69 Responses to Science is a messy process

  1. Something I didn’t say is that I think the suggestion climate scientists have got climate change wrong is simply wrong. Mostly, it is changing as expected. Surface warming is in line with expectations, as is sea level rise. We’re seeing indications of an increase in the intensity and frequency of extreme precipitation events. We might be starting to see an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme tropical cyclones. Summer Arctic sea ice may be declining a bit faster than was expected, but it seems to be within the range. I can’t think of anything that is definitely happening climatically that really wasn’t expected to have yet happened. It’s possible that some of the impacts have been more severe than expected, but this isn’t climate science (IMO).

  2. Not-in-my-name says:

    Science is not a messy process. It is a rational process, or at least it was until it was politicised by the climate alarmists. There is no sign that the rate of sea level rise has changed in decades and it very small. There is no sign that any of the remote islands in the Pacific or Indian oceans are sinking below the waves. The Maldives are building new airports and Obama has bought an expensive mansion on the coast. Some people do not appear to be listening to the alarmist and with good reason. There is no sign of an increase in extreme events. North America is clearly cooling compared to the 1930s, hurricanes and wild fires are also decreasing. The damage is greater because there is more stuff to damage.

    Recently there has been severe flooding in northern England and Venice. Both blamed on climate change. The England flooding is due to building on a flood plane. The Venice flooding is due to building on silt banks in the lagoon and then diverting rivers from the lagoon to prevent attacks by boat. This prevented silt being added. The weight of the buildings is causing the islands to sink. Venice was sinking 600 years ago. The other problem is the incompetent government which has failed to complete the barrage scheme. The problems are human cause but not by human caused climate change.

    All the events are the result of the weather on a particular day/days. It will be exactly the same in 20 years or 100 years. The only problem not related to daily weather is the possible rise of the oceans. The use of a global average temperature to define this is beyond ridiculous. How can a single temperature tell us anything about weather events? An average temperature does not have any physical meaning even for two cups of water. If we are concerned about sea levels why don’t we have an average temperature of the oceans. That would be meaningless as well because of the huge differences and we could not even measure or calculate it.

    The only messy process is the pointless, unjustified alarm about the climate and the policies that are making energy supplies unaffordable for many, making businesses uncompetitive compare to China and Asia that are ignoring this nonsense, and effectively all it is doing is making the rich richer.

  3. Not-in-my-name,

    Science is not a messy process. It is a rational process, or at least it was until it was politicised by the climate alarmists.

    You might want to consider that you’re somewhat making my point.

  4. Jeffh says:

    Not-in-my-name, your monicker belies your ‘knowledge’ (or lack thereof). Your post is filled with completely inaccurate ‘facts’. Climatic extremes – the intensity and duration of heat waves for example – are most certainly increasing in much of the world. The rest of your post is wrong in virtually every way. No need to waste any more time on you here.

  5. Clive Best says:

    The Venice floods were caused by a large Spring tide (a full moon aligned with the sun), coincident with low pressure and a strong Sirocco.

    Oh Venice! Venice! when thy marble walls
    Are level with the waters, there shall be
    A cry of nations o’er thy sunken halls,
    A loud lament along the sweeping sea!
    If I, a northern wanderer, weep for thee »

    Lord Byron

    It has essentially nothing whatsoever to do with climate change.

  6. You might want to consider that you’re somewhat making my point.

    The point that interacting with certain self-selected #*%& is not always an undivided pleasure?

  7. “I think it would be useful if more people were talking about how science actually works, rather than simply presenting supposedly interesting results wrapped up in certainty.”

    I think it’s fine to know and talk about how science works, but some things, like AGW, desperately needed to be presented in the level of certainty that science has developed. The constant concern with working on the climateball wars as a function of failed or inadequate communication on the part of scientists or folks who understand the science and are alarmed by the science is ridiculous. The problem with the communication of the problem is that ideology and bad faith arguments are at play in the public discussion.

