Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[BurntSynapse]

If you want to disagree with the point I'm making, go ahead, but don't be dense about the fact that I'm just making a point.

I'm not being dense about you making a point, I'm claiming the point is not made if its only support is sufficiently flawed.

First: I was making the point that you're not bothering to explain whether your ideas have been used, nor explain why we should believe your unusued newer ideas.

In a domain filled people self selected for interest in ridiculing physics ideas and those who advance them, I think what counts as an explanation for an edgy proposal is likely to be substantially different than the norm.

You continue to conflate "project management generally", which I believe in and which we already have, with "CsoSR-inspired project management", which I don't.

That is a conflation. Have I ever suggested I consider any PM to come in a "CSoSR inspired" type? That would seem at odds with the PMI glossary I've worked on over the decades, and about which I tend to be something of a stickler.

I do claim that CSoSR and related/similar work in the field appears to have reached a level of specificity in the last 10 years that it can support well established PM processes for information systems. This includes critics of Andersen, Barker, and Chen...many of these critics also seem to have very good points.

I don't recognize the HPS acronym.

History & Philosophy of Science

 

[dafydd]

You have yet to demonstrate that any methods need to improve, nor have you suggested any specific improvements.

Some examples would be welcome, but I doubt if we will get them.

 

[dafydd]

In a domain filled people self selected for interest in ridiculing physics ideas and those who advance them

Only crackpot ideas. Anyone with a scientific education can spot them. Which methods of scientific investigation need improving? I have no idea what you mean by self-selected.

 

[Perpetual Student]

The belief that no improvement in physics methods is possible seems an underlying assumption here, maximally efficient by enabling ridicule of any suggested innovation as crackpottery.

I doubt anyone participating in this thread believes that "no improvement in physics methods is possible." What is not believed is that a project management professional who is a layman in the field of physics could have any positive impact on research. You own dabbling with ideas about quaternions and FLT has totally undermined your arguments to the contrary. You have amply demonstrated that given the authority, you would have physicists chasing one wild goose after another.

There are many physicists who are critical of the direction modern physics research has taken -- like Lee Smolin. Although Smolin's criticism may have a rational basis, an unexpected breakthrough in string theory or supersymmetry could prove him wrong tomorrow. On the other hand, Smolin may persuade others to abandon their efforts in string theory. That's the way science works -- experts influence each other and new breakthroughs come at unexpected places and times.

Thankfully, there is no worldwide authority telling theoretical physicists where to focus their efforts (although various governments may influence some research through funding). Physicists populate universities throughout the world and only they have the knowledge and skills to manage their own efforts. Your concepts about PM and physics is based on your experiences in dealing with compartmentalized and well defined engineering projects, where it may have some role. However, you are quite naïve in believing it can be applied to the world of theoretical physics, where the knowledge and genius of the people involved is the only authority.

 

[ben m]

I do claim that CSoSR and related/similar work in the field appears to have reached a level of specificity in the last 10 years that it can support well established PM processes for information systems.

Look at that! That sure sounds relevant to this discussion. Do you want to provide some evidence, argumentation, or examples of "CSoSR and related work" (related work like what?) having "a level of specificity" (for example?) that can "support established PM processes" (what processes?)

 

[Reality Check]

Still an unsupported assertion, BurntSynapse :

To agree to disagree there first has to be something real to disagree with, BurntSynapse .
BurntSynapse, can you back up this unsupported assertion with some evidence, e.g. that 99% of scientists think that a "revolutionary paradigm change" is needed.

Asked 15th October 2013. 6 days and counting.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

That claim was nonsense, as has been explained at length in the months that followed.

Nonsense to most here or not, I stand by it absent either contrary evidence or a better option.

Contrary evidence has been offered.

One reason there's so much crackpot physics is crackpots refuse to acknowledge contrary evidence.

The belief that no improvement in physics methods is possible seems an underlying assumption here, maximally efficient by enabling ridicule of any suggested innovation as crackpottery.

Crackpots often try to distract attention from their own straw men by accusing others of that tactic.

No one has suggested that no improvement in physics or its methods are possible.

Everyone agrees that, during the mid-19th century, quaternions were an important innovation.

To suggest that quaternions count as innovation during this 21st century—which BurntSynapse has done repeatedly—is pure crackpottery.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

BurntSynapse, I am one of the many 'silent followers' of this thread, at least in regard to your posts (and up to now, of course).

That claim was nonsense, as has been explained at length in the months that followed.

Nonsense to most here or not, I stand by it absent either contrary evidence or a better option.

Assume, for now, that I am one of the readers of your posts in this thread who, in their heart of hearts, wishes that you are right.

Take it as true that I, along with every other JREF member who has posted here on this topic, think that whatever case you think you have - or have made - it has been expertly and completely demolished, by posts by ben m, W.D.Clinger (and several others). How then to explain this apparent - and rather dramatic - failure to communicate successfully?

In a previous life, I was a PM (no dafyyd, not a Prime Minister, but a Program Manager, and a Project Manager to boot). In this regard, this member of your audience is well-atuned to your message. Yet it has failed. Why?

The belief that no improvement in physics methods is possible seems an underlying assumption here, maximally efficient by enabling ridicule of any suggested innovation as crackpottery.

I'm pretty amazed that you think anyone here believes "that no improvement in physics methods is possible", much less that it is "an underlying assumption"! For as experienced a PM as you to conclude that, based on what's been posted, would - in my view - be enough to get you take some leave (textbook practice when a team member with an otherwise spotless record comes out with utterly outrageous claims central to the project's core mission).

 

[catsmate]

Contrary evidence has been offered.

One reason there's so much crackpot physics is crackpots refuse to acknowledge contrary evidence.


Crackpots often try to distract attention from their own straw men by accusing others of that tactic.

This reminds me of the fiasco over at BAUT when one of the followers of (IIRC) Lawsonomy (it might have been some other crankery) made a testable prediction about the theory. A member tested it and posted the results.
The crank avoided this by editing the theory so this test didn't count rather than abandoning it.

ETA: It was Larson's crank "Reciprocal System" theory and it's incorrect prediction about the behaviour of capacitors.

 

[Cuddles]

I'm pretty amazed that you think anyone here believes "that no improvement in physics methods is possible", much less that it is "an underlying assumption"!

Indeed. In fact, I think I'm pretty safe in assuming that the exact opposite is true and that there is not, in fact, a single person who does not believe that improvement in physics methods may be possible. What BurtSynapse apparently fails to understand is that while we accept that improvements may be possible, that is not at all the same as accepting that the specific improvements he thinks are needed are possible using the methods he advocates. And a large part of the reason for that lack of acceptance is his continued refusal to actually say anything at all. We are still completely lacking any explanation for what, specifically, he thinks we should do differently, and what, specifically, the difference in outcome would be. "Use quaternions because I want faster spaceships" is not a meaningful argument.

 

[ben m]

This reminds me of the fiasco over at BAUT when one of the followers of (IIRC) Lawsonomy (it might have been some other crankery) made a testable prediction about the theory. A member tested it and posted the results.
The crank avoided this by editing the theory so this test didn't count rather than abandoning it.

ETA: It was Larson's crank "Reciprocal System" theory and it's incorrect prediction about the behaviour of capacitors.

Nice one. I love it when this happens.

Another great example comes from "Autodynamics"; the theory's author had worked up non-SR expressions for energy/mass/velocity/momentum. Among the predictions of these equations: fast-moving particles carry very *little* kinetic energy. The author, one Carezani, tried to make things work by having "high velocity" mean "very low mass". A (presumably very patient) accelerator physicist at SLAC turned this into an experiment---he sent a SLAC beam (of known velocity and intensity) straight into a beam dump, whose temperature was being monitored. Of course the beam-dump warmed up at the rate predicted by Special Relativity, which turned into a paper (D.R. Walz, H.P. Noyes and R.L. Carezani, Physical Review A29 (1984), pg 2110.). Does this disprove Autodynamics? Of course not. Shortly after the experiment, Carezani realized that his low-energy prediction should have applied only to radioactive decays, and that at SLAC "extra" energy came from "external electric fields", and Autodynamics was still true.

 

[catsmate]

Nice one. I love it when this happens.

Another great example comes from "Autodynamics"; the theory's author had worked up non-SR expressions for energy/mass/velocity/momentum. Among the predictions of these equations: fast-moving particles carry very *little* kinetic energy. The author, one Carezani, tried to make things work by having "high velocity" mean "very low mass". A (presumably very patient) accelerator physicist at SLAC turned this into an experiment---he sent a SLAC beam (of known velocity and intensity) straight into a beam dump, whose temperature was being monitored. Of course the beam-dump warmed up at the rate predicted by Special Relativity, which turned into a paper (D.R. Walz, H.P. Noyes and R.L. Carezani, Physical Review A29 (1984), pg 2110.). Does this disprove Autodynamics? Of course not. Shortly after the experiment, Carezani realized that his low-energy prediction should have applied only to radioactive decays, and that at SLAC "extra" energy came from "external electric fields", and Autodynamics was still true.

 

[BurntSynapse]

You have yet to demonstrate that any methods need to improve, nor have you suggested any specific improvements.

The only innovation I think might be attributed to me is treatment of physics research as an information system.

Whether that counts as a "method" seems debatable. "Specific" might seem equally subjective...I can see how both objections could be valid.

 

[BurntSynapse]

I doubt anyone participating in this thread believes that "no improvement in physics methods is possible."

There was a conversation hallucinated and presented that anything I might recommend was met with something like "Yup, we're already doing that." I don't recall the actual words, but I take that to be pretty close.

Again, "methods" seems subjective enough to accommodate a pretty broad swath of claims, IMO.

 

[BurntSynapse]

... examples of "CSoSR and related work" (related work like what?)

I think the Nersessian Model of scientific creativity is pretty good at dispelling much mystical fog surrounding the process of innovative idea creation.

having "a level of specificity" (for example?)

Three critical factors in scientific creativity, and that ordinary reasoning can and should inform our understanding of scientific problem solving.

"support established PM processes" (what processes?)

The list is rather lengthy, but at PMI, we break them into groups such as "planning".

 

[BurntSynapse]

BurntSynapse...Assume, for now, that I am one of the readers of your posts in this thread who, in their heart of hearts, wishes that you are right.

About what, exactly?

 

[steenkh]

The problem in using project management for physics research is that whereas most other projects can always be successfully completed if they are given the right funding and allocation of resources, you cannot set a goal like "FTL travel" and expect it to be achieved no matter how well your project is managed.

 

[ben m]

Three critical factors in scientific creativity, and that ordinary reasoning can and should inform our understanding of scientific problem solving.

Can you name these "three critical factors"? Is this from CSoSR?

Doesn't "ordinary reasoning" already inform our understanding of scientific problem solving?

 

[BurntSynapse]

Can you name these "three critical factors"? Is this from CSoSR?

Doesn't "ordinary reasoning" already inform our understanding of scientific problem solving?

Yes and yes...but you appear to either misunderstand or miss the point.

 

[BurntSynapse]

The problem in using project management for physics research is that whereas most other projects can always be successfully completed if they are given the right funding and allocation of resources, you cannot set a goal like "FTL travel" and expect it to be achieved no matter how well your project is managed.

"Expect" is sufficiently vague as to encompass both rational or irrational confidence in an acceptable outcome.

So the assertion "you cannot" as well as "you can" may both be true, depending on what is meant by "expect".