I apologize for the off-putting suggestion. I intended no offense.

And thank you John for the kind offer to take a look at the idea.

I should clarify. I didn’t mean to imply that I needed your help for the math. The math is clear and finished.

I need help to review the form. I have always been given poor marks for skipping steps in proofs because I don’t do homework.

When I know something I go onto another concept. That means I often don’t see certain steps as necessary in a proof because it is not apparent to me that others won’t see them as obvious.

In my experience, it is far better to do the research so that the presentation will not create false Bayesian positives for woo because of inartful or misapplied notation or skipped steps which others interpret as “here a miracle happens.”

Your comment in the forum last year that mathematicians worked with abstractions made me realize that I’d been doing applied math at graduate level as part of my computer science autodidactic education starting at age 16. Your recommendation of Elwes’s Mathematics 1001 which my wife recommended helped me realize that I had achieved sufficient coverage of the problems. Not having attended any university, I didn’t have the traditional mechanism for determining the scope of my coverage of the field.

So, no danger of getting those 10 points in this particular case. Unless I’m really insane. ;-)

It has been amazing to me how many people just don’t seem to understand why it is necessary to use mathematics to prove a theory. By my standards, physics knows nothing but believes much. There should be a very high standard for canonical knowledge.

Mathematical physics should be the only kind. You need to start from the ground up.

I’ll send something to you later today. I’ll keep it short, a few paragraphs should suffice.

]]>Curtis wrote:

I hope that Barcelona is treating you well.

Yes, I’m having a great time. I’m getting to know some cool biologists, and they’re giving me lots of great things to think about—mainly about biodiversity, and how it’s related to information, and how it changes thanks to evolution. For example, Richard Reeve works on the viruses that cause influenza and hoof-and-mouth disease. He’s got lots of data on their genomes, so he can test models of how they evolve.

Did you see the Gaudi Cathedral?

La Sagrada Família? Not yet, but we’re going there next Wednesday.

By the standards of current science, it appears that the question of neutrino velocity has been adequately disproven in most minds. However, the original experimenters have not yet put the nail in the coffin.

The OPERA team now thinks there were one or two problems with their original experiment. They fixed these and repeated the experiment in May. Now they say the neutrinos are going slower than light. Three other experiments using the same neutrino source—Borexino, ICARUS, and LVD—are getting the same result.

So I’d say the coffin is nailed shut at this point. It’s mainly because I’m so busy that I haven’t yet demanded my reward from Frederik De Roo and Heather Vandagriff and you!

Of course I don’t mind waiting for more evidence, but I don’t know if people plan any other experiments.

I do know, that it is impossible for information to travel faster than the speed of light. I believe I can prove this mathematically…

I don’t think you can mathematically prove a fact about the physical world… unless you start from some assumptions about the physical world. So the big question is: what are your assumptions, and should we believe them more than we already believe that neutrinos go slower than light?

… with your help.

Hmm, you’re veering dangerously close to item 15 on the crackpot index:

15.10 points for each statement along the lines of “I’m not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations”.

I know it’s well-meant, but I’m afraid the complicated bet you’re proposing is a bit off-putting. So, I won’t accept it. But if you want to send me your idea and get my take on it, that’s fine; no bet required.

]]>I hope that Barcelona is treating you well. Did you see the Gaudi Cathedral?

By the standards of current science, it appears that the question of neutrino velocity has been adequately disproven in most minds. However, the original experimenters have not yet put the nail in the coffin.

I don’t know what will happen, I try to keep an open mind. So do you.

I do know, that it is impossible for information to travel faster than the speed of light. I believe I can prove this mathematically with your help.

But first, a challenge and an escalation of terms:

I offer a unique double-or-nothing opportunity which will last for 24 hours from the time you read this whenever that should first occur. Should you accept, I will give you my conjecture which consists solely of a simple equation.

You will have 24 hours to prove or disprove it. If you disprove it, I lose immediately.

If you cannot disprove it, then you must choose an open problem of mathematical physics, the most difficult one you know. I will then have 24 hours to show to submit a paper showing how the ideas embodied in my conjecture open up significant new areas for research. Areas worthy of research with a paper with your name on the top. The paper must be of sufficient quality that you would accept it as a Ph.D thesis.

Then you will choose the winner by deciding whether or not neutrinos can travel faster than light.

If you choose that I lose, I will help you with any task you choose for as long as it takes. I will make it my first priority.

If you choose that I win, then I will travel to visit you where we can discuss the other ideas that follow naturally from the research that prompted this equation and conjecture and you will write me a letter of recommendation to have my paper submitted for a Ph.D to the institution or institutions of my choosing.

If you find the above escalation acceptable, please let me know below. A simple yes or no will be sufficient.

If you need clarification of the terms, please propose them below.

– Curtis

]]>I’d not be so quick to insult someone. I thought it quite ironic given that my very brief search of Randell L. Mills name in Google turned up a Physics Forum thread that mentioned a prior discussion of Mill’s work:

The penultimate post of that brief 1998 SPR discussion, dated January 25, 1998, was from John Baez, who wrote that even though the theory seemed nutty to him, it did make “a nontrivial testable prediction,” namely, “a simple formula for the first ionization energy of an ion with only 2 electrons–that is, the energy it takes to ionize the first electron.”

Baez noted that the formula matched experiment up to 3 significant figures and at least up to Z = 9. He added, “This is pretty darn good if Mills claims to be ignoring relativistic effects…”

So it seems that John’s hardly the one speaking without having done his research. I found the above in less than a minute.

]]>I’m not ‘deferring to Wikipedia’. I’ve examined Randell Mills’ work in detail, since someone has repeatedly offered me thousands of dollars to write a report on it. I was initially fascinated by his simple formula for certain ionization energies, which gave approximately correct results, but I decided that none of his other ideas hold water. I was linking to Wikipedia so that people who’d never heard of Mills could quickly read something about him. Since he has managed to get large sums of money from investors, I don’t think we need to worry about him much.

(Since you haven’t posted here before, you probably don’t know that insults and rudeness are not allowed. Future comments containing remarks like ‘penny ante doodoo’, ‘baton twirlers’ and so on will be deleted. I never allow such things here.

Furthermore, Mills’ work is not related to the subject of this post—except insofar as ‘neutrino’ rhymes with ‘hydrino’.)

]]>What is a scientist (other than a fairy) for not considering the work of another scientist larger body of work, but defers to Wikipedia (an arsenal for the status quo), or for what might be the largest catastrophe humanity has ever faced concerning the myriad of mathematically deviant events called extinctions having occurred, like seven times in the million years of humans on earth (against the backdrop of a structure missing entirely in civilization, Bertrand Russell), and to which Mills’ work included as part of a society that would, also, put James Lovelock’s work in perspective, might accomplish something worthy of their genetic makeup. Since humans have forced both hot and cold conditions, this is a double cocked problem, not easy, or easily dismissed by baton twirlers. With effort tying reality with imagination, one comes to understand something larger. The history of Mills efforts you entirely miss by this propaganda called the status quo (Wikipedia), however ratcheted down in tradition we have become, is so much larger than any penny ante doodoo, but it takes looking. It would be a first to consider some larger picture, humanity, and then we may treat intelligently for once such a planet as ours suffering from something very real (over and over) now, if not just learn something other than repetition?

]]>Randell Mills’ bizarre theories have little to do with what we’re discussing here.

]]>