"Pseudo"-physics : how do we classify it?

Zillah

Pseudo-Physics: Multi-Dimensionality, Electromagnetism

I think that one should be renamed...or something. "Pseudo" means "false". Even if we want "fringe physics" then electromagnetism shouldn't be included, its a very well understood phenomenon.

Although im at a loss as to what it should be called.

6th

All these topics are to be considered with regards to their paranormal implications.

GuanYin

Moved from topics thread, discuss away.

stevenmu

I don't think pseudo literally means fake, I can't be bothered to look it up (and am probably making more work for myself in the long run), but in context to me it means ideas which have some basis in physics or which use concepts from physics without having the full scientific rigour true physics would imply.

Zillah

stevenmu wrote:

I don't think pseudo literally means fake

From dictionary.com:

pseu·do
adj.

False or counterfeit; fake.

It very much means "fake". I'd be much happier with something that wasn't so blatantly false.

Lets have a discussion about fake-physics! :rolleyes: Uh, flying robots made of ultra-titanium and powered by love!

I think "fringe-physics" would be more appropriate. All that stuff that they half understand (quantum physics/dimensions), or that we could apply to paranormal topics in ways not usually done (electromagnetism and telepathy etc).

Sapien

Zillah wrote:

I think "fringe-physics" would be more appropriate. All that stuff that they half understand (quantum physics/dimensions), or that we could apply to paranormal topics in ways not usually done (electromagnetism and telepathy etc).

I appreciate your attempts to save physics from the rubbishings of lesser minds, Zillah, but one small thing. Quantum Physics is by no definition "fringe" or half-understood. It's taught in the Leaving Cert and its effects are observable in experiments that can be conducted with things you'd find in any kitchen.

Zillah

Sapien wrote:

I appreciate your attempts to save physics from the rubbishings of lesser minds, Zillah, but one small thing. Quantum Physics is by no definition "fringe" or half-understood. It's taught in the Leaving Cert and its effects are observable in experiments that can be conducted with things you'd find in any kitchen.

I'm quite familar with things such as the Light Slit Experiment, but Quantum Physics is "fringe" in that its one of the least understood fields of science. It begins to delve into the nature of perception and conciousness. Most importantly it has yet to be reconciled with General Relativity, which leaves a big question mark that can be filled in with paranormally relevant theories.

And like I said, "fringe" isn't ideal, but I'd certainly prefer it to "pseudo".

stevenmu

Zillah wrote:

It very much means "fake". I'd be much happier with something that wasn't so blatantly false.

Damn, knew I should have looked it up.

I was being a little tongue-in-cheek when I used psuedo, it's fairly common for sceptics to automatically dismiss any idea which involves scientific sounding concepts as psuedoscience, (often appropriately) so I thought it'd be funny to use it in a psuedo-'gay'-is-our-word-and-you-can't-use-it-anymore kind of way. On reflection 'fringe physics' is more appropriate, at least for serious ideas.

Zillah

I can live with the tongue in cheek approach.

Sapien

Zillah wrote:

...its one of the least understood fields of science...

I could try to figure out what you mean by this, but it's easier, and historically more reliable, to just conclude that you're wrong and leave it at that.

Zillah

Sapien wrote:

I could try to figure out what you mean by this

As a start you could try not taking it out of its beloved context.

They say that an electron has a "negative charge", however, they don't actually know what that means. Its just a title they give to a certain factor, beyond its immediately visible results, its a completely mysterious quality. It could be tiny demons for all they know.

On the point of electrons, quantum physics would describe them as some sort of wave/particle probablity field surrounding the nucleus. Its only once its perceived that it exists at a particular location. They don't know why perception is so intrinsic to it, and it raises interesting questions about the nature of the mind/perception/conciousness.

For future reference, you can avoid looking like so arrogant by not posting when you assume someone is wrong, or if you are going to post, actually say something other than vague belligerence.

And here's a quote from Wikipedia. Our grasp of Quantum Mechanics is not nearly so tidy or complete as you might like to think:

It has proven difficult to construct quantum models of gravity, the remaining fundamental force. Semi-classical approximations are workable, and have led to predictions such as Hawking radiation. However, the formulation of a complete theory of quantum gravity is hindered by apparent incompatibilities between general relativity, the most accurate theory of gravity currently known, and some of the fundamental assumptions of quantum theory. The resolution of these incompatibilities is an area of active research, and theories such as string theory are among the possible candidates for a future theory of quantum gravity.

stevenmu

Zillah wrote:

Its only once its perceived that it exists at a particular location. They don't know why perception is so intrinsic to it, and it raises interesting questions about the nature of the mind/perception/conciousness.

A little OT but this really begs the question, how can they possibly know that it doesn't exist at a particular location when it's not being percieved ?

6th

If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody around
does it make a sound?

stevenmu

and if there's nobody around to hear it, how do we even know if it falls ?

IPI

Zillah wrote:

quantum physics would describe them as some sort of wave/particle probablity field surrounding the nucleus. Its only once its perceived that it exists at a particular location. They don't know why perception is so intrinsic to it, and it raises interesting questions about the nature of the mind/perception/conciousness.

My understanding of the probability field is that perception ALTERS existence, not that it creates it. By observing an electron's position, you can no longer be certain that its speed has not been altered by the experiment you used to do so. By measuring its speed, you can't be sure you haven't altered its position. The probability field is actually, again as far as I understand it, a range of best guesses pertaining to the velocities and positions of sub-atomic particles.

Pseudo-science is what they have on Star Trek. Progressive Science is what gave us microchips and digital watches. Fringe Science is hairdressing. Personally, I'm involved in scientific research that happens to accept how integral perception is to understanding: if I don't have an open mind, how can anything get into it?

Waffle: a American breakfast made from batter and smeared with honey or maple syrup. Very tasty.

IPI

6th wrote:

If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody around
does it make a sound?

Yes. Air is still displaced, the disturbances caused by stress as the trunk breaks and as it strikes the ground vibrate through the ground and send further shock-waves into the atmosphere. Human and animal ears translate these various shocks and vibrations into sound. The absence of ears merely indicates the absence of anything interpreting them as sound, although some evidence suggests that plants have a similar interpretative response to airborne disturbance waves.

Whether anyone is around to hear it or not is unlikely to contribute much to human understanding; though if the falling of a tree becomes known, whether during or after the fact, and is then perceived as having been an important event in human history, then we will undoubtedly have found a reason to plant microphones in every forest. Otherwise, I don't think anyone really cares much what trees do in the privacy of their own homes.

solas

IPI wrote:

Fringe Science is hairdressing.

I'm involved in scientific research that happens to accept how integral perception is to understanding: if I don't have an open mind, how can anything get into it?

welcome aboard.

6th

If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody around
does it make a sound?

YES!--- but it's not quite what you might think.

Scientists have been dealing with the problem of natural tree falls (and the sound they make--or don't make) for quite some time and have drawn some rather surprising conclusions.

If a tree falls and there is a person around the sound is easily recognized.

If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody nearby, the sound that it makes is very different and often not recognized as the sound of a tree falling.

Either way, there is a sound.

Even though plants do not show any changes to the naked (or lensed) eye, when a human is in their presence systemic biological changes have been discovered that have grave effects on plant life when a person is within 300 meters. This effect is called "human stress syndrome".

Apparently, when a tree is about to fall, if it senses a human nearby the biological stresses of human presence cause the cell walls in the plant to become brittle and it is the cell brittleness responsible for the familiar sound we know as that of a tree fall. The cell brittleness also has significant effects to the quality of the lumber, making it much more suitable for use in construction (see below).

Through the miracle of recording tape, we are able to provide a sound recording of an actual tree falling without human presence.

From this page: http://www.getodd.com/stuf/treefall.html - interesting in a light hearted way.

Sapien

Zillah wrote:

As a start you could try not taking it out of its beloved context.

They say that an electron has a "negative charge", however, they don't actually know what that means. Its just a title they give to a certain factor, beyond its immediately visible results, its a completely mysterious quality. It could be tiny demons for all they know.

On the point of electrons, quantum physics would describe them as some sort of wave/particle probablity field surrounding the nucleus. Its only once its perceived that it exists at a particular location. They don't know why perception is so intrinsic to it, and it raises interesting questions about the nature of the mind/perception/conciousness.

For future reference, you can avoid looking like so arrogant by not posting when you assume someone is wrong, or if you are going to post, actually say something other than vague belligerence.

And here's a quote from Wikipedia. Our grasp of Quantum Mechanics is not nearly so tidy or complete as you might like to think:

I preferred your original answer.

Charge is one of the eleven flavour quantum numbers assigned to every elementary particle, including electrons, in particle physics. Particle physics is quite involved. There's very little room for demons. More's the pity - I might be better at it if there was.

I understand that the common conception of quantum physics is that it somehow gives human perception primacy over the state of the universe, and of course I know that things like Heisenberg Uncertainty and Quantum Superposition can seem to support that interpretation, but I have studied quantum mechanics in one way or another for ten years and I have never heard or read reference to human "mind/perception/conciousness (sic)" in terms of quantum theory. It's by bringing ideas like that to bear on some very ordinary physics that you make it "fringe".

Trust a physicist - QM can be difficult and counter-intuitive but it is no longer mysterious. The Wiki quotation you cite demonstrates our problems with Gravity more so than with QM, and these problems merely indicate that QM, if anything, is too simple. Quite the opposite to what you are trying to demonstrate.

Son Goku

On topic, I don't think one could give much of a name to it. It isn't really a part of physics, rather physics being used in the science of the paranormal.
At best it could be called fringe physics and should not include electromagnetism.

Off topic:

Zillah wrote:

They say that an electron has a "negative charge", however, they don't actually know what that means. Its just a title they give to a certain factor, beyond its immediately visible results, its a completely mysterious quality. It could be tiny demons for all they know.

It is known, in fact it and Magnetism are fully explained by Q.E.D., however a ful explanation would be impossible to give on a forum.

On the point of electrons, quantum physics would describe them as some sort of wave/particle probablity field surrounding the nucleus. Its only once its perceived that it exists at a particular location. They don't know why perception is so intrinsic to it, and it raises interesting questions about the nature of the mind/perception/conciousness.

Perception doesn't really have anything to do with it. In fact it would be much easier if it was something to do with counciousness. Rather it's to do with the nature of something called unitary evolution.

Most importantly it has yet to be reconciled with General Relativity, which leaves a big question mark that can be filled in with paranormally relevant theories.

This is often said in Pop Science books without any explanation. It isn't a gap in either theory, nor does it lead to something which we can't explain, but rather a very complicated issue that's three different problems, which are sort of the same problem. (and in another way not a problem at all)

A little OT but this really begs the question, how can they possibly know that it doesn't exist at a particular location when it's not being percieved ?

The Bell Inequalities., although more accuratly the entire Uncertainty Principle isn't saying what you think.

Cactus Col

while most of the things you're all saying is completly over my head, I'd say that pseudo science, to a lay person (such as myself), would indicate science that can't be taken seriously, an example for me, might be the science behind intelligent design.