    Constantly backing into discussion of how to convey the science so that people will understand it is ceding too much territory for ideology and bad faith arguments to do their work at preventing good public policy regarding global warming and climate change.

    The science regarding global warming and climate change is sufficiently certain now that we should make that job 1. The science is certain enough to justify action and changes in public policy. Many scientists, some 11,000 or more, have made a public statement regarding untold suffering that is coming if we do not change public policy on the issues that are driving global warming and climate change.

    If you are uncertain about what the recent statement made by the scientists says, please take a bit of time and read the statement. That is what we should be talking about in the public arena. Those of us who are interested in the way the scientific method works have plenty of forums for discussion of the scientific method.

  8. Clive,

    It has essentially nothing whatsoever to do with climate change.

    Nothing whatsoever. Are you sure? As far as I’m, sea level has been rising around Venice. So, clearly a spring tide played a big role, the idea that it had nothing to do with climate change seems a rather strong statement.

  9. Our attack weasel was not impressed with the text of the 11,000 scientists. http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2019/11/climate-emergency.html

    That is a pity, because it should be possible to write an accurate text that climate change is a big problem.

  10. When half of The Netherlands disappears in the waves, people like Clive will claim it was government regulation, the tides and a north-western storm. To get record extremes you tend to have need multiple reasons. Political extremists will always be willing to pretend to believe reality does not exist.

  11. Clive seems pretty certain about the Venice flooding. Of course, he’s wrong that it has “nothing whatsoever to do with climate change” but he’s certain. I think that any extended discussion with Clive will demonstrate that the problem here is one of ideology and/or bad faith argument. I suspect that Clive’s certainty and error have nothing to do with the messiness of science and how it is communicated.

    I could be wrong about some or all of that.

    Cheers

    Mike

  12. Victor,

    That is a pity, because it should be possible to write an accurate text that climate change is a big problem.

    Indeed, I do wish people were more careful in what they said. However, that might be me engaging in deficit model thinking.

  13. Is it possible to write an accurate text that climate change is a big problem?

    Why not: Open a thread regarding your read, understanding and takeaways from the statement from the 11,000 plus scientists.

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/05/world/climate-emergency-scientists-warning-intl-trnd/index.html

    That seems like a timely topic for discussion.

    Mike

  14. Mitch says:

    Back to ‘Not-in-my-name’s critique. Just because science has rational procedures, it is not necssarily a rational process. Most scientists set their own objectives, so do not go in parallel. I picture the process more like an amoeba, moving fast over ground where we understand methods and what data is needed, and stopping at places where we don’t have methods or don’t understand how to collect the data.

    So, science is a messy process, which actually helps science to advance more efficiently.

  15. Willard says:

    Hello not-in-my-name,

    Please mind your sock puppet.

    Thanks.

  16. Clive Best says:

    Of course there is a small effect from SLR – perhaps a maximum of 2cm and hence my adjective “essentially”. However the record flood was actually in November 1966: Venice immersed at 100 % by two metres of water!

    November is significant because it is just after the equinox, the sun moves to the southern hemisphere and NH spring tides are amplified. When you combine that with strong Sirocco winds you get “Acqua Alta”.

  17. @Willard Bizarre and I was just talking about the Szilard family in general terms elsewhere…some Holocaust surviving members whom I know. It’s my witchy genes I tells you….
    Don’t worry I wear thongs with my sock puppets.
    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/taking-a-closer-look-at-an-odd-pair-of-very-very-old-socks-84123314/

  18. ‘There may well be some aspects where our understanding today is so different that we might regard our previous understanding as being wrong. Typically, though, this would have been reflected in our confidence in that particular aspect of the issue.’

