Page 1 of 2 [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

01001011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

10 Apr 2012, 10:14 am

Declension wrote:
TM wrote:
Not sure if this is anti-science of me, but aren't there more productive things these scientists can do with their time?


You've kind of hit the nail on the head: there really isn't much else to do.

The goal of physics is to create theories that predict observations. So physics progresses when we get a new theory, or when we get a new observation. Well, how do we get new observations in physics? We have observed everything that can easily be observed. The only people who get fundamentally new observations are people who work with telescopes, or who work at CERN or somewhere like that. So if you're a physicist, and you don't work in one of those contexts, the only research task that you can do is mathematically fiddle with the space of potential theories.

The problem is, there is so much new theory and so few new observations that the theories get way ahead of the experiments. So there are lots and lots of new theories that can theoretically be falsified, but their falsifications would require equipment that we don't have yet.


As far as I know, only relatively few physicists work on string theory and particle physics. A far greater number of them work on solid state or condensed matter state physics.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

10 Apr 2012, 11:09 am

AstroGeek wrote:
TM wrote:
Not sure if this is anti-science of me, but aren't there more productive things these scientists can do with their time?

Yes. We should never have wasted time investigating fundamental principles like quantum mechanics. I mean, what good has that ever done anyone. I mean, all it's given us are transistors and lasers. Sure we've used them to build the computers with which we all access this forum, but it's not like that's useful at all. And the same for that bloody relativity. Yeah, we need it to make our GPS satellites work properly, but that's not important--it's not like anyone actually uses that.

You can not overlook pure science. I believe that it is worth pursuing simply for its own sake, as a human achievement. But even overlooking that, you never know what innovations could spring from it. (Mr. Harper, if you are reading this, that means that YOU MUST RESTORE PURE SCIENCE FUNDING TO NSERC!! !)


I wasn't questioning quantum mechanics and things that turn out to have actual use, just that certain other things may be more important in the short term.



Declension
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

10 Apr 2012, 11:39 am

01001011 wrote:
As far as I know, only relatively few physicists work on string theory and particle physics. A far greater number of them work on solid state or condensed matter state physics.


You're right, that would account for most of the people who would comfortably call themselves "physicists". But if you want to explain the appeal of string theory, you have to explain it as "people who are dedicated to fundamental physics but have become untethered from the experimentalists". There's a sort of physicist who would dismiss materials science as just some kind of chemistry. They want the real stuff, but there isn't enough real stuff to go around.



AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

10 Apr 2012, 1:49 pm

TM wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
TM wrote:
Not sure if this is anti-science of me, but aren't there more productive things these scientists can do with their time?

Yes. We should never have wasted time investigating fundamental principles like quantum mechanics. I mean, what good has that ever done anyone. I mean, all it's given us are transistors and lasers. Sure we've used them to build the computers with which we all access this forum, but it's not like that's useful at all. And the same for that bloody relativity. Yeah, we need it to make our GPS satellites work properly, but that's not important--it's not like anyone actually uses that.

You can not overlook pure science. I believe that it is worth pursuing simply for its own sake, as a human achievement. But even overlooking that, you never know what innovations could spring from it. (Mr. Harper, if you are reading this, that means that YOU MUST RESTORE PURE SCIENCE FUNDING TO NSERC!! !)


I wasn't questioning quantum mechanics and things that turn out to have actual use, just that certain other things may be more important in the short term.

But you shouldn't always think in the short term. Quantum mechanics wasn't useful when it was developed in the 1910s--we didn't start seeing practical uses until about 40 years later. And to be honest, I'm being generous there. Also, the things which you might think of as useful would normally be developed by people with totally different training than the people developing string theory. At this point there isn't much else they can do. And it doesn't cost too much money, fortunately, as all they do is work out equations. No multi-billion dollar supercolliders needed.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,603
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

11 Apr 2012, 1:56 am

ruveyn wrote:
Jono wrote:

In principle, string theory can be tested but it's just very difficult. For example, if supersymmetry is not found by the LHC, that would weaken the case for string theory and there are other possible tests as well, like finding deviations from the inverse square law in newtonian gravity at small distance scales due to large extra dimensions.

