea that does not seem to require a deeper understanding of key terms (again, an extract only):

The simple fact is...the sun should not have risen north of the tropic of cancer in central mexico this year and at least the last two, on the 21st of june...nor ever in modern history....a simple fact.

Yet, I watched the sun rise and set out of the window on the north side of my house for much of the summer this year...and the last two. [...]

The pacific northwest broke all sorts of summer heat records, and it should have, I watched the sun set in their direction as they did so. And the north side of my house, which sits at 41deg N. Latitude, faces true north.

(source)

* as presented in a thread in the ATM section; assume that there are no external sources cited, so what you read in the thread is the universal total of all material on said ATM idea.
** I make no claims as to the validity of these examples, in terms of being a random selection, or chosen using any objective criteria

[korjik]

The meaning of terms is very important to set up a framework around which you can have a meaningful discussion.

I will take a specific quote:

In other words, electic currents are responsible for the topology of magnetic fields. And in plasma, both electrons and ions in ordered motion is considered electric current.

This quote sounds very knowledgable but it is pretty useless.

The first part is pretty standard basic knowledge. Currents generate magnetic fields, and the configuration of the current determines the configuration of the field.

The second part is where the problem is:

And in plasma, both electrons and ions in ordered motion is considered electric current

It sounds really nice, but is meaningless. The difficulty comes in the term 'ordered motion.' This is a nonstandard useage and can be meaningless. Plasma physics gives you an excellent situation where this can be seen. Take a flow of hydrogen plasma flowing along the x axis and fully ionized. This is a flow of protons and electrons flowing in a specific direction at a specific speed. This is a pretty 'ordered motion'. The problem is that the total current in this situation is zero. You can see this trivially easy if you do the math:

I=q_iv+q_ev

q_i is the ion charge
q_e is the electron charge
v is the flow velocity

This seems complex until you remember that q_i=-q_e. Substitute this back into the current equation:

I=q_ev-q_ev
I=0

So, the inital quote, because it is nonstandard, qives an impression that is incorrect. Useage of standard terminology in that specific thread would have shown the posters error quickly and allowed the poster to learn what his misunderstanding was

[Paul Beardsley]

You make a strong case, Nereid. Some of the examples you cite beggar belief.

People are using misleadingly inappropriate scientific terms and made-up jargon as trojan horses to slip in their packages of poisonous ignorance. ATMers certainly should be taken to task for doing this. If someone uses a term such as (say) potential energy to mean something other than its standard meaning, then unless they state from the outset why they are "borrowing" the term and what they mean by it, then the thread should be immediately closed and the ATMer suspended.

We are never going to find a true challenge to the mainstream if the bogus challengers are going to persist in muddying the waters.

[Henna Oji-san]

A lot of ATMers seem to have got their ideas on physics from new age websites and pop science books. (I came across an alternative medicine site where they were discussing how cruel it was to use a cat in that experiment (you know the one I mean) and whether the poor animal survived!)

Often it seems that when it is pointed out that they are misusing a term they will apologetically say they are "not an expert" and pick another, equally inappropriate, word to use instead. (But if they not experts, why are they so convinced they are right?)

[DrRocket]

It is absolutely essential to establish the meaning of the terms being used in a scientific discussion. Scientific terminology is usually precise and often carries meaning somewhat different from that of everyday language. Without agreement on the definition of key terms there is a high likelihood that people will "talk past" one another.

In the specific case of ATM discussions I have seen many instances in which the ATM proponent used what appeared to be standard terminology, but was not. This leads to tremendous difficulty in communication.

Most serious are non-standard uses of scientific terms, combined with the application of those concepts in standard mathematical models -- essentially using the usual theories completely incorrectly. One instance leaps to mind in which an ATM proponent used the term "current", meant something totally different from the usual meaning in science and engineering, and the proceeded to use that non-standard notion in Maxwell's equations in the usual way. The result was a total distortion of the notion of magnetic fields and the importance of those fields in plasma physics.

The insistence on clarity of definition is essential to a meaningful discussion. Moreover it often provides clear and definitive information as to the deficiencies in an ATM proponents claims and in his understanding of basic science. The protestations that Nereid quoted serve primarily to highlight shortcomings in the understanding of the ATM proponents making them.

Lack of understanding of fundamental terms demonstrates lack of understanding of the mainstream theory being challenged. One simply cannot effectively challenge a theory that one does not understand.

[Paul Beardsley]

Originally Posted by Henna Oji-san

A lot of ATMers seem to have got their ideas on physics from new age websites and pop science books. (I came across an alternative medicine site where they were discussing how cruel it was to use a cat in that experiment (you know the one I mean) and whether the poor animal survived!)

Tell me you are joking, please! (You're not, are you?) Presumably they were less concerned with what Wigner did with his "friend".

Originally Posted by Henna Oji-san

Often it seems that when it is pointed out that they are misusing a term they will apologetically say they are "not an expert" and pick another, equally inappropriate, word to use instead. (But if they not experts, why are they so convinced they are right?)

Why indeed? If you ask them, they'll probably say something like, "Don't let facts get in the way of feelings!"

@korjik - you did an excellent piece of deconstruction in post 2. And that was one of the more reasonable claims!

[Paul Beardsley]

Originally Posted by DrRocket

One simply cannot effectively challenge a theory that one does not understand.

Amen to that. Perhaps ATMers should be required to give an account of the mainstream theory they are seeking to replace, together with its perceived shortcomings.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by korjik

The meaning of terms is very important to set up a framework around which you can have a meaningful discussion.

I will take a specific quote:

This quote sounds very knowledgable but it is pretty useless.

The first part is pretty standard basic knowledge. Currents generate magnetic fields, and the configuration of the current determines the configuration of the field.

The second part is where the problem is:

It sounds really nice, but is meaningless. The difficulty comes in the term 'ordered motion.' This is a nonstandard useage and can be meaningless. Plasma physics gives you an excellent situation where this can be seen. Take a flow of hydrogen plasma flowing along the x axis and fully ionized. This is a flow of protons and electrons flowing in a specific direction at a specific speed. This is a pretty 'ordered motion'. The problem is that the total current in this situation is zero. You can see this trivially easy if you do the math:

I=q_iv+q_ev

q_i is the ion charge
q_e is the electron charge
v is the flow velocity

This seems complex until you remember that q_i=-q_e. Substitute this back into the current equation:

I=q_ev-q_ev
I=0

So, the inital quote, because it is nonstandard, qives an impression that is incorrect. Useage of standard terminology in that specific thread would have shown the posters error quickly and allowed the poster to learn what his misunderstanding was

I dunno.

It seems to me that you're saying that there is no current at all in your example, but instead it is just zero net current. The difference is indeed a semantical difference, but I think you're on the wrong side of the argument.

Your own equation:

I=q_iv+q_ev

has I (the "current") equal to the sum of two other currents on the righthand side. Just because their effects sum to zero doesn't mean that there is no current at all.

The point I would make in this case, and which doesn't seem to have been made on either side, is that given by the example of a single electron, which has a magnetic moment due to its spin, which is not the result of a "current" at all.

Originally Posted by Paul Beardsley

@korjik - you did an excellent piece of deconstruction in post 2. And that was one of the more reasonable claims!

Maybe so, but I need some more convincing.

[Paul Beardsley]

Well you could argue that the net charge is zero.

[hhEb09'1]

No need to argue.

I'd accept korjik's assertion in his example:

q_i=-q_e.

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

It seems to me that you're saying that there is no current at all in your example, but instead it is just zero net current. The difference is indeed a semantical difference, but I think you're on the wrong side of the argument.

Common use of the term "current" does indeed mean what you called "net current", so it's correct to say there's no current.

It's the (net) current that causes magnetic fields, so with zero (net) current you have no (macroscopic) fields.
The ATM'er in question claimed that because there was "current" there's be a magnetic field.

[01101001]

C'mon. No one wants to have to encounter details of Electric Universe in About BAUT. Thanks.

Semantics matter.

Are any more examples necessary?

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

The ATM'er in question claimed that because there was "current" there's be a magnetic field.

I'm only addressing the semantic issue brought up in this thread, not the Against The Mainstream theory. So, in that sense it seems to me, of course there would be a magnetic field, it would just be a net zero at far enough distances.

Originally Posted by 01101001

C'mon. No one wants to have to encounter details of Electric Universe in About BAUT. Thanks.

Semantics matter.

Are any more examples necessary?

I'm still stuck on this one example.

[korjik]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

I'm only addressing the semantic issue brought up in this thread, not the Against The Mainstream theory. So, in that sense it seems to me, of course there would be a magnetic field, it would just be a net zero at far enough distances.
I'm still stuck on this one example.

In most plasmas, 'far enough' is measured in microns. Even in space plasmas, that distance may be up to kilometers, but in that case the effects you are looking at are measured in multiples of Earth radii, so again it is pretty small incomparison.

By the way, that does mean that your concern is taught, and taught why it isnt important most of the time. To get technical, a Debye sphere (the 'far enough', it even has a name) of an individual charge may contain a few dozen to a few hundred other charges, but even a fairly low density plasma has around 10¹² charges per cubic centimeter.

One of the problems is that on the small scale, you almost have to assume a magnetic field is a background field simply cause the effect of one moving charge is so small in comparison.

This goes back to the semantics, and also shows why you need to do the math. The math shows why 'ordered motion' is not a useful statement. It give a false impression that you seem to believe is important, but is irrelevant. Your concern is an excellent example on why the semantics is important.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by korjik

This goes back to the semantics, and also shows why you need to do the math. The math shows why 'ordered motion' is not a useful statement.

I agree totally that the math needs to be done.

It give a false impression that you seem to believe is important, but is irrelevant.

It may not impact the ATM, but that is irrelevant to this thread, which is about semantics. As you've said, the comments are reasonable, but the magnitude of the effect cannot be determined without the math.

Your concern is an excellent example on why the semantics is important.

Weirdly, I would have said the semantics is totally unimportant, in this case, that it is only when we get to the calculation that we can see what is important.

[Henna Oji-san]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

Weirdly, I would have said the semantics is totally unimportant, in this case, that it is only when we get to the calculation that we can see what is important.

But if the semantics are so far off, it often isn't even clear what needs to be calculated.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Henna Oji-san

But if the semantics are so far off, it often isn't even clear what needs to be calculated.

From the information in this thread, I can't tell that it is far off.

The first part of the quote, korjik said was "The first part is pretty standard basic knowledge." The second part of the quote is "And in plasma, both electrons and ions in ordered motion is considered electric current"

Electrons in motion is considered a current, and ions in motion is considered a current, right? So, the only parts to be dealt with are the qualifiers "in plasma" and "ordered", but both of those just restrict they don't extend the definition.

Let's quit quibbling over semantics, and do the math.

[Moose]

It comes down to this, I think: if the math is in (and it should be in for the idea to be at all baked), there should be little need to quibble about the terminology. If, like many ATMers insist, there is no (or almost no) math and only verbal descriptions, then the vocabulary must be utterly conventional or fully defined.

If there is no math, and terminology is used improperly, then the ATM is not ready to be presented. It's an utter waste of only 30 days you'll get to present your idea. Buck Fever is not a virtue in any scientific discipline. (Note the word "discipline". It's use is not casual.)

[HenrikOlsen]

And if improper terminology is identified the thread can go two ways depending on the intellectual honesty of the proponent, either the free-for-all repeated questions with no answers muddle we so often see, when the proponent refuses to acknowledge that his terminology isn't mainstream or a switch to the other purpose of ATM which is education.

[hhEb09'1]

In this case, I guess I would be the proponent who would throw up their hands and ask "what are you all going on about?" I would say, skip the muddle, and get to the education, if you have to.

[Nereid]

This particular case is not the least bit "clean" ... The OP (who presented an ATM claim) pretty much abandoned the thread, and a new ATM proponent entered, making claims that seemed - at first - similar.

Within a very few posts (of the one I quoted) - if not the very post itself - it became clear that there was, indeed, a serious issue concerning the definition of "current"*, as it applies to plasmas.

Despite the messiness of the thread itself (two ATM proponents, etc), this is, IMHO, an example of a "semantics" question that went to the heart of the ATM claims ... and quickly showed that any further meaningful questioning and challenging of the ATM ideas (as presented) required clear answers to the "semantics" questions (you'll see that several others followed the one on "current").

-----------------------------------------------------------

Moving on to a different aspect (not directly related to this particular example!).

If you encounter an ATM claim - no math, no external sources/materials - which you suspect uses words, that are key to the idea, in a non-standard way, do you think it would be OK to ask "semantics" questions? Are there circumstances under which you think it would be not OK? inadvisable?

To what extent do you think it should be your job - as questioner/challenger of the ATM ideas, as presented - to educate the ATM proponent on the standard definitions of the key terms used?

* at least; several other key terms, as used by the ATM proponent, seemed to cry out for clarification too

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Nereid

This particular case is not the least bit "clean" ... The OP (who presented an ATM claim) pretty much abandoned the thread, and a new ATM proponent entered, making claims that seemed - at first - similar.

Within a very few posts (of the one I quoted) - if not the very post itself - it became clear that there was, indeed, a serious issue concerning the definition of "current"*, as it applies to plasmas.

Despite the messiness of the thread itself (two ATM proponents, etc), this is, IMHO, an example of a "semantics" question that went to the heart of the ATM claims ... and quickly showed that any further meaningful questioning and challenging of the ATM ideas (as presented) required clear answers to the "semantics" questions (you'll see that several others followed the one on "current").

I'll have to look at the thread again, more closely. It seems to me that there are issues within the thread that might not have been presented in this thread, but I don't see why we have to re-hash ATM issues, specific to a thread, in About BAUT.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Moving on to a different aspect (not directly related to this particular example!).

If you encounter an ATM claim - no math, no external sources/materials - which you suspect uses words, that are key to the idea, in a non-standard way, do you think it would be OK to ask "semantics" questions? Are there circumstances under which you think it would be not OK? inadvisable?

What disappoints me is when the questioners are "all question", almost as if it is a test rather than a dialogue. If a concept appears to be misunderstood, perhaps a suggested alternative--or, like korjik presented, a case where the OP's conclusion is at odds with standard analysis. (Or, I think that case fits that description, without going back to the thread, yet.)

To what extent do you think it should be your job - as questioner/challenger of the ATM ideas, as presented - to educate the ATM proponent on the standard definitions of the key terms used?

I don't think we, as BAUT, place any requirement on the questioner to do anything (except to be polite, but that is more a prohibition, rather than a prescription), but I think the dialogue is to the advantage of both sides. At least, that's the way it usually works for me.

[Spoons]

I think Paul's idea, where the ATM proponent needs to first establish that they understand the mainstream explanation that they propose requires an ATM replacement, is one of the most sensible ideas regarding a change to any ATM rules that I've heard before.

Besides making their argument a lot clearer, it also would be a great way to correct the misconceptions that seem to usually be the basis of the ATM ideas in the first place. That way the OP would learn a lot more, along with everbody else participating or lurking, and it seems to me that this is the greatest benefit of the ATM (and CT) sections.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Spoons

I think Paul's idea, where the ATM proponent needs to first establish that they understand the mainstream explanation that they propose requires an ATM replacement, is one of the most sensible ideas regarding a change to any ATM rules that I've heard before.

Like just about every idea presented in these threads, the "qualified ATMer" idea has been considered before. I think you'll find it's far less practical than you may be thinking at first glance.

First question: Who judges when the ATMer is able to proceed? I think you'll find that the only answer that would be even remotely acceptable to both parties would be "the mod team".

Second question: How does this proposal address the problem of "the ATM forum takes more moderator time than the rest of the forum combined, spam included, and provides by far the least enjoyment and most stress of all moderation tasks, bar none"?

[Spoons]

Sure, I hadn't thought about that. Yes, I suppose mods would be the only ones with the authority to say when the OP could proceed (whether advised by someone with expertise or otherwise).

And I guess that would just lead to another case of disgruntled proponents blaming mods for their failings.

I still think it would be great to see the proponent outline the mainstream version, but I certainly see your point. I'm sure modding is time consuming enough already.

[NickW]

With the ATM proponent outlining the mainstream, it might help is argument because he/she could point out the deficiency that they thought was there, then go on to explain how there theory could solve said problem. It would make for a nice foundation of the argument, if they actually understand the mainstream theory.

[HenrikOlsen]

The problem with this is that often when an ATM'er is asked to verify that they understand the mainstream position (it's a common question in the threads), what's received are quotes from standard texts with little indication whether it's actually understood.

[Spoons]

At which point you probably need to ask them to paraphrase what they've just copied from wikipedia or wherever, or ask a lead on question from what they've just written.

[Kwalish Kid]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

The problem with this is that often when an ATM'er is asked to verify that they understand the mainstream position (it's a common question in the threads), what's received are quotes from standard texts with little indication whether it's actually understood.

I wish! That seems to be a high-quality ATM poster.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

I'll have to look at the thread again, more closely. It seems to me that there are issues within the thread that might not have been presented in this thread, but I don't see why we have to re-hash ATM issues, specific to a thread, in About BAUT.

I'm not sure it'd be worth your - or anyone else's - while; it's the only one of the examples in the OP which attracted any specific comments, and we've probably gone over everything that's worth discussing, wrt the topic of this thread.

What disappoints me is when the questioners are "all question", almost as if it is a test rather than a dialogue. If a concept appears to be misunderstood, perhaps a suggested alternative--or, like korjik presented, a case where the OP's conclusion is at odds with standard analysis. (Or, I think that case fits that description, without going back to the thread, yet.)

This is what I'm interested in discussing.

You see, as I have always understood the ATM rules - as the BA wrote them, and as they have been endorsed many times since - the primary role BAUT members who participate in such threads should have* is to question and challenge ... i.e. to test.

Of course any BAUTian may suggest alternatives, provide some background (on textbook definitions, say), attempt to educate, etc, etc, etc ... but that is discretionary

And it's not like the guidelines (READ THIS THREAD FIRST) are in any way unclear; the nature of the preparation you (the BAUTian presenting an ATM idea) are expected to have done is well explained, and the kinds of posts you can likely expect if you have not 'done your homework' likewise. To me, one of the easiest ways to see if an ATM proponent is, indeed, prepared is to test them on their understanding of key terms in the ATM idea, as presented.

I don't think we, as BAUT, place any requirement on the questioner to do anything (except to be polite, but that is more a prohibition, rather than a prescription), but I think the dialogue is to the advantage of both sides. At least, that's the way it usually works for me.

And I'm fine with a dialogue that goes something like this:

A: What do you mean by the term "current"? Specifically, how does "current" as you use it (in the ATM idea, as presented) differ from the standard meaning?

B: I'm not quite sure what you mean by this question, could you elaborate please? My intention is to use the term exactly the same way as it is used in non-relativistic plasma physics.

A: OK. The usual definition of current, in plasma physics, is {insert definition}, as found, for example {insert source}; is this what you mean by "current"?

Here B, the BAUTian presenting an ATM idea, asks for a clarification (and A provides it). Of course, there are many ways that B may have responded, other than by asking for clarification ...

* aside from the OP, who presents the ATM idea!