Comments on: Here’s What Needs to be Explained

By: Vladimir Kalitvianski

Vladimir Kalitvianski — Sat, 25 Dec 2010 00:02:06 +0000

I found a simple explanation why renormalizations “work”. See http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.4416

Roughly, renormalizations (subtractions) remove wrong contributions of self-action from the total interaction Hamiltonian. This understanding opens, I think, a healthy way of constructing theories without UV and IR divergences.

By: Vladimir Kalitvianski

Vladimir Kalitvianski — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 23:54:32 +0000

I found an simple explanation why renormalizations “work”. See http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.4416

By: Robert Huang, Canada

Robert Huang, Canada — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 01:39:21 +0000

Regarding “consciousness”, I am reading “The origin of consciousness in the break down of the bicameral mind” by Julian Jaynes. 1/4 way through. Interesting. Will find out what the “word” really represents. It is very dificult to match the meaning of words since the neurons in each person’s head conditioned differently, especially, the big words.

By: Ray

Ray — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 20:27:30 +0000

Most ‘mysteries’ are amenable to further research and discovery, at least in theory. I do, however, wonder if Consciousness isn’t the biggest unanswered question. With the idea in mind that a well-formulated question is a large part of the answer, I suspect we need a new way of looking at the question. I haven’t seen a definition of consciousness that is completely satisfying. Looked at philosophically or mechanically, nobody seems to be able to define it in a useful way.

By: Robert Huang, Canada

Robert Huang, Canada — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 21:30:33 +0000

In addition to the seeing part, has anybody done calculations as to how fast an object travels that eyes cannot see, distance limitation as well as the reaction time of the brain vs the relative volcity?

By: Robert Huang, Canada

Robert Huang, Canada — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 18:44:47 +0000

Earth was the center of the observed universe until Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler and Galileo Gallei proved it was not the case. Certainly, neither is the Sun as we know it today. However, the Homo sapiens centric model as you have stated at the conclusion of your book, From Eternity to Here, is still the common belief as in the geocentric days.
Although Homo sapiens does have the appearance of the most effective communication ability (it cannot be said that other living things do not have superior form since we do not understand and able to communicate with them), other living things have proven that they can have apparently superior sensory functions. With this observation, I trust there is more than what we can “see”.
Since our vision is determined by the existence of “photon” with finite speed, my question is how can we rely what we can see, such as red shift, the distance galaxies and other observable things, in theorizing on things that we cannot see? In other words, can we trust what we see?
Since photons take time to enable our vision, we can only see the “past”. However, we can infer the existence of a “present “. After all, Sun does rise and set with a regular pattern. Better yet, with the reference frame of a blind person without the corruption of learning about time, he can tell the seeing the existence of a “present”. Does this reference frame proves the co-existence of future with past and present in the space time continuum except it is not visible to the seeing?

By: RM

RM — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 18:37:53 +0000

I think most of the topics listed under Meta ought to be be explained as aspects of the the scientific method.

So long as many people think a theory is “just an idea”, a lot can be gained from explaining the scientific method. It should be part of the curriculum of basic education.

By: Dynamic Diagrams Information Design Watch : Two-fer Friday: Science Visualizations Way Small and Way Big

Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:26:56 +0000

[...] not sure how many of these can be explained in a visual explanation; the results for “specific” concepts might fare better. Share This [...]

By: Dunc

Dunc — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 13:49:50 +0000

“I would say that quantum mechanics is explained in many places, but very rarely is it explained well.”

Is it even possible to explain quantum mechanics well?

By: Charlie C

Charlie C — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 13:39:22 +0000

Sean, what is the next step?

By: Torbjörn Larsson, OM

Torbjörn Larsson, OM — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 23:28:48 +0000

“NSF, as a federal US agency that should hold up US constitution of separation between science and religion”.

I wish; meanwhile, they should hold up US constitution of separation between *state* and religion.

By: Torbjörn Larsson, OM

Torbjörn Larsson, OM — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 22:58:55 +0000

The winner by a wide margin was the meta issue of “the scientific method.” Which raises another question: do we agree on what the scientific method is?

Quite right. Most of the meta issues (statistics, certainty, scientists, testing, …) can be folded into the larger issue.

@ Josh Rosenau:

I prefer talking about scientific processes, and I would urge people to lean heavily on [...] as an awesome source of material on how to teach about the nature of science. It’s an NSF funded project based on peer-reviewed research on education.

Of course you would, it is an accommodationist religious site:

“Science doesn’t draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won’t help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality.”

Do you really expect Sean Carroll to be aboard with blatant theology like that? We know that science rejects many supernatural claims like the existence of 3 day old zombies of some cults, the making of wine from water of others, or that the world need to be created by outside influence by yet others.

In fact, it isn’t very difficult to see that science production of natural hypotheses amassed enough tested and codependent hypotheses around 1970-1980 (IIRC, it was some time since I crunched the numbers) to make a binomial test for materialism theory, monism of nature, that rejects dualism of any kind.

If that is the case, if we can reject supernaturalism dualism on the basis of observation, there is no foundation for making the claim that it is “by definition” beyond science. And of course the long standing tradition of science revealing parapsychology, tooth fairies and other supernatural claims as false tell us likewise.

Such a “beyond science” claim has no basis in science, indeed “by definition”; it is purely dogmatic theological storytelling, while observation and theory on the other hand is an open-ended process. NSF, as a federal US agency that should hold up US constitution of separation between science and religion, should know better than to make religious claims on science. In fact, if you are in any way involved in education and/or science as I remember being the case, you should too.

By: F*cking magnets: how do they work? | Paleocave Blog

F*cking magnets: how do they work? | Paleocave Blog — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 19:24:10 +0000

[...] their names), we’re actually wondering aloud about them. For instance, it topped one of the Lists of things people want famous physicist Sean Carroll to explain. Recently I’ve even come [...]

By: Low Math, Meekly Interacting

Low Math, Meekly Interacting — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 16:02:01 +0000

To put in a plug for emergence: Heck, I’d settle for an adequate definition.

By: Charon

Charon — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 05:45:44 +0000

I prefer the pure, romantically idealized version of duck sex: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXPcBI4CJc8

By: links for 2010-11-15 « Science Training for Journalists

links for 2010-11-15 « Science Training for Journalists — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 23:11:06 +0000

[...] Here’s What Needs to be Explained | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine The winner by a wide margin was the meta issue of “the scientific method.” Which raises another question: do we agree on what the scientific method is? I suspect not. But I am completely on board with the idea that “how science works” is not explained very well, and possibly a higher priority than any particular scientific concept. [...]

By: Matt B.

Matt B. — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 22:35:51 +0000

I wasn’t reading over the weekend, or I might have suggested “enumeration of favorable circumstances”. It could replace one of the 2 appearances of “comparative advantage” in the Specific list.

By: Josh Rosenau

Josh Rosenau — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 21:37:10 +0000

I’d skip “the scientific method” as there is not one unitary “scientific method.” I prefer talking about scientific processes, and I would urge people to lean heavily on http://undsci.berkeley.edu as an awesome source of material on how to teach about the nature of science. It’s an NSF funded project based on peer-reviewed research on education.

By: spyder

spyder — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 21:11:13 +0000

Well, here is a new/50 million year old story that seems to involve many of the above components yet hasn't garnered the just-due diligence of explaining the import of the science involved. The casual reporting of the birth of a black hole seems particularly important i might be led to think.

By: Non-Believer

Non-Believer — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 18:34:46 +0000

I voted for Quantam Mechanics, but my original thought was scientific method. I decided it was not a concept as much as a process. I’m glad others voted for it. Its such an important thing that needs to be understood. If people understood it better, they would be less likely to jump to the most unlikely conclusions or have unrealistic expectations from initial findings in some experiment. (read media headlines that extrapolate ridiculous ideas from experiments.)

Is this a list you plan to do something with?