A couple of quantum gravity theories were proposed to make theoretical predictions about the behavior of gravity. The most recent approach to quantum gravity, called E-theory, is proposed mathematical, but there is not formulated much about what dynamics of gravity this theory proposes. This research paper treats the main results of the application of E-theory to General relativity involving conservation laws and scattering of particles in presence of gravity. Also the low-energy limit of this theory is shown.
Contemporary scientific research faces major cultural and institutional hurdles. Some of the primary challenges include an exploding knowledge base and organizational complexity of many scientific projects, the overproduction of PhDs relative to the availability of faculty positions, and protracted educational trajectories for many aspiring researchers. Perhaps the most serious set of consequences caused by the fierce competition of modern science are low rates of reproducibility in research studies across many disciplines, a startling reality which undermines the scientific process and institutional authority itself. In an increasingly interconnected intellectual world, where fundamental and applied research are deeply interwoven, the implications of this state of affairs extend well beyond the research laboratory. In this article, I explore one possible strategy among the many necessary interventions for addressing these critical global issues, namely, new graduate programs to train scientific generalists. Rather than focus on developing niche technical skills, these programs would train outstanding communicators and decision makers who have been exposed to multiple subjects at the graduate level. The motivation for creating such programs is to introduce a large number of exceptionally trained individuals across all industries and organizations who have been encouraged to think critically about the practical realities and contemporary cultural trends of scientific research. I suggest possible avenues for structuring such programs and examine the roles that generalists might play in the modern research, policy, and industrial landscape.
The following is a short, possibly humorous essay providing two concrete ideas to increase reproducibility in science research. The two ideas are united under the notion of a “culture of reproducibility”. The first idea is hiring different kinds of professionals in the research ecosystem whose job is to ensure reproducibility and impact. The second idea is to require reproducibility risk-management plans in funding applications. Together, these actions are an investment into the infrastructure of research for increased impact and accountability, along with a stronger conception of reproducibility. It will also solve the world energy crisis for under half a million USD by June. No citation software was harmed in the production of this essay.
The currently prevailing theory of a transmissible cancer cell lineage in Tasmanian devils was based on the discovery of apparently identical chromosomal aberrations in facial tumors of several animals. New findings of facial tumors that have no detectable cytogenetic similarities to previously published cancer karyotypes and the recent detection of varying portions of chromosome Y in all tumor cell lines of male devils (but none in tumors of females) cast doubt on the theory of a cancer transplant. Thus, I propose an alternative scenario in which similar chromosomal and genetic aberrations in individual cancers are a consequence of the low genetic diversity in populations of the Tasmanian devil resulting in a unique telomere length profile. Critically short telomeres on certain chromosome ends lead to chromosome-specific fusions and the activation of species-specific transposable elements that cause the observed karyotypic and molecular convergence. This new concept can explain the existence of genetic signs of tumor clonality within a population despite the independent origin of each facial cancer in these cancer-prone animals.
It may seem odd to assert that patient brooding and waiting for imaginative validation is the proper way of doing science; after all, most professional scientists and philosophers believe that the essence of science is ‘evidence’ derived from observations and experiments, synthesized by some kind of logical and rational method. But personal experience, history and theoretical considerations all suggest that a prolonged state of ‘patient brooding’ is the hallmark and prerequisite of ‘deep science’; a practical necessity for the most creative and significant breakthroughs.
I work in areas of formal epistemology, philosophy of mathematics, decision theory, and am increasingly interested in issues of social epistemology and collective action, both as they relate to my earlier areas and in other ways. I’ve done work on various paradoxes of the infinite in probability and decision theory, on the foundations of Bayesianism, on the social epistemology of mathematics, and written one weird paper using metaphysics to derive conclusions about physics. Links of Interest: My research website including links and descriptions to most of my papers. My appearance (in 2015) on Julia Galef’s “Rationally Speaking” podcast, discussing Newcomb’s Paradox, its connection to other issues in decision theory and free will, and what I call a “tragedy of rationality”. A discussion (from 2011) with Jonathan Weisberg about the role of accuracy in constraining beliefs and probabilities, and their connection, on Philosophy TV. The idea of this discussion eventually became my Dr. Truthlove paper in Nous (paper available from Philosophers’ Annual - 10 Best Papers of 2015) My paper “Decision Theory without Representation Theorems”, at the open access journal Philosophers’ Imprint. My old blog, Antimeta, which I ran for several years in graduate school, discussing issues in philosophy of mathematics, probability, and occasionally metaphysics. My posts from the period 2005-2009 on Brian Weatherson’s blog, Thoughts, Arguments, and Rants.
