Jump to content

Supersymmetry...? Maybe? Perhaps? Possibly?


Recommended Posts

 

Susy (supersimitry) is an interesting idea that requires a type of logic for its theoretical creation. I have always disagreed with its hypothesis since it adds complications to what is already IMO a unnecessarily complicated theory (the standard model of particle physics).

 

There have been a number of arguments against Susy from many sources since its inception, and the theory has been declining as to its popularity based upon modern accelerator observations. Below is one of the simplest contrary arguments which I am in general agreement with.

 

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5667

 

regards Forrest

 

---------------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Forrest.

 

Interestingly enough, it was the second comment to Peter Woit's latest blog that gave me the link I posted.  Woit's yet to respond to it.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Forrest.

 

Interestingly enough, it was the second comment to Peter Woit's latest blog that gave me the link I posted.  Woit's yet to respond to it.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

I find Woit's writings quite interesting and consider him to be one of the very few theorists that make common logic an important part of their discussion. This enables me to understand and consider his point of view better, and its merits more seriously, if it differs from my own. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes Forrest.

 

Interestingly enough, it was the second comment to Peter Woit's latest blog that gave me the link I posted.  Woit's yet to respond to it.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

I find Woit's writings quite interesting and consider him to be one of the very few theorists that make common logic an important part of their discussion. This enables me to understand and consider his point of view better, and its merits more seriously, if it differs from my own. 

 

 

I like his blog because he's the harshest critic on the 'net of SUSY and SUSY's links with things multiversal.

After all, in science, before we accept something as being verified, it should be subjected to the most exacting standards of scrutiny, wouldn't you agree Forrest?

 

BAA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes Forrest.

 

Interestingly enough, it was the second comment to Peter Woit's latest blog that gave me the link I posted.  Woit's yet to respond to it.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

I find Woit's writings quite interesting and consider him to be one of the very few theorists that make common logic an important part of their discussion. This enables me to understand and consider his point of view better, and its merits more seriously, if it differs from my own. 

 

 

I like his blog because he's the harshest critic on the 'net of SUSY and SUSY's links with things multiversal.

After all, in science, before we accept something as being verified, it should be subjected to the most exacting standards of scrutiny, wouldn't you agree Forrest?

 

BAA

 

 

Definitely,  but somehow micro-breweries should somehow be involved in the mix since after only a few hours of libation modern physics' theories seem less objectionable to me :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Yes Forrest.

 

Interestingly enough, it was the second comment to Peter Woit's latest blog that gave me the link I posted.  Woit's yet to respond to it.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

I find Woit's writings quite interesting and consider him to be one of the very few theorists that make common logic an important part of their discussion. This enables me to understand and consider his point of view better, and its merits more seriously, if it differs from my own. 

 

 

I like his blog because he's the harshest critic on the 'net of SUSY and SUSY's links with things multiversal.

After all, in science, before we accept something as being verified, it should be subjected to the most exacting standards of scrutiny, wouldn't you agree Forrest?

 

BAA

 

 

Definitely,  but somehow micro-breweries should somehow be involved in the mix since after only a few hours of libation modern physics' theories seem less objectionable to me smile.png

 

 

A point of order, Forrest.

 

You've agreed that before something is accepted in science as being verified, it should be subjected to the most exacting standards of scrutiny.

Therefore, what you personally do or don't find objectionable about modern physics is irrelevant.

 

All that remains between us is what qualifies as the most exacting standards of scrutiny.

 

So perhaps you'd care to tell me if this agreement between theoretical prediction and observation meets your standards of scrutiny?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#mediaviewer/File:Cmbr.svg

 

And if not, why not?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also a point of order. It seems that we both have micro-breweries in common so that conversations have less problems if both parties are aware of the others bottom line. smile.png

 

As to your points:

 

"You've agreed that before something is accepted in science as being verified .........."

 

I choose to use different wording. Generally all look to the evidence. Certainties are statements with no serious opposition, such as the Earth is generally a sphere. The evidence is almost boundless and nearly all accept it as a fact. It is no longer a theory. IMO very little is ever accepted in science concerning theory. The most fundamental theories are often categorized as first-principle theorems, such as Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell's equations.  As to verification of observations in general: often there is evidence to support one interpretation or another of a certain experiment, observation, theory. Most fields of science generally function with a broad consensus of agreement. This is true in cosmology, for instance, but not true in quantum theory. 

 

I don't think my standards of scrutiny are more stringent than practitioners when it comes to considering the merits of certain statements. IMO the word "verified" relates more to repeating the same experiment/ observation and getting the same results, than it concerns consensus opinions as to the meaning of the observation etc.

 

The first sentence of your first link starts out with an exact and I believe totally correct statement:

 

"The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is the thermal radiation assumed to be left over from the "Big Bang" of cosmology."

 

Here I believe a key word is "assumed." Theorists believe there is evidence to support a BB connection with the CMB, but others like myself disagree believing that is more likely that the CMB mainly comes from this galaxy and instead is the radiated temperature of interstellar matter, primarily neutral hydrogen and dust. It would more accurate for it to be called the MBR if there were no connection to primarily extra-galactic radiation and a Big Bang cosmic origin.

 

As to your second link:

 

Because the micro-wave background has a blackbody spectrum does not relate to the cause of that blackbody spectrum. Big Bang theory asserts that such a spectra should be a black body spectra if it was the remnant of the Big Bang. Although little known, there are many other explanations why background radiation would accordingly be blackbody radiation.

 

A "blackbody" refers to an opaque object that emits thermal radiation. A "perfect blackbody" is one that absorbs all incoming radiation and does not reflect any. At room temperature, such objects appear to be perfectly black (hence the term blackbody).

 

My preference of alternative explanations for the CMB/MBR is that the background radiation is the temperature of starlight, primarily in this galaxy, that has been absorbed by interstellar matter and slowly caramelized into a generally constant temperature by its re-radiation and through contact with an interstellar aether medium, which would be more like a superfluid than dark matter. This is one of the known explanations proposed by alternative theorists. Hoyle (Steady State theories) instead proposed the existence of iron and later carbon needles for this re-radiation and caramelization of temperature process to an even blackbody temperature. 

 

"So perhaps you'd care to tell me if this agreement between theoretical prediction and observation meets your standards of scrutiny?"

 

IMO present evidence and related observations cannot exclude alternative possibilities and explanations for the CMB/MBR that are generally contrary to it being of cosmic origin such as a Big Bang or related source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Figures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Figures.

 

There would seem to be no math needed for such assertions/ theory that I can think of other than maybe calculated rates of aether caramelization of the MBR temperatures.  Temperatures would have to caramelize within roughly 5 billion years from the time of the Milky Way being a fully formed galaxy, based upon a type of aether conduction. There are many ways this could conceivably happen based upon differing aether models. I prefer an aether being mathematically similar to a superfluid. Here's a few links as to aether possibilities today:

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060908-dark-matter.html

http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_3.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/superfluid-spacetime-relativity-quantum-physics/

http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/

 

A history of some old and new aether theories:  http://www.cellularuniverse.org/AA3AetherHistory.htm

 

Was there some other figures, calculations you had in mind concerning MBR?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.commonsensescience.org/

 

Your first link appears to fit into the category of Electric Universe Theory. From what I know of it some good points are involved in the discussions but little consensus as to its application. Some of such hypothesis involve obvious pseudo-science which is the reason most scientist don't look at the over-all proposals with interest.

 

http://www.aptheory.info/

 

There are obvious mistakes in the science of this proposal. Obviously gravity attracts gas. Since all atomic matter has mass it collectively is attracted together to form stars which are mostly the lightest elements hydrogen and helium which are gases. The remnants of a star can form planets like the gas giants in our solar system. They aren't called gas giants for nothing smile.png Also many of the heavier elements of planets combine with gases involving cycles of engagement and disengagement like oxygen, nitrogen, and gas compounds such as hydrogen and oxygen combining to become water.

 

http://www.setterfield.org/

 

The approach taken and the opening statement on this site I think is very good. Following this there is also much good reasoning, logic, and opinions on this site. I don't care for the name "genesis science" since it could be linked to religious belief but I saw no indication of religion on the site so consider it worthy of reading, from what I could see initially.

 

http://www.electricu...fo/Introduction

 

This is another Electric Universe site. I think educated science readers should become familiar with the assertions and beliefs of the Electric-Universe folks since some assertions may be valid.  Others should stick with mainstream science.

 

http://www.dianetics.org/#/videos

 

Dianetics was developed by L. Ron Hubbard. He initially was a science-fiction writer and later incorporated some of his alien beliefs into his Dianetics system of living. I think many perspectives of Dianetics have merit but it certainly isn't science.

 

http://www.varchive.org/

 

Velikovsky's writings may be entertaining but I and most others consider most of it highly speculative at best.

 

http://www.sheldrake...rphic-resonance

 

I hadn't heard of this one before but the website gives clues.

"Extended Mind, Power, & Prayer"

From a cursory reading my opinion is that it does not merit thorough reading

 

http://www.orgonics.com/whatisor.htm

 

"... universal energy related to life."

With reference to the quote above, this is a spiritual site without specific reference to religion. It's not science.

 

-------------------------------

 

I'm sure one could find a great many more of such sites. I think at least one of the sites you posting is a worth-while read.

 

cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also a point of order. It seems that we both have micro-breweries in common so that conversations have less problems if both parties are aware of the others bottom line. smile.png

 

 

 

Alas Forrest, I have insufficient respect for you to want to talk about micro-brewing, let alone to continue this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Also a point of order. It seems that we both have micro-breweries in common so that conversations have less problems if both parties are aware of the others bottom line. smile.png

 

 

 

Alas Forrest, I have insufficient respect for you to want to talk about micro-brewing, let alone to continue this thread.

 

OK my friend,

 

cheers anyway :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.