The End of Discovery within Physics

[ShrimpMaster]

[ARTICLE:]blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-chec ... free-will/

I am usually dissatisfied with Scientific American and its kind of fantastic articles on "cutting edge" theories that have no place in science whatsoever at the moment, but it is nice to see at least one person has their head on straight. The article by blogger, John Horgan, interviews George Ellis and asks him a number of questions that end up with some very interesting responses.

I will focus on the first question he was asked:

John Horgan: At the conference where we met, Howthelightsgetsin, you were in a session called “The end of experiment.” What was that about?

George Ellis: "...many of the possible high-energy physics experiments and astronomy observations relevant to cosmology are now in essence nearly complete. Physics experiments are approaching the highest energies it will ever be possible to test by any collider experiment, both for financial and technical reasons. We can’t build a collider bigger than the surface of the Earth. Thus our ability to test high energy physics – and hence structures on the smallest physical scales – is approaching its limits... So what we can see at the largest and smallest scales is approaching what will ever be possible, except for refining the details."

There are many other questions he is asked that are all interesting and relevant to the board, so I would suggest reading the entire article.

I would agree with Ellis that we are nearing the end of experimentation. I have a few questions for the reader;

1) When do you expect discovery in physics to reach its end? (Not concerned with the details - talking about experimentation and models, etc... completed)
2) What are the implications when this end is reached?

Thank you

[Logicus]

I find it surprising that there have been no responses to this thread. I can understand, though, why many are reluctant: The death of the new has been predicted many times and proven wrong. But Ellis is essentially correct. The experiments we are able to perform, especially at the subatomic level, are nearing their end.

I'll take the last question first. The long term implications is that science will cease to be an important major for college degrees. The money will go somewhere else, into fields that have more promise, politically, socially, and otherwise. We've had generations of writers, engineers, mathematicians, lawyers, doctors, astronomers, and physicists. The money always goes to the favored field. I suspect the biological sciences will be the next big thing: meddling with DNA and such, and trying to resolve the riddle of consciousness. Pure science will take a back seat to the expedient use of scientific knowledge. Think about designing a genetic weapon to target specific sequences in the DNA of your enemy, and you have an idea of what could happen.

As to the idea of reaching limits to the knowable, that is already a problem. There are certain things that are intrinsically unknowable. Consider trying to "know" the position and velocity of any particle simultaneously. Then focus on one of those - say position - then try to determine the positions of all the particles in a system. Or the universe. Even if there were enough observers, relativity has shown us that there is no such thing as "simultaneous" for all observers.

What you want to know is "are we reaching the limits of the new?", in terms of discoveries of basic phenomena and processes. First, I do not think we know as much as we think we do. I think we will find ourselves re-writing some parts of our knowledge (is that details?). Second, physics is only concerned with the physical world. The world of consciousness may be a far greater field of study. And the two are somehow intertwined. Perhaps that is the future of what is knowable: Discovering what part we play in the evolution of the universe.

[Infinite_zero]

1) When do you expect discovery in physics to reach its end? (Not concerned with the details - talking about experimentation and models, etc... completed)
2) What are the implications when this end is reached?

Thank you

1) Impossible to predict the future, I cannot say even if. We have as of yet to describe and explain what dark matter and dark energy really is, no real experimental tests have been done regarding this. And we still don't know enough about black holes to really tell what they are and do. These are really more mysteries as of know than scientific knowledge. Experimentation and modelling is therefore far from over, because we've only covered the physical world that we can "see" and not the other one that exists in the "dark".

2) As for the implications of the end being reached would be a unified physical theory explaining all the current sciences more or less with a few or just one physical model. Meaning it would require a reduction of the sciences into more or less a physical explanation. Which many things can be explained through physics in the other sciences. But there still is no sign about there being a unifying theory, that says; well lads, now we can take a break from exploring our world and unravelling the mysteries.

Hence I don't see physics ending just yet, many thought it ended a long time ago and were proven wrong. A new simple theory explaining more and better than our current theories may show up and make us change our view yet again.

[Quotidian]

I read the Ellis interview, thought it was very sane. I especially liked that he called for a re-appraisal of Aristotle's four types of causality.

John Horgan published a controversial book in the 1990's called The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age. Reaction was very hostile, but I think he was onto something. I have read quite a few of his columns since then, and he's generally a pretty canny writer, I think.

[ShrimpMaster]

Thanks for the posts everyone. I will check out that book Quotidian. I wanted to talk more about falsifiability in light of the direction this thread (I am guessing) would eventually go. I think I will need to educate myself a little more though before I go down that trail.

[DarwinX]

Thanks for the posts everyone. I will check out that book Quotidian. I wanted to talk more about falsifiability in light of the direction this thread (I am guessing) would eventually go. I think I will need to educate myself a little more though before I go down that trail.

Its too bad you don't know how to click on a video link, otherwise you may have learn't something which would have solved your current negative thoughts about science not going forwards or heading in the right direction.

[Fooloso4]

There are a few things that Ellis says that I find questionable.

First, he claims that we have reached the limits of experimental science.

So what we can see at the largest and smallest scales is approaching what will ever be possible, except for refining the details.

He does, however, make an exception:

But I emphasize that this comment does not apply to complex systems.

He then goes on to say:

I concede that observations relevant to structure formation in the universe – galaxies, stars, planets – have a good while to go, they are in essence verging to the side of studying complexity

So, the large to very large scales are excluded from the alleged limits of experiment. What of the smallest scales? How do we know that they are not complex systems as well? And how do we know that our current experimental limits are unsurpassable limits? How do we know that we will not develop experimental methods to deal with some of the limits to current high energy physics?

This brings me to the second problem. His insistence that science is about what is testable and his suspicion of mathematical models:

The belief that all of reality can be fully comprehended in terms of physics and the equations of physics is a fantasy. As pointed out so well by Eddington in his Gifford lectures

It is telling that he points to Arthur Eddington because Eddington rejected the work of Chandrasekhar which led to the idea of black holes because it was based on mathematical rather than physical models. The existence of black holes was widely accepted prior to supporting evidence.

My philosophical and religious views must of course take present-day science seriously, but in doing so (a) I distinguish very clearly between what is tested or testable science and what is not, (b) I make strenuous efforts to consider what aspects of reality can be comprehended by a strict scientific approach, and what lie outside the limits of mathematically based efforts to encapsulate aspects of the nature of what exists.

As to point (a) Ellis seems to have forgotten the Einstein’s theory too was widely accepted prior to satisfactory testing. He is critical of the work of Sean Carroll regarding falsifiability. Ellis characterizes this as:

a major step backwards to before the evidence-based scientific revolution initiated by Galileo and Newton

.

What is ironic is that Ellis seems perfectly willing to forgo falsifiability when it comes to religion and philosophy but not to science. He even admits that multiverse theories might be true, but they are unprovable so he rejects them. Not to get too far off topic but as far as I can see Carroll is not rejecting evidence-based science, it is just that the evidence from mathematical models necessarily weighs more heavily than physical evidence. What is important is that such theories remain provisional and subject to change. They should not be rejected out of hand because they are unprovable by standards that have become questionable because they are more properly suited to observation and experimentation of a different scale.

(b) Why such “strenuous efforts” to limit what can be known through science? Certainly it is clear that there is a great deal that is not known. While it is one thing to be aware of what lies beyond the limits of our knowledge, it is quite another to attempt to draw the line for what will in the future lie beyond the limits of our knowledge. Let the state of the art of our knowledge at any given time show where the line is at that time rather than strenuously trying to establish where they lie ultimately.

[Logicus]

Why such “strenuous efforts” to limit what can be known through science?

Why the "strenuous defense" of the status quo? The realm referred to in the interview is the mathematical fantasies generated by string theory. None of which can be proven, demonstrated, or falsified, and that after 40 years came up with only one prediction: super symmetric particles (and the extra dimensions required to house them). So far, no hint of any of this has been found.

Black holes were accepted before evidence supporting them because the rest of relativity worked marvelously well, and it was assumed the entire theory must be entirely true and accurate. Einstein himself did not like the singularities, and, in fact, I am not entirely sure they exist. The problem is that when you look for black holes, you find black holes. Other explanations are rarely considered if the chief candidate is always a singularity. Einstein's view of the universe is not unassailable. Newton's views stood for 300 years. Einstein may not last that long.

Your entire argument is based on the idea that science is the superior view. That is a kind of belief, but belief plays no roll in science. It deals entirely with provable facts about physical systems. Your problem is your belief in science as infinite an infallible. Sound familiar?

Religion and philosophy are belief systems, science is a method of inquiry. If you forgo falsifiability in science, it also becomes a belief system. By definition, science is concerned with physical phenomena. Religion and philosophy are not. The argument in the interview is not predicting the end of physics, just the possible end of what we can determine. We are reaching physical limits to what we are able to do in the way of experiments, which is quite a handicap for a discipline based on physical observation.

[Misty]

Science has been touted as evidence based, but that does not guarantee the evidence was collected in a way that negates further inspection. Humans are an arrogant intelligence thinking they can untangle the intricacies of the universe but can't figure out how to get along with each other and eliminate hunger and suffering. Physics deals with matter and motion so how the hell can it become obsolete?

[AB1OB]

There have been other times in the history of science, when some believed we know almost everything.

At one point, the common belief was the secret of life itself was just a couple years down the road of discovery.

The advancement of science is two-fold.

The advancement of knowledge of science comes about by a willingness to adapt new/more complete perspectives of a concept.

Any new or improved concepts might then be evaluated for being put to some practical use. This is the "golden apple", the potential "money maker" side of science.

The path to be taken is not always visible from our current position...

[Fooloso4]

Logicus:

The realm referred to in the interview is the mathematical fantasies generated by string theory.

What he refers to are two things: 1) “what aspects of reality can be comprehended by a strict scientific approach”, and 2) “what lie outside the limits of mathematically based efforts to encapsulate aspects of the nature of what exists”.

Certainly this includes but is not limited to string theory. We simply do not know what string theory will yield. Consider non-Euclidian geometries. They were regarded as interesting but useless until it was realized that they were useful when dealing with curved space. But suppose it turns out that string theory is a dead end. So what? It would not be the first time that a line of investigation has not panned out. That is the way science works.

Your entire argument is based on the idea that science is the superior view.

I am surprised to hear that since I hold no such idea. Superior in what respect? Science can tell us more about the physical world than religion or philosophy. All three terms, however, are sufficiently broad so as to include within them disagreement as to what the superior view is. Ellis’ disagreement with physicists is a disagreement that exists within physics itself. There are many physicists who object to work being done that is not testable or falsifiable. Some physicists see a useful place for philosophy within physics, while others dismiss philosophy all together. Some philosophers have more than a rudimentary understanding of physics, but other do not and either misrepresent or ignore it. Some philosophers look to establish limits, of them, some look to the limits of what is known but others to what it is possible to know. One’s religious views may be traditional or radically idiosyncratic. How that may relate to the limits of the “nature of what exists” is wide open. It is often the case that science will be used to support religious ideas and rejected when it does not support those ideas.

[Quotidian]

What is ironic is that Ellis seems perfectly willing to forgo falsifiability when it comes to religion and philosophy but not to science.

That is not ironic in the least, because the criteria of falsifiability are not applicable to those subjects in the same way that they are to scientific analysis. Why? Because in science, you are making predictions about phenomena and the causal relations between them. So you make a prediction and then judge it against observation of what actually happens. 'What happens' may or may not validate your prediction; that is how science opereates.

If you believe in a transcendent deity, no science will ever reveal that, because by definition it is beyond the scope of any experiment or observation, in the scientific sense. One might come to a conviction about such matters through solitary meditation or mediated by a religious community, but I'm sure it is not a hypothesis in the scientific sense.

Regarding the limits of experimental science, I think it is quite possible that some of the major problems that have been thrown up by recent physics, such as the nature or reality or otherwise of dark matter, or the real nature of sub-atomic entities, and so on, may never be solved, and may not actually even be able to be solved. Of course we can't say that now, but there are those, like Lee Smolin, who say that physics has not really progressed at all in the last several decades, with respect to some real fundamentals.

In an interesting article called Could the Higgs Nobel be the End of Particle Physics, it is noted that:

Some physicists are campaigning for an ... n the LHC.

But I do wonder, if they built one, whether the conundrums might not just multiply. So - what is there is no 'bottom'? The idea of 'a fundamental particle' really does seem impossible to maintain now, so if you stand back and ask 'what really is fundamental', maybe the idea of trying to analyse matter down to ever-smaller components really has reached a practical limit.

[Fooloso4]

Q:

Because in science, you are making predictions about phenomena and the causal relations between them.

The areas of physics which are not falsifiable that Ellis is objecting to do not deal with phenomena.

So - what is there is no 'bottom'? The idea of 'a fundamental particle' really does seem impossible to maintain now, so if you stand back and ask 'what really is fundamental', maybe the idea of trying to analyse matter down to ever-smaller components really has reached a practical limit.

Good question. The idea of a fundamental particle (an idea that was at one time named the ‘atom’) may be wrong. Science changes with the demands of what is under investigation. To arbitrarily say that science must be this or that because it has been this or that for some period of time seems misguided. We may encounter practical limits and we may develop practical solutions to overcome those limits. We may, however, come to rely more and more on the kind of mathematical models that Ellis is objecting to.

From the article you cited:

Though not the typical reaction, this discovery threatens to close a chapter of 20th century physics without a hint of how to start writing the next page.

In that case perhaps we would be better off not attempting to engage, as Ellis does, in:

strenuous efforts to consider what aspects of reality can be comprehended by a strict scientific approach, and what lie outside the limits of mathematically based efforts to encapsulate aspects of the nature of what exists.

I do not know what a “strict scientific approach” is. The approach must be determined by the problem, not the other way around. The "nature of what exist” is not something evident, and so, our attempts to understand it should not be guided by what one regards as a strict scientific approach.

A few more snippets from the article:

if split-supersymmetry is right, the lack of new physics at the LHC could be indirect evidence for the existence of the very multiverse anticipated by string theory.

All of this could be rather bad news for the LHC.

We are at a critical juncture in particle physics. Perhaps after it restarts the LHC in 2015, it will uncover new particles, naturalness will survive and particle physicists will stay in business. There are reasons to be optimistic.

But perhaps, just perhaps, the LHC will find nothing. The Higgs boson could be particle physics’ swansong, the last particle of the accelerator age. Though a worrying possibility for experimentalists, such a result could lead to a profound shift in our understanding of the universe, and our place in it.

What we see here is a glimpse of what science is really like. There is at present a great deal of confusion and disagreement. No one knows how things will shake out. This supports the idea that we should not be too quick to pronounce the end or wrongness of any particular hypothesis, theory, or approach.

[AB1OB]

The "end" in question, is the end of the illusion that "particles" are reality.

Particle theory looks at things over a large range of size scales, that extend bidirectionally from our point of perspective (human scale).

This theory is a useful and predictive way to orient the dynamics of our observations.

The reason that it works well is that each known influence, affecting an observation, is quantified by the "part" that it plays (through its properties).

Scientists know that reality is really wave action but by using only the observed "part"of the wave, it can be treated as a force-object Relationship vs. a complex wave interaction. This simplifies the math.

-- Updated November 24th, 2014, 11:01 am to add the following --

There is no end to discovery in Physics. The end of visualization in terms of particle physics is what needs to end. Searching for particles by smashing atoms needs to end. But new perspectives will open new pathways of exploration.

