Theories and the Answer to Everything

[gort]

Please bear with me on my little essay.

There has recently been a boatload of popular (some of which are quite technical!) books on modern physics and cosmology, many of which are written by well known researchers and even Nobel laureates. That often gets people thinking and developing their own ideas. A very good thing. Great for the brain cells, and good for science in general. New theories are not the exclusive purview of universities and large labs, after all! Amateurs can make (and have made) valuable contributions in both the observational and theoretical sides of science.

But I think it is important to understand what is a valid theory in science. Above all, a theory must be testable, and the test that has historically been used to validate the usefulness of any theory is its ability to make predictions. It is not enough to say that bosons consist of certain types of quarks, but what does that tell us about bosons? Does it predict new ones? Does it predict new behaviours?

One can argue that there are no "correct" theories in science. Only ones that make valid predictions in a specified experimental context. Newton's Gravitation (a very nice theory) is certainly valid in many experiments, but not in relativistic situations. In fact, it is not the goal of science to understand "what is", but only "what does it predict?" The "what is" question is best left for philosophy and theology.

String theory is a very good example of all this. Many have argued that string theory predicts nothing, but tries to explain, in a consistent manner, how elementary particles are put together. An excellent book (popular, yet technical) on the subject is "Not Even Wrong" by Peter Woit. He concludes that one cannot prove that it is a "right" theory, but you can't prove that it's wrong, either. It's untestable.

No one knows if QED is "right". Do photons really go in non-straight lines and at various speeds? Who knows! But the theory has produced results agreeing with experiment to many, many decimal places.

Cosmology is an area ripe for untestable theories. What happened in the milliseconds following the Big Bang may help "explain" why the universe is as it appears, but does that make it a valid theory? Comments are welcome here!

Anyway, just some points of view I thought I'd get off my chest. If nothing else, maybe food for thought.

Cheers,

James

[jcm]

It reminds of a conference on cosmology I went to a few years ago. The audience was a mixture of prof astronomers , amateur astronomers and members of the general public. The guy giving the talk was from Imperial College ( I think). He asked the audience to put their hands up if they did not believe the Big Bang Theory - about half the gathering put their hands up :shock:

John

[gort]

Hi John,

And many (including Halton Arp) contend that there are other explanations for the microwave background and apparent redshift, and there are reasons the Big Bang can't be correct!

BTW, in my little example, I was trying to point out that quark theory is a nice, fairly well tested theory. It does not fall into the untestable category. Just a clarification.

Cheers,

James

[Astroman]

Excellent points, gort.

With the internet enabling anyone to post whatever they want, there's a forum for everyone that thinks they have a theory. Those of us familiar with scientific method tend to roll our eyes at most of them for the reasons you cite-no predictions, no testability and oft times no repeatability. Then there's the lack of proof or observations, not to mention they fail to provide any reason their theory is better than is currently accepted. One big part of science is this latter point, that any theory worth its salt will do a better job of predicting or filling in blanks left by the old theory. Inflation is an example. It isn't complete by itself, but it fills in some gaps and known problems with Big Band Theory, so it's widely accepted as part of the theory.

[Kaptain Klevtsov]

I still don't get the way that the inflation phase is accepted, but travelling faster than light is laughed at. Why would that be?

Kaptain klevtsov

[gort]

I think part of the problem, Kaptain, is that many (most?) scientists are still close-minded, in spite of appearing very analytical. It happened in Newton's time, and it's happening today. In Halton Arp's "Seeing Red" book, he points out that he was ostracized in the U.S. and basically "run out of town" because his ideas bucked "the norm". He's now (I think) at the Max Planck Institute in Germany.

There's often a thin line between wild schemes conceived with little scientific understanding and valid ideas that may be revolutionary but without widespread support. Peer review tries to separate the two, but sometimes that fails, too.

I hate to bring up the subject of UFOs, since it may unleash the fury of some and the scorn of others. But Dr. J. Allen Hynek (former chair of the Astronomy Dept, Northwestern Univ., Illinois) used to tell our class that the subject of UFOs deserve scientific study, and he had already made his reputation, so he delved into it. Among other things, he coined the expressions "close encounters of the first, second, and third kind". Needless to say, most of his colleagues never accepted this work.

So I think it's important to keep an open mind. Personally, I would never say "never" to faster than light travel, although I recognize the currently understood obstacles. But all progress is based on overcoming obstacles!

