Where Does Physics Development Stand?

[somy]

where does physics go?

Hi everyone. I justwanted to know your opinion about "the current path of physics development".
It seems that many areas are going to be unfamilier to even physicist!
They are just expert in their own field and... it is not so good!
How can physicists understand everything without paying a lot of attention to a spesific field.
Thanks in advanced.
Somy

 

[jamie]

It can sometimes be difficult to determine where physics ends and phylosophy begins. your right there are many areas that physics has become unfamiliar. The really brilliant people are still working on the big question,"the theory of everthing"

 

[somy]

Thanks jamie.
But, do we go the correct way as a physicist to develop the science?
It is my question.
Somy.

 

[Chronos]

Phyics goes where observation leads us. We observe, formulate and observe again to find the missing pieces of the puzzle. There is no reality without evidence and the only evidence we can access is by observation. Nothing mysterious about that. It started thousands of years ago when sailors asked 'why does the mast of a ship appear to sink into the horizon as it sails away from us?'

 

[Nigel]

John Horgan wrote a brilliant book a few years, "The End of Science". He claimed that the big Popperian speculative theories are almost confirmed (without any evidence, because unless you confirm them, you have no earthly way of even knowing for sure that they are correct - let alone nearly confirmed!).

Basically, from my work, and its ridicule by Popperian journal editors of Nature, PRL, ARXIV.ORG, etc. (who claim that a scientific discovery worthy of publication is a speculation coming from rich big names and that proofs coming from poor Archimedes characters are not worth even reading or refereeing), I agree with Horgan's conclusion that science is coming to an end.

I wrote a letter in Electronics World, where I pointed out that if everyone suppresses any new line of enquiry or ridicules it, science gets stuck on a few big ideas like superstrings which may, after billions of dollars of expense, just may turn out to be wrong. Therefore the destruction of my and others work by bigots is not a personal thing, but a matter for the concern of every taxpayer in the world who funds the scum.

Best wishes,
Nigel Cook

 

[Chronos]

Nigel, your theories and conclusions may be entirely correct. But, being correct does not make you heard. If you alienate your audience, you will never be heard. Find a reputable sponsor and convince him/her you both agree. You can lead a scientist to water, but, you cannot make him/her drink... unless he/she believes it was his/her idea [scientists are very proud and stubborn]. That is the only practical way to inspire the next generation of scientists to test your theories. Just my opinion.

 

[Nigel]

Nigel, your theories and conclusions may be entirely correct. But, being correct does not make you heard. If you alienate your audience, you will never be heard. Find a reputable sponsor and convince him/her you both agree. You can lead a scientist to water, but, you cannot make him/her drink... unless he/she believes it was his/her idea [scientists are very proud and stubborn]. That is the only practical way to inspire the next generation of scientists to test your theories. Just my opinion.

Thank you for your friendly words, I do not believe that you are setting out to be sarcastic, although if you read Galileo you find various telling remarks:

1. "In matters of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a sole individual."

2. Galileo to Kepler: ‘Here, at Padua, is the principal professor of philosophy, who I have repeatedly and urgently requested to look at the moon and planets through my glass, which he pertinaciously refuses to do!’

From Nature Editor Dr Philip Campbell’s 25 November 1996 letter to NC: ‘… we are not able to offer to publish… we have not communicated the contents of your paper to any person outside this office.’

When you have spent a decade trying to do this sort of thing, using and exhausting all the suggestions people give, you come to the conclusion that science is not a matter of logic but of authority figures.

We in 2004 are not in an exploratory age of enlightenment, unlike Galileo.

You find that while Galileo had problems with the "Dr Campbell" of his own time, he was able to make his voice heard because there simply wasn't the background of cranks trying to dismiss everything he said without reading it first!

In this day and age, the young scientist follows the lead of famous people, who I rightly or bluntly call "bigots" (= someone intolerant of a fellow human's right to free speech) and think they will become great leaders if they too try to ridicule people. So they prevent scientific discussion by throwing mud at genuine research which they haven't even read. I do not believe, having studied Galileo, that he would respond by giving up or seeking someone to hold his hand. If we want science, we have to defend it.

 

[=NOC=]

Is it ever capable of someone knowing all the areas of Physics?

 

[somy]

Dear =NOC=!
In fact it is impossible now but if there was a superman(!) who could understand the whole area then it was perfect.
Because he could tell you the inner relations in the whole physics science(and maybe some other sciences). I mean that why we are not thinking about a new way of developing science?!
Of course , I don't have any idea now. But I'm very interested to know if it is possible or not.
That is my question...
Thanks a lot.
somy