SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
kebes writes:
Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll has written an opinion-piece in the New York Times about the role of "naturalness" in physics. Searching for physical theories that seem 'natural', as in they explain rather than introduce seeming contrivance and coincidence, has been very fruitful in science. For example, the recent BICEP2 results--measuring the imprint of gravitational waves on the very early universe--help vindicate the theory of inflation, which was developed in part to provide a more natural explanation for the seemingly unlikely state of the early universe (extremely homogeneous and 'low entropy'). Carroll's piece asks whether such reasoning also provides support for multiverse predictions, while equally questioning whether we can objectively judge naturalness, concluding:
Naturalness is a subtle criterion. In the case of inflationary cosmology, the drive to find a natural theory seems to have paid off handsomely, but perhaps other seemingly unnatural features of our world must simply be accepted. Ultimately it's nature, not us, that decides what's natural.
(Score: 2) by hubie on Monday March 24 2014, @06:33PM
Sean Carroll keeps a nice physics blog [preposterousuniverse.com]. Up on there he has a nice YouTube clip of him on the PBS News Hour where he was asked about the BICEP2 results and cosmology in general.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by frojack on Monday March 24 2014, @06:55PM
Meanwhile, there are reports that the new theory, natural or not, may simply be wrong.
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/56c8050f 60db [medium.com]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by MrGuy on Monday March 24 2014, @06:57PM
All physical laws should feel natural to the physical beings doing the feeling.
(Score: 1) by physicsmajor on Monday March 24 2014, @09:42PM
I think this guy unfortunately decided to use the wrong words. Scientific theories must be testable, and if they cannot be extended beyond the realm of what we know, see, or can measure they are as useless as saying "We all fall down towards the ground because His Noodliness the FSM demands it!" However, if they can be so extended they they will conflict. We need this, it's a positive thing, it's how science works.
That said, scientific theories can be ELEGANT. This is absolutely a thing to strive for, and might even be what the author meant. Unfortunately it isn't what he said.
(Score: 1) by werepants on Tuesday March 25 2014, @02:34PM
I'd say this is mostly right, until you consider anything quantum mechanical, at all. Or relativity for that matter. There isn't anything natural about time dilation, and Bell's theorem (or even just the double slit experiment) can be downright creepy when you think about it enough.
A more fair way to articulate this would be to say that intuition is critically important in science, except when it isn't. "Feeling" the truthiness of a thing is a fundamental part of understanding it in my experience. When you've synthesized some fundamental relationships after working a difficult set of problems and begun to see the various interconnections based on your own understanding, it's like your brain has captured a new set of abilities that relate directly to understanding the operation of the universe. I'm imagining getting a new weapon after defeating a Megaman boss.