Over fitting was my feeling when reading about Kim et al. On the other hand if you can make use of first principles and simulate a collision that would be great for understanding of what happens in a collision. Of cause assuming that QED is good enough to model the electrodynamic stage of the collision. I have on the other side never seen QED validated in a three body example like He or such so until anyone can fill that gap I would be a little scared even to trust QED. Of cause doing such a simulation is probably insanely difficult, or? My problem is that I didn't get any physical understanding reading the paper (I could follow the math) just the usual summary statement that it is a shielding, but how? I want to understand the physics, and if the physical understanding is not there you can create great complex earth centric models that does not help anybody else but professors with a head the size of a huge pumpkin, in stead of a nice slim heliocentric model that enable some serious engineering to be done.
Cheers! On a side note, maybe the pauli principle could be the force that pushed the electron and keep a shield, in that case orientation should be important no? and a good continuation of those experiments is to try varying the orientations if possible. Cheers! On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 7:22 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> The fundamental paper Kim et all i basing his theory on is in a sense >> interesting and can be a reality, but I did only see that they manage to >> fit the model to the data, not really a proof of that the model explain the >> phenomena, or am I wrong? What is the general thought here have we got this >> result explained or is there more to do? >> > > When refining a model based on experiment it is obviously necessary to do > follow up experiments to test the refined model otherwise one is merely > engaged in the pejorative sense of "data mining" aka over-fitting. >
