If science has not become a cult why do people get triggered if you don't believe the standard model?

submitted by [deleted] from self.whatever

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]weavilsatemyface 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Have you read Thomas Kuhn, "The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions"?

Science is not a cult, but people get attached to the dominant paradigm.

Particle physics has been stuck in a degenerate research programme for something like 20 years now. The last significant correct prediction was the Higgs Boson, predicted in 1964. The problem with the Standard Model is that it is amazingly accurate for what it explains, but seems to be going nowhere now. And string theory is junk science going nowhere, making no useful predictions, and unfalsifiable.

[–]Dragonerne 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The problem with the Standard Model is that it is amazingly accurate for what it explains

This is called overfitting. Accuracy is not a goal, predictability is the goal.

[–]Alphix 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And it fails horribly at that.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This is called overfitting. Accuracy is not a goal, predictability is the goal.

Of course accuracy is a very important goal. When comparing two theories, if all else is equal, we prefer the more accurate theory over the less accurate one. We certainly don't want inaccurate theories no matter how elegant they are, or how many wrong predictions they make.

The Standard Model is very good at making accurate predictions. What it is not good at is making predictions outside of the SM paradigm. You can get an idea of where the SM falls down here.

I realise that that there is no particular reason why the universe should be simple enough for us to understand, but I can't help but feel that the SM and all its associated theories are epicycles upon epicycles. Nor am I convinced that either Dark Matter or Dark Energy are real.

[–]Dragonerne 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What it is not good at is making predictions outside of the SM paradigm

It generalizes poorly. A typical sign of overfitting to the known data set.

And no, you are very wrong. When creating models, accuracy of the training data set is NOT the goal. The goal is predictability of data sets outside of the training set.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

When creating models, accuracy of the training data set is NOT the goal.

You're writing about machine learning, not science. There is no "training set" in the Standard Model, it was designed by humans (not a neural network) decades ago.

[–]Dragonerne 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A model created by a human or a learning algorithm has to adhere to the same principles. In the end, you end up with a model, how you ended up with this model is irrelevant. The importance is whether this model describes the data correctly. To describe the data correctly, you have to generalize well from the training data to the test data.
You can make a model that gives 100% accuracy but it wont represent reality

[–]R51 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

people get attached to the dominant paradigm

This is pretty much it. Can't be calling science itself a cult just because people in general tend to internalize popular belief and try to win arguments.

[–]William_World 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I can't believe scientists made up something called the uncertainty Principle after they couldn't figure out to justify that it is impossible to figure it out. No, get back to the drawing board.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I can't believe scientists made up something called the uncertainty Principle after they couldn't figure out to justify that it is impossible to figure it out.

Oh, you can't believe it? Okay, obviously everyone else is wrong then, and you must be correct.

[–]William_World 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

get back to the drawing board and figure it out

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

They have figured it out. At a deep, fundamental level, nature operates according to the rules of quantum mechanics.

[–]William_World 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

no quantum mechanics just means we can't figure it out so we never have to. really it's just too hard but they should admit that.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It really doesn't.

[–]William_World 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

explain in detail

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

explain in detail

Explain in detail 120 years of evidence for quantum mechanics? If I write five hundred thousand words on the history and development of quantum mechanics, will you read them all or stop after the first sentence?

We would probably start with wave interference and the photoelectric effect:

  • wave interference demonstrates that light behaves as a wave capable of interference and cancellation;
  • the photoelectric effect demonstrates that light behaves as discrete particles;
  • so light is simultaneously both wave-like and particle-like;
  • particles of matter, starting with single electrons and going all the way up to giant molecules made up of 2000 atoms each, also demonstrate wave behaviour
  • hence matter itself is also simultaneously wave-like and particle-like.

From there go on to the ultraviolet collapse of the atom in classical mechanics and emission/absorption spectra:

  • under classical mechanics, an accelerating electric charge will generate electromagnetic radiation, causing it to lose energy
  • so the electrons in the atom would spiral into the central nucleus, giving up all their energy in an almost instantaneous burst of ultraviolet radiation;
  • emission and absorption spectra show that radiation can only be emitted and absorbed by atomic electrons in discrete, discontinuous amounts;
  • thus solving the problem of the ultraviolet catastrophe but showing that electrons do not have well-defined orbits but rather wave-like orbitals.

That's just the beginning. But the bottom line is that at the scale of atoms, matter behaves as waves, not point-like particles or tiny solid spheres. Mapping those wave functions which spread out to infinity under quantum mechanics to the localised values that we measure occurs probabilistically:

  • the wave function spreads out over a volume
  • but our measurements always give us a specific value within that volume, with some probability as given by quantum mechanics.

I'm not saying that with quantum mechanics we have reached the end of science and the Ultimate Truth Of The Universe. We still don't know how to reconcile quantum mechanics with gravity and general relativity. It is always possible that the future will bring in a paradigm shift that will change our understanding of wave interference etc.

Nor am I quite ruling out some sort of hidden variable theory that would eliminate the need for wave functions to be interpreted as "probability waves". But such hidden variables would have to violate relativity.

[–]William_World 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

back to the drawing board, figure it out