3 ms·

What actually is the foundation of physics? The observations or the theories? We believe, as an assumption (or nearly as a matter of orthodoxy) that there are

What actually is the foundation of physics? The observations or the theories? We believe, as an assumption (or nearly as a matter of orthodoxy) that there are simple universal laws that govern consistent natural phenomena. One could argue that that is the foundation of our science of physics in that if that wrong, the whole thing falls down. But that has not “progressed” and really should not change... which seems consistent with the concept of a building foundation. Building foundations don’t move and shouldn’t move. What about theories, which seem to be the focus of her blog post? Well we should be careful to distinguish between our theories and the fundamental laws we think they describe—the map vs the territory and all that. I would really hesitate to call our theories a foundation of physics. For one thing they are known to be provisional; intended to be changeable. That’s not how foundations usually work. When observations contradict theories, the theories must move. From that perspective one could say that observations are more foundational than theories. Once a piece of evidence is properly observed, it doesn’t change. And the thing is, we have collected major (I would argue foundational) observations in the last 40 years. We observed the Higgs boson and gravitational waves, and I would call both of those foundational. That they agreed with existing theory is somehow being taken for a crisis? I guess it’s a crisis if your job is to come up with new theories and you’re lacking reasons to do so. But there are plenty of mysterious observations yet to be explained. Many of the observations related to dark matter and dark energy fit within a retrospective 40-year time horizon. Call them astronomy if you like, but going back up to my second paragraph, we believe they should be explainable by our physical theories.

lostmsu 7y ago
The foundations of physics you are talking about sound more like foundations of scientific method, and are not specific to physics. Most people rightly call the theories and corresponding fundamental physical equations to be fundamentals of physics. Also, you really wrote a bit too much.
throw0101a 7y ago
> What actually is the foundation of physics? See Naturalism: > 1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.[20][21] > 2. that this objective reality is governed by natural laws;[20][21] > 3. that reality can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.[20][21] > 4. that Nature has uniformity of laws and most if not all things in nature must have at least a natural cause.[21] > 5. that experimental procedures will be done satisfactorily without any deliberate or unintentional mistakes that will influence the results.[21] > 6. that experimenters won't be significantly biased by their presumptions.[21] > 7. that random sampling is representative of the entire population.[21] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy) Some other approaches: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Current_approaches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Current_... Basically you have to make some metaphysical assumptions before doing science can even get off the ground. If you believe that reality is an illusion (Buddhism? Hinduism?) then you're less likely to be interested in understanding the world's workings. If you think that things occur for capricious reasons (e.g., pagan gods being the cause of things), then there is no reason to ask "why?". If things happen not because of inherit properties but because of God's Will (Occasionalism), then who can understand the mind of God? I've heard it argued that science mostly developed in (Western) Christendom because it brought together all of the above assumptions under its Aristotelian world view. If you look at the invention of the telescope in ~1600: it spread over the world with-in a couple of decades, but most cultures weren't really interested in it.
- davidivadavid 7y ago
  Another relevant segment of the Philosophy of science article is the realism/anti-realism dichotomy. I find it an interesting line of reasoning that the current lack of progress is due to the default naturalistic approach whose sole purpose is finding "truth" vs. a more pragmatic, non-realist approach that would have a much more concrete purpose (e.g. solving particular problems). Truth for the sake of it with no practical experiments seems to have been a dead end.
  - throw0101a 7y ago
    It can be argued that it is up to engineers, not scientists, to develop the practical uses of 'raw' science.
    - davidivadavid 7y ago
      It can. I think the lack of coupling between the two is the crux of the matter here.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
achillesheels 7y ago
The foundations are in the mathematical sciences, beginning with Galileo and Kepler and wrestled with by Descartes until Newton came up with a brilliant work on mechanics. It’s focus has been on the mechanical, ie numerical and geometrical, principles of motion and not on substance. Studying not what it is but where it will be, giving us greater certainty of phenomena and thus greater self-determination in an unpredictable world. This intellectual current is now upheld by the engineering sciences. The physicists are too glued to the Bohr Model and a particle universe to concern themselves with a new mechanics in light of the quantum wave phenomena discovered last century.

lostmsu 7y ago

The foundations of physics you are talking about sound more like foundations of scientific method, and are not specific to physics. Most people rightly call the theories and corresponding fundamental physical equations to be fundamentals of physics. Also, you really wrote a bit too much.

throw0101a 7y ago

> What actually is the foundation of physics? See Naturalism: > 1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.[20][21] > 2. that this objective reality is governed by natural laws;[20][21] > 3. that reality can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.[20][21] > 4. that Nature has uniformity of laws and most if not all things in nature must have at least a natural cause.[21] > 5. that experimental procedures will be done satisfactorily without any deliberate or unintentional mistakes that will influence the results.[21] > 6. that experimenters won't be significantly biased by their presumptions.[21] > 7. that random sampling is representative of the entire population.[21] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy) Some other approaches: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Current_approaches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Current_... Basically you have to make some metaphysical assumptions before doing science can even get off the ground. If you believe that reality is an illusion (Buddhism? Hinduism?) then you're less likely to be interested in understanding the world's workings. If you think that things occur for capricious reasons (e.g., pagan gods being the cause of things), then there is no reason to ask "why?". If things happen not because of inherit properties but because of God's Will (Occasionalism), then who can understand the mind of God? I've heard it argued that science mostly developed in (Western) Christendom because it brought together all of the above assumptions under its Aristotelian world view. If you look at the invention of the telescope in ~1600: it spread over the world with-in a couple of decades, but most cultures weren't really interested in it.

davidivadavid 7y ago
Another relevant segment of the Philosophy of science article is the realism/anti-realism dichotomy. I find it an interesting line of reasoning that the current lack of progress is due to the default naturalistic approach whose sole purpose is finding "truth" vs. a more pragmatic, non-realist approach that would have a much more concrete purpose (e.g. solving particular problems). Truth for the sake of it with no practical experiments seems to have been a dead end.
- throw0101a 7y ago
  It can be argued that it is up to engineers, not scientists, to develop the practical uses of 'raw' science.
  - davidivadavid 7y ago
    It can. I think the lack of coupling between the two is the crux of the matter here.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

achillesheels 7y ago

The foundations are in the mathematical sciences, beginning with Galileo and Kepler and wrestled with by Descartes until Newton came up with a brilliant work on mechanics. It’s focus has been on the mechanical, ie numerical and geometrical, principles of motion and not on substance. Studying not what it is but where it will be, giving us greater certainty of phenomena and thus greater self-determination in an unpredictable world. This intellectual current is now upheld by the engineering sciences. The physicists are too glued to the Bohr Model and a particle universe to concern themselves with a new mechanics in light of the quantum wave phenomena discovered last century.