Re: Classical wave theory and tired light

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, srp2inc@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 11 déc, 18:53, Timo Nieminen <t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 srp2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Not much time on my hands. I'll probably answer your first post
to me over the weekend.

It'll take me some time to reply to your long post.

On 10 déc, 18:52, Timo Nieminen <t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

There's no unwillingness to come up with new theories in professional
physics -

There certainly is. No causalist approach paper was allowed for
formal publication in the past 60 years.

That a particular type of theory has not been allowed publication in the
last 60 years - if indeed this claim is correct - is not evidence of
unwillingness to come up with new theories in professional physics.

It is a definite unwillingness to allow minimal consideration and
study
of a whole class of theories, that were favored by no lesser
individuals
than Planck, Schroedinger, Einstein and de Broglie, to name just
a few.

Still, it's not evidence against my statement above; it's a distinctly different point. But I don't agree with your statements above, either. See below.

new theories that work and turn out to be useful are seen as a
path to recognition, citations, publications, and sometimes even
big-time awards such as Nobel Prizes, as well as being useful
scientific contributions in and of themselves.

Very funny. New theories that work can't be understood before
being studied, and no new theory will be studied or considered
for formal publication since study will stop a the first hint of
causality being involved.

Automatic rejection.

Not all new theories need involve "causality", in the sense that you
mean it.

The point is that ALL theories involving causality are rejected before
study. Barred from all possibilities of formal publication.

What do you mean by "causalist approach"?

The same that the above discoverers favored.

Based on the logical conclusion that it is impossible for an
elementary
particle to be detected somewhere if it was not emitted somewhere
else before detection and that if it is detected it had to follow a
precise
trajectory from the point of emission to the point of detection.

Very clearly laied out by de Broglie in many of his writings.

If this would include, e.g., Bohm's work, that's been published, in
top-tier peer reviewed orthodox journals, within the last 60 years.

In the 50's. More than 60 years ago.

Less than 60 years ago. Count the years. Bohm was still publishing in top-tier physics journals in the 60s, also less than 60 years ago.

A very quick search finds papers that appear to consider or study causalist theories from 1987 and 2002. It doesn't look there is a ban on such publications, or a refusal to consider such theories. And then one could see when authors like J. P. Vigier were publishing.

One counter-example is sufficient to disprove a ban. Harder to disprove a bias, and there may well be bias. The topic attracts attention (often, but not always historically oriented) in the field of philosophy of science. My initial impression is that this is where the main discussion of the topic is. One source of bias may be that the topic is seen as something likely to generate useful or important scientific results by many scientists.

Also book(s) published by orthodox commercial publishers.

Ha books! Yes. The only remaining route for this class of theories.

That's the way I chose.

Books published by orthodox commercial publishers? (Not that this guarantees the book will be taken seriously as a work of science - Velikovsky, for example - but Bohm's work was.)

"Heretical" work can be more difficult to publish - heretical claims
require strong evidence for acceptance or serious consideration by the
orthodoxy - but it can be published, even in top peer-reviewed journals.

Not worth the effort. Life is short.

If the new theory is good - perhaps a theory that might work, and might be
useful - it can get studied by the orthodoxy.

Past history proved otherwise. Planck even remarked somewhere that
current orthodoxies do not adopt new theories, any new theory that
spreads, did so because the current orthodoxes died out while
individuals
in the following generation took head and saw the benefits of the new
approach.

Firstly, Planck was not being entirely serious with this comment. But there was experience of lack of acceptance of his earlier work behind it.

Secondly, and more important, it isn't correct. Look at the rapid spread of new theories in the last century and a bit: Hertz-Heaviside classical electrodynamics, the structure of atoms, the old quantum theory, wave mechanics, matrix mechanics, QED, special relativity. The spread, study, and adoption of each of these was far faster than would be the case if Planck's statement were literally true.

Past history _doesn't_ prove otherwise; past history shows that new theories that work can be rapidly accepted.

This is why I never bothered trying to hook up with orthodoxy. I trust
the next generation to see the benefits and take action.
Unfortunately
for current state of affairs.

Again, Bohm's work is a prominent example (but others can be
found as well).

The last piece of causalist work that was formally published. But
since it doesn't lead to new findings, it obviously is flawed.

As noted above, there are more recent publications.

Heretical research even makes its way into Nature
and similar; sometimes this is spectacularly heretical.
But note that "causality" is not necessarily relevant to new theories. I'd
expect that most new theories are respectably "orthodox", in that, while
new, they don't challenge existing established theories (except perhaps in
small specific areas). You - and I - were making claims about new theories
and the publication of new theories, not about "causalist" theories.

Publication of "new theories" is not the goal.

It was (close to) the topic of discussion.

The goal is to address
the
job of understanding fundamental physical reality better, so we can
benefit
from this increased understanding.

Still, work described as "causalist" gets published, in the mainstream
orthodox physics research literature. Such work is also discussed in the
philosophical literature, the social studies of science literature, etc.
Why do you think that "formal publication" is not allowed?

Ok. Point me to ANY formal follow up paper on de Broglie's very
promising
causalist theory on the possible internal electromagnetic structure
of
localized moving photons,

The best thing to look for would be papers citing de Broglie's publication of his work. Not knowing where this was, it's easy enough to find a paper like:
H. Stumpf and T. Borne, The Structure of the Photon, Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie 26, 429, (2001),
wherein it is noted that de Broglie's work was followed up by many authors. Perhaps the papers in their lit review are of interest?

or ANY formal follow up paper on Einstein's
late conclusion that the answer to gravity lies with electromagnetism.

Again, look for citations of this work of Einstein's. Unified theories of electromagnetism and gravity continue to be published. See, e.g., Dobiasch and Maison, General Relativity and Gravitation 14, 231 (1981) - google scholar lists over a hundred citations of this paper.

Look, and you will find. You made absolute statements about the possibility of publication of causalist theories in the last 60 years. One counter example is sufficient to refute this, but you might be interested in the work published for its own sake.

--
Timo

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is the Electron Charge really infinite
    ... as too speculative for publication. ... so no one could prevent my publishing my findings and ... you will have to agree with orthodox ... there has been a steady trickle of ether/aether papers in mainstream physics journals. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Academic Hate Press
    ... how fear of outspoken right-wing politicians can curtail and eliminate ... Moyers/George Soros-funded leftist publication, The American Prospect. ... Verso and arranged for its publication by UCAL Press. ... ideas," the NLR group launched its own publishing house, New Left ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: SICP Strangeness...
    ... time I dealt with publishing my work was in 2002, in fact, I wasn't ... unexpected offer for such prestigious publication but in fact I was ... I have been away from academia for two ... It remains to be seen how open access publications deal with this very ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: favor
    ... What do you think publishing is? ... TM> already explained that that "any other type of publication external ... Copyright law is the "law on publishing," and it is indeed clear: ... TM> about the archive manager of the FreeBSD mailing list archives. ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Re: "Comes The Reaper"
    ... $64 fricken bucks was enough for me to sober up examine ... publishing - so I am not sure why people get quite so sniffy about the ... I accept that it is inevitable that there are those 'poets' who feel ... If you pay for any part of a publication that's called ...
    (rec.arts.poems)