Physics is dead, long live physics!

Viani · 2013-02-14 07:11:35

Mark Buchanan

It would seem unlikely that any part of science,
including physics, could ever come to something like an 'end' — a point
beyond which its subject matter would be more or less exhausted. It's
difficult to think of an historical example of any 'dead' science; even
fields as well-worn as classical mechanics continue to elicit new
surprises each year.

Justice4243 · 2013-02-14 11:25:31

Aren't still like figuring out quantum physics and that some things can be faster than the speed of light?

Physics can die when I have time travel and can teleport to any point in existence at will. Also, after it's created bad-ass weapons to fight everything I come across, not limited to my pass self who probably will blindly end all creation with his time blundering.

Tachyon · 2013-02-14 11:49:41

You're referring to neutrinos, yes? The problem with that is it flies in the face of special and general relativity.

i'm not paying $32 to read what looks like an opinion piece, anyway. i don't see how physics can be 'dead' when they still aren't even sure if they found the Higgs boson yet.

Imipolex G · 2013-02-14 11:52:27

Sredni Vashtar · 2013-02-14 13:20:14

^^ It only flies in the face of how we currently understand special and general relativity. It is entirely within reason to believe that we might have missed or misjudged something. When something seemingly impossible happens, shouldn't we be less inclined to run around screaming "Nooooooo!!!" than ask ourselves why and how it happened? Isn't that, you know, the point of science: To explain unknowns?

Tachyon · 2013-02-14 13:30:31

Of course, but given that the evidence that neutrinos can travel faster than light is rather tenuous, and so severely contradicts the established theory, it's a little soon to say that anything can travel faster than light, don't you think?

i'm not advocating panic, merely some scepticism.

Sredni Vashtar · 2013-02-14 13:38:54

Oh, not at all. But at the same time, I've noticed that a lot of people in the scientific community (or around it) seem to be brushing said evidence off as "miscalculation" rather than more accurately stating that the evidence is inconclusive, and I think that this is a problem. It is one thing to say that the evidence is tenuous, contradictory and baffling; it is another to say that it can only be a mistake.

Previous Calica · 2013-02-14 14:04:47

Justice42 said:
Aren't still like figuring out quantum physics and that some things can be faster than the speed of light?

If you're talking about the neutrinos, that measurement turned out to be because of a loose wire in one of the clocks. When they fixed the wiring and re-did the experiment, neutrinos turned out to not be faster than the speed of light.

Sredni Vashtar · 2013-02-14 14:08:04

spinor said:

Justice42 said:
Aren't still like figuring out quantum physics and that some things can be faster than the speed of light?
If you're talking about the neutrinos, that measurement turned out to be because of a loose wire in one of the clocks. When they fixed the wiring and re-did the experiment, neutrinos turned out to not be faster than the speed of light.

Oh. So it was an mechanical error. That's kind of disappointing.

Tachyon · 2013-02-14 14:18:56

So i was behind the times.

Admittedly, it would have been much more interesting if it hadn't been an error.

Sredni Vashtar · 2013-02-14 14:32:30

It certainly would have.

Well, we still have dark matter, dark flow, and all that other lovely dark stuff.

Odradek · 2013-02-14 15:02:26

In the age of the first and definitive unfolding of Western philosophy among the Greeks, when questioning about beings as such and as a whole received its true inception, beings were called phusis. This fundamental Greek word for beings is usually translated "nature." We use the Latin translation natura which really means "to be born," "birth." But with this Latin translation, the originary content of the Greek word phusis is already thrust aside, the authentic philosophical naming force of the Greek word is destroyed... Now, what does the word phusis say? It says what emerges from itself (for example, the emergence, the blossoming, of a rose), the unfolding that opens itself up, the coming-into-appearance in such unfolding and holding itself and persisting in appearance--in short, the emerging-abiding sway... phuein [the noun form of phusis] means to grow, to make grow

Sredni Vashtar · 2013-02-14 15:09:24

That's really cool, actually. I did not know that. Thank you, Odradek.

Previous Calica · 2013-02-14 18:37:59

a8 said:
i'm not paying $32 to read what looks like an opinion piece, anyway. i don't see how physics can be 'dead' when they still aren't even sure if they found the Higgs boson yet.

Also, for what it's worth, almost nobody pays $32 for single articles. Most people get subscriptions to academic journals through their university or employer and then they can download whatever they want.

Justice4243 · 2013-02-15 01:02:49

Oh, not at all. But at the same time, I've noticed that a lot of people in the scientific community (or around it) seem to be brushing said evidence off as "miscalculation" rather than more accurately stating that the evidence is inconclusive, and I think that this is a problem. It is one thing to say that the evidence is tenuous, contradictory and baffling; it is another to say that it can only be a mistake.

Mechanical issues aside, this post highlights a big problem I have with the science community...and people around it.

Viani · 2013-02-15 04:14:20

What is the difference between inconclusive evidence and miscalculations?

Tachyon · 2013-02-15 06:35:38

Inconclusive evidence might not be a mistake.

Sredni Vashtar · 2013-02-15 07:07:36

Justice42 said:
Oh, not at all. But at the same time, I've noticed that a lot of people in the scientific community (or around it) seem to be brushing said evidence off as "miscalculation" rather than more accurately stating that the evidence is inconclusive, and I think that this is a problem. It is one thing to say that the evidence is tenuous, contradictory and baffling; it is another to say that it can only be a mistake.
Mechanical issues aside, this post highlights a big problem I have with the science community...and people around it.

That was exactly my sentiment. A lot of the people that are either in or around the scientific community seem much more intellectually conservative than they have any right to be given their position. An open, flexible mind and a strong grasp on the nuances of one's given vocation (and how it connects to others) are essential, but all too often these fellows seem to have the latter without the former.

I guess that's why the Feynmans and Einsteins of the world are legendary rather than the norm...

Tachyon · 2013-02-15 07:16:11

idk, maybe it's because i'm coming at this from an outside perspective, but it seems to me like the scepticism of experts is a feature, not a bug. Popular reporting on science is often entirely too credulous, or even wildly speculative.

Also Einstein could be extremely sceptical, and Feynman possibly too much so for my liking.

Sredni Vashtar · 2013-02-15 07:23:05

a8 said:
idk, maybe it's because i'm coming at this from an outside perspective, but it seems to me like the scepticism of experts is a feature, not a bug. Popular reporting on science is often entirely too credulous, or even wildly speculative.

Also Einstein could be extremely sceptical, and Feynman possibly too much so for my liking.

You do make several excellent points there, but there is still a fine distinction between scepticism and an outright lack of curiosity. I want people to be sceptical, but I don't want them to be smug and self-assured about it. The refusal to admit that you are surprised or confused by something is a very dangerous flaw to my line of thinking.

Obā-san · 2013-02-15 09:10:26

were you using einstien as an example ironically

Obā-san · 2013-02-15 09:15:06

i mean, between endlessly denying quantum mechanics out of hand and dinking around with the cosmological constant to get the result he wanted

Viani · 2013-02-15 10:46:32

a8 said:
idk, maybe it's because i'm coming at this from an outside perspective, but it seems to me like the scepticism of experts is a feature, not a bug. Popular reporting on science is often entirely too credulous, or even wildly speculative.

Also Einstein could be extremely sceptical, and Feynman possibly too much so for my liking.

I'm still on the fence on Black Holes, myself. I feel weird about that.

Obā-san · 2013-02-15 10:53:24

black holes are a thing we have observed tho

Viani · 2013-02-15 11:10:15

I think that when I understand thermodynamics better I can probably accept it easier. Not saying that they are fake and made up, just that I won't believe everything people tell me about them. Same thing with Krakens or illegal immigration.

Justice4243 · 2013-02-15 13:14:36

ILLEGAL KRAKEN IMMIGRATION!

Justice4243 · 2013-02-15 13:15:07

RELEASE THE KARKEN, his paperwork checked out.

Sredni Vashtar · 2013-02-15 14:56:28

Naney said:
i mean, between endlessly denying quantum mechanics out of hand and dinking around with the cosmological constant to get the result he wanted

One could argue that he became the opposite of what he began as, given that his initial propositions regarding special relativity were pretty radical for their time. But you are correct. There are better examples by far.

I should choose my example oddball physicists more carefully. While I chose Einstein for his earlier work, his later tendencies fall precisely into the area that I wished to criticise.

Viani · 2013-02-16 08:49:41

However, as long ago as 1975 quantum physicists argued that strange things do happen at an event horizon: matter governed by quantum laws becomes hypersensitive to slight disturbances. "The result was quickly forgotten," says Chapline, "because it didn't agree with the prediction of general relativity. But actually, it was absolutely correct."

Justice4243 · 2013-02-16 09:41:38

Yeah. Sadly, stuff like that isn't exactly uncommon in the realm of science.

Viani · 2013-02-16 10:04:55

So what is the main limitation of scientific progress today money or technological limitations?

Justice4243 · 2013-02-16 10:09:39

I'm guessing technology, I mean, building better technology is sort of science progress in itself. I'm not sure if anyone is sitting on the next great advancement but don't have the cash for it.

Viani · 2013-02-16 10:10:48

Has anyone made contact (or as close to contact one can get) to a Black Hole?

Has a cam-probe been sent to one?

Justice4243 · 2013-02-16 10:18:00

Aren't they all supes far away?

I mean, even with a ton of money we can't send anything that far in a timely fashion.

Previous Calica · 2013-02-16 12:38:28

Yeah, black holes are lightyears away. We can't exactly reach them.

Viani · 2013-02-16 12:41:00

Ah, they are too far away to physically study. Damn it. I was thinking we could send our extremely noxious garbage into a black hole by utilizing NASA and making Space Barges.

Tachyon · 2013-02-16 12:41:46

Viani said:
Has a cam-probe been sent to one?

this wouldn't work anyway, since not even light can escape a black hole

you'd just lose your camera

Viani · 2013-02-16 12:44:29

Well, if you sent a cam-probe to a Black Hole, and the camera was not destroyed and simply went through the black hole, would that count as empirical evidence that the gravital force of the black hole is not inescapable?

Previous Calica · 2013-02-16 12:45:06

If you sent a camera to a Black Hole, you'd use it to study the Hawking radiation.

Viani · 2013-02-16 12:45:59

I don't know why, but I have a beavis and buttheadesque amazement with black holes.

Tachyon · 2013-02-16 12:47:13

^^ fair enough

i guess i took camera too literally

Physics is dead, long live physics!

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories