Is the multiverse fake physics?

[PAllen]

Cold fusion may not have been fake, but it was wrong. Fake suggests intent to deceive. But wrong is wrong, and the funding sources should have an honest assessment on the potential for valid and promising results on the timelines of interest.

But the issue with aspects of string theory and multiverses is that it is not even wrong. Testable hypotheses like cold fusion can be wrong.

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?cat=2

Who said anything about cold fusion? The post I replied to was clearly referring to the mainline fusion research program.

 

[anorlunda]

Most scientific theories were at one time just hypothetical speculations.
Controlled nuclear fusion power experiments is expensive and have been ongoing for a long time, but the benefits that it could produce is exceptional...
Many many other issues also, alternative propulsion methods to take us further, validation of QGT's like string and its derivitives, would give us knowledge and where that knowledge could lead to is extraordinary.
Is there anything really that science should not try to explain?
Without science, without reasonable speculation, and hypotheticals, and subsequently scientific theories, we would still be swinging in the trees.

It would be hard to be more extreme than that. Your arguments are so open-ended that they call for an indefinite amount of money for an indefinite number of years, without any promise of advancing the state of the art ever.

Look, some science is more speculative than other science, but they all compete for the same dollars. How would you slice the money pie between things promising near term benefits as opposed to far in the future long shots?

 

[Copernicuson]

It is not fake news, just not well enough defined yet. A breakthrough description will help.

 

[phinds]

... the debate about government spending on physics can not, and should not be politicized.

I admire your optimism but not your grasp of reality.

 

[maroubrabeach]

It would be hard to be more extreme than that. Your arguments are so open-ended that they call for an indefinite amount of money for an indefinite number of years, without any promise of advancing the state of the art ever.

Obviously I do not agree. Controlled nuclear fusion certainly is worth it.
I also remember some arguing about the benefits from the space age in general, and particularly putting men in orbit, the ISS and Moon landings.
The space race started with Sputnik and Satellites. There is now not too many areas of science and human endeavour that does not benefit from Satellites...meteorology, agriculture GPS just to name three that immediately come to mind.

Look, some science is more speculative than other science, but they all compete for the same dollars. How would you slice the money pie between things promising near term benefits as opposed to far in the future long shots?

Certainly some are more speculative then others, and possibly more beneficial also if success is achieved.
Slicing available funds up is and probably always will be a problem, unless we achieve what I suggested, but at this time that is a long shot.
And yes, probably also funds have been directed to useless endeavours no matter which way one choses to look at it.

 

[David Neves]

Obviously, we can't fund everything in physics. There has to be a selection process. You should make the decision? Should it be based on opinion polls of the public? I think the decision should be made by physicists. Most physicists would say that cold fusion is "fake physics" but mainstream physics research is legitimate, and worth funding. If you left it up to opinion polls, the public might decide to fund cold fusion but not mainstream fusion research! It is ridiculous to suggest that to much of the tax payer's money is spent on speculating about the multiverse. I don't think any money is spent on that, or virtually none.

Physics is different than other subjects, including other fields of natural science.

A member of the public who is not a biologist can form a well informed opinion about whether the government should fund a program to identify specific genes within the human genome.

A member of the public who is not a physicist can not form any opinion whatsoever about whether the government should fund a program to look for neutrinoless double beta decay.

Physics is uniquely inaccessible to the public which can not evaluate the relative merit of various physics programs. The public should support government spending on physics in general but should not be involved in picking and choosing which specific physics proposals should receive what funding.

 

[maroubrabeach]

Obviously, we can't fund everything in physics. There has to be a selection process. You should make the decision? Should it be based on opinion polls of the public? I think the decision should be made by physicists. Most physicists would say that cold fusion is "fake physics" but mainstream physics research is legitimate, and worth funding. If you left it up to opinion polls, the public might decide to fund cold fusion but not mainstream fusion research! It is ridiculous to suggest that to much of the tax payer's money is spent on speculating about the multiverse. I don't think any money is spent on that, or virtually none.

Physics is different than other subjects, including other fields of natural science.

A member of the public who is not a biologist can form a well informed opinion about whether the government should fund a program to identify specific genes within the human genome.

A member of the public who is not a physicist can not form any opinion whatsoever about whether the government should fund a program to look for neutrinoless double beta decay.

Physics is uniquely inaccessible to the public which can not evaluate the relative merit of various physics programs. The public should support government spending on physics in general but should not be involved in picking and choosing which specific physics proposals should receive what funding.

I basically agree with most of what you have said...Note, I have not entertained "cold fusion" but I certainly go along with the position that the general public is generally not really qualified to make a decision, and yes, that decision should be made by a panel of scientists represented from all disciplines.

 

[PeterDonis]

There are even stable orbits inside the outer horizon of a Kerr BH

Are you sure? There are stable orbits inside the ergoregion, but that's still outside the outer horizon. I was not aware that there were stable orbits inside the outer horizon.

 

[Drakkith]

Thread locked for possible moderation.

 

[Drakkith]

After discussing the issue, it has been decided that the thread will remain closed.