Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[BurntSynapse]

ETA: OK, let's get to the uncomplicated point. You propose that physics should be managed differently, because you identified ABC (2006) as a cognitive-science technique

False.

I propose that physics should be managed differently because it exhibits profound deviations from management best practices, my field of expertise.

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.

 

[ben m]

I suppose I could agree you haven't "had to hallucinate", but imaginary scenarios where I'm whispering into Einstein's ear things I would never say, and more recently:
"Defense: Has anyone used it before?
P: "No, it's a very obscure technique."

While you're criticizing me for "hallucinating", you yourself constructed an elaborate and equally-"hallucinatory" scenario about what happened when non-baseball-fans failed to understand corked bats, or something. <sarcasm>Which didn't happen! No one was discusssing corked bats until your madness set in!</sarcasm> But you made it up anyway! Because sometimes a made-up story provides a reductio ad absurdium to illustrate a problem with someone's argument.

You are the first poster I've *ever* seen who labels this as "hallucination". 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.

This hallucinated statement of P was used to indicate HPS and PM disciplines have never been used.

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.

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. I don't recognize the HPS acronym.

 

[The Man]

False.

I propose that physics should be managed differently because it exhibits profound deviations from management best practices, my field of expertise.

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.

So the "Top level leadership" of physics are not physics "subject matter experts"? Perhaps it is experts in "revolution" that you feel they are not relying on to "inform their planning" in your claim of "setting a goal of a revolution"? Would Perhaps experts on Che Guevara, Mao Zedong, the american revolution or the current Arab spring be more to the liking of you and your purported "field of expertise" (which does seem to be neither physics nor revolutions)? Perhaps they have set no "goal of a revolution" and are only looking to improved understanding?

Fact of the matter is "revolution" is a goal of you and the purported "subject matter experts" you feel they are "not relying on". That they are not apparently relying on the purported experts you feel necessary for the goal you ascribe indicates the purported "Top level leadership" don't have the "goal of a revolution" you would ascribe to them or that they conclude your purported "subject matter experts" don't have the expertise you would ascribe to them to obtain that goal. Basically your assertion just remains that "Top level leadership" in physics are not setting the goal you would like and /or "relying on subject matter experts" you would like. Being the "Top level leadership" in the field of physics and physics "subject matter experts" themselves you should perhaps be "relying on" them a bit more if you wish to exemplify yourself the very "best practices" in your "field of expertise" that you have chosen to assert here.

Once again you simply present yourself in a self-contradictory fashion.

 

[ben m]

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.

I presume that you mean "actual physicists are not experts in the cognitive science of physics paradigm shifts, but science-historian Hannes Andersen is, so he needs to inform physics management."

Seriously, BurntSynapse:

a) Physicists know a lot about paradigm shifts. Everyone has learned about Kuhn, and Einstein, and the quantum-mechanics revolution, and the possible epistemological problems with string theory, and so on and so on. Paradigm-shifts and revolutions are not a specialized topic, requiring Paradigm Shift Specialists. They've been part of the norma discourse of physics for the past 50 years and more.

(WARNING: HARMLESS REDUCTIO AD ADURDIUM COMING, PLEASE DON'T GET UPSET)

Imagine someone saying, e.g., "Hey, I found an obscure mathematician who is an expert on the geometry of the helix. Why is this person not consulted to run the National Cancer Institute, when it's obvious that helices are important?" (In this case, because there is immense, relevant *general* knowledge of the double-helix in the whole community.) Imagine someone saying "Hey, I'm trying to manage NASA, which among other things searches for new planets, but here's an historian who wrote a book on how Neptune, Uranus, and Pluto were discovered, and why isn't he consulted to help guide the hunt for new planets, like maybe Nibiru?" (Because knowledge of the Neptune, Uranus, and Pluto searches are already fully incorporated into the existing new-planet-hunting methods.)

b) It is not obvious that Hannes Andersen is a relevant expert. There are thousands of books on the history-of-science. You, an IT manager and not a historian-of-science, have picked this one---why should anyone trust your choice? You have not presented any coherent case that this book (or any book) is the right one.

c) The reason you put experts into your management-loop is that you expect different management choices---for example, different funding priorities---because of their input, and you expect those choices to be better. From what I have read of ABC, I saw nothing whatsoever that even belonged in the same room as funding-priority-choices. I saw tools that could be used during the discussion of known paradigm shifts. It's like (WARNING, REDUCTIO AD ABSURDIUM, WHICH WILL INVENT/HALLUCINATE A STATEMENT WHICH YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY MAKE, BUT WHICH IS MEANT TO ILLUSTRATE THE PROBLEMS WITH THOSE YOU DID)

if one read a history book that studied how gravestone-carvers modified their letterwork during epidemics, and then decided that this historian should work at the CDC, monitoring gravestone-letterwork for signs of an incipient epidemic.

