5 ms·

Do people not know the standard for theories in physics? Is the brain rot this bad?

cluckindan 1y ago
Humor me, please. I was using the word ”theory” in the colloquial sense, not in the academic sense. The above is barely even a hypothesis. It does touch on string theory, pilot wave theory as well as causal set theory and would explain Hawking radiation, so the idea is clearly not entirely without merit.
- kittikitti 1y ago
  How would you respond to the anti-science folks who respond "it's just a theory" at anything they can find?
  - cluckindan 1y ago
    Please refrain from strawmen and ad hominem arguments. I am not anti-science and what I wrote above is not something I found.
- seanhunter 1y ago
  Well to start with, in your theory 1) If all that exists is vibrations, what is vibrating? 2) You say the vibrations are not three-dimensional, but you don’t say what they are. What are they? 3) If it would explain Hawking radiation, how would it explain it, and why do you consider Hawking not to have explained Hawking radiation? 4) What causes the oscillation to resist change? What does that mean and why does that create mass?
  - cluckindan 1y ago
    1: No idea, it is just a model. String theory also does not answer this question. It is a bit like asking ”which instrument does the universe play?” 2: See string theory, which kind of works similarly, assuming 1-dimensional strings. 3: Nobody has detected Hawking radiation as it is presumably very faint. It would explain the mechanics of its origin and its ability to radiate out of black holes (which no other form of radiation can do). This differs from Hawking’s explanation of spontaneous matter/antimatter pair generation at the event horizon in that here the radiation would genuinely originate from inside the event horizon. It is a more simple explanation: spontaneous pair generation is not required to explain the same phenomenon. 4: All oscillation resists change. If you place multiple metronomes on a desk, they will synchronize, but not instantly. If you play two strings on an instrument that are tuned almost the same, they both affect each other, each trying to resonate on its own frequency while resisting the resonance imparted by the other string - unless the strings are tuned in unison or in a harmonic. The two extreme examples are dissonance (resisting change) and consonance (accepting change, i.e. destructive and constructive interference. These principles are found everywhere from nature to the cosmos and to quantum mechanics. Why that would ”create mass” (as in, make it possible for a waveform to interact with itself/other waveforms in a way that looks like ”mass” to us) is a good question! As far as I understand, it has something to do with conservation of angular momentum and waveform curvature. If you have more questions, I will try to answer them!
    - seanhunter 1y ago
      Hawking explained the origin of Hawking radiation. That’s kind of why it’s called Hawking radiation. His explanation includes why it comes out of a black hole. The rest of it is, respectfully, “not even wrong”, so it wouldn’t really benefit either of us for me to try to engage further. Thanks for your response though. If you actually want to develop these ideas I would strongly encourage you to do some actual work to understand first classical mechanics and then the standard model. For example, if you read Kolenkow and Kleppner and do the exercises, you will realise the flaws in what you have written about oscillation and interference. Oscillation and the phenomenon of resonance really doesn’t work anything like you have written.
      - cluckindan 1y ago
        Well, I’m certainly not qualified to argue against Hawking. Still, the theory is very difficult to test empirically, so I would argue the bets are still open! I would assume my model is wrong in many ways. The reason I’m sharing my thoughts is not to claim they are the way things are, but to hopefully inspire someone to try building a theory that could explain the empirical, top-down-oriented Standard Model using a novel, minimalistic bottom-up approach. I could also be getting some terms wrong, English is not my first language and certainly was not the language of natural sciences instruction in my university.
        seanhunter 1y ago
        No, the bets are definitely not still open. Hawking described a model of particle behaviour on the event horizon of a black hole. His model predicts radiation arising from the mechanism described in the model. That may not be what happens in reality because as you pointed out, the radiation is predicted to be extremely faint and so it has not yet been detected, and therefore it is currently not empirically verified. You claim that your proposal predicts radiation from black holes (without explaining any mechanism other than it’s different from Hawking’s model). But here’s the thing: If it doesn’t happen the way Hawking’s model says, then it isn’t Hawking radiation. It could be that cluckindan radiation becomes a thing, but that’s not Hawking radiation. You’re not getting terms wrong, you’re making empirically unjustifiable statements that do not connect with each other or intersect with the observations we have made of the universe in any meaningful way. That’s what I mean by “not even wrong”.

Humor me, please. I was using the word ”theory” in the colloquial sense, not in the academic sense. The above is barely even a hypothesis. It does touch on string theory, pilot wave theory as well as causal set theory and would explain Hawking radiation, so the idea is clearly not entirely without merit.

kittikitti 1y ago
How would you respond to the anti-science folks who respond "it's just a theory" at anything they can find?
- cluckindan 1y ago
  Please refrain from strawmen and ad hominem arguments. I am not anti-science and what I wrote above is not something I found.
seanhunter 1y ago
Well to start with, in your theory 1) If all that exists is vibrations, what is vibrating? 2) You say the vibrations are not three-dimensional, but you don’t say what they are. What are they? 3) If it would explain Hawking radiation, how would it explain it, and why do you consider Hawking not to have explained Hawking radiation? 4) What causes the oscillation to resist change? What does that mean and why does that create mass?
- cluckindan 1y ago
  1: No idea, it is just a model. String theory also does not answer this question. It is a bit like asking ”which instrument does the universe play?” 2: See string theory, which kind of works similarly, assuming 1-dimensional strings. 3: Nobody has detected Hawking radiation as it is presumably very faint. It would explain the mechanics of its origin and its ability to radiate out of black holes (which no other form of radiation can do). This differs from Hawking’s explanation of spontaneous matter/antimatter pair generation at the event horizon in that here the radiation would genuinely originate from inside the event horizon. It is a more simple explanation: spontaneous pair generation is not required to explain the same phenomenon. 4: All oscillation resists change. If you place multiple metronomes on a desk, they will synchronize, but not instantly. If you play two strings on an instrument that are tuned almost the same, they both affect each other, each trying to resonate on its own frequency while resisting the resonance imparted by the other string - unless the strings are tuned in unison or in a harmonic. The two extreme examples are dissonance (resisting change) and consonance (accepting change, i.e. destructive and constructive interference. These principles are found everywhere from nature to the cosmos and to quantum mechanics. Why that would ”create mass” (as in, make it possible for a waveform to interact with itself/other waveforms in a way that looks like ”mass” to us) is a good question! As far as I understand, it has something to do with conservation of angular momentum and waveform curvature. If you have more questions, I will try to answer them!
  - seanhunter 1y ago
    Hawking explained the origin of Hawking radiation. That’s kind of why it’s called Hawking radiation. His explanation includes why it comes out of a black hole. The rest of it is, respectfully, “not even wrong”, so it wouldn’t really benefit either of us for me to try to engage further. Thanks for your response though. If you actually want to develop these ideas I would strongly encourage you to do some actual work to understand first classical mechanics and then the standard model. For example, if you read Kolenkow and Kleppner and do the exercises, you will realise the flaws in what you have written about oscillation and interference. Oscillation and the phenomenon of resonance really doesn’t work anything like you have written.
    - cluckindan 1y ago
      Well, I’m certainly not qualified to argue against Hawking. Still, the theory is very difficult to test empirically, so I would argue the bets are still open! I would assume my model is wrong in many ways. The reason I’m sharing my thoughts is not to claim they are the way things are, but to hopefully inspire someone to try building a theory that could explain the empirical, top-down-oriented Standard Model using a novel, minimalistic bottom-up approach. I could also be getting some terms wrong, English is not my first language and certainly was not the language of natural sciences instruction in my university.
      - seanhunter 1y ago
        No, the bets are definitely not still open. Hawking described a model of particle behaviour on the event horizon of a black hole. His model predicts radiation arising from the mechanism described in the model. That may not be what happens in reality because as you pointed out, the radiation is predicted to be extremely faint and so it has not yet been detected, and therefore it is currently not empirically verified. You claim that your proposal predicts radiation from black holes (without explaining any mechanism other than it’s different from Hawking’s model). But here’s the thing: If it doesn’t happen the way Hawking’s model says, then it isn’t Hawking radiation. It could be that cluckindan radiation becomes a thing, but that’s not Hawking radiation. You’re not getting terms wrong, you’re making empirically unjustifiable statements that do not connect with each other or intersect with the observations we have made of the universe in any meaningful way. That’s what I mean by “not even wrong”.