3 ms·

I dont agree its a false dichotomy. Yes every theory is just a model to fit observations etc etc. But Atoms are conceivable - they work as a model, but we can

I dont agree its a false dichotomy. Yes every theory is just a model to fit observations etc etc. But Atoms are conceivable - they work as a model, but we can also imagine how to fit into the reality that we experience. We can 'see' them to an extent with special instruments. And their abilities/behaviours are evident in all the physical world of compounds and elements around us. You can disolve salt in water, you can light up a neon sign. Quantum Mechanics is a model that fits experiment results very well, but is very hard to conceive of. Wave function collapse has no obvious analogue in the world as we experience it. Thats the point of schrodingers cat. You either have to go for the many worlds interpretation, or get into spooky stuff about observers. Spacetime/relativity is similar, we can do stuff like fly a clock around the world in an airplane, or observe mercury transitioning past the sun, but its much less conceivable based on our everyday world. So spacetime might just be a constuct, like wave function collapse, that doesnt map easily onto our experience of the world. Certainly its a question worth asking.

enkid 6y ago
Our ability to conceive of something should not be in the definition of reality. Quantum mechanics and relativity have just as much, if not more experimental evidence to support them as atomic theory, and make even better predictions. This has implications in the "real world." If we base our definition on what is "intuitive" instead of what is provable, we end up with things like humour theory in medicine.
- codeulike 6y ago
  I'm not saying we should reject anything if it isn't intuitive. I'm just saying the statement Is Spacetime a real thing like an atom, or just a mathematical construct that is used to describe how mass 'generates' gravity? is not a false dichotomy
thisiscorrect 6y ago
"But Atoms are conceivable - they work as a model, but we can also imagine how to fit into the reality that we experience." "Quantum Mechanics is a model that fits experiment results very well, but is very hard to conceive of." These two statements stand in contradiction. Atoms only work as a model if quantum mechanics holds. In a non-quantum world, electrons collapse into a nucleus, shedding electromagnetic radiation and lowering their energy as they do so. That's also necessary to understand why neon signs have their colors. More broadly, if you want to compare one scientific theory to another and contrast their "realness" you have to take quantum mechanics along with your atomic theory.
- codeulike 6y ago
  I guess I'm referring to the theory of atoms as it was before QM came along. In the same way that newtonian mechanics is still useful even though its has been superceded by relativity. If you're saying I 'have' to take QM along with my atoms, then you also have to take Relativity along with your QM, and at the moment they are irreconcilable. Until we have a 'theory of everything' its ok to use simpler models within boundaries
Q_is_4_Quantum 6y ago
Agree with this - the jury is still out on "reality" or otherwise of a wavefunction, and people expend their "real" research efforts differently according to their opinion! Saying "well everything is just mathematics" is a bit like advocating solipsism: people will roll their eyes and stop inviting you to cocktail parties, its a boring position. Another historical example would be electric and magnetic field lines. My impression is that even Faraday originally had doubts about their reality; others certainly did. They could have just been forever considered a useful mathematical construct. At some point it became clear that thinking of them as really existing, permeating space, and having physical properties akin to those of accepted real stuff (momentum etc) was more useful. Many years after GR was formulated there were arguments about similar mathematical objects (dynamical components of a tensor, or "gravitational waves") should be considered real or not. The story is that Feynman convinced many with a simple thought experiment about how they transmit energy.

enkid 6y ago

Our ability to conceive of something should not be in the definition of reality. Quantum mechanics and relativity have just as much, if not more experimental evidence to support them as atomic theory, and make even better predictions. This has implications in the "real world." If we base our definition on what is "intuitive" instead of what is provable, we end up with things like humour theory in medicine.

codeulike 6y ago
I'm not saying we should reject anything if it isn't intuitive. I'm just saying the statement Is Spacetime a real thing like an atom, or just a mathematical construct that is used to describe how mass 'generates' gravity? is not a false dichotomy

thisiscorrect 6y ago

"But Atoms are conceivable - they work as a model, but we can also imagine how to fit into the reality that we experience." "Quantum Mechanics is a model that fits experiment results very well, but is very hard to conceive of." These two statements stand in contradiction. Atoms only work as a model if quantum mechanics holds. In a non-quantum world, electrons collapse into a nucleus, shedding electromagnetic radiation and lowering their energy as they do so. That's also necessary to understand why neon signs have their colors. More broadly, if you want to compare one scientific theory to another and contrast their "realness" you have to take quantum mechanics along with your atomic theory.

codeulike 6y ago
I guess I'm referring to the theory of atoms as it was before QM came along. In the same way that newtonian mechanics is still useful even though its has been superceded by relativity. If you're saying I 'have' to take QM along with my atoms, then you also have to take Relativity along with your QM, and at the moment they are irreconcilable. Until we have a 'theory of everything' its ok to use simpler models within boundaries

Q_is_4_Quantum 6y ago

Agree with this - the jury is still out on "reality" or otherwise of a wavefunction, and people expend their "real" research efforts differently according to their opinion! Saying "well everything is just mathematics" is a bit like advocating solipsism: people will roll their eyes and stop inviting you to cocktail parties, its a boring position. Another historical example would be electric and magnetic field lines. My impression is that even Faraday originally had doubts about their reality; others certainly did. They could have just been forever considered a useful mathematical construct. At some point it became clear that thinking of them as really existing, permeating space, and having physical properties akin to those of accepted real stuff (momentum etc) was more useful. Many years after GR was formulated there were arguments about similar mathematical objects (dynamical components of a tensor, or "gravitational waves") should be considered real or not. The story is that Feynman convinced many with a simple thought experiment about how they transmit energy.