
Which of the Basic Assumptions of Modern Physics are Wrong? - cpeterso
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/05/24/fourth-fqxi-essay-contest/
======
genwin
I'm convinced that even if someone did prove that a basic assumption of modern
physics is wrong, it would automatically be assumed in turn that the author is
a crackpot, hence the work can be ignored. I'm convinced that the physics
community isn't interested in the slightest in new ideas. Of course I'm
automatically a crackpot (even beyond a conspiracy theorist) for even
suggesting that.

As an example to how bad things have become in the realm of physics, it's safe
to say that the vast majority of thinking adults believe that black holes
exist, because so much major media has told them so. But when you look deeper
you find that there's no definitive evidence. Sites like the Chandra X-Ray
Observatory admit that, deep in their FAQ, but in words that many people can
misconstrue as a technicality. When I point out in physics discussions that
that there's no definitive evidence of black holes, I'm automatically labeled
a crackpot, especially by the working physicists. One of my books suggests
that this is a grant problem, as in black holes bring in a lot of grant money,
so physicists must be careful to pretend that black holes are a definite
reality in nature.

~~~
InclinedPlane
I don't see that to be the case. Physicists have been giving their utmost to
try to crack open the standard model and prove it wrong for decades. And the
same is true elsewhere as well. We thought we had a pretty good grasp on the
nature of the expansion of the Universe, but it turned out that the expansion
is accelerating. That was a huge reformulation of cosmology. We thought we
knew about planetary formation, but once we started finding exoplanets we
discovered many of our assumptions were wrong.

As far as black holes, we have not 100% direct evidence of them, but we do
have many independent and very strong lines of indirect evidence. For example,
we can see stars in orbit around an incredibly massive object at the center of
our galaxy (Sgr A*) that is not luminous. There are no models that make sense
for anything that could be so massive and so dark. Black holes are the only
theory which fits all the evidence we have, that's how science works.

~~~
tybris
Well, that's how physics works. Physics is stupefyingly strict about its
methods. Most sciences don't put quite as much value into models. The problem
is that in a desire to strictly follow the method, physicists have become
complacent with regards to extraordinary claims. Sure, the universe is full of
dark matter, connected by tiny strings, in between folded up dimensions, but
gravity is leaking away into parallel universes, since that's what the model
predicts (rather than it just being a mathematical anomaly arising from
botched assumptions). It's comparable to an economic model that describes
inflation as the work of invisible leprechauns who increase prices during the
night. Sure, it might make accurate predictions, hell, it might even be true,
but you should not put any value into it unless there is evidence that the
universe actually works in the extraordinary way the model claims it does.

Biology has followed a much better path over the past century, and biologists
are rapidly building up an extremely thorough understanding of how biological
systems work without relying heavily on algebraic models. Physics fails to
provide explanations for even the most basic physical phenomena like motion.
It's effectively just assumed to exist as a law because some authoritative
physicist said so and all other models rely on it.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Sorry, I don't mean to be insulting, but I find this to be quite laughable.
Firstly, neither string theory or "gravity leakage" or more than 4 dimensions
of space-time are even remotely accepted theories in physics or cosmology. The
theory of dark matter is supported by many hugely disparate lines of evidence.
It's the only theory that makes sense given all the evidence.

As for the supposed superiority of biology, I offer up this essay that has
resonated with me (especially Fig. 3 at the end):
[http://protein.bio.msu.ru/biokhimiya/contents/v69/pdf/bcm_14...](http://protein.bio.msu.ru/biokhimiya/contents/v69/pdf/bcm_1403.pdf)

Biologists might be making great strides, but they have quite a long way to
go.

~~~
pwang
> Firstly, neither string theory or "gravity leakage" or more than 4
> dimensions of space-time are even remotely accepted theories in physics or
> cosmology.

So tell me please: Why are people like Brian Greene able to obtain the funding
to make TV series like <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-
cosmos.html> and get public speaking engagements like
[https://secure2.convio.net/ata/site/Ecommerce/3120701?VIEW_P...](https://secure2.convio.net/ata/site/Ecommerce/3120701?VIEW_PRODUCT=true&product_id=3796&store_id=9341),
when they should be getting the popular attention of a Usenet crackpot?

~~~
InclinedPlane
Are you implying that TV funding is tantamount to scientific authority? Are we
to believe dragons and white walkers are accepted scientific fact along with
mitochondrial eve being a cylon hybrid?

Don't be ridiculous.

~~~
pwang
Nice straw man!

And how many dragons and white walkers and Cylons are featured by Nova
specials, the Discovery Channel, and get pop-sci articles written up in
Scientific American?

------
raverbashing
The real problem is testing 'theories merging'

There are several areas where relativity and quantum mechanics merged, for
example, in the discovery and theory of antimatter

But most of the experiments of relativity were on 'big things' like planets,
and quantum mechanics on 'small things'

And between them, the real mystery: gravity. General relativity knows a lot
about what gravity _does_ but not so much about _where it comes from_

Edit: fixed GR for SR

~~~
iskander
s/Special relativity/General relativity

Special relativity ignores gravity altogether, whereas general relativity
sneaks gravity into the relativistic framework by equating it with curvature.

Both theories are, to me, frustratingly intangible. Like you said, we don't
really know where gravity comes from. Really, we don't even have any sort of
good intuitions for how to describe what it is. Stuff resists being shoved
around. Stuff also attracts other stuff to itself. Einstein tells us these are
both symptoms of stuff being curvature. It's all a bit too abstract for my
taste (that is, I hope a more tangible/intuitive model will eventually win
out). Field equations are predictive but not really descriptive. Is there a
mechanism in there somewhere?

~~~
klodolph
The problem with tangible/intuitive models is that our sense of what is
tangible/intuitive is based primarily on our millions of years living in the
Newtonian realm of the universe.

------
jarek-foksa
Pardon the silly question, but what is the actual meaning of "right" and
"wrong" in physics?

I would expect a model which works in all possible conditions to be right, but
clasical physics breaks when you reach the speed of light or atom level
scales.

Also, my intuition tells me that there can't be two completly different models
that are describing the same thing and both of them are right, but we have
e.g. definition of light as EMV and as a stream of particles.

So it's enough for physical model to work only in specified conditions to be
considered right, but "Basic Assumptions of Modern Physics" must be ultimately
right (must work in all possible conditions)?

------
pwang
Wave-particle duality is nonsensical. It certainly makes a lot less sense than
"there is an as-yet unknown kind of medium that supports the propagation of
waves".

------
davyjones
Somehow, I suspect that we are missing a dimension or two altogether and that
will 'fix' most of our shortcomings in understanding the Universe.

~~~
rdtsc
Isn't that the running joke with string theorists -- if stuff doesn't work
out, add another dimension.

------
iRobot
Which of the Basic Assumptions of Modern Physics are Wrong?

As a Sci-Fi fan, "Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light" would be
a nice one to be wrong

~~~
liber8
I'm sure this theory will be proven to be not entirely correct someday. As a
corollary, I expect that e=mc^2 will also be slightly modified.

~~~
busted
I don't know from what background you're making that statement but in general
it's good for people to know that E=mc^2 only when the object is at rest,
otherwise you must account for momentum.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence#Applicability_of_the_strict_mass.E2.80.93energy_equivalence_formula.2C_E_.3D_mc.C2.B2)

