I made a theory to explain the formation of material phenomenon. It is a simple theory. But it is deeper than modern science. I could simplify the dimensional structure in elementary particles. Also, it shows the existence of the magnetic monopole particle and two fields like electromagnetic fields. But I'm not a physicist or a mathematician. Do you really think the western scientific community will go against Abrahamic religions and accept a theory like that quickly?
@@smlanka4u I'm tempted to say that the scientific community rarely accepts any theory quickly. Any theory, in order to be scientifically useful, has to make testable predictions. And, subsequent experimental results have to agree with those predictions. That typically is not a quick process.
I agree with you, sorta... I have a question for you: Did Newton (who in my humble opinion was the greatest Physicist of all time..."one to rule them all") think along these lines?
If you're asking about books that cover the material on this channel, no, not really. A statistics book will cover the stats concepts on here, but I don't have a recommendation for the rest. (Actually, I started this channel in part because I didn't know of a place where one could find this information collected together!) Sorry!
Great work! Do you know of any result in medicine with five sigma? For that matter do medical researchers even use the standard deviation measures of physics?
Well, I don't keep up on this, but I would naively say there have to be some results that have reached 5 sigma. I am vaguely under the impression that genomics studies can have a large look-elsewhere effect (also called the "multiple-comparisons problem"), which happens when you test many hypotheses; I think this has sometimes forced scientists to even adopt stricter measures than the 5-sigma rule. (I will admit, however, that I wasn't able to confirm this in a quick search I did just now.) But, the basic statistical ideas should carry over into medicine. (The presentation may be a bit different, but the basic ideas will overlap.)
@@ThinkLikeaPhysicist Thanks for the reply! about a week before your video I tried to search on this so your video is timely. I was wondering why when a new drug, vaccine, etc is approved the sigma multiples seem rarely mentioned while when a physics result comes out the sigma level is at the forefront.
@@trevorabbott3907 They do use p-values and confidence intervals; for gaussian errors, you can convert between the two. So, in a lot of cases, the same basic information is there, but in a different form.
A lot of medical research center have a team of statisticians and physicists to complement the medical team so I guess they have these base covered. I would also add that there are branches of physics dealing with medical and biological subjects. These are generally offered as graduate studies to students who completed their undergrads in physics.
this looks more like "Why Think Like a Statistician?". :3 Oh it's not your fault! You described the situation perfectly well. It's just that "explaining foundations" changed to "do the statistics" over the course of the 20th century... A more fundamental theory is needed instead of "Look this looks like SO(3) but we can't explain why and then add some more quarks unaccounted for". The problem is that science is becoming a religion, and no one who thinks outside the religious dogma is allowed to publish. It's a huge problem no one addresses. The Big Brother science. It happens in both math and phys. Probably in all sciences as well. But these two are fundamental. Blocking math and phys is like shooting oneself in a foot at the start of the race. It happens for centuries, and no one addresses this. Just consider Boltzmann and his Thermodynamics no one believed in at the end of the 19th century. You're one of the rare scientists who do admit the theory being a spherical cow. There should be more... More videos! :D \o/
Well, I can make a couple of comments. First, as far as "explaining foundations" vs "doing statistics" goes, it depends on whom you're talking about. Particle physicists are roughly in 2 groups, experimentalists and theorists. Experimentalists build experiments and do data analysis. They very much "do the statistics". Theorists, on the other hand, are the ones looking for new fundamental ideas. (I should note, though, that I'm lumping quite a range of people under the term "theorist"; they range from people whose work is extremely mathematical and not experimentally testable in the near future to people who work intensely with experimental data right now.) So, the people trying to explain the foundations most definitely do exist. Even theorists, however, have to be able to deal with statistics and data on some level, because when they come up with a new idea, one of the first things they have to do is determine if their idea is already ruled out by existing data. As for admitting to spherical cows....well, it depends on whom we're talking to. We basically have to work under the general framework that everything we do is an approximation on some level. So, we definitely admit this to ourselves and to our colleagues. But, this is usually lost when information goes to the outside world. Talk about approximations and uncertainties is, well, kinda boring. It is, however, incredibly important, and we need to do a much better job of communicating it.
