Re: Is physics a science?

On Oct 20, 1:55 pm, John Kennaugh <J...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In a science you have a theory, devise an experiment to test that theory
and if you get the wrong result your theory has failed.

Obviously you may be able to come up with a fix for that theory as
Lorentz did when the MMX gave a result contrary to Maxwell's
predictions.

Now suppose there is absolutely no constraints on what constitutes an
*acceptable* fix. i.e. no rules of discipline under which physicist need
operate. Quite simply no theory (no matter how wrong) need fail.

Of course there is. There needs to be a *testable* prediction from the
theory that distinguishes it from other theories. But notice the
nature of this difference. The difference is NOT in the underlying
nature of the theory ("is it material-based?" "is it deterministic?"
"is it time-ordered"), and it is NOT in the comfort level of the
explanation in the theory. It is in something that is objectively and
unambiguously determined by *measurement*. Where two theories disagree
on what is going on, then the only way scientifically to ferret that
out is to find the place where the two theories will disagree on the
value of a measured property under certain set circumstances. Then
nature becomes the arbiter -- not logic, not intuition, not
philosphical framework, not simplicity or elegance -- by simply
telling you with the value of that property which of the two (if any)
is right.


In trying to get the "standard model" to work a problem emerged. One
particle needed to be both massless and massive.

What on earth gave you THAT idea?
That's not AT ALL what happened.
What was true is that the theory prior to the Higgs mechanism was
KNOWN not to represent reality completely, because it did not have any
mechanism by which particles could be massive. However, it got enough
other things right that it showed some promise, and this warranted
further work. This eventually led to the realization that IF another
field existed, then masses could be accounted for, and then the
standard model would have a chance of really representing reality.

Now, perhaps you are whining that the moment the gauge theory had no
accounting for mass, it should have been dropped without further work.

To this I respond that if you look at Newton's 2nd law and apply it in
a case of 2D projectile motion, where the force acting is mg on the
projectile, then you get some very nice properties of the result and
something close to being right. But of course, it doesn't get the
range right at all. Is that a sufficient reason to shun Newton's 2nd
law? Of course not! Because you KNOW you've not included something --
air drag and air lift. And if you don't know yet that air drag has a
v^2 dependence, does this mean that you should give up and say it's
all hocus pocus because you have to account for air resistance but
don't know exactly how to yet?

Now one might suggest
that the physicists go back to the drawing board and try again.
Particles can't both have mass and not have mass can they? That is
silly. But physics allows 'silly' they claim they are not wrong but
nature which is at fault for being 'weird' so with something straight
out of Hogwarts, one might call it the "let it have mass" spell (they
actually called it a Higgs field) a massless particle can be magic'd
into a massive particle.

It appears you don't know what the Higgs field does. What it does NOT
do is make particles massive and massless at the same time.


Now physics cannot even explain what an EM field IS, it used to map an
altered state in the aether but now the aether is forbidden it has no
invisible means of support and no one has yet decided what it consists
of if it is not.

And the thing is, you can make certain predictions about what ANY
aether would do, as long as it has certain basic properties, and test
those -- WITHOUT knowing exactly what the aether is.

Likewise, we knew a lot about atomic physics just by knowing there
were some very small constituents involved, without having any idea
whether those constituents were fundamental or composite. You do NOT
have to know everything about an object or a substance to be able to
rule out a whole class of candidates.

That being the case one might think that it would be
sensible to resolve that before inventing new 'fields'.

I disagree on the priority. Both of them can be put forward and the
same time, with no preference or priority given to either.


It is argued (by PD actually) that even the inclusion of fairies as part
of a theory is acceptable if it leads to testable prediction - it is
then (according to PD) still science.

Yes, indeed.

If the Higgs field exists then
predictions which can be tested follow. One consequence is prediction of
the existence of the Higgs-Boson.

So £4,400,000,000 or £14.7c has been spent - not to find the answer to
the ultimate question of life the universe and everything (we know that
is 42) but to find the Higgs-Boson.

And what price is maximal for fundamental research? How much money is
justified?
And how do you determine that?

