Why are Physics Speculations so Popular ?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

If you look at a comparison of Replies numbers. Physics, Politics,Lounge, Speculations rank among the highest. If one puts Politics and lounge as the desire to relax, yarn and pontificate, then that leaves Physics and Speculation in the Big Numbers League. WHY ?

 

Surely this demonstrates

 

a) A desire to seek and know how our Universe Works.

 

B) A keen desire by many to SPECULATE what that knowledge could possibly be.

 

 

So why beat the living daylights out of each other for having a genuine Desire and offering only Possibles. ?

Edited April 16, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Ringer]

I would honestly guess that it's because physics is one of the worst taught subjects in school (and I come from a place where evolution is frowned upon). People learn that Einstein got his ideas from thought exercises, Newton saw an apple fall from a tree, Ptolemy watched the planets move, etc. People think, "well I'm smart too, so my observations are just as relevant." They don't bother with the finding prior experiments or learning the math, because most of the time it's taught as analogies without math and doesn't teach the experimental validation that's the entire premise of the scientific method.

 

What most of the physics speculations end up being is philosophical ramblings, not physics.

[CaptainPanic]

Speculations is also a forum where people come with the desire to be the next Great Inventor or the next Great Scientist, solving all the problems of the world with one brilliant idea.

 

We aren't beating the living daylights out of the people. But we do have a simple set of rules that say that you must use the Scientific Method.

[swansont]

Science is not a democracy of ideas. My idea is not the equal of someone else's if my idea does not describe how nature behaves as well as the other idea does. Also, we don't beat the living daylights out of each other. We beat the living daylights out of each other's proposals. That's how you find out how tough they are.

[Phi for All]

Many posters in Speculations, in my experience, want to skip over all the hard study and rigorous methodology normally found in physics and throw out what seems intuitive to them. In essence, they want to leap to unsupported conclusions without building a proper foundation for their ideas. This causes others to reply with admonishments and questions leading them back to firmer ground.

 

Saying nothing lends a tacit approval that most science-minded folks can't tolerate, so views and replies in Speculations are often much higher than other sections. Correcting mistakes (aka, beating the living daylights out of each other) is a favor done that one often doesn't appreciate until later. My daughter's piano teacher jumps in often to correct mistakes in her playing. As he puts it, why practice a piece the wrong way? It does nothing to diminish my daughter's love of playing piano since she ultimately likes playing correctly.

[Bignose]

Mike Smith Cosmos, on 16 Apr 2013 - 01:55, said:

So why beat the living daylights out of each other for having a genuine Desire and offering only Possibles. ?

Science needs new ideas. Craves them. Hungers for them. We know for sure that our current models are at least incomplete, if not totally wrong.

 

But, in the end, science is the subject up above. Actually doing science comes with some rules. Such as, unless you have a really, really compelling reason to dismiss it, the knowledge we have already remains.

 

A really good example is the exploration of special and general relativity. SR and GR addressed problems in the Newtonian mechanics, but it did not completely ignore or nullify Newtonian mechanics. In the right conditions, SR and GR return the exact same predictions as Newtonian mechanics. This is how science works.

 

So, for all the speculators who come in and decry how much they hate GR, or hate quantum mechanics, or any other current mainstream theory -- again the new idea is absolutely needed! But, they cannot ignore the fact that the ideas that are mainstream became mainstream because they have been the most successful at making useful predictions.

 

Any proposed replacement theory must be at least as useful as the current one. This is what so many people offering 'possibilities' ignore. In other words, you cannot offer a 'possibility' that doesn't make at least as good predictions as what we currently have.

 

Again -- someone may hate GR. That's fine, but it is undeniable that GR has been very good at making predictions that agree very, very well with measured values. If someone wants to get rid of GR, the hurdle they need to jump is very easy to understand -- their idea needs to make predictions that are at least as good as the ones we currently have.

 

This is what the vast majority of replies to speculations are -- people pointing out that the implications of the proffered idea go against currently-known, well-verified data. At that point, the speculator needs to back up and revise their speculation to include known info.

 

I don't think that the above is too hard to understand at all. But if there are any questions on it, please don't hesitate to ask.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Bignose

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Science needs new ideas. Craves them. Hungers for them. We know for sure that our current models are at least incomplete, if not totally wrong.

 

etc etc .............

 

Personally I do not find most of what you say unpalatable . You have taken my opening comments about 'desire' and ' possibles' slightly out of the setting I gave it. i was not talking about general 'desires' or general 'possibles '

 

I said

 

Surely this demonstrates

a) A desire to seek and know how our Universe Works.

B) A keen desire by many to SPECULATE what that knowledge could possibly be.

So why beat the living daylights out of each other for having a genuine Desire and offering only Possibles. ?

( As described above in a) and b) )

The main context being a) A desire to seek and know how our Universe Works. and

. B) A keen desire by many to SPECULATE what that knowledge could possibly be.

Hence , rather than trying to make a name for themselves, some genuine scientists get uncomfortable with certain current explanations of observations. Perhaps they feel it weak, ill defined or defined as ' you cant see it because it can not be imagined,' or ,'only the maths explains' or down right counter intuitive . None of these is due reason to abandon the so far established theory. However, many harbour nagging doubts with current theory and DESIRE to seek a more fulfilling explanation of how the universe works. Genuinely , some time later such scientists, by one means or another ( cross descipline observation, plain observation, inspiration, mental functioning, anominal results, whatever ) feel they would like to try it out in the public arena.

Being aware that such individuals have carried their 'baby' for some time , I would have thought a bit of common decency , respect , and courtesy would win the day rather than " beat the living daylights out of each other" or the baby for that matter.

I can appreciate the need to thoroughly analyse the idea , critically examine, etc etc but not by

. " beating the living daylights out of each other "

Edited April 16, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Ophiolite]

Being aware that such individuals have carried their 'baby' for some time , I would have thought a bit of common decency , respect , and courtesy would win the day rather than " beat the living daylights out of each other" or the baby for that matter.

If and when I present some ideas I have been incubating for some time I would be offended, enraged, sadly disappointed, mortified, exasperated and seriously pissed off, if those ideas were not attacked harshly, vigorously, persistently and rigorously. If I sensed people pulling their punches I would be strongly inclined to lose respect for them. Any other attitude bespeaks disrespect for science and a grossly inflated ego. (Mine is large, but it is certainly not that large.)

[swansont]

 

Hence , rather than trying to make a name for themselves, some genuine scientists get uncomfortable with certain current explanations of observations. Perhaps they feel it weak, ill defined or defined as ' you cant see it because it can not be imagined,' or ,'only the maths explains' or down right counter intuitive . None of these is due reason to abandon the so far established theory. However, many harbour nagging doubts with current theory and DESIRE to seek a more fulfilling explanation of how the universe works. Genuinely , some time later such scientists, by one means or another ( cross descipline observation, plain observation, inspiration, mental functioning, anominal results, whatever ) feel they would like to try it out in the public arena.

Being aware that such individuals have carried their 'baby' for some time , I would have thought a bit of common decency , respect , and courtesy would win the day rather than " beat the living daylights out of each other" or the baby for that matter.

I can appreciate the need to thoroughly analyse the idea , critically examine, etc etc but not by

. " beating the living daylights out of each other "

 

I hang out with scientists all day at work. Nobody gets upset when you shoot down an idea. Why? Because if you can shoot is down, IT'S WRONG. And pursuing ideas that are demonstrably wrong is a waste of time. They won't work. It doesn't matter that it seems to work in one or two examples that you thought of, because happy coincidences do happen. The trick is that when you're wrong, you want to be verifiably wrong, so you don't go a long way down some path that ultimately fails. You'd rather find that out early on.

 

Now, it's possible they can be fixed to take care of the problem that causes them to fail. So you do this iteratively. But that's generally not what happens here, in speculations. Unlike scientists, who want to know when they're wrong, too many in speculations go into denial. The proponent keeps touting the one or two examples where the idea doesn't fail, because of the happy coincidence, and that's the opposite of how science works.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I hang out with scientists all day at work. Nobody gets upset when you shoot down an idea. Why? Because if you can shoot is down, IT'S WRONG. And pursuing ideas that are demonstrably wrong is a waste of time. They won't work. It doesn't matter that it seems to work in one or two examples that you thought of, because happy coincidences do happen. The trick is that when you're wrong, you want to be verifiably wrong, so you don't go a long way down some path that ultimately fails. You'd rather find that out early on.

 

Now, it's possible they can be fixed to take care of the problem that causes them to fail. So you do this iteratively. But that's generally not what happens here, in speculations. Unlike scientists, who want to know when they're wrong, too many in speculations go into denial. The proponent keeps touting the one or two examples where the idea doesn't fail, because of the happy coincidence, and that's the opposite of how science works.

