Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[r-j]

Sure, but that would be in another thread.

 

[Dancing David]

None it is then.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I'm pretty sure all the "crackpots" who turned out to be right are an inspiration to those seeking to become one of those crackpots who turn out to be right.

History is full of crackpots, but mostly the ones who ended up changing physics. Nobody writes much about the ones who were wrong.

Clearly, you don't understand what is meant by "crackpot." Take a look at the thread I recommended.

 

[r-j]

Why?

 

[lpetrich]

r-j, what do you think a crackpot is?

I'll give you a hint. It's not necessarily someone who has heretical ideas.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Why?

Why what?
Why don't you understand?
Why look at that thread?
Why did I recommend that thread?
Please be specific.

 

[BurntSynapse]

Hello and welcome.


In general evidence is required for an opinion. "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

I agree.

Sorry, I don't understand. The existence of what is probable?

The existence of that to which Farsight refers to as "the Reality". I wouldn't use that term or overly certain conceptualization, but based on the history of science, a less paradoxical model for our observations does appear probable, and is the general consensus in physics.

Most people here are reluctant to look at videos without some clue as to what the video contains.

The video contains a critique of the claim "there's nothing we can do to develop starship technology in the near term", which was used to justify not doing any, nor examining proposals for such research.

 

[BurntSynapse]

My initial impression of the video is that the speaker is not distinguishing between "it's currently impossible" (meaning "I see no way of doing it with existing technology") and "it's theoretically impossible" (meaning "the laws of physics forbid it").

I am Buck Field, the speaker. What do you mean by "it"? Faster than light capability? Selection of potentially applicable research? Such research itself?

Interstellar spaceships are currently impossible

Depends on definitions, as some plausibly claim Voyager now meets their criteria. I disagree, but understand their position and consider it defensible.

...faster-than-light interstellar spaceships, however, are theoretically impossible so we can't reasonably hope for those.

I assume the claim of theoretical impossibility is based on standard interpretation of GR, yes?

Unless / until we can provide reliable (i.e.: paradox & fallacy free) explanation of space and time relative to observations, I tend to think claims 'we cannot reasonably hope for X' due to our interpretation of "laws" widely acknowledged as needing revolutionary change seem unreliable, but I would greatly appreciate evidence my perception of error is mistaken.

 

[BurntSynapse]

Physics has progressed far more in the last century than it has in the rest of human history, and there are far fewer anomalies now than there have been at any time in the past.

Perspective seems to be everything on this. If we look from a perspective of mass, observations of dark matter suggest 90% of the material universe is anomalous. Please provide an instance in history when anything like this has ever been true?

We've discovered the fundamental building blocks of the universe and (mostly) how they interact...

This is what every society has believed, as wonderfully explained by James Burke in "The Day the Universe Changed". The fact that some of us believe this, does not appear to bear on whether an increasing body of anomalies (in the Kuhnian sense) has accumulated since Einstein.

...we've put men on the Moon and probes on other planets and (maybe) outside the solar system, we can predict the motion of stars and planets with greater accuracy than anyone could previously have dreamed about, and we're communicating right now using methods entirely dependent on a detailed understanding of both relativity and quantum mechanics.

100% agreement on all these.

Yet somehow quite a few people manage to get the idea that because we haven't quite worked out all the details of how things behave at a scale that people a couple of centuries ago couldn't even have conceived of, that this means physics must be in a terrible state and in need of fixing at the most fundamental level.

Do you consider my position based on this? I'm merely relaying the top expert studies on the topic for the past 50 years from Thomas Kuhn to The Quantum Universe Committee, and similar, even more recent work.

Why is there so much crackpot physics? Because some people are apparently capable of living in the most advanced and fastest advancing period in human history, and somehow seeing only a lack of progress.

In project management, it is the lack of progress that we most focus on as a risk indicator because that's our job to address. I do have a perceptual bias in that my perspective is skewed to successful delivery of information systems, and I therefore focus on what is most likely to put that success in jeopardy. An overview of the reasoning used begins by referencing the high level govt report describing "9 major, long term mysteries" can be viewed at youtube dot com/watch?v=ILweWfuBreA.

Does this make the FTL research suggestion seem more sensible?

 

[Pixel42]

What do you mean by "it"?

Anything at all. There's a difference between "X is impossible with current technology" and "X is theoretically impossible" no matter what X is.

For example mobile phones were never theoretically impossible. The technology to make them wasn't available in Maxwell's day, but they don't contradict any of the laws he discovered.

Depends on definitions, as some plausibly claim Voyager now meets their criteria. I disagree, but understand their position and consider it defensible.

Voyager occured to me when I made that comment but I trusted that you would understand what I meant.

I assume the claim of theoretical impossibility is based on standard interpretation of GR, yes?

It's based on the proven fact that the relative velocity of two objects with non-zero rest mass travelling within our four dimensional spacetime universe cannot be greater than c.

Science fiction writers usually get around this by postulating some kind of warp drive that would enable a spaceship to leave the universe in one place and return to it in another after travelling through higher dimensions/wormholes or some such. Such possibilties cannot be ruled out, but they would require new physics as well as new technology.

Unless / until we can provide reliable (i.e.: paradox & fallacy free) explanation of space and time relative to observations, I tend to think claims 'we cannot reasonably hope for X' due to our interpretation of "laws" widely acknowledged as needing revolutionary change seem unreliable, but I would greatly appreciate evidence my perception of error is mistaken.

The laws governing the relative velocities of physical objects are neither unreliable nor widely acknowledged as needing revolutionary change; they have been confirmed by observations.

 

[ctamblyn]

Perspective seems to be everything on this. If we look from a perspective of mass, observations of dark matter suggest 90% of the material universe is anomalous. Please provide an instance in history when anything like this has ever been true?

For the whole of human history up to the present date, at least. We just didn't realise it until recently.

 

[Cuddles]

Perspective seems to be everything on this. If we look from a perspective of mass, observations of dark matter suggest 90% of the material universe is anomalous. Please provide an instance in history when anything like this has ever been true?

OK. If we look from a perspective of mass, observations of dark matter suggest 90% of the material universe is anomalous*. This has always been true for all of history. Are you seriously trying to suggest that the fact we've now learned this shows that we are not progressing?

* Actually, they don't. Observations suggest 84.5% of matter is non-baryonic, or 95.1% of the energy content of the universe is not baryonic matter. If you want to make claims about physics, it important to get the facts right.

This is what every society has believed, as wonderfully explained by James Burke in "The Day the Universe Changed".

And we now know more than they did, and know that they were wrong. It may well turn out that we are wrong as well, but that doesn't change the fact that we know more now than we used to. Progress does not mean knowing everything.

The fact that some of us believe this, does not appear to bear on whether an increasing body of anomalies (in the Kuhnian sense) has accumulated since Einstein.

Perhaps it would help if you define what you actually mean by "anomaly" and "progress". Because so far the only evidence you've provided is that we know more than we used to, but still not everything. If you don't think increasing our body of knowledge is progress, I'm afraid we may not be speaking the same language.

Do you consider my position based on this?

Based on your posts so far, yes.

I'm merely relaying the top expert studies

No you're not. Not even close.

In project management, it is the lack of progress that we most focus on as a risk indicator because that's our job to address.

Good for you. In science, it is the evidence that we focus on. Do you have any to support your claims about a lack of progress? So far the only evidence you've provided is that we know more than we used to.

Does this make the FTL research suggestion seem more sensible?

No, not in the slightest. What makes scientific claims seem sensible is evidence. No amount of waffle can substitute for that.


Edit: And if you're here to tout your own claims rather than discuss the topic of this thread, perhaps you should create your own thread rather than derailing this one.

 

[BurntSynapse]

Can FTL Research Not Be Crackpot Physics?

Pixel42: Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

Anything at all. There's a difference between "X is impossible with current technology" and "X is theoretically impossible" no matter what X is.

We agree on this. The claim such a difference exists is true. In the video, Neyland and I are making truth claims about logical statements, so we should be clear we're not talking about FTL possibility, we're talking about whether (given an assumption it will be theoretically possible in the future), there exist rationally identifiable options to pursue.

For example mobile phones were never theoretically impossible.

True, based on our current theory, but theories have changed. If we define theory as what we believe are the laws of nature at a given time, and the laws of nature do not allow something, then most experts tend to say it is impossible. This is what happened to the first radio experiments by Hughes, who really discovered radio waves, but since the paradigm of the day didn't allow it, wireless waves were explained away as induction when he tried to call experts' attention to it, perhaps setting research back 20 years and Marconi got all the credit.

The technology to make them wasn't available in Maxwell's day, but they don't contradict any of the laws he discovered

True, but I don't believe most historians of science claim revolutions contradict laws, rather that they radically change interpretations of evidence. Continental drift didn't contradict laws of geology, it did replace assumptions on which the cognitive framework of geology was based, however.

Voyager occured to me when I made that comment but I trusted that you would understand what I meant.

Of course, but in the starship community, this distinction is "a thing" often brought up.

...relative velocity of two objects with non-zero rest mass travelling within our four dimensional spacetime universe cannot be greater than c.

So long as four dimensional space-time is a fundamentally accurate description of our universe, that reasoning appears rock solid.

Do we agree the existence of 4D is an assumption? I.e.: That it was inherited from ancient times and passed down within our math and theory, rather than derived from modern physics observations?

Science fiction writers usually get around this by postulating some kind of warp drive that would enable a spaceship to leave the universe in one place and return to it in another after travelling through higher dimensions/wormholes or some such. Such possibilties cannot be ruled out, but they would require new physics as well as new technology.

Other than the lunatic fringe, I think everyone is in absolute agreement on that! I would add my conclusion as an information systems developer something I cannot prove, but believe: new math tools are probably needed. Happy to share my reasoning on that if you're interested.

The upshot is that suspicious areas of research opportunity appear to be hyperbolic geometry of greater than 2 dimensions, including fractional dims. Algorithms and topology seem plausibly relevant, etc. Certainly others I haven't or can't identify.

The laws governing the relative velocities of physical objects are neither unreliable nor widely acknowledged as needing revolutionary change; they have been confirmed by observations.

I agree 100% with this statement, with a minor clarification that it's not really the laws that change in revolutions, its more the way they are interpreted and how they are categorized.

I would also agree that the need for revolutionary change of paradigm is not widely acknowledged, but believe the reason for this is not because the need does not exist, but rather because experts in this sub-specialty, of history and philosophy of scientific revolutions are a tiny faction outside traditional science department, (Humanities) and they publish results to other philosophers of science, rather than the physics community.

 

[steenkh]

I would also agree that the need for revolutionary change of paradigm is not widely acknowledged, but believe the reason for this is not because the need does not exist, but rather because experts in this sub-specialty, of history and philosophy of scientific revolutions are a tiny faction outside traditional science department, (Humanities) and they publish results to other philosophers of science, rather than the physics community.

I do not understand this: revolutionary change of paradigm has always been prompted by evidence, never by a desire for new technology. You seem to nourish a wish for FTL that causes you to think that the laws of nature will oblige you. But there really is no evidence that this will happen.

 

[BurntSynapse]

...Are you seriously trying to suggest that the fact we've now learned this shows that we are not progressing? ..we now know more than they did...we know more now than we used to...etc.

Of course I believe physics as a whole is progressing, but I do agree with Penrose, Smolin, and various groups that in critical areas, the progress has been purchased at the cost of good science, especially when "reality" is rejected at quantum scales, because science rests on this assumption.

Perhaps it would help if you define what you actually mean by "anomaly" and "progress". Because so far the only evidence you've provided is that we know more than we used to, but still not everything. If you don't think increasing our body of knowledge is progress, I'm afraid we may not be speaking the same language.

Defining terms is a best practice, one I appreciate and am grateful you do as well.

I use anomaly in the Kuhnian philosophy of science meaning, to refer to a spectrum of unexpected observations that range from stuff just outside what our theories were looking for, to things tha are generally regarded as impossible. Examples might include elliptical orbits, meteorites, the platypus, the x-ray, the expansion of the universe, etc.

Progress is used in the project management sense, to refer to delivery of results that measurably meet planned and documented acceptance criteria.

Theoretical research results and development on the Quantum Universe Report's 9 long term mysteries in physics, (including GR paradoxes) that were obtained by creative ad hoc maths, crept outside the philosophical scope of science, and were not planned do not count as progress.

Good for you. In science, it is the evidence that we focus on. Do you have any to support your claims about a lack of progress?

These sources I consider reliable:
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn
The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next by Lee Smolin
The Report of the Quantum Universe Committee 2003
The Road to Reality by Stephen Penrose
Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law by Peter Woit

Some others' arguments on this topic like Rupert Sheldrake, I reject as supportive because although they agree with the conclusions, their reasoning appears sufficiently unsound as to be unreliable.

What makes scientific claims seem sensible is evidence. No amount of waffle can substitute for that.[/

I welcome and am grateful for the help you and others are willing to provide to help me identify any waffling you catch.

Edit: And if you're here to tout your own claims rather than discuss the topic of this thread, perhaps you should create your own thread rather than derailing this one.

My goal in being here is to learn. I wanted to find skeptics with more experience than I in identifying and discussing crackpot physics because this is a problem for those of us in the starship community who want to do good, reliable work and avoid doing crackpot physics.

If I can learn why my claims do or do not qualify as crackpot physics, I can either present my ideas better, or go back to skiing and making buttloads of money financially enslaving the population for credit card companies.

 

[BurntSynapse]

Hi Steenkh!

I do not understand this: revolutionary change of paradigm has always been prompted by evidence, never by a desire for new technology.

I think this is a false dichotomy. Heliocentrism was started by the Pope wanting a better calendar (technology), but the Copernican Revolution was not really complete until lots of supporting observational evidence accrued.

Do we agree on this?

You seem to nourish a wish for FTL

This is true.

...that causes you to think that the laws of nature will oblige you.

This seems significantly different than my stated position that we may profitably assume the laws of nature allow future development of FTL.

