Should I Go With My Crazy Theories?

[twofish-quant]

A good reply, but not sure what your point is. My point, 'some' people get into doing physics and find doing the work to get to the level of their pop science heroes is actually hard and give up. Your point, 'some' people get into physics and realize it's hard and keep trying.

And some people find it fun as all hell. The OP sounds like someone that might find it fun as all heck, and I'd like to do what I can to get him pointed in the right direction. One thing about physics is that there is a huge amount of luck involved. You can work incredibly hard but just miss out on the theory of everything, because you were born a century too early. On the other hand, with some hard work you can get somewhere.

If you go in with the attitude that you are going to figure out the universe, you'll likely burn out. If you are just interested in figuring out *anything*, then there's likely to be something interesting that you can figure out. Not all mysteries of the universe involve string theory.

Take a plastic pipe. Pour water down the pipe. At a specific velocity the flow becomes turbulent. Calculating at what velocity flowing become turbulent turns out to extremely difficult.

I simply wanted to point out to him that it is hard work and if you're only interested in the end game, then getting to the end game may be too tedious for him.

There is no end game.

You work as hard as hell, then you die. If you don't find the hard work interesting, there's no point. I've seen Nobel Prize winners in their 80's, who are still working every bit as hard to eek out one more secret of the universe. You'd think that after you end up age 80 and won the Nobel Prize in physics, you'd declare victory and stop doing the "grunt work." But some people end up liking the grind.

Once you reason that there is no reward for getting to the top of the mountain other than you get to climb another mountain, things look different.

However, if he is willing to put up with the grunt work and grow as a person and scientist, then he has hope. Not exactly a controversial opinion.

It's not a matter of "putting up" with the grunt work. One way of thinking about it is to ask what's the point of running an marathon when it would be a lot easier to drive 26 miles. The grunt work *is* the essence of research.

If you treat physics as something for which there is a finish line, you are going to be in a lot of trouble when you find out that there isn't.

 

[MarneMath]

I'm not sure why you're really arguing with me? You want your perspective to be right? Fine you're right. But maybe, just maybe, I have a different view on things and I was simply expressing an opinion. Now that's a new concept...

Also, I don't see how something being hard precludes it from being fun.

 

[twofish-quant]

I'm not sure why you're really arguing with me?

Not so much arguing as responding. I said something. Your reply was "a good reply, but not sure what your point is." At which point, I talk more.

The other thing is that I have my "physics sadist" hat on right now. That tends to happen when someone presents a physics theory. It's like taping a sign to yourself saying "kick me."

One thing that makes physics difficult is that most physics arguments can't be resolved by "agreeing to disagree." Also one thing that's pretty common in graduate school, is that you can't end an argument even by giving up. Often, if you agree with your adviser, you'll find that your adviser actually believes the opposite of what he was saying and is just giving you a hard time.

 

[twofish-quant]

Also to the OP:

I took a look at Julian Barbour's papers, and I'm not terribly impressed. It looks to me that he has just reinvented Regge calculus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regge_calculus

There's not that much content in his papers, just "wouldn't it be cool if you could quantize gravity by breaking things up into shapes." Yes it would be cool, and that's what the "loop quantum gravity" people are doing, and they've gotten quite a bit beyond the "wild hand gesturing stage."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity

Also all of this is a subset of finite element methods...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_element_method

The thing about FEM's is that you replace "grid" variables with cells which have an equation which you then minimize. But the fact that you get rid of X, doesn't mean that space doesn't exist, and so I don't think that getting rid of t means that time is an illusion.

 

[twofish-quant]

Some more practical suggestions on becoming a theorist...

I think most theorists go through a phase in which they think that they can figure it all out. It usually happens late undergraduate and early graduate school. It usually doesn't happen, not become of lack of effort, but because you just have to be at the right place at the right time to get hit by lightning.

Also, it's not just undergraduates. I think that there is a growing sense that we've been on the wrong track with supersymmetry and string theory. How we got on that track makes sense if you look at the situation in 1975. We made some very fast advances with electroweak theory and it seemed "easy" to apply those techniques to get a theory of everything, but after a generation and a hard slog, people are looking at alternative approaches.

