How likely is a Complete Rewrite?

[Steven Sesselmann]

For the amusement of lateral thinking minds only…

How would it be if we were to do a complete rewrite of physics and cosmology, discard everything we know and believe, and look at everything with fresh eyes?

For what we have created over the past 2000 years is a monstrous patchwork of theories, a huge jigsaw of pieces that don’t fit together.

Newtonian physics
Einsteins Relativity
Quantum Theory
Big Bang
Black Holes
Gravity
Strong Interaction
Weak Interaction
Electric force
Quarks
Protons
Neutrons
Electrons
Bosons
Leptons
…and the rest of the Zoo

These terms may be absolutely meaningless, yet we cling to them out of fear, that all our studies and past papers written might be wasted. More than enough scientists have been recruited to complete the puzzle, yet it is plain obvious that the pieces don’t fit. The best contenders create theories with such complexity that no one can disprove them, so we award them a nobel price instead.

Imagine if we could somehow erase all knowledge of the current physics theories, without erasing our knowledge of experimental outcome, how would we explain the world.

I am almost certain that it would not come out the same.

Dare to think…

Steven

[ikanreed]

Steven Sesselmann wrote: For the amusement of lateral thinking minds only…

How would it be if we were to do a complete rewrite of physics and cosmology, discard everything we know and believe, and look at everything with fresh eyes?

For what we have created over the past 2000 years is a monstrous patchwork of theories, a huge jigsaw of pieces that don’t fit together.

Newtonian physics
Einsteins Relativity
Quantum Theory
Big Bang
Black Holes
Gravity
Strong Interaction
Weak Interaction
Electric force
Quarks
Protons
Neutrons
Electrons
Bosons
Leptons
…and the rest of the Zoo

These terms may be absolutely meaningless, yet we cling to them out of fear, that all our studies and past papers written might be wasted. More than enough scientists have been recruited to complete the puzzle, yet it is plain obvious that the pieces don’t fit. The best contenders create theories with such complexity that no one can disprove them, so we award them a nobel price instead.

Imagine if we could somehow erase all knowledge of the current physics theories, without erasing our knowledge of experimental outcome, how would we explain the world.

I am almost certain that it would not come out the same.

Dare to think…

Steven

Very unlikely(except if certain kinds of experiments become possible). Physics is not a patchwork because new theories are hard to propose(brane and string theory come to mind), but rather because the mathematical commonality between major branches is very limited. Also, as far as I’m aware, the only divided theories are the standard model and special relativity, and that most of what you just listed falls in the former’s domain. Your allegation that physicists stick to existing models out of fear completely misses the point of the scientific method. Special relativity has been an untested theory for 50 years, then 5 years ago, they launch a satellite, and we have falsifiability, and not only that, the theory is born out by the experimental results.

If your erasure happened, we’d end up in a very similar place with different names for things. It’s hard to look at the chemistry experiments and not instantly arrive on the notion of atoms and electrons, which sets you on a natural course for finding subatomic particles. There are very few things that are basically explained from ignorance. The supernova data that suggests an expanding universe, the redshift that suggests an acceleration, and the common wavelengths in the background radiation of the universe. The big bang + dark matter + dark energy is a pretty compelling theory to explain those phenomena, but impossible to verify.

You dare us to consider the implications of modern physics being misguided. I dare you to consider the implications of it being dead on.

[balsysr]

There are no facts in science, only hypotheses that have stood the test of time. What this means to me is that we can never be sure that what we believe is truth. We must always test our assumptions and replicate our data measures, looking for the errors, and the new ways that we can interpret the data. It is only by doing this that real progress in Science can be achieved.

As an example the Michelson-Morley experiment is assumed to have shown no anisotropy in the speed of light, when in fact the error band included the possibility of a small positive effect. Work by Miller and others (a recent ref. “A new light-speed anisotropy experiment: absolute motion and gravity waves detected, R.T. Cahill). Such work is ignored as it is outside the mainstream worldview.

The whole big band hypothesis is based on the red shift of light, alternate mechanisms have been proposed, but these are not accepted and a theory that proposes the Universe is made of of “invisible, undetectable” matter is needed to “fix”t the bugs in the theory. And do not get me started on the use of “point masses of almost infinite magnitude” to make a gravity universe work. I was taught dividing by zero was not allowed but astrophysicists seem to be able to do this with impunity. And why do astrophysicists never use the word electricity, after all a (sic) wind of ionised electrons and protons constitutes a charge flow and thus a flow of electricity in space. Apparently not.

