Physics - the prime science of nature and nuclear physics

This forum is for other possible methods for fusion such as Sonolumenescense, Cold Fusion, CANR/LENR or accelerator fusion. It should contain all theory, discussions and even construction and URLs related to "other than fusor, fusion".
Post Reply
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14976
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Physics - the prime science of nature and nuclear physics

Post by Richard Hull »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aUk6oi_AmM

The above video is a fabulous introspection by the physicist Sabine Hossenfelder. I recommend it to all who are interested in the path of physics. ( nuclear particle and quantum physics in particular)
Sabine has a number of very interesting and explanatory videos on physics all over you tube. It is rare to see a physicist give us clear reasons why she and some of her peers are beginning to question what she terms the "stagnation of physics". Worth an honest look for the inquiring mind.

Tesla once noted (paraphrased) that modern physicists often wander off in deep thought following a trail of complex mathematics in an attempt to explain the way the world works. Deep thinking is not a quality to define genius for many people can be very deep thinkers, yet can be deluded and quite insane.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Nicolas Krause
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2016 7:36 pm
Real name: Nicolas Krause
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Physics - the prime science of nature and nuclear physics

Post by Nicolas Krause »

Her book Lost in Math has had good reviews from lots of physics blogs I follow, though I haven't had time to read it myself. Here's Peter Woit's review ,and Scott Locklin's review. I really enjoy her videos, they're full of clear exposition. She also figured out a way to make money off of physics cranks e-mailing her, she used to (maybe still does?) run a service where if you wanted your pet theory evaluated by a physicist you could pay by the hour. She's nothing if not clever.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14976
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Physics - the prime science of nature and nuclear physics

Post by Richard Hull »

Nicolas, Wow! Thank you for the links to the book reviews! The reviews are far more stunning than the original video!!! Sabines Hossfelder's book Lost in Math is one that I must now read!!!! The reviews had me roaring with laughter. Both reviews are worth the read.

Anyone who had the time to view the entire video above, will be richly rewarded by reading both book reviews both filled with humor and well voiced depression spread among the high energy theorists. The depression is due to the many runs and disappointments of the LHC to try and give even the slightest bit of whole cloth to numerous theories espoused by so many, including the refutation of the Higgs "God particle" myth. They found the Higgs, but it fell far short of the mark related to numerous theories and mathematical machinations it has proven wrong.

Lochlin's review is especially funny as he spews venom on high energy particle physicists and their pet theories. example....

"Hossenfelder talks about it, but doesn’t emphasize how crazy this is, but it’s rather like assuming your checkbook will always have 00 in the cents columns because it’s more convenient for you that way. Or that useful hashing functions will have lots of 00s on randomly generated numbers. This numerology assumes that the universe will conspire to make itself understandable with current year fashions in mathematical tools used by the clown car that is contemporary theoretical high energy physics."

Read the reviews!

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
richnormand
Posts: 305
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 8:30 am
Real name: rich normand

Re: Physics - the prime science of nature and nuclear physics

Post by richnormand »

Thanks for these postings!
Just ordered my copy.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14976
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Physics - the prime science of nature and nuclear physics

Post by Richard Hull »

High energy particle physics and its numerous bifurcations with multiple theories many of which seek to forever prop up the standard model as if the next particle will be the last big thing, coupled with recent announcements regarding work with mu mesons having created disquieting quakes at that sacred mount Olympus, standard model. Such "bleeding edge" physics, by nature, is the "tip of the spear". That tip is currently covered in blood sweat and tears of recent theories failed or gone awry. A number of those, so bloodied are left casting about for a mathematical "work around" to save their less than whole clothe theories. Only a few admitting final defeat who are now left to pay off monetary bad bets they made for their daring, darling theory.

And the beat..up goes on and on.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3147
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Physics - the prime science of nature and nuclear physics

Post by Dennis P Brown »

Physics, as some here might suspect, is in a deep crisis - the collision of Field Theory (FT) and General Relativity (GR) has created an impasse that threatens most current understandings of either topic - the former gives utter nonsense answers for many aspects of the bulk universe, while the later fails terribly for black holes and galactic rotation. Physicist have even invented an utterly insane concept called "Dark Matter" to help fix the problems and as experiments neither detect this substance and more precise observations show all the current models are, in fact, false, they tack more nonsense on the theory to fix the model a bit more and this manages to still fail.

Recent experiments (as in the Muon g-2 and the Ligo determination of Black Hole Entropy) have both shaken the foundations of FT and strengthen GR. The remaining "Elephant in the Room" is the failure to unite GR with standard quantum mechanics. That failure is the thing physicist point at as the issue that will resolve their problems and usher in a "golden Age" of understanding (not really but would go a long way to achieving some of that goal.)

These are problems I am both fascinated by and have been working a good bit on resolving. But that isn't something I consider worth discussing at this time.

The trouble is FT gives so many ultra precise answers that agree with many experiments and the Standard Model solves so many really difficult problems using FT that no one wants to give these up nor can that be easily done since one must replace it with something that does fix all these issues; hence, even physicist hope to find a particle that violates the STD Model.

Math is the soul of physics and as applied to quantum and GR is the only way to understand the Universe but as many here know, it is a bear to understand, much less master. There are no easy paths but certainly many You Tube courses are extremely good and can teach critical concepts (but are mostly useless to deeper understanding since most have no problems to solve - as in all math and physics, that is the essential aspect to understand these abstract subjects.)
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14976
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Physics - the prime science of nature and nuclear physics

Post by Richard Hull »

As has often been noted here and at many other discussions related to the core issues of physics. Testing the deepest and most complex theories is now a hyper-expensive effort requiring ever more giant machines, (accelerators) to be built and staffed. If the machines are not expensive enough, the staffing is a continuing cost long after construction is done and a home for out of work thinkers looking to make it to retirement.

As seen in the GAO report on NIF some years back, when costs were spiraling out of control, the "buddy system" within physics was part of the problem. Out of work staffers were hired to fill positions that were not needed, created by friends at the head of the project. That GAO report reads like a nightmare on steroids!

For those who dare to follow this NIF nightmare that I reported on in these forums back in the early 2000's, here is the URL where you can get a "quick rinse" in the nightmare via synopsis, which doesn't even scratch the surface, or you can wisely down load the whole 50 page report (PDF) and read it in detail. (highly recommended if only by a quick scan) You tax money gone wild!! NIF is currently rather fallow, its mission as part of the "stockpile stewardship", largely bypassed by work-arounds before it was even finished! In addition, it did do fusion....but at a net loss....Being a pulsed machine of near zero duty cycle, it was always just an attempt to snatch lightning bolts and convert them to a continuous source of energy to power a city.

The full report is great bedtime reading provided you have some alka-seltzer to settle your stomach and can try and get some sleep after you bile flows from reading it. You will, for the first time in your life get a close-up, down and dirty, blow-by-blow taste for how the government is used as a cash cow, using your cash! Do you have the stones to read it all??

As you read, you must realize this is a tiny little project by most any standard of today where millions become billions and billions become trillions. NIFs final cost at completion was six thousand piles of cash with 0ne million dollars in each pile. Not even a footnote on today's expenditures.

https://www.gao.gov/products/rced-00-141

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Nicolas Krause
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2016 7:36 pm
Real name: Nicolas Krause
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Physics - the prime science of nature and nuclear physics

Post by Nicolas Krause »

I can't help but wonder if a lot of these giant machines are just huge useless Towers of Babel. Ernest Lawrence started building huge machines in the 1930s, and for various reasons that model of science really took over a lot of modern physics. I really enjoyed reading Big Science, which describes the changes very well. I think one of the most arresting descriptions in the book was the photo of the enormous cyclotron Lawrence had built, and that of the workbench of the Joliot-Curies. The workbench is astonishingly primitive in comparison, and would not look out of place in a medieval castle. But who was able to transmute atoms using radiation successfully first? Of course the Joliot-Curies, Edward Lawrence and his incredibly expensive machines could only follow along later and verify the discoveries, they were unable to make any of their own.

