Naked Science Forum

Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: NeilT on 08/04/2019 21:19:58

Title: Do we need some new physics?
Post by: NeilT on 08/04/2019 21:19:58
It's a question posed by Lee Smolin in his latest book*. He puts forward the idea that we've been using relativity and quantum mechanics courtesy of Einstein and Schrodinger et al for the last one hundred years and that realism lost out to a probabilistic view of the quantum world. We've been using this probabilistic model ever since. I suppose this then leads to the question of whether other big issues such as those in cosmology need addressing with some new physics. We currently need to explain the rotation of galaxies and expanding nature of the universe with the help of dark matter and dark energy (both theoretical). I've plotted a few graphs in my time and drawn reasonable straight lines through the points to support my theories, although I've always been aware that things tend to go awry as x and y head off to infinity or down to zero.  Are our current theories adequate or do we need some new physics as Lee Smolin suggests?

 * Einstein's Unfinished Revolution: The search for what lies beyond the quantum. Lee Smolin      
Title: Re: Do we need some new physics?
Post by: pensador on 10/04/2019 10:07:57
It's a question posed by Lee Smolin in his latest book*. He puts forward the idea that we've been using relativity and quantum mechanics courtesy of Einstein and Schrodinger et al for the last one hundred years and that realism lost out to a probabilistic view of the quantum world. We've been using this probabilistic model ever since. I suppose this then leads to the question of whether other big issues such as those in cosmology need addressing with some new physics. We currently need to explain the rotation of galaxies and expanding nature of the universe with the help of dark matter and dark energy (both theoretical). I've plotted a few graphs in my time and drawn reasonable straight lines through the points to support my theories, although I've always been aware that things tend to go awry as x and y head off to infinity or down to zero.  Are our current theories adequate or do we need some new physics as Lee Smolin suggests?

 * Einstein's Unfinished Revolution: The search for what lies beyond the quantum. Lee Smolin    

Getting answers to this question might be like getting blood out of a stone :) Good luck.

A quantum theory of gravity might be a starting point.
Title: Re: Do we need some new physics?
Post by: Colin2B on 10/04/2019 11:11:32
We always need new theories, otherwise we are saying that we know everything and thatís clearly not true.
Physics is very much about models. The probalistic model is very successful but doesnít tell us everything, so there are other models which explore different properties - you can toss a coin many times and get a probabilistic model which is very useful, but  gives no info on what the coin is made of, colour, design, etc.
If you are looking for a view of reality then, as @flummoxed  says, blood out of a stone is more likely.

If you are into readable books about gravity physics try Lisa Randall - Prof at MIT leading theoretical physicist on extra dimensions - has some interesting views on gravity and link to an extra dimension, current accelerators donít have enough energy to find one, but might come soon. (Sorry @flummoxed  she doesnít think entanglement is involved )
Title: Re: Do we need some new physics?
Post by: pensador on 10/04/2019 16:30:06
gravity physics try Lisa Randall - Prof at MIT leading theoretical physicist on extra dimensions - has some interesting views on gravity and link to an extra dimension, current accelerators donít have enough energy to find one, but might come soon. (Sorry @flummoxed  she doesnít think entanglement is involved )

Never heard of her  :o how many extra dimensions does she think are involved in gravity  ::) Does she derive her ideas from string theory  ;) Can she explain away dark matter, and how expansion of the universe works via dark energy, does she have any insight into what is over the event horizon of a black hole, and what caused inflation.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Randall Wiki doesn't have much on her  :-[ Perhaps https://www.edge.org/conversation/lisa_randall-theories-of-the-brane-lisa-randall No only pop science here  ::) Trying arxiv https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0105108.pdf  Her theory is no where near as developed as Eric Verlindes Entropic Gravity, but interestingly like E Verlinde she incorporates anti de sitter space. She references Herman Verlinde in her bibliography. E Verlindes theories based around entanglement and entropy have been tested against 33000 different galaxies showing dark matter isn't needed. 

Was Einsteins ideas tested against 33000 different galaxies before it was accepted, I think not.

Interestingly was Einstein alive  when some one in an ivory tower noticed galactic spin was all wrong and decided to add random amounts of dark matter to make his equations work?

What does it take to get a new theory accepted. ?
Title: Re: Do we need some new physics?
Post by: mad aetherist on 11/04/2019 03:40:34
A new theory is accepted one funeral at a time.
But mostly your question is wrong, the answer is not in new theories, the answer is largely in old theories.  Aether. Energy current. EZ water.  The liquid metallic Sun.

Ok u are an expert in a certain branch of science, & someone writes a paper saying that your branch is on a rotten limb. What do u do?  See Gerald Pollack's youtube presentation. 11:53 especially.  Pollack has been pushing his fourth phase of water, EZ water, without much acceptance. But he is not talking about EZ water, he is talking about censorship by the Einsteinian mafia.  I must have a hundred papers etc re science censorship, & i aint a scientist.
Title: Re: Do we need some new physics?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/04/2019 11:17:42
Pollack has been pushing his fourth phase of water, EZ water, without much acceptance
That's because he has no credible evidence.
If he was actually being scientific, rather than posting videos, he would go + find some.
Title: Re: Do we need some new physics?
Post by: NeilT on 12/04/2019 15:52:51
Thanks for the replies guys. I guess until I come up with my own new theory of life, the universe and everything I'll have to stick with phlogiston and H3O2. (At least the former theory was reasonable given the nature of science in the 17th century.)
Title: Re: Do we need some new physics?
Post by: pensador on 14/04/2019 00:34:31
I stumbled across this link, that apparently requires new physics ref the speed of light https://phys.org/news/2007-10-gamma-ray-physics.html and this one that doesn't https://phys.org/news/2015-03-einstein-scientists-spacetime-foam.html . Things like this is why I chose the name flummoxed :( What should we believe.
Title: Re: Do we need some new physics?
Post by: pensador on 14/04/2019 01:08:06
I stumbled across this link, that apparently requires new physics ref the speed of light https://phys.org/news/2007-10-gamma-ray-physics.html and this one that doesn't https://phys.org/news/2015-03-einstein-scientists-spacetime-foam.html . Things like this is why I chose the name flummoxed :( What should we believe.

I am suspecting some physicists might be after funding, or maybe the higher energy light was affected more by a BH or something than the lower energy light. Energy = mass F=Gm1m2/r≤ Or maybe I misread the articles, and the speed of light is not variable and different energy levels.


I was wondering if PmbPhy might have some insight, http://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/gr/c_in_gfield.htm but maybe not, and its late
Title: Re: Do we need some new physics?
Post by: yor_on on 16/04/2019 17:48:56
Well Neit. The 'realistic model' he possibly talks about seems to me to belong to the Victorian age, as I think of it. Science can't get stuck on presumptions, it needs to accept empirical evidence. That's why this universe nowadays seem more probabilistic than, eh, let's call it 'action and reaction'.  A lot of people still search for that, including people here :) but I don't think we can step back to that universe any more.
Title: Re: Do we need some new physics?
Post by: Colin2B on 16/04/2019 23:10:46

Sorry @flummoxed  she doesnít think entanglement is involved
LOL, I thought mentioning your favourite topic might wind you up and so it did
::)   ;) :-[  ::)

Never heard of her  :o ......Her theory is no where near as developed as Eric Verlindes Entropic Gravity
Thatís quite a big conclusion based on one short, side-paper, by someone youíve never heard of a few hours previous!

What does it take to get a new theory accepted. ?
Quite a lot.
Not only does a theory have to be internally consistent, but it has to join up with all the other bits of either accepted theory, or provide an alternative. At the moment there are quite a few contenders in this area and each one has to be examined for consistency and whether it clashes with observed data and theories in other areas. Ericís ideas are certainly one of the front runners and received a lot of publicity at the time and heís certainly on the campaign trail to try and get them accepted. Currently his ideas and calculations are being checked out including any suggested evidence (for example, the reported 3300 galaxies will have the data examined to see how the data was gathered, how analysed, what assumptions made, how interpreted, whether alternative interpretations, etc). This is a slow process because itís complex, most people have day jobs, and no one is going to rush and get it wrong and have their mistake reflect on their reputation for thoroughness.

