Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[godless dave]

The author spelled "lose" as "loose". I think it's safe to disregard the "paper" for that alone.

 

[lpetrich]

The Higgs particle or some imitation of it is necessary for the Standard Model, because without it, every SM particle would be massless. That's a consequence of SU(2)*U(1) electroweak symmetry being unbroken. It is broken by the Higgs particle having a nonzero Vacuum Expectation Value, and that nonzero VEV gives nearly all the other SM particles their masses.

This means that (interaction strength with the Higgs particle) ~ (particle mass) / (Higgs VEV)

That hypothesis can be tested by observing the Higgs particle's decay rates, and so far, observations agree with the SM, though the error bars are rather large.

Thanx, Metacristi, for finding AU's recent book "The Higgs Fake". From the book description,

1. the so-called standard model has grown unbelievably complicated,
2. none of the great riddles of physics that have persisted for a century have been solved,
3. history suggests that the current model is a dead end,
4. with their ever-more intricate experimental techniques, particle physicists are fooling themselves with alleged results,
5. scientific convictions in the community are established by blind faith in expert opinions, group-think and parroting, and
6. the data analysis in its complexity cannot be overseen by anybody.

???

 

[BurntSynapse]

" ... because historical analysis says Y has the properties identified by historians of science as distinguishing of revolutions".

This is a pretty dumb idea for several reasons. First, the idea that you can identify those "properties" reliably without the benefit of hindsight.

This objection seems to call into question the process of taking specific historical examples and generalizing principles from them, or perhaps that applying general principles to planned future activity is dumb and/or unreliable.

Perhaps you object to both generalization and forward application?

 

[ben m]

This objection seems to call into question the process of taking specific historical examples and generalizing principles from them, or perhaps that applying general principles to planned future activity is dumb and/or unreliable.

Perhaps you object to both generalization and forward application?

First: I can object to your particular attempts at generalization without objecting to generalization generally, right? Remember, my position is that we've already learned useful lessons from past science revolutions, and that these are already incorporated into what we're doing today. The useful generalizations from past revolutions are things like "Construct symmetries and try to break them." "Quantize one more time." "Ask what theory-details (coordinates, gauges, backgrounds) the observables could be independent of." My position is that you are promoting useless generalizations rather than useful ones.

Moreover, you've adopted a tendentious and (I believe) inappropriate list of things to generalize from. You have assumed that what we need is a Kuhn-style incommensurability-flopping revolution, so you are choosing to look at past Kuhn-style revolutions to use as your model. Please note that lots of science progress takes the form of non-Kuhn-like discoveries. We didn't discover quarks because of a mind-blowing paradigm shift, we discovered quarks because of a 30-year period where experimentalists kept plugging away at building beter proton accelerators and tracking detectors. (Does dark matter need "forward application" of the lessons of Einstein, or does it need "forward application" of the lessons of quarks? They're different lessons.) We didn't discover the nature of mass because of a mind-blowing paradigm shift, we discovered the nature of mass because theorists got so good at mapping out electroweak symmetry breaking, they were able to motivate a really big collider project. (Does dark energy need "forward application" of the lessons of Copernicus, or does it need "forward applications" of the lessons of the Higgs boson, namely that ordinary QFTs work really well given enough experimental input?) We didn't discover string theory by throwing out everything that preceded it; we discovered string theory by getting gradually better and better at some difficult math that emerged from simpler QFTs.

 

[BurntSynapse]

Revolution in the Understanding of Space-Time: A Project by Buck Field
Now renounce that "faith" !

Where is "faith" asserted in the paper?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

As you are still around, BurntSynapse, I'm wondering if you'd be kind enough to have a go at answering this question of mine, from a page or so ago:

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?

You see, if your ideas are ever to be put into practice, someone, somewhere has to take action, to start doing something different than what they've done before. My question is an honest attempt to get to you give a concrete example of just that: who - current role/job description/etc - would do what differently?

