I strongly disagree that the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years. We have been looking really hard for answers to persistent questions. While we have not found affirmative answers, physicists have systematically ruled out option after option after option. We have not yet discovered a unified-theory-of-everything, but we know a whole lot more about what that theory is not . Furthermore, the past 40…
Agreed, and how is string theory not being considered an attempt at: "resolving inconsistencies" by the author? In fact, imho, any attempt at finding a unified theory is an attempt at resolving inconsistencies.
Observations of the cosmic microwave background, galactic rotation, gravitational lensing, and redshift led to the concepts of "dark matter" and "dark energy" that aren't yet explained by theory.
MOND is a better explanation than dark energy.
There was an article linked here just a week or two ago. Its claim was that the distance measurements used in cosmology may be wrong on larger scales. With the correction there is no need for MOND or dark energy. This needs confirmation of course.
I have yet to see the "expected" galactic rotation curves that are contradicted by observation a lead to ideas about dark MATTER. I'm mean I've seen the curves but cant find the math behind them. You often see weak references to Keplers law which doesnt even apply, so that leaves me very skeptical.
Another relevant segment of the Philosophy of science article is the realism/anti-realism dichotomy. I find it an interesting line of reasoning that the current lack of progress is due to the default naturalistic approach whose sole purpose is finding "truth" vs. a more pragmatic, non-realist approach that would have a much more concrete purpose (e.g. solving particular problems). Truth for the sake of it with no pra…
It can be argued that it is up to engineers, not scientists, to develop the practical uses of 'raw' science.
It can. I think the lack of coupling between the two is the crux of the matter here.
that's because experiment drives physics rather than mathematical consistency (no matter how much people pretend it's about "beauty"). plenty of mathematically consistent physical theories have been falsified by experiment and plenty of mathematically inconsistent physical theories have made precise and accurate predictions.
When was the last time an experiment had a result that wasn’t explained by theory (supralumimal neutrinos aside)?
Some examples:
Matter/anti-matter asymmetry, arrow of time direction, why CP violations, neutrino mass questions, why masses are what they are, dark matter and energy nature, what cancels out zero point energy, many structures on universe scale don't fit models, firewall paradox, why is gravity so weak, are there gravitons (other particles..), do magnetic monopoles exist (widely conjectured to work from models, none yet seen), why 3 generations of particles, proton radius discrepancies, exotic and pentaquark (and higher) particles, Navier-Stokes open problems, lots of superconductor and metamaterial questions results not explained theoretically, and so on...
In this case, though, the idea that we need to resolve inconsistencies is the correct diagnosis and shines a light on the incredible failure of the prevailing institutions. Take for example the idea that a photon is both a particle and a wave. This dogma has been force fed to students for decades without the glaring inconsistency being resolved, or even pointed to as a thing that needs resolving — something is either…
Your perspective isn’t “heretical”, it’s ignorant. The “paradox” has been resolved since 1930 or so, in the form of quantum field theory.
In this case, though, the idea that we need to resolve inconsistencies is the correct diagnosis and shines a light on the incredible failure of the prevailing institutions. Take for example the idea that a photon is both a particle and a wave. This dogma has been force fed to students for decades without the glaring inconsistency being resolved, or even pointed to as a thing that needs resolving — something is either…
A photon isn't both a particle and a wave. It's something else that happens to share some features with both.
Fair point, so then let me reframe the inconsistency as: there’s a phenomena that appears exhibits properties of both a particle and a wave but it can’t be both. So what is it?
And the criticism of mainstream thought in physics would be: its wrongfully dismissive of my question, and ignoring the important job of looking for the answer.
In this case, though, the idea that we need to resolve inconsistencies is the correct diagnosis and shines a light on the incredible failure of the prevailing institutions. Take for example the idea that a photon is both a particle and a wave. This dogma has been force fed to students for decades without the glaring inconsistency being resolved, or even pointed to as a thing that needs resolving — something is either…
A photon isn't both a particle and a wave. It's something else that happens to share some features with both.
>> A photon isn't both a particle and a wave. It's something else that happens to share some features with both.
But physicists have given up on figuring out what it IS. They have decided that having math that can predict the outcome of experiments is enough. They're not wrong, but it feels rather unsatisfying. IMHO there have been a couple avenues worth exploring that are being largely ignored.
I really really want a reason to not dismiss this as vapid demagoguery running on the "Woman scientist challenges predominantly male establishment on stagnant paradigms" ticket because this is absolutely what it reads like. "But for all I can tell at this moment in history I am the only physicist who has at least come up with an idea for what to do. " This is one heavy claim (two actually), is there some place where…
I think she’s bitter and aggrieved but I’ve never seen evidence of her playing the gender card.
The role of this "era" may be in reformulating quantum physics and, separately, general relativity in new ways that make the ideas more accessible to more people, and earlier in their lives. The goal could be to make of modern physics... the new classical physics. That is, we start to let go the crutches we still teach because it is thought that day-to-day life is more readily explained by Newtonian physics. We are n…
One problem is that physicists are not interested in lowering the bar to understanding advanced theories. Some say it's all fairly simple once you spend a decade learning some very advanced math. The art of teaching is in making the material more accessible, and at that I dont think much progress has been made.