What's the correct/formal term for "What if" ?

[TaoRich]

Hi Folks,

 

Newbie here, sitting in sunny South Africa.

 

As usual, whenever I try to write something, I get hung up on getting started. I have a tendency to bog myself down with unnecessary trivia, or "deeper and deeper research" - good old Procrastination 101.

 

So, who can comment here to give me a kick-start to beak my deadlock.

 

What's the correct or accepted scientific term or language to use when putting forward a What if ? question.

 

My approach will be:

 

• What if : ( a speculation / hypothesis / conjecture )

I state or pose a fundamental question about space.

( One I have pondered, deliberated/teased and tortured myself with for over 15 years. )

• Is the "what if hypothesis" possible : ( testing / formulation )

I set out to investigate if the "what if" can be modelled.

Can it be described.,

Is it stable.

Is it sound.

• What are the implications of the model : ( consequences / discussion )

I discuss the physical implications

I discuss the metaphysical implications

So back to my question, rephrased:

 

What is the heading I use for the question in the box on my first page ?

 

I don't really want to go with hypothesis because to me that is "too assertive".

My "what-if" began as a question or pondering I set out to explore ... not a strong assertion that I wanted to put forth boldly as a fact a priori.

 

I really want to get across the fact that we ( the reader and I ) are setting off on a journey together to explore a (almost metaphysical) assumption about the world, and that we ( the reader and I ) do not want to assume that the fact is there to be proven before we set out on the journey.

 

- - -

 

Well that's my cherry busted - my first post here.

 

Hopefully it makes sense to someone who will comment.

 

Cheers

TaoRich

 

"Imagine a world without hypothetical situations ..."

Edited February 17, 2011 by TaoRich

[ajb]

Something like a conjecture would be something you believe is quite likely to be true, you should have some evidence and trail of though here. You could then explore the consequences of this conjecture being true, or indeed false. But you should make it clear what is conjectured to be true, and what is derived from this. I don't think this is really any different to speculation. There should be some reason for the conjecture/speculation, either from experiment (or maybe lack of a result/observation) or theory, the mathematics could suggest something.

 

Another kind of "what if" question could involve changing something you know is true. For example in physics we could ask what would our world be like if Planck's constant was orders of magnitude larger? Such questions are useful in understanding the world we live in.

 

We could ask, what if the universe was 2+1 dimensional? No one really thinks it is, but useful results can be established here that may give hints on the 3+1 dimensional universe. Though one would have to be very careful, some things are going to depend on the dimensions, other things may not.

 

So, to answer your question I am not sure of any clear definitions of the language to use, but for sure it will depend on what kind of "what if" question you have.

[TaoRich]

Thanks ajb ... that helps.

 

I've just been playing with the Thinkmap visual thesaurus and bouncing around between the words above:

http://www.visualthesaurus.com/

 

It led me to the word meditation which I quite like.

 

I'd been playing with the word contemplation for a while, but felt that it was a little too "navel gazing" - a self-absorbed proverbial examination of lint from one's own belly-button.

 

meditation works well for me, because the "mind's eye imagery" for what I set out to explore made itself apparent firstly to the intuitive, visual side of my brain.

 

I spent years trying to get a grip on the formal mathematical/physical conditions that would be necessary to describe and model the mental visual image.

I finally managed to bed it down a few months ago, using a computer simulation/animation based on underlying standard fundamental physics.

 

So, now I'm happy that I've got a starting point that feels stable enough for me to start walking forwards.

 

I'm going to use this framework:

• meditation
  • state my speculative hypothesis

  [*]exploration

  • explore my hypothesis and derive my mathematical model

  [*]discussion

  • examine the physical consequences of the model

  [*]contemplation

  • examine the meta-physical consequences and implications

I know that that's not necessarily the formal, conventional approach, but I feel it's going to work best for me in my need to communicate my thinking. Besides which, I tend (pathologically) to swim against the flow. It's the same part of my nature which makes me think differently to the norm.

- - -

 

By way of pre-emptive apology, I'm not trying to deliberately be cryptic or withhold the gist or nature of my "theory" ... it's just that it is still too fragile to survive in the bare light of day.

 

Hence my need to formally document what I have bouncing around in my head - so that it is clearly and well stated before I subject it to external examination or critique.

When I have something solid enough to stand on and defend, I'll be sure to share it here in the forum.

 

- - -

 

Cheers & thanks again

TaoRich

Edited February 17, 2011 by TaoRich

[Mr Skeptic]

You could call it conjecture, hypothesis, premise, postulate, supposition, statement A, axiom, assumption, or something like that. Yes, you should make clear that there is not necessarily any reason to believe it is true. If you believe it can be proved true, sometimes it is useful to assume it is false, and then show that that assumption leads to a contradiction. You can also, without proving it true, derive (true) statements of the form "If A, then B.", where A is your conjecture and B is a result of your conjecture being true.

 

Just to give an example, the statement "rectangles exist" is treated as above in geometry. It is also known as Euclid's 5th Postulate.

[Blahah]

Meditation is a bit vague if it's a scientific work.

Hypothesis in science requires it to be testable

Conjecture means that it appears to be true inductively, has not been disproven, but has not been proven

Theory is, as far as you can tell, founded on logical deduction and is plausible

 

I think the exploration, discussion, contemplation format is good, but personally I wouldn't ever use the word meditation to denote a scientific proposal. I'd go with conjecture to describe the initial idea.

[ajb]

Meditation and contemplation are not words I have seen before in a physics or mathematics paper.

 

By meditation you mean setting up the assumptions or axioms?

 

Metaphysics is more like a branch of philosophy. I cannot offer much advice on this.

 

My advice is read some papers on similar or related ideas (you have done this as you want to propose something new) and use them as a basis for the overall structure of your paper.

 

Theory is, as far as you can tell, founded on logical deduction and is plausible

 

In mathematics theory means a collection of mathematical knowledge. For example group theory.

 

In theoretical physics theory is synonymous with mathematical model.

 

A theorem is a statement or statements that have a mathematical proof to show that they are true, based on some initial axioms. In essence, a conjecture is a theorem without the proof!

Edited February 17, 2011 by ajb

[lemur]

I don't really want to go with hypothesis because to me that is "too assertive".

My "what-if" began as a question or pondering I set out to explore ... not a strong assertion that I wanted to put forth boldly as a fact a priori.

I think you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that all writing asserts something to some degree. It can help to refer to the text you're writing and/or to yourself as writer by saying something like, "this thesis investigates/explores/asks/seeks to . . . " or "In this paper, I . . ." You could state that you wish to consider or explore the possibility of something, or identify conditions for something to occur. You could simply describe your research as the pursuit of information related to questions/issues you had and describe/explain what those are/were. I think the ultimate goal for any good writing is that you want to know what the purpose of your research/writing is and pursue that as succinctly as possible. I don't think people like to read posturing or apologies for using an assertive tone in writing. I think people (especially in an academic context) want to arrive at points as quickly as possible. At the same time, you want to clearly delineate each point and not try to condense the language so much that your point gets lost in the density of the wording. Probably the most important thing, though, is that you put something down that you can edit later, because then you can always go back and multiple sentences that are too dense or eliminate redundancies or wordy parts - and of course revise awkward or confusing sentences. If you have a clear idea of your "what if" issues, you should at least not have the problem of writing without content.

Edited February 17, 2011 by lemur

[TaoRich]

as the pursuit of information related to questions/issues you had

 

You've got it a nutshell right there.

 

I never set out to try to prove anything, or assert anything.

Sometimes it has pursued me even more than I have pursued it.

 

A fundamental concept began bugging me from my days studying Chem Eng back in the 1980's - while soldiering through Maths, Physics, and Quantum Physics.

Something did not sit right with me, and I've been digging and scratching at it for 15 or 20 years now.

 

I'm trying to express how "I spotted a hole and set out to fill it".

 

- - -

 

I know that the approach I seem to be heading towards is not the conventional accepted norm - and I accept that I may very well change/revise how I'm going to express myself once I have managed to dump the concepts out of my head and down onto paper.

 

Right now, I'm needing a tool (one could even say a crutch) to help me get a grip on a theory that is balanced evenly across 'hard physics' and 'soft metaphysics'.

One that seems to have rather strange implications.

 

Once I have wrestled with the beast, and pinned it down, I'll be sure to revise how I express myself - which I know I must do if I want to be taken seriously.

 

My gut feel is that I'll end up with two different versions ( nope make that editions ) of my "paper":

• One, formal, for a physics audience.

• And an other, informal for a philosophical audience.

The main thing is that I now have a starting point ... and every journey begins with that first step.

 

 

Thanks to all for the input.

 

I appreciate all the comments, for and against ... they all help shape my thinking.

 

I need walls to bounce off - you've all helped.

Edited February 17, 2011 by TaoRich

[lemur]

Right now, I'm needing a tool (one could even say a crutch) to help me get a grip on a theory that is balanced evenly across 'hard physics' and 'soft metaphysics'.

 

Once I have wrestled with the beast, and pinned it down, I'll be sure to revise how I express myself - which I know I must do if I want to be taken seriously.

 

My gut feel is that I'll end up with two different versions ( nope make that editions ) of my "paper":

 

One, formal, for a physics audience.

 

And an other, informal for a philosophical audience.

 

The main thing is that I now have a starting point ... and every journey begins with that first step.

Not too long ago, I was talking with someone about how physicists and metaphysicians tend to eschew each other's domains. I can entertain thoughts in both "languages" but I also find it impossible to merge the two approaches to thought. I think it is possible and happens a lot that people take ideas from one discourse and translate them into the other, with varying success (idk about translating metaphysics into physics, though it probably happened more in that direction a long time ago). Even though you've been sitting on this egg for 15+ years, I think you'll find that when you start researching, writing, and communicating about it, it will turn out to be a springboard for a much bigger development. Good luck and looking forward to getting some discussible morsels in this forum.

[Mr Skeptic]

Maybe you should start your journey and quit worrying about what to name the first step.

[John Cuthber]

I don't think there's anything wrong with starting a paper by saying "This report considers what would happen if..."

