Science is not about gawking!

    Observation is a mainstay of Mathematical 'physics'

    Relativists maintain that observation is one of the pillars of the Scientific Method. The argument is that you
    need to observe a phenomenon of nature before you can collect data (which apparently is also part of the
    step known as observation.

    So let's get to the heart of it. Does the fact that you observed a bunch of birds for two hours necessarily
    give you any insight as to why they fly around? Could it be that if you watched a pen fall to the ground
    1000 times you could figure out why it doesn't fall to the ceiling? What if you repeat the experiment 1000
    more times? Will just observing tell you exactly what caused the pen to fall to the floor?

    Of course, you can accurately measure the speed and acceleration and weight and distance of an object.
    So far you have a description. You have yet to give a physical interpretation to the phenomenon.

    Science without observation?

    The skeptic is amused. He asks, "How can you do science without observing the phenomenon?:

    Here we have to put his claim in its proper context.

    Context # 1

    Stephen Hawking never observed a black hole. Indeed, there is nothing to observe
    because light allegedly does not come out of a black hole. Hans Bethe never
    observed the nuclear reactions inside the Sun. And Homer didn't observe the Trojan
    War, yet he wrote a couple of books about it. In fact, it is said that Homer was blind.
    Any blind man is able to explain a phenomenon without opening his eyes. The job of
    a scientist is not to gawk. His job is to explain!

    Context # 2

    The next claim is that at some point, at some time, someone had to observe a
    phenomenon before anyone can give it a try and attempt to explain it. What would
    there be to explain if no one had any experience with what we are allegedly trying to

    Well, we observe life every day all around us. Therefore, a logical question people ask
    is, "How did life start?" "Where did it come from?"

    Let's first settle that no one has seen life start. No one has seen where it came from.
    We are wondering not how life behaves every day -- which is a part of our daily
    experience. We are asking about something that we have never observed: the origin of
    life itself. We have seen births, but births sprout from fathers and mothers which in turn
    came from grandfathers and grandmothers. The question is about the origin of the first
    living entities and we surely have never seen those come into being. Many also ask about
    the beginning of the Universe. No one has ever experienced that either. How did matter
    come into being? Was it God? Or maybe it was Guth's Inflationary Theory which triggered
    existence? In other words, we are trying to explain phenomena that we have never
    observed, witnessed or experienced. Again, we do not need to observe the phenomenon
    we are trying to explain. We can visualize it or conceptualize it.

    The Scientific Method makes no provision for observation. Science is not about staring. Anyone can stare
    and not understand anything. Science is about explaining a phenomenon rationally. Only then does the
    presenter show that he understood the underlying cause or mechanism

    The Scientific Method consists of hypothesis, theory and conclusion. In the step known as hypothesis we
    make assumptions, in the theory we explain, and in the conclusions we clarify our interpretation. Nowhere is
    there a provision for observation. Indeed, one can theorize about causes and mechanisms in a star system
    on the other side of the Universe. We do not have to see the event to explain a mechanism.

    Observation = assumption

    Let's use an example to get to the heart of what's wrong with the word observe as abused daily by the
    establishment. The mathematical 'physicist' claims that he 'observed' a particle:

         "Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson..."

    We stand in awe of the mathematician's X-ray vision. We wish we had such keen eyesight to see an
    invisible particle such as the Higgs is alleged to be. Perhaps the authors of the article would be so kind as
    to illustrate for us what they 'observed'. That way we can all see what the Higgs looks like. Is it two or
    three dimensional? Is it round? Flat? Hook-shaped? How does the shape of the Higgs relate to its

    Of course, when you read the article you discover that the alleged 'observation' was actually an inference.
    The mathemagician ASSUMED that what he was staring at was a particle. What he actually observed with
    his eyes -- like what we mean when we say that we 'observed a bird laying an egg' -- we don't really know
    because there's not a single picture in the entire article. However, we can pretty much deduce what the
    mathematician really meant from the countless papers and statements published by his guild...

    "The ATLAS detector is a multipurpose particle physics apparatus... This mechanism,
    which gives mass to massive elementary particles, implies the existence of a scalar
    particle, the SM Higgs boson."

    "We can’t see these particles with our eyes (or cameras) either!  So how do we OBSERVE
    them?... we surround each collision point with a `detector’... Each sub-detector... can
    detect electrical signals... Using the detectors to figure out which particles were produced,
    where they went and how much energy they carried, we have the ingredients to make
    some EDUCATED GUESSES about what may have occurred in a given proton-proton

    "Most tracking devices do not make particle tracks directly visible, but record tiny electrical
    signals that particles trigger as they move through the device. A computer program then
    reconstructs the recorded patterns of tracks... Collating all these clues from different parts
    of the detector, physicists build up a snapshot of what was in the detector at the moment
    of a collision."