Note that $4.4B is *small* compared to some military R&D projects that
don't lead to any deployed system. Scrap ONE of those projects in the
bud, and you've got PLENTY of money to do fundamental research.

Having spent that much one might
expect a conclusive result. Either the Higgs-Boson exists or it doesn't
and if it doesn't then it is back to the drawing board on lots of things
- the standard model included.

Well one might think that but as I say there is absolutely no
constraints on what constitutes an *acceptable* fix. No theory need
fail.

"Theoretical physicists Holger Nielsen, from Denmark, and Masao
Ninomiya, from Japan, have concluded that the discovery of the
Higgs-Boson could be so "abhorrent to nature" that they are coming back
through time to stop their own creation. They have outlined their
thoughts in a series of papers with titles like "Test of Effect From
Future in Large Hadron Collider: a Proposal" and "Search for Future
Influence From LHC."

The pair's hypothesis centres around the Higgs Boson, a mysterious tiny
particle and building block of life that it is hoped the LHC will
discover. They have come up with a theory that it will "ripple backward
through time" and stop the collider before it could make one, like a
time traveller who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.

'It must be our prediction that all Higgs producing machines shall have
bad luck,' Dr. Nielsen said. He said that his theories may even provide
a "model for God" who "rather hates Higgs particles, and attempts to
avoid them".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6318034/Could-the-Lar...
adron-Collider-be-held-back-by-its-own-future.html

Yes, and notice that you're reading from a NEWSPAPER. It might by
useful to see what the scientific community thinks of this conjecture.
In particular, one might say that IF this conjecture were true, then
it should have some OTHER independent testable consequence, by which
to tell if that's what's really going on. Of course, you'll not find
that in most newspaper snippets about it.


So there you have it. A new 'fix' waiting in the wings. Now if Holger
Nielsen, and Ninomiya had come up with their theory sooner £14.7c could
have been save and used to buy up the rain forests and protect them or
to provide flood defences to stop millions dying when sea level rises.
Even without Nielsen, and Ninomiya it is foreseeable that the money has
been wasted because in the end it doesn't matter whether the LCD finds
the Higgs Boson or not; Physics will find an excuse to carry on as if it
had.

Fundamental research will carry on -- that is, research that has no
particular eye to application but to just knowing how the universe
works. If you don't like fundamental research at all and want it all
devoted to applications, then by all means focus your attention on
engineering rather than science.


--
John Kennaugh  they're coming to take me away, Ho ho, hee hee, ha ha,
To the funny farm Where Life is Beautiful all the time And I'll be happy to
see Those Nice Young Men In their Clean White Coats And they're coming ....

.

Relevant Pages

  • Is physics a science?
    ... But physics allows 'silly' they claim they are not wrong but nature which is at fault for being 'weird' so with something straight out of Hogwarts, one might call it the "let it have mass" spell (they actually called it a Higgs field) a massless particle can be magic'd into a massive particle. ... It is argued that even the inclusion of fairies as part of a theory is acceptable if it leads to testable prediction - it is then still science. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is physics a science?
    ... particle needed to be both massless and massive. ... Now physics cannot even explain what an EM field IS, ... of a theory is acceptable if it leads to testable prediction - it is ... If the Higgs field exists then ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is physics a science?
    ... But physics allows 'silly' they claim they are not wrong but nature which is at fault for being 'weird' so with something straight out of Hogwarts, one might call it the "let it have mass" spell (they actually called it a Higgs field) a massless particle can be magic'd into a massive particle. ... It is argued that even the inclusion of fairies as part of a theory is acceptable if it leads to testable prediction - it is then still science. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Interviu cu Sf. Petru
    ... The man behind the 'God particle' ... It is more than four decades since Peter Higgs predicted the existence ... the CERN nuclear physics lab near Geneva, Switzerland, Higgs has ... anxious at what he sees as scientists overselling the need to find the ...
    (soc.culture.romanian)
  • Re: God: a failed hypothesis?
    ... about 1000 gravitons. ... unicorn God makes up. ... the current status of the Higgs field and particle is ...
    (talk.origins)