In my old age (well not so old) I have come to the conclusion that science has been corrupted by money and reputations. Untold wealth is being thrown at experiments based on trying to keep alive failed hypotheses. eg. Gravity wave detectors have been built at great expense, with the theoretical sensitivity to measure the signal that exists if the theory is correct (gravity waves and the existence of space time). Popular stuff, with no less a person than an Einstein having proposed it. Unfortunately in the 40 years these experiments have run not a single gravity wave has been confirmed in a universe supposedly awash with black holes (sic). So what do we do – build even bigger, more sensitive, much more expensive tools and keep looking. This is not science, when the predicted outcome is not there the hypothesis is invalid, no matter how much theory has been built based on it and no matter how great a scientist proposed the idea.

So yes, I definately think that we need to take a fresh look at Science.

Cheers,

[vansig]

Standard model without Higg’s Boson reminds me of the Ptolemaic system at about the time of Copernicus. The cracks are showing. We need folks like Galileo and Kepler to rearrange the whole thing.

[asymmetric_implosion]

balsysr wrote: There are no facts in science, only hypotheses that have stood the test of time. What this means to me is that we can never be sure that what we believe is truth. We must always test our assumptions and replicate our data measures, looking for the errors, and the new ways that we can interpret the data. It is only by doing this that real progress in Science can be achieved.

I have an on-going argument about the relationship of Science to Religion. He is starting to convince me they are similar. You seem to state the same thing. You cannot know; you can only believe. I will pass it along to my friend.

I agree that some rethinking needs to be done, but I don’t know that substantially different conclusions will be drawn. Who knows for sure. Einstein was mentioned but it needs to be said he was attacked heavily in his day by those that couldn’t accept his theories. I’m not saying they are 100% correct but many tests have shown his theories are predictive, which is the true test of any theory. GPS would not work if general relativity did not apply. A general relativity correction is made to GPS satellites to keep them accurate. The lifetime of muons is known to be longer when they are traveling near the speed of light consistent with special relativity. Relativity is a complicated theory and I don’t claim to understand it, but I think it generally does well as theories go. Dark matter and other less tested theories need some more time. People are exploring alternatives to dark matter. In fact, one is based upon general relativity. I wouldn’t toss out the old knowledge yet, but I am up for looking at old things in a new light.

Gravity waves, the Higgs Boson and other less proven points demand a change of thinking but I look at the experiments and money as a way to find the right answers. Proving something doesn’t exist can be as important as proving it does exist.

[Steven Sesselmann]

asymmertic_implosion wrote: I wouldn’t toss out the old knowledge yet, but I am up for looking at old things in a new light.

I agree, we need to retain our pre-existing knowledge, just suppose a different and hopefully simpler theory to explain the world.

My thoughts at the moment are leaning towards a world that is completely governed by electrostatic potential, where all four forces are explained by a single parameter. Say goodbye to gravity, strong force, weak force, and electromagnetic force. Further, the whole concept of force is wrong, no object is ever pushed or pulled by another object, stuff simply moves from the past to the future along the arrow of time.

Anyone who comes up with a new theory will face an uphill battle to get it accepted, established thought is thoroughly embedded. People who choose to work in science are often conservative introverts, and people who launch new ideas are often extrovert, which may explain why it takes so long between each new revolution in science. In a funny kind of a way, Einstein was a scientist and also a bit of an extrovert, and managed to sell his ideas to the world.

Step 1 is to find a problem that needs a new theory (easy)
Step 2 is to propose a theory that explains the problem (difficult)
Step 3 is to propose and experiment to prove it (usually very difficult)

Steven

[ikanreed]

That’s kind of unfair. Everyone who seriously “works in science” is published, meaning they’ve done the launching of a novel idea. It’s not a lack of empathy towards the proposers of ideas that keeps them from being accepted, but rather the scientific method’s approach to burden of proof: i.e. that revolutionary claims require substantially more evidence than incrementally different claims. Personally, I don’t think you’ve articulated where the proximate flaw in the modern physics paradigms lies. No offense, but suggesting it’s too complicated without citing how that complexity might be reduced is reminiscent of creationist arguments against evolution.

[Henning]

asymmertic_implosion wrote: I have an on-going argument about the relationship of Science to Religion. He is starting to convince me they are similar. You seem to state the same thing. You cannot know; you can only believe. I will pass it along to my friend.