Not a complete list of everyone who would do things differently, just a single example, of one (generic) person. Not a complete list of everything they'd likely end up doing differently, just a single example.

So how about it?

 

[BurntSynapse]

First: I can object to your particular attempts at generalization without objecting to generalization generally, right?

Certainly, with the understanding that the only generalization I claim would be categorizing the physics research portfolio as an information system amenable to application of standard processes.

Remember, my position is that we've already learned useful lessons from past science revolutions, and that these are already incorporated into what we're doing today.

This statement is true and I no problem agreeing with and endorsing it.

Does the incorporation of some lessons learned tell us anything about whether there exist unincorporated lessons?

There exists a cognitive flaw that seems related to your argument here, and perhaps I'm misunderstanding your purpose in putting forward a reminder you call "your position" when it is a position we share.

The flaw was most famously exposed (AFAIK) in the Wason Selection Task experiment.

The useful generalizations from past revolutions are things like "Construct symmetries and try to break them." "Quantize one more time." "Ask what theory-details (coordinates, gauges, backgrounds) the observables could be independent of."

These seem to derive from narrow mathematical physics domains to me, but I do realize principles of revolutions are largely dependent on the scope on which we focus. Your focus appears highly specialized.

An example of a generalization I advocate is the Copernican Principle. It applies to and defines what we are supposed to regard as good science, but is exceptionally pronounced in heliocentric and Darwinian revolutions for which your examples seem less immediately applicable, at least to me.

If the generalizations you or anyone propose are shown to be similarly generally accepted by experts in HPS of scientific revolutions, I'm happy to accept them.

My position is that you are promoting useless generalizations rather than useful ones.

Perhaps there exist some instances of this. It seems unlikely all would be, unless I'm a perfectly the inverse of omniscient in this regard, which seems unlikely

You seem to understand some of my opinions well, there also seem misconceptions which make discussion difficult, IMO as in this claim below:

You have assumed that what we need is a Kuhn-style incommensurability-flopping revolution,

Not knowing what that is, I'm pretty sure I don't assume it, or if I do, it would have to be unconsciously.

...so you are choosing to look at past Kuhn-style revolutions to use as your model.

I see "Kuhn-style" as an explanatory model of a cognitive change, like the lens through which we focus on a revolution rather than the revolution itself, so to me, this characterization seems to reflect a misunderstanding of my view.

Please note that lots of science progress takes the form of non-Kuhn-like discoveries.

This appears to be another material conditional error (Wason) as well as a misunderstanding of my position. Like you, Kuhn, and many other experts in HPS, I regard non-revolutionary progress as the norm. You call this "lots of science progress", and I agree but the style of presentation here suggests we don't agree on this.

Does dark matter need "forward application" of the lessons of Einstein, or does it need "forward application" of the lessons of quarks? They're different lessons.

I'm uncertain what this is meant to get at. I'd say one can argue either side of the "need" for application of any lessons learned, including those of Einstein or quarks. Earlier, I'd argued that from a perspective insensitive to cost and time, navigation systems on a ship can be said to provide no greater benefit in terms of whether a ship is ultimately in a particular port, so "need" strikes me as overly subjective.

If I generally understand the question, (big assumption) I'd answer no, with the advisory that the question seems far more specialized than the overall administrative policy recommendations to which my major claims are directed.

 

[Reality Check]

Where is "faith" asserted in the paper?

Lots of unsupported and ignorant assertions in that essay from a random Internet guy, i.e., "faith", BurntSynapse:

• The general ignorance about the research into the nature of time.
• That some unspecified "time revolution" is needed.
• The "faith" that a lot of word salad without meaning actually means something .
  The "Definition of the Goal" section is the main culprit here - it looks like a regurgitation from a project management book, not an actual coherent plan leading to the goal.
• The "faith" that mentioning fairly irrelevant past scientific revolutions means that another scientific revolution is needed.
• The ignorance starts with the first sentence "In the beginning, there was time.".
  Wrong: The standard cosmological model starts with time already there. Theories about the universe before the big bang generally keep time, e.g. brane collisions happen in an eternal universe.

