Tagged: Byron Jennings Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • richardmitnick 7:21 am on January 10, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Byron Jennings, , ,   

    From Byron Jennings at Quantum Diaries: “String Theory and the Scientific Method” 

    Jan 9, 2015

    b
    Byron Jennings, Triumf Lab

    It seems some disagreements are interminable: the Anabaptists versus the Calvinists, capitalism versus communism, the Hatfields versus the McCoys, or string theorists versus their detractors. It is the latter I will discuss here although the former may be more interesting. This essay is motivated by a comment in the December 16, 2014 issue of Nature by George Ellis and Joe Silk. The comment takes issue with attempts by some string theorists and cosmologists to redefine the scientific method by eliminating the need for experimental testing and relying on elegance or similar criteria instead. I have a lot of sympathy with Ellis and Silk’s point of view but believe that it is up to scientists to define what science is and that hoping for deliverance by outside people, like philosophers, is doomed to failure.

    To understand what science is and what science is not, we need a well-defined model for how science behaves. Providing that well-defined model is the motivation behind each of my essays. The scientific method is quite simple: build models of how the universe works based on observation and simplicity. Then test them by comparing their predictions against new observation. Simplicity is needed since observations underdetermine the models (see for example: Willard Quine’s (1908 –2000) essay: The Two Dogmas of Empiricism). Note also that what we do is build models: the standard model of particle physics, the nuclear shell model, string theory, etc. Quine refers to the internals of the models as myths and fictions. Henri Poincaré (1854 – 1912) talks of conventions and Hans Vaihinger (1852 –1933) of the philosophy of as if otherwise known as fictionalism. Thus it is important to remember that our models, even the so-called theory of everything, are only models and not reality.

    s
    The Standard Model of elementary particles, with the three generations of matter, gauge bosons in the fourth column, and the Higgs boson in the fifth.

    v
    Partly filled valence orbitals for both neutrons and protons appear at energies over the filled inert core orbitals, in the shell model of the atomic nucleus

    It is the feedback loop of observation, model building and testing against new observation that define science and give it its successes. Let me repeat: The feedback loop is essential. To see why, consider example of astrology and why scientists reject it. Its practitioners consider it to be the very essence of elegance. Astrology uses careful measurements of current planetary locations and mathematics to predict their future locations, but it is based on an epistemology that places more reliance on the eloquence of ancient wisdom than on observation. Hence there is no attempt to test astrological predictions against observations. That would go against their fundamental principles of eloquence and the superiority of received knowledge to observation. Just as well, since astrological predictions routinely fail. Astrology’s failures provide a warning to those who wish to replace prediction and simplicity with other criteria. The testing of predictions against observation and simplicity are hard taskmasters and it would be nice to escape their tyranny but that path is fraught with danger, as astrology illustrates. The feedback loop from science has even been picked up by the business management community and has been built into the very structure of the management standards (see ISO Annex SL for example). It would be shame if management became more scientific than physics.

    But back to string theory. Gravity has always been a tough nut to crack. [Sir] Isaac Newton (1643 – 1727) proposed the decidedly inelegant idea of instantaneous action at a distance and it served well until 1905 and the development of special theory of relativity. Newton’s theory of gravity and special relativity are inconsistent since the latter rules out instantaneous action at a distance. In 1916, Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955) with an honorable mention to David Hilbert (1862 – 1943) proposed the general theory of relativity to solve the problem. In 1919, the prediction of the general theory of relativity for the bending of light by the sun was confirmed by an observation by [Sir] Arthur Eddington (1882 – 1944). Notice the progression: conflict between two models, proposed solution, confirmed prediction, and then acceptance.

    Like special relativity and Newtonian gravity, general relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible with one another. This has led to attempts to generate a combined theory. Currently string theory is the most popular candidate, but it seems to be stuck at the stage general relativity was in 1917 or maybe even 1915: a complicated (some would say elegant, others messy) mathematical theory but unconfirmed by experiment. Although progress is definitely being made, string theory may stay where it is for a long time. The problem is that the natural scale of quantum gravity is the Planck mass and this scale is beyond what we can explore directly by experiment. However, there is one place that quantum gravity may have left observable traces and that is in its role in the early Universe. There are experimental hints that may indicate a signature in the cosmic microwave background radiation but we must await further experimental results. In the meantime, we must accept that current theories of quantum gravity are doubly uncertain. Uncertain, in the first instance, because, like all scientific models, they may be rendered obsolete by new a understanding and uncertain, in the second instance, because they have not been experimentally verified through testable predictions.

    Cosmic Background Radiation Planck
    Cosmic Microwave Background per ESA/Planck

    ESA Planck
    ESA/Planck

    Let’s now turn to the question of multiverses. This is an even worse dog’s breakfast than quantum gravity. The underlying problem is the fine tuning of the fundamental constants needed in order for life as we know it to exist. What is needed for life, as we do not know it, to exist is unknown. There are two popular ideas for why the Universe is fined tuned. One is that the constants were fine-tuned by an intelligent designer to allow for life as we know it. This explanation has the problem that by itself it can explain anything but predict nothing. An alternate is that there are many possible universes, all existing, and we are simply in the one where we can exist. This explanation has the problem that by itself it can explain anything but predict nothing. It is ironic that to avoid an intelligent designer, a solution based on an equally dubious just so story is proposed. Since we are into just so stories, perhaps we can compromise by having the intelligent designer choosing one of the multiverses as the one true Universe. This leaves the question of who the one true intelligent designer is. As an old farm boy, I find the idea that Audhumbla, the cow of the Norse creation myth, is the intelligent designer to be the most elegant. Besides the idea of elegance, as a deciding criterion in science, has a certain bovine aspect to it. Who decides what constitutes elegance? Everyone thinks their own creation is the most elegant. This is only possible in Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average (A PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION – Garrison Keillor (b. 1942)). Not being in Lake Wobegon, we need objective criteria for what constitutes elegance. Good luck with that one.

    Some may think the discussion in the last paragraph is frivolous, and quite by design it is. This is to illustrate the point that once we allow the quest for knowledge to escape from the rigors of the scientific method’s feedback loop all bets are off and we have no objective reason to rule out astrology or even the very elegant Audhumbla. However, the idea of an intelligent designer or multiverses can still be saved if they are an essential part of a model with a track record of successful predictions. For example, if that animal I see in my lane is Fenrir, the great gray wolf, and not just a passing coyote, then the odds swing in favor of Audhumbla as the intelligent designer and Ragnarok is not far off. More likely, evidence will eventually be found in the cosmic microwave background or elsewhere for some variant of quantum gravity. Until then, patience (on both sides) is a virtue.

    See the full article here.

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

    Participants in Quantum Diaries:

    Fermilab

    Triumf

    US/LHC Blog

    CERN

    Brookhaven Lab

    KEK

     
  • richardmitnick 3:29 pm on January 28, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Byron Jennings, ,   

    From Byron Jennings of TRIUMF at Quantum Diaries: “The Role of the Individual in Science and Religion” 

    bj
    Byron Jennings

    “Lady Hope (1842 – 1922)[1] in 1915 published a claim that Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882) on his death bed had recanted his views on evolution and God. This story published thirty-three years after Darwin’s death was strongly denied by his family but has made the rounds of various creationist publications and web sites to this day. Now my question is: Why would anyone care? It may be of interest to historians but nothing Darwin wrote, said, or did has any consequences for evolution today. The theory itself and the evidence supporting it have moved far beyond Darwin. But this story does serve to highlight the different role of individuals in science as compared to religion or even philosophy.

    I have always considered it strange that philosophy places such importance on reading the works of long dead people—Aristotle, Descartes, etc. In science, Newton’s ideas trumped those of both Aristotle and Descartes, yet very few scientists today read Newton’s works. His ideas have been taken, clarified, reworked, and simplified. The same thing applies to the scientific writings of other great and long dead scientists. Nothing is gained by going to the older sources. Science advances and the older writings lose their pedagogical value. This is because in science, the ultimate authority is not a person, but observation.”

    Byron strikes again!! A fabulous article. Read the whole article here.

    Participants in Quantum Diaries:

    Fermilab

    Triumf

    US/LHC Blog


    CERN

    Brookhaven Lab

    KEK

     
  • richardmitnick 4:08 pm on January 21, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Byron Jennings, , ,   

    From Quantum Diaries: Byron Jennings “The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics” 

    Byron Jennings is simply amazing. You can follow his blog here. Looks like one needs to go backwards, through his archive, one post at a time; but it is worth it. I doubt that there are many scientists who can write with the articulate elegance of Bryan Jennings. Here is the introduction to his latest post.

    bj
    Byron Jennings

    January 20th, 2012

    “When I first started dabbling in the dark side and told people I was working on the philosophy of science, the most common response from my colleagues was: Oh the foundations of quantum mechanics? Actually not. For the most part, I find the foundations of quantum mechanics rather boring. Perhaps that is because my view of science has a strong instrumentalist tinge, but the foundations of quantum mechanics have always seemed to me to be trying to fit a quantum reality into a classical framework; the proverbial triangular peg in an hexagonal hole. Take wave-particle duality for example. Wave and particles are classical idealizations. The classical point particle does not exist, even within the context of classical mechanics. It should come as no surprise that when the classical framework breaks down, the concepts from classical mechanics are no longer valid. What quantum mechanics is telling us is only that the classical concepts of waves and particles are no longer valid. Interesting, but nothing to get excited about.”

    And, here is Byron’s concluding of this subject.

    So what is the interpretation of quantum mechanics? An important part seems to be that wave functions are the information the observer has on the quantum system, and is not a property of the quantum system alone. If you do not like that, well there is always instrumentalism, i.e. shut up and calculate.

    See the full post here.

    Participants in Quantum Diaries:

    Fermilab

    Triumf

    US/LHC Blog


    CERN

    Brookhaven Lab

    KEK

     
  • richardmitnick 4:31 pm on December 17, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Byron Jennings, , ,   

    From Byron Jennings, TRIUMF via Quantum Diaries: “Can Science Answer the ‘Why’ Question?” 

    Byron Jennings is one of the finest and most thoughtful writers we have.

    i1
    Byron Jennings

    “The development of science is often portrayed as a conflict between science and religion, between the natural and the supernatural. But it was equally, if not more so, a conflict with Aristotelian concepts: a change from Aristotle’s emphasis on why to a dominant role for how. To become the mainstream, science had to overcome resistance, first and foremost, from the academic establishment and only secondarily from the church. The former, represented by the disciples of Aristotle and the scholastic tradition, was at least as vociferous in condemning Galileo as the latter. Galileo, starting from when he was a student and for most of his career, was in conflict with the natural philosophers. (I decline to call them scientists.) His conflict with the church was mostly towards the end of his career, after he was fifty and more seriously when he was nearing seventy. The church itself even relied on the opinions of the natural philosophers to justify condemning the idea the earth moved. In the end science and Galileo’s successors won out and Aristotle’s natural philosophy was vanquished: the stationary earth, the perfect heavens (circular planetary orbits and perfectly spherical planets), nature abhorring a vacuum, the prime mover and so on. For most of these it is so long and good riddance. So why do philosophers still spend so much time studying Aristotle? I really don’t know.”

    See Byron’s full post here.

    Participants in Quantum Diaries:

    Fermilab

    Triumf

    US/LHC Blog


    CERN

    Brookhaven Lab

    KEK

     
  • richardmitnick 9:32 pm on December 9, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Byron Jennings, ,   

    From BYRON JENNINGS, TRIUMF, at Quantum Diaries: “The Second Law of Thermodynamics and Evolution” 

    bj
    Byron Jennings

    “There are some things in science that are just so complicated that they cannot be explained to the uninitiated—things like quantum mechanics, the second law of thermodynamics, how a geek thinks, etc. To understand these things, it takes years of sleeping though dull lectures and late nights carous…. Oops, let’s start that again. It takes years of sitting in rapt attention at scintillating lectures, late nights studying (I have it right this time) and the secret initiation ritess. Don’t forget the secret initiation rites. But in this post, I am going to attempt the impossible and explain the second law of thermodynamics in a way that can be understood by the uninitiated. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread and all that. Now the second law is so complicated that there are several alternate but equivalent formulations….”

    Read Byron’s terrific post here. One word I did recognize, entropy.

    Participants in Quantum Diaries:

    Fermilab

    Triumf

    US/LHC Blog


    CERN

    Brookhaven Lab

    KEK

     
  • richardmitnick 12:47 pm on December 3, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Byron Jennings, , ,   

    From Byron Jenning of Triumf at Quantum Diaries: “The Trouble with Particle Physics” 

    bj

    “What is the current trouble with particle physics? That’s an easy one: a paucity of new experimental results that challenge the status quo. In contrast, in the past twenty years, cosmology has surged ahead, fueled by the new results from COBE, WMAP, Hubble, and other novel devices. Yet that field may now also be reaching the point of diminishing returns. Without new experimental results any field stagnates. But before addressing this in more detail let’s look at some other suggested problems with particle physics.” Which Byron does quite well.

    See the full post here.

    Participants in Quantum Diaries:

    Fermilab

    Triumf

    US/LHC Blog


    CERN

    Brookhaven Lab

    KEK

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 414 other followers

%d bloggers like this: