Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
I have serious epistemological beef with the notion that creating theories that are AFAIK realistically untestable qualifies as physics by any reasonable definition. String theory is mathematics or some sort of speculative mathematical philosophy - not physical philosophy (except in the sense that it must have the known physical laws as a limit)...

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake
by talos (mihalis at gmail dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 07:13:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I call current theoretical high-energy physics metatheoretical physics. I also used to make the joke that I chose to get a Ph.D. in mathematics and not physics so I didn't have to feel embarrassed by my subject matter.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 07:40:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Mathematics as a refuge from physics? Considering the internal difficulties with mathematics, that doesn't seem like such a great refuge...
by asdf on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 07:21:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What internal difficulties do you mean?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 02:20:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
2 + 2 = 5

Believe me.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 07:06:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sure, under suitable a definition of '='.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 07:38:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And a suitable definition of '+'. And of '2' and '5'.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 07:40:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And of "believe" and of "me".

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 07:41:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Then I'm glad we agree.

(under a suitable definition of "agree").

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 07:48:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And of "definition".

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 07:55:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
...in the recursive general case.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 11:33:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You mean the one that goes

 if(FALSE) then agree

?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 11:34:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Close.

I think the Uncertainty Principle should really be named the Indecisiveness Principle.

It's not that the Universe is random, it's more that it can't actually make up its mind about anything definite unless you stand over and force it to. (Boolean values included.)

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 01:18:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the universe.  It is really hard to get them to make up their minds!  

The Fates are kind.
by Gaianne on Tue Jun 27th, 2006 at 01:44:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No we're creating the Universe to our image?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 27th, 2006 at 03:05:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's a reasonable explanation for why String Theory doesn't work.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Jun 27th, 2006 at 06:30:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, for example, the hoops you have to jump through to make set theory internally consistent...
by asdf on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 08:37:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It cannot be proven to be internally consistent, AFAIK.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 08:53:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you worry about that, just adopt some flavour of constructivism or other, and get on with your work. As a user of applied mathematics, every theorem you'll ever use will still be true, with a little more work.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 09:00:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Doesn't it bother you just a bit that the formal foundation for big chunks of mathematics gets wrapped around the axle so easily?
by asdf on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 10:12:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, I think the formalists (Hilbert and his coterie) were a little extreme.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 27th, 2006 at 03:06:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They were also proved wrong by Gödel.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 27th, 2006 at 03:19:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Are you a platonist?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 27th, 2006 at 03:19:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not sure I want to be pigeonholed philosophy-wise. It just seems weird that mathematics does, on the one hand, do an amazing job of providing tools that can be applied to physics (and the other practical arts) and give arbitrarily accurate results, but then at the same time it can get so completely fouled up itself when you try to do rigorous analysis...
by asdf on Tue Jun 27th, 2006 at 11:33:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Physics is anything but a cold, objective look at "reality". Great theories are those that capture the imagination. Relativity, quantum mechanics, and the mathematical framework of those theories are very pleasant. The sense of transcendence of a theory is quite important to how we feel about it, which is of no small consequence to how it will be received by the community of physicists. Physics probably fills some important narrative role for a secular era. The high priests of physics (theorists) are often true believers. The last sentence is close to pure speculation. I have known young physicists (ones still getting their PhDs), I wanted to be one myself once. I remember my sense of awe when first confronted with relativity and QM, watching the equations unfold, the feeling of a connection with something significant and important. Mathematics held the ultimate truth, physics pervaded the world, binding it into a coherent whole. I abandoned what I think of now as a rather naive romanticism, but while it had me captive I never thought about it this way, it was pure, unarguable, inescapable truth. My friends who did stay in physics seemed to feel the same way about it. Maybe they grew out of it, maybe they do physics without believing. I don't see how anyone could, I certainly couldn't.

So, string theory is the latest "thing". It doesn't (yet?) connect with experimental abilities, but like earlier theoretical projects it connects well emotionally. We can argue about what science is, and try as we might to make it cold, objective, and try to believe that it is of a "reality" which is really, really there, irrespective of the fancy of the theorist. A set of computations that work out, that predict, a patchwork of abstractions that return a measurable quantity when invoked correctly, the stuff of engineering and applied science, this is not theoretical physics, because it lacks exactly the emotional exponent of theories past.

If we find the right equation, then we know, what, exactly?

by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 08:01:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
String theory has been the latest thing for 30 years, and hasn't delivered on any of its promises. There has been a constant outflow of people trained in quantum field theory into other fields, especially condensed matter physics and complexity, and they have seriously affected the development of the fields with their outlook (no value judgement here).

It's about time people gave up on Einstein's idea that "unification" is around the corner, and get to doing real physics. If unification happens, it will be discovered almost as a byproduct of something else, especially given the lack (and virtual impossibility) of direct experimental input.

The most promising areas of theoretical physics IMHO are in astroparticle physics and relativistics astrophysics generally, and in quantum optics. Both of them are healthy experimental and keep blowing my mind away every time a new discovery is announced.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 08:06:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's about time people gave up on Einstein's idea that "unification" is around the corner, and get to doing real physics.

Yeah, maybe. I quit physics before I even got started, to do something more "useful", whatever that means. It seems like people are initially drawn to theoretical physics for some rather difficult to define emotional reasons. I have never tried to pose the question of "why physics?" to older theorists. I am very curious as to how they relate to their field. The ones that end up writing pop-sci books certainly all sound in awe of their discipline, in a way that is completely divorced from the applicability to anything of the theory. Maybe they sound like this because that is what the public wants? The people, when they think of scientists at all, like them to be eccentric, wiry haired, passionate, fascinating and fascinated. And this connects very well with unification, exotic theories, and all that jazz.
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 08:17:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's about time people gave up on Einstein's idea that "unification" is around the corner, and get to doing real physics

Wait, that's what they're looking for?  Isn't this basically the same as the alchemists of old, looking for the underlying "essence" of everything?

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes

by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 11:03:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well - except for the parts about living forever and turning lead into gold.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 11:20:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Okay, so they have better spin now than they did 300 years ago, or they're simply more cautious?  Now it's "building blocks" and "extending the human life-span."  Now I'm looking at it this way, that sounds awfully suspicous to me.

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 11:39:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Einstein wasted the last 20 years of his career pursuing electromagnetic-gravitational unification and ignoring experimental input from nuclear physics. Brilliant people like Ed Witten and Joe Polshinsky have wasted the last 30 years pursuing a mathematical theory with enticing physical implications without any experimental input or confirmation whatever.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 11:26:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry, that's Polchinski.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 12:42:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series