The difference between science and religion is that science is refined if a new insight is found. Religion is set into stone, it doesn’t change. It only splits to new sects, but mostly not because of new insights. They are results of strong words of a leader, and are not backed by reasonable evidence.

Religion may have started out from trying to understand the world, in a somewhat scientific way. But it always has been a tool of power. If you prove a religious belief is wrong, you’re proving those in power are wrong. Best example is Louis XIV who is set into position by an “omnipotent god”, which is the base of absolutism. If you chalenge a belief set in and interpreted by the church and aristicracy, you chalenge those in power and they will crush you.

Still nowadays the pope is set in position by a god (or is his representative, same thing mostly), and here’s the problem: he cannot change his position even if he would know he’s wrong, otherwise he would loose some of his power.

[balsysr]

asymmertic_implosion wrote:

Gravity waves, the Higgs Boson and other less proven points demand a change of thinking but I look at the experiments and money as a way to find the right answers. Proving something doesn’t exist can be as important as proving it does exist.

I agree proving something is wrong is as important as proving it does exist. My problem is that theories like gravity waves have been proven wrong, but this is not accepted! Spending more money on this is then a waste of resources that can be spent on other things. I would also argue that the big bang theory, if not been proven wrong, has so many problems that have been addressed by proposing ad hoc fixes (inflation, dark energy, dark matter). This is reminescent of the clockwork universe where more gears are added to “fix” the theory when it did not work. It became ever more complex. Eventually Galilao and others came up with a better theory (Sun centred system with elliptical orbits) that better explained the facts. It took more than a lifetime for the new theories to be accepted!

I think the same kind of problem exists today, all the money is spent of research that backs the existing paradigmns, and only ridicule is spent on other ideas. A case in point is the work on focus fusion. The big money is all on gravitational fusion based sun models that have consumed billions of research dollars for little results. Approaches like focus fusion are relegated to “fringe” science and not funded as the money is all being spent elsewhere. A better approach in funding research would be to allocate a reasonable pool to non-mainstream ideas that have a reasonable scientific basis (like focus fusion).

Cheers,

[asymmetric_implosion]

Religion isn’t really the right world. Spirituality is a better word. Science requires leaps of faith as much as spiritual leaps of faith. Science claims to quantify things but you are relying on some framework as with any spiritual system. I agree that some people cling to these frameworks without cause. You can argue who’s clinging and who’s not but science does have sect-like groups. People live and die by their beliefs in science as much as spiritual beliefs. The arguments about ‘main stream’ and non-main stream science are proof that these sect-like groups exist. I’m not saying it’s a perfect correlation, but on I put this out there; the more I study science, the less impressed I am with its ability to answer the questions that really matter to me. Being 78% water with some C, N, O and a few other elements thrown in to give me shape isn’t very satisfying. That is what I’m made of but not who I am or how I relate to everyone else. I won’t claim every person is special or unique but I think we need to find answers for ourselves. Science can answer some of the puzzle but spirituality is just as valid an approach. That said, I have little time for people who force their answers on others.

[asymmetric_implosion]

Steven Sesselmann wrote:

I wouldn’t toss out the old knowledge yet, but I am up for looking at old things in a new light.

I agree, we need to retain our pre-existing knowledge, just suppose a different and hopefully simpler theory to explain the world.

My thoughts at the moment are leaning towards a world that is completely governed by electrostatic potential, where all four forces are explained by a single parameter. Say goodbye to gravity, strong force, weak force, and electromagnetic force. Further, the whole concept of force is wrong, no object is ever pushed or pulled by another object, stuff simply moves from the past to the future along the arrow of time.

Anyone who comes up with a new theory will face an uphill battle to get it accepted, established thought is thoroughly embedded. People who choose to work in science are often conservative introverts, and people who launch new ideas are often extrovert, which may explain why it takes so long between each new revolution in science. In a funny kind of a way, Einstein was a scientist and also a bit of an extrovert, and managed to sell his ideas to the world.

Step 1 is to find a problem that needs a new theory (easy)
Step 2 is to propose a theory that explains the problem (difficult)
Step 3 is to propose and experiment to prove it (usually very difficult)

Steven

Look for a book on a theory called expansion theory. It has an alternative explanation of the universe based upon electrons and the change of space itself. It’s a pretty easy read. The book points out many flaws in accepted science but it doesn’t really prove it’s own hypothesis. If you like it there are similar theories like it. The problem is expansion theory has proven wrong when tested against everyday life.

I also disagree; new theories are hard. Very, very hard to come up with. The burden of proof is that you must explain all that is known experimentally and things that are not known. Given all the time put into the standard model, a single human in a single lifetime cannot hope to produce such a theory. Einstein, a maverick and a genius, only scratched the potential of his theory. Right or wrong he never saw some of the most significant tests of his theory.

[asymmetric_implosion]

balsysr wrote:

I think the same kind of problem exists today, all the money is spent of research that backs the existing paradigmns, and only ridicule is spent on other ideas. A case in point is the work on focus fusion. The big money is all on gravitational fusion based sun models that have consumed billions of research dollars for little results. Approaches like focus fusion are relegated to “fringe” science and not funded as the money is all being spent elsewhere. A better approach in funding research would be to allocate a reasonable pool to non-mainstream ideas that have a reasonable scientific basis (like focus fusion).

Cheers,

Science has problems; no doubt. It isn’t a problem of conspiracy; it’s a problem of human nature. We have these feelings that screw with our analytic minds. Feelings connect us to people and concepts. One can love an idea as much as a person and this is the problem. People fall in love. You fight to protect what you love and some use their positions and knowledge to protect their beloved ideas. It’s not evil, but it is not proper science.

There seems to be a misconception about fringe science and mainstream science. As a researcher, I reserve ridicule for a select few; they usually earn it without anyone helping them or putting them down. I doubt a great deal. There is a significant difference. Doubt (skepticism) is a driving force behind science. One that doubts simply wants proof. The doubter is asking a question (occasionally rudely). All the skeptic wants is proof i.e. data. When the skeptic gets data they want to know how the data was collected in detail. So-called main stream folks know how to play by these rules. So called fringe science tends not to meet the burden of proof or the result cannot be reproduced. As I posted elsewhere, FoFu-1 just caught up to other plasma focus devices of the same current level in terms of fusion energy release. It’s not mean spirited or doubting, it’s a comparison between LPP’s Sept report and published literature. All the results to date fit into the existing framework. The new theory remains unproven while the old theory holds true. That may change in 2012. Time will tell.

DOE funded innovative confinement concepts for the last decade. Key problem with that program was none of the concepts showed any significant progress in that time. I remember going to meetings and seeing the same poster year after year by one group in that program. It was a waste. FoFu does not fall under the innovative concepts domain. The plasma focus was examined as a fusion system some forty years ago; it came up far short. A new theory exists claiming other people did it wrong. Perhaps they did; perhaps they didn’t. Don’t know. Way before my time. The LPP approach to fusion was tested with gov’t funding some time ago. What were the results? I don’t know but I take it those funding the experiments were not impressed. Perhaps the reasons are described somewhere with suggested improvements that were implemented in FoFu-1. I don’t know.

In the current funding framework, FoFu falls under the high energy density physics area. DOE is funding grants in this area. They have gone so far as to release a report calling high energy density physics the X-games of physics. The next solicitation comes out in summer or fall 2012 last thing I heard. These grants are on-line all the time, people just have to apply. The grants are reviewed and a few are selected for award. Some are conventional/mainstream while others are really out there on the fringe. The rules for the last year grants are likely still on-line (I’d post the file but it is too large even in PDF). This could be a reason fringe science doesn’t get funding; it doesn’t apply for the money. Check out a website called grants.gov for a list of potential funding sources. I’m pretty sure the next call of consequence will not be until the high energy density physics solicitation next year. If LPP wants gov’t funding at the $200K to $1M/year level all they need to do is apply and write a good proposal.

[AaronB]

Regarding the relationship of science, religion, spirituality and faith, they all boil down to dots, lines, and constellations. Dots are the facts. Lines connect the dots in meaningful ways. Lines are connected to form constellations, or meaningful, higher orders of pictures. Science is supposed to be objective, starting with the dots, and working its way up to find higher levels of order without preconceived ideas. Religion starts with a given picture in mind, based on some source of authority, and finds dots and lines that fit that picture. However, religion has the advantage of not requiring dots. Faith can fill in the dark spots. Scientists can get a subjective picture in their head and exercise a measure of faith until they accumulate data that either fits or doesn’t fit the model. As asymmetric_implosion said, it’s human nature to exercise faith and have personal biases. We are hard-wired to look for patterns and project order into chaos. However, I do believe it is a conspiracy, but conspiracies are just organized plans of action between people. They’re not all bad. Our Focus Fusion project is a conspiracy to beat all the big fusion projects to the ultimate prize. Is that bad? No. It is a competition, and teams conspire against each other to gain advantages. That’s just the way it is. The bad part is when conspirators resort to cheating, falsifying, or using undue influence to tip the scales in their favor.

