Physics : A Future Without Data?

**Sphere** · January 30, 2011, 02:35 PM

This is more of philosophy of science topic, but I would prefer to have the discussion has far from EMM as possible.

I have heard several notable physicists, including Lawrence Krauss (see video 1) and Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg (See video 2), voice a concern that we might be approaching a point in physics, especially in particle physics, were we may no longer be able to directly gather data to confirm/falsify theories because it may be impossible for us to interact or observe all of our universe/other universes required to do so.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

In some ways we have been dealing with this prospect for a while with string theory which due to its nature of using multiple, and so far unobserved, dimensions in its mathematical framework does not have experimental data backing it up. However, it is now apparent that not only is string theory experimentally unverified, it has produced a near infinite set of possible solutions as to what particles/energy could be doing in those other dimensions which would give rise to what we observe in our personal set of 3 (or 4 if you like). Because of this, many have called string theory unscientific as so far it lacks falsifiability, and may likely always lack falsifiability, And yet one of the numerous solutions it provides still may actually be correct.

The the blunt question this raises is can science continue in a "data-less" future? At that point would it even be accurate to call it science?

(Other sources would be very helpful, and I would like add them to the OP, especially from those who take the opposite/optimistic side like Dr Michio Kaku who fully expect future data to give us insight into other universes/dimensions.)

Dr. Michio Kaku

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

**Cannibalking** · January 30, 2011, 06:05 PM

It's all true...

Time for biology to step into the limelight!

**Elfdude** · January 30, 2011, 06:48 PM

I'm not so sure we won't find a way to observe the data we need eventually. I think the issue though is that physics theory has outdistanced supporting sciences needed to provide the data.

**Gordon Freynman** · January 30, 2011, 07:21 PM

I don't think there will ever be an absolute end to the flow of data (barring the destruction of civilization). There will probably be periods of stagnation, but eventually there will be some breakthrough in technology and/or theory and science will continue to strive forward.

**Claudius Gothicus** · February 02, 2011, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by elfdude

I'm not so sure we won't find a way to observe the data we need eventually. I think the issue though is that physics theory has outdistanced supporting sciences needed to provide the data.

This, physics has somehow overextended in comparison to other sciences. So when other sciences catch up the problem will be non-existant.

**Jack04** · February 02, 2011, 11:09 AM

Particle physics as it is struggles to obtain data. They're looking for signatures of perhaps 50 events in a few million background events. Its certainly a worry, as experiments require higher and higher energies and present lower and lower cross-sections of interest.

**chamaeleo** · February 09, 2011, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by elfdude

I'm not so sure we won't find a way to observe the data we need eventually. I think the issue though is that physics theory has outdistanced supporting sciences needed to provide the data.

That.

The concepts of evolution and natural selection used to suffer the same limitations (plus good ole Christian animosity)...but soon enough, along came the field of paleontology, the discovery of DNA, and the LSD-inspired breakthrough of PCR amplification. Only the fearful and willfully ignorant dare doubt these days.

Better tools will appear. Eventually. Until then...dream away, with nary a concern over refutation and humiliation...

**Cannibalking** · February 09, 2011, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by chamaeleo

That.

The concepts of evolution and natural selection used to suffer the same limitations (plus good ole Christian animosity)...but soon enough, along came the field of paleontology, the discovery of DNA, and the LSD-inspired breakthrough of PCR amplification. Only the fearful and willfully ignorant dare doubt these days.

Better tools will appear. Eventually. Until then...dream away, with nary a concern over refutation and humiliation...

I agree 100%.

**C-Rob** · February 02, 2011, 03:28 PM

It'd be nice to have a consumer worm hole generator and travel to distant stars and punch my younger self in the mouth and to know exactly how everything came to be, but all of that really isn't that important. I think teh next scientific super stars should be chemists.(yes I believe physicists are the super stars today)

**Gaidin** · February 02, 2011, 05:30 PM

Indirect data is still functional for confirming theory. Worry when you can't get that either.

**Mathias** · February 03, 2011, 04:34 PM

Ah, the joy of being a (future) matematician: no needs for labs or data and such.

Seriously though, this is very interesting. Some branches of physics (string theory, some particle physics etc.) have almost become purely mathematical studies.
My lecturer in topology recently made predictions about new types of matter, based purely on mathematical results: http://www.techreview.com/blog/arxiv/26144/ http://www.newscientist.com/article/...al-matter.html
It seems that many new "discoveries" in physics are based on mathematical results, and not observations and experimentations. And as was mentioned, the mathematical exploration of the possibilities in physics have evolved faster than the means of falsifying them.

**Gaidin** · February 03, 2011, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by Mathias

Ah, the joy of being a (future) matematician: no needs for labs or data and such.

Yea. You just have to worry about rigor. Which is a helluva lot worse in its own way.

**Tecumseh** · February 23, 2011, 02:00 PM

Your iTunes should back up everything on your phone before it updates. It'll put everything back where it found it when it's finished updating. Also, if you accidentally delete apps you've paid for, just go back to the App Store and download them again. If it's on the same account, you won't be charged twice.

It's not letting me re-download the apps from the App store though either.

**Muizer** · February 23, 2011, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by Sphere

Because of this, many have called string theory unscientific as so far it lacks falsifiability, and may likely always lack falsifiability, And yet one of the numerous solutions it provides still may actually be correct.

I don't know enough about string theory, but at the face of it this does not sound like a good argument. You could do the same with any theory that we do consider "falsifiable". Just expand it into an unobservable dimension and you end up with an infinite number of "unfalsifiable theories". Does not mean you should throw out the original theory as unscientific.

**Sphere** · February 23, 2011, 04:08 PM

Well I am not going to let a bot bump on one of my threads go to waste.

I share the hope that experimentation will always keep up with the boundaries of physics, but the question is not about technical limitations, but rather physical limitations, especially when it comes to concieving of "extra" spacial dimensions in our own universe, but even more so when concieving multiple universes.

Extra spatial dimensions, as envisioned in string theory, are perhaps less troubling because they have some interaction within what we percieve in our own observable 3+time. Therefore is it reasonable to imagine ways in which we might tease out what is going in them. What is slightly harder to imagine though, is a way in which we could eliminate all but one of the near infinite possible solutions string theory produces, or any extra-dimensional theory for that matter. It is concievable that we might be stuck wiht only being able to eliminate certain categories of string theories, and be left with a list of possible solutions to reality which are unfalsifyable, even if it would be a shortened list.

The much more disturbing case to look at is the one Prof. Krauss brings up. That we made be forced to conclude that universe creation is a common event, and that there are a huge number of universes but because we cannot interact with them, we may be faced with an area of reality, and a fundemental one at that, which cannot be studied in a traditional scientific manner. That we may never be able to fully understand universe creation because our sample size is one.

I don't think these are idea's that we can so easily dismiss through optimism and faith. They may well prove to be very real.

You could do the same with any theory that we do consider "falsifiable". Just expand it into an unobservable dimension and you end up with an infinite number of "unfalsifiable theories". Does not mean you should throw out the original theory as unscientific.

With the current definition of science you are in a way forced to, that is the rub. A theory that describes reality but by its nature cannot be proven wrong is not scientific, as odd as that might sound. The question is in such a hypothetical situation, should we revise the idea of science? I honestly don't have a good answer, hence the thread.

It's all true...

Time for biology to step into the limelight!

Back in your cage biologist! No freedom until you learn math.

**Agent Miles** · February 24, 2011, 02:17 PM

String theory posits more dimensions than we can see. After the big bang, the three dimensions we know inflated and time may or may not have already been present. The other dimensions remained “compactified” and are imperceptibly small. Think of the universe as a three prong grid with X, Y and Z axes and time as a fourth dimension. In string theory, each prong also has two smaller dimensions rapped around it and M theory adds super-gravity as another all-pervasive dimension like time (for a total of 11 dimensions). So the extra dimensions don’t contain extra universes, because they are really small “threads” in the fabric of the space-time of our universe. They co-exist everywhere with the dimensions we do perceive. However, the Large Hadron Collider has not found evidence of some facets of M theory. It has not found indications of a building block smaller than a quark or mini black holes that should be able to exist in the compactified dimensions. So the noose has tightened a bit, but M theory is still alive.

When a string moves through time, it traces out a membrane or brane for short. A brane is energetic because it has angular momentum and is under tension. So it “wiggles”. Two branes would be attracted to each other by gravity. As they move closer to each other, ripples in the branes would collide and exchange energy. They would “bang”. If our universe was created in this way, then other universes should also be possible. Neil Turok is trying to measure the Cosmic Microwave Background to incredible precision to see if it can reveal a “fingerprint” of colliding branes.

So, the future is not without incoming data on the topic of extra dimensions and more universes.

**Gordon Freynman** · February 23, 2011, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by ronicolman

Your iTunes should back up everything on your phone before it updates. It'll put everything back where it found it when it's finished updating. Also, if you accidentally delete apps you've paid for, just go back to the App Store and download them again. If it's on the same account, you won't be charged twice.

Subtle spambot is subtle.