 

I do not really have a major problem with what you say here. I just get a bit protective when the temperature gets a bit Too high in my opinion. I have been in engineering and commercial environments where issues discussed get ' very hairy ' I suppose I am more for a quieter life lately. I'll leave you guys to " Beat the stuffing and living daylights out of each other " Give me a call when you are through ! Joking ! ( Just don't pick on me )

 

Talking of which . I am having a bit of a problem at the moment , you's all quoting PREDICTION as the 'B' all and 'END' all, of the scientific test. This when I am trying to propose, in other threads, the invariable presence of GAPS, composed of ,PROBABILITY occurring over and over in the nature of things , and we ought to be looking at a different approach to arriving at solutions ( the genetic algorithm route for example) or the cosmos being a gigantic mold that everything is working its way into, rather than by strict predictable mathematical paths. We do seem to be getting a bit full with " uncertainty" " forbidden bands" " Exclusion Principle" " Schronigers Cat " " Spooky action at a distance " " non locality " " Dark this " and dark the other " "

 

 

 

 

 

Left Hand Side ( PREDICTABLE ) Center ( UNPREDICTABLE ) Right Hand Side ( Predictable )

 

 

When you have a few of these in series , it is like a stick pushing a stick pushing a stick pushing a stick.

 

It becomes a Total Not Predictable solution, only Statistical , If that. In some cases, perhaps with new future discoveries, it might be better, looking at the final mold and developing a different approach as to what gets into the various parts of the ' total cosmic mold.'

 

Oops. I feel myself lining up for a pasting ! from above ( Just don't pick on me )

Edited April 16, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

please note a tranche of posts regarding anonymity and posting etiquette have been split off to Support Comments Suggestions. Please keep on this topic of Why are Physics Speculations So Popular

 

 

Here

 

On posting etiquette and anonymity

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

[modnote]please note a tranche of posts regarding anonymity and posting etiquette have been split off to Support Comments Suggestions. Please keep on this topic of Why are Physics Speculations

 

In Line with this moderator request. I was saying :-

 

 

From 2 /3 posts before this one Mike Smith Cosmos SAID

 

Hence , rather than trying to make a name for themselves, some genuine scientists get uncomfortable with certain current explanations of observations. Perhaps they feel it weak, ill defined or defined as ' you cant see it because it can not be imagined,' or ,'only the maths explains' or down right counter intuitive . None of these is due reason to abandon the so far established theory. However, many harbour nagging doubts with current theory and DESIRE to seek a more fulfilling explanation of how the universe works. Genuinely , some time later such scientists, by one means or another ( cross descipline observation, plain observation, inspiration, mental functioning, anominal results, whatever ) feel they would like to try it out in the public arena.

Being aware that such individuals have carried their 'baby' for some time , I would have thought a bit of common decency , respect , and courtesy would win the day

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I do not really have a major problem with what you say here. I just get a bit protective when the temperature gets a bit Too high in my opinion. I have been in engineering and commercial environments where issues discussed get ' very hairy ' I suppose I am more for a quieter life lately. I'll leave you guys to " Beat the stuffing and living daylights out of each other " Give me a call when you are through ! Joking ! ( Just don't pick on me )

 

Talking of which . I am having a bit of a problem at the moment , you's all quoting PREDICTION as the 'B' all and 'END' all, of the scientific test. This when I am trying to propose, in other threads, the invariable presence of GAPS, composed of ,PROBABILITY occurring over and over in the nature of things , and we ought to be looking at a different approach to arriving at solutions ( the genetic algorithm route for example) or the cosmos being a gigantic mold that everything is working its way into, rather than by strict predictable mathematical paths. We do seem to be getting a bit full with " uncertainty" " forbidden bands" " Exclusion Principle" " Schronigers Cat " " Spooky action at a distance " " non locality " " Dark this " and dark the other.

This subject got a little entangled with something going 'Pear Shaped '

 

 

 

 

 

I was trying to bring up the point that As so much of todays discoveries about the cosmos throw up many examples of probability being a significant part of the process,

 

 

Might it be practicable to ease up on the maths and predictions AT THE EARLY STAGE of Speculation ideas . This might prevent us " throwing away the baby with the bathwater "

 

Baby - New speculative idea

 

Bathwater - Maths and Prediction cleanliness demands.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

STRING THEORY has had a good run, occupying the last 20 years of lime light, research funds and reputations.

 

Has it earned all these things with enough of the predictive power, that has been mentioned on this forum . Or has it crowded out , other ideas, equally worthy of merit , yet from less known mortals. IF prediction is so forefront why has this not held back the popularity of string theory, which I thought had not made too many predictions. Yet it has ' gone a flying ' into hundreds of dimensions , multi-branes , and goodness knows what.

Maybe STRING THEORY is right . But has it over 'Clouded' some smaller fainter voices from unknown scientists saying " what about this for an idea" who May just be nurturing a fundamental truth ?

 

 

( all I have been saying is please try not to beat the living daylights out of them before you have nurtured these individuals .)

 

Hey wait a minute. Maybe people like having the living daylights verbally knocked out of themselves.

And maybe the rest of us like seeing the stuffing knocked out of them. Carry on chaps and chapesses ! )

 

 

 

..

Edited May 12, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

STRING THEORY has had a good run, occupying the last 20 years of lime light, research funds and reputations.

 

How much of the research funds has it "occupied"?

[EdEarl]

Each of us has an intuitive feel for how macro, non-relativistic physics works, which is necessary for us to live in our environment. I believe that hearing about oddball things that quantum mechanics, relativity, string-theory, etc. predict makes us question those theories, even if we do the math, because they feel wrong. When we follow the scientific reasoning, we may be able to ignore our feelings, but those who do not know the math and do not follow the reasoning cannot ignore their feelings...they are stuck wanting an intuitive answer. They latch onto some non-scientific answer, sometimes a myth.

 

For example, many Buddhists believe in the ancient Buddhist myths about the universe; even though, the 14^th Dali Lama has said, “If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.” Myths are merely incorrect speculations by someone in the past that are remembered until today, whether Greek, Roman, Egyptian, etc.

 

I am seriously concerned about people who believe non-scientific things. First, it is personal because my family is fundamentalist Christian who do not believe in evolution or the age of the universe being GYrs. Such people are leading a political fight to introduce their non-scientific beliefs into the USA education system. Second, I believe that eliminating science from education is a really bad idea. Thus, I may become a bit frustrated whenever someone proposes some pseudo-science idea and will not relent. When I am frustrated I sometimes say things I regret, but I find it hard to bite my tongue because bad ideas can lead to pogroms, inquisitions, and crimes against humanity.

 

Of course, a person who preaches truth and science can also do bad things. We do need to keep our temperament in the Buddhist tradition, non-violent and loving of all. I believe truth and science will ultimately prevail, but not without struggle and setbacks. For example, most people now believe the Earth is round instead of flat, and that it is not the center of the Universe.

Edited May 12, 2013 by EdEarl

[ajb]

How much of the research funds has it "occupied"?

It must, in truth not be very much money. String theorists need, like most mathematicians, little in the means of hardware. No expensive lab equipment and pools of technicians and so on...

 

In terms of numbers of phyicsists, it again is probabily relativly small. Most people in physics departments I know do not work on string thoory, though of course some do.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

How much of the research funds has it "occupied"?

 

Well I only have the Physics community to go by. Prof Lee Smolin a Founding Member of The Perimeter Institute in Canada . An off shoot of Princetown University USA

 

He published a Book "THE TROUBLE WITH PHYSICS " where he well illuminated how when Bursaries were being handed out for Theoretical Physics Research many times String Theory was given priority over less mathematical research experiments and conceptual ideas. So I suppose the research funds I am referring to are the Pure Blue Sky Physics research activities which aspiring students in physics may wish to follow, but are unable to get funded as the Professors ( who have the access to the Research Budgets), have their own agenda in String theory Research , being many of the cosmetically attractive physics theory projects of recent years.

 

I had my own experience of trying to get into a Phd program as a mature student ( in my 50,s /60,s). I had my own line of research to follow , but found it was necessary to have a professor to oversee and supervise. And to a man , I found ALL they were interested in and were prepared to supervise , was in their OWN PROJECT AREA which was by nature a very narrow field . I was told that 90 % of Phd projects were going to Young adaptable Bright Students who would join the Professors Project ( not there own project ) So there was an inbuilt budget mechanism TO NOT EXPLORE OUTWARD TO NEW BLUE SKY RESEARCH.

 

I do not know , but possibly this was a driver behind The Perimeter Institute , where many leading physics personalities Pool their Ideas. .

Edited May 13, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/NGBOChooseTTS.aspx?Mode=ResearchArea&ItemDesc=Mathematical+Physics

 

String theory is well represented, but it if far from the only area listed.

[swansont]

I had my own experience of trying to get into a Phd program as a mature student ( in my 50,s /60,s). I had my own line of research to follow , but found it was necessary to have a professor to oversee and supervise. And to a man , I found ALL they were interested in and were prepared to supervise , was in their OWN PROJECT AREA which was by nature a very narrow field . I was told that 90 % of Phd projects were going to Young adaptable Bright Students who would join the Professors Project ( not there own project )

 

This is not at all unusual. A professor gets funding to do a certain type of research, so s/he is going to do that research.

 

 

So there was an inbuilt budget mechanism TO NOT EXPLORE OUTWARD TO NEW BLUE SKY RESEARCH.

 

And yet that research still happens. Just because someone researches in an area that interests them does not mean the research is not outward, nor that it is not "blue sky"

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

This is not at all unusual. A professor gets funding to do a certain type of research, so s/he is going to do that research.

 

 

 

And yet that research still happens. Just because someone researches in an area that interests them does not mean the research is not outward, nor that it is not "blue sky"

 

Yes and I bet half the people on the " SPECULATIONS" section would give "their eye teeth" to be funded to do some genuine "blue sky" research on their pet theory. And I would suggest at least 6 or more would lead to some exciting and advantageous developments. The world needs that right now . What say you ?

Edited May 21, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Yes and I bet half the people on the " SPECULATIONS" section would give "their eye teeth" to be funded to do some genuine "blue sky" research on their pet theory. And I would suggest at least 6 or more would lead to some exciting and advantageous developments. The world needs that right now . What say you ?

 

I think it would lead nowhere. Too many in speculations don't know basic science, can't tell when their ideas contradict nature and think that standing steady in the face of criticism is a virtue.

[robomont]

i can give you a perfect example.teslas ideas are still not talked about in high school.all high voltage experiments are rellegated to a small amount of universities.most all physics is in theoretical or closer to home problems.war machines and such.for a hundred years high voltage ac and dc has been shoved in a corner.

 

next.you guys dont speak in country english.this gap makes it hard for the rest of us to keep up.you provide no real framework for the common man.in return this causes detachment between the two.like all the different ways of explaining an amount of energy.with all the genius in science we cant come up with one standard for all to use.but we are expected to trust your theories that sound like utter nonsense to the masses.

imho physics should be taught in all grade levels.with working prototypes of hypothesis.

we do not deny a person the right to buy a car even though they may not know how to repair it.why should we deny knowledge to those who dont understand the math?

 

i for one have no formal training in physics but i called no such thing as an absolute vacuum before scientist proved it.my gut told me so.now i wouldnt have bet the farm on it though.the majority of physicist werent even speculating on it but this hick was.ive spent time with a nasa physicist that couldnt answer half my questions even though he understood what i was asking.

i came up with a way to cut down flyash pollution at coal fired power plants that is now used at all of them across the nation after being at my job at one for three months.simple but brilliant.and i was never paid a dime.

i have invented faster safer and more efficient ways of doing things at almost all the jobs ive ever had and then quit .as i get bored quickly.ive been a high voltage mining equipment builder even though i have no formal training.ive been an air conditioning tech for five years with no formal training.ive been a tower hand building microwave and cellphone sites.no formal training.i repair my own car.even a transmission once.no formal training.i am one of the best gardeners you ever saw.no formal training.

and ive put many a physicist in there place over high voltage theory.because i had the drive to learn.this is what accademia doesnt want to admit.there are smart people out there that have never set foot in a college.it would discredit them to admit that knowledge is free.if you have the drive.of which i do.thats why i dont have a problem being called a dummy.been called it my whole life.but im the guy who is retired at forty.and can fix most of my stuff.can academia do better? i wonder as i ponder.

[Ringer]

we do not deny a person the right to buy a car even though they may not know how to repair it.why should we deny knowledge to those who dont understand the math?

There are thousands of books for laymen to read, and then you have specialized books, videos, etc. specifically for teaching the material. To not have the knowledge if truly interested is not the fault of working scientists, but an assumption that everyone should be spoonfed knowledge instead of actually having to work for it. Trying to understand science without math is like trying to understand literature without letters. You can make some pretty pictures and it works well for those who don't want really understand what's going on, but you'll never really understand what's going on.

[robomont]

i dont need to understand automobiles but i can buy a chilton and repair one.i dont need to know biology to breath.expensive specialty science books holds back the flow of knowledge.and after reading i may still not have the answer im looking for.im not against people specializing but dont be a snob with the info.be patient and cooperative.because without the little guys dream.the scientist will not have a job.it takes both in symbiosis.imho.plus a kind of physics tree should be built.with each formula branching into the next higher level of formula.so a laymen can easily follow the path he needs.like a repair manual of sorts.

sometimes i wonder if science strips the imagination.while i believe everything is possible to some degree.its the two sides of a diagonal ladder.that we climb together.for the hope of all.