Engineer view of science

Phenomenon description may require deep mathematics as it often does – deep theory of partial differentiation, tensor calculus and quantum notation is required to understand deep physics and cutting edge chemistry. It is deeper than me. Same time, I am not so stupid that events have to be reduced to philosophy or law for me to understand them! Can I make a scientific (observer independent, empirical) description of my level of understanding? Pragmatically, I am looking to a level of good intermediate, not an expert in any field, not scared of algebraic mathematics, but certainly far more competent than most doctors, lawyers and business types.

A perfect example came by me, recently. It is discussed next. Not only will you learn about what I want, but the fascinating subject matter – dark matter to be precise.

https://phys.org/news/2016-06-knowns-unknowns-dark.html

Most scientists and astronomers believe that normal visible matter is 5% of the universe, reachable and explainable by telescopes. Rest 95% is dark matter and dark energy – responsible for galaxy formation and accelerated universe inflation. When you try to understand why scientists so believe, one goes into deep astronomy and galactic measurements. Two big reasons are

1.       Star rotation towards the end of galaxies (away from center) is too fast (compared to newton law of inverse square. Dark matter explain simply is that there is lot of it more rotating matter not visible to us, hence the too fast rotations are simply wrong calculations from low mass estimates! Black matter is uniform, too small to effect speeds of inner stars, but substantial further away, hence hi speeds.

2.       Distant galaxies show up in multiple images, as if there was intervening matter between, bending light and producing Einstein effect of curvature of space and light lensing

It works and 99% of scientists and astronomers agree. Few do not, biggest theoretician who does not is verlinde. This guy has an entropic gravity theory derived from string theory. Simplest explanation, good for politicians, lawyers, doctors etc (henceforth intellectuals) is that he considers gravity as emergent from entanglement and entropy (hence information)! One of the consequences is that for low mass, newton inverse square law results, while at high masses, the variation is linear. Precisely the MOND empirical theory which fit the data very well (measured rotation speeds of stars) but NO one could explain why so in MOND!

Intellectuals are satisfied with this detail. Most vaguely understand inverse square and linearly inverse law. But I am an engineer. Not so dumb, but not capable of understanding the paper! Now what? Hence this essay. An intermediate engineering understanding level call for, will have significant legal and author implications. Details understood by good intermediate will not have to be written. Explainers will typically address intellectuals and engineers, automatic violence to junk from uncouth priests, politicians, intellectuals and stupid authors. Where are the missing details? Why can’t they be approximated? All pseudos in fact!

A somewhat deeper understanding comes as follows, good for all here. Remember Kreyzig? The attractor at galactic center is a point. One can draw spherical surfaces at various distances to measure the gravity effects there. Area varies as r^2. Hence the intensity felt varies as inverse of that i.e. as Inverse Square. But string theory has the holographic principle that says the effect is as if the entire mass, far enough away, is concentrated on the surface! So far enough away, effect is only linear! Joining the two gives Inverse Square near center to inverse only towards circumference!

Verlinde is not that hard to model for better understanding. Another great understanding to me came from understanding the idea of German shower that sparked NASA interest in fix Hubble mission that changed human view f the Cosmos and great pictures. Most of difficult sounding encryption can be effectively so described. Here is an attempt.

Encryption is about trapdoor impossible one way functions. Trapdoor means a small secret which allows simple calculation of inverse to a trapdoor-impossible function. Most classic trapdoors use multiplication or exponentiation as the one way, and if all computations are carried out in a semi-prime field, the factors of the public modulus render the system trapdoor. The nicest thing about modulo computations is that they follow normal rule, even as some computations are exponentially more complex! A square root or logarithm is fairly easy in ordinary math but trapdoor-impossible in discrete math!

So deep sir math say that certain operations are hard, why so is not the trouble of engineers. ALL my methods are based on user-verifiable algebra or statements to the effect ask any deep math sir!  No hard proofs are employed which makes the consumer dependent on certifications of the examining scientist!

Classic encryption before Identitity based encryption IBE is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle MITM attack where unknown consumers can be fooled by giving them wrong credentials, used well, but easy abuse. Imposter gets between Alice and Bob, pretending to be Bob to Alice, and Alice to Bob. All the while, message exchange is copied. It is prevented some by using the name itself as the key. But traditional IBE has a further problem – how do we know that the name is correct for the identity! My solution to the problem is a number of certificates to my pubic semi-primes that collectively essentially certify that that the identity has passed my identity tests. The simplest, done just once forever, is sending a test link to the email. Suddenly arun.arya@gmail.in@aaquantum has a meaning! The email is delivered by Google only if arun.arya has proved to gmail that aaquantum has verified the identity. Assuming tm.in means (trademark india), big.bazar@gmail.com@tm.in  has meaning too. This is much safer mail! The entire rig morale of challenge-click for every new site goes away, as does plethora of new passwords and their sorry pundits and rules (8 chars, at least one capital and one punctuation)!

The aaquantum ideology

http://aaqg-arunarya.blogspot.in/2018/04/the-aaquantum-ideology.html

1.       I hate social relativism, consider it scientifically stupid, explain the terms used precisely. Social relativism means equality of thinking. Science means observer or theorist independent, implicational evidence, which means extended falsifiable, and stupidity means denial of evidence even when agreeing on what evidence is. Evidence - I claim stupidity since I do not attach equal weights to opinion of others, some are wiser than others on every issue. I consider it POSSIBLE to define scientific superiority, it is NOT racial but achievable and I believe it is scientific in that it can be applied in observer independent manner.

2.       In order to understand me, you must be familiar with very influential work of KUHN starting 1963 in USA. It introduces and describes a paradigm also callable as a scientific revolution. A paradigm shift is not relativistic in that the old and new are two equally important alternatives; but that the newer is SUPERIOR to the old and replaces it! Humans rarely adjust to paradigm shift. The change occurs due to natural selection aspect od Darwinian revolution – oldies die.

3.       For people too busy to follow link (a MUST else remain stupid), here are some paradigm shifts

Natural sciences

Some of the "classical cases" of Kuhnian paradigm shifts in science are:

·         1543 – The transition in cosmology from a Ptolemaic cosmology to a Copernican one.^[9]

·         1543 – The acceptance of the work of Andreas Vesalius, whose work De humani corporis fabrica corrected the numerous errors in the previously-held system created by Galen.^[10]

·         1687 – The transition in mechanics from Aristotelian mechanics to classical mechanics.^[11]

·         1783 – The acceptance of Lavoisier's theory of chemical reactions and combustion in place of phlogiston theory, known as the chemical revolution.^[12][13]

·         The transition in optics from geometrical optics to physical optics with Augustin-Jean Fresnel's wave theory.^[14]

·         1826 – The discovery of hyperbolic geometry.^[15]

·         1859 – The revolution in evolution from goal-directed change to Charles Darwin's natural selection.^[16]

·         1880 - The germ theory of disease began overtaking Galen's miasma theory.

·         1905 – The development of quantum mechanics, which replaced classical mechanics at microscopic scales.^[17]

·         1905 – The transition from the luminiferous aether present in space to electromagnetic radiation in spacetime.^[18]

·         1919 – The transition between the worldview of Newtonian gravity and the Einsteinian General Relativity.

Social sciences[edit]

In Kuhn's view, the existence of a single reigning paradigm is characteristic of the natural sciences, while philosophy and much of social science were characterized by a "tradition of claims, counterclaims, and debates over fundamentals."^[19] Others have applied Kuhn's concept of paradigm shift to the social sciences.

·         The movement known as the cognitive revolution moved away from behaviourist approaches to psychological study and the acceptance of cognition as central to studying human behaviour.

·         The Keynesian revolution is typically viewed as a major shift in macroeconomics.^[20] According to John Kenneth Galbraith, Say's Law dominated economic thought prior to Keynes for over a century, and the shift to Keynesianism was difficult. Economists who contradicted the law, which implied that underemployment and underinvestment (coupled with oversaving) were virtually impossible, risked losing their careers.^[21] In his magnum opus, Keynes cited one of his predecessors, John A. Hobson,^[22] who was repeatedly denied positions at universities for his heretical theory.

·         Later, the movement for monetarism over Keynesianism marked a second divisive shift. Monetarists held that fiscal policy was not effective for stabilizing inflation, that it was solely a monetary phenomenon, in contrast to the Keynesian view of the time was that both fiscal and monetary policy were important. Keynesians later adopted much of the monetarists' view of the quantity theory of money and shifting Phillips curve, theories they initially rejected.^[23]

·         First proposed by Ferdinand de Saussure in 1879, the laryngeal theory in Indo-European linguistics postulated the existence of "laryngeal" consonants in the Proto-Indo-European language (PIE), a theory that was confirmed by the discovery of the Hittite language in the early 20th century. The theory has since been accepted by the vast majority of linguists, paving the way for the internal reconstruction of the syntax and grammatical rules of PIE and is considered one of the most significant developments in linguistics since the initial discovery of the Indo-European language family.^[24]

Applied sciences[edit]

More recently, paradigm shifts are also recognisable in applied sciences:

·         In medicine, the transition from "clinical judgment" to evidence-based medicine

·         In software engineering, the transition from the Rational Paradigm to the Empirical Paradigm ^[25]

Marketing[edit]

In the later part of the 1990s, 'paradigm shift' emerged as a buzzword, popularized as marketing speak and appearing more frequently in print and publication.^[26] In his book Mind The Gaffe, author Larry Trask advises readers to refrain from using it, and to use caution when reading anything that contains the phrase. It is referred to in several articles and books^[27][28] as abused and overused to the point of becoming meaningless.

4.       To the lists, I wish to add some more based on my experience

. structured programming

. object orientation

. internet programming

. android programming

. quantum mechanics

. deterministic interpretations (Many world)

. two dimensional time interpretation (Arun)

. CCC+LQG cosmogony

. Verlinde string quantum gravity

. Malhotra paradigm shift to identity celebration. I claim that people wrongly consider current mood as rightward shift rather than identity celebration despite the abuses from stupid left

Note that most of my computer science colleagues became useless when object orientation hit, more with internet programming, even current computer scientists become useless in new android programming! QM destroyed physics, deterministic interpretation most science philosophers, two dimensional time (mine) most physicists as Verlinde hits most astronomers and dark matter types and CCC+LQG explains universe without God. The concept of God is useless due to irrelevance, relevant to the stupid only.

The aaquantum ideology

1.       I hate social relativism, consider it scientifically stupid, explain the terms used precisely. Social relativism means equality of thinking. Science means observer or theorist independent, implicational evidence, which means extended falsifiable, and stupidity means denial of evidence even when agreeing on what evidence is. Evidence - I claim stupidity since I do not attach equal weights to opinion of others, some are wiser than others on every issue. I consider it POSSIBLE to define scientific superiority, it is NOT racial but achievable and I believe it is scientific in that it can be applied in observer independent manner.

2.       In order to understand me, you must be familiar with very influential work of KUHN starting 1963 in USA. It introduces and describes a paradigm also callable as a scientific revolution. A paradigm shift is not relativistic in that the old and new are two equally important alternatives; but that the newer is SUPERIOR to the old and replaces it! Humans rarely adjust to paradigm shift. The change occurs due to natural selection aspect of Darwinian revolution – oldies die.

3.       For people too busy to follow link (a MUST else remain stupid), here are some paradigm shifts

Natural sciences

Some of the "classical cases" of Kuhnian paradigm shifts in science are:

·         1543 – The transition in cosmology from a Ptolemaic cosmology to a Copernican one.^[9]

·         1543 – The acceptance of the work of Andreas Vesalius, whose work De humani corporis fabrica corrected the numerous errors in the previously-held system created by Galen.^[10]

·         1687 – The transition in mechanics from Aristotelian mechanics to classical mechanics.^[11]

·         1783 – The acceptance of Lavoisier's theory of chemical reactions and combustion in place of phlogiston theory, known as the chemical revolution.^[12][13]

·         The transition in optics from geometrical optics to physical optics with Augustin-Jean Fresnel's wave theory.^[14]

·         1826 – The discovery of hyperbolic geometry.^[15]

·         1859 – The revolution in evolution from goal-directed change to Charles Darwin's natural selection.^[16]

·         1880 - The germ theory of disease began overtaking Galen's miasma theory.