 

[BurntSynapse]

Lots of unsupported and ignorant assertions in that essay from a random Internet guy, i.e., "faith", BurntSynapse:

• The general ignorance about the research into the nature of time.
• That some unspecified "time revolution" is needed.
• The "faith" that a lot of word salad without meaning actually means something .
  The "Definition of the Goal" section is the main culprit here - it looks like a regurgitation from a project management book, not an actual coherent plan leading to the goal.
• The "faith" that mentioning fairly irrelevant past scientific revolutions means that another scientific revolution is needed.
• The ignorance starts with the first sentence "In the beginning, there was time.".
  Wrong: The standard cosmological model starts with time already there. Theories about the universe before the big bang generally keep time, e.g. brane collisions happen in an eternal universe.

Apology accepted.

 

[Reality Check]

Apology accepted.

What apology, BurntSynapse ?
You were foolish enough to cite an obvious crank on the Internet. That crank was writing based on their ignorance about science with a "faith" that

• they knew about science
• science was broken
• and there was some unspecified "time revolution" that would fix science.

I pointed out the woo that this crank was peddling.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Revolution in the Understanding of Space-Time: A Project by Buck Field
Now renounce that "faith" !

Where is "faith" asserted in the paper?

That question was answered in post #2008.

On the other hand, words like "assert" and "faith" may mean something different in bafflegab than in English.

And it wouldn't surprise me if BurntSynapse believes his best argument is one that would insist the author of Psalms 23 (for example) wasn't asserting his faith in a higher power, just because the words "assert" and "faith" don't actually appear within English translations.

After scoring 40 points on the crackpot index for rules 23 and 26, risking another 7 points for rules 3 and 5 is unlikely to trouble him.

As you are still around, BurntSynapse, I'm wondering if you'd be kind enough to have a go at answering this question of mine, from a page or so ago:


You see, if your ideas are ever to be put into practice, someone, somewhere has to take action, to start doing something different than what they've done before. My question is an honest attempt to get to you give a concrete example of just that: who - current role/job description/etc - would do what differently?

If BurntSynapse continues to dodge that basic question, we'll infer his answer from what he has said and written elsewhere.

 

[The Man]

If BurntSynapse continues to dodge that basic question, we'll infer his answer from what he has said and written elsewhere.

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.

 

[ben m]

Certainly, with the understanding that the only generalization I claim would be categorizing the physics research portfolio as an information system amenable to application of standard processes.

I can detect no meaningful distinctions in that statement.

Sure, "the physics research portfolio" involves hiring and firing people, carrying out large purchasing and construction projects, etc. etc. etc. These are obviously management-related. Sure, there's "information" in there, so let's call it an "information system". So what?

The part of physics research where researchers decide how to follow up on their research is traditionally called "science", not "an information system". Scientific discovery, you may have noticed, is widely recognized to differ from (say) engineering design, or the operation of a firm, or the following of a recipe.

You want to call it an "information system"---why? Perhaps to obscure the differences between science and engineering design.

Because you think "information systems" are obviously amenable to "standard processes"---what makes you think that? Perhaps this conventional wisdom (that "information systems are amenable to standard processes") was constructed by people who were thinking of engineering-like information systems, not science-like information systems.

Does the incorporation of some lessons learned tell us anything about whether there exist unincorporated lessons?

Why discuss it in the abstract like that? Let's talk particulars. You claim to have uncovered particular "unincorporated lessons" in the cog-sci/history literature. I think the lessons you think you uncovered are either (a) useless or (b) already long-since in use, although perhaps not described in the terms you prefer.

