3 ms·

The "background" section of this particular patent [0] starts pretty sane (if obviously a little grandiose--enough to get one's guard up) but rapidly and sudden

The "background" section of this particular patent [0] starts pretty sane (if obviously a little grandiose--enough to get one's guard up) but rapidly and suddenly dips off the rails. The trouble is that the mostly unintelligible details about "hyper-frequency" rotational and vibrational coupled modes are interspersed in a bunch of technically correct--if vapid--physical statements about quantum fields pervading all of spacetime, and other phenomena being emergent of excitations in these fields. (Notwithstanding the fact that uniting QFT with gravity is the biggest open problem in Physics today...) I think this is an illustrating case in how much easier it is to create high-falutin' nonsense than it is to debunk it. Most of the claims are somewhat vague but they touch on areas where someone needs a lot of knowledge and precision to coherently dispute them. I highly recommend reading a patent lawyer's research into the history of this particular patent from the last time it was posted here[1]. Apparently the examiner tried to reject the patent claim several times on technical bases, against the protest of some Navy brass, before finally admitting it without comment months later. [0] https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19763445 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19763445

phkahler 6y ago
>> I think this is an illustrating case in how much easier it is to create high-falutin' nonsense than it is to debunk it. Are there jobs around as debunkers? Sometime I think I'd be good at that. It seems like someone should have a vested interest in having accurate models of reality and being able to spot BS.
- heisenzombie 6y ago
  I mean, to be a bit reductive, that's what a scientist is. Someone whose job is to "debunk" hypotheses.
- dplavery92 6y ago
  Ironically, in the DoD contracting world there are roles like this; SETA (systems engineering and technical assurance) and SME (subject matter expert) contracting roles from disinterested third parties are usually a required function in DoD acquisition programs. These folks are basically paid skeptics of the work being done by the prime contractors, which is a good failsafe to build in for >$100MM tax-funded programs and for weapons and vehicles that can kill people. In this particular case, though, the hokum is coming internally from a government lab, and the work is early research, so it doesn't have to meet the same validation standards.

phkahler 6y ago

>> I think this is an illustrating case in how much easier it is to create high-falutin' nonsense than it is to debunk it. Are there jobs around as debunkers? Sometime I think I'd be good at that. It seems like someone should have a vested interest in having accurate models of reality and being able to spot BS.

heisenzombie 6y ago
I mean, to be a bit reductive, that's what a scientist is. Someone whose job is to "debunk" hypotheses.
dplavery92 6y ago
Ironically, in the DoD contracting world there are roles like this; SETA (systems engineering and technical assurance) and SME (subject matter expert) contracting roles from disinterested third parties are usually a required function in DoD acquisition programs. These folks are basically paid skeptics of the work being done by the prime contractors, which is a good failsafe to build in for >$100MM tax-funded programs and for weapons and vehicles that can kill people. In this particular case, though, the hokum is coming internally from a government lab, and the work is early research, so it doesn't have to meet the same validation standards.