Explore "Edgy" Physics Discussions

[Robert Friz]

Summary:: In the past I have been counseled to avoid speculation. Where can "edgy" physics discussions be held?

In the past I have been counseled to avoid speculation. Where can "edgy" physics discussions be held?

In my opinion, it is advantageous for physics and physicists to speculate on what some would call unsupportable or too-far-out concepts or theories. Our understanding of all that is physics is very incomplete. Testing the boundaries of our understanding has been the hallmark of progress in science. Therefore it puzzles me why a degree of speculation is discouraged (or worse) on Physics Forums.

An example of such speculation might be:

At the most extreme curvatures of space, what if space and energy are actually one entity? Two manifestations of this concept might be:

* At the time of the "Big Bang" the exponential expansion of the entity resulted in a reduction in the extreme curvature of space and a cooling of the entity. The reduction in curvature caused energy to condense out of the entity and exist in space; later further cooling caused energy to morph into the many manifestations of energy we experience today (e.g. fermions and bosons).

* When a very large star collapses into a black hole, the extreme curvature of space causes the recombination of space and energy into the single entity, essentially retracing the path taken at the time of the Big Bang but on a local scale.

* Virtual particles arising from fluctuations of quantum fields are vestiges of the space/energy entity, but because in most cases there is little or no curvature of space, energy condenses out of the entity on the tiniest scale and is fleeting in its existence.

If the above speculative concept were to have a degree of validity, some physics conundrums might be solved but others created.

So, if not Physics Forums, where can such speculative discussions be held?

 

[PeroK]

So, if not Physics Forums, where can such speculative discussions be held?

Almost everywhere else?

 

[weirdoguy]

Therefore it puzzles me why a degree of speculation is discouraged (or worse) on Physics Forums.

Because most of these speculations would be just like what you wrote in your post - word salads without any meaning. E.g. this:

Virtual particles arising from fluctuations of quantum fields are vestiges of the space/energy entity

or this:

When a very large star collapses into a black hole, the extreme curvature of space causes the recombination of space and energy into the single entity

is just nonsense. You can't productively speculate without proper background. And most people who wuld like to do that here don't have this background. So what's the point? Maybe it's better to use this time to learn maths and physics from textbooks?

some physics conundrums might be solved but others created.

You can't solve physics conundrums without knowing physics, and knowing physics is, among other things, knowing math that stands behind models and theories. It's like interpreting japanese poems without knowing japanese.

 

[Vanadium 50]

In the past I have been counseled to avoid speculation.

Actually, it's stronger than that. You agreed that you wouldn't post such speculation here.

 

[Vanadium 50]

In my opinion, it is advantageous for physics and physicists to speculate on what some would call unsupportable or too-far-out concepts or theories.

It is not. What you are writing is not even physics. It is a meaningless jumble of words in search of a rational thought. It has been called "word salad" but that is insulting to salad. Salad, at least can be tasty and nutritious. This has no value and certainly no taste. It's a waste of everyone's time to read it as well as a waste of the very electrons used to carry it.

(Of course, I realize that you aren't really proposing this - because you promised you wouldn't when you joined - and these are merely examples. But if someone were to really propose such twaddle and mean it, that would be an accurate description)

 

[Nugatory]

it is advantageous for physics and physicists to speculate on what some would call unsupportable or too-far-out concepts or theories.

Indeed it is - but not in a forum whose stated purpose is:

Our mission is to provide a place for people (whether students, professional scientists, or others interested in science) to learn and discuss science as it is currently generally understood and practiced by the professional scientific community.

 

[Nugatory]

This question of whether we can effectively host speculative discussions comes up often enough that we have a FAQ for it, linked from the forum rules. That FAQ describes some of our past efforts to host speculative discussions and explains why we've adopted the current policy. There are also many older discussions here in the feedback section.

At this point the thread is closed - we are not going to relitigate the issue, and more discussion will likely just turn into an even more unseemly pile-on.