Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[catsmate]

We referred to it as the Principal of Dimensional Consistency in my day. It was, as you say, a basic check on calculations using multiple fundamental unit.

 

[BNRT]

We referred to it as the Principal of Dimensional Consistency in my day. It was, as you say, a basic check on calculations using multiple fundamental unit.

Is this the idea that if you put meters divided by seconds into one side of the equation, that you should get meters divided by seconds on the other side?

I wasn't even aware that there was a word for this. I always used it as a check to see if I didn't write any nonsense.

 

[catsmate]

Is this the idea that if you put meters divided by seconds into one side of the equation, that you should get meters divided by seconds on the other side?

I wasn't even aware that there was a word for this. I always used it as a check to see if I didn't write any nonsense.

That's it.

 

[grmcdorman]

Yep, that's it.

ETA: Ninja'd!

 

[The Man]

That's it.

As with anything in science, it can get a bit more complicated than that.

http://web.mit.edu/2.25/www/pdf/DA_unified.pdf

The real problem with the more basic type of dimensional analysis one often does in high school, as it applies to crackpot physics, is that different concepts or applications can have the same or similar dimensions. Take for example Energy, Torque and Mass times Velocity (tangential) squared in rotational mechanics. All have units of Force times Distance but the relation of the Force to the distance differs in each case. For Energy it is Force times the distance that force is applied, so they are collinear along with the motion. With torque it is the force times the offset distance of the radial arm, so they are tangential in that case and the motion rotational. In the last example the force is centripetal so it is collinear with the radius but again it is the motion or velocity that is tangential and rotational in that case.

 

[edd]

As with anything in science, it can get a bit more complicated than that.

http://web.mit.edu/2.25/www/pdf/DA_unified.pdf

The real problem with the more basic type of dimensional analysis one often does in high school, as it applies to crackpot physics, is that different concepts or applications can have the same or similar dimensions. Take for example Energy, Torque and Mass times Velocity (tangential) squared in rotational mechanics. All have units of Force times Distance but the relation of the Force to the distance differs in each case. For Energy it is Force times the distance that force is applied, so they are collinear along with the motion. With torque it is the force times the offset distance of the radial arm, so they are tangential in that case and the motion rotational. In the last example the force is centripetal so it is collinear with the radius but again it is the motion or velocity that is tangential and rotational in that case.

I was never taught that a dimensionally ok equation was correct.

Nothing that has been said about the bonkers nature of BurntSynapse's invoking of dimensional analysis is incorrect in any way I can see.

It is obviously just a check and nothing stronger.

 

[The Man]

I was never taught that a dimensionally ok equation was correct.

Nothing that has been said about the bonkers nature of BurntSynapse's invoking of dimensional analysis is incorrect in any way I can see.

It is obviously just a check and nothing stronger.

Well, that's the thing it is not just a check and I certainly wouldn't have expected you to be "taught that a dimensionally ok equation was correct". Besides checking your work it can help to simplify relations by reducing them to just the independent dimensions. The question then is can we learn anything new from such simplification and such analysis. The problem is that to do the analysis correctly you already have to pretty much know what is going on. I've seen assertions from 'you can't learn anything new from it', to 'it might just point you in a more interesting direction' (from the simplification). To the absolutely bat crap other end assertion of some poster on another thread in this section here that amounted to 'Since energy density reduces to Force over Distance squared it is a pressure and that is the pressure of everything expanding at the speed of light.'

Again the primary points being that it's not just a check but it is also not a window into some great unknown discovery as you already have to know the details of the application to use it correctly. The risks being oversimplification where you leave out some independent dimension or under simplification where you consider some derived dimension as an independent one. The former being the worse as that will give you an incorrect relation but the latter ain't that great either. Particularly if simplification (and perhaps gaining some new insight from that simplification) is your goal.

 

[catsmate]

I was never taught that a dimensionally ok equation was correct.

Nothing that has been said about the bonkers nature of BurntSynapse's invoking of dimensional analysis is incorrect in any way I can see.

It is obviously just a check and nothing stronger.

Exactly. DC is just a base level check, if the units (m, s, kg, rad, A, K et cetera) don't match then there is a problem, if not there still may be errors.

 

[Cuddles]

Exactly. DC is just a base level check, if the units (m, s, kg, rad, A, K et cetera) don't match then there is a problem, if not there still may be errors.

The technical term is "necessary, but not sufficient". It's impossible to have a correct equation where the units don't match, but merely having the units match is not enough to prove an equation is correct.

 

[TjW]

AKA "sanity check".

 

[catsmate]

The technical term is "necessary, but not sufficient". It's impossible to have a correct equation where the units don't match, but merely having the units match is not enough to prove an equation is correct.

Exactly. As in chemistry where you can write a perfectly logical reaction equation that's complete nonsense.

 

[BurntSynapse]

BurntSynapse's characterization of those observations as "naive"... BurntSynapse didn't realize...BurntSynapse's hilarious belief...BurntSynapse access to better underworld sources...BurntSynapse's [other] hilarious belief

Interpreting actual claims in a way which fits a crackpot model in an is efficient and rewarding if we enjoy investing ourselves in a "lots of crackpot physics" worldview and discussions.

PS - Thanks for the Anubis correction, I will change my presentations and happily credit you for correcting my error.

 

[The Man]

Interpreting actual claims in a way which fits a crackpot model in an is efficient and rewarding if we enjoy investing ourselves in a "lots of crackpot physics" worldview and discussions.

PS - Thanks for the Anubis correction, I will change my presentations and happily credit you for correcting my error.

Unfortunately many do apparently enjoy investing themselves in ""lots of crackpot physics" worldview and discussions". As others don't, I will ask you again...

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"?

and digging deeper...

It seems to me form the start here he has asserted that some experts in the field of the history and philosophy of science aren't being consulted or involved in planning as much as he or they would like.

That's pretty close, however when the last policy studies at NSF were being conducted around TR, experts like Nersessian provided input, but it appears their recommendations may have been overly technical and poorly understood. This input seems to have been watered down over time, which would be expected.

The last question was about what I'd do, and another thing which seems like a good idea would be to have several such experts actually on the committee itself.

How far into this Anubial pit would one need to dig to get any closer to a straight answer? What experts, in what fields, with what input and to what "goal", with all specificity possible, please? Without (and perhaps with) that it still come down to some people "aren't being consulted or involved in planning as much as he or they would like."

 

[BurntSynapse]

Unfortunately many do apparently enjoy investing themselves in ""lots of crackpot physics" worldview and discussions".

Appearance depends overwhelmingly on our focus and perspective.

If there's any objective metric to suggest that group represents a statistically significant percentage of the general population, or that they produce a level of harm for which it would be rational to invest ourselves in preventing, I'd be interested to know what it was, especially given the classic demarcation problem in philosophy of science.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

PS - Thanks for the Anubis correction, I will change my presentations and happily credit you for correcting my error.

What you said about Anubis was more accurate than what you've said about quaternions, risk in mathematics, and "undocumented assumptions". With Anubis, you were off by only 5000 years. When you say physicists' use of math involves undocumented assumptions, you're as wrong as it's possible to be.

If there's any objective metric to suggest that group represents a statistically significant percentage of the general population, or that they produce a level of harm for which it would be rational to invest ourselves in preventing, I'd be interested to know what it was, especially given the classic demarcation problem in philosophy of science.

Only an insignificant percentage of the general population believes faster-than-light travel will be achieved by applying the principles of project management.

Your project is less likely to harm the reputation of project managers than to confirm the reputation they already enjoy among the technical population. Although it may not be rational to invest much effort toward preventing that confirmation, silence often involves more effort than snickering.

 

[BurntSynapse]

When you say physicists' use of math involves undocumented assumptions, you're as wrong as it's possible to be.

Finding out where I'm wrong is an important priority for me and I think: for all good researchers. A single omission from a single paper or calculation proves the claim that such omissions occur. Whereas the assertion no such omissions exist presents significant problems to defend.

For my claim to be invalidated however, it would seem necessary to demonstrate how the much stronger and well-established claims of Godel, Kitcher, and standard undergraduate philosophy of science pedagogy are wrong.

These hold not only that such lack of documentation occurs in specific, easily documented cases (any math by any physicist, for example), but the infinite regress of complete documentation (for assump/aux hyp) makes such omission unavoidable and universal.

The humor of Sagan's recipe for an apple pie relies on a realization that our conceptualizations are dependent on others virtually ad infinitum.

...silence often involves more effort than snickering.

For some this becomes easier with age & maturity, as does supporting a rational dialectic.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

When you say physicists' use of math involves undocumented assumptions, you're as wrong as it's possible to be.

Finding out where I'm wrong is an important priority for me and I think: for all good researchers. A single omission from a single paper or calculation proves the claim that such omissions occur. Whereas the assertion no such omissions exist presents significant problems to defend.

Physicists don't bother to cite all the math they use. They know their audience is thoroughly familiar (from long practice) with most of the math used in their papers, and can consult the vast mathematical literature for any math with which they are not familiar.

The problem here arises because you are unfamiliar with both mathematics and physics. The physicists aren't writing for project managers, so they use math you don't know. You assume their use of math you don't know creates an undocumented assumption.

Not so. The mathematical assumptions are extremely well documented within the mathematical literature. Your ignorance of mathematics, physics, and their literature does not create an undocumented assumption.

For my claim to be invalidated however, it would seem necessary to demonstrate how the much stronger and well-established claims of Godel, Kitcher, and standard undergraduate philosophy of science pedagogy are wrong.

False.

Neither Gödel (note spelling), Kitcher, nor the standard courses on philosophy of science and mathematics that I took as an undergraduate make any claims that contradict my point.

On the other hand, standard undergraduate courses on the philosophy of mathematics and science do contradict your claim that physicists' use of (for example) Euclidean geometry creates an undocumented assumption. The professors who teach those courses are aware of Euclid's axioms, even if you are not. They are also aware of the enormous effort that has gone into documenting the foundational assumptions made by logicians and mathematicians.

Your ignorance of that documentation does not make it go away.

These hold not only that such lack of documentation occurs in specific, easily documented cases (any math by any physicist, for example), but the infinite regress of complete documentation (for assump/aux hyp) makes such omission unavoidable and universal.

Have you sunk to the level of interpreting Gödel's incompleteness theorems to mean assumptions can't even be documented?

Several of us are quite familiar with the foundations of logic and mathematics, and are capable of discussing these issues without resort to bafflegab. If you truly wish to find out where you're wrong, we can help you.

First, however, you will have to state your specific position clearly. Here are some hints:

• Straw-man arguments (such as accusing others of saying research papers contain no implicit assumptions) will be seen for what they are.
• Name-dropping ("Godel", Kitcher) is no substitute for argument.
• Moving goal posts (such as pretending your talk of "undocumented assumptions" as a major risk factor for project management had referred to fundamentally unsolvable deep results in the philosophy of mathematics) will be detected by critical readers.

 

[steenkh]

These hold not only that such lack of documentation occurs in specific, easily documented cases (any math by any physicist, for example) [...]

If it is that simple, you could perhaps give one of those specific examples that are easily documented? Take any math of any physicist and let us see how it works!

 

[dafydd]

If it is that simple, you could perhaps give one of those specific examples that are easily documented? Take any math of any physicist and let us see how it works!

I fear that you are being too optimistic.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by BurntSynapse
Finding out where I'm wrong is an important priority for me and I think: for all good researchers. A single omission from a single paper or calculation proves the claim that such omissions occur. Whereas the assertion no such omissions exist presents significant problems to defend.
For my claim to be invalidated however, it would seem necessary to demonstrate how the much stronger and well-established claims of Godel, Kitcher, and standard undergraduate philosophy of science pedagogy are wrong.

Can you provide any example of where the "claims" of Gödel have resulted in a single omission from any paper involving physics research? Providing one example might help towards reviving your hopelessly lost credibility.