Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[BurntSynapse]

That would be a lie, BurntSynapse.
The Quantum Universe Committee report is a report on existing QM.
You have never cited any "et al" so the is still unanswered:
BurntSynapse: Evidence for "overwhelming consensus that a revolutionary paradigm change is needed"?
Asked 15th October 2013. 8 days and counting.

I read the report as documenting a physics consensus and supporting it with context, including explanations of our current QM understanding.

You disagree? OK.

 

[ben m]

I'll bite. Would you not say that because our two best models of the behavior of the universe, QM and GR -- both if which have overwhelming experimental confirmation, but are not compatible in certain situations, calls for some sort of significant change?
PS: I despise cliché expressions like "revolutionary paradigm change."

a) String theory is able to construct good candidates for GR-plus-QM unified theories. If you take the problem as stated in the 1950s--60s---"QM is incompatible with GR"---then the answer is that this problem is solved. QM is perfectly compatible with GR in string theory. This is one of the reasons string theory is so popular. So, if you want a "significant change" that breaks us out of a QM/GR incompatibility rut ... well, one such change has already happened.

We're not done. String theory may or may not be true. If true, we may or may not be able to identify a true string theory amid an incredibly large list of false ones. If it's not true---with some caveats about what "not true" means in this case, since many superficially non-stringy theories turn out to have stringy properties---well, we'll know what to do next when something that someone is trying out turns out to work. Maybe the Grassmannian is something. Maybe loop quantum gravity is something. We'll see.

But there's nothing about it that obviously smells of epicycles.

 

[Reality Check]

I read the report as documenting a physics consensus and supporting it with context, including explanations of our current QM understanding.

I also read the report as documenting a physics consensus and supporting it with context, including explanations of our current QM understanding. That may be because what is what the report is, BurntSynapse !

What the report is not

• a report on any need for a "revolutionary paradigm change"
• a report about any "overwhelming consensus" for such a change.
• a report that surveys scientists to establish any consensus for anything.
  That QM was a major change in our thinking is common sense and since the majority of scientists know the history of QM (it is taught to undergraduates!) there should be a consensus about this past revolution.

So the question remains:
You have never cited any "et al" so the question is still unanswered:
BurntSynapse: Evidence for "overwhelming consensus that a revolutionary paradigm change is needed"?
Asked 15th October 2013. 8 days and counting.

 

[ben m]

BS, the QU report does not use the word "revolutionary" to mean "revolutionary paradigm change a la Kuhn".

The QU report uses the word "revolutionary" the same way that every other glossy science brochure written at the level of Congressional staffers uses it. It simply means "important and informative." There is a consensus that particle physics is (a) not done yet and (b) expected to be busy and exciting in the upcoming decades. There is not a consensus that revolutionary paradigm change is needed.

May I quote from the report?

Particle physics is in the midst of a great revolution. ...
As the magnitude of the current revolution becomes apparent, the science of particle physics has a clear path forward. The new data and ideas have not only challenged the old ways of thinking, they have also pointed to the steps required to make progress. Many advances are within reach of our current program; others are close at hand. We are extraordinarily fortunate to live in a time when the great questions are yielding a whole new level of understanding.

Not the sort of thing that astronomers were saying before Copernicus, was it?

The chapters that follow articulate how existing and planned particle physics experiments at accelerators and underground laboratories, together with space probes and ground-based telescopes, bring within reach new opportunities for discovery about the fundamental nature of the universe.

That's a long way away from "We're floundering in epicycles! We need to throw it all away and start over!"

The revolutionary concept of string theory is a bold realization of Einstein’s dream of an ultimate explanation for everything from the tiniest quanta of particle physics to the cosmos itself ... String theory brings quantum consistency to physics with an elegant mathematical construct that appears to be unique.

Funny, most people advocating for a physics revolution think that the revolution is needed to discard string theory.

 

[BurntSynapse]

I also read the report as documenting a physics consensus and supporting it with context, including explanations of our current QM understanding. That may be because what is what the report is, BurntSynapse !

What the report is not

• a report on any need for a "revolutionary paradigm change"
• a report about any "overwhelming consensus" for such a change.
• a report that surveys scientists to establish any consensus for anything.
  That QM was a major change in our thinking is common sense and since the majority of scientists know the history of QM (it is taught to undergraduates!) there should be a consensus about this past revolution.

