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: 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.