Scientific Mavericks & The Standard Model

[Twiglet]

Back in the 19th & early 20th century, the heyday of science, many discoveries were made by inventors working in private laboratories cooking up weird and wonderful inventions. The basics of electromagnetism were (re) discovered with frogs legs, potatoes and lemons causing electric currents. Massive leyden jar capacitors. Science was at it's most democratised and it's most wild, epitomised in Mary Shelleys "Frankenstein".

The Manhattan project was arguably the dawn of "big science" - a huge project conducted with the most elementary of computers to determine the critical mass of Urananium 235, and determine how to hold it together long enough to get a decent "bang from it". Around the same time, the first practical applications of quantum theory were manifesting themselves in the silicon semiconductor and in the 1960s, the first laser, constructed from a tiny chip of Ruby crystal by Maiman.

Quantum physics took a while to become well understood within the scientific community, and met with immense conceptual resistance. The most prominent vocal criticism originates from Einstein to this day "God does not play dice". Richard Feynman, awarded the Nobel prize for his contribution to understanding spin-orbit coupling and Quantum Electrodynamics directly admits in his biographies that QM need not really be understood (conceptually), only applied, and if a better explanation comes along, so be it.

It has also been understood in the scientific community that General Relativity & Quantum Physics are inherently contradictory. Because quantum physics is predicated on the universe being an inherently random place, where GR predicts a clear set of paths through spacetime for every particle. Not to mention the thorny issue of gravity. There have been numerous "workarounds" in near-relativistic frames, using hybrid models. Numerous attempts at what in my day were called "Grand Unified Theories" or GUTs now trading as "Theory of Everything" (TOEs). String theory is just one such.

It may be that the situations where a GUT is required are simply unphysical. They haven't been tested except in the cosmic soup at the very earliest origins of the universe, and, in those case, some new and underlying set of symmetries and physical law may operate, the seed beneath quantum physics and GR, which gives rise to both, separated only by the ease with which we can observe their operation in nature.

Perceptually, humans are always looking for a grand pattern, ways to link the chain of ideas together. Often the ideas which do this best come from off the field.. like Quantum Physics, or just as radically 400 years ago - the idea the Earth may in fact orbit the Sun. These new ideas can be very uncomfortable to the established order, because it contradicts a religious belief, or perhaps just because people have to unlearn ideas they spent a long time learning.

Yet in the end, new ideas do get accepted, however painful the process, when they describe the world in a better way than those which went before them.

Not all new ideas face vast resistance. Chaos theory was first suspected from computer based modeling of the weather. A scientist (I forget who) programmed in a set of starting conditions and his computer crashed after a couple of days. He re-ran the program and found that the outcome was radically different. He eventually found out that he had entered his data differently.. something like 9.999999999 as opposed to 9.99999999 - and established the "Butterfly effect", and that tiny variations on initial conditions can have a massive effect on the final outcome.

The philosopher, Paul Feyerabend, talks about Paradigm shifts in science - times when the fundamental way we understand the world undergoes a radical transition. From determinism to uncertainty and so forth. When that happens, the rules get rewritten, and we are psychologically challenged to alter our perceptions.

That is IMO the role of Mavericks in science, yet, much scientific work in universities and labs is about making use of already established ideas to create applications for them - from computers to cars to medical imaging devices. Not much effort goes in to pushing the boundaries or trying to shift paradigms. Perhaps because the paradigms we have are already so useful, and we are nowhere near finished exploring the limits of their usefulness.

The standard model (and particle zoo) is one area I think a lot of scientists would like to move on from. It's intellectually a bit unsatisfying to think of a handful of core particles giving rise to a particle zoo. Afterall, if we can turn up the power on our accelerators, maybe we will just find more fundamentals behind what we think are fundamental now. That wouldn't hurt the standard model, but it just feels like scratching away at the layers of an onion without understanding why onions grow.

The trouble is, conceptually, even to know where to start to re-imagine a new model. Mass and Energy seem to be fundamental ways of describing the universe. We label change using the parameter of time, and describe the arena in which change happens as space-time. Quantum theory tells us that time and energy are interchangeable within the constraints set out by the uncertainty principle, which itself is fluid as it sets bounds of possibility for what can happen, rather than any absolute limit.

We are waiting for an idea to come along, as string theory and M theory attempt - which have a big picture, when viewed from one angle looks like relativity, when viewed from another, looks like quantum physics. There's a deep urge to believe in that. A fundamental discomfort with the existing, very function descriptions being used. Experimentally in the LHC, we have never been able to switch the power up so high. We've seen in cosmic rays - odds and sods - with the same energy output, but nothing we see from cosmic rays is fresh. Often discoveries happen when we have to explain something new that we've seen.

Newton said that everything he found was from "standing on the shoulders of giants". He meant this partly as a dig at his arch rival, Robert Hooke, a midget, and partly in reference to the Aristotle and the metaphysics traditions. The same must surely be more true today. So much has been explored. To get a better picture (if one exists), one must, like Einstein - create one which describes reality just as well as before (Einsteins theories reduce to Newtons in the approximation v<<c) - but which point to a radically different kind of universe.

For that, perhaps we need mavericks.

[newolder]

... A scientist (I forget who) programmed in a set of starting conditions and his computer crashed after a couple of days. He re-ran the program and found that the outcome was radically different. He eventually found out that he had entered his data differently.. something like 9.999999999 as opposed to 9.99999999 - and established the "Butterfly effect", and that tiny variations on initial conditions can have a massive effect on the final outcome.

Edward Lorenz, 1917-2008
- for completeness.

[Farsight]

I don't think we need mavericks, Twiglet. All we need is more openness and honesty and less vested interest and elitism. People who've invested years of their time in a particular theory or set of theories react very badly to somebody who says "that's wrong and here's why". Particularly if it diminishes their reputation. There's far more of this in physics than you might imagine, and it's nothing new. It's a constant battle of ideas, and people are people, with their pride and their power. Hence the old saying "science advances one death at a time.". Note however that there's psychology to it. People rationalise away their improper conduct, and convince themselves that they're doing the right thing for the right reason.

Note that Einstein didn't disagree with quantum mechanics, he was in on the ground floor in 1905. That's what he got his Nobel Prize for. What he disagreed with was the Copenhagen Interpretation, the "meaning" of the mathematics.

[colubridae]

1 Observation
2 Theorise and calculate
3 Predict
4 experiment

When mavericks use this, they advance the human race. Even in failure, they advance understanding.

Don’t use this and the best you get (in rare moments) is coffee table chit-chat, but mostly it’s a waste of effort.

[ChildInAZoo]

Hence the old saying "science advances one death at a time.".

This is an old saying that simply is not true. Science advances because of demonstrable evidence. This has always won over scientists. The bacterial infection theory of ulcers did not require that a generation of scientists die in order to be accepted. Even Newton's enemies adopted his laws of motions and the predictive methods of his theory.

[Twiglet]

Hence the old saying "science advances one death at a time.".

This is an old saying that simply is not true. Science advances because of demonstrable evidence. This has always won over scientists. The bacterial infection theory of ulcers did not require that a generation of scientists die in order to be accepted. Even Newton's enemies adopted his laws of motions and the predictive methods of his theory.

Quite so. Relativity was accepted within Einsteins lifetime. Chaos theory within Feigenbaums. History is replete with scientists whose discoveries have been recognised within pretty short order. If you want to find people whose genius is valued after their demise, I suggest you look for painters.

[newolder]

[Farsight]

Quite so. Relativity was accepted within Einsteins lifetime. Chaos theory within Feigenbaums. History is replete with scientists whose discoveries have been recognised within pretty short order. If you want to find people whose genius is valued after their demise, I suggest you look for painters.

These things take longer than you think, Twiglet. Take a look at page 53 of The Strangest Man where you can read how Einstein was still being dismissed in Cambridge in 1923. Search on "dismissed" if you don't have a copy. Also look at The Golden age of general relativity where you can read that it was "the period roughly from 1960 to 1975 during which the study of general relativity, which had previously been regarded as something of a curiosity, entered the mainstream of theoretical physics".

This is an old saying that simply is not true. Science advances because of demonstrable evidence. This has always won over scientists. The bacterial infection theory of ulcers did not require that a generation of scientists die in order to be accepted. Even Newton's enemies adopted his laws of motions and the predictive methods of his theory.

It's a somewhat cynical saying that reflects the dogged resistance that hampers scientific progress. Take a look at Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori to appreciate just how long it can take. Take note of "1868: Kussmaul suggests using bismuth compounds, an anti-bacterial agent, in order to treat peptic ulcers..."

[normal]

Another maverick:

[colubridae]

Quite so. Relativity was accepted within Einsteins lifetime. Chaos theory within Feigenbaums. History is replete with scientists whose discoveries have been recognised within pretty short order. If you want to find people whose genius is valued after their demise, I suggest you look for painters.

These things take longer than you think, Twiglet. Take a look at page 53 of The Strangest Man where you can read how Einstein was still being dismissed in Cambridge in 1923. Search on "dismissed" if you don't have a copy. Also look at The Golden age of general relativity where you can read that it was "the period roughly from 1960 to 1975 during which the study of general relativity, which had previously been regarded as something of a curiosity, entered the mainstream of theoretical physics".

This is an old saying that simply is not true. Science advances because of demonstrable evidence. This has always won over scientists. The bacterial infection theory of ulcers did not require that a generation of scientists die in order to be accepted. Even Newton's enemies adopted his laws of motions and the predictive methods of his theory.

It's a somewhat cynical saying that reflects the dogged resistance that hampers scientific progress. Take a look at Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori to appreciate just how long it can take. Take note of "1868: Kussmaul suggests using bismuth compounds, an anti-bacterial agent, in order to treat peptic ulcers..."

Farsight, you are unbelievable it was your quote

Hence the old saying "science advances one death at a time.". Note however that there's psychology to it. People rationalise away their improper conduct, and convince themselves that they're doing the right thing for the right reason.

Now you object to them pointing out, with reality, how flawed your quote is.

no wonder you believe your twaddle.

[ChildInAZoo]

It's a somewhat cynical saying that reflects the dogged resistance that hampers scientific progress. Take a look at Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori to appreciate just how long it can take. Take note of "1868: Kussmaul suggests using bismuth compounds, an anti-bacterial agent, in order to treat peptic ulcers..."

While you quote mine from wikipedia, you might actually want to take the time to read it, especially since it seems to be all you can read. You will see that there was contradictory evidence about ulcers, but that there were clear cases of ulcers without bacterial infection. And there are treatments for ulcers that work, treatments that work, as we now know, even when one has a bacterial infection. Only with higher quality evidence could it be established that many ulcers are caused by bacteria.

Some "mavericks" are simply cranks without evidence. They can possibly be right, but a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[Farsight]

While you quote mine from wikipedia, you might actually want to take the time to read it, especially since it seems to be all you can read. You will see that there was contradictory evidence about ulcers, but that there were clear cases of ulcers without bacterial infection. And there are treatments for ulcers that work, treatments that work, as we now know, even when one has a bacterial infection. Only with higher quality evidence could it be established that many ulcers are caused by bacteria. Some "mavericks" are simply cranks without evidence. They can possibly be right, but a stopped clock is right twice a day.

LOL. You quoted bacterial causation of ulcers as something that was accepted fairly quickly, when in fact it took a hundred and twenty years. And some "experts" are quacks.

[ChildInAZoo]

LOL. You quoted bacterial causation of ulcers as something that was accepted fairly quickly, when in fact it took a hundred and twenty years. And some "experts" are quacks.

I used no quotation. I gave the bacterial theory of ulcers as an example of something that did not require a generation of scientists to die in order to be accepted. Again, if you would bother to read the article you cited, you would see that what was required was clear evidence, not some purely sociological phenomenon. Once there was clear evidence, scientists changed their beliefs.

[Farsight]

Geddoutofit. You were caught bang to rights. And you're still squirming and dodging. Here's an excerpt from Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori:

1868 Kussmaul suggests using bismuth compounds, an anti-bacterial agent, in order to treat peptic ulcers (bismuth subsalicylate has since been used in many commercial drugs, including Pepto Bismol as part of antibacterial H. pylori treatment). The antibacterial properties of bismuth were not known until much later.
1875 G. Bottcher and M. Letulle hypothesize that ulcers are caused by bacteria.[1]
1880 J. Cohnheim suggests that ulcers may be caused by chemical factors.[1]
1881 Klebs notes the presence of bacteria-like organisms in the lumen of the gastric glands.[4]
1889 Walery Jaworski describes spiral organisms in sediment washings of humans. He suggests these organisms might be involved with gastric disease.[1]
1892 Giulio Bizzozero observes spiral organisms in the stomach of dogs.[5][6]
1896 Saloon finds spirochetes in the stomachs of cats and mice.[3]
1905 F. Reigel suggests that ulcers are caused by excess acid.[1]
1906 Krienitz finds bacteria in the stomach of people with gastric cancer.[2] Turck feeds dogs Bacillus coli and produces ulcers.[7]
1907 Berkley Moynihan suggests that acid is a cause of ulcers.[1]
1910 Schwartz publishes the excess acid theory of the ulcer, coining the famous phrase "no acid, no ulcer."[2]
Gibelli claims to be unable to reproduce Turck's study where he artificially created ulcers by feeding dogs bacteria.[1]
1913 Rosenow suggests that Streptococci produce ulcers.[8]
1915 Antacids are first recommended for the treatment of PUD.[3]
Bacteria are associated with PUD, but it is assumed that the bacteria reside in the mouth.[9]
1919 Kasai and Kobayashi isolate spirochetes in cats and transmit them to rabbits, producing ulcers.[10]
1921 Luger discovers spirochetes in the gastric juice, and associates their presence with gastric cancer.[4]
1924 Luck and Seth discover urease in the human stomach, which they believe is naturally occurring.[11] It is now known that one of the virulence factors of H. pylori is the urease enzyme, which splits urea into ammonia
1925 Hoffman injects a small sample from a human with PUD into a guinea pig, producing ulcers, and isolates a bacterium which he believes caused the ulcers.
1936 First edition of the Russian Large Medical Encyclopedia suggests infection is one of the causes of PUD.[13]
1939 A. Stone Freedberg begins a study to look for bacteria in the human stomach at Beth Israel Hospital. He finds H. pylori. It is rumored that others cannot reproduce the results, although no negative results are published...

There was tons evidence. And you're pretending that there wasn't any "clear evidence" !? LOL!

Really, that really takes the biscuit. I rest my case.

[ChildInAZoo]

Again you show that you don't know what evidence is. You are reproducing a timeline where there is

a) inconsistent reports of the influence of bacteria on ulcers
b) measurable results on the effectiveness of treatment based on the acidity theory of ulcers

We now understand why the acidity treatments work for ulcers that are caused by bacteria. And we know that not all ulcers are caused by bacteria. Once there were detailed and repeatable observations about bacteria cause ulcers, it did not take a generation of scientists to die in order for the science to be accepted. Your simplified picture of the history is not consistent with the actual history (even when you cut and paste it) .