Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[ben m]

I'm still waiting to hear about how experiments can take us from the BBR curve to E=hf or from wave nature of the electron to the Schroedinger equation.

a) I have not thought about this at all, but ... the discovery of quantum mechanics was very experiment-driven, from blackbody curves to the photoelectric effect to the spectrum of the hydrogen atom. Like every physics discovery, there's a back-and-forth between experimental surprises and theoretical scrambles to make sense of them. In particular, E=hf was something Planck stuck into an equation in one of many trial-and-error attempts to draw theory curves that matched blackbody data; Einstein very gradually recognized, with the help of numerous non-blackbody experiments, that E=hf might be a real property of photons and not a mathematical accident.

b) Your reaction to being wrong on Example #1 ("You can't have accelerators without SR") was to claim that the problem lies in Example #2 ("You can't get SR just from relativistic experiments"). This does not give me confidence that the switch to Example #3 ("You can't derive E=hf from blackbody experiments") will be informative.

 

[BurntSynapse]

JREF Feedback on Starship Vlog

For anyone interested:

Starship Project Management in 6 Minutes at:
http://youtu.be/3Rt90u1a7Pc

Includes a segment on why & how JREF member criticisms of using "bafflegab" are rational objections.

 

[The Man]

I, for one, still have absolutely no interest in your Vlogs. Though I am pleased to see you asserting that "criticisms of using "bafflegab" are rational objections."

 

[Reality Check]

For anyone interested:

Why should anyone here be interested in a YouTube video, BurntSynapse?
We would be interested in a coherent, rational explanation of your idea here, i.e. with actual applications rather than "bafflegab".

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I'd like to comment on the OP question. I think the reason there's so much crackpot physics is because real physics sounds crackpot to those not educated in the relevant fields, so crackpots think they can just make stuff up too.

 

[The Man]

I'd like to comment on the OP question. I think the reason there's so much crackpot physics is because real physics sounds crackpot to those not educated in the relevant fields, so crackpots think they can just make stuff up too.

Well I don't think they feel they can just make stuff up but that how the universe works should be more intuitively understandable than to where science has currently progressed. Unfortunately that's (one's intuitive understanding) not so far removed as to be almost indistinguishable from just making stuff up when compared to modern science. Of course once someone's intuitive understanding is challenged then it does at times just descend to the just making stuff up tactic to try to deal with those challenges.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I understand and agree. My point is, though, that to the layman most modern physics sounds crackpot.

 

[catsmate]

This seems relevant: The Alternative-Science Respectability Checklist

 

[The Man]

I understand and agree. My point is, though, that to the layman most modern physics sounds crackpot.

Right and particularly to most crackpots I've encountered. However, what they suggest or support themselves doesn't have that same tinge from their perspective. So it is more than just a 'me too' kind of thing where 'If you're going to just make stuff up I might as well give it a shot myself'. To the extent where often current science is perceived as at least misguided if not deliberately deceptive.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

This seems relevant: The Alternative-Science Respectability Checklist

I've seen variations on this written up as pseudoscience checklists -- operating outside one's specialty, responding to objections, releasing information in non-academic ways, withholding crucial information . . . Pons and Fleischmann did most of this and the e-cat guy is doing all of it.

I'm amazed by the number of people that think a blog or facebook account is a valid medium to unleash their revolutionary "theory" on the world.

 

[lpetrich]

This seems relevant: The Alternative-Science Respectability Checklist

Sean Carroll's checklist is rather short:

1. Acquire basic competency in whatever field of science your discovery belongs to.

2. Understand, and make a good-faith effort to confront, the fundamental objections to your claims within established science.

3. Present your discovery in a way that is complete, transparent, and unambiguous.

It's not too difficult to see where many physics crackpots go wrong. In fairness to them, I think that many of them honestly believe that they have made some great discovery. But their methods cause trouble for them, including their approach to criticism.

Methods like Farsight's, for instance. Arguing like a theologian, complete with considering it a great wrong to deny Einstein and Maxwell and other such heroes. I'd never in my life seen anyone thump Wikipedia as some kind of sacred book, but that's what I've seen from Farsight about the Einstein - de Haas effect.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

For anyone interested:

Starship Project Management in 6 Minutes at:
http://youtu.be/3Rt90u1a7Pc

Includes a segment on why & how JREF member criticisms of using "bafflegab" are rational objections.

From that video, 2:35 to 2:50:

While warp drives, wormholes, and hyperspace are staples for our most fantastic science fiction, the constraints we need to balance in developing revolutionary physics are pretty much the same as the most mundane other projects such as putting in a new deck.

That belief appears to be central to BurntSynapse's argument. Let me explain why that belief is wrong-headed.

BurntSynapse (and Buck Field, his alter ego) are trying to apply accepted principles of project management outside their accepted domain of applicability. Those principles were developed within the context of engineering projects. In engineering projects, the goals and objectives are usually known to lie within the realm of the possible, or at worst can be accomplished by making only incremental improvements to what has been been accomplished in past projects.

Accepted principles of risk management would rule out any project whose goals and objectives cannot be accomplished without overthrowing basic principles of one of the most thoroughly tested scientific theories ever devised.

By the way, I don't think wormholes are incompatible with general relativity. On the other hand, BurntSynapse's notions of warp drives and hyperspace do seem to be incompatible with our current knowledge of the universe. Our current knowledge could be wrong, but accepted principles of project management tell us not to undertake projects that bet against our current best knowledge of what is possible.

 

[ben m]

For anyone interested:

Starship Project Management in 6 Minutes at:
http://youtu.be/3Rt90u1a7Pc

Video must be the third-worst information-presentation format ever invented, right ahead of (a) the "very tall infographic made entirely of bold fonts and stock photos" that was all over the Internet in 2013, and (b) Buzzfeed.

Rather than writing a 600-word document that I would have spent two minutes reading quietly, you decided to convert your document into *audio*, tie it to a six-minute-long twitching video, and float content-less drifting graphics across it. Why? Why?

 

[ben m]

While warp drives, wormholes, and hyperspace are staples for our most fantastic science fiction, the constraints we need to balance in developing revolutionary physics are pretty much the same as the most mundane other projects such as putting in a new deck.

Physics is not something you develop. Physics already is what it is. What a physicist does is find out what physics is.

 

[The Man]

From that video, 2:35 to 2:50:



That belief appears to be central to BurntSynapse's argument. Let me explain why that belief is wrong-headed.

BurntSynapse (and Buck Field, his alter ego) are trying to apply accepted principles of project management outside their accepted domain of applicability. Those principles were developed within the context of engineering projects. In engineering projects, the goals and objectives are usually known to lie within the realm of the possible, or at worst can be accomplished by making only incremental improvements to what has been been accomplished in past projects.

As a Project Engineer managing such, and multiple, projects was my job. The more you push that envelope of what has been done in past projects, the more you have to test and verify that you ain't pushing that envelope so far that it rips apart. If your lucky, it might be just a quick feasibility test or two (or three) that might put the kibosh on the whole thing before it gets rolling. If your unlucky, it can be months, years (and I'm sure decades in some cases) and a substantial investment before those enveloping limitations come crashing down like Mjölnir.

Accepted principles of risk management would rule out any project whose goals and objectives cannot be accomplished without overthrowing basic principles of one of the most thoroughly tested scientific theories ever devised.

By the way, I don't think wormholes are incompatible with general relativity. On the other hand, BurntSynapse's notions of warp drives and hyperspace do seem to be incompatible with our current knowledge of the universe. Our current knowledge could be wrong, but accepted principles of project management tell us not to undertake projects that bet against our current best knowledge of what is possible.

To my understanding wormholes are compatible with general relativity (see Einstein-Rosen bridge) but are inherently unstable in that treatment. Hyperspace is more of a side step, so it being incompatible with general relativity is kind of the point. A warp drive is not, in and of itself, incompatible with general relativity. Warping space in front of and behind a bubble of space-time and essentially moving that (basically moving the constraining envelope). About the only thing that hasn't changed about that consideration since the sixties, when it was first popularized on TV, is that we still ain't figured out how to do it yet or even if it can be done.

 

[steenkh]

BurntSynapse (and Buck Field, his alter ego) are trying to apply accepted principles of project management outside their accepted domain of applicability. Those principles were developed within the context of engineering projects. In engineering projects, the goals and objectives are usually known to lie within the realm of the possible, or at worst can be accomplished by making only incremental improvements to what has been been accomplished in past projects.

BurntSynapse has this idea that if because it would be really nice to be able do FTL travel, it is possible by definition, and because FTL travel is possible he can use ordinary engineering project tools to achieve it.

It is much going to the Moon in the sixties: set the goal, develop the technologies, achieve the goal!

 

[catsmate]

Physics is not something you develop. Physics already is what it is. What a physicist does is find out what physics is.

I hope you don't mind me stealing this for my SO to use in her introduction to physics lectures.

 

[ben m]

It's like this:

An engineer can say, "I bought this beach house. I wish it had a deck. Let's go build a deck!"

A physicist can say only, "I rented this beach house sight-unseen. I wonder if it has a Jacuzzi? Maybe on a deck or in the backyard? Let's check the deck first, maybe that gives us a view into the backyard too."

BurntSynapse is saying, "I rented this beach house. I hope it has a jewel-encrusted Jacuzzi, like in that movie about the awesome beach house. I know the landlord say there's no Jacuzzi, but what do they know? To start with, let's apply modern management principles to the search for hidden Jacuzzis; this is sure to turn up a Jacuzzi in the minimum time."

 

[BurntSynapse]

BurntSynapse (and Buck Field, his alter ego) are trying to apply accepted principles of project management outside their accepted domain of applicability.

This would seem valid if we believe:
- that science research is not an information system,
- or that management sciences regarding information systems is illegitimate,
- other?

Those principles were developed within the context of engineering projects.

In engineering projects, the goals and objectives are usually known to lie within the realm of the possible, or at worst can be accomplished by making only incremental improvements to what has been been accomplished in past projects.

This seems to support a criticism that project management is inapplicable because of its origin - which is the genetic fallacy. The classic example in philosophy of science is chemistry, which developed out of alchemy.

Accepted principles of risk management would rule out any project whose goals and objectives cannot be accomplished without overthrowing basic principles of one of the most thoroughly tested scientific theories ever devised.

Agreed. I do not advocate "overthrowing" anything in terms of stating "principle of X is wrong" any more than I would say "the sun coming up is wrong". I think future theory will hold "our perception of space-time (or other fundamental here) is an observational consequence of factors X, Y, and Z."

On the other hand, BurntSynapse's notions of warp drives and hyperspace do seem to be incompatible with our current knowledge of the universe.

My notion is that warp drives and wormholes are potential sources of inspiration for work that can accomplish generally accepted goals in physics: discovery of more fundamental principles.

This appears to me (at the moment) consistent with long established history and philosophy of scientific revolutions, the Nersessian Model, and the goal of discovering deeper theory seems to be an overwhelming consensus in the physics community, I mostly rely on frequent Aspen visitor and decent skier Lisa Randall for this.

There are always some personal evaluations, but I'd like to think that with better evidence for a more promising approach, I'd happily endorse that in a heartbeat. In the meantime, I do think science fiction visions offer strategic organizational advantages to research communities.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

crackpot project management

BurntSynapse (and Buck Field, his alter ego) are trying to apply accepted principles of project management outside their accepted domain of applicability.

This would seem valid if we believe:
- that science research is not an information system,
- or that management sciences regarding information systems is illegitimate,
- other?

I think most people who take the trouble to read my statement in context will understand I was not criticizing the general relevance of project management to management of scientific research, but was instead criticizing your specific belief that faster-than-light travel can be achieved by using the same approach one would follow when constructing a patio deck.

Those principles were developed within the context of engineering projects.

In engineering projects, the goals and objectives are usually known to lie within the realm of the possible, or at worst can be accomplished by making only incremental improvements to what has been been accomplished in past projects.

This seems to support a criticism that project management is inapplicable because of its origin - which is the genetic fallacy. The classic example in philosophy of science is chemistry, which developed out of alchemy.

Are you truly unaware that many principles of project management implicitly assume the goals and objectives of the project lie within the realm of the possible?

As result of that (generally) implicit assumption, many principles of project management are inappropriate for a project whose success depends upon overturning basic principles of our most successful scientific theories.

I could explain how several principles of PM make no sense when the goals and objectives of an engineering project lie far beyond the reach of current scientific knowledge, but most of the participants within this subthread understand that already. There's little point to going through all that for your benefit alone, because you have thus far shown little desire to improve your understanding or practice of project management.

My notion is that warp drives and wormholes are potential sources of inspiration for work that can accomplish generally accepted goals in physics: discovery of more fundamental principles.

This appears to me (at the moment) consistent with long established history and philosophy of scientific revolutions, the Nersessian Model, and the goal of discovering deeper theory seems to be an overwhelming consensus in the physics community, I mostly rely on frequent Aspen visitor and decent skier Lisa Randall for this.

No one objects to discovery of more fundamental principles.

I objected to your claim that faster-than-light travel can be achieved by following the process one would use when building a wooden deck.

If Harvard physicist Lisa Randall wants to explain why she thinks the process of building a wooden deck shows us how to achieve faster-than-light transportation, she's welcome to do so. I suspect, however, that she doesn't even know you've dropped her name here, and I also suspect you have no more understanding of her work than you had of Gödel's or Quine's.