Posted on 01/21/2016 12:52:39 PM PST by Trumpinator
How Physics Lost Its Fizz
Physics, which decades ago seemed capable of answering the deepest mysteries of existence, is now just recycling once-exciting ideas
By John Horgan on January 18, 2016
For a lapsed Catholic like me, physics represented a kind of scientific theology, an empirical, rational way of probing the mysteries of existence. Physicists were discerning resonances between the smallest and largest scales of reality and spinning out astonishing conjectures about our universe and even other universes.
...snip...
Physicists' fantasies about parallel and virtual realms are not just stale. Increasingly, they strike me as escapist and even irresponsible, because they are so lacking in evidence. Scientists shouldn't have to serve the public good any more than poets or musicians. But if theories are being passed off as science, shouldn’t they have at least a remote chance of being empirically corroborated? Otherwise, how do they differ from pseudoscientific ideas like intelligent design?
...snip...
Things have gotten so bad that physicists are openly fretting about the future of their field. In a recent TED Talk, “Have we reached the end of physics?â€, Harry Cliff states that “for the first time in the history of science, we could be facing questions that we cannot answer, not because we don't have the brains or technology, but because the laws of physics themselves forbid it.â€
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.scientificamerican.com ...
Some scientists think they know everything and that all has been identified. I remember [as a Medical Lab Technologist] in the late 70’s reading an article in a journal, that lab scientists thought that all human diseases caused by microorganisms had been discovered and defined. Then - surprise! Up popped, AIDS, Lyme disease, all manners of enteric viruses and tick and mosquito born illnesses, not to mention Chalmydia, HPV, Helicobacter, various herpes infections, Ebola, etc. You get the picture?
To this non-physics student it always seemed that too much of the theorizing in physics was too anthropomorphic - it’s true that guys on trains going at different speeds would see the movement of an object at different relative speeds, but there must be a way of determining a “true”, “absolute” speed independent of their observations, and that cat in the box - it should be either dead or alive regardless of whether the guy outside the box knows it is or not - and all the indeterminacy experienced in quantum physics - how much of it results from no more than inadequacies in being able to measure accurately at such minute dimensions - but then I watch a show like “Particle Fever” on PBS not long ago - about the search for and demonstration of the Higgs Boson, and the field -at least major elements of it - seems to take on a new vitality.....
Just the night before last, I was sitting up drinking when some science show came on about the supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy.
Much to my amazement, they had pictures! ... video even ! The video was time lapse over a period of a few years, I think, but these are conceptual nanoseconds. It showed stars buzzing around an invisible point like bees.
This was all new stuff circa 2000, I believe. Blew my mind.
I felt like the executive in the New Yorker cartoon remarking over the phone, “A billion is a thousand million? Why wasn’t I informed of this?”
Yes, but what about the quantum black hole? AFAIU, the concept has originated from relatively main stream thinking, and includes the idea, ( under the assumption of some relatively improbable assumptions, ) that these energies could produce a quantum black hole that could settle at the center of the earth, which it would end up consuming in a sudden fruition some millions of years hence. It’s an idea that haunts me.
Well, there's your problem right there.
Time dilation (the phenomenon you describe) is not the same as time travel. Time travel consists of reversing the movement of a system from higher energy to greater entropy. It would essentially allow you to unring a bell.
Dark matter is a ridiculous theory concocted to explain the gravitational discrepancy you noted. It’s a perfect example of forcing reality to fit the equation, since it is “observable” only by its absence.
Yep. Dark matter and dark energy are both fudge factors intended to bridge the gap between observation and theory.
Ultimately a better theory is needed, but it will be (is being?) bitterly opposed because of the threat it poses to orthodoxy. Even observation is often persecuted if it fails to support the orthodox theories.
The more I read, the more I realize that what is being presented as new “science” is really old philosophy with oscilloscopes.
I work to close to the research to view it without skepticism.
"Persecuted" is perhaps a strong word. I'm all in favor of a healthy skepticism, especially in the world of science. "New" ideas should be rigorously tested and discarded when the reality does not match the idea. Otherwise, science becomes handmaiden to fashion, and Truth vanishes in a fog of trendy self-importance.
It's ironic, because the anti-religionists love to point out how the Church suppressed Galileo's observations of planetary movement -- his Eppur si muove: Still, it moves -- moment. But today, those very same people crucify anyone who dares challenge the orthodoxy surrounding "climate change."
Just more liberal hypocrisy, I suppose. But I repeat myself ...
There is a difference between skepticism and persecution. Saying an idea or theory is wrong or even garbage is skepticism. Lawsuits and blackballing is persecution. There are scientists who are being persecuted for even mild constructive criticism of orthodoxy. The whole climate change industry is a good example. In some cases, simply noting a need for further study in an area can bring down the wrath of the mediocrities pushing a worldview rather than science.
Agreed. The difference is largely one of degree. And motive.
I am just an engineer.
For an engineer, it has to work. You can draw up pretty pictures on a smart board, but if it doesn’t conform to reality it doesn’t matter.
Precisely. Pontificating from ivory towers doesn't accomplish much except to inflate egos.
By the same token, all the ideas that later became engineering marvels had to start with a theory. It's just that the conclusions these days so often dictate the discoveries.
I agree. I love the crazies in R&D. Makes my life very interesting, and they get a home run now and again. But they also are constrained by “Does this apply to our goals?” We don’t have the FDA in our pocket the push through things with false trials (which is good). What we do has to work. So even with research, it boils down to “Work or not?”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.