Skip to main content

View Diary: On the Nature of Matter - Part 2 (34 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sorry, but I have to say that any theory (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sneelock, Bob Love

    that ADDS factors that it doesn't need to, because it sounds good, just doesn't pass my smell test. Or Occam's. You've introduced a "new" factor into the mess - light - that rather than being a component of anything is simply the way that humans perceive some types of particle/energy interaction, and then you've split it into multiple categories, none of which have, as far as I can see, any basis.

    Yesterday I said that you seemed to be combining New Age with particle physics. What you've done is taken a word that most people have a practical definition for and spun it around until it's dizzy, then made it a catchall for what is, essentially, an "and then a miracle happened" explanation for an alternative proposal (I won't call it a theory) for How Things Work.

    "Slow" light, "flat" light - my head hurts. All that space must be filled with something, because it can't be empty, because.... ?

    Of course there can be (and almost certainly are) factors that we have not considered, that will need to be added to our understanding of physics before it is complete. That said, there's a real reason for naming new factors in such a way that they don't conjure up a host of previously learned reactions to their names. It keeps them from being concatenated with previous factors while actual research is being done, for one. Names like "quark", "mu-meson", "strange attractors" were all physicsese for saying "there's something here that we don't quite understand, and it's different than what we were talking about up to now."

    It's as much for the benefit of the scientists themselves, so that new hypotheses about the area don't automatically fall into the trap of older theories, older definitions, and lose sight of any essential differences between the two. And it's a trap you need to run, not walk, out of.

    At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

    by serendipityisabitch on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 10:33:11 AM PDT

    •  Einstein said... (0+ / 0-)
      It follows from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both, different manifestations of the same thing
      They're both energy right? And matter emits, absorbs and turns into light. Why is it such a stretch to imagine that everything is made of the same type of energy?

      If our theories had a reasonable explanation for what makes inertia and gravity work, I'd buy them. But they don't. So I'm trying to understand how relativity and the standard model could be made to fit together.

      I don't claim to be right.

      Thanks for the feedback.

      •  As physicist Wolfgang Pauli put it, you are (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bob Love, pico, serendipityisabitch
        Not even wrong.
        This is what I call neo-Cartesian philosophy: I thought of it, therefore it is.

        Light is quite well described by Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), based on the electromagnetic force, which has been integrated with the weak force, so that the combination is now called the electroweak force. You can't explain the strong force, gravity, the Higgs field, dark energy, or cosmic inflation using light, since they are not electroweak phenomena.

        If you are unwilling or unable to learn the math, don't pretend that you understand enough to make a contribution. Making up stories is fine in literature, and has ample precedent in religion and superstition. It is not a way to do physics.

        Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

        by Mokurai on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 11:23:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site