One thing that I'd recommend you do is to not go too deep with one specific author or one specific idea right now. You should try to look at review papers that give a summary of the current approaches, and once you get into graduate school, you can focus on one of them. Assuming that lightning doesn't hit, then you are in the realm of "ordinary science" and at that point a lot of what you'll be doing is to figure out what you can get done with what's available. It's also a bad idea to have "tunnel vision" and focus too much on one problem. You'll find that mathematical techniques in one area are useful in others, and it's quite possible that the key to figuring out quantum gravity is something that the people in say ocean physics are doing.

Also, since you have an interest in quantizing general relativity... This is also a field that fascinates me but for altogether different reasons. Basically I'm interested in "quantizing" discrete fields so that you can put them into a computer. Curiously my interest in GR comes largely from trying to *avoid* using GR. You can show via a three line argument that GR probably doesn't affect supernova explosions, and the less CPU you use on gravity, the more you have available to simulate things like neutrino diffusion.

 

[SophusLies]

Theoretical physics is an awkward combination between creativity and rigor.

It baffles me that you know anything about "Theoretical physics," considering you're currently taking a first Classical Mechanics class...

I'm finally learning what theoretical physics is and I'm a 3rd year PhD student. I really don't think you should be giving advice regarding this.

 

[Nano-Passion]

It baffles me that you know anything about "Theoretical physics," considering you're currently taking a first Classical Mechanics class...

I'm finally learning what theoretical physics is and I'm a 3rd year PhD student. I really don't think you should be giving advice regarding this.

It baffles me that you think that someone needs to be a theoretical physicist to give what is a very generalized statement.. Why don't you try to correct what I have said, if it is incorrect at all.

Perhaps you have assumed something that I have not explicitly stated?

 

[FalseVaccum89]

I simply wanted to point out to him that it is hard work and if you're only interested in the end game, then getting to the end game may be too tedious for him. However, if he is willing to put up with the grunt work and grow as a person and scientist, then he has hope. Not exactly a controversial opinion.

That's exactly why I figured I miscommunicated my views to begin with! It's not all about the 'end game' for me. Just going though the process of figuring out the whys and hows of the way things work is something I enjoy. I've found over the past few years that I don't feel truly fulfilled unless I am working on some problem or another.

An aside:

Writing, especially writing science fiction, is difficult. Making the words look pretty on the page is the easiest part (at least for me). All that amounts to is pattern recognition and regurgitation. The difficult part is merging solid world-building with solid characterization and plot. To do it right, you have to be both creative and fiercely analytical. And you have to keep banging your head up against the wall for long enough until you tunnel through it (pun intended). Just saying--it's one big problem-solving exercise.

 

[B.M.Gray]

I agree to you on certain aspects micromass. One should keep an open-mind when it comes to theories and not simply accept one or the other without attempting to prove or disprove them both first. Can we say 'Einstein and Bohr'? They both had separate theories and beliefs about wave/particles and the existence of quanta (at first) and though they were friends and spent much time debating each others view to one another, they both never fully accepted the others views/theories. But now we know they were both right to certain degrees and so one could use Einstein's theory of general relativity and Bohrs probabilities and statistics of the movements of particles which gave him the most accurate model of the atom at the time, you could theorize and postulate the universe on a quantum mechanic scale. This, in turn, reveals the nature of the universe on its most stripped away, 'bare-naked' scale (large scales of cosmology is simple to study and observe, but on the smallest scales, the true unusual nature of our universe is revealed)

 

[Nano-Passion]

I agree to you on certain aspects micromass. One should keep an open-mind when it comes to theories and not simply accept one or the other without attempting to prove or disprove them both first. Can we say 'Einstein and Bohr'? They both had separate theories and beliefs about wave/particles and the existence of quanta (at first) and though they were friends and spent much time debating each others view to one another, they both never fully accepted the others views/theories. But now we know they were both right to certain degrees and so one could use Einstein's theory of general relativity and Bohrs probabilities and statistics of the movements of particles which gave him the most accurate model of the atom at the time, you could theorize and postulate the universe on a quantum mechanic scale. This, in turn, reveals the nature of the universe on its most stripped away, 'bare-naked' scale (large scales of cosmology is simple to study and observe, but on the smallest scales, the true unusual nature of our universe is revealed)

You said micromass but I think you mistyped it, you might have meant marnemath.

(large scales of cosmology is simple to study and observe, but on the smallest scales, the true unusual nature of our universe is revealed)

There are some really tough problems to solve on the macro scales, some of the complexity is overwhelmingly difficult.

 

[B.M.Gray]

I definitely agree, although, on the micro scale the laws of physics completely changes. There are macro objects within the universe such as black holes (not directly observable of course, but macro none the less) where the laws of physics break down, but breaking down and having a separate set of laws are like two sides to the same coin. We know the normal laws of physics pretty well, well enough to calculate objects within other galaxies with great accuracy. But I really love that the other side to our universes coin lies the quantum realm. I absolutely love cosmology, astronomy, and physics as a whole, but knowing we are still relatively brand new to the quantum realm excites me because we are in a generation of new discoveries and breakthroughs such as answering how can sub-atomic virtual particles seem to possesses the ability to pop in and out of existence? How can every particle spend time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways? I feel the answer lies in 11-dimensional m-theory. (I have my own ideas on string theory by itself)

 

[chill_factor]

I definitely agree, although, on the micro scale the laws of physics completely changes. There are macro objects within the universe such as black holes (not directly observable of course, but macro none the less) where the laws of physics break down, but breaking down and having a separate set of laws are like two sides to the same coin. We know the normal laws of physics pretty well, well enough to calculate objects within other galaxies with great accuracy. But I really love that the other side to our universes coin lies the quantum realm. I absolutely love cosmology, astronomy, and physics as a whole, but knowing we are still relatively brand new to the quantum realm excites me because we are in a generation of new discoveries and breakthroughs such as answering how can sub-atomic virtual particles seem to possesses the ability to pop in and out of existence? How can every particle spend time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways? I feel the answer lies in 11-dimensional m-theory. (I have my own ideas on string theory by itself)

behavior of matter on the nanoscale are very well known. that's what chemistry and materials engineering studies and uses every day to create new processes, materials and products ranging from cancer medicine to semiconductors.

when you get smaller than protons that's when things get strange and hard to describe.

 

[Nano-Passion]

I definitely agree, although, on the micro scale the laws of physics completely changes. There are macro objects within the universe such as black holes (not directly observable of course, but macro none the less) where the laws of physics break down, but breaking down and having a separate set of laws are like two sides to the same coin. We know the normal laws of physics pretty well, well enough to calculate objects within other galaxies with great accuracy. But I really love that the other side to our universes coin lies the quantum realm. I absolutely love cosmology, astronomy, and physics as a whole, but knowing we are still relatively brand new to the quantum realm excites me because we are in a generation of new discoveries and breakthroughs such as answering how can sub-atomic virtual particles seem to possesses the ability to pop in and out of existence? How can every particle spend time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways? I feel the answer lies in 11-dimensional m-theory. (I have my own ideas on string theory by itself)

Cosmology/astrophysics is very tough on its own and there are a bunch of things we don't know enough about. Someone can be more specific here as I only know very little details about the field (and in fact I'll avoid giving any specific details here), but I know enough to realize that there are some really tough (unsolved) problems up for grabs and people don't give it recognition.

 

[B.M.Gray]

The mysteries of cosmology/astrophysics is what keeps the field interesting and fun. Without that element, there would be no point.

 

[Nano-Passion]

The mysteries of cosmology/astrophysics is what keeps the field interesting and fun. Without that element, there would be no point.

Agreed.

 

[twofish-quant]

Writing, especially writing science fiction, is difficult. Making the words look pretty on the page is the easiest part (at least for me). All that amounts to is pattern recognition and regurgitation. The difficult part is merging solid world-building with solid characterization and plot. To do it right, you have to be both creative and fiercely analytical. And you have to keep banging your head up against the wall for long enough until you tunnel through it (pun intended). Just saying--it's one big problem-solving exercise.

Keep doing it. You'll find it useful when writing academic papers.

 

[twofish-quant]

I feel the answer lies in 11-dimensional m-theory. (I have my own ideas on string theory by itself)

That's interesting because there are a lot of people that thing that string theory just got off on the wrong path. One problem is how many years do you work on something before you just give up and try something else.

There are several alternatives to string theory out there (I'm a fan of loop quantum gravity). It's worth it do at least know about them.

Personally, I decided pretty early on not to get too deep into string theory, because there was just too much guessing and not enough fact. The topic that I ended up cutting my teeth on was turbulent flows.

 

[FalseVaccum89]

That's interesting because there are a lot of people that thing that string theory just got off on the wrong path. One problem is how many years do you work on something before you just give up and try something else.

There are several alternatives to string theory out there (I'm a fan of loop quantum gravity). It's worth it do at least know about them.

Personally, I decided pretty early on not to get too deep into string theory, because there was just too much guessing and not enough fact. The topic that I ended up cutting my teeth on was turbulent flows.

This is actually a very good point. To my understanding, we don't really understand completely what string theory is, from a physical or mathematical point of view yet. From what I've read so far, both semi-technical and popular, I get the definite impression that string theory will need to be formulated on a new 'background' in order for us to really make proper sense of it. One approach might be what Edward Witten has been toying with for awhile (via Roger Penrose) of a superstring theory in twistor space:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twistor_theory#Twistor_string_theory (Short and Sweet)

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0312171v2 (Original Witten Paper).

About Julian Barbour's theories: what makes me think his way of describing time would make for a good quantization of it is that he repeatedly mentions his way of thinking about time involves successive, discrete 'nows'. He doesn't argue against a 4D spacetime 'block', instead he postulates that each configuration (each point on a continuous path in configuration space, that is) constitutes a separate 'now', making the block more like a sliced loaf of bread. Current theories place a practical limit, on the order of the Planck scale, on the meaning of both time and space. I would think these configurations or 'nows' should then be quantized on the order of the Planck scale. Or, in other words, change itself would be quantized. That would also explain why we percieve time as 'flowing', because the quantized instants are so incredibly small compared to the 'instants' we're used to.

Of course, there's probably something important I'm missing here, but I haven't found it yet.

 

[SophusLies]

It baffles me that you think that someone needs to be a theoretical physicist to give what is a very generalized statement.. Why don't you try to correct what I have said, if it is incorrect at all.

Perhaps you have assumed something that I have not explicitly stated?

Perhaps you should explicitly state that you're a baby step ahead of the OP in terms of actual classes/experience. What I gather from the tone of your posts is that you're speaking from experience when in fact you're not. You've got caught doing this in other threads and it doesn't seem to bug you, so I will assume that you will keep doing it.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=600169&highlight=speaking

 

[Nano-Passion]

Perhaps you should explicitly state that you're a baby step ahead of the OP in terms of actual classes/experience. What I gather from the tone of your posts is that you're speaking from experience when in fact you're not. You've got caught doing this in other threads and it doesn't seem to bug you, so I will assume that you will keep doing it.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=600169&highlight=speaking

So you give that one link to show that I have been running around giving information on false premise? Your attempt at ad hominem is quite displeasing.

Got caught? You mistook my friendly tone with Vanadium as a sign of "getting caught." You say it as if I've done something wrong. I've simply regurgitated what others that are more experienced have said, and due to my experience of looking at graduate applications that were accepted/rejected from online sources. And do physics graduate schools not look for research experience and publication? Your attempt at undermining my position does not apply at all.

I don't see why I should explicitly state anything because you have told me to. If I am unsure of something, I simply refrain from posting which is most of the time, unless I state that I am unsure of x, y, z.

 

[ZombieFeynman]

So you give that one link to show that I have been running around giving information on false premise? Your attempt at ad hominem is quite displeasing.

Got caught? You mistook my friendly tone with Vanadium as a sign of "getting caught." You say it as if I've done something wrong. I've simply regurgitated what others that are more experienced have said, and due to my experience of looking at graduate applications that were accepted/rejected from online sources. And do physics graduate schools not look for research experience and publication? Your attempt at undermining my position does not apply at all.

I don't see why I should explicitly state anything because you have told me to. If I am unsure of something, I simply refrain from posting which is most of the time, unless I state that I am unsure of x, y, z.

I don't mean to butt in, but I will.

Perhaps it's worth a quick statement about where you are in your academic career. Hearing from one's peers is valuable! When relevant, I try to always include where I am in my journey so people can take what I say for what it may be worth.

This could avoid any confusion in the future.