4 ms·
Hopefully a (theoretically) infinite amount (assuming infinite time) ...theories should continuously be re-tested, although it probably makes sense to spend an
by nnq 7y ago
Hopefully a (theoretically) infinite amount (assuming infinite time) ...theories should continuously be re-tested, although it probably makes sense to spend an exponentially lower and lower amount of money on re-testing theories we know are true. But they should be re-tested, even if some experiments you'd only redo every 50 years or so!
For two important reasons:
1. as a species we must maintain technical capability to perform certain types of experiments - only way to 100% be sure we do this is by re-doing those experiments periodically
2. the fact that the "laws" of physics are fixed in any sense of the word, or that there even are such things as "laws of nature" is at its core a very very likely but UNPROVEN ASSUMPTION... we should always be open to the possibility that we live in a much stranger universe than we imagine and that the laws of physics themselves could vary and that we mush have capability to re-discover the new/changed laws, or to poke deeper at meta-laws
Also (2) is not as much lunacy as it sounds considering that the most likely (in the sense of "mathematically probable" considering the math of probability and information, not in "what we can determine experimentally with our primitive capabilities") setup from our universe models is more like we're in an N-th level "simulation" (a simulation in a simulation ... etc.) maybe running on a something like a "Boltzmann brain" in hell knows what soup of multiverses...
We may live insignificantly short lives and be practically meaningless on a grander scale, but if we dare the play the game of "guessing the laws of the universe" on a large scale, we shouldn't have the arrogance to assume that what we measure and deduce on an insignificantly small space-time volume in our ant-farm corner of the universe actually holds up directly through longer stretches of time and space!
Otherwise we're not really doing science, we're adherents to the religion called scientism, and we're not truly honestly rational, but merely praying in the church of rationalism! These are very very different things!
- Erlich_Bachman 7y agoWouldn't we very quickly notice if any of the basic laws of phsyics would change, or if any of the physical constants would nudge even a fraction of a million - because our machines (like microchips, radios, like quantum computers, like satellites, GPS, etc. etc.) would stop working as they were intended?
- mschuster91 7y agoYeah, we would notice it, but that's not the point of re-running these kinds of experiments. Just look what humanity was able to do in the Space Race with "computers" less powerful than an ordinary standard wristwatch of today: going to the moon, surviving there and coming back. Today? If it were not for SpaceX, the US would not have a path to access to its own manned transfer capability. If we do not use abilities, we lose them. Knowledge gets forgotten, data bit-rots, machinery rusts apart.
- Erlich_Bachman 7y ago> "computers" less powerful than an ordinary standard wristwatch of today: going to the moon, surviving there and coming back This is more of a statement of how little computing power is needed for rudimentary space travel. The technology itself was quite advanced, just in other aspects than raw computing power.
- mschuster91 7y agoSure but the US has lost so much abilities and especially knowledge. Most people active in the Moon-landing era are pensioners by now and there are at lwast two generations who have to start from scratch now instead of having decades of iterative tech improvements.