5 ms·

Speaking as a experimental physicist: The research shown is relatively inexpensive, and can be pulled off with what many labs probably have lying around anyway

by sonium 10y ago

Speaking as a experimental physicist: The research shown is relatively inexpensive, and can be pulled off with what many labs probably have lying around anyways. I'm sure it's more a work of love anyways and the guys doing this are probably facing serious headwind for trying 'crazy stuff'.

lifeisstillgood 10y ago
Shouldn't crazy stuff be exactly why we fund tenured positions? I would like to think tenure still produces crazy scientists
- lutusp 10y ago
  > Shouldn't crazy stuff be exactly why we fund tenured positions? Crazy stuff becomes an option after one is granted tenure, it doesn't necessarily make one more likely to achieve tenure. On the other hand, theoretical physicists aren't very expensive -- they only need a blackboard and an eraser. Compare that to a philosopher -- much the same but without the eraser.
  - lifeisstillgood 10y ago
    Badah dum tish!
    - oceanswave 10y ago
      Classic, textbook example of lifeisgood-oceanswave syndrome.
- lomnakkus 10y ago
  I think you misunderstand. Tenure is usually granted to people with a (sometimes minor) track record of their ideas working out. Essentially it amounts to a bet on things to come, or IOW of "is person X a crank or not?". This, of course, is also tied to the field in which they are working, etc. (Sure, some good researchers turn into cranks later in life[1], but usually in a different -- often unrelated -- field.) [1] Nobel prize winners often succumb to this, sadly.
  - MPSimmons 10y ago
    Seems like having the preeminent researchers in a field be the ones to do the weirdest research while teaching students on the foundations and established research is a pretty solid decision.
  - grkvlt 10y ago
    I guess you're referring to Brian Josephson, who went from superconductors (Nobel prize) to things like telepathy etc. but I'm interested if there are other examples. A quick search turns up Kary Mullis as a possible other example, but I don't know too much about him, and it's a difficult topic to research.
    - cschmidt 10y ago
      Linus Pauling (two Nobel prizes!) jumps to mind with his Vitamin C work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling#Medical_research_and_vitamin_C_advocacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling#Medical_research...
officialjunk 10y ago
This paper that investigates how the EM propulsion drives might generate thrust, and as a side effect, the theory explains certain phenomena that we attribute to dark matter and dark energy. i only have undergrad physics degree, but it sounds interesting. anyone with more experience have any thoughts about this? http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03449v1.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03449v1.pdf >McCulloch (2007) has proposed a new model for inertia (MiHsC) that assumes that the inertia of an object is due to the Unruh radiation it sees when it accelerates, radiation which is also subject to a Hubble-scale Casimir effect. In this model only Unruh wavelengths that fit exactly into twice the Hubble diameter are allowed, so that a greater proportion of the waves are disallowed for low accelerations (which see longer Unruh waves) leading to a gradual new loss of inertia as accelerations become tiny. MiHsC modifies the standard inertial mass (m) to a modified one (m_i) as follows: m_i = m (1-(2c^2)/(|a|Θ)) = m (1 - λ/4Θ) (1) where c is the speed of light, Θ is twice the Hubble distance, ’|a|’ is the mag- nitude of the relative acceleration of the object relative to surrounding matter and λ is the peak wavelength of the Unruh radiation it sees. Eq. 1 predicts that for terrestrial accelerations (eg: 9.8m/s2) the second term in the bracket is tiny and standard inertia is recovered, but in low acceleration environments, for example at the edges of galaxies (when a is small and λ is large) the sec- ond term in the bracket becomes larger and the inertial mass decreases in a new way so that MiHsC can explain galaxy rotation without the need for dark matter (McCulloch, 2012) and cosmic acceleration without the need for dark energy (McCulloch, 2007, 2010).
- caconym_ 10y ago
  I mentioned this elsewhere in this thread. I'm really interested to hear some context around it from someone who knows what they're talking about; to me, it's a more appealing explanation than "conservation of momentum is wrong" or "we're using the quantum vacuum as a tractive medium which is supposed to be impossible but whatever".
  - jasonwatkinspdx 10y ago
    IANAP, just someone with a lay understanding that's been following a lot of these topics for a while now. As I understand it McCulloch's requirement that wavelengths fit within the cosmic horizon is an assumption, not a proven logical implication. Additionally I think a lot of physicists are dismissive because they expect someone who desires to upend mainline theory to at least demonstrate fluency with the mathematics of mainline theory. McCulloch falls short of this. All that said, I think he's genuine in his pursuit and I've really enjoyed reading his blog over the years.