Hello Reddit! I’m Charles Day and I’m the editor-in- chief of Physics Today. The magazine goes out every month to the 100,000 members of the 10 professional societies that belong to the American Institute of Physics. We cover all of physics and its related sciences at a technical level that all physicists can understand. Physics Today also has a comprehensive website, which I encourage you to visit, and a thriving presence on social media. My main responsibilities as editor-in- chief include identifying topics and authors for our expert-written feature articles, editing news stories, writing a monthly editorial, and managing a team of 10 editors. Before I joined Physics Today I worked as an X-ray astronomer at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, where helped to run two satellite observatories, ASCA and RXTE. I also studied the million-degree plasmas that swirl around black holes and neutron stars. I’m happy to answer questions about physics, science journalism, the impact of physics on society and the portrayal of physics in the media. I’ll start fielding questions at 1pm EST. AMA!
I’m Duncan Pritchard, Chancellor’s Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Irvine, and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Edinburgh. I work mainly in epistemology. In my first book, Epistemic Luck, (Oxford UP, 2005), I argued for a distinctive methodology that I call anti-luck epistemology, and along the way offered a modal account of luck. In my second book, The Nature and Value of Knowledge: Three Investigations, (with A. Haddock & A. Millar), (Oxford UP, 2010), I expanded on anti-luck epistemology to offer a new theory of knowledge (anti-luck virtue epistemology), and also explained how knowledge relates to such cognate notions as understanding and cognitive achievement. I also discussed the topic of epistemic value. In my third book, Epistemological Disjunctivism, (Oxford UP, 2012), I defended a radical conception of perceptual knowledge, one that treats such knowledge as paradigmatically supported by reasons that are both rational and reflectively accessible. In my most recent book, Epistemic Angst: Radical Skepticism and the Groundlessness of Our Believing, (Princeton UP, 2015), I offer an innovative response to the problem of radical scepticism. This argues that what looks like a single problem is in fact two logically distinct problems in disguise. Accordingly, I argue that we need a ‘biscopic’ resolution to scepticism that is suitably sensitive to each aspect of the sceptical difficulty. To this end I bring together two approaches to radical scepticism that have hitherto been thought to be competing, but which I argue are in fact complementary—viz., epistemological disjunctivism and a Wittgensteinian hinge epistemology. Right now I’m working on a new book on scepticism as part of Oxford UP’s ‘a very short introduction to’ series. I’m also developing my recent work on risk and luck, particularly with regard to epistemic risk, and I’m interested in ‘applied’ topics in epistemology, such as the epistemology of education, the epistemology of law, the epistemology of religious belief, and the epistemological implications of extended cognition. I’m the Editor-in-Chief of the online journal Oxford Bibliographies: Philosophy, and co-Editor-in-Chief of the journal International Journal for the Study of Skepticism. I am also the series editor of two book series, Palgrave Innovations in Philosophy and Brill Studies in Skepticism. I’ve edited a lot of volumes, and also written/edited several textbooks. On the latter front, see especially What is this Thing Called Philosophy?, (Routledge, 2015), Epistemology, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), and What is this Thing Called Knowledge?, (Routledge, 4th ed. 2018). I’ve been involved with numerous MOOCs (= Massive Open Online Courses), including the ‘Introduction to Philosophy’ course which was for one time the world’s most popular MOOC. I’ve also been involved with a successful Philosophy in Prisons programme. I’ve led quite a few large externally funded projects, often of an interdisciplinary nature. Some highlights include a major AHRC-funded project (c. £510K) on Extended Knowledge, and two Templeton-funded projects, Philosophy, Science and Religion Online (c. £1.5M), and Intellectual Humility MOOC (c. £400K). In 2007 I was awarded the Philip Leverhulme Prize and in 2011 I was elected to a Fellowship of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. In 2013 I delivered the annual Soochow Lectures in Philosophy in Taiwan. My Google Scholar Profile is here. If you want to know what will eventually cause my demise, click here. Links of Interest: I was recently interviewed by 3AM: Magazine Another recent interview, this time with the Italian online journal, APhEx (PDF) The Introduction to my latest monograph, Epistemic Angst: Radical Skepticism and the Groundlessness of Our Believing (Princeton UP, 2015) “Epistemological Disjunctivism: A First Pass”, the opening chapter to Epistemological Disjunctivism (Oxford UP, 2012) A fairly recent video of a talk I gave at a conference in Bonn that gives an overview of my stance on radical scepticism A fairly recent video of a talk on ‘Faith and Reason’ that I gave to a conference (aimed at a general audience) organized by the Royal Institute of Philosophy A ‘research in a nutshell’ video that I recorded a few years ago A recent blog post on ‘Intellectual Humility and Conviction’, for the Open For Debate Blog A recent blog post on ‘Farewell to Epistemic Angst’, for the Imperfect Cognitions Blog “The Value of Knowledge”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article EDIT: Thanks everyone for your questions! I apologise to all those I didn’t get to, and thanks to everyone for having me.
