Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.



Inflation Is Not Science! How About Einstein's Relativity?
Posted:
Oct 1, 2017 4:44 AM


Sabine Hossenfelder: "Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore. It is this abundance of useless models that gives rise to the criticism that inflation is not a scientific theory. And on that account, the criticism is justified. It's not good scientific practice. It is a practice that, to say it bluntly, has become commonplace because it results in papers, not because it advances science." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/28/istheinflationaryuniverseascientifictheorynotanymore/
Sabine Hossenfelder (Bee): "The criticism you raise that there are lots of speculative models that have no known relevance for the description of nature has very little to do with string theory but is a general disease of the research area. Lots of theorists produce lots of models that have no chance of ever being tested or ruled out because that's how they earn a living. The smaller the probability of the model being ruled out in their lifetime, the better. It's basic economics. Survival of the 'fittest' resulting in the natural selection of invincible models that can forever be amended." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375
What is going on? Is this a human nature's problem  e.g. bad people of today do things that good people of the past didn't? Of course not. Rather, the scientific method was changed long ago and theoretical physics has not been science since then. The transition was from deductivism to empiricism, or from "deducing the equation" to "guessing the equation":
Richard Feynman (50:07): "Dirac discovered the correct laws for relativity quantum mechanics simply by guessing the equation. The method of guessing the equation seems to be a pretty effective way of guessing new laws." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd0xTfdt6qw&t=2368s
Actually the antideductive movement started with Einstein's general relativity (special relativity was deductive). Einstein and his mathematical friends spent a few years tirelessly "guessing the equation" until "excellent agreement with observation" was reached:
Michel Janssen: "But  as we know from a letter to his friend Conrad Habicht of December 24, 1907  one of the goals that Einstein set himself early on, was to use his new theory of gravity, whatever it might turn out to be, to explain the discrepancy between the observed motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory. [...] The EinsteinGrossmann theory  also known as the "Entwurf" ("outline") theory after the title of Einstein and Grossmann's paper  is, in fact, already very close to the version of general relativity published in November 1915 and constitutes an enormous advance over Einstein's first attempt at a generalized theory of relativity and theory of gravitation published in 1912. The crucial breakthrough had been that Einstein had recognized that the gravitational field  or, as we would now say, the inertiogravitational field  should not be described by a variable speed of light as he had attempted in 1912, but by the socalled metric tensor field. The metric tensor is a mathematical object of 16 components, 10 of which independent, that characterizes the geometry of space and time. In this way, gravity is no longer a force in space and time, but part of the fabric of space and time itself: gravity is part of the inertiogravitational field. Einstein had turned to Grossmann for help with the difficult and unfamiliar mathematics needed to formulate a theory along these lines. [...] Einstein did not give up the EinsteinGrossmann theory once he had established that it could not fully explain the Mercury anomaly. He continued to work on the theory and never even mentioned the disappointing result of his work with Besso in print. So Einstein did not do what the influential philosopher Sir Karl Popper claimed all good scientists do: once they have found an empirical refutation of their theory, they abandon that theory and go back to the drawing board. [...] On November 4, 1915, he presented a paper to the Berlin Academy officially retracting the EinsteinGrossmann equations and replacing them with new ones. On November 11, a short addendum to this paper followed, once again changing his field equations. A week later, on November 18, Einstein presented the paper containing his celebrated explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury on the basis of this new theory. Another week later he changed the field equations once more. These are the equations still used today. This last change did not affect the result for the perihelion of Mercury. Besso is not acknowledged in Einstein's paper on the perihelion problem. Apparently, Besso's help with this technical problem had not been as valuable to Einstein as his role as sounding board that had earned Besso the famous acknowledgment in the special relativity paper of 1905. Still, an acknowledgment would have been appropriate. After all, what Einstein had done that week in November, was simply to redo the calculation he had done with Besso in June 1913, using his new field equations instead of the EinsteinGrossmann equations. It is not hard to imagine Einstein's excitement when he inserted the numbers for Mercury into the new expression he found and the result was 43", in excellent agreement with observation." https://netfiles.umn.edu/users/janss011/home%20page/EBms.pdf
"Guessing the equation" is naturally followed by "guessing the fudge factor". In the video below, at 0:57, a fudge factor is added to an equation in an empirical model (Einstein's general relativity), then at 2:16 the fudge factor is removed:
https://www.sciencechannel.com/tvshows/spacesdeepestsecrets/videos/einsteinsbiggestblunder SPACE'S DEEPEST SECRETS Einstein's "Biggest Blunder"
"A fudge factor is an ad hoc quantity introduced into a calculation, formula or model in order to make it fit observations or expectations. Examples include Einstein's Cosmological Constant..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fudge_factor
Can one add a fudge factor analogous to the cosmological constant to the Lorentz transformation equations? One cannot, and the reason is simple: Special relativity is deductive (even though a false postulate and an invalid argument spoiled it from the very beginning) and fudging is impossible by definition  one has no right to add anything that is not deducible from the postulates.
Nowadays, except for special relativity, theories and models in physics are empirical, nondeductive  they cannot be presented as a set of valid arguments built up logically from a small number of simple axioms (postulates). This makes them unfalsifiable a priori.
"By a theory I shall mean the deductive closure of a set of theoretical postulates together with an appropriate set of auxiliary hypotheses; that is, everything that can be deduced from this set." W. H. NewtonSmith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, p. 199 http://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/thought_and_writing/philosophy/rationality%20of%20science.pdf
Only deductive theories (models) can be falsified, either logically or experimentally. That is:
1. Arguments can be checked for validity.
2. The reductioadabsurdum procedure can be applied.
3. Showing, experimentally, that a postulate or a deduced consequence is false makes sense  the deductive structure allows one to interpret the falsehood in terms of the whole theory. (In the absence of a deductive structure any detected falsehood or absurdity remains insignificant  one can ignore it or "fix" it in some way, e.g. by introducing a fudge factor.)
The only alternative to deductivism is empiricism  models are essentially equivalent to the "empirical models" defined here:
"The objective of curve fitting is to theoretically describe experimental data with a model (function or equation) and to find the parameters associated with this model. Models of primary importance to us are mechanistic models. Mechanistic models are specifically formulated to provide insight into a chemical, biological, or physical process that is thought to govern the phenomenon under study. Parameters derived from mechanistic models are quantitative estimates of real system properties (rate constants, dissociation constants, catalytic velocities etc.). It is important to distinguish mechanistic models from empirical models that are mathematical functions formulated to fit a particular curve but whose parameters do not necessarily correspond to a biological, chemical or physical property." http://collum.chem.cornell.edu/documents/Intro_Curve_Fitting.pdf
Below Einstein makes a distinction between deductive and empirical science and suggests no third alternative:
Albert Einstein: "From a systematic theoretical point of view, we may imagine the process of evolution of an empirical science to be a continuous process of induction. Theories are evolved and are expressed in short compass as statements of a large number of individual observations in the form of empirical laws, from which the general laws can be ascertained by comparison. Regarded in this way, the development of a science bears some resemblance to the compilation of a classified catalogue. It is, as it were, a purely empirical enterprise. But this point of view by no means embraces the whole of the actual process ; for it slurs over the important part played by intuition and deductive thought in the development of an exact science. As soon as a science has emerged from its initial stages, theoretical advances are no longer achieved merely by a process of arrangement. Guided by empirical data, the investigator rather develops a system of thought which, in general, is built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions, the socalled axioms." https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/ap03.htm
Pentcho Valev



