Teaching ancient brains new tricks: New research shows how modern physicists think

[israel socratus]

OCTOBER 11, 2021
Teaching ancient brains new tricks: New research shows how modern physicists think
by Carnegie Mellon University
------
" One of the most novel findings was that the physicists' brains organized the concepts
into those with measureable versus immeasurable size. Here on Earth for most
of us mortals, everything physical is measureable, given the right ruler, scale or radar gun.
But for a physicist, some concepts like dark matter, neutrinos or the multiverse,
their magnitude is not measureable. And in the physicists' brains, the measureable
versus immeasurable concepts are organized separately."
. . . "duality" would tend to be rated as immeasureable
(i.e., low on the measureable magnitude scale).
An example of a "new" physics dimension significant in 20th century,
post-Newtonian physics is "immeasurability" (a property of dark matter, for example)
that stands in contrast to the "measurability" of classical physics concepts,
(such as torque or velocity).
This new dimension is present in the brains of all university physics faculty tested. . . ."
------
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-10-ancient-brains-modern-physicists.html?fbclid=IwAR3RYF0SSEyAOetiIDP0WFDse46HU7ITyr_m8L3XuKQUc4JY3Zf6ILDA4Lo
----------
The new scientific ideas in physics were built on effects of immeasurable parameters
--------

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 1:25:11 PM UTC-4, socrat...@gmail.com wrote:
> OCTOBER 11, 2021
> Teaching ancient brains new tricks: New research shows how modern physicists think
> by Carnegie Mellon University

This university was where I earned my doctorate back in 1971, but I don't recall
reading such anonymous articles by the faculty back then.

This article reminds me of the old joke about a camel being a horse
that was put together by a committee. And the right kind of camel
to visualize is a feral one, not a domestic one or even a truly wild one.

> ------
> " One of the most novel findings was that the physicists' brains organized the concepts
> into those with measureable versus immeasurable size.

"size" is a foolish use of the word here. Some of the things mentioned in the article
aren't appropriate for it, and I add to them below.

> Here on Earth for most
> of us mortals, everything physical is measureable, given the right ruler, scale or radar gun.

That's largely true of the kind of physical objects which physicists *qua* physicist study.
But psychological concepts like pain and pleasure cannot be measured, yet their physical basis is undeniable.
[The philosopher Jeremy Bentham tried to develop a "hedonic calculus," but failed miserably.]

True, physicians routinely tell their patients to rate their pains on a scale of 1 to 10, or 0 to 10,
but they have no way of knowing how to interpret the answers in any measurable way.

Getting even more basic: tastes cannot be quantified, and for the first part of the 20th century
a huge amount of nonsense was written about them, including the claim that everything we
taste is just a mixture of four basic tastes: sweet, sour, salty and bitter. Scientists even tried to
map out which part of the tongue measured which of the four "atomic" tastes.

> But for a physicist, some concepts like dark matter, neutrinos or the multiverse,
> their magnitude is not measureable. And in the physicists' brains, the measureable
> versus immeasurable concepts are organized separately."

There are plenty of such things that could be studied in the same way.
For instance, I am sure the brains of mathematicians organize spatial skills [1] differently than
they organize algebraic skills or formula-deciphering skills.

[1] which come very naturally to me; I found topology especially appealing,
to where I have over a hundred research papers on it.

> . . . "duality" would tend to be rated as immeasureable
> (i.e., low on the measureable magnitude scale).

The tendency of non-mathematicians to try to quantify everything is
especially obvious in this talk of a "measurable magnitude scale."
It almost goes without saying that there is no such scale displayed in the article.
It only talks of a 1-7 scale that is at least as subjective as that 1 to 10 scale of pain.

> An example of a "new" physics dimension significant in 20th century,
> post-Newtonian physics is "immeasurability" (a property of dark matter, for example)

That is not an innate property. It is only a confession of the inability of the ordinary
matter with which we are familiar to "sense" any aspect of dark matter except
its gravitational effect on ordinary matter.

Strangely enough, that gravitational effect is highly measurable. Which makes me wonder
whether the majority of physicists polled really knew much about what is known about dark matter.

Scientists are forced to specialize in extremely narrow parts of their subject, due
to the well-known twin influences of "publish or perish" and their utter dependence
of external grant funding to the supplying of laboratories.[2] It is exacerbated by the
university administrations getting something like one third of all the grant money,
very little of which goes back to the department that earned it.

[2] I am fortunate in that my research is almost exclusively of the theorem-proof-example sort,
requiring nothing more than pencil and paper (or word processing on my laptops) to do it.

> that stands in contrast to the "measurability" of classical physics concepts,
> (such as torque or velocity).
> This new dimension is present in the brains of all university physics faculty tested. . . ."
> ------
> https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-10-ancient-brains-modern-physicists.html?fbclid=IwAR3RYF0SSEyAOetiIDP0WFDse46HU7ITyr_m8L3XuKQUc4JY3Zf6ILDA4Lo
> ----------
> The new scientific ideas in physics were built on effects of immeasurable parameters
> --------

You are not referring to all new ideas, just the ones that capture the public imagination
well enough to be publishable in Quanta magazine.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[israel socratus]

Teaching an Ancient Brain New Tricks: New Research Shows How Modern Physicists Think
Carnegie Mellon University
Medical Press,
Home, Psychology and Psychiatry
Home, Neurology
====
Newtonian physics has "dimensions" such as geometric form-proportions.
Quantum physics has no geometric form-proportions, everything is protected by wave functions.
This strange difference classic and quantum physics cannot be solved ftom 1900.
And therefore, certain medical scientists (psychologists, psychiatrists, and neuroscientists)
were surprised by the fantastic ideas (thoughts) of modern scientists and began to ask:
Why is quantum physics "strange" for physicists?
Does the brain of modern scientists work differently than that of ordinary non-mathematicians?
Are the creators of new fantastic physical ideas psychologically healthy?
=============.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-10-ancient-brains-modern-physicists.html?fbclid=IwAR3RYF0SSEyAOetiIDP0WFDse46HU7ITyr_m8L3XuKQUc4JY3Zf6ILDA4Lo
==============