Physics is inaccurate!

nesf · 10-06-2005 11:55pm #1

Physics doesn't even pretend to be accurate. It assumes a postion of being wrong. It's basic premise is that it's just an approximation.

Justify it to me people!

Eh, just so people aren't confused by the physics mod refuting the existence of physics.. I'm going to argue against physics here. I want to instigate debate and discussion here, argue against me damnit. I don't care how little or much you know, just have an opinion!

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 10-06-2005 11:59pm

it's better than nothing. Some kind of an idea of what's going on around us is important, even if we're wrong we're thinking about... stuff. at the very least it's a nice mental exercise.

ghostchant · 11-06-2005 12:00am

well its a pretty good approximation...the best anyone's come up with so far

nesf · 11-06-2005 12:05am

ghostchant wrote:

well its a pretty good approximation...the best anyone's come up with so far

But it's just an approximation!

Physicists act like they understand reality at some deep level when they admit themselves that it's all just a well educated guess!

That's not science! Science is based on fact not guesswork!

Mordeth wrote:

it's better than nothing. Some kind of an idea of what's going on around us is important, even if we're wrong we're thinking about... stuff. at the very least it's a nice mental exercise.

But that's it. It's just a glorified mental exercise! It might be better than nothing but that doesn't mean that it's right. Gravity isn't a fact it's an imaginary construct used to explain things so physicists can act all smart.

astec123 · 11-06-2005 12:14am

Physics is based on defined principles. The first problem for me arrives from the whereabouts of these things, how did we get these apparantly predetermined rules?

What about the question everything, yet they just accept each answer as right, eg the smallest particle debate thing.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 11-06-2005 12:14am

it's a story, the story of the universe and all that's going on around us. We like stories. People (smarter people than me) observe the relationships between things and then try to translate what they get from that, using physics and math and the like. I think terry pratchett put it nicely in his "the science of discworld books", he called it "lies to children".

As humans, we have invented lots of useful kinds of lie. As well as lies-to-children ("as much as they can understand"), there are lies-to-bosses ("as much as they need to know"), lies-to-patients ("they won't worry about what they don't know") and, for all sorts of reasons, lies-to-ourselves.

People understand/observe (or think they do

) certain things and they have to make up a lie close enough to the truth to be "accurate" and far enough frmo the truth as to not be confusing. It's close to the truth, and it might be a neccesary stepping stone for someone who doesn't understand who wants to but it's still a lie, a fiction designed to resemble the truth. Alot of physics is like that, especially down at the "lower" levels.. school educations and us lay people.

I'm not sure I had a point.

ghostchant · 11-06-2005 12:16am

I'm not far enough into my studies yet to be able to question the more 'exotic' parts of physics, but the stuff that I've studied seems solid enough to me...

EDIT: well it makes sense anyway, but that's not to say its correct...

astec123 · 11-06-2005 12:18am

Define correct?

nesf · 11-06-2005 12:19am

astec123 wrote:

Physics is based on defined principles. The first problem for me arrives from the whereabouts of these things, how did we get these apparantly predetermined rules?

What about the question everything, yet they just accept each answer as right, eg the smallest particle debate thing.

Exactly!! Preach on brother!!

nesf · 11-06-2005 12:19am

astec123 wrote:

Define correct?

Correct. It's simple. It means a fact. You know. A statement that's 100% correct.

astec123 · 11-06-2005 12:20am

But how is it we know that that fact/statement etc is correct? How do we know the answer we get isnt a fluke of nature and that maths and physics actually lead to the wrong answer?

nesf · 11-06-2005 12:20am

Mordeth wrote:

it's a story, the story of the universe and all that's going on around us. We like stories. People (smarter people than me) observe the relationships between things and then try to translate what they get from that, using physics and math and the like. I think terry pratchett put it nicely in his "the science of discworld books", he called it "lies to children".

People understand/observe (or think they do ) certain things and they have to make up a lie close enough to the truth to be "accurate" and far enough frmo the truth as to not be confusing. It's close to the truth, and it might be a neccesary stepping stone for someone who doesn't understand who wants to but it's still a lie, a fiction designed to resemble the truth. Alot of physics is like that, especially down at the "lower" levels.. school educations and us lay people.

I'm not sure I had a point.

No you do have a point. And you are correct. Unfortunately the "lies to children" image assumes there is a complete answer at the top.

There isn't.

nesf · 11-06-2005 12:21am

astec123 wrote:

But how is it we know that that fact/statement etc is correct? How do we know the answer we get isnt a fluke of nature and that maths and physics actually lead to the wrong answer?

I hit the wall, my fist hits the wall. That's a fact.

I think. That's a fact.

I am writing this. That's a fact.

I'm bored. That's a fact.

kasintahan · 11-06-2005 12:24am

As with all sciences - a law is merely something that we cannot currently disprove.

Remember, you cannot prove anything in science, only disprove.

astec123 · 11-06-2005 12:24am

I hit the wall, my fist hits the wall. That's a fact.

how do you know that the fist isnt a virtual fist?

I think. That's a fact.

How do you know your not a machine and therefore not capable of thinking, and isnt every living creature an elaborate machine and therefore not able to think?

I am writing this. That's a fact.

How do you know your not dreaming this in some alternative universe?

I'm bored. That's a fact.

How do you know its boredom?

OLP · 11-06-2005 12:24am

nesf wrote:

Correct. It's simple. It means a fact. You know. A statement that's 100% correct.

in the definition of a word you cannot use the word your are attempting to define

ghostchant · 11-06-2005 12:24am

when an explanation is given for a certain phenomenon that appears to make sense, that's not to say that's it the correct explanation
newtonian mechanics offers one interpretation of gravity, and than modern physics offers another interpretation.

sorry i think i may have been talking crap in my last post (and this one

) but i hope you can see where i'm coming from

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 11-06-2005 12:26am

well, you have to consider the source. At the end of the day all of our understanding about the universe is coming from a human mind.. somewhere. it's not mine, but it's human.. probably, unless we are to believe the X-files.. or christians.

so it's complete, in that it's as far as we've gotten yet and the further we go the more complete it will become. But really, I find it hard to believe we will ever know everything. The best we can ever hope for is an approximation, we just gotta keep refining that approximation as we learn more .. and sometimes even admit that we were wrong and start from scratch. It's a bit like.. that thing in maths that approaches the line but never touches it.. (did maths in Irish, haven't a clue what the english term is.... or the Irish one come to think of it.. asymtote maybe?) just gets closer and closer and closer...

astec123 · 11-06-2005 12:27am

in the definition of a word you cannot use the word your are attempting to define

Also how can you define something that you cannot prove to be true?

nesf · 11-06-2005 12:28am

OLP wrote:

in the definition of a word you cannot use the word your are attempting to define

[strike]pseudo intellectualism is that way...[/strike]

Ahem.

Eh, in retrospect. I'm a muppet.

My definition, was purposefully cyclical. I really should have made that clear rather than just snap at someone for pointing it out.

nesf · 11-06-2005 12:30am

Well, first off in order for physics to have any meaning beyond an intellectual exercise for the bored, I need to accept reality exists.

If you are stuck on this part, then you don't need a physicist, you need a philosopher.

nesf · 11-06-2005 12:33am

What purpose does modern physics serve?

It was fine with Newton. Why bother caring about what a black hole is like or what happens inside an atom?

What practical application has string theory?

Does a person need to understand quantum to build a device using microprocessors?

Why do people talk about physical fact? It's just a good guess!

kasintahan wrote:

As with all sciences - a law is merely something that we cannot currently disprove.

By that logic, god exists because we can't disprove his existence.

astec123 · 11-06-2005 12:36am

I need to accept reality exists.

But that defeats the purpose of physics, to build upon the proven material set down before it, starting off wrong does the opposite of this by accepting defeat before you start. Its like saying newtons 3rd is true but not ever having proved it.

nesf · 11-06-2005 12:38am

astec123 wrote:

But that defeats the purpose of physics, to build upon the proven material set down before it, starting off wrong does the opposite of this by accepting defeat before you start. Its like saying newtons 3rd is true but not ever having proved it.

No physics is built on the assumption that you can measure things.

You can't measure them if they don't exist.

