Are foundational issues the same as BSM?

[friend]

What would you do if you were a moderator?

Would you want to put that literally in your guidelines or in a response to a question?
and were would that leave you with your moderation responsibilities/duties?

At the end it's all about Community Building. What you want here is a community of
professional researchers. Such a community is self moderating and knowledgeable
enough to judge subjects on it's own. When you have such a community then you
can relax your guidelines, like allowing papers from arXiv...

einstein was a file clerk in a patent office when he published is theory of special relativity. Since he was not a professor, he would not even be allowed to publish on the arXiv.

 

[arivero]

When people try to extend the SM, aren't they proposing new axioms for physics?

Think in reversal: if any extension of the SM, or whatever extension of physics, where formalised already as equivalent to a new axiom, then the whole field of foundations of physics should not be needed. Moreover, consider the math example again: obviously any math paper is about adding new theorems to the corpus. So, how is it that foundations of mathematics exist as a separate field in mathematics?

There is even an intermediate field that can be seen between foundations and practice, that of rigorisation. Classical work such as Araki-Haag-Kastler or Streater-Wightman are near to foundations, and some people can even consider it as work on the topic.

 

[arivero]

And friend, do not mistake me. I am not telling that foundations is not physics, I am telling that it is not BSM. Actually, I think that it was an error to put BSM in this subforum, instead of the particle physics subforum. It was due to the shine of string theory at the time of the creation of the forums, I think, that most participants here understood BSM as "anything including quantum gravity", while BSM means "anything including the standard model".

 

[friend]

Hi F.
I'm afraid you may have distorted the meaning of what I said by taking out of the original context and connecting it to your "undeniable logic" idea, which is entirely unrelated to what I was talking about with Unusualname.

I emphasized the importance of a theory being testable by observations/measurements that can really be performed (Loop QG is testable in this sense according to people whose job it is to invent and study tests of theories.)

Unusual responded (I imagine jokingly or at most half seriously) to the effect that it is also important to have the good opinion of colleagues.

Actually we know this can be a bad guide in many cases because colleagues with a rival approach can be envious, or resentful, or in denial about the value of a given line of investigation.

but as a practical matter you have to have enough respect and credibility in the wider scientific community to earn a living. So I replied to Unusual's post to reassure him that the Loop QG program is doing tolerably well in the respect/acceptance category.

This has nothing to do with methodology (whether you imagine people proceeding by "undeniable logic" or by educated guesses and analogy with what has worked in the past). It simply is the practical matter of respect and acceptance by peers.

I was being a little facetious in my response. Of course it's always nice to have consensus on theory. But fundamental questions remain that leave open the validity of present theory: why is the universe quantum mechanical, why is it generally relativistic, why is the speed of light a constant, why the internal symmetries of the SM, why 3 space dimensions and one time dimension, why the 20 or so constants of nature, etc.? Could this all break down at high enough energies? Would there be any way of testing it? The present paradigm of curve fitting (finding math to fit the data) is fundamentally inadequate to explain things we cannot test (and may not ever be able to test). I suppose the only theory able to satisfy is a theory based on reason alone. That would have to be satisfactory, for otherwise, we would find ourselves arguing with reason itself. Have we all given up faith that this is even possible at all? Are there any research programs attempting it?

I find myself wondering: what if someone were able to derive all of physics from logic alone (yes, it sounds like a dream, but what if)? What would the "professionals" think of that? And what would everyone think of these professional? I find it hard to believe that reality is really as complicated and hard to understand as the professionals are making it out to be with their complicated math and procedures. I'm confident that the underlying theory is relatively simple, and everything proceeds from that. Yes, of course, that remains to be proved. But I intend to work on it, and I think I'm making progress. Too bad I can't share it with you. I'm sure this is the community that would appreciate it. I suppose anyone could send me a Private Message if you want details.

 

[Hans de Vries]

einstein was a file clerk in a patent office when he published is theory of special relativity. Since he was not a professor, he would not even be allowed to publish on the arXiv.

That's not really correct (and JB will give you 5 points for the Einstien) but anyway:

I'm personally not particular against discussing work published on the arXiv or viXra but
from a moderation viewpoint it makes no sense to give a carte blanche to all and everything
put on viXra. This would simply be abused because everybody is allowed to put anything
on viXra.

If for example something on viXra can lead to an interesting technical discussion on, say,
Lie Algebra or QCD calculations then there wouldn't really be an objection and the typical
authors on these subjects on viXra are generally allowed to discuss these subjects on
moderated sites. Why? because the level of knowledge of these people on the subjects
is recognized just like Einstein's knowledge was recognized by the professional physicist
of his days.

Hans.

 

[friend]

...I'm personally not particular against discussing work published on the arXiv or viXra but from a moderation viewpoint it makes no sense to give a carte blanche to all and everything put on viXra. This would simply be abused because everybody is allowed to put anything on viXra. ..
Hans.

I think we're on the same page. A theory should be judged on its merits and not necessarily on someone's credentials.