Reference frame – to what, exactly?

Luboš Motl is one of my favorites, sort of. He is a Czech theoretical physicist. He was an assistant professor at Harvard University from 2004 to 2007. Since then, he hasn’t published anything. They say he did not actually fit into academia and had to leave.

But he still want’s to make an impression he is a practicing scientist. Maybe he is, i don’t know, but at least he does not hold academic positions anymore.

Luboš write a blog, “The Reference Frame”, which I frequent for fun. Not to say that the blog never contains anything above entertainment values, but since the blog is mostly about disagreeing with string theory opponents with abuse and insults, the real value of his writing is easily shadowed.

He loathes scientists like Lee Smolin, Peter Woit and Sabine Hossenfelder, calling them crackpots and worse [3]. That is a weird position in science, where disagreeing and conversing is most important.

Try commenting Luboš’ blog and say something nasty about string theory. It is quite possible you will be banned immediately.

Luboš Motl may be intelligent and was once a competent scholar. But is also, among other ultraconservative fog that I leave aside, blinded by climate change denialism. That is to say, that he is not a completely rational being either.

But hey, who am I to judge!

It is hard to know what makes a man behave like a raving meta-monster from hell, even though he should not be completely ignorant.

[1] Luboš Motl

[2] The Reference Frame

[3] Sabine Hossenfelder’s blog

Newton was wrong – And other scientific revolutions

When James Clerk Maxwell finished his famous equations describing electromagnetic waves, physics was ready and complete. Together with Newtons laws of motion they explained all known phenomena of the nature. Even Lord Kelvin said, that only thing to do with physics is to refine some measurements to get more accurate results.

Nothing could have been further from the truth and the great revolutions of 20th century, relativity and quantum mechanics, changed everything we know about the nature. Reality was not exact and deterministic after all, like Newton and Maxwell predicted. The reality of quantum mechanics was alien to human mind, the subatomic particles did not behave according to classical equations and you could only calculate probabilities for their properties.

But was it really a revolution, that trashed all that was before? No, it was not. Newton’s and Maxwell’s equations remain perfectly valid today and can still be used. Newton was never wrong, his model was completely correct and matched observations perfectly. Only when we started to make more sophisticated observations of reality became it obvious, that Newton’s and Maxwell’s laws were not complete in all situations.

Notion of “Scientific revolutions” is often used to argue against scientific method. Doesn’t the fact that old theories are replaced by new ones prove, that science is limited and we can not reach true knowledge of the universe. I tend to think, that it proves just the opposite.

Modern technology already enables us to utilize quantum phenomena, but this is only the beginning. Within next 50 years we start to see technologies, that have belonged to domain of science fiction only. The universe will open up to mankind in a way, that we could not even imagine a hundred years ago . Physics, evolution theory, computer technology, have all crafted our view of the reality in revolutionary ways.

But is this really a Scientific Revolution in a sense, that Thomas Kuhn meant in  his famous book? [3]

The true power of science is, that our knowledge and understanding increases progressively, not through revolutions. The power of scientific method, not a well defined term, is that science is able to fix itself. Even if Newton’s and Maxwell’s theories are known to be incomplete, they have never been wrong [4]. Who claims that they are, does not understand physics and physical models. These old theories describe the reality so well, that they are still used where they are applicable, because they are easier to use than quantum electrodynamics or theory of relativity. They still describe every day phenomena in many cases very accurately.

Often we fail to see, that physicists do not necessarily claim that the equations are the same thing than the underlying reality. The equations, are just tools to model the reality and make useful predictions. If  simple tools are good enough for the task at hand, you will use them instead of more complicated ones.

Today, we know that physics is far from complete. We cannot explain everything, maybe never can. But this does not mean we have stopped making progress or that there are no natural processes, that we do not know of. Of course there are.

But it also does not mean, when new processes are recovered, that we would have to abandon all our previous knowledge in the fires of all consuming scientific revolution.

Looking back to history of science it is easy to see, that the case will quite probably be just the opposite.