But the basis of the theory of relativity was an empirical fact: that the speed of light appeared to be constant in all directions. The theory of light waves traveling through an ether (like sound waves through air) suggested that we would be able to find the earth's speed relative to it, by measuring the speed of light. But that wasn't what people were finding...
A lot of the really smart theoreticians today don't seem to be basing it on new empirical facts, they're just making clever theories up. Clever people like to do that. Of course, it's not their fault if there aren't any mysterious facts that don't fit current theories - but that's the place to start.
What about the total incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics? Each works incredibly well in its sphere, but the "fact" is that they both describe the same universe and there is obviously something missing between them. There have been several attempts to develop a common framework, superstrings just being the latest, but so far none have been really useful or convincing.
That's just the thing. There is a total incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics, but it's currently a theoretical problem. AFAIK there's no current experiment (coming from an accelerator or an astro. survey) that fundamentally requires it to explain its results (ducks). The latest and greatest was WMAP, and inflation seems to explain that data. (This doesn't mean that a potential theory of QG could not make predictions that one could test tomorrow.) Most papers are speculatory ("We think ... Future surverys will confirm (or deny) our theory...").
The interesting thing is that there is stuff that is (indirectly) observed and actually part of the modern framework of cosmology: dark matter and dark energy. Modern cosmology says that for every pound of regular stuff there is 5x dark matter and 14x dark energy, so it'd be important to figure out what it actually is. As one of my elderly professors put it, "I hope to live long enough to learn what this stuff actually is; my friends always ask me what it is, and I my answer at the end is always 'I don't know'." There are current experiments that try to detect dark matter particles (in cosmic radiation I think), but they don't seem to get a lot of attention, maybe if they find something.
I don't think there's a problem between the two when Cramer's transactional interpretation is used for quantum mechanics. I seriously think the answer will come from something derived from his work.
I wonder if he's the same physicist John Cramer that has written a couple of SF novels; John Cramer's novel "Einstein's Bridge" is excellent hard-hard SF.
No. The only times when both quantum+special relativity (quantum field theory) and general relativity are both "in effect" are immediately after the big bang. IIRC the time-scale is something like 10^(-20s) after the big bang. It is only of importance in cosmology and at very high energies. Unless, of course, we're missing something...
That said, we could have asked, in the 19th century, is there any practical consequence of electricity and magnetism being the same force?
Although relativity was based on an empirical observation, Einstein is also famous for his theory predicting additional, as-yet unobserved phenomena.
From researching this thread today, I learnt that a similar thing happened when Hertz discovered radio waves: they were predicted by Maxwell's theory (which was based on an observation by Faraday):
> When Faraday discovered that a magnetic field can affect the polarization of light, he proposed in 1845 that light may be waves in the lines of force of electromagnetism.
> [...] In 1864 James Clerk Maxwell followed up Faraday's ideas with mathematical formulas that described light as waves of electromagnetism and that implied other forms of electromagnetic waves. Maxwell's work was experimentally verified in 1888 when Heinrich Hertz, following a suggestion from George Francis Fitzgerald, discovered radio waves by directly applying Maxwell's formulas.
Garrett Lisi (the E8 guy, aka surferdude) and dare I say Stephen Wolfram (the mathematica guy) like types would fit the bill nicely, if they are ever proven right in their outlandish theories (which remains to be seen).
That's exactly the reason why nobody in the field will take them very seriously, if some outsider would come along with a working theory of the universe and en-passent come up with a GUT that would pass inspection a lot of people would look pretty silly.
I think the chances of that happening are very small, but every now and then one of these guys comes up with something that is not trivial to dispose of.
If there is one thing all great scientific discoveries had in common then it is that when they were first posited a number of people thought 'rubbish'.
That does not mean that all rubbish will eventually be accepted as the new established theory.
My view on a "New Kind of Science" (NKS): NKS is not a theory (at least not in the sense physicists used it pre-string theory), it's an idea (with a misleading, non-informative and sensationalist name). It's also not a discovery. Nevertheless, I think that it's a very interesting idea (nobody is saying it's rubbish) and I and many other physicists have, after reading the book been playing around with and talking about related ideas. I also think writing 1000+ pages about it was complete overkill, the relevant scientific result (the Turing-complete CA) could be presented in a 10 page paper while the more general argument in 100 pages.
I personally think S. Wolfram fits the bill in terms of being a fiercely independent thinker and being financially independent. I meant to write that he does not follow through with his ideas, but that would be untrue, as he has spent large amounts of time simulating his CAs and examining their output. So I won't say that, but I will say that he seems to prefer publicity and sensationalism ("New Kind of Science"), ie. short-term success over discourse with scientific peers and coming up with actual physical theories that withstand the test of time. (He has written physics paper when he was young, but not recently).
