[charles1948 (OP)]

It's a polite way of saying Philip Ball doesn't understand it.

Phillip Ball did understand it and proceeded to offer his own explanation which I thought joined the category of 'not at all easy to follow'.

Does anyone understand Physics these days.  Hasn't it become a kind of fantasy subject, filled with speculations about Black Holes, multi-dimensional wormholes, Gravity Waves revealed by wiggles on pre-filled in graphs, the so-called "Higg's Boson" supposedly found by electronic detectors  -without leaving any trace in Bubble Chambers.

Doesn't  present-day "Physics" increasingly resemble a mathematical construct, divorced from  physical reality.

This is the tragedy.  Physics has ceased to explain how the Universe works.  It just says, in the famous words, "Shut up and calculate".  Who doesn't find this deplorable?

[Kryptid]

Gravity Waves revealed by wiggles on pre-filled in graphs, the so-called "Higg's Boson" supposedly found by electronic detectors  -without leaving any trace in Bubble Chambers.

And so it seems that the title of this thread is indeed (at least partly) correct.

The principles behind gravitational wave and Higgs boson detection are very well understood.

Black holes are fairly well understood as well, although wormholes are admittedly still purely theoretical at this point.

[Halc]

Doesn't present-day "Physics" increasingly resemble a mathematical construct, divorced from physical reality.

That it does. Some of us consider that a wonderful clue instead something to be deplored. If you’re open to having your views challenged, become a physicist. If you’re not, join a church.

[alancalverd]

Physics is the business of building mathematical models of the universe. Always has been. And the more we find out about the universe, the more interesting (and admittedly less useful - I don't see  anyone wanting to visit a black hole in the near future) the models become.

[chiralSPO]

Maybe the study of black holes and dark matter, and other exotic forms of matter are not so directly useful technologically, despite their cosmological relevance.

But the cutting edge of quantum physics is very much at our fingertips, as it were. Advances in theoretical and experimental QM are often very much relevant to computation, encryption, and spectroscopy. And it goes both ways too: advances in spectroscopy and computing directly help us to pry deeper into the underlying physics (as well as having applications to chemistry, medicine, information science, etc. etc. etc.)

[vhfpmr]

I love physics at the Newtonian mechanics end of the scale, but the cutting edge stuff leaves me disillusioned and impatient at the slow progress.

[charles1948 (OP)]

Doesn't present-day "Physics" increasingly resemble a mathematical construct, divorced from physical reality.

That it does. Some of us consider that a wonderful clue instead something to be deplored. If you’re open to having your views challenged, become a physicist. If you’re not, join a church.

Do you think modern Physicists have become a kind of separate breed of scientists?  Beyond criticism.

I mean, in the sense that they can't readily be confuted in their wild assertions.  For example, suppose a Physicist makes some outlandish claim - like Black Holes provide a wormhole through Space and Time.  Who's able to say "No they don't"?  There's no experimental proof that they don't.

 Whereas, suppose a Chemist were to claim, that mercury can be transmuted into gold, by mixing it with sulphur.. He/she would be a laughing-stock.    Experiment would quickly expose the falsity  of the claim.

Is that the attraction of modern Physics?  You are free to speculate, without fearing experimental  tests.

[Kryptid]

For example, suppose a Physicist makes some outlandish claim - like Black Holes provide a wormhole through Space and Time.  Who's able to say "No they don't"?  There's no experimental proof that they don't.

That claim is based on implications given by general relativity. So in order to successfully refute it (at least as best as one can without experimenting on actual black holes), then one either needs to demonstrate that general relativity does not, in fact, imply it, that general relativity is wrong, or that it violates the laws of physics in some way.

Whereas, suppose a Chemist were to claim, that mercury can be transmuted into gold, by mixing it with sulphur.. He/she would be a laughing-stock.    Experiment would quickly expose the falsity  of the claim.

What are they basing the claim on? Is it based on (or even predicted by) a highly successful theory, or is it pure speculation? That's the difference between coming up with any random idea that you want and an idea that has grounding in modern physics.

[charles1948 (OP)]

For example, suppose a Physicist makes some outlandish claim - like Black Holes provide a wormhole through Space and Time.  Who's able to say "No they don't"?  There's no experimental proof that they don't.