Cheers,

James

[Kaptain Klevtsov]

I don't like reading about things when, even if I barely understand the concept, I get the feeling that the author is saying " you won't understand this, so just accept that it happened and let it go". The inflationary concept works in what sense? That it explains what happened by introducing magic or what?

Something a little less provocative also occured to me today regarding the red shift of distant things. We can say that the more distant something is, the faster it is moving away from us. Now today's thought was that these things WERE moving away from us, as the light that we use to measure the redshift is necessarily very old. I wondered how we work out what could be happening now, if there actually is a universal "now". Maybe the expansion has stopped, but we can't yet know it?

We could even be due a big crunch next week if all that stuff is coming back at almost light speed, or by the morning with my new deflation theory. :nono:

A chap could get brain ache thiking about these things don't you know.

Kaptain Klevtsov :whip2:

[gort]

OK, no one took the bait when I mentioned UFOs. But when we talk about "open scientific minds", that subject is a great example.

In last year's forum thread on UFOs, there were 6 respondents, 5 of which basically poo-pooed the whole idea. One person seemed to have an open mind. I suppose that ratio is probably close to that of the general public, but I would have thought that astro-nuts would be more open.

Don't get me wrong. Scepticism is a healthy thing. Poo-pooing without proof is another thing. I'll bring up my former prof J. Allen Hynek again. He contended that 95% of sightings could be easily explained - Venus, military craft, inversion layers, etc. But the other 5% was interesting to him. He felt there was something going on beyond our current understanding of physics, but he was cautious to NOT invoke the "alien visitor" concept. But it intrigued him that worldwide correlation was so strong. He interviewed tribes well removed from civilisation (never having access to sci-fi films or books), and their descriptions and drawings coincided exactly with sightings in Europe and N. America. And not just nocturnal lights. Many cases he investigated included detailed sightings of crafts and "occupants".

Those of you who are now throwing their keyboards into their screens, I urge you to get any book on the subject by J. Allen Hynek. He's the only astronomer (that I'm aware of) who approached this whole subject in a scientific way, and devoted much of his life to it. He was a true scientist, careful not to jump to conclusion, but equally careful not to discount anything without good reason. And he was perhaps the best educator I ever ran into.

Cheers,

James

[themos]

KK, you are going to enjoy this one:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808

[gort]

I don't know about KK, but I sure enjoyed it. Great reference! Thanks, themos.

[Astroman]

On the subject of UFO's I have no doubt there are many phenomena that are witnessed and beyond the explanation of the witness. This does not mean the phenomenon is extraterrestrial in nature, and I feel the UFOlogists' penchant for jumping to that conclusion, beyond and in lieu of all reasonable alternatives, does them a disservice. When someone sees something they cannot explain, why do they immediately say, "Hey! It's a UFO from Mars!"? Why not "So, must be a string of aircraft following the freeway.", as in the case of the "Phoenix Lights" over ten years ago?

All this, aside from the simple, logistical problems of extraterrestrial visits. Namely the vast distances involved, motivations of ET, technologies needed, etc. Dr. Hynek's work aside, I have real issues with these and other points in the UFO "debate", and I've been sucked in too many times, so I will not allow it to happen again. My views are known, and unless or until ET walks up a shakes my hand, I'll remain skeptical.

[Cloudwatcher]

....... and known problems with Big Band Theory...........

Ah! Yes! Now your talking.......Benny Goodman....Glen Miller.....The Duke.....Billy Cotton.....Nelson Riddle....etc. No problems there......totally sound theories!

CW

[barkis]

....... and known problems with Big Band Theory...........

Ah! Yes! Now your talking.......Benny Goodman....Glen Miller.....The Duke.....Billy Cotton.....Nelson Riddle....etc. No problems there......totally sound theories!

CW

Shame on you CW, you know fine well Astroman simply slipped a wrong letter by mistake. But while you are on the subject, please slip Sinatra in for me. I know he did not have a band, but he certainly fitted in any one he sang with.

I hoped that guy would never die.

Ron.

[zootlewurdle]

UFO research gets a bad press entirely due to the people that immediately jump to the alien visitors explanation. Shame really as it makes legitimate research into a little understood area difficult due to the stigma.

I've seen a UFO, in-so-far as I've seen lights in the sky which entirely defies any explanation by me, or anyone I've mentioned it to. I don't jump to the conclusion it was aliens simply because there's no evidence one way or the other.

A few of my friends are doctors (I have to make do with my one O level!), so they're far better educated than I, but it often surprises me how closed minded some are.

[Cloudwatcher]

Shame on you CW, you know fine well Astroman simply slipped a wrong letter by mistake. But while you are on the subject, please slip Sinatra in for me. I know he did not have a band, but he certainly fitted in any one he sang with.

I hoped that guy would never die.

Ron.

I am suitable chastised,Ron. (stood in the corner for 5 mins) Still,you know I can't let an opportunity for light relief pass me by.

I don't think Sinatra (hallowed be his name) can be included in the 'Big Band Theory'. Guess you will have to start a 'Steady State Crooner Theory' instead!

Cheers

CW

[geoff_k]

To continue with the levity for a while, I prefer the suggestion by Douglas Adams in the Hitchhiker books that all UFO sightings are down to 'teasers'.

More seriously, any research into UFOs is always hampered by the myriad screwballs, opportunists out to make a fast buck and other assorted nutcases. No-one is prepared to take it seriously and it often amounts to professional suicide for any scientist who tries to.

[Astroman]

....... and known problems with Big Band Theory...........

Ah! Yes! Now your talking.......Benny Goodman....Glen Miller.....The Duke.....Billy Cotton.....Nelson Riddle....etc. No problems there......totally sound theories!

CW

Oh My! What a can of worms I've opened! And I'm usually so careful with proofreading...

Wasn't Nelson Riddle Sinatra's band leader? Nothing theoretical about Frank.

[Kaptain Klevtsov]

KK, you are going to enjoy this one:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808

Ya think so? That is so over my head, its past the moon mate. All these Hubble spheres all over the place and stuff! I'll bet it was useful for clever people though, it looked like they knew what they were talking about.

I've been trying to make sense of it for ages now, and apart from all the made-up words, I thought I was getting it. I read a quote somewhere, "If you think you understand Cosmology, then you don't". Does that mean that I do understand it, because I'm certain that I don't?

Kaptain klevtsov

[Whippy]

Does that mean that I do understand it, because I'm certain that I don't?

Kaptain klevtsov

Very Zen mate .

Tony..

[lunator]

KK, you are going to enjoy this one:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808

Ya think so? That is so over my head, its past the moon mate. All these Hubble spheres all over the place and stuff! I'll bet it was useful for clever people though, it looked like they knew what they were talking about.

I've been trying to make sense of it for ages now, and apart from all the made-up words, I thought I was getting it. I read a quote somewhere, "If you think you understand Cosmology, then you don't". Does that mean that I do understand it, because I'm certain that I don't?

Kaptain klevtsov

KK yep If you think you have cosmology nailed then you don't

You are in good company. Sir Bernard Lovell said on the the last 'Sky at Night' "20 years ago we thought we knew most of the explaination of the growth of the universe. Now we know we know virtually nothing"

I for one am not prepared to disagree with Sir Bernard

Cheers

Ian

[themos]

that thing was not so much about understanding what's going on out there but understanding what our models are really saying about what's supposed to be out there.

[philsail1]

It might remain a physical impossibility to travel faster than light, but there still may be "different" ways to cross the vast distances in the universe. Science is constantly moving forward. New discoveries are being made all the time. Keep an open mind. After all, until Columbus (or Lief Erickson), everyone believed the Earth was flat!

Regards,

philsail1

[themos]

Not being able to travel faster than light is not as bad as people think. Because of Lorentz contraction, we can make the traveller-perceived journey-time as short as you like, given sufficiently powerful engines.

The reason we can't travel faster than light is that light already takes ZERO time to go anywhere and you can't beat that!

I know it appears to US that light is taking a non-zero finite time to get, say, from the Sun to here.

But, for the photon that makes the journey, from ITS perspective, no time elapses AT ALL.

Yes, I know it's crazy.

[GazOC]

After all, until Columbus (or Lief Erickson), everyone believed the Earth was flat!

The Ancient Greeks knew it was a sphere and tried to measure the size by the different shadows the Sun cast, at the same time of day at two places of a known distance apart.

[Cloudwatcher]

I know it appears to US that light is taking a non-zero finite time to get, say, from the Sun to here.

But, for the photon that makes the journey, from ITS perspective, no time elapses AT ALL.

:shock:

Is that because they don't where watches? :insects1: