The mathematization of theoretical physics

If you're talking about the Pioneer anomaly, most of us aren't interested because there is 99.95% chance that it was just a systematic.
Also the satellite being sent out to test it won't be ready for about a year or two.

And this is making your case that physicists are more interested in the way the real world behaves versus their mathematical model?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

What? There is a 99.95% chance it is a systematic. It was something that was blown out of all proportion by the media.
However given that, we are still testing it by sending out the first in a series of satellites two years from now.So yes, I think that does make my case, as does my previous post.EDIT:Systematic, not schematic.This message has been edited by Son Goku, 03-21-2006 08:45 AM

That's like claiming that evolution breaks 2LOT. You have to look at the entire picture to understand what's going on. Only from that vantage point are you going to appreciate any simplification. Unfortunately, gaining that vantage requires immersion in the subject. Reading Greene doesn't cut it. Have you heard of the gravity probes? You really are confusing practical cosmologists with theoretical physicists. It's possibly my fault becasue I have experience from all these fields and discuss the whole picture. But that is not how research is carried out. Why would a string theorist trying to produce a viable theory that gives rise to the observed particle families, working in a particle phsyics department, care about some possible tiny anomaly that even if it exists may or may not have a gravtational origin? If there is an anomaly, IF and that is far from determined, then it is an observed accelerational anomaly. Whether it is gravitational or not is even less established. Because it seems to be an error. Nothing else has picked it up. The gravity probes which are far more sensitive haven't picked it up. It doesn't warrant huge spend on it... yet.It may be a real gravitational effect, in which case there will be huge celebrations and millions of papers will be written, but we will wait to see if real evidence that it exists starts to accumulate.It is far far far too early. Just becasue you've read about it and a couple of papers have been written doesn't mean that it is real. Far more has been written and published on crop circles yet they don't appear in many of my equations... yet.

Yes. My understanding is that {it\they} will be in near earth space, to test the effect of earth on space:
NASA - Gravity Probe Launched It was launched some two years ago?
Gravity Probe B: Testing Einstein's Universe Then there is Gravity Probe A (the first one):
Gravity Probe A - Wikipedia Then there's Gravity Probe C, or is there? Seems there are two or three proposals?But am I missing something? Is there one going into deep space? On the trail of the pioneers? Out to where the anomalies become measurable?The topic suposedly has to do with the relative reliance on mathematics and on evidence, and so far you are both dismissing possible evidence that challenges the mathematics.Many a breakthrough occurs, not when someone says "eureka" but "that's curious ... "Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Yes We've never sent anything into "deep space". But yes, as I understand it, there is a probe being prepared by ESA. SG seems to know more about it. Perhaps he can elucidate.Here's a quote by Turyshev and Anderson, the guys who discovered the anomaly...

quote:

---

Dispassionately, the most likely cause of the anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft is on-board systematics, but the smoking gun has not yet been found. The only other possibility is the existence of new physics. This dichotomy represents a healthy win-win situation because either one of these two explanations for the Pioneer anomaly would constitute an extremely important discovery.

---

Most are quite content to sit back and wait. As I said before, when something definitive arrives you will not be able to avoid the rush towards publication... the discovery of lambda demonstrates that quite nicely.

What do you think the WMAP three year study was for. Every single Cosmologist was waiting for it.
I said we weren't interested in the Pioneer anomaly, because it is most likely a systematic, just because something is "big news" in the media doesn't mean it has that much merit.
However it is still going to be tested, because as unlikely as it is we're still interested enough to make sure we aren't missing something.The WMAP study shows General Relativity still stands and the WMAP is the harshest set of cosmological tests I've ever seen.I'm going to ask you where is the evidence we're dismissing?
From what source?
I also don't see where this "elegant solution" criticism comes in.