. You have contributed zero, or possibly a negative amount, towards convincing me that ABC's historical techniques are applicable to anything other than history.

 

[ferd burfle]

I propose that physics should be managed differently because it exhibits profound deviations from management best practices, my field of expertise.

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.

Wow, good thing we have folks like you around to keep these slacker physicists focused. Without your wisdom to guide them, they'd probably be wasting resources inventing more stuff like the transistor and the laser.

PM: "if I don't see some dilithium crystals pretty ******* quick, heads are gonna roll!!"

ferd

 

[HighRiser]

False.

I propose that physics should be managed differently because it exhibits profound deviations from management best practices, my field of expertise.

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.

It's all well and good for management to set goals, but how do you manage to achieve the revolution itself, through management? You seem to be saying you can manage your way into scientific breakthroughs, but you present no method to achieve such things.

If DaVinci had worked under your system, he would have invented the steam engine? Newton would have transformed lead to gold? Einstein would have unified gravity and QM?

 

[BurntSynapse]

...quaternions and their association with vectors are well understood...you think they have some magical quality. You are wrong!

That, sir/madam, is what we might call "a lie".

 

[BurntSynapse]

You have contributed zero, or possibly a negative amount, towards convincing me that ABC's historical techniques are applicable to anything other than history.

If you propose that we can look into the future rather than the past as to how best to inform ourselves, we can simply agree to disagree.

 

[BurntSynapse]

You seem to be saying you can manage your way into scientific breakthroughs,

Hypothetical Strawman Example:
Ted: Biological evolution is both a theory and a fact.

Edwin: That is ridiculous! How can you possibly be absolutely certain that we evolved from pond scum!

Ted: Actually that is a gross misrepresentation of my assertion. I never claimed we evolved from pond scum. And, unlike math and logic, science is based on empirical evidence and therefore a scientific fact is something that is confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent. The empirical evidence for the fact that biological evolution does occur, falls into this category.

Actual Strawman Example:

Burntsynapse: if FTL is possible, PM should improve our chances of accomplishing it.

Highriser: You seem to be saying you can manage your way into scientific breakthroughs

Burntsynapse: Actually that is a gross misrepresentation of my assertion. I never claimed we can manage our way to scientific breakthroughs. And, unlike physics, management science is based on social phenomena, but both rely on statistical confirmation to establish methods to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent. The empirical evidence for the fact that project, program, and portfolio management does improve success rates falls into this category.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

In the 19th century, they were revolutionary.

They remain useful in the 21st century, but anyone who thinks quaternions could revolutionalize modern physics knows little about quaternions or modern physics.

All true...and anyone who thinks quaternions are not the type advance consistently seen within the process of revolutionary paradigm change and unable to understand using Q's as an illustrative example, such a person knows little of the history and philosophy of scientific revolutions, and is exercising meager effort at reasoning well.

It's nice of you to agree with me, but it's disingenuous of you to pretend you were merely using quaternions as an illustrative example of scientific revolution in the 19th century.

Quaternions first came up in this thread way back in June when I found an interview in which you specifically advocated quaternions for 21st century physics:

Although BurntSynapse is going to some trouble to avoid answering such questions here, we might look to some of the answers Buck Field has offered elsewhere, as in this interview:

...snip...

In physics development, one thing that seemed suspicious, I mean in theory development, is that James Clerk Maxwell was using esoteric quaternion algebras to investigate electro-magnetism which were really powerful, but obscure. His equations were so useful they took over research, which was based on weaker vector algebras. These are less reliable but standard, well-known tools, and scattered warnings at the time were ignored. For project rescue, reworking from that point to identify any divergences is potentially optimal. If our team would get a million dollar bonus for fixing this project, I’m pretty sure that’s where we’d start.

....The next thing I’d like to do is recruit some quaternion geeks with interest in science, for a theory development workshop I’d like to put together. I think could be done for under $150k. Getting that funded would be awesome!

I can't tell whether the phrase I highlighted is saying quaternion algebras are less reliable than vector algebras or vice versa, but it hardly matters. What matters is that the person who said that does not understand the mathematics---from which we must infer he has no real understanding of the electromagnetic theory it describes---but he is nonetheless quite certain that's a good place to start.

As ben m explained, BurntSynapse's advocacy of quaternions already qualified as crackpot physics:

Yikes. The "quaternions" argument is something that comes up frequently in perpetual motion/free energy conspiracy circles. In truth, the quaternion and vector versions of E&M are just two different representations of the same mathematical group; in order to find something different in one than the other, you'd have to find an error in abstract algebra.

lpetrich made another connection and added considerable technical content (which I've snipped here):

Farsight has sometimes seemed to make similar arguments about Maxwell's equations, that Oliver Heaviside's vector version is somehow a perversion of Maxwell's revealed truth. Revealed as in religious revelation.

Perpetual Student summed up:

The above posts bring something important to mind concerning the subject of this thread. To their credit, physics crackpots demonstrate a real interest -- a passion -- to understand how the universe works. But to their discredit they are unwilling (incapable or too lazy?) to master the mathematics needed to gain that understanding.
As an example, all this magical thinking about Maxwell's use of quaternions sounds quite plausible to those who don't (cannot) make the required effort, so they construct a world of facile (but fictitious) explanations to suit their needs.

Only then did BurntSynapse attempt to defend his advocacy of quaternions as potentially revolutionary mathematics for 21st century physics:

To the issue you raise: What you call "my confusion" is based on my readings mainly of the papers of Rowan Hamilton, Maxwell, and the related Heaviside-Tait debates in Nature.

To me, both sides seem to have had good reasons for their opinions. I find pragmatic arguments generally compelling, and Heaviside's was, IMO. But the fact is that use of vectors was not accompanied by what we would do today in business: document the assumption and watch for indications that our assumption was in error as part of risk management. Further, the locality constraint debated at the time did not seem to be enforced on later work. I'm not qualified to assess the ultimate impact, but I am qualified to say that absent someone paying attention, it is an uncontrolled & unmanaged risk that does not seem to ever have been addressed.

That was absurd:

If you regard the use of vectors (or any other valid mathematics) as an assumption that needs to be documented, then your ignorance of mathematics and science goes far beyond electromagnetism.


Luckily, I am qualified to tell you people have been paying attention.

ben m elaborated:

It's not an "assumption". It wasn't even a "decision". It's like asking music theorists to document the risks associated with a five-line clef.

But BurntSynapse stuck to his guns:

I don't regard use of vectors an assumption, I claim a widespread assumption exists today that vector maths can be used without risks which were well known by both sides in the Heaviside-Tait debates, and were argued at length. I would be very interested to know of anyone examining those potential risks after the debates fizzled out.

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

There's nothing surprising about an IT project manager making that kind of mistake. After all, he's way out of his depth.

When that project manager pretends his argument was misunderstood, however, he's just being dishonest.

 

[catsmate]

It's nice of you to agree with me, but it's disingenuous of you to pretend you were merely using quaternions as an illustrative example of scientific revolution in the 19th century.

Quaternions first came up in this thread way back in June when I found an interview in which you specifically advocated quaternions for 21st century physics:
<snippage of layed quote fragments>
That claim was nonsense, as has been explained at length in the months that followed.

There's nothing surprising about an IT project manager making that kind of mistake. After all, he's way out of his depth.

When that project manager pretends his argument was misunderstood, however, he's just being dishonest.

I'd forgotten about that. It seems like BS is advocating "scalar waves" a branch of pseudophysics that maintains (against reality) that the switch from quaternion to vector expression of Maxwell's equations somehow lost valuable information.
It's utter rubbish of course but has, as ben m said, a niche in the (equally nonsensical) "free energy" lunacy. Thomas Bearden and Richard Hoagland both pimp this particular woo.

 

[dafydd]

Burntsynapse: if FTL is possible, PM should improve our chances of accomplishing it.

How could the Prime Minister do that?

 

[ben m]

Actually that is a gross misrepresentation of my assertion. I never claimed we can manage our way to scientific breakthroughs.

Really? You didn't? Who said this then?

My claim is that improvements in management functions like identifying and assessing potentially transformative research identification appear plausible by taking advantage of the latest findings in history, philosophy, and cognitive science of scientific revolutions.

That sounded to me as though you wanted to take findings in history, philosophy, and cognitive science of scientific revolutions and improve the management of physics, because you were worried about undocumented assumptions that might get in the way of a revolution that might lead to FTL travel. It was all pretty clear at the time.

 

[HighRiser]

Hypothetical Strawman Example:
Ted: Biological evolution is both a theory and a fact.

