It’s my birthday! Plus: when guests collide!
It’s my birthday, yay! I’m now 6% closer to 100 than 0.
Instead of doing a cliched version of ’53 lessons learned on the way to being 53’ I wanted to share my gratitude for your presence, not just your presents (gift request below).
I recently did a banger video about a new challenge to a theory of quantum gravity — called Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG).
Now, while I’m sure you’re all salivating at the thought of learning advanced theories of physics on a Monday morning, I’ll spare you the details. Suffice it to say, LQG is one of the few alternatives to String Theory (ST) and many people, myself included, do not like the monopoly hold ST has on physics.
Some say ST has killed not only the careers of far too many physicists but has also been deadly for physics over the past half-century.
Well, my video pissed off many people, including past guest Carlo Rovelli. Carlo is one of the founding fathers of the theory and is very protective of it. When his friend Phil Halpirn took to YouTube to present a response to my video, the battle was joined.
Phil, Carlo and I have been having a spirited battle over email and in the YouTube comments section.
Who knew physicists could have beefs rivaling the East-Coast vs. West-Coast Rap Battles of the 1980s! Instead of regurgitating the exchange, I’ve condensed it into an overview of some best-practices for conflict resolution in science. I hope you enjoy it.
1. Embrace Open Dialogue
- Encourage debate and discussion of scientific theories, even when challenging established ideas.
- Be open to new evidence that may contradict or refine existing theories.
Example: The discovery of dark energy in the late 1990s challenged the prevailing view of a decelerating universe. Instead of dismissing the unexpected results, the scientific community engaged in vigorous debate and further research, ultimately leading to a Nobel Prize and a fundamental shift in our understanding of cosmology and even the fate of the universe!
2. Avoid Dogmatism
No single scientist or group should be considered infallible.
- Scientific consensus evolves; what was once accepted may be challenged by new data.
Example: For decades, the idea that stomach ulcers were caused primarily by stress and diet was dogma in the medical community. When Barry Marshall and Robin Warren proposed that many ulcers were caused by bacteria (H. pylori), they were initially ridiculed. Their persistence led to a paradigm shift in treatment and a Nobel Prize in 2005.
3. Interdisciplinary Understanding
- Experimentalists should understand theory, and theorists should appreciate experimental methods.
- Breaking down artificial barriers between specialties leads to better science.
Example: The discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN in 2012 was a triumph of interdisciplinary collaboration. Theoretical physicists who predicted the particle’s existence worked closely with experimental physicists and engineers to design and interpret the results from the Large Hadron Collider.
4. Communicate Responsibly
- When discussing scientific findings, clearly state limitations and caveats.
- Be precise in language, especially when critiquing or supporting specific models within a broader theory.
Example: In climate science communications, responsible scientists should carefully distinguish between observed data, model projections, and areas of uncertainty. They might say, “Based on current models, we project sea levels to rise by X amount by 2100, but this estimate has a margin of error of Y and assumes Z conditions remain constant.”
5. Engage with Public Outreach
- Educational content (like videos or documentaries) can be valuable for public understanding.
- However, creators should be careful not to oversimplify or misrepresent the state of scientific knowledge.
Example: Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson’s reboot of “Cosmos” effectively communicated complex scientific concepts to a general audience. The series balanced simplification for clarity with maintaining scientific accuracy, often including caveats about ongoing research and uncertainties.
6. Handle Criticism Constructively
- Scientific ideas should be robust enough to withstand scrutiny and criticism.
- Respond to critiques with data and reasoned arguments, not by attempting to silence opposition.
Example: When cold fusion was announced in 1989, the scientific community responded with intense scrutiny and attempts to replicate the results. Instead of dismissing critics, responsible scientists engaged in rigorous debate and further experimentation, ultimately concluding that the initial claims were unfounded.
7. Pursue Multiple Approaches
- Encourage the exploration of various models and theories.
- Recognize that ruling out some models doesn’t necessarily invalidate an entire field of study.
Example: In the search for dark matter, scientists pursue multiple approaches simultaneously: direct detection experiments, indirect detection through astronomical observations, particle collider experiments, and theoretical modeling. Each approach provides valuable insights, even when individual models are ruled out.
8. Stay Current
- Keep abreast of new developments, even if they challenge your previous understanding.
- Be willing to update your views based on new evidence.
Example: The recent tension between different measurements of the Hubble constant (the universe’s expansion rate) has led cosmologists to re-examine their models and search for new physics. Instead of clinging to old ideas, researchers are actively exploring new possibilities and refining their methods.
Good science thrives on curiosity, rigorous methodology, and open discourse. Let’s continue to foster an environment where ideas can be freely explored and debated in the pursuit of knowledge.
Let me know how you handle conflicts in your field.
Until next time, have a M.A.G.I.C. week!
Birthday Boy Brian
Appearance
Explore the universe with me!
Join me for 8 hours of free lectures at Peterson Academy on September 17 and 18 in Miami!
Topics include the Solar system, stars and galaxies, life in the universe, and the Big Bang!
Genius
Looking for science-focused AI tools?
Here’s what I’m using to research papers and even videos like my recent one about Loop Quantum Gravity: Consensus is an academic search engine powered by AI but grounded in scientific research.
They use language models (LLMs) and purpose-built search technology (Vector search) to surface the most relevant papers. They synthesize both topic-level and paper-level insights. Everything is connected to real research papers.
(Not sponsored, but would love to be, given my power usage )
Image
Behold the Andromeda Galaxy, M31!
Once mistaken for a nebula within our Milky Way, it’s actually a vast spiral galaxy nearly 3 MILLION light-years away.
It’s the closest large galaxy to us and on a collision course, set to merge with the Milky Way but not until I turn 2,000,000,053… years old.
Credit: Andrew McCarthy
Conversation
The leading contender to string theory, loop quantum gravity (LQG), may have just suffered a critical blow. This is very unfortunate because string theory has a near-monopoly in the field of theoretical high-energy physics, and as with anything else, a monopoly is never good. The evidence against the linear order model of LQG comes from a recent paper from the Large High Altitude Air Shower Observatory (LHAASO) experiment.
In this deep dive, I unpack the significance of LQG, its implications for unifying quantum mechanics with general relativity, and the potential blow it recently suffered this is one such model considered. I also reflect on the broader implications for theoretical physicists like Carlo Rovelli, Eric Weinstein, Stephen Wolfram and others if string theory remains unchallenged. Lastly, obviously this is one such model considered, and other versions of LQG could still survive to fight another day.
Advertisement
Get me a present — grab a copy of either of my books Losing the Nobel Prize and or Think Like a Nobel Prize Winner.
After that, can you please do me a huge favor and rate my books on Amazon and Goodreads?
Here is a link to the book’s page or here on Amazon.
Alternatively, or in addition, you can also gift me a review of The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast — On Apple iPhone and iPad, click here, scroll down to the ratings and leave a 5-star rating and review.
On Spotify it’s here you’ll need to listen to, or fast-forward through one episode first.
Upcoming Episodes
- Max Tegmark explains how he’s working to avoid an AI Apocalypse!
- Thursday: A Deep dive into the physics of Crab Nebula, including my only dirty joke that’s clean enough to tell on YouTube!
- Nick Pope will be live tomorrow. Join here to ask questions. Nick ran the British government’s UFO project. The media call him the real Fox Mulder. Spookily, his wife is a scientist, a skeptic, and a redhead…just like her.
