5 ms·

> humble 2 cents Sadly, not humble, and, from my point of view, uninformed, that is, exactly what would be expected from an otherwise uninformed reader of the

by acqq 8y ago

> humble 2 cents Sadly, not humble, and, from my point of view, uninformed, that is, exactly what would be expected from an otherwise uninformed reader of the newspaper articles about the topics touched, especially from one not understanding how science actually works. In reality, the "failed" fulfillment of some expectations when the best experiments up to now are performed is also what advances our knowledge, greatly, you can read, for an example, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17363056 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17363056 Look from this perspective: not only that what some theoretical scientists whose direct "expectations" came to be unconfirmed by the LHC experiments "expected" would remain just a "plain imagination" without a huge investment in extremely advanced experiments, the same would remain for any scientist having some other ideas. We need so advanced experiments because anything else is already known. And what we know today we wouldn't without the experiments, especially such producing "unexpected" results. There's is not an actual "crisis" in science advancing, exactly by doing experiments never before done the science does advance. The experiments like LHC are indeed a precondition for any new advancement. For every complex problem there exists a nice and easily understandable solution... that is wrong. Even the basic explanation in many articles written about the science the authors get wrong, and the casual readers get even more wrong. The typical complaint is that the experiments "cost much" and then the wishes of some aren't "confirmed"? Well they cost peanuts compared to the investment in military. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning... "Program cost US$1.508 trillion (through 2070 in then-year dollars), US$55.1B for RDT&E, $319.1B for procurement, $4.8B for MILCON, $1123.8B for operations & sustainment (2015 estimate)" Compare with the total budget of LHC experiment of just €7.5 billion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider You'd get surely more than 200 LHCs for just one type of a military plane. Also, the expected cost of measuring gravitational waves from space, the way that would also give us a new and otherwise inaccessible information about the Universe is 1000 times smaller than the cost of the above military plane. The typical complaint goes on with the idea that the if scientists work on something, and it's unconfirmed by the experiment, it was unnecessary work. That's also not true at all. Most of hypotheses of what is behind the limits of our current experiments will not be confirmed by definition. If we knew, we wouldn't need to perform the experiments.

uh_what 8y ago
Your post kind of rambles on and fails to address the point that OP is making: Physics is, in fact, stuck. It's been almost 100 years since the initial clash between classic mechanics and quantum theory, and how much closer are we to unification? And you take an extremely condescending tone while addressing OP's lack of humility while making statements attacking him for "especially from one not understanding how science actually works." How does science actually work? Are we supposed to follow Popper? Or Kuhn? Or Feyerabend? Should we go with logical positivism or empiricism?
- acqq 8y ago
  > Physics is, in fact, stuck I'm trying to explain that it is not "stuck" in the sense in which the casual readers tend to perceive it. The scientists actually have what to do, and will have what to do, no problem with that. It's just that it's harder to get the budget for the kinds of investigations that extend the area of our knowledge. And that some "pet hypotheses" of some scientists remained unconfirmed. What is currently written in the news about is that some specific hypotheses that intended to "deduct" what can be measured by the most advanced experiments humanity ever done weren't confirmed (or even more exactly, not most obviously confirmed) once the said experiments are made. But that doesn't devalue the work done in making the hypotheses or the experiments themselves. Or if I have to explain you "like you're five": - For Newton to be able to make a theoretical "breakthrough" in 1700 the actual experiments before him were needed to provide all the facts from which he was able to develop his theory. Moreover, the conditions of stability in the dissemination and accessibility of the results of the experiments were needed. - The same goes for Einstein. All the work of science between 1700 and 1915 was actually needed to make Einstein's "breakthrough," including the famous 1887 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_exper... which also didn't "confirm" the expectations of the most of the scientists of that time. - That experiment was really immense breakthrough itself: the principles of it are even used to measure the gravitational waves today, which was achieved for the first time in 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gravitational_wave_observations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gravitational_wave_obs... - But our discovery of the principles of electromagnetic radiation also made in 19th century was necessary too. - In short, science needs the experiments, needs a lot of approaches from the different sides before some "breakthrough" happens and even "not confirming" expectations is a necessary part of the process. - And even not having a new "breakthrough" of the kind the Einstein's was or of the kind of our quantum physics discoveries is also part of the process. The nature doesn't "have" to have "more unifying" laws than the ones that we already have, at least not at the level reachable by our technological limits. The nature simply is. We can learn more only by pushing the limits, making even more advanced experiments. - At the time the experiments with the particles started, the "expectations" were exactly the opposite than now: then producing some new particles "wasn't expected." (E.g. around the middle of the 20th century the famous quip of one scientist was "who ordered that?" for the newly discovered particle -- it wasn't expected by the hypotheses of the time). Now some are "disappointed" that even newer particles don't "easily" appear. Well that is what it is. Support the science, learn how it really "works" from the actual history of actual discoveries, and if you aren't able to understand enough the discoveries themselves, do spend more energy on that before you make some claims. There are too many wrong "explanations" in the circulation, and many of those even have an agenda to be such.

by acqq 8y ago

uh_what 8y ago

Your post kind of rambles on and fails to address the point that OP is making: Physics is, in fact, stuck. It's been almost 100 years since the initial clash between classic mechanics and quantum theory, and how much closer are we to unification? And you take an extremely condescending tone while addressing OP's lack of humility while making statements attacking him for "especially from one not understanding how science actually works." How does science actually work? Are we supposed to follow Popper? Or Kuhn? Or Feyerabend? Should we go with logical positivism or empiricism?

acqq 8y ago
> Physics is, in fact, stuck I'm trying to explain that it is not "stuck" in the sense in which the casual readers tend to perceive it. The scientists actually have what to do, and will have what to do, no problem with that. It's just that it's harder to get the budget for the kinds of investigations that extend the area of our knowledge. And that some "pet hypotheses" of some scientists remained unconfirmed. What is currently written in the news about is that some specific hypotheses that intended to "deduct" what can be measured by the most advanced experiments humanity ever done weren't confirmed (or even more exactly, not most obviously confirmed) once the said experiments are made. But that doesn't devalue the work done in making the hypotheses or the experiments themselves. Or if I have to explain you "like you're five": - For Newton to be able to make a theoretical "breakthrough" in 1700 the actual experiments before him were needed to provide all the facts from which he was able to develop his theory. Moreover, the conditions of stability in the dissemination and accessibility of the results of the experiments were needed. - The same goes for Einstein. All the work of science between 1700 and 1915 was actually needed to make Einstein's "breakthrough," including the famous 1887 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_exper... which also didn't "confirm" the expectations of the most of the scientists of that time. - That experiment was really immense breakthrough itself: the principles of it are even used to measure the gravitational waves today, which was achieved for the first time in 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gravitational_wave_observations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gravitational_wave_obs... - But our discovery of the principles of electromagnetic radiation also made in 19th century was necessary too. - In short, science needs the experiments, needs a lot of approaches from the different sides before some "breakthrough" happens and even "not confirming" expectations is a necessary part of the process. - And even not having a new "breakthrough" of the kind the Einstein's was or of the kind of our quantum physics discoveries is also part of the process. The nature doesn't "have" to have "more unifying" laws than the ones that we already have, at least not at the level reachable by our technological limits. The nature simply is. We can learn more only by pushing the limits, making even more advanced experiments. - At the time the experiments with the particles started, the "expectations" were exactly the opposite than now: then producing some new particles "wasn't expected." (E.g. around the middle of the 20th century the famous quip of one scientist was "who ordered that?" for the newly discovered particle -- it wasn't expected by the hypotheses of the time). Now some are "disappointed" that even newer particles don't "easily" appear. Well that is what it is. Support the science, learn how it really "works" from the actual history of actual discoveries, and if you aren't able to understand enough the discoveries themselves, do spend more energy on that before you make some claims. There are too many wrong "explanations" in the circulation, and many of those even have an agenda to be such.