6 ms·

Sorry to break this to you but this is crackpot science, and there is no way such a manuscript can pass through any respectable physicist. Obviously you're not

by tagrun 10y ago

Sorry to break this to you but this is crackpot science, and there is no way such a manuscript can pass through any respectable physicist. Obviously you're not a physicist; let me simply say that this is not how a scientific paper looks like. It is just some philosophical text attempting to interpret some basic concepts in physics, introducing new fields no one ever seen (seriously?), and myriad of strange conjectures coming from nowhere and it goes borderline mysticism about vacuum. There is no new basic equation from which you can derive new, experimentally testable conclusions. It's not even wrong. Here're a few gems from his "theory": > The energy is inseparable attribute of the matter. > The Bohr atomic model is a correct mathematical model when assuming that the space is void. > The intrinsic matter could never disappear. > The vacuum is not a void space, but contains a unique grid structure. This grid structure named a Cosmic Lattice (CL) is built by two types of alternatively arranged nodes, each one containing 4 sub-elementary particles with shape of six sided prisms. > The Newton’s gravitation (universal gravitational law) is a propagation of the IG field in CL space What?!? I'm sorry but I can't believe I wasted ~10 minutes reading this crap. Yes, sorry about the language, but this is bullshit pseudoscience and any sane respectable physicist will reject this and blacklist this guy. Here's how new theories in physics work: you put very little and very very basic assumptions into your theory (which is essentially an equation, that is compatible with experiments and hence is compatible with the old theory within a certain limited domain) and new stuff you derive from your basic equation comes out it in the form of experimentally testable predictions. You have to get a lot more stuff than you put into building your theory. Special relativity is a very nice example, you just assume Galilean invariance and constantancy of speed of light and out comes time-dilation, length contraction, energy-mass relation. If you add equivalence principle you get general relativity which gives you spacetime and new theory of gravity, blackholes, etc etc. And old Newtonian physics is happily reproduced when speeds and energy densities are small. And most importantly, predictions of new theory agrees with observations and experiments in the domain where the old theory failed. Some intermediate mathematical stuff between your basic equation and experimentally testable measurable predictions might be difficult to interpret (wavefunction and entanglement with Schordinger equation, "holes" with Dirac equation, virtual particles, etc.) but you don't dwell on this stuff like a philosopher because neither your current theory nor experiments doesn't give you a deeper understanding to it anyway. So instead of going mystic, you sweep the non-testable stuff under the rug, hope that future physicist will have a better theory eventually and just "Shut up and calculate". What you don't do is, you don't pull a myriad of new philosophical stuff out of nowhere where your assumptions are all that comes out and call it physics. Even if you're not a physicist, you can see what kind of a "scientist" he is by checking his publication history (0 papers in any respectable physics journal).

chopin 10y ago
The requirement of testable predictions would rule out an entire field of current theoretical physics. Not that I disagree with you (quite the contrary), but (almost) no paper on String theory would be accepted under that rule. Also, papers on pilot wave theory vs. Kopenhagen interpretation would come to mind.
- poelzi 10y ago
  The BSM model is testable in every aspect. That the basic building blocks are just fucking small compared to a neutrino for example, is a physical problem. The model does not prevent you from measuring it, quite the contrary compared to many other unified models currently discussed. You could for example find another plateau in FQHE and the model would be gone.
- tagrun 10y ago
  Science isn't a computer program based on some simple algorithm. I understand that it can be difficult to spot crackpot to a layman. 1. String theory doesn't assume 20 crazy things and its axioms aren't its only predictions 2. String theory does have a basic equation from which you draw many results, leading to falsifiable predictions that is not covered by standard model. Some of them may not practical with today's experimental tools, but that's not all of them. I take you haven't seen any string theory papers. I'm saying we're suddenly going to see superparticles this year at LHC, but it is entirely plausible that if they exist, LHC should eventually detect them. 3. You're probably talking about this http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/2/e1501466 http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/2/e1501466 recently posted on HN. In case you missed, that is an experimental paper.
poelzi 10y ago
You pulling most out of context. The theory is here: http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Structures-Matter-Supergravitation-Unified/dp/1412083877 http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Structures-Matter-Supergravitati... Most of your points are taken out of context. If you don't understand the model, they don't make much sense. First this are the basic assumptions: - 3 dimensional eucledian space without physical properties - 2 types of very small fundamental particels. Basically balls that are indestructible and vibrate - 1 law of attraction valid in empty space. F_sg = G_0 * (m1*m2)/r^3. Which makes logical sense in our 3 dimensions. - classical logic >> The energy is inseparable attribute of the matter. You don't understand the difference between Newtonian mass and matter in this model. Newtownian mass is a derived effect of all high level structures that are impassible by CL space - eg. a certain size. >> The Bohr atomic model is a correct mathematical model when assuming that the space is void. After certain constants from the standard model are derived, eg. chapter 2,3,5,6 you can put up a mathematical model that is like the Bohr one, but this is not what the BSM model actually shows. Once you understand the geometric structure of protons/neutrons/electrons you will understand that even quantum mechanics is very close to the Bohr model compared to the BSM one. >> The intrinsic matter could never disappear. Yes. It would violate the energy conservation and it has been shown that this is the golden rule. As said mass != matter !!!! >> The vacuum is not a void space, but contains a unique grid structure. This grid structure named a Cosmic Lattice (CL) is built by two types of alternatively arranged nodes, each one containing 4 sub-elementary particles with shape of six sided prisms. It becomes obvious once a super massive black hole is understood, how a crystalization process will first create those complex formed prisms with it's substructures and later high level structures like protons/neutrons/electrons. Unfortunately apart from one type of GRBs as the last signature of the process, it is mostly hidden from observation due physical reasons. > The Newton’s gravitation (universal gravitational law) is a propagation of the IG field in CL space So, you neigher will be able to understand CL space nor the IG field by now and the first thing you cry is crackpottery. > Even if you're not a physicist, you can see what kind of a "scientist" he is by checking his publication history (0 papers in any respectable physics journal). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stoyan_Sargoytchev/publications https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stoyan_Sargoytchev/publ... you are very bad at searching I have to say. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics Annales Geophysicae Indian Journal of Physics Canadian Journal of Physics Applied Optics Physics Essays Advances in Space Research Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering ... To deduce a complete new model, you need to have a look in all areas of physics/chemistry and not just at one, especially theoretical ones. And you need to read a lot of papers and especially the ones that contradict the status quo. And yes, the model explains much more then the standard model through fewer assumptions. Most of your "constants" are just derived.

