OT: Pandora's Box

[eridanus]

Pandora's box

In 1900, the British physicist Lord Kelvin is said to have pronounced: "There
is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and
more precise measurement." Within three decades, quantum mechanics and
Einstein's theory of relativity had revolutionized the field. Today, no
physicist would dare assert that our physical knowledge of the universe is near
completion. To the contrary, each new discovery seems to unlock a Pandora's box
of even bigger, even deeper physics questions. These are our picks for the most
profound open questions of all.

http://www.livescience.com/34052-unsolved-mysteries-physics.html

[Bill]

These questions are not really that profound because the
answers always follow the same formula. They will always
agree with existing theories, they will always assume that
naturalistic explanations we the only possible kind. They
will dismiss all alternatives to established answers.

Bill

[jillery]

My impression is most thinking adults understand that the more they
know, the more they know what they don't know. The real debate
instead revolves around epistemology, how to tell the difference
between what you know and what you think you know but isn't true.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[jillery]

<https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-surefire-way-to-never-find-anything-new-in-science-a65714b2929a#.e0kle7uax>

<http://tinyurl.com/zlnrwak>

**************************************
Science isn’t about getting it right the first time, nor is it about
getting a result in line with what everyone else has found. Yes, most
of the time the older results are correct, but you do no one a service
by expecting a particular result in advance.
**************************************

[eridanus]

that's right. The question of our own delusions of intelligence
eri

[Paul J Gans]

The implication of Kelvin's statement is somewhat different. He was
expressing his belief in the ability of then-known physics to explain
all the strange phenomenon that needed explanation.

The problems such as the black body problem and the stability of atoms
were known problems. And their soon-to-come resolution revolutionized
physics.

Kelvin was wrong, but he was no fool.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[jillery]

My reply is a response to eridanus' comments. Kelvin is his goto
poster child for pompous scientists. I'm sure Kelvin was no fool, but
he had the bad luck to repeatedly and publicly assert absolute
certainty about things which certainly turned out to be absolutely
wrong.

[eridanus]

I had watched a few videos with scientist speaking in person. They are very
modest on the question of certitudes. They are very sensible about this point
of certainty. Others are no so modest, and look as uncertainties were
inexistent.

That's all. As I never was a professional scientist, I had time to read a
little bit about the History of science. That is the reason I am sensible
with certainties and uncertainties.

Eri

[jillery]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 03:32:03 -0800 (PST), eridanus

>I had watched a few videos with scientist speaking in person. They are very
>modest on the question of certitudes. They are very sensible about this point
>of certainty. Others are no so modest, and look as uncertainties were
>inexistent.
>
>That's all. As I never was a professional scientist, I had time to read a
>little bit about the History of science. That is the reason I am sensible
>with certainties and uncertainties.

Kelvin thought he was sensible too. Foolishness is like body odor;
people don't recognize their own stink. I include myself. Apparently
you exclude yourself.

[eridanus]

this is not what I said, I am sensible with certainties and uncertainties.

More than this, being a skeptic and a total ignorant, I have not any way
to discern something certain from something uncertain.

To know something is certain, one needs a knowledge I have not.

So, do not accuse me of no recognizing my own stink. I have not stink.
Those that know have a stink, not me. For I am ignorant.
As the polls say about the intentions of vote, I do not know, I do not answer.

eri

[eridanus]

El martes, 17 de enero de 2017, 16:35:00 (UTC), jillery escribió:

Only those that know can be wrong. But not the ignorants. A parrot cannot
be wrong. And the ignorants are like parrots.
eri

[Paul J Gans]

I understand that Kelvin is his "goto poster child". I'm just pointing
out that Kelvin had a deep and abiding faith in classical physics and
electrodynamics. His view was not uncommon. Indeed it was widely
shared. He gets mentioned in reference to it mainly because he was
one of the most famous (and deservedly so) scientists of his day.

[jillery]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 11:09:13 -0800 (PST), eridanus

>this is not what I said, I am sensible with certainties and uncertainties.

I could have written "Kelvin thought he was sensible with certainties
and uncertainties too", and it wouldn't have changed my point one bit.
So your objection is pointless.

>More than this, being a skeptic and a total ignorant, I have not any way
>to discern something certain from something uncertain.
>
>To know something is certain, one needs a knowledge I have not.
>
>So, do not accuse me of no recognizing my own stink. I have not stink.
>Those that know have a stink, not me.

Oy. You just contradicted yourself and proved my point.

> For I am ignorant.
>As the polls say about the intentions of vote, I do not know, I do not answer.
>
>eri

[jillery]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 11:11:39 -0800 (PST), eridanus

>Only those that know can be wrong. But not the ignorants. A parrot cannot
>be wrong. And the ignorants are like parrots.

In this universe, parrots and other ignorants have no problem making
incorrect statements, and do so regularly.

[jillery]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 19:37:46 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

And I agree with your point. And I'm just pointing out your point has
nothing to do with my point. Get the point?

[J. J. Lodder]

eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Pandora's box
>
> In 1900, the British physicist Lord Kelvin is said to have pronounced: "There
> is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and
> more precise measurement."

It is a myth, and similar is also ascribed to variouus other persons.
Kelvin also said, (and this time for real)
that 19th century physics was marred by two big unsolved problems,
namely black-body radiation and the world-aether.

In other words, he pin-pointed where the revolution
would be needed, and before it had happened,

Jan

[Paul J Gans]

J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Pandora's box
>>
>> In 1900, the British physicist Lord Kelvin is said to have pronounced: "There
>> is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and
>> more precise measurement."

>It is a myth, and similar is also ascribed to variouus other persons.
>Kelvin also said, (and this time for real)
>that 19th century physics was marred by two big unsolved problems,
>namely black-body radiation and the world-aether.

>In other words, he pin-pointed where the revolution
>would be needed, and before it had happened,

>Jan

There was a third unsolved problem: the stability of atoms (and
molecules).

>> Within three decades, quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of
>> relativity had revolutionized the field. Today, no physicist would dare
>> assert that our physical knowledge of the universe is near completion. To
>> the contrary, each new discovery seems to unlock a Pandora's box of even
>> bigger, even deeper physics questions. These are our picks for the most
>> profound open questions of all.
>>
>> http://www.livescience.com/34052-unsolved-mysteries-physics.html

[J. J. Lodder]

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Pandora's box
> >>
> >> In 1900, the British physicist Lord Kelvin is said to have pronounced:
> >> "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains
> >> is more and more precise measurement."
>
> >It is a myth, and similar is also ascribed to variouus other persons.
> >Kelvin also said, (and this time for real)
> >that 19th century physics was marred by two big unsolved problems,
> >namely black-body radiation and the world-aether.
>
> >In other words, he pin-pointed where the revolution
> >would be needed, and before it had happened,
>
> >Jan
>
> There was a third unsolved problem: the stability of atoms (and
> molecules).

Not yet for Kelvin. The electron wasn't established until 1896,
and the structure of atoms and molecules was no more than gueswork.
(pudding models and so on)

Stability of atoms became a real problem only after Rutherford
discovered the atomic nucleus.

Jan

[eridanus]

that's it
eri

[Paul J Gans]

J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>> >eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Pandora's box
>> >>
>> >> In 1900, the British physicist Lord Kelvin is said to have pronounced:
>> >> "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains
>> >> is more and more precise measurement."
>>
>> >It is a myth, and similar is also ascribed to variouus other persons.
>> >Kelvin also said, (and this time for real)
>> >that 19th century physics was marred by two big unsolved problems,
>> >namely black-body radiation and the world-aether.
>>
>> >In other words, he pin-pointed where the revolution
>> >would be needed, and before it had happened,
>>
>> >Jan
>>
>> There was a third unsolved problem: the stability of atoms (and
>> molecules).

>Not yet for Kelvin. The electron wasn't established until 1896,
>and the structure of atoms and molecules was no more than gueswork.
>(pudding models and so on)

All of which were unstable according to then current ideas.

>Stability of atoms became a real problem only after Rutherford
>discovered the atomic nucleus.

Nah. It was there all the time.

Sorry. I'm feeling a bit sociopathic right now. I'll be better
in about four years.

[J. J. Lodder]

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >> >eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Pandora's box
> >> >>
> >> >> In 1900, the British physicist Lord Kelvin is said to have pronounced:
> >> >> "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains
> >> >> is more and more precise measurement."
> >>
> >> >It is a myth, and similar is also ascribed to variouus other persons.
> >> >Kelvin also said, (and this time for real)
> >> >that 19th century physics was marred by two big unsolved problems,
> >> >namely black-body radiation and the world-aether.
> >>
> >> >In other words, he pin-pointed where the revolution
> >> >would be needed, and before it had happened,
> >>
> >> >Jan
> >>
> >> There was a third unsolved problem: the stability of atoms (and
> >> molecules).
>
> >Not yet for Kelvin. The electron wasn't established until 1896,
> >and the structure of atoms and molecules was no more than gueswork.
> >(pudding models and so on)
>
> All of which were unstable according to then current ideas.

Beg to disagree. Unstable only when you add the assumption
that all forces must be electromagnetic in nature.
There was no good reason to assume that, in those days.
As a matter of fact, it was Kelvin who proposed the first atom model.
(with support from Thomson)

> >Stability of atoms became a real problem only after Rutherford
> >discovered the atomic nucleus.
>
> Nah. It was there all the time.
>
> Sorry. I'm feeling a bit sociopathic right now. I'll be better
> in about four years.

Have some more plum-pudding,

Jan

[Jonathan]

The 9 Biggest Unsolved Mysteries in Physics



1) What is dark energy?




New theory of gravity might explain dark matter
November 8, 2016

A new theory of gravity might explain the curious motions of
stars in galaxies. Emergent gravity, as the new theory is
called, predicts the exact same deviation of motions that
is usually explained by invoking dark matter. Prof. Erik
Verlinde, renowned expert in string theory at the University
of Amsterdam and the Delta Institute for Theoretical Physics,
published a new research paper today in which he expands
his groundbreaking views on the nature of gravity.

In 2010, Erik Verlinde surprised the world with a completely
new theory of gravity. According to Verlinde, gravity is not
a fundamental force of nature, but an emergent phenomenon.

In the same way that temperature arises from the movement
of microscopic particles, gravity emerges from the changes
of fundamental bits of information, stored in the very
structure of space time.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html#jCp


Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe
https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269





2) What is dark matter?




The Case Against Dark Matter

A proposed theory of gravity does away with dark matter,
even as new astrophysical findings challenge the need
for galaxies full of the invisible mystery particles.

The latest attempt to explain away dark matter is a
much-discussed proposal by Erik Verlinde, a theoretical
physicist at the University of Amsterdam who is known
for bold and prescient, if sometimes imperfect, ideas.
In a dense 51-page paper posted online on Nov. 7,
Verlinde casts gravity as a byproduct of quantum
interactions and suggests that the extra gravity
attributed to dark matter is an effect of “dark energy”
— the background energy woven into the space-time
fabric of the universe.


To make his case, Verlinde has adopted a radical perspective
on the origin of gravity that is currently in vogue among
leading theoretical physicists. Einstein defined gravity
as the effect of curves in space-time created by the
presence of matter. According to the new approach,
gravity is an emergent phenomenon.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161129-verlinde-gravity-dark-matter/




3) Why is there an arrow of time?




A Debate Over the Physics of Time

According to our best theories of physics, the universe
is a fixed block where time only appears to pass.
Yet a number of physicists hope to replace this
“block universe” with a physical theory of time.

Those in attendance wrestled with several questions:
the distinction between past, present and future;
why time appears to move in only one direction;
and whether time is fundamental or emergent.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160719-time-and-cosmology/



Time really exists!
The evolving block universe


4. An evolving block spacetime

By contrast to the Block Spacetime view, one can suggest
that the true nature of spacetime is best represented as
an Evolving Block Universe (“EBU”), a spacetime which grows
and incorporates ever more events, “concretizing” as time
evolves along each world line, with quantum uncertainty
continually changing to classical definiteness [7].

To motivate this spacetime model, consider a massive object
in space such as an asteroid, with two computer controlled
rocket engines attached, one at each end, that move it either
right or left. Let the computer determine when the engines fire
on the basis of measurements of radioactive decay products
of excited atoms.

Then the outcome is unpredictable in principle, because
radioactive decay is a quantum event: the times of emission
of decay particles is unpredictable because of foundational
quantum indeterminacy. There are a whole lot of possible
paths in the future at a time 𝑡0; at a later time 𝑡1 one
of those paths will have been chosen and the rest —the
paths not taken— will have been rejected.

This repeats to the future of t1, and so on: the possibilities
of the future become the determined choices of the past as
time progresses (see Figure 4).

As the asteroid has mass, it curves spacetime according to
the way it moves, so the outcomes of these irreducibly random
quantum events determines the spacetime curvature as time
progresses in the future. Thus the future spacetime structure
is not determinable or predictable from current data
(as was foreshadowed in the Bohr-Einstein debate): one
can only find out what it becomes by observing what
happens as it happens


7. Emergence of complexity

The initial argument against the flow of time was that
the future was uniquely implied by the past; thus
the present, where the indefinite future changes
to the definite past, has no meaning.

This final section comments firstly on how this is
not true in the real universe, because real complexity
arises that is not implied by the initial data; and
secondly how if it were true, it would raise much deeper
paradoxes.

7.1 Complexity arises that is not implied by the initial
data Genuine emergence in time is needed because of the
expansion history of the universe, represented in Figure 7.
http://www.euresisjournal.org/public/article/pdf/Ellis.pdf








s