·         1905 – The development of quantum mechanics, which replaced classical mechanics at microscopic scales.^[17]

·         1905 – The transition from the luminiferous aether present in space to electromagnetic radiation in spacetime.^[18]

·         1919 – The transition between the worldview of Newtonian gravity and the Einsteinian General Relativity.

Social sciences[edit]

In Kuhn's view, the existence of a single reigning paradigm is characteristic of the natural sciences, while philosophy and much of social science were characterized by a "tradition of claims, counterclaims, and debates over fundamentals."^[19] Others have applied Kuhn's concept of paradigm shift to the social sciences.

·         The movement known as the cognitive revolution moved away from behaviourist approaches to psychological study and the acceptance of cognition as central to studying human behaviour.

·         The Keynesian revolution is typically viewed as a major shift in macroeconomics.^[20] According to John Kenneth Galbraith, Say's Law dominated economic thought prior to Keynes for over a century, and the shift to Keynesianism was difficult. Economists who contradicted the law, which implied that underemployment and underinvestment (coupled with oversaving) were virtually impossible, risked losing their careers.^[21] In his magnum opus, Keynes cited one of his predecessors, John A. Hobson,^[22] who was repeatedly denied positions at universities for his heretical theory.

·         Later, the movement for monetarism over Keynesianism marked a second divisive shift. Monetarists held that fiscal policy was not effective for stabilizing inflation, that it was solely a monetary phenomenon, in contrast to the Keynesian view of the time was that both fiscal and monetary policy were important. Keynesians later adopted much of the monetarists' view of the quantity theory of money and shifting Phillips curve, theories they initially rejected.^[23]

·         First proposed by Ferdinand de Saussure in 1879, the laryngeal theory in Indo-European linguistics postulated the existence of "laryngeal" consonants in the Proto-Indo-European language (PIE), a theory that was confirmed by the discovery of the Hittite language in the early 20th century. The theory has since been accepted by the vast majority of linguists, paving the way for the internal reconstruction of the syntax and grammatical rules of PIE and is considered one of the most significant developments in linguistics since the initial discovery of the Indo-European language family.^[24]

Applied sciences[edit]

More recently, paradigm shifts are also recognisable in applied sciences:

·         In medicine, the transition from "clinical judgment" to evidence-based medicine

·         In software engineering, the transition from the Rational Paradigm to the Empirical Paradigm ^[25]

Marketing[edit]

In the later part of the 1990s, 'paradigm shift' emerged as a buzzword, popularized as marketing speak and appearing more frequently in print and publication.^[26] In his book Mind The Gaffe, author Larry Trask advises readers to refrain from using it, and to use caution when reading anything that contains the phrase. It is referred to in several articles and books^[27][28] as abused and overused to the point of becoming meaningless.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

45.       To the lists, I wish to add some more based on my experience

. structured programming

. object orientation

. internet programming

. android programming

. quantum mechanics

. deterministic interpretations (Many world)

. two dimensional time interpretation (Arun)

. CCC+LQG cosmogony

. Verlinde string quantum gravity

. Malhotra paradigm shift to identity celebration. I claim that people wrongly consider current mood as rightward shift rather than identity celebration despite the abuses from stupid left

Note that most of my computer science colleagues became useless when object orientation hit, more with internet programming, even current computer scientists become useless in new android programming! QM destroyed physics, deterministic interpretation most science philosophers, two dimensional time (mine) most physicists as Verlinde hits most astronomers and dark matter types and CCC+LQG explains universe without God. The concept of God is useless due to irrelevance, relevant to the stupid only.