The recent development of elementary particle theory / discussion & Q & A

0:00 And I believe that, in fact, that, I don't know if you want me to say that, and I think that Cameron's point is psychological, I think, and I think that, that, that, you use it and put it away. There's some doubt whether or not it's going to be used in mathematics. Well, the problem might be that there are so many of them. I think that, tell me, which analysis do you think it's at? Success in editing. We do speak of the theory of success in science, success in prediction. Now, do you use this word? Well, all right. Then what constitutes your picture? Well, I mean, it's clearly a social thing. We'll agree that some of this is a social thing. And which people are these privileged people? Let me talk about a specific example, then we can do science. As soon as this one was discovered, people offered a whole variety of models. One of them was an atomic model, which everybody knew how to work with, and this one was just a set of models, which maybe required one type of general theory. In other words, they got kind of resources which you can actually import. By this stage, there are only two models that come. Both of them have got points to be run with. In the case of Chan, what was wrong was that these models were a bit too long, they were too narrow. What the Chan theory was saying was that they imported QCD, the property of absolute truth.

2:30 And of course, there's just a personal feeling of adherence to that. Or was there a deep reason why they failed? I can't say there's a deep reason. But do you allow the possibility of it? What is it? I've never seen anybody talk about it. I mean, the only way that I know that people... You see, you did talk about it. It was to say all models have tools that cut them away. Now, what is it that's giving us cutting away worlds? What is it? They failed, which is obviously not a success. Yeah, but I mean, the reason why Haller failed was that it couldn't invent... ...an explanation of the suppression of the radiation transitions. If one of these kind of figures is a child with a nice ontological explanation, I'd be willing to bring her in for an event. Or they would carry on. I don't know why they couldn't. I mean, I don't think that's true. Yeah, but the fact that you suggest that suggests that you also know other possibilities. It isn't just stupidity that makes theoristic infertile. It may be that there are bad theories. It would be that within the culture of concern, they put a successful theory, supplies answers which, right or wrong, are important to them, even if you may again invent them, you know, arise spontaneously, and it provides answers to whatever that society needs. Objectively, they may, if it works for the society, that's a successful theory. Now, someone might come up with that. In the same society, that's separate.

5:00 But it's correct theory will fall by the wayside if it doesn't have the self-supporting network of ideas. So, within the context of the culture, would it be that you have a need to consider the basic network of self-supporting ideas? And at that point, mathematics is successful. Because you're seducing him, you're allowing him that the theory, you see, you said the theory may be hogwash. What do you mean by that? You can't accept it. There's no such thing as hogwash. There's only acceptability or non-acceptability to the political context. You see, you know you are fools about it. Let us not have any spurious access here. You see, because you all did say that the theory works, from that particular point of view, the objective is the same. No, but you say the right or wrong. I think what I'm doing is confusing what is essentially a socially orientated theory, which is like religion, as opposed to something which is dealing with physical objects, where you more easily have a... Something approaching an objective criteria. And it's not the view of the lecturer, I take it. It's not the view of the lecturer. Exactly. And in a sense, it isn't even a logical discovery if the word discovery suggests something objective. A sociological... I mean, you see, I actually think that your sociological thesis is very interesting. I mean, I understand why the clinics that make sound seem to make sense. I think that this logical discovery is irrelevant because you don't even admit discoveries.

7:30 Just to say something to you and discover it, somehow suggests that it's a transcendence of the cultural barrier or whatever. I mean I can't say new things can be done because they are analogical to each other. We have a resonance which we might study in quantum research. No, I mean you say have a complete reverse. That is to say, you see, the Roman aminos was discovered. We do glibly talk of hydrogen atoms, you know. We believe that there are line spectra, we believe that there are atoms and so on. Now, in your view, the sufficiently great revolution in social context might, in a sense, destroy all that, the validity or whatever of all that. Oh, yes, okay, so that's exactly it. Just shoot the present one and start again. And, you know, atomic theory may or may not arise, but there's no particular reason to believe that the new generation will come to these quite arbitrary previous conclusions, because, you know, they are brought up in some kind of commune, you know, where other spirits prevail and, you know, the ether theory will turn out right and, you know. Dr. Michelson-Morley examined it, will it be reversed, and so on. In respect to that, can you not use the theory as the same sort of sociological model for the world? So we've put in this detail dozens of scientists creating mechanical models which represent the vehicle. And the detail in the set of papers is very, very popular. Every single journal has another sort of model spring here or something, connection there. And yet, as it is in all these papers, I mean, they imported things that people understood, put down and sort of break that in. So that you can use your model. And yet, because we're far enough away from it, we can look back and see that at a certain point, it was all sort of white. But at the moment, anyway, it might come back.