“Mainstream science” is the most popular constellation of ideas. Once the majority of scientists have a commonly accepted way of organizing the dots, they tend to expect future dots to fall within the lines of their constellation, and the money usually follows. Since new dots are constantly being found, the picture evolves. Some parts become more established while others require a significant change in perception. The center of the universe has moved significantly over the last few hundred years from the earth to the sun to the galaxy to who-knows-where. Science and religion have both gone through crises of belief and have adapted; some adapted more successfully than others. Skepticism is valuable because without it, there is no motivation to confront problems. Confronting problems leads to progress. Skepticism is not the same as cynicism. I don’t see any people here on this board who are cynics, but I see a lot of healthy skepticism, and that’s good.

Our project is fairly open, and people are free to interpret the results as they see fit. We don’t claim to have the final solution to the fusion challenge yet. We have ideas and hypotheses that we think are worth testing, because if they prove to be valid, we have a good chance of success. We share our data when it comes in so fans, skeptics, and pundits can chew on it. FoFu-1 isn’t the largest DPF, but it is a strong contender. Our theories have yet to be proven conclusively, and we are just now getting FoFu-1 to its full power regime where we expect either confirmation or disproval. We’ll see soon enough. In the meantime, it’s fun to debate different ideas.

[ikanreed]

AaronB wrote: Regarding the relationship of science, religion, spirituality and faith, they all boil down to dots, lines, and constellations. Dots are the facts. Lines connect the dots in meaningful ways. Lines are connected to form constellations, or meaningful, higher orders of pictures. Science is supposed to be objective, starting with the dots, and working its way up to find higher levels of order without preconceived ideas. Religion starts with a given picture in mind, based on some source of authority, and finds dots and lines that fit that picture. However, religion has the advantage of not requiring dots. Faith can fill in the dark spots. Scientists can get a subjective picture in their head and exercise a measure of faith until they accumulate data that either fits or doesn’t fit the model. As asymmetric_implosion said, it’s human nature to exercise faith and have personal biases. We are hard-wired to look for patterns and project order into chaos. However, I do believe it is a conspiracy, but conspiracies are just organized plans of action between people. They’re not all bad. Our Focus Fusion project is a conspiracy to beat all the big fusion projects to the ultimate prize. Is that bad? No. It is a competition, and teams conspire against each other to gain advantages. That’s just the way it is. The bad part is when conspirators resort to cheating, falsifying, or using undue influence to tip the scales in their favor.

“Mainstream science” is the most popular constellation of ideas. Once the majority of scientists have a commonly accepted way of organizing the dots, they tend to expect future dots to fall within the lines of their constellation, and the money usually follows. Since new dots are constantly being found, the picture evolves. Some parts become more established while others require a significant change in perception. The center of the universe has moved significantly over the last few hundred years from the earth to the sun to the galaxy to who-knows-where. Science and religion have both gone through crises of belief and have adapted; some adapted more successfully than others. Skepticism is valuable because without it, there is no motivation to confront problems. Confronting problems leads to progress. Skepticism is not the same as cynicism. I don’t see any people here on this board who are cynics, but I see a lot of healthy skepticism, and that’s good.

Our project is fairly open, and people are free to interpret the results as they see fit. We don’t claim to have the final solution to the fusion challenge yet. We have ideas and hypotheses that we think are worth testing, because if they prove to be valid, we have a good chance of success. We share our data when it comes in so fans, skeptics, and pundits can chew on it. FoFu-1 isn’t the largest DPF, but it is a strong contender. Our theories have yet to be proven conclusively, and we are just now getting FoFu-1 to its full power regime where we expect either confirmation or disproval. We’ll see soon enough. In the meantime, it’s fun to debate different ideas.

Now see, this is the way the scientific method works. Even though you are personally vested in the success of your theories, you acknowledge exactly how they can be invalidated. This is the exact perspective that advances humanity. Too many people think about science in terms of revolutions(which as far as fusion goes we’re all hoping for), and not in the extraordinarily difficult(and enlightening) challenge of trying to prove yourself wrong.

As far as your constellation metaphor goes, I like it. It misses a lot of nuance, but what metaphor doesn’t?

[Author]

Posts