Yes, supersymmetry can exist without string theory but is still a requirement for string theory as a whole. There is no evidence for any of those things yet but it is expected that if supersymmetry exists at least, it will be found the LHC because even outside of its role in string theory, it is mostly believed in the particle physics community that supersymmetry is also needed to stabilise the mass of the Higgs boson.


Without experimental corroboration there is no basis for accepting a physical theory. Mathematical Beauty is not substitute for being backed up by experiment. String Theory is currently built on a foundation of smoke and mirrors. Until solid experimental corroboration happens, it can be discounted as an effective theory. It could possibly be an inspiration to a theory that is actually corroborated. Maybe. Perhaps. Possibly.

ruveyn


I never said anything to the contrary. I was talking about empirical testing, not mathematical beauty. I never said that string theory was a fully accepted theory and I accept that all physical theories have to eventually have some kind of experimental corroboration in order to be fully accepted as a scientific theory.

However, all physical theories still go through a hypothetical stage before they get to the point where they can either experimentally corroborated or rejected. Einstein spent 5 years working on his theory of General Relativity without knowing whether it was right or wrong before Sir Arthur Eddington first corroborated it experimentally by observing the bending of starlight during a solar eclipse. There were even people still questioning the existence of atoms until the early 20th century.



Last edited by Jono on 11 Apr 2012, 2:10 am, edited 2 times in total.

Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,603
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

11 Apr 2012, 2:00 am

TM wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
TM wrote:
Not sure if this is anti-science of me, but aren't there more productive things these scientists can do with their time?

Yes. We should never have wasted time investigating fundamental principles like quantum mechanics. I mean, what good has that ever done anyone. I mean, all it's given us are transistors and lasers. Sure we've used them to build the computers with which we all access this forum, but it's not like that's useful at all. And the same for that bloody relativity. Yeah, we need it to make our GPS satellites work properly, but that's not important--it's not like anyone actually uses that.

You can not overlook pure science. I believe that it is worth pursuing simply for its own sake, as a human achievement. But even overlooking that, you never know what innovations could spring from it. (Mr. Harper, if you are reading this, that means that YOU MUST RESTORE PURE SCIENCE FUNDING TO NSERC!! !)


I wasn't questioning quantum mechanics and things that turn out to have actual use, just that certain other things may be more important in the short term.


Why should scientists only work on things that can be useful in the short term?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Apr 2012, 9:16 am

Jono wrote:

However, all physical theories still go through a hypothetical stage before they get to the point where they can either experimentally corroborated or rejected. Einstein spent 5 years working on his theory of General Relativity without knowing whether it was right or wrong before Sir Arthur Eddington first corroborated it experimentally by observing the bending of starlight during a solar eclipse. There were even people still questioning the existence of atoms until the early 20th century.


Ernst Mach, to his dying day, around 1915 was never fully convinced that atoms existed. He regarded the concept of atom as a handy dandy heuristic for organizing observed data. We never really got photographic evidence of atoms until x-ray cross sections of organic crystals showed benzine rings with 6 blurry blobs were seen sitting where the carbon atoms were supposed to be. That was during the late 1940s and early 1950s. The technique lead to the confirmation of double helix DNA by Rosalind Franklin, the actual brain behind Watson and Crick.

ruveyn



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

12 Apr 2012, 4:33 am

Jono wrote:
TM wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
TM wrote:
Not sure if this is anti-science of me, but aren't there more productive things these scientists can do with their time?

Yes. We should never have wasted time investigating fundamental principles like quantum mechanics. I mean, what good has that ever done anyone. I mean, all it's given us are transistors and lasers. Sure we've used them to build the computers with which we all access this forum, but it's not like that's useful at all. And the same for that bloody relativity. Yeah, we need it to make our GPS satellites work properly, but that's not important--it's not like anyone actually uses that.

You can not overlook pure science. I believe that it is worth pursuing simply for its own sake, as a human achievement. But even overlooking that, you never know what innovations could spring from it. (Mr. Harper, if you are reading this, that means that YOU MUST RESTORE PURE SCIENCE FUNDING TO NSERC!! !)


I wasn't questioning quantum mechanics and things that turn out to have actual use, just that certain other things may be more important in the short term.


Why should scientists only work on things that can be useful in the short term?