It must seem to lay readerís eyes that itís all proven, but there really is a lot of detail to go through. Remember, the average person in the street probably thinks string theory is a fully accepted, done and dusted theory.

I stumbled across this link, that apparently requires new physics ref the speed of light https://phys.org/news/2007-10-gamma-ray-physics.html and this one that doesn't https://phys.org/news/2015-03-einstein-scientists-spacetime-foam.html . Things like this is why I chose the name flummoxed :( What should we believe.
This is precisely why everyone needs to thoroughly understand the raw data and assumptions  etc - as I described above. There are currently an unbelievable number of papers offering new theories and often there is a rush to publish something first, if only a news release, often they disappear never to be seen again. This is one reason why we are keen to separate solid physics from speculation, even though the lay reader might think these new theories are fact.
Title: Re: Do we need some new physics?
Post by: pensador on 16/04/2019 23:45:57
This is one reason why we are keen to separate solid physics from speculation, even though the lay reader might think these new theories are fact.

Unfortunately for this lay reader I don't believe in much at all. Including Dark Matter :) Singularities, Brexit etc :-X

Quote from: Colin2B on 10/04/2019 11:11:32Sorry @flummoxed  she doesnít think entanglement is involvedLOL, I thought mentioning your favourite topic might wind you up and so it did

I thought I was very restained ;) I realize no one wants to discuss entropic gravity, or emergent space time or CCC etc.  :-X
Title: Re: Do we need some new physics?
Post by: Colin2B on 18/04/2019 07:51:11
I realize no one wants to discuss entropic gravity, or emergent space time or CCC etc.  :-X
There are a number of us who would really welcome a discussion on new theories such as this, the problem is finding people with sufficient depth of knowledge of the research and a good knowledge of physics to make the discussion worthwhile.
Title: Re: Do we need some new physics?
Post by: pensador on 18/04/2019 11:59:49
I realize no one wants to discuss entropic gravity, or emergent space time or CCC etc.  :-X
There are a number of us who would really welcome a discussion on new theories such as this, the problem is finding people with sufficient depth of knowledge of the research and a good knowledge of physics to make the discussion worthwhile.

By discussing subjects,  everyone learns a bit. Why not discuss theoretical physics, developed by physicists, in the speculations forums under new theories or introduce a new discuss them, to seperate them from other new theories developed by none phycicists in the existing new theories forum. This would make it easy to discriminate from barking mad, to plausibleish, it would also allow people to discuss the wide range of new theories out there, and appreciate what is going on in theoretical physcics.

I dont think restricting discussion of plausible theories would detract from your new theories forum. It might even improve the level of discussion. The mathematics involved in the theories I mentioned above is not beyond the abilities of many in this forum. The concepts involved might not be giving the mainstream picture, but might be more plausible to those interested in physics? CCC for instance no beginning of time, might not be completely plausible beyond that statement, but many have theorized multiple big bangs and Penrose is no idiot.

If you are worried about the responses, why not make a voyeuristic thread, whereby only those with proven abilities can discuss the theories, in an unbiased way. ???

Edit people could perhaps PM questions for clarification, by a panel of more educated people. That might produce off shoot threads, or discussions in the other forums based on none theoretical physics.

Title: Re: Do we need some new physics?
Post by: yor_on on 18/04/2019 22:52:38
You mean this Collin?
https://ssl.fysik.su.se/okc/internal/blog/hunting-for-extra-dimensions-with-gravitational-waves/
Title: Re: Do we need some new physics?
Post by: yor_on on 18/04/2019 23:04:07
Actually it started me thinking of dark mass :)
And Herueka https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10665272_Brane-World_Dark_Matter
And https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.2597