
Fake Physics - maverick_iceman
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9053
======
Animats
This is a frustrating era for physicists. In the mid 20th century they were
like gods, giving the world the atomic bomb and the semiconductor. Today many
branches of physics are stuck. The cosmologists can't find "dark matter", and
aren't even sure it's necessary. The string theorists have pretty but un-
testable theories. The fusion guys can't make fusion power work. Quantum
mechanics and general relativity still haven't been reconciled. And nobody has
a useful handle on gravity. These problems have been outstanding for decades
now, with some churn, but little progress.

(The bright spot is near absolute zero, in low, low energy physics. Lots of
interesting experimental results from down there in recent years.)

The multiverse approach (the universe forks at every quantum event, and all
those universes continue to exist, forking further) is the default you end up
at given what we know now. Hawking once said it was "trivially true". But it's
unsatisfying. It means most of the fundamental constants are arbitrary, for
one thing. Then there's the anthropic principle (our universe works well
enough to have life because we happen to be in a fork where the constants have
values which make chemistry work). That's unsatisfying, too. This un-testable
stuff is more philosophy than physics.

This, from a historical viewpoint, is a failure. From Lord Kelvin to Fred
Hoyle, physics was about measurement and prediction. Theories which can't be
grounded in experiment are of little use. Today's physicists are losers by
historical standards. This has career effects. Los Alamos is a lot less
prestigious than it once was, and there's been substantial downsizing.[1]

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/us/los-alamos-braces-
for-d...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/us/los-alamos-braces-for-deep-
cuts-at-lab.html)

~~~
sgt101
I think that the fusion guys think that they have made fusion work and are
going to deliver it commercially in ~15 years (in ~5 years this claim will be
either obvious or dead).

I think that the quantum computer guys think that they are about to deliver as
well.

~~~
YZF
I'm not sure about either of these.

The problem with fusion is commercial viability. Building something for
billions of dollars that can barely put out more energy than you put in isn't
commercially viable. At any rate, fusion seems more like a very tough
engineering problem, the physics has been there for a long while.

With quantum computing there are also no real signs that a quantum computer
will beat a "classical" computer at anything any time soon. It always was and
still is very difficult to get quantum systems to scale and you need a large
enough system to make a difference and it may be impossible to do so. Again a
lot of this is more of an engineering problem though admittedly the line
between physics and engineering can be blurry since it's not always clear
whether something can't be done because you've reached a fundamental
limitation vs. having a clever enough design.

It's possible someone will eventually solve the problems in these areas
(assuming there aren't fundamental reasons we're just not aware of yet why
it's impossible) but IMO the odds are low and you need some sort of
breakthrough.

~~~
wolfgke
> With quantum computing there are also no real signs that a quantum computer
> will beat a "classical" computer at anything any time soon. It always was
> and still is very difficult to get quantum systems to scale and you need a
> large enough system to make a difference and it may be impossible to do so.
> Again a lot of this is more of an engineering problem though admittedly the
> line between physics and engineering can be blurry since it's not always
> clear whether something can't be done because you've reached a fundamental
> limitation vs. having a clever enough design.

The mentioning of quantum computers is very interesting in the following
sense: If one were able to build a sufficiently large quantum computer, this
would provide strong evidence that the (at the moment rather hypothetical)
theory whether quantum mechanics is rather an emergent phenomen by a
deterministic process (cellular automaton)

> [https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548](https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548)

which the Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft worked on for the last years is
probably wrong. To quote p. 79-80:

"Such scaled classical computers can of course not be built, so that this
quantum computer will still be allowed to perform computational miracles, but
factoring a number with millions of digits into its prime factors will not be
possible – unless fundamentally improved classical algorithms turn out to
exist. If engineers ever succeed in making such quantum computers, it seems to
me that the CAT is falsified; no classical theory can explain quantum
mechanics."

On the other hand, if we seriously get into trouble building a sufficiently
large quantum computer (despite our best efforts), this would at least to me
provide evidence that 't Hooft is on something - since that this is a
prediction that his Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
provides.

~~~
sgt101
I think that the largest simulation of a quantum computer on a super computer
is about 40qbits. Therefore quantum supremacy (weak...) is 41 stable qbits.
There are numbers of groups out there that are building (working on projects
with the funding to complete) machines with 100's of stable qbits now, so my
argument is that quantum supremacy of the weak sort is a matter of
engineering. I think that quantum computers that factor primes with 100's of
digits (like 2048 bit ones) requires 1000's of qbits, say a couple of orders
of magnitudes beyond the machines that are currently in train to be built.

The Hooft thing is that there are limits on computation due to the process of
the universe and that if a classical computer that was at the plank scale,
runs at plankian speed (help help I am using terms I can't understand!!!) and
covered the whole of the universe couldn't do it from the beginning of time to
heat death... then nor can an arbitrary QC. Shores algorithm does factors in
(log n)^3 maybe we'll find that there are physical limits on the scale of QC
which hold it below hundreds of millions of qbits where a plankian computer
could be synthesised, and/or it may be that such a computer can't run at high
clock speeds, and because of this BQP algorithms can't be run on problems that
are not allowed in the sense that they somehow solve the universe.

