Re: Orthodoxy's Opposition to Theories of Superluminality

From: Norm Dresner (ndrez_at_att.net)
Date: 07/29/04 

Date: 29 Jul 2004 05:59:35 -0400

"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:10gfqb8k9raqm5d@corp.supernews.com...
> Mark Palenik <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
> news:RPmdndm8wcvinJrcRVn-tw@wideopenwest.com...
> > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > news:10gb3icit9n487e@corp.supernews.com...
> > > <snip>
> > > You may note that your item number 1 is purely theoretical (even if it
> > > *is* "mainstream"). Item number 2 is experimental. According to the
> > > scientific method, experiment trumps theory.
> >
> > I take it you haven't read any of the messages here explaining that that
> > information is out of dat, inaccurate, and was speculative at best, at
the
> > time.
>
> Sure I'd read the other posts. However, they are irrelevant to the claims
> and reasoning provided (which was snipped) by the prior poster (Norm
> Dresner). Norm posted a claim that Ockham's Razor would have us discard
> experimental results if it contradicted accepted theory. And solely
because
> it was 'simpler' to accept conventional theory. Norm did not provide any
> other reasoning. My post responded solely to the reasoning provided by
> Norm -- which was clearly unscientific.
>
I would have you [as I do] intensely question unreproducable experimental
"data". After all, "data" is neither "information" nor "evidence" but
simply data. It's only when it's validated and properly interpreted that it
becomes believable. I was not questioning the "data" per se, though I
haven't seen it, but rather that it unequivocally supported the existence of
superluminal particles. Also see below for my comments on the meaning
attached to data. As far as my not providing any other reasoning, I was
speaking as a non-expert expressing belief -- actually more like trust -- in
the claimed results. Mathematics is solely governed by proof [based on a
possibly implicit set of hypotheses] but a vast amount of modern physics is
based solely on faith -- faith in the Copenhagen Intrerpretation or the
Bohem Paradigm or ... for example. Faith and belief are relevant for
physics paractitioners even those who come to the party without data.
>
> As to your current claims:
>
> 1) Experimental data is never 'out of date.' It does not have a
shelf-life.
> This is merely a fallacy that 'new' interpretations or experiments must
> always be better than old ones.

Experimental data taken with instruments that have been surpassed by new
ones should be questioned, if not discarded, because of the greater accuracy
of the newer devices. In this sense, then, the data *can* age. No one that
I know questions the data in the original Michaelson-Morley experiment(s)
but newer data have provided more restrictive limits on the ether. Galileo
[IIRC] measured the speed of light. Surely you're not claiming that just
because he had data that I have to take it as authoritative.
>
> 3) Experimental data is never speculative.
>
> > Am I the only one who thinks that whatever "orthodoxy's opposition to
> > theories of superluminality" is, somebody would have realized the sheer
> > usefullness of particles that can travel faster than the speed of light
> > and which carry measureable properties like spin? I think the thought
> > of getting rich would probably outweigh any "dogmatic opposition".

Meter readings are never speculative [unless you're using my right eye, but
that's another matter entirely]. Neither are particle tracks or
scintillaton counter events. But the meaning of any of these pieces of data
can be entirely speculative -- just look at the whole cold fusion brouhaha
from a few years ago. AFAIR very few people argued with the readings -- the
raw data -- but objected strenuously to the intrepretation of them as
supporting the occurrance of heterodox events.
>
>
> Ah, but it is only those theories that are not mainstream that are
> considered refuted. Dr. Hawking's views -- though commonly embraced --
> never reached the point of paradigm. And only Dr. Hawking was allowed to
> question Dr. Hawking's views. They have been questioned many times before
> by others -- and the others have been ignored.
Not everyone ignored the questioners. Perhaps Dr Hawking did but I suppose
that's his perogative.

Relevant Pages