    These are very good lines, ATTP, in fact the whole thing is good.
    Lucky for climate science and the planet I had its back and could clearly explain all this to people through the ’90s so we wouldn’t be in the position that we are in today.
    In fact I should give myself a pay rise from the $0 that I receive today [work injury and general procedural fairness related]. George Soros why do you not return my calls ?
    A conservative politician here once said I was like the Pharisees which of course is silly as i love Greek food…he probably meant the Desert Fathers. He was giving me an award for my economic vandalism/conservation volunteering and i had turned up purely to heckle and embarrass him which worked a treat. 🙂
    I really need to work out how to sleep more….

  19. izen says:

    @-“Science is not a messy process. It is a rational process”

    Both mess and rationality can be components of Science.
    But the fundamental process is evolutionary.

    Science is a process that emerges from scientists and their institutions that continually evolves new and better optimised understandings of the environment it lives within.
    Technological advances (telescope, cyclotron, computer) that often derive from science can open up new aspects of the environment which in turn leads to new science evolving and filling the niche.

    As in biological evolution, Natural selection eliminates far more ‘bad science’ than the ‘good’ it supports; and perpetuates, optimises, and diversifies the science that is best at explaining the material reality in which it lives.

  20. “As in biological evolution, Natural selection eliminates far more ‘bad science’ than the ‘good’ it supports; and perpetuates, optimises, and diversifies the science that is best at explaining the material reality in which it lives.”

    The science behind climate change is not the only science decision makers and lay people are being tasked with evaluating. They expect science to be the main driver of solutions as well. It is much easier to evaluate the claim “wind and solar are cheap and effective at powering developed nations” than it is to evaluate the claim “ECS is most likely 3.” If the things that are easy to evaluate are fudged, it’s reasonable to assume a similar weighting is at play in the stuff that’s difficult to pin down.
    I would also note that mentions of “biological evolution” and natural selection eliminating bad science are being evaluated by lay people in a world where they’re told we must provide pap smears for biological males who identify as women because a form of “medical justice” trumps “material reality.” This could be one of the reasons why scientists like Michael Mann push back on the “climate justice” concept.

  21. izen says:

    @-jeffn
    “It is much easier to evaluate the claim “wind and solar are cheap and effective at powering developed nations” than it is to evaluate the claim “ECS is most likely 3.””

    There are FAR more varibles at play in how “cheap and effective” and “developed nations” are defined in terms of the socio-economic system and organisation of society both locally and globally than are involved in ECS. This makes it much harder to evalute a claim about how energy is used and produced in a ‘developed nation’ than any calim about ECS.

    @-“…evaluated by lay people in a world where they’re told we must provide pap smears for biological males who identify as women because a form of “medical justice” trumps “material reality.” ”

    Huh ?
    I have no idea what point you are trying to make here, the issue is actually whether female to male transgender people should have pap smears. Clinical opinion is that if there has not been a total hysterectomy and there is any remaining cervical tissue they should.
    Are you sure you have not got confused by some bigoted media report that has misrepresented the issue because of its resistance to the evolving social understanding of differences between biological and social gender ?

  22. Steven Mosher says:

    Its fair to say that venice flooding is the result of several factors

    1. The tide and weather
    2. the sea level rise due in part to AGW
    3. The delays in building the protection system

    BTW
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/10/31/italy-flooding-climate-change-venice/1831116002/

  23. Steven Mosher says:

    Venice has been called the floating city when, actually, it’s sinking. The city is made up of about 100 islands within a lagoon in the Adriatic Sea. Thanks to shifting tectonic plates below and water pumped out of the ground for industrial use in the middle of the century, Venice sank almost five inches between 1950 and 1970, and it continues to subside by about one-fifth of an inch each year.

    Jane da Mosto, an environmental scientist and executive director of the NGO We Are Here Venice, says that the biggest contributing factors to the destruction this week aren’t from Mother Nature but from human failures. “We need to improve the decision making. We need to improve the planning. We need to improve the science and technology behind big infrastructure,” she says.

    Venice has spent more than $6 billion on a flood-barrier system nicknamed MOSE (a reference to the biblical story of Moses’ parting of the sea). That project encompasses a system of steel gates along three inlets in the lagoon that would be lifted during tides that reach higher than 3.6 feet above sea level. The project that broke ground in 2003 and initially had a 2011 deadline, would have provided protection from tides up to 10 feet tall. But it’s over budget, behind schedule, and beleaguered with a corruption scandal. Former mayor Giorgio Orsoni resigned in 2014 and was arrested along with other officials accused of embezzling millions of dollars in funds meant for the flood barriers.

    https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/14/20963878/venice-high-tide-climate-change-flood-barrier-sea-levels

  24. Steven Mosher says:

    I used to follow this project closely, but then stopped.

    jeez

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOSE_Project

  25. Steven Mosher says:

    engineering is never messy.

    waaa

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-italy-weather-venice-mose/venice-still-waiting-for-moses-to-hold-back-the-seas-idUSKBN1XN2EQ

    and politics? always works.

    folks who want to bash science should look around their own side of the street first

  26. Ben McMillan says:

    Venice is an interesting example of trying to protect a city from the sea: once the sea level rises/city sinks a bit further, then the protection gates will have to be closed during high tides on most days. At that point the lagoon around the city doesn’t flush often enough to remove the human and other waste effectively.

    Since the med isn’t very tidal, it doesn’t take much to put a lot of seaside infrastructure underwater (not just in Venice).

    5mm per year of subsidence is comparable to current mean sea level rise rate due to AGW. At some point you go from ‘flood gates’ to effectively trying to build a sea dam. Most of the rivers are already diverted around the lagoon, so at some point you need pumps, as well as fixing a whole bunch of ancient plumbing (and the ecology is ‘an issue’).

  27. Venice is an area where humans need to stop working on adaptation now. It’s time to retreat to higher ground. Ben’s discussion is full of facts that suggest it’s time to retreat. As a species, we need to be smart about how we spend our resources and energy. Shall we save historically amazing buildings and spaces or shall we save human beings who are being displaced and endangered by climate events and climate change? For the most part, to date, there is not a lot of reason to think that we have decided to save/support climate refugees, but we could review our past decisions (darfur anyone?) and make collective decisions to do better with future crises. Put that one on our bucket list?

    Yes, science is a messy business. Public policy is no better, probably worse.

    To be on the safe side, we should probably also update our nuclear arsenals. If you’ve got’m, smoke’m.

    Cheers,

    Mike

  28. Willard says:

    Science is a ronaldy process too:

    *Grabs coat*.

  29. The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse says:


    folks who want to bash science should look around their own side of the street first

    Excellent, and completely not-ironic tone-trolling, coming from a co-author of “Ethics and E-mails, a Beginner’s Guide for the Self-Identified Climate Science Expert”!

  30. Izen: “I have no idea what point you are trying to make here, the issue is actually whether female to male transgender people should have pap smears. ”

    Believe it or not, they offer pap smears, and have even discussed offering abortions to male to female transgender people. They do cervical exams on people without a cervix. They’ve also debated whether it’s ethical to tell a female-to-male transgender person to get a cervical exam because, you know, they’re men now and it would be offensive to suggest a screening that applies only to women.
    Medical justice, like climate justice, means you’re dealing with something where the science is a distant second to the political need.

  31. izen says:

    @-“They do cervical exams on people without a cervix.”

    Not exactly.
    The closest to this I can find is the Canadian cancer society recommendations –

    “If, however, you’re a trans woman who has had bottom surgery to create a vagina (vaginoplasty) and possibly a cervix, there’s a very small risk that you can develop cancer in the tissues of your neo-vagina or neo-cervix. The risk depends on the type of surgery you had, the type of tissue used to create your vagina and cervix and your personal health history. Talk to your healthcare provider to figure out your specific cancer-screening needs as part of your overall pelvic health following surgery.”

    Note that it is not unreasonable to do some sort of screening, there is a strong association between cervical, anal and oral cancers with the human papillomavirus, HPV, unless you have been vaccinated against the strains that are suspect, so monitoring and testing can be indicated if there is exposure at some site.

    @-” They’ve also debated whether it’s ethical to tell a female-to-male transgender person to get a cervical exam because, you know, they’re men now”

    Who is this ‘they’ that are debating this, do you have a link ?

    Back in the real world science is done on this subject, try this paper for how the issue is actually researched.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4000345/

    Which I would suggest refutes your contention that the science is being relegated by the politics in this field, or in regard to climate.
    Unless you restrict your exposure to the subject to those fringes of the media that fail to engage with what is actually done in favour of some partisan dogmatic narrative.

  32. Joshua says:

    > I have no idea what point you are trying to make here…

    Jeff has one point only: he doesn’t agree with “the left.” He surroundeds that point with a lot of smoke.

  33. izen says:

    @-jeffn
    “…and have even discussed offering abortions to male to female transgender people.”

    This is so ridiculous that I had to go searching to see if it was real or a figment of your imagination.
    Abortions for female to male transgender people is of course a possible need. Some transgender men keep a functioning reproductive system and have had children.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49828705

    But the only possible mention of a male to female transgender person discussed as having a right to an abortion is a statement made by Julian Castro, on of the Dem candidates in a debate;-

    “I don’t believe only in reproductive freedom, I believe in reproductive justice. And what means is just because a woman, or let’s also not forget someone in the trans community — a trans female — is poor, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t exercise that right to choose. So I absolutely would cover that right to have an abortion,”

    Do you not think that, just possibly in the heat of the moment he might have misspoke and MEANT a female to male transgender person when he said a trans female ??

  34. Holger says:

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-009-0617-5 (2010)

    Relative sea level rise (RSLR) due to climate change and geodynamics represents the main threat for the survival of Venice, emerging today only 90 cm above the Northern Adriatic mean sea level (msl). The 25 cm RSLR occurred over the 20th century, consisting of about 12 cm of land subsidence and 13 cm of sea level rise, has increased the flood frequency by more than seven times with severe damages to the urban heritage.

  35. Holger says:

    I hope this video of a restaurant in Venice doesn’t show our future in several parts of the world, not only Venice:

  36. Holger says:

    Hope this Venice restaurant video isn’t showing our near future:

    (2nd try posting it)

  37. Holger says:

    Of the 20 exceptional tides recorded from 1936 through Tuesday’s, more than half have occurred since 2000. “It is a long-term issue. It is not the issue of one flood, we restore, and we go back to normal,” Rossler said.

    Climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf of the University of Potsdam estimates that one-third of Venice’s increasing vulnerability is due to global warming, which has raised the sea level. “The rest is mostly man-made,” he said.

    https://time.com/5730618/venice-high-tides-flooding-vulnerability/

  38. Dave_Geologist says:

    Since the hippie-bashers have already been bashed back, I’ll ignore them and just refer (not for the first time) to Asimov’s excellent The Relativity of Wrong.

    More Asimov:

    Isaac Asimov global warming 1989

    Isaac Asimov on the greenhouse effect

    Asimov was giving the keynote address at the first annual meeting of The Humanist Institute. “They wanted me to pick out the most important scientific event of 1988. And I really thought that the most important scientific event of 1988 will only be recognized sometime in the future when you get a little perspective.”

    His choice of forum was perhaps also prescient. Time waits for no man, and for no belief. Or indeed disbelief.

    Scottish couples who chose a humanist wedding are less likely to divorce than those who had other types of marriage ceremony, figures for the BBC suggest.

    Humanist weddings have been legal in Scotland since 2005 and are now more popular than Church of Scotland and Roman Catholic weddings combined.

  39. ….and do you remember how I tried to warn people that the baby boomer generation was going to be remembered poorly ?
    gravestones ground into dust type thing ?
    Humph…

  40. “However, as a process, science is remarkably good at developing understanding of the world around us”. I’m afraid it isn’t. If you think it is, try explaining how gravity works. Or how a magnet works. There’s a lot of things like this.

    PS: I was hoping this was a physics blog.

  41. John,
    I’m assuming that you’re intending to be insulting, but maybe you can explain why you think we don’t know how gravity works.

  42. dikranmarsupial says:

    For something that we can’t explain

    1280 pages seems rather a lot (please, no spoilers, I haven’t even started it yet!)

  43. The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse says:


    Or how a magnet works. There’s a lot of things like this.

    F#cking magnets, how do they work?
    It’s a miracle I tell you – a miracle!

  44. The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse says:

    dikran –

    Back in the day, my classmates and I referred to MTW as simply “The Bible”.

    There is also Wald’s book:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Relativity_(book)

    And Weinberg’s book.
    And Chandrasekar’s book.

    And (for the really old-school stuff) Newton’s book.

    But it’s a shame we just don’t know how gravity works…

  45. duffieldjohn says:

    and Then There’s Physics: no, I didn’t mean to be insulting. I read about your interest in accretion discs and self-gravity, and thought gravity was a good example of how science isn’t remarkably good at developing understanding of the world around us. If you disagree, try explaining gravity yourself in circa 120 words. It’s only when you actually try to explain things like this that you come to appreciate that the stock explanation relies on things that aren’t explained or observed, or on things that are in essence “magic”. Like action-at-a-distance. .

  46. John,
    I disagree, but am quite happy for you to think otherwise.

  47. duffieldjohn says:

    I do think otherwise. Here’s how gravity works in 119 words:

    According to Einstein, a concentration of energy in the guise of a massive star “conditions” the surrounding space, making it neither homogeneous nor isotropic. As a result the speed of light is spatially variable. So light curves downwards like sonar waves curve downwards in the sea, because there’s a vertical gradient in wave speed. Then matter falls down because of the wave nature of matter. See Louis de Broglie’s 1923 letter to Nature on waves and quanta, where he said “the wave is tuned with the length of the closed path”. Then think of the electron as light going round a closed path. The horizontal component bends downwards, so the electron’s position changes. In other words, it falls down.

    I hope those hyperlinks work. Einstein explained most of it in the Einstein digital papers, but most people don’t know about it because it isn’t in MTW or Wald etc. It’s essentially the same as Newton’s explanation in Opticks – see Eric Baird’s paper https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0011003.

  48. John,
    I don’t really see how you trying to explain how gravity works somehow illustrates that science isn’t remarkably good at developing understanding of the world around us.

  49. duffieldjohn says:

    [Mod: Sorry, but I limit people to one condescending comment per post.]

  50. Steven Mosher says:

    weirdly John did not explain gravity in 119 words. he pointed to other people explaining it.

    john is an IT guy

    http://physicsdetective.com/about/

    what is it about amatuer british cranks.

    Tallbloke has a twin

  51. David B. Benson says:

    Mass causes gravity; gravity determines where mass will move if unconstrained.

  52. dikranmarsupial says:

    “If you disagree, try explaining gravity yourself in circa 120 words.”

    this is a very silly test, you can explain anything in circa 120 words, provided you do so at a suitable level of abstraction/complexity. However that means an adversarial interlocutor can always reject the explanation as being to abstract or too shallow. It is a silly word game, nothing more.

  53. dikranmarsupial says:

    The Very Reverend, Weingberg’s book is on my reading list as well, but being a humble engineer, it isn’t clear how much I will get out of them! ;o)

  54. dikranmarsupial says:

    ” Then matter falls down because of the wave nature of matter. ”

    Do stars (and other macroscopic objects) really have a non-negligible wave nature?

    “the wave is tuned with the length of the closed path” was de Broglie talking about macroscopic objects there or subatomic particles (electrons)?

    I think there is some conflation of ideas going on there.

  55. David B. Benson says:

    ned.ipac.caltech.edu contains a variety of lecture notes on matters related to gravity. I am using these to learn some cosmology.

  56. Clive Best says:

    John,

    I like your website !

    I am just a physicist trying to be an IT guy.

    😉

  57. David B. Benson says:

    Just now reading lecture notes by Sean M. Carroll.

  58. mwgrant says:

    Mosher wrote:
    “ weirdly John did not explain gravity in 119 words. he pointed to other people explaining it.

    “john is an IT guy”

    Hence the use of pointers.

  59. David B. Benson says:

    “Just now reading lecture notes by Sean M. Carroll.”

    I uploaded this snippet by Prof Carroll to YT because it does explain the quest for understanding in under 30 seconds. The rest is good too as he explains why funded scientific research is not geared to certain fundamental topics (such as the origins of quantum theory).

  60. dikranmarsupial says:

    @mwgrant ;o)

  61. duffieldjohn says:

    I was being factual, not condescending. Take a look at Ned Wright’s article on the Deflection and Delay of Light. He says this: “In a very real sense, the delay experienced by light passing a massive object is responsible for the deflection of the light”. The delay he’s referring to is the Shapiro delay. Now take a look at Irwin Shapiro’s 1964 paper. Shapiro said “the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential along its path”. It’s kind of a Donald Rumsfeld thing, with a twist.

  62. John,
    I don’t know why you’re telling me these things. Maybe reflect a little on the fact that I said science is remarkably good at *developing* understanding of the world around us. You seem to think I said something more like science has developed a perfect understanding of the world around us.

  63. dikranmarsupial says:

    Looks like John isn’t going to address the points I raised.

  64. Willard says:

    > I was being factual

    I doubt

    [JC1] If you think it is, try explaining […]

    or

    [JC2] I was hoping this was […]

    were factual statements, John.

  65. duffieldjohn says:

    What I’m trying to demonstrate is that science is remarkably bad at developing understanding of the world around us. Gravity is just one example. There’s lots of other examples.

    dikranmarsupial:

    Do stars (and other macroscopic objects) really have a non-negligible wave nature? They all have a wave nature. A star is made up of electrons, protons, neutrons, photons, and neutrinos. We can diffract electrons. They have a wave nature. We can diffract protons and neutrons. They have a wave nature too. Photons definitely have an E=hf wave nature. Neutrinos travel at c so they’re somewhat like photons. Think in terms of a travelling breather.

    Was de Broglie talking about macroscopic objects there or subatomic particles (electrons)? The latter. De Broglie was awarded the 1929 Nobel prize in physics “for his discovery of the wave nature of electrons”. His Nobel lecture was on The Wave Nature of the Electron. Schrödinger spoke in similar terms, as did other physicists. See for example the 1935 paper The Quantization of the New Field Theory by Max Born and Leopold Infeld. See paragraph 3 of pdf page 12 for the most important part: “the inner angular momentum plays evidently a similar role to the spin in the usual theory of the electron. But it has some great advantages: it is an integral of the motion and has a real physical meaning as a property of the electromagnetic field, whereas the spin is defined as an angular momentum of an extensionless point, a rather mystical assumption”.

  66. John,

    What I’m trying to demonstrate is that science is remarkably bad at developing understanding of the world around us. Gravity is just one example.

    Gravity is not a good example. This really is just silly.

  67. dikranmarsupial says:

    “They all have a wave nature. ”

    evasion, I asked if they had a non-negligible wave nature. Sure we can diffract electrons and stars contain electrons, but can we diffract stars? No.

    “The latter” yes, so in what way is it relevant to macroscopic objects? Again you evade the point that you are applying quantum physics to macroscopic objects where quantum effects are negligible.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.