There exists a cognitive flaw that seems related to your argument here, and perhaps I'm misunderstanding your purpose in putting forward a reminder you call "your position" when it is a position we share.

The flaw was most famously exposed (AFAIK) in the Wason Selection Task experiment.

Rather than accusing me of logic errors (BTW, I got the Wason task correct on the first try, years ago.) please remember that I'm still trying to piece together your position from fragmentary facts that you let dribble out. You DO accept that scientists have learned some things from past revolutions? Great. That's news to me. Thanks for saying so.

These seem to derive from narrow mathematical physics domains to me, but I do realize principles of revolutions are largely dependent on the scope on which we focus. Your focus appears highly specialized.

First: Nope, those are really about as general as we know. "ask what's independent" is an excellent shorthand for the key insights behind SR, GR, QM, and gauge theory, for example. Second: the "scope" you want to focus on may not be possible to focus on.

An example of a generalization I advocate is the Copernican Principle. It applies to and defines what we are supposed to regard as good science, but is exceptionally pronounced in heliocentric and Darwinian revolutions for which your examples seem less immediately applicable, at least to me.

First: Do you think it's important to advocate the Copernican Principle? Do you think physicists are currently failing to to appreciate the Copernican Principle in some way, and that if they appreciated it more (thanks, perhaps, to your advocacy) it could shepherd the next revolution? I don't know, I'm asking you.

Second: I thought we were looking for *useful* generalizations, not fun ways for history-of-science Ph.D.s to categorize historical knowledge. It's crazy (and utterly unsupported by HPS) to imagine that awareness of the "Copernican principle" had anything whatsoever to do with, or could have helped at all with, the Darwinian revolution. The "Copernician principle" is an after-the-fact impact statement; it's 100%-pure pure hindsight. Did you think otherwise?

If the generalizations you or anyone propose are shown to be similarly generally accepted by experts in HPS of scientific revolutions, I'm happy to accept them.

Oh, right, experts in the HPS of scientific revolutions. Say, BS, you're the project-management expert. Can you show me some QA data that justifies putting "experts in HPS of scientific revolutions" in charge of, um, anything at all? Is there any endeavor X in which "history and philosophy of X" academics are on the org chart for planning and managing X?

Perhaps there exist some instances of this. It seems unlikely all would be, unless I'm a perfectly the inverse of omniscient in this regard, which seems unlikely

If you woke up this morning and had the idea "Hey, whoa, someone should figure out if maybe the strong, electromagnetic, and weak forces are different aspects of the same thing"---that is not the opposite of omniscience, but because people have been working on that since the 1970s, it's still utterly useless as an item of advice in 2013. You seem to be claiming that because you have multiple ideas it is unlikely that all of them are useless. Quite the opposite is true. I'm supposed to be an expert in a subfield of physics, but 99% of my ideas in my own specialty are useless or unoriginal in some way, because there are a lot of smart people out there and there have been for a long time. I consider it my great fortune if the number is 99% and not 100%, and if I can convince people that that's true, because 100%-uselessness seems to be the default.

"Use the Copernican principle" is useless for its unoriginality. "Use process vs. object concepts" is useless for a different reason. Do you have something non-useless that you want to convince us is non-useless?

If I generally understand the question, (big assumption) I'd answer no, with the advisory that the question seems far more specialized than the overall administrative policy recommendations to which my major claims are directed.

Wait a second. Overall administrative policy recommendations? Are you going to tell us what they are?

 

[BurntSynapse]

If BurntSynapse continues to dodge that basic question, we'll infer his answer from what he has said and written elsewhere.

This has been answered many times, and is even quoted by other critics here.

A specific example of what I would do differently, (given the opportunity) would be to modify the NSF definition of transformative research to better reflect the understanding of experts from relevant HPS disciplines focused on it.

 

[BurntSynapse]

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.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Here is NSF's current definition of transformation research:

Transformative research involves ideas, discoveries, or tools that radically change our understanding of an important existing scientific or engineering concept or educational practice or leads to the creation of a new paradigm or field of science, engineering, or education. Such research challenges current understanding or provides pathways to new frontiers.