by tagrun 10y ago

chopin 10y ago

The requirement of testable predictions would rule out an entire field of current theoretical physics. Not that I disagree with you (quite the contrary), but (almost) no paper on String theory would be accepted under that rule. Also, papers on pilot wave theory vs. Kopenhagen interpretation would come to mind.

poelzi 10y ago
The BSM model is testable in every aspect. That the basic building blocks are just fucking small compared to a neutrino for example, is a physical problem. The model does not prevent you from measuring it, quite the contrary compared to many other unified models currently discussed. You could for example find another plateau in FQHE and the model would be gone.
tagrun 10y ago
Science isn't a computer program based on some simple algorithm. I understand that it can be difficult to spot crackpot to a layman. 1. String theory doesn't assume 20 crazy things and its axioms aren't its only predictions 2. String theory does have a basic equation from which you draw many results, leading to falsifiable predictions that is not covered by standard model. Some of them may not practical with today's experimental tools, but that's not all of them. I take you haven't seen any string theory papers. I'm saying we're suddenly going to see superparticles this year at LHC, but it is entirely plausible that if they exist, LHC should eventually detect them. 3. You're probably talking about this http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/2/e1501466 http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/2/e1501466 recently posted on HN. In case you missed, that is an experimental paper.

poelzi 10y ago

You pulling most out of context. The theory is here: http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Structures-Matter-Supergravitation-Unified/dp/1412083877 http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Structures-Matter-Supergravitati... Most of your points are taken out of context. If you don't understand the model, they don't make much sense. First this are the basic assumptions: - 3 dimensional eucledian space without physical properties - 2 types of very small fundamental particels. Basically balls that are indestructible and vibrate - 1 law of attraction valid in empty space. F_sg = G_0 * (m1*m2)/r^3. Which makes logical sense in our 3 dimensions. - classical logic >> The energy is inseparable attribute of the matter. You don't understand the difference between Newtonian mass and matter in this model. Newtownian mass is a derived effect of all high level structures that are impassible by CL space - eg. a certain size. >> The Bohr atomic model is a correct mathematical model when assuming that the space is void. After certain constants from the standard model are derived, eg. chapter 2,3,5,6 you can put up a mathematical model that is like the Bohr one, but this is not what the BSM model actually shows. Once you understand the geometric structure of protons/neutrons/electrons you will understand that even quantum mechanics is very close to the Bohr model compared to the BSM one. >> The intrinsic matter could never disappear. Yes. It would violate the energy conservation and it has been shown that this is the golden rule. As said mass != matter !!!! >> The vacuum is not a void space, but contains a unique grid structure. This grid structure named a Cosmic Lattice (CL) is built by two types of alternatively arranged nodes, each one containing 4 sub-elementary particles with shape of six sided prisms. It becomes obvious once a super massive black hole is understood, how a crystalization process will first create those complex formed prisms with it's substructures and later high level structures like protons/neutrons/electrons. Unfortunately apart from one type of GRBs as the last signature of the process, it is mostly hidden from observation due physical reasons. > The Newton’s gravitation (universal gravitational law) is a propagation of the IG field in CL space So, you neigher will be able to understand CL space nor the IG field by now and the first thing you cry is crackpottery. > Even if you're not a physicist, you can see what kind of a "scientist" he is by checking his publication history (0 papers in any respectable physics journal). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stoyan_Sargoytchev/publications https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stoyan_Sargoytchev/publ... you are very bad at searching I have to say. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics Annales Geophysicae Indian Journal of Physics Canadian Journal of Physics Applied Optics Physics Essays Advances in Space Research Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering ... To deduce a complete new model, you need to have a look in all areas of physics/chemistry and not just at one, especially theoretical ones. And you need to read a lot of papers and especially the ones that contradict the status quo. And yes, the model explains much more then the standard model through fewer assumptions. Most of your "constants" are just derived.