What's Wrong About Physics Today? All of It!

Via my new favorite website, crank.net, I've found a treasure trove of physics denial. Typically we'll see relativity denial or abuse of quantum mechanics to serve whatever ideology you choose. But unless one is going for Neal Adams level crankery, one keeps the denial to a few topics.

Not this guy.

For pretty much any physics concept a layperson would know, and a lot they wouldn't, this guy has a refutation. He covers all the common ones, of course. Relativity, quantum mechanics, the big bang, etc.

But we also see a few surprises. For instance, the author attempts to explain away Maxwell's equations, lasers, the Boltzmann distribution, even energy conservation. How does he do? Well, since the site is too long for an exhaustive analysis, I'll pick apart a few examples.

Curved Space: The concept of a 'curved space', which is essential for present cosmological models, is logically flawed because space can only be defined by the distance between two objects, which is however by definition always given by a straight line.

Ah, circular reasoning at its best. Why can't curved space exist? Because distances between objects are straight lines. Why are distances between objects straight lines? Because space is flat, not curved.

The shortest distances between objects—geodesics—are straight lines only in Euclidean geometry. Since we can measure that the shortest path for light is not a straight line when passing a massive object, we know that matter curves space.

Gravitation: Modern theories of gravitation assume that the gravitational force between two masses is not an instantaneous interaction but is communicated by field quanta (gravitons) moving with the speed of light. However, this model can be shown to result in different forces in different inertial systems and contradicts therefore the definition of a force. [Emphasis mine]

Sorry, guy. You need to show your work.

Schrödinger Equation: Present day Quantum Theory has been developed from the original observation that radiation emitted by an atom appears in the form of discrete spectral lines. The Schrodinger Equation could reproduce this theoretically by postulating a wave equation for the atom which yields only certain energy values as a solution. The associated wave functions are continuous functions in space and therewith do not allow to exactly specify the location of atomic electrons. This has led to the interpretation that electrons as such do not exist as localized particles within the atom but only as some diffuse 'cloud' or even only as mathematical objects. This assumption however is an unallowed generalization of the Schrodinger Equation which strictly makes sense only if applied to radiative transitions. The actual (classical) location of the electron is completely unrelated to the wave functions of the radiative states (apart from a statistical connection) and any non-radiative physical effects (e.g. elastic atomic collisions) can therefore be calculated by the principles of classical physics without any logical contradictions.

Many of the wider applications of the Schrödinger Equation are therefore completely unfounded and inadequate.

Never mind that quantum mechanics as formulated by the Schrödinger equation accurately predicts the results of experiments. Never mind that the classical picture of the electron doesn't, and in fact quantum mechanics solved outstanding problems in the classical model. Never you mind those things, because they're not allowed.

In fact, while the Schrödinger equation was written to reproduce the spectral emissions of hydrogen, it can be applied to innumerable systems. And why shouldn't it? It's a differential equation that describes how a quantum system evolves in time and space. One supplies a few parameters of the problem at hand and—ideally—solves for the behavior at all future times. It would be really strange if a completely different differential equation were required for every different situation. It's not inconceivable, though. Know how we tell? Experiments, that's how. And quantum mechanics, through the Schrödinger equation, is great at predicting the outcome of experiments.

How well did he do? I'm not impressed. Obviously he fails as a scientist because he substitutes (crappy) argument for evidence. But he does pretty well as a crank; he's very ambitious to say the least.

However, I've given you merely a slice of what's contained within. I encourage you to go to the site. Perhaps you'll find something I missed that makes all his arguments hang together.

Continue Reading...

Defending Spacetime

Mark Chu-Carroll has posted on Good Math, Bad Math another post responding to a relativity denier. I respect Mark a lot and appreciate all the writing he does, but in this case I think his argument is weak. If you'll allow, I'd like to give my own thoughts on both the original article—entitled Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics— and Mark's response.

In short, the author claims that relativity predicts motion is impossible, thus relativity is wrong, or at least not a valid representation of reality. Why is motion impossible in relativity? I'll get there in a bit.

I will say that I totally agree with Mark's characterization of the author—who might be named Louis Savain, but since I'm not sure I'll just say "the author." Primarily, he throws out a lot of insults and ad hominem attacks on physicists and mathematicians without discussing a single claim these people have made. He seems to be deeply offended by their ideas but never explains why.

The heart of the matter is the claim that movement through spacetime is impossible, thus spacetime must not exist. I couldn't possibly type this argument myself without my fingers breaking themselves in protest, so I'll just copy and paste for you.

Why is motion in spacetime impossible? It has to do with the definitions of space and time and the equation of velocity v = dx/dt. What the equation is saying is that, if an object moves over any distance x, there is an elapsed time t. Since time is defined in physics as a parameter for denoting change (evolution), the equation for velocity along the time axis must be given as v = dt/dt which is self-referential. The self-reference comes from having to divide dt by itself. dt/dt always equals 1 because the units cancel out. This is of course meaningless as far as velocity is concerned.

That's basically the whole thing. Because velocity through the time dimension must be defined in such a way, the notion of velocity through a time dimension is silly!

Wait, wait, wait. Do I spy a circular argument? It's so rare to see those in the wild, let us pause and admire its terrible yet majestic beauty!

...

Okay, we're done. Of course, velocity is not defined that way. The conclusion that velocity through a time dimension is meaningless is embedded in the author's definition of "velocity." He's really close to being correct, but missing some important points. To explain, we need a few basic facts about relativity, which I will present in a whirlwind tour.

1. Distances in spacetime are given by the spacetime interval,
   ds² = dx² + dy² + dz² - (ct)²Where x, y, and z are the ordinary 3 spatial dimensions, t is time, and c is the speed of light in vacuum. Note that ct has units of distance. See Introduction to special relativity


2. An important consequence of special relativity is time dialation. For a stationary observer, the time of a moving object runs slower. The stationary time, or "proper time," t₀ is related to the moving time, t, by a factor γ, equal to 1/√(1-v²/c²). Speaking in math rather than words, time dialation says
   t₀ = t/γSee Introduction to special relativity and Fox's cogent derivation.


3. Velocities in spacetime are derivatives of the spactime interval ds taken with respect to proper time dt₀.

Now that we know those things, what can we say? Well, let's ignore the space velocities like dx/dt₀ and focus on the time. The velocity in that dimension is given by d(ct)/dt₀. Differentiating the time dialation equation, given in 2., we see
dt/dt₀ = γAnd so the velocity in the time dimension,
d(ct)/dt₀ = cγ This is a perfectly sensible result. The author says velocity in the time dimension is a unitless constant. It is neither. It is in units of meters per second, as a velocity should be, and since γ is dependent on (relative) velocity it is not constant.

You can say some really interesting things at this point. Since your relative velocity with yourself is zero—if not, you've got problems—you are always moving through time at speed c. You are literally hurtling into the future at the speed of light. For outside observers who are moving relative to you, your time slows down as you move faster. I won't get much deeper, but if you're interested, there are loads of interesting things to read about relativity. Google "special relativity" or go to any library; under Library of Congress it should be QC 1-75 or QC 170-197, under Dewey I think it's 560.

Now that we've broken this argument on the wheel of sense-making, I think we should look at Mark CC's response to it. Honestly, I can't tell what he's trying to say. I'll reproduce his argument for you.

Think of simple line drawn on graph paper: y=3x+2. Can we ask how fast y changes relative to x? According to the argument of our crackpot, the answer is no. Because how can we define motion in x? The line is already drawn on the page. x doesn't move. Any motion in x must be defined in one of three ways. It could be motion in x relative to something outside of the system that we're measuring, but that doesn't make sense: we're talking about measurement inside the system - we can't define that in terms of something that has nothing to do with the system we're looking at. We could define motion in x in terms of motion in y - but since motion in y is defined in terms of motion in x, that's circular - and that's clearly no good. And finally, we could define motion in x in terms of motion in x. But that's circular. So you can't look at the rate of change along that line, because "change" is meaningless on the line - any definition of it is nonsensical.

He seems to be approaching this argument from a purely formal math perspective, which I don't think is a fruitful avenue. It's not the math this guy is getting wrong; indeed, given his incorrect definitions, his math was completely correct. No, he got the physics wrong.

What can we say from the article about the author's motiviations? We know he's vigorously attacking the notion of spacetime, but why? From my perspective, what he's really fighting against is wormholes and time travel, those pop physics buzzwords par excellence. He really seems to hate those concepts, and the people who popularize them. Let me give you an example or two.

It is important that people see relativity for what it is, a mathematical trick for the prediction of macroscopic phenomena involving the motion of bodies in a spatial coordinate system. Spacetime is an abstract mathematical construct, that is all. The other stuff (motion in spacetime, time travel, advanced and retarded waves, wormholes, etc...), is pure hogwash. It is so trivially proven wrong in fact, that it is insulting to the lay public, the same public that funds most scientific projects.

The nasty and shocking little truth is that time does not change, a million wormhole and time travel fanatics wearing their little Klingon and Ferengi outfits notwithstanding.

I think the author misunderstands "velocity in the time dimension" as meaning "one is free to move about in time just like one is in space" and thus spacetime arises the ire the author directs at time travel. However, that's just not true. As discussed above, you do have a little control over your time-velocity: as you go faster it slows down. Some more enthusiastic physicists have come up with novel, possibly unfalsifiable ways of adjusting one's time-velocity to be faster forward or even negative, allowing travel to the distant future or the past. Is it true? Eh, maybe. We need the evidence to see, and there isn't going to be any for a long time for many time travel ideas.

However, just because our author hates time travel so much doesn't make it wrong. And just because he confuses spacetime with time travel doesn't make it wrong either.

To close, I'd like to blast you with several quotes from the article. Most show the blinding arrogance of the author, but the first is funny for a special reason. The author has obviously read enough about relativity to know that a four-dimensional spacetime makes sense and solves real-world problems. However, he has what he believes is a silver bullet against a time dimension, so he has this to say.

There are very good reasons to suppose that there is a fourth dimension in which matter is moving at c in one direction. This fourth dimension, if it exists, is certainly not time since a temporal dimension is illogical as I have shown above. It would have to be a spatial dimension. I will have more to say about this in a future addition to the site.

Sadly that addition never came. I really wanted to know what he would say, but alas.

Also, in the author's bizzaro-physics where spacetime doesn't exist, gravity—which is the warping of spacetime by matter—needs a cause...

By now the reader should realize that there is no such thing as spacetime and that gravity does not have anything to do with the curvature of a physical spacetime. There is something else out there that causes bodies to fall, without a doubt, something physical, something material. Over the last century or so, relativists have steadfastly and sometimes deviously rejected any suggestion that space is not empty and that there is a need to invoke some sort of material substance or aether to explain phenomena like gravity. Given that spacetime is a fictitious math construct, it is obvious that it cannot possibly account for gravity. [Emphasis mine]

I'll quote the late Perry DeAngelis when I say, "The ether?" We'll not even go there today.

The last is a section called "Isn't it Amazing?" in which the author really needs to apply Occam's Razor. Either every professional physicist is wrong, or he is.

Isn't it amazing that Dr. Kip "Wormhole" Thorne and his time travel colleagues at Caltech and elsewhere can claim that the mathematics of general relativity does not forbid time travel even though it does exactly that?

Is it not also amazing that physicist Julian Barbour felt it necessary to write an entire book to demonstrate "The End of Time" when it can be shown in a single sentence? Why should it take an entire book to convince the old school that there is no time dimension? It is not as if one is trying to deprogram a cult. Or is it?

