sci.research.careers

> Actually, there was an era back like around 1900-1920 where a lot of
> physicisists were developoing "orbital theory" for electrons, and having
> complex equations for which no one could design an experiment that would
> prove or disprove a theory, let alone the situation where there were two
> theories and one would like to have one experiment which would prove one
> AND disprove the other simultaneously. Those schools of thought soon died
> out.

This typically happens when physicists are at a loss and literally
grasping at straws, where many of the theories end up looking like
Rube Goldberg machines. As soon as a better more fundamental simpler
theory comes along, many of the old Rube Goldberg type theories
eventually fall out of favor.

For string theory in recent years, it's become more and more of a huge
Rube Goldberg machine along with theorists invoking the anthropic
principle. Basically any time the anthropic principle has to be
invoked in a physical theory, it's frequently the beginning of the end
of the theory. (Though the eventually "end" of the theory may take
many years or even decades, to flush out of the zeitgeist).

> I saw a few papers where there might be 75 variables, half of
> which could never be measured (at least), and the rest (most) were not
> defined in terms of scale.

The less variables, the better. A proliferation of zillions of
variables is a sign that something more fundamental may be missing or
unknown.

> Another relevant book, of which I only read the first essay, was "Beyond
> the Edge of Certainty" (author/editor: Collodney?) where the first essay
> was by a philosopher who actually managed to destroy all three of Newton's
> three laws of motion. This was one of the most masterfully written essays
> I've ever read in my life and the guy was light years ahead of me. I
> considered re-finding the book just to read those few pages where he
> showed that the three laws are really based on nothing.

Newton's three laws are treated more or less in a semi-axiomatic
manner. Why exactly Newton's laws are correct for a lot of
macroscopic phenomena, is still a mystery. The same can also be said
about relativity and quantum mechanics in general.