Has Physics Lost Its Way?

Has Physics Lost Its Way?
By Jim Al-Khalili, March 17, 2020
How Fundamental Physics Lost Its Way
By David Lindley
The title of David Lindley’s new book, “The Dream Universe,”
may be unprepossessing, but his subtitle —
“How Fundamental Physics Lost Its Way” —
tells you what to expect: a polemical argument from a writer
who won’t be pulling his punches.
According to Lindley, something happened in 20th-century theoretical physics
that caused some in the field to “reach back to the ancient justifications
for mathematical elegance as a criterion for knowledge, even truth.”
In 1963, the great English quantum physicist Paul Dirac famously wrote,
“It is more important to have beauty in one’s equations than to have them fit an experiment.”
To be fair, Dirac was a rather special individual,
since many of his mathematical predictions turned out to be correct,
such as the existence of antimatter, which was discovered a few years
after his equation predicted it.
But other physicists took this view to an extreme.
The Hungarian Hermann Weyl went as far as to say,
“My work always tried to unite the truth with the beautiful,
and when I had to choose one or the other, I usually chose the beautiful.”
Lindley argues that this attitude is prevalent among many researchers working
at the forefront of fundamental physics today and asks whether these physicists
are even still doing science if their theories do not make testable predictions.
After all, if we can never confirm the existence of parallel universes,
then isn’t it just metaphysics, however aesthetically pleasing it might be?
But Lindley goes further by declaring that much fundamental research,
whether in particle physics, cosmology or the quest to unify gravity
with quantum mechanics, is based purely on mathematics and should not be regarded
as science at all, but, rather, philosophy.
And this is where I think he goes too far.
Physics has always been an empirical science;
just because we don’t know how to test our latest fanciful ideas today does not mean we never will.
What Is “Wrong” with Current Theoretical Physicists?
By Francis T.S. Yu
Submitted: September 27th 2019 Reviewed: October 9th 2019
Published: January 14th 2020
DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.90058
Book: Quantum Enigma,
2006, by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner.
My comment
For most physicists quantum mechanics is not enigma.
Most physicists tend to be pragmatists and use their
macroscopic equipment to solve concrete, practical problem.
They say: ''If it works, it's true.'' and deeper meaning doesn't need.
But the authors Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner
(and few other authors) called the QM '' . . . shocking,
ridiculous, crazy, strange, hard to accept, make no sense . . . . etc ) . . .
from philosophical view . . . when they tried to understand
the nature of the microworld (wave-particle duality,
quantum jumps, wavefunction collapses, . . . etc)
In my opinion, if we have the real model of quantum particle
then the QM can be understood from philosophical view.
We cannot see a single Planck's (h) , or single Boltzmann's (k),
or a single Einstein's ( E = mc^2 ) but having true model of
quantum particle and thanks to mathematics and human's logic
we can understand how microworld can work.
Attached Images
E = Mc2.jpg (2.4 KB, 0 views )
Planck = h.jpg (5.0 KB, 0 views )
S = k logW.jpg (6.6 KB, 0 views )
Quantum effects are essentially undetectable above
a certain size (h) and velocity (c) . . . . and therefore our consciousness
collapse to understand the Philosophy of Quantum mechanics . . . . but . . .
Math and Physics laws can correct our misunderstanding
. . . if we change our thought about some Physics' dogmas
Attached Images
C -2 .jpg (10.3 KB, 0 views )

Similar Threads

Movement in the Physics.
by socratus | Aug 23rd, 2012
Physics and Tautology.
by socratus | Aug 3rd, 2012
Laws Of Cat Physics
by Twila | Aug 5th, 2007