    In other words, the mathemagicians have never seen an actual subatomic particle or even the trace it
    allegedly leaves inside the chamber as it collides, explodes or decays. Instead, they begin with an
    ASSUMPTION: that the invisible phenomenon they are gawking at is mediated by particles. This is their
    starting point. They ASSUME that what is taking place in that ultra tiny, ultra swift world in front of them
    is the collision of particles. Therefore, we have to start our analysis and objection of 'observe' a little

    The mathemagicians build machines which they call 'particle' detectors in order to confirm their foregone
    conclusions: that they accelerated, collided and decayed particles. The hardware and software of these
    machines are designed to treat every electrical signal, every blip, every bit of data as a particle. This
    information is massaged by the computer and an image -- a DRAWING -- is made of what could likely
    have taken place inside the chamber ASSUMING that the mediators were discrete particles. In other
    words, not even the machine saw anything. It merely detects a signal, runs an algorithm, and calculates
    an itinerary based on the speed, mass, and energy fed into the computer, always assuming that the
    mediator is a corpuscle or tiny speck. The computer DRAWS these images as curved lines which the
    theorist INTERPRETS as representing traces of particles.

    Observe = Proof

    But then a good question is: Why would the theorists use the term observe rather than the more correct
    infer or assume if they did not see the actual event with their own eyes?

    By using the word observe, the theorist is insinuating that he saw the particle with his own eyes. He is
    saying that the machine took an objective picture of it like when you take a picture of a house or of your
    dog. Can anyone deny that the picture is of a house or of a dog? The theorist is placing his assumption
    beyond your ability to challenge it. How can you question that the mediators inside a chamber at the
    accelerator are particles when the theorist is showing you images of it?

    What the mathematicians are doing in an underhanded way is introducing testimony. They are TESTIFYING
    in order to compel the jury to see it their way. They are bringing authority to bear on the jurors, specifically,
    expert testimony. The mathematicians are preempting you, deterring collateral attacks on their findings.
    You must accept their word. They are insinuating that they actually SAW particles with their eyes (which is
    what most laymen understand by the word 'observe') when they really mean that they modeled and
    simulated the experiment with particles. They are boasting that the machine showed unequivocal traces of
    particles when they really should make it clear to their audience that the machine was programmed to treat
    every blip as a particle. Unfortunately, most people take these statements literally and later spam the forums
    saying things such as that 'particles have been proven to exist' by the 'scientists' at CERN and SLAC.

    By using the strategic word 'observe', the mathematician is in effect precluding a challenge to his
    assumption by treating particles as a fact. The particle mathematician is saying that the issue of whether
    the actors in his experiment are particles is non-negotiable. You cannot question that basic premise for
    otherwise all of Quantum Mechanics suffers a sudden death... and they're not even going to be drawn into
    that debate. As far as they're concerned, particles are facts! The mathematicians were taught to repeat by
    rote that particles have been proven. That battle was won by default decades ago when no one challenged
    the irrational proposal and now we all have to live with it.

    The mathematicians are saying, in essence, that you can question whether the particle in question is the
    Higgs or whether it has such and such mass or whether his calculation is correct, but not whether what
    they observed were particles. The Standard Model is a done deal. The mathematicians are not going to
    erase it and admit the failure of Quantum Mechanics to explain subatomic phenomena rationally. They
    would rather continue explaining irrationally and moving on with their work discovering new so-called
    'particles' every day. The word 'observe' serves that purpose. They are telling you that they did in fact
    observe particles in the chamber because that's what the machine told them. What they fail to tell you up
    front and clearly is that the machine was programmed at the factory to treat every signal as a particle.

    In the best case it seems to be a misuse of language; in the worst, it seems like false advertising. Shouldn't
    they begin their presentations warning their readers that the theories and conclusions contained in the article
    are contingent upon the assumption that they are dealing with particles?

    Scientists don't gawk!

    But let's look at 'observe' in light most favorable to the theorist and dismiss this as a petty semantic
    argument. There is a more fundamental objection and it is that Science is neither about observing nor about
    testifying. The theorist makes the error of treating Science like a lawyer treats Law. He believes that his job
    is to persuade the jury.

    It is for this purpose that the mathemagician introduces expert witnesses and biased testimony. The expert
    is asked to testify to introduce authority into the matter. If Einstein tells the crowd that he saw a flying saucer,
    he is likely to convince more people than if I told the crowd the same thing.  

    However, Science is not about persuading. In Science, we merely explain so that the juror understands. What
    each juror decides to believe after the show is over is his personal business and doesn't concern Science.
    Belief is a hallmark of religion.

"Observe, ye lads, observe!"

"I'm observing...
but I don't see anything."
The mathematicians use the strategic
word 'observe' to insinuate that there
is nothing to argue. The particle
has 'proven' the particle because
he 'observed' it (
i.e., saw it with his own

In reality, not one particle theorist has
ever seen a subatomic particle with his
eyes. 'Proof' of this is that not one
mathemagician can draw any of the

particles of the Standard Model.
The fact is that not one mathemagician has ever observed a subatomic particle with his eyes. All the
images of Quantum 'particle traces' from places like CERN and SLAC are computer-generated. The
systems are programmed to treat electrical signals as discrete particles and to draw them as such.
The mathemagicians ASSUME that they are dealing with particles and design their systems
accordingly. Later, they sell these assumptions to the public as proof and truth.

Bill's papers  or find them @  Academia
To comment on any of the pages in this website go to:

Rational Scientific Method   
             Bill's books


Mathematical Physics      
The Rope Hypothesis    

Nila and Bill      
Ye Olde You Stupid Relativist