So the question remains:
You have never cited any "et al" so the question is still unanswered:
BurntSynapse: Evidence for "overwhelming consensus that a revolutionary paradigm change is needed"?
Asked 15th October 2013. 8 days and counting.

Fine, I withdraw that description.

 

[Reality Check]

Fine, I withdraw that description.

So what is the answer to: BurntSynapse: Evidence for "overwhelming consensus that a revolutionary paradigm change is needed"?

 

[Perpetual Student]

a) String theory is able to construct good candidates for GR-plus-QM unified theories. If you take the problem as stated in the 1950s--60s---"QM is incompatible with GR"---then the answer is that this problem is solved. QM is perfectly compatible with GR in string theory. This is one of the reasons string theory is so popular. So, if you want a "significant change" that breaks us out of a QM/GR incompatibility rut ... well, one such change has already happened.

We're not done. String theory may or may not be true. If true, we may or may not be able to identify a true string theory amid an incredibly large list of false ones. If it's not true---with some caveats about what "not true" means in this case, since many superficially non-stringy theories turn out to have stringy properties---well, we'll know what to do next when something that someone is trying out turns out to work. Maybe the Grassmannian is something. Maybe loop quantum gravity is something. We'll see.

But there's nothing about it that obviously smells of epicycles.

Thanks for this post; I very much appreciate your insights.
However, I'm not sure that we can say "the problem is solved" until there is experimental support for a string theory.
I'm currently reviewing the (Stanford University) Susskind lectures on string theory and also reading Smolin's book "The Problem with Physics" which seems to be quite critical of the direction of physics research, in general, and string theory research, specifically.
This is difficult stuff and I have no doubt I'll have many questions when I'm done (I sometimes use the Physics Forum, which can be quite helpful for a layman like me).

 

[The Man]

Fine, I withdraw that description.

Fine, does that also withdrawal the first part of this description...?

For example: Top level leadership setting a goal of a revolution, and not relying on subject matter experts to inform their planning, the first resource recommended in the PMBOK.

..as those latter and purported "subject matter experts" were relevant to, and dependent upon, that formerly described "goal"?

 

[lpetrich]

BurntSynapse, how might project-management techniques help us do the following tasks?

• Construct with a finite number of ruler and compass operations:
  • Duplicating the cube
  • Trisecting an angle
  • Squaring the circle
• Make gold with the techniques available to medieval alchemists
• Make a perpetual motion machine that supplies usable energy

Ruler and compass operations: equivalent to arithmetic operations and square roots.

 

[The Man]

Thanks for this post; I very much appreciate your insights.
However, I'm not sure that we can say "the problem is solved" until there is experimental support for a string theory.
I'm currently reviewing the (Stanford University) Susskind lectures on string theory and also reading Smolin's book "The Problem with Physics" which seems to be quite critical of the direction of physics research, in general, and string theory research, in general.
This is difficult stuff and I have no doubt I'll have many questions when I'm done (I sometimes use the Physics Forum, which can be quite helpful for a layman like me).

No, certainly not solved. However, that no more implies the need for a revolution than it does a simple modification of some current model or a more detailed examination (and experimental test, when capable) of some of the many models currently under consideration. Heck, we may find that there is no combination of GR and QFT that is within our understanding to the scales we would like and quite frankly there is no reason that there should be such. It ain't an issue of poor protect management it is that we just don't currently know what's the best project to be (as others have noted), well, managed.

ETA:

That's one of the aspects of crackpot physics. That the entirety of the universe should be understandable to us. Often just intuitively or by the virtue of some particular expertise. Another element (mentioned many times before) is a particular disdain for the direction of current physical (mostly mathematical these days) models that has given us our modern technological society.

 

[ben m]

Thanks for this post; I very much appreciate your insights.
However, I'm not sure that we can say "the problem is solved" until there is experimental support for a string theory.

You're right; we can't say "the problem is solved". But nor can we say (as we tended to do 1950-1990) "because GR and QM are fundamentally incompatible, we're definitely thinking about something incorrectly".

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I agree that "we are more likely to make better resource allocation decisions using the best available information rather than not" (who could possibly disagree!);

Those who believe this is already being done, among others.

OMG!

Those who believe we are already using the best available information surely would agree that "we are more likely to make better resource allocation decisions using the best available information rather than not".

Is 'sophistry' an appropriate word to use here?

I think you have failed to show how - exactly - "the knowledge of history & philosophy of science revolutions" can be incorporated "into our planning & assessments of potentially transformative research" (beyond what's already being done).

Expecting "exactness" during early stages indicates low familiarity with basic principles of project management.

Guilty as charged your honor.

In my defense, your question includes the word "exactly" ("About what, exactly?"), so I thought it would be nice to ask you a question including that word too.

Let me try a different tack: one technique I found to be quite powerful, used in the appropriate circumstances (no, I did not invent it; I saw another PM use it, and copied it), is to ask a really simple question: "When you get to the office on Monday morning, what is it that you expect to do differently (compared with what you have been doing before now)?"

Pretend that you, the proponent of this new way of doing physics, are speaking - separately - to a keen young grad student, a brilliant young-ish tenured professor, a Chair of Physics in a university (Department Head), a Director of a research lab (or institute of theoretical physics), a clever policy wonk in the DOE, Chair of an appropriate Senate committee, a manager in charge of selecting and recommending how a large private foundation allocates grants (e.g. Sloan), {insert your own extras here}. Each of these has read your posts here, and the material referenced; assume each is a really smart individual, with an intense desire to find ways to do their job - broadly defined - better.

What are some of the sorts of things you would hope each would say, in reply to that really simple question?

 

[Roboramma]

I don't think getting my position "straight" is possible for you, nor do I agree with most of (d), which obviously means I'm not advocating (d).

Thank you for adding to the conversation by making your position so clear...

 

[ben m]

Refresher: I claim the Nersessian Model is an example of CSoSR related work that I believe appears have "reached a level of specificity in the last 10 years that it can support well established PM processes for information systems", and that I could be wrong.

Yes, I remember. Explain that. Do you recognize, in that statement, the presence of claims that a reasonable person might want explanations of?

Can you explain the "level of specificity" you think this model has reached?

Can you explain in what way it "can support .. PM processes", and which processes?

Can you explain how you came to the "belief" that your claim is true?

I believe you are waiting for me to ask a question in which, by sheer luck, every premise is 100% true; a question making no mistakes in phrasing, attribution, or emphasis, containing no hypotheticals or analogies, and to which your answer need only be "yes"? It's like the world's worst game of 20 Questions.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I don't think getting my position "straight" is possible for you, ...

Do you think getting your position "straight" with any other JREF member who has engaged in discussion with you so far in this thread (on this topic) is possible?

 

[BurntSynapse]

So what is the answer to: BurntSynapse: Evidence for "overwhelming consensus that a revolutionary paradigm change is needed"?

That I made a mistake.

 

[BurntSynapse]

Yes, I remember.

Now you remember. That doesn't, and won't help...

Explain that.

There is no explanation which can be accepted, IMO and based on lengthy evidence.

Do you recognize, in that statement, the presence of claims that a reasonable person might want explanations of?

Yes, but when the motivation is clearly not to productively gain mutual understanding, it hardly seems to matter.

Can you explain the "level of specificity" you think this model has reached?

Not in any way you'd accept, I'm certain.

Can you explain in what way it "can support .. PM processes", and which processes?

Yes, but it involves at least a semester for a high level. Anything here is easily dismissed as gobbledygook. If you'd like to sign up for a graduate course or professional PMP training, you might learn something useful.

Can you explain how you came to the "belief" that your claim is true?

Looking at evidence you are certain cannot exist or I misinterpret.

I believe you are waiting for me to ask a question in which, by sheer luck, every premise is 100% true; a question making no mistakes in phrasing, attribution, or emphasis, containing no hypotheticals or analogies, and to which your answer need only be "yes"?

No. Definitely not.

 

[BurntSynapse]

Do you think getting your position "straight" with any other JREF member who has engaged in discussion with you so far in this thread (on this topic) is possible?

Possible, but seems as likely as getting Tea Party members to read the last 2 books in Wealth of Nations.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Can you explain in what way it "can support .. PM processes", and which processes?

Yes, but it involves at least a semester for a high level. Anything here is easily dismissed as gobbledygook. If you'd like to sign up for a graduate course or professional PMP training, you might learn something useful.

I thank BurntSynapse for recommending the kind of graduate course I've been teaching, but it looks to me as though BurntSynapse may have more need for that kind of course than ben m.

We certainly expect students who finish that course to be able to explain the PM processes they've been taught.

 

[Reality Check]

That I made a mistake.

At last, BurntSynapse, you actually supply an answer!
Thank you.