Has Science lost its way?

[sn1987a (Barry)]

[QUOTE
And Barry, are you suggesting we just turn over the world to SkyNet AI now? I still have faith in humans to solve problems in ways AI and their logic based approach just can't. Creativity, visualisation, coming at a problem from a different perspective, humans still do this well.[/QUOTE]



I'm saying that capital will turn the world over to Skynet, you and I won't have any say in the matter. Creativity?, visualisation? Puh! there'll be an app for that.

[Stonius (Markus)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Hi Glen
I had contented myself that I was not missing anything but it seems not.
I know folk think I am a crackpot when I suggest this but "they" have gravity a bit wrong in my view. Firstly the force of attraction does not exist we just wrote it in with no more than a belief such a force could work. I say it can not and if you try I doubt you can come up with a mechanism.
However if you see gravity as a flow of energy from all over the Universe, as do I, little issues like dark matter and dark energy disappear.
Now don't get me wrong GR I accept as our current model and it takes care of the math, something I can not do, but I have always thought GR sort to describe the flow of space that I suggest and maybe if tuned a little dark matter and dark energy would not come from the equations.
My only frustration is I spent years developing my idea only to find that Le Sage developed the idea in 1745. The idea is referred to as "push gravity" and looked down upon and jumped upon by GR advocates. However if things "work" along the lines I suggest for gravity it would be unlikely to have "anti gravity" .
If things work as I suggest it is easy to expect the outer stars in a galaxy will rotate faster because the force is external to the system, of course the universe should expand if all this energy is pushing, and as to dark matter if the force is external that may go a long way to explaining why the galaxies don't fly apart.
But they are my ideas and I don't expect others to see it my way and don't get upset the world does not agree so I would like to think I am different from your crank type.
Just a belief.
Alex

Sounds interesting, though I don't know enough to have a go at falsifying it. Does the prediction and ultimate discovery of the Higgs Boson poke a hole in it? Maybe we should start a separate thread for the good-natured discussion of all our crackpot hypotheses, I'm sure most of us have them.

[Talby (Brad)]

I agree with you somewhat Alex. As our knowledge base has progressed ,we take smaller steps as Colin points out. The testing of these smaller steps taking more $ input ,eg the LHC , larger more expensive scopes.(Unfortunately the money controlling research is largely controlled by non scientists and trying to direct that funding to your project has lead to the publish or perish mantra of modern science as a method of gaining that funding

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

total Knowledge may have vastly increased but human intelligence has remained relatively unchanged for many thousands of years. revolutionary paradigm shifts, as the name suggests, don't come in nice small baby steps (although small steps are needed along the way).

The timing of these paradigm upheavals in science are essentially unpredictable.

Remember ladies and gentlemen a cure for the common cold still eludes Human endeavours. Science has still not provided a full explanation of why a bicycle is stable during motion.

...Collectively as humans we are dumb as door knobs - there is a lot of work to do

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by Stonius

Sounds interesting, though I don't know enough to have a go at falsifying it. Does the prediction and ultimate discovery of the Higgs Boson poke a hole in it? Maybe we should start a separate thread for the good-natured discussion of all our crackpot hypotheses, I'm sure most of us have them.

I do not understand the standard model as well as I once thought I did but that is to be expected I am not a professional but I dont think the higgs accounted for the mass most of us thought it did, and all that tells me is I only read the hype on astronomy daily and the like.
I dont know how you could establish what I suggest particularly having to get those who are so very, understandably, very happy with GR.
Frankly I recon that GR should not need dark matter nor should dark energy be a mystery.
GR is a classical theory it does not need to know why matter can tell space how to bend. All I suggest is really a mechanical type pressure but diehard GR supporters dont need it and they dont, I just think that it would make more sence that something needs adjustment in our math than to believe, what 80 or 90% is stuff we cant see or explain.
I mean I would be thinking maybe just maybe our sums are leading us down the wrong road.
But how do I know one would think the professionals have very good reason to believe dark matter is real. And well if its not real in time they must figure it out.
But as to we each could share ourcrack pot ideas I suggest that usually does not end well, could be worse than discussing religion or politics.
The thing I learnt from my gra ity trip was it does not matter what I think in so far as I dont have to convince anyone. I can imagine it whatever way I like with no neex to convince others I have something they need to know. I have been there however a d happy to step backbefore I lost it.. became a crank etc.
Alex

[xelasnave]

Sorry Peter I was still typing and only now saw your post.
Thank you for joining in and thank you for being a gentleman.
I nearly got in a hole I could not get out of to get this thread started.
People started to think I was half crazy, well I may be but that is the sort of thing I like to keep a secret.
Thank you sincerely for your nice post.
Alex

[xelasnave]

The bike stays upright because gravity works like I suggested. The bike is the system with gravity working as an external force.
I could cure the common cold but I have substantial interests in various paper tissue companies.
Just kidding about the bike.
Alex

[Stonius (Markus)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I do not understand the standard model as well as I once thought I did but that is to be expected I am not a professional but I dont think the higgs accounted for the mass most of us thought it did, and all that tells me is I only read the hype on astronomy daily and the like.
I dont know how you could establish what I suggest particularly having to get those who are so very, understandably, very happy with GR.
Frankly I recon that GR should not need dark matter nor should dark energy be a mystery.
GR is a classical theory it does not need to know why matter can tell space how to bend. All I suggest is really a mechanical type pressure but diehard GR supporters dont need it and they dont, I just think that it would make more sence that something needs adjustment in our math than to believe, what 80 or 90% is stuff we cant see or explain.
I mean I would be thinking maybe just maybe our sums are leading us down the wrong road.
But how do I know one would think the professionals have very good reason to believe dark matter is real. And well if its not real in time they must figure it out.
But as to we each could share ourcrack pot ideas I suggest that usually does not end well, could be worse than discussing religion or politics.
The thing I learnt from my gra ity trip was it does not matter what I think in so far as I dont have to convince anyone. I can imagine it whatever way I like with no neex to convince others I have something they need to know. I have been there however a d happy to step backbefore I lost it.. became a crank etc.
Alex

I've always felt very uncomfortable with the idea of dark energy/matter. It feels a little too close to the method Theists use, interposing a preferred mechanism for things they don't understand, and then looking for the evidence that would support their beliefs (very unscientific, IMO, but what do I know?).

Okay, so the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and galaxies rotate faster than they should. Nothing wrong with saying 'We don't know why, and it could be caused by a number of factors'. But calling it dark matter/energy seems predicated on an expected result and seems particularly narrow. I'll stick my neck out and say that I don't think they'll ever find an exotic form of dark matter or energy. Far more likely that they'll discover new physics that explains it, much like a certain patent clerk did a while back.

[ZeroID (Brent)]

Originally Posted by Stonius

I've always felt very uncomfortable with the idea of dark energy/matter. It feels a little too close to the method Theists use, interposing a preferred mechanism for things they don't understand, and then looking for the evidence that would support their beliefs (very unscientific, IMO, but what do I know?).

Okay, so the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and galaxies rotate faster than they should. Nothing wrong with saying 'We don't know why, and it could be caused by a number of factors'. But calling it dark matter/energy seems predicated on an expected result and seems particularly narrow. I'll stick my neck out and say that I don't think they'll ever find an exotic form of dark matter or energy. Far more likely that they'll discover new physics that explains it, much like a certain patent clerk did a while back.

In Steam Punk terms, it's called the Aether, that mysterious medium that connects and influences us all. Now where did I park my dirigible ?

And Alex: Don't ever give up your nefarious postings of the weird and wonderful that pushes us all to friendly debate and discussion. Your satire and off beat threads are always both entertaining and informative.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by Atmos

.....As time moves on, new discoveries move further away from the general population because we need bigger, better and faster things to push the boundaries of what has already been done. We can come up with theories and mathematical proofs but we cannot test them, that is left to the professionals with the bigger, better and faster instruments.

Colin, I agree with most of that..
However, I would like to add one more detail.. about education (or lack of it).
I am coming from times and places where and when the education was considered the ultimate basis for the future of the society.
However, today, I can see (from my angle) that education is actually business - and service available to mainly those who can afford it.
Or just a chip in polititical games our politicians sometimes play.
So I am not surprised that scince and scientists are (by some) looked upon as some sort of closed "lodge", secret business or religion with their priests, who are the only ones to control the explanations to general public.
Many times I had to defend the science and scientists from attacs like those.. and sometimes I also think that the future of human society may turn out to be similar to what was described in movie "Idiocracy".

[bojan]

Originally Posted by Stonius

I've always felt very uncomfortable with the idea of dark energy/matter. It feels a little too close to the method Theists use, interposing a preferred mechanism for things they don't understand, and then looking for the evidence that would support their beliefs (very unscientific, IMO, but what do I know?).

Okay, so the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and galaxies rotate faster than they should. Nothing wrong with saying 'We don't know why, and it could be caused by a number of factors'. But calling it dark matter/energy seems predicated on an expected result and seems particularly narrow. I'll stick my neck out and say that I don't think they'll ever find an exotic form of dark matter or energy. Far more likely that they'll discover new physics that explains it, much like a certain patent clerk did a while back.

Well, this is a method - you have phenomenon, you try to explain it the way you can (for now).... you name the explanation in somewhat colloquial language (“dark matter” – nothing wrong with that (or any other) name IMO per se – it only reflects the behaviour (can’t see it)).
For example, I still can’t comprehend why gauge theories are called “gauge”, but I understand (or at least I hope so) what the theories are about. You just have to be member of gang to speak their lingo properly

[Dave2042 (Dave)]

Originally Posted by bojan

Well, this is a method - you have phenomenon, you try to explain it the way you can (for now).... you name the explanation in somewhat colloquial language (“dark matter” – nothing wrong with that (or any other) name IMO per se – it only reflects the behaviour (can’t see it)).
For example, I still can’t comprehend why gauge theories are called “gauge”, but I understand (or at least I hope so) what the theories are about. You just have to be member of gang to speak their lingo properly

You're bang on here and your last post in my opinion.

The main problem here is not that Science (and we're really just talking Physics here) has lost its way. It is that we have been so successful over the past 400 years that the remaining blanks are very difficult to fill in.

First, we only see things we can't explain under extreme circumstances that are very hard to create for testing purposes (LHC energies, inside a black hole, first nanosecond of the universe).

Second, the wiggle-room afforded by what we already know is very narrow in theoretical terms. Any theoretical explanation for the gaps must reduce under less extreme conditions to QM, GR and SM (or something mathematically equivalent), since we already know these give the right results. This is a very tight restriction on 'theories of everything', and one of the main reasons string theory persists as a candidate.

Thirdly, QM, GR and SM are based on some fairly heavy-duty maths, and so any attempt to extend them is also going to be mathematically heavy-duty. If you are not on top of all that maths, you are really just blundering around blindly. (To be clear, I'm only claiming a limited understanding of this myself.)

Finally, while everyone is entitled to express an opinion, some (ahem) opinions on this topic are clearly just the peanut gallery sounding off about something they have no real understanding of and no intention of doing the work to develop an understanding. By which I don't mean normal questions, suggestions and observations that make forums like this fun, more the disparaging of science with nothing of substance backing it.

[sjastro]

For example, I still can’t comprehend why gauge theories are called “gauge”, but I understand (or at least I hope so) what the theories are about. You just have to be member of gang to speak their lingo properly

To understand the term gauge one needs to know about the mathematical concept of invariance and how this is applied to physics.
A simple example is rotating a triangle in Euclidean space.
The sum of the angles of the triangle will always equal 180 degrees irrespective of the rotation of the triangle in space.
In mathematical parlance the sum of the angles is invariant under a mathematical transformation involving rotation.
A gauge transformation is where invariance is preserved under that transformation.
The term gauge restricts the number of transformations possible.
For example in "uneven" (non isotropic) non Euclidean space the above example is clearly not a gauge transformation as the angles will always change as the triangle is rotated.

The idea can be extended to physics using classical electrodynamics as formulated by Maxwell.
The electromagnetic field can be expressed in terms of vector potentials.
It is found by applying a mathematical rotation results in a gauge transformation as the vector potentials remain invariant.

The obvious question is "so what?".
In the early 20th century before the advent of QM and at the dawn of GR it was found that electromagnetic and gravitational fields when described by a dynamical property known as a Lagrangian would generate the various conservation laws of physics under specific gauge transformations.

Modern day physics is built around this discovery.

The gauge bosons such as photons take the concept of gauge transformations further.
Not only must gauge transformations apply globally but to every individual point in space time.
These local gauge transformations result in the existence of massless bosons such as photons.

[Stonius (Markus)]

Originally Posted by Dave2042

The main problem here is not that Science (and we're really just talking Physics here) has lost its way. It is that we have been so successful over the past 400 years that the remaining blanks are very difficult to fill in.

First, we only see things we can't explain under extreme circumstances that are very hard to create for testing purposes (LHC energies, inside a black hole, first nanosecond of the universe).

Second, the wiggle-room afforded by what we already know is very narrow in theoretical terms. Any theoretical explanation for the gaps must reduce under less extreme conditions to QM, GR and SM (or something mathematically equivalent), since we already know these give the right results. This is a very tight restriction on 'theories of everything', and one of the main reasons string theory persists as a candidate.

Thirdly, QM, GR and SM are based on some fairly heavy-duty maths, and so any attempt to extend them is also going to be mathematically heavy-duty. If you are not on top of all that maths, you are really just blundering around blindly. (To be clear, I'm only claiming a limited understanding of this myself.)

Very clear and lucid. I agree absolutely.

Originally Posted by Dave2042

Finally, while everyone is entitled to express an opinion, some (ahem) opinions on this topic are clearly just the peanut gallery sounding off about something they have no real understanding of and no intention of doing the work to develop an understanding. By which I don't mean normal questions, suggestions and observations that make forums like this fun, more the disparaging of science with nothing of substance backing it.

True - what is IIS if not a peanut gallery? It's posts may be reviewed by peers, but it's not peer reviewed

Originally Posted by bojan

Well, this is a method - you have phenomenon, you try to explain it the way you can (for now).... you name the explanation in somewhat colloquial language (“dark matter” – nothing wrong with that (or any other) name IMO per se – it only reflects the behaviour (can’t see it)).

True, you have to hypothesise something in order to move forward. But I think the name of the effect (literally 'something we can't see) has been confused with the cause; 'an exotic type of matter'. Yet it seems a foregone conclusion that we are looking for dark matter/energy, rather than an explanation of the matter/energy discrepancy (a better name, in my opinion) where the answer could, in fact, have many explanations. I mean, they could have called it 'dark unicorns' for all I care, as long as they didn't actually expect to find space unicorns orbiting the galaxy!

[Dave2042 (Dave)]

Originally Posted by Stonius

Very clear and lucid. I agree absolutely.

True - what is IIS if not a peanut gallery? It's posts may be reviewed by peers, but it's not peer reviewed

Yes, and I like it that way. But it can get a bit tiresome when people push the envelope for what appears to be little reason other than to be confrontational.

[Dave2042 (Dave)]

And another thing (in cranky old man voice).

If you think science has it all wrong, how do you explain technology, which is simply science that's sufficiently well understood that it's been handed over to the engineers?

Put simply, how do you think your fridge works? Or airplanes? Or medicine? Or computers? If QM/GR/SM are all just made up nonsense, then do all these things work off magic?

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by Dave2042

And another thing (in cranky old man voice).

If you think science has it all wrong, how do you explain technology, which is simply science that's sufficiently well understood that it's been handed over to the engineers?

Put simply, how do you think your fridge works? Or airplanes? Or medicine? Or computers? If QM/GR/SM are all just made up nonsense, then do all these things work off magic?

Clearly science is doing a wonderful job.
Why humans who will tolerate so many imperfections in their personal behaviour and yet demand God like performance from scientists and the institution we call "science" is something I have always thought strange, but not to offer a proposal for a better way to do things is stranger still.
In another place someone pointed out the long journey that a scientist must take will see him maybe never being able to discover something grand but its not everyones destiny to discover something new. The expectation that a scientist will discover something new is not certain but what is certain is that a layman or "armchair scientist" will never come up with something that will change anything.
It is one thing to chat about gravity and dark matter, whatever, but quiet another to think anything we chat about here will become the next big thing.
And really there is little I would critisize about where science is today and I certainly can not offer a better way to do things.
The true genius will not be sidelined by the system as many would suggest otherwise nothing would be done and if we look at what is getting done, which takes regular daily effort simply to have a hint of developement, who could say our system is suspect.

Alex

[AstralTraveller (David)]

I don't know about science losing its way but scientists certainly do. The title of the OP reminds me of a story I heard years ago about a quite gung-ho geologist who was driving a car and trailer north through the SA outback. Rounding a corner too fast he spun out. He didn't hit anything (nothing to hit??) and came to rest facing south. Yep, you guessed it; he stuck the car in first gear and drove off. He eventually realised his mistake but, the way I was told, not very soon.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by sjastro

To understand the term gauge one needs to know about the mathematical concept of invariance and how this is applied to physics....

Steven,
thank you!
I guess this issue of mine with term "gauge" has also something to do with the fact that my "mother tongue" is not English..

[AndrewJ]

Many times I had to defend the science and scientists from attacs like those.. and sometimes I also think that the future of human society may turn out to be similar to what was described in movie "Idiocracy".

I liken it to the "age of the priests" in Asimovs "foundation" trilogy.
Once "science/engineering" has given people a good safe living, ( ie cover, water, electricity, food, sewerage ) the scientists/engineers are no longer "perceived" to be needed as much and get relegated down the food chain.
The only science i currently see most people are still interested in is medicine ( and cancer mainly ), as that might still affect them.

Andrew