Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/why...ncna879346

EXCERPT: . . . "All of the theoretical work that's been done since the 1970s has not produced a single successful prediction," says Neil Turok, director of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada. "That's a very shocking state of affairs." This doesn't mean physicists aren't busy; the journals are publishing more research than ever. But Turok says all that research isn't doing much to advance our understanding of the universe — at least not the way physicists did in the last century. Lots of activity, little progress Physicists today "write a lot of papers, build a lot of [theoretical] models, hold a lot of conferences, cite each other — you have all the trappings of science," he says. "But for me, physics is all about making successful predictions. And that's been lacking."

The most celebrated ongoing experiments have failed to produce some long-anticipated discoveries.

[...] In a new book entitled "Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray," Hossenfelder argues that many physicists working today have been led astray by mathematics — seduced by equations that might be "beautiful" or "elegant" but which lack obvious connection to the real world. "I can't believe what this once-venerable profession has become," she writes. "Theoretical physicists used to explain what was observed. Now they try to explain why they can't explain what was not observed. And they're not even good at that."

MORE: https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/why...ncna879346

Theoretical applications to mathematics have a great deal of importance so I would not be so quick to dismiss Physicists' use and practicality.

If I observe 1 and then observe another one then am I correct saying that by my observations, 1+1=2?. But if I observe 1 and theoretically believe there should be another 1 then does 1 observed + 1 theorized still equal 2? Maybe this is more.of a.philosophical question.

Is science a series of wrongs that eventually lead to a correct answer or testable theory? If so, should mathematics be similar in nature?

(Jun 6, 2018 01:12 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]If I observe 1 and then observe another one then am I correct saying that by my observations, 1+1=2?. But if I observe 1 and theoretically believe there should be another 1 then does 1 observed + 1 theorized still equal 2? Maybe this is more.of a.philosophical question.

Is science a series of wrongs that eventually lead to a correct answer or testable theory? If so, should mathematics be similar in nature?

New models in theoretical physics: Neither wrong nor right yet, but regulated "fictions" which hang together well within themselves (are domestically coherent). Which a few may or may over time justify themselves as reflecting a feature of the experienced world or supplementing it with an insight if they become testable or useful in some manner. They're grounded in a "language" of measurement because that provides precise properties, relationships, and governing principles which the ambiguities of ordinary language does not furnish.

For an early tribe trying to record trade transactions (primitive bookkeeping), five marks with a slash through them scratched on a slab of wood or stone could have been a count of caged fowl, baskets of berries, obsidian tools in a pack, etc. The significance is that the original empirical content (fowl, baskets of berries, tools, etc) was stripped away and replaced by a symbol which only kept and represented the general property that all similar sets of varying objects shared (a magnitude of five). Operations performed with groups of objects (adding, dividing, etc) were given representative symbols also or indicated by other means.

That's what abstract systems do: They eliminate most of the phenomenal / qualitative characteristics of what they were originally derived from in the world. The symbols then become something which can "float on their own" with defined properties and rule-like relationships. Exploratory combinations / arrangements of the basic ones and discovery via analysis of sub-concepts within them create new abstractions which may or may not correspond to "real" things yet unknown.

But of course, the above largely pertains to a "purist" thought orientation about abstract systems. The alternative tradition of reciprocally applying them back to the everyday world is the practical reason for valuing them (a role which is especially demonstrable in engineering). In that context they kind of crudely simulate an aspect of experienced reality on paper for design or understanding purposes, prior to actually handling the latter according to the former's symbolic / rational guidance.

So you can see how theoretical physics can invent its own conceptual frameworks that are internally consistent with themselves -- as if they are "realities" existing independent of the experienced one. But they're models intended to find application in the future, hoping to prove themselves to actually be "about this world" in a way ranging from merely predictive to descriptive to inferences about new entities / situations (often revolving around non-observable stratums or future/past developments which are similarly non-observable).

Abstract endeavors (in general) were arguably inspired by slash descended from what fell out of quantitative or counting activity. Although fertility tokens and astrological markers inscribed on bones and spiritual depictions on cave walls of animal and geometrical forms probably preceded such. (Why it's perhaps arguable.)

Although an ordinary language word like "cat" does itself non-figuratively represent various attributes (including fur, four legs, warm-blooded, etc)... The fact that ordinary language signs carry such jumbled packages of semantic properties and multiple definitions makes it again too imprecise in meaning and intent to convey very distinct, clear, and universal values in the way that a quantitative "language" does (or any technical nomenclature trying to mimic that degree of precision).

~

(Jun 5, 2018 04:52 AM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/why...ncna879346

EXCERPT: . . . "All of the theoretical work that's been done since the 1970s has not produced a single successful prediction," says Neil Turok, director of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada. "That's a very shocking state of affairs."

A hundred years ago, physics was the most rapidly evolving science. Relativity and quantum physics were newly arrived on the scene and things were changing very quickly. Today, physics seems to have slipped into a rut.

Most of the scientific excitement right now seems to be coming from molecular genetics. That seems to be the only science that's really progressed noticeably since the year 2000. (When the human genome project ended up generating more questions than answers.)

Quote:This doesn't mean physicists aren't busy; the journals are publishing more research than ever. But Turok says all that research isn't doing much to advance our understanding of the universe — at least not the way physicists did in the last century. Lots of activity, little progress Physicists today "write a lot of papers, build a lot of [theoretical] models, hold a lot of conferences, cite each other — you have all the trappings of science," he says.

That might tell us something about the academic world. Science advanced at some rate in the 19th century, with a smaller number of universities and scientists. So the idea took hold that if the number of scientists and universities was dramatically increased, then science would advance much faster. So after World War II countless new universities were established, all fully staffed with professors. And academic journals have multiplied just as fast, all filled with papers.

But... the pace of progress seems to be just about the same as it ever was, maybe a little higher in some fields, but slower in others. This increase in numbers leading to no real increase in productivity is observable throughout the academic world, especially in the humanities (which seem to be shriveling up and dying at the moment, despite there never having been more humanities professors than today).

The signal-to-noise ratio in most fields has fallen noticeably, and in a few it's fallen off a cliff.

Quote:[...] In a new book entitled "Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray," Hossenfelder

I like Sabine Hossenfelder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabine_Hossenfelder

Her website:

http://sabinehossenfelder.com/

Her blog:

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/

Here's the book:

https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Math-Beauty-...0465094252

Her little chapter summaries are great.

Chapter 2: What a Wonderful World... In which I read a lot of books about dead people and find that everyone likes pretty ideas but that pretty ideas sometimes work badly. At a conference I begin to worry that physicists are about to discard the scientific method.

Chapter 5: Ideal Theories... In which I search for the end of science but find that the imagination of theoretical physicists is endless. I fly to Austin, let Steven Weinberg talk to me, and realize how much we do just to avoid boredom.

Chapter 6: The Incomprehensible Comprehensibility of Quantum Mechanics... In which I ponder the difference between math and magic.

Chapter 8: Space, the Final Frontier... In which I try to understand a string theorist and almost succeed.

Chapter 9: The Universe, All There Is, and the Rest... In which I admire the many ways to explain why nobody sees the particles we invent.

Chapter 10: Knowledge is Power... In which I conclude the world would be a better place if everyone listened to me.

Quote:argues that many physicists working today have been led astray by mathematics — seduced by equations that might be "beautiful" or "elegant" but which lack obvious connection to the real world. "I can't believe what this once-venerable profession has become," she writes. "Theoretical physicists used to explain what was observed. Now they try to explain why they can't explain what was not observed. And they're not even good at that."

She has more to say in this Scientific American interview. (And on her blog, of course.)

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro...-thinking/

Horgan: Steven Weinberg recently told me that science will never explain why there is something rather than nothing.

Hossenfelder: I agree with him. It's not a scientific question, or at least I don't see how to make a scientific question out of it. Unless of course you want to reinterpret "nothing" as "quantum vacuum" as Lawrence Krauss does. I would argue though that even a quantum vacuum is still something...

...Horgan: Do you find philosophy useful?

Hossenfelder: Sometimes. I find philosophy useful to understand what it is that we really do in science, or at least the different ways to think about it. I would classify myself as an instrumentalist, but not all my colleagues are. And it's good to know what their attitude is because it helps me put their motivations and interests into context.

For this very reason I found the workshop in Munich every useful. See, the non-empirical assessment is something theorists do constantly, but not really consciously, it's just part of the practice. This discussion with the philosophers has helped me very much to structure my thinking, and also to pinpoint what aspects of non-empirical assessment are legit and which are questionable.

Another recent book that makes essentially the same point as Hossenfelder's Lost in Math is Jim Baggott's Farewell to Reality

https://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Reality-...1605985740

(Jun 6, 2018 06:16 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ][...] I like Sabine Hossenfelder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabine_Hossenfelder

Her website:

http://sabinehossenfelder.com/

Her blog:

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/

Here's the book:

https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Math-Beauty-...0465094252

[...]

She has more to say in this Scientific American interview. (And on her blog, of course.)

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro...-thinking/

[...]

Thanks for the links. The conservative physicist Luboš Motl has trashed Sabine Hossenfelder on his blogspot at various times in the past. Unless I forgot, until now I wasn't aware that Sabine had responded to these attacks on her, over a decade ago: "I have delinked Luboš Motl". If memory serves right in connection with what he's intermittently posted during the 2010s, Motl has continued the pattern.

I vaguely recollect him ridiculing(?) Sean Carroll or his comments / work at times, too. But I'm not sure it's as dedicated a smudge campaign (or is a concerted effort in that respect at all). For instance, here he actually agrees with Carroll about something. But in this older entry he expresses disdain about Carroll's "bizarre praise" of philosopher Slavoj Žižek. These would be utterly trivial incidents compared to whatever ones might be tugging at my retentivity that I can't dredge up to the light of date or details.

~