BurntSynapse has identified this definition as one of the major obstacles standing in the way of faster-than-light travel:

A specific example of what I would do differently, (given the opportunity) would be to modify the NSF definition of transformative research to better reflect the understanding of experts from relevant HPS disciplines focused on it.

So BurntSynapse's specific plan to achieve faster-than-light travel is to fiddle with the wording of a definition.

Who could argue with that?

BurntSynapse's bold plan might become controversial once he proposes specific changes to the definition, but he hasn't done that.

 

[BurntSynapse]

Sure, "the physics research portfolio" involves hiring and firing people, carrying out large purchasing and construction projects, etc. etc. etc.

Normally, we would not relate "facilitating processes" that are part of "organizational assets" to a portfolio unless there was some reason, such as a portfolio change required greater hiring. There is any range of "involvement", but we normally only focus on these links when they show significant influence on success, which doesn't seem to be the case here.

These are obviously management-related. Sure, there's "information" in there, so let's call it an "information system". So what?

This description seems askew from the meaning of "information system" I intend, i.e.: a set of structured processes to convert data into information.

The part of physics research where researchers decide how to follow up on their research is traditionally called "science"...

I consider the traditional use of science to cover a vastly greater area, and I think we agree on that.

not "an information system".

I'm completely baffled by this criticism. You're arguing (again) in support of my position as if its a refutation. If a person claims to have made a new X, then obviously that X is not the traditional X. I claim to have made a new generalization, so obviously that generalization is not a traditional one.

If you want to argue the "information system" categorization is counterproductive, unwise, or otherwise sufficiently defective as to be a bad idea, that seems sensible. It is the criticism I most expected of that hypothesis.

You want to call it an "information system"---why?

Mainly because "decision support system" fell out of general use and evolved into being used in a narrower, software tool sense.

Because you think "information systems" are obviously amenable to "standard processes"---what makes you think that?

I've been creating information systems for 30 years, much of that time using PMI standards which appear to have worked well for lots of people on information system development projects all over the world.

Perhaps this conventional wisdom (that "information systems are amenable to standard processes") was constructed by people who were thinking of engineering-like information systems, not science-like information systems.

Sure...that seems reasonable. The standard PMI processes trace back to early naval shipbuilding.

Let's talk particulars. You claim to have uncovered particular "unincorporated lessons" in the cog-sci/history literature. I think the lessons you think you uncovered are either (a) useless or (b) already long-since in use, although perhaps not described in the terms you prefer.

I don't think I uncovered any such lessons, but if you have particulars, let's talk about them.

...those are really about as general as we know. "ask what's independent" is an excellent shorthand for the key insights behind SR, GR, QM, and gauge theory, for example.

I doubt you intend to argue that excellent techniques relating to SR, GR, QM, and gauge theory are more general than cognitive science principles which apply not only to all science, but many other area of human activity as well, so perhaps I didn't make that scope clear.

Second: the "scope" you want to focus on may not be possible to focus on.

That seems always a possibility for any topic, I think we agree.

First: Do you think it's important to advocate the Copernican Principle?

Sometimes it seems like a good idea.

Do you think physicists are currently failing to to appreciate the Copernican Principle in some way,

Yes, based on the treatment of fundamentals like matter, space, force, etc., within the physic literature. Reviewing that literature, there appears little awareness that these fundamentals are based on naive observation. There seems no acknowledgment that our dimensional framework originated with people who followed Anubis, the jackal-headed god of the underworld 10k years ago. The idea that they got most of the fundamental structures of reality correct without even trying seems like it would strike most as a highly implausible, and AFAICT this constitutes an undocumented assumption. Undocumented assumptions are the top risk to projects, depending on how one measures them.

and that if they appreciated it more (thanks, perhaps, to your advocacy) it could shepherd the next revolution?

