6 ms·

I'm not sure if this is the researchers' issue or is an issue with the scientific press, but it would help if the "discoveries" theorists made with their hither

I'm not sure if this is the researchers' issue or is an issue with the scientific press, but it would help if the "discoveries" theorists made with their hitherto unestablished and untested theories like various string and QG based theories were not touted as discoveries about the real world.

PaulHoule 8y ago
QG is funny. There are some results around QG, such as holography, which seem to be universal. That is, they make sense with strings, loop quantum gravity or any of about ten other lines of work that people can do quantum gravity calculations with today. If you can prove that all of those have to say the same thing, that is a powerful result and probably means something about our world. It seems pretty reasonable that wormholes could exist so long as they don't form closed-timelike curves, so I think these people are getting at the quantum roots of the "cosmic censorship principle".
- rstuart4133 8y ago
  > It seems pretty reasonable that wormholes could exist so long as they don't form closed-timelike curves "Wormholes" are two entangled black holes that have been subsequently moved light years apart, preserving the entanglement during the move. They are a great mathematical toy for exploring the nature of entanglement. But that's it. We have trouble preserving the entanglement of just a few ultra cold particles for a few milliseconds. I am far^^^far more likely to fall onto the floor by quantum tunnelling through my chair than a useful wormhole ever appearing. Postulating they actually exist is not in the slightest bit reasonable.
krastanov 8y ago
"Discoveries" about the mathematical structure of these theories are actually incredibly important even if no current day experiment can conceivably test them. Special and general relativity were discoveries made in this way (at least to an extent), and now general relativity is important for the proper functioning of technology as "trivial and boring" as GPS. Even earlier in our history, much of thermodynamics was developed in a similar fashion. See the sibling comment for another version of this argument, but finding the weird mathematical coincidences between the competing mathematical theories of nature is very useful. In other words, there are mathematical and logical tests that can be as important as experimental tests for the progress of our understanding of nature.
- muxator 8y ago
  Came here to (wrongly) correct your statement, as I remembered that the only relevant effect was from special relativity. It turns out it is the exact opposite: general relativity effects prevail [0]. Thanks for forcing me to check! > Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks [...] should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day [...] due to the time dilatation effect of their relative motion. > Further, the satellites are in orbits [...] where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly [...]. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day. > The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! [0] http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps....
- ketralnis 8y ago
  They're incredibly important, but they shouldn't be touted as facts until there's some consensus that they are facts
  - krastanov 8y ago
    Mathematical theorems (especially no-go theorems, one of the most powerful tools in physics) are at least as much of a fact as an experimental measurement. I can concede that a pop-sci outlet should be clear about what is an experiment and what is a mathematical theorem, but was it really not clear in this case? This is a sincere question, and I care to hear your opinion: do you believe that a reader of phys.org would need more than a glance at the article to know this is a discovery about the mathematics of general relativity, not an engineering breakthrough in the creation of a scifi-like hyperdrive?
    - naasking 8y ago
      > Mathematical theorems (especially no-go theorems, one of the most powerful tools in physics) are at least as much of a fact as an experimental measurement That's an overstatement. Measurements are more important than theory. We cannot form theories without measurements, and yes theories inform our measurements, but science always begins and moves forward with measurements.
Johnny555 8y ago
I think for anyone for whom this theory is at all relevant, it's already clear that this is a theory, not a proven fact. The fact that its theoretical is mentioned in the article for anyone that bothered to read past the first few paragraphs. For the rest of us, it just makes for interesting party conversation whether the theory pans out or not (which couldn't be proven by actually transiting a wormhole within any of our lifetimes) So no harm, no foul -- anything that makes theoretical science interesting in the popular press is a win in my book.
andbberger 8y ago
I think it goes beyond the scientific press. There seems to be a general tendency to squash the intricacies of anything and react impulsively to some red herring or whatever; such comments dominate all online forums I've ever seen. Here is a fantastically interesting article that maybe has some new insight on the nature of spacetime; top comment on HN thread about it is some person loudly and incredibly pretentiously mistaking their own misunderstanding of the intricacies of 'truth' in science (and how there are different levels) for some flaw in the work itself. You know, the underlying sentiment here is a good one. How do we know what we know, what do our theories really tell us, etc. All excellent questions. But you didn't express that at all, instead you say these things shouldn't be 'touted as discoveries about the real world.' That's all you man! No theorist ever has wanted people to think this of their work, it slaughters the beautiful intricacies of it and leads to public relations disasters like this. Don't go misunderstanding shit and then confidently be blaming it on other people man. Rhetoric matters. The whole "it's just a theory" thing has done so much harm to public understanding and appreciation. It's an impossible starting point for a conversation, if you think "it's just a theory", you're not wrong, as much as entirely missing the point. How do you start with that and get to an understanding that things aren't always absolutely right or wrong, that contexts and assumptions matter, that things can be true in one setting (the math) and uncertain in another (the real world). That for most things what we are more than anything is uncertain. That there are many different kinds of uncertainty. How are the subtle intricacies of things (that the answer to almost everything starts with "well, that depends...") supposed to survive forums where conversations are heavily selected for ability to grab attention? Not a rhetorical question, if you got ideas I want to hear them. PS noobermin, I don't mean to be overly-critical of you although it sure sounds like it. I'm using 'you the pronoun'. Just something I think about a lot that you catalyzed me into trying to express...
- krastanov 8y ago
  I really appreciate the clarity of this comment. While hacker news is certainly one of the better forums, the amount of armchair analysis and pseudointelectualism, especially on scientific non-IT posts, is pretty frustrating. It reminds of the "middlebrow dismissal" style https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5072224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5072224

PaulHoule 8y ago

QG is funny. There are some results around QG, such as holography, which seem to be universal. That is, they make sense with strings, loop quantum gravity or any of about ten other lines of work that people can do quantum gravity calculations with today. If you can prove that all of those have to say the same thing, that is a powerful result and probably means something about our world. It seems pretty reasonable that wormholes could exist so long as they don't form closed-timelike curves, so I think these people are getting at the quantum roots of the "cosmic censorship principle".

rstuart4133 8y ago
> It seems pretty reasonable that wormholes could exist so long as they don't form closed-timelike curves "Wormholes" are two entangled black holes that have been subsequently moved light years apart, preserving the entanglement during the move. They are a great mathematical toy for exploring the nature of entanglement. But that's it. We have trouble preserving the entanglement of just a few ultra cold particles for a few milliseconds. I am far^^^far more likely to fall onto the floor by quantum tunnelling through my chair than a useful wormhole ever appearing. Postulating they actually exist is not in the slightest bit reasonable.

krastanov 8y ago

"Discoveries" about the mathematical structure of these theories are actually incredibly important even if no current day experiment can conceivably test them. Special and general relativity were discoveries made in this way (at least to an extent), and now general relativity is important for the proper functioning of technology as "trivial and boring" as GPS. Even earlier in our history, much of thermodynamics was developed in a similar fashion. See the sibling comment for another version of this argument, but finding the weird mathematical coincidences between the competing mathematical theories of nature is very useful. In other words, there are mathematical and logical tests that can be as important as experimental tests for the progress of our understanding of nature.

muxator 8y ago
Came here to (wrongly) correct your statement, as I remembered that the only relevant effect was from special relativity. It turns out it is the exact opposite: general relativity effects prevail [0]. Thanks for forcing me to check! > Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks [...] should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day [...] due to the time dilatation effect of their relative motion. > Further, the satellites are in orbits [...] where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly [...]. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day. > The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! [0] http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps....
ketralnis 8y ago
They're incredibly important, but they shouldn't be touted as facts until there's some consensus that they are facts
- krastanov 8y ago
  Mathematical theorems (especially no-go theorems, one of the most powerful tools in physics) are at least as much of a fact as an experimental measurement. I can concede that a pop-sci outlet should be clear about what is an experiment and what is a mathematical theorem, but was it really not clear in this case? This is a sincere question, and I care to hear your opinion: do you believe that a reader of phys.org would need more than a glance at the article to know this is a discovery about the mathematics of general relativity, not an engineering breakthrough in the creation of a scifi-like hyperdrive?
  - naasking 8y ago
    > Mathematical theorems (especially no-go theorems, one of the most powerful tools in physics) are at least as much of a fact as an experimental measurement That's an overstatement. Measurements are more important than theory. We cannot form theories without measurements, and yes theories inform our measurements, but science always begins and moves forward with measurements.

Johnny555 8y ago

I think for anyone for whom this theory is at all relevant, it's already clear that this is a theory, not a proven fact. The fact that its theoretical is mentioned in the article for anyone that bothered to read past the first few paragraphs. For the rest of us, it just makes for interesting party conversation whether the theory pans out or not (which couldn't be proven by actually transiting a wormhole within any of our lifetimes) So no harm, no foul -- anything that makes theoretical science interesting in the popular press is a win in my book.

andbberger 8y ago

I think it goes beyond the scientific press. There seems to be a general tendency to squash the intricacies of anything and react impulsively to some red herring or whatever; such comments dominate all online forums I've ever seen. Here is a fantastically interesting article that maybe has some new insight on the nature of spacetime; top comment on HN thread about it is some person loudly and incredibly pretentiously mistaking their own misunderstanding of the intricacies of 'truth' in science (and how there are different levels) for some flaw in the work itself. You know, the underlying sentiment here is a good one. How do we know what we know, what do our theories really tell us, etc. All excellent questions. But you didn't express that at all, instead you say these things shouldn't be 'touted as discoveries about the real world.' That's all you man! No theorist ever has wanted people to think this of their work, it slaughters the beautiful intricacies of it and leads to public relations disasters like this. Don't go misunderstanding shit and then confidently be blaming it on other people man. Rhetoric matters. The whole "it's just a theory" thing has done so much harm to public understanding and appreciation. It's an impossible starting point for a conversation, if you think "it's just a theory", you're not wrong, as much as entirely missing the point. How do you start with that and get to an understanding that things aren't always absolutely right or wrong, that contexts and assumptions matter, that things can be true in one setting (the math) and uncertain in another (the real world). That for most things what we are more than anything is uncertain. That there are many different kinds of uncertainty. How are the subtle intricacies of things (that the answer to almost everything starts with "well, that depends...") supposed to survive forums where conversations are heavily selected for ability to grab attention? Not a rhetorical question, if you got ideas I want to hear them. PS noobermin, I don't mean to be overly-critical of you although it sure sounds like it. I'm using 'you the pronoun'. Just something I think about a lot that you catalyzed me into trying to express...

krastanov 8y ago
I really appreciate the clarity of this comment. While hacker news is certainly one of the better forums, the amount of armchair analysis and pseudointelectualism, especially on scientific non-IT posts, is pretty frustrating. It reminds of the "middlebrow dismissal" style https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5072224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5072224