4 ms·

So to explain the world we see, we combine quantum theory, theory of relativity, dark matter, gravitation, electromagnetism, two types of nuclear force and a zo

by helly 11y ago

So to explain the world we see, we combine quantum theory, theory of relativity, dark matter, gravitation, electromagnetism, two types of nuclear force and a zoo of now 62 elementary particles? I often wish for some kind of "Physical Philosophy". That tries to make sense of the world independent from those theories. For example: what if the theories just keep growing indefinitely? If we keep "finding" more and more complex theories that explain some aspects of what we see better then the old ones and keep "finding" new particles? What would that tell us about reality? What if we found a very simple formula that explains everything with just one type of particle and one dimension? Would it matter?

cshimmin 11y ago
That's pretty much exactly what theorists are trying to do. For example, we used to think that electricity and magnetism were different forces and subject to different equations/rules. Then we united them into a theory of electromagnetism and realized they're governed by the same equations. Next we discovered the weak nuclear force which seemed totally different, only to later realize that the weak and electromagnetic forces are actually both part of the same (electroweak) force, and both are governed by the same fundamental equations. It is suspected (and/or hoped) by physicists that this trend continues; that the other nuclear force can be united with the electroweak forces under a single theory; there are already hints that this is the case (see: Grand Unified Theories). So far not much progress on getting gravity to fit in with the picture though :/
- exch 11y ago
  Having things be complex and messy is hardly ideal, but I think Neil deGrasse Tyson's sentiment is important to keep in mind: The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you. But as cshimmin mentioned, we already unified electricity and magnetism. I am reasonably confident we'll find something equally nice and elegant for the rest. Maybe not tomorrow, or in a hundred years, but it'll happen. If only because we're too stubborn a species to let it be.
Udo 11y ago
The world is complex, but we haven't gotten to the stage yet where you should feel lost, even as a layman. It is absolutely possible to know enough classical physics, QM, and theory of relativity to have a decent understanding of our current models. You absolutely don't have to be able to recite a table of elementary particles in order to understand this. > I often wish for some kind of "Physical Philosophy". That tries to make sense of the world independent from those theories. If your sense-making framework can (or must?) be independent from the facts, there is an enormous multitude from all cultures available for you to choose from. But if facts are important to you, and you don't know where to start, watch some popular science documentaries. If you prefer a touch of philosophy, I can suggest the original Cosmos series by Carl Sagan. But on the whole, sense and meaning is not something that can be prescribed by scientific knowledge - it can, however, help inform your own decisions about sense and meaning. > For example: what if the theories just keep growing indefinitely? This does not describe the current state of physics research. In fact, we are almost struggling to discover new physics, and so far most particle physics experiments line up so well with theory it's almost frustrating. What we can see right now is not the bottomless fractal recursion into nothingness which you describe.
- fjdjjddj 11y ago
  Look, its just that it's all so complex. These must be emergent phenomena of something deeper - otherwise you have a universe which pops into existence fully formed with these particular properties, this particular family of particles and forces. These experiments are a bit like 3d scanning a tree in millimeter detail and then declaring that you have a perfect knowledge of trees. Don't get me wrong this is very important stuff, we need this knowledge to find the underlying systems. But it creates a degree of philosophical unease in the sensitive individual. For me it seems necessary to say that if this universe is all that exists, it must necessarily exist from first principles. My hunch is that what we are seeing is the population dynamics of all possible systems of interacting elements - or atleast a tiny little piece of it.
  - idlewords 11y ago
    The universe is what it is, and may not be to anyone's taste. No one is declaring perfect knowledge. If anything, experimental physicists are much more humble than theoreticians (let alone philosophers) and are interested in teasing out the truth without regard for its conceptual elegance.
empath75 11y ago
>So to explain the world we see, we combine quantum theory, theory of relativity, dark matter, gravitation, electromagnetism, two types of nuclear force and a zoo of now 62 elementary particles? Well, the standard model includes all the forces and particles, and neither the particles or the forces are arbitrary, but arise from various symmetries in the laws of physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eightfold_Way_(physics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eightfold_Way_(physics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model The symmetries in the standard model have been so good at predicting and explaining particles and forces that many physicists are convinced that there are a whole class of undiscovered particles to go along with another type of symmetry. They didn't build the LHC just to see what's out there. They have pretty strong reasons to believe that there are these other particles. The fact that they can predict these particles (like the higgs) should tell you that there is a underlying theory that explains all of this. The LHC is mostly just helping the physicists discover the details about the particles that aren't predicted by the theory (such as the mass).
InclinedPlane 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model#/media/File:Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model#/media/File:Sta...

by helly 11y ago

cshimmin 11y ago

That's pretty much exactly what theorists are trying to do. For example, we used to think that electricity and magnetism were different forces and subject to different equations/rules. Then we united them into a theory of electromagnetism and realized they're governed by the same equations. Next we discovered the weak nuclear force which seemed totally different, only to later realize that the weak and electromagnetic forces are actually both part of the same (electroweak) force, and both are governed by the same fundamental equations. It is suspected (and/or hoped) by physicists that this trend continues; that the other nuclear force can be united with the electroweak forces under a single theory; there are already hints that this is the case (see: Grand Unified Theories). So far not much progress on getting gravity to fit in with the picture though :/

exch 11y ago
Having things be complex and messy is hardly ideal, but I think Neil deGrasse Tyson's sentiment is important to keep in mind: The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you. But as cshimmin mentioned, we already unified electricity and magnetism. I am reasonably confident we'll find something equally nice and elegant for the rest. Maybe not tomorrow, or in a hundred years, but it'll happen. If only because we're too stubborn a species to let it be.

Udo 11y ago

The world is complex, but we haven't gotten to the stage yet where you should feel lost, even as a layman. It is absolutely possible to know enough classical physics, QM, and theory of relativity to have a decent understanding of our current models. You absolutely don't have to be able to recite a table of elementary particles in order to understand this. > I often wish for some kind of "Physical Philosophy". That tries to make sense of the world independent from those theories. If your sense-making framework can (or must?) be independent from the facts, there is an enormous multitude from all cultures available for you to choose from. But if facts are important to you, and you don't know where to start, watch some popular science documentaries. If you prefer a touch of philosophy, I can suggest the original Cosmos series by Carl Sagan. But on the whole, sense and meaning is not something that can be prescribed by scientific knowledge - it can, however, help inform your own decisions about sense and meaning. > For example: what if the theories just keep growing indefinitely? This does not describe the current state of physics research. In fact, we are almost struggling to discover new physics, and so far most particle physics experiments line up so well with theory it's almost frustrating. What we can see right now is not the bottomless fractal recursion into nothingness which you describe.

fjdjjddj 11y ago
Look, its just that it's all so complex. These must be emergent phenomena of something deeper - otherwise you have a universe which pops into existence fully formed with these particular properties, this particular family of particles and forces. These experiments are a bit like 3d scanning a tree in millimeter detail and then declaring that you have a perfect knowledge of trees. Don't get me wrong this is very important stuff, we need this knowledge to find the underlying systems. But it creates a degree of philosophical unease in the sensitive individual. For me it seems necessary to say that if this universe is all that exists, it must necessarily exist from first principles. My hunch is that what we are seeing is the population dynamics of all possible systems of interacting elements - or atleast a tiny little piece of it.
- idlewords 11y ago
  The universe is what it is, and may not be to anyone's taste. No one is declaring perfect knowledge. If anything, experimental physicists are much more humble than theoreticians (let alone philosophers) and are interested in teasing out the truth without regard for its conceptual elegance.

empath75 11y ago

>So to explain the world we see, we combine quantum theory, theory of relativity, dark matter, gravitation, electromagnetism, two types of nuclear force and a zoo of now 62 elementary particles? Well, the standard model includes all the forces and particles, and neither the particles or the forces are arbitrary, but arise from various symmetries in the laws of physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eightfold_Way_(physics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eightfold_Way_(physics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model The symmetries in the standard model have been so good at predicting and explaining particles and forces that many physicists are convinced that there are a whole class of undiscovered particles to go along with another type of symmetry. They didn't build the LHC just to see what's out there. They have pretty strong reasons to believe that there are these other particles. The fact that they can predict these particles (like the higgs) should tell you that there is a underlying theory that explains all of this. The LHC is mostly just helping the physicists discover the details about the particles that aren't predicted by the theory (such as the mass).

InclinedPlane 11y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model#/media/File:Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model#/media/File:Sta...