22 ms·

I think this guy has hit the nail on the head: https://energywavetheory.com/subatomic-particles/ https://energywavetheory.com/subatomic-particles/ Take a look

I think this guy has hit the nail on the head: https://energywavetheory.com/subatomic-particles/ https://energywavetheory.com/subatomic-particles/ Take a look at how stupidly complex the standard model is compared to the other: https://energywavetheory.com/equations/theory-comparison/ https://energywavetheory.com/equations/theory-comparison/ Everything in the universe on that site is eloquently and simply explained, including gravity as a shading effect (think an eclipse/water waves acting on an obstacle: https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=150945 https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid...) ie. When a large mass causing the shading effect (eg earth) absorbs energy waves acting on us it causing less energy to reach you from the earth's direction and that means energy from above us pushes us down to Earth. All the math checks out too. Yes, the entire theory is based on the fact that aether exists, which has supposedly been disproved, but what if that's incorrect and launched an entire wild goose chase of alternative physics (string theory, standard model) all based on a flawed assumption. I think this reddit comment describes the situation beautifully: https://old.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/14o41lc/why_does_an_idea_of_aether_persist_into_the/jqcz7lx/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/14o41lc/why_doe...

wizzwizz4 2y ago
Anyone claiming that string theory is part of "the standard model", when proposing their alternative theory, is probably a crank. Anyone deriving "E=mc²", and claiming that as evidence of their theory, is almost certainly a crank.
- Risord 2y ago
  Sometimes I am wondering what if there is theory which have been on right track but it's (false?) falsified and already forgotten. Sure theory could be incomplete or incorrect on some ways but would that right part be noticed? For example I think it's too easy to imagine world where relativity or quantum theory would be socially falsified and/or left without any attention. Simple example experience I had when I was beginning of my physic studies (which I never finished) was when discussed with elder/smarter student about wheel friction. I was explaining that I had figured out that wheel spin actually matters when there is also side slip. [Total slip direction is dependent from spin speed.] But because he -knew- that wheel spin does not matter and he -knew- that he was better/smarter/etc. he was so focused to correct my mistake I was unable to convince him. How much this happens on higher stakes? So if situation is that there has not been much progress for a long time I think it could be valuable also understand these failed theories and of course very importantly why they are falsified. When I am working with hard problem I usually go this order: 1. Describe the problem. 2. Describe bunch of naive solutions. 3. Describe problems in those naive solutions. 4. "Describe problems in those problems": Why some of those problems do not hold water. Those can be workarounded, fixed or they actually are not really problem in this case or maybe some combination of naive solution properties gives working solution.
  - wizzwizz4 2y ago
    Did you run the experiment? I don't think wheel spin does matter when there's side slip. It matters when there would otherwise be static friction (e.g. if you're in a car with an ABS system), but I don't think it matters when it's just kinetic friction. (Of course, there are other kinds of friction, which might behave differently. I'm no friction expert. I imagine things get weird when water's involved, though.)
  - Risord 2y ago
    For some reason I cannot reply to your comment wizzwizz4. We are talking about dynamic friction in it's simplest form. You can treat it as simple math problem too. Let's consider two extreme cases: A: Side slip is 1m/s and wheel spin zero or very small. B: Side slip is 1m/s and wheel spin extremely big, let's say 1000m/s. I think we can agree that friction is always opposite to surface speed. If wheel spin is on x axis and side slip on y: On A case friction is (0, 1).normalized() * friction-coefficiency => (0, friction-coefficiency) On B case friction is (1000, 1).normalized() * friction-coefficiency => [approximately] (friction-coefficiency, 0) On classroom teacher says that slip does not matter. What teacher actually means that slip does not effect into -magnitude- of friction but this is left behind because problem is presented in context of 1D. Tho in 1D slip still matters little bit because there is difference is slip 1m/s or -1m/s.
    - wizzwizz4 2y ago
      > I think we can agree that friction is always opposite to surface speed. This isn't intuitively obvious to me. One explanation says "must be true", another explanation says "might be false". I'd want to run an experiment with a toy car on a polished surface. Unfortunately, I'm quite a way from the nearest place I could set up such an experiment.
      - Risord 2y ago
        In another words friction slows movement down and does not treat some direction on surface more preferable than others. Assuming regular surface this is pretty much definition of friction. I am not sure how well I have explained stuff but if you are able to experimentally disprove this it's worth of paper.
- aeonik 2y ago
  I just read quite a bit of the summary. Honestly, I don't really care if they are cranks. The theory makes for a fun read, and they have a lot of interesting ideas. Trying to identify where their theory is wrong is a fun exercise, at least for me. It also helps reinforce my existing physics knowledge when I see multiple perspectives, or alternative models of measurable phenomena. The cool part about this theory is they have some pretty specific predictions, like the resting mass of the Neutrino (~2.2eV). They also hypothesize that the Electron is made up of 10 Neutrinos arranged in a Tetrahedral pattern, and also hypothesize that the weak force can be explained via solar Neutrino bombardment. Which would theoretically be pretty easy to test, just test the radioactive decay of different materials in different Neutrino densities.

wizzwizz4 2y ago

Anyone claiming that string theory is part of "the standard model", when proposing their alternative theory, is probably a crank. Anyone deriving "E=mc²", and claiming that as evidence of their theory, is almost certainly a crank.

Risord 2y ago
Sometimes I am wondering what if there is theory which have been on right track but it's (false?) falsified and already forgotten. Sure theory could be incomplete or incorrect on some ways but would that right part be noticed? For example I think it's too easy to imagine world where relativity or quantum theory would be socially falsified and/or left without any attention. Simple example experience I had when I was beginning of my physic studies (which I never finished) was when discussed with elder/smarter student about wheel friction. I was explaining that I had figured out that wheel spin actually matters when there is also side slip. [Total slip direction is dependent from spin speed.] But because he -knew- that wheel spin does not matter and he -knew- that he was better/smarter/etc. he was so focused to correct my mistake I was unable to convince him. How much this happens on higher stakes? So if situation is that there has not been much progress for a long time I think it could be valuable also understand these failed theories and of course very importantly why they are falsified. When I am working with hard problem I usually go this order: 1. Describe the problem. 2. Describe bunch of naive solutions. 3. Describe problems in those naive solutions. 4. "Describe problems in those problems": Why some of those problems do not hold water. Those can be workarounded, fixed or they actually are not really problem in this case or maybe some combination of naive solution properties gives working solution.
- wizzwizz4 2y ago
  Did you run the experiment? I don't think wheel spin does matter when there's side slip. It matters when there would otherwise be static friction (e.g. if you're in a car with an ABS system), but I don't think it matters when it's just kinetic friction. (Of course, there are other kinds of friction, which might behave differently. I'm no friction expert. I imagine things get weird when water's involved, though.)
- Risord 2y ago
  For some reason I cannot reply to your comment wizzwizz4. We are talking about dynamic friction in it's simplest form. You can treat it as simple math problem too. Let's consider two extreme cases: A: Side slip is 1m/s and wheel spin zero or very small. B: Side slip is 1m/s and wheel spin extremely big, let's say 1000m/s. I think we can agree that friction is always opposite to surface speed. If wheel spin is on x axis and side slip on y: On A case friction is (0, 1).normalized() * friction-coefficiency => (0, friction-coefficiency) On B case friction is (1000, 1).normalized() * friction-coefficiency => [approximately] (friction-coefficiency, 0) On classroom teacher says that slip does not matter. What teacher actually means that slip does not effect into -magnitude- of friction but this is left behind because problem is presented in context of 1D. Tho in 1D slip still matters little bit because there is difference is slip 1m/s or -1m/s.
  - wizzwizz4 2y ago
    > I think we can agree that friction is always opposite to surface speed. This isn't intuitively obvious to me. One explanation says "must be true", another explanation says "might be false". I'd want to run an experiment with a toy car on a polished surface. Unfortunately, I'm quite a way from the nearest place I could set up such an experiment.
    - Risord 2y ago
      In another words friction slows movement down and does not treat some direction on surface more preferable than others. Assuming regular surface this is pretty much definition of friction. I am not sure how well I have explained stuff but if you are able to experimentally disprove this it's worth of paper.
aeonik 2y ago
I just read quite a bit of the summary. Honestly, I don't really care if they are cranks. The theory makes for a fun read, and they have a lot of interesting ideas. Trying to identify where their theory is wrong is a fun exercise, at least for me. It also helps reinforce my existing physics knowledge when I see multiple perspectives, or alternative models of measurable phenomena. The cool part about this theory is they have some pretty specific predictions, like the resting mass of the Neutrino (~2.2eV). They also hypothesize that the Electron is made up of 10 Neutrinos arranged in a Tetrahedral pattern, and also hypothesize that the weak force can be explained via solar Neutrino bombardment. Which would theoretically be pretty easy to test, just test the radioactive decay of different materials in different Neutrino densities.