Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Has Physics Gotten Something Really Important Really Wrong? (npr.org)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the stringing-us-along dept.

Slashdot reader schwit1 quotes an article from NPR: Some researchers now see popular ideas like string theory and the multiverse as highly suspect. These physicists feel our study of the cosmos has been taken too far from what data can constrain with the extra "hidden" dimensions of string theory and the unobservable other universes of the multiverse... it all adds up to muddied waters and something some researchers see as a "crisis in physics."
The article quotes Roberto Mangabeira Unger and Lee Smolin, the authors of a new book arguing that "Science is corrupted when it abandons the discipline of empirical validation or dis-confirmation. It is also weakened when it mistakes its assumptions for facts and its ready-made philosophy for the way things are." And according to this analysis of the book, what they're proposing is "to take a giant philosophical step back and see if a new and more promising direction can be found. For the two thinkers, such a new direction can be spelled out in three bold claims about the world. There is only one universe. Time is real. Mathematics is selectively real."

19 of 387 comments (clear)

  1. Michael Moorcock Just Called... by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 5, Funny

    He wants his Multiverse back.

  2. old wisdom by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    what they're proposing is "to take a giant philosophical step back and see if a new and more promising direction can be found.

    OK, good advice, now do it. If you think there is some massive new physics to be discovered, then discover it. When you do, you will be admired and respected for generations, instead of mocked by me on Slashdot.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:old wisdom by haruchai · · Score: 4, Informative

      Smolin & Woit have been harping on this a long time.
      Go read The Trouble with Physics and Not Even Wrong, both published in 2006

      They might be right or they could be (not even) wrong.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    2. Re:old wisdom by Tough+Love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      General physics is more or less solved. It makes sense.

      Is this a troll? OK, if not, then explain to me why there are three generations of leptons, not two or four or some other number. Why do the elementary particles have the particular masses they do? What causes quark confinement? Why does velocity have a limit, and why does the limit have the value it does? Why do any of the fundamental physical constants have the values they do? What about these problems? Should we expect answers in a year of two?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    3. Re:old wisdom by Tough+Love · · Score: 4, Informative

      General relativity is very different than particle physics. That's why Einstein chose to ignore it.

      OK, you are a troll or just ignorant. Einstein is one of the great contributors to quantum mechanics and received a Nobel prize for it.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    4. Re:old wisdom by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's unfortunately a common attitude in the physics world that anything that the math allows - anything that you can't rule out - is real. Beyond this, I think the discovery of things like general relativity and quantum physics got us so used to the concept that the universe is wierd that there's few possibilities that come across as "too weird to be real".

      On the other hand, it's sort of like saying, "we know little of the fish that live in the deep oceans, and we've seen fish that come in all sorts of forms.... since I can't rule out that there's a fish down there that looks exactly like Justin Bieber, then there must be one". The ability to deduce the existence of something based on what you can't rule out requires that you can be certain that your model is perfectly describing everything about the dataset that it's supposed to be modeling. But we know that they're not describing everything about the universe. We know that there's things that they specifically don't model.

      --
      We also have a halon fire extinguisher. Its always nice to have a fire extinguisher that kills people around.
    5. Re:old wisdom by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The good physicists say "This fits the math - so it's possible, let's see if we can make useful predictions from it and see where it leads". The trouble with assuming absurd possibilities cannot be true is that they all too often end up being true. The most obvious example in physics is Galileo - whose idea of the sun being the center of the solar system was deemed quite absurd by the orthodoxy of his time - yet turned out to be true.

      But even in the modern age we've seen that happen repeatedly - notably with your example of the ocean. We found ceolacanth fossils since the 19th century and were aware that some 230 million years ago a fish like this existed. It was always POSSIBLE they still survived and had just avoided detection all this time - but nobody really thought it was likely, and indeed if you stated that possibility to scientists you would have been laughed at... until we found some living specimens and suddenly it was true.
      Another example is the giant squid. We've had tales of them dating back at least 3000 years. And science rejected their existence as myths pretty much from the birth of naturalism as a field of science (the precursor to biology). Just another ridiculous myth of ancient people. Over the centuries evidence kept building up - which kept the conspiracy theories going, most notably whales caught with wounds that appeared to come from massive suckered-arms. But scientists wouldn't buy the possibility - and came up with any number of 'more plausible' explanations for the evidence before them.

      They didn't get serious about the possibility of the giant squid until the 1850s when portions of one that had been stranded arrived in France. Today we know that not only does the giant squid exist - it's not even the largest squid around. The Colossal Squid is even bigger (we don't know which one Aristotle had written about - only that he didn't know there were two, since he specifically wrote about one gigantic squid much bigger than the common ones).

      So we should at least consider the possibility that the Justin Bieber fish does in fact, exist. The biggest evidence for it's existence is that apparently they can breath air and one of them is currently a multi-platinum recording artist, based on the recordings from that specimen I would advance the conjecture that their air-breathing is limited and in an early stage of evolution (pre-booklung even) - more akin to a catfish crossing between ponds than a lungfish.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  3. But Seriously... by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 5, Insightful

    String theory, multiple universes, complexity, quantum teleportation... these are to Physics what Division I football is to college, which is to say, it sells tickets and opens purse strings. No one is going to buy a book on Newtonian physics and relive their junior year in high school. But let Brian Greene write something crazy and out there about a "Holographic Universe" or somesuch and the peeps will scoop it up, and maybe even decide to become physics and math majors, and there are lots of worse results than that. So let the alumni donate for the football team, and let the googley-eyed high schoolers all plan on high-paying and fulfilling careers as Quantum Mechanics. It puts butts in the seats...

    1. Re:But Seriously... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, they're are postulates that even their strongest adherents admit cannot be tested at the moment, and may not ultimately be true. The authors confuse researchers tendency to argue in favor of theories with researchers overestimating the evidence.

      The problem, as always, is people judging science by press releases, documentaries and the utter idiocy and ignorance of most scientific journalism.

      Within physics itself, you know, the actual community of physicists, string theory is seen as an interesting model, but one that as of yet simply cannot be stated even in the most tenuous terms as an actual description of reality. That being said, string theory and other related theories have contributed a considerable amount to the mathematical toolkit available to physicists, so that even if they are ultimately discarded, they will have had their use.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:But Seriously... by fermion · · Score: 4, Insightful
      On the other hand, we do think that the laws of the universe should be based on the same principles at all levels, so the fact that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics do not mesh well is a problem we need to solve. If some physics people want to look for other ways to solve the problem fine, but we do not discount a theory in modern physics simply because we cannot observe the phenomena with out current equipment.

      We have to recall the Quantum mechanics was a radical explanation for a real problem. Theory says that if you put a heat source in a black box the universe should be destroyed. This does not happen so the theory was wrong and we ended up with a theory was very difficult to prove. I have had professors tell me that the absolute proof of quantum mechanics, i.e. an experiment that could not be explained using an alternative theory, did not exist until the 1960's when lasers were used. That does not mean that an alternative theory will win out, but there is a great deal of support for QM.

      Likewise, general relativity is only now getting empirical evidence that supports it as the most likely out of competing theories. We must recall that the impetus of general relativity was a lack of symmetry in the mathematics of Maxwell laws, having to do with identical magnets moving with respect to one another. Warped space is an elegant explanation for why things happen, but it may not be the best explanation.

      Time is more complex. Right now thermodynamics, which is not considered as grounded as Newtonian mechanics, says the the universe evolves in one direction defined by the fact that entropy always increases. The are some measurements of the asymmetry of a nucleus that indicates that direction of time is a constant, but I don't think anything in physics right now decisively says there is an arrow in time, just an arrow in the evolution of the universe, which is why we don't have perpetual motion.

      This guy is nothing more than the friction described in The Structure of Scientific Revolution. There are always going to be people who do not assimilate the growing accumulation of data, who are stuck in the current paradigm, and who will oppose all efforts to a paradigm shift. They understand that Physics does change, but they get hung up on disproving new theories and not their pet theories that they assume are already beyond reproach.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  4. My thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have spent the last 14 years of my life studying fundamental theoretical physics and mathematics. I find a lot of the research in cosmology very unappealing, because it is way too speculative and far-fetched (multiverse, eternal inflation, bounce, cyclic cosmology, etc). And the mathematics behind these things is very primitive and simple, there is no elegance.

    But string theory is different. Although it has not been a success phenomenologically, it has led to many beautiful results in mathematics and field theory, such as Mirror Symmetry and AdS/CFT. Further research in string theory is definitely worthwhile, and Lee Smolin is unreasonably biased against it. These other "quantum gravity" approaches that Smolin champions are completely disconnected from any kind of real physics, and they have not led to any kind of deep mathematical insights.

    1. Re:My thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When you have something insightful to say, please log in. Most people with mod points don't like throwing them at AC's. Your argument is cogent, well thought out, and interesting.

      People with mod points should be browsing with no filters.

      If you are moderating an already filtered view you are doing it wrong. Also, what does AC vs another pseudonym matter, because if you're using past posts to moderate a current one, you're doing it wrong again. People share accounts, misrepresent themselves, use multiple accounts, so don't put any weight on post history, just read the post.

  5. Re:Does this imply that by DogDude · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No. Climate change and income inequality are easily provable by science. We're talking about grown-up things that are much more difficult, if impossible to prove.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  6. Re:History repeats itself by sittingnut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is no crisis of physics here, jut a massive layer of incomplete work.

    that is a crisis.
    furthermore there has been hardly any real progress in resolving this incomplete work/problems, for several decades.

    you seems to have got confused.

    "There is only one universe" - sounds like theological clam. And just as unconfirmed ad multiverses.

    but we can confirm existence of one universe.
    existence of others should only be included in theories if there is confirmation, not because its easier to do maths, by assuming multiverses, when working on some pure theories.

    "Time is real" - Einstein might disagree. Time is the imaginary part in the complex equations of space-time.

    depending on personal authority, however great , is not part of science.
    your last sentence says a lot about what is wrong . theoretical assumptions should not be taken for unquestionable facts.

    "Math is selectively real" - Only f the reality is defined by the capabilities of our brains and our technologies,

    when you abandon empirical validation, which is what your claim implies, you are in the field of pure unfalsifiable theory, and thus theology.
    gods or ghosts(and many other things) are also defended with claims about limits of our brains and technologies.

  7. Looking at the wrong branch of physics to trash by fadethepolice · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The article mentions hidden dimensions and other universes in the same sentence. This is a pet peeve of mine. In Multi-dimensional quantum mechanics the dimensions are additional directions. They are not other universes and the combination of the two in one sentence is either intentinally muddying the water, or the person writing the article is not familiar with the mathematics involved and should not be taken seriously. The standard Cartesian coordinate system used to describe our universe in it's basic sense contains x.y, and z, directions, a set of values that many of the programmers on Slashdot are familiar with. Multi-dimensional physics just adds more of these in an attempt to explain the very real observable quantum effects that Newtonian physics and relativity cannot explain and never will. We currently know more about the Andromeda galaxy than the Milky Way because it is difficult to describe an object when you are inside it. Getting a third person look at the universe, even if it is just a mathematical trick, is probably the easiest way to describe it. The refusal to do so is probably not going to go very far. What the emergence of time means is also not what they are describing it to be and should not be looked upon as a valid argument. In a holographic quantum view of the universe it could be considered similar to a wave propagating through a substrate, but also be akin to a temporary chemical reaction wave, where the structure of the substrate is momentarily changed while the wave propagates through. This temporary excitation of the substrate generates the universe we live in. The movement of the universe's propagation is in the direction of time. My take on the hidden dimensions is that instead of viewing them as hidden, we should look at them as directions in which the particles we are made of have a zero width. The reason we cannot travel in time is not because the directions don't exist, it's because the particles we are made of have a zero width in that direction. We would have to be made of something else, and when we went backwards in time we would effect leave our current universe. Other particles, such as the elemental particle of gravity have a non-zero width in one of these direction. What we should really be talking about is the fact that relativity CANNOT describe the orbital trajectories of any stars accurately. The lack of a theory to accurately explain a basic observable fact is more problematic than the inability of technology to currently test the most advanced physics problems. Once our ability to manipulate quantum effects (such as the creation of a working quantum super computer - looking at you google) and we can create technology that is based on quantum mechanics then maybe we will be able to test the theories. Second failure of current theory that I don't think is spoken of enough is the failure of the planck observatory to detect the effects of gravitational waves on the cosmic microwave background. There were several stories about the waves being detected but second looks at the data supporting this cast serious doubt. Since we have now confirmed the existence of gravitational waves and their effects have not been observed as inflation predicts, then the current theory of the big bang they reference at the beginning of the article (we can describe the universe up to a bit before it's creation) is in fact not supported by current experiments and should be rethought. Instead of taking a step back from quantum mechanics we need to take a second look at the non quantum component of physics as it is currently not supported by current data.

    1. Re:Looking at the wrong branch of physics to trash by pr100 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Please use paragraphs... a wall of text is very unappealing to read.

  8. mathematics is not selectively real by superwiz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Mathematics is not real at all. And it is entirely real. It studies implications of assumptions. The assumptions do not at all have to be based in reality. Ask your favorite mathematician about axiom of choice if you don't believe me on that one. Math is based on a priori deductions. These deductiosn do not need to be and, in fact, cannot be verified through observations. Sometimes the conclusions which are made from mathematical assumptions match the observed reality. And then scientists try to see if the underlying assumptions on which those conclusions were based also match reality. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. Without empirical validation, science remains unproved and a-priori-based hypothesis. Only observation can make it a posteori conclusive.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  9. Yes exactly, maths results by mx+b · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But string theory is different. Although it has not been a success phenomenologically, it has led to many beautiful results in mathematics and field theory, such as Mirror Symmetry and AdS/CFT. Further research in string theory is definitely worthwhile, and Lee Smolin is unreasonably biased against it.

    Yes, string theory is a bit different in that it hasn't been able to make any testable predictions, which makes it non-science. Science is based on the idea of experimental evidence, and falsifiability. It isn't science, it isn't physics.

    Now it very well may have some beautiful results in mathematics. Maybe it will have applications and effects on topology, cryptography, who knows. But those things are mathematics, not science.

    I tend to agree with Smolin that string theory, as currently presented (and I understand it), is not a scientific theory, even though it is interested and deserves its own mathematical research. The problem is, string theory gets the ratings, so we have more cosmologists and string theorists as professors physics, taking the few positions (and associated funding!) away from people that want to be true experimental physicists. That's where the semi-outrage is.

  10. Obligatory XKCD by InfiniteZero · · Score: 5, Funny

    https://xkcd.com/397/