Isn't it strange that Dr. Thorne, Dr. Wheeler, Dr. Deutsch, Sir Stephen and company were not aware that nothing can move in spacetime? Being the celebrated mathematicians that they are, one would suppose it would be their business to know and understand something so trivial that it can be explained to high school kids. After all, it is not as if there is not a single physicist in the world who knows about this. I know of many who do. Could not just one of them write a line to Dr. Thorne or Sir Stephen and alert them of their error? How did they get their time travel papers past peer review? How did they get so darn famous? Did I hear someone say fraud? Or is it just plain incompetence and crackpottery?

And isn't it interesting that Sir Stephen was present at a recent symposium at the famous Caltech Institute in Pasadena, California, honoring the scientific achievements of Dr. Thorne? Birds of a feather? You bet!

---

UPDATE: Via a comment on Mark CC's article, we can see that the author—who is named Louis Savain—has been pushing exactly the same argument for at least twelve years. For sooth, what I just linked was posted to our fair intertubes in 1996. Something tells me I won't get through to him with this little blog post.

Continue Reading...

Prepare for a Long One

Reading Pharyngula the other day, I saw a short post in which PZ Myers pointed his readers to an article arguing against special relativity. I thought that might be right up my alley, so I bookmarked the link for future reading.

Today I see that Mark Chu-Carroll at Good Math, Bad Math has read the article and put up a review. I'm sad I didn't read it earlier because this article is just pure fun. I always highly recommend you read the original (or skim at the very least), but in this case I go over so much of it, you'd just be bored. In fact, my response is so long, you might want to grab a snack and a blanket before jumping in. This is going to be a long one and I want you to be comfortable.

Back now? Great. Prepare to dive into a Scrooge McDuck moneybin filled not with gold but with sloppy thinking. Right from the first paragraph we see that author Darrell Williams doesn't know how science works.

Many notable scientists such as the French mathematician, Henri Poincare rejected Einstein’s Theory of Relativity due to it’s lack of sound mathematical procedures, absence of clearness of vision or rigorous arguments.

Wow, Poincare rejected relativity? Really? Hot dog, I guess it must be bunk! Seriously, though, arguments from authority don't mean anything when placed against evidence. Relativity works. It makes predictions that are confirmed. Those predictions are better than other models. Oh, but wait, Darrell doesn't understand models either.

MATHEMATICAL MODELS are abstract, idealized, imaginary models which contain characteristics and assumptions which cannot exist in reality (such as points, lines, triangles, spheres, etc.) These models can be purely logical, purely mathematical, geometric, kinematic, dynamic or electromagnetic. All of these models are based on the LAWS OF MATHEMATICS (symbols, equations, formulas etc.) which only approximate the physical LAWS OF NATURE. These mathematical models produce deductive conclusions which only apply to the idealized mathematical models.

PHYSICAL MODELS are real models composed of physical objects which are used in empirical experiments. By repeating identical (as far as possible) testing with these models, inductive conclusions can be made. These inductive conclusions, because they are the results of physical experiments, are the fundamental method used by science in an attempt to understand the LAWS OF NATURE. Knowledge about the real Universe must come from physics and not from mathematics. Experience has always been the primary guide in human reasoning concerning physical facts.

METAPHYSICAL MODELS are sophistic models which contain both mathematical characteristics and physical characteristics. These are mingled or mixed models. Neither mathematical deductions nor physical inductive conclusions can be produced from these models because they cannot exist in reality. These are pseudoscience models which result from “thought experiments”. These are purely imaginary mental creations. Any conclusions whatsoever that these models produce are completely irrelevant to anything. They cannot produce any valid understanding of reality. A sophist is someone who deceives people based on clever-sounding, but flawed arguments or explanations. However, these fallacious theories do produce popular imaginary science fiction tales about time travel (Back to the Future, motion picture) and spaceships that travel at the speed of light (Star Trek, motion picture).

The distinctions Darrell makes among MATHEMATICAL MODELS, PHYSICAL MODELS, and METAPHYSICAL MODELS are arbitrary and made up. Nothing about what he says is supported in either the philosophy or practice of science. In fact, he's making claims about how science works in a sweeping intellectual sense when he obviously doesn't have a clue how science works in even the most basic, everyday sense.

Physical models are mathematical models. Math is not restricted to an mystical realm of lines and points moving around Euclidean planes. Math is simply a consistent set of rules and definitions. We can apply them to our universe because our universe is also consistent. If reality were not consistent, we could, for instance, have four dollars suddenly becoming fifty dollars; as awesome as that would be, we wouldn't be able to use math in that universe. We do live in a consistent universe, so we can use math as a tool to describe it. Even saying "I have four dollars" is using math.

Typically, when we make physical models, we abstract physical objects into mathematical objects. We can then use the preexisting knowledge of the math to derive greater understanding of the original system. Sometimes the approximations you have to do are good, sometimes they're bad. But we wouldn't be able to understand anything at all without math. To quote Blake Stacey from a comment on the Mark CC article,

When you're driving along the highway and you say, "I can get another hundred miles on this tank of gas," you're using a mathematical model. From the angular position of the gas-gauge needle, you judge how much fuel is remaining in the tank, and based on the assumption that you consume fuel at a fairly constant rate (so-and-so many miles per gallon), you judge how far you can go without stopping to fill 'er up.

So, we've established that insights into math inform our scientific intuition and understanding (the reverse is sometimes true, such as the development of calculus or the Dirac delta function, but often the math comes first). Sadly, Darrell doesn't agree.

False conclusions may be produced by applying the deductive conclusions from the math models to the physical models. This cannot be done legitimately because the two models are intrinsically different. Any analogous comparison between any two models can only suggest possible or speculative outcomes. Only by testing physical models can similar outcomes be verified. Analogous conclusions cannot be assumed.

He's right, if you take out the word "similar," when he says "Only by testing physical models can similar outcomes be verified." But the testing is done with math. First, a mathematical model is constructed to fit observations we have made. Then we make predictions by extending the math to areas about which we haven't made actual observations. We then test the real model and make those new observations. If the prediction is verified, and this process is repeated many times in different ways, we consider the model a good model. Absolutely none of that happens without both math and real-world data.

Let's shift now to Darrell's real point. He starts out attacking models in general, but he's got a special one in mind. He wants to go hunting for the big bad boogey-man of special relativity! Scary, I know.

Prepare for rapid-fire quotes and responses.

In Relativity, there are no rigorous mathematical models.

Wha? This is just nonsensical. Relativity is a mathematical model, so how are there none within relativity? In analogy: in Oak there are no deciduous trees.

[In relativity] there are no relevant physical models which can be tested experimentally. (Real trains don’t travel at the speed of light and apparently no one has yet created a Time Machine, like H. G. Wells imagined).

Straw man. Relativity is perfectly capable of being tested at all speeds. It's just that the slower the speed, the higher the precision we need to test it. Plus, particle accelerators routinely shoot particles around at approximately the speed of light, and relativity is indispensible to their calculations.

In Relativity, all conclusions are derived strictly from imaginary metaphysical models.

Wrong. In relativity, just like in all science, evidence wins the day.

Einstein did not conduct any physical experiments.

Einstein was a theorist. He worked with models and predictions. He used data from other people in creating his model, and left predictions for still others to test. Science is collaborative; one person doesn't have to do everything.

(Fallacies are the most common form of human deception. There are over 174 different ways to create a fallacy).

...and 258 ways to make up a number.

Einstein’s methodology was almost totally based on analogy abuse, metaphors, allegories, unjustified assumptions and metaphysical models.

Perhaps in his public speaking Einstein relied on analogies and metaphors to convey his ideas to nonexperts. However, in his science writing, Einstein was as precise as a person can be. Don't confuse the popular distillation of the subject for the actual subject. And what assumptions were unjustified, pray tell?

The Michaelson-Morley experiment in 1881 was conducted in an attempt to prove [luminiferous ether]’s existence. This experiment failed to detect anything. From these results, Einstein drew a false conclusion. He interpreted the results as proof that there was no privileged frame of reference for the entire Universe. Upon this assumption he constructed the Theory of Special Relativity.

I don't know where Darrell got his history, but this is all wrong. I could go on for pages just about these few sentences, but instead I refer you to the wikipedia article on the history of special relativity. (Interestingly, I read there that Poincare had done most of the work before 1905, and Einstein didn't cite that literature. I don't think that would fly today.)

However, the Big Bang theory implies that there is a fixed (Central) frame of reference in the Universe. This fixed frame of reference for all (Absolute) motion is the physical location of the Big Bang. It is the location from which all universal expansion began.

No. This is wrong. There is no location at which the big bang happened, because there was no space before the big bang. It wasn't anywhere because that concept had no meaning prior to this event. Or, looking at it from our perspective, the big bang happened everywhere. It's hard to visualize, but it's true. There is no center. In every location in the universe you could look out and see stars arrayed around you, apparently evenly distributed. And you'd be right.

It is from this location alone that the constant speed of light can be defined (or any motion of any object).

He really does like the ether, doesn't he? The speed of light is constant with respect to everything. And the motion of objects is defined relative to other objects. That's sort of the point of relativity.

Astronomers have measured the movements of the stars in our Milky Way galaxy in order to approximate the center of the galaxy. Even for our local galaxy, this method only produces an approximate location. This is difficult to do with the billions of galaxies for the entire Universe, but this is the only way to hypothetically predict the center of the Universe.

Well, no, you can't even hypothetically predict the center of the universe that way. We can't see the entire universe, we can only see objects that are at maximum 13.6 billion light years away. But even just looking at the objects we can see, if we were to do this, where do you think the center would be? I'd say odds are it'd be here! And if you were to get into a rocket and perform the same experiment somewhere else in the universe, you'd also see that location as being the center. For a cool pictoral analogy, see here.

Einstein’s observation that the speed of light is constant was probably correct, but without a fixed frame of reference, there is nothing for it to be constant in relation to.

Nothing? I believe the word you're looking for is "everything."

The classical methods of the addition and subtraction of velocities of moving objects was based on inductive conclusions of repeated empirical experiments. These general mathematical laws are only approximations but they also agree with so-called common sense. When the Special Theory was adopted, these inductive conclusions and common sense ideas should not have been so hastily abandoned.

Aww, somebody call the waambulence. Relativity doesn't follow Darrell's common sense, so it must be wrong.

Common sense is of course not always correct...

Damn! Ad hominem foiled again!

...but it is a judgment based on physical experience which should not be discarded without verifiable physical demonstrations. It should not be abandoned solely based on metaphysical models.

Oh, great! Darrell does believe in relativity! It is, after all, heavily supported by actual data. Even everyday experience: if you've ever used a GPS device, you've benefited from relativity. Without relativistic corrections, they wouldn't have the accuracy they do.

I think this is a great place to stop. Darrell managed to convince himself that relativity is correct because it has "verifiable physical demonstrations." Or, at least, he would be thoroughly convinced if he stopped trying to disprove Einstein long enough to read a textbook or ask a damned question.

Oh, what the hell, one last juicy tidbit. I'll let you bask in the glory that is Darrell's concept of science. Quick synopsis: Darrell thinks time is defined by his watch.

Einstein never defined real time, he only discussed mathematical time. Mathematical or isochronal time is an idealistic abstraction in which units, such as minutes, are equal. In reality, no clock can exist which has these characteristics. Also no two clocks can exist which are identical. Any real clock will always either run slower or faster than another clock. In fact, one clock does not even measure identical units itself because like all matter it is continuously changing it‘s molecular structure or aging. (The moving mechanisms of any clock are constantly changing physically.) Einstein’s discussion of both equal units of time and isochronal clocks was totally mathematical and not physical. (Remember, that mathematical deductions cannot be applied to physical objects because the systems are intrinsically different).

Continue Reading...