4 ms·

> what are the questions we're trying to answer in physics, particularly those that involve observable phenomena? (disclaimer: I am not a physicist, etc.) Bet

by burke 10y ago

> what are the questions we're trying to answer in physics, particularly those that involve observable phenomena? (disclaimer: I am not a physicist, etc.) Between GR and QM, we can explain most observable phenomena, but it's intuitively obvious that both are emergent properties of some deeper law. I don't suspect frontier physics is ever really studied with an eye to application. Those tend to follow, but the bleeding edge of physics is usually advanced just out of intellectual curiosity, to try to understand the universe. In this sense, String Theory is just an attempt the unify General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. The fact that it's not apparently testable is unfortunate, We can have pedantic arguments about whether that's "Real Science", since science by definition requires testable hypotheses, but at the end of the day, I don't think it's crazy to pursue a model to encompass QM and GR, even if it can't be called "Science".

ianbicking 10y ago
> I don't suspect frontier physics is ever really studied with an eye to application. Previously they did have experimental results they were trying to understand. There might be follow up experiments to confirm, but there were already experimental tensions. > I don't think it's crazy to pursue a model to encompass QM and GR, even if it can't be called "Science". I'm not so concerned about whether something is science, it just seems like vanity to pursue unification that provides no insight into the complex world around us.
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  If calling it science bothers you, then call it mathematics instead. It's obvious to everyone involved that GM and QM, both the best physically verified theories at their respective energies, are deeply incompatible with one another. Unfortunately, physical situations where we can see them disagreeing are outside of our reach at the moment. You're suggesting the entire physics community just give up theorizing until we can plausibly reach unification energies, even if that's a thousand years from now? > it just seems like vanity to pursue unification that provides no insight into the complex world around us Pure theory has a funny habit of finding applications in the most unexpected places. Anyway, if it's an interesting problem, and people want to spend their time thinking about it, who are we to tell them to stop?
empath75 10y ago
Even if it's not 'real science' it's real math and worth studying on that basis alone.
cLeEOGPw 10y ago
My problem with string theory is that so far string theory has gotten EVERYTHING wrong. Not a single of their predictions were true. Yes, they adjust the theory once their predictions are proved to be false, but it just turns the theory into constant best fit theory for current observations. In my opinion string theory is a very complex case of interpolation. Yes, it "explains" our current knowledge, but it goes way off just after the last point to which it is interpolated. I like that it exists, as it will surely make history in science a grandiose attempt to unify GR with QM, and it is real science in a sense that the methods used in it might be transferred to other fields, but I don't expect for it to give any insight into our universe. Treat it like a theoretical physicist toy, and when you look at it that way, it isn't that bad at all.

by burke 10y ago

ianbicking 10y ago

> I don't suspect frontier physics is ever really studied with an eye to application. Previously they did have experimental results they were trying to understand. There might be follow up experiments to confirm, but there were already experimental tensions. > I don't think it's crazy to pursue a model to encompass QM and GR, even if it can't be called "Science". I'm not so concerned about whether something is science, it just seems like vanity to pursue unification that provides no insight into the complex world around us.

smallnamespace 10y ago
If calling it science bothers you, then call it mathematics instead. It's obvious to everyone involved that GM and QM, both the best physically verified theories at their respective energies, are deeply incompatible with one another. Unfortunately, physical situations where we can see them disagreeing are outside of our reach at the moment. You're suggesting the entire physics community just give up theorizing until we can plausibly reach unification energies, even if that's a thousand years from now? > it just seems like vanity to pursue unification that provides no insight into the complex world around us Pure theory has a funny habit of finding applications in the most unexpected places. Anyway, if it's an interesting problem, and people want to spend their time thinking about it, who are we to tell them to stop?

empath75 10y ago

Even if it's not 'real science' it's real math and worth studying on that basis alone.

cLeEOGPw 10y ago

My problem with string theory is that so far string theory has gotten EVERYTHING wrong. Not a single of their predictions were true. Yes, they adjust the theory once their predictions are proved to be false, but it just turns the theory into constant best fit theory for current observations. In my opinion string theory is a very complex case of interpolation. Yes, it "explains" our current knowledge, but it goes way off just after the last point to which it is interpolated. I like that it exists, as it will surely make history in science a grandiose attempt to unify GR with QM, and it is real science in a sense that the methods used in it might be transferred to other fields, but I don't expect for it to give any insight into our universe. Treat it like a theoretical physicist toy, and when you look at it that way, it isn't that bad at all.