That claim is based on implications given by general relativity. So in order to successfully refute it (at least as best as one can without experimenting on actual black holes), then one either needs to demonstrate that general relativity does not, in fact, imply it, that general relativity is wrong, or that it violates the laws of physics in some way.

Whereas, suppose a Chemist were to claim, that mercury can be transmuted into gold, by mixing it with sulphur.. He/she would be a laughing-stock.    Experiment would quickly expose the falsity  of the claim.

What are they basing the claim on? Is it based on (or even predicted by) a highly successful theory, or is it pure speculation? That's the difference between coming up with any random idea that you want and an idea that has grounding in modern physics.

The claim about transmuting mercury into gold by mixing it with sulphur was an old idea of the medieval alchemists, as you probably know.   The idea probably arose from these considerations:

1. Mercury is a metal, as is Gold
2. But Gold is a hard unchanging metal. Whereas Mercury is liquid. Hence possibly more amenable to alteration;
3. Sulphur has a yellow colouration, like Gold;
4. Therefore a suitable admixture of Sulphur into Mercury might alter it into Gold.

This was not an unreasonable idea in the 16th century.   But modern Chemistry busted it and exposed it as utter cobblers.. Because the Chemists developed an experimental science to test their ideas on. Like Gold and Mercury.

Whereas, modern Physics seems to be going in the opposite direction.  Any wild ideas like Black Holes, Dark Matter, Wormholes, Negative Energy, Gravitons, Higgs Bosons, and all the rest, can't be experimentally tested.

That's the point.  I know you mention the "Laws of Physics", but who has decided what these Laws are?

[charles1948 (OP)]

I love physics at the Newtonian mechanics end of the scale, but the cutting edge stuff leaves me disillusioned and impatient at the slow progress.

Like you, I love Newtonian physics.  It works, has been tried and tested for over three centuries, both mathematically and in practice. The Apollo missions to the Moon used Newtonian mechanics to calculate their trajectories.

But as you rightly say, the cutting-edge stuff of modern Physics must leave everyone with a feeling of disappointment. It seems like Physicists have lost the plot.

[Kryptid]

old idea of the medieval alchemists

Which was hardly subject to the same kind of scientific scrutiny that modern theories are.

Any wild ideas like Black Holes, Dark Matter, Wormholes, Negative Energy, Gravitons, Higgs Bosons, and all the rest, can't be experimentally tested.

Black holes and the Higgs boson have been directly detected, so your claim that they "can't be experimentally tested" is pure nonsense. Dark matter, wormholes and negative energy can indeed be detected in principle. Gravitons, I'm not sure about. There is currently no known way to detect them because they would have such low energy.

I know you mention the "Laws of Physics", but who has decided what these Laws are?

Experimenters and mathematicians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

[evan_au]

I love Newtonian physics.  It works, has been tried and tested for over three centuries, both mathematically and in practice.

...and it was known as early as 1859 that Newton's physics had problems.

We have now had a century and a half to confirm that Newton's error is real, and to identify a solution and confirm it is correct (Einstein's General Relativity).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury

[Bored chemist]

I love physics at the Newtonian mechanics end of the scale

I prefer to get the right answer on any scale.

[alancalverd]

I love physics at the Newtonian mechanics end of the scale, but the cutting edge stuff leaves me disillusioned and impatient at the slow progress.

It took 2000 years for Newton and Galileo to displace Aristotle. It took less than 20 years to develop quantum physics and relativity.   

[alancalverd]

I know you mention the "Laws of Physics", but who has decided what these Laws are?

Consensus. Scientific laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. If an equation has been shown to predict a phenomenon with sufficient  precision and consistency, it becomes a law. There is no penalty for nature breaking a law - we just investigate further and propose a better law.

[charles1948 (OP)]

I know you mention the "Laws of Physics", but who has decided what these Laws are?

Consensus. Scientific laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. If an equation has been shown to predict a phenomenon with sufficient  precision and consistency, it becomes a law. There is no penalty for nature breaking a law - we just investigate further and propose a better law.

Yes.  But what happens if we investigate further, and then discover - there aren't any "laws" - only "randomness"?

