3 ms·

Thanks, nice summary. > I think the last thing anyone wants to see here is "new physics". I really want to see new physics, because I want to see us get off t

by javert 11y ago

Thanks, nice summary. > I think the last thing anyone wants to see here is "new physics". I really want to see new physics, because I want to see us get off this rock and far away. I think most people want to see new physics. I think that's why this topic is so popular. That said, I can understand physicists not wanting to see new physics. Wait. In a way, that sentence is crazy. In a way, physicists should want to see new physics more than anybody. Where does the "not wanting to see new physics" sentiment come from? Just not wanting to be wrong?

homborg 11y ago
I read it as: we want a better explanation, than just: "new physics!"
davesque 11y ago
Maybe not wanting to see new physics before seeing rigorous, reproducible experimental results? Kind of a cart before the horse thing? Just guessing.
thaumaturgy 11y ago
Laymen tend to underestimate the very vast body of research which supports current physical models. "New physics" would imply that something has been fundamentally wrong with physics for a long time, and that is unlikely.
- javert 11y ago
  I get that.
cabinpark 11y ago
I'd love to see new physics! Every physicist I know loves new physics. But if you claim to violate the conversation of momentum, everyone is going to be skeptical and not believe it. We have hundreds of years of experiments and observations that support the law and have looked in many places from small to large and not seen violations. This is what makes people not believe it and thus physicists are going to assume you are wrong and not physics. It's not so much a negative concern, but more of a practical one. But should it be tested in a rigorous manner and reproduced, then physicists will believe it. It's just it hasn't and thus we are going to stick with the established very well understood and tested theory. Like are you sure you have properly counted all the initial momentum? Are you 100% you are not introducing energy to the system? The possible explanations is long and a good experiment will eliminate as many of these as possible. As an example, look at the OPERA experiment which found to have superluminal signals. New physics? Nope, just a faulty piece of equipment. BICEP showing gravitational waves? Nope, just poor data interpretation and neglecting interstellar dust. So if you want to claim new physics, be damned sure you have ironclad proof.
- ttctciyf 11y ago
  > Every physicist I know loves new physics. If physicists don't want new physics, they should stop doing research!
  - javert 11y ago
    Only as long as the new physics is in your little sphere of influence so you can keep the grant money gravy train flowing. Presumably.
- javert 11y ago
  That makes sense, but that's not how I interpret "nobody wants to see new physics" in the ancestor comment. (But who knows.) I mean, wouldn't it be really frustrating to find out the law of conservation of momentum is not universal? Exciting, but also frustrating? Maybe even embarassing for physics? It would be like someone proving P=NP.
DenisM 11y ago
99.99% of the time when "new physics" is invoked, it amounts to crookery or kookery. Nobody wants to see that, because it takes energy to disprove even the obviously flawed claims, and the energy is taken away from more promising endeavors, that are usually less appealing to the public. "Free Energy" is very appealing, so is "10x better batteries", "10x more flash storage", "momentum-defying space thruster", and so on. These modern-day fairy tales are gaining press simply because people want them to be true, not because they actually show a path for progress. Similarly, a promise of a "miracle cure" is very appealing to the public, and so it may seem cynical to downplay any such claim right away, but it has absolutely nothing to do with actual advances in medicine.

by javert 11y ago

homborg 11y ago

I read it as: we want a better explanation, than just: "new physics!"

davesque 11y ago

Maybe not wanting to see new physics before seeing rigorous, reproducible experimental results? Kind of a cart before the horse thing? Just guessing.

thaumaturgy 11y ago

Laymen tend to underestimate the very vast body of research which supports current physical models. "New physics" would imply that something has been fundamentally wrong with physics for a long time, and that is unlikely.

javert 11y ago
I get that.

cabinpark 11y ago

I'd love to see new physics! Every physicist I know loves new physics. But if you claim to violate the conversation of momentum, everyone is going to be skeptical and not believe it. We have hundreds of years of experiments and observations that support the law and have looked in many places from small to large and not seen violations. This is what makes people not believe it and thus physicists are going to assume you are wrong and not physics. It's not so much a negative concern, but more of a practical one. But should it be tested in a rigorous manner and reproduced, then physicists will believe it. It's just it hasn't and thus we are going to stick with the established very well understood and tested theory. Like are you sure you have properly counted all the initial momentum? Are you 100% you are not introducing energy to the system? The possible explanations is long and a good experiment will eliminate as many of these as possible. As an example, look at the OPERA experiment which found to have superluminal signals. New physics? Nope, just a faulty piece of equipment. BICEP showing gravitational waves? Nope, just poor data interpretation and neglecting interstellar dust. So if you want to claim new physics, be damned sure you have ironclad proof.

ttctciyf 11y ago
> Every physicist I know loves new physics. If physicists don't want new physics, they should stop doing research!
- javert 11y ago
  Only as long as the new physics is in your little sphere of influence so you can keep the grant money gravy train flowing. Presumably.
javert 11y ago
That makes sense, but that's not how I interpret "nobody wants to see new physics" in the ancestor comment. (But who knows.) I mean, wouldn't it be really frustrating to find out the law of conservation of momentum is not universal? Exciting, but also frustrating? Maybe even embarassing for physics? It would be like someone proving P=NP.

DenisM 11y ago

99.99% of the time when "new physics" is invoked, it amounts to crookery or kookery. Nobody wants to see that, because it takes energy to disprove even the obviously flawed claims, and the energy is taken away from more promising endeavors, that are usually less appealing to the public. "Free Energy" is very appealing, so is "10x better batteries", "10x more flash storage", "momentum-defying space thruster", and so on. These modern-day fairy tales are gaining press simply because people want them to be true, not because they actually show a path for progress. Similarly, a promise of a "miracle cure" is very appealing to the public, and so it may seem cynical to downplay any such claim right away, but it has absolutely nothing to do with actual advances in medicine.