Re: Is physics a science?

PD wrote:
On Oct 21, 4:47 am, John Kennaugh <J...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
PD wrote:
>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.

Which two theories is the LHC trying to decide between? Who is
championing and developing the alternative theory?

There are LOTS that are competing. And physicists are championing the
alternative theories.


>> 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?

Your analogy doesn't work for me - sorry!

Why not? It's the same thing.

No. In the analogy each of the modifications are identifiable and testable. You can define what you mean by air. You can independently test the interaction between air and the projectile.

It is actually a good example for defining the difference between science and technology.
You could have a gun accurately calibrated to give accurate range without knowing anything about Newton. - that is technology. You could empirically work out a formula which gave you accurate results - that is a mathematical model. If you *understand* what is going on and construct your maths based on that understanding - that is science.

"This eventually led to the realization that IF another
field existed, then masses could be accounted for"

Alchemy might be a better analogy where the Higgs field = The philosopher's stone except that the philosopher's stone only had to transmute one metal into another not transmute something with no mass to something with mass - which would appear to require an entirely new definition of mass. Again in your analogy you were not changing what had been established but building on it.

>> 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.

No it makes it massive when it enters a Higgs field - Magic!

No, that is NOT correct. It might help if you read a little more
deeply about what the Higgs mechanism is.

Why? It is whatever physics wants it to be.




>> 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.

If you say there is an aether and a field is an altered state in the
aether but you are not sure what the aether is - I'm happy with that if
you also express the hope that one day we may know more about the
aether. In a sense 'the aether' is then a 'place holder' implying that
something exists vital to your theory but which is otherwise an unknown.

At some point, you have to ask what the general properties of the
aether are.
If you claim that it is made of constituents that in principle can be
tracked in time, then this broad class of aethers have been ruled out
by a variety of experiments.
If you claim that the aether is simply that which bears fields, then
this has no functional distinction from spacetime itself.

OK let us apply your own criteria of acceptability to Maxwell/Lorentz's aether. The general properties are that a field maps an altered state in the aether (analogous to a stress pattern). This accounts for action at a distance due for example to the interaction of the two 'stress' patterns caused by charge. As with any medium a 'stress' may propagate at a characteristic speed which - from the measured properties of the aether - permeability and permittivity - that speed can be determined as c. When the theory is properly applied (by Lorentz) - taking into account the action at a distance role of the aether and that all physical object (e.g. measurement apparatus) is held together by action at a distance force - one concludes that the MMX was incapable of detecting motion w.r.t the aether. This is constantly being mis-represented as "it is impossible to detect the aether" The only thing one cannot detect is ones *absolute* speed w.r.t the aether. There are at least two testable predictions w.r.t the aether hypothesis. The first is that if you change the speed of the source there will be no change in the measured speed of light because the speed of propagation is controlled by the aether. The second is that if you change your speed there will be an immediate change in frequency due to Doppler. In other words while you cannot measure your absolute speed w.r.t the aether you can detect a change in speed relative to the aether.

What makes you think that Maxwell/Lorentz aether is in any way ruled out? You believe in fields, in action at a distance force, energy propagation, source independence and Doppler shift all explained by the aether. On what basis can you label it "crackpot-stuff". AFAICS compared to much which is accepted in modern physics it would seem totally sane.

If now you take SR which replaced it then that is purely a mathematical model - an identical mathematical model. It *assumes* source independence but makes no attempt to explain why speed should be independent of motion of the source. Neither does it explain why the speed of light appears constant to every observer and fails totally to explain why, when I change my speed the frequency changes instantly.

There is only one Doppler equation in SR. Whether the source changes its speed or I am the one that changes mine. The maths assume in both cases that the change in frequency is due to a different wavelength being generated at the source so my change of speed has to affect the past - light leaving the source before I changed speed. Maths has no problem with that physics ought to have.

To me LET it a far better theory and equally successful.

I might not agree with it. I might prefer some other explanation but I
can respect your point of view. If OTOH you claim there is no aether,
that space is devoid of such things but it can still store energy that
to me is a contradiction.

And that's where we run into a problem. You are DEFINING space to be
that which has no physical properties, and by that definition
(literally "nothing") you derive a contradiction. But the problem is
that scientists do not use that definition for space. Space can indeed
bear physical properties, because it appears that nature in places
where there is no matter still bears physical properties. Your
recourse is to say, "What you call space, then, I label 'aether'
because only 'something' can bear physical properties and I've defined
space to be 'nothing' and not 'something'."

Then it's just a matter of semantics.

Exactly - you have renamed the aether "space".


Now, if you FURTHER believe that only *matter* can have physical
properties, then this is a claim that can be put to experimental test,
because the presence of matter would imply certain other consequences
expected of matter.

define "matter"

If you wish to back away from those consequences by supposing that
there is a *new form* of matter that does NOT have those general
properties of matter, and it is THIS you want to label as "aether",
then again you are just making new definitions of words to suit your
prejudices that anything that has physical properties should be
labeled as matter.

Physical change involves physical process. Physical process involves something physical to take part in that process. It is a function of physics to try and relate all which is physical within the universe.


You cannot store energy in nothing so if space
itself has no substance - no aether then the energy must be in some
other form than an altered state. Some sort of material stuff which
needs its place in the grand order of substances. e.g. the standard
model. I don't respect your theory if it relies on a field and you do
not care what a field is because it works mathematically.

I *do* care what a field is. I just don't demand that it has a
material basis, and furthermore I don't insist that I don't understand
what it is if it doesn't have a material basis.

Define "material"


I insist on the physical reality of the physical world.



>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.

I never claimed you did.



>> 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.

The EM field has been a part of physics for more than a century. One can
measure it. A Higgs field is simply an idea to solve a problem.

Note that the EM field wasn't measured at the time of Maxwell. Hertz
did it in very rough form first.

Same thing was true for the neutrino. It was an idea to solve a
problem, but if the idea was right, then it would have other testable
consequences, which were in fact tested a couple of decades later.

I would be interested if you would elaborate or point me to a reference. I am always willing to increase my knowledge.


Same thing is true for the Higgs. It's an idea to solve a problem, but
if the idea is right, then it would have other testable consequences,
which are being tested imminently.

What's the issue?


>> 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?

You might contemplate where the money for such projects comes from and
who ultimately has to approve that expenditure. You might find
ultimately that if at some point the public start to ask questions that
my way of thinking is likely to prevail. At present it is a con trick.
The public believe that those really clever physicist know what they are
doing and that it is far too difficult for them to understand - so they
don't try. At some point they will question what is going on and ask
physicists to explain it to them. Physics has developed its own language
and its own way of thinking and is in my view incapable of communicating
with those who fund it.

I completely disagree. You have certain elected custodians of your
contributions to public funds. It is those custodians that have the
charge of wisely appropriating public funds.

As they are elected then what is considered 'wise' is strongly influenced by the electorate. That is democracy.

Physics is, in the US,
largely funded by those public funds, via the DoE and NSF. The elected
custodians appoint people to those federal offices at the DoE and NSF
to make recommendations about, and to manage, the spending of those
funds. Those people have physics background but are government
employees and are not involved in active research. It is their job to
review grant applications and to monitor satisfactory productivity
with dispensed funds. Nobody is pulling anything over on anyone.

The budget allocated is approved by elected representatives of the people. They and those who elect them have very little understanding of physics. While the perception is that physicists are very clever and are doing important work they will continue to fund it. If they actually start to ask questions then are they going to be convinced? Can physics communicate what it is about to the tax payers? If cuts are needed to pay for other things what difference would it make to the public if the Physics budget was cut?


I get the feeling that you feel somewhat disenfranchised and powerless
because of all those intermediaries and you would like greater control
of how your individual tax dollars are spent.

