On 12 May 2014 11:50, John Ross <[email protected]> wrote:
> LizR,
>
>
>
> Are you suggesting that just because there is an existing description of
> the proton that we should not try to develop a better description?
>
No, I'm suggesting that you need a reason to think this will be a better
description. So far I don't think you've given one, unless I missed it. As
I keep asking, what is your reason for thinking this description of reality
is better than the existing one? In other words, what did you look at in
existing theories (the Standard Model and Quantum mechanics in this case)
that you decided was wrong or in need of improvement, and what chain of
reasoning led you from perceiving those flaws to developing your existing
theory?
>
>
> I have shown that Coulomb forces can hold protons together and Coulomb
> forces can hold together alpha particles and all of the other atomic nuclei
> can be held together. We know for sure that Coulomb forces exist. We can
> see it when we comb our hair. We do not know the strong force exists. And
> we do not
>
I could use the same type of argument to say "we can see that the strong
nuclear force exists because matter doesn't fall apart very often." But
that would be equally fallacious to your hair-combing argument. The
evidence for *all* forces and particles are theories we have developed
about the (hypothetical) world outside our brains (or to be 100% Cartesian,
our minds). This is as true of the electromagnetic force as it is of all
the others. They are all hypotheses which we think best explain certain
aspects of our sense impressions. You can't pull "ontological superiority"
of EM vs the strong force on the basis of what we can see or otherwise
sense, because they are *both* hypothetical entities invented as the best
available explanation for sensory phenomena.
The EM force is approx 1/100th the strength of the strong force. Holding
protons together against the mutual repulsion of their components (a
repulsion that is due to the EM force) would seem to require a force that
is quite a bit stronger than the EM force, otherwise we'd expect protons to
decay fairly rapidly. Using the EM force to balance itself seems tricky, to
say the least.
> know quarks exists. Maybe they do exist but I do not believe so. We
> also do not know what preceded the Big Bang . I believe I know. Wouldn’t
> you like to know what preceded the Big Bang? Or would you say, “Why
> should we care, what difference does it make. Are you satisfied with a
> theory that says our Universe with 100 to 400 billion galaxies began with a
> singularity?
>
Eternal inflation is a leading contender for a cosmological version of a
theory of everything, and that doesn't say our universe began with a
singularity (or that it began at all). Neither does the colliding branes
theory with the fancy Greek (?) name require a singularity (although that
may have been ruled out by some recent observations of the CMBR).
>
>
> At one time I thought that one of the purposes of this chat group might be
> to try to find a better “theory of everything”. We certainly will not find
> it if we don’ try.
>
This is the difference between having an open mind and letting you brain
fall out. (Sometimes the boundary between these isn't obvious.) Trying to
develop a theory, if one believes Karl Popper, involves testing it against
all theoretical and experimental objections. I (and others) are merely
asking simple questions that any theory that purports to cover all or most
of existing physics should be able to answer, for example:
1/ what is the supporting evidence for your theory being superior to its
rivals?
2/ what is the reasoning that led you to believe a theory of this form will
work better than existing theories?
3/ what explanatory improvements does your theory have over its rivals (I
know it has simplicity, at least in terms of the number of particles and
forces, but then it seems to have a few "epicycles", like requiring odd
behaviour from these particles...so I'm not sure where Occam comes in in
this case).
Have you read Stephen Hawking’s book: *The Theory of Everything*? He
believes science has become too complicated and we need a theory that can
be understandable in broad principal by everyone, not just a few scientists.
I haven't read that particular book, but I've heard that those sentiments
have been expressed by various scientists. All successful theories tend to
move in the direction of being understandable by everyone, as scientists
(like Hawking) produce popularised versions, and people working on the
theory find that they can make simplifications. Relativity went along this
route, for example, from an alleged 3 people capable of understanding it
("and I'm not sure who the third one is") to Martin Gardner's "Relativity
for the million".
I think you would find that, for example, string theory would be
understandable by most people if enough writers decided to popularise it.
This has already happened to some extent.
"It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make
the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without
having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of
experience."
-- Albert Einstein, often paraphrased as "A theory should be as simple as
possible, but no simpler."
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
