What's wrong with physics? Sabine Hossenfelder
-
- Posts: 12385
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
What's wrong with physics? Sabine Hossenfelder
Sometimes I faced posters who insist Physics can explain the whole of reality.
However note this reservation from Sabine Hossenfelder.
What's wrong with physics? | Sabine Hossenfelder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aUk6oi_AmM
After 40 years of stagnation, the truth is now undeniable: physics is failing. Acclaimed physicist Sabine Hossenfelder lays out her plan to regain the once great reputation of physics.
However note this reservation from Sabine Hossenfelder.
What's wrong with physics? | Sabine Hossenfelder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aUk6oi_AmM
After 40 years of stagnation, the truth is now undeniable: physics is failing. Acclaimed physicist Sabine Hossenfelder lays out her plan to regain the once great reputation of physics.
Re: What's wrong with physics? Sabine Hossenfelder
What's wrong with physics? I'm afraid the answer is too clear: It's a theory of relativity, its determinism (its ignoring of quantum "uncertainty"), its infinitely smooth space (ignoring of limited spectrum of elementárních částic), its ignoring of antimatter…
Re: What's wrong with physics? Sabine Hossenfelder
That's not Physic's fault entirely. You also have to blame Mathematics.Cerveny wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 4:46 pm What's wrong with physics? I'm afraid the answer is too clear: It's a theory of relativity, its determinism (its ignoring of quantum "uncertainty"), its infinitely smooth space (ignoring of limited spectrum of elementárních částic), its ignoring of antimatter…
Modern Mathematics (the parts upon which Physics is built) is entirely deterministic.
If all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail...
-
- Posts: 12385
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: What's wrong with physics? Sabine Hossenfelder
In view of the current problems inherent in Physics,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kngnWF8O80
Carlo Rovelli, Sabine Hossenfelder, Lee Smolin, Jim Al-Khalili, Chris Impey, Cumrun Vafa and Renee Fatemi discuss where physics is headed.
Jim Al-Khalili proposed ultimately there must be an independent reality that is fixed and objective.
I don't agree with that.
As Sabine mentioned in another video, Physics can only assume there is an independent reality as a convenience.
The point is whatever models we established, what works is that the theories generated from that model must align with observations and empirically verifiable.
What is relevant is thus we must continually [without expectation of anything final] built more and more models and keep those that aligns with observations and experiences. If the proposition is theoretical it must at least be empirically possible.
One can assume an object independent reality but it must not be reified as real.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kngnWF8O80
Carlo Rovelli, Sabine Hossenfelder, Lee Smolin, Jim Al-Khalili, Chris Impey, Cumrun Vafa and Renee Fatemi discuss where physics is headed.
Jim Al-Khalili proposed ultimately there must be an independent reality that is fixed and objective.
I don't agree with that.
As Sabine mentioned in another video, Physics can only assume there is an independent reality as a convenience.
The point is whatever models we established, what works is that the theories generated from that model must align with observations and empirically verifiable.
What is relevant is thus we must continually [without expectation of anything final] built more and more models and keep those that aligns with observations and experiences. If the proposition is theoretical it must at least be empirically possible.
One can assume an object independent reality but it must not be reified as real.
-
- Posts: 12385
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: What's wrong with physics? Sabine Hossenfelder
Physics isn't pretty | Sabine Hossenfelder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFZpo9IyjqA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFZpo9IyjqA
Re: What's wrong with physics? Sabine Hossenfelder
There is no empirical, scientific evidence for the Multiverse
In scientific theories, the Multiverse appears as a bug rather than as a feature.
We should squash it.
FEBRUARY 3, 2022
By Adam Frank
https://bigthink.com/13-8/multiverse-no ... 0jzWAfhWh8
In scientific theories, the Multiverse appears as a bug rather than as a feature.
We should squash it.
FEBRUARY 3, 2022
By Adam Frank
https://bigthink.com/13-8/multiverse-no ... 0jzWAfhWh8
Re: What's wrong with physics? Sabine Hossenfelder
That's a pretty strange argument.socrat44 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 7:10 am There is no empirical, scientific evidence for the Multiverse
In scientific theories, the Multiverse appears as a bug rather than as a feature.
We should squash it.
FEBRUARY 3, 2022
By Adam Frank
https://bigthink.com/13-8/multiverse-no ... 0jzWAfhWh8
I can think of at least two possible universes.
A universe in which people believe in the Multiverse; and a universe in which people don't believe in the multiverse.
But crux of the entire article is this question.
And what a stupid question it is. It's undecidable whether we live in a Universe or a Multiverse.Do you live in a Multiverse?
Re: What's wrong with physics? Sabine Hossenfelder
But we can ONLY ALWAYS ever live in A Universe. This is IRREFUTABLE.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 10:55 amThat's a pretty strange argument.socrat44 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 7:10 am There is no empirical, scientific evidence for the Multiverse
In scientific theories, the Multiverse appears as a bug rather than as a feature.
We should squash it.
FEBRUARY 3, 2022
By Adam Frank
https://bigthink.com/13-8/multiverse-no ... 0jzWAfhWh8
I can think of at least two possible universes.
A universe in which people believe in the Multiverse; and a universe in which people don't believe in the multiverse.
But crux of the entire article is this question.And what a stupid question it is. It's undecidable whether we live in a Universe or a Multiverse.Do you live in a Multiverse?
Re: What's wrong with physics? Sabine Hossenfelder
If we live in a Multiverse then the Universe hypothesis is refuted.
If we live in a Universe then the Multiverse hypothesis is refuted.
So do we live in a Universe or a Multiverse? How do you know?
Re: What's wrong with physics? Sabine Hossenfelder
What is wrong with physics - stuff that Cerveny does not understand!Cerveny wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 4:46 pm What's wrong with physics? I'm afraid the answer is too clear: It's a theory of relativity, its determinism (its ignoring of quantum "uncertainty"), its infinitely smooth space (ignoring of limited spectrum of elementárních částic), its ignoring of antimatter…
Re: What's wrong with physics? Sabine Hossenfelder
The multiverse is nothing more than fantasy.socrat44 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 7:10 am There is no empirical, scientific evidence for the Multiverse
In scientific theories, the Multiverse appears as a bug rather than as a feature.
We should squash it.
FEBRUARY 3, 2022
By Adam Frank
https://bigthink.com/13-8/multiverse-no ... 0jzWAfhWh8
Just because it does to some degree saves the appearances, does not mean it is true.
Copurnicus' cosmology saved the appearances but he was wrong.
Re: What's wrong with physics? Sabine Hossenfelder
You MISSED the POINT.
Again, you MISSED the POINT.
By the way, which version of the 'Universe hypothesis' are you referring to EXACTLY here, and, which version of the 'multiverse hypothesis' are you referring to EXACTLY here also?
Furthermore, how do you define the words 'multiverse', and, 'Universe'?
Did you NOT read the words of mine, which you quoted here? I VERY CLEARLY stated:
But we can ONLY ALWAYS ever live in A Universe. I also stated, again VERY CLEARLY:
This is IRREFUTABLE.
So, what this CLEARLY MEANS IS:
We do live in a Universe.
Because of;
1. A definition that 'you', human beings, have come up for the word 'Universe'.
2. What the 'Universe' is actually made up of.
3. How the 'Universe' actually works.
4. What the 'Universe', Itself, actually is.
That is how I KNOW.
-
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: What's wrong with physics? Sabine Hossenfelder
(1) The foundational logic regarding the fringe sciences are what is first 'wrong' with phyics.
In particular, the Big Bang should have been dismissed on a mere logical basis given it requires proof of a singularity which cannot be done even in principle. [Needs proof of "infimum", a boundary point directly on the other side of the 'singularity' that can define it.]
(2) An inverse in intepretation of Einstein's warping of space is needed. Instead of treating space as being 'warped' by something with gravity, the reality is that the nature of matter is itself CURVED and not the space. The math would be the same likely for the most part. But to make it accord to the quantized (discrete) logic would need to know the correct model to what matter is first.
(3) Education institutes are based upon profit and reputation of prior stars of science. But these factors interfere in the reputation qualifications they hold because they tend towards conserving particular closure of prior 'heroes' virtue in contrast to potential disqualifying science that may undermine them. So it become POLITICIZED. Also, there are unfair concentrations of power going towards political biases of particular people with intrinsic fascist beliefs who seek command and control of the upper administration of scientific institutions.
(4) The misunderstanding of dark energy is that that IS the result of expansion. They do not want to abandon the Big Bang interpetation for a Steady State one which is preventing this as being understood. They assume a FIXED quantity of energy in the Universe rather than a fixed density. The density is what is conserved and locally would just happen to reduce to a relative 'fixed quanitity' per quantity of space.
(5) The reason for not understanding 'dark matter' is again based on resistance to a Steady State interpretation. It is NOT true that the Universe was HOT in the past. That is part of the ILLUSION of the singularity. They inappropriately FIX the present relative size of matter and rates of the speed of light while looking back in time. ALL matter is 'dark' in its initial formation because, in direct opposition to the assumption regarding origins, light cannot exist WITHOUT matter. It is an indirect cause of vibrating matter to form. Thus, again, the assumption of a hot origin based upon observations are a misinterpretation of what is being witnessed.
(6) The actual scientific professors are remote from the public's ability to directly access without great cost and privilege. This forces those with questions to either deal with it on their own or pre-accept the false parts perceived of theory UNTIL one is able to qualify on par with the same scientists one likes to challenge. But by the time you invest in such a task in both time and money, it is unlikely that you'd be willing to UNDO the accumulated damage and more likely to go along with the newly found priesthood that finally accepts you in. This is a problem relating to the Sunk Costs Fallacy.
(7) etc. [There's more but not worth going into given the above are the most significant factors that matter the most. ]
In particular, the Big Bang should have been dismissed on a mere logical basis given it requires proof of a singularity which cannot be done even in principle. [Needs proof of "infimum", a boundary point directly on the other side of the 'singularity' that can define it.]
(2) An inverse in intepretation of Einstein's warping of space is needed. Instead of treating space as being 'warped' by something with gravity, the reality is that the nature of matter is itself CURVED and not the space. The math would be the same likely for the most part. But to make it accord to the quantized (discrete) logic would need to know the correct model to what matter is first.
(3) Education institutes are based upon profit and reputation of prior stars of science. But these factors interfere in the reputation qualifications they hold because they tend towards conserving particular closure of prior 'heroes' virtue in contrast to potential disqualifying science that may undermine them. So it become POLITICIZED. Also, there are unfair concentrations of power going towards political biases of particular people with intrinsic fascist beliefs who seek command and control of the upper administration of scientific institutions.
(4) The misunderstanding of dark energy is that that IS the result of expansion. They do not want to abandon the Big Bang interpetation for a Steady State one which is preventing this as being understood. They assume a FIXED quantity of energy in the Universe rather than a fixed density. The density is what is conserved and locally would just happen to reduce to a relative 'fixed quanitity' per quantity of space.
(5) The reason for not understanding 'dark matter' is again based on resistance to a Steady State interpretation. It is NOT true that the Universe was HOT in the past. That is part of the ILLUSION of the singularity. They inappropriately FIX the present relative size of matter and rates of the speed of light while looking back in time. ALL matter is 'dark' in its initial formation because, in direct opposition to the assumption regarding origins, light cannot exist WITHOUT matter. It is an indirect cause of vibrating matter to form. Thus, again, the assumption of a hot origin based upon observations are a misinterpretation of what is being witnessed.