I take your point, but I'm politely saying that it doesn't have a place in this argument. This is a debate on the validity of physics, not a debate on whether reality exists. Take it to philosophy.

Crucifix · 11-06-2005 12:43am

I would say that an approximation isn't a guess, it's an answer that is accurate to a certain degree based on measurements taken. So for the example of basing something an approximate position, it just means getting a less accurate answer.

astec123 · 11-06-2005 12:49am

But doesnt if physics ask that you question things. Newton would not have gotten the laws had he not, einsteins E equation would not exsist if he had not worked on questioning things.

Physics is

Physics (from the Greek, φυσικός (physikos), "natural", and φύσις (physis), "Nature") is the science of Nature in the broadest sense. Physicists study the behavior and properties of matter in a wide variety of contexts, ranging from the sub-microscopic particles from which all ordinary matter is made (particle physics) to the behavior of the material Universe as a whole (cosmology). (googled)

Therefore physics is the study of everything, but what is everything, if we live in a finite sized universe that at any second is expanding (or so we assume) then why does physics provide us with infinite quantities, light coming parallel to a glass block has to be at infinity but how can that be possible in a finite universe, yet the subject matter can be infinite.

Not sure if people will get my drift there.

edit: how do we know that what we see is whats actually happening? We take blue to be blue but could it not be that our sight allows us to perceive another colour as blue? Or that blue is merely a shade of black or white and that we only see colour by a trick of the mind?

nesf · 11-06-2005 12:49am

Crucifix wrote:

I would say that an approximation isn't a guess, it's an answer that is accurate to a certain degree based on measurements taken. So for the example of basing something an approximate position, it just means getting a less accurate answer.

If it isn't 100% accurate then it is a guess. A fairly accurate guess, but it still is a guess.

My problem is that physics portrays itself as omnipotent and true. But it fundamentally isn't.

Engineers get away with best guesses and half truths.

Science should be about discovering the truth, not just putting together some horribly unwieldy construct that it purposefully designed to mimic reality!!

It's just glorified engineering if they are guessing!

nesf · 11-06-2005 12:52am

I've split the thread so to keep it on topic. If you want to talk about this thread and it's contents, or attack me then feel free to go to the other thread on this.

The one marked as a sideline discussion.

Crucifix · 11-06-2005 12:54am

nesf wrote:

Engineers get away with best guesses and half truths

In terms of the Physics of Engineering the principles would be fairly solid and give very accurate answers I would have thought.
Also Blue is just the light reflected from something, light at a specific wavelength. However it's true our minds may interprete it to look like what someone else sees as a different colour. I think there's a name for that theory.

astec123 · 11-06-2005 12:55am

Just thought of another point, in building, making an error of 1cm every 10m means that a bridge of 10km would be out by a large proportion due to those errors, the same happens in physics, each thing builds on the last but asssumes the last thing was true, but in fact the last thing wasnt a fact it was an estimation a guess an approximation. So soon enough physics wont be fact it will be miles out because nothing is actually defined.

Crucifix · 11-06-2005 12:57am

astec123 wrote:

Just thought of another point, in building, making an error of 1cm every 10m means that a bridge of 10km would be out by a large proportion due to those errors, the same happens in physics, each thing builds on the last but asssumes the last thing was true, but in fact the last thing wasnt a fact it was an estimation a guess an approximation. So soon enough physics wont be fact it will be miles out because nothing is actually defined.

It's all a matter of accuracy. An example someone gave to me was the Channel tunnel. They built it from both directions and met in the middle. Being out by a fraction of a degree at the start would mean the tunnels would miss completely.

astec123 · 11-06-2005 12:57am

Then how do we know that colour blind people are not seeing things correctly and that we are. This needs questioning with all the other stuff mentioned rather than at face value.

Crucifix · 11-06-2005 12:59am

astec123 wrote:

Then how do we know that colour blind people are not seeing things correctly and that we are. This needs questioning with all the other stuff mentioned rather than at face value.

Colour-blind people's eyes(to be honest, I only know about the common red colour-blindness, and I don't remember it too clearly) don't react to specific wavelengths, and so they only see the colour as grey.

astec123 · 11-06-2005 1:03am

But the thing Im saying is how can something be true if its not right to start with. Follow this for a moment.
1. 21x9= ............................. Physics takes estimations so this is nearly 20x10
2. answer 1 x99 .................................................... which is 200x (roughly 100)
3. answer 2 /51 ..................................................... "ishy" divided by 50
overall= 366.88 (rounded to 2DP) ............................................... = 400
Thats a big difference so starting wrong means the end is even more wrong as each builds on the last.

Crucifix · 11-06-2005 1:06am

astec123 wrote:

But the thing Im saying is how can something be true if its not right to start with. Follow this for a moment.
1. 21x9= ............................. Physics takes estimations so this is nearly 20x10
2. answer 1 x99 .................................................... which is 200x (roughly 100)
3. answer 2 /51 ..................................................... "ishy" divided by 50
overall= 366.88 (rounded to 2DP) ............................................... = 400
Thats a big difference so starting wrong means the end is even more wrong as each builds on the last.

I agree totally. Little incorrect measurements will make for very incorrect answers. Physics (generally speaking) can't be right, all we can do is strive for accuracy, like my example of the Channel tunnel where they were accurate enough to make it work.

nesf · 11-06-2005 1:17am

Crucifix wrote:

I agree totally. Little incorrect measurements will make for very incorrect answers. Physics (generally speaking) can't be right, all we can do is strive for accuracy, like my example of the Channel tunnel where they were accurate enough to make it work.

I agree with you, but what about the way that physicists call things a scientific fact?

Does it sit well with you that they so loosely play with words?

Son Goku · 11-06-2005 2:44am

Is physics inaccurate? Yes and no.

In physics mathematical models of the physical world are made based on physical intuition on how the world operates.
These relate certain physical quantities to others through a mathematical equation or relation.

What prevents this from being the ramblings of intellectuals?

Continual experimentation and observation. If the equations are wildly off the mark, they will show a divergence from reality. I am aware of the positive feedback loop between experimentation and theory, but this is severely lowered in most experimentation.
Especially when testing a new theory.

Physics is a human construct, but I think that continual experimentation shows that unless the stars and atoms themselves decided to agree with our mathematical models for the laugh, then it is a approximate description of physical reality.

As for the inaccuracies:
Yes, any given theory we have today isn't the complete picture of reality, but that is simply because we can't start at the fundamentals. We have to work down and up from our level.
Also the presence of new theory doesn't mean an old theory was wrong.
Newtonian/Classical Mechanics is still correct in the low velocity, low gravity macroscopic realm. Just because it is slightly off doesn't mean it was wrong.
For instance Force is pretty much equal to the rate of change of momentum at the Newtonian level.

Science is all about predictive power. General Relativity doesn't work at the Quantum Level (or Quantum Field Theory doesn't work in curved space-time depending on who you ask), but General Relativity isn't meant to.
General Relativity can still give you a completely accurate picture of orbits and gravity, until you approach the quantum level.

A limit to a physical theory isn't a flaw, it simply means "Theory A" describes this, "Theory B" describes that and there are some things that will have to wait until we have Theory (A +

.

Son Goku · 11-06-2005 3:02am

Despite what I posted above, I am in fact completely wrong and disagree with myself in a rather schizophrenic manner.

I will expose my own flawed argument tomorrow.

OY · 11-06-2005 3:49am

I was reading A Brief history of Time when i first thought this! It on the chapters regarding Black Holes. So much extensive writing on how and what they are when man or anything we know has never been near one.

To quote Stephen hawking himself:
"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory... Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory."

I really makes you wonder what it all is about!

nesf · 11-06-2005 7:13pm

From some "discussion" on a blog of mine, a friend of mine decided to add his two cents. This is his reaction to this thread. He is just not inclined to join the collective on here... A pity really.

I liked what he said so I'm reproducing it here. Any thoughts?

Right then.

The point you make is more of a philosophical one than a scientific point (although it is the philosophy of science, so colse enough). The thing, is the scientific method in all fields - physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics and even philosophy work along the same principles.

