New Physics Blog

[BenTheMan]

This is a new blog by a theoretical physicist at CERN in Europe---at least, that's what the author claims, and I've no reason not to believe him/her.

http://anticrackpot.blogspot.com/

I am in love, given this quote from (what appears to be) the third posting:

Science is built upon consensus. However, the media often portrays scientific issues by presenting two opposing viewpoints. Sometimes, one viewpoint is held by 99.9% of scientists, and the other viewpoint is held by just one guy. The public, unaware of who is the scientist and who is the crackpot here, comes away with the idea that both ideas are reasonable, that there's a real debate, and 50% of the public ends up falling for some idea that is completely false.

Brilliant!

[Prosoothus]

BenTheMan,

Science is built upon consensus.

I have to say that I disagree with this statement. I think that a valid theory, or model, in science requires two conditions:

1) All the direct and indirect evidence supports the theory or model.

2) The theory, or model, is the simplest theory or model that supports all of the direct and indirect evidence (Occam's razor).

Whether 90% of the scientific community "prefer" one theory over another shouldn't make that theory more valid. After all, scientists are humans, and humans aren't always logical.

[one_raven]

Whether 90% of the scientific community "prefer" one theory over another shouldn't make that theory more valid. After all, scientists are humans, and humans aren't always logical.

Britney Spears is a celebrity.
Trepanation was cutting-edge science.


Welcome back.
Where you been?

[Prosoothus]

one_raven,

Welcome back.
Where you been?

Actually, I returned because I received an email showing that someone posted a comment on my "Electrostatic Pulse Engine" thread that I started several years ago. I haven't been around since I said pretty much everything I needed to say. :D

I noticed that they're aren't any threads arguing against relativity anymore. Such a shame.....

I'm currently trying to develop a new model to explain the electromagnetic interaction. A few months ago I saw an interesting thread on sciforums implying that an electron's charge is not constant, but oscillates. I'm currently assuming that all the fundamental properties (mass, charge, etc.) of particles oscillate, and that the four fundamental interactions can be explained by the understanding how the oscillations of one particle interact with another. If I ever figure it out, I'll post it on sciforums....:rolleyes:

[BenTheMan]

BenTheMan,



I have to say that I disagree with this statement. I think that a valid theory, or model, in science requires two conditions:

1) All the direct and indirect evidence supports the theory or model.

2) The theory, or model, is the simplest theory or model that supports all of the direct and indirect evidence (Occam's razor).

Whether 90% of the scientific community "prefer" one theory over another shouldn't make that theory more valid. After all, scientists are humans, and humans aren't always logical.

Well, the problem is that 1) is objective, whereas 2) is subjective. (Further, most people who work outside the consensus disregard 1), as well.)

But either way, let's talk about 2) for a second---I would say that "Occam's Razor" amounts to "fewest free parameters". Do you agree or not?

[Prosoothus]

BenTheMan,

But either way, let's talk about 2) for a second---I would say that "Occam's Razor" amounts to "fewest free parameters". Do you agree or not?

I totally agree. Fewest free parameters or fewest independent factors.

However, I wouldn't agree that "simplicity" is a subjective term. At least not most of the time.

[BenTheMan]

Well, when you define it thusly, "fewest free parameters" IS objective.

So, ok. We've established that we can discriminate theories based on objective factors. The important thing is that you need another criteria BESIDES the scientific method---the scientific method doesn't produce a unique explanation. I don't know (if someone can correct me) if modern philosophers of science include another criteria or not.

I would also point out that we need utility as well. So, if I have one theory which describes a single phenomena with one parameter, and another theory which describes three phenomena with two parameters, it seems to me that the second theory is better than the first, on the grounds that we can explain more things with less parameters---i.e. we can explain more phenomena in a simpler way.

Agreed?

[D H]

What makes one theory better than another?
I'll answer this question in a rather round-about manner by comparing two theories that failed to become part of the scientific consensus with two theories that not only became part of the scientific consensus but became, what I called in another thread, "settled science".


Lorentz Ether Theory and Special Relativity
The development of Maxwell's equations and the Michelson-Morley experiment indicated the existence of a significant problem in classical physics. Lorentz and Poincaré worked valiantly to recover the concept of an absolute reference frame (and an ether) in face of these developments. By 1905, Lorentz ether theory had been developed to the stage in which the Lorentz-Fitzgerald was axiomatic and where an absolute reference frame still existed but was absolutely undetectable. Einstein published his special theory of relativity in 1905. Special relativity is mathematically indistinguishable from Lorentz ether theory; the two theories differ only in their axioms.

Special relativity's axioms: The speed of light is the same to all inertial observers, and the laws of physics are identical in all inertial frames. The second axiom is very simple and very appealing. The first axiom is rather perplexing, but it conforms with experiments and Maxwell's equations.

Lorentz ether theory's axioms: There exists an undetectable absolute reference frame, and space and time contract per the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equations. The first is far too unscientific (the absolute reference frame is inherently undetectable in LET), and the second axiom is very specific and rather arbitrary. Moreover, the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction are consequences of rather than axiomatic in special relativity. Physicists prefer deep axioms with deep consequences over convoluted models. LET is convoluted, SR is elegant. Even though the two are mathematically indistinguishable, SR has become settled science while LET is part of the scientific dust heap of discarded theories.


Continental Drift and Plate Tectonics
As far back as the 1600s scientists noted the similarity of the coastlines of the continents on opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean. Alfred Wegener proposed in 1912 that the continents once formed a single supercontinent. Somehow, he proposed, that supercontinent, broke up and the continents somehow drifted apart. That unexplained "somehow" was the key problem with Wegener's hypothesis. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and Wegener's rather extraordinary claim was based on a mere appearance of similarity. It took another 40 years of accumulation of evidence in the form of fossils and the discovery of world-engirdling undersea mountain chains for geologists to even begin thinking that Wegener might be right, and another 10 years or so for the superceding theory of plate tectonics to be developed and accepted. Plate tectonics has an underlying mechanism and detailed observation in support of it. Continental drift had no mechanism other than somehow and rather weak evidence in favor of it. Today, plate tectonics is settled science. Continental drift is also settled science, but not in the form proposed by Wegener.

[Uno Hoo]

[QUOTE=D H;
Lorentz ether theory's axioms: There exists an undetectable absolute reference frame, and space and time contract per the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equations. The first is far too unscientific (the absolute reference frame is inherently undetectable in LET), and the second axiom is very specific and rather arbitrary. Moreover, the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction are consequences of rather than axiomatic in special relativity. Physicists prefer deep axioms with deep consequences over convoluted models. LET is convoluted, SR is elegant. Even though the two are mathematically indistinguishable, SR has become settled science while LET is part of the scientific dust heap of discarded theories.
[/QUOTE]


There is a serious problem with DH logic.

In Lorentz Relativity there is an absolute reference frame according to which a length contraction of a physical body, such as an interferometer arm, can be observed and compared to a lack of length contraction in a wavelength of light.

In Einstein Relativity there is a reference frame which every observer carries with him according to which any body moving with respect to the observer can be observed to suffer a length contraction.

In Einstein Relativity when there is no relative velocity between the observer and the observed body, such as an interferometer arm, there is no observed length contraction in the observed body.

The consensus solution to the Michelson Morley problem crucially depended upon the scientist, being perfectly stationary with respect to the interferometer , squinting through the telescope and observing that the interferometer arm had contracted because of the arm's velocity.

Read my lips. If Einstein Relativity was true, then the squinting scientist could not have observed any contraction in the interferometer arm which was absolutely stationary with respect to the squinting observing scientist.

P. S. (EDIT) I have read DH post about dust heap before now. DH has plagarized quote by eminent professional scientist in published book without properly acknowledging source.

[Prosoothus]

BenTheMan,

I would also point out that we need utility as well. So, if I have one theory which describes a single phenomena with one parameter, and another theory which describes three phenomena with two parameters, it seems to me that the second theory is better than the first, on the grounds that we can explain more things with less parameters---i.e. we can explain more phenomena in a simpler way.

Agreed?

I agree, but I don't look at science as being multiple theories and models each supporting and explaining a certain amount of data. I look at science as being one grand theory that explains everything. All other theories are either inductions or deductions of this grand theory. So actually, there should only be one grand theory, or model, in physics that explains everything, and any theory that explains only certain phenomena is either invalid, incomplete, or is only a subtheory. However, if it is a subtheory, it must also meet the requirement of being able to fit into the grand theory in order to be considered valid.

[D H]

There is a serious problem with DH logic.
Nope. Look in the mirror, bud.

In Lorentz Relativity there is an absolute reference frame according to which a length contraction of a physical body, such as an interferometer arm, can be observed and compared to a lack of length contraction in a wavelength of light.
No, there is not. The only thing that can be observed in Lorentz theory is relative position and velocity. Lorentz' absolute reference frame is a completely useless appendage.

Einstein Relativity when there is no relative velocity between the observer and the observed body, such as an interferometer arm, there is no observed length contraction in the observed body.
The same is true in Lorentz theory. In fact, the predicted outcome of any experiment is exactly the same in the two theories. There is no way to distinguish one theory from the other experimentally. They differ only in their axioms.

Read my lips. If Einstein Relativity was true, then the squinting scientist could not have observed any contraction in the interferometer arm which was absolutely stationary with respect to the squinting observing scientist.

:crazy:

P. S. (EDIT) I have read DH post about dust heap before now. DH has plagarized quote by eminent professional scientist in published book without properly acknowledging source.
No plagiarism. Those are my words. I did use a commonly-used phrase "scientific dust bin" to describe a theory to which nobody ascribes but a handful of cranks.

[BenTheMan]

I agree, but I don't look at science as being multiple theories and models each supporting and explaining a certain amount of data. I look at science as being one grand theory that explains everything. All other theories are either inductions or deductions of this grand theory. So actually, there should only be one grand theory, or model, in physics that explains everything, and any theory that explains only certain phenomena is either invalid, incomplete, or is only a subtheory. However, if it is a subtheory, it must also meet the requirement of being able to fit into the grand theory in order to be considered valid.

Your view is the view held by most people today, who believe that there will be a unified theory. However, experience has shown us that the details of that unified theory are not important for most calculations. For example, if I were calculating electron-photon scattering, I do not need the machinery of the full quantum theory of gravity. Another example are Newton's Laws---if I am calculating trajectories of, say, balls on the surface of Earth, I do not need to invoke General Relativity.

If you like, I can show you why this works---it is truly a triumph of 20th century physics called the effective field theory.

Framed in this way, we are talking about effective field theory descriptions of physics. Let's use another example: quantum chromodynamics, or QCD. QCD is the theory which we use to describe quark interactions, and is (as DH would call it) "settled science". When QCD was first beginning to be developed, there were other competitors to describe the hadron, baryon and meson spectra. Eventually, QCD won---it was simpler and explained more than the other theories. Does this mean that we will stop using QCD once we figure out the "theory of everything"? Surely not. The theory of everything should reduce to QCD, and if it doesn't, then it's not right. That sounds a bit circular, so let me rephrase it---if the theory of everything doesn't contain QCD, then it can't be right.

[QuarkHead]

This is a new blog by a theoretical physicist at CERN in EuropeCartoon in the Daily Telegraph (I think) here in UK;

Dog to Dog: "I used to have my own blog, but now I have gone back to incessant and pointless barking".

[Uno Hoo]

Nope. Look in the mirror, bud.


No, there is not. The only thing that can be observed in Lorentz theory is relative position and velocity. Lorentz' absolute reference frame is a completely useless appendage.


The same is true in Lorentz theory. In fact, the predicted outcome of any experiment is exactly the same in the two theories. There is no way to distinguish one theory from the other experimentally. They differ only in their axioms.



:crazy:


No plagiarism. Those are my words. I did use a commonly-used phrase "scientific dust bin" to describe a theory to which nobody ascribes but a handful of cranks.

" Physics for Scientists and Engineers" authored by Raymond Serway.

Page 901.

About halfway down the page.

" The negative result....
In later years, when more was known about light, the idea of an ether that permeated all of space was relegated to the ash heap of worn out concepts. ......

[D H]

" Physics for Scientists and Engineers" authored by Raymond Serway.

Page 901.

About halfway down the page.

" The negative result....
In later years, when more was known about light, the idea of an ether that permeated all of space was relegated to the ash heap of worn out concepts. ......

Serway was talking about the luminiferous aether being "relegated to the ash heap of worn out concepts." I talked about Lorentz Ether Theory becoming a "part of the scientific dust heap of discarded theories." That isn't even close to plagiarism -- and I have never read that book. Both Serway and I are guilty of using trite phraseology to make a point.