"This resentment of scientific authority figures is the major attraction of what might be called 'conspiracy physics.' " - 'The Rise In Conspiracy Physics’, Wall Street Journal, Sept. 13-14, p. C4
Is there a rise in “conspiracy physics”? Indeed, is there such a thing as conspiracy physics, period? That question is elicited as one reads the
recent WSJ essay ‘The Rise In Conspiracy Physics’, Sept. 13-14, p. C4. Therein we read in one of
the lead paragraphs:
“In recent years a group of Youtubers and podcasters have
attracted millions of viewers by proclaiming that physics is in crisis. The field, they argue, has discovered little
in the last 50 years because it is dominated by groupthink and silences anyone
who dares to dissent from mainstream ideas like string theory.”
There followed a two-paragraph mention of a podcaster named Eric Weinstein - former managing director at Thiel Capital- who insisted there was an "intellectual dark web". This after his self-published theory of "geometric unity" was ignored by academia, i.e. being accepted in peer-reviewed journals. Fortunately, a real physicist (Sean Carroll based at Johns Hopkins) was on the same show and demonstrated why by reading from the book's intro:
"This document is an attempt to begin recovering a rather more complete theory which at this point is only partially remembered and stitched together from old computer files, notebooks, recordings and the like dating back to 1983."
Fulsome rubbish? Yes. Or in Prof. Carroll's own words from the WSJ piece:
"And this is why this paper is not going to appear in any peer-reviewed literature It's not serious. It's a dog ate my homework kind of thing."
Weinstein then lost it on the Piers Morgan show, as the piece reports, whining:
"How dare you! Your intellectually insulting aspect reminds me of you as the Marie Antoinette of theoretical physics influencers!"
And now for the clarification of what is meant by 'conspiracy physics' from the WSJ piece itself:
"This resentment of scientific authority figures is the major attraction of what might be called 'conspiracy physics.' Most fringe theories are too arcane for listeners to understand, but anyone can grasp the idea that academic physics is just one more corrupt and self serving establishment."
The piece then goes on to cite German physicist Sabine Hossenfelder who "has attracted 1.72 million Youtube subscribers in part by attacking her colleagues."
She recently declared.
“Your problem is that your lying to the people who pay you. Your problem is that you’re cowards without a shred of any scientific integrity.”
Which is just an exaggerated take on the main theme of her book, Existential Physics, wherein she pours scorn on all those physicists who rely too much on math to present their theories or findings.
Physicist Julian Baggini in his WSJ review of Sabine
Hossenfelder's book, writes, in regard to
the mathematical complexities of quantum mechanics, including the need for complex numbers and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.:
“The German theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder understandably
has no time for any such nonsense, policing the strict boundaries of science
with the zeal of a North Korean border guard."
He also writes:
"The most surprising and interesting feature of her book
is the claim that many of her physicist peers are as guilty of bringing
speculation and belief into their scientific thinking as theologians and New
Age mystics. She argues that all current theories offered by physicists about
what made the big bang possible are “pure speculation . . . modern creation
myths written in the language of mathematics."
Which is an odd take for Hossenfelder, given one of the foremost discoveries in physics was of antimatter. Physicist Paul Dirac recognized from the abstruse math that the relativistic version of the Schrodinger wave equation (H op y = Eop y ) predicted negative electrons, or anti-electrons. These denizens were then discovered, from that 'beautiful mathematics' in 1932. Modern creation myth? Hardly!
A more sober take on all the complaints by physics cranks - and crank defenders like Hossenfelder- is made by physicist Scott Aronson in the same article. He notes:
"Anyone perceived as the mainstream establishment faces a near insurmountable burden of proof, while anyone perceived as renegade wins by default if any hole whatsoever is identified in mainstream understanding."
Note that it is the assumed 'holes in understanding' which generates the crackpots, cranks and renegades -whether in physics or other areas. For example, in July, 2020 I wrote a post on the bevy of Covid cranks, quacks and hacks:
The Right's COVID Science Deniers, Hacks, Cranks & Quacks Don't Get To Wrap Themselves In Galileo!
E.g. writing:
there is no "scientific counter revolution" marshaled by the likes of the crackpot Judy Mikovits (featured in the mockumentary 'Plandemic'), or the Stanford "meta research" quack John Ioannidis - who claimed the lockdowns were implemented without adequate evidence - and who I skewered in a previous post, i.e.
WHO Are These Anti-Lockdown Medical Quacks ...
In my own case I frequently encounter physics and astronomy renegades and cranks. For example, Ronald W. W. Satz, who came up with a 2015 Integra article: 'The Case Against Modern Physics'. Itself derived from a cockeyed "reciprocal system of physics" by Dewey Barnard Larson , which I skewered element by element in a December, 2015 blog post:
A "Reciprocal System Alternative" To Modern Physics? Pure Balderdash!
Also quoting a Rational Wiki criticism:
"One of the most striking features of Larson's work, and the source of tremendous criticism, is his almost total lack of any mathematics anywhere to be found amongst his books.[ This is particularly galling to most mainstream scientists who view equations as essential for making the numeric predictions required to match theory with experiment - experiments that tend to punch out numbers, such as transition frequencies, absorption coefficients, energy ratings in particle accelerators and so on. Yet Larson avoids doing any rigorous mathematical analysis at all."
Which clearly would delight Sabine Hossenfelder, but not very many theoretical or experimental physicists. The Rational Wiki entry then takes a shot at Satz:
"Satz extended and computerized Larson's "System" and even produced equations that might lead to predictions - none of which Satz seems keen to actually use. While Larson's publications are long text walls, Satz's work often features pages upon pages of badly formatted equations. This usually renders his work completely unreadable because of the ambiguity in what constants he's using and how these equations fit together "
A comment on my post followed, by a 'Transpower', which read:
Wow, I certainly don't agree with you at all! My paper is an introduction to the Reciprocal System. For the mathematics and database work, please go to www.reciprocalsytem.guru; you should study one paper in particular: https://transpower.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/mathcad-spacetime_photons_subatoms_atoms_tables.pdf.
I then replied, along lines with which both Sean Carroll and Scott Aronson would agree:
Most real physicists have as much use for this codswallop as celestial mechanics specialists have for Velikvosky's 'colliding worlds' nonsense.
Btw, papers on Wordpress don't mean anything. I want to see a full, peer-reviewed paper published in the Physical Review or at least Physical Review Letters.
I could also sympathize with Sean Carroll in his encounter with Eric Weinstein, as I've had similar experiences of facing cranks while serving at ALL Experts in the Astronomy forum. They often fancied themselves as new Einsteins for having found some seemingly novel relationship- or as Scott Aronson observed - a "hole" in an existing theory. One of these was a guy in his fifties or sixties, admittedly having "little education" who came up with the notion of "Earth flares", i.e. analogs to solar flares but occurring on Earth.
After several fruitless exchanges where I emphasized there was no observational
basis for his entity, namely any magnetic signature for rapid release, he
finally agreed to go to another expert. He just couldn't admit his own
"thesis" was cockeyed and - in essence - pseudo science.
Another pair of crackpots (from the Middle East) insisted they had overturned
Kepler's 2nd law of planetary motion, the "equal area"
law. One of them actually wrote in his All Experts 'question':
"Kepler's area law says r*Vp=Ct. Newton's universal attraction
force says this force is radial F=Fr and a perpendicular force (Fp) to
the radial, also a side force component does not exist. So:
m*dVp/dt=Fp=0. Then dVp/dt=0 and with integration we get Vp=Ct.
f Vp=Ct is correct, elliptical orbits theory has to be
modified to a new theory, new math. And the motion equation should be
r=-4*t^2+4*t*T-4*T^2/6 .This equation does not indicate an ellipse but a
parabolic vortex spiral."
For his benefit I made several points:
1) He never expressed the 2nd law in proper form and indeed it
made no sense at all as portrayed.
2) He never defined 'C', and whether it is the same as h . One can't just assume it.
3) His equation r*dVp = Ct = 0 is incorrect. The Areal law in most
concise form should read:
dA/dt = h z^ / 2
In addition, he failed to distinguish between a real
force and a non-existent force, i.e. perpendicular to the orbit (since the
gravitational force of interaction acts through the mass centers) so mg = 0, i.e. weightlessness applies.
In effect, his integration result, e.g. Vp=Ct was
spurious .
After much back and forth in the rejection regime he rendered
a final assertion he believed would force me to agree. This was
after I pointed out that the very fact spacecraft had landed successfully on
Mars, the Moon, Venus etc. showed the Kepler law in its given form had
to be correct. However, unwilling to accept this he wrote:
"Anyhow, sending celestial probes to
the Moon,or Mars or to any body will still be successful even if the orbits are
triangular. It does not depend on the form of the planet's trajectory .
It is controlled from the earth."
Go figure! But as the WSJ piece notes, there will always be these "renegades" who think or believe they've discovered the final solution. And Youtube podcasts are not the place to make one's marginal 'theories' believable either. As the WSJ review essay notes:
"Even reasonable points become hard to recognize when expressed in the way Youtube incentivizes. Conspiracy physics videos with titles like: 'They Just Keep Lying' are full of sour sarcasm, outraged facial expressions and spooky music."
Which are almost certain to incur only piteous reactions or comic rejections, by real physicists.
The WSJ article sides somewhat with the contrarians (like Hossenfelder) when it observes:
"As with other authorities, there are reasonable criticisms to be made of academic physics. By some metrics scientific productivity has slowed since the 1970s. String theory has not fulfilled physicists early dreams that it would ultimately become the explanation of all forces and matter."
But here again, the inherent error is in judging an entire discipline's progress or productivity by what the most selective, marginal, boundary areas are doing. Or to put in more logical terms, conflating the measure of success in all of physics with what may be practiced by only one percent if that.
To fix ideas, any perusal of Physics Today archives will show a vast array of productivity in multiple areas from condensed matter physics, to plasma physics, to quantum mechanics and statistical physics. No, these are not the 'giant- themed' areas that draw the media's attention but they are real and embody genuine progress. Some examples:
Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry Observed In Baryon Decay, (Oct. 2025, p. 11)
The "Whoring Of Science" - Jason Lisle's 'Young Sun' Delusions Take The Prize
No comments:
Post a Comment