4 ms·
Firstly, they function well enough to predict that gravitational waves exist, the ones which we measured being produced by an extreme gravitational event. Seco
by joeberon 9y ago
Firstly, they function well enough to predict that gravitational waves exist, the ones which we measured being produced by an extreme gravitational event.
Secondly, many other areas of physics have worked this out. The prime example of Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model, which has been incredibly successful in predicting the existence of new types of particles from purely mathematical equations and theories (and trust me that stuff is pretty damn abstract, even compared to General Relativity)
It is of course a possibility, although you make it sound somewhat obvious, as if physicists just haven't bothered to question that the widely-regarded theories might be wrong. I assure you this is not the case; there are no politics involved in this kind of research which is stopping people presenting questions such as "are we sure our current models are correct?"
In cases like this, it is safe to assume that researchers have already explored any ideas you could come up with, especially the particularly simple ones...
- maratd 9y ago> Firstly, they function well enough to predict that gravitational waves exist, the ones which we measured being produced by an extreme gravitational event. I don't think that aspect of the theories is in dispute? Newtonian physics well enough at certain scales, but breaks down at others. The question is if there's something better out there and if we adopt something better, would it remove the need for all this "dark matter". > Secondly, many other areas of physics have worked this out. The prime example of Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model Wait, what? Quantum Field Theory suggests the existence of dark matter?
- joeberon 9y ago>The question is if there's something better out there and if we adopt something better, would it remove the need for all this "dark matter". I'm not sure about this, personally I don't know enough about quantum gravity to comment on that. Dark energy is a tricky question though because it is somewhat explainable within our current theories, and it is unobservable. > Secondly, many other areas of physics have worked this out. I don't know why I put this. I meant to put that QFT is an example of a theory which predicts many more phenomena than it was originally invented to describe.
- autokad 9y ago"there are no politics involved in this kind of research" While it might not be true in this case, you couldn't be further from the truth. there is an EXTREME amount of politics. people's careers are based on entire assumptions, thesis', papers, and work could be all for not if based on false assumptions.
- joeberon 9y agoYeah there's a huge amount of politics in research IN GENERAL, but not so much in physics. Like there are no big questions covered up because they're inconvenient or anything.
- autokad 9y agothe big bang theory was dismissed for decades. Even Einstein said to someone suggesting it that his physics was "abominable".
- JadeNB 9y ago> the big bang theory was dismissed for decades. Dismissing a theory that is (now known to be) right is not necessarily political; it can be just a mistake. There are certainly cliques that are invested in believing the orthodoxy, but there are ways in the hard sciences of absolutely disproving that orthodoxy; and, though they are subject to fierce scrutiny, as they should be, they can be, and have been, accepted after surviving that scrutiny.
- autokad 9y agoit can be but you offered no evidence contrary. the data WAS there, but it conflicted with their well established views, call them political or not - it doesn't matter. it would take a great deal of hubris to say 'yes, all other sciences and research suffer from the human condition, but not physics!'
- dnautics 9y agoI think the commenter meant politics in the "office politics"/"playing politics" sense, not the "political party" sense