10:00 Well, yeah. People talk about using... This is what I'm wondering. Use your model of how science develops. Bad science. To which? Bad science. I mean, that's the thought that came to my mind. I mean, we now tend to think that there's a whole ether program in that. Of course it didn't have to be a couple of bad times, it was a kind of pleasant day that I went to the party. Well, I don't know what you mean about that. I mean, do you feel that? I mean, I think you're confused, but I mean, do you feel that this is good or bad science? It's all the same. I think we need an extreme install of people. Yeah, that's a good question. I mean, no one down the line is very clever, but they may be clever people for science. Clever? It doesn't mean that their brain is objectively bound in a certain way? That they actually talk logic? Or is that again just your view? Clever? Alright, let me forget it. Let me say this. I'm only an expert on history. And they remind me of facts. You didn't use the word clever. You used the word sound. The government used the word clever. And it's very interesting that you used the word sound. No, but you, yes, I know, but you said that the speaker didn't use the word clever, he used the word sound. How could you call it that? What do you mean by saying that there are sounds? They have a certain attitude to the conversation. But it's perfectly possible. You can say it as well. What do you mean? It's good to be in an isolated culture. I thought you, I thought a few of you... Oh yes, yes, but I mean...

12:30 I would just suggest that... There is no bad science. There's only science that goes on. I'm confused. Well, you're not. Yeah, it seems to have been by all right, our nation should be basically a liberal one. I mean, is that my memory that he sort of says things like that, the way he produces it? In the sense of it, do you think there's any sort of thing quite all right about it? Well, from the nature of space and time, there's too much to mention, in fact. Yes, yes. I'm incredibly suspicious of these people. Well, there's a hint of that. How do I know better than you? Well, that's another thing that I don't feel that it's kind of dyslexic. I mean, it's the local age of burns that I know. From China, when you put in a dissertation, I don't remember this particular high-energy machine, there was a constantly low-energy machine, and she worked for a bit.

15:00 Sorry, that's what I was trying to say. Maybe it was that. There was a machine with three architects, I mentioned this before, and every year three graduate students are in the future. I would be interested, you know, I mean, I would actually be interested, I wonder if you can refer to that as giving him any kind of inspiration. Not specifically what it's talking about, but I eventually target at that time people with strong interest. Oh yes, I remember for instance a remark by Fermi that to me was totally obscure, but of course not to Yang. I mean now it is an obvious remark. There was some discussion of why a certain reaction would take place. This was in 1947, I think. Why a sudden reaction didn't take place. And Fermi said something like, there must be something like charge and so on and so forth. You know, I just couldn't understand it. Now, of course, it's a cliché that there's charge and strange and so on. But at that time, there was no analog to charge. And so, I mean, certainly the presence of Fermi, I can well understand, was an inspiration for Yang. No, no, I don't want to, you know, I mean, if there is anything in it, I would be very interested. No, I want to explain. This is one, but you don't have to explain. Sorry, Einstein was not. Yeah, I forgot about that. Yes, yes. Well, certainly, Schauce in the Penrose, yes.

17:30 Oh, yes, yes. Yes, but okay, yes, yes. Yes, yes, okay, it's very interesting. When was it? Ninety-three? Ninety-three. You've been messing around with it for a couple of years. Yes. At that time, of course, it wasn't close. So, I mean, by hindsight, that looks the right way to approach it. But you still find people who are hand-waving all the time. I thought so, too. One of the striking features of basic physics textbooks is uncertainty. Are I right to assume that textbooks on first religions, for the last 25 years, have to adopt the knowledge of a monstrosity? I'm not familiar with all of the textbooks. The ones I know often have little caveats at the beginning, and then present everything in a very logical order.

20:00 I think they're used to that in terms of what you might want to understand. Perhaps I don't want to chat with everyone. No, thank you. It happens that there is, of course, the usual dogmatism in all the textbooks, even, no, even on parallel subjects. But it is true also that there is a sort of safeguard, just as there is this ludicrous philosophical introduction, there is then the totally open-ended, you know, what could happen in the future, you know, just to, you know, hedge your bets. Well, thank you very much indeed for your patience.