Physics Help Forum physics vs forest
 User Name Remember Me? Password

 Philosophy of Physics Philosophy of Physics Forum - Philosophical questions about our universe

 Jul 1st 2019, 12:26 AM #1 Senior Member   Join Date: Mar 2019 Location: cosmos Posts: 583 physics vs forest The local dark force (江门地方黑恶势力钟永康集团) alway try every means to supress, isolate, seal off, disrupt and disturb me. They call that "the forest rule". I have no ability to deny their rule in the local place. I feel I die hard. Actually, most of my time is spent on worrying (about the perspective and safety of my family members), sometimes I even can't read physics. Turn to physics. There are many tall trees (established theories) too. Of course, everyone interested in physics has to admire them. But I heard that accoding to the standard model, neutrino should be massless; and I also heard that the neutrino oscillation hint that actually it has mass... It seems that QM is not able to explain light speed is a constant in the inertial frames in SR. I don't know if magnetic monopole has been detected now. I don't know if people have found a credible way to explain how geomagnetism is generated even people live on this planet everyday. I see dozens of guys disputing if time can be flipped in another place, thousands of viewers...But I even reluctant to take a glance. If photon has mass? Disputions happened in some threads even in PHF. I remember I quit the discussion half way in the thread "the attraction of massless particle to other massless........ " in the nuclear column. Then I saw more that kind of threads elsewhere... ... ... Actually, chaotic worldwide, no united answers over those kinds of questions. If people feel that the "standard" answers satisfied them, will they do that? If a new theory can give answers to many those kinds of questions in a sum, it is denied just because there are many tall trees already existing? Is "the forest rule" also applicable to physics? Or alternatively just one sentence: unscientific... And finished. That's science? Last edited by neila9876; Jul 1st 2019 at 12:57 AM. Reason: corect words
 Jul 1st 2019, 02:05 AM #2 Senior Member     Join Date: Jun 2016 Location: England Posts: 1,011 Certainty vs Imagination Science cannot progress without the individuals who imagine the new ideas. However there have to be rules, or there is chaos. The core rule of science is that any idea has to match observations. There is a Feynman lecture where he describes to scientific process 1) we guess 2) we compare the guess to what we see 3) we discard any guesses that don't match observations. 4) goto 1. There is the problem that certain theories (e.g. the multiverse) are very difficult (if not impossible) to verify experimentally. Thus they cannot be properly accepted into the scientific pantheon. Apart from the core rule, there is also the stipulation that: Any idea must fit with what we already "know" This can help to identify obviously stupid ideas, but it can also stifle genuinely revolutionary ideas. The trouble is that before a revolutionary idea can succeed it needs to demonstrate how it can explain the whole expanse of existing scientific observations better than the pre-existing ideas. An idea becomes a "great" idea if it opens up a wider field of opportunities for even more new ideas. topsquark, benit13 and neila9876 like this. __________________ ~\o/~
Jul 1st 2019, 02:27 AM   #3
Senior Member

Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 445
Some notes on your physics queries:

 I don't know if magnetic monopole has been detected now.
It hasn't.

 I don't know if people have found a credible way to explain how geomagnetism is generated even people live on this planet everyday.
The current thinking is that the core of the Earth is a slowly rotating iron and nickel core, so if that's the case a magnetic field isn't particularly mysterious. From what I remember, the Sun's magnetic behaviour is much more mysterious.

 If photon has mass?
No, but if an interaction requires a mass value, its effective magnitude will be something like $\displaystyle m = \frac{hf}{c^2}$. Energy and mass are sort of similar in some ways...

 Disputions happened in some threads even in PHF. I remember I quit the discussion half way in the thread "the attraction of massless particle to other massless........ " in the nuclear column. Then I saw more that kind of threads elsewhere... ... ... Actually, chaotic worldwide, no united answers over those kinds of questions. If people feel that the "standard" answers satisfied them, will they do that?
I wouldn't judge the quantity or quality of scientific endeavours from online forums. It's a little bit better to get a handle by reading science news, but you can't beat reading journal papers.

 If a new theory can give answers to many those kinds of questions in a sum, it is denied just because there are many tall trees already existing? Is "the forest rule" also applicable to physics? Or alternatively just one sentence: unscientific... And finished. That's science?
I'm not sure what you mean... Science is doing just fine. If you want to know about the most modern science available, you have to read journal papers. Science articles will only give you the hot topic stuff, they won't tell you what's typically going on.

Let's not forget that as well as the theorists, there are many, many experimenters who gather much needed data for us to be able to discern fact from fiction. These people are publishing regularly and people very rarely talk about their work unless it makes the news.

We also don't see the papers that discuss which models are superior to others. In some cases, people have to have a career shift and stop working on an invalid hypothesis and instead focus on something else.

These are things that happen all the time in science, yet they are rarely discussed on forums. The process is alive and well.

Last edited by benit13; Jul 1st 2019 at 02:29 AM.

