Last edited:
By most measures, I think it's fair to say that publishing a a pop-sci book is easier than doing actual physics and publishing it in refereed journals. It doesn't hurt that it's a provocative subject with populist appeal (math sucks, yeah!). Now, I'm not cynical enough to say that it was her primary motivation -- I'm sure she sincerely believes that theoretical physics is lost in the math -- but I'm also not moved by the fact that she wrote a book about it. People write all kinds of books for all kinds of motives.She's selling a book, I understand that but she wouldn't be writing that book and have a high level of support if it was just a trivial disagreement about research interests.
Your computer analogy is thought provoking. A computer is fundamentally an electronic machine, just a complicated set of switching transistors, but to make it useful we layer abstraction over abstraction on it. In this case, the abstraction divorces the software from the hardware, as it were. If mathematical abstraction in physics is the same process, then I can see why you'd be clamoring about it.I don't have a problem hyper-abstract mathematics because it's usually a means to the end of actually simplifying a complicated problem into a simpler but still complex solution. I just think we've theorized far beyond what can argued is a extrapolation of data and informed speculation from the SUSY string theorist. Just like with computer programming some abstractions eventually include so many levels of indirection in the application framework they become disconnected from the low-level details of how the hardware actually works and the limitations of current hardware.
I have that book, read it some years ago. Wouldn't happen to know a page number?
Unfortunately, I lent that book a while ago ... and I'll be damned if I remember who I lent it to...I have that book, read it some years ago. Wouldn't happen to know a page number?![]()
Fortunately the book has a decent index and, following the physics entries, I was able to find the relevant passages. Turns out you have a better memory than I.Unfortunately, I lent that book a while ago ... and I'll be damned if I remember who I lent it to...![]()
yeah, you're right ... but I'm sure he knew more about physics than the whole of us put together ...Still wouldn't call him a physicists, though.![]()
Validation comes from experiments; there's no other means. In fundamental physics, experiments get funding based on theories. Stopping theoretical research -- even those silly string theorists -- doesn't achieve anything useful.What's needed is a way to validate that math discoveries are actually scientific and based on provable physics.
Hi,No sane person wants to rewrite physics in terms with no math. What's needed is a way to validate that math discoveries are actually scientific and based on provable physics. The rigid 'simple' “beautiful” versions of the string hypothesis framework unification idea disagree with current low-energy supersymmetry LHC experimental data for some basic reasons. The result of that is much more complicated versions that can have 10^ a large number of zeros versions (where our universe is just one of the 0.0000000000000000000000001% of the “lucky” ones with working physics) of operational parameters are being developed that can be fine-tuned to the point they become a untestable framework for physical theories at higher particle accelerator energy and don't solve the original problems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_hierarchy_problem
Poor SUSY is broken at lower scales, how do they fix it?
Undetectable Dark Energy.
Undetectable Dark Matter.
Undetectable Parallel Universes.
Undetectable Alternate Dimensions.
Undetectable Inflatons.
I can't see where I or anyone else wants to stop the research or virtual “experiments” of theoretical research. The extra dimensional mathematics explored in search of possible string, multiverse theories has important uses outside the field of physics in things like neural-network AI pattern recognition algorithms and other real world future applications as the research evolves.Validation comes from experiments; there's no other means. In fundamental physics, experiments get funding based on theories. Stopping theoretical research -- even those silly string theorists -- doesn't achieve anything useful.
Ultimately the debate going on in string theory centers on a deep question: What is the point of physics? Should a good theory be able to explain the particular characteristics of the universe around us or is that asking too much? And when a theory conflicts with the way we think our universe works, do we abandon the theory or the things we think we know?
String theory is incredibly appealing to many scientists because it is “beautiful”—its equations are satisfying and its proposed explanations elegant. But so far it lacks any experimental evidence supporting it—and even worse, any reasonable prospects for gathering such evidence. Yet even the suggestion string theory may not be able to accommodate the kind of dark energy we see in the cosmos around us does not dissuade some. “String theory is so rich and beautiful and so correct in almost all the things that it’s taught us that it’s hard to believe that the mistake is in string theory and not in us,” Sethi says. But perhaps chasing after beauty is not a good way to find the right theory of the universe.
Maybe I've been interpreting you wrongly, but you seem to be the guy calling modern fundamental physics pseudo-science. And if you think it's pseudo-science, why would you be for research in it?I can't see where I or anyone else wants to stop the research or virtual “experiments” of theoretical research.
This is certainly not pseudo-science the way I would use the definition. There are plenty of perfectly valid scientific theories that also turn out to be wrong when tested (Michelson Morley experiment). There's no false impression of using the scientific method for a magic snake oil (but there are attempts by some to change the scientific method to be more compatible in an era of untestable research speculation), the aroma of pseudoscience is from the speculation from that research.Maybe I've been interpreting you wrongly, but you seem to be the guy calling modern fundamental physics pseudo-science. And if you think it's pseudo-science, why would you be for research in it?
I still don't understand your position.This is certainly not pseudo-science the way I would use the definition. There are plenty of perfectly valid scientific theories that also turn out to be wrong when tested (Michelson Morley experiment). There's no false impression of using the scientific method for a magic snake oil (but there are attempts by some to change the scientific method to be more compatible in an era of untestable research speculation), the aroma of pseudoscience is from the speculation from that research.
That IS somewhat true. If physics IS to become in some future incarnation a search for answers in the mathematical computational universe of all possible physics as a major direction of research for solving problems in the physical universe I think it's a good thing to ask, is that future incarnation also compatible with today's ideas of science in a mainly algorithmic universe of problem solving. Maybe we need to make sure the computational universe physics solving the equation are actually just mathematical constructs of what it does, not a physical reality of what the universe IS.It all depends on what your definition of IS is.
https://www.amazon.com/What-Einstei...8-1&keywords=what+einstein+kept+under+his+hat
Page xvi - In 1035, when Einstein first walked into his kitchen at 112 Mercer Street in Princeton, New Jersey, he of course saw a stove. But in his mind he also saw an apparatus for transforming the chemical entry in wood or gas into thermal energy and for conveying that thermal energy into a chicken. None of which, of course, diminished his subsequent enjoyment of the chicken, but all of which probably added an extra bit of spice to his dinner, a spice undetected by less scientifically tuned intellects.
Science is a sort of intellectual spice that adds depth and allure to everyday things, not the least of which is food.
Excellent article ... thanks for sharing
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
The weirdest beauty queens... | Off-Topic | 2 | |
|
|
The beauty of PFC capacitors | Analog & Mixed-Signal Design | 6 |
| Similar threads |
|---|
| The weirdest beauty queens... |
| The beauty of PFC capacitors |