OT: astronomical distances quantized? Was Re: [XCSSA] Legos and
Dark Matter
xcssa@xcssa.org
xcssa@xcssa.org
Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:43:54 -0500
--Boundary_(ID_G1StK0pIoFrRi+qh3SmGQg)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Tweeks,
Actually, your sentiments are shared by many scientists. There are a
bunch of books out now that are highly critical of String Theory, and
the kind of physics-by-beauty-contest that it has come from. At the
colloquium, I bought all the books by Lee Smolin, one of the pioneers of
"Loop Quantum Gravity", a competing theory. His latest book is entitled:
The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a
Science, and What Comes Next
A book by another physicist is even more blunt:
Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory And the Search for Unity in
Physical Law
I might to make a few finer distinctions, however. The current
"Standard Model" of quantum physics, while lacking the kind of elegance
found in General Relatively, is universally regarded as a great
achievment. There is great predictive power. Once some 19 or so
variables are accounted for, the model explains all the forces, all the
interactions, all the elemental masses, etc., everything about matter
and energy to extremely high precision...as good as we have been able to
measure under normal conditions and the extreme conditions in particle
accelerators. So it's the very success of this Model that leads to the
next question: why do these 19 basic constants have the values they do?
We'd like to have a "Theory of Everything" that explains that, perhaps
in terms of one overarching principle. That's what hasn't been found.
String Theory, and it's competitors, give us hope that such a theory
might be found. But so far, it's only a hope, and some are speculating
that it simply won't be found, science has gone as far as it can, etc.
The Standard Model is utilitarian science. It predicts stuff, and
experiments (which often require particle accelerators) bear those
predictions out. It's "ugly," but it works.
The main criticism against String Theory is the claim that it hasn't led
to any testable predictions. The verification of strings themselves
would require energies vastly greater than any conceivable particle
accelerator could achieve, because they are so small. Maybe something
like 10**30 as much energy density as current accelerators...so it's
just never going to happen.
But, I should hasten to add that String Theory theorists themselves
aren't saying this. They are saying that the HAVE made a few testable
predictions, and that particle accelerators coming online soon (2007 in
one case) will be able to test them. Perhaps. Also, they claim that
some of their predictions can be tested astronomically, and that new
astronomical instruments will be able to do these tests.
Loop Quantum Gravity theorists and others also claim their theories will
be testable by these new instruments.
So we shall see.
No doubt there are many systemic and institutional problems with
science. There is a kind of "bandwagon" effect, where all research gets
focused on one model to the detriment of others. Why this happens is
easy to see. Say every university has a small number of theoretical
physicists, perhaps only one. Woudn't that university want to have
"their" physicist studying THE most promising model? Also, the one for
which students are likely to get future jobs. Etc.
But in fact physicists are quite open minded people generally, and if
they saw the weight of evidence shifting in some other direction, they
could follow it. And, in fact, theoretical physicsts are studying many
different theories; only the concentration (perhaps now shifting) around
String Theory could be criticized. A friend of mine who is very
critical of scientists generally argues that physicists are the best and
most open minded of scientists. They are the ones who pay close heed to
all the "anomalies": the facts that aren't explained well by current
theory. They are the ones who refuse to close out alternative theories
or explanations prematurely. From what I've seen, I agree with this.
You can simply scan the web to find all sorts of interesting arguments
among physicists, both professional and amateur. Perhaps it's not
coincidental that the "web" itself, that is the particular form of
hypertext we have on the internet, was invented by physicists. They
love to argue.
While I often like science documentaries on PBS, you've got to remember
that the "static" view of science given by any one documentary is only
partly true. The reality is far more dynamic, interesting, and
ultimately satisfying. Any criticism you might make has probably
already been made by some scientist somewhere.
Charles
xcssa-admin@xcssa.org wrote:
>On Tuesday 24 October 2006 20:00, xcssa-admin@xcssa.org wrote:
>
>
>
>>Given a sufficiently complex theory with enough unknown variables,
>>anything can be explained after-the-observation. What's generally
>>considered the test of a good theory is that it predicts the outcome
>>BEFORE the observation, so it can't be said we just rigged the variables
>>to make it work with known data.
>>
>>
>
>I agree with this statement more than any other I've read thus far.. :)
>
>As for dark matter.. it's born of the same "theory rigging" that quark theory
>is based on.. "unexplained forces". Can't explain a force? Let's attribute
>it to a particle and then get grants and build giant particle smashers to
>find it!
>
>It's really a shame how scientists now days push their theories around like
>some high school popularity contest, looking for book deals and grants
>instead of seeking honest peer review and critical comparative thinking and
>experimentation. When did this start happening? In the 80's during the cold
>fusion debacle?
>
>The current PBS specials on string theory makes me kind of ill. What kind of
>scientific theory bases itself on unobservable postulation? They just seem
>to be creating philosophy books, shows and getting grants based on real
>theory figired out 30 years ago.
>
>What do you think Charles?
>
>Tweeks
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>XCSSA mailing list
>XCSSA@xcssa.org
>http://xcssa.org/mailman/listinfo/xcssa
>
>
--Boundary_(ID_G1StK0pIoFrRi+qh3SmGQg)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
Tweeks,<br>
<br>
Actually, your sentiments are shared by many scientists. There are a bunch
of books out now that are highly critical of String Theory, and the kind
of physics-by-beauty-contest that it has come from. At the colloquium, I
bought all the books by Lee Smolin, one of the pioneers of "Loop Quantum
Gravity", a competing theory. His latest book is entitled:<br>
<br>
The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science,
and What Comes Next<br>
<br>
A book by another physicist is even more blunt:<br>
<br>
Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory And the Search for Unity in
Physical Law<br>
<br>
I might to make a few finer distinctions, however. The current "Standard
Model" of quantum physics, while lacking the kind of elegance found in General
Relatively, is universally regarded as a great achievment. There is great
predictive power. Once some 19 or so variables are accounted for, the model
explains all the forces, all the interactions, all the elemental masses,
etc., everything about matter and energy to extremely high precision...as
good as we have been able to measure under normal conditions and the extreme
conditions in particle accelerators. So it's the very success of this Model
that leads to the next question: why do these 19 basic constants have the
values they do? We'd like to have a "Theory of Everything" that explains
that, perhaps in terms of one overarching principle. That's what hasn't
been found. String Theory, and it's competitors, give us hope that such
a theory might be found. But so far, it's only a hope, and some are speculating
that it simply won't be found, science has gone as far as it can, etc.<br>
<br>
The Standard Model is utilitarian science. It predicts stuff, and experiments
(which often require particle accelerators) bear those predictions out. It's
"ugly," but it works.<br>
<br>
The main criticism against String Theory is the claim that it hasn't led
to any testable predictions. The verification of strings themselves would
require energies vastly greater than any conceivable particle accelerator
could achieve, because they are so small. Maybe something like 10**30 as
much energy density as current accelerators...so it's just never going to
happen.<br>
<br>
But, I should hasten to add that String Theory theorists themselves aren't
saying this. They are saying that the HAVE made a few testable predictions,
and that particle accelerators coming online soon (2007 in one case) will
be able to test them. Perhaps. Also, they claim that some of their predictions
can be tested astronomically, and that new astronomical instruments will
be able to do these tests.<br>
<br>
Loop Quantum Gravity theorists and others also claim their theories will
be testable by these new instruments.<br>
<br>
So we shall see.<br>
<br>
No doubt there are many systemic and institutional problems with science.
There is a kind of "bandwagon" effect, where all research gets focused on
one model to the detriment of others. Why this happens is easy to see. Say
every university has a small number of theoretical physicists, perhaps only
one. Woudn't that university want to have "their" physicist studying THE
most promising model? Also, the one for which students are likely to get
future jobs. Etc.<br>
<br>
But in fact physicists are quite open minded people generally, and if they
saw the weight of evidence shifting in some other direction, they could follow
it. And, in fact, theoretical physicsts are studying many different theories;
only the concentration (perhaps now shifting) around String Theory could
be criticized. A friend of mine who is very critical of scientists generally
argues that physicists are the best and most open minded of scientists. They
are the ones who pay close heed to all the "anomalies": the facts that aren't
explained well by current theory. They are the ones who refuse to close
out alternative theories or explanations prematurely. From what I've seen,
I agree with this. You can simply scan the web to find all sorts of interesting
arguments among physicists, both professional and amateur. Perhaps it's
not coincidental that the "web" itself, that is the particular form of hypertext
we have on the internet, was invented by physicists. They love to argue.<br>
<br>
While I often like science documentaries on PBS, you've got to remember that
the "static" view of science given by any one documentary is only partly
true. The reality is far more dynamic, interesting, and ultimately satisfying.
Any criticism you might make has probably already been made by some scientist
somewhere. <br>
<br>
Charles<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:xcssa-admin@xcssa.org">xcssa-admin@xcssa.org</a> wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid200610250417.37115.tweeksjunk2@theweeks.org">
<pre wrap="">On Tuesday 24 October 2006 20:00, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:xcssa-admin@xcssa.org">xcssa-admin@xcssa.org</a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Given a sufficiently complex theory with enough unknown variables,
anything can be explained after-the-observation. What's generally
considered the test of a good theory is that it predicts the outcome
BEFORE the observation, so it can't be said we just rigged the variables
to make it work with known data.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I agree with this statement more than any other I've read thus far.. :)
As for dark matter.. it's born of the same "theory rigging" that quark theory
is based on.. "unexplained forces". Can't explain a force? Let's attribute
it to a particle and then get grants and build giant particle smashers to
find it!
It's really a shame how scientists now days push their theories around like
some high school popularity contest, looking for book deals and grants
instead of seeking honest peer review and critical comparative thinking and
experimentation. When did this start happening? In the 80's during the cold
fusion debacle?
The current PBS specials on string theory makes me kind of ill. What kind of
scientific theory bases itself on unobservable postulation? They just seem
to be creating philosophy books, shows and getting grants based on real
theory figired out 30 years ago.
What do you think Charles?
Tweeks
_______________________________________________
XCSSA mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:XCSSA@xcssa.org">XCSSA@xcssa.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://xcssa.org/mailman/listinfo/xcssa">http://xcssa.org/mailman/listinfo/xcssa</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--Boundary_(ID_G1StK0pIoFrRi+qh3SmGQg)--