>You will not dispell a quack's distaste for modern physics by relating it to classical physics, since they usually do not understand that either. This is an unusual example of "Familiarity breeds contempt."
>Quacks seem to dislike modern physics literally because of the word "relativity": In their attacks, they focus on what is relative, not on what is absolute. They know special relativity says time is relative, but don't understand (or care) that proper time is absolute. In rejecting relativity, they replace it with the ether, rejecting even Galilean relativity, because they refuse to accept that even velocity can be relative. They know general relativity says reference frames are arbitrary, but don't know that it's curvature that displays the physics. They've heard that the uncertainty principle says there are things you can't measure, but don't know what you can measure. Apparently they view modern physics as an attempt to limit their personal freedom. Their egotism does not allow them to accept any frame of reference as equal to their own.
>Consequently they are basically 19th century physicists, except for the fact that they don't understand even that. They focus on attacking the physics of the 1st quarter of the 20th century & its results, oblivious to the fact that it is backed up by all the dependent theories & results since then. They want to return to the "good old days", & constantly refer to archaic papers, as if history had anything to say about recent experimental results.
>Thus quacks are in perfect agreement with the alleged statement of the Commissioner of the US Patent Office in 1899, "Everything that can be invented has been invented." So it's not surprising they reject ideas developed by someone while working at the Swiss Patent Office a good several years later.
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Witten is that you? You talking to all.the schizoids who post here?
What schizoids? I havent noticed any. Maybe you meant schizophrenics?
Witten didn't say this, Warren Siegel did. This doesn't sound like Witten at all.
>Quacks come in slightly different levels of sophistication in math. Some use only words, and no numbers whatsoever, but lots of pictures (it's easy for some of them to copy & paste equations they think look nice) The worst one I ever corresponded with claimed that dimensions did not physically exist but were just abstract mathematical concepts, and you could never prove the existence of anything unless you could do it without equations. After giving him examples of directions, he claimed that "up" and "down" did not physically exist
>Better ones know arithmetic, but no algebra, so even E=mc2 is usually beyond them. They will quote lots of numbers, which they "predicted" by some numerology (12000rpm) but never functions (like cross sections). They don't understand units, or conventions, and will not appreciate that some constants of nature may be more natural with extra factors, or that some are not constants (like running couplings)
>None of them seem to understand statistics. So they are incapable of estimating the relative probabilities of the existence of worldwide conspiracies vs. that of the existence of quacks
>Since quacks never get over special relativity & quantum mechanics, even the ones who "re-derive" those results never get to doing the same for general relativity or quantum field theory. They take great pride in what they take as reproducing the physics of Maxwell's equations or maybe even the Schrödinger equation, but have no awareness of the equations of Dirac or Einstein. They have no understanding of the meaning of "approximation" or "perturbation expansion". The worst don't even know how to make order of magnitude estimates, to determine what is & isn't relevant to a problem. One told me that in the problem of an artificial satellite orbiting the Earth, the motion of the Earth about the true center of their mutual orbit was not negligible, in spite of the fact that the satellite's mass was over 20 orders of magnitude smaller than the Earth's
Still not accepting the mind projection fallacy.
>None of them seem to understand statistics. So they are incapable of estimating the relative probabilities of the existence of worldwide conspiracies vs. that of the existence of quacks
Holy frick, Witten confirmed for midwit. Appeal to probability is the most midwitted fallacy ever.
Special Ed Midwitten.
This only comes up as a result on Warren Siegel's site
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
The Dirac equation and perturbation theory are actually pretty fricking hard
Hey dr motl can you unprivate your blog?
Nice ad hominem you got there homosexual
I will link a better argument against modern physics as a pdf
>still seething about his uni chad mentor
Never fails to make me laugh how he still raged even decades after he was put in his place.
50 years from now every single major physicist of the last 200 years will be looked at like a clown or jester. The only ones that won't be mocked openly will be those who jumped ship early.
>George Washington.
>God of science
Shiggydiggy, mate.
I'm often called to defend my own aversion to doing extensive calculations (against which I would have little or nothing to compare my results to.) I was delighted by this picture of Thorne's office because it pretty much sums up my feeling about making extensive calculations. Among all these piles of junk in his office, he has the Mathematica guide book, well worn, front and center, in a space completely devoid of any piles. All of the other books look new and relegated to piles. Personally, I really don't want to use Mathematica and I like to advance the physics as much as I can in diagrams. It's hard to do real, modern physics outside of Mathematica, but it can be done and that's what I do. Physics outside of Mathematica is what I call the "foundations of physics." Furthermore, in physics courses in universities, you'll often see diagrams and pictures more prominently on the black boards of lecture halls than equations, and whoever made this remark
>no numbers whatsoever, but lots of pictures (it's easy for some of them to copy & paste equations they think look nice)
(which is 100% accurate) has somewhat neglected the validitiy of diagrams. Anyways, I like this picture of Thorne's office because it shows that the math I often get accused of not doing is really the Mathematica software I'm not using. For instance, Thorne is not doing ANYTHING AT ALL with that equation on his shirt outside of Mathematica, I promise you. Outside of mathematica, however, I bet he is quite fond of drawing diagrams and writing nice looking equations.
>Thorne
wow Jon, you call yourself a physicist and you can’t even recognize John Ellis? he doesn’t even remotely look like Kip Thorne you faceblind noob
Oops. They look nothing alike and you are right. I recognized him immediately but I guess I recognized him as the wrong person. I hate John Ellis by the way and I hope he burns in hell.
God that room looks like hell
>"For less than the cost of a Big Mac, fries and a Coke, you can buy a loaf of fresh bread and some good cheese or roast beef, which you will enjoy much more."
Ed types these posts with one hand
The longest of nerds strikes again