The trouble with physics

[David Bailey]

Larry,

Here is a fascinating article relating to the question about whether relativity is correct or not. It discusses the experimental fact that gravity seems to propagate at infinite speed!

RETHINKING RELATIVITY

David

[RisingSun]

Hello,
I accidently stumbled upon this site while looking for home remedies for stuffed noses, and I saw this discussion about Lee Smolin's book the Trouble with Physics. I'd like to take the next several minutes to explain to you two (David and Matt) are very wrong in the way you have been thinking about this issue.

First off, while I think that Lee Smolin may have found some problems with how academia has treated some of its theoretical physicists, I would doubt that Lee Smolin would agree with you about incorporating parapsychology into science. The reason that this is the case is that science is not based upon what you believe or think should be the case, but ONLY on the results of empirical evidence. As far as I am aware, the results of parapsychological studies are either poorly documented, or more importantly, difficult to reproduce. If a result cannot be reproduced consistently, the author of the idea may have well just been pulling things out of their ass. Doesn’t that make sense? Why believe in something that you can’t verify again?

Furthermore, I did a quick ISI search for your Corredoira guy, and he actually did get published, here:
ISI Web of Knowledge [v.4.3] - All Databases Full Record

If you look at the side, on the bar that says “cited”, you will notice that many scientists do not care about what he has to say. It is possible that they are being discriminatory toward radical new ideas. However, notice that when Einstein published something revolutionary, the whole world paid attention. That’s because Einstein made sense. People probably haven’t referenced this article because it’s simply not legitimate.

I assume the reason that people do not consider his evidence strongly is because there is a preponderance of evidence that points to another theory. For example, in the theory of evolution vs. creationist theory debate - while both are both valid theories, a huge preponderance of the evidence points in the direction of evolution, a concept that creationists always have difficulty grasping. When there is evidence against you, it makes no sense for people to side with you, as opposed to the other theories.

You also brought up an interesting question – what happens when there are many theories? Or two opposing theories? What should we do then?
Scientific theories are evaluated on several criteria – the most important of which is probably predicting power. Predicting power means that when I predict that a rock should fall at 9.8 m/s^2, and I drop a rock, if it falls at that rate, then my theory is sound! My theory has been verified. However, maybe I drop a rock on Mt. Everest, and I notice it drops a little slower (which it does). I have to update my theory to say it drops at different rates depending on how far away I am from the center of the earth. My theories are updated, polished, more specific, but the old theories are not bad, they are just not always correct. They are still correct for the situations that they were verified in. The experiments were still correct for their situations.
People select competing theories via Occam’s Razor (wiki it). It says that the simplest theory is the one scientists should accept, of course, until it fail to predict some natural phenomena, then it should be updated. However, if it succeeds for all the experiments they try on it, then it is good enough to stick for a while.

Science is wonderful because nothing is ever known "for sure". People do not go into science asking for certainty. They go in hoping to uncover a little more about the universe than was previously known. And we are able to do that with theoretical work. Do not lose faith in science because some theories are discounted. Theories that are good, and fit the data well, live. And theories that do not, fail. And new evidence does not DESTROY old theories, for example, general relativity did not destroy Newtonian physics, it just defined it more precisely.

Now, the standard model, including relativity and quantum mechanics, is a great theory. It has been empirically (that means by evidence) been able to verify answers to 13 digits of accuracy. That means that when the theory says the answer should be 0.1234567890123, an experiment can be carried out that will get the answer 0.1234567890123!!!! No other theory has ever been able to do this. Quantum mechanics is a major foundation of why I can talk to you via the internet, and relativity, which you have challenged, is the reason why GPS satellites can stay in orbit at the right place. If we didn’t understand general relativity, GPS satellites would never be able to be calibrated to work in geosynchronous orbit. Look it up for yourself!

Finally, to clarify the debate about String Theory, because you two, as laymen, have skipped the technical details of the reading, states that String Theory is a bad theory because scientists have been seduced by the mathematics. Like I stated, theories are rooted in experimental evidence, not in mathematics. However, physics usually has very beautiful and elegant mathematics. I won’t go into details because it seems you two are not very good at math, but imagine a very large and complicated equation working itself out to give an answer of 1. Or 0. Or something equally simple. That is elegant mathematics. String theory has elegant mathematics, but because it is not rooted in evidence, cannot be said to be a good theory YET. However, with the Large Hadron Collider coming online very very soon, some predictions by String theory about supersymmetry can be tested. It is certainly a very exciting time for theoretical physicists.

