The Truth About Black Holes & The Large Hadron Collider

The Truth About Black Holes & The Large Hadron Collider –

Sounds like the scientific direction isn’t much better than the whimsical story lines.  I’d say this whole extra dimension nonsense was an ad hoc saving hypothesis except that it doesn’t appear to be saving anything.  Even if it were somehow proven it would be a solution without a problem and it’s hard to see how it would be illuminating. 

Seeing gravity as a weaker force is entirely a matter of perspective given that it is the dominant force over large distances.

An equivalent spurious hypothesis would be to try to show that strong atomic forces were “really” just as strong between galaxies as gravity is. 

What’s behind the drive to show that the forces are more equal, despite the overwhelming empirical evidence that they aren’t?  That it’s unfair?  I have trouble seeing how the idea is an example of either scientific thinking or a scientific mindset.

It also shows a basic misunderstanding of math, a conflation of math and physics.

The real world has physics, which exist regardless of our knowledge of the process or ability to describe what is happening mathematically.

Mathematics is a human construct that occasionally helps us analyse what is going on in the world, and not just in physics.  Mathematics has a potentially infinite number of tautologies, many of which may not help describe any real world process.  It’s just a tool.

Yes there are other dimensions, such as supply and demand.  There are as many dimensions as we want there to be, limited only by utility. 

But dimensions are a feature of mathematics, not physics.

Something is a dimension if we find utility in graphing it.  That’s it, that’s the whole mystery. 

Supply and demand are dimensions in exactly the same sense as time and distance. It does not provide any metaphysical illumination at all.

Math, to the extent it is useful, is descriptive. 
Get out of your head, look around you.  You will see distance to objects, you will see distance between objects, but you will never see three dimensions.

Space doesn’t “have” three dimensions. 

We require three mathematical dimensions to describe locations in space.

That is an extremely important, critical distinction.

When dimensions are thought of as a feature of physics rather than math, the result is confused nonsense.

Also, math alone can never answer the question “why”.  So looking for answers in math alone is a fool’s errand. 

So let’s say at some point we find that adding dimensions to the math of physics does help more accurately describe what’s going on. 

We know what gravity does, but we still don’t know what it is.   If we find one more mathematical relationship, that’s one more thing that we can describe but still haven’t explained. 

Using three dimensions to describe space didn’t make reality any bigger nor will adding dimensions to that.  More complicated math doesn’t create anything, at best it can describe something.

Math is a tool, and it’s a tool of description and analysis, not observation like a telescope or microscope.

The tail is wagging the dog in physics, and it has been for some time.  Bad philosophy leads to bad science.   


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: