hidden variables
Daryl McCullough
>As an aside, it is worth noting here that a "theory" of
>physics is worth nothing until it predicts something not yet
>observed, no matter how aesthetically pleasing said "theory"
>may be. And so much the worse for a theory full of
>superfluous, metaphysical explanations.
I think it is worth noting that theories of physics aren't worth much
whether they predict something or not. Most cutting-edge theoretical
physics is of absolutely no use whatsoever except to other theoretical
physicists. So let's cut out this talk about the "worth" of theories;
they don't have any.
The only motivation there can be in continuing to work in theoretical
physics is simply the driving power of curiosity---the desire to
understand how the world works. And the only criterion for whether a
theory of physics is satisfactory is this: does it satisfy your
curiosity?
Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY
Paul Budnik
>
>[...]
> whether they predict something or not. Most cutting-edge theoretical
> physics is of absolutely no use whatsoever except to other theoretical
> physicists. So let's cut out this talk about the "worth" of theories;
> they don't have any.
This is true and a powerful argument to suggest that there is something
seriously wrong with the way physics is being pursued. Instead of focusing
on understanding the clues we are given about what might be wrong with
our fundamental physical concepts, almost all the vast resources of cutting
edge theoretical and experimental physics research is focused on problems
that fit within the existing framework. As a result the practical
implications of this research tend to be nearly nonexistent.
Of course there is much valuable research done in more mundane areas such
as condensed matter physics.
> The only motivation there can be in continuing to work in theoretical
> physics is simply the driving power of curiosity---the desire to
> understand how the world works. And the only criterion for whether a
> theory of physics is satisfactory is this: does it satisfy your
> curiosity?
The real motivation is the same that keeps large entrenched bureaucracies
in place everywhere. There is a system that feeds itself and justifys
itself. That is not to say that there are not many good well motivated people
in the system. However, if the real motivation was curiosity about how
the world works there would be far more interest and attention to the
conceptual problems that exist in theoretical physics. People would be
willing to take on these problems even realizing that they might spend a
lifetime on them and fail in their quest. It is an entrenched bureaucracy
that demands one takes on problems for which one can provide results that
are meaningful in terms the bureaucracy recognizes in a reasonable
time frame.
Paul Budnik
john baez
>However, if the real motivation was curiosity about how
>the world works there would be far more interest and attention to the
>conceptual problems that exist in theoretical physics. People would be
>willing to take on these problems even realizing that they might spend a
>lifetime on them and fail in their quest. It is an entrenched bureaucracy
>that demands one takes on problems for which one can provide results that
>are meaningful in terms the bureaucracy recognizes in a reasonable
>time frame.
You certainly have a valid point here: that the bureaucracy of science
forces scientists towards projects that get done (or fail) in a several-year
time frame. But I think it is an exaggeration to say that without this
effect "people would be willing to take on... problems even realizing that they
might spend a lifetime on them and fail in their quest." Some people would,
but most, I think, still would not. Most people get depressed working on
something that might take a lifetime and still amount to nothing. Most
people prefer the sense of accomplishment that results from finishing a
finite and doable task. Even you might find pondering the interpretations
of QM frustrating if you didn't also have a job that gave you that kind of sense
of accomplishment. (This could, of course, point to the good old model of
the "amateur scientist" (as opposed to "professional") as the best way to
keep science from getting hidebound.)
Of course, many people who work on possibly hopeless tasks like theology,
philosophy, foundations of math and foundations of physics seem able to
*fool* themselves into a sense of accomplishment by convincing themselves
they have achieved something solid when they haven't. (I will not name
names.) The next generation may declare their work a bunch of rubbish, but
they will die "knowing" they have solved their problem.
Paul Budnik
> In article <5...@mtnmath.UUCP> pa...@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
> forces scientists towards projects that get done (or fail) in a several-year
> time frame. But I think it is an exaggeration to say that without this
> effect "people would be willing to take on... problems even realizing that they
> might spend a lifetime on them and fail in their quest." Some people would,
> but most, I think, still would not.
I agree. I think must people *should* work on problems
that are likely to be solvable in a reasonable period of time both because
of their innate desires and the need to achieve practical results.
> Most people get depressed working on
> something that might take a lifetime and still amount to nothing. Most
> people prefer the sense of accomplishment that results from finishing a
> finite and doable task. Even you might find pondering the interpretations
> of QM frustrating if you didn't also have a job that gave you that kind of sense
> of accomplishment. (This could, of course, point to the good old model of
> the "amateur scientist" (as opposed to "professional") as the best way to
> keep science from getting hidebound.)
The problem is that science is becoming too complex for this to be practical.
I am in the rather unique position of having made a serious attempt to get
support for my ideas as a graduate student and failed because they were
considered too far out and unlikely to produce results in a reasonable time.
I have been able to earn enough money by consulting to still spend a large
amount time on these ideas but it has been a struggle. The only reason I have
done it is because not doing it was so much more difficult. The creative
force of an idea that will not die can be a powerful motivator. One of my
main goals, if am in successful, is to change the system so that a
few people like me are supported by the bureaucracy. Bureaucracies are
necessary evils that require periodic or perhaps continual revolution to
keep them from strangling us.
> Of course, many people who work on possibly hopeless tasks like theology,
> philosophy, foundations of math and foundations of physics seem able to
> *fool* themselves into a sense of accomplishment by convincing themselves
> they have achieved something solid when they haven't. (I will not name
> names.) The next generation may declare their work a bunch of rubbish, but
> they will die "knowing" they have solved their problem.
The great difficulty with creativity is that it cannot be controlled or
predicted. Even when someone spends much time on an idea that ultimately
seems to lead no where I think it is a mistake to conclude that they should
have done something else.
We all fool ourselves in many ways. It is a necessary coping mechanism.
I think there is much self delusion within physics about current
interpretations and the abandonment of fundamental philosophical
principles of science. I see little difference between this and how
other's fool themselves about the ideas they pursue.
Of course some people pursue ideas that they do not have the
intellectual equipment to cope with or that are completely
beyond any reasonable progress for other reasons. But the creative
instinct that leads them on is probably not that different from the
creative instinct that motivates an Einstein. Thus one should not be
too quick to criticize nature for allowing people to delude themselves.
It may not be possible to have real creativity without considerable
`wasted' effort.
Paul Budnik