How can there be any "laws" governing "randomness"?   Surely the term "random" means essentially "lawless"?

I think this is the fundamental problem facing modern Physics.  When it investigates sub-atomic particles such as electrons, it is forced to conclude that they behave in a "random" way.  That's to say - their precise positions within an atom cannot be calculated by any fixed mathematical equation.

All that can be done is assign higher and lower "probabilities" to where they are, at any given instant.

Much the same as rolling a pair of dice.  You cannot predict what number the dice will add up to, at the instant they come to rest. 

The best you can do is predict that there's a higher probability that the number will be "7", rather than "2" or "12". 

Einstein famously complained about this a century ago. Has his complaint been convincingly answered?

[Halc]

How can there be any "laws" governing "randomness"?   Surely the term "random" means essentially "lawless"?

Just because randomness can be demonstrated does not imply lawnessness. Quantum theory has been one of the most successful theories of all time and it doesn’t get there by declaring that nothing can be known.

When it investigates sub-atomic particles such as electrons, it is forced to conclude that they behave in a "random" way.  That's to say - their precise positions within an atom cannot be calculated by any fixed mathematical equation.

From that, some of us are simply led to question the assumption that a particle unmeasured has a precise position. The assumption is a classic one, not a fundamental one.

All that can be done is assign higher and lower "probabilities" to where they are, at any given instant.

Or far better, to not assume there is a ‘where they are’ at all.

Much the same as rolling a pair of dice.  You cannot predict what number the dice will add up to, at the instant they come to rest.

Yes you can, given sufficient information on the roll. So it’s not much the same. The dice do not fall randomly, just in a way difficult to predict with limited information. The result of a given roll is usually determined upon being thrown.

Einstein famously complained about this a century ago. Has his complaint been convincingly answered?

He indeed didn’t like the randomness, and would likely today have supported a quantum interpretation that doesn’t involve any fundamental randomness. Most of them were not introduced/refined until after Einstein’s time.

[vhfpmr]

I love physics at the Newtonian mechanics end of the scale, but the cutting edge stuff leaves me disillusioned and impatient at the slow progress.

Like you, I love Newtonian physics.  It works, has been tried and tested for over three centuries, both mathematically and in practice. The Apollo missions to the Moon used Newtonian mechanics to calculate their trajectories.

But as you rightly say, the cutting-edge stuff of modern Physics must leave everyone with a feeling of disappointment. It seems like Physicists have lost the plot.

I'm sure they'll get there eventually, I just have difficulty maintaining interest when (at 62) it doesn't look as if it'll happen in my lifetime.

[charles1948 (OP)]

I love physics at the Newtonian mechanics end of the scale, but the cutting edge stuff leaves me disillusioned and impatient at the slow progress.

Like you, I love Newtonian physics.  It works, has been tried and tested for over three centuries, both mathematically and in practice. The Apollo missions to the Moon used Newtonian mechanics to calculate their trajectories.

But as you rightly say, the cutting-edge stuff of modern Physics must leave everyone with a feeling of disappointment. It seems like Physicists have lost the plot.

I'm sure they'll get there eventually, I just have difficulty maintaining interest when (at 62) it doesn't look as if it'll happen in my lifetime.

62?  You're a mere stripling!  With years ahead of you (Covid permitting).  Keep up your interest, and bear this in mind:
Modern Science can progress much faster than in the past, because nowadays, there are far more scientists.
Millions of them. All over the place. And all of them eager to overthrow each other's theories and win a Nobel Prize.

This intense internecine competition must result in rapid advances.

Two of the advances which I predict in Physics are:

1.  The replacement of Einsteinian "Relativity" by a modified form of Newtonian Mechanics;
2. The "Big Bang" idea being supplanted by a new "Steady State" theory.

Of these two, I'm more confident about the second. But anything can happen!  Just hang around, and see!

[Bored chemist]

Two of the advances which I predict in Physics are:

1.  The replacement of Einsteinian "Relativity" by a modified form of Newtonian Mechanics;
2. The "Big Bang" idea being supplanted by a new "Steady State" theory.

You are predicting that science will go backwards to something which we know to be incomplete (in the case of (1) ) and impossible (in the cases of (2)).

Why?