Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science • Hacker News Board

Re: Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science

#91

Post by justinsingh » Mon, Dec 21, 2015, 1:52 AM UTC

wolfgke wrote: post #75

gamesbrainiac wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NFL is funded because it provides entertainment, and we all know how well that sells.

The German word for entertaiment is "Unterhaltung", which is composed of "unten" and "halten" ("down" and "hold") - and that is what entertainment is: Holding the masses down (such that they don't ascend or revolt). Guess who is thus interested in funding entertainment.

Because having freedom in how you spend your leisure time obviously means that taking away that optionality would lead to.. revolt!!! I just don't see your logic here. It seems outdated.

Re: Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science

#92

Post by purpled_haze » Mon, Dec 21, 2015, 1:53 AM UTC

cabinpark wrote: post #84

I think high level theory is wandering aimlessly through a field blindfolded with little guidance or where to look. This is because our current theories are so good, we have no idea where to look. So it begins conjecturing and conjecturing. What it ends up with is nonsensical garbage that does little to advance physics. But yet, there isn't a crisis in physics at all since these theorists are so far removed from real…

> But yet, there isn't a crisis in physics at all since these theorists are so far removed from reality, I don't really care what they think. They don't really tell use anything useful or interesting so I tend to ignore them.

Einstein was a theoretical physicist. Without his theories:

* Japan might not have been defeated in WWII.

* There might be more coal power plants, because there would be no nuclear power plants.

* GPS probably would never have worked.

* We'd have fewer successful space missions.

* There would be no superconductive magnets.

* There would be no digital cameras or solar cells.

* There would be no lasers.

I could keep going if you want...

References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

http://www.guidetothecosmos.com/present_wwe.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission

Re: Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science

#93

Post by andrepd » Mon, Dec 21, 2015, 1:58 AM UTC

cabinpark wrote: post #84

I think high level theory is wandering aimlessly through a field blindfolded with little guidance or where to look. This is because our current theories are so good, we have no idea where to look. So it begins conjecturing and conjecturing. What it ends up with is nonsensical garbage that does little to advance physics. But yet, there isn't a crisis in physics at all since these theorists are so far removed from real…

I'm happy that your work in experimental physics has given you an appreciation for the vital part experiment plays in science. But dismissing theoreticians for working in the clouds while you work "in the trenches" is not very fair. Not every theoretician works in 87-dimensional string theory.

Re: Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science

#94

Post by hodwik » Mon, Dec 21, 2015, 1:59 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #82

hodwik wrote: post #34

We had a rush of scientific breakthroughs 100 years ago. I believe we will have more. That experimentation in physics has slowed down to 18th century levels doesn't mean science is over, it just means the low-hanging fruit is over and we will have to continue slogging through theory before we discover new experiments. Science has always relied on philosophy for its underlying direction, it's just obvious again. It to…

> It took 2040 years before science/math could answer Zeno's paradoxes. And that's only if we assume calculus answered them. Which is not the absolute consensus of logicians/mathematicians. Many seem to believe they are simply about limits and that's all, but they may also point to a more fundamental aspect of reality. E.g. from Wiki: A suggested problem with using calculus to try to solve Zeno's paradoxes is that th…

To be honest, I don't actually think calculus solves Zeno's paradox either, I was just using it for the sake of the argument.

I'm of the opinion that Achilles and the Tortoise is solved by there being a smallest distance, a pixel (Not smallest measurable. Smallest period.)

I make amends with Achilles' Arrow by believing the universal clock is independent of the moments that it measures -- like the internal clock of a computer's being independent from a pixel arrow moving across a pixel screen.

Re: Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science

#95

Post by danharaj » Mon, Dec 21, 2015, 2:01 AM UTC

cabinpark wrote: post #84

I think high level theory is wandering aimlessly through a field blindfolded with little guidance or where to look. This is because our current theories are so good, we have no idea where to look. So it begins conjecturing and conjecturing. What it ends up with is nonsensical garbage that does little to advance physics. But yet, there isn't a crisis in physics at all since these theorists are so far removed from real…

Mathematical physics is important even if it doesn't produce theories that have direct relevance to current unexplained phenomena. String theory has been an enormous contribution to what we know of the mathematical structure of quantum field theory itself. These developments while not yet, if ever testable as the correct extension of the standard model contribute new mathematical methods, principles, and ideas that tell us what an extension to the standard model would look like. Furthermore understanding the mathematics of QFT itself lets us develop new computation principles for simulations. There's also theoretical widgets like topological quantum field theories which do show up in nature in condensed matter physics.

At the very least all of these theoretical developments bring us incrementally closer to understanding the structure of Quantum Chromodynamics. We still don't understand the theory enough to tell whether or not there are tetraquarks! All the effort put into theoretical physics and mathematical physics improves our mastery of the standard model.

tl;dr; don't call math garbage :[

Re: Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science

#96

Post by dstyrb » Mon, Dec 21, 2015, 2:05 AM UTC

purpled_haze wrote: post #92

cabinpark wrote: post #84

I think high level theory is wandering aimlessly through a field blindfolded with little guidance or where to look. This is because our current theories are so good, we have no idea where to look. So it begins conjecturing and conjecturing. What it ends up with is nonsensical garbage that does little to advance physics. But yet, there isn't a crisis in physics at all since these theorists are so far removed from real…

> But yet, there isn't a crisis in physics at all since these theorists are so far removed from reality, I don't really care what they think. They don't really tell use anything useful or interesting so I tend to ignore them. Einstein was a theoretical physicist. Without his theories: * Japan might not have been defeated in WWII. * There might be more coal power plants, because there would be no nuclear power plants.…

Japan's surrender had absolutely nothing to do with the bomb.

And why does everyone think that without Einstein we would somehow enter a 100 year long dark age?

Re: Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science

#97

Post by fengwick3 » Mon, Dec 21, 2015, 2:09 AM UTC

purpled_haze wrote: post #92

cabinpark wrote: post #84

I think high level theory is wandering aimlessly through a field blindfolded with little guidance or where to look. This is because our current theories are so good, we have no idea where to look. So it begins conjecturing and conjecturing. What it ends up with is nonsensical garbage that does little to advance physics. But yet, there isn't a crisis in physics at all since these theorists are so far removed from real…

> But yet, there isn't a crisis in physics at all since these theorists are so far removed from reality, I don't really care what they think. They don't really tell use anything useful or interesting so I tend to ignore them. Einstein was a theoretical physicist. Without his theories: * Japan might not have been defeated in WWII. * There might be more coal power plants, because there would be no nuclear power plants.…

I don't think you seem to understand the argument here. Einstein is a prime example of a theorist whose bold theories predicted verifiable results, such as the Einstein Cross. The problem with modern theorists, as the article and the parent comment articulated, is that string theories and whatnot often predict untestable and unverifiable results. This is not an attack on all physics theorists - rather, it's a criticism on the fashionable line of research into string theories and other unverifiable theories.

Re: Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science

#98

Post by fengwick3 » Mon, Dec 21, 2015, 2:09 AM UTC

purpled_haze wrote: post #92

cabinpark wrote: post #84

I think high level theory is wandering aimlessly through a field blindfolded with little guidance or where to look. This is because our current theories are so good, we have no idea where to look. So it begins conjecturing and conjecturing. What it ends up with is nonsensical garbage that does little to advance physics. But yet, there isn't a crisis in physics at all since these theorists are so far removed from real…

> But yet, there isn't a crisis in physics at all since these theorists are so far removed from reality, I don't really care what they think. They don't really tell use anything useful or interesting so I tend to ignore them. Einstein was a theoretical physicist. Without his theories: * Japan might not have been defeated in WWII. * There might be more coal power plants, because there would be no nuclear power plants.…

I don't think you seem to understand the argument here. Einstein is a prime example of a theorist whose bold theories predicted verifiable results, such as the Einstein Cross. The problem with modern theorists, as the article and the parent comment articulated, is that string theories and whatnot often predict untestable and unverifiable results. This is not an attack on all physics theorists - rather, it's a criticism on the fashionable line of research into string theories and other unverifiable theories.

Re: Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science

#99

Post by wtallis » Mon, Dec 21, 2015, 2:11 AM UTC

dstyrb wrote: post #96

purpled_haze wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But yet, there isn't a crisis in physics at all since these theorists are so far removed from reality, I don't really care what they think. They don't really tell use anything useful or interesting so I tend to ignore them. Einstein was a theoretical physicist. Without his theories: * Japan might not have been defeated in WWII. * There might be more coal power plants, because there would be no nuclear power plants.…

Japan's surrender had absolutely nothing to do with the bomb. And why does everyone think that without Einstein we would somehow enter a 100 year long dark age?

> "And why does everyone think that without Einstein we would somehow enter a 100 year long dark age?"

He said "without Einstein's theories". Physics would probably have progressed about the same, albeit set back by a bit without the man himself, but all those technologies would still have been dependent on someone doing what Einstein did.

Re: Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science

#100

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Mon, Dec 21, 2015, 2:34 AM UTC

smegel wrote: post #39

wtallis wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "testable"? There's a pretty big spectrum of "untestable" ranging from requiring too many trillions of dollars to requiring more resources than this planet has to requiring equipment or energy levels we don't know how to produce even in theory to requiring stuff we're pretty sure is impossible like looking beyond the range of the observable universe or requiring more energy than is contained in th…

> And at what point in its development and study do you abandon a theory that nobody has yet invented a way to test? Perhaps a better question is at what point does philosophy become physics? Finding a way to test the theory, and doing so, may be such a point.

An even better question - is this the most interesting of all possible untestable theories?

String theory's critics are sure that it isn't. I've even heard it said that it only has the prominence it has because a noisy generation of physicists elbowed out competing projects.

If you don't have a testable theory in the short term, should you carry on trying to refine that theory in the absence of evidence, or should you spend more time on competing theories that perhaps have more chance of being open to experimental verification in a reasonable time frame?

The list of open, unsolved, and unexplained issues in physics isn't small. Continuing to prioritise one theory and gambling that it works out eventually is a classic sunk-cost error.