Truth and Beauty in Physics

Discussions on the philosophical foundations, assumptions, and implications of science, including the natural sciences.

Truth and Beauty in Physics

Postby socrat44 on July 24th, 2018, 12:39 am 

1)
Beauty, truth and ... physics?
/ Murray Gell-Mann at TED 2007 /
Armed with a sense of humor and laypeople's terms,
Nobel winner Murray Gell-Mann drops some knowledge
on TEDsters about particle physics, asking questions like,
Are elegant equations more likely to be right than inelegant ones?

https://www.ted.com/talks/murray_gell_m ... in_physics

2)
Beauty Is Truth, Truth Is Beauty, and Other Lies of Physics
/ by Sabine Hossenfelder , 15/JUL/2018 /
Who doesn’t like a pretty idea?
Physicists certainly do. In the foundations of physics, it has become
accepted practice to prefer hypotheses that are aesthetically pleasing.
Physicists believe that their motivations don’t matter because
hypotheses, after all, must be tested. But most of their beautiful ideas
are hard or impossible to test. And whenever an experiment comes
back empty-handed, physicists can amend their theories
to accommodate the null results.
https://thewire.in/the-sciences/beauty- ... of-physics

====
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 239
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Truth and Beauty in Physics

Postby someguy1 on July 24th, 2018, 2:31 am 

Sabine Hossenfelder is a great debunker of trendy physics hype. And she knows her stuff.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 733
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: Truth and Beauty in Physics

Postby socrat44 on July 24th, 2018, 7:48 am 

someguy1 » July 24th, 2018, 2:31 am wrote:Sabine Hossenfelder is a great debunker of trendy physics hype.
And she knows her stuff.


Murray Gell-Mann is also knows his stuff very well
and his definitions of ''beauty in physics'' (i think)
must be taken as basis of philosophy of physics . . .
. . . but something is prevented that aim
===
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 239
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Truth and Beauty in Physics

Postby Multum in Parvo on July 25th, 2018, 3:28 am 

It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience. ~ Albert Einstein.
This gives us Einstein's razor, a variation of Occam's razor: Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. While I find Murray Gell-Mann's reasoning steps elusive, this seems to be his point when he says: "You don't need more to get more."

The argument for simplicity seems compelling because, given a set of phenomena, there are few simple explanations and endless complex ones. The number of stories that can be invented to explain the weather is limitless. If we were to give them all equal consideration, we would be unable to make progress in falsifying them. For this reason, it seems, scientists prefer explanations with the fewest assumptions.

Sabina Hossenfelder points out that the correct explanation is not always the simplest one - for example, elliptical orbits rather than circular ones, and the large proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. She notes that physicists have failed to observe consequences of elegant theories, such as dark matter particles and supersymmetry. Einstein's razor also places such an emphasis on observation - as simple as possible, but no simpler.

It is enough, I think, that we tend to find the correct explanations when we concentrate on simplicity. But it may be possible to concentrate so heavily on simplicity that we are blind to reality, and it would be interesting to see Sabina Hossenfelder's argument in Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray that contemporary physicists have done just that.
Multum in Parvo
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 4
Joined: 24 Jul 2018


Re: Truth and Beauty in Physics

Postby someguy1 on July 25th, 2018, 8:31 pm 

Hope it's not too much of a thread hijack to link one of my favorite Sabina Hossenfelder takedowns, this one on simulation theory.

Proclaiming that “the programmer did it” doesn’t only not explain anything - it teleports us back to the age of mythology. The simulation hypothesis annoys me because it intrudes on the terrain of physicists. It’s a bold claim about the laws of nature that however doesn’t pay any attention to what we know about the laws of nature.

Lots more and well worth reading, here ...

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/0 ... puter.html
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 733
Joined: 08 Nov 2013
Braininvat liked this post


Re: Truth and Beauty in Physics

Postby socrat44 on July 26th, 2018, 6:24 am 

someguy1 » July 25th, 2018, 8:31 pm wrote:Hope it's not too much of a thread hijack to link
one of my favorite Sabina Hossenfelder takedowns, this one on simulation theory.

Proclaiming that “the programmer did it” doesn’t only not explain anything -
it teleports us back to the age of mythology.
The simulation hypothesis annoys me because it intrudes on the terrain of physicists.
It’s a bold claim about the laws of nature that however doesn’t pay any attention
to what we know about the laws of nature.


Lots more and well worth reading, here ...

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/0 ... puter.html


Interesting post, interesting comments.
Thank you
#
Simulations and Reality
What simulates the simulation?
====
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 239
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Truth and Beauty in Physics

Postby socrat44 on July 26th, 2018, 9:15 am 

socrat44 » July 26th, 2018, 6:24 am wrote:
someguy1 » July 25th, 2018, 8:31 pm wrote:Hope it's not too much of a thread hijack to link
one of my favorite Sabina Hossenfelder takedowns, this one on simulation theory.

Proclaiming that “the programmer did it” doesn’t only not explain anything -
it teleports us back to the age of mythology.
The simulation hypothesis annoys me because it intrudes on the terrain of physicists.
It’s a bold claim about the laws of nature that however doesn’t pay any attention
to what we know about the laws of nature.


Lots more and well worth reading, here ...

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/0 ... puter.html


Interesting post, interesting comments.
Thank you
#
Simulations and Reality
What simulates the simulation?
====


Stephen Wolfram (from Wolfram research) recently told John Horgan that:
“[Maybe] down at the Planck scale we’d find a whole civilization
that’s setting things up so our universe works the way it does.”

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/0 ... puter.html
===
[Maybe] down at the Planck scale there is quantum existence
that can generate the whole Material universe.
====
Planck scale of existence is described by Quantum theory.
But . . . .
“[Quantum mechanics] describes nature as absurd
from the point of view of common sense.
And yet it fully agrees with experiment.
So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd.”
/ Richard Feynman /
====
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 239
Joined: 12 Dec 2015



Return to Philosophy of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests