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...

Self Contradictions from Sal Cordova

After a nice vacation, creationist Sal Cordova has posted a few new articles on his blog Young Cosmos. He takes ad hominem potshots at PZ Myers and writes meaningless arguments from authority (here and here). There is a little fun, though, when he waxes philosophical on a young vs. old universe and makes claims about what would prove ID true.

Sal says that in his recent modern physics class he "went through the major experiments which led to the development of modern physics." That's good; that's what a physics class should teach a student. He also says

My experience in class only reinforces the fact that the claim that “Darwin’s theory is the central theory of science” is a falsehood promoted by Darwin’s followers. It has no basis in truth.

Hmm, I don't really think he learned that in his modern physics class. I think it's much more likely that the class made zero mention of Darwin or evolution and Sal's confirmation bias twisted that actual class discussion into support of his evolution denial.

We also see that, while Sal may be a good student of science history and facts, he hasn't absorbed the methods of science

An assumption of Einstein’s relativity is that the speed of light is constant. If we accept Einstein’s theory as is, or even Maxwell’s equations as is, then the cosmos must be old and not young. Accepting an old cosmos was not a problem for me in class, because the assumption of an old cosmos is reasonable (unlike Darwin’s ridiculous idea that Darwinian processes can evolve a fish into a bird, and a cow into a whale).

I can accept old-earth ideas as a working hypothesis. However, if Einstien’s theory and Maxwell’s equations can be amended to allow temporal-spatial variations of the speed of light, then various YEC cosmologies can succeed without being inconsistent with present operational physics. I look forward to exploring the possibility of variable speed of light (VSL) and will blog on developments in VSL periodically…..

In effect, he says he'll accept scientific facts until he can get a degree, then cherry-pick evidence to support his discredited pet hypothesis. Sal presents himself as being open to whatever comes out of his "exploration," but typically people do not name their blogs after ideas that they're ambivalent towards [hint, it's named Young Cosmos].

There is more evidence of ideological bias and a blatant false dichotomy in the final paragraph.

I can, as a Christian, accept an old cosmos if that’s the way it really is. However, if the universe is young, and if a VSL cosmology succeeds, it will not only prove ID, but also special creation. It will also strongly suggest the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God. It will affirm the geneology of Jesus Christ in Luke chapter 3. I pray that if the Cosmos is Young, God will help the search for evidence along those lines.

Sorry, Sal. Even if there is evidence that the speed of light can change, that says zip zero zilch about ID. Any theory must stand or fall on its own merits and evidence, and ID has nothing behind it. It cannot just ride the coattails of a possible but improbable idea in an unrelated field. And under what tortured logic could a variable speed of light support the existence of a particular god? What does that have to do with the family tree of one organism out of trillions on one planet around one star out of millions in one galaxy out of billions? I think Sal has delusions of grandeur about his delusions.

Continue Reading...

Another Post re: Sal Cordova

I really wasn't going to write about Sal Cordova's latest misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. Even though it's a long article, there didn't seem to be enough there to give me anything of substance to write about. But thanks to Blake Stacey's comment on my last post on Sal Cordova showing me that Tyler DiPietro had written a bit about the new post, I had enough to go on.

Remember this equation from before? It was never explained what any of this means. In Sal's recent article, we get something almost a little like mathematical information about the equation.

Sal writes,

That conceptual merging of all quantum systems is represented by the quantum system of the universe, or (for lack of a better term), the Universal Wave Function. Taking the Schrodinger equation and generalizing it for the entire universe, we have the universal wave function as derived by Barrow and Tipler: [picture] where the indexed Psi’s are the individual quantum systems, and the O’s are the “observations."

There is zero probability that Sal didn't just copy that out of a book. Why else would he capitalize "Universal Wave Function"? Does he know what a wave function is? Does he know what "observation" means? I sure don't, not in this context anyway.

Let's analyze this equation for a bit. Why would you multiply a wave function with this "observation"? Why sum them up? In fact, every time we see an index i we see a k, yet i and k are summed separately. Why? The product is over n, yet n only appears in the "observation." Why? What are these indices supposed to mean? What does any of this mean? Perhaps Sal should understand that math doesn't just pop out of nowhere like a child's birthday magic show: it needs to be derived. And preferably explained.

Sal then cites a respectable, peer-reviewed geocities page when he says, "Jenny Nielsen explains this beautifully in A Report on 'The Delayed Choice Experiment'.” Wait, did I say "cites"? I meant "reproduces the entire article."

For physically actualized systems, it appears then a measurement is essential for the system to be actualized.

I can only infer from this that Sal thinks before humans were around measuring everything, nothing in the universe is "actualized." When we're not looking, everything ceases to be.

For example, we see measurements defining the boundary conditions of a quantum system such as illustrated by the Nobel Prize winning experiment known as Stern Gerlach.

