Situation now, I'm going to discuss how we would look for a new law
In general we look for new law by the following process first. We guess it
Then we come don't let that's that's really true then we compute the consequences of the guest
To see what if this is right if this law that we guessed is right
We see what it would imply and then we compare those
Computation results to nature or we say compared to experiment or experience
Compare it directly with observation to see if it if it works
If it disagrees with experiment it's
Wrong
In that simple statement is the key to science it doesn't make a difference how beautiful your guess is
It doesn't make even as smart you are who made the get or what his name is if it disagrees with experiment
Draw that's all estoy
It's therefore not unscientific to take a guess, although many people who are not in science think it is for instance
I had a conversation about flying saucers some years ago with lamely
Because I'm scientific I know all about flying saucers
So I said I don't think there are flying saucers
So the other my antagonist said is it impossible, but they were flying closer. Can you prove good? It's impossible
No, I can't prove it's impossible. It's just very unlikely that
They say you are very unscientific. If you can't prove it impossible then why how can you say it's likely that is unlike?
Well, that's the way that is scientific
It is scientific only to say what's more likely and less likely and not to be proving all the time possible impossible
To define what I mean?
I finally said to him listen, I mean that for my knowledge of the world that I see around me
I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known
irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence rather than the on
rational efforts of extraterrestrial intelligence
It's just more likely that's a and it's a good guess and we always try to guess the most likely explanation
Keeping in the back of the mind the fact that if it doesn't work, then we must discuss the other possibility
There was for instance for a while a phenomenon called superconductivity
As still is the phenomenon
Which is that metals conduct electricity without resistance at low temperatures and it was not at first obvious that this was a
consequence of the known laws with these particles
But it turns out that it has been thought through carefully enough and it's seen in fact to be a consequence of known laws
There are other phenomena such as extrasensory perception which cannot be explained by this
known knowledge of physics here and
It is interesting. However, that that phenomenon has not been well established and
That we cannot guarantee that it's there so if it could be demonstrated
Of course, I would prove that the physics is incomplete of therefore. It's extremely interesting to physicists whether it's right or wrong and
Many many experiments exist which show it doesn't work
The same goes for astrological influences
If they were true that the stars could affect the day that it was good to go to the dentist
Then that as an America we have that kind of astrology
Then it would be wrong the physics theory would be wrong because there's no mechanism by
Understandable and principle from these things that would make it call and that's the reason that there's some skepticism
among scientists with regard to those ideas
Now you see of course that with this method we can disprove any definite theory
If you have a definite theory or a real guest from which you can clearly compute consequences
Which could be compared to experiment than in principle we can get rid of any theory. We can always prove any definite theory wrong
Notice, however, we never prove it, right
Suppose it you invent a good guess
Calculate the consequences to discover that big consequence that you calculate agrees with experiment the theory is then right
No, it is simply not proved wrong
because in the future there could be a wider range of experiment to compute a wider range of
Consequences and you may discover then that this thing is wrong
That's why a laws like Newton's laws for the motion of planets left such a long time
He guessed the law of gravitation calculate all the kinds of consequences for the solar system and so on
Compare them to experiment and it took several hundred years before the slight error of the motion of mercury was developed during all that time
The theory had been failed to be proved wrong and could be taken to be temporarily right, but it can never be proved
Right because tomorrow's experiment
May succeed in proving what you thought was right wrong. So we never a right we can only be sure we're wrong
However, it's a rather remarkable how we can last so long I mean
Have some idea which are less alone
I must also point out to you that you cannot prove a vague theory wrong
if the guest that you make is fully expressed rather vague and
The method that you use for car figuring out the consequences is rather a little vague. You're not sure
I mean you say I think everything's because it's all due to Mughals and
Mughals do this and that more or less so I can sort of explain how this work
Then you see that that theory is good because it can't be proved wrong
If the process of computing the consequences is indefinite then with a little skill any experimental result can be made to look like a
An expected consequence you're probably familiar without another fields. For example a hates his mother
The reason is of course because she didn't caress him or love him enough
When he was a child
Actually, if you investigate you find out that as a matter of fact, he did love him very much and everything was all right
Well, then it's because she was overindulgent when he was
So by having a vague theory
It's possible to get either result
Not a cure for this one is the following
It would be possible to say if it were possible to state ahead of time
How much love is not enough and how much love is?
Overindulgent exactly and then there would be a perfectly legitimate theory against which you can make tests
It is usually said when this is pointed out how much love is and so on
Oh, you're dealing with psychological matters that these can't be defined so precisely yes, but then you can't claim to know anything about it
Now I want to concentrate for now on because I'm a theoretical physicist and more delighted with this end of the problem
As to what goes on how do you make the guesses?
Now as strictly as I said before not of any importance where the guess comes from
It's only important that it should agree with experiment and that it should be definite as possible as definite as possible
But you say then is very simple
We've set up a machine a great computing machine which has a random wheel in it
That makes the succession of guesses and each time
it guesses a hypothesis about how nature should work compute immediately the consequences and makes a comparison to a list of
Experimental results that has it the other end in other words guessing is a dumb man's job
Actually, it's quite the opposite and I will try to explain why
The first problem is how to start you see your Salah thought with all the known principles
But the principles that are all known are inconsistent with each other. So something has to be removed
so we got a lot of letters from people always getting letters from people who are insisting that we ought to make holes in our
Guesses as follows either you make a hole to make room for a new guest
Somebody says to you know, you owe people always say space is continuous
But how do you know when you get to a small enough?
Dimension that they really are enough points in between it isn't just a lot of dot separated by little distances
Or they say, you know those point the mechanical amplitude is you told me about they're so complicated. I'm sorry
What makes you think those are right, maybe they aren't right
I get a lot of letters with such content but I must say that such remarks are perfectly obvious
And now well are perfectly clear to anybody who's working on this problem and it doesn't do any good to point this up the problem
Is not what might be wrong
But what might be substituted precisely in place of it
If you say first anything precise for example in the case of a continuous space suppose the precise proposition
is
That space really consists of a series of dots only in the space between them doesn't mean anything and the dots are in a cubic
array
Then we can prove that
Immediately is wrong. That doesn't work. You see the problem is not to make to change or to say something might be wrong
But they replace it by something and that is not so easy
As soon as any real definite idea is substituted that becomes almost immediately apparent that it doesn't work
Secondly, there's an infinite number of possibilities
On these of these simple types, it's something like this you're sitting working very hard
You've worked for a long time trying to open a safe and some Joe comes along who hasn't doesn't know anything about what you're doing
Or anything except that you're trying to open a say because you know, why don't you try the combination ten twenty thirty
Because you're busy you tried a lot of things
Maybe you're already fried ten twenty thirty
Maybe you know that the middle number is already 32 and not twenty maybe you know that as a matter of fact
This is a five digit combination
So these letters
Don't do any good. And so please don't send me any letters trying to tell me how the thing is going to work
I don't I read them to make sure I
Haven't already thought of that but it takes too long to answer them because they're usually in the clasp, right 10 20 30