I fully agree with the sensationalist impression, he really is a sucker for attention (recognition?).
Also, to name your book 'a new kind of science' takes hubris to a whole new level.
It would have been a lot more classy if he would have simply written up his findings in a 2 or 300 page volume and left it to others to give it its place.
But that's what you get when you don't need an editor because you've already made it.
Still, if you cut all that out you're left with some pretty neat and insightful ideas about cellular automata and how some things could work.
I've always argued we don't have new einstiens because of computers. They suck up all the smart people like a disease and make people feel fulfilled working on trivial problems. Eg writing a tetris clone using x.
I read an essay a few years ago saying that the reason we aren't going into space or colonizing the oceans or any of that other neat stuff we were supposed to do, is that it is easier and more remunerative to make movies and games about doing it than to actually do it.
I feel the same way about computer games, and I make games. I spent too much time playing games in my youth, and my co-workers spend too much time playing games now.
Anyone notice this in the comments to the essay: "I am holding off publication of my research until I can figure it all out. But I am on a right track to getting pretty close to solve some of the most puzzling fundamental physics problems. So close that I no longer even bother to discuss my ideas on my own BLOG any more.
Quantoken"
He has announced that he is a quack; this is almost a 3 line distillation of the essays in Martin Gardner's "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science".
Sorry but I really can't afford to share readers with that particular person who produces so many untrue statements and who parasites on the work of scientists. I've had huge problems with the people who were being sent from that website to my weblog. I apologize if you're not one of these aggressive and extremely ignorant problem-makers but there's no way to distinguish.
The most interesting thing to me is that his ostensible basis for rejecting Woit is purely authoritarian: Woit's publication record is weak and the leading physicist Susskind doesn't like him, therefore he must be a crackpot. Seems likely that the real reason for the rejection is that he finds Woit's skepticism regarding contemporary theoretical physics personally threatening.
I'm somewhat "conflicted" with regards to Susskind. I'm a physicist, but I don't know much about string theory or LQG. As a bystander to the "Not Even Wrong" debate, I agree with Smolin's points about falsification and predictions being an essential feature of a physical theory, thus, on a personal level, I took Smolin's side (').
Then, couple of months ago I found the Susskind lectures on iTunes, watched and enjoyed many of them. (They're aimed at a general engineering audience, but I still found portions such as General Relativity illuminating.) Susskind is clearly a physicist of the highest caliber, the last time I heard such first-class lectures was when I listened to the Feynman MP3s during my freshman year. So on one hand, if Susskind says these ideas have merit, they're probably worth taking a look at. On the other hand, there are so many other interesting areas (in physics and elsewhere) where I feel something tangible could come out of that I am still ignoring string theory for the most part. I should note that I'm not very representative in this regard, as Smolin notes, most theoretical physicists at top U.S. universities are string theorists. It's interesting that here in Hungary, while the graduate school offers some courses on string theory, I don't know anybody pursuing related research. Most theoretical/particle people are doing SM/QCD related stuff, which is clearly a cultural thing here.
(') In reality, falsifications and predictions are a tricky business in physics with people making implicit assumptions, circular logic, estimated error bars, etc. --- I think that non-physicists' view of this is similar to my view about police work based on CSI:NY.
In physics we are introduced to Galileo, circa 15th century, then Newton circa 17th century, then Einstein, circa 20th century. It has been about five decades since Einstein lived and perhaps the academical community is still accommodating to his theories. You have to know first what is, before going beyond to what else could be.
As for his suggestions and problem, I think society has already found the solution. Whenever you read of people who are considered to have made a great contribution to this world, you will notice that their parents are aristocrats, or business men, or judges, surgeons, rich people basically. The child of these people is free to spend their time as they wish, outside of the confinements of the current system and it is perhaps this freedom compounded with the networking and other means of influencing, which allows them to contribute so greatly.
The only way to open the door to more people is by paying scientists as much as footballers are paid. However, while a footballer peaks in his late 20s, a scientist peaks in his late 30s, so even this approach would perhaps not address the issue and lead to a world of pop science which seems to be flourishing somewhat currently.
But the basis of the theory of relativity was an empirical fact: that the speed of light appeared to be constant in all directions. The theory of light waves traveling through an ether (like sound waves through air) suggested that we would be able to find the earth's speed relative to it, by measuring the speed of light. But that wasn't what people were finding...
A lot of the really smart theoreticians today don't seem to be basing it on new empirical facts, they're just making clever theories up. Clever people like to do that. Of course, it's not their fault if there aren't any mysterious facts that don't fit current theories - but that's the place to start.