An idol with feet of clay.

[Guv]

I have read several books by John Gribbin on cosmology and quantum theory. They seemed to be excellent books.

Recently I discovered that he is the coauthor of The Jupiter Effect, a book published in the late seventies or early eighties. That book described the coming alignment (in about 1984, I think) of most of the planets on one side of the sun.

It predicted serious cataclysms due to the combined gravitational effect o f the aligned planets on the sun. The book was utter nonsense and denounced by mainstream science. When the book was no longer selling, the authors recanted, giving various excuses for what they had done, in hope of regaining their reputation in the scientific community.

To me, they are the worst type of charlatan. They made up lies in order to make a buck and they traded on their valid scientific credentials to get it published and sold. It is like a teacher lying to his students in order to con them out of money.

It makes me wonder how valid his other books are.

[filburt1]

Nuts, I can't the gist of it here.

[NotLKH]

Takes me back....

"The Jupitor Effect" was based on a Hypothises that had been bandied about for a little while. When the book came out, I didn't
bother to buy it, because I knew it was hogwash. However,
it did receive some serious consideration in the then current science magazines and on TV-News.

So, I bought it, read it, confirmed it was hogwash, and tossed
it into the garbage!

It took about a year for most science magazines to unify in
their opinions of how impossible it was.

Of course, a magazine is not a scientist, however nobody
knows a scientists opinion until it is publicized.

Hence other occurances of Un {In?} credible hypothetical
theories and discoveries {ie: cold fusion} that took{in my opinion,} longer than it should to be {by the majority} discounted.

Why did you bring it up?

-Lou

[filburt1]

Originally posted by NotLKH
Hence other occurances of Un {In?} credible...

According to google, uncredible. Incredible is already taken.

[kedaman]

A fully functional society where everyone would obey preset rules would not evolve. The variety, the balance between order and chaos functions as the random mutation element in evolution theory. Most of the defect elements would not be preserved but those who would are worth it. From this point of view criticism seems unnessesary but only critisism against the evolving society.

[NotLKH]

kedaman.
[shake][hollar]KEDAMAN[/hollar][/shake]
Wake up!

you're talking in your sleep again.


-Lou

[Guv]

NotLKH: A friend of mine mentioned the book recently and we wondered if the authors ever get accepted back into the academic community after recanting.

When we ran a search, we discovered that John Gribbin was one author. I forgot the name of the other. At any rate, it becamer a current issue for us.

Gribbin seems to write pretty good books on science, but I no longer trust his opinions, and even wonder about some of the experimental evidence he mentions.

[simonm]

Gribbin seems to write pretty good books on science, but I no longer trust his opinions, and even wonder about some of the experimental evidence he mentions.

Is that not a little harsh? Everyone's entitled to make a mistake and should be allowed to try again.

At the end of the day, should we not take everyone's opinions with a pinch of salt? Is that not the moral of the story? Judge them by the validity of the arguments they make and the explanations they give and not by reputation.

[Guv]

Simonm: An honest mistake is not something to get upset about. A deliberate scam is more serious.

Perhaps Gribbin should be forgiven, but how can you trust somebody who sells his integrity? He knew the Jupiter effect was nonsense, but presented it as valid science.

Whenever he expresses an opinion in a book, how can you be sure he is being honest instead of saying what he thinks will make his book sell better? When he claims that some experiment supports his ideas, how can you be sure the experiment was performed as he described it?

It is tuff enough deciding when an honest author is misinterpreting some experiment or theory.

I do not want to go to the trouble of trying to verify everything I read in a book on the frontiers of science. I want to be able to trust the author not to deliberatly misrepresent anything.

[Nucleus]

Guv

If Gribbin knew it was a scam, then he traded scientific integrity for bucks. Seems like a simple enough equation to me.

Loss of guru status, mistrust and skepticism over any further scientific work or even past work is an inevitable consequence of Gribbins choice.

Short of interviewing Gribbin, we can only ever speculate as to why he made this decsion.

[DerFarm]

I don't know, Guv. There is a difference between lies and closely held beliefs. I run into this all the time when people convince themselves of ________ (fill in the blank) and then won't listen to anyone but those that in some way support the position.

The disgusting thing is not that this happens (re: Y2K,Domino Theory of Vietnam,The Chicago School of Economics,...) but that the people involved will seldom just say "Hey, I was wrong. Sorry 'bout that" and go on.

[Starman]

That's worrying news Guv.

I recently read Schrodingers Kittens by Mr Gribbin and enjoyed it.

I do remember that the majority of the references he gave were to his own previous books.

I have always tended to believe what I read in books, I think I feel that they have been checked by someone before they were sent to print. Information I find on the web I tend to wait until I have confirmation from another source before I believe it, this information is free, but when I spend around 7 Pounds English on a book I expect some truth - unless it's a very contraversial subject like secret chambers under the pyramids or something.

About the only strong fact I remember from the Kittens book was that electrons individually have been measured to go through a thin slot and still display the same characteristics as if there were many at once.

Most of the rest I think was speculation, based on this 'fact'.

Which book did you read?

[HarryW]

Whoa, DerFarm! Haven't seen you around here in ages.

Starman, are you talking about wave/particle duality?

[Starman]

HarryW,

Yes, but I only have John Gribbins' word on that.

Just one of those books that look interesting...

[simonm]

I think this, conversly, might actually be a good thing (once in a while). It reminds us that we should never read anything and take it as the gospel truth.

Everyone, no matter how much they might try and stick to established facts, cannot help but tarnish them with their own interpretations. This is not a bad thing as long as we realise it.

I have read contrasting opinions about how the implications of quantum mechanical experiments should be interpreted. There's no way you can assess which ones are more factual than others. It's just a matter of opinion.

[HarryW]

Wave/particle duality is a fairly well-established idea, but of course it could be that the information given on it isn't entirely accurate. I don't know anything about this guy personally so I couldn't say.

I'm not sure what the wavelength of an electron is, but I know the slit through which you can diffract electrons has to be pretty small. I think you can use crystals, or graphite, or something like that for it. Anyway you can conduct the experiment with some pretty simple equipment. You do need an electron gun, so it's not exactly household item stuff, but it's nothing more complicated than a cathode ray tube.

I'm not sure when wave/particle duality was first discovered/proposed but I'd imagine it was quite a long time ago. It's fairly reliable.

[Starman]

I believe that the experiment quoted in the Kittens book was sending electrons through a crystal grid. The emphasis was that when the previous book 'In search of Schrodingers Cat' was written (about 10 years before) the expriment had been done with light and at that time it was only postulated? that the effect would occur with electrons.
The later book states that this experiment had in fact been carried out and as far as I remember the rest of the book was based on this being a fact. If this is a fact then the rest of the book makes a very good read.

[simonm]

About the only strong fact I remember from the Kittens book was that electrons individually have been measured to go through a thin slot and still display the same characteristics as if there were many at once.

This is when there are two slits isn't it? Two slits close together in a barrier and particles are fired at barrier and those that pass through the slits interfere with each other even when you are only firing one at a time. Fasinating stuff!

The best evidence we have for parallel universes in my opinion.

[HarryW]

Err yes.... no... ummm.... I don't really know what your'e talking about

[simonm]

Well, for example, it is possible to set up an experiment that has an electron pass through it in such a way that there are two possible outcomes. Say, for arguments sake, that there is a 50/50 chance of either outcome occurring with a given electron. We would say that the outcome is probabalistic.

In the Multiverse view, the point at which the electron could go either way differentiates one universe from another so that the two universes are running in parellel, one containing the electron going one way, the other with the electron going the other way. Now, it could be argued, whichever universe we happen to experience is random although, when considering both universes, the behavoir is deterministic.

Right?

[HarryW]

So you're saying that in such a situation it's deterministic because everything will happen in one place or another? Is what happens in which universe determined?

[simonm]

Yes, to your first question.

As for your second question, who knows? I would say probably not as it would imply a guiding force of some kind (external to the multiverse). But, as I have hinted at before, quantum processes in the brain could allow the possibility of consious selection of a particular universe (where the existance of that possibility was known in advance).