Today I finally, astonishingly, read through an entire paper by a “popular-science crank”: http://hk.netsh.com/eden/bbs/6214/html/tree_7386694.html
Alas, every paper by a popular-science crank is a classic. They have quite distinctive features: their first-order research is a mess, but their second-order research is actually quite meaningful. Since reading 《Four-Dimensional Mechanics》 back in high school, this is once again the chance encounter that has led me to a complete popular-science-crank article; revisiting it a bit is fine too, fortunately I still remember what a popular-science crank is all about……
First let me quote a few funny lines:
This paper is the product of the author’s many years of thought, and has recently been thoroughly sorted out. Since its core content provides relatively complete and self-consistent answers to issues such as the unified field theory in physics, black hole theory, whether matter is infinitely divisible, and philosophical questions such as the origin of the universe, the essence of life, and especially what the essence of human beings is,……
What is now generally agreed in the physics community is that there also seems to be interaction between photons……
Why is it that the moon always faces the Earth with the same side, and the Earth also always faces the Sun with the same side……////——@$%@$#@$%@……
According to logical rolling deduction……
The golden ratio is completely equivalent to the natural logarithm e (this point has long been generally agreed in the mathematics community……
A completely insulated plastic sphere with no net charge at all, so long as its diameter is large enough and its rotational speed high enough, can produce a magnetic phenomenon similar to Earth’s magnetic field
What follows are my annotations on the entire article:
This paper is the product of the author’s many years of thought, and has recently been thoroughly sorted out. Since its core content provides relatively complete and self-consistent answers to issues such as the unified field theory in physics, black hole theory, whether matter is infinitely divisible, and philosophical questions such as the origin of the universe, the essence of life, and especially what the essence of human beings is.
////——No great scientist would ever speak in such a tone. This is the language of a popular-science crank. When you see a passage like this, you generally have to concede that he is profound and that I am shallow and ignorant, unable to understand it; never, ever keep reading. Keeping reading is just a waste of time.
“Daring to hypothesize and carefully seeking proof” has long been regarded as the scientific attitude toward knowledge, and this is also one of the most precious things I learned in my five years of study at Peking University and my five years of study at Tsinghua University. But “daring to hypothesize and carefully seeking proof” by no means means drawing conclusions first and then looking for reasons to prove them, or even selectively looking for reasons to prove them (although this error is often committed in daily life), and still less does it mean simply drawing conclusions quickly on intuition without deep thought. Rather, one should adopt a method similar to computer programming, rigorously laying out all possibilities caused by the hypothesis (if and else) in a logic framework that is as complete as possible, and proving each possibility. If any one if or else branch is falsified, then the hypothesis can be regarded as false; if no definite falsifying evidence is found, then the hypothesis may be approximately regarded as true, until humanity, through rigorous and completely self-consistent and closed image logic and abstract logic, has failed to find falsifying evidence for the hypothesis, at which point the hypothesis may be regarded as not false.
////——I don’t know what he is talking about; in any case, the point is that you should patiently keep reading.
Therefore, for judging the scientific nature of this article, it would seem that one should also adopt the same attitude, namely the way of thinking of “first daring to hypothesize, then carefully seeking proof,” which is more scientific. That is, regardless of whether its core conclusion is actually true or false, or whether it contradicts existing views, could readers of this paper please, with a calm and accommodating mentality, carefully savor it, rather than, upon only reading the beginning, assuming it is a joke or a prank and casually throwing it aside.
////——All right, then let me see how the author “rolls” the logic. But this kind of talk is the usual style of popular-science cranks: they always think that others fail to read their papers carefully because they cannot accept their “revolutionary” and “subversive” conclusions. In fact, the key point is that one simply cannot keep reading as soon as one sees that sort of tone. It is not that major scientific theory revolutions cannot happen, nor that the Goldbach conjecture cannot be proved by someone; but even such great figures would never speak like these popular-science cranks. What was it like when Wiles proved Fermat’s Last Theorem? Did he go around setting up stalls and shouting? — “Wiles employed a clever theory of elliptic curves and used a result by a Japanese scholar (it seems to have been Iwasawa). At the beginning Wiles did not claim that he had proved Fermat’s theorem, but advanced step by step, giving a lecture on ‘modular forms, elliptic curves, and Galois representations’ at an academic conference in Cambridge, one talk a day. On the third day, near the end, he suddenly turned and used them to discuss Fermat’s theorem. He said: ‘Thus, Fermat’s theorem is proved. QED (proof completed).’!” (see Liu Huajie’s article, http://shss.sjtu.edu.cn/shc/article3/yzshkxj.htm) What a vivid process! What was it like when Einstein proposed relativity? A comparison makes it clear: from the very beginning, to claim that one has “provided relatively complete and self-consistent answers to philosophical questions such as the origin of the universe, the essence of life, and especially what the essence of human beings is” — such grandiose language could not possibly come from the mouth of a great figure. It is understandable enough that, upon seeing this tone, one would stop reading.
The magnetic field is fictitious, not a material entity,
////——That a magnetic field is not a “material entity” does not mean that the magnetic field is fictitious; to take a step back, even if one says the magnetic field is fictitious, so what? Quarks can also be said to be fictitious.
Gravitational waves and light waves are essentially the same; photons are a higher-order form of gravitational waves, isolated solitons formed by the coherence of gravitational waves; elementary particles are attractors formed when photons are knotted through solitons, and different attractors correspond to elementary particles of different natures.
////——What solitons, what attractors, what does “knotting” mean? Sorry, I don’t quite understand. What are gravitational waves? What does it mean to be essentially the same? If this could be proven, then the theory of everything would be successful, enough to win the Nobel Prize three times over; in fact, finding gravitational waves would already be enough to win the Nobel Prize.
In modern physics, relativity is one of the highest-level physical theories, while the classical physics theories before relativity are merely approximate solutions of relativity electrodynamics at low-order/low-dimensional states, solutions in a three-dimensional coordinate system without considering the curvature of spacetime. Therefore, classical physics can be regarded as an approximate solution obtained by projecting and transforming the four-dimensional relativistic theory into three-dimensional space,
////——Classical mechanics is not merely one dimension fewer than relativity; the key issue is whether one accepts the constancy of the speed of light. As for spacetime curvature, that is a claim of general relativity; before spacetime curvature was proposed, special relativity had already transformed classical mechanics.
What is now generally agreed in the physics community is that there also seems to be interaction between photons.
////——？？？？？？？？
At present the equations for the major forces all show astonishing similarity in structural form, and we have no reason to believe there is no necessary connection among them）
////——In fact, the most structurally similar are gravity and electromagnetism; yet precisely these are the hardest to unify. By contrast, the equations for the weak force, the strong force, and electromagnetism do not seem to resemble one another very much in structural form, at least not to the “astonishing” degree……
Why is magnetic field never able to do work,
////——Who said that? A magnet can lift a small iron nail off the ground; where does the potential energy gained by the nail come from? Isn’t that work done by the magnetic field? Of course, one could perhaps also say that the agent doing the work is not the magnetic field, but the magnet and the entire Earth connected to it. But what on earth does the author mean by saying that magnetic field never does work?
Why, in the nearly hundred-year history since the prediction of magnetic monopoles was first proposed, despite the fact that science and technology have long advanced by leaps and bounds, has no definite evidence whatsoever yet been found to prove the existence of magnetic monopoles (which obviously runs counter to common sense);
////——Why does this run counter to common sense?
What is angular momentum, why is angular momentum conserved, why, when a gyroscope is struck during rotation and its axis shifts, does it still automatically return to its original position, why is the Moon always facing the Earth with the same side, and the Earth also always facing the Sun with the same side, and even the satellites we launch, without any external force or interference from firing their own rockets, ultimately always tend to face the Earth with the same side; their relation is like intermeshing gears—does there exist a necessary connection among these phenomena at different scales.
////——The Moon always faces the Earth with the same side because its rotation and revolution happen to be the same, whereas the satellites of other planets are not always like this; and the Earth always facing the Sun with the same side is obviously nonsense!!!!!! Otherwise there would be no day and night, with half the Earth always in day and half the Earth always in night. The author is telling blatant lies with his eyes wide open!!!!
Why, in Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism, are the magnetic field and electric field unable to be symmetric?
////——Maxwell completed the unification of electric force and magnetic force; I don’t know what problem the author thinks there is with Maxwell’s work.
Assumption 3: ‘For one system to understand all the details of another system completely, it must be more complex than that system’—at first glance, this assumption seems very simple, and is surely correct.……
////——Why is it surely correct? What does “understand” mean? What does “completely” mean? What does “system” mean? What does “complex” mean? Of course, in fact, can one understand “all the details” of some system? For any specific system, this is fundamentally impossible; neither a system more complex than it nor a simpler one can do it.
If we carry out a logical rolling derivation of the existing materialist viewpoint, we can arrive at the following conclusions……
////——Rolling~~~ roll on~~~ clatter clatter~~~
(Regarding the view that ‘the essence of human beings is material; human beings are deterministic in essence, but human beings can never understand their own determinacy,’ the initial formation was roughly four years ago, during the author’s doctoral studies at Peking University, when, while thinking about how to solve the problem of the universe being infinitely large and matter infinitely divisible, it suddenly occurred to me, and through nearly five consecutive nights of all-night contemplation I arrived at this conclusion. When I obtained this conclusion, I myself was also greatly astonished, so much so that after hastily making nearly ten thousand characters of notes, I sealed them away.)
////——Not at all novel; when I saw this conclusion I wasn’t especially astonished either.
This assumption fully conforms to natural dialectics, and basically also conforms to the materialist viewpoint, therefore it can no longer be deduced further; it can only be taken as a principle or truth, because natural dialectics itself cannot be logically proven.
////——The belief that essence is simple and symmetrical is by no means the exclusive preserve of natural dialectics. But what does it mean for essence to be completely identical? What does completely symmetrical mean? Simplicity and symmetry are what science seeks, but that does not mean symmetry can be taken as the premise of scientific theory. Of course, from this article, even if we allow the author to take so-called natural dialectics as his premise, he still derives nothing at all!
In the spirit of ‘boldly hypothesize, carefully verify,’ the scientific style, may we first tentatively assume that solitons are the essence of particles
，////——Solitons this and solitons that—I finally couldn’t hold back!! What exactly is a “soliton,” that is, a “solitary wave object”? The encyclopedia explanation is: in the 1960s and 1970s, computer calculations and experimental observations of shallow-water waves showed that solitary waves, after colliding, still retained their original shape and speed, like particles, and thus were called solitons. Do you see what this means?? It is talking about the behavior of water waves, light waves, and the like after collisions being similar to that of an isolated particle, and therefore they are called “solitons,” that is, using “particle” as a metaphor for macroscopic waves; it means that light waves, water waves, and so on, at certain times behave “as if they were a particle.” But the author uses this concept in reverse to talk about “particles,” saying that particles are solitons—that is, particles are like particles. What does that mean?
The greatest significance of Einstein’s relativity lies in the fact that it pointed out that the universe is four-dimensional, far beyond the scope of human physiological perception, and this is precisely the most remarkable aspect of Mr. Einstein.
////——Hearing such praise, Einstein would probably be infuriated back to life……
When a spacecraft is fired and starts moving, the mass of the astronaut inside the spacecraft will gradually increase. However, according to the principle of conservation of energy and mass-energy convertibility, where does the increase in the astronaut’s mass come from at this time? The only possible source is the photons produced when the spacecraft’s engines are ignited being absorbed by the human body,
////——A jumble! The author thinks energy is propagated through photons! Although photons do indeed carry energy. Leaving aside mass increase, let’s just say that when the spacecraft lifts off, its gravitational potential energy relative to the Earth increases, and its kinetic energy also increases. So how does the chemical energy of the fuel transform into kinetic and potential energy?
Therefore, since even today, when human science and technology have advanced by leaps and bounds, no definite evidence has yet been found proving the existence of magnetic monopoles, why don’t we follow the above assumption, and for the time being simply regard magnetic monopoles, and even magnetic fields, as purely mathematical phenomena that appear in mathematical calculations and have no real material existence?
////——Quarks can’t be found either; of course the author would probably also say that quarks are merely pure mathematical phenomena. Let’s not talk about that first. Even if the magnetic field is merely a mathematical construction, it is used to explain magnetic force. One can deny the magnetic field if one wishes, but then what theory are you going to use to explain the phenomenon of a magnet attracting an iron nail?
Magnetic phenomena are in essence all electric phenomena,……
////——This is not wrong. If the author has gone on and on saying the magnetic field is fictitious, then the conclusion is that the magnetic field is in essence just the electric field. What novelty does this have compared with Maxwell’s unification of the electric field and the magnetic field?
The Moon always faces the Earth with the same side, and the Earth also always faces the Sun with the same side,
////——This sentence appears again, which shows that the author was not simply making a slip of the pen; so it turns out he really thinks this……#%$@%@^
Is particle the phenomenon of “tailgating” produced when photons are distorted in an extremely strong gravitational field, or is it to be regarded as the result of light solitons, under appropriate quantization and phase conditions, being too close together and exerting such strong mutual gravity that spacetime deforms into circles or disks?
////——Nonsense!! Anyway, my ability is limited; I can’t understand it!
The golden ratio and the natural logarithm e are completely equivalent (this point has long been agreed upon in the mathematics community; the author merely rediscovers, in the course of logical derivation, that it fully conforms to my derivation rules, which in turn further shows that the author’s derivation assumption may be correct)
////——I’ve never heard of that! In what way are they equivalent? The golden ratio is one half of (the square root of 5 minus 1), whereas e is a transcendental number. In what way are they equivalent? Algebraic numbers cannot become transcendental numbers no matter how one performs algebraic transformations. Even if one says 1 and 2 are equivalent, or 2 and the square root of 2 are equivalent, it is still hard to believe that the golden ratio and e are equivalent……
A completely insulated plastic sphere with no net charge whatsoever can, as long as its diameter is large enough and its rotational speed is high enough, produce magnetic phenomena similar to the Earth’s magnetic field, and the strength of this artificial magnetic field is directly proportional to both the sphere’s diameter and its rotational speed.
////——Possible? Then why do many planets rotate faster than the Earth but still have no magnetic field? One reason the Earth has a magnetic field is its rotation; another is that it has an iron core. If the core were made of plastic, that would be difficult……
Meanwhile, drawing on the latest advances in soliton theory and nonlinear mathematics (including wavelet analysis and chaos/fractals, etc.),
////——I really can’t keep reading. The author keeps talking about “drawing on” some advancement or some theory and so on, but exactly how is he drawing on it? Exactly how is he twisting it?
Inference 1: The photon itself is the lowest-order attractor,
////——Does the author even know what an “attractor” is? Go look it up in an encyclopedia; I’m too lazy to refute it…… If the author is using the concept as in the field of chaos and fractals, such as a “strange attractor,” then photons and attractors are simply worlds apart, as unlike as chalk and cheese! If the concept of attractor is something the author has coined himself, then please explain it clearly!!
Inference 4: The operation and calculation of the above mathematical equations are extremely complex, requiring approximately eleven orders of infinity in order to derive the universe from its origin to the present macroscopic universe, and this is something beyond the computational ability of existing computers.
////——Haha, so it turns out it can’t be calculated. In that case, at the very least show us the equation first; I’d like to see what “eleven orders of infinity” means—there is only the concept of “higher-order infinity,” but I have never heard of how many orders it specifically has. At least show me an example of a second-order or third-order “infinity,” would you?
The universe has a long-timescale self-decay phenomenon, that is, a dissipation phenomenon,
////——Is self-decay the same as dissipation? Then what is a dissipation phenomenon? Does the author understand? Anyway, I don’t get it!
But because human beings always have doubts and lucky hopes about the principle of the invariance of the speed of light, and from this they yearn for such beautiful visions as whether humans can return from the dead, whether there is reincarnation after life and death, whether there is the care of ‘God,’ ‘Buddha,’ and so on, human beings produced the twin paradox.
////——After all that talk about the twin paradox, I finally can’t hold back again. A quick check of an encyclopedia will tell you how the twin paradox should be answered: (Concise Edition of the Jinshan Encyclopedia): in fact, the twin paradox does not exist. Special relativity is a theory of spacetime between inertial frames. The reference frames in which A and B are situated are not both inertial frames; B is an approximate inertial frame, and B’s inference that A is younger is correct; while A is a non-inertial frame, so special relativity does not apply, and A cannot infer that B is younger. In fact, according to general relativity—or even without using general relativity—we can imagine a special process in which A moves at variable speed relative to B: rapid acceleration—uniform motion—rapid deceleration, then rapid acceleration in the opposite direction—uniform motion—rapid deceleration. According to special relativity, by carefully considering the time dilation and the relativity of simultaneity involved, one can conclude that no matter whether one analyzes it from A’s side or B’s side, the conclusion is the same: the astronaut on the spaceship, A, is younger than B. In 1966, an experiment similar to twin travel was performed using muons: muons were made to travel around a ring with a diameter of 14 meters and then return to the starting point. The experimental result showed that the moving muons indeed lived longer than stationary muons.
Based on the seven assumptions in this article, and the inferences from the five problems above, this inference can be derived by rolling deduction.
////——It should be five assumptions and seven inferences, hmm.
Suppose there is a spaceship, whose mass can be divided into the human body mass m1 and the other mass m2 excluding the human body; the initial velocity of the spaceship is v0; the velocity of the human body after all the fuel of the spaceship is exhausted is v; the proportion k% of the energy (equivalent in mass) of photons emitted in the direction opposite to the spacecraft’s own direction that can be used by the spacecraft to produce is…… according to conservation of momentum and conservation of mass, we then have:…………
////——Finally some formulas and calculations appear. This proves that the author does understand a bit of mathematics, though apparently only to a rather limited extent…… But why is k = 50 the upper limit? Why can at most half of the photons’ motion directions have a component opposite to the direction of the spacecraft’s motion? Why can’t there be more? Couldn’t I use 40% of the photons to maintain the spacecraft’s structure? If you want photons to change direction, just place a mirror~ Reflect part of the photons traveling in the same direction as the spacecraft back, and wouldn’t they all then be opposite to the spacecraft’s direction? Wouldn’t that surpass the speed of light then? Hehe~
By the end of the paper, if the above theoretical reasoning cannot be completely falsified, then the specific form of the universe function will merely be a matter of technical operation, and the author will study the possible final form of this universe function/black-hole function in subsequent research work.
////——Of course it can’t be “completely” falsified, hehe; the author is too profound—can’t falsify him……
////——In fact, these annotations are unnecessary, because the author is just talking with a mouth and a sheet of paper; he has no real understanding of those fashionable concepts he employs, let alone any actual derivation or argumentation. If I met him face to face, I think I could ask him to write out a glossary of terms, nothing more—just explain, one by one and in a few sentences, what his key words actually mean, especially terms like “twisting” and “soliton,” which he uses so often. If he can produce that, then I will express my admiration!
March 3, 2006
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply