From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: No big crunch?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:19:50 GMT

In article <6NOV199211570602@csa1.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.212050.25373@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes...
>> 
>>     My guess is that there are far more assumptions in this than you
>>     are letting on, many hidden.
>
>Guess what you like.  You are free to read the papers and form a real 
>scientific opinion, if you care to.

     Why don't you outline the process for us?  I'm sure I can provide
     my real scientific opinion with your fine explanation.
     
>>     However, getting back on track it is silly to say that a theory that in 
>>     some sense avoids internal inconsistency has passed some sort of 
>>     valid scientific 'test'.  It's like patting oneself on the back
>>     for not having assumed ii equals 3 and ii equals 5 at the same
>>     time.  
>
>Perhaps it seems that way to a mechanical engineer.  However, I assure you
>that it really works that way in particle physics.  Internally consistent
>theories come much more easily in classical physics than in quantum field
>theory.  Over the fifty-odd years of particle physics history, internal 
>consistency has repeatedly been a useful way of discovering new physics.

     Aerospace Engineer, thank you.

     You should also be aware of the ways your formulations can
     deceive you.  My suggestion is that such things as renormalization
     are simply symptoms of having pursued prejudice.

>He points out in passing that if his Lagrangian is the correct low
>energy expression then there probably exist massive weakly interacting
>intermediate vector bosons.  Why?  Because his Lagrangian is mathematically
>inconsistent at sufficiently high energy (roughly 300 GeV), and this is the
>simplest way to "patch" it and save the theory.  
>
>Roughly 45 years later, the W and Z were discovered, and were shown to have
>all the properties that Fermi speculated they need have, only the basis
>of mathematical consistency.  

     Is this consistency, or a 'prediction', the failure of which would
     have led to creation of different Lagrangian(s) that would not
     have the particular failing?

>Similar stories can be told about many other features of the standard
>model.  Even those features which were predicted or discovered by different
>means can be seen in hindsight to be *necessary* on the basis of 
>consistency.  The charm quark is a good example.  Though is was predicted in 
>order to explain the absence of flavor-changing neutral-current processes,
>it is necessary mathematically in the SM to cancel anomalous diagrams 
>which contain strange quarks.  Without it, the SM would blow up, i.e., lead
>to infinite predictions in some embarassing places.

     Hindsight may well be deceiving you.

     I await with interest the discovery of the Higgs' boson.
 
                           dale bass


-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics