Physicists Hunt for Mirror Universe to Explain Neutron Decay Mystery & Dark Matt

Started by Unbeliever, July 08, 2019, 02:29:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Baruch

Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

trdsf

Quote from: josephpalazzo on July 15, 2019, 11:32:03 AM
There would be no harm done except some of these people are now trying to change the very definition of what is a scientific theory. Unknown to the public there is a deep riff between those who want to consider such things as multiverse, parallel universe, etc. as valuable fields of research and those who see the futility. So much so there is an attempt to revise the traditional concept of what is science. The danger is that we might end up in the obfuscation that prevailed the Medieval Age.


https://platofootnote.wordpress.com/2018/01/22/peter-woit-vs-sean-carroll-string-theory-the-multiverse-and-popperazism/

A theoryâ€"even a hypothesisâ€"still lives and dies by observation.  The philosophy around it gives me a headache; I'll just put forth the following, to illustrate my thinking on the matter of the scientific method:

  • 'String theory', since it lacks a definitive test at this time, does not deserve to be called a theory just yet.
  • So long as the maths behind the string hypothesis (or the string proposal or whatever you want to call it, but it's not a theory yet) continue to make sense, it's not unreasonable to keep using it anyway, but always with a nervous glance over one's shoulder.
  • Having the math on your side is a good thing, because math predicted black holes and antimatter in detail before they were observed, but:
  • Keep looking for confirmation because until you have that, it's just a pile of pretty math and not an observed fact.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

josephpalazzo

Quote from: trdsf on July 16, 2019, 07:01:52 PM
A theoryâ€"even a hypothesisâ€"still lives and dies by observation.  The philosophy around it gives me a headache; I'll just put forth the following, to illustrate my thinking on the matter of the scientific method:

       
  • 'String theory', since it lacks a definitive test at this time, does not deserve to be called a theory just yet.
  • So long as the maths behind the string hypothesis (or the string proposal or whatever you want to call it, but it's not a theory yet) continue to make sense, it's not unreasonable to keep using it anyway, but always with a nervous glance over one's shoulder.
  • Having the math on your side is a good thing, because math predicted black holes and antimatter in detail before they were observed, but:
  • Keep looking for confirmation because until you have that, it's just a pile of pretty math and not an observed fact.

I could live with that... but

The people who run the physics  department in the most renown universities are String theorists. And so when they hire in their departments, they will choose a string theorist. When they have grants for postdocs, they get students whose area of research is going to be ST. Since the 1980's the string theorists have dominated the scene, and there is little room for anything else. Furthermore, they are pushing for more research into ST. There is only so much money flowing around. And there is a schism since more voices are now speaking out against this domination. Here a recent post at Columbia: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=11116 - the comments are an indication of the tone prevailing in physics.

Baruch

Quote from: josephpalazzo on July 16, 2019, 07:23:16 PM
I could live with that... but

The people who run the physics  department in the most renown universities are String theorists. And so when they hire in their departments, they will choose a string theorist. When they have grants for postdocs, they get students whose area of research is going to be ST. Since the 1980's the string theorists have dominated the scene, and there is little room for anything else. Furthermore, they are pushing for more research into ST. There is only so much money flowing around. And there is a schism since more voices are now speaking out against this domination. Here a recent post at Columbia: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=11116 - the comments are an indication of the tone prevailing in physics.

Perimeter Institute ... in Canada vs Kevli Institute in California.  Without groundbreaking observations, physics turns into Scholasticism.  How many quarks can dance on the head of a pin?  Not Even Wrong is my favorite physics blog.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-L690pQhuo

Super-asymmetry? ;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHjSSBgAc-s

If I am the first person to note the end of season/end of show ... then I am ashamed of you all!
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

At least the LHC didn't make a mini-black-hole ;-(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXzugu39pKM

Some kind of superstring theory did predict mini-black-holes forming at LHC.

For those interested in the current conflict between physics and scientific method ..

https://massimopigliucci.wordpress.com/2019/04/24/why-trust-a-theory-epistemology-of-fundamental-physics/

One can download his chapter contribution to the conference book.  I will.  I have admired Dr Pigliucci for awhile now.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

trdsf

Quote from: josephpalazzo on July 16, 2019, 07:23:16 PM
I could live with that... but

The people who run the physics  department in the most renown universities are String theorists. And so when they hire in their departments, they will choose a string theorist. When they have grants for postdocs, they get students whose area of research is going to be ST. Since the 1980's the string theorists have dominated the scene, and there is little room for anything else. Furthermore, they are pushing for more research into ST. There is only so much money flowing around. And there is a schism since more voices are now speaking out against this domination. Here a recent post at Columbia: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=11116 - the comments are an indication of the tone prevailing in physics.
Science has got itself caught up in blind alleys before, and string theory has come and gone and come again and if it ultimately proves a fruitless pursuit, will go again.  The number of times that physics has been declared "complete" is finite, but fairly large.

Remember, Maxwell's equations were considered the final mathematical proof of luminiferous æther theory, and physics was "done".  Michelson and Morley were out to confirm that... and of course they couldn't.

Someone somewhere will always want to do the "let's just check that" step, even if they think they're just confirming something "obvious".  So I really don't share your concerns, at least not at this stage.  It is the great strength of science that it is ultimately self-correcting, even if they take the long way 'round.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Baruch

I think "self correcting" is an exaggeration.  With empirical data, or with careful peer review ... it is self correcting.  But with people, it is all fucked up anyway.

https://www.the-scientist.com/tag/scientific-fraud

It is still the case that fraud is suppressed.  But this is harder in theory areas.  And when commercial or political interests are involved, then (particularly in drug trials) then fraud is supported.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

josephpalazzo

Quote from: trdsf on July 17, 2019, 03:32:34 AM
Science has got itself caught up in blind alleys before, and string theory has come and gone and come again and if it ultimately proves a fruitless pursuit, will go again.  The number of times that physics has been declared "complete" is finite, but fairly large.

Remember, Maxwell's equations were considered the final mathematical proof of luminiferous æther theory, and physics was "done".  Michelson and Morley were out to confirm that... and of course they couldn't.

Someone somewhere will always want to do the "let's just check that" step, even if they think they're just confirming something "obvious".  So I really don't share your concerns, at least not at this stage.  It is the great strength of science that it is ultimately self-correcting, even if they take the long way 'round.

In the long term you are right - eventually all the present ST-physicists will die. In theoretical physics the last new idea that was eventually confirmed was in the 1960's - that's a long drought. In the meantime, there are those who are fighting to make science the new religion - passing as science ideas that can never be testable. I deeply believe that trend must be resisted. It's why I published two books, debunking some of those ideas.

Unbeliever

Paul Dirac didn't believe in antimatter when it came from his equations, but it was only a few years later that it was confirmed by experiment. Sometimes we need to take the math seriously, even if it implies things that are hard to credit.
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Unbeliever

But in order to be worth anything at all there have to be predictions that can be observed or not. Without that there's no way to find out which hypotheses are worth pursuing.
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

josephpalazzo


Quote from: Unbeliever on July 17, 2019, 02:21:07 PM
Paul Dirac didn't believe in antimatter when it came from his equations, but it was only a few years later that it was confirmed by experiment. Sometimes we need to take the math seriously, even if it implies things that are hard to credit.

It was predicted in 1928 and observed in 1932. We have a drought in prediction since the 1960's, more that 50 years.

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 17, 2019, 02:26:57 PM
But in order to be worth anything at all there have to be predictions that can be observed or not. Without that there's no way to find out which hypotheses are worth pursuing.

And that's the problem with String Theory - it is not testable. Ditto for the multiverse and higher dimensions. It wouldn't be such a problem if a tiny number of researchers were involved in these fringe areas.  But that is not the case.  These topics have grabbed the headlines in the last 30 years or so, and as a consequence, too many have chosen those fringe areas as their research topics. It's a waste of talents and money.

Baruch

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 17, 2019, 02:21:07 PM
Paul Dirac didn't believe in antimatter when it came from his equations, but it was only a few years later that it was confirmed by experiment. Sometimes we need to take the math seriously, even if it implies things that are hard to credit.

With all due respect to Dirac, nobody understood his equation very well until about 20 years later.  A serious problem if you are 20 years ahead ... of yourself!  With only the Dirac equation ... they first thought the corresponding particle had to be the proton.  Then realizing the masses had to be equal, that problem wasn't clear until 1932 with the positron.  But at that time, no QFT ... the thought was, anti-matter space was like our space, but a "sea of virtual electrons", with a missing virtual electron being the positron.  But like the current situation with infinities (dating back to the original QT problem, Black Body Radiation), that didn't make much sense either.  It took until about 1948 for QFT to be developed (Dirac theory for the EM field, not just electrons).  At that point the metaphor of "sea of virtual electrons" could be dropped.  Unfortunately there was still a problem with infinities.  But Feyman, Schwinger and Tomonaga figured out, that you can cancel out one infinity with another (renormalization).  QFT measures differences, not absolutes.  So things like the Casimir effect could be confidently calculated (the two infinities almost cancel out, but not quite .. the "not quite" being the number predicted).
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

trdsf

Quote from: josephpalazzo on July 17, 2019, 02:57:01 PM
It was predicted in 1928 and observed in 1932. We have a drought in prediction since the 1960's, more that 50 years.
I think that's more a function of the incredible success of the Standard Model; outside of the Higgs, most of its predictions were fairly rapidly confirmed (all quarks but the top were confirmed by 1977), and the Higgs remained the outlier and the focus of all searches.  There are a few outstanding predictions not yet confirmed, mainly a few esoteric high-energy and low-probability hadrons, and 'glueballs' (particles composed of gluons)... and of course the elusive graviton (if there even is one).

Where the breakthroughs are going to come are in the things the Standard Model doesn't explain: neutrino mass, neutrino oscillations, matter-antimatter asymmetry, gravitation, dark energy and the accelerating expansion of the universe.  It's also incompatible with General Relativity.

I expect the next big steps will come from unexpected observations (like the accelerating expansion) rather than prediction confirmations.  Finding a supersymmetric particle or a primordial monopole would do nicely.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Cavebear

Quote from: trdsf on July 19, 2019, 05:38:34 AM
I think that's more a function of the incredible success of the Standard Model; outside of the Higgs, most of its predictions were fairly rapidly confirmed (all quarks but the top were confirmed by 1977), and the Higgs remained the outlier and the focus of all searches.  There are a few outstanding predictions not yet confirmed, mainly a few esoteric high-energy and low-probability hadrons, and 'glueballs' (particles composed of gluons)... and of course the elusive graviton (if there even is one).

Where the breakthroughs are going to come are in the things the Standard Model doesn't explain: neutrino mass, neutrino oscillations, matter-antimatter asymmetry, gravitation, dark energy and the accelerating expansion of the universe.  It's also incompatible with General Relativity.

I expect the next big steps will come from unexpected observations (like the accelerating expansion) rather than prediction confirmations.  Finding a supersymmetric particle or a primordial monopole would do nicely.

I don't know enough about spacetime or quanta to evaluate either.  But I do know from history that complicated theories tend to collapse toward simpler ones.  I suspect that, in the future, some new genius will observe the universe in a way that makes more sense than how we currently see it.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

josephpalazzo

Quote from: trdsf on July 19, 2019, 05:38:34 AM
I think that's more a function of the incredible success of the Standard Model; outside of the Higgs, most of its predictions were fairly rapidly confirmed (all quarks but the top were confirmed by 1977), and the Higgs remained the outlier and the focus of all searches.  There are a few outstanding predictions not yet confirmed, mainly a few esoteric high-energy and low-probability hadrons, and 'glueballs' (particles composed of gluons)... and of course the elusive graviton (if there even is one).

Where the breakthroughs are going to come are in the things the Standard Model doesn't explain: neutrino mass, neutrino oscillations, matter-antimatter asymmetry, gravitation, dark energy and the accelerating expansion of the universe.  It's also incompatible with General Relativity.

I expect the next big steps will come from unexpected observations (like the accelerating expansion) rather than prediction confirmations.  Finding a supersymmetric particle or a primordial monopole would do nicely.

I admire your optimism, but I don't share it, not for the immediate future. Physics needs a revamp, and most likely with a new generation. Changes only come with great pain. We haven't gone through that pain, though there are cracks beginning to show.