(6) The actual scientific professors are remote from the public's ability to directly access without great cost and privilege. This forces those with questions to either deal with it on their own or pre-accept the false parts perceived of theory UNTIL one is able to qualify on par with the same scientists one likes to challenge. But by the time you invest in such a task in both time and money, it is unlikely that you'd be willing to UNDO the accumulated damage and more likely to go along with the newly found priesthood that finally accepts you in. This is a problem relating to the Sunk Costs Fallacy.
(7) etc. [There's more but not worth going into given the above are the most significant factors that matter the most. ]
Re: What's wrong with physics? Sabine Hossenfelder
This is what's wrong with philosophy. The pursuit of foundations.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 1:09 am (1) The foundational logic regarding the fringe sciences are what is first 'wrong' with phyics.
There are infinitely many logics and logical universes and they are incommensurable and irreconcilable. There is no single one which deserves the title "THE". There are no foundations!
ALL human beliefs are contingent. Even Logic/Mathematics.
And this is a misunderstanding of epic proportions.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 1:09 am In particular, the Big Bang should have been dismissed on a mere logical basis given it requires proof of a singularity which cannot be done even in principle. [Needs proof of "infimum", a boundary point directly on the other side of the 'singularity' that can define it.]
The Big Bang/singularity is an axiomatic assumption. Axioms don't require proofs. We USE axioms to justify proofs.
It won't be the same but it will be Math. And ALL math is arbitrary/contingent!Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 1:09 am (2) An inverse in intepretation of Einstein's warping of space is needed. Instead of treating space as being 'warped' by something with gravity, the reality is that the nature of matter is itself CURVED and not the space. The math would be the same likely for the most part. But to make it accord to the quantized (discrete) logic would need to know the correct model to what matter is first.
Catch up, already - bozos.
We are all instrumentalists.
-
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: What's wrong with physics? Sabine Hossenfelder
"Foundational" in this context refers to the fact that such theories are used as the basic assumptions that are used in other theories. I was not even arguing for my own 'foundational' preference. The Big Bang is used as a closed assumption for many other theories built upon it. If the Big Bang is flawed LOGICALLY, as it is regarding lack of a boundary proof, any theory necessarily dependent upon it is also flawed.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 7:45 amThis is what's wrong with philosophy. The pursuit of foundations.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 1:09 am (1) The foundational logic regarding the fringe sciences are what is first 'wrong' with phyics.
There are infinitely many logics and logical universes and they are incommensurable and irreconcilable. There is no single one which deserves the title "THE". There are no foundations!
ALL human beliefs are contingent. Even Logic/Mathematics.
Axioms are system postulates OF logic. The particular assumption USING the logic are not called, 'axioms' because they are not ESSENTIAL of teh system.And this is a misunderstanding of epic proportions.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 1:09 am In particular, the Big Bang should have been dismissed on a mere logical basis given it requires proof of a singularity which cannot be done even in principle. [Needs proof of "infimum", a boundary point directly on the other side of the 'singularity' that can define it.]
The Big Bang/singularity is an axiomatic assumption. Axioms don't require proofs. We USE axioms to justify proofs.
Big Bang theory is 'assumed' when it is contradictory logically BUT the Steady State theory was not only not LOGICALLY flawed, it was dismissed in favor of the Big Bang, regardless of its own anti-logical foundation. [ignoring the politics and religious justifications].
?? YOU are arguing something else here that is not relevant to physics. I already know your contention with me regarding logic theory.It won't be the same but it will be Math. And ALL math is arbitrary/contingent!Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 1:09 am (2) An inverse in intepretation of Einstein's warping of space is needed. Instead of treating space as being 'warped' by something with gravity, the reality is that the nature of matter is itself CURVED and not the space. The math would be the same likely for the most part. But to make it accord to the quantized (discrete) logic would need to know the correct model to what matter is first.
Catch up, already - bozos.
We are all instrumentalists.