It might be better to start

"We observed that... and this led us to believe that ... . This report considers the outcome of that line of thinking"

 

It's difficult to say without knowing what you are writing about, for what audience etc.

[Marat]

If you take the advice of one of the best works on English stylistics available, Strunk & White's 'The Elements of Style,' the best approach is the most direct, least overblown, and most colloquially frank expression you can use. 'What if' is a perfectly grammatical way to open a paper; it engages the reader quickly and easily in the hypothesis you are posing; it doesn't waste words; and the level of diction is acceptable. Go for it.

[DrRocket]

 

What's the correct or accepted scientific term or language to use when putting forward a What if ? question.

 

 

 

 

"What if" or "Suppose" should serve nicely. What is more important is the merit or interest level evinced by the idea that follows.

 

Some "what ifs" are better than others.

 

A friend who has served on high-level commissions once told me that Edward Teller was famous for going off on non-productive tangents, but could be readily be brought back on track. As he put it, Teller would interject into the discussion something like, "You know, if the moon really were made of green cheese then you could .....". But he said, it was easily handled by responding, "Shut up Edward." Teller the immediately re-focused and all was well.

 

So, pick your "what if" with some care. Pose an interesting hypothetical question. The first word is not important. The first paragraph is critical.

[TaoRich]

' the best approach is the most direct, least overblown, and most colloquially frank expression you can use '

 

I like that.

 

Expressing it in my own language for my own clarity:

 

human to human communication is the goal

rules should serve the goal

 

I'll keep that in mind when I get hung up on language.

 

 

 

 

[michel123456]

My advice:

1.never begin a paper apologizing for any kind of ignorance.

2.don't begin introducing yourself and the history of your life. Insert at the end an extremally small curriculum (one or 2 lines) starting with your PhD in the subject or Nobel prize in the subject. Nationality & born date are crucial (after the age of 35 your chance of succeeding diminishes expantionaly). If you don't have the required qualities, don't introduce yourself at all. Mystery is better than refutal.

3. Put the elements you admit first, and go to "what if" after. Never put more than one "what if" in one paper, or you die.

4. Make sure the reader don't stop exactly there.

5. Make a looong list of references, avoiding self-reference, publications from the 80's or older & publications from Esquire magazine.

 

I am sure other Members here will give you some other valuable advices.

 

___________________

 

Ah. Make sure you haven't discovered a theory from the 3rd century BC. It happens to me all the time. Google & Wikipedia are of great help.

 

(...)

human to human communication is the goal

rules should serve the goal

 

I agree and applause. But don't take that for granted. I have a bad experience when discussing with people who don't think that way.(not here)

Edited February 20, 2011 by michel123456

[michel123456]

An example from another thread:

 

I have not read the later pars of the paper. Though I noticed that the latest reference is from 1979. To me this suggests that the work is not topical even before reading it.

 

There should be a sticky on how to make a good paper, or at how to avoid basic mistakes. Is there any?

Edited March 2, 2011 by michel123456

[Schrödinger's hat]

5. Make a looong list of references, avoiding self-reference, publications from the 80's or older...

 

Methinks you've never seen a mathematics paper.

[michel123456]

Methinks you've never seen a mathematics paper.

 

Tell us more.

[ajb]

There should be a sticky on how to make a good paper, or at how to avoid basic mistakes. Is there any?

 

On the referencing, I think the oldest paper I have cited in my work goes to 1977. However, it was the initial paper on the subject. So it is fine to cite "old papers" for this. However, there almost certainly will have been works since. In particular works closer to exactly what you are trying to do. If not, you have to ask "is this work relevant to the community?" This is important if you are trying to get work published.

 

At some point seminal work will become "common knowledge". For instance, it is now rare to cite Einstein's original paper on general relativity or Dirac's original paper on his now famous equation. The exception would be if the paper you are writing is directly related to these works specifically.

 

I don't know when work becomes so well known you don't have to reference it any more. As a rule of thumb I would say if it is in standard textbooks then you can probably be a bit lax with references.

 

Self-referencing is a difficult one. Generally, I think the advice is to self-reference as little as possible. However, some paper you are working on now maybe directly coming from an earlier paper of yours. So, only if it is directly and clearly related (maybe you conjecture in an earlier paper, but can now prove it!) would I self-reference. For the record, I have made self-references in my work, the latter papers follow on from earlier ones.

 

 

The BIG RULE is simple: Take pity on your readers.

 

Make life as easy as possible, use standard notation and nomenclature, provide a good introduction, point to useful references, use good English... and so on.

Edited March 3, 2011 by ajb

[imatfaal]

In non-scientific papers one can easily do without any references / citations of old work by the choice of subject or perspective, but avoiding modern work is very dangerous because it lays the paper open for criticism in terms of usefulness to today's academic community (as ajb said above) and perhaps betrays a poor literature review and understanding of current thinking

[ajb]

...understanding of current thinking

 

This would be my main criticism of any paper that does not have citations to recent papers. Though, it could depend on exactly what the paper is about.

 

For example, claims that GR is wrong because of a misunderstanding of Einstein's original paper are rubbish. We have lots of literature on GR and in particular from a modern perspective. We have had nearly 100 years now to understand GR.