The integrity of physics

[Silvestru]

I want to open o conversation based on this article if admins allow it.

 

http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535

 

With great recent advancement in the physics field more and more theories are coming to light and are harder/impossible to test and prove/disprove.

 

 

 

As the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific.

 

The article talks about many such widely accepted theories such as string/multiverse and other, my question is how do you see the future of physics and what needs to happen in order to get more reliable data and confirm or disprove future theories? (advancements in technology/human perception?)

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

A very interesting topic - however, I think one which is best suited to the Philosophy sub-forum.

 

[swansont]

The article talks about many such widely accepted theories such as string/multiverse and other,

Are they widely accepted? I suspect the argument that they are is heavily weighted toward theorists, particularly in those fields.

[Silvestru]

Are they widely accepted? I suspect the argument that they are is heavily weighted toward theorists, particularly in those fields.

 

Of course they are not "widely accepted" like the Big Bang model but they are not pseudoscience.

 

What Quantum Gravity theory do you think is more accepted to explain the quantum behavior of gravitational fields?

[swansont]

Of course they are not "widely accepted" like the Big Bang model but they are not pseudoscience.

They can be an active area of study and not be widely accepted hypotheses. Nothing about that suggests pseudoscience.

 

What Quantum Gravity theory do you think is more accepted to explain the quantum behavior of gravitational fields?

Not my field. AFAIK there are no accepted quantum theories of gravitation

[Silvestru]

I agree with you Swansont. I just wanted to get an opinion not preach about strings. but as the quote below mentions: "there is no other game in town"

Nobel laureate David Gross made the following controversial comments about the reasons for the popularity of string theory:

The most important [reason] is that there are no other good ideas around. That's what gets most people into it. When people started to get interested in string theory they didn't know anything about it. In fact, the first reaction of most people is that the theory is extremely ugly and unpleasant, at least that was the case a few years ago when the understanding of string theory was much less developed. It was difficult for people to learn about it and to be turned on. So I think the real reason why people have got attracted by it is because there is no other game in town. All other approaches of constructing grand unified theories, which were more conservative to begin with, and only gradually became more and more radical, have failed, and this game hasn't failed yet

 

 

And I know theoretical physics is to Physics like homeopathy is to medicine but ....

Edited May 22, 2017 by Silvestru

[CharonY]

And I know theoretical physics is to Physics like homeopathy is to medicine but ....

 

 

I am not a physicist, but having worked with theoretical and experimental physicist I will say that the relationship is entirely different. Sure in the most abstract levels it may be too far away for any level of empirical testing and goes more in the realm of pure mathematics. Ultimately this is the reason why those areas rarely manage to influence research outside the abstract the field (at least to my limited knowledge).

 

However, to a large degree there is a broad overlap with the theoretical side developing models for experimentalists to work on and/or assist in the data interpretation by using or developing appropriate models.

 

Homeopathy is just quack, which theoretical physics isn't.

[swansont]

In physics you either do theory, or you do experiment and theory.

[CharonY]

In physics you either do theory, or you do experiment and theory.

Well to be fair the latter is true for all natural sciences. Though some may be weaker in the theory part than others.

[StringJunky]

Are they widely accepted? I suspect the argument that they are is heavily weighted toward theorists, particularly in those fields.

Isn't it the case though that they are going to make string theory work; the nomenclature and language is in place. They'll fiddle with it until as and when it fits observation and future testing.

Edited May 22, 2017 by StringJunky

[swansont]

Isn't it the case though that they are going to make string theory work; the nomenclature and language is in place. They'll fiddle with it until as and when it fits observation and future testing.

 

 

That's my understanding of the situation, but as per the OP there is a push to (IMO) lower the bar and refer to this as a full-blown theory, despite the lack of experimental confirmation.

 

String theory is "accepted" insofar as people accept that it is something that people work on and it's a legitimate path of scientific inquiry. I don't think it's fair to say that it is an accepted theory because of the lack of experimental confirmation.

[StringJunky]

 

 

That's my understanding of the situation, but as per the OP there is a push to (IMO) lower the bar and refer to this as a full-blown theory, despite the lack of experimental confirmation.

 

String theory is "accepted" insofar as people accept that it is something that people work on and it's a legitimate path of scientific inquiry. I don't think it's fair to say that it is an accepted theory because of the lack of experimental confirmation.

Yes, that's how I understand it. It's a simliar situation with abiogenesis, although abiogenesis is on a bit more solid footing.

[Silvestru]

You are right Swansont but I really hoped to get your opinions on the latter part of my post: "how do you see the future of physics and what needs to happen in order to get more reliable data and confirm or disprove future theories?"

[swansont]

You are right Swansont but I really hoped to get your opinions on the latter part of my post: "how do you see the future of physics and what needs to happen in order to get more reliable data and confirm or disprove future theories?"

 

 

I don't know. I'm somewhat removed from these issues of basic research, and in these areas of physics.

[Mordred]

Its a tricky issue, there is numerous models that have some undetectable element. Not counting those where the best we can do is indirect evidence. Indirect is still evidence.

[Bender]

The name is wrong, because it is not a theory, but an incoherent collection of untestable hypotheses. I'm no expert at all, but there might be as much string theories as there are string theorists. The problem is that there is no data to make all the countless choices required to build a mathematical model on. I read a quote once stating that different string theories where so far apart that the respective physicists could hardly understand each others papers.

 

None of that means that it is pseudoscience or without value.

 

What is required is testable hypotheses and experimental data to weed out the wildgrowth of hypotheses.

 

Examples would be the discovery of supersymmetric particles in CERN, or the possibility of putting large scale objects in superposition.

[Silvestru]

Welcome back Bender. I agree with your and Swansont's point, I overstated what String theory really is.