Science: Empirical knowledge of the Universe

This area is for ADVANCED theory and discussions only. If you just joined fusor.net, chances are this is NOT the area for you to be posting.
Post Reply
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3159
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Science: Empirical knowledge of the Universe

Post by Dennis P Brown »

I have noticed a trend (not referencing any rabbit holes here; we here know the difference) in the public domain that the idea of using science is something that anyone can use no matter the topic or bases. Yet I’ve also noticed that some of these people are using science in a manner that is absolutely incorrect and bordering on being wild speculation.

That is the subject that I want to focus upon – Empirical knowledge or what is truly what science is supposed to primarily concern itself with rather than philosophical speculation or even out-right fraud.

I happen to listen to a Youtube topic on gravity and quantum entanglement by Dr. Leonard Susskind of the Physics Department at Stanford University; without a doubt one of the leading physicist in the world and certainly on gravitational theory. I will not bother to link for it would be anyone’s utter waste of time to view that vid.

Why? Because not unlike the unhinged and false "science" that a certain Texas person has committed, this physicist also took ideas from "science" and ran with them in an identical manner.

In summary, he speculated that if one had two sphere’s of doped silicon, a worm hole could be created that would teleport information between these faster than light. He based this on entanglement via Complexity theory (A subject that in of itself is also rather ‘out there’ as far as any relationship to scientific rigor or empirical knowledge.) Through this process 'gravity' then occurs (don't ask, I can't make heads or tails for how he managed to come to that conclusion, and really, neither did he.)

This scientist has gone completely down into the rabbit hole of wild speculation using very real and complex mathematical physics based on some real quantum facts; however, he forgot that physics is an Empirical science. His approach was utterly devoid of any experimental facts what-so-ever.

This is maybe ‘fun’ but extremely misleading and actually not science at all but philosophical speculation. This was a talk that is given a degree of ‘cover’ by using extremely questionable extrapolation of existing quantum ideas that were derived by pushing known physics far beyond its bounds - no doubt via mathematical manipulation of concepts far beyond their applicable range.

An excellent counter example of this is field theory. An approch that gives accurate answers but is based on a model that is in the form of a series; but a series that does not converge. As such, pushing that model to extreme's is dangerous. That model must be (and is) used within carefully limited range that is well supported by experimental facts.

Any new theory MUST be based soundly on existing proven experimental foundations otherwise it is just speculation. That a professional like Dr. Susskind can get away with it is solely because his audience knows better - if such was to be 'published, it would be a total train wreck. But this type of thinking is dangerous for that exact reason – many people are not experts and posting this on 'YouTube' was not a good idea. That is because unless someone knows enough to realize this is just wild speculation, they might believe what the speaker is saying is science. As such, unless one is aware of what the limitations are of a given subject matter in a technical field really are, then such speculation based talks by such ‘experts’ can fool anyone into thinking this is 'real' knowledge – which it certainly isn’t. This nonsense is even now be exploited in the legal profession - an area I thought would be far more concerned with being careful (i.e. knowing their limitations and cross checking what is science and what is not.)

There is certainly a place for speculative thinking based on some aspects of known physics that is useful even in science. But, of late, due to the availability of YouTube, too many people are misusing the scientific method to support utterly false conclusion and using these to manipulate people to believe false or wildly speculative ideas. And not in a harmless manner, either.

Science is and only will be based on Empirical knowledge – i.e. experimental fact – and these facts must also be provable by others.

So be careful when listening to media, facebook, news channels, Youtube or similar social platforms and always ask yourself - if the claims are just too 'out-there' maybe check the facts before coming to a conclusion - even if it agrees with your own preconceived beliefs. As the old maps of lore often included - 'Beware, there be Dragons'.
User avatar
Paul_Schatzkin
Site Admin
Posts: 994
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 12:49 pm
Real name: aka The Perfesser
Contact:

Re: Science: Empirical knowledge of the Universe

Post by Paul_Schatzkin »

Dennis P Brown wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 10:20 am So be careful when listening to media, facebook, news channels, Youtube or similar social platforms and always ask yourself - if the claims are just too 'out-there' maybe check the facts before coming to a conclusion - even if it agrees with your own preconceived beliefs. As the old maps of lore often included - 'Beware, there be Dragons'.
GMTA

https://www.ttbrown.com/x

--P
Paul Schatzkin, aka "The Perfesser" – Founder and Host of Fusor.net
Author of The Boy Who Invented Television: 2023 Edition – https://amz.run/6ag1
"Fusion is not 20 years in the future; it is 60 years in the past and we missed it."
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Science: Empirical knowledge of the Universe

Post by Richard Hull »

There is real science, soft science and out there science speculation.

Hard science is the fixed science that is just not really questioned by users, manufacturers and researchers. It is old science for the most part All the math works within the particular discipline and fully proven via experiment, research and crap being manufactured based on it!

Soft science is that science that advances in the soft "touchy-feely" world, biology, zoology, medicine, psychiatry, etc. This is the science that deals with biota. Biota sciences are based on statistical results, from good research, experiment and proven result of a generalized statistical mean of the biota studied. "Green science" is soft science that calls on hard science to cast the bones as best it can with no real hope of the typical hard science 5 sigma demanded for proof. Outcomes in soft science by experiment on biota are not givens! They are reasonable, verified, typical, expected results found over a huge population of the specific biota under study.

Out there science speculation is really hard science trying to cast the bones (theory) forward in such a manner that no real laboratory experiment can give the suppositions even a single sigma chance, but which based on hard science, and often only mathematics, might seem reasonable to a fraction of hard scientists reviewing the theory or suppositions expounded.

I will not even discuss junk science which any trained scientist can recognize following a well listened to positing of an idea.


Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3159
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Science: Empirical knowledge of the Universe

Post by Dennis P Brown »

All accurate points, Richard. But even a proper soft science (Bio, for instance) requires Empirical procedures which does make them a scientific field of study.

Scientist that create models in any manner what-so-ever concerning the interiors of Black Holes are exactly what you called 'Junk science'. Yes, that means Sir Rodger Penrose, Steven Hawkings, Leonard Susskind and so many smaller names. No information can be directly obtained from a Black Hole - even if Hawking radiation exists (through that isn't proven at all) that requires orders of magnitude more time than the Universe currently has undergone to get even a single bit of useful information via Hawking radiation.

That these names get such renown for total nonsense is not too surprising considering the fact that the media needs extremes to get attention. Yet that is the trap. People even in the 'hard' sciences think these people's work is science - its mathematical speculation with zero merit.

Sabin Hossenfelder rips on particle physicist (yes, for good reason) but at least these researchers are using a valid model (through these people are taking it past its known valid range) but these scientists do then use experiments to either prove or disprove their ideas. Dr. Hossenfelder should do a section on the three headed hydra (Penrose, Hawking, and Sussind) that think gravitational theory requires complete magical thinking as long as the math follows.

The more I study the field of gravitation as modeled by the leading 'experts' the more I realize that it is dominated by physicist that have become so enamored by the 'beauty' of the math that they have lost all sight of reality. They have become literal charlatans. 

Thank you, Paul. I just hope I too don't end up down a rabbit hole studying about gravity while trying to give a proper (experimentally validated) model of its properties - though, I do think people here would quickly guide me back to sanity if I were to stray into those dangerous waters.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Science: Empirical knowledge of the Universe

Post by Richard Hull »

Yes, However, I would not include many of these as junk science people as they are trained and are struggling to cast the bones within their own fields of endeavor. Formal training never gives more than a cache' of recognition in a science by peers. At best it is a "leg up" over the junk science crowd who have no real training in a scientific discipline.

Soft sciences are working only on good statistical results based on a huge population study in an experimentally controlled foundation. Good science based on how things are done.

Sabine Hossenfelder has her head screwed down tight and a a particle physicist of some renown is in constant questioning mode as she sees her field moving rapidly into the "way out there science" of speculation and flights of fantasy. Just how far can we go into the depths of all the particles of matter and still know!!!

For me, quarks are what matter once was for a brief moment in time before things cooled down in the earliest moments of the universe. Real matter is what is here and now. Quarks are not here and now. Yes we can force them into existence in singular moment of near creational violence in Giga and Tera eV events in accelerators by de-condensating them from real matter. They have no existence within condensed matter. They make use feel good assigning fractional charges and spins, magnetic moments, etc., ad nauseum, to make things "pretty" and balanced. We accept the particle zoo, but never see it in our world for less than billionths and trillionths of a second! We spend billions of the money on de-condensation machines. Quarks are vaporous visions of what was matter countless billions of years ago. The real world at even the million ev level are just normal matter extant over the bulk of the life of the entire universe these are only, electrons, protons, neutrons. I only include neutrons as they are stable only within elemental atoms. Note: For me neutrons are only detected extra-nuclear., decay only into a proton and electron and a supposed vaporous neutrino needed to keep things "pretty" No one has seen or can prove that neutrons are a fixed particle within an elemental atom.

The neutron within any atom is an assumption! This assumption is based on their detected emission from atoms under extreme conditions generated from within or outside of the atom. Atomic theory allows us to assume that even within the atom undergoing beta decay, the neutron is only a combination of a proton and an electron! ( beta out leaves a proton behind, new element created) How odd that free flying neutrons are all unstable and decay only into a known electron and proton. Making things pretty in nuclear physics has forced a lot of pretty additions based on well founded assumption, further based on what we cannot see within the atom and even the main constituents of matter particles.

Fortunately, Quantum mechanics in all of its probabilistic goings-on and juxta positioning of all things tiny, both foul and bless so many assumptions of net results in particle physics!! Just how far down the rabbit hole are we willing to leap??

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3159
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Science: Empirical knowledge of the Universe

Post by Dennis P Brown »

After thinking about both my criticism of the 'giants' of current physicist, and their work on Black Holes (BH), my point is that empirical knowledge is all science can define as valid information about the Universe (i.e. what society defines as certified knowledge.) Math is an essential tool but math has its limitations. So, when and when not a model is applicable or accurate 'enough' to justify calming it is 'knowledge' of a system depends on what we mean by science.

Using your example of neutrons certainly demonstrates this question clearly. One can detect singular neutrons using known detectors (this forum talks abut that a great deal.) However, these particles can only be detected indirectly. So, unlike electrons or protons, we make assumptions that the neutron exists based upon this type of observation. But few would argue this isn't accurate. In a similar manner, neutron detection while within the nucleus is determine via another indirect measurement methodology: i.e. high energy particle scattering theory.

This is the primary method by which we can 'view' the interior of a nucleus. However, this is when math comes in and the interior of the nucleus is then speculated upon by way of creating and using a mathematical model that someone creates. This model is then used to 'predict' certain scattering results from our 'probe' particles (using these particles: neutrons, electrons, or protons.)

The results of the experiment either support the model or it does not. If it supports the model, this becomes a theory. With more types of data the model is either supported by other researchers or not. If supported, it becomes a theory.

To date, such models match the model results extremely close (far beyond the five sigma threshold using vast numbers of tests.) Further, the model even allows us to probe the inside of a neutron while in the nucleus such that a 'dipole' like distribution of charge is seen - i.e. possible quark configuration. The most current model predicts and experiments show that protons and neutrons form shells within the nucleus, and even can map out how the nucleus is distorted in its overall net overall shape (in rather high detail.) The bottom-line: you are correct, what we see is indirect evidence of a neutron in a nucleus (but that is true of singular neutrons as well but we still believe that data and these neutrons exist in reality.)

I did this not to support or refute that neutrons exist in a nucleus but to explain how real science works. Further, it is obvious I did not address the issue of how a 'free' neutron, while not composed of a proton and electron, could 'decompose' into these two very different particles. The idea of quarks and flavor change are beyond the scope of this topic (esp. flavor change!) and would certainly not be easy to discus without detailed knowledge of the models and how data does support this view.

My aim was to explain details of the scientific method in general and used your issue with neutrons and whether they really exist inside a nucleus. I offered the current best way to answer this question and gave reasons why this is science. That is, how real science uses math & modeling along with data to 'prove' something.

Now I wish to explain why this does not apply to BH's.

First, it is IMPOSSIBLE to gain any direct information about the interior of the BH (the why is simply because what goes in, never comes out. So, no way even in principle to 'probe' a BH.)

It is possible to gain information about a BH's total mass, spin and charge but this is not direct probing of the interior of a BH. Rather this is solely information about the remaining 'field' surrounding the BH - we assume this is valid through there is little experimental data proving these measured results. That would require a before and after test and that has been difficult till the current LIGO work. That has, (finally) created data on one of these parameters (mass) and partly another (spin.) Needs more data to be strong proof but considering the current data and existing theories, is awfully good in how those predictions and current data are in agreement.

So now these 'greats' that speculate upon the interior of a BH and have been held up as examples of great physics - hence the title I used for them. They model the BH interior and explained in great detail to us ignorant folk about how the models they created shows great and complex details of the interior of the BH. We dare not question their results because they have learned far beyond us on the mathematical physics of many other physical systems (already known) and a few have extended these further. So they are real experts in physics.

So, they offer data that exists only in their minds and make great predictions that have zero empirical results.

Let's not discus the information paradox that all these physicist have struggled with and had rather poor (read zero) success addressing. The best current prediction modeled via our most accurate and well tested physical theories called statistical thermodynamics - predicts all information that 'falls' into a BH must exist on its 'surface (i.e. event horizon which is inaccessible to us via any/all experimental methods.)

Net result we have one prediction that has an in principle way to test - Hawking Radiation. Of course, it is impossible to test using any real methodology. So is it valid? This question has no empirical data so this question cannot be determined.

So, do they do science relative to the interior of BH? The answer is an absolute and clear: NO.

Is it junk science? Well, it uses models and math so one could argue it is not. But since it can never be tested and depends solely on their unsupported models, I'd say yes it is but since they are 'far' about us in knowledge, I guess most would say no.

Bottom-line: a neutron in a nucleus and the interior of a BH are two vastly different questions that science attempts to address. One (neutrons) have methods to test the truth or falsification of the models and has vast success. Hence, it is real science. The other, (BH interior) is pure speculation only supported by zero experimental data and produces no valid results.

These scientist that have gotten famous writing on the topic of the interior of BH's have lost all connection with real science and are, at best, doing philosophy - to be kind. I guess if it sell's, then like so many nonsense books, who am I to argue with that aspect? But that no one points out that these kings have no cloths is rather embarrassing for science in general, and the Universities and reviewers who enable this nonsense without flagging it as unsupported sheer speculation.

Maybe I'm being too harsh since they do have the transparent sheen of math to enable their fits of fancy. But that is not science as practice in the world today. Such extensions of physics is certainly fine for areas of science where experimental data could prove or disprove their concepts but that is impossible with BH's. This is worse then String theory (through, not by much ;) )
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Science: Empirical knowledge of the Universe

Post by Richard Hull »

Black holes are rabbit holes!

They are interesting curiosities which we can see externally due to a number of related physical phenomena around them. Until some one jumps into the rabbit hole and returns from within, speculation regarding what lies within is a permanent mystery. What happens inside, be it a mad hatter talking of ships and kings and sealing wax or worm holes belching matter back out into the universe at some other location in space or time, be that matter fully disassembled as nuclear debris or in whole form as it was swallowed as if a Jonha, are equally supportable via conjecture or the best laid works of man's consideration.

In the end, real physics and science must link into the engineering and use in a physical and useful embodiment. Molecules of chemistry and there many useful compounds and configurations are embodiments. Atoms and their individual isotopic forms both natural and man made are used to create a nearly magical form of energy to save and destroy are useful physical embodiments. With small local energies, easily acquired, we can free the nucleus of protons and neutrons to drive atomic reactions, create electromagnetic radiation, drive nuclear reactions where binding energies are let loose, (fission) or cause atoms to fuse (fusion).

Currently, their are no uses whatsoever for the found, so named, Quarks or other internals of the subatomic particle zoo, no physical embodiments, constructs or uses to mankind due to their fleeting existences. Their existence demands near universe creational, fermi sized local energies needed to de-condense them from freed nuclear particles for fempto-second time periods of existence. Plenty to see here, lots to learn, but no useful embodiments.

Similar to the youthful discovery of masturbation, a moments joy at the hand of man, but no lasting result beyond the knowledge that we can do it at any time in the future. So it is with quarks, a joy of just knowing we can do it with no useful application or long term significance. We can dismantle our naturally existing, internal nuclear condensates, (Protons, Neutrons), with great, unimaginable violence much like a child destroying a toy. However, similar to all the kings horses and all the kings men, we can put that toy back together again. An end game for us and a joke we play on genuine, physical, natural matter to send it back to the incredibly hot hell that created it billions of years ago.

Richard Hull

P.S. Yes, I love to conjure up "fair similitudes"

RH
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Post Reply

Return to “Advanced Technical Discussion Area”