The apparent measured mass density of "space" is very low. Depending on how it is calculated, somewhere about 5 protons per cubic centimeter. Even if DarkMatter & DarkEnergy make up 99% of "what's out there" that would be about 500 proton masses per cubic centimeter.

Our reality is expanded from a limited area. What scientists are calling "Inflation Theory" is just an illogical assumption produced by the desire to maintain objectivity.

In other words. Inflation Theory tells us that something had to happen before our expansion began. There is no scientific reason to believe anything existed before our expansion. Therefore, just the suspected result of this pre-existence is plotted as a "filler-inner idea" between the null origin and the start of expansion.

Logically, we can infer that there was some continuum, that produced the precursors to the start of our expansion.

If the calculated observation of 500 proton masses per cubic centimeter is correct, then we need an entry portal that will provide a constant supply of 500 protons/cm^3.

Why do we need a BigBang for that? We don't! We only need a BigBang if we imagine that the entire universe came into existence at once, filled with all its mass, from the very start.

So I ask you, considering Occam's Razor, which perspective should be chosen?

1. The entire universe and all its contents popped into existence at one instant (ie: extremely short duration).

2. The universe of today, is expanding from a condensed entry port @ the constant rate of about 500 protons/cm^3.

PROTON WAVE SYSTEM--THE BUILDING BLOCK OF MATTER

Let's look at expansion in a 2 dimensional circle (which will represent the 3 dimensional sphere of expanding reality). Think of a Lego block as our proton model for a 2 dimensional expansion. The source of expansion, supplies 500 blocks per minute. Each block is a fixed size, therefore the size of the portal and the size of the blocks will control the maximum number of blocks possible in the highly condensed area near the portal. This creates a constant speed of influx for the blocks entering expansion. This constant speed can be measured as the radial enlargement of the circle. This is the flow (or current) of expansion. This is the TIME factor of the circle's expansion.

When the blocks come out of the portal, they have no space between them. They are right next to each other in tight radially oriented rows. But since they move radially, away from the portal in 360 degrees of directions, SPACE will soon form between the radials.

TIME & SPACE emerged from the process we see as expansion. Now relative actions are possible between the rows of blocks. In other words, as the blocks continue their constant expansion (fed by the entry port) they can now be rearranged within the available SPACE (RELATIVE MOTION). This relative motion allows us to build things from the blocks as they continue through SPACE-TIME.


The proton is a self contained wave system. It is its own little world of self-reference and existence. Waves only exist via as continuum of action (motion/time = exist).

Particle physics describes POINTS of action/interaction as "Point Particles", enabling them to simplify the math involved with the observed interactions. But there really are no "solid" particles, just waves that have actions at a point.

Particle physics is analogous to studying a whirlpool or a tornado. We can find points of interaction between forces that lead to a causal effect. But we really can not take a tornado apart and look at its individual parts. Once we take it apart, it is no longer a tornado. When you smash an proton, you do not get parts, you just get energy signatures. These give us hints of how the energy system might be interacting but can't be actual particles.

Proton are described as 2 up quarks & 1 down quark. The quarks are a part of the magnetic torus. A torus is like a smoke ring rolling over on itself. The 2 outsides of the observed rolling smoke ring. creates the up appearance and the center of the ring is the down. This gives it some self propulsion via the "jet -effect" of the down portion. The neutron is also a torus shape but it is a ghost-particle. That is just an empty component of the atoms geometry that crates a drag torus when coo-moving in the proton flow of time. The adjacent proton's circulating torus produces an anti-torus reaction (the neutron) like a gear tooth against its counterpart. That is why you can not separate quarks. It would be like taking the eye out a tornado.

The proton is a wave system. There is a force that can be compared to a dipole. A separation of balance producing a potential. This could be visualized as a spinning bar magnet or two micro planetary bodies orbiting around each other. There is not much chance of our being able to see this but each planetary body could be a system made from a much smaller scale. Size is only relative measurement. It is the interacting dynamics of function, not component parts, that matter in wave systems. This little orbital is (at least as of now) the smallest point of force interaction within the proton system. It is the so-called Higgs boson.

But that Higgs is not a separate PARTicle. It is the orbital aspect of the tornado-like wave system. The orbital action produces an electric current. The electric current produces a magnetic torus that moves the proton in a unilateral motion. The expansion of these tightly compacted radial energy systems creates an expanding electromagnetic matrix ("space", "aether").

Each proton system (which flow radially in the current of time) displaces a positive "space" within the electromagnetic matrix. This creates a halo of negative space surrounding it (the "electron cloud").

In my view, Protons are a self-contained wave system that require a unilateral motion to exist. They serve as building blocks for matter. Electrons and photons are energy carried by and exchanged via the electromagnetic matrix. They are measurable as point particles but are points of action of the E/M matrix, not self-contained systems like a proton.

Neutrons are just empty space within a multi-proton system. Proton systems act like particles and their combinations are controlled by the geometric shapes that they produce when interacting. Each geometry will allow for a maximum number of proton systems to fit inside. If the geometric shape is lacking sufficient protons to fill it, it contains dead space (the neutron).

This seems illogical at first because we have a misunderstanding of the concept of mass. Mass is drag against the motion of TIME. Dead space in the nucleus creates more drag than a proton system because the proton has intrinsic mobility (which works to somewhat reduce drag) and the similarly sized empty space does not. The much larger space of the electron cloud area has very little drag effect because it is the nucleus that maintains relativity with expansion time.

[Quotidian]

What we see here is a glimpse of what science is really like. There is at present a great deal of confusion and disagreement. No one knows how things will shake out. This supports the idea that we should not be too quick to pronounce the end or wrongness of any particular hypothesis, theory, or approach.

It may be what science is really like, but the thought occurs to me that what we're actually seeing is 'the end of naturalism', as such.

Why do I say that?

I think the goal of naturalism was based in the premise that nature was somehow self-explanatory or self-contained: that if you looked at 'what was really there' and discarded all of the metaphysical nonsense that had built up through history, that you could discern from the 'motions of bodies' the fundamental principles of organisation which accounted for everything within it. Recall LaPlace when asked why his theorems of the movements of bodies did not mention God: 'I have no need of that hypothesis.'

And look at where we are now. I think the writing was on the wall when 'the atom' was shown to be mainly empty space. Because without atomism, what might the sole foundation be? What are we even looking for? I reckon the indication that naturalism, as such, has failed, is the widespread acceptance of Everett's 'Relative State' formulation. That, and the sudden proliferation of ideas about 'many universes'. (Perhaps 'the Universe' - a.k.a. 'The Cosmos' - is called 'Universe' for a reason.)

I noticed on Peter Woit's excellent blog, Not Even Wrong that ne notes, I think with despair, that cosmologists are now looking for 'signatures' which might 'prove' the 'existence' of 'other universes'. Woit is definitely a multiverse skeptic - I think he thinks that Tegmark is, if not mad, heading that way. But just think about how much time, and how many research dollars, and how many person-hours, you could spend (or waste) pursuing these phantasmagorical ideas about 'other universes' and then debating whether or not the arcane mathematical analyses that follow the capture of some electro-magnetic data really do support 'the hypothesis'. Angels on the head of a pin, indeed.

I am beginning to think that the practical limits to science really might be: the atom on one end of the scale, the visible universe on the other. That, after all, is 'nature', or was, before Alice went down the rabbit-hole. Imagine if 'natural philosophy' was really forced to accept those limits to its speculations, and told that they couldn't proceed further - 'thar be dragons!' Then science would have to concentrate on what it can do, given that it can't indefinitely extend its reckonings into metaphysical dimensions. It might be a salutory discipline, and allow us to concentrate on the very real and pressing problems that require pretty immediate solutions, like environmental sciences, food supply and energy security.