It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
My career was in highways construction.
My answers don't fit with your model. And that's fine.
They found a buyer who may be taking ownership of the site today or the next few days. Here's a post from 6 days ago saying transfer to the new owner should happen within the coming week, and tomorrow will be one week.
originally posted by: delbertlarson
I am glad to see that ATS is still around! I saw that the thread discussing its sale was closed. Does anyone know more about the fate of ATS? I suppose recent events may mean that no one has a clue right now.
Wow, that's a substantial paper, good luck, hope it works out.
originally posted by: delbertlarson
The Shapiro effect has not yet been calculated. If it goes well a draft of the paper may be done as early as May. After the first draft, the estimate is at least three months of checking, as this is a long work. Close to 200 pages, double spaced. So optimistically a publishable draft could be done in the fall of 2021.
I don't remember posting it in this thread, but I assume this is the video you're referring to:
I saw the video by Harry Cliff posted by Arbitrageur. It was like "old home week". Almost the entire thing reminded me of what I was learning about and working on over 35 years ago. It is rather stunning, and rather depressing, how little fundamental physics has advanced in that time.
If Dr Cliff was presenting to a room full of other PhD physicists, first he wouldn't be giving the same talk giving them the basics they already knew, and second, yes it would be technically more accurate since he could assume they already know certain things based on their credentials. So any time you teach or make a presentation to an audience, you are faced with certain choices in how much detail to present. If you present too much detail to a novice audience, maybe you meet a goal of technical accuracy, but fail at the larger goal of engaging the interest of the audience by keeping the presentation simple enough for them to understand.
Dr. Cliff does indeed present the Standard Model quite well. He does miss pointing out color however. When you add color, there are three times more particles than the nice simple depiction. It's more honest to include color in the graph of elemental particles, and maybe the antiparticles should be shown too.
Part of his presentation was talking about how the periodic table of the elements developed when we could see patterns occurring in the properties of elements, but we didn't understand at all how or why those patterns were occurring, before we understood electron orbitals and such. He says we've got a similar thing going on with the standard model now, that we can see patterns in the three particle generations like electron, muon, and tau, but we don't really understand why, so our understanding of the standard model is sort of like the understanding of the periodic table before we understood electron orbitals, we are missing big pieces of the puzzle. Speaking of muons, they have been in the news lately as offering evidence of a problem with the standard model.
The thing that is always striking to me is how sure the presenters of this stuff are. Yes, I know, the present physics community does admit that there may be something they don't yet know.
You've probably read enough of my 400 page thread to hear me promote the George Box quote that "All models are wrong, some are useful". I can't speak for all physicists but many I'm sure subscribe to this concept that we are using models, which probably don't describe nature perfectly, and we would like to find better models if we can but finding a "perfect" model may be unattainable. So Newton's model was useful for centuries before we found out it was "wrong" in some extreme cases, and even now that we know it's "wrong" in those cases, we still find the model useful in the majority of potential applications which don't involve those extremes.
There is a lot of data. But my point is, when you've got that many fitted parameters, and that many terms, why don't more physicists come to the conclusion that things are actually very, very wrong? Yes there is an admission that dark matter and dark energy have no good understanding, and while I did not see Dr. Cliff mention the cosmological constant problem that too is admitted as an issue.
In Dr Cliff's video, he infers that nearly all theoretical physicists have been disappointed by the results of the LHC experiments which do not seem to confirm a wide variety of theoretical ideas, for example supersymmetry proponents expected to see some supersymmetric particles discovered, but they weren't, and there were many other theoretical predictions that didn't show up besides yours.
In my most recent ABC publication I listed numerous predictions. I am a bit surprised more of them have not been found.
All theoretical physicists could say that for all their personal predictions, and one of them may even be correct about that but which one? It's possible some things are hiding in the noise but you can download the data and see if you can tease something else out of the data if you want, though you might need some decent computing power to do it. It's nice they have made some data available anyway.
My present guess is that the new results are just buried in background.
I don't remember posting it in this thread, but I assume this is the video you're referring to:
Beyond the Higgs: What's Next for the LHC? - with Harry Cliff
You've probably read enough of my 400 page thread to hear me promote the George Box quote
So, if we can admit that all the models we have are wrong,
So, if we can admit that all the models we have are wrong,
That's what many people are really after, useful models.
you can download the data and see if you can tease something else out of the data if you want
originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: delbertlarson
My question is: what's the point? Electromagnetism & special relativity & QM are so good at explaining the observations.
I don't think I would describe it as abandoned, it depends on how you define "energy" and what you mean by "conserved". I don't have Carroll's book so I can't see p120 but he wrote this article about that topic which is readily accessible:
originally posted by: delbertlarson
And I am quite certain that I never was taught that energy conservation was to be abandoned. (See Carroll, page 120.)
So again I don't think "abandoned" is the best characterization of that.
energy and momentum evolve in a precisely specified way in response to the behavior of spacetime around them. If that spacetime is standing completely still, the total energy is constant; if it’s evolving, the energy changes in a completely unambiguous way
But despite Carroll's article saying no it's not conserved, and the Baez/Weiss article saying yes it's conserved in special cases, I don't think the explanations actually disagree with each other so this is a case where over-simplified semantics can be misleading and the details have to be examined.
In special cases, yes. In general, it depends on what you mean by "energy", and what you mean by "conserved".
On another matter, did the new ATS owners ever get announced?