4 ms·
We know the basic rules of physics, how all the little bits interact. We also know that if you combine enough of the little bits, you'll get a system with no an
by andbberger 8y ago
We know the basic rules of physics, how all the little bits interact. We also know that if you combine enough of the little bits, you'll get a system with no analytic solution. Where, provably, all you can do to learn things about is simulate it.
So it's possible to discover new and unexpected behavior of a system with modeling that hasn't yet been experimentally verified. You don't know if such a phenomenon is present in the real world until you do experimental validation, but that doesn't mean your model is wrong.
Maybe a more accurate statement would be 'laws of nature found to give rise to new phase of matter'.
- thereisnospork 8y agoSorry but I think the verbiage needs cleaning up. A model can predict a new phase of matter, but not discover it. E.g. dark matter has been predicted, but not discovered. All models are by definition abstractions and approximations (except perhaps the lonely H atom) so there is absolutely room to be wrong about predictions.
- jstanley 8y agoI think this means "discovered" in the sense that a mathematical proof is discovered, rather than the sense that an ancient buried artefact is discovered.
- thereisnospork 8y agoSure, but chemical and thermodynamc models fall under far less rigorous logic than a mathematical proof. To again ape physics, would it not have been wrong to say gravitational waves were discovered when they first appeared in equation? I'm on mobile so I haven't read the actual paper yet but this isn't the sort of thing that can constitute 'discovery'.
- andbberger 8y agoWell it's all semantics at this point, but I think it's fair to say that showing gravitational waves arise from the equations constitutes discovery. It's just that we recently found out that there are conditions in the universe that produce detectable gravitational waves.
- jolmg 8y agoWhat I think thereisnospork is trying to say is that you can't give the same weight to "discoveries" obtained through simulation using current models as "discoveries" obtained through observations via empirical research. The models are estimated through the observations we make through experimentation on the real world. They're not necessarily right.
- andbberger 8y agoI agree, one should distinguish the experimental confirmation from theoretical predictions. Simultaneously, the "it's just a theory"-flavor rhetoric is tiresome and small-minded. The basic theories (GR, QM) have been experimentally verified with exquisite accuracy. Theories produced with those axioms as a foundation inherit the incredible effort that has been put into verifying the underlying rules. Experimental results showing that the predictions of such a theory are wrong would be a HUGE deal. That does not indicate a problem with the theory, as much of a fundamental gap in our knowledge of how the universe works. But sure, whatever, it's just a theory Edit: clarification, this only applies to theories that only take as axioms the _fundamentals_. No approximations.