Iterative qualities, for instance a short term boost to human health and thus lifespan leads to more time a scientist of a later generation can spend on string theory or other research. Knowing that by traveling at X speed we won't age doesn't f*****g matter if we cannot generate the energy to travel at that speed. It would also help the average person to see the benefits of science a lot more, if they could see that it would make their life better or the human species better off as a whole.

Working on something which could be a gigantic dead end is abuse of funding and the intellects involved in the process when they could be applied to other fields where its clear that the field isn't a dead end.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,603
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

12 Apr 2012, 5:50 am

TM wrote:
Jono wrote:
TM wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
TM wrote:
Not sure if this is anti-science of me, but aren't there more productive things these scientists can do with their time?

Yes. We should never have wasted time investigating fundamental principles like quantum mechanics. I mean, what good has that ever done anyone. I mean, all it's given us are transistors and lasers. Sure we've used them to build the computers with which we all access this forum, but it's not like that's useful at all. And the same for that bloody relativity. Yeah, we need it to make our GPS satellites work properly, but that's not important--it's not like anyone actually uses that.

You can not overlook pure science. I believe that it is worth pursuing simply for its own sake, as a human achievement. But even overlooking that, you never know what innovations could spring from it. (Mr. Harper, if you are reading this, that means that YOU MUST RESTORE PURE SCIENCE FUNDING TO NSERC!! !)


I wasn't questioning quantum mechanics and things that turn out to have actual use, just that certain other things may be more important in the short term.


Why should scientists only work on things that can be useful in the short term?


Iterative qualities, for instance a short term boost to human health and thus lifespan leads to more time a scientist of a later generation can spend on string theory or other research. Knowing that by traveling at X speed we won't age doesn't f***ing matter if we cannot generate the energy to travel at that speed. It would also help the average person to see the benefits of science a lot more, if they could see that it would make their life better or the human species better off as a whole.

Working on something which could be a gigantic dead end is abuse of funding and the intellects involved in the process when they could be applied to other fields where its clear that the field isn't a dead end.


Nonsense. If short term practical applications were a limit on what one could research then we would all still be living in caves. I can assure you that absolutely no theoretical physicist ever thought about what practical applications of quantum mechanics would have when it was being developed. Practical applications are not the main priority of any scientist, their main priority is seeking to understand nature.

So what if a theory turns out to be a dead end? If it eventually turns out to be a dead end then it will be abandoned later on but that does not mean that it is not worth pursuing. In fact, the vast majority of scientific theories turn out to be wrong and refuting wrong theories is how science progresses, there is no shortcut.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

12 Apr 2012, 7:08 am

TM wrote:
Jono wrote:
TM wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
TM wrote:
Not sure if this is anti-science of me, but aren't there more productive things these scientists can do with their time?

Yes. We should never have wasted time investigating fundamental principles like quantum mechanics. I mean, what good has that ever done anyone. I mean, all it's given us are transistors and lasers. Sure we've used them to build the computers with which we all access this forum, but it's not like that's useful at all. And the same for that bloody relativity. Yeah, we need it to make our GPS satellites work properly, but that's not important--it's not like anyone actually uses that.

You can not overlook pure science. I believe that it is worth pursuing simply for its own sake, as a human achievement. But even overlooking that, you never know what innovations could spring from it. (Mr. Harper, if you are reading this, that means that YOU MUST RESTORE PURE SCIENCE FUNDING TO NSERC!! !)


I wasn't questioning quantum mechanics and things that turn out to have actual use, just that certain other things may be more important in the short term.


Why should scientists only work on things that can be useful in the short term?


Iterative qualities, for instance a short term boost to human health and thus lifespan leads to more time a scientist of a later generation can spend on string theory or other research. Knowing that by traveling at X speed we won't age doesn't f***ing matter if we cannot generate the energy to travel at that speed. It would also help the average person to see the benefits of science a lot more, if they could see that it would make their life better or the human species better off as a whole.

Working on something which could be a gigantic dead end is abuse of funding and the intellects involved in the process when they could be applied to other fields where its clear that the field isn't a dead end.


anyone in the western world who cant see what technology brings them are either blind or not willing to see,

i can barely name a single instance where it hasnt had some effect.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.