If my advocacy had such a disproportionate and unlikely influence, I hope I would accept any such thanks that were offered gracefully.

Nevertheless, lacking sufficient skepticism is endemic to humans. Risk management uses different terms because of its business orientation, but biased assumptions (esp. undocumented ones) are a historical risk factor to project success.

Second: I thought we were looking for *useful* generalizations, not fun ways for history-of-science Ph.D.s to categorize historical knowledge.

Members of the philosophy of science in practice community seem to think it is fun to create useful generalizations from historical knowledge, and to see them used.

The "Copernician principle" is an after-the-fact impact statement; it's 100%-pure pure hindsight. Did you think otherwise?

I think calling historical analysis 100%-pure pure hindsight isn't exactly wrong, but it doesn't seem to offer us much either. I think our question should be whether historical analysis offers potential value in the form of enabling us to learn from past mistakes and success.

It's crazy (and utterly unsupported by HPS) to imagine that awareness of the "Copernican principle" had anything whatsoever to do with, or could have helped at all with, the Darwinian revolution.

I don't think we can know whether the Copernican Principle had any influence on the Darwinian revolution, but the assertion that it's crazy to think that it could have helped at all seems to overstate the reasonable lack of certainty we should maintain. The overstatement strikes me as equivalent to saying there exists no possible benefit in development of a scientific theory by using a known best practice of science. That seems unlikely to me.

...useless. ...99% of my ideas in my own specialty are useless or unoriginal

I don't think we should equate originality with usefulness, nor uselessness with unoriginality.

"Use the Copernican principle" is useless for its unoriginality.

This statement seems to be applying the rule: "If idea X is unoriginal, idea X is useless." which I don't think you mean to imply. Can you clarify?

 

[Reality Check]

...I've been creating information systems for 30 years, ...

One gigantic "I have a hammer and so everything is a nail" post, BurntSynapse !

That hammer, BurntSynapse , (information systems) is not science. Science contains an information system (scientific literature). Science is not an information system.

 

[ben m]

I'm completely baffled by this criticism. You're arguing (again) in support of my position as if its a refutation. If a person claims to have made a new X, then obviously that X is not the traditional X. I claim to have made a new generalization, so obviously that generalization is not a traditional one.

I thought you were implying that "standard management processes" should apply to physics* because physics "is an information system". Looking back, I guess I inferred this from your sudden use of the (otherwise uninformative to me) "information system" designation. But ...

If you want to argue the "information system" categorization is counterproductive, unwise, or otherwise sufficiently defective as to be a bad idea, that seems sensible. It is the criticism I most expected of that hypothesis.

... so let's just go with that.

I don't think I uncovered any such lessons, but if you have particulars, let's talk about them.

You haven't found lessons for contemporary physics management in the cog-sci-history-of-revolutions literature? What? What happened to "object vs. process concepts", for example, which you presented earlier as a particular principle, common to past revolutions, uncovered by HPS experts, which you wanted to apply to management?

If your reading of the HPS/cog-sci literature has *not actually* uncovered any "lessons" from past revolutions which could be applied to current research management ... well, that makes this whole discussion sort of moot. In that case, you're not making a proposal for how to manage physics differently. Maybe you're making a proposal to manage a search for proposals for how to manage physics differently.

I doubt you intend to argue that excellent techniques relating to SR, GR, QM, and gauge theory are more general than cognitive science principles which apply not only to all science, but many other area of human activity as well, so perhaps I didn't make that scope clear.

If you increase the scope back to "aspects of human cognition in general", you find yourself back in the realm of "things scientists are doing already prior to your proposed management input". Like, we don't need a manager to tell us that we learn best when newly-encoded data are reinforced several times at increasing intervals. We don't need a manager to tell us to share knowledge and ask questions.

Meanwhile, you are proposing something specific---or so I'm told, I forget when---which uses something learned from history-of-science and has some when used to manage physics research. Who talks generalities when there's a specific case to look at?

Yes, based on the treatment of fundamentals like matter, space, force, etc., within the physic literature. Reviewing that literature, there appears little awareness that these fundamentals are based on naive observation. There seems no acknowledgment that our dimensional framework originated with people who followed Anubis, the jackal-headed god of the underworld 10k years ago.

The idea that they got most of the fundamental structures of reality correct without even trying seems like it would strike most as a highly implausible,

Here's your first problem. Earlier in this very post you appear to tell us that you have not yet located the key revolution-management-lessons that will emerge from the study of revolutions. I.e., you don't yet have the specific cognition-of-revolutions-informed content for your physics management plan. But here? Here you've already identified a physics topic that you want that management plan to emphasize. I.e., you're not doing this:

Step 1: Synthesize cog-sci/history-of-science literature.
Step 2: Using (1), identify specific ideas that could be used for management.
Step 3: Deploy management, using ideas from (2.)
Step 4: Physicists identify new emphases, after cognitive-science prompts from (3)

Instead, you appear to have done this.

Step 4: Physicists need to study dimensions and spacetime so I can have starships.
Step 3: Someone needs to tell them to study dimensions and spacetime.
Step 2: Some manager needs a credible, non-crackpot reason to tell physicists what to study.
Step 1: Mine through humanities literature and construct an excuse to get to (2).

Here is your second problem. I asked about the Copernican principle. The Copernican principle is not "whoa, rethink stuff and get outside the box, dude". The Copernican principle is "Mankind is not in a special position in the Universe". Do you think that, in the study of spacetime dimensions, the actual Copernican Principle---not the magic think-outside-the-box cure-all principle---has not been taken into account? Do you think that modern-day physicists are treating spacetime dimensions as though mankind were in a special position somehow? Because that's all you get by applying the Copernican Principle.

Here is your third problem. Oy. Oy ve. "Within the physics literature", really? Sorry, BS, perhaps this is where the manager is supposed to allow the domain-expert to do the actual in-domain job.

To be blunt, you have no clue what you're talking about---what has been tried, what has not been tried, what worked and what didn't. In the era of GR, the Poincare group, holography, AdS/CFT, fiber bundles, spin foams, digital physics, entropic gravity, etc. etc. etc., you (a non-expert) looked at "the literature" and concluded regretfully that we had "little awareness" that space, time, and dimension might be counterintuitive, and are therefore not "even trying". You're wrong, BS. Flat wrong. What the heck did you read? How did you convince yourself that you understood it?

Do we need a revolution in arithmetic? 1+1=2 was discovered in the Stone Age. If you were a crackpot, and if you didn't understand the extremely specialized Frege/Whitehead/Russell-era literature, you might mistakenly claim that 1+1=2 had never been examined critically. I believe this is what you have done with "spacetime" and "dimensionality"---you can't tell the difference between your own ignorance and general ignorance, so you assume that ignorance is general.

I think calling historical analysis 100%-pure pure hindsight isn't exactly wrong, but it doesn't seem to offer us much either. I think our question should be whether historical analysis offers potential value in the form of enabling us to learn from past mistakes and success.

My question is whether your vision of historical analysis offers potential value. Insofar as you've attempted to provide evidence, I am increasingly convinced it does not.

I don't think we should equate originality with usefulness, nor uselessness with unoriginality.

This statement seems to be applying the rule: "If idea X is unoriginal, idea X is useless." which I don't think you mean to imply. Can you clarify?

You are proposing to change something (something still TBN, as far as I can tell). That suggests, broadly, that you have to be proposing something new, or new-ish, or that you have new reasons to revive something neglected. New new new.

The Copernican principle is already well-known and is applied to everything anyone can think of. If you tell me to apply it again, you have zero effect on my actions (because I've already applied it), so telling me was "useless" in a reasonable sense.

A fake example from your field. A PM is paging through an management-theory textbook and has a sudden thought: "Science agencies should provide funds for physicists to travel and share ideas." He picks up the red telephone that connects him to Ernie Moniz's desk. "Travel funding? Yeah, we already do that," Moniz says, hanging up. Travel-funding is a good, unoriginal idea. Phoning Moniz had no effect on anything. The PM's idea had no effect on anything. It was useless.

I'm sure there are edge cases, but we'll cross that bridge if we come to it, if you start revealing some sort of specifics of your ideas. Start any time.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

hilarity

Disclaimer: Although I am not a physicist, this has as much to do with math as with physics, and even the phrases that might sound a bit like physics have little to do with actual physics when BurntSynapse writes them.

More quotes from Buck Field's essay.

...snip...

Providing explanatory efficiency, greater clarity, and depth of understanding, the new paradigm for time will cross and draw upon fields like mathematical algorithms, group theory, relativity, dimensional analysis, and cosmology.

Oy.

Actually, wait a moment. I'm just a layman. Can one of the physicists in this thread tell me if including "dimensional analysis" in the list of fields the new time paradigm will "cross and draw upon" really is as hilariously ignorant as I think it is?

Yes.

There's hilarity aplenty just because BurntSynapse didn't realize dimensional analysis is the common name for basic sanity checks most of us (but not Farsight) learned in high school.

I suspect BurntSynapse thought he had invented a brand new phrase that had the bafflegab virtues of sounding technical without meaning anything concrete.

Considering Buck Field's prior discussion of dimensions within that blog post (and his off-the-wall remarks to ben m quoted below), I also suspect he was trying to suggest physicists think about dimension in overly Euclidean terms. That would be consistent with BurntSynapse's apparent ignorance of non-Euclidean geometry's prominence within the theory of relativity.

Do you think physicists are currently failing to to appreciate the Copernican Principle in some way,

Yes, based on the treatment of fundamentals like matter, space, force, etc., within the physic literature. Reviewing that literature, there appears little awareness that these fundamentals are based on naive observation. There seems no acknowledgment that our dimensional framework originated with people who followed Anubis, the jackal-headed god of the underworld 10k years ago. The idea that they got most of the fundamental structures of reality correct without even trying seems like it would strike most as a highly implausible, and AFAICT this constitutes an undocumented assumption. Undocumented assumptions are the top risk to projects, depending on how one measures them.

Yowza. That's wrong in so many ways that I'm going to respond piece by piece.

Yes, based on the treatment of fundamentals like matter, space, force, etc., within the physic literature. Reviewing that literature, there appears little awareness that these fundamentals are based on naive observation.

Physicists treat "fundamentals like matter, space, force, etc" by formulating laws such as

• i ħ ∂/∂t Ψ = H Ψ
• R_μν - g_μν R/2 + g_μν Λ = (8 π G / c⁴) T_μν
• d p^α / d τ = q U_β F^αβ

Those fundamentals are indeed based upon observation. No observations have ever been checked more thoroughly and rigorously than the observations that led to and have confirmed those laws. I can't quite bring myself to agree with BurntSynapse's characterization of those observations as "naive".

There seems no acknowledgment that our dimensional framework originated with people who followed Anubis, the jackal-headed god of the underworld 10k years ago.

This seems to be yet another veiled reference to BurntSynapse's hilarious belief that physicists don't know about non-Euclidean geometries.

According to Wikipedia, the earliest known reference to Anubis goes back only 5000 years, but BurntSynapse may have access to better underworld sources.

The idea that they got most of the fundamental structures of reality correct without even trying seems like it would strike most as a highly implausible, and AFAICT this constitutes an undocumented assumption. Undocumented assumptions are the top risk to projects, depending on how one measures them.

This seems to be yet another veiled reference to BurntSynapse's hilarious belief that mathematicians never write down any axioms.