Robert,
Still with the non-answers. I was testing for hollowness. If you have answers to establish the groundbreaking important of your predictions, that would be of value. Such predictions do not ride on the backs of previous knowledge nor on the patterns established by that knowledge. If you have broken the pattern or have a new pattern or a prediction that breaks the mold, then you have something. I was looking for it and you have not delivered it. Do you have it?
James Putnam
James,
Today a young student contacted me and said she thinks that SSCP/DSR holds promise for real unification in physics. She asked permission to do work related to the theory. She is a serious student with abilities that might well compliment mine.
So I am feeling a little less irritated with the human race today, and more hopeful that coming generations of physicists will finaly open their minds to the unifying promise of DSR.
You ask whether I have "broken the pattern or have a new pattern". I certainly think that DSR is the biggest break in old patterns, and identifies the most important new cosmological pattern, in about 400 years. It can be referred to as discrete self-similarity, or discrete scale invariance, or discrete dilation invariance (possibly full discrete conformal symmetry?).
But you can only judge that for yourself by studying SSCP/DSR and coming to your own conclusions.
Robert O
Dear Robert Oldershaw,
Thank you for your message. I was interested in your ideas. When you mentioned a successful prediction, I attached value to that. I wondered if it was so monumental as to be independent, meaning not predictable by previous theory. Certainly if that is the case, then, your work is important for anyone including myself to learn about.
I did think that you could have brought more forward in your essay even if it was repetitive of your presentation at your website. I would have preferred reading your case within the confines of the essay rules first before moving on to your website. However, that is your choice.
I understand why a professional would believe me to be a crank. I do have extensive work done in support of the things I say. But, besides the possibility that I may be very wrong there is the fact that I cannot be correct unless theoretical physics is wrong about a great many ideas. Recognizing that that is the case, I thank you for your informative messages. Good luck.
James
Hi James,
Lest there be no misunderstanding, I am not a "professional", but rather a mere mortal.
Discrete Scale Relativity predicted, in a published paper, that planets would be found orbiting ultracompact stellar-mass objects. Several years later, pulsar-planets were discovered, much to the surprise of the astrophysical community.
In 1987 {Astrophysical Journal 322, 34-36] I predicted that our galaxy would contain a vast population of unbound planetary-mass objects far outnumbering the stars. Sumi et al [Nature 19 May 2011] reported that microlensing research had discovered at least 100 billion unbound planetary-mass objects within our galaxy. Again, much to the surprise of astrophysicists.
In 2000 I posted a paper to arxiv.org (later published) predicting that the lowest mass M dwarf stars would have a highly anomalous and quite diagnostic under-abundance of planetary companions. Observational evidence has increasingly supported this prediction and a paper published in Astronomy and Astrophysics in 2011 (Bonfils et al) has now virtually confirmed this prediction. Again, much to the surprise of astrophysicists.
Discrete Scale Relativity's most crucial prediction (dark matter = primordial Kerr-Newman ultracompacts; 8 x 10^-5, 0.145 and 0.580 solar masses are the primary peaks in the predicted mass spectrum) awaits adequate observational data for a definitive verdict. A related prediction is that the dark matter cannot be "WIMPs", and that prediction has withstood a 30-year onslaught of false-positives and a near-religious faith in the first coming of a "WIMP".
In my "essay" I just stated what my research indicated were the most aggregiously wrong current assumptions. In the present pseudo-science/Tower of Babel state of postmodern physics, I knew that none of the "professionals" would have any interest in my inconvenient ideas. This might help to explain why I only submitted a brief synopsis.
Best, Rob O
Egregiously, that is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierpinski_triangle
Dear Robert Oldershaw,
I was glad to go through your short but inquisitive article. It is good to learn that you like original ideas which are based on emperical facts. This is what you are trying to suggest through the concepts of Discrete Scale Relativity / discrete conformal symmetry. I have also seen your comments regarding this in some magazines. Why dont you go through my essay (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1543--Sreenath B N.) which like yours is also based on new conception and tries to solve the problem of QG.
Thanking you and look forward to hearing from you.
Best regards and good luck in the essay competition.
Sreenath.
Hello Hoang Cao Hai,
My general paradigm for how nature works regarding ..., particles, atoms, stars, galaxies,... is thoroughly discussed at:
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Best,
Rob O
Hi Sreenath BN,
Ok, I'll take a look.
You might take a look at http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Best,
Rob O
Hi Sergey,
To read about 4 definitive predictions of Discrete Scale Relativity that have been vindicated, or are strongly supported by observational evidence, and to see 10 more that are awaiting verification/falsification, see:
http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw/Papers/1986527/Predictions_of_Discrete_Scale_Relativity .
This is what an adequate cosmological paradigm is required to do: make definitive predictions and have them verified.
Best,
Rob
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.
Hi Sergey,
To me what matters is the fundamental, testable science.
Contests, prizes and fashionable pseudo-science are not of much interest to me.
Best,
Rob
Dear Robert,
I was looking at your website after reading your paper, and a few thoughts came to mind.
1. One can't help noticing that the constant you call D is within about 1 percent of pi, and is also of course close to 3, which is the dimensionality of space. Where does this number come from?
2. I have thought about the possibility of 5 "interaction scales:" the strong/weak, electromagnetic, gravitational, dark matter, and dark energy scales. The basis of this is the scales on which various types of "interactions" dominate. Of course, this assumes that dark matter and dark energy really involve "something different."
3. What exactly do you mean by "discrete conformal symmetry?" For instance, conformal symmetry ordinarily preserves angles. Does discrete conformal symmetry have this property? There seems to be a lot of trouble in general with trying to replace the continuous symmetry groups with something discrete. Personally, I think that at least some of the continuous symmetry groups should be replaced, but not with exact symmetries.
Interesting paper and website! I see you have a long list of experimental connections. Take care,
Ben Dribus
Hi Ben,
1. Best guess: 3 is the topological dimensionality; 3.1416 is the fractal dimensionality. Non-integer, greater than 3, but less than 4.
Lambda, D and G are interrelated in DSR, but I have yet to fully understand why lambda and D have the values they do.
Also remember that they are derived empirically, not theoretically.
2. ? I like infinite discrete self-similar Scales, but I am biased on this issue.
3. Yes, angles are preserved in discrete conformal symmetry. Think of discrete dilation symmetry. Instead of a continuous set of sizes for the analogues, you only are allowed a discrete set of sizes for the analogues.
Thanks for your comments.
On vacation.
In haste,
Rob O
Hi!
I think the paradigm is essentially right. I would like to contribute to it myself but I lack mathematical skills. The most I can is some sort of "phylosophical" contribution.
The theory makes some predictions about black holes (I prefer the term dark stars), including analogues in the atomic scale. I´m afraid, regarless the evidence on superficial "ultradense objects", there´s no proof of their inner structure. How does affect DSR if it turns out to be that the interior of dark stars has nothing to do with what general relativity predicts? In fact, I think it has nothing to do. Perhaps the surface as well is only approximately depicted by GR. Perhaps even their dynamics is de facto much more complex than a simple "swallow everything sphere".
I beg you, Robert, to not use the taboo term "singularity" ever again : ) "naked singularities", my god...
Evidence of fission in galactic cores, ordinarily ignored by mainstream science, has been floating for decades. Are those cores analogue to radioactive nucleus? Are the ejected sub-galactic bodies analogue to alpha or beta radiation? Sometimes a galactic core seems to divide into two massive cores, like a "two hundred something nucleus" dividing into two "a hundred something nucleus".
Finally, I find the prediction of a galactic halo of stellar/planetary dark stars highly suspicious. What´s the foundation of that extravagant prediction? What are their stellar analogues? A halo of buckyballs? What are the atomic analogues? Why are those dark stars so black and stable despite the common belief on Hawking radiation? Or are transitory unstable objects? Why are surrounding the galaxies instead of inside the galaxies or in the intergalactic medium? Personally, I don´t believe in the Big Bang. In any case, was the beginning really that non homogeneous to create so much primordial "singularities"? I feel that that will turn out unreal. But not a refutation of the whole theory, only a starting point to a improved version of DSR.
Best wishes,
Julio
I am mystified by the large number of people who have very strong beliefs about technical scientific issues for which their knowledge base is in the "slim and none" category.
How can these people be so sure of themselves when they overtly or more covertly reveal that they do not have the technical knowledge and analytical skills to evaluate their beliefs.
They just seem to take a stance like: "the Big Bang theory is completely wrong", or "singularities are impossible", or "Einstein was totally wrong about (fill in the blank), and treat it as if it were some sort of received wisdom.
Scientific knowledge is not gained by such irrational means.
I am mystified by the scientists who keep on working and making propaganda for already falsified theories (or tell me where are the trillions of black holes surrounding galaxies, hiding in "temporal pockets" à la dr Who?).
Despite you encourage "open minds" you seem to believe that there´s only one theory compatible with the principles of scale relativity, yours. Then the paradigm is dead. To clarify, I´m not talking here about adjustable parameters, all parameters are univoquely defined once the equations "work out".
Singularities are a by product of the Platonic attitude of taking flawed theories too seriously _ or even perfect theories: a theory is not reality. Einstein himself NEVER believed in a primordial singularity (neither you, I see) nor in "singularities at the heart of extremely collapsed stars". Missing (or dark) matter might be a by product of ignoring electromagnetism on cosmic scales so gravitation is the only actor. Gravity and electromagnetism are relevant on all domains, I see you agree on this.
Two random ideas:
normally, space is considered infinite but, what if space turns out to be unbounded but finite, a 3-sphere, for instance? Then we can not find arbitrarily large scales or objects (self similar or not), the same way we can not fit any size on Earth surface.
In part inspired by the R - 1/R duality of string theory, it may be that scales do not go indefinitely up and down but they close, ergo, largest scales and tiniest scales match. For instance, subquantum and metagalactic realms are one and the same. Not infinite nesting of matter but not upper or lower limits either.
Regards
PS: whenever you find a singularity, call me. By the way, merry christmas and happy new year.
I do not discuss science with morons.
"I do not discuss science with morons."
So your work has been accepted by the professional physics community? I have a question from your website for you if this is correct. Is it correct that your work has been accepted by the physics community as a unifying theoretical success?
James Putnam