Dennis, with regard to your points about the theoretical underpinnings of a lot of modern physics, so many of these mathematical constructs seem like enormous Rude Goldberg type devices. I've seen the standard model printed on a t-shirt, it's horrendously long. It seems to me like the mathematics is beginning to mimic the machines used to investigate it, it's not surprising that making an overly complex and unwieldy equation would not be useful in the same way that making an overly complex and unwieldy machine is.
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns

Re: Physics - the prime science of nature and nuclear physics

Post by Frank Sanns »

I believe the answer is trivially simple. The form of the equation and other simple equations, like iterations of f(x) = x^2-1 can give near limitless results in shapes and patterns (fractals).

Complex things no doubt have the most simple solutions. We just make it more difficult and make bigger machines and more complex math.

ALL of the concepts in physics including relativity, quantum mechanics, and such, can and are recreated and used in every moment of your life.

One of the impediments to "seeing" the solutions are what we visually see. Our sight is an artifact of electrons. Not just the color, texture, and temperature, but the size and scale of every single thing in our everyday life. Without the electronic repulsive force, the space between atoms would be nearly gone and skyscrapers would be the size of a pencil dot.

We do not "see" the world for what it is. We see an illusion from the time we are born. Only when we stop seeing this artifact can we even begin to understand the fundamentals.
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
JoeBallantyne
Posts: 313
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:08 pm
Real name: Joe Ballantyne
Location: Redmond, WA

Re: Physics - the prime science of nature and nuclear physics

Post by JoeBallantyne »

It seems to me that the electron with the accompanying repulsive force it creates between atoms, is a central part of the fundamentals.

Not an artifact.

Life as we know it wouldn't exist with out the electron.

The fact that we can't physically see electrons or protons or neutrons, doesn't make any of those particles artifacts, and not critical and fundamental to existence and reality.

IMO whether or not they are made out of something else is irrelevant to their importance and effects.

IMO we do see the world for what it is. Can we physically see EVERYTHING that makes up our world, no, but we do see a physical reality that does exist due to particles and forces that we cannot see.

The light that we SEE is one of the end results of the solutions to all of the physicists "ugly" equations every day. In fact what we see is the end result of solutions to problems the physicists haven't even formulated and solved yet.

And IMO that end result is actually pretty beautiful. So if it requires ugly math to describe, that is a small price to pay.

Part of the argument the physicist referred to at the beginning of the thread makes, is that just because math that describes reality is ugly and complicated, doesn't mean it isn't right.

Her argument is that ugly math that works is RIGHT. And scientists shouldn't keep trying to pretty it up to make the math more beautiful. It is reality and physics that impose on the math, not the other way around.

If ugly math works, then use it and move on. For what it is intended to do the standard model despite its "ugliness" works really well. I think her point is that instead of trying to prettify the math, physicists instead should focus on identifying and solving real problems. And if those solutions end up making the math even uglier, SO BE IT.

Joe.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14976
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Physics - the prime science of nature and nuclear physics

Post by Richard Hull »

Light and all Electromagnetic Radiation is the result of an electron or a whole bunch of them either being accelerated, decelerated or are in the process of changing direction. Electromagnetism is a bunch of electrons in uniform motion moving through a conductor. A so called Permanent Magnet is some piece of fixed matter in which imagined domains of atoms are magnetically locked in a manner such that those domains are forced by some exterior source of energy to magnetically align the majority of those domains in an overall additive predominant direction to create a relatively permanent magnetic field once the magnetizing force is removed.

It's all about electrons in our world at STP. They are why stuff is solid....Why stuff is opaque....Why stuff is transparent. They make the light at all frequencies which determine why things appear transparent or opaque.

Electrons determine bulk charge as to whether an item is positive or negative relative to another charged body. All of chemistry is electronic in nature.

Protons and Neutrons are uncovered at 13ev for hydrogen in the case of the proton, and at MeV energy levels for all other elemental nuclei. This energy is quite far above STP conditions The nucleons role in our STP world merely determines what element we are looking at and whether it is radioactive or stable.

The electrons rule all else drools....

The electron has no role at all in nuclear physics which deals with nucleons far above STP energy levels. That's why they use the word "nuclear" in that field. To play in that world, bring a whole bunch of energy to the table or milk it out of the naturally radioactive elemental isotopes.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Post Reply

Return to “Other Forms of Fusion - Theory, Construction, Discussion, URLs”