Physics debate

Unitary time evolution and the collapse postulate are incompatible, so at most one is fundamental and true. And over almost a century we have collected a gigantic amount of experimental data confirming that unitary time evolution is correct. You might argue that the same is true for the collapse postulate and the Born rule but I have to disagree. Yes, it gives the correct answer in as many experiments, but those are parts of the experiments that we don't really understand.

Physics debate

My review of the debate currently surrounding string theory has revealed that there is an ongoing heated debate in the physics community that is revolving around a philosophical debate, that is being characterized as a debate between empiricism vs.

Here is what I can say as a non-expert that I find fascinating: The Large Hadron Collider, the famous particle accelerator, has continued to turn up nada for a proof of super-symmetry, one of the necessary predictions of string theory, and continued to make observations consistent with the Standard Model.

String theory emerged not as a makeshift candidate for how to address these problems, but in trying to work out the problems of their own accord.

So what does that mean? There has been no evidence found against it. Strangely enough, string theory has weaknesses as well, like preferring a cosmological constant that is negative or 0 we know that the cosmological constant is in fact positive.

Great scientists doing work in theoretical physics have looked at string theory and marveled at its elegance and how it gets rid of certain problems with quantum field theory.

So it seems like everywhere we turn, we find more contradictions. It seems to me that there is more room for human error in an experiment as complex as the LHC.

The Large Hadron Collider, the largest single machine in the world, and therefore ever built, sits on the France-Switzerland border.

Data from the LHC is analyzed by computing centers in 42 countries, according to Wikipedia. At any given time, the beam pipe of the LHC needs to be almost a complete vacuum, with only the amount of hydrogen that can fit in a grain of sand allowed.

Famously, public concern over the safety of the LHC, whether it could produce a black hole, etc. Now, it seems to me that the term kick-ass is not very rational or logical, it seems pretty emotional to me. But of course, the defenders of Rationality will always be right by definition!

There is absolutely no doubt that this subject is fascinating, but there are of course two questions that come out of this debate: Still, gone are the days where we can verify physical theories with simple telescope observations, expect the costs to only grow for particle accelerators.

What are the potential technological benefits that could accrue from this device that essentially just runs experiments? Computers have not even reached the point where they are utilizing all the quantum phenomena we know about. Is verifying string theory or quantum gravity even necessary?

Proponents of the LHC will invariably point to the achievement of discovering the celebrated Higgs boson.

Oftentimes criticisms of scientific work as simply demonized as anti-Science. In short, there needs to be the kind of Latourian anthropological analysis of particle physics that currently goes on in other fields. But I encourage others to!

Physics debate

What would a science studies analysis of the LHC yield? My father was a research scientist with an avid interest in physics he was a physics major — so I am no stranger to the wonders of science and what it can do for real people. Perhaps we need to do far more in the way of preventative treatment and larger policy changes, not just finding treatments for the worst case scenario.

In short, there always needs to be theoretical work done, and I recognize that. But perhaps with more humanists working in the field, more practical applications could be developed, burgeoning costs could be contained, and maybe even theoretical debates could be seen in a new light.

But my last and probably most crucial point is this: Maybe they could throw some of that money at the refugee crisis, or eliminating poverty? If string theory is meant to show the subtle interconnections between all aspects of physical reality, then maybe we should take the poetry of this elegant theory and apply it to social reality.

Can we, for instance, demonstrate the relationship between human psychology and the environment, as Gregory Bateson has done in the Steps to an Ecology of the Mind?

Could we not go further, and connect the philosophy of science with a political ecology? Anthropology continues to be the field that describes these interactions as all emanating from underlying dynamics within the social field, which have been revealed to be patterned, not meaningless and random.

Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? - Scientific American

Kinship structures, political organization, ideology, cosmology, belief, values, norms- how do these function within, say, the search for a God particle? The answer we will get is pretty straightforward, as my adviser George Mentore has suggested, the cosmology that is operating here is the search for origins, the metaphor of discovery that is at the bottom of Western understandings of the self and the cosmos.

Are there different metaphorical patterns at work? An ethnographic study would reveal this in detail Advertisements.Nov 15,  · Debate in Physics Today "What's wrong with this reading", by N.

David Mermin (Physics Today, October ). Also available in French. Letters by Paul R. Gross and others, with reply by N. David Mermin (Physics Today, April ) "The Sokal hoax: At whom are we laughing.

Physics debate

BEIJING—An éminence grise in particle physics, Nobel laureate Chen Ning Yang, has come out strongly against plans to build the world’s largest particle accelerator in China. His comments come. On Friday, September 28th, , a talk was given at CERN by Alessandro Strumia, a well-known particle theorist who is a Professor of Physics at the University of Pisa and a current associate of the theory department at CERN.

To debate the gaps and priorities for sustainable development in optimizing Physics development. To discuss and debate the challenges and opportunities in the new era of optimizing Physics reforms.

To identify opportunities for evidence-based practice in Physics. Just like pop physics tends to distort people's perception of the field as a whole (e.g.

Subscribe to our mailing list

giving the impression that 90% of theoretical physics is string theory) it also makes researchers' body of work look very different than it is.

Thanks largely to popular media, there is a misconception that physicists never consider anything of practical concern.

Meanwhile, engineers (while badly represented by the media in their own right) are credited with making our day-to-day lives better.

Lesson Particle vs Wave Debate