Slashdot Mirror
Theoretical Physics Breakthrough or Hoax?
Brooklyn Bob writes "Ever get the feeling that some theoretical physics papers just don't make sense? According to this New York Times article, you may be right. Genius or gibberish? Who knows?" This belongs on your virtual refrigerator with nice big virtual magnet.
Of an Ars Technica article posted on the 26th of October, that you can still read here
Physics papers aren't just published all willy nilly. They must be reviewed by other physicists. Also, most theorists don't work alone, but instead work in a group, so there are checks and balances going on there.
I do admit, however, that theoretical physics seems harder and harder to understand. Newton's laws are far more simple to do calculations with than Relativistic Dynamics. And Newtonian Gravity seems far more simple than General Relativity. And then you have Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory, and now String Theory (which is full of unsolvable differential equations).
However, just because the mathematics and principles involved are harder to understand, doesn't mean that they are hoaxes. Indeed, despite the computational and conceptual difficulties involved in General Relativity (to which I find the conceptual difficulties fairly easy to overcome, but to which the math to solve a problem seems to take forever), the theory works far better for extreme conditions than its predecessor.
Before I conclude, I would like to point out that there is a difference between computational difficulties and conceptual. Many modern theories take very difficult mathematics to solve even seemingly simple problems. However, to build a loose conceptual notion of of, say, General Relativity, is fairly easy, given some experience with problems. I usually find it a lot easier to understand the concepts of a newe theory, and then trust that the theorists are honestly doing the math in in effort to show that the theory pans out as compared to the real world.
I've babbled on long enough; it's just my two cents as a Physicist.
-Jeff
No, but to people who do understand the field in which the Bogdanov brothers claim to be researching (I am a PhD student in string theory and include myself in this set), their paper is complete gibberish.
Their paper is full of unfounded assertions strung together, combined with definitions and other assertions that are patently false. The paper does not follow a logical chain of reasoning that allows the reader to repeat or verify their conclusions (which are also not clearly stated).
Furthermore, when confronted by other theoretical physicists (on the sci.physics.research Usenet group) with specific, detailed questions about their work, the authors have systematically refused to answer, or selectively answered with further vague or absurd statements. To me, this is the real clincher: they have completely failed to demonstrate a technical understanding of the field in which they claim to be working.
It is clear to everyone in the field that these papers are nonsense and should never have been published. The only actual supporters of the authors seem to be from non-scientists or physicists who are unqualified to judge the work itself.
I am tired of Slashdot's ceaseless battering of the physics community in the name of sensationalism. This is a blatant attempt to sully the good name of physics just because of the writer's inability to understand it.
All professions have their quacks and con artists. Surely physics is no exception? To a layman one mad professor looks much like another.
"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them." -- George H. W. Bush
... but a major failure of the french university.
The Bogdanov brothers are self-proclaimed geniuses
with absolutely no scientific credibility, that got
their PhDs (in their 50s, after a career as
sci-fi TV host in the 70s) at the university of
Burgundy in France,
This story is a major reality check for the
french university and the scientific publishing
community in general.
You should check
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov.html
for some serious comments on the affair.
Well, take e.g. all the matter in the universe. Put it in a measurable space. -> finite density.
Make the space smaller. -> finite, but larger density.
As the space available goes to zero, the density would go against infinity.
However, when the space has shrunk to point size, there is no space anymore. So the density wouldn't be infinite, but (some matter/zero space) undefined. So that's my 0.02 .
Now, consider if multiple universe exist, then one of two things is possibly true about them.
1) they are measureable and studiable from our universe, and hence, are definitionally PART of our universe, and hence any talk of "multiple universes" is gibberish.
OR
2) They are not measurable and studiable from our universe, and hence, are definitionally NOT proper subject matter of physics but are properly subject matter of philosophy, and anything that is said about them isn't "science" in any meaningfull sense of that word.
But, crap like this isn't new. However, it does seem to be getting to the point where even respectable peer reviewed journals are having a harder and harder time finding people who will actually stand up and SAY something like that.
Presumably you feel the same way about the creation of advanced light waves, and would have felt the same way about anti-matter back when it was first hypothesized?
Multiple universes is one way of looking at it. It explains stuff. It lets you get reasonable answers out of the theory. It's just as likely as the other potential explanations of said theory.
(Personally, I don't believe in multiple universes; I do, however, believe in a mechanism where particles are able to move backwards or forwards through time simultaneously, taking slightly different paths each time, and then their effects are averaged out. I have a pretty good argument for it being the case too).
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Check out the Guardian's top 10 scientific blunders page. They've got psychologists, physicists, chemists... all working to pull down science's reputation.
Basically I think you are right, but this case is a bit different. It's not just about scientists being a bit strange and eccentric.
Science, in order to work, is like a network of theories and facts, "nodes" that depend on each other. Older, proven nodes provide the basis for new nodes, some of which are later validated (and provide the basis for nodes after them) and some are not (in which case they disappear from the network).
So let's call a new theory D, which rests on the theories A and B, maybe extending and proving theory C in the process. The thing is, that A => B => C => D all relate to each other in a meaningful way. They may all be theories but they are part of a relatively solid reference framework that allows for validation at different levels.
Now the problem, the infamous hoax theories: some theories don't stand on any framework at all. And they don't even bother to establish a new framework. They might start with a few equations (7=2 for example) and a few out-of-context references and they leave it there. Typically they don't offer any coherent explanation that even remotely shows how the author arrived at a certain conclusion.
The problem is that those theories are not only useless in our present time, they also hold a very small probability to make any sense in the future.
this is about a controversy -within- the physics community. since members of the physics community (sokal, as mentioned in the article) have taken upon themselves to sully other academic communities concerning determinism, it only makes sense they are held to the same yardstick they would hold others. for instance, ironically in light of the sokal hoax, quantum theory has been in revolt against determinism for most of a century, with significant criticisms against that trend from einstein at solvay in 1927 and 1930 and at princeton in 1935, from bell in 1965, from clauser in 1978, and from aspect in 1982. individuals among quantum theorists may have very definite opinions about the relevance of causality vs correlation. but as a community the only thing they appear to agree upon is that some among their number are speaking gibberish. just who among their number are speaking the gibberish depends on who among their number you talk to. some, like wheeler, will insist there is not even a controversy, and this is taken up as an orthodox academic position by many physicists.
i haven't noticed any "ceaseless battering of the physics community in the name of sensationalism" by slashdot. there is, however, a lot of disagreement among physicists as to who is making any sense, whatever the writer of the article understands.
I agree with you totally. The math does become heinous after a certain point - partial differential equations, differential geometry, etc. I believe the reason that the classical laws are easier to work with is because they were determined (more or less) empirically. Part of the problem with extending physics theory has to do with being able to do experiments with new theory. In fact many phenomena in plain old G.R. require very precise calculations and measurements to confirm (ie mossbauer effect).
The field of physics is obviously doing a good enough job of sullying itself. You see, despite whether or not the writer understands what's happening, the article talks about scientists and mathemeticians sullying physics:
Scientists have been debating whether the Bogdanov brothers are really geniuses with a new view of the moment before the universe began or simply earnest scientists who are in over their heads and spouting nonsense
Not to mention these quotes from people in and around the field:
1. "Dr. Roman W. Jackiw, a physics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who read and approved Igor Bogdanov's Ph.D. thesis, said he found it speculative but "intriguing.""
2. "Dr. John Baez, a physicist and quantum gravity theorist at the University of California at Riverside, who has conducted a dialogue with the Bogdanov brothers on the Web site math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov, said, "One thing that seems pretty clear to me is that the Bogdanovs don't know how to do physics.""
3. "Dr. Peter Woit, a mathematician and physicist at Columbia University, said of the brothers' work, "Scientifically, it's clearly more or less complete nonsense, but these days that doesn't much distinguish it from a lot of the rest of the literature.""
Notice that those credentials don't appear to belong to journalists. Then who is defaming the field of physics? Maybe a physics professor, a physicist, and a mathematician! ;) Interesting.
The reporting does appear to make some physicists uncomfortable, and on slashdot it appears some are trying to push negative focus away from the physics community and onto the journalists -- a good scapegoat because of the "writer's inability to understand it" :-O
However this reaction is not surprising because any of us would do the same to protect our own field. Don't be surprised, but do see it for what it is.
The multiple universe theory is a way to explain the seemingly random choice of different quantum events. The theory is that if A, B, and C might happen, then all 3 of them happen and the wave functions affected by this are seperated in a way that they cannot interact.
The term "multiple univereses" is really a misnomer, since it does not involve more than universe, just wavefunctions that cannot comunicate. This means that I see A, B, & C happen, but the me that can talk to you has to be the one that saw the same thing you did.
I hope this clear up multiple universe theory somewhat.
Disclamer: IANAQuantam Physicist
With the Sokal hoax, many physics people jumped up and shouted that Sokal had "proven" that cultural studies was a "bogus" discipline. Now, with this hoax, the same people are backpedalling, saying that this time the issue is "complicated" and that "physics isn't for amateurs." If anything, this hoax seems more damning to me than Sokal.
;)). The paper was published because an established physicist was making bold statements about the philosophical basis of his field. That's not news? Of course, as it turned out, that physicist was a snake in the grass.