The basic idea is this: unless you're God or some other being who is able to stand outside the universe to gain a completely objective viewpoint (not to mention complete omniscience), you can't ever possibly prove that something is actually true. This is because all of the evidence can never be fully available to you, and anyway, you can never be sure if there's a deeper layer of reality that's affecting your observations.

However, all science is based on one assumption: that there is one set of rules for the universe. These rules are, well, universal. They govern the behaviour of everything in equal measure, and no two contradictory rules can exist (i.e. gravity will behave in the same way on Earth as it would in Alpha Centauri). Hell of an assumption, this, but there are some pretty sound philosophical arguments to support this (the main one being: if it's not true, we're wasting our time speculating about anything because the universe is fundamentally unknowable, and all the thinkers and logicians in the world may as well give up and become hairdressers).

So if you hold this principle to be true, then this means that if you stumble accidentally onto one of these laws of nature, you will never, ever be able to break it. You may be able to twist it, bend it, and produce very strange results with it, but you can never actually break it. If you do manage to break it, then the "rule" is false, and you need to look elsewhere.

So this is where the scientific method comes from. All we know is that the truth is always the truth, and we can't disprove the truth, but we can disprove misapprehensions. As a Spinoza fanboy, I recommend you pick up a copy of his Ethics, which deals with metascience in a pretty brilliant way, and should leave you feeling that there's no other real way to conduct an investigation into the nature of the universe.

Now, for my next trick: God - what's the deal there then?

How about this then - science is on an ongoing journey of discovering, with new data revealing itself constantly, and old ideas being replaced by new ones that fit that data. It will never be finished, we'll never fully understand the universe, simply because we have no external point where we can stand and judge our assumptions objectively.

But our ignorance is gradually decreasing. If you were to map our ignorance mathematically, you would do it as a series approaching zero. And the process that brings us along the path is one of making aproximations and then working to disprove them, and then creating new systems when we do.

For example, look at cosmology. First up you've got Ptolomy's system, with the Sun, planets and the moon all revolving around the earth, and a solid sphere of stars surrounding the solar system. This is followed by Galilleo's system of the earth and planets rotating around the sun. Later, we get a system where the solar system is part of a galaxy, and later still our galaxy is revealed to be one of many. Then you get Relativity, with all the implications for space, time, matter, gravity and the birth of the universe that it brings. Eventually, our view of the universe will be superseded again by another system, which will make all our current guesses look pretty stupid.

The thing is though, none of the previous systems were actually wrong. For an idea to be wrong (and for the billionth time, I'm plagarising Spinoza on this one), it needs to deliberately contradict or ignore relevant evidence. An idea that works for the available evidence, and is intellectually honest, is essentially correct, even if it's later disproved. Ptolomy created a system that was his best guess based on what he knew. Even though he turned out to be wrong, his science was essentially sound.

But this isn't just a case of handing out medals to every kid in the sack race for making an effort. Ptolomy's ideas were just as important as Einstein's, because he helped to create a whole new method of thinking about the universe: the sun wasn't the chariot of some God travelling across the sky, but a physical entity that obeyed scientific rules. And each development in cosmology is really just a refinement of that idea. As we develop that idea, we get closer and closer to the truth, sometimes weeding out fake theories, sometimes discovering another piece of the giant jigsaw.

So the guesswork that's inherent in science isn't a flaw, but a very positive feature. The road to the ultimate truth is a long hard slog, with a lot of wrong turns, but scientist are slowly walking in the right direction

planck2 · 13-06-2005 11:31am

To everyone on this thread bar Son Goku. Physics is about explaining the universe with mathemathical models which are elegant but computationally useful. Sometimes we get the models correct experiments back us up and some times we get it wrong that's why experiments are there to put us on the right track. If physics was wrong,you wouldn't have for example: a mobile phone, a fridge, a car radio, aeroplanes. The list is endless.

stevenmu · 13-06-2005 2:52pm

Like Son Goku and planck2 are saying (I think), I see most of physics as an attempt to create a mathematical model of the universe, or aspects of it. As long as a model is accurate enough for it's intended purpose, then it is in a sense correct, even if it's not complete. Newtons laws are still usefull despite having been superceded by more accurate and complete laws. Even more exotic research into things like black holes or string theory could prove of benefit, black holes have been touted as potential energy sources or a means of traveling great distances in short times, the only practical application I can recall seeing for strings was time-travel but I'm sure there's others.

This holds true with quantam theory to a degree aswell, by admitting that we can't accurately measure some properties of a quantam particle we can assign probablilities to the chances of properties having particular values and make calculations based on those, I stumped for practical applications of this but I'm pretty sure I've seen some somewhere.

Where I see it all falling down is that somewhere along the line there seems to have been an assumption made that if we can't accurately determine the location of a particle, then it doesn't have a definite location. This seems to me to be expecting the universe to be aware of our mathematical systems and to limit itself accordingly. At this stage instead of physics being an imperfect model of a perfect universe it becomes the universe is an imperfect model of a perfect physics (if that makes sense).

Of course I've probably made a huge mistake there based on my very limited knowledge of quantam mechanics.

nesf · 13-06-2005 3:56pm

planck2 wrote:

To everyone on this thread bar Son Goku. Physics is about explaining the universe with mathemathical models which are elegant but computationally useful. Sometimes we get the models correct experiments back us up and some times we get it wrong that's why experiments are there to put us on the right track. If physics was wrong,you wouldn't have for example: a mobile phone, a fridge, a car radio, aeroplanes. The list is endless.

I think you missed the point. It's not that physics is wrong, no one here would dispute that it's predictions are accurate to a degree. What I'm arguing is the percieved notion of physical fact in the public mind. Or the attitude, that would break the "immutable laws of physics" is misleading. Physicists have approximations which they peddle to the masses as the "new truth" of the universe.

Said immutable laws being changing when they were indeed broken.

Plus, our two main modern theories, namely quantum mechanics and general relativity disagree with each other over reality. They don't like each other and such.

Now practically this is fine, GR is for big big things, QM is for very small things. So it's not that big a deal.

But how can physicists claim to understand reality when their models are distinct and seperate conflicting and contradictory entities. Yes physics promises us that it will reconcile them, but it's assuming that they can be reconciled.

The whole premise that physics is based on is that what we can't explain now is explainable and not beyond our means of comprehension. This would seem to me to be a fairly relevant assumption based on the history of science. But does that necessarily hold true for when we start exploring the exotic regions of our Universe?

As an aside:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aeroplanes, radios etc were pioneered and discovered long before the physics of how they worked was understood.

Physics spends all it's time playing catch up, and trying to alter and fix it's theories so they can explain the latest observed phenomena. How can physics be wrong when it is deisgned to tell you what you already know?

stevenmu · 13-06-2005 5:24pm

I'm not sure if I've ever heard physicists ever claim something was completly correct, altough there is a certain amount of looking down noses at less accepted ideas. I'm under the impression that it's more other people or the media who claim an idea is correct or incorrect, and that generally those publishing a theory are more likely to admit that it's just the best they have come up with or it the current line of thought.

planck2 · 13-06-2005 7:23pm

it's not designed to tell us what you know already. The success of a theory is based on how well it can predict new phenomenon, but describe the old stuff as well. Physicists don't peddle scientific theories as the absolute truth, other people do this. Why do you think people work in physics research? They do so because they want to try and model and explain observations that have been made by other physicists. How do you think aeroplane technology developed, were the pioneers ignorant of physics. I doubt it. How much physics did Marconi know. I'm sure he knew about James Clerk Maxwell's equations of Classical Electromagnetism

MrAbc · 17-06-2005 10:03am

Nesf says:

Plus, our two main modern theories, namely quantum mechanics and general relativity disagree with each other over reality. They don't like each other and such.
Now practically this is fine, GR is for big big things, QM is for very small things. So it's not that big a deal.
But how can physicists claim to understand reality when their models are distinct and seperate conflicting and contradictory entities. Yes physics promises us that it will reconcile them, but it's assuming that they can be reconciled.

Hmmm.... But don't you see that things covered by GR and QM *are* reconciled?? The universe *is*. It's just that our mathematical descriptions are currently quite clumsy...
...and so the quest is on to come up with a robust amalgamation... string theory; m-theory and such?

You might eventually call it a theory of everything... but don't let sloppy phrases[take a bow Stephen Hawking

] misguide people into thinking that that's it... a theory of everything is and always will be a nice *theory* until such time as a modified version is required... we might call it a law for a while if it proves extremely robust and capable of far-sighted predictions...
But there can be no absolute truth attainable... only that one theory is more capable than another and so we prefer it as the best model of the supposed truth.

The promise by physicists is not that theories *will* reconcile but that the effort will be put into trying to reconcile them.

As others allude to, i think you under-estimate the power of the physics available around 1900, say, and that perhaps you now over-estimate the claimed power of 2005 physics. Giant strides have been made, but it's all built on what went before and started with the first coherent thought of a sentient ancester... and that wasn't yesterday *OR* 1900 :-)

The "wrongness" or "inaccuracy" of scientific theories are the beauty of the whole method.... for the very idea that they are quantifiable, so that we can test the next version of a theory against the previous one and improve our collected "understanding" as we go!!

nesf · 17-06-2005 10:11am

MrAbc wrote:

Hmmm.... But don't you see that things covered by GR and QM *are* reconciled?? The universe *is*. It's just that our mathematical descriptions are currently quite clumsy...
...and so the quest is on to come up with a robust amalgamation... string theory; m-theory and such?

You might eventually call it a theory of everything... but don't let sloppy phrases[take a bow Stephen Hawking ] misguide people into thinking that that's it... a theory of everything is and always will be a nice *theory* until such time as a modified version is required... we might call it a law for a while if it proves extremely robust and capable of far-sighted predictions...
But there can be no absolute truth attainable... only that one theory is more capable than another and so we prefer it as the best model of the supposed truth.

The promise by physicists is not that theories *will* reconcile but that the effort will be put into trying to reconcile them.

As others allude to, i think you under-estimate the power of the physics available around 1900, say, and that perhaps you now over-estimate the claimed power of 2005 physics. Giant strides have been made, but it's all built on what went before and started with the first coherent thought of a sentient ancester... and that wasn't yesterday *OR* 1900 :-)

The "wrongness" or "inaccuracy" of scientific theories are the beauty of the whole method.... for the very idea that they are quantifiable, so that we can test the next version of a theory against the previous one and improve our collected "understanding" as we go!!

I agree with you. 100%.

My point was that physicists talk about the "correctness" of their theories when these two theories (for example) are irrenconciliable(sp?). It's not a question aruging the scienitific method, or a refutation on the application of it. What I'm trying to do is get you to look at physics and see that it's inherently inaccurate. "Physical Laws" are only as strong as the experience we have.

Do you not think there is a certain unfounded arrogance in physics in relation to people's attitude to it?

We will have better theories in the future (well, hopefully) and we will get closer to the "truth". I'm not saying we won't. (although Q.E.D. is pretty damn close for the subset it covers). What I'm saying is that we shouldn't be so arrogant now to assume that we have it right

Sapien · 20-06-2005 5:57pm

nesf wrote:

I agree with you. 100%.

My point was that physicists talk about the "correctness" of their theories when these two theories (for example) are irrenconciliable(sp?). It's not a question aruging the scienitific method, or a refutation on the application of it. What I'm trying to do is get you to look at physics and see that it's inherently inaccurate. "Physical Laws" are only as strong as the experience we have.

Do you not think there is a certain unfounded arrogance in physics in relation to people's attitude to it?

We will have better theories in the future (well, hopefully) and we will get closer to the "truth". I'm not saying we won't. (although Q.E.D. is pretty damn close for the subset it covers). What I'm saying is that we shouldn't be so arrogant now to assume that we have it right

What is the depth of your familiarity with physics?

JackKelly · 20-06-2005 7:38pm

How can we understand anything, when we don't understand what we use to understand?

Son Goku · 20-06-2005 7:58pm

TimAy wrote:

How can we understand anything, when we don't understand what we use to understand?

Are you saying "How can we understand anything if we don't understand the mind?"

If so, simply because the mind is the tool we use to understand things external to itself.

nesf · 20-06-2005 11:18pm

Sapien wrote:

What is the depth of your familiarity with physics?

Well, what would it appear to be?

Physics is inaccurate!

Comments