Mohammed,
Thanks for this fact-filled, well written review of the state of science! You are a visionary, and your article is highly publishable regardless of any contest outcome. I hope your essay gets the visibility it deserves.
My own contribution echoes your emphasis on education and inter-disciplinary cooperation.
Best,
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thank you for your encouraging comments. I skimmed your essay and there are indeed some similarities between our essays. I will read it and tell you my opinion.
Best regards,
Mohammed
Dear Mohammed,
I gladly join the list. Your essay is very well written, and dense with references to concrete facts and percentages, which makes it solid and persuasive. Good and easily digested food for the reader!
A note of psychological character about your idea to publish negative results. While I see your point, I can imagine a number of circumstances in which I would personally tend not to believe the negative result (as well as the positive ones), until I try it out myself. I find that often the strategies for attacking a problem are so many that, by taking an alternative perspective, the positive result may pop out. Of course, this may not be equally valid for any area of science.
And I totally agree on the importance of having scientists take active part to political activities and decisions - not merely consultative. This is particularly crucial in my country (Italy), where recent interviews and reports have exposed the dramatic ignorance of a high percentage of our politicians. The problem, however, is to find enough scientists willing devote a serious portion of their time to these non-scientific activities. Making science is much more fun.
Best regards,
Tommaso
Dear Tommaso,
Thank you very much for your kind and encouraging comments.
I totally agree with you that we should always question published results, and think of alternative methods and strategies. However, it's hard, or even impossible, for anyone to check everything they read; that's why reproducing research results and publishing them is very important.
I also agree that not many scientists would be willing to spend their time on non-scientific activities; that why we should discuss the importance of this issue and encourage more scientists to participate. Scientists should know it's their responsibility to use their knowledge to help the society.
Best regards,
Mohammed
Dear Mohammed M. Khalil,
Very nice essay with full range of what you focus on. It is sometimes difficult to evaluate science including its socialistic impact but you guide it with broad point of view.
Regards,
Ryoji
Thank you Ryoji for your encouraging comment.
Mohammed
Dear Mohammed,
I read with interest your depth analysis and concrete proposals for a global project "Open Science". We need to hear the voice of the Earth, [link:fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2034] to give up Hope to New Generation of Earthlings. Time has come and we start the path together with the new Generation of the Information age. Fundamental science should go ahead.
I invite you to comment and appreciate my ideas
Best regards,
Vladimir
Dear Vladimir,
Thank you for your encouraging comments. I am glad that you liked my essay and that you agree with me. And thanks for those great songs.
I have read you essay and commented.
Best regards,
Mohammed
Mohammed,
Let me put a question that is less taboo to you:
You wrote: "History of science teaches us not to hold to unjustified assumptions, even if they are held by the majority, we should always consider opposing views. Unfortunately, we are making the same mistake again".
Well, you might argue that what you wrote in the introduction of your essay is absolutely justified.
Let me nonetheless consider your following statement:"Relativity revolutionized our understanding of space, time, mass, and gravity. This understanding made many technological applications possible, such as particle accelerators, nuclear power plants, and the GPS".
Are my opposing essays definitely wrong? Can you please reveal flaws?
Eckard
Eckard,
I insist on what I wrote that we should not hold to unjustified assumptions. However, in my opinion, a justified assumption is one that has been tested experimentally, or at least has enough theoretical evidence to support until an experiment verifies.
Questioning the foundations of physics, including relativity, is very important. Nevertheless, for a new alternative theory to succeed it has to agree with experiment. If a new theory conflicts with experiment, then it is wrong. If a new theory doesn't produce experimentally verifiable results, then it is philosophy not science, and everyone is entitled to his/her philosophy.
So to answer your question, if your theory agrees with the countless experiments that verified relativity and brings new understanding of space and time, then it's a very good theory that deserves recognition. If it does not produce experimentally verifiable results, then it is philosophy not science.
Mohammed
Mohammed,
I consider strict philosophy at the roots of science, and I question your lazy statement:"This understanding [of space and time] made many technological applications possible, such as particle accelerators, nuclear power plants, and the GPS".
Even David Bohm admitted in his textbook on Special Relativity that achievements attributed to SR can also be attributed to other interpretations.
I maintain what I wrote in my essay: "Several insights that were incorporated into Einstein's theory of relativity and are now ascribed to it did nonetheless prove realistic and useful in practice. In particular, there is no reason to doubt that the speed of light [in vacuum] is constant and constitutes an upper limit for the propagation of energy." Einstein himself was forced to admit that his imperfect understanding of "past, present and future" worries him seriously, cf. my earlier essays. The countless experiments you mentioned confirm facts that are not necessarily related to the claimed relativity of time. What about GPS, those who are defending Einstein are merely claiming that the Sagnac effect does not contradict to SR. It does not confirm it.
I humbly don't feel in position and also not obliged to deal with all arguments that were risen to defend an ideology. I merely found out that Einstein's reasoning was neither his own nor flawless but led to unresolved and perhaps unresolvable paradoxes. That's why I am asking (in vain) for a trustworthy experiment that confirms more than the incorporated contributions of others.
So far, I tend to agree with Luis von Essen on that SR is lacking any own experimental basis. May we call it therefore a mere philosophical fabrication or is it really a discovery? Anyway, I see this allegedly settled question unsettled as long as belonging paradoxes cannot be denied. The future is open. Discoveries and inventions may steer it.
Eckard
Eckard,
Thank you for your comment. Everyone is entitled to his opinion.
Mohammed
Mohammed,
Than you. I hope the extension will now allow you the time to do so.
You'll find the 'discrete field' dynamics model ('DFM') highly consistent and predictive, employing the SR postulates but using Einstein's 1954 descriptions rather than the original 1905 ones which persist along with the paradoxes.
The problem is that despite the good words about open minds and testing some areas are considered 'taboo' so most won't countenance a fair challenge, so in the rut we remain.
Interestingly QM also requires only the slightest re-interpretation (Copenhagen as modulation not 'creation' of reality) for the same model to converge and unite the two.
Can we still escape the theoretical rut by giving new models a fair test, or it it too late? I fear the latter, but have given us until 2020 to evolve intellectually.
Peter
Peter,
I am sorry, currently I do not have time to read your essays because of my final exams.
I agree that we need to question the foundations of physics, even those that are considered 'taboos'. However, I am optimistic; I believe the situation is starting to change. An increasing number of people are working on fundamental questions, and there are various places where those questions are discussed, such as the FQXi forums.
Best regards,
Mohammed
I'm glad I finally got a chance to read your smart, well-written essay, Khalil. I agree completely that we have to improve the way we conduct scientific research. You make a lot of excellent proposals for what we can do (my pet peve, for what it's worth, is the misunderstanding and misuse of p-values).
I would add that while improving the way we do science would be extremely valuable, better science won't address all our problems. Many of our problems aren't technical, but political; that is, over what we should do rather than how we can do it. In some ways--this what I argue in my own essay--I think the technical challenges we face may be easier to solve than the political ones.
Excellent essay, in any case. Good luck in the contest!
Best,
Robert de Neufville
Hello Mohammed, May I post a short, but sincere critique of your essay? I'd ask you to return the favour. Here's my policy on that. - Mike
Hi Robert,
Thank you for your comment. I am glad we agree on the importance of improving the way we conduct scientific research.
I agree with you that politics is an obstacle towards solving many of humanity's problems, but I believe that science and technology have the greatest effect. For example, current technology exists for producing clean energy, but the problem is the cost. If science and technology reached a new method for generating energy that is cheaper than fossil fuel, politicians will support that method.
Best regards,
Mohammed
Hello Michael, thank you for your comment. I would be glad if you reviewed my essay, but currently I am busy with my exams and won't be able to review yours.
Mohammed,
Having had rating problems with my Firefox browser and with some 5 days remaining, I am revisiting essays I've read to see if rated. I find that I rated yours on 4/30.
I would like to see your comments on my essay: http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2008
Jim
Okay. If matters change, please let me know. Meantime best of luck in your exams. - Mike