December 12, 2007Gell-Mann on Beauty and Truth in Physics
Posted by Robin Varghese at 11:55 AM | Permalink |
3QD Science Prize
Logo designed by Vicki Winters Iran Twitter News
Andrew Covers Iran
The Lede on Iran
HuffPo Liveblogging
Help 3 Quarks Daily3QD on Twitter
Search Using LijitLijit SearchBookmark This Page
3QD FEED FOR GOOGLE
3QD ADVERTISING
Compare prices
Recent Comments
aguy109 on The Israeli thought-police is here
Daniel Rourke on Desire Paths: Reading, Memory and Inscription
Dave Ranning on India, China and the polemics of the East
Bob on The Israeli thought-police is here
Louise Gordon on Desire Paths: Reading, Memory and Inscription
Elatia Harris on Desire Paths: Reading, Memory and Inscription
Carlos on Desire Paths: Reading, Memory and Inscription
Casey on Cooking Up a Pot of Civilization
Elatia Harris on Summer time and the eating is easy
Daniel Rourke on Desire Paths: Reading, Memory and Inscription
Space Toast on India, China and the polemics of the East
Chris Schoen on Summer time and the eating is easy
Zara on Kiarostami's 'Shirin': watching a movie about watching a movie
Jeff Strabone on Kiarostami's 'Shirin': watching a movie about watching a movie
Victoria Nwobodo on Facebook Poetry – Oxymoron or Hamburger-Chain Art?
Zara on Kiarostami's 'Shirin': watching a movie about watching a movie
Joe Y on Summer time and the eating is easy
hmmm on Losing the Plot (The Hotel)
Cyrus Hall on Kiarostami's 'Shirin': watching a movie about watching a movie
Louise Gordon on In God's name
Manisha Verma on India, China and the polemics of the East
sw on Kiarostami's 'Shirin': watching a movie about watching a movie
kerg on The Israeli thought-police is here
Acclaim For 3QD
"I couldn't tear myself
away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on
this superb site."—Steven
Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.
"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard
Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. "Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual. |
Comments
It is possible to reconstruct Maxwell's equations in a completely elegant and symmetric form; e.g., the divergence of E is proportional to the electric charge density and the divergence of B is proportional to the magnetic charge density, etc. Unfortunately, nature has never provided any experimental evidence that magnetic monopoles exist; hence, divergence of B is zero.
This is the real beauty of physics; nature makes the choice, not man. Man is prejudiced, nature is not. Often man clings to theories long after they have long been demolished with facts and experiments. For example, when quarks were first proposed back in the 1960's no one believed in them because no particle with fractional charge had ever been observed (Millikan Oil Drop Experiment about 1909) and these particles themselves had not been observed. Even today, while some claim to have observed certain quarks, they have not been observed in isolation and in order to reproduce the results one would have to have access to a multi billion dollar facility, which most people do not have access to. Also, still, no particles have been observed with fractional charge to this day, 2007. In other fields, like cancer, prejudiced scientists cling to the theory that cancer is caused by mutated genes when experiments and facts, developed decades ago, prove that cancer is caused by the wrong energy; oxygen deficiency or fermentation. This explains why the war on cancer is a total failure and about one person dies every minute either from cancer, "treatment" or both.
Posted by: Winfield J. Abbe | Dec 13, 2007 8:51:57 AM
I enjoyed this talk very much. Thanks, Robin. (I had tried to express some similar thoughts in my essay on Francis Crick.)
Posted by: Abbas Raza | Dec 15, 2007 12:20:08 PM
As a lowly experimentalist, I have to say we're rather more skeptical about this beauty gig than the theorists tend to be:
1. Yes, sure there are beautiful theories that are true, but the history of physics is also littered with the corpses of beautiful theories slain by ugly facts. Technicolor was a beautiful idea taken seriously by many; it is also wrong (or at least it would be very unnatural in the technical sense for it to turn out to be right after all).
2. More often, theories are beaufiful, but not perfectly so. The most famous example of course is the very equations of electromagnetism Gell-Mann showed, which would be positively lovely if there were magnetic monopoles, but there aren't any.
3. There are beautiful mathematical ideas that happen not to be physical - my undergraduate adviser used to say 'the theorists have beautifully predicted fifteen of the past two experimental discoveries'.
4. For that matter, there would be nothing ugly about planetary orbits being circles and not ellipses. It would even be simpler, I think. That’s just not the way it is.
5. Theories can indeed be ugly while still being true – while quantum field theory is indeed elegant, the standard model of particle physics is not particularly pretty. Indeed, some string theorists these days have taken to calling it a ‘Rube Goldberg contraption’
6. It is useful to remember that Einstein himself made his greatest mistake (not taking Quantum Mechanics seriously enough) by appealing to a misguided notion of simplicity and elegance.
7. Most people, even Gell-Mann, aren’t Einstein or Newton.
Posted by: D | Dec 15, 2007 1:12:18 PM
Post a comment