Two words are almost certain to generate an emotional response from working scientists (usually negative) – 'paradigm' (as in shift) and 'falsify'. They are almost universally associated with Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper, two 20th century intellectuals whose main works relate to the philosophy of science. Although their names may not be well known, to the general public, these two words are widely used in connection with science.
Sadly, neither term
1 helps much to understand what science is or how it works, at least in the way most folk come across the use of them.
How does this relate to the four most important misunderstandings of 'astronomy as science' I mentioned in my last post (the interconnectedness of science (especially physics), the role of maths, the primacy of observational and experimental evidence, and the role of alternatives)? It’s tied to the last one, the role of alternatives.
Many an ATM thread consists of little more than 'here's an (experimental, observational) anomaly, the theory of general relativity (GR)
2 is thus proven wrong!', or, using Popper's words (without realising it?) 'here's an anomaly, GR is thus falsified!' But that's not how science actually works – highly successful theories are not abandoned solely because an apparent anomaly is discovered. Indeed, if they were, then there'd be no scientific theories at all. Indeed
(squared), apparent anomalies are one of the main drivers of scientific research – is the anomaly reproducible? Under what (other) conditions does it arise? Have we overlooked something in either the experiment/observation or the theory? What else might be at play here
3? And so on.
Instead, theories are abandoned when a better alternative comes along
4. So, if your ATM idea is little more than taking potshots at a mainstream theory, it is likely that the holes you think you've found have either been addressed (and you just haven't done your homework), or are already well-known (and the subject of any number of current research projects). On the other hand, if you have an alternative …
We've sent instruments into (inter-planetary) space, into the magnetospheres (and even atmospheres) of several other planets; we've landed them on Mars, Venus, Titan, Eros; we've flown them through comet comas; and so on. But all we know of the universe beyond the solar system (and, indeed, still much of the solar system) comes from the detection of photons, and analysis of those detections
5 – astronomy is the only means we have, today, for learning about the universe beyond our solar system.
To interpret these astronomical observations, we rely upon a cosmological principle, whether that is made explicit or not. One such is that the universe here works the same way as everywhere else; specifically, that 'the laws of nature' are the same everywhere.
Of course, you may choose to build your interpretation of astronomical observations on a different principle – and the ATM claims made in at least one ATM thread did so explicitly. However, if you don't use the mainstream cosmological principle, and don't make that clear in your OP, chances are that that thread will be a study in miscommunication, and (very likely) generate much heat
6.
But what does "'the laws of nature' are the same everywhere" mean? For most ATM threads, it means that the best theories of physics can be applied everywhere. It means that if your ATM idea involves 'new physics', you should be able to say how such could (in principle) be tested, here on Earth. It means that if your ATM idea does not involve 'new physics', you should be able to at least sketch how that idea is consistent with the best theories of physics. It means that if you don't know how to answer questions of this kind, you haven't done your homework.
It's deeper than that … suppose you have a great idea about showing the theory of special relativity is wrong (this is a quite common theme among ATM threads), by re-interpreting the MMX for example. Well, no matter what you may be able to show, you have some other homework to do, before you can show that your idea has legs: you also have to show that Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is wrong, and account for the fantastic success is has had in matching experimental results
7 - it's the most precisely tested theory in science, period, and if there is any disagreement between theory and experiment, it's in the 12th (or is it 13th?) decimal place!
More generally, the interconnectedness of science, physics in particular, means that even a little tinkering with even one part of physics will likely lead you, logically, to be claiming that your PC doesn't - can't – work; that what, physically, delivers BAUT to you is just magic; that your flight from Sydney Australia to Beijing China was a miracle; that …
Which leads me naturally to the role of mathematics.
For some reason, 'show me the numbers', much less 'show me the math', causes some who propose ATM ideas much discomfort, even anger. Yet I'm sure these same folk will freely acknowledge the astonishing success of quantum mechanics and quantum theory. I'm currently reading Keith Devlin's book "The Millennium Problems"; there's a paragraph I'd like to quote (emphasis in the original):
Quote:
|
When it comes to quantum mechanics, physicists have to abandon their intuitions and rely on the mathematics to tell them what's going on. Mathematics began as one of several ways of understanding the world, but with the arrival of quantum theory, mathematics became our only way to understand.
|
Perhaps we may explore this further, here in BAUT, but unless your ATM idea involves either only a realm where quantum theory plays no part
8, or unless you intend to replace at least quantum mechanics
9, how can you avoid mathematics?
Well, I've run out of space … the primacy of observation and experiment (and the ~30 ATM threads alive on 6 March), will have to wait.
1They’re actually sets of terms
2Or some other modern theory in astronomy; the Big Bang theory, for some reason, seems to be a favourite
3especially important in astronomy, where there are no controlled experiments
4I’m assuming that the theory in question is internally consistent, and (to a lesser extent) consistent with well-established theories where the domains of applicability overlap.
5I'm neglecting cosmic rays, for now; we've also detected some neutrinos from beyond the solar system, some neutral gas (He), and a few interstellar dust grains. Soon we expect to detect gravitational waves, and maybe some dark matter particles
6There are several examples of this, in BAUT's ATM section
7If you don't know how special relativity and QED are related, why not start a thread, in BAUT's Q&A section, with just this question?
8and if such a claim is made, then there'd be a certain irony involved … all astronomy is is the detection of photons; and what are photons, if not quintessentially quantum entities?
9At least three of the ~30 ATM threads alive on 6 March did so intend!