Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Monday March 24 2014, @06:26PM   Printer-friendly
from the like-truthiness-only-better dept.

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.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by werepants on Tuesday March 25 2014, @02:34PM

    by werepants (3444) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @02:34PM (#20961)

    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.