I don’t mean offense to either of you, but next time, before challenging a scientific theory, understand that these theories were created by people far more intelligent than you (again, no offense, but they were among the greatest minds to live), and they have been verified vigorously by the scientific community. Even if the theories are wrong, the experiments that verified them are not wrong, and the theories have helped shape many the technologies that you use daily. I would suggest that instead of approaching scientific ideas with “this is silly/may be incorrect according to xxx”, ask yourself, “why do so many people agree and understand these ideas?” If you are lucky enough, maybe one day you too will understand and be convinced of these theories, and when you fully understand them, then you have the right to challenge them.

Please, before responding to me, take the time to read through Richard Feynman's Cargo Cult Science:
Cargo Cult Science

[Mizzark]

Originally Posted by RisingSun

As far as I am aware, the results of parapsychological studies are either poorly documented, or more importantly, difficult to reproduce.

Well, then you aren't aware far enough. God, your words were so condescending. I think that you, and the person who wrote that link that you provided, should start to at least treat us with enough respect to believe that there is a realistic possibility that we are right.

[David Bailey]

RisingSun,

Welcome to our little discussion - we can always do with some new blood! I hope you stay a while and debate some of the issues involved.

First, I think if you review some of the various threads related to the podcasts - and also listen to some of the podcasts themselves, you will discover that a fair proportion of us are scientifically trained in a variety of disciplines. Although merely naming names is not much of a scientific argument, you might like to ponder the fact that Brian Josephson (yes, he of the superconducting junction and a Nobel prize for physics) has been interested in Ψ for many years.

Brian Josephson's home page

I am sure you are correct that Lee Smolin would not support parapsychology - but why should he, and anyway, maybe someone should ask him before 'recruiting' him to their point of view! What I wished to point out, and which you more or less acknowledge, is that science has unfortunately ossified somewhat and people with a whole range of unorthodox views get marginalised. Lee Smolin points out that Einstein would not get a position in the present academic system!

Reading further down your posting, I had to work hard to disregard your condescension to extract the meat of what you were saying! Perhaps you are an expert in string theory and can follow all the maths involved, I freely admit that once I stray into the realm of non-cartesian tensors, my maths does let me down. Unless you are right at the forefront of theoretical physics (and maybe even then), you too probably have a maths cut-off point.

[quote]I won’t go into details because it seems you two are not very good at math, but imagine a very large and complicated equation working itself out to give an answer of 1. Or 0. Or something equally simple.[\QUOTE]

Hmmm, since any equation can be rearranged into the form something=0, this does not seem to be a very useful way to judge the beauty of a theory!

To return to physics, part of the problem would seem to be that there are a vast number of potential theories - all of them beautiful to some degree, and most with a set of adjustable parameters - that compete to explain fundamental reality. As you probably know, if you take a set of noisy data points and fit them to a polynomial of high degree, the result will fit well, but mean nothing! There is obviously the danger that something analogous could be happening here. Perhaps you can contribute to that debate, rather than refer yet again to Occam's bathroom equipment (a subject that has already been rather well aired on this site).

I used to think rather as you seem to do, that Ψ was something of an anti-science subject. Several observations over the years have moved me into the position of sitting on the fence and leaning rather the other way:

1) Science seems to have enormous difficulty getting to grips with consciousness - even though some scientists find this hard to admit. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the expensive failure of Artificial intelligence (AI) to deliver real results. If Ψ is real, consciousness simply can't just be a computation running on 'wetware' in the brain', and the inability to replicate consciousness on a computer would follow from this. The true nature of consciousness is key to this debate.

2) When you look at the actual experimental evidence for Ψ - see for example Rupert Sheldrake's work, or Dean Radin - you will read about carefully constructed experiments with controls, double blind procedures, and careful statistics. If you are honest, you will admit that if the conclusions of these papers were less extraordinary, they would pass peer review without difficulty. The controversy is not about the quality of the evidence, which seems rather good, but relates to the radical conclusions that follow. Alternatively, it is, of course, easy to find a suitably vague "New Age" type to talk to in order to bolster your view that we are all anti-science!

3) Certain phenomena that are sufficiently well documented that they cannot be dismissed - in particular Near Death Experiences (NDE's) are 'explained' by truly outlandish orthodox explanations. NDE's are 'explained as a computation going on in the dying brain as it is poisoned by a catastrophic release of neurotransmitter substances. This is despite the fact that in many cases the patient moves into an NDE from a state of coma or anaesthetisation! Weak explanations like this do not convince me - it would be better to simply say that these phenomena are not understood.

Since you raise the issue of creationists, I should tell you that I gave up Christianity while at university, and consider that all organised religion is harmful and manipulative, and utterly removed from the truth.

David

[scomsjw]

Originally Posted by Mizzark

I think that you, and the person who wrote that link that you provided, should start to at least treat us with enough respect to believe that there is a realistic possibility that we are right.

ahem. The person who "wrote the link" was Richard Feynman. Sadly he is dead now so won't be able to treat you with the respect you feel you deserve. But have a look at what he achieved in his life.

[Mizzark]

I'm not going to say that I don't have a problem with someone's opinion that they wrote when I really do have a problem with their opinion that they wrote - even if they are dead.

[scomsjw]

Originally Posted by Mizzark

I'm not going to say that I don't have a problem with someone's opinion that they wrote when I really do have a problem with their opinion that they wrote - even if they are dead.

Richard Feynman was an immensely talented physicist. He won a noble prize for his work and is widely-regarded as a genius. When he talked about science he really knew his stuff. I just thought you were a bit quick to dismiss his musings.

[David Bailey]

scomsjw,

I guess the real point here, is that famous scientists have weighed in on both sides of this debate. Mizzark was responding to a somewhat naive post by RisingSun, and rather shot from the hip!

However, that was RisingSun's first post, and I hope he will make a contribution here - albeit as a skeptic. However, before he can do that, he will have to review some of the facts about recent Ψ experiments and maybe also theories, and not simply discuss a caricature of Ψ research.

Incidentally, it may well be that there is no issue regarding the speed of gravity:

Does Gravity Travel at the Speed of Light?

This indicates that according to GR, only the nonlinear component of the motion of the sun during the 8.3 mins it takes its photons to reach us, would contribute to a delayed gravity effect. This would obviously be much smaller than the total displacement of the sun in that time (remember that the sun orbits the common centre of gravity of the solar system).

David

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by scomsjw

Richard Feynman was an immensely talented physicist. He won a noble prize for his work and is widely-regarded as a genius. When he talked about science he really knew his stuff. I just thought you were a bit quick to dismiss his musings.

He's not really saying anything which is interesting. He merely talks about elementary scientific procedure.

He rejects the existence of ESP. Why? In his own words:

Another example is the ESP experiments of Mr. Rhine, and other people. As various people have made criticisms -- and they themselves have made criticisms of their own experiments -- they improve the techniques so that the effects are smaller, and smaller, and smaller until they gradually disappear. All the para-psychologists are looking for some experiment that can be repeated -- that you can do again and get the same effect -- statistically, even. They run a million rats -- no, it's people this time -- they do a lot of things are get a certain statistical effect. Next time they try it they don't get it any more. And now you find a man saying that is is an irrelevant demand to expect a repeatable experiment. This is science?

What relevance has it whether it is called "science" or not? The pertinent question here is whether we have good reason to suppose that ESP exists. I am not aware that generally speaking effects diminish as techniques improve. If this is so, then since experimental protocols have been getting tighter and tighter with each passing decade, then after 60 years the effect size should be tiny indeed! Justify your assertion Mr Feynman.

But let's suppose what he says is true. This of course does not show that ESP does not exist. All it would mean is that ESP, if it exists, cannot be elicited on demand in a laboratory setting. This would scarcely be good grounds for concluding it does not exist given that such phenomena have been universally reported across virtually all cultures and throughout human history -- to say nothing of ones own personal experiences and that of friends. The very most we could conclude is that it might not exist.

He seems to have this assumption that if something exists if should be able to be elicited on demand. This is of course patently absurd.

And you claim that this guy is a genius?

[Mizzark]

I'm sure that this Feynman dude was really smart, but we can all fall victim to bad reasoning. The essay that was posted above, at least at the beginning, sounded too much like this article:

Monsters, Ghosts and Gods: Why We Believe - Yahoo! News

In this article the author, like Feynman, never for a second considers the possibility that maybe, just maybe, there really is good reason to believe in some of these things. I really hate it when I hear someone say something like, "I decided to go in search of the reasons why people believe crazy things." Just calling and idea a "crazy" idea is assuming that the idea is wrong. You're cutting off one legitimate possibility before you even start the process.