Math and Science are ALL lies!!

Hah, maths and science aren’t really lies! Got you with the title i see, never mind, take consolation in the fact that many others will surely follow your example.

From a scientist (here i must admit that i do actually own a lab-coat) an attack on modern physics might seem strange, as a general rule all young scientists (yes its not a myth, scientists do not hatch from eggs age 45) are bought-and-sold (to coin a ridiculous phrase) on ideas such a quantum mechanics and particle physics; if you are capable of predicting the future, skipped a few lines or otherwise know where this is going, bear with me. It is my considered opinion that being skeptical of scientific conclusions is the foremost duty of scientists, furthermore, we have abjectly failed in this duty for the last 70 years, theories that make only the briefest jest towards an acceptable interpretation of reality in relation to our sensory perception and understanding thereof, are part-and-parcel of mainstream scientific thinking. Now lets clear some of that big bang detritus and get some things straight, i am not for one moment suggesting that modern physics is not scientifically relevant, it powers real, appreciable ideas and technologies and its prediction of experimental data is amazing; i am treading upon the ground that is so feared by fools, angels and particle physicists… Theoretical Interpretation.

Yes, the very demon that mires quantum mechanics in speculation, lunacy and the occasional exchange of hurtful remarks between physicists; and i will attempt to tackle it, armed only with a keyboard and a sack of bad jokes (i don’t actually own a sack of bad jokes but am willing to purchase any going spare). In fact, noting that discretion is the better part of valour (and the demon does have impressive teeth), i will use the nature of this forum medium in order to make you do the job for me, yes you read that right, getting you to do my work for me, i am just that cunning. In an analogy to Hypocrates: (yes, its a crap analogy but it sounds good if you read it quickly) Skeptic apply yourself to the bastion of skepticism, science! (see it is a bad analogy, it has no flair and makes no sense, i’ll let you decide which is worse)

Ok i’ll be fair and make an example, String Theory, a very popular attempt to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity, in a nut-shell string theory requires the extension of spacetime to a ten dimensional construct and still fails in its purpose, it is a perfect illustration of the depth to which mathematical ideas are now taken to be superior to conceptual theory by scientists today, surely the failures of quantum gravity lead us to conclude there is far more interesting stuff going on and quantum mechanics is not the be-all and end-all, sadly these theories are pursued with almost religious devotion , their every failure serving only to spur on their avid believers.

i will use the nature of this forum medium in order to make you do the job for me, yes you read that right, getting you to do my work for me

No idea what you are talking about, but it sounds interesting - let’s roll!


As an alleged scientist (and, I assume, one with at least some detailed knowledge of the particular topic you raise), one would hope that you are aware that in physics, symmetry considerations play a primary, even a cardinal role in the search for nature’s secrets. They have done so increasingly over the previous 100 years or so. When first proposed in the 80s, string theory was considered a prime candidate for wedding GR and QM owing to its extensive catalogue of symmetries. That it hasn’t panned out as hoped is a setback – but a setback that falls well within the tapping-in-the-dark paradigm of how science proceeds. Nor does it for one instant force the general conclusion that the methodology needs revision. The latter will only become obvious once a new methodology actually brings forth some successes.

Do you honestly think that it’s not so!? Please, then, explain why physicists continue to do fundamental research in these areas, both theoretical and experimental.

You’re not really a physicist, are you? Because that sounds just like the lamenting quasi-critique that usually issues from the humanities.