Is foundational physics stuck?

[Mordred]

Where I disagree with her argument is she isn't letting people know theories such as QFT etc are adaptive to new findings. Same is true for any major theory such as LCDM.

 Major theories change that's part of all those unusual treatment papers. A good theory has solid foundations so are easily adaptive as a consequence.

Good example all the alternative geometry treatments under the EFE alone for flexibility. It's adaptive to different systems and dynamics.

Edited November 8 by Mordred

[swansont]

7 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Ok, thanks for the explanations, everyone.

So is the general consensus here that Hossenfelder’s points (rhetoric aside) aren’t really valid criticisms of current academia at all?

I think part of the issue is she’s complaining about a very, very narrow slice of physics, but since that’s her area, to her it seems like a bigger problem. There’s some tacit acknowledgment that physics is progressing but it’s by applying existing foundations of QM and GR.

We went a really long time between Newton’s laws and special relativity. Sure, different techniques were investigated (Lagrangian and Hamiltonian) but they were just extensions of the basics - no new foundations. Did physics fail because we went >200 years before that happened? 

[studiot]

In what way do the foundations of Physics apply to Life ?

[Genady]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

she’s complaining about a very, very narrow slice of physics

This reminds me of the passage from Feynman's "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter":

Quote

The branches of physics that deal with questions such as why iron (with 26 protons) is magnetic, while copper (with 29) is not, or why one gas is transparent and another one is not, are called “solid-state physics,” or “liquid-state physics,” or “honest physics.” The branch of physics that found these three simple little actions (the easiest part) is called “fundamental physics”—we stole that name in order to make the other physicists feel uncomfortable!

 

[joigus]

On 11/5/2024 at 12:53 PM, StringJunky said:

It might not be a fault of science per se, just that we need the next Newton, Einstein, Galileo et al to move things forward.

I'm taking you up on this mentioning science by its big names...

I personally can't think of any valid reason why nobody has appeared in the last 100 years to fill the shoes of the Newtons, Galileos and Einsteins of yore. Being full of admiration for such people myself, I must say I don't think there's anything supercalifragilisticexpialidocious in the appearance of certain types of individuals. Those able to solve especially challenging problems that take some highest-order, highly-conceptual sorting out. Statistically, it must just happen every so and so. More frequently so the more humans are born. So why hasn't it happened? Here's a frightening idea:

Newton had to take refuge in Woolsthorpe after the Great Plague of 1665, Einstein had to take refuge in America after the Nazi persecution of Jews, and Galileo suffered persecution from the Roman Inquisition due to his non-orthodox views on astronomy. Could it be that we need more... --dare I say it?-- persecution?

Of course, I'm just trying to be constructively provocative.  My reflective point being that there could be something about times of great strife* that brings the best of human beings and make really top-notch ideas be born. 

Does any of that make sense?

* In a milieu that has the proper cultural seeds planted, of course.

[Genady]

9 minutes ago, joigus said:

Einstein had to take refuge in America after the Nazi persecution of Jews

... while producing all his great works long before that.

[joigus]

11 minutes ago, Genady said:

... while producing all his great works long before that.

Not GR, though.

[Genady]

1 minute ago, joigus said:

Not GR, though.

Including GR, AFAIK.

[swansont]

Einstein moved to the US in 1933. He had visited prior to that, of course 

[joigus]

44 minutes ago, Genady said:

Including GR, AFAIK.

Ok. I suppose that makes Einstein the exception. He thrived during an uneventful spell in Bern. Didn't suffer any turmoil. Went from heaven to heaven.

Take Schrödinger, or others in the 20's-30's. My argument stands. And please focus on the big picture of it.  

Does social/political turmoil (paradoxically and positively) influence the highest creativity?

 

Edited November 10 by joigus
minor correction

[Mordred]

Oh I don't know look at say Feymann or Allen Guth their works has had huge ramifications they are certainly more recent examples than Einstein. 

 Though I would readily place Feymann ahead of Guth on overall contribution 

[joigus]

14 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Oh I don't know look at say Feymann or Allen Guth their works has had huge ramifications they are certainly more recent examples than Einstein. 

 Though I would readily place Feymann ahead of Guth on overall contribution 

With all due respect, Galileo, Newton and Einstein are soooo in a different league!

IMO, theory became orders of magnitude harder after WWII, so it's perhaps unfair to compare him...

I sometimes think of Feynman as similar to Newton (developing of a new calculus, mathematical tools of the highest order), but he didn't get lucky in formulating new laws. The closest he got (according to his own admission) is the V-A Lagrangian for weak interactions.

Edited November 10 by joigus
minor correction

[Mordred]

One could also argue that in every example they worked from other previous works so that's a tricky argument particularly in the Einstein example. Newton not so much there wasn't a lot of previous works he had access to.

[StringJunky]

9 hours ago, joigus said:

I'm taking you up on this mentioning science by its big names...

I personally can't think of any valid reason why nobody has appeared in the last 100 years to fill the shoes of the Newtons, Galileos and Einsteins of yore. Being full of admiration for such people myself, I must say I don't think there's anything supercalifragilisticexpialidocious in the appearance of certain types of individuals. Those able to solve especially challenging problems that take some highest-order, highly-conceptual sorting out. Statistically, it must just happen every so and so. More frequently so the more humans are born. So why hasn't it happened? Here's a frightening idea:

Newton had to take refuge in Woolsthorpe after the Great Plague of 1665, Einstein had to take refuge in America after the Nazi persecution of Jews, and Galileo suffered persecution from the Roman Inquisition due to his non-orthodox views on astronomy. Could it be that we need more... --dare I say it?-- persecution?

Of course, I'm just trying to be constructively provocative.  My reflective point being that there could be something about times of great strife* that brings the best of human beings and make really top-notch ideas be born. 

Does any of that make sense?

* In a milieu that has the proper cultural seeds planted, of course.

An interesting correlation. Perhaps the experience of persecution-isolation concentrated their minds and created a sense of mortal urgency, to the extent that they worked super-hard and fast at their ideas to get them out there before they potentially passed.

Edited November 10 by StringJunky

[studiot]

12 hours ago, joigus said:

Could it be that we need more... --dare I say it?-- persecution?

"Cometh the Hour Cometh the Man"  you mean ?  +1

 

However I counter you

12 hours ago, joigus said:

I'm taking you up on this mentioning science by its big names...

For every 'persuction' you could name i reckon I can match with an equally vile persecution from history that did not throw up (edit I should really say was not followed by) a Newton.

For Instance the persection of the hugenots and the Cathars in France, the persecution of the general populace in ancient China that led to "The Water Margin", the persecution of the native americans following the advent of the europeans ......

But also a mathematical observation.

Statistical variation would expect there to be 'clumps' of the occurrence of genius, not a continuous steady rate of incidence.

Edited November 10 by studiot

[joigus]

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Perhaps the experience of persecution-isolation concentrated their minds and created a sense of mortal urgency, to the extent that they worked super-hard and fast at their ideas to get them out there before they potentially passed.

54 minutes ago, studiot said:

"Cometh the Hour Cometh the Man"  you mean ?  +1

Yeah, something like that. It's the sense of urgency that troubled times potentially give the right kind of people. I'm not suggesting that a third world war is necessary, of course.

58 minutes ago, studiot said:

Statistical variation would expect there to be 'clumps' of the occurrence of genius, not a continuous steady rate of incidence.

Yes, that's true. This is compatible with what I say, rather than contradictory. Of your other argument I'm not so convinced, as it may well be that you need another indipendent condition to fuel the causal drive. Example:

13 hours ago, joigus said:

* In a milieu that has the proper cultural seeds planted, of course.

Maybe those human groups did not have the proper cultural seeds planted. Let's say at that particular time they were planting other cultural seeds.

[studiot]

20 minutes ago, joigus said:

Yes, that's true. This is compatible with what I say, rather than contradictory. Of your other argument I'm not so convinced, as it may well be that you need another indipendent condition to fuel the causal drive. Example:

I think the point of my statistical comment was that without a proper statistical study you could be deceiving yourself.

[swansont]

There have undoubtedly been geniuses that never got an opportunity to discover new science because they were born to the wrong circumstances and died toiling in the field or from unfortunate events. 

[joigus]

12 minutes ago, studiot said:

[...] without a proper statistical study you could be deceiving yourself.

The story of my life when it comes to women.  

No, you're right, of course. It could be the victim of a cognitive bias. I'm aware of that. That's why I was appealing to a good sounding board.

[studiot]

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

There have undoubtedly been geniuses that never got an opportunity to discover new science because they were born to the wrong circumstances and died toiling in the field or from unfortunate events. 

Or simply went on to other things than Science, as with Bayes or DeMorgan.

6 minutes ago, joigus said:

The story of my life when it comes to women.  

No, you're right, of course. It could be the victim of a cognitive bias. I'm aware of that. That's why I was appealing to a good sounding board.

Of course there have been evil geniuses in the past like Cardinal Richlieu or Rasputin.

[swansont]

13 minutes ago, studiot said:

Or simply went on to other things than Science, as with Bayes or DeMorgan.

True, but statistically speaking it’s much more likely that they were simply born poor and never got the chance to apply their genius to “idle” pursuits.

[Genady]

14 hours ago, joigus said:

Galileo suffered persecution from the Roman Inquisition

AFAIK, Galileo worked freely and productively for about two decades (and even under Pope's patronage) until the Inquisition decided to stop it.

[joigus]

 

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

True, but statistically speaking it’s much more likely that they were simply born poor and never got the chance to apply their genius to “idle” pursuits.

After all, an actuary for an insurance company is bound to have a more promising future (from an economic POV) than someone that spends time thinking about the collapse of the wave function. People who think about such things are usually in well-funded institutions, and it would conceivably be difficult to step out of line and initiate a whole new way of thinking. 

4 minutes ago, Genady said:

AFAIK, Galileo worked freely and productively for about two decades (and even under Pope's patronage) until the Inquisition decided to stop it.

Well, yes I assume. It's not like you're gonna make this big discovery just when the Inquisition officials are pounding on your door. Otherwise you might end up like Archimedes in Syracuse.

I'm sure the feel of urgency gets to you much earlier than the actual soldiers pounding on your door!

Evariste Galois is another good example of what I'm saying. I'm well aware of the possibility of a cognitive bias. There are counterexamples, as @studiot pointed out.

Edited November 10 by joigus
correction

[studiot]

20 minutes ago, swansont said:

True, but statistically speaking it’s much more likely that they were simply born poor and never got the chance to apply their genius to “idle” pursuits.

Actually (pun intended) both were 'low church' middle class and fairly well to do.

De Morgan studied under hamilton and Airy from at Trinity College Cambridge from the age of 16 whose main interest was economics (though Wiki has not picked up on that)

Bayes main interest as a church minister.

[swansont]

6 minutes ago, joigus said:

 

After all, an actuary for an insurance company is bound to have a more promising future (from an economic POV) than someone that spends time thinking about the collapse of the wave function. People who think about such things are usually in well-funded institutions, and it would conceivably be difficult to step out of line and initiate a whole new way of thinking. 

I’m also considering that the discussion covers the timeline back to Galileo, and the vast majority of the population of the world was quite poor until fairly recently. The reason that all the named geniuses were white European men, is not some innate superiority of being white, European, or male.