Edwin: That is ridiculous! How can you possibly be absolutely certain that we evolved from pond scum!

Ted: Actually that is a gross misrepresentation of my assertion. I never claimed we evolved from pond scum. And, unlike math and logic, science is based on empirical evidence and therefore a scientific fact is something that is confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent. The empirical evidence for the fact that biological evolution does occur, falls into this category.

Actual Strawman Example:

Burntsynapse: if FTL is possible, PM should improve our chances of accomplishing it.

Highriser: You seem to be saying you can manage your way into scientific breakthroughs

Burntsynapse: Actually that is a gross misrepresentation of my assertion. I never claimed we can manage our way to scientific breakthroughs. And, unlike physics, management science is based on social phenomena, but both rely on statistical confirmation to establish methods to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent. The empirical evidence for the fact that project, program, and portfolio management does improve success rates falls into this category.

The question I asked, that you snipped out when you quoted me, was, "How will you manage to achieve the revolution itself, through management?".

You then assert that my statement of my perception of your position is a strawman argument. I presented no argument, much less a fallacious one.

My understanding is that you say that project management practices aren't being properly applied to cutting-edge physics and science research, and therefore these research projects are not progressing as well as they could be if they were properly managed.

What methods of management would improve upon these researcher's current methods? How can management technique provide insight into concepts that take years of difficult study for bright minds to understand, then decades of difficult work to comprehend what might (or might not) actually advance knowledge of these concepts?

 

[HighRiser]

Really? You didn't? Who said this then?



That sounded to me as though you wanted to take findings in history, philosophy, and cognitive science of scientific revolutions and improve the management of physics, because you were worried about undocumented assumptions that might get in the way of a revolution that might lead to FTL travel. It was all pretty clear at the time.

That's what I thought! Evidently he's been misunderstood.

 

[lpetrich]

To the issue you raise: What you call "my confusion" is based on my readings mainly of the papers of Rowan Hamilton, Maxwell, and the related Heaviside-Tait debates in Nature.

That was around 125 - 150 years ago. Isn't more recent experience relevant?

Vectors are absurdly easy to generalize. One can give them arbitrary sizes, and one can relate them to functions.

Vector = function of index variable

One can generalize vectors to tensors, vector-like objects that can have more than one index variable. They also are related to functions.


Quaternions? How do you generalize them?

One can get quaternions by the Cayley-Dickson construction. Start with the real numbers, then create a sequence of ordered pairs, with total size 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, ... Quaternions are on the way in this sequence of "division algebras".

The real numbers are just a convenient algebraic field to use. The construction will work with any algebraic field that's the rational numbers or some superset of them.

Addition is component-by-component, and it keeps all the properties of the original addition operation. Multiplication and conjugation are nontrivial:
Definition: q = (q0, q1)
Conjugate: q* = (q0*, -q1)
Multiplication: q.r = (q0.r0 - r1*.q1, r1.q0 + q1.r0*)
Norm or length: ||q|| = q.q* = q*.q
Reciprocal = (conjugate)/(norm)

They are always distributive over addition. But as one continues one's construction, multiplication gets its properties changed.

0 1 Real numbers:
Multiplication: commutative, associative
Norms multiply: ||q||*||r|| = ||q.r|| = ||r.q||
Self-conjugate: q* = q

1 2 Complex numbers:
No longer self-conjugate

2 4 Quaternions:
No longer commutative

3 8 Octonions:
No longer associative. No matrix representation possible
Still alternative: associative with two variables equal

4 16 Sedenions:
No longer alternative
Still power-associative: order does not matter when constructing a power
Norms no longer multiply
There are pairs of nonzero elements that multiply to make zero

No changes for higher-order 2^n-ions.

How much use do they get in various applications?
Real numbers > complex numbers > quaternions > octonions > sedenions and higher

 

[BurntSynapse]

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.

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.

 

[BurntSynapse]

That sounded to me as though you wanted to take findings in history, philosophy, and cognitive science of scientific revolutions and improve the management of physics, because you were worried about undocumented assumptions that might get in the way of a revolution that might lead to FTL travel. It was all pretty clear at the time.

OK, glad you remember that as being clear. It sounds about right when not being spun.

 

[BurntSynapse]

That was around 125 - 150 years ago. Isn't more recent experience relevant? Vectors are absurdly easy to generalize.

Please understand: presenting the rules of a system does not reveal anything about debates on relative merits of alternate systems.

This is similar to "Rules of DNA sequencing don't tell us anything about whether debates on evolution continued after Scopes."

 

[godless dave]

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.

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