On the supposed failings of science

[Severian]

Not always true, the Standard model does not have an accepted interpretation (i.e. explanation in words).

 

Yes it does. What make you think it does not?

[elas]

Severian

 

Just a sample of the references I have collected on this point

 

 

Extracts from ELECTRODYNAMICS AND CLASSICAL THEORY OF FIELDS AND PARTICLES by A.O. BARUT, Professor of physics, University of Colorado (1964 revised by author 1980)

 

It is in the hypothesis that the mass or inertia of the electron is entirely due to its own field; and, furthermore, that the momentum and spin of the particle are momentum and spin of the particles own field. In other words we could put mo=0

The measured mass of the particle is a result of the motion of the initially massless “particle” in an external field. Although this idea appears to be very attractive it is not possible, at the present time, to build a complete theory on this basis. Certainly the quantum effects must be taken into account. But even within the framework of quantum theories the nature of the mass of the particles remains unexplained.

 

Extract from “The Elegant Universe”.

 

Because string theory has no foundation in fact, it does not meet the criteria that defines science and is only correctly defined as philosophy (not science).

 

Writing in "Quantum Physics, Illusion or reality" Alastair I.M. RAE of the Department of Physics at the University of Birmingham states that Quantum physics is about "measurement and statistical prediction". It does not describe the underlying structure that is the cause of quantum theory.

This is confirmed by Richard Morris in "Achilles in the Quantum Universe" from which I quote:

"They (physicists) feel a complete explanation of the subatomic world will not have been attained until it is known why particles have the charge, masses and other particular properties they are observed to possess".

 

Beyond measure

Jim Baggott

(2003)

“The theory is not meant to be understood”…….”Today the theory remains a mysterious black top hat from which white rabbits continue to be pulled. Students are advised not to ask how this particular conjuring trick is done”.

 

QT is correctly defined as a Mathematical Prediction Theory it is not a scientific theory. There is a huge difference between knowing the mathematics of predictions and knowing the science of how and why.

 

We are actually in a weird state where highly accurate mathematical prediction (mathematical speculation) has replaced science to the extent that most people regard it as science, while science itself (the explanation of how and why) is dismissed as speculation.

[CPL.Luke]

actually science is defined by predictions, not explanations. review the "scientific method"

 

quotes from physics books are nothing compared to actual physics

[elas]

CPL.Luke

 

actually science is defined by predictions, not explanations. review the "scientific method"

 

Actually I did and the first line reads: The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.; nothing about predictions there.

The quotes I gave are from leading academics the people who determine what experiments should be made and how the results are used to make predictions. The fact that they are taken from books written by them, does not lower there value or render them worthless.

[ydoaPs]

Why do you think we do experiments?

[rockschemist]

dude i dont understand what you just said none of u

[elas]

yourdadonapogos

 

Mathematicians need experiments to build mathematical theories that make predictions.

Scientists carry this a stage further, they want to know how things occur and why they occur: science is mathematics plus explanation.

 

It is worth noting that Quantum physics is the only field where mathematics are considered to be the solution, in all other sciences mathematics is a tool used to find a solution.

 

rockchemist

 

I fear you may be a product of the 'dumbing down' of educational values such as is occurring in the UK at present. Students are increasingly being taught 'what to do' ; the more complicated practice of teaching 'how and why it is done' is in the process of being dropped. This change is being enforced by a so called 'quality control' board known as "Ofsted". If universities do not do things the Ofsted way they are simply classified as 'failed universities' and lose their government grants. Its the back door method politicians have adopted to take control of so-called 'independent' universities. Sadly, many UK universities are on a down hill slide thanks to this indirect political interference.

[CPL.Luke]

actually if you review the full scientific method you'll see this fascinating section on hypotheses where a scientist makes an educated guess about whats going on and then makes a prediction based on that, and then tests that prediction.

 

that is the scientific method.

 

I don't care if blank blank said xyz about physics one time to a student or whatever, if you actually talk to them about the physics they all agree, its good some of them are trying to push things further but 95% of theoretical physics research is little more than mathematical crackpottery (except that the physicists know when they're finally wrong_

[swansont]

It is worth noting that Quantum physics is the only field where mathematics are considered to be the solution, in all other sciences mathematics is a tool used to find a solution.

 

No, it's not worth noting at all, since it's untrue.

 

We are actually in a weird state where highly accurate mathematical prediction (mathematical speculation) has replaced science to the extent that most people regard it as science, while science itself (the explanation of how and why) is dismissed as speculation.

 

Science is an attempt to explain how the world around us behaves. The how and why of any particular phenomenon is not necessary to do that. Is Newtonian gravity not science? Because Newton did not explain how or why it occurs.

[Norman Albers]

Luke, are you thinking about string theory? I have not much patience here either except that I do think most good mathematics will prove useful one way or another, sometimes not as first interpreted. Gravitation is a great example of physical theory evolving and it shows how our understanding evolves as an opening lotus. We go back and forth between mathematics and experiment, and slowly new ideas and conceptual associations bring us further inspiration. Newton psyched out the mechanics of planets and as Swansont observes offered no basis as to why. Einstein constructed General Relativity as a further 4-D mathematics of gravitation, again without explanation of the physics of spacetime, of the vacuum, which is assumed to stretch in smooth ways. There are strong clues, of course, since we build upon the Lorentz flatspace metric. Now we are poised to go deeper to relate this behavior to our quantum theoretics of the vacuum.

[elas]

swansont

 

No, it's not worth noting at all, since it's untrue.

 

QT is the only case where students are told "If you can compute it you understand it" (as Luke's reply clearly illustrates). Please state another case where this is the practice.

 

Science is an attempt to explain how the world around us behaves.

 

Newton does not explain how gravity works, he was a professor of mathematics who produced a mathematical prediction theory; not knowing how or why caused Newton to give it a name and thus gravity became the second undefined entity (electromagnetism being the first).

 

If we say that mathematical prediction and science are the same then the ancients Greeks really did prove the existence of God with the magic triangle, it is by any analysis a mathematically perfect prediction theory.

[Severian]

QT is the only case where students are told "If you can compute it you understand it" (as Luke's reply clearly illustrates). Please state another case where this is the practice.

 

I can think of another example: every area of fundamental physics. In fact, I will make it stronger. If you can't compute it you don't understand it.

 

As a few people have already said, science is about making predictions. If you can't make predictions, it isn't science. And if you can't calculate, you can't make predictions.

 

I put it to you that you only think you understand things without mathematics. Either you don't understand them at all, or the mathematics is so simple for the processes you understand that you would doing the mathematics implicitly.

[swansont]

swansont

 

No, it's not worth noting at all, since it's untrue.

 

QT is the only case where students are told "If you can compute it you understand it" (as Luke's reply clearly illustrates). Please state another case where this is the practice.

 

I don't recall being told that. I know it's been said, but that's one person's opinion of the matter — it's how they understand it. But that attitude is basically how all of physics is taught. "Here's an equation. Work these examples."

 

Science is an attempt to explain how the world around us behaves.

 

Newton does not explain how gravity works, he was a professor of mathematics who produced a mathematical prediction theory; not knowing how or why caused Newton to give it a name and thus gravity became the second undefined entity (electromagnetism being the first).

 

Which is precisely my point. Newtonian gravity explains how objects behave (F=GMm/r^2), but does not explain how that occurs or why. Why aren't you complaining about how Newtonian gravity isn't science? The questions of how and why, if they don't tie in with explaining the behavior itself, are not the primary goal of science.

[Norman Albers]

Some experimenters have a bad attitude toward mathematics. Some mathematicians do not relate to testable reality.

[elas]

swansont

 

Which is precisely my point. Newtonian gravity explains how objects behave (F=GMm/r^2),

 

This is the crux of our disagreement, knowing what gravity does and constructing a mathematical equation to match what is observed is not the same as knowing how it does it or why. We give force several different names because we observe a difference between forces yet we see a need to unify the forces. We have several concepts of mass and choose a concept to match our work. As for 'r' when it comes to particles we say there is no relationship between mass, force on one side and radius on the other. Even the PDG are reluctantly coming around to admitting that, at least in some parts; the process used is mathematical speculation. Its predictive accuracy in other parts is acknowledge but, that does not alter the fact that the Standard model is 'non-causal' and we need a model that is 'fully causal'. Until we have a fully causal theory, we do not have a scientific theory.

 

I believe the reason for this is that for historical reasons we have failed to apply the Law of Economy to the Standard model. Since the days of Newton until about thirty years ago such application was not possible. But now we have the experimental results that makes it possible to go back to the basic data and rebuild obeying the Law of Economy as we do so.

[swansont]

So physicists have, in essence, never done science?

[foodchain]

swansont

 

Which is precisely my point. Newtonian gravity explains how objects behave (F=GMm/r^2),

 

This is the crux of our disagreement, knowing what gravity does and constructing a mathematical equation to match what is observed is not the same as knowing how it does it or why. We give force several different names because we observe a difference between forces yet we see a need to unify the forces. We have several concepts of mass and choose a concept to match our work. As for 'r' when it comes to particles we say there is no relationship between mass, force on one side and radius on the other. Even the PDG are reluctantly coming around to admitting that, at least in some parts; the process used is mathematical speculation. Its predictive accuracy in other parts is acknowledge but, that does not alter the fact that the Standard model is 'non-causal' and we need a model that is 'fully causal'. Until we have a fully causal theory, we do not have a scientific theory.

 

I believe the reason for this is that for historical reasons we have failed to apply the Law of Economy to the Standard model. Since the days of Newton until about thirty years ago such application was not possible. But now we have the experimental results that makes it possible to go back to the basic data and rebuild obeying the Law of Economy as we do so.

 

There are many philosophical ways to interpret reality that people actually do. Personally I think science does a bit of both, I think it can model and I also think it can explain. Sure nucleosynthesis might be a model, but it also explains why we get elements from the process, so you can understand that not only from a mathematical view, but a physical one also. I agree with you very much that science should be or is doing both in all of its various fields. Evolution is not modeled as just math in which only math can be used as descriptors of a process, yet via science we can understand it. With QM people would be lost without math, but physically the math is validated currently with physical experiments and it in itself is not a dead end in regards to further inquiry.

 

Ultimately I think that both will come to work together rather well in environmental fields of study, such as environmental chemistry, or environmental biology, or anything environmental. It will have to be able to describe functions or interactions that make up any environment not only from a basis that can be modeled mathematically as possible, but also physically understood as much as possible simply because the environment itself and all of its various interactions are not perfectly linear for just one reason. OF course statistics and probability has already found a home in such for just one example. Plus if math can model something, and math being ultimately human in design, then of course the equations can come to be explained in non mathematical ways.

 

I am also a bit confused on something, are you saying really that humans could never really know the truth about something? I would think such a statement to be a bit of a paradox giving how much advancement humans have made in understanding the natural world around them.

[Klaynos]

So physicists have, in essence, never done science?

 

Has any scientist then? This could get annoying :|

[elas]

Klynos

 

You are in a position to consult with those who know. They will tell you that this is the heart of the debate; physics is by strict definition philosophy; as for science we have built a giant with feet of clay. Consult the SSK people at Exeter or look it up on the web.

Compare the PDA 2007 statement on 'quark mass' with the firmness earlier statements and observe the doubts creeping in. Look at the debate on photon structure and electron radius, the minority view is now being taken seriously (although a long way from gaining acceptance).

Look at the experiments on gravity started at Cambridge back in the 50s and 60s, they were ridiculed and the professor sent into 'coventry'; now they are being re-examined. Compare them with the work done in Japan during the 90s.

Everywhere you look you will find doubts and re-examinations. Keep in mind that your university is a member of the PDG and your academics have a vested interest in the status quo with regard to grants and access to equipment, that is to say they have divided loyalties, on the one side is the need for scientific progress, on the other is the need to remain 'on side' with access to CERN etc. Academia has to play the political game and as always 'whistle blowers' are to be isolated and rejected; but we are reaching the breaking point where the pot boils over and the opportunity for real change is there for the next generation to grasp: that's where you come in, the baton is changing hands.

Do not dismiss it as 'annoying' but welcome it as a land of excitement and opportunity, over the next 50 years fundamental physics will undergo a major change as it acquires a new understanding and the feet of clay are replace with a sound foundation.

[Severian]

What an incredible naive view. Academics certainly have no "vested interest in the status quo" - it is every man for himself. If any of us could prove that there is something wrong with the standard model, we would jump on it instantly and publish lots of papers. But we can't.

 

That was the whole point of this thread which you have perverted to your own crackpot ends. The SM is incredibly good and makes incredibly accurate predictions and no-one (including you) has been able to find anything better. Despite all your talk, you have still not managed to provide one concrete example of a failure of the Standard Model, or even point to an objection from someone else.

 

I think you should take your tin foil hat out of my thread.

[swansont]

Moved to speculations. Appeal to conspiracy will do that.

 

elas, you have a naive notion of what science is and what scientists do. Consider that if what most scientists do doesn't fall under your definition of science, your definition is wrong. You don't have to like it, but what you want science to be is really metaphysics. It's not science.

[elas]

Severian

 

What an incredible naive view. Academics certainly have no "vested interest in the status quo" - it is every man for himself. If any of us could prove that there is something wrong with the standard model, we would jump on it instantly and publish lots of papers. But we can't.

 

Experiments with gyroscopes(Cambridge 1950/60) and falling, spinning cylinders in a vacuum (Japan 1990/99) produced results that do not agree with QT predictions for rotating bodies.

Mention of these well documented experiments by leading academics (with papers published) is sure to get you a transfer to the madhouse, QED.

 

The PDG have qualified their predictions for quark mass (2007).

 

As you so well demonstrate, "students are told to believe white rabbits are produced out of top hats" (another quote from a leading academic). Perhaps someone should try a little constructive criticism, I would appreciate any references to leading academics who support your view.

 

Somewhere in the archive there should be my researched reply to this question. It was followed by a statement from one of the administrators which begins with "elas is essentially correct...". It was done years ago using Windows 3.5 on a computer with a hard drive of less than 1Mb. in a forum that no longer exists (SF Theory development) and I do not have a copy; unfortunately, my present circumstances do not leave leave me with the time to do the research again.

[swansont]

Experiments with gyroscopes(Cambridge 1950/60) and falling, spinning cylinders in a vacuum (Japan 1990/99) produced results that do not agree with QT predictions for rotating bodies.

Mention of these well documented experiments by leading academics (with papers published) is sure to get you a transfer to the madhouse, QED.

 

If they are well-documented then perhaps you can document them better. Gyroscope and cylinders generally do not get described with quantum theory. I want to read the work for myself.

[elas]

I have to choose between continuing with this debate or getting on with a revision of my work. Considering that I have (in the opinion of administrators) won this argument years ago and the debate should be in the archive somewhere; I have decided against continuing this debate.

It seems that each generation of students and staff repeat the same debates and I have been giving the same answers for 12 to 15 years. I now acknowledge that the system defeats me; those who believe that 'white rabbits come from top hats' must be allowed to continue with their "quasi-religious beliefs" (a quote from an SSK paper); I prefer the definition that states that science is a search for the truth in both words (interpretation) and numbers and I will continue that pursuit.

[YT2095]

If they are well-documented then perhaps you can document them better. Gyroscope and cylinders generally do not get described with quantum theory. I want to read the work for myself.

 

I`m not at all sure, but maybe he`s reffering to this?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225771.800

 

this is the Only article I`m aware of that May loosely fit, I dug it out a few years ago here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=26259