But there really is no evidence that this will happen.

True, but there is evidence that making plausible assumptions about what nature's laws might allow can be extremely helpful to research. An example used to illustrate this in philosophy of science is Newton's law of gravity, which was postulated rather than derivation from known processes, and was contrary to the laws prohibiting action at a distance. Much of that law seems to have survived, earlier preserved with concepts like the aether, now replaced by local reference frames dragging EM fields in GR, gravitons, photons & the like.

 

[TjW]

Of course I believe physics as a whole is progressing, but I do agree with Penrose, Smolin, and various groups that in critical areas, the progress has been purchased at the cost of good science, especially when "reality" is rejected at quantum scales, because science rests on this assumption.

Nonsense. Reality hasn't been rejected at quantum scales. Intuitivity has.

But that's what science does. It allows us to ignore our intuition, and make progress anyway.

 

[ben m]

I want to remind you about something about dark matter. Dark matter is not "galaxies disagree with GR so we made up something and assumed it was there." Dark matter is a single, coherent hypothesis---"there exists a weakly-interacting particle we haven't seen at colliders"---which (a) was never implausible to begin with, and (b) correctly predicted multiple independent lines of observation. The CMB looks like you expect it to look if this new particle is really there. So do galaxy clusters. So do cluster-cluster correlations. So do colliding clusters. So do galaxy lensing potentials. So do galaxy rotation curves.

This isn't the sort of thing that happens to fudge-factors.

There is no evidence whatsoever that *disagrees* with this hypothesis. Not a thing. ("We haven't found the particle yet" is not evidence that it doesn't exist; there are lots of reasons a real particle might go unseen at colliders.)

I understand the temptation to say "hey, there's one anomaly---maybe that is the peephole through which we'll see more and more!" But this is unjustified. Very often, "an anomaly" gets resolved as a small detail of the working paradigm. Heck, Thomas Kuhn (which you seem to value a lot, although I understand that modern philosophers of science don't particularly) talks about this a lot; he talks about paradigm shifts, and contrasts them with non-paradigm-shifts. Did you notice the non-paradigm shifts?

Beta decay? Could have been the crack in the fundamental idea of energy conservation. It took a long time to prove, but it turned out to be a new weakly-interacting particle---an ordinary discovery. Neutrino oscillations? Could have been a crack in unitarity, or in solar physics, etc.. Nope, turned out to be the ordinary behavior of neutrinos, given their masses---an ordinary discovery within the previous paradigm. Dark matter? All evidence---really all of it---points to ordinary particle physics as the culprit. In fact, the evidence keeps getting better and better. (Even things like the "missing satellites problem", which appeared to be problems with the paradigm, keep turning out to be OK.) That's why the DOE (etc.) spends lots of money on ordinary-particle-physics dark matter searches.

 

[BurntSynapse]

Nonsense. Reality hasn't been rejected at quantum scales.

I took the quote from Penrose, who knows more than I, although I don't think much of his quantum consciousness mind stuff...too much woo for me.

I read your objection as a claim that no one has ever asserted that Schrodinger's cat actually exists in a superpositioned state represented by the dual wave function. Is that correct?

I suppose our difference of opinion could be based on my rejection of the "many worlds interpretation" because I currently view it as incompatible with traditional scientific rationalism's definition of "reality", which we think of a thing which exists regardless of what we're doing.

The claim that reality didn't actually exist for quantum phenomena was argued against most famously by Einstein, with whom I provisionally agree (at some point we have to trust experts). Did he misunderstand?

Criticizing the rejection of objective reality claim, he said: "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it" - a view towards which I lean, but regardless of any personal inclination, his view of reality appears more clearly consistent with the traditional meaning of reality used in philosophy of science.

Will you share your thoughts?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The claim that reality didn't actually exist for quantum phenomena was argued against most famously by Einstein, with whom I provisionally agree (at some point we have to trust experts). Did he misunderstand?

Criticizing the rejection of objective reality claim, he said: "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it" - a view towards which I lean, but regardless of any personal inclination, his view of reality appears more clearly consistent with the traditional meaning of reality used in philosophy of science.

Will you share your thoughts?

I think you should acquaint yourself with the experimental results associated with the EPR paper and Bell's inequality. Start here:

A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen. Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 47 777 (1935).​

J.S. Bell. On the Einstein–Poldolsky–Rosen paradox. Physics 1 195-200 (1964).​

Here's an article, written by experimental physicist Alain Aspect for a general audience, describing experimental results that show reality violates Bell's inequality:

A. Aspect. Bell's inequality test: more ideal than ever. Nature 398 189 (1999).​

If you want to read research papers reporting experimental results that violate Bell's inequality, the physicists here will be happy to provide many more references.