by sonium 10y ago

lifeisstillgood 10y ago

Shouldn't crazy stuff be exactly why we fund tenured positions? I would like to think tenure still produces crazy scientists

lutusp 10y ago
> Shouldn't crazy stuff be exactly why we fund tenured positions? Crazy stuff becomes an option after one is granted tenure, it doesn't necessarily make one more likely to achieve tenure. On the other hand, theoretical physicists aren't very expensive -- they only need a blackboard and an eraser. Compare that to a philosopher -- much the same but without the eraser.
- lifeisstillgood 10y ago
  Badah dum tish!
  - oceanswave 10y ago
    Classic, textbook example of lifeisgood-oceanswave syndrome.
lomnakkus 10y ago
I think you misunderstand. Tenure is usually granted to people with a (sometimes minor) track record of their ideas working out. Essentially it amounts to a bet on things to come, or IOW of "is person X a crank or not?". This, of course, is also tied to the field in which they are working, etc. (Sure, some good researchers turn into cranks later in life[1], but usually in a different -- often unrelated -- field.) [1] Nobel prize winners often succumb to this, sadly.
- MPSimmons 10y ago
  Seems like having the preeminent researchers in a field be the ones to do the weirdest research while teaching students on the foundations and established research is a pretty solid decision.
- grkvlt 10y ago
  I guess you're referring to Brian Josephson, who went from superconductors (Nobel prize) to things like telepathy etc. but I'm interested if there are other examples. A quick search turns up Kary Mullis as a possible other example, but I don't know too much about him, and it's a difficult topic to research.
  - cschmidt 10y ago
    Linus Pauling (two Nobel prizes!) jumps to mind with his Vitamin C work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling#Medical_research_and_vitamin_C_advocacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling#Medical_research...

officialjunk 10y ago

This paper that investigates how the EM propulsion drives might generate thrust, and as a side effect, the theory explains certain phenomena that we attribute to dark matter and dark energy. i only have undergrad physics degree, but it sounds interesting. anyone with more experience have any thoughts about this? http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03449v1.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03449v1.pdf >McCulloch (2007) has proposed a new model for inertia (MiHsC) that assumes that the inertia of an object is due to the Unruh radiation it sees when it accelerates, radiation which is also subject to a Hubble-scale Casimir effect. In this model only Unruh wavelengths that fit exactly into twice the Hubble diameter are allowed, so that a greater proportion of the waves are disallowed for low accelerations (which see longer Unruh waves) leading to a gradual new loss of inertia as accelerations become tiny. MiHsC modifies the standard inertial mass (m) to a modified one (m_i) as follows: m_i = m (1-(2c^2)/(|a|Θ)) = m (1 - λ/4Θ) (1) where c is the speed of light, Θ is twice the Hubble distance, ’|a|’ is the mag- nitude of the relative acceleration of the object relative to surrounding matter and λ is the peak wavelength of the Unruh radiation it sees. Eq. 1 predicts that for terrestrial accelerations (eg: 9.8m/s2) the second term in the bracket is tiny and standard inertia is recovered, but in low acceleration environments, for example at the edges of galaxies (when a is small and λ is large) the sec- ond term in the bracket becomes larger and the inertial mass decreases in a new way so that MiHsC can explain galaxy rotation without the need for dark matter (McCulloch, 2012) and cosmic acceleration without the need for dark energy (McCulloch, 2007, 2010).

caconym_ 10y ago
I mentioned this elsewhere in this thread. I'm really interested to hear some context around it from someone who knows what they're talking about; to me, it's a more appealing explanation than "conservation of momentum is wrong" or "we're using the quantum vacuum as a tractive medium which is supposed to be impossible but whatever".
- jasonwatkinspdx 10y ago
  IANAP, just someone with a lay understanding that's been following a lot of these topics for a while now. As I understand it McCulloch's requirement that wavelengths fit within the cosmic horizon is an assumption, not a proven logical implication. Additionally I think a lot of physicists are dismissive because they expect someone who desires to upend mainline theory to at least demonstrate fluency with the mathematics of mainline theory. McCulloch falls short of this. All that said, I think he's genuine in his pursuit and I've really enjoyed reading his blog over the years.