I don't think anyone has any reason to believe this is true in an engineering
sense but there is every reason to believe that large QC will be very, very
difficult in an engineering sense and I think that the people building one do
expect to run into problems of this sort eventually, but at the moment they
are delighted to find that they are able to do things at the lower end that
will create devices that are going to be transformational for reasoning about
some components of the physical universe - for example simulation of the
interactions of very large molecules - maybe mapping seconds of a virus
interacting with a cell membrane using months of QC ?

------
bvv
As usual I think that Woit's blog post is unnecessarily polarizing. If you
decide to read his post then I would recommend you also read the excellent
comment by Marty Tysanner on the same page.

Also, sigh. If you dig deep into the dark corners of the internets then I am
sure that you can find fake anything. Focus on the beauty and the truth,
people. For example:

[1] LIGO continues to work beautifully, as evidenced by its second detection
of gravitational waves back in June: [http://news.mit.edu/2016/second-time-
ligo-detects-gravitatio...](http://news.mit.edu/2016/second-time-ligo-detects-
gravitational-waves-0615)

[2] A fun but highly speculative 'bump' in the LHC data, which will probably
go away but is fun to think about:
[https://profmattstrassler.com/2016/10/21/hiding-from-a-
night...](https://profmattstrassler.com/2016/10/21/hiding-from-a-nightmare/)

[3] New precision results from a nice little experiment done 'on the side' at
CERN: [https://press.cern/press-releases/2017/01/cern-experiment-
re...](https://press.cern/press-releases/2017/01/cern-experiment-reports-
sixfold-improved-measurement-magnetic-moment)

[4] Or just a very accessible overview of particle physics in 2016:
[http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/2016-year-in-
particl...](http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/2016-year-in-particle-
physics)

~~~
ifdefdebug
> also read the excellent comment by Marty Tysanner on the same page.

also read Woit's sensible reply to that comment and MT's re-reply. I agree
Woit is polarizing but maybe not unnecessarily.

because the problems he points out are not hidden in the dark corners of the
internets but all over the mainstream media - and arxiv too, and backed with
millions of dollars.

------
akvadrako
You have to dig down to the 2nd page of comments on his previous post about
these articles to learn that when he says "multiverse" he isn't referring to
the many worlds interpretation of QM:

[http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9027&cpage=1...](http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9027&cpage=1#comment-224637)

It's very confusing and I can't help but assume he doesn't mind misleading
people.

~~~
conistonwater
Is it confusing? Is there a specific reason to think that the multiverse is
related to the many worlds interpretation? I didn't know people thought they
were the same thing.

~~~
akvadrako
From [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-
worlds_interpretation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-
worlds_interpretation)

 _> MWI is one of many multiverse hypotheses in physics and philosophy._

~~~
conistonwater
I see your point, but Wikipedia isn't super reliable on the more unsettled
parts of theoretical physics. For example, a cursory search gives me
[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/424073/multiverse-many-
wo...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/424073/multiverse-many-worlds-say-
physicists/), but while I can't judge
[https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3796](https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3796) on my own,
it does appear the idea is new, and for something as new, and as vaguely
defined as the multiverse (MWI itself is quite old), I probably should ask for
more than a Wikipedia summary. I mean, it's fine by me if there's some kind of
disagreement within physics, but to assume they are the same thing would
require more, no?

------
Koshkin
The post seems to be a short rant on opinions concerning the idea of a
"multiverse" published on various popular science news websites. Isn't this
idea is just one of the several major interpretations of quantum mechanics?
Any popularized discussion of quantum mechanics (or cosmology) could be
labeled "fake physics", of course, but the point of this is not clear to me.

------
ThePhysicist
I think the problem is that it's quite challenging to explain something like
the "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics to a general audience
that often doesn't have any prior knowledge of modern Physics or even linear
algebra. So, in order to explain it in simple words, people use analogies. And
analogies are probably the greatest tool we have in teaching, because they
help people to understand a given aspect of a theory by comparing it to
something they already know. However, when taken too far they will always
break down. Hence, in order to do good popular science, we need to find
analogies that fit very well with the theory which we want to explain, and
when using them we need to make it very clear which parts of the analogous
system can be mapped to the theory we explain, and which ones can't.

From reading the articles the author cited as examples of "Fake Physics" I
have the impression that their authors simply took the analogies they used too
far, thereby saying things that are simply not true. And while this surely is
problematic I wouldn't call those articles "fake", as there seems to be no
malicious intent behind the misleading analogies.

------
tbabb
Interesting; I didn't know that Nautilus was backed by a religious
organization, but in retrospect I am not surprised at all.

They get a lot more credit and traction here than they deserve. Nautilus is
usually full of bull but pretending to be intellectual.

~~~
wrsh07
I like a lot of Nautilus articles, but like you didn't know who funded it. (Ie
Templeton)

That's important to know as a critical thinker.

------
brodix
I think a big part of the problem is we look at and model time backward. It
isn't the point of the present moving from past to future, which physics
codifies as measures of duration, but change turning future to past. Tomorrow
becomes yesterday because the earth turns. So the present is a constant state
of collapsing probabilities. Duration is just the state of the present, as
events form and dissolve. This makes time an effect of action, more like
temperature, color, pressure, etc. Thermodynamic cycles are more fundamental
than the linear, narrative effect of time. As high pressure is causation,
while low pressure is direction. Time is not causal. Yesterday doesn't cause
today. Energy is causal. Sunlight on a spinning planet creates the effect of
days. As energy is conserved as the present, the past is consumed by the
present, as much as the inertia of this energy directs present events. Time is
asymmetric because action is inertial. The earth turns one direction, not the
other. Clocks run at different rates because they are separate actions, not
because the fabric of spacetime is curved. A faster clock will simply expend
energy quicker. That's why the twin in the faster frame ages quicker.

------
chmike
There are two forces sustaining fake physics :

    
    
        1. "publish or perish"
        2. preserve credibility capitalization (scientist's karma points)
    

The former is what generates fake science, and the later is what let it
prosper.

I would nevertheless be very cautious when someone claims he can make the
difference between true and fake physics. There is a risk of error, and a
higher risk of manipulation by introducing a bias by leveraging the
credibility force (2). His book where he spit in the soup, and his promotional
web site where we have been directed too, looks very like what he condemns.

I'm curious to see if that author is able to recognize real physics [1].

[1]([http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2017.81004](http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2017.81004))

------
umberway
Isn't the best approach to 'fake physics' simply to publicly criticise the
ideas, or, if that's too exhausting, to point to a previous criticism?

------
wrsh07
I think this is an important data point given the powerful organizations that
benefit from discrediting academics (especially in the current political
climate) -- some of this is happening in climate research, and if it's also
happening in physics _that matters_.

All of this reminds me a bit of the novel Three Body Problem where certain
branches of academia (including hard sciences) are discredited as "too
reactionary" or "reactionary philosophy."

The motives in some cases are clear: just as tobacco companies benefitted from
the status quo, so now do oil companies.

However in physics, the motives may be more nuanced (and more of a territory
capture that I don't understand).

Don't doubt for a second that legitimate climate researchers will be accused
of doing fake research ... most likely within the year. I'm not sure what the
physics community can do besides joining together against this and continually
pushing back.

Let's stay transparent. Science is well-defined and important.

------
Buge
Whenever I try to load [https://www.edge.org/response-
detail/27129](https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27129) the page crashes and
Chrome says the page ran out of memory.

------
indolering
I'm surprised he didn't mention pilot wave theory. Cranks love it because it
doesn't violate the notion of local realism and it has infected respected
popular-science publications. But any "interpretation" of quantum mechanics
that leads to violations of causality should be treated as illegitimate until
proven otherwise.

~~~
effie
Also respected scientists like it because it dissolves many pseudoproblems of
the orthodox quantum theory like the measurement problem and because it
doesn't require rethinking basic scientific philosophy like Copenhagen did. I
do not think it is perfect replacement for the orthodox quantum theory, but
what do you mean 'it leads to violations of causality'?

------
briantakita
This sounds like the reaction against "Fake News", "Fake History", etc.

What that really tells me is this is an area of study that the Establishment
does not want you to follow so it will label it to apply social pressure to
mitigate the effects & discourage people from following it.

The thing is, nature has a way of not caring what the Establishment thinks. It
does care on a surface level, but it also conspires to cause the collapse of
the socio-information paradigms that the Establishment creates.

Given we have a soup of information & no grounding central authority to give
us "objective reality", we ought to utilize other techniques. I don't happen
to know what these techniques are, but I suspect that it has to do with
network models, cognition models, perspectives (physical & information),
attention schemas, faith, complexity, patterns, language, etc.

~~~
rflrob
> The thing is, nature has a way of not caring what the Establishment thinks.
> It does care on a surface level, but it also conspires to cause the collapse
> of the socio-information paradigms that the Establishment creates.

You're right as far as you go, but actually nature doesn't care what anyone
thinks. One thing to question is how the establishment got to be established.
If it was primarily through physical strength, heredity, or persuasion (as is
more true for the bulk of history), then they are no more likely to be right
than a plebe (except that p(persuasive | true) > p(persuasive)). But it's more
true than in most of history that the odds of being an elite are much higher
if you can consistently make correct predictions about the world.

It's true that we don't have a central authority to give us an objective
reality, but we don't need one either. Reality is there if only you choose to
observe it closely. I think the best technique for dealing with the soup of
information is to find bona fide experts with a track record of providing
correct explanations and giving what they say more weight.

~~~
briantakita
> I think the best technique for dealing with the soup of information is to
> find bona fide experts with a track record of providing correct explanations
> and giving what they say more weight.

It's up to the experts to make a persuading case & to engage the audience to
think for themselves. There are many-a-con-artist who labels oneself as an
"expert". That con-artist may even have credentials to make one's "authority"
even more convincing.

Labels justify all sorts of things, worst of all, telling one to stop thinking
beyond the abstract representation of the label. In the domain that the label
casts a perspective shadow upon, the con-artist is free to utilize to take
advantage of the audience's ignorance.

