Sergio Bartalucci
Transcript
Sergio Bartalucci
Sergio Bartalucci Empirical Science versus Ironic Science: The case of Unconventional Nuclear Fusion 20 Aprile 2009 COHERENCE 2009 1 Sergio Bartalucci J. Horgan* and “The End of Science” (1996) *Senior writer of Scientific American 1985-1997 Interviewing great contemporary scientists: Instead of asking what the laws of Nature are and how we can use them, we ponder why the laws of Nature are as they are, and ask whether they could be otherwise (L. S usskind) from K. Popper to T.Kuhn from S. Weinberg to J. A. Wheeler from S. Hawking to R. Penrose from F. Crick to R. Dawkins from N. Chomsky to J.Eccles from M.Minsky to M. Gell-Mann from I. Prigogine to F. Fukuyama Epistemology and Mathematics, Physics, Cosmology, Cybernetics, Evolutionary Biology, Neurosciences, Social Sciences, Futurology…. For the most part these over-reachers have only one option: to pursue science in a speculative, nonempirical mode that I call Ironic Science This resembles literature or philosophy or theology in that it offers points of view, opinions, which are, at best, "interesting" which provoke further comments and questions, but it doesn’t go beyond the knowledge we have already, so it doesn’t converge on the truth The end of science: ironic science is its most evident symptom 20 Aprile 2009 COHERENCE 2009 2 Sergio Bartalucci Scienza Empirica si pone sempre e comunque in contrasto con i paradigmi vigenti e risponde alle domande Leonardo e Copernico Galileo e la caduta dei gravi Planck e le proprietà statistiche della radiazione Einstein e il concetto di azione a distanza Heisenberg e il principio d’indeterminazione Kuhn’s Cycle (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions Paradigm Chi impone un nuovo paradigma si erge sulle spalle dei giganti per dare loro un colpo in testa (I. Newton) 20 Aprile 2009 COHERENCE 2009 Anomaly Crisis Revolution Acceptance Paradigm Shift 3 Ironic Science Sergio Bartalucci It completely agrees with all our present knowledge, but it asks questions which do not allow us to respond: it seems purpose-built for escaping falsification, so it is not scientific, according to Popper’s rule Examples from Horgan’s book Evolutionary Biology: R. Dawkins, S.J.Gould, L. Margulis (Gaia hypothesis with J.Lovelock) Fundamental Physics and Quantum Cosmology: Superstrings (E. Witten), Inflationary Universe (A. Linde), and Theory of Everything (S. Hawking) but also Extradimensions, Supersymmetry, Quantum Gravity, Grand Unification Theories , Multiverse For most Cosmology puzzles (the fine tuning of density of universe Ω0, cosmological constant Λ) there are only two solutions: either the parallel universes or the anthropic principle! 20 Aprile 2009 COHERENCE 2009 4 Sergio Bartalucci Inflazione co(s)mica (1981) The cosmological constant Λ represents a repulsive force which inflates the Universe in ~ 10 -35 seconds! 20 Aprile 2009 COHERENCE 2009 5 Sergio Bartalucci Ironic Science ≠ Ironic Method, which instead was often the right way to the truth , / ειρωνεια Modo d’interrogare altri fingendo di non sapere, onde sminuirne la sapienza e facendo risaltare invece la propria verità Non mi sembra che tu sappia che chi si trovi a ragionar con Socrate, come capita, ed entri in conversazione con lui, qualsiasi sia il soggetto della discussione, è trascinato torno torno ed è forzato a continuare finchè non casca a render conto di sè, del modo in cui ha trascorso la sua vita; e una volta che c'è cascato, Socrate non lo lascia prima di averlo passato al vaglio ben bene e in ogni parte. Platone, Lachete SALV. Ora ditemi, signor Simplicio: quando Aristotile si trovasse costretto da evidentissime esperienze a permutar in parte questa sua disposizione ed ordine dell'universo, ed a confessare d'essersi ingannato in una di queste due proposizioni, cioè o nel por la Terra nel centro, o nel dir che le sfere celesti si movessero intorno a cotal centro, qual delle due confessioni credete voi ch'egli eleggesse? SIM P. Credo che quando il caso accadesse, i Peripatetici... SALV. Non domando de i Peripatetici, domando d'Aristotile medesimo; ché quanto a quelli so benissimo ciò che risponderebbero. Essi, come reverentissimi ed umilissimi mancipii d'Aristotile, negherebbero tutte l'esperienze e tutte l'osservazioni del mondo, e recuserebbero anco di vederle, per non le avere a confessare, e direbbero che il mondo sta come scrisse Aristotile, e non come vuol la natura; perché, toltogli l'appoggio di quell'autorità, con che vorreste che comparissero in campo? E p erò ditemi pure quel che voi stimate che fusse per far Aristotile medesimo. SIM P. Veramente non mi saprei risolvere, qual de' due inconvenienti e' fusse per reputar minore. Ironic Science can never be falsified, so it has some affinity with Academic Science 20 Aprile 2009 COHERENCE 2009 6 Sergio Bartalucci Ironic Science is not cheap INFN activity on theoretical physics (as from the 2007 Activity Report and PT): 700 full time equivalent (FTE) researchers (100 INFN employees, 350 University profs., 140 postdocs and ~ 250 postgraduates) where the sector ‘Field and String Theories’ is the most important with 200 FTE and 840 k€ funding (salaries not included!) But there are more than 1000 theoretical researchers around the world working on it! Great difficulty in String theory as Theoy of Everything with not a single prediction since 30 years from its start (M. Serone, SISSA) Still there’s no possibility of experimental verification, neither on present nor on future facilities (like the Int.l’ Linear Collider) ! 20 Aprile 2009 COHERENCE 2009 7 Sergio Bartalucci Unconventional Fusion Hot, Cold, Lattice-enabled, Low energy, Condensed Matter, Electro-weakly induced, Sonofusion, ….. Just one definition: unconventional fusion or modern sorcery or pathological science But which one is the true non-science? The ironic or the empirical science? U.F has certainly the character of the empirical science, even too much! Excess heat in experiments and Plasma formation in the theory are the only common denominators; the seldom observed particle production can be only a secondary effect. More than theory, the real missing is phenomenology. No significant progress can be expected without any theoretical scheme, even the most simple, elementary, naïve, physics-textbook-like or, on the contrary, heretical and outrageous, that may drive the scientific revolution of 3rd millennium. 20 Aprile 2009 COHERENCE 2009 8 Sergio Bartalucci “È sorte comune delle nuove verità cominciare come eresie e finire come superstizioni” (T.H. Huxley) With most of dominant physics are we already in the superstition era? Can we go beyond standard QM and Relativity? If a new scientific revolution is to occur nowadays, it can’t be driven but by the heresy of unconventional nuclear fusion 20 Aprile 2009 COHERENCE 2009 9