I don't pay tax in dollars

For example, you would
like more money spent on applied work and less on fundamental physics,
or at least that less of YOUR dollars go to fundamental research. I
sympathize, but you're barking up the wrong tree. If you have a
problem with the system that dispenses public funds, then you take it
up with the system. It's pointless to whine to the beneficiaries of
the system that dispenses public funds.

I was responding to your question:

"And what price is maximal for fundamental research? How much money is
justified?". You have a situation (Nielsen, and Ninomiya) which physics may be forced to take seriously being lampooned by the media. It would not be at all difficult to put together a program which would make physics look exceedingly silly in the mind of the general public - the tax payers.

>And how do you determine that?

The general public may ask "what do we get out of it" or at the very
least "how much can we afford" and "what are our priorities on limited
funds". Can you show the social and economic benefits of such research?


Fundamental research is not done with an eye for application and
improving the quality of everyday life. Yet it always does in the end.
People can argue endlessly whether it was Maxwell or Edison that
really provided the impact on everyday life with electricity. The real
answer is that it's BOTH. That's why it's called R&D and not just D.
Those people involved in the D side of R&D usually know that without
R, the D will eventually dry up. Likewise, those people in R know that
eventually D will have to kick in to make the work done in R seem
worthwhile. But the people who favor the D side generally sign up to
do work on the D side, and likewise for the R side. It's pointless to
ask R people to be more D, or D people to bear the burden of doing R.

You are talking in the historical context.




>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.

Or PLENTY of money to develop an anti malarial vaccine say. Much of
physics funding has been on the back of military R&D.

Not for the last 40 years, pal.

We have now
developed enough ways to efficiently kill each other and found that in
practice we cannot use them and are back to hand to hand shooting type
wars. Funding physics on the grounds that it might come up with
something new to zap people with is

There is zero military application to the work being done at Fermilab.
On the other hand, Fermilab's work was instrumental in the creation of
proton therapy protocols and was the principal driver behind
facilities like the Loma Linda proton therapy accelerator.

And the moon landing program gave us the none stick frying pan!

I think it was 60 years between the first powered flight and the moon landing. We now have more computing power in a mobile phone than they had at mission control. Such is the march of technology. While we look at out interactive digital flat screen muti- channel widescreen colour TV it is sobering to think that while physics is spending billions looking for the god particle it has no greater understanding of what it is which travels from the transmitter to our TV aerial than it did a century ago. The phenomena is dealt with by two different branches of physics in different ways and the best chance of unifying them is said to be string theory which requires that the universe has 10 or 26 dimensions and even if one of the many versions of string theory succeeds no one is claiming that strings actually exist and if they do they are certainly undetectable.



You have some rather old-fashioned ideas about physics being an
extension of the military-industrial complex.

starting to look like a rather old
fashioned idea. The only thing left is a countries prestige and that in
turn depends on physics remaining credible and worthy of respect.

>> 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.

A well respected newspaper - yes.

That has a target audience that is not interested in full scientific
consideration.


>It might by
>useful to see what the scientific community thinks of this conjecture.

That is my entire point. What possible objection, what principle, what
self exposed discipline would entitle any physicist to reject their
'theory'? There is no rule book. "You cannot impose your rules on
nature" you said or something similar. If you decided rules, guidelines
or whatever which allowed you to reject their theory they would have to
be applied to existing theories. The only grounds for rejecting the idea
is if the physicists concerned lack enough status.

And that's ridiculous. Status has nothing to do with it. I told you
what the criteria are: independent, testable predictions that
distinguish one model from another.

Pre-vetting ideas on the basis of "can't be TOO crazy" or "well, who
is it that's suggesting the idea?" is just not how science works or
should work.

The general public might have difficulty deciding where serious physics ends and lunacy begins.

>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.

But don't you see this is a never ending story. You have a particle
which sometimes requires to have mass, and sometimes doesn't

No, I already told you this is not what the Higgs mechanism does.

"The weak nuclear force is a short range force, behaving as if the gauge bosons are very heavy. In order to make a gauge invariant theory work for the weak nuclear force, theorists had to come up with a way to make heavy gauge bosons in a way that wouldn't destroy the consistency of the quantum theory.
The method they came up with is called spontaneous symmetry breaking, where massless gauge bosons acquire mass by interacting with a scalar field called the Higgs field."


- so you
invent a 'magic' field which allows that - that is accepted because it
has testable consequences. You test those consequences and if it fails
you come up with another bit of magic which is acceptable if it predicts
testable consequences - if that fails you come up with a theory as to
why that failed - so long as it has testable consequences ......

And of course, those testable consequences have to be tested.

and if it fails you come up with another bit of magic which is acceptable if it predicts testable consequences - if that fails you come up with a theory as to why that failed - so long as it has testable consequences ......




Now lets suppose the "standard model" is wrong - who is working on that
possibility? Dare anyone even suggest it?

There are LOTS of those models flying around, and people ARE working
on it. There ARE lots of people working on the notion that the Higgs
mechanism is just plain wrong. You just don't find newspapers writing
stories about it, because there aren't enough people like you that are
concerned whether that's the case in their reading audience. But there
ARE people in physics that are concerned about it.

It's like Barnes & Noble. If you go to Barnes and Noble in the science
shelves, you see a lot of books written by theorists and a lot of
books written about colorful personalities like Sagan and Feynman and
Einstein and Randall. And so people come away with the impression that
physics is being driven and dominated by theorists with colorful
personalities, and ask why the contributions of engineers and applied
scientists and technicians and computer scientists who do a huge
amount of work at real laboratories are not more recognized. And the
reason for that is that Barnes & Noble is trying to sell books, not
represent the scientific community accurately. And books about far-out
ideas and colorful personalities sell better than books about people
that actually are a representative slice through the community. It's
not the *purpose* of Barnes & Noble books to give an accurate view of
how science actually is done.


>> 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.

Technology is certainly more cost effective.

Effective for WHAT? If you mean the timely production of technology
that changes quality of life for people, then fundamental research is
not funded for that purpose.

OK so you are called before a congressional committee (or whatever) and asked "why do you think fundamental physics research should be funded by the public tax payer?" what would you respond?

You might reply "To increase our knowledge about Nature"

Suppose the response was "To increase YOUR knowledge - but will it increase MY knowledge or the tax payers knowledge? Would they understand any of it?"

If they can't understand it then it isn't of any importance to them. If it isn't important to them why should they pay for it?

It doesn't make sense to apply a success
metric to an area that isn't intended to satisfy that metric.
....isn't intended to be successful! Perhaps you should try rephrasing that.


As a well informed, and
very reasonable layman I would say that in funding Fundamental physics
research the public purse is funding expensive fantasy based upon
recreational mathematics which has no quality assurance criteria to
ensure that anything it comes up with is in any way meaningful.
It has just added "back to the future" and "Terminator 2" to its source
material.

--
John Kennaugh

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: quantum mechanics and evolution
    ... quantum mechanics undermines the whole of science and evolution:-his ... Any help in this matter would be appreciated. ... predictions about even in principle. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: doctrine vs science vs fact
    ... are promoted as science when in fact they are not. ... Evolution is indeed a science, no matter how ... and many of these predictions ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: The Dimension of Time
    ... symmetry of fundamental forces *is* a scientific theory, ... predictions of measurable phenomena, and then experiments are set up ... Science really doesn't give a damn about two models that make ... You are under the impression somehow that relativity should ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Hollow Earth Guffaw
    ... in detail with reputable links and solid mathematics. ... inherent in reductionist part property driven science. ... connects ponderable matter with the displays of energy that have impressed ... origin of motion, than the chemist or physicist, from exact scientific data, ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: The Dimension of Time
    ... symmetry by saying that it is by nature unobservable, ... realm of religious faith and not science any longer. ... of the exotic predictions or difficult questions of existing theories. ... (and therefore without the expected level of energy input). ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)