Hi Reddit, We’re Margaret Kosmala and Koen Hufkens at Harvard University and Josh Gray at Boston University. We’re part of a research group that has been putting automated cameras on weather towers and other elevated platforms to study the the seasonal timing of changes in plants, shrubs, and trees – called ‘phenology’. Because this timing of when plants leaf, flower, and fruit is very sensitive to changes in weather, plant phenology alerts us to changing climate patterns. Our network of about 300 cameras (’PhenoCams’) take pictures of vegetated landscapes every half hour, every day, all year round. (That’s a lot of pictures!) With the data from these images we can figure the relationships between plant phenology and local weather and then predict the effects of future climate using models. We also use images from satellites to broaden the extent of our analyses beyond the 300 specific sites where we have cameras. And we use citizen science to help turn our PhenoCam images into usable data, through our Season Spotter project. Anyone can go to Season Spotter and answer a few short questions about an image to help us better interpret the image. Right now we are running a “spring challenge” to classify 9,500 images of springtime. With the results, we will be able to pinpoint the first and last days of spring, which will help calibrate climate change models. UPDATE: We’re done with our Season Spotter spring images, thanks! Since it’s fall in half the world, we’ve loaded up our fall images. We have another 9,700 of those to classify, as well. We’ll be back at 1 pm EDT (10 am PDT, 6 pm UTC) to answer your questions; we’re looking forward to talking to you about climate change, plants, and public participation in science! UPDATE 1 pm Eastern: We’re now answering questions! UPDATE 3 pm Eastern: Josh has to leave for a meeting. But Koen and Margaret will stick around and answer some more questions. Ask away if you have more of them. UPDATE 5 pm Eastern: Koen and I are done for the day, and we’ve had a lot of fun. Thank you all for so many insightful and interesting questions! We’ll try to get to more of the ones we missed tomorrow.
Hi, I’m Adam Becker, PhD, an astrophysicist and science writer. My new book, What Is Real? The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics, is about the scientists who bucked the establishment and looked for a better way to understand what quantum mechanics is telling us about the nature of reality. It’s a history of quantum foundations from the initial development of quantum mechanics to the present, focusing on some people who don’t often get the spotlight in most books on quantum history: David Bohm, Hugh Everett III, John Bell, and the people who came after them (e.g. Clauser, Shimony, Zeh, Aspect). I’m happy to talk about all of their work: the physics, the history, the philosophy, and more. FWIW, I don’t subscribe to any particular interpretation, but I’m not a fan of the “Copenhagen interpretation” (which isn’t even a single coherent position anyhow). Please don’t shy away if you disagree. Feel free to throw whatever you’ve got at me, and let’s have a fun, engaging, and respectful conversation on one of the most contentious subjects in physics. Or just ask whatever else you want to ask—after all, this is AMA. Edit, 2PM Eastern: Gotta step away for a bit. I’ll be back in an hour or so to answer more questions. Edit, 6:25PM Eastern: Looks like I’ve answered all of your questions so far, but I’d be happy to answer more. I’ll check back in another couple of hours. Edit, 11:15PM Eastern: OK, I’m out for the night, but I’ll check in again tomorrow morning for any final questions.