 Jul 1st 2019, 03:59 AM #4 Senior Member   Join Date: Mar 2019 Location: cosmos Posts: 583 If one theory can explain why light speed is a constant in SR and why there is no magnetic monopole with one mathematical/geometric method, I think people have to admit "science is doing well"...Most scientists are doing well in "refined"/ "elegant" jobs. How to use a vivid analogy...I read a funny story elsewhere before: Newton couldn't answer a question asked by a student... In respect of geomagnetism, I never doubt the liguid metallic core matters. What's mysterious is the core is neutral in total. In respect of mass of photon, the thread "the attraction of massless particle to......." is very good because there are two experimental facts there. How to describe it is man's affair. Theory is very chaotic....
Jul 1st 2019, 04:58 AM   #5
Senior Member

Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 434
 Originally Posted by neila9876 If one theory can explain why light speed is a constant in SR and why there is no magnetic monopole with one mathematical/geometric method, I think people have to admit "science is doing well"...Most scientists are doing well in "refined"/ "elegant" jobs. How to use a vivid analogy...I read a funny story elsewhere before: Newton couldn't answer a question asked by a student... In respect of geomagnetism, I never doubt the liguid metallic core matters. What's mysterious is the core is neutral in total. In respect of mass of photon, the thread "the attraction of massless particle to......." is very good because there are two experimental facts there. How to describe it is man's affair. Theory is very chaotic....
Perhaps what you know of theory is very chaotic!

 Jul 1st 2019, 08:26 AM #6 Senior Member   Join Date: Mar 2019 Location: cosmos Posts: 583 @Hallsofivy: Your reply above is meaningless at all in physics, because it talks nothing about any theory in physics.
Jul 1st 2019, 08:36 AM   #7

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,818
 Originally Posted by neila9876 @Hallsofivy: Your reply above is meaningless at all in physics, because it talks nothing about any theory in physics.
Actually your list of arguments is merely a bunch of "whys" rather than a well thought out commentary on the flaws in these theories. You make comments about how the Standard Model has holes in it, but you don't give any valid ideas to test against it. That isn't Science, that's psuedo-science.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.

 Jul 1st 2019, 09:12 AM #8 Senior Member     Join Date: Jun 2016 Location: England Posts: 1,011 Why has a long tale The simple answer is that it has been observed to be so (to an extremely high degree of accuracy). The longer answer of what it is about the fundamental nature of the universe that causes these things to be the way they are is much trickier to answer. Physicists are trying to look towards answering these questions, but I'm not sure how close they are getting. neila9876 likes this. __________________ ~\o/~
Jul 1st 2019, 09:16 AM   #9
Senior Member

Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 445
Heheh... I can make some comments on this instead!

 Originally Posted by neila9876 Can you explain why light speed is a costant in SR
If we're talking about the speed of light being the same for all observers in all reference frames, then that's an axiom of special relativity. That is, it must be true for any of the theory to work. Since experimental evidence seems to suggest that it does, we have to assume it is true.

However, if you're curious whether the speed of light in a vacuum, c = 299792458 m/s, is something which should be considered a 'constant', then it turns out that this seems to be true by experimental evidence. That is, even if SR were totally wrong, the speed of light in a vacuum is constant.

 and why there is no magnetic monopole in one theory with one math/geometric method?
In electromagnetism (EM), Maxwell's equations are:

$\displaystyle \nabla \cdot E = \frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0}$
$\displaystyle \nabla \cdot B = 0$
$\displaystyle \nabla \times E = - \frac{\partial B}{\partial t}$
$\displaystyle \nabla \times B = \mu_0 J + \mu_0 \epsilon_0 \frac{\partial E}{\partial t}$

The second equation, $\displaystyle \nabla \cdot B = 0$, basically states that no magnetic monopoles exist, because if they did, it would be a nonzero term. In our case, experiment seems to suggest that EM is exactly given by these four equations, so we're forced to expect no magnetic monopoles until some experiment comes along and detects them (and no experiment has).

I think HallsOfIvy's point is that by reading articles and news, it's very easy to get the impression that all of these sorts of things are on the table for discussion... however, there's decades of research into many of the phenomena we're all interested in and, as far as most physicists are concerned, they are pretty much solved; they're not open problems. Therefore, perhaps the impression of chaos that you have is just consequence of the phase that all people experience when looking at something new; those times when all you need is the time and the effort to fill those knowledge gaps in with the work that has already been made. After the hard work is done, the uncertainties and chaos disappears as quickly as it came, leaving just the satisfaction of understanding and a relatively clearer mind.

 Jul 1st 2019, 09:55 AM #10 Senior Member   Join Date: Mar 2019 Location: cosmos Posts: 583 @benit: Very good. Interesting...haha... It seems that classical things is more useful... Can Maxwell explain what's light speed in photon frame?

 Tags forest, physics

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Physics Forum Discussions Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post philipishin Philosophy of Physics 4 Jun 20th 2016 07:35 PM