"The problem is that science is becoming a religion, and no one who thinks outside the religious dogma is allowed to publish. It's a huge problem no one addresses. The Big Brother science. It happens in both math and phys. Probably in all sciences as well." This video might be of interest to you. "Here's my best explanation for why we ended up in a dark age summarized into six points... modern intellectuals are too zoomed in in their analyses and theories they do not see how interconnected the world is nor how many domains one has to research in order to gain competence." ruclips.net/video/-vYOaagwWZc/видео.html&ab_channel=StevePatterson
@@Hyumanity Start video with the Abstract: summarize all you've got in one or two sentences. Otherwise it is not clear what you're on about. Yes it is clear to me myself, but still, peeps not necessarily understand what you mean by saying the Copenhagen interpretation and the Cantor diagonal argument are flawed. Besides, you keep hitting viewers with sentences that not make much sense necessarily, since there is no goal in mind yet -- you didn't provide an Abstract. Also -- watching your face? Why? Good idea in general though, I do fancy someone else finally talking about dogma and religion in science. But here's another food for thought: if you tell a scientist they are dogmatic, they will call you crackpot. Why? What is so religious in humans? Why would a mathematician be scared to the point of shutting the brain out, pretending not to understand a simplest objections...? This is the fundamental question. I keep bothering Sabine for her religious relationship with the worst possible fraud in modern science -- the Einstein "genius" --, and yet even her, who criticizes everyone, cannot grasp this. She does not strike me as stupid. So she must be scared. So you see -- scratching the surface is nice -- it points in the right direction --, but going deeper is better. Otherwise the viewer might think the surface is all there is. The Abstract is -- someone deliberately undermines science. Just think about it: some Jews getting Nobel Prize for observing some 20 supernovas, and then saying it proves dark energy, even though a century earlier there have been a Hubble-constant-wars, where two teams of astronomers measured H to be 50 and 100. One team used local galactic group, the other team used distant galaxies. This showed us that we are in a void and that the Universe isn't uniform. And yet -- the stupids give the prize to other stupids as if the H wars never existed... Yes, in the "dark energy" model universe goes from decelerating to accelerating at the point where light actually gets into our void. Then, if you want to publish something on it -- you will be blocked by the editors. They are all in a silent agreement to support an invisible agenda. Then, even if you publish something -- you are not being paid. Actually, you have to pay the journal to publish you. Do you begin to see the pattern? Everything is set up so that you cannot do science unless the Big Brother pays you. Otherwise you shall starve. So you see -- yes, there is a dogma+religion problem in science. But by addressing it superficially you are actually making it a dis-service. One should address it properly. Because something should be done. Something should be done NOW. Or otherwise you too shall end up writing superficial irrelevant nonsense by regurgitating some general remarks that lead nowhere your entire life -- for a handful of dollars you get paid only if you are part of the mafia, because it is paid through your university you slave for -- for a handful of dollars. The situation is super alarming. It should be addressed in full.
Hi! Questions?
I made a theory to explain the formation of material phenomenon. It is a simple theory. But it is deeper than modern science. I could simplify the dimensional structure in elementary particles. Also, it shows the existence of the magnetic monopole particle and two fields like electromagnetic fields. But I'm not a physicist or a mathematician. Do you really think the western scientific community will go against Abrahamic religions and accept a theory like that quickly?
@@smlanka4u I'm tempted to say that the scientific community rarely accepts any theory quickly.
Any theory, in order to be scientifically useful, has to make testable predictions. And, subsequent experimental results have to agree with those predictions. That typically is not a quick process.
@@ThinkLikeaPhysicist, Yes. I can understand. Thank you so much for the reply.
@@smlanka4u No problem!
I agree with you, sorta... I have a question for you: Did Newton (who in my humble opinion was the greatest Physicist of all time..."one to rule them all") think along these lines?
I'm afraid I have no idea! ;-) Sorry.
I think we should not consider the word theory because its ambiguous.
I think of as framework and model
Any book recommendation for thinking physicist
If you're asking about books that cover the material on this channel, no, not really. A statistics book will cover the stats concepts on here, but I don't have a recommendation for the rest. (Actually, I started this channel in part because I didn't know of a place where one could find this information collected together!) Sorry!
Cool !!
Great work! Do you know of any result in medicine with five sigma? For that matter do medical researchers even use the standard deviation measures of physics?
Well, I don't keep up on this, but I would naively say there have to be some results that have reached 5 sigma. I am vaguely under the impression that genomics studies can have a large look-elsewhere effect (also called the "multiple-comparisons problem"), which happens when you test many hypotheses; I think this has sometimes forced scientists to even adopt stricter measures than the 5-sigma rule. (I will admit, however, that I wasn't able to confirm this in a quick search I did just now.)
But, the basic statistical ideas should carry over into medicine. (The presentation may be a bit different, but the basic ideas will overlap.)
@@ThinkLikeaPhysicist Thanks for the reply! about a week before your video I tried to search on this so your video is timely. I was wondering why when a new drug, vaccine, etc is approved the sigma multiples seem rarely mentioned while when a physics result comes out the sigma level is at the forefront.
@@trevorabbott3907 They do use p-values and confidence intervals; for gaussian errors, you can convert between the two. So, in a lot of cases, the same basic information is there, but in a different form.
A lot of medical research center have a team of statisticians and physicists to complement the medical team so I guess they have these base covered. I would also add that there are branches of physics dealing with medical and biological subjects. These are generally offered as graduate studies to students who completed their undergrads in physics.
Is physics inductive or deductive reasoning?
Hi! It isn't either, exclusively. We need to use all of the tools at our disposal.
this looks more like "Why Think Like a Statistician?". :3 Oh it's not your fault! You described the situation perfectly well. It's just that "explaining foundations" changed to "do the statistics" over the course of the 20th century... A more fundamental theory is needed instead of "Look this looks like SO(3) but we can't explain why and then add some more quarks unaccounted for". The problem is that science is becoming a religion, and no one who thinks outside the religious dogma is allowed to publish. It's a huge problem no one addresses. The Big Brother science. It happens in both math and phys. Probably in all sciences as well. But these two are fundamental. Blocking math and phys is like shooting oneself in a foot at the start of the race. It happens for centuries, and no one addresses this. Just consider Boltzmann and his Thermodynamics no one believed in at the end of the 19th century. You're one of the rare scientists who do admit the theory being a spherical cow. There should be more... More videos! :D \o/
Well, I can make a couple of comments.
First, as far as "explaining foundations" vs "doing statistics" goes, it depends on whom you're talking about. Particle physicists are roughly in 2 groups, experimentalists and theorists. Experimentalists build experiments and do data analysis. They very much "do the statistics". Theorists, on the other hand, are the ones looking for new fundamental ideas. (I should note, though, that I'm lumping quite a range of people under the term "theorist"; they range from people whose work is extremely mathematical and not experimentally testable in the near future to people who work intensely with experimental data right now.) So, the people trying to explain the foundations most definitely do exist. Even theorists, however, have to be able to deal with statistics and data on some level, because when they come up with a new idea, one of the first things they have to do is determine if their idea is already ruled out by existing data.
As for admitting to spherical cows....well, it depends on whom we're talking to. We basically have to work under the general framework that everything we do is an approximation on some level. So, we definitely admit this to ourselves and to our colleagues. But, this is usually lost when information goes to the outside world. Talk about approximations and uncertainties is, well, kinda boring. It is, however, incredibly important, and we need to do a much better job of communicating it.
"The problem is that science is becoming a religion, and no one who thinks outside the religious dogma is allowed to publish. It's a huge problem no one addresses. The Big Brother science. It happens in both math and phys. Probably in all sciences as well."
This video might be of interest to you. "Here's my best explanation for why we ended up in a dark age summarized into six points... modern intellectuals are too zoomed in in their analyses and theories they do not see how interconnected the world is nor how many domains one has to research in order to gain competence."
ruclips.net/video/-vYOaagwWZc/видео.html&ab_channel=StevePatterson
@@Hyumanity Start video with the Abstract: summarize all you've got in one or two sentences. Otherwise it is not clear what you're on about. Yes it is clear to me myself, but still, peeps not necessarily understand what you mean by saying the Copenhagen interpretation and the Cantor diagonal argument are flawed. Besides, you keep hitting viewers with sentences that not make much sense necessarily, since there is no goal in mind yet -- you didn't provide an Abstract. Also -- watching your face? Why? Good idea in general though, I do fancy someone else finally talking about dogma and religion in science. But here's another food for thought: if you tell a scientist they are dogmatic, they will call you crackpot. Why? What is so religious in humans? Why would a mathematician be scared to the point of shutting the brain out, pretending not to understand a simplest objections...? This is the fundamental question. I keep bothering Sabine for her religious relationship with the worst possible fraud in modern science -- the Einstein "genius" --, and yet even her, who criticizes everyone, cannot grasp this. She does not strike me as stupid. So she must be scared. So you see -- scratching the surface is nice -- it points in the right direction --, but going deeper is better. Otherwise the viewer might think the surface is all there is. The Abstract is -- someone deliberately undermines science. Just think about it: some Jews getting Nobel Prize for observing some 20 supernovas, and then saying it proves dark energy, even though a century earlier there have been a Hubble-constant-wars, where two teams of astronomers measured H to be 50 and 100. One team used local galactic group, the other team used distant galaxies. This showed us that we are in a void and that the Universe isn't uniform. And yet -- the stupids give the prize to other stupids as if the H wars never existed... Yes, in the "dark energy" model universe goes from decelerating to accelerating at the point where light actually gets into our void. Then, if you want to publish something on it -- you will be blocked by the editors. They are all in a silent agreement to support an invisible agenda. Then, even if you publish something -- you are not being paid. Actually, you have to pay the journal to publish you. Do you begin to see the pattern? Everything is set up so that you cannot do science unless the Big Brother pays you. Otherwise you shall starve. So you see -- yes, there is a dogma+religion problem in science. But by addressing it superficially you are actually making it a dis-service. One should address it properly. Because something should be done. Something should be done NOW. Or otherwise you too shall end up writing superficial irrelevant nonsense by regurgitating some general remarks that lead nowhere your entire life -- for a handful of dollars you get paid only if you are part of the mafia, because it is paid through your university you slave for -- for a handful of dollars. The situation is super alarming. It should be addressed in full.
Cool !!!