Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one
From: Ilja Schmelzer (q6867901_at_mailstore.fernuni-hagen.de)
Date: 10/06/04
- Next message: Bill Hobba: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Previous message: Bill Hobba: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- In reply to: Paul Draper: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Next in thread: Ken Seto: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 10:52:16 +0200
"Paul Draper" <pdraper@yahoo.com> schrieb
> > Historical preference does not make the old interpretation
> > better than the new one.
>
> This is a worthwhile point, because the LET theory survives quite well
> in a shoot-out with SR. Indeed, as Tom Roberts reported in an
> excellent post that is often quoted, SR and LET predict exactly the
> same phenomena *acting as isolated theories* (which I'll explain in a
> minute), and as Roberts said, most of the arguments for SR being
> favored over LET have to do with mathematical elegance or, perhaps
> even more compellingly, because of the symmetry that it assigns to the
> universe that LET does not.
>
> However, in years since, SR has grown outside the domain of its own
> predictions and is now incorporated as an underlying principle in
> other theories, chiefly quantum field theory. The success of QFT is
> then an indirect but just as compelling validation of SR as the direct
> predictions are. In fact, I don't know that an attempt has been made
> to rewrite a testable variant of QFT that incorporates LET rather than
> SR.
That's no problem at all. The mathematics remains unchanged.
To name one of the frames the preferred frame does not lead to
any additional problems.
There is a problem in the other direction. Realistic hidden variable
theories (for example Bohmian mechanics, but the violation of Bell's
inequality proves that a similar problem appears in any realistic
hidden variable theory) require a preferred frame, or, IOW, to
go back to LET.
> > These two examples are also sufficient to prove you wrong.
> > I don't give a penny for string theory, and I don't believe into
> > the Higgs, but these are certainly physical theories.
> Not in my mind. Certainly not the string model (note my term), which
> has not yet generated a testable prediction that would distinguish it
> from competing model.
I certainly would not like to defend string theory. I even believe there
is something wrong with the organization of science if such a large part
of theoretical research is concentrated in this domain. But research
of this theoretical type is certainly justified as part of science.
Again, new interpretations for existing theories are valid parts of
science. And it is also ok to spend some amount of research
resources until we reject some direction of research. (But I think
the 20000 man-years for string theory are too much.)
> The "Standard Model" theory is an acceptable
> theory insofar as the electroweak and QCD sectors have been highly,
> highly successful, but the Higgs is such a key element of the Standard
> Model that I would still hold it a bit askance until the Higgs is
> found.
I consider the SM as some sort of phenomenological theory.
If there will be no Higgs, so what? It has to be modified, but the
essential parts will survive.
In my ether model for the standard model I do not even try to model
the Higgs sector yet.
> > It is nice to propose criteria for alternative theories which are
> > not fulfilled by the leading (in terms of number of publications
> > and man-years spend on it in professional theoretical physics)
> > theory. That's named double standard.
> >
> > BTW, my theory (see gr-qc/0205035) fulfills all your requirements.
> You are certainly right about the lemmings-style history of physics.
> But that's politics, not objective science.
Yep. Money paid by the state.
> It's a pity the two get
> mixed. I have run into that kind of disappointment myself now and
> again. Nevertheless, the fact that effort and attention are often
> misplaced does not diminish the value of an established standard by
> which the merits of a theory can be judged.
Ok.
Ilja
- Next message: Bill Hobba: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Previous message: Bill Hobba: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- In reply to: Paul Draper: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Next in thread: Ken Seto: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