Why? In his paper, Sokal didn't pretend to be a literature professor; he claimed at the start he was a physicist. The review board of Social Text weren't physicists and so they couldn't really evaluate the physics part of his paper. Instead, they trusted Sokal that he was following the usual academic honesty and integrity in his assertions. As it turned out, and as we all now know, he wasn't -- he was intentionally distorting his beliefs about physics in order to perpetrate a hoax. What Sokal did was a lot like a researcher falsifying data: review boards usually have no way of knowing whether a submitter has falsified data and so they have to rely on the person's academic integrity, just like the board of Social Text had no way of knowing whether Sokal was sincere in his representation of physics, so they had to trust him.
The Bogdanov brothers, however, published as physicists, about physics, and in journals reviewed by physicists. Not only that, but the people who reviewed them are now spouting inanities like "he worked for ten years, so he deserved a doctorate." (Um, no, he can work for 30 years, but if he doesn't understand the stuff, he doesn't get the doctorate.)
If Sokal had tried to write as a literature professor, I highly doubt his paper would have gotten through. I've read his paper, and quite frankly, it was *not* accepted for what it had to say about cultural studies. The knowledge the paper represents of cultural studies reads like an enthusiastic but over-bold sophomore who just took his/her first class in critical theory (disclosure: I teach critical theory to sophomores, and I've seen those papers
First of all, the Bogdanov hoax is not a hoax. It's a goof, a public display of carelessness, by a bunch of physicists who now look very silly.
But let's test your theory--the experiment is in progress. The Sokal hoax trashed the entire Pomo field of cultural studies, cut the number and quality of grad students in half, reduced grant allocations, and so on, and so on.... Let's watch and see if the same thing now happens to physics, shall we?
Making trouble today for a better tomorrow...
Why do you put Sokal in the same group as Schon? Schon was hedging the data to get prestige and more funding (most likely). Sokal was criticizing the social sciences for their lack of rigor by submitting a parody --- which they published without any fact checking.
So let's get it straight: Schon is a talentless hack; Sokal is a dedicated scientist who wants to see more people acting and thinking rationally. If you don't believe me, check out his website. From personal experience I can tell you that Sokal is a good guy. It makes me sick to see people like you lashing out without even taking time to learn about what you're talking about (actually, people like you were the motivation for Sokal writing that piece.).
RZ: If the Big Bang were indeed where it all began, may I ask what preceded the Big Bang?
Sci: The universe was shrunk down to a singularity.
RZ: But isn't it correct that a singularity as defined by science is a point at which all the laws of physics break down?
Sci: That is correct.
RZ: Then, technically, your starting point is not scientific either.
[silent panic]
RZ: When a mechanistic view of the universe had held sway, didn't thinkers like David Hume chide philosophers for taking the principle of causality and applying it to a philosophical argument for the existence of God? Didn't he warn that causality could not be extrapolated from science to philosophy?
RZ: Now, when a quantum theory holds sway, randomness in the subatomic world is made a basis for randomness in life. Are you not making the very same extrapolation that you warned us against?
[awkward silence, self-deprecating smile]
Sci: We scientists do seem to retain selective sovereignty over what we allow to be transferred to philosophy and what we don't.
Ah, the dark truth is snookered into revealing itself. Science plays the charade of pursuing truth while spurning the open-mindedness that is necessary to find ultimate truth.
Again, in the words of Zacharias, "The person who demands a sign [from God, a miracle] and at the same time has already determined that anything that cannot be explained scientifically [naturalistically] is meaningless is not merely stacking the deck; he is losing at his own game." (words in brackets in this quote added by me)
As a scientist, reading this article in the New York Times is rather troubling. The "text" produced by the science is an incredibly accurate rendition of the truth of the universe we live in. As further experiments and exploration continues, our understanding becomes ever richer and more detailed. This is the basis for a fascinating intellectual persuit. But also, the understanding produced by the social enterprise of science, as influenced by experiments, has led directly to important technological advances that shape our society. Ignore the arcane musings of physicists as you will, but it is difficult to ignore their impact! Finally, the philosopher Jean Baudrillard has written extensively about the fact that humans communicate through symbols and images that are essentially simulacra removed from objective truth. This leaves in his words, the "desert of the real". As far as I am concerned, say what you will about other academic subjects, but you can consider science to be an oasis, firmly rooted in the desert of the real. You post-modernist punks can take that to the bank! :-)
Of course you have chosen an example case which is fairly clear-cut. You can probably get away with saying that there is a very high probablity that the statement is false. My point is that you can never know with absolute certainty. This is the objection commonly held, in philosophy of science, to obsolete Popper's theories in favor of those of Kuhn and his followers, who coined the word "paradigm" and elaborated the idea of a "paradigm shift" to describe the real process of theory selection in science.
My site: Free Nature Pictures