[deleted]
Fake Physics
21–30 of 94 posts
Re: Fake Physics
#22You have to dig down to the 2nd page of comments on his previous post about these articles to learn that when he says "multiverse" he isn't referring to the many worlds interpretation of QM: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9027&cpage=1... It's very confusing and I can't help but assume he doesn't mind misleading people.
Is it confusing? Is there a specific reason to think that the multiverse is related to the many worlds interpretation? I didn't know people thought they were the same thing.
Re: Fake Physics
#23You have to dig down to the 2nd page of comments on his previous post about these articles to learn that when he says "multiverse" he isn't referring to the many worlds interpretation of QM: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9027&cpage=1... It's very confusing and I can't help but assume he doesn't mind misleading people.
Is it confusing? Is there a specific reason to think that the multiverse is related to the many worlds interpretation? I didn't know people thought they were the same thing.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
> MWI is one of many multiverse hypotheses in physics and philosophy.
Re: Fake Physics
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that the fusion guys think that they have made fusion work and are going to deliver it commercially in ~15 years (in ~5 years this claim will be either obvious or dead). I think that the quantum computer guys think that they are about to deliver as well.
I think the following viewpoint has been interesting. If we look back at the development of the electronic computer, it's hard to say there was a single point it "delivered". Was it the Atanasoff–Berry Computer, the Collosus, the ENIAC (1940s)? Each of these miss some things that we commonly think of as a modern, generally useful computer. (Lacking programmability, Turing completeness, or stored program representatio…
The first successful commercial electronic computer was the UNIVAC I. About 18 were delivered to customer sites and operated for years. Earlier machines (ENIAC, SSEC, LEO, Ferranti Mark I) were one-off prototypes. (Two in the case of the Ferranti Mark I.)
Re: Fake Physics
#25This is a frustrating era for physicists. In the mid 20th century they were like gods, giving the world the atomic bomb and the semiconductor. Today many branches of physics are stuck. The cosmologists can't find "dark matter", and aren't even sure it's necessary. The string theorists have pretty but un-testable theories. The fusion guys can't make fusion power work. Quantum mechanics and general relativity still hav…
At some point, I had considered the idea that after the invention of the atomic bomb, the cabal of scientists surrounding its discovery were asked to obfuscate further advancements, and seclude practical findings behind classified restrictions. Many of the scienctists of that post war era were hounded mercilessly for decades ever after, throughout the cold war. If one were to try and obfuscate a scientific field, and…
At some point, I had considered the idea that after the invention of the atomic bomb, the cabal of scientists surrounding its discovery were asked to obfuscate further advancements, and seclude practical findings behind classified restrictions.
Conspiracy theory: in the early days after the H-bomb, there was research into finding some way to make an H-bomb without needing an atomic bomb just to get the energy to start the thermonuclear reaction. This would have resulted in a "clean" H-bomb, and also the ability to make smaller ones. This research was unsuccessful.
Maybe it was really a success. Too much of a success, What if it became too easy to do? Perhaps progress in fusion is deliberately held up because there's a way to make an H-bomb that doesn't require an A-bomb.
Re: Fake Physics
#26As usual I think that Woit's blog post is unnecessarily polarizing. If you decide to read his post then I would recommend you also read the excellent comment by Marty Tysanner on the same page.
Also, sigh. If you dig deep into the dark corners of the internets then I am sure that you can find fake anything. Focus on the beauty and the truth, people. For example:
[1] LIGO continues to work beautifully, as evidenced by its second detection of gravitational waves back in June: http://news.mit.edu/2016/second-time-ligo-detects-gravitatio...
[2] A fun but highly speculative 'bump' in the LHC data, which will probably go away but is fun to think about: https://profmattstrassler.com/2016/10/21/hiding-from-a-night...
[3] New precision results from a nice little experiment done 'on the side' at CERN: https://press.cern/press-releases/2017/01/cern-experiment-re...
[4] Or just a very accessible overview of particle physics in 2016: http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/2016-year-in-particl...
Re: Fake Physics
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it confusing? Is there a specific reason to think that the multiverse is related to the many worlds interpretation? I didn't know people thought they were the same thing.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation > MWI is one of many multiverse hypotheses in physics and philosophy.
I see your point, but Wikipedia isn't super reliable on the more unsettled parts of theoretical physics. For example, a cursory search gives me https://www.technologyreview.com/s/424073/multiverse-many-wo..., but while I can't judge https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3796 on my own, it does appear the idea is new, and for something as new, and as vaguely defined as the multiverse (MWI itself is quite old), I probably should ask for more than a Wikipedia summary. I mean, it's fine by me if there's some kind of disagreement within physics, but to assume they are the same thing would require more, no?
Re: Fake Physics
#28Isn't the best approach to 'fake physics' simply to publicly criticise the ideas, or, if that's too exhausting, to point to a previous criticism?
Re: Fake Physics
#29This is a frustrating era for physicists. In the mid 20th century they were like gods, giving the world the atomic bomb and the semiconductor. Today many branches of physics are stuck. The cosmologists can't find "dark matter", and aren't even sure it's necessary. The string theorists have pretty but un-testable theories. The fusion guys can't make fusion power work. Quantum mechanics and general relativity still hav…
I think that the fusion guys think that they have made fusion work and are going to deliver it commercially in ~15 years (in ~5 years this claim will be either obvious or dead). I think that the quantum computer guys think that they are about to deliver as well.
I'm not sure about either of these.
The problem with fusion is commercial viability. Building something for billions of dollars that can barely put out more energy than you put in isn't commercially viable. At any rate, fusion seems more like a very tough engineering problem, the physics has been there for a long while.
With quantum computing there are also no real signs that a quantum computer will beat a "classical" computer at anything any time soon. It always was and still is very difficult to get quantum systems to scale and you need a large enough system to make a difference and it may be impossible to do so. Again a lot of this is more of an engineering problem though admittedly the line between physics and engineering can be blurry since it's not always clear whether something can't be done because you've reached a fundamental limitation vs. having a clever enough design.
It's possible someone will eventually solve the problems in these areas (assuming there aren't fundamental reasons we're just not aware of yet why it's impossible) but IMO the odds are low and you need some sort of breakthrough.
Re: Fake Physics
#30You have to dig down to the 2nd page of comments on his previous post about these articles to learn that when he says "multiverse" he isn't referring to the many worlds interpretation of QM: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9027&cpage=1... It's very confusing and I can't help but assume he doesn't mind misleading people.
I don't think there is any intent to be misleading.
I agree that reading this blog by itself is jumping into the middle of the conversation, and terms are not explained. The multi-verse has been discussed there for years, so occasional readers may assume it is the many-worlds stuff, but it is a very different beast.