11 ms·

I think http://lesswrong.com/lw/hr/universal_law/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/hr/universal_law/ can clear up some confusion. The key paragraph is this: Sometimes -

I think http://lesswrong.com/lw/hr/universal_law/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/hr/universal_law/ can clear up some confusion. The key paragraph is this: Sometimes - very rarely - we observe an apparent violation of our models of the fundamental laws. Though our scientific models may last for a generation or two, they are not stable over the course of centuries... but do not fancy that this makes the universe itself whimsical. That is mixing up the map with the territory. For when the dust subsides and the old theory is overthrown, it turns out that the universe always was acting according to the new generalization we have discovered, which once again is absolutely universal as far as humanity's knowledge extends. When it was discovered that Newtonian gravitation was a special case of General Relativity, it was seen that General Relativity had been governing the orbit of Mercury for decades before any human being knew about it; and it would later become apparent that General Relativity had been governing the collapse of stars for billions of years before humanity. It is only our model that was mistaken - the Law itself was always absolutely constant - or so our new model tells us.

electromagnetic 16y ago
I remember my physics teacher explained this one day. He said: We start with a poor but general understanding, that things fall toward the ground. This is like a big square of stone, it's familiar but undefined and for most purposes it's useless. We advance our understanding, chipping away at the stone to reveal a model that is more practical. To an understanding that is beyond simply observations. Objects fall at 9.81m/s/s. You'v now got an octagonal disc of stone, you could run a cart on it, but you probably wouldn't get far before you break your tail bone. Then we go beyond just passively observing and begin testing. We find data, compile it and test it against models. This is like using a finishing chisel and sand paper. You get the Theory of Relativity, it's smooth, it's polished and it's a perfect wheel. Now just wait for someone to invent a hover car and your wheel and the theory of relativity are old news.

electromagnetic 16y ago

I remember my physics teacher explained this one day. He said: We start with a poor but general understanding, that things fall toward the ground. This is like a big square of stone, it's familiar but undefined and for most purposes it's useless. We advance our understanding, chipping away at the stone to reveal a model that is more practical. To an understanding that is beyond simply observations. Objects fall at 9.81m/s/s. You'v now got an octagonal disc of stone, you could run a cart on it, but you probably wouldn't get far before you break your tail bone. Then we go beyond just passively observing and begin testing. We find data, compile it and test it against models. This is like using a finishing chisel and sand paper. You get the Theory of Relativity, it's smooth, it's polished and it's a perfect wheel. Now just wait for someone to invent a hover car and your wheel and the theory of relativity are old news.