3 ms·
> these systems were held back by a limitation that was considered to be fundamental This is the key distinction: -proven- fundamental is very different from -
by heimdall 9y ago
> these systems were held back by a limitation that was considered to be fundamental
This is the key distinction: -proven- fundamental is very different from -considered- fundamental.
Overturning Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle would shatter physics as we know it.
Overturning a misconception is far more mundane.
- marcosdumay 9y agoHow do you ever prove something in an empirical science?
- vanderZwan 9y agoThere are various levels of how rigorous evidence is. Apparently, the law in question was made based on assumptions about the materials involved, and as someone else pointed out there was a ten year gap between the mathematical explanation and actual implementation, so I guess these materials are quite complex. Also, this does not invalidate the previous law necessarily; we still use Newton's laws because its assumptions hold under most circumstances.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Retra 9y agoBy building things that work.
- contravariant 9y agoHow exactly would you distinguish between 'proven' fundamental and merely 'considered' fundamental? I mean, sure, some laws like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle can be proven mathematically from the axioms of a theory, but how exactly would that make it more fundamental than a law that is considered an axiom itself?
- odonnellryan 9y agoI'm not too knowledgeable in these things, but I'd guess it'd really just depend on the same things everything else does in science: supporting data. Certain things have an immense amount of supporting data.
- Nomentatus 9y agoThe famous philosopher of science Karl Popper disagrees, and few disagree with him - science can definitively disprove, but not definitively prove anything. PS FWIW Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle isn't understood now as it was then - that principle as it was has been overturned.