Particle Physics Isn't That Hard Actually

Talk about anything not related to Transcendence.
Vachtra
Militia Commander
Militia Commander
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:03 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:55 pm

Yes you seem to have spit out the usual accepted information. So far no one has even bothered to look into what I've posted. I'm not alone in these ideas they just aren't in the forefront of the scientific world.

As far as speculation goes, if you look into it closely enough you will come to realize that all theory is a form of speculation. It doesn't matter how many experiments you do or how sound it seems, it's still speculation until you can prove it to be fact. It's just that many, but not all, scientists feel that their theories merit more weight than other theories and have pushed them to the brink of fact. They then get pushed down our throats and anyone who resists gets labeled as uneducated and, dare I say, stupid.

My wrap up of your wrap up etc. etc. was my farcical way of poking the topic with a sharp stick to see how it would wiggle, and boy did it.

For those who care to know. All they have to do is look a bit harder, ok a lot harder since a lot of it is pretty well buried and often deleted, and there's lots of sound reasons, as well as in depth explanations, equations, and the like. They just have to leave the comforts of the box. It's not that I can't explain it or that there's no sound reason. Also it's not that complicated. The problem is that people can't believe that they might be wrong and refuse to even think about it. This is a problem that plagues just about everyone in some way.

As far as knowing where you come from personally, well I can't say for sure, but everything you are saying is pretty much textbook which I know about pretty well. If you want to know where I come from then you need to go back to fundamental matter and study it empirically without equations or theories. Watch movement in an uncontrolled environment (people, birds, rocks, plants, dirt, etc.) instead of running calculations. Let your brain do some work. You will start to notice things aren't always what they seem to be. Watching water flow is more useful than running millions of experiments just to get the same result, and it takes less time. Afterwards take what you learned from this and apply it to your experiments. You need to understand that you can not completely control any experiment (this is not a guess or a theory, this is a fact). Often it's what you can't control in an experiment that will affect it in a way you don't understand. Look for a reason why you can't understand it and you may find something that you didn't realize was there. If you hit a dead end then try to break an experiment and see what happens. The more you think you are controlling something the harder it is to see beyond it. Look at experiments done by others and look for flaws or incorrect assumptions. People are always trying to build on current assumptions (theories) and coming up with other assumptions.

After you have done all this then you might know where I'm coming from.
"Have you guys ever watched the show?" ~ Guy

User avatar
sun1404
Militia Captain
Militia Captain
Posts: 527
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:32 am
Location: Heretic. (Finally!)

Sat Mar 22, 2014 3:09 am

A theory is, if one must compare it to speculation, a speculation with reason and a basis, maybe not enough to proof it as a fact, but enough to make it more probable than other explanation of the same topic. A speculation, by it self, is just what one think might be possible, or might be real. Find some more reason that it is more probable than other speculations, and, if you can convince the world, you can make a theory.

And in experiment, if you really can't control a variable, then don't make it a variable, leave it as environment. Note in your results that your experiment was conducted in an environment that might affect the result, or that the result may vary depending on the environment. No experiment can be perfect or explain everything in every state. You just conduct another experience in a place without that uncontrollable variable. Or wait until it's gone.
Yes, look at my avatar, I have a wyvera type ship.

Transcendi
Miner
Miner
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:19 pm
Location: Heretic System (guess where :)

Sat Mar 22, 2014 4:36 pm

Vachtra, you're using terms like "speculation", "prove" and "fact". In an uncertain world it is impossible to say that a statement is true (predictive of observation/models reality) with a hundred percent certainty*, so what do you mean by these terms?
Are you familiar with probability theory as extended logic?

* Especially with the known systematic errors in our more black-boxed mental processes.
Was known as Chance on the UTF

Vachtra
Militia Commander
Militia Commander
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:03 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Mon Mar 24, 2014 2:23 pm

You are supposing that the uncontrollable variable will ever vanish. There will always be uncontrollable influences to every experiment. The degree to which they matter increases exponentially as the size of the object (particle) goes down. Many factors don't go away, they just change. It's one of the biggest problems I've seen with experiments and the explanations behind what happened, ignored or at any rate missed, influences, and they aren't minor or background static.

As far as the terms go, yes we are limited to what we can know but often times when something is true, many things are understood. For instance you can see, hold, hear, and smell a bird. You can even taste one but I wouldn't do that until it was cooked, maybe with a tarragon lemon glaze. It is a fact and true that it is a bird. "Bird" has definite parameters that say it's a bird but it's also a very general term that can be applies to a number of things. Now if you want to go philosophical on us then you need another thread.

For experiments the best you can do is state all known influences on an experiment and when you hit that one time in a million where it doesn't work you can look for the additional influence you hadn't caught yet.

For instance you can say that when you push ball 'A' toward wall 'A' it does such and such, at xx:xx time of day, with no wind, a slope of xx°, surface friction of x, materials consisting of xxxxx, etc., with no other perceived influences. This statement would be true as long as everything was written correctly
Many experiments have givens of 1 atm, typical air composition of Earth, and significant digits. It gets tedious writing it all down but in most cases air pressure and air composition are not typical and should be accounted for or at least noted.

As far as this "probability theory as extended logic". You can't expect me to know about everything. Looking it up though it seems to be a philosophical extension. again probably another thread.
"Have you guys ever watched the show?" ~ Guy

Transcendi
Miner
Miner
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:19 pm
Location: Heretic System (guess where :)

Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:05 pm

I'm thinking of compiling some references for you on this subject.
What's you background so I can know what to include?
Was known as Chance on the UTF

User avatar
pixelfck
Militia Captain
Militia Captain
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:47 pm
Location: Travelling around in Europe

Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:11 pm

Why does this thread strike me as a discussion between pseudo-science and science voices, with the pseudo side of things explaining the science side it doesn't understand what science is?

Either that, or somebody is trolling this discussion deliberately.

~Pixelfck
Image
Download the Black Market Expansion from Xelerus.de today!
My other mods at xelerus.de

Vachtra
Militia Commander
Militia Commander
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:03 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:24 pm

Compile what you like.
"Have you guys ever watched the show?" ~ Guy

Transcendi
Miner
Miner
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:19 pm
Location: Heretic System (guess where :)

Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:38 pm

Vachtra wrote:Compile what you like.
What I'd like would be to get some links/book names for you that would explain things you don't know while not dwelling on things you do. That requires me to know how much you know, fastest way for that is your background, ie. science degree? Worked in scientific domain? Insurance/risk domain? Journalism? Familiarity with epistemology? Psychology? Understanding of the nature of language and it's use in thought and reasoning?

ETA: Karl Popper's "Conjectures and Refutations" seems like a safe bet though
Was known as Chance on the UTF

Vachtra
Militia Commander
Militia Commander
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:03 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:57 pm

So far it seems like you don't think I understand much so I would suggest starting there. Think about the most basic concept you don't think I'm getting, ground up.

Explain as you would a child.
"Have you guys ever watched the show?" ~ Guy

User avatar
Atarlost
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 2391
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:02 am

Mon Mar 24, 2014 11:37 pm

pixelfck wrote:Why does this thread strike me as a discussion between pseudo-science and science voices, with the pseudo side of things explaining the science side it doesn't understand what science is?

Either that, or somebody is trolling this discussion deliberately.

~Pixelfck
Image
Literally is the new Figuratively

User avatar
sun1404
Militia Captain
Militia Captain
Posts: 527
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:32 am
Location: Heretic. (Finally!)

Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:27 am

Vachtra wrote: For instance you can say that when you push ball 'A' toward wall 'A' it does such and such, at xx:xx time of day, with no wind, a slope of xx°, surface friction of x, materials consisting of xxxxx, etc., with no other perceived influences. This statement would be true as long as everything was written correctly
Many experiments have givens of 1 atm, typical air composition of Earth, and significant digits. It gets tedious writing it all down but in most cases air pressure and air composition are not typical and should be accounted for or at least noted.
That's why we need lab condition in sensitive experiments.
Yes, look at my avatar, I have a wyvera type ship.

Vachtra
Militia Commander
Militia Commander
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:03 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:28 pm

That's why we need lab condition in sensitive experiments.
Yeah I know... I was just showing how a statement can be true for Transcendi there.

Oh and Atarlost, I can't see whatever picture you put in so it looks like you're just bumping the thread which is just too funny. If the point was to bump the thread then good job.

Further edit: Am I the only one getting any of these movie references?
"Have you guys ever watched the show?" ~ Guy

User avatar
Atarlost
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 2391
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:02 am

Tue Mar 25, 2014 5:37 pm

It's Dilbert
PHB: I put together a timeline for your project.
PHB: I started by reasoning that anything I don't understand is easy to do.
PHB: Phase One: Design a client-server architecture for out world-wide operations. Time: six minutes.

Anything you don't understand must be simple. It's not. If you think something the experts in the field consider complicated to be simple you're the one who doesn't know the subject. The sciences aren't like the humanities where success depends entirely on politics. In the sciences supporting what's already known gets you nowhere and all the incentives are to poke holes in the "scientific orthodoxy." The only real orthodoxy is that the world behaves the same way in the present as it did in the past.

If you want to understand go to your local community college and sign up for an introduction to philosophy of science.
Literally is the new Figuratively

Transcendi
Miner
Miner
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:19 pm
Location: Heretic System (guess where :)

Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:16 pm

Vachtra wrote:So far it seems like you don't think I understand much so I would suggest starting there. Think about the most basic concept you don't think I'm getting, ground up.

Explain as you would a child.
The hard part is actually explaining why a concept I don't think you're getting is relevant, but to answer your question the most basic concept for which a have a ready link would probably be the aforementioned probability theory as extended logic: http://shawnslayton.com/open/Probabilit ... k/book.pdf (you'll have to find chapters 4+ in an actual hard copy)
Was known as Chance on the UTF

Vachtra
Militia Commander
Militia Commander
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:03 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Wed Mar 26, 2014 3:00 pm

In the process of reading. I don't think I'm going to learn anything new here but just in case. In the mean time I would like to also know why you don't think I'm getting it.

So far it looks like what I've said before.
As far as speculation goes, if you look into it closely enough you will come to realize that all theory is a form of speculation. It doesn't matter how many experiments you do or how sound it seems, it's still speculation until you can prove it to be fact. It's just that many, but not all, scientists feel that their theories merit more weight than other theories and have pushed them to the brink of fact.
The term "plausibility" comes up a lot. As does "accepting as true" or " decide (X) is true".
In this instance if you take terms A, B, C, D, E, F, G etc until Z and you build each one on the next what you get is a tower of acceptance as true due to perceived extreme plausibility. Then in accepting Z, you affirm to yourself that the rest of them must also be true because Z is true. The problem comes when B isn't true but is now so entrenched in the structure that you can't remove it without total collapse. It's like Jenga.

In this text there is also the desiderata "Qualitative Correspondence with common sense". This is often what is lacking. To quote yet another great movie quote "Is stupid. Is stupidest theory I ever heard." At the end of the day the theory has to not sound ridiculous when compared with common sense.
"Have you guys ever watched the show?" ~ Guy

Post Reply