Physical Theory and Empirical Verification

jani_gojra@yahoo.com http://www.dawateislami.net

Mr. shobig_sifar:

I appreciate your feedback. Thanks for it.

Mohammad Gill

Well done Dr Gill, a very nice read., although I almost missed this one out earlier. Particualry the way you have analysed the gradual theoretical advances in physics, along with its experimental counter-factors. Also the perspectives of the leading physicists in their rspective fields towards the theoretical and experimental adcancements are really interesting.
Certainly, theory depends largley upon experiments, to justify its worth...but then their are thousands of models, at least in particle physics out there, n certainly each one of them cannot be tested experimentally, so they should have some internal beauty at least, to gain a bit of attention, even if they are unable to survive for long.
And yes, well-said that theorists are getting really confident of their predications, as wee see, projects woth multi-billions of dollars, like the LHC, being spent over, just to verify the validity of HIGGS mechanism, one of the most splendid yet controversial models of modern day particle physics...but on the darker side it could be defied by the discoveries of LHC, n so would merely reside on its internal beauty...hence theorists cannot help relying on experiments..m vice versa.

Well done Dr Gill, a very nice read., although I almost missed this one out earlier. Particualry the way you have analysed the gradual theoretical advances in physics, along with its experimental counter-factors. Also the perspectives of the leading physicists in their rspective fields towards the theoretical and experimental adcancements are really interesting.
Certainly, theory depends largley upon experiments, to justify its worth...but then their are thousands of models, at least in particle physics out there, n certainly each one of them cannot be tested experimentally, so they should have some internal beauty at least, to gain a bit of attention, even if they are unable to survive for long.
And yes, well-said that theorists are getting really confident of their predications, as wee see, projects woth multi-billions of dollars, like the LHC, being spent over, just to verify the validity of HIGGS mechanism, one of the most splendid yet controversial models of modern day particle physics...but on the darker side it could be defied by the discoveries of LHC, n so would merely reside on its internal beauty...hence theorists cannot help relying on experiments..m vice versa.

rajsinghi1:

Thanks for your post #13. Theory has been quite successful in the recent past. Alan Guth`s theory of inflation is a good example of that. But his extension to eternal inflation is quite something else.

In view of the recent successes, many physicists are hesitant to question the outlandish predictions. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Freethinker

Major part of your post#10, I had quoted at another board...

here and the good professor has quoted the following part in his reponse, and has replied too,
here

Quote:

From Dr. Gill:



My allusion was to the theoretical cosmologists like A. Linde and others who have made some extreme extensions. I do have a great respect for A. Linde and do not mean to degrade him in any way; I do not however agree with his prediction of billions and billions of new universes being created every second. And honestly, what does my disagreement with his predictions really matter? He is totally unaware of my existence.



``on this count, we totally agree ... Linde had visited us in April ... unfortunatley, I sat in the front row for his lecture ... I was sitting there thinking, ``is this guy for real?`` :)



after about 20 minutes, I had had enough and spent the next 40 minutes trying not to go to sleep :( ``

Freethinker

Sir, I look forward to your fothcoming paper. No, not to pick any bone/s but to enjoy and in the process, perhaps learn too (using the term `perhaps` becasue I am not sure if things would register that much whereby I can say confidently, I have learnt. :) )

Thank you for the posts 10/11 and I do reciprocate the sentiments expressed.

rajsinhi1:

Thanks for your post # 9. I enjoyed the tid-bit about W boson; I have a feeling that I had heard of it before also. Thanks anyway. I intend to publish another paper on Chowk; I have given it the title of `Cosmological Fantasies.` You will then have more bone to pick.

Regards,

Mohammad Gill

rajsinghi1:

I appreciate your interest in my paper and your feedbacks. I feel my hard work to put the paper together is rewarded by the kind of interest you’ve shown.

Personally I don’t see a great deal of difference of opinion in what I wrote and what has been expressed by the professor of physics whom you asked to comment. He was somewhat irked by my use of cosmologists; he rightly explained that most of them use empirical observations to develop their new theories and concepts and to defend the old ones. I don’t dispute it. My allusion was to the theoretical cosmologists like A. Linde and others who have made some extreme extensions. I do have a great respect for A. Linde and do not mean to degrade him in any way; I do not however agree with his prediction of billions and billions of new universes being created every second. And honestly, what does my disagreement with his predictions really matter? He is totally unaware of my existence. I write my articles on Chowk for the heck of it.

I do not mean to under rate the value of the theoretical work also. Without theory, physics is only an accumulation of bricks, cement, and stones etc. Theory converts all of them into a well integrated house. Einstein’s theory of relativity is a superb example of theory at its excellence. But a theory needs experimental verification to become a piece of established knowledge. Dirac’s theory predicted antiparticle which was discovered and Dirac’s theory gained acceptance. His predicted monopole is still loose and at large; maybe it’ll be discovered also one day.

Well, thanks again and give my compliments to your professor of physics. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Freethinker

Further to my post#8, here is the response that I have got now, from the professor.

Quote:

ok, the rest of his response does soften the tone quite a bit ...

I agree with him more or less:)

regarding Shelly Glashow, he is one guy who was dead-sure about his predictions ... as the story goes, when the W boson was discovered at CERN, someone called Glashow to give him the news (he was one of the folks who had predicted the W boson) ... due to the time-zone difference, it was the middle of the night in the US ...

Glashow said, ``you woke me up for THAT? ... it is obvious``

:)

[btw, give my regards to Dr. Gill :) ]

Freethinker

Post#7

This is more for your information than anything else..

On another board, I had quoted part of my post/question and part of your reply, and requested a professor of physics to comment on it.

In case you feel there is some confusion in the following, you can check the posts
here and here

To my this question:

`` Given that there hardly is any way for String Theory (be it Mother/Father or whatever other name is added to it) to be proven in any lab or otherwise, how is it any different from metaphysics, or philosphy? ``

Reply is:

Quote.

to a large extent, this is true ... except for one major difference ...



philosophy/metaphysics rely on subjective intuition and logical arguments to put forth a theory ... then they rely on personal experiences of individuals to gain faith in the theory ...



string theory relies on mathematics ... an extension of known phenomenon, coupled with a desire to solve known problems and unify known descriptions, leads to a larger set of mathematics to define natural phenomena ... the proof in this case, as you have said, is not easily attainable ...



that does not mean that we should stop ... what it does mean is that we should shut up for now ... that is my problem with folks like Brian Green, who are too keen on spreading the word and end up looking like a physics mullah :) ``

The part from your reply that I had quoted is:

`` The string theorists and the cosmologists have entered the world of metaphysics. They are led by their mathematical constructs. Or may be the ultimate physical reality can only be described in mathematical formulas and cannot be intelligently described in the human languages. ``

Response to the above is:

Quote:

this is completely unfair to cosmologoists! Cosmology was a purely data-driven field (i.e., discoveries preceded the theory explaining them) until the mid 90s ... since then, cosmologists have made a couple of very important predictions about the universe that have been confirmed ... the latest problem of an ``accelerating universe`` is yet unsolved but that is what makes the field exciting ...



coming back to string theory and to the overall issue of where mathematics sits with regard to the universe ... the question is:



``Should the Universe be described by mathematics? If yes, then why?``



there is no answer to this question ... one can only point to the success of mathematics thus far ...



things we take for granted these days (like motion of planets/stars being described by a SINGLE equation) are actually AMAZING!



another example is Dirac ... he was fiddling with his equations and could not fins a solution ... ultinately, he said that for a silution to exist, ANTIMATTER HAS TO EXIST ...



mind you, there was no REASON (beyond a mathematical problem) for anti-matter to exist ... no one had seen it ...



so, was this a crazy prediction?



or, was Mathematics right?



you know the answer! The question then really is (for your friend, if you wish):



``Why was Dirac`s equation a correct description of reality?``

---

Nonetheless, I have written another post to him quoting your post almost fully and asked him, if he wants to change something in the reply that he has given (quoted above).

rajsinghi1:

Thanks for your feedback. Your point is well taken. The caption ``Theory in Wilderness`` in my paper points in the same direction. The string theorists and the cosmologists have entered the world of metaphysics. They are led by their mathematical constructs. Or may be the ultimate physical reality can only be described in mathematical formulas and cannot be intelligently described in the human languages. But history of science has shown time and again that when the scientists come to a dead end and feel frustrated, new possibilities do invariably emerge. We are at a very exciting moment in the development of physics and cosmology. May be out of the myriads of theoretical possibilities, a solution will emerge which will explain the numerous problems currently faced by the world of physics.

In one of my earlier papers, ``Will the String Theory Tie Them All Together?`` on chowk.com (June 18, 2004), I had quoted Sheldon Glashow (recipient of the Nobel Prize with Steven Weinberg and Abdus Salam) as follows:

One of the most vitriolic critics of the string theory is Sheldon Glashow.
He said, “The string theorists have a theory that appears to be consistent and is very beautiful, very complex, and I don’t understand it. It gives a quantum theory of gravity that appears to be consistent but doesn’t make any other predictions. That is to say, there ain’t no experiment that could be done nor is there any observation that could be made that would say, you guys are wrong. The theory is safe, permanently safe. I ask you, is that a theory of physics or a philosophy?” [2]. At another occasion, he was asked, in 1986, to summarize the Toe in no more than seven words and “he exclaimed in mock anguish, ‘Oh, Lord, why have you forsaken me?’” [7].

Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Echoboom

Post#5

Thanks.

Will check/go thru the link.

rajsinghji1:

Go to this link.
http://www.secretbeyondmatter.com

Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.
--Einstein

Two things inspire me to awe-the starry heavens above and the moral universe within
--Einstein

....I guess we need a little water logic.

Mohammad Gill

I neither claim nor pretend to know anything on this subject. However, I thoroughly enjoy reading material, and watching documentaries/news items on subjects like these. Yes, I do like your articles too, on this subject.

On your last article too, I was thinking of interacting but somehow did not come around to it. In this article, following sentence/quote has given me an opening to ask a question which has been on my mind for some time now.

Quote from the article:

`` Verification is the ultimate test of a theory; it is the touchstone. A theory not verified by empirical evidence is metaphysics.``

Given that there hardly is any way for String Theory (be it Mother/Father or whatever other name is added to it) to be proven in any lab or otherwise, how is it any different from metaphysics, or philosphy?

Have watched a programme made by Dr Greene on String Theory. In that, the kind of words, language used, reminds one of philosophical world/language. In other words, there is so much of mumbo jumbo that one is not sure if one is talking of, or lisening to Science from Scientists or is it the case of philosphers coming out with their philosphy, metaphysics. Many physicists in that programme admitted that String Theory can never be validation/verfication of String Theory.

Let me give one example of the language used in that programme..

When topic came on more than 10 dimensions, some physicist/s said, ``What we as humans are witnessing now could be an illusion. Our existence is not real, and this is not a real world.`` Words to this effect were used by him/them.

How the above is any different from some philosphers saying, `` This is all Maya`` ?Maya=Illusion.

Above is just one of the examples. There were plenty more. Seriously, it was so much that I was not sure if I really was watching programme on science or philosphy, or good blend of the two....