The Stern-Gerlach experiment has nothing to do with measurement, and everything to do with demonstrating spin. Well, I guess it does trivially have to do with measurement, as one needs to measure something to get any information from the experiment. However, I can assure you, the Stern-Gerlach experiment would run the same way whether someone was watching or not. The point of the experiment is that there is an intrinsic angular momentum to the electron and that it is quantized.

[John Barrow and Frank Tipler's book Anthropic Cosmological Principle] was hailed by the prestigious scientific journal Nature. However, in 1996, when Tipler came forward and said the “Ultimate Observer” was to be identified with the Judeo-Christian God, Tipler’s ideas were immediately ridiculed and his pay was cut.

In fact, I've found the review in question. But my university's online subscription to Nature only goes back to 01-01-87, and this article was published on 08-14-86. So close. I'll have to go to the library and track it down later.

In a comment on Tyler's article, Blake Stacey writes about a different review of Tipler.

Actually, a review of Tipler's Physics of Immortality, published in Nature, called that book "a masterpiece of pseudoscience ... the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific and philosophical discipline". It's funny Cordova doesn't mention that review, isn't it?

So, another day, another butchering of quantum mechanics. Expect another soon enough.

Continue Reading...

It Makes Me Want to Tear My Hair Out, But I Can't Stop Listening

I've been listening to the The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe for about a year and a half now. A few months ago I decided to go through the archives; I really should have done this when I first started listening since they now have twice as many episodes as then, but such is life. One upside is that I know some good things are still to come (though there are also some very bad things).

Today I've gotten to my favorite episode: Skepticast 51. The Neal Adams interview. If you've never listened to the show, at least listen to this one. It's a classic.

Neal is a proponent of a plate-tectonic-denying expanding earth theory. He holds that matter is constantly being created inside the earth which expands as a result. A theory such as his more or less requires a complete rewriting of every branch of science, including but not limited to geology, planetary science, particle physics, astrophysics, cosmology, and even biology. Yes, Neal Adams seems to fancy himself as seeing basic facts that have somehow eluded every single working scientist for at least the past fifty years.

On the show you can hear his responses to several basic scientific challenges. The first one to jump out is the fact that matter can't be created, and you have to hear his response to believe it. But my favorite challenge is a different one, which I will quote here.

Bob Novella: Let me just try to see some ramifications here. If the earth had less mass in the past, therefore it was less massive and had less gravitational pull, correct? If that's the case, if the earth's mass is increasing, why is the moon moving away from us instead of coming closer to us as the gravitational pull inevitably increases?

Neal: (condescending) Be-cause the moon is getting bigger, too. They're all growing.

Bob and Steve, together: That would make it even worse!

Neal: Not really, no. Because... it sorta works like this. ... (sigh) ... You have to understand the whole theory. There's a whooole massive theory to this.

Bob: Gravity is gravity.

Neal: (condescending again) Well, gravity is not necessarily gravity, is it? Gravity could be electromagnetic in nature, couldn't it?

Bob: No.

It goes on, but you can get the gist of the interview from that passage alone. Trust me, it's worth a listen. Of course, in the wonderfully skeptical words of LeVar Burton, "You don't have to take my word for it!" Just listen for yourself!

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...

Sometimes Bad Arguments are Funny

From Saint Gasoline.

Continue Reading...

Bonesparkle revisited

A while ago I read an article called "The problem with democracy in America…". Perhaps you read my response, but probably not. Well, the author, Bonesparkle, somehow or other got wind of my meager offerings. Soon after, another article, entitled "The sorry state of skepticism in St. Louis", appeared on their site. It wasn't exactly complementary, but that's no problem. I'll take this opportunity to respond to the points therein.

Bonesparkle enumerates the points, and I will follow suit.

1: I wish my judges were less anonymous.
In their opening salvo they refer to me as someone writing under the “nom de blog Bonesparkle,” although it’s painfully apparent that they didn’t feel a need to invest 30 seconds in clicking on the Writer page to review my bio (and one can’t help but wonder how that would have affected their critique).

I assure you, my critique would have been exactly the same given any details of Bonesparkle’s life, or none. Judging an idea based on aspects of the author is an ad hominem, so I do not feel I need to research an author before analyzing his or her work. And I refer to the author as “Bonesparkle” because that’s how the posts are signed. My posts are signed with my own nom de blog, “Flavin”, but you’ll never see that in Bonesparkle’s article. I am referred to as “they” for some reason, as if I am the entire Society. Or perhaps it’s used as a gender-neutral singular pronoun; I don’t know.

Further, I have to take it on faith that they’re in fact graduate students in St. Louis, because they don’t do their readers even the courtesy of an About page (that I could find), let alone bios on the actual people who fancy themselves a viable panel for “critical examination” of that which falls into their view.

Perhaps I’m simply quaint and old-fashioned, but I like to know who’s pronouncing judgment on me. There’s always the possibility that credibility might matter.

Perhaps I’m old-fashioned, but I like to think that my writing stands on its own, regardless of who I am or what I do. As I said, judging an idea based on aspects of the author is an ad hominem

2: They reject the wild assertion that our society is more complex now than it used to be.

Untrue. I do not reject this assertion for the same reason I don’t accept it. There isn’t any evidence in the articles either way.

Once upon a time a monkey figured out that whacking another monkey with a stick was more effective than using its paws. There you had an innovation with decided ethical implications. This means that prehistory was as technologically complex as the current day.

This is a straw man. Obviously technology has progressed exponentially just in the past century, let alone since prehistory. I was responding to this passage from the original article:

Society is unimaginably more complex now, 85 years on, and if anything citizens - excuse me, consumers - are even less capable of understanding the issues that shape their lives than they were then.

Leaving aside the “complexity” that neither of us took the time to define, there is a clear claim that citizens are “less capable of understanding the issues that shape their lives than they were [in the 1920s].” This claim is completely unsupported. My examples tried to address this by citing examples of issues that have challenged understanding in the past, and perhaps they failed to do so. But taking down my examples does nothing to address my point that Bonesparkle makes a claim and doesn’t provide supporting evidence.

3: In St. Louis-style skepticism, all you need to disprove a rule is an exception or two.

Note the mild ad hominem in “St. Louis-style skepticism”; we’ll see a lot of that. And I was never trying to disprove any rules, only point out a lack of evidence. We’ve already seen a lot of this so far, and we’ll see more.

We’ll begin by ignoring the intellectual dishonesty involved in intimating that I somehow established a doctorate as a prerequisite for voting. Second, we’ll ignore the even more egregious intellectual dishonesty in leading their readers to believe that I said a PhD makes you smarter “across the board.” I said no such thing.

Well, for fairness, I said no such thing either. Here Bonesparkle is addressing my statement that, “[w]hile I’m sure we would all like to think having a PhD makes one more informed and intelligent across the board, I’d like to see some evidence that it’s so.” If this read as me trying to put words in Bonesparkle’s mouth, I hastily apologize. I meant no such thing, and this was the farthest idea from my mind. I was trying to address my small audience, made mostly of graduate students, and this was the “we” to whom I referred. I was trying to be a bit clever, and it seems to have fallen flat. Again, I apologize.

Bonesparkle takes the point too far, however. We see a hasty generalization in this statement:

And at this stage you have important data on the ethical foundations of the St. Louis Skeptical Society.

I think Bonesparkle could do with a dose of the good advice from end of the article. I’m sorry if my statements were easily misinterpreted; I’ll do my best to avoid this in the future. But this in no way impugns the ethics of my group. I have apologized for my statements. Will we see the same from Bonesparkle? I would hope one who is quick to judge intellectual dishonesty would strive for the peak of honesty in one’s own writings, either not basing accusations on misinterpretations or at least retracting those accusations when suitable corrections have been made.

A few more straw men follow, based on this form: a claim is made, a few examples are presented, and the claim is pronounced true or false as desired. However, this has nothing to do with my statements. My examples were not intended to prove or disprove anything. They were ancillary to the main point: that Bonesparkle makes claims without supporting evidence. The examples could easily be dispensed with, and perhaps I will do so in the future.

By the way, is it just me, or is there a certain … asymmetry … to people making a point of billing their graduate-level credentials in the masthead and then suggesting that education doesn’t necessarily make you smarter?

I suggested no such thing. Education and intelligence are correlated*; those who complete more schooling tend to be more intelligent than those who complete less, on average. I’d be interested to see how strong this correlation is, however. Forgive me, but here’s an example: are those who drop out of high school in the fourth year more or less intelligent, on average, than those who drop out of college in the first year? An interesting question, and one I’d certainly not make any concrete statements about. What I actually said was, “the premise that intelligence makes one more suited to vote or to represent the public is flawed.” This was the assertion of Bonesparkle’s first argument, and this is what I argued against. Perhaps my argument was ineffective if it could so easily be changed from being about intelligence and voting to being about intelligence and education.

4: In St. Louis, skepticism means you’re responsible for the veracity of things you never said and, in fact, have never even thought in your whole life.
For example, they pretend I said that there’s not a single qualified elected representative in America.

Well, I did quote another statement from Bonesparkle I think is pretty clear.

Brilliant people are a minority in any nation, and the excellence of any endeavor requires the participation of that elite group. In America they are despised and mocked, and under no circumstances are they elected to high office. [Emphasis mine]

This says there are no “brilliant” or “elite” people in high office, and this is what I responded to.

5: Finally, just for the record, with St. Louis Skepticism the burden of proof is always on you.

As the claimant, it most certainly is your responsibility to present evidence supporting your claims. It is not my job to provide evidence to disprove them unless I make counterclaims, which I did not. That’s not just how skepticism works in St. Louis, but all over the world.

Truly, I appreciate the earnestness and effort that went into this critique.

In all honesty, I appreciate the time and effort put into the response. As Bonesparkle pointed out, we are new as an organization, and even newer as a blog. In fact, my critique of this article was one of my first pieces of critical writing, and I’m sure it showed. But, cutting off the obvious ad hominem before it begins, this greenness in no way makes me wrong. My points stand: you make the claims, you support them. I make the claim that this support is not present in the article, and my evidence is numerous quotes. The response failed to address my claim, my evidence, or the lack of evidence in the original article. We only saw a collection of non sequiturs, ad hominems, and straw men.

I say again that I sincerely appreciate Bonesparkle’s work. I need this kind of analysis to grow as a critical writer. But the flaws in my writing were not flaws in my reasoning, which Bonesparkle failed to address.

We end with a piece of advice, possibly given in sarcasm, but still taken very seriously.

I would advise the St. Louis Skeptical Society to pay closer attention to the context of that which they are critiquing and to approach their subjects with a bit more respect and a good deal more attention to intellectual honesty.

I have tried to follow this advice in my current response, and will continue to do so in the future.

---

UPDATE: *Since I did make a specific claim here, I found a reference backing up my assertion that intelligence and education correlate (abstract).

Continue Reading...

Re: The Problem with Democracy in America

Through a chain of links I recently found an article entitled "The Problem with Democracy in America" on the political blog Scholars and Rouges. On first readthrough, I agreed with this article, but after critical examination I found it sloppy and unsupported. This will take a while to relate to skepticism, but stick with me.

The author, who goes by the nom de blog Bonesparkle, offers this thesis (with italics and bolding preserved from the original): "The problem with democracy in America is that too many people are allowed to participate."

To elaborate more on the argument presented:

1. Society is more complex now than it used to be, and most people will never understand it.

As my friend Walter Lippman noted as far back as the 1920s, ours is a complex society, and it’s almost impossible for the average citizen to know enough about most issues to actually cultivate an informed opinion. Society is unimaginably more complex now, 85 years on, and if anything citizens - excuse me, consumers - are even less capable of understanding the issues that shape their lives than they were then.

What makes the author think society today is more complex and difficult to understand than at any time in the past? Oh, maybe because we have cutting-edge research with ethical implications. That’s never happened before. Never before have scientific discoveries challenged the beliefs and morals of the public at large or the established rulers. Never ever. And the fact that a war is going on because of a misinterpretation (or misrepresentation) of prewar events also has never taken place in all of human history. Obviously Bonesparkle doesn’t remember The Maine.

2.The opinions of "smart" people are better than the opinions of "stupid" people.
2.a. Only smart people should be allowed to run the country.
2.b. In America they do not run the country.

Brilliant people are a minority in any nation, and the excellence of any endeavor requires the participation of that elite group. In America they are despised and mocked, and under no circumstances are they elected to high office.

A goodly number of Americans aren’t intelligent enough to be safely entrusted with the vote.

In fact, the author offers a second post in order to clarify this point, replete with citations to poll numbers.

While I’m sure we would all like to think having a PhD makes one more informed and intelligent across the board, I’d like to see some evidence that it’s so. As counterexamples, I offer Michael Behe, intelligent design advocate, and Linus Pauling, Nobel laureate in chemistry and peace, also advocate of megadosing vitamin c (see Quackwatch article). While I may accept a well-formed argument that the voting public should be better informed, the premise that intelligence makes one more suited to vote or to represent the public is flawed.

What evidence does the author present that America does not have intelligent representatives? Sure, we all have heard plenty of Bushisms and know about Senator Ted "Series of Tubes" Stevens. But there are smart, science-savvy representatives out there; for instance, minority whip and Illinois Senator Dick Durban (born, by the way, on the East side).

3. Conclusion: …

Since Bonesparkle doesn’t present much of a conclusion, I’ll try to take mine clear. We as skeptics may be ready to jump on the bandwagon that the uninformed public is the source of a lot of problems. I know I’m ready to do that. But I feel the things I am most apt to do without thinking are the things I should think about the most critically. Luckily, I did that with this article. On first reading I agreed with the author and felt that an uninformed public is a problem in a democracy. After writing out the argument and examining the logic, however, I found it lacking. The premises had nothing to do with the thesis, i.e. the thesis is that "too many people are allowed to participate," but the claims made are about intelligence and ability to understand. Not to mention that the given claims are not supported by the evidence presented.

Always check the evidence. Follow links. Look at sources. And don’t let your confirmation bias overwhelm your critical thinking.

---

UPDATE: Fixed bad link.

Continue Reading...