Featured Post

Deriving the Gravitational Constant G

Today we will derive the gravitational constant G, also known as Newton's constant. Here are the variables we will be working with: ...

Thursday, October 6, 2016

The Problem With Modern Theoretical Physics

There's a new theory that explains every mystery in physics. I call it the magic-dust theory. Like other modern theories it is mathematically consistent. But like other modern theories it is currently not testable. To observe the magic dust requires a particle accelerator the size of our galaxy, maybe bigger.

Here's an example of the mathematics of this promising new theory:

Thanks to this new innovative theory, we now know what caused the Big Bang. There is no empirical evidence, but, as I said before, this theory is mathematically consistent. Here is an example:

All kidding aside, the "magic-dust" theory demonstrates what is wrong with modern theoretical physics. If you stop and think about it, there isn't much difference between magic dust, and strings.

Like magic dust, strings have virtually unlimited power: they can vibrate and make the different particles; they can stretch up to infinity in multiple dimensions to give us d-branes. They can do whatever is needed to explain any mystery. As long as the math is consistent, we can call it science. However, Issac Newton would disagree. Below he discusses gravity and his philosophy:

"I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction."

Note how Newton uses the word "hypothesis" rather than "theory." Technically, string theories and other modern theories aren't theories at all. At best, they are hypotheses, since the entities they invoke (e.g. strings, extra dimensions, etc.) have never been observed. Below, William Whewell has this to add:

"What is requisite is, that the hypotheses should be close to the facts, and not connected with them by other arbitrary and untried facts; and that the philosopher should be ready to resign it as soon as the facts refuse to confirm it."

I have to agree. The challenge is to explain the mysteries without magical thinking; i.e., adding extra entities that have never been observed like extra dimensions, strings, branes, magic dust, etc. The whole idea of science, in my opinion, is to reduce mystery, not add to it. If you have to create a new mysterious object to explain an old mystery, then that is the analogue of digging one hole to fill another.

Using new, unobserved, untested entities to explain a mystery has the disadvantage of increasing your burden of proof. This is why the best hypotheses use known facts as much as possible to explain the unknown.

On the flip side it's true that Democritus dreamed up the atom centuries before it was physically observed. And maybe sometime in the distant future, humans will discover strings, extra dimensions, gods, fairies, pixies, and dragons in their basements ... or ... maybe not. The thing I love about science is we are free to change our minds as soon as the evidence becomes available.


  1. It does make sense. Could dark matter be what the ancients called 'the aether'?
    and dark energy be the active part of 'magic'?

  2. Sometimes , it become necessary to believe in mathematics than naked eye although science basically is a field of observation but sometimes normal day human logic is not capable of comprehending mysteries ,that's why mathematical models are used.

    1. Although mathematics is based on human logic. This is why experiments are necessary. Math and logic are often wrong.